The Harrisburger

Video of the Week

2006-07-08T23:45:00.000-04:00

More Mode: "Enjoy the Silence" live in Cologne, 1998.

Happy Independence Day

2006-07-04T21:18:00.000-04:00

In honor of the Fourth, here's George Washington as you've never seen him before:

Acidman, R.I.P.

2006-07-02T10:54:00.000-04:00

Three years ago, I used to read Rob Smith's Gut Rumbles blog fairly regularly, about once a day. I had discovered it via Glenn Reynolds's blog roll and came to enjoy the fellow's biting, humorous commentary on the issues and his reflections on his life. After college, I drifted from daily reading and, since then, have checked in only a handful of times, enough to gather that he had been having some alcohol and other medical problems. I don't know what compelled me to visit Gut Rumbles the other night, but I did -- only to learn that Rob died this very week. I can't claim to have been as devoted a reader as many who are flooding the site, but I am saddened nonetheless.

"Rock's most coveted free agent"

2006-07-02T10:38:00.000-04:00

Radiohead and Thom Yorke are profiled in the New York Times.

In the Loop

2006-07-02T10:28:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"Love Should" - Moby
"Sweetness Follows" - R.E.M.
"Leave Me Alone" - New Order
"John the Revelator" - Depeche Mode
"Hocus Pocus" - Focus

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-07-02T10:25:00.000-04:00

Rulers and Victims: The Russians in the Soviet Union by Geoffrey Hoskins. Reviewed in the New York Times by Serge Schmemann: "So are we back in the old cycle? Are the Russians once again succumbing to messianic dreams and great-power longings? That is the core question raised by Geoffrey Hosking's 'Rulers and Victims: The Russians in the Soviet Union.' Hosking, a professor at the University of London, takes a rather sympathetic view of a highly talented and complex nation infused with a deep conviction that it bears a special mission, whether as a spiritual 'Third Rome,' to counter the consumerism and shallowness of the West, or as master of an immense and enormously rich domain."

The Bystander: John F. Kennedy and the Struggle for Black Equality by Nick Bryant. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Jonathan Yardley: "It is also true, as Bryant emphasizes, that 'temperamentally and ideologically, Kennedy was a gradualist.' He did not have an ounce of the zealot in him. Even with regard to the Cold War, about which he had strong feelings, he was clinical and detached. Indeed, the effect of American racism on the Cold War mattered more to him than its effect on America and its black citizens; he knew that instances of bigotry and segregation gave the Soviet Union a powerful propaganda weapon against the United States, and he wanted to neutralize it as much as possible."

Video of the Week

2006-07-01T11:56:00.000-04:00

"But Not Tonight" by Depeche Mode. Great song and a great video. No one pulls off hot, bothered, or simultaneously hot and bothered better than Daphne Zuniga.

First Day on the Somme

2006-07-01T11:21:00.000-04:00

Ninety years ago today, in the words of Geoffrey Wheatcroft,

almost 40,000 British soldiers were wounded and 20,000 were killed. There was a casualty for every half meter of the entire front line. It was far and away the heaviest loss the British (or possibly any) army ever suffered on one day, and we live with the memory of that "First Day on the Somme" even now.

Apart from the scale of suffering, the Somme was distinguished from the other great battles of the past century - Verdun, Stalingrad, Iwo Jima - by the fact that every British soldier who fought and died that day was a volunteer.

Harrowing, horrifying, haunting. By the end of the battle four months later in November 1916, total British, French, and German casualties numbered more than a million, including 300,000 killed. "At the deepest point of penetration," the Allies had advanced a mere five miles.

We do well to remember the death of a generation -- indeed, in a way, the death of a civilization -- on the fields of France between 1914 and 1918.

Mademoiselle Thatcher

2006-07-01T10:59:00.000-04:00

I can't claim to know much at all about French politics, but it seems that Sabine Herold, a twenty-five-year-old French libertarian running for parliament, would be a vast improvement on the status quo. She gained prominence by protesting against striking workers and, later, had this to say about the U.S.:

I think the United States is a country of freedom. Our two countries have very strong historical ties. I don't approve of the fact that so many French people are anti-American, because we have the same culture. I like that America is a country of freedom, and a country where you can create and make yourself what you want to be.

I wouldn't say that America is a perfect country, but it's a country where you can at least try.

Plus, she's kinda cute:

Viva la France.

Bloody Fields of Courage

2006-07-01T10:33:00.000-04:00

On this, the 143rd anniversary of the first day of the battle of Gettysburg, historian Gabor Boritt offers his top five books on the battle. Might I also recommend The Gettysburg Campaign by Edwin B. Coddington, Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg by Troy Harman, and They Met at Gettysburg by Edward J. Stackpole?

A Hundred Highways

2006-06-30T14:20:00.000-04:00

Just a few more days until Johnny Cash's posthumous album is released. If you can't wait, check out the album's MySpace page, where you can listen to it.

Quote of the Day

2006-06-26T22:58:00.000-04:00

Justice Antonin Scalia, Kansas v. Marsh:

Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly. That is a truism, not a revelation. But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum. This explains why those ideologically driven to ferret out and proclaim a mistaken modern execution have not a single verifiable case to point to, whereas it is easy as pie to identify plainly guilty murderers who have been set free. The American people have determined that the good to be derived from capital punishment -- in deterrence, and perhaps most of all in the meting out of condign justice for horrible crimes -- outweighs the risk of error. It is no proper part of the business of this Court, or of its Justices, to second-guess that judgment, much less to impugn it before the world, and less still to frustrate it by imposing judicially invented obstacles to its execution.

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-06-25T19:21:00.000-04:00

Jack Kennedy: The Education of a Statesman by Barbara Leaming. Reviewed in the New York Times by Geoffrey Wheatcroft: "For the best part of three years in 1961-63, during a critical phase of the cold war, the president of the United States and the British prime minister were linked by a family connection. In Barbara Leaming's view there was still more to the story of that time when John F. Kennedy was in the White House and Harold Macmillan at Downing Street. Young Jack had visited England in the late 1930's and had been introduced by his sister Kathleen (known as Kick) to her friends there. The bonds that Kennedy forged then profoundly affected him; above all, Winston Churchill's 'monumental influence' shaped Kennedy's strategy during his tragically curtailed presidency, or so Leaming contends in 'Jack Kennedy: The Education of a Statesman.' She has written what is in part an absorbing and enjoyable book; whether her thesis really stands up is another matter."

Kristallnacht: Prelude to Destruction by Martin Gilbert. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Michael R. Marrus: "Unlike much of the Holocaust, Kristallnacht occurred under the noses of newspaper reporters and foreign diplomats, who painstakingly recorded what they saw. Gilbert assembles their accounts, together with those of the survivors, to immerse us in Kristallnacht and its aftermath, including Jews' frequently desperate efforts to escape Germany and find refuge elsewhere. We read of the terrorization of young and old, men and women, rich and poor, distinguished and obscure -- all of them simply because they were Jews."

Video of the Week

2006-06-24T17:34:00.000-04:00

"Us" by Regina Spektor

"For Europe, September the 11th was a moment; for us, it was a change of thinking."

2006-06-21T20:56:00.000-04:00

There are few things like a European press conference to rejuvenate one's support for President Bush. Reminding Bush that polls in Europe indicate folks over there believe the U.S. is a threat to peace, an Austrian reporter asked, "Why do you think that you've failed so badly to convince Europeans, to win their heads and hearts and minds?" Bush replied:

Well, yes, I thought it was absurd for people to think that we're more dangerous than Iran. It's a -- we're a transparent democracy. People know exactly what's on our mind. We debate things in the open. We've got a legislative process that's active. Look, people didn't agree with my decision on Iraq, and I understand that. For Europe, September the 11th was a moment; for us, it was a change of thinking. I vowed to the American people I would do everything to defend our people, and will. I fully understood that the longer we got away from September the 11th, more people would forget the lessons of September the 11th. But I'm not going to forget them. And, therefore, I will be steadfast and diligent and strong in defending our country.

I don't govern by polls, you know. I just do what I think is right. And I understand some of the decisions I made are controversial. But I made them in the best interest of our country, and I think in the best interest of the world. I believe when you look back at this moment, people will say, it was right to encourage democracy in the Middle East. I understand some people think that it can't work. I believe in the universality of freedom; some don't. I'm going to act on my beliefs so long as I'm the President of the United States. Some people say, it's okay to condemn people for -- to tyranny. I don't believe it's okay to condemn people to tyranny, particularly those of us who live in the free societies.

And so I understand, and I'll try to do my best to explain to the Europeans that, on the one hand, we're tough when it comes to the war on terror; on the other hand, we're providing more money than every before in the world's history for HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. I'll say, on the one hand, we're going to be tough when it comes to terrorist regimes who harbor weapons. On the other hand, we'll help feed the hungry. I declared Darfur to be a genocide because I care deeply about those who have been afflicted by these renegade bands of people who are raping and murdering.

And so I will do my best to explain our foreign policy. On the one hand, it's tough when it needs to be; on the other hand, it's compassionate. And we'll let the polls figure out -- people can say what they want to say. But leadership requires making hard choices based upon principle and standing -- (President's mike goes out) -- and that's how I'm going to continue to lead my country.

Austrian Chancellor Schüssel's response is also worth reading:

Let me add -- let me add something. I think Austria is really a good example to show that America has something to do with freedom, democracy, prosperity, development. Don't forget I was born in '45. At that time, Vienna and half of Austria laid in ruins. And without the participation of America, what fate would have Europe? Where would be Europe today? Not the peaceful, prosperous Europe like we love it and where we live.

Nothing -- I will never forget that America fed us with food, with economic support. The Marshall Plan was an immense aid and incentive to develop industry, agriculture, tourism. And by the way, I said it to the President, the Marshall Fund is still working in Austria. It's now transformed into a kind -- in a fund for research and development -- still working.

The American people, at that time, the American government invested billions of dollars in Europe to develop the former enemy. And now we are a partner. So I think it's grotesque to say that America is a threat to the peace in the world compared with North Korea, Iran, other countries.

Of course, we -- and I thank you very much for the question on human rights and the over-flights and the secret prisons and Guantanamo. And it was quite interesting to see how the debate was going on in -- this morning. The President started, himself. He didn't wait that we raise the question. He came up and said, look, this is my problem, this is where we are. And I think we should be fair from the other side of the Atlantic. We should understand that what September 11th meant to the American people. It was a shock. For the first time, a real shock. A society values were attacked -- American values, international values, European values were attacked in the home country of the President and all Americans. And we should not be naive. We Europeans are also attacked. We had bomb attacks in Madrid. Hundreds of people were killed. We had bomb attacks in London subway, buses were blown up. We had detected some terrorists who tried to shoot down an Israeli plane. So we should not be naive.

Lieberman: "National interest above partisan interest"

2006-06-18T12:38:00.000-04:00

From David Broder's column today:

"I think we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam, and I think we are safer as a result," he continued. "Second, while I have been very critical of the Bush foreign policy before the war and the Rumsfeld-Bush policies in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown, I also made a judgment I would not invoke partisan politics on this war."

That was the point of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Lieberman wrote last November endorsing the president's announced strategy to defeat the insurgency and establish a democratic government in Iraq. That article infuriated Lamont and launched his candidacy. "It was decisive," Lamont told me in an interview. "Lieberman suggested that the critics were undermining the credibility of the president. I thought he was wrong."

"My opponent says it broke Democratic unity," Lieberman said. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."

In the Loop

2006-06-18T12:11:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"Postcards from Italy" - Beirut
"Brandenburg" - Beirut
"One" - U2
"Miss Sarajevo" - U2

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-06-18T12:06:00.000-04:00

Uncommon Carriers by John McPhee. Reviewed in the New York Times by Adam Hochschild: "We often read about people in glamorous professions — surgeons, actors, musicians, writers — but so seldom about those who do the jobs we all depend on, those who transport raw materials on river barges, or haul the coal that generates electricity. If the human race survives another century or two, many of these jobs will vanish (they're already talking about running trains by remote control), and McPhee's work will provide an invaluable record of how those primitive people back in 2006, however heedless they were of what they were doing to their planet, treasured their bygone crafts.

Just Americans: How Japanese Americans Won a War at Home and Abroad: The Story of the 100th Battalion/442d Regimental Combat Team in World War II by Robert Asahina. Reviewed in the New York Times by Jonathan Mahler: "The 100th and 442nd joined forces in the summer of 1944 and made history a few months later, when they were ordered to liberate a battalion from Texas that had been pinned down behind enemy lines in the Vosges Mountains. This unenviable assignment entailed a four-day charge up booby-trapped logging roads at a steep incline in a cold, driving rain. They accomplished their mission — 'Doughboys Break German Ring to Free 270 Trapped Eight Days' is how The New York Times headlined an Associated Press account of the rescue, which failed to mention that the "doughboys" were all Japanese-Americans — but lost numerous soldiers along the way."

AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country by Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Nathaniel Fick: "In 1956, 400 of Princeton's 750 graduates served in uniform. By 2004, only nine members of the university's graduating class entered the military. Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia and many other schools do not even allow ROTC on their campuses. The gulf is growing in Congress, too. In 1971, three-quarters of our representatives had military experience. Now, fewer than a third do, and that number drops with each passing year."

Video of the Week

2006-06-17T10:32:00.000-04:00

"No Surprises" by Radiohead

Cool Cover Art

2006-06-15T20:54:00.000-04:00

From Beirut's Gulag Orkestar:

It's also a great album, by the way.

Overkill

2006-06-15T20:51:00.000-04:00

Book cover designers sure seem to like Caspar David Friedrich's "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog":

The Landscape of History by John Lewis Gaddis (Sept. 2002)

Lord Byron's Novel by John Crowley (June 2005)

A Sense of the World by Jason Roberts (May 2006)

I like the painting, but come on. Wander yourselves to something else.

Conservatism vs. Capitalism

2006-06-15T17:57:00.000-04:00

Apparently, conservatives are supposed to think this is a bad thing: a transportation "supercorridor" linking Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Those who disagree, according to Paul Cella, "falsely understand [themselves] to be Conservative but [are] really just Capitalist." For those who followed the Crunchy Con "debate" at NRO, this is a familiar tack for those on the right who are deeply distrustful of the free market. I'm no Randian, but I'll say this: if conservatism requires that I oppose a superhighway that will boost trade and economically benefit this country, therefore limiting the economic freedom of individuals and businesses, then people like Paul Cella and Rod Dreher can have the conservative label, and I'll gladly take capitalist.

My Dangerous Idea

2006-06-13T20:40:00.000-04:00

Over on his Crunchy Con blog, Rod Dreher asks readers what their dangerous ideas are. Mine:

That people can and should be trusted to make decisions about their own lives.

This shouldn't be a dangerous, radical idea in twenty-first-century America, but it is. Thanks mostly to the left, our government, for example, still doesn't trust us to make even the most basic financial decisions about our future and mandates that we subsidize the retirements of others while "saving" for our own. Meanwhile, many on the right believe their personal moral code should be that of the entire polity, even -- perhaps especially -- on issues on which certainty is impossible; either that, or they find their edenic visions of a past (that never really existed in the first place) threatened by allowing people to spend their time and money as they choose.

A dozen years ago, this belief in individual people and personal responsibility compelled me to join the Republican Party. Although during college I drifted from the notion in favor of something like Dreher's conservative (reactionary?) distrust of progress and the free market, I have again returned to it. And if I ever do leave the GOP, it will because the party has abandoned its fundamental belief that people should be trusted. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, and this trust is not absolute. Limits are necessary, as well as some form of moral framework. But in a free society such as ours, we must begin with the understanding that the individual can and should be trusted.

17,327 Days

2006-06-13T20:03:00.000-04:00

The lead of the Washington Post's article says all you need to know about Robert Byrd's recent milestone (which is laudable, whatever you think of the senator):

Robert C. Byrd, a champion of classical oratory in the Senate and pork barrel spending back home, yesterday became the longest-serving senator in U.S. history.

The Play That Dare Not Speak Its Name

2006-06-13T19:57:00.000-04:00

Here's a look at the curse of "The Scottish Play," incidentally my favorite of the Bard's works.

NYT Puzzlemaster (2 wds)

2006-06-12T18:01:00.000-04:00

I don't do crosswords much anymore, if at all, having left the activity behind in college, when I could get the New York Times for free every weekday and when I had "time" (read: class) to kill. Mondays -- the easy day -- I'd time myself. Tuesdays, I'd leisurely fill in the puzzle. Wednesday, I'd give it my best shot and finish perhaps half the time. Thursdays and Fridays, I didn't even try, except to skim the clues. That's what you did in college, too, right? Anyway, the Times crossword is -- or can be, at least -- a thing of beauty, thanks to Will Shortz. New York magazine profiles him here. He's now making a fortune on Sudoku.

Task Force 145 and the Knights of God

2006-06-12T17:29:00.000-04:00

Nice summary of the three-year hunt for Zarqawi. Two things stick out for me. (1) When folks say the American military doesn't give up, it's no joke; it's for real. (2) Hell hath no fury like an Arab nation bombed: the Jordanians, who had three of their hotels attacked last fall, played a key role in killing the terrorist.

McCain and CA-50

2006-06-11T15:41:00.000-04:00

A week and a half ago, John McCain cancelled a campaign appearance with Brian Bilbray, the now-victorious Republican candidate to represent California's 50th Congressional District, where immigration emerged as the major issue. Bilbray had taken a fairly hard line on immigration, openly and vocally opposing the McCain-Kennedy bill. Bloggers pounced, accusing McCain of being petty. The whole thing seemed suspicious to me because Bilbray stood to benefit more than anybody from a McCain non-appearance. Robert Novak confirms that suspicion:

Sen. John McCain canceled his scheduled appearance for Republican Brian Bilbray, who won Tuesday's special congressional election in San Diego to replace the disgraced Duke Cunningham, not out of pique but because the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) suggested it would be a good idea.

McCain canceled his visit after Bilbray repeatedly attacked the Kennedy-McCain immigration "amnesty" bill. The Bilbray campaign did not ask McCain to cancel, and the senator had planned to fulfill his commitment. However, the NRCC suggested McCain's presence would not be helpful in a campaign where Bilbray was stressing opposition to illegal immigration.

A footnote: Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman is credited with masterminding operations that retained the congressional seat.

Will those bloggers, including Hugh Hewitt, apologize? Doubtful.

In the Loop

2006-06-11T10:20:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"Staralfur" - Sigur Ros
"Love and War (11/11/46)" - Rilo Kiley
"All My Little Words" - The Magnetic Fields
"Feel Good Inc." - Gorillaz

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-06-11T10:16:00.000-04:00

Kingfish: The Reign of Huey P. Long by Richard D. White Jr. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Michael Kazin: "Although his book is a pleasure to read, White has the misfortune of having to meet a higher standard than does the typical biographer of a state politician who died fairly young and never got to campaign for national office. More than three decades ago, T. Harry Williams, another LSU professor, published a vivid, Pulitzer Prize-winning study of Long's life that included most of the same stories that White tells, usually at greater length and with the help of interviews with many of Long's cronies and enemies. Williams also took the time to explain how the corrupt political culture of Louisiana could produce a man like Long and could persuade ordinary people to overlook his thuggish flaws. If that opus wasn't competition enough, White also has to contend with the dazzling portrait-à-clef that Robert Penn Warren drew of Long, or "Willie Stark," in his novel All the King's Men. . . . Unfortunately, White adds nothing significant to these memorable works."

Woodrow Wilson's Right Hand: The Life of Colonel Edward M. House by Godfrey Hodgson. Reviewed in the Washington Post by H. W. Brands: "The heart of Hodgson's story is the remarkable relationship between Wilson and House during the first six years of Wilson's presidency. Wilson came to Washington with few friends or allies. The lack of friends resulted from Wilson's aloof, self-righteous personality; the lack of allies reflected the Democrats' 16-year exile from the White House. House offered to be both a friend and an ally, and he asked nothing in return except the chance to further the national interest -- and that only indirectly, through Wilson. Influence, rather than power, was enough for House. 'Never before have I found both the man and the opportunity,' he wrote his brother-in-law. Now he had both."

Video of the Week

2006-06-10T11:55:00.000-04:00

A blast from the not-too-distant past: "Your Woman" by White Town.

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

2006-06-08T00:05:00.000-04:00

Well, this makes my day, my week, my month: Cormac McCarthy has a new novel coming out in September. Knopf describes the book, titled The Road, thus:

A man and his young son traverse a blasted American landscape, covered with "the ashes of the late world." The man can still remember the time before. The boy knows only this time. There is nothing for them but survival- they are "each other's world entire"- and the precious last vestiges of their own humanity. At once brutal and tender, despairing and rashly hopeful, spare of language and profoundly moving, The Road, is a fierce and haunting meditation on the tenuous divide between civilization and savagery, and the essential, sometimes terrifying power of filial love. It is a masterpiece.

Far and away my favorite living writer, McCarthy is a master chronicler of blasted landscapes and distinctly American apocalypses. I look forward to his take on what follows such violence.

(Via Dirda on Books.)

Progress!

2006-06-07T19:59:00.000-04:00

Cloture on the Federal Marriage Amendment fell eleven votes short today, 49-48. But that's one vote better than the last time when, on July 14, 2004, cloture failed, 48-50.* I'm sure this guarantees that, unless Republicans lose the Senate, we'll see the amendment again in June-July 2008, during the long, hot summer of a presidential election. Maybe then it'll get 50 votes!

*Actually, the roll calls tell a more complicated story. Three additional yea votes came from John Thune, Mel Martinez, and Jim DeMint, all of whom replaced Democrats who voted no in 2004. Richard Burr voted yea while his predecessor, John Edwards, was absent in 2004 (but likely would have voted no). Judd Gregg and Arlen Specter voted yea in 2004 but no today. Chuck Hagel, absent today, voted yea in 2004; he opposes the amendment itself, but I haven't been able to find any indication of whether he supported cloture again. Hey, up four, down two -- progress, I tell you.

Reid Has a Point

2006-06-05T22:13:00.000-04:00

Kathryn Lopez posts Harry Reid's entire speech regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. She comments: "Don't want to debate the merits. Just change the subject, please." Of course, the same thing could be said of Republicans, who seem to be trying to change the subject away from things like immigration and gas prices and toward hot-button social issues. Regarding Reid, Lopez has a point. Reid should debate the merits of the FMA, if only because a discussion of its merits can only highlight the reasons to defeat it. But if she has a point, so does the minority leader.

The latest Gallup poll (May 22-24) asked respondents, "What issue do you think should be the top priority for the president and Congress to deal with?" The results:

Situation in Iraq/war 42
Fuel/oil prices/lack of energy sources/the energy crisis 29
Immigration/illegal aliens 23
Economy in general 14
Poor healthcare/hospitals; high cost of healthcare 12
Terrorism 4
Education/poor education/access to education 4
Federal budget deficit/federal debt 3
Unemployment/jobs 3
Taxes 3
Social Security 2
International issues/problems 2
National security 2
Environment/pollution 2
Medicare 2
Foreign aid/overseas focus 2
Poor leadership/corruption/dissatisfaction with government 2
Poverty/hunger/homelesseness 1
Ethics/moral/religious/family decline; dishonesty; lack of integrity 1
Natural disaster relief/funding 1
Trade deficit/foreign trade 1
High cost of living/inflation 1
Unifying the country *
Judicial system/courts/laws *
Abortion *
Lack of money *
Gap between rich and poor *
Other 1
No opinion 4

* = Less than 0.5%

That's right. A mere 1 percent thinks Bush and Congress should focus on this issue and others like it. Now that doesn't mean that people don't care about the FMA or necessarily oppose it. The point is, there are more pressing problems the government should be addressing right now. We're at war, for starters. Just the other night, I was talking to my mom -- a conservative weekly church-goer who cares about social issues -- and even she said Congress has better things to do than debate a marriage amendment. (Incidentally, the GOP better hope she's not representative of other voters, because her opinion at this point is "throw them all out.")

The FMA failed last time and will fail again, so why waste two days in the Senate debating it? Why now? Why bring the issue up only in even-numbered years? Why bring it up again so soon? Has public support shifted decisively in two years? Has the composition of the Senate changed that much?

It's legitimate for Reid to ask those questions. I, for one, would be interested to hear the answers.

Jenny Lewis Is Cute

2006-06-04T19:53:00.000-04:00

May Reading

2006-06-04T19:31:00.000-04:00

Guests of the Ayatollah by Mark Bowden. The author of Black Hawk Down and Killing Pablo has done it again, this time writing a riveting and insightful account of the Iran Hostage Crisis. The notorious 444 days began in November 1979 when Iranian students overtook the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took its employees hostage. Most of Bowden's narrative centers on life inside the compound. Some hostages were beaten and kept, at times, in solitary confinement, but given the circumstances, the Americans were treated as well as could be expected. These Iranian radicals were not the Islamist terrorists of today, but their conspiracy theories about the U.S. -- as well as their slowness in realizing they were being played by the Khomeini regime -- revealed them to be inexperienced, naive, and historically ignorant. Bowden also recounts the Desert One debacle, the longshot rescue attempt that collapsed in the Iranian desert. Nevertheless, the Jimmy Carter that emerges here is not the dithering, timid, weak-kneed president of popular memory and conservative caricature but, instead, a leader who did vacillate but who was doing the best he could in a very difficult situation. My opinion of him certainly improved after reading the book. It's a real page-turner and, with Iran hot in the headlines, required reading.

Outer Dark by Cormac McCarthy. Brother and sister Culla and Rinthy separately roam Appalachia, Culla seeking his sister and Rinthy searching for their child, whom Culla deposited in the wilderness only to be saved by a wandering salesman. Meanwhile, a band of criminals unleash havoc on the populace. It's a complex, difficult book that, nevertheless, can be read and appreciated solely for the beauty of McCarthy's writing. There's much more here, of course, including biblical undertones and McCarthy's recurring fascination with violence and its cleansing, purgative qualities, but for me, plumbing those depths will have to await a second reading.

The Gods Were Neutral by Robert Crisp. For the United States, World War II began on December 7, 1941, but the British had been at war for more than two years by then -- in Western Europe, in the English skies, in North Africa, and in Greece. After a diplomatic dance and with the Germans menacing from its north, Greece allied with Britain, and British forces went in, including Crisp's tank unit. They waited for the German invasion and, when it came, retreated and evacuated. Crisp's narrative reflects this: roughly half the book is pre-invasion, and the second half is an anti-climactic withdrawal -- in shoddy tanks -- down the length of Greece marked by short but frightening encounters with the German war machine, primarily the Luftwaffe, which dominated the theater. Crisp writes well, though, conveying the idyllic landscape and classical history that formed the backdrop to this very modern war.

January * February * March * April

In the Loop

2006-06-04T11:55:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"Born Secular" - Jenny Lewis with the Watson Twins
"Divine" - Antony and the Johnsons
"Seemann" - Rammstein
"Conquest of Paradise" - Vangelis

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-06-04T11:49:00.000-04:00

Moonlight Hotel by Scott Anderson. Reviewed in the New York Times by Alan Furst: "Anderson is a veteran war correspondent, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine who has also written for Vanity Fair and Esquire, reporting from Beirut, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Israel, Sudan, Sarajevo and El Salvador. The fictional war in 'Moonlight Hotel' bears traces of all these conflicts. But Anderson is very careful, very disciplined, in his creation of a generic country, its politics and its war, because he is writing not about any one place he knows, but all of them, as well as the dynamics of powerful nations that involve themselves in bad wars in faraway places."

The House: The History of the House of Representatives by Robert V. Remini. Reviewed in the Washington Times by Michael P. Riccards: "There are few surprises in this history of the House of Representatives and few departures from traditional historical judgments on the controversies facing the nation. Robert Remini is a recognized mainstream historian, and had done his work well since the 1940s. His approach is probably just what this task needed. The House of Representatives and the reader now have a landmark study of the 'people's chamber.'"

Video of the Week

2006-06-03T00:30:00.000-04:00

New Friday-Saturday feature . . . this week, "Portions for Foxes" by Rilo Kiley.

Memorial Day 2006

2006-05-29T21:43:00.000-04:00

No one has said it better, or likely ever will, than Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg in November 1863:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that the nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

In the Loop

2006-05-28T09:32:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"Twenty-six Temptations" - DeVotchKa
"Closedown" - The Cure
"I Know It's Over" - The Smiths
"Hold On Hope" - Guided by Voices
"Levon" - Elton John

Sunday Book Review

2006-05-28T09:28:00.000-04:00

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different by Gordon S. Wood. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Robert Middlekauff: "At several points in this volume, most notably the essays on Washington and the epilogue, Wood argues that the founders contributed unwittingly to a democratic and egalitarian society that they never wanted. This is another point in favor of the history Wood provides in this splendid collection: He relates what he would have us believe, explains much of what was done and leaves us with an ironical appreciation of the founders' achievement."

In the Stacks

2006-05-27T16:31:00.000-04:00

I miss the labyrinthine library stacks of college, where I'd often spend hours browsing and reading (while procrastinating, of course, on this or that assignment for class). Although it doesn't compare, I visit the State Library every two or three months. I go with a list in hand but usually end up coming home with books not on it. Today, only one of four was on the list:

History of the Second World War by B. H. Liddell Hart. An overview of the war by one of the giants of twentieth-century military history. (Nod to Jim Webb.)
The Gods Were Neutral by Robert Crisp. A firsthand account of the overlooked (by Americans, anyway) British campaign in Greece in 1941.
Anzio by Fred Sheehan. A narrative of Operation Shingle and the Allied amphibious landings at Anzio, Italy, in early 1944.
The Archidamian War by Donald Kagan. The second volume of the classic four-volume history of the Peloponnesian War.

Late Imperial Russia in Color

2006-05-27T16:13:00.000-04:00

There is something otherworldly about black-and-white photography, something not quite "real." But color pictures -- like these of the Depression era -- bring home the reality of history and remind us that those who lived in the past were people not unlike ourselves. Through a complex process using original negatives, the Library of Congress has reproduced in color the photographs of Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, "offer[ing] a vivid portrait of a lost world -- the Russian Empire on the eve of World War I and the coming revolution." The images are stunning. A taste:

Peasant Girls, 1909

A Settler's Family, ca. 1907-1915

A Zindan (prison) . . ., ca. 1907-1915

Molding of an Artistic Casting, 1910

(Via Never Yet Melted.)

War in Words

2006-05-27T11:10:00.000-04:00

James Webb lists his favorite books on the military:

Once an Eagle by Anton Myrer
Hell in a Very Small Place by Bernard Fall
History of the Second World War by B. H. Liddell Hart
The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer
The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman

I'm familiar with all five but have read only the last, Tuchman's classic on the origins of World War I. Take from it what lessons you will -- Webb suggests it has relevance to Iraq; JFK is said to have been influenced by it during the Cuban Missile Crisis -- but it's an amazingly written narrative of diplomacy and military history.

"The Ghost of You" by My Chemical Romance

2006-05-26T18:06:00.000-04:00

Brilliant video, great song.

Baghdad Mitt

2006-05-25T22:13:00.000-04:00

Mitt Romney visits Baghdad, attempting to burnish his foreign policy credentials, the lack of which I think will sink his 2008 aspirations. Nevertheless, and expectedly, Kathryn Lopez swoons.

American Idol Finale

2006-05-24T22:35:00.000-04:00

I know what I hate . . . and I didn't hate that. Basically blew me away from beginning to end with the exception of the group sings, which I did not particularly enjoy -- although I disliked them far less than I usually do: I was hoping never to hear Kevin Covais again, but I hadn't planned on seeing Melissa McGhee, whom I loved before Katharine McPhee, and was pleased to lay eyes on that sultry southerner again. The guests were amazing. Live. Mary J. Blige (I take this back). Toni Braxton. Prince. Hell, I even enjoyed Meat Loaf.

And Taylor. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor. I started out in his corner after his audition, believing he'd never make it far, but he wore poorly on me. The hooting and hollering was just too much, and don't get me started on the increasingly frequently "soul patrol" refrains. Still, I couldn't abandon him entirely. He brought it almost every week and, if DialIdol is any indication, led the pack just as often; he was never in the bottom two or three. He deserved to win after the past twelve weeks and especially after last night. I might even buy his cheesy single. So say it loud and say it proud:

SOUL PATROL.

Narrow Views

2006-05-24T19:42:00.000-04:00

I sometimes wonder which is worse: seeing our country as an oppressive place where women are kept down by men and the "patriarchal structures" they've created, as feminists do; or seeing our country as a place where women who get ahead do so only because they're women and not necessarily talented, as Kathryn Lopez does.

Some Animals . . .

2006-05-24T19:13:00.000-04:00

Congress can't agree on anything these days. Not the war. Not immigration. Not taxes. Not Social Security. Nothing. Except, that is, that congressmen are above the law. Opposition to the raid on Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office was bipartisan and included no less than Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as former Speaker Newt Gingrich (why, Newt, why?). House leaders called the raid unconstitutional, a violation of the separation of powers.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't find the argument all that convincing. I am pretty sure, though, that this sort of thing doesn't go over well in the country at large, particularly among Republicans. James Taranto reminds us of the first plank of the Contract with America:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to Congress

We've come a long, long way since 1994 and drifted far from the Contract, a document that also promised "to restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves." That Republicans have deviated from their animating principles isn't so much the failure of conservatism as it is human nature. It's cliched but true: power corrupts. No group of politicians, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, can long be trusted with the reins of power. There's a solution for this, the two most feared words in Washington: term limits. Which was also part of the Contract and failed to garner the required two-thirds to amend the Constitution. Now is as good a time, or even better, to re-start that amendment.

Today is the day I check out. In the absence of a constitutional amendment, it's time for us to impose some term limits of our own -- at the ballot box on November 7.

Not Too Bad for Forty

2006-05-24T18:50:00.000-04:00

Elizabeth Hurley in Cannes:

The Clinton Recession

2006-05-23T17:27:00.000-04:00

Glad to hear someone -- Al Gore, no less -- admit it:

It's now clear that a fairly significant recession started in the spring of the election year [2000], and the stock market fell dramatically all through the campaign . . .

The American Dream

2006-05-22T22:14:00.000-04:00

There are some among us, particularly, perhaps, among the educated, who regard talk of the American Dream as cliched, as "ironic," as window dressing for a society that is "oppressive" beneath the surface. But you will never convince me that, for all the shortcomings of our country, the American Dream is a mere cliche, not as long as Americans like Condoleezza Rice are in our midst. Say what you will about her politics or geopolitics, the woman embodies achievement in the face of long odds. She is a testament to the power of education, of personal will, of hard work and determination, of individual talent. Had she been born twenty years earlier, or maybe even ten, she would not be where she is today. But to our country's credit and especially that of the heroic men and women who fought for civil rights, Condoleezza Rice became one of the most influential people in the world. It is a privilege to live in such a country.

Championing Chafee

2006-05-22T18:47:00.000-04:00

While maintaining his opposition to Lincoln Chafee, Hugh "Permanent Republican Majority" Hewitt has decided, after much Gang of 14 vituperation, to endorse Mike DeWine of Ohio:

Mike DeWine has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 80, though his rating was only 56 in 2005.

His opponent, Congressman Sherrod Brown's lifetime ACU rating is 8, and in 2005 it was 4.

Senator DeWine voted for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor. He has also voted for ever other Bush judicial nominee who faced Leahy led-opposition.

DeWine's opponent Sherrod Brown would join the Leahy-Schumer forces and is in fact the new Howard Metzenbaum, waiting to join the radical obstructionists in the Senate.

Brown would also almost certainly vote against serious border protection, just as 16 Democratic senators did. Senator DeWine voted for the border fencing.

Lincoln Chafee is nowhere close to being as conservative -- whether you judge based on 56 or 80 -- as Mike DeWine. But compare Chafee's ACU rating of 12 in 2005 and his lifetime rating of 37 to his fellow Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, whose rating of 0 in 2005 and 7 lifetime are likely what we'd get from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chafee's Democratic challenger who would almost surely defeat Steve Laffey, Chafee's Republican primary opponent, and has a good chance of ousting Chafee should they meet in the fall. Chafee voted for John Roberts but not Sam Alito; Reed voted for neither. Even though he hasn't always voted to confirm Bush's nominees (judicial and otherwise), Chafee has consistently voted for cloture; Reed has consistently supported filibusters. Chafee voted in favor of border fencing; Reed did not. Chafee voted for the Inhofe Amendment to make English the national language; Reed did not, voting only in favor of the watered-down Salazar version (which Chafee also supported). There are few, if any, indications that Sheldon Whitehouse would be anything but the next Jack Reed.

Chafee voted against an amendment requiring aliens seeking a change of status to pay a supplemental fee to be used to pay for health and educational services for noncitizens; so did DeWine. Chafee voted to table an amendment that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving full Social Security benefits; so did DeWine. Chafee voted against an amendment that would have required border security provisions to be enacted before beginning to legalize or adjust the status of illegal immigrants; so did DeWine. Clearly, Chafee is at least as "serious" about border protection as Mike DeWine.

Politics is about compromise, and a sensible brand of conservative politics should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Senator Chafee is not perfect, nor is he conservative, but he is as good as Republicans are going to get from Rhode Island, a deep-blue state that voted 60-39 for John Kerry. Chafee's first responsibility is not to his party but to his constituents, who -- as is their right -- are more liberal than the country at large. It is enough for me that Chafee votes for a Republican majority leader, votes for funding a war he opposed, supports cloture for judicial nominees he opposes, and maintains his current immigration positions; I don't care for whom he voted in November 2004. He is important not because of his individual votes, which sometimes go conservatives' way and oftentimes not, but because his seat contributes to the (judicial-cloture-supporting) Republican majority in the Senate. Sheldon Whitehouse would almost never vote with conservatives and would diminish the Senate majority. Anyone who supports Republican governing majorities -- and I'm not saying I necessarily do, especially in light of recent failures -- should support Chafee. To borrow some of Hewitt's overheated rhetoric: you can't support a GOP majority and oppose Lincoln Chafee's reelection.

From January to June 2001, a newly reelected Lincoln Chafee provided the critical fiftieth vote that allowed Republicans, with Dick Cheney's tiebreaker, to retain the Senate. It would be the height of irony -- though unlikely at this point -- if Election Day 2006 left Democrats in control of the Senate 51-49 thanks to a Chafee defeat. I'd surely look forward to hearing Hewitt explain how that would be a good thing.

Jaroslav Pelikan, R.I.P.

2006-05-17T17:58:00.000-04:00

The famed historian of religion has died. His 1983 Jefferson Lecture, The Vindication of Tradition, is required reading for anyone wishing to understand the nature of tradition.

How Political Movements Die

2006-05-16T21:07:00.000-04:00

John Podhoretz on the immigration debate:

The immigration debate is a very heated and passionate one, and the heat and passion on the part of those on the restrictionist side have been useful tools for pushing the conversation in your direction. But there's a difference between heated disagreement and the insistence on lock-step uniformity. Suddenly, immigration restriction has become one of those issues about which one is not permitted to disagree, because to disagree is to join with the forces of Evil. Those who favor a less restrictive policy are said to be bought and paid for by Big Business, to want to oppress poor American minorities who can't earn a decent wage, and to seek the cultural destruction of America. . . .

We are moving into very dangerous territory here — territory in which it has been declared that there is to be no debate, no discussion, and no heterodoxy any longer. This is how political-intellectual movements become diseased and sclerotic. This is how they die.

Political Guts?

2006-05-16T03:54:00.000-04:00

Like most Americans and like an increasing number of conservatives, I haven't found much to praise in President Bush recently. But the more I think about it, the more I think he deserves credit for the ground he's staked out on immigration. His poll numbers are down, way down, even among Republicans. According to Byron York, "the president's stand on immigration is the biggest drag on his support among Republicans," who are well to the right of Bush on the issue.

Bush has often been criticized -- I know Andrew Sullivan has done so -- for appealing to the "baser" instincts of the base to gin up support in tough times. It would've been easy to do so on immigration and perhaps more justifiable than before, at least politically: his numbers are so low, and Democrats and independents so unlikely to come back, that Republicans are really his only hope of getting back into the 40s. To regain their support, he could have come out in favor of a fence. He did not. He could have backed off his guest-worker program. He did not. Risking, and indeed attracting, the ire of the Right, he claimed the middle ground, which may or may not be effective in fixing the immigration problem. Not to overstate things, but that's a gutsy position.

And to think there used to be a time when Republicans praised Bush as a polls-be-damned, I'm-going-to-do-what-I-think-is-right leader. It turns out that applies only to policies with which they agree.

Unhinged

2006-05-16T02:00:00.000-04:00

Although I lean more toward some kind of fence and am not very enthusiastic about -- nor entirely opposed to some kind of -- a guest-worker program, I understand that the president, who has long held moderate opinions on immigration, is trying to walk a very difficult middle ground here. Even were he in agreement with the conservative grassroots on this, it would be politically impossible to implement most of such a program. Politics is about compromise, after all, about balancing winning elections and maintaining power with one's principles. Leave it to much of the Right to forget that. Their responses to the president's speech exhibit pompousness, exaggeration, paranoia -- indeed, just about everything except conservatism:

He had his chance and he blew it. He should have given the speech I told him to. . . . President Bush keeps trying to find the middle ground, on this and many other issues. But sometimes, there isn't a viable middle ground. This is one of those instances. . . . President Bush doesn't have many chances left to salvage his second term. After tonight, he might not have any. --John Hinderaker, Power Line

Bush has lost touch with reality. . . . President Bush is continuing the homeland security dog-and-pony charade in his quest to deliver a massive "guest worker"/amnesty plan to the open borders lobby. A few weeks ago, Bush's Department of Homeland Security put on a bogus performance of Get Tough Theater with a series of politically timed immigration raids. . . . President Bush is already bowing and scraping to Mexico over the plan. --Michelle Malkin

This plan won't work, and it is not seriously meant to work. It's supposed to look dramatic and buy the president some respite from negative polls - and then it is supposed to fail, strengthening the administration's case for its truly preferred approach: amnesty + guestworkers. --David Frum

I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this. . . . This is pure idiocy, and it has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetrated by any previous president and Congress. --Mark Levin

The only new thing in the speech was sending some unarmed National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol shuffle paper. The more appropriate headline would be "More Mush from the Wimp." --Mark Krikorian

Delivery feels a bit more Mr. Rogers than commander-in-chief. I mean we have an emergency -- our borders are out of control and during a time of war. You don't get that sense. Get me Jack Bauer. I'll stop now. --Kathryn Jean Lopez (Oh, yeah: Kathryn Lopez, meet Vox Day.)

Hearteningly, there have also been some reasonable reactions:

I think it was an altogether undramatic evening. I doubt David Frum — and a bunch of readers — are right when they predict Bush's numbers will be driven down by the speech. My guess is he sounded pretty reasonable to most Americans not already deeply committed on the issue of immigration. --Jonah Goldberg

My initial reaction? President Bush tried reaching for the center -- a position he has occupied on this issue all along. He tried a one-from-column-A, two-from-column-B approach that probably will leave all sides more or less dissatisfied. . . . His tone remained measured and firm and he insisted that Congress pass a comprehensive plan that includes both tight security and normalization. --Ed Morrissey (Vox Day, meet Ed Morrissey.)

I'm with them.

McCain at Liberty

2006-05-14T11:58:00.000-04:00

John McCain's commencement speech yesterday at Liberty University deserves a wide reading. It bears the finest hallmarks of McCain's past collaborations with his speechwriter Mark Salter: self-deprecating and humble, firm on principle, and eloquent.

It is an expression of the wisdom -- if only the knowledge that we don't know everything -- that comes with age:

It's funny, now, how less self-assured I feel late in life than I did when I lived in perpetual springtime. Some of my critics allege that age hasn't entirely cost me the conceits of my youth. All I can say to them is, they should have known me then, when I was brave and true and better looking than I am at present. But as the great poet, Yeats, wrote, "All that's beautiful drifts away, like the waters." I have lost some of the attributes that were the object of a young man's vanity. But there have been compensations, which I have come to hold dear.

Now, as in the past, McCain is often at his most eloquent when speaking about youth and age. Compare the above to his haunting conclusion to his speech to the 2000 GOP Convention, which bears quoting because, well, I like it:

I will not see what is over America's horizon. The years that remain are not too few I trust, but the immortality that was the aspiration of my youth has, like all the treasures of youth, slipped away.

It is a stand for the rightness of the war we're in -- "it's a big thing," as he said at the Republican Convention in 2004 -- and the necessity of winning it:

I supported the decision to go to war in Iraq. Many Americans did not. My patriotism and my conscience required me to support it and to engage in the debate over whether and how to fight it. I stand that ground not to chase vainglorious dreams of empire; not for a noxious sense of racial superiority over a subject people; not for cheap oil; -- we could have purchased oil from the former dictator at a price far less expensive than the blood and treasure we’ve paid to secure those resources for the people of that nation; not for the allure of chauvinism, to wreak destruction in the world in order to feel superior to it; not for a foolishly romantic conception of war. I stand that ground because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my country’s interests and values required it. . . .

Americans should argue about this war. It has cost the lives of nearly 2500 of the best of us. It has taken innocent life. It has imposed an enormous financial burden on our economy. At a minimum, it has complicated our ability to respond to other looming threats. Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred. But if an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition, and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility. But I ask that you consider the possibility that I, too, am trying to meet my responsibilities, to follow my conscience, to do my duty as best as I can, as God has given me light to see that duty.

It is a call for unity in a difficult time, for respect when rancor prevails:

Let us argue with each other then. By all means, let us argue. Our differences are not petty, they often involve cherished beliefs, and represent our best judgment about what is right for our country and humanity. Let us defend those beliefs. Let’s do so sincerely and strenuously. It is our right and duty to do so. And let’s not be too dismayed with the tenor and passion of our arguments, even when they wound us. We have fought among ourselves before in our history, over big things and small, with worse vitriol and bitterness than we experience today.

Let us exercise our responsibilities as free people. But let us remember, we are not enemies. We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals. It should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. I have not always heeded this injunction myself, and I regret it very much.

It is, in the end, a speech about liberty, about the values and sacrifices needed to sustain and defend it. This is a man of presidential timber. Any political disagreements I have with him do not obscure that.

In the Loop

2006-05-14T09:49:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"Hiroshima..." - Bryan Ferry
"All Things Change" - Billy Corgan
"Stinkfist" - Tool
"Ohne Dich" - Rammstein
"Ombra Mai Fu" - Paul Schwartz

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-05-14T09:46:00.000-04:00

Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a "Desk Murderer" by David Cesarini. Reviewed in the New York Times by Barry Gewen: "It is thoroughly researched, densely factual; there may never be need for another biography of the man. Cesarani, a British scholar specializing in Jewish history, can be a plodder — turf battles among the Nazis are like turf battles anywhere else — but his accounts of Eichmann's early years, of his escape to Argentina and eventual capture are richly informative."

Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War by Nathaniel Philbrick. Reviewed in the Los Angeles Times by Jim Rossi: "Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But Philbrick triumphs in 'Mayflower' because he combines it with empathy to challenge twin myths about America's beginnings. The original Pilgrims were neither religious patriots nor bloody conquerors. And the native Americans they befriended, then betrayed were more sophisticated and less peaceful than commonly believed."

Done with Sullivan

2006-05-13T10:28:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan has long annoyed me, but over the past six months or year, reading him has become an especially frustrating experience. His "arguments" have become increasingly personal and ad hominem, as well as sloppy, flimsy, and just plain wrong. The first straw for me was his references to the president as "King George." Bush is not above reproach -- far from it -- but can't we do it in a more intellectual, reasonable way? And then it was his whole "theocon" and "Christianist" fixation. Neither have entered the mainstream political lexicon as he would've liked, even though he recently penned a column for Time making his insufficient case for using the latter term. A Google News search for "Christianist" turns up seven hits, two of which criticize Sullivan; the rest are from second-rate columnists, including Ted Rall. The final straw came last night, when he quotes John Derbyshire's support for the "speedy removal of illegal immigrations from our nation, by attrition and deportation," implies that Derbyshire is a Nazi, and suggests that his views are indicative of mainstream conservatism even though he was opposed by most of The Corner. Sullivan then quotes part of Jonah Goldberg's lengthy response, apparently finding it wanting.

This is the height of shabbiness. I've sworn off Sullivan before, but boring midnight hours and aimless lunch hours found me clicking back. No more. I'm done.

Quote of the Day

2006-05-13T00:37:00.000-04:00

The people who rule us, you have to understand, are fools, absolute, bloody fools. --Christopher Hitchens on The Hugh Hewitt Show

Underwhelmed

2006-05-11T23:27:00.000-04:00

The New York Times Book Review polled "a couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages" on the best American novel of the past quarter century. The winner: Toni Morrison's Beloved. I've never read the book and so won't pretend to pass judgment on it, but whatever its merits, it strikes me as a safe choice, well-suited for our Oprah-fied culture, but not an enduring masterpiece. (I'm somewhat biased: while reading it for an American literature class, I threw Morrison's Playing in the Dark across my dorm room in college. Make of that what you will.)

If only Philip Roth (who has seven books on the list) weren't so dang prolific. And at least Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian was a runner up.

The Trouble with Katherine Harris

2006-05-11T23:05:00.000-04:00

Over at The Plank, Michael Crowley describes what he calls "the GOP's Katherine Harris Problem":

She's so divisive and unpopular that she almost certainly can't win a general election in Florida. But hard-core Republican activists are still so grateful for her role in the 2000 recount that she's nearly impossible to beat in a primary.

But the Rasmussen poll Crowley cites as evidence of her inability to defeat Bill Nelson in the general gives the lie to his claim about the primary. Harris, who trails Nelson 57-27, garners the support of a mere 45 percent of Republicans; 33 percent of them would vote for Nelson. Strategic Vision polled Republicans on a few different scenarious

Tommy Franks, 38%
Katherine Harris, 34%

Katherine Harris, 36%
Tom Gallagher, 34%

Katherine Harris, 35%
Mark Foley, 19%

Maybe Harris's persistent 34-35 percent indicates those "hard-core Republican activists" who refuse to abandon her because of 2000, but these are hardly the numbers of someone unbeatable in a primary. Quite the opposite: her numbers are exceedingly weak for a candidate with such allegedly strong support among party activists. Too, the Florida GOP, including Jeb Bush, opposes her, as does the national apparatus, and that matters. Just look at the Specter-Toomey primary in 2004, where the support of the state and national party (particularly that of Bush and Santorum) swung the election to Specter.

Moreover, Republican primary voters aren't fools; they often take electability into account when voting (again, witness the Specter-Toomey race). That same Strategic Vision poll mirrors Rasmussen: Nelson leads Harris 56-24. But Nelson and Franks are tied at 45-45; Nelson leads Gallagher 47-45; and Nelson leads Foley 48-39. Those numbers might persuade even some of that hard core.

The GOP does have a Katherine Harris problem, but it's that she refuses to step aside and that the electable candidates have chosen not to run. It's a moot point, anyway: after tomorrow, Harris will be the Republican candidate, like it or not, win or lose.

Losing Luttig

2006-05-11T22:33:00.000-04:00

It's old news by now: J. Michael Luttig, judge of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and long-time possible GOP nominee for the Supreme Court, is resigning from the bench to take a job as general counsel of Boeing. This morning, there was some speculation, fueled by a Wall Street Journal article (subscription required), that Luttig left because of anger over the Padilla case: Luttig and the 4th Circuit held that the Bush administration could hold Jose Padilla in a military prison, after which the Justice Department decided to move the terror suspect into the criminal court system.

Luttig's explanation should be taken at face value. The dispute over Padilla -- which the judge said "cast doubt on the Bush administration's 'credibility before the courts'" -- most likely did not spark Luttig's resignation. To do so would be petty and childish. Luttig's seat was for life, after all, while administrations come and go. What really is petty and childish was the administration's response to Luttig:

[People close to the Bush administration] dismiss Judge Luttig's opinion as a judicial tantrum, noting that it came after he was passed over three times for a Supreme Court position. President Bush nominated Judge Roberts, Harriet Miers (who withdrew) and Judge Samuel Alito.

I don't agree with Reihan Salam that this will be considered "one of the defining events of the Bush years," but he is right that it "reveals far more about those making the charge than it does about Luttig."

Will Hugh Hewitt Retract?

2006-05-11T22:13:00.000-04:00

Hugh Hewitt, April 6, 2006: "[C]olumnist Will is an unreconstructed McCain man."

George Will, May 11, 2006:

[A]lthough McCain is loquacious about corruption, he is too busy deploring it to define it. Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator.

Was He-Man Gay?

2006-05-11T20:03:00.000-04:00

Maybe, maybe not. But this is hilarious:

The best part about rewatching He-Man, after the initial nostalgia-burst, was tracking the show's hilarious accidental homo-eroticism—an aspect I missed completely as a first-grader. In the ever-growing lineup of "outed" classic superheroes, He-Man might be the easiest target of all. It's almost too easy: Prince Adam, He-Man's alter ego, is a ripped Nordic pageboy with blinding teeth and sharply waxed eyebrows who spends lazy afternoons pampering his timid pet cat; he wears lavender stretch pants, furry purple Ugg boots, and a sleeveless pink blouse that clings like saran wrap to his pecs. . . . [H]e typically runs around seizing space-wands with glowing knobs and fabulously straddling giant rockets. He hangs out with people called Fisto and Ram Man, and they all exchange wink-wink nudge-nudge dialogue: "I'd like to hear more about this hooded seed-man of yours!" "I feel the bony finger of Skeletor!" "Your assistance is required on Snake Mountain!"

Full disclosure: Before I settled on G.I. Joe, He-Man was my cartoon and action figure of choice. I remember very little about it, except that I owned the Snake Mountain playset, complete with the microphone through which you could cackle like Skeletor. Good times.

Throw the Bums Out

2006-05-11T18:24:00.000-04:00

Writes Peggy Noonan:

Congressional Republicans right now seem just like the liberal Republicans of the great Losing Era of Republican history, circa 1960-80. All the Republican congressmen in those days had good beliefs, and shared them at the Rotary luncheon back home. The government was getting too big and taxes were too high. Then they'd go back to Washington and vote for higher spending and higher taxes. But not as high as the Democrats, they'd point out. Their job was to stand athwart history and cry, "Please slow down just a little bit!"

Republicans on the ground back home got mad. Eventually they threw the old guys out and sent to Washington in 1980 a guy who meant it when he said he'd cut and contain.

I don't want to take this pessimism too far, and although I do think November is going to turn out poorly for the GOP, I myself am not prepared to dish out backlash to Republicans who deserve re-election. Rick Santorum is one of them, and I happily support his efforts. Still, it's not a good time to be a Republican officeholder, and neither will November.

Dire Straits across the Board

2006-05-09T22:36:00.000-04:00

Mark Tapscott predicts that a compromise is brewing on the Iraq/Afghanistan/Katrina spending bill, one that would enable Republicans to declare (while avoiding a Bush veto) an "across-the-board-spending 13 percent reduction" but still "preserve the bulk of the earmarks treasured by the Senate's Old Bulls while reducing funding needed by the military in the War against Terrorism." His conclusion seems particularly aimed at those who persist in the false hope that Bush's laudable record on defense and judges and the nature of the Democratic alternative will see the GOP through:

Yes, Bush has been tough on defense, he has put two excellent conservative jursits on the U.S. Supreme Court and he persuaded Congress to cut taxes. But the nation's increasingly perilous financial straits sooner or later will undermine even those accomplishments.

Millions of conservatives across the country worked so hard for so many years for a GOP majority in Congress and a GOP President and for all those years they were told that doing so would produce genuine change in Washington, even the consumation and completion of the Reagan Revolution.

Now, with another legislative subterfuge in the offing, we see all too clearly that we've been taken for a ride. Come November, the ride will be over for a bunch of Republicans who think the base "has nowhere to go."

(Via Instapundit.)

Misleading Evidence of Misleading Poll Numbers

2006-05-09T20:33:00.000-04:00

Greg Pollowitz makes an interesting, but ultimately unpersuasive case that Bush's low poll numbers are misleading. As evidence of this, he cites the fact that Bush recently raised $800,000 for Rep. Clay Shaw in Florida.

As unpopular as Bush is, he brings in the bucks. And here lies the problem. If Bush is so unpopular, fundraising should be a much bigger challenge. . . . It's really amazing, when you think about it, that the fundraising continues regardless of the poll numbers. . . . The money that Bush and Cheney are able to raise wherever they go indicates that the President has an approval rating much higher than the polls are leading us to believe.

That $800,000 figure is misleading. According to the Miami Herald, it was a "private Fort Lauderdale reception" of "about 350 people" who "paid at least $2,100 to attend. Individuals who contributed $4,200 or officials with political committees that gave $10,000 got the added perk of a photo with the president." That is, these are a few hundred people who can afford to drop a couple thousand on a political reception, people who might but don't necessarily share the beliefs of the rank and file. Not to overgeneralize, but for people who make those kinds of donations, such fundraisers are often as much social events as they are political events.

If that $800,000 was generated by $25 donations from people who have to pick and choose their small contributions, I'd be a bit more optimistic.

The Case against Optimism

2006-05-09T17:41:00.000-04:00

Byron York dissects the president's poll numbers, charting a three-step tumble: (1) "Democrats fell off, while smaller numbers of independents peeled away and support remained strong among among Republicans"; (2) "Democratic support hit bottom, while independent support fell to ever-lower levels and support among Republicans began to decline"; and (3) "independent support appears to be heading closer to the bottom while significant numbers of Republicans are also expressing disapproval." We are now in that third stage, says York, and the slip among Republicans can be attributed to immigration, on which most Republicans disagree with Bush. But the decline is not limited only to immigration:

What the numbers show is that, with the exception of terrorism, Bush has lost solid Republican support on a number of significant issues. Where that process ends is anyone's guess. Perhaps this is the bottom, and the president will begin to rise in the polls. On the other hand, present trends might continue. If they do, the three-step process could ultimately become a four-step process, with more Republicans deciding to abandon the president, leaving him no dependable base of support.

How one can predict that the GOP will triumph in November or that Bush would be an effective campaigner toward that victory, I don't know. I do know that this is not something that fighting to get Brett Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit is going to fix.

Hillary the Warrior Queen?

2006-05-09T17:01:00.000-04:00

With the publication of John Podhoretz's book -- which I probably won't read, although I'm a fan and think his Bush Country ranks among the very best of the political genre -- there's a great deal of talk about Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. I'd like to see her lose and would never vote for her, but let me say that I don't fear a Hillary presidency as much as I did a Kerry presidency. Her opinions on Iraq and Iran -- minus the sometimes unduly harsh criticisms of Bush (which are, in any event, to be expected; she's a Democrat, after all) -- do not distress me too much. Plus, she has always come across to me as cold and ruthless -- ideal qualities for taking on our enemies. So count me unpersuaded by anyone who might argue that Hillary could not adequately prosecute the war.

Draining the Swamps

2006-05-09T16:46:00.000-04:00

And so it begins, or so one hopes. Certain segments of the center-left are distancing themselves from, and criticizing, the fever-swamp left. This is discouraging for those who hoped the left-wing bloggers would relegate the Democratic Party to electoral oblivion and encouraging for those of us, Republicans (like me) and Democrats alike, who believe the country is stronger with two parties who are serious about national security.

Richard Cohen, whose offense was criticizing Stephen Colbert:

In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Washington Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am and, I guess, I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation. . . .

This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out Hillary! [Too late.]) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back.

Marshall Wittmann:

Well, here's a big idea that Hillary is taking the lead on that deeply rankles Mr. Moulitsas and his blogosphere buddies -- she's tough on national security. That is the same reason that they are trying to run Joe Lieberman out of the party. Hillary has demonstrated courage in the face of the left wing fever swamp by refusing to reverse her position on Iraq and standing firm against Iran obtaining nukes. . . .

These netroots types think they are something cutting edge when they are merely McGovernites with modems. One only wonders why the much maligned "Main Stream Media", much less elected officials, pay so much attention to them.

Jonathan Chait:

In the end, though, I can't quite root for Lieberman to lose his primary. What's holding me back is that the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman's sins. It's a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent.

Chait again:

In a related point, one of the chief rebuttals I've seen to my column is that the lefty blogs aren't actually all that lefty. That's true if you consider only their policy agenda in a vacuum. But it's not true if you take account of their political style, which is distinctly New Left. It's a paranoid, Manichean worldview brimming with humorless rage. The fact that the contemporary blog-based left, unlike the McGovernite New Left, lacks a well-formed radical program is some measure of comfort. However, I think there's lots of evidence to suggest that this style of thinking is suggestive of a tendency to move in more radical directions over time. That, of course, is exactly what happend to the New Left, many of whose members starting off as relatively sensible liberals, or left-liberals before veering into the abyss.

May it continue.

Ruth Did It on Hot Dogs & Beer

2006-05-08T17:36:00.000-04:00

The Giants were in Philadelphia this weekend, and as Barry Bonds inched closer to Ruth's 714 home runs, Phillies fans savaged him . . .

Back on Earth

2006-05-08T16:53:00.000-04:00

As Hugh Hewitt predicts GOP victory, the president's approval ratings hit 31 percent.

Man in Black Back in Black

2006-05-07T23:43:00.000-04:00

Johnny Cash's American V will be released on July 4.

Affliction

2006-05-07T23:37:00.000-04:00

Confronted by "deficiencies in Britain's state-financed dental service," people are taking matters into their own hands.

Mood Swings

2006-05-07T22:15:00.000-04:00

After hawking his book for the past four or five weeks and declaring the sky was falling for Republicans (the solution: read the book, of course), Hugh Hewitt has now turned on a dime: "the prospects of the GOP Painting the Map Red have increased dramatically in just the past month." There's little in the polls to indicate this; apparently, Hewitt rests his claim largely on the results of last Tuesday's primary in Ohio, which Hewitt's oracle Michael Barone believes augur well for GOP turnout in the fall, contrary to current expectations. Barone may well be right, but get a load of Hewitt's explanation:

I suspect the president's poll numbers --to the extent they are accurate-- reflect not dismay with the war, but dismay with the Administration's occasional appearance of placing priority on other than the war. Telling the American people that there is no substitute for victory in Iraq and firmness with Iran even to the point of confrontation is exactly the reassurance that serious people need.

This is priceless, a new height of spin even for Hewitt. The president's low numbers on the war (43 percent on the war on terror in general, 37 percent on Iraq in particular, according to the latest AP/Ipsos poll) do not reflect folks' opinions about how the president is waging the war but, rather, their belief that he appears do be concentrating elsewhere.

Somebody tell the American people. The most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll-- "to the extent they are accurate" -- shows that people, as far as voting for Congress in November goes, are concerned about the economy first (16 percent), followed by gas prices (15 percent), then Iraq (13 percent), immigration (12 percent), health care (11 percent), and finally terrorism (10 percent). And, back to that AP poll, they don't think he's doing a very good job on most of those: 37 percent on the economy, 36 percent on domestic issues (including health care), and 23 percent on gas prices.

I don't see any reason for optimism in those numbers, and I certainly don't see any reason to believe that the American people think Bush seems to be paying too little attention to the war.

In the Loop

2006-05-07T21:37:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"I Know" - Jude
"To Forgive" - Smashing Pumpkins
"Lost" - The Cure
"Stay" - Dave Gahan
"Enjoy the Silence" (Ecstatic Dub) - Depeche Mode
"Amour" - Rammstein

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-05-07T21:34:00.000-04:00

The Post's Book World this week is excellent. A taste:

The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope by Jonathan Alter. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Alonzo Hamby: "FDR failed badly in his efforts to end the Depression and pursued some policies that surely made things worse. The author concedes that if World War II had not intervened, Roosevelt would be remembered as a much lesser chief executive. He also thinks there is no reason to believe any of the possible alternatives would have done better, and he may well be right."

Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam by Mark Bowden. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Afshin Molavi: "Still, Bowden skillfully evokes the era and the ordeal, putting a human face on the yellow ribbons. And he describes in detail President Carter's vacillations, the failed rescue attempts, and the charlatans and apologists who acted as private intermediaries to seek the hostages' release (and their own photo ops). Mostly, however, the book is about the hostages themselves. These men and women deserve their day, and Bowden has given it to them."

Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community and War by Nathaniel Philbrick. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Jonathan Yardley: "Because Philbrick is in search of the more factually complex and morally ambiguous truth behind essentially self-serving popular mythology, it is important to emphasize that he is not out to denigrate that mythology or those who embrace it. He celebrates the courage, resourcefulness and determination of many of the settlers . . ."

George Will on United 93

2006-05-07T10:40:00.000-04:00

George Will has a good column on United 93, in which he aptly describes 9/11 as "the process of having [our] sense of the possible abruptly and radically enlarged." He concludes:

The hinge on which the movie turns are 13 words that a passenger speaks, without histrionics, as he and others prepare to rush the cockpit, shortly before the plane plunges into a Pennsylvania field. The words are: ``No one is going to help us. We've got to do it ourselves.'' Those words not only summarize this nation's situation in today's war, but also express a citizen's general responsibilities in a free society.

"A Failure as a Comedian"

2006-05-04T01:59:00.000-04:00

Liberal columnist Richard Cohen eviscerates Stephen Colbert. His conclusion:

On television, Colbert is often funny. But on his own show, he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness. In Washington, he was playing to a different crowd and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the Blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times.

He also wasn't funny.

I'm guessing this won't go over well in certain segments of the blogosphere.

April Reading

2006-05-03T17:35:00.000-04:00

Very slow month . . .

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin. Either my expectations were way too high or the book is sorely overrated -- perhaps a little of both -- but I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would. First, the good: Fromkin clearly did a considerable amount of research (even if it is Anglocentric -- understably so, given the Brits' role in the Middle East, but more from the Ottoman and especially Arab perspective would have helped flesh out the story), and the book is teeming with great information and anecdotes. It's material that echoes loudly today as a well-intentioned U.S., much like Britain in the early 20th century, tries to "remake" the Middle East. Is it possible? History seems to suggest not. Where the book left me wanting was the narrative structure. Rather than a straight, linear story, Fromkin arranged it around geographic areas. Given the complex history of the period, maybe this was the best approach, but it produced a sluggish narrative that often and confusingly backtracked on itself, resulting in a sometimes disorienting chronology and the retelling of some events.

Stephen Colbert Is Not Funny

2006-05-03T17:11:00.000-04:00

Or at least he wasn't at Saturday night's White House Correspondents' Dinner. (Sorry, lefties: cracking wise to advance an agenda you share or "courageously" satirizing someone to his face do not make something funny.) Here's what he had to say about Laura Bush:

She’s a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma’am. I’m sorry, but this reading initiative. I’ve never been a fan of books. I don’t trust them. They’re all fact, no heart. I mean, they’re elitist telling us what is or isn’t true, what did or didn’t happen. What’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that’s my right as an American. I’m with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.

The "all fact, no heart" line was funny when Colbert used it in what I think was the premier episode of the Colbert Report. And although its humor diminishes when recycled, in certain contexts, it remains funny, especially if your day job involves working on history books. The problem is, Laura Bush's old day job was a grade-school librarian, and her literacy efforts focus on young people who read things like the Boxcar Children, the Babysitters Club, the Hardy Boys, Encyclopedia Brown, Clifford the Big Red Dog -- children's fiction, that is: no fact, all heart. So Colbert's joke, like his performance as a whole, fell flat.

Hugh Hewitt Is Funny

2006-05-03T17:00:00.000-04:00

Here he is on Ken Blackwell's victory on the Ohio GOP gubernatorial primary:

Every would-be GOP presidential candidate will work the state for him, as of course will President Bush, Vice President Cheney and just about every other Republican who can draw three people to an event.

Bush's and Cheney's favorability ratings are 39 and 34 percent, respectively. Drawing three people to an event sounds about right.

In the Loop

2006-04-30T10:08:00.000-04:00

Songs that got heavy airplay this past week:

"The Youngest Was the Most Loved" - Morrissey
"Vide Cor Meum" - Hans Zimmer, from the Hannibal soundtrack
"Lolita" - Elefant
"Enjoy the Silence" - Depeche Mode

Sunday Book Reviews

2006-04-30T10:01:00.000-04:00

Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized by People Who Think You're Stupid by Joe Klein. Reviewed in the New York Times by Jennifer Senior: "By the book's end, a troubling pattern has emerged: the natural politicians — Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush — make decent use of consultants and pollsters, but the stiffs — Al Gore, John Kerry, Bush père — are made even stiffer by them, encouraged to hew to content and language so boring they ultimately, ruinously, bore themselves."

1973 Nervous Breakdown: Watergate, Warhol, and the Birth of Post-Sixties America by Andreas Killen. Reviewed in the Washington Post by Jonathan Yardley: "Thus in 1973, Andy Warhol, for example, seemed sort of, well, neat -- all those soup cans and Marilyn Monroe and Chairman Mao. We didn't understand at the time that Warhol's only genius was for trivializing everything on which he set his hands, that Mao was a monster to rank with Hitler and Stalin, that the druggy environment in which Warhol dwelled was self-destructive rather than glamorous."

Fighting Faiths and Common Causes

2006-04-30T01:13:00.000-04:00

I don't agree with many of his assessments of modern-day conservative foreign policy -- especially his conservative straw man who believes the U.S. does no wrong (such conservatives exist but do not, I think, dominate the right) -- but Peter Beinart's efforts to restore the Cold War-era "fighting side" of liberalism are admirable. Our country is best and strongest in these dangerous, uncertain times when our two political parties agree on the threat posed by terrorists and the means to combat them.

In The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol highlights the parallel efforts of a group of "progressives and democrats" in Great Britain who drew up a manifesto that "draw[s] a line between a soft and relativist left and the strong and confident democratic left that the signers seek to invigorate." Kristol concludes:

The signatories of the document are liberals and progressives. They make clear their commitment to domestic and economic policies with which we at The Weekly Standard heartily disagree. But in the fight against tyranny and terror, against secular dictatorships and Islamic jihadism, is it too much to hope that decent liberals and conservatives could make common cause? We think not, and we hope that this clarion call from overseas might contribute to a rebirth of political courage and moral clarity on the American left as well.

I gladly and proudly stand with such men and women.

John Kenneth Galbraith, R.I.P.

2006-04-30T00:47:00.000-04:00

The famed liberal economist has passed away.

Marie Antoinette

2006-04-27T17:24:00.000-04:00

I didn't like Lost in Translation, and if the trailers are any indication, Sofia Coppola's upcoming Marie Antoinette seems to be far too stylized a take on late 1700s France for my taste. And yet I can't look away. I'm a sucker for New Order, I guess: "Age of Consent" accompanies the American trailer, and "Ceremony" the racier French version.

"A Great Play"

2006-04-26T23:49:00.000-04:00

I had never heard of this before, but at a Cubs-Dodgers game in Los Angeles thirty years ago this week, Cub centerfielder (and former Marine) Rick Monday rescued an American flag that two protesters tried to burn in the outfield. Tommy Lasorda was none too pleased either:

"Tommy Lasorda was in his last year as third-base coach before he took over for Hall of Fame manager Walter Alston. Tommy ran past me and called these guys every name in the longshoreman's encyclopedia."

"A lot of people don't know this, but he beat me to the flag," recalls Lasorda. "I saw Rick start running over from center field to left. I didn't know what it was, but as soon as I saw him start, I took off and I ran out there, and of course, by that time, Rick had picked up the flag and continued running. When I got there, I see these two guys and I told them, 'Why don't one of you guys take a swing at me?' because there were 50-something thousand people in the ballpark and I only wanted them to swing at me, so I could defend myself and do a job on them."

Great story.

(Via Jonah Goldberg and Warren Bell.)

In Search of Memory

2006-04-26T23:22:00.000-04:00

This is a priceless attempt at damage control:

In the interview, [Kaavya Viswanathan] said she had begun reading Ms. McCafferty's books when she was in high school and had read both books three or four times. She said she had last read Ms. McCafferty's novels in the fall of her senior year; she did not begin working on the manuscript that eventually became "Opal" until months afterward.

Some of the plagiarism may have happened because she has a photographic memory, Ms. Viswanathan said. "I remember by reading," she said. "I never take notes."

If she has a photographic memory, then wouldn't she have remembered that at least one of the more than forty repeated phrases, sentences, or passages was lifted from McCafferty's books? In any event, there's an easy way to confirm her explanation: sit Viswanathan down and ask her to regurgitate a dozen passages from books she read months ago.

Yep

2006-04-26T22:54:00.000-04:00

What's Not Snobbish about This?

2006-04-26T18:20:00.000-04:00

Here's Hugh Hewitt on the Tony Snow appointment:

Perhaps the best thing about this appointment is the very hostile WH press corps is suddenly confronted by an individual who has already out achieved them in the world of media, which means he knows their tricks and he knows their vanities. There are some smart folks in the WH press room, but there are plenty of pretty faces as well, and they know that Snow is a whole lot smarter than they are.

Classy. The sad thing is, I seriously doubt that Tony Snow shares this perspective.

Snow What?

2006-04-25T23:47:00.000-04:00

Tony Snow, who seems now to have accepted the press secretary job, has -- gasp! -- written critically about Bush and his administration. Who cares? And what exactly is that supposed to mean, anyway? About Bush, it shows he's willing to hire and maybe even seek the counsel of those who disagree with him. More than that, it may signal a strengthening of efforts to get domestic policy back on track in a more conservative direction. Where is Bush most in trouble with conservatives? Spending. Where has Snow been most critical of the president? Spending.

About Snow, it shows he's admirably willing to take a major pay cut to serve his country and president. Some (take a guess who) have suggested Snow will now have to defend policies which he has opposed. (Incidentally, he has called Bush's foreign policy "brilliant" and has taken a fairly moderate tone on immigration.) Perhaps . . . but not if this is the start of a rebranding of the Bush administration as newly and finally against profligate spending. Here's hoping.

Snow is an experienced media operator, well respected across the board and especially well liked by conservatives, not least because of his bonafides on issues such as spending. Provided this does herald a policy shift, picking Snow may be the smartest thing Bush has a done in his second term.

Anzac Day

2006-04-25T22:56:00.000-04:00

It's no longer Anzac Day where it counts, but here's to the memories of the soldiers of Australia and New Zealand who landed on Gallipoli ninety-one years ago today and to their successors who have fought for the West and freedom in wars since. It is also meet to recall the particular contributions and sacrifices of Australia, who, in its service in the Vietnam War and today in Iraq, has been one of the United States' finest friends.

How Kaavya Viswanathan Got Busted

2006-04-24T21:17:00.000-04:00

Wunderkind Kaavya Viswanathan -- the Harvard sophomore who at age seventeen received a $500,000 advance (and DreamWorks movie deal) for her first novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, released amid much buzz by Little, Brown last month, and its yet-to-be-published follow-up -- has been exposed as a plagiarist, having torn passages from two books by Megan McCafferty. Viswanathan has copped to "internaliz[ing] Ms. McCafferty's words"; any similarities, she says, are "completely unintentional and unconscious." Compare these two passages and decide for yourself whether this is mere internalization:

McCafferty: "Sabrina was the brainy Angel. Yet another example of how every girl had to be one or the other: Pretty or smart."

Viswanathan: "Moneypenny was the brainy female character. Yet another example of how every girl had to be one or the other: smart or pretty."

Yes, the italics are in both originals. The Harvard Crimson has more examples. So does the Globe.

UPDATE (4/25/06, 7:41 AM): The New York Times says "there are at least 29 passages that are strikingly similar."

UPDATE 2 (4/25/06, 9:18 PM): Random House, McCafferty's publisher, has "documented more than forty passages . . . that contain identical language and/or common scene or dialogue structure."

UPDATE 3 (4/28/06, 6:47 AM): Little, Brown is recalling Opal Mehta.

I Am Ralph Lauren

2006-04-24T19:35:00.000-04:00

Am I wrong to read this post by Lee Siegel as a very lightly veiled (and way off base) criticism of Tom Wolfe?

Religion in America

2006-04-23T18:43:00.000-04:00

Here is a set of fascinating maps plotting different religions in the U.S. Particularly revealing are the two more general maps, Religious Adherents and Church Bodies.

The first shows that the number of religious adherents as a percentage of all residents in 2000 is highest -- 50.1 and above -- in the middle of the country, roughly stretching from North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin down to Texas and Louisiana. As one moves east and west of this belt, the percentages gradually decrease, tapering off near the coasts. The 50.1-75.0 category extends farther to the east than to the west, although a strong exception is the 75.0-plus Mormon enclave in Utah. There are also multi-state pockets of 50.1-75 in the northeast; these seem to track Catholic areas -- for example, in western Pennsylvania around Pittsburgh and eastern Pennsylvania around Scranton, as well as in Massachusetts.

The second breaks counties down by which single denomination is most prevalent there. The map is not surprising. Baptists dominate in the South, and Mormons are concentrated in Utah and parts of the surrounding states. Lutherans are strongly centered in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa. Interestingly -- I'd imagine it is a result of migration -- there is a "belt" of Methodists extending from Nebraska and Kansas east through Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, West Virginia, and the Appalachian counties of Pennsylvania. For the most part, Catholics lead everywhere else and are strongest (according to this map) in the upper Midwest, the Northeast, and near the Mexican border (I'm guessing the extension of majority-Catholic communites through New Mexico into southern Colorado mirrors immigration patterns -- ominously so, if anti-immigration is your thing).

Definitely food for thought, especially, say, if you compare the first map to this one: strong in the center, tapering off near the coasts . . .

(Via No Left Turns, although I'm pretty sure Sullivan linked to it a week or two ago.)