Duck Season

The European Union commissioned a report a while ago on anti-Semitism in the EU. What they found was that it does exist, and is practiced mostly by certain specific groups. They didn't like the conclusion, so they decided to shelve the report:

The European Union's racism watchdog has shelved a report on anti-semitism because the study concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined.

The Vienna-based European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) decided in February not to publish the 112-page study, a copy of which was obtained by the Financial Times, after clashing with its authors over their conclusions.

Wouldn't you say that trying to cover up anti-semitic act is, I don't know, anti-semitic?

When the researchers submitted their work in October last year, however, the centre's senior staff and management board objected to their definition of anti-semitism, which included some anti-Israel acts. The focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetrators, meanwhile, was judged inflammatory.

"There is a trend towards Muslim anti-semitism, while on the left there is mobilisation against Israel that is not always free of prejudice," said one person familiar with the report. "Merely saying the perpetrators are French, Belgian or Dutch does no justice to the full picture."

Some EUMC board members had also attacked part of the analysis ascribing anti-semitic motives to leftwing and anti-globalisation groups, this person said. "The decision not to publish was a political decision."

These were the best excuses the board memebrs who decided to shelve the report come up with:

Ole Espersen, law professor at Copenhagen University and board member for Denmark, said the study was "unsatisfactory" and that some members had felt anti-Islamic sentiment should be addressed too.

The EUMC, which was set in 1998, has published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe since the September 11 attacks in the US.

Beate Winkler, a director, said the report had been rejected because the initial time scale included in the brief - covering the period between May and June 2002 - was later judged to be unrepresentative. "There was a problem with the definition [of anti-semitism] too. It was too complicated," she said.

Okay, let me get this straight: they decided to pretend anti-semitism didn't exist in Europe because saying it does might be offensive to Muslims and left-wingers, who are the perpetrators of most of these anti-semitic acts. Isn't that siding with the criminals over the victims? But that's right, some Israeli built a house in the West Bank, so I guess it's all okay that some Jewish school gets firebombed in Paris.

(Via Roger L. Simon)

CNN/Money reports that NBC is considering launching a cable channel that shows nothing but episodes of Law & Order.

Can Conan O'Brien's dream of an all Law & Order Emmy's be far behind?

The following Telegraph piece is laden with rhetoric, but it's the right rhetoric. Nastyness isn't that nasty if it makes sense:

The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lapdancing and gay porn; the secular Europeans despise America because it's all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it's controlled by Jews. Too Jewish, too Christian, too Godless, America is also too isolationist, except when it's too imperialist. And even its imperialism is too vulgar and arriviste to appeal to real imperialists: let's face it, the ghastly Yanks never stick it to the fuzzy-wuzzy with the dash and élan of the Bengal Lancers, which appears to be the principal complaint of Sir Max Hastings and his ilk. To the mullahs, America is the Great Satan, a wily seducer; to the Gaullists, America is the Great Cretin, a culture so self-evidently moronic that only stump-toothed inbred Appalachian lardbutts could possibly fall for it. American popular culture is utterly worthless, except when one of its proponents - Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon - attacks Bush, in which case he or she is showered with European awards and sees the foreign-language rights for his latest tract sell for six figures at Frankfurt. The fact that the best-selling anti-Americans are themselves American - Moore, Chomsky - is perhaps the cruellest manifestation of the suffocating grip of the hyperpower.

Too Christian, too Godless, too isolationist, too imperialist, too seductive, too cretinous, America is George Orwell's Room 101: whatever your bugbear, you will find it therein - for the Continentals, excessive religiosity; for the Muslims, excessive decadence; for Harold Pinter, excessively bleeding rectums.

Go read the whole thing for even better nuggets on the "anti-war" movement.

The system works: A few weeks ago there was an item in the paper urging the sale of Free Trade Coffee on campus. Well, ask and ye shall receive. I don't really drink or care about coffee, but congratulations to those who worked hard to bring this stuff to campus.

Former Professor watch: Another of my former philosophy teachers made the paper this week. Ajume Wingo has released a book called Veil Politics in Liberal Democratic Societies. Check out the description:

His book describes how politics in the Western world rely heavily upon the use of icons and symbols.

Wingo opens his book with a critique of the significance of Abraham Lincoln's presence on the penny. He explores the fact that this most ubiquitous piece of government-issued tender in the country bears the visage of the so-called "Great Emancipator" who is associated with granting freedom to the enslaved and oppressed. The symbolic value of Lincoln's image plays right into the type of message the government wants to be sending to its citizens at all times.

"The image of Lincoln finds its way into every pocket and every child's piggy bank, and in doing so, various ideals and virtues associated with the image of Lincoln find their way as well into the daily lives of citizens," Wingo writes. He continues, "In a sense, this image becomes invisible, blending as it does into the commonplace background of everyday life. But, like language and the countless other tacit assumptions of everyday life, these unobtrusive images play a role in shaping our values, judgments and intuitions."

Pretty nifty.

'Who is this guy' watch: Another Lieberman letter!

And lastly, MassPIRG, MassPIRG, MassPIRG: The op/ed page reprints an editorial from the UMass Amherst paper... "MassPIRG Manipulates UMass Students."

I think I'm still undecided on this issue. While I think things like the UMass Amherst Day Care center and The Mass Media certainly add immeasurable value to a campus that they deserve the special relationship of being a check on/off organization on the tuition bill, I can't convince myself the same goes for MassPIRG. We've been told before that the money on the tuition bill goes straight to the state chapter of the advocacy group. The money isn't spent on campus, it's spent on interest group politics and lobbying. Why should any advocacy group be allowed to fund raise on state tuition bills?

Unfortunately HB 2400 doesn't differentiate between sensible campus organizations charging fees on a tuition bill and MassPIRG.

It's a well known fact that Massachusetts is home to the finest universities in the country. Harvard, Tufts, Amherst, Boston University, M.I.T., Holy Cross et. al ensure that Massachusetts is a bastion of brain power.

But what role do these institutions play off of their campuses? It is my contention that the saturation of private colleges in this state have undoubtedly effected public higher ed. for the worse. With the Ivy League and Second Choice schools at our doorsteps, there has never been an imperitive to create a world class public University system in this state. Public University is the ugly step-sister of higher ed. in this state, generally home to those who either can't compete into the private schools, or far more often, simply can't afford the private schools.

Well, if you thought the seamy underbelly of the despicable condition of public education in Massachusetts could fall no further, think again. Campus Press Notes has a good measurement of exactly how poorly funded my University system is:

SPENDING ON PRISONS VERSUS HIGHER EDUCATION: For the first time, state spending on prisons and corrections exceeded state spending on public higher education in fiscal 2004, according to an analysis to be released Monday by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

And it's not like Massachusetts has seen some kind of spike in criminal activity, or that we've built dozens of new prisons. It's just that, like every other state, we're in a fiscal crisis, and so they squeezed what little blood they could out of us, and now the sisters of the poor are even poorer. It's a crime that little liberal Taxachusetts has entirely abandoned affordable education for her citizens.

Steve at BTD says he's not part of the Grammar Police:

Make no mistake - I do not call myself a grammarian. That's just cruisin' for a bruisin'. Rather, I am of the school that thinks writers should, upon mastering the rudiments of style, dwell predominately in the vernacular and make judicious use of poetic license. I have a linguist friend, a southern gentleman, who delights me with his email colloquialisms... "I useta would eat Moon Pies and RC when we stayed down east."

I suppose this is part of the reason I took up the blogging arts. No editors.

No one telling me I can't over-hyphenate or make up words like "vocabularist" and "grammophile."

While I don't call myself a grammarian either, I do try to be grammatically correct as much as possible, even though there are probably some mistakes I still make or of which am not even aware. There are two problems with this, as Steve points out, namely that sometimes correct grammar sounds ridiculous and some people will see or hear it and think it's incorrect. But despite these problems, I'll continue to fight a losing battle and be a prescriptivist on this. Hey, just because other people are wrong doesn't mean I have to be.

I do not, however, correct other people's grammar. That's just asking for a kick to the shin, and I don't need any of those. The only time I DO correct someone else's grammar is when that person tries to correct someone else's, but is wrong or makes another mistake in the process.

I can solve one of Steve's grammar dilemmas though:

Accomplished grammophiles are constantly confronted with intractable word-choice dilemmas. Speak right and sound wrong? Or speak wrong and sound right?

Q: Who is there?
A: It is I.

Gimme a break. No one ever says that, nominative case be damned. We must choose to be the heathen or the prig.

How about:

Q: Who is there?
A: I am.

And Steve, you spelled 'gimme' wrong incorrectly.

Nick wrote:

I can imagine that Ramesh's blood boils whenever someone mentions a "right to privacy" but it's here, and it's working on your side in this case Ramesh. If only you weren't so bent on being idelogocially in favor of sodomy laws you might recognize how your argument is a detriment to your overall cause.

A quick Google search comes up with this from Ramesh Ponnuru on Lawrence v. Texas (emphasis added):

Most states have dropped their laws against sodomy, as they should have ...

***

I can see the reasons why someone might want to ban sodomy altogether, although I would not agree with such a ban. But I can't see the justification for singling out the same-sex variety.

***

I agree with Justice Thomas that the Texas law was "uncommonly silly." We should rejoice in the fact of its demise, but not the manner.

I should add that a lot of people, including me, think it would be quite constitutional for a state to outlaw heterosexual sex. Nick cites Griswald v. Connecticut as evidence that heterosexual sex is constitutionally protected, but one must distinguish between constitutional law and case law. Case law are subject to change all the time and one does not have to agree with all of it in making legal arguments. For example, if this were several years ago, I would assume that Nick would not agree with the contemporary case law on sodomy, so I don't see why Nick thinks Ponnuru must agree with Griswald v. Connecticut.

But most importantly, I would ask Nick to consider that just because someone writes for a conservative magazine does not mean that he automatically holds zealously all the opinions usually associated with his side.

Woman plagued by 200 orgasms a day.

I should probably point out most of these insane links were lifted from Dave Barry's blog. A must read.

The first of us to go international.

The turkeys are fighting back!!

UPDATE: The turkey problem appears to be the fault of environmentalists.

Apparently they had the good sense to know how funny this is:

Dead man's phone rings inside coffin

18 November 2003

ANTWERP - The family of a dead motorcyclist are pressing charges against bungling Antwerp undertakers after the man's mobile phone began ringing in his coffin as they sat beside it in a chapel of rest.

Marc Marchal, 32, was killed when his motorbike collided with a tractor near his home town of Rochefort. Mr. Marchal was so badly mutilated in the accident that undertakers advised his family that the coffin should remain closed as they said their last farewells.

The family gathered for a private remembrance service in the undertakers' premises the night before Mr. Marchal's funeral and were horrified when his mobile phone began ringing from within the coffin.

Some of the relatives were so shocked they ran into the street, while undertaker staff rushed to remove the cell phone from the dead man's clothing, the Gazet van Antwerpen reported.

The family are pressing charges against the undertakers firm for negligence in their preparation of Mr. Marchal's body for burial.

link.

Progressives for anything but Bush:

There was thus much in President Bush's very radical analysis, not least on the rights of women, that any serious British progressive - and even some protesters - might support. So far, however, he has not persuaded many of them to change their minds. It confirms our belief that the anti-Westernism of many Left-wingers trumps all other values in which they profess to believe. No matter: if he continues on this course, Mr Bush should create new realities on the ground among the "wretched of the earth'', as assuredly as Ronald Reagan did when he asserted his belief that the peoples of eastern Europe need not be consigned to despotism for ever.

Go read the whole column in the Telegraph.

Or how about this report from France:

The Chief Rabbi of France, Rabbi Joseph Sitruk, called on that country's Jewish community to wear baseball caps instead of skullcaps while not in their homes, in order "to prevent being attacked in the street." Daily newspaper Le Parisien reported in its Wednesday edition that Sitruk made the comments Tuesday in an interview on Radio Shalom, a Jewish community radio station.

Rabbi Sitruk's comments came three days after a Jewish school on the outskirts of Paris was the subject of an anti-Semitic arson attack. "I do not want young people traveling alone on trains or the Metro to become easy targets for attackers," he said. "Covering one's head is an important religious dictate, which should not be overlooked. On the contrary, today, more than ever, the Jewish community cannot shut itself off in a ghetto; it should be open, at
ease and safe."

Imagine if C.A.I.R. had to issue a warning to Muslims to cover their beards or not even go into the subway system in New York City. What kind of media frenzy would this cause? How would civil society be stirred up in order to protect the rights of Muslims?

Yet we continue to pretend that France, like the rest of Europe, is the home of a more enlightened, principled people.

At least they have passports!

Both links via Andrew Sullivan.

Ramesh Ponnuru on Lawrence v. Texas:

Let me go on to answer some hypothetical challenges that have been issued in other recent constitutional debates. If a courthouse in Alabama were to display excerpts from the Koran rather than the Decalogue, I would have no (federal) constitutional objection to that. And if, in some place where heterosexuals were a minority, the legislature outlawed heterosexual sex, I am not at all sure that there would be a valid (federal) constitutional objection to that, either. (There would, however, be a strong case for moving out of the jurisdiction.)

What Ramesh doesn't seem to know, or doesn't seem to care about, is the finding in Griswold v. Conneticut directly contradicts the idea that any jurisdiction could outlaw heterosexual sex (and here I'm quoting Justice Douglas' majority opinion from a text book):

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon the relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unneccessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surronding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes: a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Marriage is as old as humanity, and not something to be interfered with lightly.

Conservatives lose their right to stand in front of people and be taken seriously when they reduce their arguments to such absurd standards, as Ramesh has done. No one wants to live in a society where heterosexual sex could be outlawed, nor would we believe such a thing is Constitutionally, nor can Ramesh prove that it is.

If conservatives oppose gay marriage because, amongst many reasons, it can't be consumated, how can Ramesh argue the legality of a ban on heterosexual sex? If you accept those premises, doesn't this mean he's really arguing that heterosexual marriage can be outlawed?

I can imagine that Ramesh's blood boils whenever someone mentions a "right to privacy" but it's here, and it's working on your side in this case Ramesh. If only you weren't so bent on being idelogocially in favor of sodomy laws you might recognize how your argument is a detriment to your overall cause.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is demanding that Clay Aiken apologize for comments he made about cats:

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants "American Idol" runner-up Clay Aiken to apologize for his anti-cat sentiments expressed in Rolling Stone, and they're holding their next ad campaign over his head until he does. An ad with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog featuring the slogan, "Get Neutered, It Didn't Hurt Clay Aiken" will commence unless Aiken makes amends to cat lovers. Should he do so, the slogan will be changed to "Cut 'em off. They don't taste that great anyway."

What exactly did Clay say? How about:

"I think cats are Satan," Aiken said. "There's nothing worse to me than a house cat. When I was about sixteen, I had a kitten and ran over it. Seeing that cat die, I actually think that its spirit has haunted me. I wasn't afraid of cats before. But now they scare me to death."

"It's a stupid statement," says PETA Vice President Dan Matthews. "We get calls every week from people who throw kittens on barbecues because it's funny. Or people who light cats on fire, or people who drag cats from cars. It's so irresponsible that we wrote him after that interview came out and he never got back to us. So we thought, you know, fair game, let's go for it."

Appearantely PETA Vice President Dan Matthews hasn't heard Triumph's latest cd, where he curses Bob Barker for advocating neutering and where he earns his parental advisory label by saying Cats are... Bianca Jagger's.

PETA... simply and utterly pathetic.

Tyler Cowen has some thoughts on its implications on immigration.

Instapundit writes:

Yes, like the New York Times with Augusta, the BBC has been doing everything it could to pump turnout -- only, it appears, to produce a rather disappointing number of actual protesters. Do you think the media are paper tigers?

Hey, at least the BBC got a protester/story ratio over 1. The NYT couldn't even do that. They did about 40 stories on the Masters, but couldn't even get 40 people to show up and protest. I say, advantage, BBC!

Proof that any dumbass liberal with a computer can put together an Internet quiz ... and people like me will line up and take it:


You are George Walker Bush! You are the most
powerful man in the world, which leaves you
little time to think for yourself. Fortunately,
you have your friends to think for you!


Which member of the Bush Administration are you?

(Via Dean Esmay)

This was in Paul Zimmerman's column on trash talking in football:

Harris Barton, the old 49ers tackle, told me about the first time he faced Reggie White. The Rev. White's conversation on the field wasn't exactly trash talk. It was more of a religious conversion attempt.

"First play he said, 'How ya doin', Harris,'" Barton said, "and I said, 'Fine.'

"Next play he said, 'God bless you, Harris,' and I said, 'Thank you.'

"Next play he said, 'Harris, have you thought about bringing Christ into your life?' and I said, 'Reggie, I'm Jewish.'

"After that he wouldn't talk to me anymore."

Lots of people are taking John Derbyshire to task for this post:

1. If "gay marriage" is legalized, will prisoners be able to marry their cell mates? If not, why not?

2. In many jurisdictions, a marriage can be annulled if it has not been consummated. What, exactly, constitutes "consummation" of a gay marriage?

Obviously this was meant to be funny, and it offended some people who thought that it was homophobic. What they need to keep in mind, however, is that these are the exact questions that the courts will have to consider if gay marriage were legalized.

Consider this question that one of Derbyshire's emailers proposed, which is like the serious version of Derbyshire's first question:

... what if two men who are partners in crime take the precaution of marrying, so that they can each be sure that the other one won't turn state's evidence at trial, should they be caught?

To which I would add: what if two partners in crime get married after they are arrested? Would they still get the same immunity from testifying against one another?

Or consider this scenario: two men get married. One of the men has a child with a woman who then gives the two men full parental rights. The woman regularly visits the child and is a part of the child's life. Years later, the two men get divorced. Who gets custody? In straight marriages, if one of the parents is the biological parent while the other is not, the biological parent is overwhelmingly favored by the court. (Put aside the argument that the court should decide simply on the merits of the parents and not favor one over another in all cases; the law is what it is and it's not going to change soon) Does the man from whom the sperm came get treated as the biological parent should there be a custody battle, thereby almost guaranteeing him custody of the child? Or should the court consider the extenuating circumstance in which it is biologically impossible for both men to be the biological parents of the same child, and disregard the fact that one of the men is the biological parent? And what about the rights of the mother? Should she be given the custody instead, is she wants it, since courts usually favor the biological mother above all others?

And how about this: two women who both want to be biological parents of their child comes up with an ingenious plan. The fertilized egg of one of the women is removed and implanted into the womb of her partner, so in a way both parents are biological parents: one gives the baby its DNA while the other carries the baby to term. Again, how should the courts decide on custody? Which parent, if either, should the court favor?

As for Derbyshire's second question, while I'm not a law scholar, I'm very sure that there is already a case somewhere in our history in which a court have had to consider whether a marriage has been consummated after the couple went to third base but not go all the way. We've had cases of people suing the devil, for Christ's sake.

All of this is to say, again, that there are real legal questions that will have be considered if gay marriage were legalized. Personally, I would feel much more comfortable if these issues were decided by state legislatures instead of the courts, because since these types of cases will most likely not make it out of district courts, these very important questions will be decided not on the will of the public or even the legislators or the judges as a whole, but on blind luck depending on which individual district judge gets assigned to a few specific cases. This is one of the reasons why I thought only state legislatures, and not courts, should be the ones to legalize gay marriage. If it were done by a legislature, they can consider the hundreds of questions that will come with such a monumental change at the same time as they pass the bill on legalization, but it's simply impossible (or a massive abuse of power) for courts to do so because of dicta limitations.

I don't believe that the world will go to hell if gay marriage were legalized like some conservatives think it will, but it's not a simple as "legalize it, everyone lives happily ever after" either.

Well this can't be good:

For the first time since 2000, Beijing has threatened to use force against Taiwan should the island's pro-independence movement continue to escalate.

In a tough statement, the Vice-Minister at Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Wang Zaixi said Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's recent pro-separatist activities had crossed Beijing's "red line" and that they "run the risk of triggering a war" with the mainland.

"War will break out if the island declares formal independence," state media on Wednesday quoted Wang as saying.

"[The separatist forces] are set to pay a high cost if they think we will not use force against their conspiracy to promote formal independence."

The article goes on to say that this might be China's attempt to influence the next presidential election in Taiwan, as it did in the previous election, though I don't know whether that is good or bad news.

Exaxtly zero people will agree with Q magazine's list of top 100 records. I'll confine my criticism to the fact that Radiohead had nine of the 100 songs on that list. However good they might be, they did not write one out of every eleven great songs in history.

And in semi-related news, Eminem, who had the number six song, is in trouble for a tape unearthed from his teen years with allegedly racist lyrics. Read the story and judge for yourself, since I don't listen to his music and don't really care.

Too many whales:

A protected species of bird is devouring rare fish in the German state of Bavaria and creating a dilemma for local officials who now want federal permission to kill birds that once appeared headed for extinction.

This is what Scott Adams of Dilbert wrote about whales:

I predict that in the future the problem will be too many whales, not too few, thanks to genetic engineering ... I think scientists will be able to whip up any kind of whale we want in the lab and then release it in the bay, sewer, or anyplace else we think would look better with a few whales. And you won't have to make do with the boring gray and humpback whales we have now. We'll have polka-dot whales, two-headed whales, talking whales, whalephants, flying whales, you name it. I'm not saying this will be a good thing, but it will give us a whole new attitude about how many species are too many.

I bet this is the best news my friend Chris gets today:

In a sign of the growing importance of DVD sales to Hollywood, 20th Century Fox is considering a plan to resume production of Family Guy, a sometimes crude animated comedy that the Fox network took off the air more than 18 months ago.

As many as 35 new episodes could return in January 2005, marking the first time that a canceled series has been revived based on strong DVD demand and ratings in syndication.

Now if only they would release the Seinfeld DVDs ...

Let's begin with Ken Livingstone's quote and today's episode of CROSSFIRE:

TUCKER CARLSON: Bianca Jagger, thanks a lot for joining us.

I want to read you a quote from the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. Doubtless you know his. He's a leader of the anti-Bush demonstrations in London this week. This is what he said about President Bush. I'm quoting now.

"Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction." Most threatening. Greatest threat ever. That's going above a lot of people, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il. I mean, the list goes on. That's a completely ludicrous, very non-adult thing to say.

How can you take seriously Ken Livingstone or anyone who would follow him after he says something like that?

BIANCA JAGGER, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE: Well, I think that, one, Mr. Livingstone is trying to say is that President Bush's policies have really endangered our future.

This is a president that has turned his back on all international treaties, who has totally disregarded the U.N. charter. Who has launched a war that was illegal and immoral. And now he cannot justify, because weapons of mass destruction have not been found.

And what is really embarrassing for Prime Minister Blair is that this is really not a very untimely visit of President Bush. Because at a moment when they're trying to find reasons to have gone to war, it becomes more and more evident that, one, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and two, that the policies that they have for Iraq are all failing.

And on one hand they tell us that they're withdrawing, and on the other hand they're telling that they will not give up.

And, therefore, I think that what Ken Livingstone is trying to say is that President Bush is someone that we all are very concerned to have as the president of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world.

What Ms. Jagger, the "Human Rights Advocate", is practicing here is something called bait and switch. Let's parse this out.

You can read on plenty other blogs about how the war was definitely not illegal, but the more damning charge was that of immorality. To put things very bluntly, when I heard Ms. Jagger make this charge I spat out my dinner and used a four letter word I generally don't like to use. And I don't mean "grab." (If you haven't seen that movie commercial, a four letter word for "snatch" rhymes with "punt")

Here's what the people of Iraq are saying about the "immoral" war (via JG):

Edan's favorites are the back-and-forth graffiti repartee: "The masses are stronger than tyrants," one slogan declared. Next to it a skeptic asked: "When? Before or after liberation by the Americans?"

****

Samplings of the Arabic slogans include: "Down Saddam the infidel and long live Bush the believer!" "A thousand Americans but not one Tikriti," referring to residents of Hussein's hometown.

Many taunt the deposed dictator: "Saddam the dirty, the son of the dirty, in which septic tank are you hiding now?"

Hussein's family also comes in for abuse: "Where are your wife and daughters, Saddam? Are you pimping them in Jordan?"

"I like what I read," said Karal Nadji, a Shia street vendor who sells shoes. "We appreciate Mr. Bush. We're all waiting for the fruits of change."

In case you didn't catch on, except for the last quote, these are all quotes which have been graffiti'd onto the walls of Baghdad under the cover of night. How can anyone with two brain cells to rub together continue to call this war immoral?

Does the "Human Rights Advocate" not understand that the people of Baghdad are on our side? They're protesting in the streets against terrorism (link also via JG), in just a few short months the Iraqi people have come to understand the reality of the world and the meaning of freedom far better than any of the organic-corn fed hucksters filling the streets of London.

Let's fire up the "Andrew Stuttaford in the Corner" fueled links machine. What's going on over there:

First. Andrew links to this juicy Daily Telegraph quote "The European Union is failing to keep track of huge annual subsidies, and 91 per cent of its budget is riddled with errors or cannot be verified, a financial watchdog said yesterday. The European Court of Auditors refused to certify EU accounts for the ninth successive year..." Greed, excess and corporate corruption. How un-American of them. (McDonald's made them do it, duh. ed.)

The Guardian has several interesting stories. Their expanded letters page is wall to wall Bush, and it begins here. I'm only about a third of the way through them, but be sure to check out this particularly enlightened viewpoint from the second page:

I address you, George, in your capacity as the world's leading terrorist fundamentalist.

****

Truthfully, George, you are a disaster. You have managed, in a few short months and years, to identify the first part of the 21st century as the time when a voracious new American empire burst upon the world. In the world outside the US, nobody believes in your calls for democracy. You stole your own election. You try to strangle democracies, like Venezuela, which do not deliver pliant regimes.

****

We live in a world, George, where we have to live together, to find common solutions to the huge problems that afflict us. The horrific irony is that there are answers to poverty; to war, racism, disease and ignorance. You, in the name of your god and your country, are deliberately drowning out those answers in your patriotic and bellicose clamour, because as you know they imply a world without you or your kind.

Signed Imran Khan, Human rights lawyer. Triple Bonus Points if you can figure out how a "HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER" can logically reason that the liberation of the Iraqi people from the barbarous Saddam Hussein was a "disaster." And what the hell did George do to Venezuela? I can't believe George was behind the popular uprising which led to their general strike last summer.

Quadruple Bonus Points if you e-mail this blog with the answers to poverty, war, racism, disease and ignorance. I'd like to be educated.

Contrary to the idiot bile fest found on their Letters page, the Guardian reports that 62% of the British public believe that the USA is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world." Meanwhile 47% of those polled believe Operation Iraqi Freedom was a justifiable war, 41% still oppose the war.

Check out these numbers:

The detailed results of the poll show that more people - 43% - say they welcome George Bush's arrival in Britain than the 36% who say they would prefer he did not come.

Labour voters are more enthusiastic about the visit than Tory voters. But it is only Liberal Democrats who are marginally more unhappy about his arrival, with 43% against and 39% willing to welcome him. A majority of twenty-somethings welcome Mr Bush. Hostility is strongest amongst the over-65s. There is a clear gender gap in attitudes with a majority of men - 51% - welcoming the president's arrival, compared with only 35% of women.

Pro-Americanism, as might be expected, is strongest among Tory voters with 71% saying the US is a force for good. But it is nearly matched by the 66% of Labour voters who say the US is a force for good. Anti-Americanism is strongest among Liberal Democrat voters but is still only shared by 24% of them and the majority see the US as the "good guys".

So let's set the record straight. 71% of Tory voters, 66% of Labour voters as well as a majority of twenty-somethings LIKE the United States, versus only 24% of Liberal Democrats who consider themselves in some form or fashion "anti-american."

Check out the CNN graph on the right to see how insignificant these Liberal Democrats are in the British Parliament. The data is a little outdated (c. May 2001), but it's the first graph I found. The CNN link is for their "UK Votes 2001" page, the feature story highlighting the "latest blow" to the Conservative party in Britain. If the Tory's are considered a weak-and-getting-weaker party, why do we concern ourselves with the Liberal Democrats, a party that holds 40% less electoral power than the Tory's?

How do you spell overly-vocal minority in British? I'm guessing that I'm missing an "re" somewhere.

Or check out this photo I took just last May. It was a quaint protest of about a dozen people, none of them really paying attention, in a park near the Parliament building. I apologize for the quality, it was my first real excursion as a digital photographer, but the image is clear enough to prove my point.

Does the Lift go all the way to the top? Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, denounces George W. Bush as "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen." Dubya as a far greater threat to the world than Hitler, A.I.D.S., the nuclear Cold War, the plague, poverty, global warming or the designated hitter? Right.

MORE: Andrew Sullivan reports that Germany has ended political asylum for people from Iraq. Why have the Germans done this? Because "at the time and in the near future political persecution in Iraq can be ruled out."

What a terrible thing we've done!

Andrew also links to this message from an Iraqi:

I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime, just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime...
Through out these decades I lost trust in the world governments and international committees.
Terms like (human rights, democracy and liberty..etc.) became hollow and meaningless and those who keep repeating these words are liars..liars..liars.
I hated the U.N and the security council and Russia and France and Germany and the arab nations and the islamic conference.
I've hated George Gallawy and all those marched in the millionic demonstrations against the war. It is I who was oppressed and I don't want any one to talk on behalf of me,
I, who was eager to see rockets falling on Saddam's nest to set me free, and it is I who desired to die gentlemen, because it's more merciful than humiliation as it puts an end to my suffer, while humiliation lives with me reminding me every moment that I couldn't defend myself against those who ill-treated me.....
Believe me, we were living in the "kingdom of horror".
Please tell me how could the world that claims to be civilized let Saddam launch chemical weapons on his own un-armed people?
Shame..
Can anyone tell me why the world let Saddam remain and stood against America's will to topple him? ... You all owe the Iraqi people an apology.

Andrew adds: "And today, these "anti-war" protestors campaign not against Assad or Saddam or bin Laden, but against the man who liberated these beleaguered, terrorized people. The demonstrators sicken, appall and horrify me. Whatever your views on the war, the mass graves surely made frenzied opposition moot. These useful idiots have come undone."

Indeed. While there may be much to criticize about the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom (see the letter from Salam Pax, the Baghdad Blogger, here), the protestors who represent the anti-war left greatly lack the desire or political skill to effect change in this administration's policies, mainly because they're unwilling to play ball. To actually provide encouragement or effect change in the rebuilding process... to help ensure that the Iraqi people will live in freedom and prosperity... would necessarily force the anti-war hystericals to concede that the war was justified in the first place.

If the French, Germans and Russians wanted to see Iraq become a better place couldn't they donate soldiers and money in spite of their objections to America? Wouldn't a truely noble and enlightened society overcome their disgust for the savage Americans in order to dedicate themselves to a greater cause? The answer is NON. It's not America that is preventing the internationalization of Iraq, it's the international community. They're too unprepared and underfunded, totally unwilling to help rebuild the blood soaked society of Iraq.

Heaven forbid these useless idiots throw down their anti-war gauntlet and try and help make the world a better place. What a funny little corner these protestors have painted themselves into.

I'm not a Krugman blogger, but the UK cover to his new book is just disgusting.

Some interesting reactions to the gay marriage decision by local activists, law experts and former politicians on New England Cable News's Newsnight with Chet Curtis program. For the most part, the conservatives all have a more rigid interpretation than the liberals. While the liberals think the decision left some "wiggle room" for real decision making by the legislature, the conservatives all think that they were soundly defeated.

According to the conservatives, there is nothing the legislature could do to prevent the court from legalizing gay marriage in six months. Even if the legislature approve a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman next February, which would be voted on for approval by referendum in the November 2006 elections, the court would not put their decision on hold. Potentially, we could have a situation where gay marriage is legal when the public is against it and it's obvious that they would vote to get rid of it in two and a half years. According to the liberals, the court might allow the legislature to pass a version of civil unions instead, though they agree that this would not make the gay couples happy and could lead to further litigation.

I was flipping through the three major news channels, FOX, CNN, and MSNBC, to see some discussion of today's gay marriage decision, but all they want to talk about are Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson. Who gives a flying ...

Eugene Volokh, a supporter of gay marriage, has quotes showing that those who were against the Equal Rights Amendment were right when they argued that it would lead to gay marriage. Here's one example:

"Discussion of [the ERA] bogged down in hysterical claims that the amendment would eliminate privacy in bathrooms, encourage homosexual marriage, put women in the trenches and deprive housewives of their husbands' support." N.Y. Times, July 5, 1981 (excerpt of a book by Betty Friedan).

And this is what Volokh says:

But this decision -- and the Hawaii decision cited by the concurrence, which has since been reversed by the Hawaii voters -- shows us that we shouldn't lightly dismiss plausible, facially valid textual arguments (the text bars discrimination based on sex, and the marriage laws do treat people differently based on their sex) as "canards," "scare tactics," or "hysteric[s]." The anti-ERA forces, much as I probably disagree with most of them on many things, have proved prescient.

Today, we having some of the same arguments. Those against gay marriage argue that it could lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest, and beastiality, while proponents of gay marriage dismiss this argument as hysterical and their opponents as bigots who think all gay people like to have sex with minors or animals.

As I have said many times, I'm in favor of gay marriage. But I don't think that the arguments of those who don't favor it should be readily dismissed. Much to their chargin, their slippery slope argument about the ERA has been proven right, and it's not inconceivable that they could be right again in the slippery slope argument they are making now about gay marriage. I for one think that it's a risk worth taking, but I'm not going to call people homophobes or religious nuts if they choose to differ.

UPDATE: This Volokh post, above the other one I cited, is even more striking.

Virginia Postrel has this to say about the Mass. SJC decision:

All hell will now break out. I only hope that the movement toward gay marriage survives the ensuing backlash.

This was the reason why, despite my support generally of gay marriage, I did not think that the Mass. SJC should have struck down the same sex ban. This is a highly controversial issue, and those who are on the fence will not be happy that this was decided for them by a few judges.

Given that the decision did not grant the couple a marriage license, but instead assigned the task of settling the situation to the legislature, there are a few ways this could go:

--Outright gay marriage Most of the Democrats in the state legislature have their seats locked up, but this might be one issue that could put their jobs in jeopardy. Also, having a solid majority for the longest time means the Democrats have not had to actually do anything, so it's unlikely that they will do something controversial now.

--Civil union I think this is the most likely. The legislators can say the court forced their hand into doing it to modertaes, and still be protected from the left flank.

--Nothing The legislature could simply refuse to comply, either by not considering a solution, or having it voted down. And either way, they might not be able to muster a supermajority to bypass a veto by Governor Romney, a Mormon from Utah.

--Referendum to change the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman This was tried last year, but the legislature rejected it. I don't say how they can reject it again, but the court might force the legislature to settle way before this can get on the ballot.

UPDATE: Robert Alt clarifies what it means for the court to "order" the legislature:

The Court neither remanded the case, nor "ordered" the legislature to do anything. Rather, the SCOMA stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days "to permit the legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." By granting the stay, the Court essentially recognized that it had created a substantial rupture with current law by redefining the term civil marriage, and therefore prevented the decision from taking effect instantaneously so that the legislature may seek to formally modify the law or implementing legislation to correspond with the legislation. However, the court did not remand or order the legislature to do anything. Indeed, based on the plain language of the court's opinion, the legislature could use the time to enact legislation that reaffirms that marriage is between one man and one woman, or could seek to modify the Constitution to prevent the outcome dictated by the SCOMA.

The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court finally returned with a decision: Massachusetts court strikes down ban on same-sex marriage.

Don't let the headline fool you. Based upon the reuters story it doesn't appear that the Court has mandated legal same-sex marriage, it only decided that the state can not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."

Thomas F. Schaller argues in the Washington Post that the Democratic presidential candidate should give up the South in the next election. His analysis completely ignores two of the biggest problems with this strategy.

First is that if the Democrats give up the South, so could the Republicans. The Republicans can spend a minimal amount in the South and win the electoral votes of every state there. Meanwhile, they can put the money they would save into the same states that the Democrats are putting their money in. In effect, the Democrats wouldn't be gaining any advantage in the swing states even while they lose any chance of winning a Southern state.

The other problem is the effect such a strategy would have on state and Congressional races. Schaller points out that the Democrats have steadily lost seats in each election in the last thirty years, but does not consider that the process might be greatly accelerated if the Democratic candidate does not even bother showing up in the South. There are a great number of Senate seats in the South that the Democrats simply could not concede to the Republicans. Democrats have 6 Senate seats to defend: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Quite simply, if the Democratic presidential candidate gives up the South, the Republicans could win every one of those seats.

Fortunately for the Democrats, they show no signs that they are going to adopt this strategy.

Instapundit contrasts the media reactions to the Saddam/al Qaeda connection story and the cronyism in Iraq reconstruction contracts story. I'd also throw in the Valerie Plame story and the Democratic leaked memo from the Intelligence Committee into the comparison.

"Rings director cuts wizard scenes":

Actor Christopher Lee has said he was mystified to learn that his key scenes have been dropped from the third Lord of the Rings movie.

Lee, 81, who plays the wizard Saruman in the trilogy, said he had expected to appear in seven minutes' worth of climactic scenes.

"Of course I am very shocked, that's all I can say," he told ITV1's This Morning on Wednesday.

Lee fans have now started an online petition to restore the scenes.

Big Brother is watching Viking Pundit, and he's showing his powers by ... gviing VP a free Mach 3 razor. Next thing you know, VP'll be attacked with other free gifts like shampoo and Best Buy certificates in the daily mail.

Michele suggests buying lots of stuff on Novemeber 28 to protest Buy Nothing Day.

Bill Cowher should be the next coach of the New York Giants.

Polipundit writes:

If Jindal had won, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe would have lost his job. Now he can stay on and be as incompetent as ever.

Huh? So once again, the Democrats gets their butts kicked in an election, but because they won the last race in Louisiana, held on a later date than the other elections because of their peculiar system, McAuliffe gets to keep his job? I'm not saying Polipundit is wrong in his assessment, but asking, if he is right, what the hell are the Democrats thinking?

Why astrology is bunk. (Via Polipundit)

In the Henan province in China:

In the mid 1990's the communist party authorities in Henan encouraged poor rural farmers to sell their blood.

Mobile collection units toured rural villages.

Millions of villagers took up the call.

But the blood collectors ignored even the most basic standards of hygiene.

Dirty equipment was used over and over. Donor blood was mixed together, the plasma removed, and then what remained pumped back into the donors blood streams.

HIV spread out of control through the whole blood collection system.

No-one for sure how many people were infected, at least 500,000, maybe more.

And this is what the Chinese government is doing about it:

Having infected so many of its own people, China's communist rulers are now doing everything they can to stop the outside world from finding out.

My trip to Shuang Miao was unapproved, illegal.

The people who took me there did so at great risk to their own safety. Villagers told me they had been warned by local officials not to talk to the media, that the Aids situation in Henan was a state secret.

The brave few who have spoken out are constantly harassed and threatened, some have ended up in jail.

And while it continues to deny the Aids crisis in Henan, the communist party is leaving the victims to die.

In Shuang Miao all the villagers I met had one request.

"Can you get us medicine?" they begged. "Please, we need medicine."

Last week with much fanfare China's health minister announced plans to provide free anti-Aids drugs to all of China's poor Aids victims.

But in Shuang Miao village there is not sign of them.

"They are waiting for us to die," one villager told me. "Once we are all dead their problem will be solved".

I think Josh Marshall, Mark Kleiman, and Tom Maguire need to be all over this potential Department of Justice cover-up of some new information like they did with the on-hold Valerie Plame story. The DoD had a press release denying the recently leaked information. Of course, it all depends on the definition of "confirmed".

When we go to Vegas, we're staying at New York New York.

Israel suggests the EU should establish a council on anti-Semitism because "a controversial opinion poll carried out by the EU's executive, the European Commission, found that more Europeans see Israel as a threat to world peace than any other country."

The Euros respond:

However, some EU officials are concerned at what they see as a tendency to stigmatize legitimate criticism of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.

In Paris, President Jacques Chirac chaired urgent top-level ministerial talks on fighting anti-Semitism in France after the firebombing of a Jewish school in a Paris suburb.

Synagogues and Jewish schools have been attacked repeatedly in recent years, violence authorities link to poor Muslim youths enraged by Israel's tough policies against Palestinian unrest.

Do repeated attacks on synagogues and fire bombings of Jewish schools constitute legitimate criticism of Israeli policies? Of course not! So wouldn't an increase in these activities indicate a rise in anti-Semitism? Of course! And shouldn't these crimes be seriously addressed as the sort of hateful rhetoric which plunged Europe into war countless times, and not just some "humiliated" minority "venting steam"?

What's the HTML representation of crickets chirping?

MORE DATA: For those who believe that anti-Muslim hysteria has swepped the United States of America, recently released FBI statistics prove otherwise. According to the FBI hate crimes against Muslims represent only 11% of all hate crimes in this country, which is enough crime to fall into 2^nd place.

The most persecuted religion in this country? How about the Jews, with a whopping 65% of all hate crimes committed in this country being committed against them.

... have caused many communities to rethink their fire prevention schemes.

For proof that some sensible Liberalness still exists in the pages of the liberal Guardian check out this column:

There is, I think, a widely shared fantasy which you might call the No-America Dream. In this happy place we have somehow done away with the economic and military superpower. We watch sophisticated French films or Ealing studio reruns, our thin citizens dine out on organic Brie, there is no Israel to over-excite the populations of the Middle East, and everyone signs up to stop climate change. If only the Yanks would go home. If only we could stop Bush.

The degree to which America is held uniquely responsible for the sins of the world is remarkable. To give but one example, writing in last week's New Statesman, a journalist called Neil Clark accuses America of being behind the Russian oligarchs who President Putin is so wisely (if unconstitutionally) cracking down on at the moment. 'In the oligarchs,' says Clark, 'Perle... saw a way in which the US and Israel could, by proxy, gain political and economic power in Russia...' The 'and Israel' should have warned the editor of the New Statesman what he was dealing with here. I suggest he visits David Irving's home page or the revisionist Zundelsite website very soon.

The double standards here are obvious but worth a reminder. During the week anti-Bush protesters will, we're told, be splashing red paint to symbolise the spilled blood of the people of Iraq. No such red paint was splashed around London after Halabja, after the 1991 Shia and Kurdish uprisings or during the Iran-Iraq war, almost as if that were not real Iraqi blood. Blood, after all, is only blood if Americans spill it.

****

Where is the red paint to protest against the blasts at Najaf, of the UN in Baghdad, of the Red Cross, of the synagogues, of the Bali night-club, of the Arab-Jewish restaurant in Haifa? Where are the 'No Suicide Bombings' posters in the Muswell Hill windows? Or do you really believe we can save ourselves by constructing a huge wall around these islands, or around America, and painting it with smileys? That maybe then the ills of the world will leave us alone?

Nonsense. So, Mr Bush, not for yourself necessarily, but in your capacity as head of state of a liberal democracy, and as representative of a people that we admire, and whose help we have needed in the past and may need again, I say welcome.

(Link via The Corner.)