Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.
Actually, I had quite a few years like that before I was married, and I consider it a good thing, though I'm quite happy to be married now and wouldn't have wanted to live that way forever. (But I think that one reason that I'm happily married now is that I did live that way for quite a while first). But I agree with David Brooks that gay marriage is a good thing, and actually strengthens traditional values rather than harming them.
UPDATE: Got a few emails like this one:
So you are saying promiscuity is OK? That indiscriminate sex is OK? That degrading your self for sexual gratification is OK? Is this what you teach your children? I don't agree with you at all! Gay sex is not natural nor normal and cannot strengthen our decaying traditional moral values!
Hmm. I didn't say anything about "indiscriminate sex," now did I? Funny that some people can't conceive of anything else. Nor was my pre-marital love life "Hefneresque," as another reader puts it. These strike me as rather revealing reactions -- much like those who, on another topic, assume that all war is equivalent to "carpet bombing" or that owning a gun guarantees mass slaughter. Moderation, apparently, is inconceivable to some people.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Bruce Bridges emails:
As a single man that has not found the right girl even at this late date, I am one of those that has been pulverising all that is private and delicate blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaah.
The problem with those that need to point out my failings is of course that they can't stop themselves. First it was gays, then single sinners and of course eventually, married people that are corrupt enough to venture beyond the missionary position.
The republicans would do well to recognize that this way of thinking is what most of us think of as "fringe".
Given a choice, I'll hang with the sodomites thank you.
Yeah. But my point was that to arrive at what is, in fact, the kind of marriage that Brooks describes (except perhaps for the "I am you" angle, which seems a bit creepy to me), I had to pass through the kind of conduct he deplores. Only I think that I couldn't have the one without the other. I'm deeply suspicious, frankly, of people who assume that all sex outside marriage is somehow depraved or corrupt or instrumental. Perhaps they are projecting, or perhaps they are just ignorant. It certainly seems to me -- as I indicate above -- that sex is to some on the right what violence is to some on the left: something seen as so dangerous, and so powerful, that if it is not kept entirely in check, it is sure to go completely out of control. I regard both kinds of thinking as misguided.
And, at any rate, the one kind of lust that appears to be incapable of satiety is the lust to control others' lives. . . .
INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS in Georgia. I think this may turn out to be a positive development, but I'm not at all sure.
posted at 08:07 PM by Glenn Reynolds
EVERYBODY'S EMAILING to ask what I think about this scandal involving the UT Issues Committee, political bias, death threats, and so on. Actually, I don't know anything that hasn't been in the papers -- I don't have a lot to do with undergraduate activities. Though I haven't done much recently, I used to deal with them fairly often and found them OK. It's probably true that their offerings lean left -- though the only one I've noticed lately involved Tucker Carlson -- but I don't know the extent to which that reflects the offerings. But they do seem to have rejected reasonable requests for non-lefty speakers. Surely they could bring Jonah Goldberg or Andrew Sullivan to campus. And I'd like that.
The death threats and racial slurs aimed at conservative students, if true, are obviously beyond the pale. But I don't know any more about that stuff than you do, once you read the stories. In general, Tennessee has been largely free from the kind of political correctness that marked other campuses. When our recent -- and now fired and under criminal investigation -- President came in, we seemed to see more of that (read this post for an example, and an update here -- but read this too). President Shumaker is gone now, and not much lamented, and perhaps the University will ensure that political correctness is not part of his legacy.
London-based terrorists tried last year to buy half a tonne of toxic chemicals with the aim of killing thousands.
Their plot came to light when the supplier became suspicious about the quantities of chemicals involved. . . .
The effort to buy the saponin was in some ways inept. Apart from the quantities that were ordered - 500 to 1,000 times the normal order from a university laboratory - the explanation for the planned use of the product was also incredible.
The group described its intended use as "a fire retardant on rice intended for human consumption".
Traces of ricin were found in a police raid on a north London flat in January.
Seven people were arrested and four of them later charged with possession of articles of value to terrorists and with being concerned with the production and development of a chemical weapon.
The ineptitude is comforting. The effort isn't.
UPDATE: A couple of readers correctly note that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was inept, too. That's right. These guys aren't especially bright, but they're persistent, and they learn from their mistakes, which is enough to make them dangerous.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Mark Draughn notes this story from USA Today about the way in which the inept 1993 attack led to improvements in safety and evacuation that sharply cut the death toll in 2001. Scroll down to the "lessons learned from terrorists" section. Yes, learning is a two-way street -- or it had better be. I wrote something on that subject here.
posted at 02:59 PM by Glenn Reynolds
THIS STORY is less than surprising, from several angles:
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.
From: Sgt. Mom To: Assorted European Intellectuals and Those Americans
Who Wish They Were Also Re: On Being Snookered by an Archetype
Read the whole thing.
posted at 08:28 AM by Glenn Reynolds
ROBERT FISK CAN SLEEP SOUNDLY: Walter Duranty's Pulitzer won't be revoked. The penalty for obfuscating tyrants' murders seems a small one, which perhaps explains why there's so much of that going on.
posted at 08:26 AM by Glenn Reynolds
November 21, 2003
ELECTRONIC VOTING isn't playing well in Los Alamos, a place with a high geek population. It's regarded as insecure. Numerous links and comments, at Slashdot. The line in the post about right wing conspiracy theories is amusing, in light of the numerous left-wing conspiracy theories in the comments. But conspiracy theories aside, it's a real issue.
posted at 07:20 PM by Glenn Reynolds
JOHN FITZGERALD BUSH? This weekend, in particular, George W. must hope that the parallels aren't too close. I keep getting emails about the zero-year curse, but unsurprisingly I regard it as twaddle. But various people seem to be taking it seriously.
RECIPEBLOGGING: Some other bloggers are always posting recipes. Here's one that I like because it's quick, and good. It's sort of a default option around here in the winter:
Pasta with Tomato, Basil and Chevre sauce
1 lb. pasta, any kind; 1 or 2 large ripe tomatoes; 1/4 cup (good) extra-virgin olive oil; fresh basil leaves (dried will work, but it's not as good); 2 cloves garlic, minced (dried will work, but it's not as good); 4-5 ounces fresh chevre cheese; sea salt and fresh ground black pepper.
Put the pasta in to boil (I told you this was quick). Then chop the tomatoes into small bits. Combine in the bowl with the other ingredients. Use lots of pepper. The chevre cheese will melt and combine with the ingredients into a wonderful creamy sauce when you add the hot, drained pasta to the bowl. Just toss it a bit and serve. You can substitute or add a lot of ingredients -- I often add some crumbled Feta, for example, and you can use mushrooms or peppers in place of the tomatoes -- and it'll still come out good. The chevre and the basil are the key.
This is from a great cook book called While The Pasta Cooks, which is full of quick and easy pasta recipes that are awfully good. I've changed their recipe just a bit, but it works fine the way they have it, too.
Coming soon: my recipe for Thanksgiving Leg of Lamb.
UPDATE: Where do I get ripe tomatoes in winter, someone asks. At the store! The Fresh Market gets 'em flown in from Chile, I think. The beauty of globalization. . . .
A TEAM of negotiators and former soldiers from Tokyo has been sent to the jungles of the Philippines to try to bring home soldiers of Japan’s Imperial Army who are still fighting the Second World War.
The team is to investigate reports of former soldiers living in the mountains and jungles of Luzon nearly 60 years after the war ended.
Three negotiators from Japan’s health and welfare ministry and two veterans, who themselves opted to stay behind in the Philippines after it fell in 1945 rather than face the shame of surrender, travelled to Manila yesterday.
It's a quagmire.
[Anachronism corrected. D'oh!]
posted at 02:08 PM by Glenn Reynolds
RIOTS IN KOREA -- not getting the kind of news coverage that Michael Jackson is, but there's blog-coverage, with photos and analysis, here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Things look bad in Georgia too. That has considerable war-on-terror implications. Unlike Michael Jackson.
posted at 02:07 PM by Glenn Reynolds
"SO DEEPLY WRONG:" KEN LAYNE COMMENTS on my songwriting skills.
posted at 01:04 PM by Glenn Reynolds
WHAT YEAR IS IT? Ed Cone suggests not 1943, or 1946, but 1815. Let's hope.
posted at 12:55 PM by Glenn Reynolds
JAMES LILEKS IS SLAMMING SALAM PAX for his snarky comments in The Guardian, which thanked Bush for toppling Saddam but complained about poor service afterward:
Hey, Salam? Fuck you. I know you’re the famous giggly blogger who gave us all a riveting view of the inner circle before the war, and thus know more about the situation than I do. Granted. But there’s a picture on the front page of my local paper today: third Minnesotan killed in Iraq. He died doing what you never had the stones to do: pick up a rifle and face the Ba’athists. You owe him.
Indeed he does. Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Daniel Drezner says that Lileks is wrong. I don't think he is, though I do think Bush I was wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991, and I would add on my own part that Salam showed real courage in his blogging, if not the kind of courage that would (directly) overthrow the tyrant. But I just think that Salam has lost a bit of perspective hanging out with Guardian types in London. And so, I think, does Salam's friend G, back in Baghdad, who writes to Salam:
tell your friends in London that G in Baghdad would have appreciated them much more if they had demonstrated against the atrocities of saddam.
And if you could ask them when will be the next demonstration to support the people of north Korea, the democratic republic of Congo and Iran?
(Emphasis in original). I agree with G.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Roger Simon agrees with Lileks. Robert Tagorda agrees with Drezner. For what it's worth, what I think Lileks objects to about Salam Pax's letter is not that it's criticizing the reconstruction, but its snarkish, Dowdesque tone. One Fine Jay observes: "It is understood, that we — all of us living in this nation — freed him and his ilk from Saddam, but we do not demand praise, adulation, nor a hive mind from Iraqis. . . . Maybe we as a nation can ask for a little bit of class, certainly a bit more than what Salam Pax has shown so far." The Fat Guy agrees, and John Weidner responds to Salam's point about Bush cleaning up the mess: "What we are doing is not "cleaning up the mess." It's more like getting you into good enough shape to start cleaning up your own nasty mess. Sort of like taking in hand someone who's been on a drunken binge. Get 'em a shower, clean clothes, pep-talk, a lot of coffee...so that maybe they can make it into work and not get fired. What you would call 'cleaned-up' is just a starting-point for what we call a clean-up. The best day Iraq ever had is still squalor by our standards."
Bo Cowgill weighs in with this observation: "James Lileks was unrealistic to expect Pax to take up arms against Saddam as American soldiers did. But that doesn't mean that Salam Pax's screed was praiseworthy in the slightest. It was disrespectful and self-promoting. Stop defending Salam Pax on this one."
posted at 10:01 AM by Glenn Reynolds
THE U.N.'S "OIL FOR FOOD" PROGRAM in Iraq (memorably named the "Oil For Palaces progam" by Tommy Franks) is officially ending.
I must have missed the incident that caused the term "fisking" to be coined. I'm sure it was an approach to "analysis" of something news, policy, etc. performed by Mr. Fisk--whose first name escapes me--who was (a lawyer?) in the Clinton administration. Your help would be appreciated.
[blogosphere; very common] A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment. See also MiSTing, anti-idiotarianism.
verb. To deconstruct an article on a point by point basis in a highly critical manner. Derived from the name of journalist Robert Fisk, a frequent target of such critical articles in the blogosphere (qv).
So there you are. A recent article in The Spectator misused the term, suggesting that "Fisking" is something that Robert Fisk does. That's not the standard usage, though.
posted at 09:49 AM by Glenn Reynolds
A CONFUSED ENEMY IS A VULNERABLE ENEMY: Actually, I think there's something to this. . . .
UPDATE: An irony-impaired reader thinks I'm "slandering" George Marshall here. Uh, no. You see, the point is that Marshall was wrong about the extent of the German nuclear weapons system, but he didn't lie. The anti-Bush meme now turns any error into a "lie." Hence the value of this historical example.
posted at 11:27 PM by Glenn Reynolds
MORE PATENT OVERREACH -- this time from AT&T, which claims to have invented, well, pretty much everything.
posted at 08:31 PM by Glenn Reynolds
IAIN MURRAY HAS A PROTEST ROUNDUP -- he says he was wrong about the turnout, which was in line with predictions. So was I. Read the whole thing.
Today, the terrorists in Istanbul answered the “peace” demonstrators in London. Those who have eyes can see, and those who have ears can hear, but there are those whom “God has sealed their hearts for them with a mask, so that they are deaf, dumb and blind and thus can hardly comprehend anything” (Verses to this effect recur frequently in the Holy Quran ) .
These London demonstrations, I know too well, Oh! Youth, and the Pint of Bitter later in the nearest Pub. All you peace lovers and humanitarians of trendy London town, spare a thought or two for the coalition soldier out there in the dark and wilderness guarding our hospitals, primary schools and orphanages from the bombers and assassins, and the Iraqi Police reporting everyday for duty under constant danger of death and mutilation with their poor equipment and meager $50 or so a month pay package. They number almost 100 000 by now and if enlistment is really opened up they would quadruple in number immediately. Why do you think they come? Saddamists pay anybody ten thousand dollars per explosion, and they are going around trying to recruit, and this is a fact that all people in Baghdad know. So why do they come, you think? But only those who have eyes can see, and ears can hear. Why do you think the crackle of celebratory gunfire ululated till dawn, on that sultry Baghdad summer night when the death of Uday and Qusay the monster brats of the tyrant was announced? This, the media did not dwell upon, although quite newsworthy and dramatic. That was the real Opinion Poll of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Baghdad.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: William Sjostrom has a roundup, too -- he's less charitable, and notes: "Do you notice something about the arithmetic? 70,000 show up, but the last march they say was over a million. This is a growing political movement?" Or a moving target of hype, anyway. . . .
If you want to watch the march via webcam, go here and click "24 hr. archive," then page forward hour by hour.
DAVID CARR OFFERS FIRSTHAND REPORTING from the anti-Bush protests in London -- with photos! -- and observes:
Some literary wag (and I think it was Gore Vidal but I am sure I will corrected in short order if it wasn't) once quipped that politics is showbusiness for ugly people. Regardless of the provenance of the quote, I am quite sure that it must have been coined in honour of the Stop the War Coalition. Never in all my days have I cast my gaze upon such a motley collection of bedraggled, unsightly, grotseque and snaggle-toothed specimens as gathered today in Central London.
And he's got the pictures to prove it.
UPDATE: And don't miss this photo of a sympathizer flashing the peace sign!
THE NANOTECH BILL HAS (in the new Senate version) passed the Senate with no debate. Next stop, the President. I think it's a pretty good bill, and I'll probably write something longer about it soon. Here's a link to the text of the bill.
posted at 03:24 PM by Glenn Reynolds
PEOPLE KEEP SENDING ME LINKS to Brian Anderson's City Journal piece on the culture wars, which indicates to me that (1) there's a lot of interest in that topic; and (2) people don't scroll down a lot. Anyway, the Slate/NPR program "Day to Day" has an interesting interview with Anderson and Tim Noah, which you can hear here.
posted at 03:20 PM by Glenn Reynolds
WAGNER JAMES AU sends this story with the headline "Former Axis of Evil Soccer Team Beats Current Axis of Evil Soccer Team:"
But nothing equaled having to answer to Iraq's former National Olympic Committee president, Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam who kept a jail and torture center at the national sport headquarters and often beat and humiliated athletes who performed poorly.
"It's no longer a secret: We played every match with the fear of punishment, an intense psychological pressure,'' says Mowafak Nuri, a defender for the national side and top Iraqi club Al Zawra, who retired last year. "The Olympic Committee chairman destroyed the performances of the national team." . . .
Last weekend, the country's Olympic team - for players under 23 - moved on to the next round of qualifying with a 4-1 defeat of North Korea. In a measure of Iraqi soccer mania, that relatively minor victory set off burst after burst of celebratory gunfire around Baghdad on Saturday night.
They seem quite happy. Also about the not-being-tortured part.
posted at 03:10 PM by Glenn Reynolds
PHIL CARTER WRITES that Al Qaeda is evolving in troubling ways.
posted at 03:05 PM by Glenn Reynolds
JONAH GOLDBERG SAYS I'm not a conservative. True enough. I'm not sure that Andrew Sullivan meant otherwise, though.
A new poll shows support for the war in Iraq has slightly risen in the past two weeks, with 56 percent of Americans now saying the situation there was worth going to war over. Fifty-four percent of Americans said that at the beginning of the month.
Similarly, the Gallup poll shows a majority of Americans say the decision to go to war was the right thing to do, compared with 31 percent who disagree. Seventeen percent say it's too soon to tell.
What's more, 48 percent of Americans now say the war in Iraq has made the U.S. safer from terrorism, up from 45 percent last month.
On the other hand, right after it we hear this:
All this as polls show the President's current approval rating -- 50 percent -- is tied for the lowest of his presidency.
Hmm. So Bush isn't that popular, but support for the war is up, despite protests, "Bush lied," quagmire-talk, etc. I think it's because the antiwar protesters have turned people off. And there's evidence for that in the same story:
American and British Journalists in London have infiltrated the groups preparing to protest against the President there.
They report that the London Action Resource Center -- describing itself as non-violent -- has taught demonstrators how to charge police lines and has discussed whether or not the hurling of petrol bombs constitutes an act of violence.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader sends this link to a story about tens of thousands at the Toys 'R' Us parade and adds:
The protesters in London (and their leftist supporters in the media) are just pathetic. I was in New York a couple of weeks ago, and saw a much bigger crowd for the Toys `R' Us Holiday Parade in Times Square, early on a cold Saturday morning. My wife and I could barely push through the crowd to get to the subway as we set out for a day of sightseeing. It says something when a crowd of five-year-olds with their mommies is more intimidating than your crowd of protesters.
As someone who's spent a lot of time with five-year-olds, I'm not so sure. . .
But Iain Murray is covering this and says that the turnout is looking bigger than he thought, though still nowhere near 100,000. And Kris Murray wonders: "Were there protests like this during the height of the IRA terrorist attacks in London against the British government's military intervention in Northern Ireland?" I don't think so.
MORE: Zach Barbera emails: "Forget the 100,000/30-40,000 question. I just want to know where are all the d@mn puppets?!? I thought we were promised puppets! Can't these people do anything right?"
If there aren't puppets, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
STILL MORE: Background on the protesters here and here.
MORE STILL: This story from the Times says official numbers are 70,000. I gather that the Mirror is claiming 200,000 -- but, then, they claim that John Pilger is a journalist. . . .
posted at 12:36 PM by Glenn Reynolds
HERE'S A LIVE WEBCAM VIEW of Trafalgar Square. Doesn't look like 100,000 people to me, to the extent you can tell from one webcam. Nor to Andy at World Wide Rant.
UPDATE: This BBC story still says 100,000 are "expected" -- but if you scroll down you'll see that it's really more like 30-40,000. That's about 10% of the number who showed up to protest the fox-hunting ban. And yeah, I know these numbers don't mean much in themselves. But the downward trend seems pretty clear.
Is it just me, or are this week's British protests strikingly reminiscent of the Martha Burk protests at the Augusta National this spring?
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?
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Henry Hanks emails that CBS Radio just now was
describing the numbers in London as "tens of thousands." This morning an ITV reporter asked Bush why they hate him "in such numbers." So will we be seeing a concession from the mainstream media that this turnout is far below expectations?
Oh, any minute, I'm sure.
STILL MORE: Here are some questions asked of Bush, presumably by the ITV guy:
Q What do you say to people who today conclude that British people have died and been maimed as a result of you appearing here today, shoulder-to-shoulder with a controversial American President?
And, Mr. President, if I could ask you, with thousands on the street -- with thousands marching on the streets today here in London, a free nation, what is your conclusion as to why apparently so many free citizens fear you and even hate you?
Q Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?
I wonder how many people hate this guy after hearing that performance? The Group Captain, meanwhile, is sniggering.
STILL MORE: Reader Ken Zeitung accuses me of lying, because the BBC story linked above says 60-70,000 now. No, Ken. The BBC just revises its stories on the fly without indicating that it has done so. I don't get as up in arms about that as some people do, but it does cause problems.
posted at 10:15 AM by Glenn Reynolds
FLESHBOT IDENTIFIES chicks and guns as the new porn trend. (Work safe? Depends on where you work, I guess.)
posted at 10:08 AM by Glenn Reynolds
CONGRATULATIONS TO DR. DAVID HOGBERG, who's the second person I know -- after Dr. Joshua Marshall -- to get his Ph.D. while blogging. Proof, anyway, that blogging doesn't have to destroy a person's productivity in other arenas. . . .
Okay, actually I don't wonder at all. I don't know enough about the prescription drug bill to have an opinion, though if the AARP likes it I'm inclined to be deeply suspicious, whatever its members think. But the AARP's willingness to ally with Republicans suggests to me that its leadership thinks that GOP dominance isn't a passing thing, and that it had better cease being so closely identified with the Claude Pepper wing of the Democratic Party. I think that's probably bigger news than the card-burning.
posted at 08:22 AM by Glenn Reynolds
ANDREW SULLIVAN is deeply, deeply unhappy with the energy bill. I haven't followed it, but I don't think that there has ever been an energy bill that was cause for joy, and given that the one thing I do know is that Tom Daschle is endorsing it because of a hike in ethanol subsidies I doubt this will prove any exception to that rule.
Lynne Kiesling -- an actual energy policy expert -- has lots more, with collections of links here and here, and a post on ethanol here. Excerpt:
Ethanol does not help clean the air and it is not a renewable energy source. In fact, ethanol used for fuel generates formaldehyde, a toxic chemical. Our environment doesn't need that kind of "preservation." Ethanol mandates do nothing but benefit special interests at a very high cost to all Americans.
I prefer my ethanol in a nice Shiraz. Why aren't we subsidizing that?
posted at 08:11 AM by Glenn Reynolds
WRITING ON STEPHEN HAYES' ARTICLE on the Saddam / Al Qaeda connection, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball are skeptical, saying that the case for such a connection is "decidedly not closed."
Er, okay guys. How about treating it as open, then?
Meanwhile Tony Blankley wonders if the sudden increase in media skepticism toward leaked stories displayed in recent weeks has anything to do with the fact that all the leaks make Bush look good, or his critics look bad. Surely not.
And Pejman Yousefzadeh responds to the Hayes article by calling for more public disclosure of what's known on the subject.
The anti-Bush demonstration in Lincoln's Inn Fields was called for six o'clock, but at the appointed hour, journalists and camera crews substantially outnumbered protesters. . . .
The sharp-faced man answered with a superior air. "When you have a mass movement like this, it's impossible for it to be captured by a small group."
I looked up and down the south side of the square. The "mass movement" extended barely half the length of the railing. I'd seen larger crowds at poetry readings.
I'm not sure, but I think this must have been the Judean People's Front. But here's my favorite bit:
Mike (the name he gave) shrugged me off. "People in the Middle East are fighting because their own governments are repressing them. They come to feel that they have no alternative - and the mosque is always open.
"But I can't help thinking that it's just not very realistic that people are going to kill each other because they say my God is better than your God. Give people freedom and an opportunity for something better: that's what they really want."
I said: "You know, you sound exactly like Paul Wolfowitz." He flinched.
As an avid user of MP3.com for the last several years - I was chagrined to learn of its demise.
While I don't terribly care what CNET does with the brand - I DO care about a) preserving the vast storehouse of excellent INDEPENDENT music and b) providing a viable means by which unsigned artists can promote and distribute their music.
To that end, we're forming a consortium to see if we can't save the archive and then create a "new" MP3.com of sorts that returns to it's roots - the centralized and simple distribution of original, independent music.
We're chasing down the folks at CNET and I have a message into Mr. Roberson, in the hopes of leveraging his passion for his "baby".
That's a great point. I'll keep you posted if I find out more. I don't think that there's anything in the MP3.com Artist Agreement to prevent this.
Failing that, they should at least give a copy of the archive to the Smithsonian or something. It's quite a comprehensive document of music history.
UPDATE: In a sort-of related note, Magnatune is an internet-based record label whose slogan is "we're not evil."
XENI JARDIN calls our attention to an example of, er, PC run amok in Los Angeles County:
One such recent example included the manufacturer's labeling of equipment where the words ''Master/Slave'' appeared to identify the primary and secondary sources. Based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable identification label.
You can't make this stuff up.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh: "It's funny, but it's also a bit scary."
UPDATE: Bill Quick: "I now anticipate watching with wry pleasure as various conservative supporters of federalism jump through hoops as they try to explain why they hate this example of federalism so much, and why they hope desperately that it can somehow be overturned."
I think President Bush will see it as quite a satisfactory day. Just as the pictures of the demonstrations overemphasised their importance, as there was only a small amount of demonstrators, so the pictures of him with the Queen will overemphasise the strength of his welcome. There was hardly anybody in the streets to see him, because he wasn't in the streets himself. . . .
The mayor Ken Livingstone has just got up on his feet. There are about 200 people here at City Hall. He said this is just how he envisaged it. . . . [More on Livingstone here.]
A relatively small number of protesters have made their way down The Mall towards Buckingham Palace where they have effectively been cut of by the substantial police numbers who have been visible all day today.
Several hundred people would perhaps be a generous assessment of how many people made it there.
They're promising 100,000 for tomorrow. We'll see.
posted at 08:15 PM by Glenn Reynolds
SAY WHAT YOU WILL ABOUT BUSH, he's no Scrooge. That's not a good thing, though.
Today, sober critics of America will be marching - fuelled by concern over what they see as an ill- educated cowboy visiting war on parts of the world previously at peace. The key to their mindset is their definition of war and peace.
There was, of course, no peace in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was using starvation as a weapon to kill hundreds of thousands of Shia infants and his goons were throwing enemies into torture chambers, en route to mass graves.
But these atrocities featured little on our television screens, thus making little impact on the public consciousness. To protesters, victims of dictatorship do not count in the way that the casualties of war count. They are blind to Arab-on-Arab oppression.
Using the crude mathematics of lives, the war in Iraq has already saved more than it has lost. Aid sent by Mr Bush, funded by the US taxpayer, has vaccinated four million Iraqis and fed 100,000 undernourished mothers.
In a country where one child in eight did not survive their fifth birthday, America is intervening. Aid replaces UN sanctions, which protesters say they preferred in place of war.
Saving lives by vaccination and healthcare can only hope to become as glamorous as the anti-war movement. In Britain, the wars against drugs, disease and poverty can only dream of arousing protests equivalent to today’s display in London.
Those callous protesters, so uncaring toward the poor and the sick.
posted at 08:03 PM by Glenn Reynolds
LEVY LAUNCH OF "LIBERTARIANS FOR LIEBERMAN" LOOMS: Sorry, I couldn't resist the alliteration.
posted at 07:44 PM by Glenn Reynolds
ED CONE SUMS UP Howard Dean's Internet strategy, calling it "one of the most effective marketing efforts in the history of national politics, and the most sophisticated online campaign to date."
That seems about right to me. The other Democrats are way behind, and so is the Bush campaign.
posted at 07:39 PM by Glenn Reynolds
A READER EMAILS:
So, it will be interesting to see whether big media cover the absence of protesters after drumming up expectations, change the subject, film it so that it looks like a big crowd or just interview Harold Pinter.
The NPR story that I just heard didn't mention any numbers -- it just interviewed protesters. From that alone, anyone used to reading Pravda could have figured out that the numbers were small. . . .
Police estimate that about 1,200 people staged a protest through Oxford city centre on Wednesday night against the war in Iraq and President Bush's visit to Britain.
A US flag was burned during that demonstration and an effigy of the American president was toppled and set on fire.
About 500 people took part in a march in Manchester against the president's visit.
Interestingly, though, there are no numbers for London, making me suspect that other reports of 200-350 protesters are about right. Not very impressive, really. I suppose a quarter-million might suddenly show up tomorrow, but I rather doubt it.
But even if they do, they won't match the much greater number who showed up to protest the hunting ban. . . .
UPDATE: Charles Austin emails:
Maybe I'm just hypersensitive too it, but what I found most striking was how much time NPR devoted to some truly pathetic protestors compared to the time they spent on the President's speech. You can almost imagine that they laid out their schedule much earlier in the day and then had to really struggle to fill those 2 minutes with something, anything, that sounded like a protest.
Yes, I don't think the protester interviews helped the cause.
posted at 06:46 PM by Glenn Reynolds
LT SMASH has more on the Saddam / Al Qaeda connection. "While I’m not an intelligence analyst, I have read literally hundreds of intelligence summaries in the course of my military career." He thinks the case is pretty strong.
England's Sword has some reports of the rather pitiful showing by the 'peace'-protestors in London today. It wasn't just London.
There was a peacenik demonstration next to the war memorial in the centre of Swindon this lunchtime: all of a dozen middle-aged protestors. So far, so normal. After all today was a work day. The amusing thing was that the demonstrators were outnumbered two to one by an ad hoc crowd of teenagers and young people who were jeering and heckling them, along with shouting out pro-war slogans. In fact the protestors chanting was drowned out despite their having a loud hailer.
GAY MARRIAGE: So what do I think about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? I'm against it. And I disagree with Jim Miller that allowing gay marriage constitutes an "endorsement" of gay marriage, any more than allowing Anna Nicole Smith to marry constitutes state endorsement of marrying for money.
I suspect that proponents of the Amendment think that they need to lock in a bar against gay marriage while they still have the votes (though I rather doubt that they, in fact, do). I think that lock-in is a bad idea on that sort of thing. That's also why I'm not crazy about this being done by judicial action. I would prefer to see gay marriage legalized via legislation, which I think will happen anyway in the not-too-distant future. But it's easy for me to take the long view on this, since I'm not a gay person who wants to get married. (Eugene Volokh has a, typically, more refined take on this).
Perhaps it's a blind spot on my part, but I just don't see how gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. It seems to me that it's the opposite, and that gay marriage will strengthen marriage overall. And I do think that the Massachusetts opinion is entirely defensible, as I said yesterday. Indeed, had I been on that Court I might have voted that way -- though I probably would have written the opinion in terms of limitations on governmental power, rather than expansive notions of equality -- had the case been before me. [There goes your shot at a judicial position! -- Ed. Like it was there to begin with. . . .]
Predictions: The (federal) constitutional amendment project will fizzle. A more interesting question is whether Massachusetts voters will amend their state Constitution to overrule the decision. It's fairly hard to amend the Massachusetts Constitution, but not that hard. Should they succed, it will be a major blow to gay marriage efforts, since a gay-rights opinion that can't survive in Massachusetts isn't likely to fly nationwide. I predict that the decision will stand, though it may well be close.
More general punditry -- this helps Bush, and hurts Democrats. Democrats are divided on gay marriage (black voters are, I believe, among the most hostile to it, and so are older voters), but they have a powerful gay-rights constituency. I don't think the effect will be big, though. To me this seems like the kind of issue that would be bigger in a non-Presidential election year. With a war on, and bigger issues on the table, I don't think it's going to drive the elections.
That's my take, anyway.
posted at 02:16 PM by Glenn Reynolds
WINDS OF CHANGE offers a Central Asia survey with all sorts of links and information about goings-on in the region. That stuff tends not to be very well-covered, so if you want to keep up, be sure to check it out.
posted at 01:58 PM by Glenn Reynolds
NICK CONFESSORE IS picking onTechCentralStation (well, really in the process of picking on James Glassman) over in the Washington Monthly.
It's hard to know exactly what he doesn't like about TCS -- other than, you know, the fact that a lot of its authors disagree with his politics -- but it seems to have something to do with the fact that it's not a non-profit, instead relying on some sort of new innovation called "sponsors"(cleverly concealed here on the TCS website!) to pay the bills. But he doesn't really critique any actual articles, or supply much in the way of specifics.
All I'll say is that I've written for TCS for nearly two years, and they've never told me what to write. Occasionally the editor, Nick Schulz, will suggest a topic -- last week he suggested that I write something about the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I stupidly declined, not realizing what a big issue it would be this week -- but it's certainly hard for me to discern any Subtle Corporate Agenda in those suggestions.
Of course, if it were a really subtle corporate agenda, I might not notice. In fact, I might write articles that I thought were my own idea, but that really advanced the Subtle Corporate Agenda. But let's not get paranoid, here. If that were true, I would have written a nonspecific article in some other publication, pretending at criticism but actually announcing that TCS was really good at advancing the agendas of its paying sponsors, thus encouraging more companies to become paying sponsors. Hmm. Hey, you don't think. . . . ?
UPDATE: Daniel Drezner, who writes for TCS from time to time, wonders if he's a paid lobbyist (not paid much, if he gets what I'm getting!) and observes:
One surprise for me, given that Confessore contributes to Tapped, is that he failed to mention Tech Central Station's willingness to recruit its contributors from the blogosphere. Flipping through the authors, I saw a fair number of bloggers that are TCS contributors -- Radley Balko, Joe Katzman, Lynne Kiesling, Arnold Kling, Megan McArdle, Charles Murtaugh, Virginia Postrel, Glenn Reynolds, Rand Simberg, Eugene Volokh, and Matthew Yglesias. I'd like to think that explains part of Tech Central Station's success.
[Oh no! Drezner's outed Yglesias, the TCS mole at TAPPED! --Ed. It's a policy mag -- with an ideology! I'm selling this story to Oliver Stone. . . .] And, as with Drezner, my only real interaction -- except for an occasional email with the graphics guy -- has been with Nick Schulz. I've never even gotten an email from Glassman, much less anyone else.
We are living in the heart of things -- in Trafalgar Square -- and, for what it's worth, can report that there is nothing of any substance going on at all. It's quite quiet -- people are going about their business, but the usual buzz of tourist activity has slackened a bit. The first round of scheduled protest events involved a big talk by prominent left-leaning activists, and drew about 2,000 people. Then, about 1,000 marched through Oxford Street to protest the Bush Administration's environmental policies. The thousands who were supposed to greet him at Buckingham did not materialize -- there were maybe 100. Right now (Wednesday afternoon), just after the President's big talk, there are a few hundred people milling around Trafalgar Square, a women's prayer circle, and some people congratulating themselves for putting red-dye in the fountains (get it?). The crowd is a little bigger than the crowd two days ago, who were protesting the ban on feeding the pigeons, but certainly smaller than the crowd last month, who were protesting tuition hikes at universities. The cops were cracking up. There was supposed to be a big "alternative state parade" of cyclists and other folks, but it seems to have fizzled.
Hmm. What if they had an anti-war and nobody showed up?
There are the occasional anti-American slogans, some in misspelled English - like "Dawn USA" - but mostly President George W. Bush is hailed as a liberator, especially in the neighborhoods of the Shia majority historically brutalized by Hussein.
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."
And there's a slight variation on "Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!"
A popular slogan comparing the politician with an Iraqi chickpea dish declares: "Neither Bush we want, nor Chalabi; we want beer and lablabee."
UPDATE: Regarding "Dawn USA," above, reader Dave Schipani emails:
Hell, that's not misspelled. It's an echo of the Gipper - "It's morning
You know, that actually makes sense.
posted at 11:44 AM by Glenn Reynolds
NOT YOUR FATHER'S WAR PROTESTS -- I've got a post on the flagging and obsolescent antiwar movement -- and the potent pro-war protests -- up over at GlennReynolds.com.
Evanston police arrested a Communication freshman Monday and charged him with felony disorderly conduct, alleging he lied about two hate crimes to bring attention to race relations on campus. . . .
Saide "made up" both incidents, Vice President for Student Affairs William Banis wrote in a press release issued Tuesday morning. Police charged Saide late Monday with two counts of felony disorderly conduct in connection with fabricating police reports about the incidents.
Saide confessed he falsified reports about the racist acts to initiate dialogue about racial relations on campus, said Chief Frank Kaminski of Evanston Police Department. Saide could not be reached for comment.
"Certainly his motivation was to bring attention to himself and his cause," Kaminski said Tuesday at a press conference.
Well, he certainly achieved that. Of course, crying "wolf!" has its downsides, too.
The nanofiber in the Humvee turrets looks like fiberboard, but it is 17 times stronger than Kevlar (which is itself six times stronger than steel). However, it's going to be several years before the cost of the new fiber gets anywhere near Kevlar's levels (about $50 per square yard of fiber). The experimental turrets are being used to see how the material stands up to field conditions (heat, cold, moisture, vibration and so on.)
Materials science is a lot more important than it is sexy, but this stuff is only sort of nanotechnology. It's nothing akin to the molecular-manufacturing technology that people like Eric Drexler are championing. I'm afraid that too much of the National Nanotechnology Initiative's funding is going to these short-term issues, and not enough is going to assembler technology and other things with longer-term payoffs. I don't know if this is addressed in the bill as it passed.
UPDATE: Some comments from a nanotechnology researcher.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Managed to get a copy of the bill as passed in PDF form -- it's here. There'll probably be some tweaking in conference, but no major changes are expected.
It's 2003, and the president is George W. Bush, but the teeth-gnashing rhetoric is right of out 1983 and the "Euro-missile protests" against Ronald Reagan.
This month is the 20th anniversary of the Great Euromissile Crisis. Oh, the accusations! Reagan was stupid. Reagan was dangerous, a warmonger seeking the nuclear destruction of the USSR. Reagan was -- good heavens -- a unilateralist. Today, the mayor of London calls Bush "the greatest threat to life on the planet."
Read the whole thing for more historical perspective.
“The U.K. matters,” says one senior administration official. “In the 1950s, British power appeared to be ebbing. Now British power seems to be growing. The Europeans who have sided with us have managed to put their countries on the map as global powers. I question the whole basis that Blair hasn’t gained anything. He’s gained a tremendous amount.”
Today you arrive in my country for the first state visit by an American president for many decades, and I bid you welcome.
You will find yourself assailed on every hand by some pretty pretentious characters collectively known as the British left. They traditionally believe they have a monopoly on morality and that your recent actions preclude you from the club. You opposed and destroyed the world's most blood-encrusted dictator. This is quite unforgivable.
I beg you to take no notice. The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other genocide, Josef Stalin.
It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second.
Eleven years ago something dreadful happened. Maggie was ousted, Ronald retired, the Berlin wall fell and Gorby abolished communism. All the left's idols fell and its demons retired. For a decade there was nothing really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il... and hate a God-fearing Texan. So hallelujah and have a good time.
Somehow, I think W. will follow that advice. . . .
The showpiece of antiliberal humor is one that appalls a good many conservatives: South Park, Comedy Central's wildly popular cartoon saga of four crude and incredibly foul-mouthed little boys. . . . This is a new paradigm in pop culture: Conventional liberalism is the old, rigid establishment. The antiliberals are brash, funny, and cool. Who would have thought?
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Ed Paul thinks there's more going on culturally than just South Park:
Saturday night, I had a real feeling that maybe conservatives are doing even better than they think in the culture wars. I was walking out of Master and Commander which is a compendium of what used to be called the manly virtues. Courage, honor, tenacity, loyalty and tolerance are all on display without a whiff of irony. Even an appreciation of the arts and education are included without any astonishment that warriors could value those things. Master is not an anomaly. Black Hawk Down and They were Soldiers Once and Young were both straightforward depictions of heroism unaccompanied by knowing smirks.
At the moment it is almost impossible to imagine Hollywood producing a Mash or Catch 22 or Doctor Strangelove ( Although I hasten to add Strangelove will always be in my top five movies.) It wouldn't dare. They may still smile knowingly over their designer water at home but not in their films.
Are things really going as well as all that?
posted at 06:52 PM by Glenn Reynolds
JOHN KERRY on Saddam and WMDs: "Tall John stood up for linking Saddam with 9/11 not once, but twice, in his two most significant foreign policy speeches. Of course, that was many months, and several Kerrys, ago."
I haven't had a chance to look through it, but Brookings has an Iraq index page that's an effort to pull together lots of data to form a big-picture view of what's going on in Iraq. (Dale Amon has a smaller-scale effort going on, too.) And Sgt. Strkyer's has a good Iraq-news page. And if you're not checking out Rantburg, or The Command Post (link is to its Iraq page), then you might want to. And don't miss this Iraq reconstruction roundup from Winds of Change.
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, saying Brussels has failed to match reform rhetoric with a genuine change of culture. Abuse is said to be endemic in the Common Agricultural Policy, which still consumes almost half the £65 billion budget.
Checks on subsidy claims for suckler cows found that 50.2 per cent of animals in Portugal and 31.2 per cent in Italy were false. The "error rate" in forage and crop acreage was 89.7 per cent in Luxembourg, 42.9 per cent in Sweden, 34.5 per cent in France and 19.2 per cent in Britain, despite increased use of satellite photography to spot fraud.
posted at 03:36 PM by Glenn Reynolds
A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AS PERCEIVED IN LONDON: Some interesting experience.
MY OFFICE IS A BATTLEFIELD. No, that's not a metaphor for the state of my desk (er, well, actually it is a metaphor for the state of my desk, but that's not what I mean). The Law School is in the Fort Sanders neighborhood, so called because it's the site of Fort Sanders, whose siege played the decisive role in the Siege of Knoxville during the Civil War, opening the path for Sherman's march to the sea. There were cannon, trenches, telegraph wire (substituting for barbed wire, which hadn't quite been invented), and snipers, one of whom played an important role.
I mention this because of Antoine Clark's remark that "I continue to despair at the difficulty that anglosphere writers have in comprehending the humiliation of occupation. Admittedly this is for the best of reasons: Washington DC was last under foreign armed occupation in 1812, London in 1066." (Arguably, of course, London remains under foreign armed occupation, but we'll let that pass by.)
In fact, of course, the American South knows what it's like to lose a war, and to be occupied, which may possibly explain why the American South is also far more military-minded than other parts of the United States -- or, for that matter, than London. And the American South certainly didn't like being occupied. Reconstruction was very unpopular, and my grandmother can still tell stories that she heard from her grandmother about Union soldiers passing through and stripping the place bare of everything except what they were able to hide, and of the years (decades, really) of privation that followed the war.
But American southerners know something that apparently a lot of other people seem to have trouble with: how to lose a war and not hold a grudge. (Much of one, anyway). The monument shown above illustrates that; it sits about a block from my office (click the picture for a bigger image; you can see a closeup of the inscription here if that's too hard to read on your display). As late as the Spanish-American War, there was considerable doubt about whether southerners would turn out to fight for the United States. They did. (My great-grandfather was one of them).
There are a lot of reasons for that, but the American experience of reconciliation after one of the world's bloodier and more divisive conflicts is one that perhaps ought to get more attention. It may be that, like so many things American, it is exceptional. But maybe not.
Meanwhile, with the Civil War in mind, reader Gregory Birrer points out that Europe never changes:
I have been reading a little book I picked up while in Gettysburg recently, entitled, "Memoranda During The War" by Walt Whitman. It is a compilation of his notes from about 3 years worth of visits to War hospitals in and around Washington D.C. from 1862 - 1865. Toward the end he inserts some interesting political commentary (mixed in with a variety of topics) that sounds as if it could have been written today. Here's the piece:
Attitude of Foreign Governments toward the U.S. during the War of 1861-'65 -
Looking over my scraps, I find I wrote the following during 1864, or the latter part of '63: The happening to our America, abroad as well as at home, these years, is indeed most strange. The Democratic Republic has paid her to-day the terrible and resplendent compliment of the united wish of all the nations of the world that her Union should be broken, her future cut off, and that she should be compell'd to descend to the level of kingdoms and empires ordinarily great!There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it. There is not one but would help toward that dismemberment, if it dared. I say such is the ardent wish to-day of England and of France, as governments, and of all the nations of Europe, as governments. I think indeed it is to-day the real, heart-felt wish of all the nations of the world, with the single exception of Mexico--Mexico, the only one to whom we have ever really done wrong, and now the only one who prays for us and for our triumph, with genuine prayer.
Is it not indeed strange? America, made up of all, cheerfully from the beginning opening her arms to all, the result and justifier of all, of Britain, Germany, France, and Spain - all here - the accepter, the friend, hope, last resource and general house of all - she who has harm'd none, but been bounteous to so many, to millions, the mother of strangers and exiles, all nations - should now I say be paid this dread compliment of general governmental fear and hatred?.......Are weindignant? alarm'd? Do we feel wrong'd? jeopardized? No; help'd, braced, concentrated, rather.
We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world.
"Never again?" Apparently, we need to be reminded from time to time. European hopes for our descent were frustrated then by the greatness of the American spirit, which both ended the war and -- more importantly -- managed to build a great nation without bitterness. May it be so again. And may the Europeans who resent it continue to gnash their teeth.
THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT has ruled that gay marriage is constitutionally protected. The link to the opinion is here, but I can't get it to work, probably due to enormous traffic. Not having read it, I can't offer much of a commentary except that I think it's a plausible outcome for reasons spelled out in this article that I coauthored with Dave Kopel, and that if, as reported, Lawrence is mentioned a lot, it probably also fits nicely with the arguments made by Randy Barnett, here, about the libertarian underpinnings of that decision. Sorry -- too busy to do more at the moment. More later.
UPDATE: This link seems to work. Just select "Opinions" and then click on "Goodridge v. Dept. of Health," currently the second opinion on the list. Weirdly, the synopsis appears at the top of "Commonwealth v. Platt," currently the top of the opinion list. Some sort of technical error, I imagine. I'm pasting the synopsis in the "extended entry" area below, in case it gets lost. Just click "more" to read it.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Virginia Postrel is concerned: " All hell will now break out. I only hope that the movement toward gay marriage survives the ensuing backlash."
I don't think things will be quite that bad. But then, I'm an optimist. And also read her interesting comments on why opposition to gay rights has become a bigger deal in some quarters.
Unofficial Synopsis Prepared by the Reporter of Decisions
The Supreme Judicial Court held today that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." The court 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."
"Marriage is a vital social institution," wrote Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall for the majority of the Justices. "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." The question before the court was "whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution," the Commonwealth could deny those protections, benefits, and obligations to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.
In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the court observed that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." It reaches its conclusion, the court said, giving "full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth, the court ruled, "has failed to identify any constitutionality adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of courts to decide the constitutional question. The "marriage ban" the court held, "works a deep and scarring hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It cannot be rational under our laws," the court held, "to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents' sexual oreintation.
The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."
The court remarked that its decision "does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society." "That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit," the court stated.
The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropirate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."
Justices John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland, and Judity A. Cowin joined in the court's opinion. Justice Greaney also filed a separate concurring opinion.
Justices Francis X. Spina, Martha B. Sosman, and Robert J. Cordy each filed separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Greaney concurred "with the result reached by the court, the remedy ordered, and much of the reasoning in the court's opinion," but expressed the view that "the case is more directly resolved using traditional equal protection analysis." He stated that to withhold "relief from the plaintiffs, who wish to marry, and are otherwise eligible to marry, on the ground that the couples are of the same gender, constitutes a categorical restriction of a fundamental right." Moreover, Justice Greaney concluded that such a restriction is impermissible under art. 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. In so doing, Justice Greaney did not rely on art. 1, as amended in 1976, because the voters' intent in passing the amendment was clearly not to approve gay marriage, but he relied on well-established principles of equal protection that antedated the amendment.
Justice Cordy, with whom Justice Spina and Justice Sosman joined, dissented on the ground that the marriage statute, as historically interpreted to mean the union of one man and one woman, does not violate the Massachusetts Constitution because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." Justice Cordy stated that the court's conclusions to the contrary are unsupportable in light of "the presumption of constitutional validity and significiant deference afforded to legislative enactments, and the 'undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notion of correct policy for that of a popularly elected legislature' responsible for making it.' Further, Justice Cordy stated that "[w]hile 'the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government intrusion at least as zealously and often more so than does the Federal Constitution,' this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty," but "about whether the State must endorse and support [the choices of same-sex couples] by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them." Justice Cordy concluded that, although the plaintiffs had made a powerful case for the extension of the benefits and burdens of civil marriage to same-sex couples, the issue "is one deeply rooted in social policy" and 'that decision must be made by the Legislature, not the court."
Justice Spina, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "[W]hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treat..nt of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He emphasized that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."
Justice Sosman, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind [the statutory scheme being challenged] is persuasive to [the court]," but whether it is "rational" for the Legislature to "reserve judgment" on whether changing the definition of marriage "can be made at this time wihtout damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society." She concluded that, "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN IRAQ -- by the New York Times? That's the report on Healing Iraq, which posts a letter from an Iraqi property owner to Arthur Sulzberger about harassment and property seizure at the hands of guards employed by the Times in Baghdad:
My family has a property in the green zone in down town Baghdad on Abi-Nuas street. The New York Times rents the adjacent property. For several weeks now my brother Ali Al Ali has been denied automobile access to our property by security guards. Until two days ago we thought this was a coalition security measure. Now we known these guards are not coalition personal but are instead the private security force employed by your news paper.
The family property has two store fronts. Yesterday (Saturday November 15, 2003) my brother and two hired men were in one of the stores installing shelves. My brother lost his livelihood in the war and needs to open this store to make a living. His efforts were interrupted by several of the security guards employed by your paper. He was knocked roughly to the floor and threatened. Your guards pointed there AK-47 rifles and my brother and his work men and told them they would be shot if they did not leave immediately.
I feel sure if learned the United States Army was responsible an incident such as this you would feel obligated to publish the story and condemn the act.
In this his case I respectfully suggest you have an obligation to do somewhat more.
Read the whole thing, as they say. Er, especially if you either (1) work for the Times or (2) want to do a story on this report of thuggish behavior.
posted at 08:43 AM by Glenn Reynolds
MICKEY KAUS notes that Howard Dean was praising Bush's war on terror in June of 2002, and speculates on his shift:
But there's a second, more troubling interpretation, which is that Dean shifted to a strong anti-war position not because of Bush's Iraq actions, but because he saw that that was where the Democratic party's activist base wanted him to go. In June 30, 2002, after all, it wasn't very hard to see the Iraq conflict looming on the horizon. President Bush had already included Iraq in his "axis of evil." Vice-President Cheney had toured the Middle East to drum up support for an effort to topple Saddam. On June 17, 2002--two weeks before Dean praised Bush's "good job"--former President Clinton delivered a speech criticizing Bush for concentrating on Iraq instead of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
The whole post is quite interesting. From my own perspective, I have to say, I'm less interested in what Dean thought then than in what he'd do with the war on terror in the future. He's said some encouraging things about that -- but if, in fact, he'll bend with the wind from the Democratic base on these issues, it's troubling.
posted at 08:36 AM by Glenn Reynolds
STEPHEN F. HAYES' story about the Saddam / Al Qaeda connection continues to be widely ignored. (And for those who keep sending me the link to the Pentagon's non-denial denial on this, I mentioned it in my first post on the subject -- where I also linked Josh Chafetz's comments on why it doesn't, in fact, undercut the Hayes story. Read this, too.)
Compare the non-attention that this story has received with the credulous reception of the Center for Public Integrity's bogus study claiming cronyism in Iraq reconstruction contracts.
But, you see, it has been decided that "Bush lied" in suggesting a Saddam / Al Qaeda connection, and mere evidence can't be allowed to get in the way of such a trope. Especially with less than a year until the election. Here's more, if you're interested.
posted at 07:19 AM by Glenn Reynolds
November 17, 2003
INSTAPUNDIT GETS RESULTS: Last week I called attention to the rather laughably anti-Bush agenda of a workshop sponsored by the International Society of Political Psychology. This week, according to John Ray, they're saying that members are departing in droves, as this letter from the ISPP's President reports:
It is readily understandable why reservists and Gis would decide not to reenlist, but a puzzle to me that scholars in our field would not "reup" in ISPP. We haven't invaded anybody, searched unsuccessfully for weapons of mass destruction or kept combatants from other disciplines locked up without even access to their professional journals. I am therefore baffled that many of you have not renewed your membership, and write to urge you to reconsider.
I, for one, find it "readily understandable" why people don't want to maintain their membership in an organization as trivial and politicized as this. And that, of course, means that I don't deserve any credit. Organizations that trivialize and politicize themselves tend to lose members. And they tend to be mocked on InstaPundit. But correlation isn't causation.
UPDATE: Reader Karl Bade emails:
Apparently, ISPP President Lebow thinks snide mockery is an effective method of getting people to re-up their memberships. What does this say about his grasp of political psychology?
Heh. The letter as a whole says rather a lot. The first premise of political psychology is apparently to assume that everyone holds the same political vews that you do.
But the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, branded Mr Bush as “the greatest threat to life on this planet” whose policies will “doom us to extinction”. The mayor also said that he did not recognise Mr Bush as a lawful president and he condemned America’s rapacious capitalist agenda.
I guess that's only for people who say things that are politically incorrect. But is Bush safe with government officials spouting in such inflammatory fashion? If some loony takes a shot at Bush, I'm blaming Ken.
UPDATE: Apparently, the head of Amnesty in Britain hasn't caught on, as she's slouching toward irrelevance with another bit of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism:
THOUSANDS of people will take to the streets in Britain next week to voice their anger, frustration and political opposition to President George W Bush's policies.
Some [Like the American head of Amnesty! -- Ed.] will criticise these protestors, writing off their views as knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But the critics should think before condemning them.
Why? Because after almost three years of President Bush's "war on terror" many would argue that the world is now a more dangerous and divided place than it was immediately after 9/11.
Two years and two months is "almost three years?" Well, Amnesty has never, at least lately, let a fear of exaggeration get in the way of a good anti-American line. This doesn't seem to reflect British opinion, though:
More than half of Labour supporters back US President George Bush's state visit to Britain, according to a survey.
They were among an overall 43% of voters who told pollsters ICM they welcomed the visit - some 7% more than the 36% who said they would prefer the President to stay away. Twelve per cent were undecided.
The survey, published in The Guardian as Mr Bush flies to the UK, contradicted the widely-held assumption that the visit will damage Prime Minister Tony Blair.
It recorded improved ratings for the Prime Minister personally, as well as a slump in opposition to the war in Iraq.
And it indicated that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American, with 62% of respondents agreeing the US was "generally speaking, a force for good", compared to 15% who described it as "an evil empire".
A group of Italian anti-war militants is raising funds to support the armed Iraqi resistance, the BBC has learned.
The discovery comes as Italy mourns 19 men killed in a suicide attack in Iraq last week.
The "Antiimperialista" organisation's internet campaign asks people to send "10 Euros to the Iraqi resistance".
Absolutely shameful. I love this: "They are currently organising an anti-war demonstration in Italy next month, and it remains to be seen whether news of the fund-raising activities will deter more moderate anti-war activists from attending."
Any bets? You know, someone will probably accuse me of "blurring the line" between anti-war protesters and, well, traitors. But it's the BBC that's doing the blurring here. If they called them "terrorist sympathizers" or "Italians who support those who are killing their countrymen" that would be different. But they're not willing to do that. Why not?
UPDATE: Reader Raymond Sauer emails: "How can a BBC reporter say 'anti-war militants' with a straight face?"
Huge anti-terrorism demonstrations were held in Nassiriyah yesterday by students association condemning the attacks on the Italian force carrying signs such as 'No to terrorism. Yes to freedom and peace', and 'This cowardly act will unify us'. I have to add that there were similar demonstrations in Baghdad more than a week ago also by students against the bombings of police stations early this Ramadan. I hope the demonstrations advocates that bugged me are satisfied now. There are also preparations for anti-terror demonstrations before Id (end of Ramadan holidays).
You'll have to scroll, as his permalinks are bloggered. It's in the 11/16 8:15pm post. Hmm. The Italians call themselves anti-imperialists, but they seem to be supporting the small group that wants to rule Iraq in opposition to its people, don't they?
As another reader writes: "Funny you don't hear about this sort of thing in the news." Yeah, it is. Maybe some of those guys need to get away from their newly-hired Baathist minders.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's more information about the "anti-Imperialistas" and their fundraising efforts.
posted at 02:30 PM by Glenn Reynolds
A READER WRITES:
I was arguing with someone over the weekend about the demonstrations planned for when Mr. Bush goes to London this week. I made the point that we would never see an anti-Al Qaeda demonstration against atrocities like the one in Istanbul, and was pointing out the hypocrisy (and corruption) of this. (Andrew Sullivan ran a quote from an American ex-pat in England who was afraid to go to one of these demonstrations to express his support for the U.S.)
But it occurred to me that we should have such demonstrations, and I wondered if bloggers could organize such things, here and elsewhere. How about a day or multiple days) of protest against fanaticism, violence, anti-Semitism, and the murder of civilians (not to mention people at prayer, for God's sake)?
It's time to turn this thing around, don't you think? The anti-Americanism out of Europe is ridiculous at this point, when such things are routinely occurring there and elsewhere. I'm tired of it, and tired that Istanbul can pass as just another day, while Bush in London mobilizes thousands. We need to speak up.
Indeed. Though there's no hypocrisy about Istanbul. If Bush were bombing synagogues, they probably wouldn't protest that.
PORPHYROGENITUS pulls a tidbit from the John F. Burns story I linked over the weekend -- American journalists in Iraq have hired their old Saddamite "minders" as factotums.
And we wonder why the news is bad. As Porphyrogenitus notes:
So our "free press" are so annoyed by and opposed to censorship that they're employing their own minders now that Saddam is no longer able to pay them. And we wonder why the quotes they get from Iraqis - who aren't stupid and do know who worked for the Ba'athist regime - tell the interpreters the things they do, and the interpreters then tell the reporters, who then report back to America in a certain tone. If we've been wondering why there is such a disconnect between what the news reports are saying about conditions and attitudes in Iraq, and what independent people who go there without hiring on ex-Iraqi Information Ministry minders to screen information for them say about Iraq, well now we know.
Yes, we do. And perhaps this sort of blatant hypocrisy colors the Iraqis' views of Americans in general.
I would love to see [the] candidates make an impassioned plea to keep the Internet free of interference from the entertainment industry.
Will it happen?
posted at 01:18 PM by Glenn Reynolds
IF YOU'RE A UNIX PROGRAMMER -- which I'm not -- you may be interested in Eric S. Raymond's new book on Unix programming. If you're a blogger -- which I am -- you may be interested to know that he's blogging again.
posted at 11:04 AM by Glenn Reynolds
INTERESTED IN ECONOMICS OR BUSINESS? Check out this week's Carnival of the Capitalists, a collection of interesting blog posts on these topics.
posted at 10:44 AM by Glenn Reynolds
THOUSANDS TURNED OUT AT A SUPPORT THE TROOPS RALLY NEAR SEATTLE, which was organized in response to plans by antiwar types to protest the deployment. There are lots of pictures at the blog post linked above. Here's a news story about the rally.
Now is the wrong time to ask me what I think, as I'm bleary-eyed from adding footnotes and making changes in response to editorial suggestions from the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, to whom I'm supposed to return my edited piece shortly. (The worst thing about their suggestions by far is that they're mostly good ones, meaning that I have to follow them. D'oh!) In general, I'm a fan of student-edited law reviews. They have their virtues and their vices, but I think that, overall, they help to keep legal scholarship from becoming as inbred as scholarship in some other disciplines becomes. I also find their close attention to footnoting tiresome and tedious when it's applied to my pieces, but highly useful when it's applied to other people's. . . .
Today, Anti-Americanism is the closest we come to a common ideology in Europe.
Read the whole thing.
posted at 09:14 AM by Glenn Reynolds
HERE'S A LINK TO THE DEMAND LETTER received by blogger Justene Adamec with regard to Infotel, posted by her co-blogger.
I think that this story deserves a lot more attention. And while I'm no expert at all on California law (perhaps Eugene Volokh will weigh in here), the claim that the right of privacy in the California Constitution somehow yields an obligation on the part of a blogger to remove posts (or comments to posts) that merely threaten to reveal private data seems to me to be rather a stretch. Yet that seems to be the claim. There's certainly no case law authority cited in support of that proposition, as one might expect if there were any substance to it. I've been thinking for a while of writing an article on lawyers' ethical duties in writing demand letters; this, while not an especially egregious example, suggests to me that I should move that topic higher on my agenda. Meanwhile this post on libel by Yale Law Prof. Jack Balkin, though directed at a different incident, provides some useful information, as does this one.
Meanwhile, there's blowback. I had never heard of Infotel before. Now -- more because of the actions of their attorneys than because of anything that appeared on Justene Adamec's weblog -- I have a very low opinion of them.
posted at 08:14 AM by Glenn Reynolds
ANDREW SULLIVAN WONDERS WHY Stephen F. Hayes' story in the Weekly Standard about the Saddam / Al Qaeda connection isn't getting more attention. I strongly suspect that a story of similar provenance that reflected badly on the Administration would be getting a lot more play.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Interesting. Funny that everyone seems to be forgetting this stuff, now.
In case you missed it, here's my earlier post on this topic, with various interesting links. And don't miss this on Saddam, uranium, and Africa -- with more links from the Clinton Administration.
UPDATE: Reader Steve Biddle emails:
Re Stephen Hayes' Weekly Standard piece on the ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, I too have wondered why there wasn't more media attention paid to what I considered quite a blockbuster. Of course, it's true that it doesn't reflect at all badly on the Bush administration, so that's one reason. But there's another. Remember a few weeks ago a "study" was released purporting to prove that those poor benighted individuals who watched Fox News "misunderstood" some things that NPR listeners and PBS watchers understood perfectly? One of those things was that we who watched Fox seemed to believe that there was some sort of connection between Saddam and UBL... while the enlightened knew perfectly well that there was no evidence of that.
He sends the link to that story, which describes the belief that Saddam and Al Qaeda worked together as a "misperception." Hey, maybe the Fox viewers are paying attention to Janet Reno!
posted at 07:09 AM by Glenn Reynolds
MICKEY KAUS wants to apply "modern speed-dating technology" to the Democratic candidate debates. It couldn't hurt!
Ms. Hilton has the celebrity press corps to do her dirty work for her: here in the blog world, we do it differently. In the blogosphere we are all each other's paparazzi. Stalker and stalkee; celebrity and gossip --- we each play both parts in our turn.
But that's okay.
posted at 10:44 PM by Glenn Reynolds
COLLIN MAY is back blogging at Innocents Abroad, and has the first post of several up on French author Nicolas Baverez, who, it is reported, has French elites unhappy.
posted at 10:13 PM by Glenn Reynolds
I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, but Rich Galen is now blogging from Iraq.
posted at 07:58 PM by Glenn Reynolds
SOME INTERESTING REPORTS FROM IRAQ, via Maj. Sean Bannion and John Burns. Both, in different ways, raise the specter of the United States leaving Iraq too soon.
I'd be very upset, to put it mildly, if we cut and run. However, I don't think that's what's going on. Rumsfeld says the troops aren't coming out -- this is just about Iraqi self-determination. That's a key distinction. (We're still in Germany, and they're self-governing, after all.) And it was just announced that the Civil Affairs battalion here -- which spent quite a while in Afghanistan and Bosnia -- is going to Iraq in February. Doesn't sound like a cut-and-run to me. The extent to which Iraqis are ready to actually run their country is another question. But, you know, Russia was a mess (and remains one) after the fall of the Soviet Union, for many of the same reasons. But it's still better the way it is, for them and for us. So it doesn't have to be perfect. Just good enough. The problems that Bannion describes remind me of Nigeria, which isn't a great place, but it's better than a lot of countries in Africa. Likewise, Iraq isn't a great place, but it's better already than a lot of countries in the mideast, and it's on the path to improvement. Given the enormous damage to the physical -- and especially the social -- capital of the country done by decades of dictatorship, that's good enough.
Looking at the domestic scene, and at the risk of sounding too much like a real pundit, I have to wonder about the nature of this announcement. It seems to me that Bush is managing to maneuver his critics into complaining about pulling out too soon, which will have the effect of taking the war off the table as an election issue. This occurred to me when I got the following email:
I just finished watching an interview with Tom Daschle on Fox News Sunday, and when asked about the speeding up of the end of occupation in Iraq, Daschle responded "What we need is not an exit strategy, but a plan for success" and went on to say why we should not leave too early.
Hmm. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? [LATER: Here's a link to the transcript, which does indeed bear this out. Daschle is calling for more troops and more resources, though he also wants the French and Germans in.]
For some deeper perspective on cultural issues -- echoing some of the things that Bannion says -- I highly recommend this interview with P.J. O'Rourke in The Atlantic. And regarding the bigger picture, ponder on the question I asked earlier: Is it 1946? Or 1943?
UPDATE: Here's the text of the transitional agreement. And this doesn't sound like a cut-and-run.
ANOTHER UPDATE: BSC says it's 1862 -- and, in another post, notes that we've been in Kosovo for quite a few years now.
posted at 07:00 PM by Glenn Reynolds
HILLARY 2004? I'm skeptical, but Howard Fineman is on the story. I do think that this bit is clearly right:
The Republicans in the White House want Howard Dean to win the nomination. The Democrats in Washington want Dick Gephardt or John Kerry or even Wes Clark to win the nomination. And the media? The media is hoping and praying Hillary ends up with the nomination.
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.
No crimson splotches were created during the state visit of Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu in 1978, a visit which - because of Romania's semi-dissident position in the Soviet bloc - suited both cold warriors and sections of the Left. Earlier this year the Chechnya-enmired President Putin escaped almost any kind of demonstration. . . .
It isn't America that sends ambulances to blow up aid workers or Istanbul synagogues. It is America, above all, that is bearing the cost of helping to create a new Iraq - a new Iraq which, despite the violence, is being born in towns such as Hilla and cities such as Basra. And yet some of our writers and protesters - betraying their own professed ideals - identify with bombers and not teachers, administrators and policemen who are building the country.
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?