The Corner on National Review Online

Jeffrey Toobin Doesn't Know History [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Jeffrey Toobin starts his New Yorker brief against the Stupak amendment with a quick sketch of the history of abortion. "Abortion," he begins, "is almost as old as childbirth. There has always been a need for some women to end their pregnancies." This claim is at best misleading. Joseph Dellapenna's comprehensive history of abortion goes to some trouble to show that before the nineteenth century, abortion was rare because the available methods were ineffective, dangerous, or both.

Toobin continues, "In modern times, the law’s attitude toward that need has varied. In the United States, at the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before 'quickening' were both legal and commonplace, often performed by midwives." This claim is false. The danger and ineffectiveness of available methods of abortion, the high birth rates of the period, and the high proportion of pregnant brides during the era all tell against Toobin's conclusion. James Mohr's Abortion in America, the most authoritative history before Dellapenna's, concluded that abortion was "fundamentally a marginal practice." Other historians have reached the same conclusion.

How could Toobin have gone so far astray? I have a strong hunch. Toobin's argument tracks pretty closely with that of a legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court in 1989. That "historians' brief," submitted in the name of several hundred historians, was very influential. Ronald Dworkin and Laurence Tribe, for example, wrote books on abortion that relied on the brief for their historical sections. But the brief was a fraud: It falsified the sources on which it purported to rely, and it contradicted the published work of many of the signatories. (I wrote a chapter on the fraud in my book about abortion and related issues.)

Judging from Toobin's New Yorker article, that fradulent history is influential still.

11/18 10:32 AM Share

Insulate Your Home With Taxpayer Cash! [Stephen Spruiell]

If you're trying to get an early read on how the stimulators plan to rob us next, David Leonhardt's column is a good place to look for information. Right from the start, you can tell this isn't going to go well:

The one highly visible success of the stimulus bill has been the cash-for-clunkers program. It induced a boom in vehicle sales this summer that clearly would not have happened otherwise.

Industry analysts at Edmunds concluded that most of the cash-for-clunkers sales were "pull-forward," meaning that the program merely paid people to buy a car in July that they would have bought in September. Only 18 percent of the vehicles sold were "incremental," meaning purchases that wouldn't have happened anyway. Divide the cost of the program by the number of incremental vehicles sold and you arrive at a subsidy cost of $24,000 per vehicle. Cash for clunkers was a terrible program. Leonhardt is off to a bad start.

The rest of the stimulus bill has created a lot of jobs — 700,000 to 1.5 million, according to economists’ estimates. But it has done so in thousands of little ways: scattered construction projects, plugged-up school budgets and the like. Politically, these measures are not popular enough to create a groundswell for more of them.

Whether the stimulus has created any jobs at all is subject to serious debate — I take up this question in the next issue of NRODT — but one thing we know is that it has not created anywhere near the number of jobs its supporters claim it did. Tens of thousands of the jobs the stimulus reportedly saved were never really in danger; other job totals were inflated when government agencies and non-profits counted raises as new jobs. Scattered construction projects? You mean like the $3.4 million eco-passage for turtles in Florida or John Murtha's airport to nowhere? There's a reason these measures are not popular: They are powerful reminders that government has neither the incentives nor the information to guide economic resources to where they are most needed.

Despite the government's abysmal track record in this regard, the alternative — letting individual economic decisions guide resources — is just too horrible for some people to contemplate. Case in point: Millions of homeowners have evaluated the costs and benefits of energy-saving weatherization projects and decided they're not worth it. Horror! What's needed, Leonhardt says, is a "cash for caulkers" program.

This idea is not new. The stimulus bill gave the Department of Energy $5 billion to fund weatherization efforts in low-income communities. For starters, these programs are especially prone to waste and fraud:

The money is first allocated to state governments, which are then directed to give funding priority to “community action agencies.” (Hello, ACORN!) Prior to the stimulus windfall, the program had a tiny budget; its auditors nevertheless found tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of waste in one state (Pennsylvania) alone.

They also fail the test of timeliness: Unions have tied up the spending with lawsuits:

In another state (Nevada), the massive influx of stimulus funds met with delays and confusion after organized labor claimed it wasn’t getting a big enough share. After the stimulus passed, Nevada Democrats passed a law requiring half the new workers to have gone though union apprenticeships, adding to the cost of the program and slowing its pace. On top of that, the AFL-CIO sued the state housing division, arguing that all the new jobs should pay union wages and benefits. States and unions are involved in similar disputes in other states, leading even green advocates to question how much bang for the buck the program is providing.

Leonhardt stresses the need to make sure that we design cash for caulkers so that it doesn't have all that waste and fraud normally associated with government programs. "The details . . . will matter enormously," he writes. Leonhardt's admonition will also serve as a handy excuse when the program becomes as big a bust as the rest of the stimulus. It's not that the government is ill-equipped to spend money wisely or efficiently, you see. It's just that it keeps screwing up the darn details!

11/18 10:31 AM Share

From a $100 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Since I'm a pig-in-a-public-trough government contractor feeding off the Obama's stimulus plan, I think I can spare a few crumbs for your subversive organization. Noblesse Oblige.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 10:30 AM Share

Re: More Obamateur Hour [Jonah Goldberg]

I'm with Andy. Every day it appears more and more that the White House wants it both ways. They want to claim that this is a fair trial but also an act of venegeance. The terrorists will be treated as if they might be innocent — key to a fair trial — but at the end of the day they'll get their comeuppance. If KSM & Co. get off on a technicality, don't worry, they'll still be locked up, but when they're convicted the White House will claim it was always a fair process. They'll get a fair trial from an impartial jury in New York, but it's "fitting" and "poetic justice" that the jury will be drawn from the community that was viciously attacked on 9/11. Fair but vengeul, honest but foreordained, instructive to the world but really just about the law: The rhetoric from the White House and the Democrats isn't persuasive to those who listen closely and certainly won't be persuasive to foreigners Obama is determined to impress.

The point of all of this is to show that the rule of law is intact, but what the White House is doing is in fact undermining the legitimacy of the legal system by having it do something it shouldn't. Obama, Pat Leahy, and the rest preen as if they are morally superior for preferring civilian courts, but what they are doing is undermining civilian courts, and it gets worse every time they open their mouths.

For those interested, my column on the subject is up on NRO.

11/18 10:27 AM Share

More Obamateur Hour [Andy McCarthy]

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention. I'm sure it wasn't — he's trying to contain the political damage caused by his decision — but that won't matter. He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.

11/18 10:03 AM Share

From a $25 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I'll double it to $50 if health care bills fail!!!

Couldn't argue coherently with my lifelong Dem parents without my NRO ammo.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 10:00 AM Share

What's Wrong with This Headline? [Mark Krikorian]

Today's Washington Times reports that "Afghanistan more corrupt despite U.S. aid."

"Despite"?

This is like those headlines "Crime Down Despite Increase in Jail Population."

11/18 09:55 AM Share

George W. Hoover [Mark Krikorian]

Good advice for Bush from Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Bush's belated support for free markets follows in Hoover's footsteps. After leaving office in 1933, Hoover wrote books and articles defending free markets and criticizing the Democrats' New Deal. Some of his criticisms of FDR were well-taken. Many New Deal policies actually worsened and prolonged the Great Depression by organizing cartels and increasing unemployment. But by coming out as a free market advocate, the post-presidential Hoover actually bolstered the cause of interventionism because he helped cement the incorrect impression that he had pursued free market policies while in office, thereby causing the Depression. Bush's post-presidential conversion creates a similar risk: it could solidify the already widespread impression that he, like the Hoover of myth, pursued laissez-faire policies which then caused an economic crisis.

What should Bush now do if he genuinely wants to help the free market cause? The best thing would be to take up economist David Henderson's half-joking suggestion that he "express his regret at nationalizing airport safety, carrying out illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, raiding medical marijuana clinics, bailing out General Motors, AIG and other companies, and socializing prescription drugs for the elderly [the biggest new government program from the 1960s until the present financial crisis]." Bush could also point out that he advocated an ideology of "compassionate conservatism" that included vastly expanded government, and an "ownership society" that (in his own words) involved "us[ing] the mighty muscle of the federal government" to incentivize dubious mortgages of the kind that helped cause the financial collapse of 2008. The greatest contribution Bush can now make to free market policies is to dispel the impression that he pursued them while in office.

It is probably unrealistic to expect any politician to admit major mistakes or point out that he is now advocating policies vastly different from those he pursued while in office. So the second-best way for post-presidential Bush to support free markets is to say as little about the subject as possible. The more the cause is associated with him, the worse off it will be.

11/18 09:53 AM Share

Pres. Robert Byrd? [Mark Krikorian]

Lots of response to my question of whether West Virginia's 91-year-old old senator, who's third in line for the presidency, would be able to turn down the job if, God forbid, such a situation arose. In a word, yes:

I do not believe that the VP can "turn down" being president if it comes to that. After all, he ran for the job of VP knowing full well that the most significant aspect of that position (constitutionally speaking) is to be the "president in waiting". My guess is that a Cabinet secretary would be in a similar position as nothing in the statute provides for a person to refuse to act as President (although, nothing would stop the VP or Cabinet official from taking the oath, becoming President and immediately resigning the office - thereby passing it to the next guy).

The situation with the Speaker and President Pro Tem is slightly different though, since the Constitution prohibits a sitting member of congress from serving in the Executive Branch - thus either of those officials would have to resign their congressional position before they could become President (even acting president) - a requirement also written into the statute (the Speaker or Pres. Pro Tem only act as President "upon his resignation as" Speaker/Pres PT and Representative/Senator). So, those officials would seem to be able to "turn down" the presidency by refusing to resign their congressional offices. So long as they refuse they would be ineligible to act as President and the statute would require that you move to the next person on the list.

In fact, as another reader points out, Sec. 19(d)(1) of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 seems to provide for this:

If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State. . . .

I'd guess that "inability, or failure to qualify" covers a lot of things, including being 91 and sickly. So we can rest easy.

11/18 09:49 AM Share

From a $100 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

About time we made a donation. My husband and I discuss Corner goings-on almost every night.

I purchased a sweatshirt as well. In a couple of months we'll be moving from TX to NY — gearing up for battle!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 09:30 AM Share

Thank You! [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

This is the third morning of our Fall 2009 Fundraising Drive and we are so grateful to those of you who have generously contributed. People out of jobs, right out of school, retired — all walks of life are making investments in our future. Thank you. I won't linger with the thanks, though, because we have much work to do. We owe you our best, as always, as from the beginning.

And if you can, click here for all the details.

11/18 09:13 AM Share

From a $50 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I make my donation with a sense of gratitude, because NR has been an indispensable companion on my journey from an intellectually incoherent socialist to a rock-ribbed conservative. If our blessed nation is to continue as a free republic of sovereign citizenry, we have to win over our countrymen intellectually by continuing to demonstrate the superiority of free markets and individual liberty, and the necessity of a limited government, all the while they are tempted to surrender their freedoms to an almighty State for a warm, fuzzy serfdom. In this intellectual battle, I can think of no stronger fortress and no better-stocked munitions house than NR.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 09:00 AM Share

Generations [Gordon S. Chang]

“There will still be setbacks and even conflicts between China and the United States," said People's Daily, the flagship publication of the Chinese Communist Party in the last few days. "It will take the constant efforts of one or two generations, perhaps several, to bring stable progress to relations."

We should thank Beijing’s ruling group for pointing out the fundamental flaw of American foreign policy toward China. Even if our policies are working — they’re not, but that’s another story — Washington is employing tactics that will take decades to bear fruit. So far, we have been appealing to the good instincts of autocrats who interpret gestures of friendship as signs of weakness and who respect nothing but strength. Perhaps we can entice them to be cooperative, but they have just told us that this approach will require a lifetime of unilateral concessions and obsequious behavior on our part.

So we should not be surprised that President Obama has come away from his three-day trip to Beijing and Shanghai empty-handed. What should he do next time? Next time, he should skip China altogether. He can use the time he saves and head to New Delhi.

India looms large in the Chinese imagination. The development Beijing fears most is a tie-up between the world’s most populous democracy and its most powerful one. If China’s Hu Jintao saw Mr. Obama drawing closer to India, the Chinese leader would do almost anything to woo us, including helping on the great issues of the day.

So if Obama wants to improve ties with the Chinese, he should stop telling them how important they are and begin ignoring them instead.

— Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World. He lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades.

11/18 09:00 AM Share

That Same Old Carter Feeling Again [Seth Leibsohn]

Yesterday, I detailed how little respect the Chinese authorities gave the Obama administration in its requests for media, "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton" was how the New York Times put it yesterday. "A retreat," the NYT said. This morning the LAT has more, about less: "In China, Obama's Hosts Show No Signs of Budging" is the headline. The subheading: "President Obama is Leaving China Without Any Definable Concessions on Tougher Sanctions on Iran or Currency Exchanges."

The story continues:

When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade.

He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences. . . . Not only is the U.S. president coming away without any definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels. . . . Perhaps most disappointing was China's failure to budge in its opposition to tougher sanctions on Iran. With their extensive oil interests influencing their policies toward Tehran, the Chinese are increasingly seen as an obstacle to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions. . . .

Obama did not meet with Chinese journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmentalists or any ordinary Chinese, and an expected meeting with Hu Shuli, who recently resigned as editor of China's leading business magazine, did not materialize.Obama's limited results in part reflect the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and global politics, with China's rapid rise and America's weakened position, especially in the wake of the financial crisis.

There's more. Helene Cooper of the NYT reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said."

And now the Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."

This gives me no pleasure to report. One might ask what the Asia trip was for? The two most important things happening in and about Asia are Afghanistan, where President Obama did not go, and China's support for our attempt at an Iran policy, which Obama did not get. No budging from China. The whole idea of negotiating with Iran was based on sanctions. And the whole idea around sanctions was that it would work if China cooperated. I never thought sanctions would work; I never thought negotiating with Iran would work. And, regardless, China is not playing ball with President Obama — in part because of our "weakened position."

This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years — the last time the U.S. was seen as weak — unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran.

As for our "weakened position," there are any number of ways to change that. Yes, our economy is the first problem and right now we have little leverage there. But our foreign policy has been one of retreat and capitulation as well. We capitulated to China on the Dalai Lama, we are capitulating to the Chinese client state of the Sudan, President Obama on Monday shook hands with the prime minister of repressive Myanmar (another China vassal state), of course he bowed to Japan, he took missile defenses out of Eastern Europe at the request of Russia, he has refused to say anything of strength about Iran, and has shown appeasement to Latin American dictators. Looking at this record: Why would a skeptical country like China think we are strong, deserving of respect?

This is not only sad, it is dangerous. A weak and disrespected America is bad for America, sends the wrong message to enemies (including terrorists), hurts dissident movements abroad, and — as a political matter, again — reminds us nothing so much as it does of the years of Jimmy Carter, which it took even more years to overcome.

Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It's new alright — it just isn't any good.

— Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.

11/18 08:58 AM Share

Stimulus Phantom Districts Update [Jack Fowler]

Watchdog.org’s Bill McMorris reports: "Your Guide to the Stimulus, District by (Phantom) District." Heck, even Rhode Island has three of them.

11/18 08:55 AM Share

Re: Innumerate Al [Steve Hayward]

John, it's even worse than you think. The prospect for "hot rock" geothermal isn't very good because, in many locations, the drilling activity causes seismic problems. One early pilot geothermal project in Switzerland recently caused an earthquake and had to be shut down. People who worked on this and other projects (a friend of mine was involved in the Switzerland project) are very pessimistic about the whole idea. At best, geothermal will only provide a tiny fraction of our energy needs, at a very high cost. Drilling those deep wells is hugely expensive.

Now the irony here is that enviros, who are raising red flags about the risks of "fracking" (hydraulic fracturing) to extract natural gas from shale and coal beds, haven't uttered a peep about the seismic risk of geothermal drilling. Funny how selective the green risk aversion is. In any other area, Gore would be leading the charge against it. And there's another geothermal test well going in soon in an earthquake zone in northern California. The only way Gore will come out against geothermal is if they accidentally find oil and gas along the way.

11/18 08:49 AM Share

Putting Taxpayer Dollars to Play [John Hood]

States are fully as capable as Washington is of squandering taxpayer money on questionable programs without sufficient oversight. Check out what’s going on in Kentucky right now after a local television investigation of the Louisville African American Think Tank — which, as it turns out, isn’t really a nonprofit and doesn’t do much in the way of public programming:

When Rev. Gerome Sutton first proposed a two-day urban health summit in 2007, he asked the state of Kentucky for $135,000. Included in his budget were $4,800 to rent a projector for two days and $15,500 to print 800 brochures. That’s a cost of almost $20 each.

Besides those seemingly inflated costs, there was one other main problem with the proposal. "The tax exempt number had been suspended," said the African American Think Tank's former office manager, who doesn't want to be identified.

She discovered from an angry donor who was denied a tax deduction that the Think Tank had been dissolved by the state in 2005 for failing to file annual reports. But that didn’t stop the Governor’s Office from awarding the Think Tank a $30,000 grant.

It gets worse — or better, if you’re evaluating the case strictly for entertainment value:

The initial funding, a $10,000 check from the state, was cashed at Vermont Liquors. The owner said that the reason was that Sutton hoped to avoid a long wait to get his money. The liquor store owner charges a 2 1/2 check cashing fee, so he pocketed $250 from the state.

Vermont Liquors is where Sutton’s former employee says most of the Think Tank’s financial business is conducted. "If you asked for a bank statement, he couldn’t produce a bank statement, because you know what? There’s not a bank account," she said.

When the summit arrived, only a handful of people attended. Yet Sutton submitted an invoice for the rest of his money, charging the state $12,000 for supposedly feeding a thousand people both breakfast and lunch.

The board of the “think tank” includes several felons. Seems appropriate. There is also a flashy car and a red-nosed clown involved, of course.

For more information on wasteful spending in Kentucky, you can check out the transparency work of the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

11/18 08:46 AM Share

Jewish Conspiracy Watch [Mark Steyn]

The Prime Minister of Canada was in India the other day and found time to visit the (Jewish) Chabad House targeted by terrorists in last December's attack on Bombay.

Mr Rick Gibbs of Vancouver was prompted to write to the country's national newspaper. Even though Trudeaupian Canada so fetishizes minorities that it is now impossible for a white male anglophone to become Governor-General, Mr. Gibbs evidently felt this Jewish outreach was a minority too far:

Our Prime Minister is in India "to reinvigorate Canada-India relations." He visits the massive country of India for just three days, home to 1.15 billion people, 80+% of whom practise Hinduism (alongside millions of Sikhs, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists) yet he finds time to hob nob with Jewish rabbis on his first day. Then the National Post runs two photos of the first day of the trade mission, and both are of his visit to the Jewish Chabad House.

Remarkable.

As the blogger Scaramouche points out, what's remarkable is that in a murderous assault on Bombay and its most prominent landmarks the Islamic terrorists sought out members of the statistically insignificant Jewish population. As Mr. Gibbs would put it, they "found time to hob nob with Jewish rabbis" — and then killed them. As I wrote here at the time:

Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young Rabbi’s pregnant wife... The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance... In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”

That's why the Canadian Prime Minister visited the Chabad House — because it symbolizes the peculiar obsessions of Islamic terror. What's "remarkable" is that so many nice respectable types in Vancouver and elsewhere appear to share them.

11/18 08:38 AM Share

From a $25 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

NRO begins my day anew with rekindled hope, keeps me sane and focused on all things "right" throughout the day, and eases my mind at night — despite the constant bombardment from the (still) Obama-centric lapdog media. Thank you NRO!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 08:30 AM Share

'Embracing With Respect' [Mark Steyn]

Yale President Richard Levin is not a cheap date but, if you've got Saudi money, he's eminently affordable.

The Islamic enforcers have pretty much bought up everything they need to buy in the Western world by now. And like their other chattels we're getting used to putting on the veil and keeping our mouths shut.

11/18 08:13 AM Share

From a $100 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Thank you for all your courage and hard work! And that Mark Steyn of yours is one funny man. . .

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 08:00 AM Share

From a $25 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I made it all the way to college before I was presented with the prevailing view of conservatives as knuckle-dragging rustics. NR was the antidote I needed 25 years ago, and it, along with NRO, remains as such today. Thank you for reminding me that even in these times, thoughtful conservatism is alive and well.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 07:30 AM Share

From a $100 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I read NRO every day! You all enable me to stay informed so that I can in turn educate my friends and families on the issues of the day. Not only that, NRO is just plain fun!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 07:00 AM Share

Holder Testifying Today [Andy McCarthy]

He'll be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee at 9:30 a.m. C-SPAN3 will cover.

11/18 05:53 AM Share

Gollum as Screwtape [John J. Miller]

Now this is cool: Andy Serkis (Gollum in The Lord of the Rings films) stars in an audio performance of The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, produced by Focus on the Family. Judging from the video link, Serkis sure does a good evil-genius howl.

Years ago, John Cleese recorded a very good Screwtape. Also, fans of the Lewis book should check out the stage version by the FPA Theatre Company.

11/18 05:21 AM Share

The Science Is Sizzled [Mark Steyn]

Derb, Al Gore's being a little more than merely innumerate when he breezily asserts that the temperature of the earth's interior is "several million degrees." His entire, highly lucrative shtick rests on the proposition that a one-degree increase in surface temperature in the course of a century imperils not merely the poor old polar bear, not merely the planet itself, but is "altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe." But he's so insouciant about "several million degrees" boiling away a couple of miles under his loafers that he can't even be bothered getting it right to within three figures.

It makes you wonder whether even he believes any of this stuff.

11/18 12:33 AM Share

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Re ‘Who Cares about Cuba?’ [Jay Nordlinger]

I found this a lovely, very American letter — see if you agree:

Mr. Nordlinger,

Just wanted you to know that I care about Cuba . . . I don’t have any particular reason to care, I suppose — I’m as WASP as they come — I just love freedom and hate tyrants.

Awesome.

11/17 10:43 PM Share

How the Nazis Tried to Steal Christmas [Jonah Goldberg]

Interesting article, great pictures. Would have been perfect for the LFB (and here are some relevant posts from it.)

11/17 10:14 PM Share

New Koran Translation [Mike Potemra]

One of my great (but definitely amateur) interests is the field of English Bible translation. Since the days of King James, we English-speakers have been very well served by the efforts of ministers and scholars to render God’s Word in a manner that’s both faithful to the original and understandable to readers; the period since 1950 has been especially fruitful in this regard. In this era of our fateful, global confrontation with radical Islam, it’s important that the Koran, too, be available in contemporary translations that give the reader an accurate picture of what it says — the ugly, hateful material as well as the spiritually uplifting material. On my morning commute today, I was able to read the first 24 pages of Tarif Khalidi’s translation, just out in paperback from Penguin; and, so far, it certainly works better as English than do some other popular translations. From 2:177:

Virtue does not demand of you to turn your faces eastwards or westwards. Virtue rather is:

He who believes in God, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book and the prophets;

Who dispenses money, though dear, to kinsmen, orphans, the needy, the traveller, beggars and for ransom;

Who performs the prayer and pays the alms;

Who fulfil their contracts when they contract;

Who are steadfast in hardship, calamity and danger;

These are the true believers.

These are truly pious.

That’s a pretty good summary of mainstream monotheistic thought and theistic ethics, and, while I myself would have tinkered with it a little more, it certainly reads as very clear contemporary English. Compare some of the wording of the same passage in one of the most popular earlier translations, that of Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

It is not righteousness

That ye turn your faces

Towards East or West;

But it is righteousness –

To believe in Allah . . .

Such are the people

Of truth, the God-fearing.

“It is not righteousness” and “the people of truth” are in that special form of English diction some of us call “Biblish.” A native English speaker today would not typically have phrased those thoughts in that manner; he or she would have said something closer to Khalidi’s rendering.

A couple of paragraphs down, in 2:178 (Khalidi version), there is an admonition highly applicable to our situation of the past decade: “The prospect of retaliation saves lives, O you who are possessed of minds.” Over the eight years that have passed since 9/11, the U.S. has waged vigorous military combat against Islamic extremists; it is surely no coincidence that there has not been another 9/11. Every measure we take — within the limits of divine and human moral law — to strike back at the terrorists gives the terrorists a healthy prospect of retaliation, and thus it does, indeed, save lives. And that’s not all: By weakening the Muslim fanatics motivated by hatred, it strengthens those Muslims who work and pray for a better Islam, an Islam devoted to the ideals of 2:177 that I quoted above.

11/17 07:24 PM Share

Innumerate Al [John Derbyshire]

Al Gore on Conan O'Brien's show the other day:

Conan:   Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy …
Al:   Yeah, yeah.
Conan:     and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth …
Al:   Yeah.
Conan:   … to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?
Al:   It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

[Me] The geothermal gradient is usually quoted as 25–50 degrees Celsius per mile of depth in normal terrain (not, e.g., in the crater of Kilauea). Two kilometers down, therefore, (that's a mile and a quarter if you're not as science-y as Al) you'll have an average gain of 30–60 degrees — exploitable for things like home heating, though not hot enough to make a nice pot of tea. The temperature at the earth's core, 4,000 miles down, is usually quoted as 5,000 degrees Celsius, though these guys claim it's much less, while some contrarian geophysicists have posted claims up to 9,000 degrees. The temperature at the surface of the Sun is around 6,000 degrees Celsius, while at the center, where nuclear fusion is going on bigtime, things get up over 10 million degrees.

If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was "several million degrees," we'd be a star.

11/17 07:03 PM Share

From a $100 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I hope my small contribution helps. I have greatly enjoyed NR and NRO for several years, and look forward to many more!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/17 06:30 PM Share

Save, America [Andrew Stuttaford]

Leaving aside that whole paradox-of-thrift thing (and that's a big "leaving aside" at the moment), I don't think that there can be much doubt that this is a country that needs to reinvent a savings culture — and fairly quickly. In an entertaining piece over at the Business Insider, John Carney and Joe Wiesenthal list some of the ways that government is discouraging people from doing just that. Some of the items are debatable, but all are worth pondering. That said, I'd add the failure to adjust taxable capital gains for inflation (and — thinking aloud — maybe taxable interest income, too) and, more generally, the need to weight any future tax increases more towards consumption (differential rates for different items could offset at least some of the regressive effect) than income. And could that latter comment imply that the answer lies in some sort of VAT? For all that unlovely tax's undoubted drawbacks, perhaps.

11/17 06:30 PM Share

From a $10 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I wish I could give more, but my eldest has been out of work since January, and we are pretty much tapped out from helping with expenses. Thank you for all you do — I learn so much from NRO.

May we all Live Long and Prosper!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/17 06:00 PM Share

From a $50 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Love your magazine and your online articles as well. I am the old lady (88 years!) in the wheelchair that was pushed around by my son on the NR Cruise November 2008. What a wonderful time we had! Thanks for all.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/17 05:30 PM Share

Law & Order Can Get Worse [Jonah Goldberg]

Some folks may remember that I am a one-time-fan-turned-long-time critic of Law and Order. The show began (20 years ago!) when crime was still a big deal in New York and the ripped-from-the-headlines stories were about real crimes. Some of those crimes even had a gritty anti-P.C. angle to them (Tawana Brawley, Larry Hogue, Bernie Goetz etc). But about ten years ago, the show became increasingly detached from reality. The producers turned to political controversies and made them into stories about murder in which corporations and conservatives are very often the culprits.

I've always thought this was a deeply pernicious thing to do. Whatever your objections to conservatives and corporations, they don't routinely murder people. To suggest that our ideological-yet-democratic disputes are plausibly analogized to stories of wanton homicide is a serious disservice. Indeed, because the show is astoundingly smug in its didacticism, the hypocrisy of it all is galling. The show often preens as if it is lecturing us about political morality even as it slanders American society in the process. I stopped watching years ago. But every now and then I do watch to see if it's still as bad. It usually is. But it sounds like it's getting even worse.

Michael Rulle at Big Hollywood writes:

NBC’s “Law and Order” is in its 20th season. The economy is weak, so they have devolved to converting White House talking points into weekly shows. Last week, “Doped” was a farcical equivalent of “Damien Thorn meets Karen Silkwood.” Pharmaceutical companies and Doctors are worse than drug cartels. The killers in the previous week’s episode on such cartels were more sympathetic than the health professionals.

In the opening scene, a woman with 4 children is driving the wrong way down the West Side Highway (like the Diane Schuler Taconic Parkway horror this summer). Speaking on her cell phone erratically (no “hands free!”), the kids get concerned. She decides it is time to use nasal spray for her allergies, which had been spiked without her knowledge. Flash forward and viewers see two mangled vehicles resulting in seven deaths.

Go to B.H. for the rest, but the upshot is we need health-care reform.

11/17 05:06 PM Share

From a $50 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Thank you so much for your endeavors in keeping us informed. You are a lighthouse in a murky, foggy sea.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/17 05:00 PM Share

Where's That Inflation? [Veronique de Rugy]

As you know, from September 2008 to September 2009, the Federal Reserve pumped an unprecedented $2 trillion into the financial system by buying Treasury bonds and assets from banks. According to most mainstream economists, such action should create a general increase in prices. Yet, strangely, according to these same mainstream economists, there are no signs of inflation. In fact, the fear is deflation. How can that be explained?

I have tried to tackle this question in my Reason column this month. My overall conclusion is that economists need a new paradigm to understand inflation today. Think about it this way: In the 1970s, economists couldn't understand what inflation was about and how to get the country out of the vicious spiral of stagflation. That's until Milton Friedman turned the field of monetary theory upside down. Since then, economists agree that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

The same revolution needs to take place today.

Keep reading this post . . .

11/17 04:54 PM Share

Mukasey: Obama Administration's 'soft, cushy euphemisms reflect they're back in a pre-9/11 mentality' [Andy McCarthy]

The Washington Times reports that Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey elaborated today on his warnings about the dangers of transferring the 9/11 jihadists to New York City for a trial in the civilian justice system.

"It's simply a fact of life that a jihadist, particularly somebody like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is looking for a big stage," Mukasey said in an interview on the WTimes's "America's Morning News" radio show. "New York City is the biggest stage in the world, and the attempt will be made to make this as big, spectacular and ugly as possible."

He reminded listeners that Zacarias Moussaoui had turned his civilian trial into a circus (Remember this ditty: "America, you lost . . . I won," and "God save Osama bin Laden. You will never get him.") Joe Weber's report continues:

Mr. Mukasey also supported the criticism that the Obama administration's plan for the trials — as announced Friday by Attorney General Eric Holder — reflects a "pre-9-11" mentality, or worse. He cited Mr. Obama's decision to bring suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to trial on U.S. soil and his refusal to use the term "war of terror."

"Using soft, cushy euphemisms instead reflect they're back in a pre-9-11 mentality," he said. "In some ways it's worse, because at least before [the attacks] we were not aware of what we were facing."

Mr. Mukasey also said the mass shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in which 13 people were killed was a terrorist act. Witnesses said suspected shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar" before shooting. "It's impossible to categorize it as any other act," Mr. Mukasey said.

He said Maj. Hasan represents the new breed of "leaderless jihadists," encouraged by Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. "This man is a fulfillment of their dreams," he said.

11/17 04:49 PM Share

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions [Jonah Goldberg]

Details at the Onion.

(make sure you read the news crawl, too).

11/17 04:47 PM Share

This Will Alarm Sci-Fi Fans [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

(From a White House e-mail:) "Secretary Sebelius Announces Cristal Thomas as the New HHS Regional Director for Region V"

11/17 04:46 PM Share

From a $100 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I am especially addicted to The Corner, which I can't help but check regularly throughout the day, and continually during an election cycle.

Keep up the fantastic work.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/17 04:30 PM Share

Re: Prejean [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Another e-mail:

I just finished reading the reader response to your Prejean column and I think the commenter is missing the point in comparing Prejean/gay marriage to Joe the Plumber/economy. There is little question that Joe the Plumber is not an economic expert, but the reality is that for many of us gay marriage is not a political issue as much as it is a moral issue that happens to have been politicized. I'm quite sure that Miss Prejean is capable of espousing her own moral point of view, and if the proponents of that side of the discussion choose to use her as a spokeswoman, I see nothing wrong with that. To say that any individual is not an "important voice" on a moral issue is missing the point entirely.

11/17 04:03 PM Share

From a $100 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I already support NR as a suscriber, but I am donating $100 in hopes that voices like yours will keep Derbyshire's prophesies of impending doom from coming true.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/17 04:00 PM Share

Re ‘The Acornization of America’ [Jay Nordlinger]

VDH wrote about “the strange Obama-administration practice of counting hypothetical jobs saved by more government borrowing rather than focusing on real statistics of real jobs lost,” and the “fantasy congressional districts with fantasy new employment in them.” I could not help thinking of a line from the president’s inaugural address: “We’ll restore science to its rightful place.” Well, maybe, but what in the world is the administration doing with statistics? More generally, has an administration’s practices ever been more out of line with a president’s boasts and promises?

UPDATE: A reader chimes in, “You think those districts don’t exist? They will after the ACORN-ized 2010 Census, and they’ll be gerrymandered for the Democrats, too!”

P.S. Remember when Reagan, saying “gerrymander,” would signal that he knew that Gerry pronounced his name with a hard “G,” though we pronounce “gerrymander” with a soft one? Amazing guy, the Gipper.

11/17 03:47 PM Share

From a $50 NRO Contributor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Every day, first thing, I read The Corner from when I last left off. It is my daily aspirin for the splitting headache caused by toxic exposure to our nation's current political fiasco. Sometimes, I need several aspirin a day.

You make good medicine!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/17 03:30 PM Share

Iran Sentences More Activists to Death [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has sentenced five people to death over the unrest that followed the country's disputed June presidential election, state television reported Tuesday.

At least three others caught up in the turmoil have received death sentences previously.

11/17 03:05 PM Share

The Acornization of America [Victor Davis Hanson]

Given all the "seas recede/planet cools" rhetoric, Greek temple sets, and vero possumus schlock of the campaign, some of us thought that Obama administration's requests that citizens identify "fishy" critics of Obamacare were a little Orwellian. Others thought the NEA had turned into the Ministry of Truth, with its quid pro quo conference calls and praise of Obama as the new Caesar, man of letters. Then there were the Anita Dunnisms about a deluded captive media and dear old Chairman Mao battling heroically at the ramparts. But any doubts about whether we are all now in the Animal Farm barnyard were dispelled by the strange Obama-administration practice of counting hypothetical jobs saved by more government borrowing rather than focusing on real statistics of real jobs lost, and now by the recovery.gov citation of fantasy congressional districts with fantasy new employment in them.

11/17 02:57 PM Share

Science Wins! Or Does It? [Iain Murray]

Six months ago, the DHHS felt that mammograms for women in their 40s were very important. Today, not so much . . . Captain Ed has the story over at Hot Air. Now as it happens, I regard the change in policy something to be pleased about. From all the evidence I've seen, the number of women that get breast cancer without also having other risk factors is extremely small, meaning that in all probability the number of women who get benefits from the (painful) screening alone is outweighed by those who undergo potentially very harmful but unnecessary surgery.

So it is possible that this decision is actually a victory for science over the precautionary principle, with a decision having been based on a proper consideration of the risk trade-offs involved. Even if cost was involved in the decision, as Captain Ed suggests, it's still the right decision.

What's going to be interesting is the reaction from the baptist and bootlegger alliance of feminists and providers of screening services. Last time this was discussed in the early 90s, that alliance forced the Clinton administration to cave and recommend annual mammograms. The administration's reaction to that likely backlash will tell us much about the value the president really places on science.

11/17 02:56 PM Share

'Taint of Corruption' [Mark Krikorian]

Today's NYT has a story on how the crooked son of Equatorial Guinea's crooked president is able to gain access to his home in Malibu despite the "taint of corruption":

Several times a year, Teodoro Nguema Obiang arrives at the doorstep of the United States from his home in Equatorial Guinea, on his way to his $35 million estate in Malibu, Calif., his fleet of luxury cars, his speedboats and private jet. And he is always let into the country.

The nation’s doors are open to Mr. Obiang, the forest and agriculture minister of Equatorial Guinea and the son of its president, even though federal law enforcement officials believe that “most if not all” of his wealth comes from corruption related to the extensive oil and gas reserves discovered more than a decade and a half ago off the coast of his tiny West African country, according to internal Justice Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement documents.

And they are open despite a federal law and a presidential proclamation that prohibit corrupt foreign officials and their families from receiving American visas. The measures require only credible evidence of corruption, not a conviction of it.

Keep reading this post . . .

11/17 02:36 PM Share