Dean's World

I drew up a lot of notes tonight, but I'm too lazy to post them. The show won't get really interesting until they hit the final 12.

I did find it highly amusing that Simon gave fashion advice more than once, when his war cry has been "it's a singing competition!"

My favorites so far are Lakisha, Melinda, and Leslie. Maybe I'll post more later. Feel free to post your own observations.

Okay. Apparently people don't like the term "litmus test."

I get why that's upsetting. I thought I was simply being clear, but apparently just the very idea of a "litmus test" offends some people. I'm not sure it would offend them in all contexts, but it sure offends them in this one.

Okay. Sorry about that. Maybe that's an overstatement.

Before we get mad too mad, though, let's look at it by definition:

a crucial and revealing test in which there is one decisive factor.

Via American Heritage Dictionary.

Each of my five items offended some people, but this one really stuck in some craws:

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.

Others quibbled with other parts, but this one especially tweaked people.

"Most other religions" apparently flew past some people. "No more than" also flew past some. But then there was the big word:

INHERENT:

existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

If you declare that Islam is more inherently incompatible with modernity, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most other religions, then you have essentially stated that Islam is by far worse than most other religions on this score.

"Your religion" isn't even relevant. You've declared something about it compared to MOST religions. You've also suggested, pretty strongly, that Muslims can't be real Muslims and still be good Americans.

In short, as I see it, you already drew a line in the sand. Long before I did. And in a much more draconian fashion.

You've also essentially spat in the face of people I know and care about, and many people who've served this country honorably and well.

I notice that my friend (I hope I can still call him friend) Kevin Dombrowski not long ago said that he thinks homosexuality is absolutely sinful, but that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the armed forces if they want to defend this country. Which presumes that they can be sinners in his eyes but still be good Americans.

Hello?

Have a close read of this thread. Notice how an evangelical Christian declares Islam false and wicked. Fine. Nothing new there. Then later on, a Muslim declares Christianity false. Then three Evangelicals play the role of martyr and claim they're being picked upon by the wicked Muslim.

Meanwhile, they're all acting like the argument is over who is theologically correct, when in fact that was never in question. The question, I remind you again, was over modernity, women's rights, or democratic pluralism.

Where did "theologically or scripturally correct" come into play there? Or are modernity, women's rights, and democratic pluralism something that Evangelical Christians hold as their most sacred values, something that they invented and no one else has any part of?

This is not about whose religion is true or false, people. It's about who you will accept as a decent and honorable fellow American worthy of respect.

I don't think I'm dancing around the subject or weasel-wording here. I do not think it is out of line to suggest that if you think Muslims are inherently the enemies of democracy, pluralism, or human rights, then you don't belong here.

Because you don't belong here if you really believe that, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise.

But please: "spiritually or scripturally correct" doesn't even enter into it.

Now, if you'd like me to open up a thread on why people think Islam is a false faith, or Christianity is a false faith, or why certain breeds of those faiths are good or bad, we can do that. I have lots of opinions on that. But it's a separate subject.

I for one am increasingly gravitating toward becoming a Christian again. Although it would never be as an Evangelical, for a wide variety of reasons. In any case, it's wrong to let the one debate fall into the other.

If you cannot admit that a practicing, believing Muslim can be a genuine American who respects democracy, pluralism, women's rights and minority rights, or cannot accept that it's not particularly worse than most other religions (I did not say "your religion"), then I'm not going to apologize for imposing that as a "litmus test."

And if the words "litmus test" give you the heebee-jeebees, you need to rethink.

Because what I basically said is that if you think Muslims are presumptively bad Americans who need to prove otherwise to you, I don't want you hanging around here.

To me this doesn't seem complicated. Maybe my phrasing was bad, and you can suggest better phrasing. I'm open to suggestions. But for the record, I'm sick of bending over to avoid offending anyone's delicate PC sensibilities. Including, apparently, the delicate PC sensibilities of Evangelical Christians.

(Who, by the way, are not inherently bad Americans, and have often been great Americans. I have a list handy if you'd like me to name some. If the subject is "what makes a good American" and not "what makes one righteous with God.")

After Dean's purge, something a bit lighter...

Over the past weekend I received a call from Comcast offering me a free upgrade to digital cable AND six months free of Showtime and HBO.

I paused while the CSR chattered away about all that is wonderful about Comcast. Why the heck were they offering me something for free? After all, this is the same outfit that hooked me on broadband, then jacked up my rates on cable and refused to cut me a break on their so-called "Triple Play." I've been stuck spending too much money on cable just because the Wife doesn't want a satellite dish on the house and DSL software wrecked my PC.

As she blah-blahed I caught her state that agreement meant that they were locking me into a year of service. After getting burned by bad cellphone service contracts over the years, I've gotten a bit shy about contracts that lock you into anything. But this one was weird. Other than the time period you were stuck with Comcast, they were offering me roughly $30 of services a month for free.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Comcast, dealing with it is a lot like dealing with the Devil. You get what you asked for, but not what you want – and the price? Well, the price is always outrageous.

So why was Comcast giving me stuff for free without anything in return. Why?

Then it dawned on me: Fios - Verizon's fiberoptic network. The fiber has been sitting buried in my neighborhood, unlit for about a year. Fiber. You know they say you can never get enough fiber. How right "they" are.

Today I saw an ad for Fios in the local paper offering a $10/month discount. That fiber must be getting lit soon, and as soon as it does I am ripping the coax cable off my house for good. Freedom! Freedom!

Good bye and good luck to contributors Ron Coleman and Kevin Dombrowski. I know Ron Coleman's going to keep doing great work. Kevin I'm a little worried about, considering the horrible crowd he's just thrown in with. My hope is that he learns a lot from his experience with them, though.

I can't technically say goodbye to my lovely wife, since were just having dinner and chatting amiably, and are going to be watching American Idol soon. We don't take blog stuff personally, in case you were wondering. Ask her if you don't believe me. ;-)

Anyway, I'm sure there may be some more fallout from my line in the sand. Maybe some other resignations or whatever. All I can say is, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

You make choices, and you live by those choices.

I will say that I wound up rethinking slightly this afternoon. Which is the nature of blogging I guess. I crossed a few words out of the original post and made some slight addendums. Nothing big, but perhaps enough to assuage some of you.

Others of you, not so much.

I note that much is being made of assertion #3:

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.

The words "no more" and "most" and "inherant" are operative, of course. Further, none of this demands that you accept that Islam is true or right, Muhammed was a prophet, etc.

Some have argued that the assertion is empirically impossible to verify one way or the other, and thus cannot be either agreed with or disagreed with. I merely point out that if it's empirically impossible to verify, it is a question of perception, and moral judgment.

And if it's merely a question of perception and moral judgment, then it's my moral judgment that you've got an obligation to presume #3 is true absent inarguable evidence to the contrary. And to ask yourself why the perception is there, and what should be done about that perception besides ranting about the Muslim Threat.

In any case, I cannot look every day on this blog and wince at what I find morally reprehensible. Not to mention deeply destructive to the goals of defending freedom against terrorism (Islamofascist and otherwise).

I hope Ron Coleman will remember one thing though:

I'm no Jew. Ain't never been one, ain't never gonna be one. Ain't related to any. And I'm no Evangelical Christian who is convinced that by helping Israel he's going to speed the coming of the Rapture in accordance with God's plan for the eventual conversion of all the currently living Jews--all the dead ones (men, women, and children alike of course) already being condemned to eternal Hellfire. Please do remember that these are the folks who are your friends at the moment, Ron.

Anyway, why do I care about anti-semitism, and why do I defend Israel? It's the same humanist values that drives me to rage when I see hatred of Muslims.

We all have different motivations I guess.

Anyway, as for comment accounts: I nuked one. I have no intentions of nuking any others. Another couple left on their own, which is up to them. The rest of you can answer the dicatates of your own conscience. I edited to require that you start with certain presumptions if you're going to enter discussions on these matters. Make of that what you will. I won't run a blog that promotes things I consider morally repugnant.

I can't get up every morning wondering if something else appearing on this blog is going to make me ashamed as a human being.

*Update*: Martin Shoemaker, in an earlier comment that I only just saw, seems to have understood my original, unchanged words better than others. He's right in what he says right here. Especially the word "inherant."

*Update 2* Once again I just can't keep up with the avalanche of commentary. I really can't keep up with it. If there's some specific argument you think I have not addressed, or some moral point you think I need correcting on, put it here.

At Eteraz.Org you get banned if you're a Muslim and you call another Muslim a non-Muslim. [We have yet to have a non-Muslim call a Muslim a non-Muslim, though I just saw that in the comments here].

You also get banned if you come in saying stuff like Muhammad was a pedophile (empirically wrong); or Allah is a moon god (at best, empirically unverifiable).

Point is, blogs are communities modeled, usually, in the image of the maker.

What that maker is willing to tolerate from his/her commentators (or other frontpagers) is a reflection of the maker.

At my site I would not accept a frontpager saying that Sunnis are superior to Shi'a or that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims. That is my ideological purity (with respect to frontpagers).

Dean has his own. He doesn't want to be taken as the representative of people whom he believes to be illiberal. Accept that.

I find it amusing that people are dissing Dean for not being "tolerant" of their opinions.

Since when did liberalism become about "tolerance"? I thought the entire problem "you guys" (that includes me) had with the ultra left was that we *wanted* to be able to say "this is liberal" and "this is not liberal." We wanted to be able to be intolerant, to not be PC, to not suck up what we really feel for the sake of a fake academic hypocrisy. Dean is sticking to his torch. It's just that this time some of the people who were used to being in agreement with him are getting burnt.

Let me say it again, the liberal tradition isn't about NOT drawing lines in the sand. It is about drawing such lines. What it isn't about is resorting to violence. I don't see any violence here; just a lot of disagreement and people who disagree going their own way.

As such, liberalism lives.

With much shock I saw Ron Coleman leave. I respected him and enjoyed talking to him. With greater shock I read the words of Rosemary Esmay. I know that she and Dean don't see eye-to-eye on all things but her words struck me. I've been in their home and they're both great peeps. I still return even after seeing Dean in boxers. If it was briefs my mind is telling me they were boxers and I'm thankful for that.

I know other front page writers are considering packing their things and leaving too. Well, I've decided and I'm out. As you may have noticed (or not notice depending on what you think of me in general) a lot of my posts are light in tone and nature. The reason for this is because I was concerned about letting people know what I really think about things. Now that I cannot freely say what I feel about Islam, that it has become taboo, I know it is time for me to move on. And move on I shall.

Mr. Robert Spencer was kind enough to offer me a writing position on his blog - JihadWatch. I'm going to take him up on it. Pending an evaluation of my writing style and skillz I hope to be contributing in short order.

Its been fun but don't believe everything Dean says. Battlestar Galactica has been consistently awesome.

I'd certainly not be welcome here any longer. Dean's line in the sand is one that I would stomp all over, if, I were still an active contributor here.

Dean is welcome to make all the rules he wants but I don't like echo chambers. There can be no debate if everyone agrees. What's the friggin' point? Does it make me an Islamophobe to notice that people who strap bombs on themselves in the name of Allah are ... muslim? Well, tough crap. I'm NOT BLIND. Does that mean I think all muslims are bad? No. But there are some problems in the muslim world and it doesn't make me a racist to say so.

I have a problem with all of Dean's assertions. My problem is the fact that we are being blackmailed into accepting his edict. Well, I won't be browbeaten into "acceptance", I like to think for myself and make my own decisions. Demanding that I accept his edict on Islam is not gonna happen. I won't be told what to do or believe, that's why I quit being a Democrat. And if I were still a major writer here, I'd quit too.

Anyone who wants to debate without having to swallow what Dean's serving is welcome at The Queen of All Evil or as I have been affectionately dubbed, the Queen of the Banned.

I'd like to say I am offended by the very idea of a "litmus" test to be a contributor to Dean's World, but that would be fatuous of me. If we had a real Nazi or left-wing nut on this blog I'd be IM'ing Dean to do something about it. Of course there's a litmus test of "sanity."

But I don't know if I can buy into Dean's definitions, and his refusal — rather impatiently expressed — even to acknowledge that with his #3 on the list, he has a lot of people of good faith and fair intellect scratching their heads.

I was very inclined to wait this out, but then in the comments someone raised the issue of "Galileos" on the masthead. I don't want it to be inferred that in order to have access to this platform — which I value highly, as Dean knows well — I am going along with what are arguably controversial propositions. I think Dean is grossly oversimplifying the issue, one of the most important and controversial in the world today. I think, for what it's worth, that he's doing so because of a powerful inclination he has to do the right thing, especially by underdogs.

Why he thinks Muslims are underdogs in this time (and place), as I have said before, I do not know. I've been a little annoyed by the suggestions that as a Jew, I should be the one to be most sympathetic to the plight of the oppressed Muslim, which frankly I believe is preposterous. As a Jew I am the number-one guy in the gunsight of the oppressed Muslim, just because of who I am. Not every Muslim kills Jews, but in my lifetime no one has killed as many Jews as Muslims. I won't have my view of what that implies about Muslim civilization dictated to me by anyone.

Just as Dean has certain things that he's really picky about, I do too. And number one is being told. Tied for number one is cowardice. Those are my lines in the sand.

So by drawing his line in the sand Dean has forced my hand. Not because I'm an "Islamophobe." My way of life as a strictly orthodox Jew has more in common with that of religious Muslims than Dean's does, and then some. But I won't be cornered this way. It's a bit of a precedent issue — where will Dean draw the next line? I don't want to find out or to worry about it.

My friends, as we've all acknowledged, it's Dean's World, and we just live in it. I didn't make this a top-whatever blog, but I benefited tremendously by it being one — and it's Dean who made it one. Do you ever marvel at the broad range of topics Dean writes well about? I do. Okay, sometimes it's broad to a fault — I often chide Dean for wasting time on stuff like American Idol. But that's why he has a great general-interest blog that is full of ads and gets massive hits and I write about things like the CitiGroup umbrella for under a thousand of my closest friends every day.

It's been a privilege to participate, in the most literal sense. I wish there were another gig of this quality waiting out there for me, but I don't think there is. I must say (I always must; that's one of my problems) I went out with a bang — got us linked from Instapundit and Power Line in one day, on one post; but that post was, evidently, exemplary of the rub here.

For these reasons I am withdrawing from the World. I have no plans or predispositions regarding blogging or writing other than to continue with my narrow-gauge blog on intellectual property law, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION. I can't think of too many people who are as like-minded about so many things as Dean and I, especially regarding personal relationships. I feel no rancor towards Dean, only gratitude of the highest order, and I absolutely hope he will continue to consider me a friend, as I do him. And so, too, the rest of you. Goodbye, cool World!

It's time to pay more attention to what the generals think. Here's what General Petreaus has to say.

I don't usually chime in on these discussions but as a “front-page contributor” I wanted to put in my two cents on Dean's line in the sand. I'm sure that Dean knows that I agree 100% with his five assertions. And I certainly can sympathize with Dean's frustration at having to respond to (or even listen to) the same tired arguments over and over again.

As you may or may not know I'm a member of the Watcher's Council. Although a number of the other Council members are among my closest blog-friends I frequently find myself out of step with some of the remaining Council members who, despite their being otherwise bright and sensible people, very clearly reject all five of Dean's assertions and, no doubt, think that I'm a treasonous fool for thinking otherwise. I've been called that and worse (not by fellow Council members who are invariably trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, etc.) on my own blog for just those reasons.

Why do I put up with it? Why don't I abandon the Watcher's Council, ban the commenters who disagree with me, and so on? Basically, because I think that being in the thick of the argument is a better place for me and where I can do more good than sitting on the sidelines.

But this is Dean's World, Dean's rules, and Dean should do what's good for Dean (even if I hope that he continues to let the same, old, tired debate carry on here).

There's one last point, somewhat at a distance from the subject, that I'd like to propose before I bring this post to a close. In my view the source of confusion on the part of many people—non-Muslims and Muslims alike—is that they're conflating Islam with traditional cultural practices that are, indeed, inimical to democracy and modernity (and which, in my own poorly-informed non-Muslim view, are un-Qur'anic as well). Non-Muslims are increasingly persuaded of this because quite some number of Muslims don't make the distinction between Islam and “the way we've always done things around here”.

What do you think?

My own experience (YMMV) is that I have always felt a special kinship with people who are devout whether they're Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or whatever when I've dealt with them at first hand. My life experience is that they're more forgiving, accepting, and kind. Maybe my experience is atypical or maybe I'm just being fooled by my own expectations.

Ugh! This just creeps me out...

A German brother and sister who have four children together are calling for the country's incest laws to be abolished so that they can continue their sexual relationship.

Patrick Stubing and his sister Susan — who grew up separately — have had three of their children taken into foster care.

Two of the children have disabilities although it is not known if these are due to inbreeding or because they were born prematurely.

Stubing spent two years in prison for incest and faces another jail term unless the legislation is overturned.

As an aside, I support gay marriage - or to be precise, the replacement of marriage by civil unions (for legal purposes) leaving marriage to remain a predominantly religious affair. Technically, that's not gay marriage - except in certain liberal Protestant denominations. My beef is that the government needs to get out of the marriage biz, and leave that to religions. The legal unions, however, should be open to everyone - gay or straight.

But brother and sister? Eeewwww... One of the arguments used against gay marriage is that it will lead to the legalization of incest. Before you scoff, that's exactly what has happened in France, Belgium and the Netherlands where gay marriage was legalized first, and incest came later.

So, if you support gay marriage, shouldn't you support incestuous marriage?

I can't - although I can't think of a good reason why right now.

Don Surber has it right.

Unless Senator McCain owns up to this travesty with his name on it and pledges to undo it, I'll be doing all I can to defeat him in 2008.

Which is kinda sad since I always liked him otherwise.

(Via Glenn.)

I'm not re-explaining myself. Read what it says. If you can't handle it, you know where to find the door.

"But what about [insert shallow arguments over the abominable practices found in some countries, difficult verses, etc. right here]...?" Yeah, whatever. 1) Read a book that's not written by a profiteering con artist, a nutjob, or a religious zealot. 2) Take a class in comparative religion. 3) Befriend a Muslim. In short, educate yourself. I'm not here to correct your stupidity or your blinkered bigotry anymore.

Indeed, I engaged in willful denial on this for too long. I'm done with that now.

Here are my notes on last night's American Idol, more or less as I wrote them:

It's still too early for me to make predictions. We'll see in the morning what others have to say.

*Update*: More thoughts by Cullen, and SarahK is funny as usual.

Back in the 1950s William F. Buckley Jr. conducted a purge in the ranks of his young publication, The National Review. He was running a conservative publication at a time when conservative publications were not respected and were thus by nature low-circulation. In those circumstances it would be hard to stand on principal and refuse to associate with certain parties who might provide short-term gain.

Buckley refused to align his publication with elements on the right that were excessively hateful, rabidly racist, or just plain nuts. The whole thing came to a head when Buckley one day drew a line in the sand:

You could either be a John Birch Society supporter, or you could write for the National Review.

One or the other. "Both" was not an option.

This is a minor correction to my friend Ron Coleman's earlier article by the way. It was not anti-semites he threw off his publication, although he was no anti-semite and hired many Jews. No, it was radical frothing nutjobs who saw Communist conspiracies everywhere. Buckley was staunchly anti-Communist, but would not align himself with people who saw everything as a Communist plot.

Today National Review is still one of the most respected conservative intellectual journals. The John Birch Society is rightly remembered as a bunch of right-wing nutjob conspiracy theorists.

Not that the National Review is the greatest publication in the history of the universe, but it's a venerable and respectable institution that's made a difference in the world. I find the example inspiring.

And, having wearied of fighting constantly against Islamophobic fools on Dean's World and other places, only to have people ridiculously deny the very possibility that there could be any such thing as Islamophobia even when the evidence is presented them full in the face, I've decided to draw a similar line in the sand:

You can be an Islamophobe, or you can contribute to Dean's World. You cannot do both.

This is meant for front-page contributors, submitters, or even commenters. It is time for you to make a choice, and to live by that choice. Because I certainly intend to.

Simply put, you must agree withto all of the following assertionsassumptions:

1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.

2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.

4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.

5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.

Is this a test of "ideological purity?"

Why yes. Yes it is.

If you cannot accept, wholeheartedly, all of the above 5 assertions--without exception or weasel-wording--then if you are a front page Dean's World contributor you should turn in your keys and say goodbye. You can do it gracefully or ingracefully. You can do it by email or by posting whatever you want on the front page before you go. Your choice. But you need to do it: you need to leave.

Furthermore, I will accept no more debate upon this matter by commenters bent upon snarky, snotty, Islamophobic irrationality. You should either stop using your comment account, or you should be prepared to simply be thrown out without further ado.

I'm done with this.

By the way, feel free to take us off your blogroll if you can't handle this. Or to ask me to take you off of ours.

We can still be friends if you want. I have relatives and even friends who are racists, sexists, homophobes, even anti-semites. But I won't provide them with a forum either.

Criticism is fine. Intellectual argument is fine. Traditionalist moral arguments are fine. But I will not provide a forum for haters or paranoids.

I'm done. Islamophobia has no more place in polite society than any other form of irrational hatred, and I will no longer be any part of hosting discussions or "debates" with Islamophobes.

*Update*: Made a slight modification above. Sorry about that. Nothing really major though.

...cannot be killed by conventional weapons.

A friend that I've known for (keerist!) 25 years! is the director of this movie. Check out the trailer here.

Nice job, Jack!

Mayor Giuliani is calling on the Republican Party to redefine itself as "the party of freedom," focusing on lower taxes, school choice, and a health care system rooted in free market principles.

I'm still thoroughly enjoying NBC's Heroes. Last night's episode was no disappointment, wherein we get to learn more about the organization that's been hunting and harassing the heroes, and where the invisible guy got started.

By the way, has anyone else noticed just how short Hayden Panettiere (a.k.a. Claire Bennett, "The Cheerleader") is? In real life the actress is 17 year old even though they have her playing a 13 year old. I think being short probably helps her with that. But in the last few episodes I've noticed that she routinely wears boots with 3-4 inch heels--and is still invariably the shortest person in the room. That girl's tiny. I wonder if she even reaches 5 feet tall?

She's still one of my favorite characters though. But I'm a sucker for the "stuck up cheerleader-type who learns humility" type of character.

By the way, if you haven't seen the show, you can see most of the episodes online right on the show's web site. As I've said many times, it's not what I'd call "Great Television" but it's certainly great fun.

Feel free to discuss last night's episode if you like.

Martin Shoemaker links to this book review in the Wall Street Journal in the comments to Ali Eteraz's inquiry about Islamic violence below.

It deserves a lot more attention. The book review is by Scott Johnson of the Power Line Blog and represents an epochal opening, if only for its explicitness, of fault lines within the conservative movement about this topic. When the intellectual and political history of this war and this moment in American history are written, this book review will be Exhibit A.

You have to read the review itself, but in short he demolishes D'Souza for not only accepting the Buchananite view of Israel and America as usurpers in the lands of the Umma and radical Muslims as choiceless victims who only can lash out at provocation (rather than make moral decisions to kill or not to kill). He also argues that D'Souza has engaged in sloppy or non-existent scholarship, massive and unsupportable leaps of logic, and frankly an apologia and whitewashing of the new, murderous Muslim antisemintism by D'Souza. The review is also being published in the upcoming edition of the The New Criterion.

Talk about neo-conservative. This is neo, neo. D'Souza in many respects represented a new concept in conservative and alternative media with his pioneering work at the Dartmouth Review two decades ago. Now he stands accused by a leading light of the newest strain in conservative alternative media, an author of a leading conservative blog, of shoddy scholarship and gross paleoconservative tendencies — ironically, the McCarthyism of the right. For these tendencies are usually revealed at the ultimate fault line in political discourse — antisemitism — the very departure point for William F. Buckley from his previous affiliation with the American Mercury. As David Klinghoffer says,

Regarding the anti-Semites: before Buckley founded National Review in 1955, the Right had a problem with crankery — a condition proceeding from a tendency to see the world through the scrim of your own private resentments. He created NR to make a difference in public life — and that required getting rid of the kooks who made conservatism look like nothing more than an eccentricity.

This is Johnson's j'accuse against D'Souza, the bête noire (do pardon my French) of the cultural left and its long-time and able antagonist. Here, according to Johnson, D'Souza is so dedicated to keeping his Cold War enemy in the center of the conservative bullseye that he is willing to make common cause, however incidentally, with it in blaming America and Israel for bringing "Muslim rage" on themselves.

There will never be another William F. Buckley. In this era, ownership of a printing press bestows precious little cachet in the battle of ideas. But Scott Johnson seems still to be fighting much the same fight, even if Buckley's own recent columns sound more like D'Souza than Power Line. So be it. The battle lines are drawn. Conservatives value the past but, like the Buckley of half a century ago, the great ones know when to move on and where to draw the line. Here Scott Johnson has taken on that role, and the Wall Street Journal with him. D'Souza will respond, and not without great talent and intelligence. Issue has been joined, and this time we will all take part in the conversation.

UPDATE: As Dave Price notes, the Powerline guys have weighed in here, and the theme is, "What breach? D'Souza is alone on this." I got other comments along these lines, off line.

Far be it from me to do the conservative movement a disservice. I do think, however, that Dinesh D'Souza cannot be waved away merely as a lone voice. He has been too much a part of the scene, and an important voice within the movement, for the last quarter century. Furthermore, I believe his thesis resonates among a rump of the old right, as I have said, for whom Patrick Buchanan is the spokesman.

The concern is not whether D'Souza is one of a small crowd taking a very contrarian view, from a conservative perspective, but whether he is in any way part of a trend. I see that, well, neoconservatives intend to make sure that it not become one. I am encouraged, to say the least. But as I said originally, I can't imagine D'Souza remaining quiet, and if indeed he is alone on this, we can look back at it and laugh. But the fact that he believed he could publish it tells me he believed there was a potentially receptive audience. It's too early to say he was wrong.

Jonathan Rosenblum writes:

Inveterate Bush haters are as derisive of the president's religiosity as they are of his supposed stupidity. Indeed the former is often cited as proof of the latter. A lengthy New York Times Magazine hatchet job prior to the 2004 election portrayed Bush as convinced that he had a direct line from God - a conviction that rendered him oblivious to both reason and all empirical evidence.

The president's refusal to pull out of Iraq, his failure to sign the Kyoto Protocols and his use of religious terminology - e.g. the "axis of evil" - are said to betoken the rigid mind-set of a religious zealot.

That critique of Bush's faith-based anti-empiricism is nonsense. I don't know one religious person who believes that God speaks to her directly, or that one need only open the Bible to determine whether the Iraqi insurgency is primarily led by al-Qaida or by ex-Ba'athists.

...

Talk of an axis of evil deeply offends those whose default inclination is to assume that all men are basically rational economic actors seeking to increase material goods and pleasures.

...

THE "FAITH" of secular liberals also causes them to avoid some empirical questions and to give different weight even to agreed upon facts. Critics of the Iraq war, for instance, show little interest in what will happen in Iraq the day after withdrawal - either in terms of fueling jihadist visions of worldwide victory or in terms of the even worse bloodbath likely to follow. Just as proponents of affirmative action are little concerned about how it sets up unqualified minorities for failure, and the consequences on those set up, or the way that qualified minorities are stigmatized as "affirmative action babies."

Rosenblum's religion-based take on BDS is pretty original. I've always said that the "reality based community" operates and urges policies largely as a matter of faith at least as much as the "faith based community" — in other words, their "reality" is no more real than ours.

...Is not doing so well according to this article at Bloomberg. Evidently Hugo Chavez, in his "March to Socialism" is following in the footsteps of other great socialists like Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong and Lenin in wrecking his nation's economy.

Let's take a moment to consider exactly what that means. How is Chavez - the American Left's newest Latin-American "crush" - ruining the oil-rich Venezuelan economy?

In short, by forcing people to work for nothing by setting price controls.

The price controls have sparked shortages of sugar, black beans, meat, chicken, milk and cheese as the government set prices below farmers' costs.

An aside: Why is it that the lowly farmer is the one to get the shaft? Lenin and later Stalin killed millions of them during Collectivization. Ditto Mao during the 1950s. More recently Robert "Comrade Bob" Mugabe in Zimbabwe terrorized farmers off their lands, resulting in Africa's Breadbasket becoming Africa's Aid Basketcase, reliant on foreign aid to survive. One would hope that after 159 years of failure, the doctrine of socialism would be dead. But like a vampire that rises to life, it seems that it's an idea that just won't die. The characters in Ann Rice novels are sexy, and some people find socialism sexy. Unlike Louis, Lestat and the Queen of the Damned however, socialism has real blood on its hands and isn't sexy unless you find starving children a turn-on.

Working for nothing is actually a misnomer. The price controls in Venezuela (and in Zimbabwe) put the prices below producers costs. So the producers stop producing because there is no point to it. They'll grow food for themselves and relatives, and they will sell extra on the black market, but they are not going to sell it at a loss to anyone.

But populist president and Jimmy Carter's darling Hugo Chavez has an answer for those slackers:

(He also) threatened this month to seize butcher shops and grocery stores, telling owners he was waiting for the ``first excuse'' to make the move if they don't obey price controls.

So work at a loss and lose your shop in a few months, or don't work and lose it in a few months. Now there's a choice for you.

Of course people will naturally opt for the latter, in which case nationalization of the economy will skyrocket and the State will become the producer. Then it will find itself owning a huge chunk of the economy, full of loss making enterprises.

In the end Venezuela's poor - the one's who supposedly put him in office (though like many, I believe the election was rigged) - will suffer. The rich will send their money abroad ("Venezuelans have moved $8 billion out of the country on average every year since Chavez took office in 1999, up from $2 billion a year over the previous five decades...") but the poor will starve.

Some critics like to focus on the goofy aspects of Chavez - like his performance at the UN. However his goofy exterior hides the soul of a madman intent on destroying the very people he claims to represent. Like Lenin. Like Stalin. Like Mao. Like Pol Pot. Like Mugabe...

I’ll be spending some quality time in Iraq over the next two and a half months doing consulting work, journalism, and video – first in the northern Kurdistan region and then in Baghdad and the heart of the Sunni Triangle.

My first job starts two weeks from now and will be another private consulting gig in Kurdistan with my business partner Patrick Lasswell. This will be my fourth trip to the region, which is becoming a regular beat for me now. I’m more comfortable there than I was when I first visited. The people, the terrain, the logistics, and the job are all familiar. The learning curve has flattened out, which means I can multitask now.

Last time I went there as a consultant I had no time for reporting or writing. This time I will because I know how to squeeze it in, even though my first obligation will be to my employers, not to my blog. I won’t be able to write full time, but I will be able to give you something now and then.

This time I’m going to give you some video as well as writing and photographs. Stay tuned for taped interviews with Kurdish civilians and officials, and also some video postcards of what this place actually looks like. Kurdistan always shocks people when they see it for the first time. It doesn’t look anything like the hellish images that come out of Baghdad.

read the rest and see the photos at michaeltotten.com

Interesting.

What a Cinderella story, eh? Catapulted from obscurity to become an American Idol finalist after nearly washing out on the show, getting attention in Hollywood, and in one year she gets her first movie role and wins the Academy Award along with tons of other awards and accolades.

And she's a South Side Chicagoan to boot.

God bless America. :-)

Stay tuned, word of possible juror tainting.

Live blow-by-blow account at Orient Lodge.

Update 11:48. As Dave Schuler noted in comments, one of the jurors has been dismissed for being exposed to media coverage of the trial.

Update 12:07. The defense and the prosecution disagreed about whether one of the juror alternates should be appointed to fill the 12th spot. The judge agreed with the defense who may have disliked the two alternates. The defense seems to be pursuing a strategy of jury nullification.

We may see other jurors booted as the case continues. With as much media coverage as there's been and no sequestering of the jury, I wouldn't find it improbable if other jurors have seen media coverage of the trial.

To me, it seemed as if once the defense was prohibited from bringing in NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell to the case to testify under oath about her statement that many reporters knew about Plame, it changed its strategic course to pursue mistrial.

(NB: I changed the headline from "Possible Big News in Libby Case" in this update)

Willow (Who Is A Girl) has a meditation upon a recent BBC documentary.

There was a time in the United States when the vast majority of Americans collected something called Green Stamps, more properly known as "S&H Green Stamps." S&H was the company that issued them.

Not that everyone collected Green Stamps obsessively of course. But pretty much everyone (especially middle class or blue collar) had earned some Green Stamps and had them laying around at some point or other. A lot of people collected them quite avidly. Especially thrifty housewives--and yes, by the way, there used to actually be something known as the "thrifty housewife," with no shame or irony attached to that role whatsoever.

I've had some younger people tell me they've heard of Green Stamps but they don't really understand what they are, or were. This is because, by the early 1980s, the S&H company nearly collapsed. Most agree that their collapse was due to the horrible period of hyperinflation and economic instability of the 1970s. But there was a time before that when you could gas up your car, shop for groceries, and visit several other stores in a week and earn Green Stamps at almost every stop.

It was an entirely private enterprise to help retailers improve customer loyalty: the S&H company would sell these green-colored stamps to retailers. Retailers could then give away the stamps to customers based on how much money the customers spent and what they spent their money on. Customers would collect the stamps, paste them into books, then redeem the books full of stamps for goods or services from the S&H company's catalog. You could get good, useful stuff that way, including things like all-expenses paid vacations or even cars. Although, far more commonly, people would buy things like toasters or can openers or radios.

Why did the retailers do it? To increase customer loyalty and to give incentives for people to buy higher profit margin items.

How did the S&H company make its money? Partly by selling the stamps to the retailers. Partly because a whole lot of people earned the stamps but never bothered to redeem most of them.

Sound familiar? It's just like the airline "frequent flyer miles" programs, isn't it? You bet it is.

I was amused by a recent Open Thread link challenge to learn that they S&H company still exist, and have modernized for the Internet age. In fact I fell over laughing: Apple Computer's Apple Stores now give out Green Stamps! (Okay, they call them "Green Points" now but it's the same thing.)

It's really not complicated once you understand it. Successful ideas rarely go completely away.

Welp, as I figured, he won.

Really it's no surprise, given the political climate in Hollywood.

Gore is following the Nixon playbook very, very well. The folks at the Draft Gore PAC are surely feeling pretty good right about now.

Thoughts, as usual, below.

Another excellent open thread.

I liked Sandi's link roundup on Mt. Horeb, WI best so she wins the points. :-)

Dear Children of Dean:

This is an opportunity for many of you to influence media representations about Islam. I am tasked with conducted a broad based media analysis on two questions regarding Islam:

a) Media Representation of Islam as inherently violent b) Media Representation of Muslim on Muslim Violence

The research is not persuasive, it is exhaustive. The people who have commissioned me want to know about the BREADTH of opinion out there, not what I personally think is the opinions out there, or which ones I would choose as authoritative.

So, I'm asking all of you, any of you, to use the comments section and give me links to journals, articles, books, youtube media, newspapers, and studies. WHAT I DO NOT NEED ARE BLOGS.

The criterion is pretty basic: The opinion has to be of someone with some modicum of qualification; the bigger the names the better, but not necessary.

I know for a fact that a number of people here are experts on the entire area of Islam as inherently violent. Others monitor very closely discussion about Muslim on Muslim violence.

Once I've compiled and submitted the stuff I will do my best to get a non-proprietary version of the report and share it here.

I'm collecting materials from now until tomorrow night.

I suspect Al Gore will win the Academy Award tonight for Best Documentary. Having seen his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, I suspect it will be wildly popular with the Hollywood crowd. And, of course, with anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 and feels they somehow got cheated.

I didn't think much of the film. I haven't decided whether I want to go into detail why I felt at turns insulted and amused by it. But it is well-made, and should help him in his goal to build support for the 2008 Democratic nomination. I think he's especially hoping for a "draft Gore" movement--a fictional one if not a real one. Especially if we have a year of significant natural environmental disasters that he can take credit for predicting.

Winning the Academy Award would surely help him in his goals. And I think most of Hollywood will want to help by giving him one.

From the AP:

Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery. ...

The resolution was introduced as Virginia begins its celebration of the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, where the first Africans arrived in 1619. Richmond, home to a popular boulevard lined with statues of Confederate heroes, later became another point of arrival for Africans and a slave-trade hub.

The resolution says government-sanctioned slavery "ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation's history, and the abolition of slavery was followed by systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding."

It's feel-good liberalism in it's purest form, yes -- well, not that pure; it doesn't raise taxes or promise anyone anything. But in this case, I think it's the right thing to do. Virginia is a great commonwealth that, like most in this country, was built at least in part on an immoral and brutal practice, whose victims' descendants still suffer as a result.

States can't be "sorry," though perhaps they can be guilty. The voice of a political unit is, however, the voice of its elected representatives, and apology and regret are not, as far as I know, ultra vires. Virginia's symbolic apology is appropriate and just, especially considering its historic role in slavery, slave-owning and the Civil War. This resolution should probably be a model for every state that permitted slave-holding after 1776, not only former Confederate states.

Should Congress follow suit? No. The United States of America, as a whole, is different. To the extent that the Congress itself acted unjustly -- as in the case of the Japanese internees during World War II -- it was appropriate for Congress to apologize, however abstract that repentance was. True, the body was now made up of entirely different people, but the corporate continuity was there. But slavery, besides being many lifetimes ago, was not the creation of Congress, though America as a whole probably benefited from it economically. Slavery was the legacy of the Europeans who planted it here, and the United States paid, and still pays, a high price for this wrong. But Congress should not generally be in the apology business.

I'd be willing to bet that most people under 30 barely know what item depicted on the right is for. Especially the sharp pointy end. It's known as a churchkey.

Why do I mention it? Well for one thing, I've recently been drinking a lot of tomato juice. When I was growing up, almost all juice--orange juice, tomato juice, grape juice, grapefruit juice--was in cans that required an opener like this. Even beer and soda pop used to commonly come that way.

But now for some reason only tomato juice and a few other things come in such cans. At least, in my part of the country. They still sell good old-fashioned V8 juice that way, for example, and it's cheaper in that primitive can than in an easy-opening plastic bottle.

I noticed what an anachronism this is recently when I decided, "Hey, I drink a lot of tomato juice, and it's way cheaper in those old-fashioned cans." (Which, by the way, it is; almost a dollar a can difference.) So I bought some tomato juice in cheap cans, then realized that I did not currently own a churchkey. Worse, I had to go to five different stores before I could even find one. A frickin' churchkey!

My local convenience store didn't have one. The little grocery mart down the street didn't. The local hardware store on my way home from work didn't have one. Other stores didn't have one. When I finally located one at the supermarket, it cost only a dollar. But even when I found one there, I had to hunt. There were literally dozens of specialized utensils, including wine corkers and lemon juicers and garlic presses and apple corers. Indeed, there were at least a half-dozen different egg slicers (egg slicers?? who the hell needs an egg slicer?!?) and only two churchkeys on the whole wall.

If you're young and still not sure what this thing is for, here's an explanation: the sharp pointy end is used to punch a triangular hole in a can so you can pour the liquid out. If you know what you're doing, you punch two holes: one large to pour the liquid out of, and a smaller one on the other side to equalize the pressure so it pours evenly.

You actually have to explain that to kids these days. 30 or 40 years ago, most convenience beverages came that way. Including most beer and canned soda pop, as it happens. Now they're practically exotic.

Almost like... shoelaces. (Mwahahahaha!)

To summarise, then: the resistance to the occupation of Iraq is legitimate. It has the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, and by and large it does not target civilians.
...
There is certainly no suggestion from any "respectable" publication that the resistance in Iraq is justified, and that therefore Iran should be praised for supporting it. That such an obvious argument has been totally excluded from the mainstream debate tells us a lot about the honesty of our intellectual culture and the integrity of our "free press".

Saturday night open thread.

5,000 points for the best link of the night.

Go.

1) People who talk in movie theaters
2) Anyone who puts ketchup on a hot dog
3) Whoever came up with the magical elixir known as Cylon Baby Blood.
4) That woman who pays by check at the supermarket by waiting patiently for her total, then pulls her checkbook out, slowly writes the check out, checks the price twice, checks her signature to make sure it looks pretty, and carefully tears it out of the checkbook and hands it to the cashier. Then has to hunt for her wallet so she can find her driver's license.
5) The twisted sonofabitch who invented Clamshell packaging.

Feel free to add your own suggestions to the list.

I'm looking for a word.

You know how you buy a lot of things, especially electronic gadgets, and they come in this hermetically-sealed hard, clear plastic packaging? That you can only get the contents out of by cutting, but it's so tough you practically need a chainsaw?

What do you call that hideous packaging type?

Welp, I guess we know who's going home this week.

Google bomb blows up in own face.

I do not like the name "Dean's World." It makes me cringe a little every time I say it or see it, actually.

I picked it five years ago as an offhand joke. It was an ironic nod to Wayne's World. And that's really all it was.

Yet every time I even toy with the idea of changing it, people get upset and tell me to leave it alone.

Well what the heck. It's Dean's World baby, and you're just living in it.

Please explain to me, in 100 words or less, why a publicly-traded corporation is less of a statist, collectivist enterprise than a trade union or a guild.

Alternative:

Please explain to me why a publicly-traded corporation is more of a natural expression of the free market than a guild or a trade union.

I don't think you can.

Tell us something interesting.

G. Willow Wilson (Who Is A Girl) recently wrote:

Kareem has garnered a tremendous amount of support from across the Arab world. His supporters launched a website in his name, freekareem.org, almost immediately after he was first arrested. Several Arab human rights organizations pooled their resources to build him a legal defense team, which was headed by a conservative Muslim woman. More detailed information is available on the site.

Time for all people who believe in freedom of speech and human rights to get behind this wrongly-persecuted man. More on how you can help right here.

Sandmonkey reports at Pajamas Media:

Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Soliman was sentenced to four years in prison yesterday in a Cairo court. He will sit in jail for three years for the crime of “contempt for religion” and one year for “insulting the president”.

For those of you who haven’t been following the case, welcome to the Middle East. They do indeed have crimes like that around here.

Almost as disturbing as the sentence was the public reaction. As the court hearing ended, the media moved to the street in front of the courthouse and started interviewing people about what they thought of the trial. With the exception of human rights activists and bloggers, the Egyptian public seemed satisfied with the verdict, if not disappointed it wasn’t longer.

Many people expressed the view that Abdel Kareem should be killed for what he wrote, and each of them shared their preferred way to kill him: stabbing, hanging, and of course, the classic beheading. One actually asked a lawyer if it was legal to now kill him, since this verdict clearly brands him as an a