BARELY A BLOG

BARELY A BLOG

FRENCH, ROMANS, AND COUNTRYMEN

I’d like to preface what Bill Anderson writes by saying that, as is obvious, my column, Rah-Rah for Rioters, is more than sardonic about the French Welfare State, and about state intervention, in general. Witness the comments about affirmative action. Or that about the state, not German civil society, being responsible for liquidating Jews. Can one be more direct than that? However, the thrust of my writing is not deterministic. Sure welfare destroys. But people’s actions, good or bad, are not reducible to a single cause. Some libertarians take the position that it’s all the state’s fault. More accurately: it’s all the American State’s fault. What an utterly unserious stance. Entitlements are available to all who choose them as a way of life. Ditto violence. People have a good degree of free will. They can choose to reject both. One embodies Left-Liberalism if one has succumbed to seeing human motivation as unidirectional and lacking volition. Cleese’s delicious (and brilliant) “What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us” is a spoof just up my alley. Yeah the Romans were the bad guys, but hell, the Jews could be a handful. Then again not everyone shares my sense of the absurd. —ILANA

(Incidentally, Barely a Blog will be going legit—onto a REAL blog format—this weekend.—ILANA)

From: WILLIAM ANDERSON

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 3:38 AM

Subject: Rah-Rah for Rioters

Very, very good.

People need to understand—and I think you do—that the French "system" of suffocating bureaucracy and antipathy to private enterprise definitely destroys a real future, not only for the Muslims, but also for everyone else. I had a conversation with a Canadian in Vancouver a couple summers ago and his point was that what was left for people like him were government jobs, something he realized in and of themselves were dead end.

Now, this hardly counts as "oppression" CNN style, but the insistence that people on the left make that "economic security," as peddled by the Europeans, is a REALLY GREAT THING do not realize the longer term implications of destroying private initiative.

That, however, was not your point. Your larger issue was that the so-called CNN reasons for rioting were, to put it mildly, something that emanates from the rear end of a bull, and with that, I heartily concur.

—Bill

Jay D. Homnick writes this on The Reform Club’s blog. His guiding lights are the prophets of the Hebrew Testament. They are mine too (it wasn’t always uncool to look up to a prophet, you know.)—ILANA:

“CALL ME ISHMAEL (WHILE I BURN YOUR CAR)

Is Ilana Mercer an absolute genius or what? What does it say about the conservative movement in America to have this level of passion and talent?

Her article today eclipsed my understanding of the media France coverage, left me feeling like a rank amateur in understanding the depth of the kulturkampf. I had contented myself with the lazy observation that the media was disposed to "excuse" criminality when it wore a liberal-political fig leaf.

Ilana digs much deeper. She explains that the miscreancy is itself cited as "proof of virtue".

Her brilliant insight hit me like an epiphany. I felt like I could actually hear Isaiah (5:20):

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who assert that darkness is light and light is darkness; who assert that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. (My translation.)”

POSTED by Jay D. Homnick at 10:17 AM

From: Lawren

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005

Subject: Rah-Rah for Rioters

Thank you for your article on the unbelievable coverage of the French riots. One CNN pundit, with mike clutched to her bosom called the rioters "lads." I immediately sent my monthly email to CNN that they again confirmed they are on the side of chaos and anarchy. Unbelievable.

Thank you again for giving a voice to the unheard.

—Lawren

—Written by Ilana Mercer, November 11, 2005 (Link)

Letters to Barely A Blog in response to Dear (Zarqawi) ... and For the Love of Islam. Joy! Not one of the WorldNetDaily readers who wrote believes any longer in Bush’s war. All agreed that the twin evils—inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them; loving Islam and leveling an Islamic country—are two sides of the same neoconservative coin. I’m so very happy. I’ve been pelted since 2002, when I first exposed Bush’s will to war. No more, though.—ILANA

From: Barbara Grant

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005

Subject: For the Love of Islam

Dear Ilana:

Glad to see your commentary back on a regular basis at WorldNetDaily.com. You are one of a very few commentators who combines clear thinking with exceptional insight and fine prose. Your columns are a joy to read.

The neocons' approach to the Islamic world seems to rely on the false assumption that regime change can promote a character change among those upon whom a regime is imposed. This is about as reasonable as dressing up a man as a woman and proclaiming that "he" is now a "she." When the makeup wears off, one still has the same old parts. American Christians' continued support of an administration that grovels before Islam is even more irrational.

Sincerely,

—BG

From: Jim B.

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005

Subject: For the Love of Islam [From a military man]

Thanks for a great article, and for your courage in writing it. I wish I could tell you that those who need to heed its message are listening. I loved your term "recreational war" in reference to what's going on in Iraq. Bush loves to say in his rhetorical speeches that "we will continue aggressive offensive operations against terrorists wherever we find them...." and that "we have the terrorists on the run all over the world." As you so rightly stated, "this is vomit."

I am a retired naval aviator with 24 years in the Navy, mostly flying as a bombardier/navigator in the A-6 Intruder, our "also retired" medium attack bomber. Why Bush gets the pass for calling the "war on terror" a "war", I can't figure out. There is NO offensive strategy. We are going on our 4th year in Iraq, where WWII was over in both theaters in 4 years. Why? There was an offensive strategy in both theaters. Our war is like being at a Disneyland shooting gallery in Frontier land and plinking at a target when it pops up. I mean no disrespect to the troops, they are only following orders, but I believe our troops would rather risk dying in actually fighting the enemy than in "road hunting" and getting blown up by a roadside bomb. As long as we have no strategy, there will be no victory. Our strategy seems to be "as long as terrorists want to come fight us in Iraq, we'll keep killing them there." Iraq is like Vietnam in the sense that we have the same insane strategy for getting out of there. "Train the indigenous Iraqis until they can handle the insurgency and we can go home..." Sounds rather like Nixon's "peace with honor." One million dead South Vietnamese wasn't very honorable. Anyone who believes the Iraqi Army will last any time at all against the terrorists is, in my opinion, dreaming. So, will America be in Iraq "forever" like it is in Europe and Japan? I guess so, because the people of America really don't care.

—Jim B.

From: Benjamin C. P. Jr

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005

Subject: For the Love of Islam

I enjoyed reading your column "For the love of Islam." I disagree on one point: the Shrub ain't conservative!!! I never doubted that Bush et al. are liberals. At best, Shrub is a Dhimmi; at worst a traitor. If western civilization—life and liberty—is to be preserved, the voting public must be informed of the reality of Islam. Articles like yours can start the ball rolling.

—Benjamin C. P. Jr

From: Stephen and Marnee

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:20 AM

Subject: Iraq

I am a recent reader of your articles. Can you please direct me to those articles (recent or not) you have written arguing against the wisdom of the Iraqi War. [With pleasure; here they are—ILANA.] I consider myself a libertarian/conservative who recognizes the threat of Islam to Western Civilization. I was a firm backer of Bush's war in Iraq, but am having second thoughts now.

Best regards,

—Stephen S.

(Toronto)

From: Chris L.

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:03 AM

Subject: For the Love of Islam

Ilana:

Aside: I have a new baby (5 weeks old) who shares your first name, even the correct pronunciation!!! [My first tiny namesake. Coos to little Ilana—Big ILANA]

I am weary of listening to war cheerleaders tout a couple of elections and the participation of a majority of the populace in Iraq as a sign things are going well. If my family was being held hostage in our home by murderers, and my family voted to put me in charge, and we all voted on a bathroom schedule (even if under threat not to have said vote), all the while every few hours one of us gets tortured and or murdered, is the plight of my family improving with these votes?

I honestly don't know if things are better, worse, or static in Iraq. Some HARD data on Iraqi troop training, restoration of basic civil services like schools and utilities etc., may offer a better glimpse. But, a few dozen guys inside a fortified area of Baghdad calling themselves a government and signing a constitution while Americans and Iraqi citizens DAILY encounter IED's and other tricks and treats is a farce. I'm not advocating a particular course of action, just seeking intellectual honesty in the situational evaluation.

—Chris L.

From: Mark F.

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:57 AM

Subject: For the Love of Islam

Hello Ilana-

Great column on Islam, and the schizophrenic policies and attitudes toward Islam by the neocons and Bush. One of your best ever! You have mastered the topic.

I would also like to point out for your future reference that Bush, the Christian, declared that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. He did this one week before the election on national television (Good Morning America, I believe). No surprise that none of the pro-Bush Christian organizations picked up on that ridiculous statement from the theologian-in-chief. This view is unmitigated heresy, to say the least.

Anyway, the best to you.

Sincerely,

—Mark F.

From: Carl S.

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 1:37 AM

Subject: For the Love of Islam

Dear Mrs. Mercer:

Wonderful article. It's always interesting how smart and perceptive folks (like yourself) often end up taking very similar positions on this issue. Larry Auster at "View From the Right," one of my very favorite blogs, shares your basic view. I find it quite amazing that Bush, Blair, et al are now Islamic theologians. Despite 1400 years of consistent teaching and action from the "religion of peace," these new self-appointed Imams are now informing us unenlightened peons that jihad doesn't really mean warfare and Islam has always been the one of the world's most tolerant religions. You can tell by all those churches and synagogues being built a stone's throw from the great mosque in Mecca.

As far as Jorge II's supposed love affair with the "Zionists" mentioned by the tin-foil hatter you quoted, Bush the Zionist - pressing for the establishment of a jihadist statelet on the doorstep of the only representative of Western civilization in the region. With friends like the GWB, who needs Osama, or Yasser!

Best Wishes,

—Carl

From: Richard W.

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005

Subject: Dear (Zarqawi) ...

Hi Ilana,

It is good to read an excellent column—well thought out and articulated perfectly to get the point across. I especially like the way you reason your view point. Thank you. So many columns today simply ramble on and actually say nothing of importance to further the writer’s viewpoint. [Oriana Fallaci, a hero to my generation of journalists and women, has noted that today’s writers bore the reader. Oh the tedium! There is no sin worse than boring readers to death—ILANA] You never have that problem. Your viewpoints are always explained. That’s the reason I prefer your writings. If we sometimes do not agree at least you have explained why you think as you do.

—Richard W.

From: Steve L.

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:13 AM

Subject: Dear (Zarqawi) ...

I am a conservative and read your excellent column about Al Zarqawi with great interest. A very well thought out argument, except for the following unfortunate sentence which sounds like a quote from Dan Rather about President Bush's National Guard lack of attendance introduced in a false document.

"Clearly, even if the Zawahiri epistle is inauthentic, it is not necessarily untrue."

Even if I believe you are correct, I think you owe it to your readers not to use arguments so endearing the socialist left who are constantly using innuendo in place of facts. [My response: I “owe” myself and the readers truth and independence of thought because I’m committed to those, not because of some contract that compels me. In this connection, please read this little entry, The Anatomy of Group Think. Arguments are right or wrong, not left or right. Dan Rather was right about Dubya being a deserter of sorts. He was wrong to use a forgery. Very wrong.—ILANA].

Best Regards,

—Steve L. VA

—Compiled By Ilana Mercer, November 5, 2005 (Link)

Letters to Barely A Blog in response to Bush's Bastardized 'Conservatism'. [Not one of the readers who wrote disagreed with the column.—ILANA]

From: Mark R.

Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 6:20 AM

Subject: Bush's Bastardized 'Conservatism'

IM: I am an attorney. I am not now and never was a constitutional scholar, preferring the theatrics and gratification of trial practice. I figured out early on that Harriet Miers is dippy. The country deserves better, the Supreme Court demands better. So should we.

Thank you for your perceptive and accurate piece.

—Mark R.

Hollywood, FL

From: Michael E. L.

Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:36 AM

Subject: Bush's Bastardized 'Conservatism'

Ilana,

WOW! OH WOW! You took my breath away when I read your latest commentary. ESPECIALLY the title "Bush's Bastardized Conservatism." I'm so thankful that more people are getting disgusted with this "Christian" President as I am. I thought Bill Clinton was trash but Bush makes Clinton look desirable in some ways. WHY can't this nation WAKE UP to what this moron is doing! The man can hardly express himself without a prepared speech or cue cards!

Keep up the good work in telling it like it is while we can. Unless this nation has a major spiritual awakening I feel we're headed for martial law with ole W being in charge.

—Sincerely,

Michael E. L.

Dallas, TX

From: Dave

Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:58 AM

Subject: Bush's Bastardized 'Conservatism'

You wrote:

"New New Deal" for New Orleans, for which there is no constitutional authority."

Finally someone has the fortitude to put it in writing. You are to be congratulated; it needs to be discussed at much greater length [as we libertarians have been doing since the absolute ruler ascended to the thrown,” to quote the column].

Again good work,

—Dave

—Compiled by Ilana Mercer, October 27, 2005 (Link)

THE ANATOMY OF GROUPTHINK

As I pointed out in Bush’s Bastardized Conservatism, the anti-intellectual tribalist is easy to spot. He’s a, “You are either with us or against us” kind of a guy (or gal). Adherents of this tradition judge ideas and opinions not on their merit but according to whether they comport with preordained positions. Or according to who originated them. These sorts usually have a High Priest or two from whom they take their cues. They seldom deviate. They even blog in boring unison on almost every topic.

The skirmish over Harriett Miers typifies this group think. No sooner had a welcome conservative opposition arisen to this comical crony than “establishment Republicans” endeavored to crush it. While quite a few libertarians cogitated alongside conservatives over substantive issues—the dangers of cronyism, the patent lack of qualifications and a discernable judicial philosophy in Miers—others argued along tribal lines, a-la GOP groupies.

Their first proposition: we hate neoconservatives-cum-conservatives. Their second proposition: we hate Coulter and Krauthammer. Their Third: Coulter and Krauthammer hate the idea of Harriet for judge. Ergo, we like the idea of Harriet for judge. Talk about succumbing to a non sequitur.

Not that reasoning by default doesn’t have its place, but as a habit it’s plain slothful. For example, from Nancy Pelosi’s left-liberal credo, it follows that, in general, when she opens her mouth to speak, out will come gibberish. But her political stripe doesn’t necessarily mean everything she says will be silly. “It’s a fine day,” for example. More seriously, her accurate assessments of Bush (“the emperor has no clothes”) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it’s “not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist”).

The point being, libertarians should consider the issues, not the individuals involved. Sitting on the sidelines and hooting derisively might make an already marginalized group feel superior. Nevertheless, to feel superior isn’t necessarily to be superior. Intellectual superiority is impossible without substantively and persuasively addressing issues and winning debates. A good start is to think outside the tribe.

—Written by Ilana Mercer, October 24, 2005 (Link)

THAT ELUSIVE JEWISH GENE

I’m getting sick of the determinists who whittle down Jewish thinking and achievement over thousands of years to oppression-generated genetic mutations during the Middle Ages, or something. This article in the New York Magazine puts paid to such reductionism:

“To say that the Jews have a history of emphasizing scholarship is not just the fantasy of ethnic chauvinists and Woody Allen fans. To look at a single page of the Talmud is to understand this, with its main text at the center, its generations of rabbis arguing around the rim. The dialectic and critical reasoning are at its core.”

At the secular, Israeli secondary school I attended, not enough Talmud was taught, unfortunately. Still, the process of reasoning, called pilpul, captivated me; it’s marvelous—magic, really. The Talmud is calisthenics for the mind, for sure, but also sagacious.

Jay Homnick writes insightfully about the topic:

“In fact this analysis is not only demonstrably incorrect, its blind-man-and-the-elephant methodology doomed it from the start. Let's ask this: is it logical to say that the people who produced the world's greatest literary work in the 24 books of Scripture, the most powerful (and unprecedented) poetry in history in the Psalms and Song of Songs, and the most ingenious legal compilation, the Talmud, did not have these smarts? That by the merest coincidence their offspring fell into an ironic social anomaly two millennia later and only then achieved a belated smartening?”

He follows up with equal bite in an e-mail exchange:

“As for that rubbish about Jews suddenly getting smart because they had to suddenly figure out that 8 percent of a hundred dollars was 8 dollars, while in the old days they could just farm without having to figure out their overhead and the necessary profit margin to make it profitable, how crass is that?!”

True, “Jews make up a mere 0.25 percent of the world’s population and a mere 3 percent of the United States’, [yet] they account … for 27 percent of all American Nobel Prize winners, 25 percent of all ACM Turing Award winners for computer science, and 50 percent of the globe’s chess champions.” But if this Jewish menace upsets you, take comfort in the knowledge that there are plenty of stupid Jews to go around.

—Written by Ilana Mercer, October 20, 2005 (Link)

Letters to Barely a Blog in response to Plamegate: A Storm in a Cesspool, Miers, and Justice for All:

From: Ben Knobel

Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 7:19 AM

Subject: Blame Ilana [I woke up today to two bits of poetry. My thanks to Ben and Dan.—ILANA]

Ilana, Ilana

I can't rhyme your name

I'll just call you

Jefferson or Paine

Rejecting the call for us to kill

This poem was born

From the spirit you instill.

PS: I have written you a few times but not for a while. I just thought you should take some blame for its production. Thanks again for the work that you do.

—Ben Knobel

Conrad, MT

From: Daniel Doron

Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 4:13 AM

Subject: Plamegate

"The web of our life

is of a mixed yarn

ill and good woven together".

Shakespeare

This is also true for politics, Ilana

—Daniel

From: Bob McGovern

Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005

Subject: Plame-sational!

Ilana,

I'm frankly flummoxed by the fanfare in the Plamegate penumbra. IF and WHEN Actual charges are proffered, I'll be more than cranky regarding the disclosure or compromise of any Actual covert operatives, but thus far, the only evidence of anyone wishing to conceal anything has been on the part of Judith Miller, (who seems to want to shield a source which released her a year before her contrived martyrdom).

The sincerity and genuineness of the reclusive Plame-Winston team, (clandestinely slipping about Alexandria in discreet Jaguars, known only to anyone with a copy of last years Who's Who before looming onto the covers of non-descript magazine covers), notwithstanding, the case seems to come down to intent. Did Rove, Libby, Miller, Novak, or any of the other non-Covert C.I.A. insiders intentionally and willfully expose Ms. Plame, with the knowledge that she was supposed to be under cover, (the law requires this intent - not that that protects any operatives from being accidentally revealed)? Was this a hostile retribution for the report issued by Joe Wilson? Or are the shy-and-retiring victims of this media outburst, (when not in the solace of monastic flag-pole-sitting or seeking anonymity on the talk-show circuit), really victims at all.

Putting aside how her qualifications for deep-cover work might be compromised by her stunning appearance, (a hold-over from the Tenent-era Agency? -Guess Charo was fairly busy during those years), I wish her safety and security, as well as those operatives seen with her. Clearly this screen-door security for our nations Intel Operatives needs work too.

—Bob McGovern

Atlanta, GA

From: Zavisca, Frank

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 7:16 AM

Subject: The Bushies' New Judicial Pick

Ilana:

I am totally amused how conservative "pundits" have become "legal scholars." One criticism of Miers is her lack of judicial experience and "deep thinking about the Constitution." Miers' inexperience may actually be a virtue [so now conservatives have become populists. How sad—ILANA]. If an amateur like myself can see the plain English of the Constitution without seeing the "hidden meanings," perhaps Miers can do the same. And I just LOVE the distress of liberals at being concerned about "She doesn't have a track record" - I just can't get enough of this distress.

—Frank G. Zavisca, M.D., Ph.D.

From: Larry Wood

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005

Subject: The Bushies' New Judicial Pick

I think you are correct in your assessment. In the instance of the Miers nomination, the issue is not so much a matter of judicial qualifications or ideological considerations as it is a question of whether or not this President knows the candidate. The greatest failures are the failure to challenge the liberals by presenting a qualified, demonstrated constitutional constructionist. This failure is an act of unmitigated cowardice on the part of the President and the Republican Congressional majority.

Best regards,

—Larry Wood, Gen. Mgr.

From: Stephen Browne

Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005

Subject: Justice for All

"Answer: Libertarians (I prefer “classical liberal”) haven’t a hope in hell of being taken seriously if they can’t distinguish reality from utopia; what is from what ought to be."

Bravo! Living in the post-communist part of the world drastically changed my reading patterns, from modern libertarian polemicists to classical writings of men who actually had something to do with the founding and maintaining of free states: Jefferson, Madison, Burke, etc. Don't tell me how it should work, could work or would work, tell me how it works dammit!

"Out of chaos, freedom will flower, as Americans face government’s failure and choose self-reliance."

Would be nice. An answer was suggested to me once upon a time when I worked in a mental institution. I was told to simultaneously 1) not argue with the patients and 2) not to humor their delusions. [How wonderfully apropos.—ILANA]

"Disorder is the least tolerable of social states" (Barbara Tuchman). Experience suggests that people prefer tyranny to chaos.

—Stephen W Browne

Norman, Oklahoma

—Compiled by Ilana Mercer, October 16, 2005 (Link)

PLAMEGATE: A STORM IN A CESSPOOL

Writes Dave Lester:

“Hi Ilana, I am a bit surprised you have said nothing about the Valerie-Plame situation. I have found myself more and more irritated by the way the talking heads treat this as a sort of inside-the-Beltway joke with everyone betting on what will happen if Karl Rove is outed. [When do they ever address principle? This aspect of the talking twits’ thinking I addressed here, here, and in so many other essays.—ILANA] So little is said about the impact on those who work undercover in foreign countries—of their identities becoming a political football. As someone who spent a little time undercover 40 years ago in Europe with the Army, I can tell you that your sanity hangs on the notion that those in your chain of command regard your identity as essentially sacred. If those sent on such missions cannot have absolute confidence in those who sent them keeping the faith, there is no possibility that people will volunteer. I, for one, think that whoever okayed the release of this information should spend 20 years in the nastiest prison we have with much of it in solitary. Let them find out what it means to feel you have been utterly cut loose and deserted by those you trusted.”

I did mention the affair, but only in passing: I celebrated the incarceration of Mrs. Judith Chalabi. But Dave is generally correct: this storm-in-a-cesspool doesn’t much interest me—and I suspect I speak for most classical liberals-cum-libertarians. To understand why, consider a fictitious, but true-to-life, criminal gang. To settle scores, its assassins regularly kill people. In one anomalous instance, these crooks confine themselves to merely kneecapping their victims. That’s how libertarians view Karl Rovegate in the grand scheme of government corruption: breaking the bones of a single foot soldier hardly stacks up against the War, Katrina, deficit spending, and so on. If anything, had this scandal been the government’s worst offense, libertarians would rejoice. Instead of killing, stealing, and counterfeiting currency, it has only outed one undercover agent. What restraint!

Libertarians are astounded when, irrespective of its unfailing treachery over the years, Americans continue to bawl about their government’s betrayals. Most of what government does is either unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, or all of the above. In this respect, Demopublicans, Republocrats; they’re interchangeable, although the current band of brigands has set a new Gold Standard for criminality and corruption. The Founding Fathers were classical liberals too. Their thinking was animated by the same understanding of the evils of unlimited power, which is why they sought to limit and delimit it. By all means, if he’s guilty, incarcerate Rove, but how about chocking these (and future) chickens for once and for all by going to the source, and repealing the 16th Amendment? Such a course of action would spell the difference between temporary and long-term solutions to government corruption.

—Written by Ilana Mercer, October 15, 2005 (Link)

WORDLESS ABOUT THE WAR

I attempted to explain to conservative Australian writer, Rob Stove, why, after chronicling the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I’d fallen silent:

When my daughter was seven-years old, her school assigned her the task of describing her parents. On her father, daddy’s darling heaped unrealistic praise (the tables have since turned. Excellent!). For her affection-starved mother, the little lady reserved a matter-of-fact appraisal. “My mother,” she wrote in her girly cursive, “is a quiet woman who speaks mainly when she has something to say.” (Rob’s riposte: “if everyone rationed speech thus, the entire mainstream punditocracy would cease to exist.” Amen.)

Pinpointed by my perceptive chatterbox of a child, this economy explains the lack of gush on Barely a Blog (soon to receive real-blog formatting). And it explains why I’ve not written much lately about “Mess-opotamia.” I’ve nothing new to say. Few have. This is not to say there’s no place for repetition. But it’s not my place. I’ve said what I have to say, starting in September 2002. And here and here.

Fine, I’ll elaborate on a fresh observation Lawrence Auster originated: Bush and his devotees showcase their underlying hate of America by continually comparing the carnage in Iraq to the constitutional cramps of early America. As The Wall Street Journal put it, “There were a few glitches 200 years ago in Philadelphia too.”

Yes, the hoots, hollers, and blasts emanating from members of Iraq’s tribal troika capture to a tee the tone of the debates in, what’s that document called? The Fedayeen Papers?

Jalal (Talabani), Muqtada (al-Sadr), and Muhammad (Bahr al-Ulum) are just like James (Madison), John (Jay), and Alexander (Hamilton). Why didn’t it occur to me? Only a fool would fail to trace the philosophical link between the warring Mohammedans and the followers of John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu. Mr. Auster is right: what a hateful comparison.

The war is even more hateful. And everything that needs to be said about it has been said—to no avail. Words have failed to bring us closer to a moral reckoning. So watch Do You Ever Wonder What 2000 Looks Like—and weep (link courtesy of antiwar.com).

—Written by Ilana Mercer, October 12, 2005 (Link)

A must read today in The Walls Street Journal is Cronyism: Alexander Hamilton wouldn't approve of Justice Harriet Miers by Randy Barnett. Smart-alecky comments about Hamilton being a centralizer are not germane to Randy’s argument, of course. I’m only preempting the perennial libertarian red-herring harangues.

—Update by Ilana Mercer, October 4, 2005 (Link)

THE BUSHIES’ NEW JUDICIAL PICK

Bush’s new Supreme Court nomination may turn out to be the cathartic event to push his loyalists over the edge. Yes, some still imagine Bush is a conservative rather than a radical, faithless to tradition, constitutional or other. After taking a handbagging from Laura Bush, the president appointed Harriet E. Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The woman is a veteran administrator, and the president’s personal lawyer and confidante (cronyism? You don’t say!) As ominous: Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is also hot for Harriet. To say she hasn't a discernable judicial philosophy is an understatement. But why would Bush care whether she can tell Blackstone from Bentham when he can’t? The president simply wants to ensure his appointees vote as he expects them to. Left-liberals, like Catharine Crier of Court TV, believe a judicial activist is someone who reverses precedent. George Bush thinks a judicial activist is someone who disobeys the President.

P.S. Striking down unconstitutional laws is not judicial activism. Judicial activism means 1) minting new rights not in the Constitution 2) striking down laws to comport with these freshly minted unconstitutional rights.

—Written by Ilana Mercer, October 3, 2005 (Link)

BENNETT, DOWD, AND THE DAMES FROM YALE

The good news first. Following “careful” capitalistic considerations, The New York Times has curtailed accessibility to its mundane columnists. If you want to read Maureen Dowd, you must sign up and pay. Yippee. About this woman’s simpering, cutesy prose the potent (Camille) Paglia said this: “Maureen Dowd—that catty, third-rate, wannabe sorority queen. She's such an empty vessel. One pleasure of reading The New York Times online is that I never have to see anything written by Maureen Dowd! I ignore her hypertext like spam for penis extenders.” Now even if Paglia happens to click on the Dowd hypertext, it goes nowhere, unless one is willing to pay for the flaccid fluff.

Speaking of the best of distaff America, the newspaper of record reported that

“Many women at the nation's most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others … say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.”

Girls at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton interviewed for the piece said they expected to enjoy perhaps a 10-year career, and then quit to tend their tots. Some would go back to work part time only; others not at all. The data’s reliability has been questioned, although the emerging trend is supported by “several surveys of Yale alumni and Harvard Business School graduates,” which show “the majority of women were not employed full-time 10 to 20 years after graduation.”

Parroting the individualist-feminist bromidic line, Cathy Young begs us not to ask women “to sacrifice their personal aspirations to a feminist vision of parity.” That would be “a peculiar kind of liberation.” Young pumps out banalities, but fails to get to the crux: As talented as these women are, for every one accepted into the Ivy League, an equally—or better—qualified man is rejected. That’s the way equal-opportunity admissions operate. The rejected men need the education because they’ll be working a lifetime to support women who can choose not to. Ever wonder why doctors are in short supply? Half the students admitted to medical schools are women. When kids come along, women give up the practice. Thereafter, they resume work on a part-time—or on some other highly personalized—basis. This and not discrimination is why men are frequently paid more: they’re more likely to have maintained an uninterrupted continuum of employment. Naturally, the experts at Gender Studies blame society for this “aberrant” traditionalism. They say there haven’t been sufficient social changes to support the endless opportunities given to women.

“Society” is code for the pale patriarchy. That’s you, Bill Bennett. Poor Bill, he entered the lion’s den of demographics! Race baiters duly alighted on him for condemning utilitarian arguments for abortion. On his "Morning in America" radio program Bennett offered this reductio ad absurdum:

"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.” That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

In response, the cultural cognoscenti hastened to label him a racist. Nobody was prepared to say why Bennett is a racist, though. Was it because he denounced as deplorable the idea of aborting black babies, or because his argument was premised on an unspoken truth about “the color of crime? Instead, those who monopolize discourse in this country quickly stipulated the terms of debate. “It’s about time we discuss race honestly” intoned the consensus keepers. But stick to the Three P's—patriarchy, poverty, and powerlessness. Crime can be discussed as long as it is framed in bogus root-causes terms. Thus even the intrepid Bay Buchanan backed down when Donna Brazile, her CNN boxing buddy, insisted that if blacks were not so horribly and eternally disenfranchised, they would not dominate the violent-crime franchise. (What will it take, pray tell, to get whites to excel in basketball and in the 100-meter dash?)

So far the barraged Bennett is holding up (Bush jumped into the ring too). One doesn’t, however, need to be a prophet to foresee a retraction in the offing. Spare yourself the burlesque and beef up your knowledge of the facts.

—Written By Ilana Mercer, October 1, 2005 (Link)

Letters to Barely A Blog in response to The Everyman Interview & Bennett, Dowd, And The Dames From Yale

From: Ray Greene

Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005

Subject: Bennett, Dowd, And The Dames From Yale

Re: "Poor Bill [Bennett], he entered the lion's den of demographics! Race baiters duly alighted on him for condemning utilitarian arguments for abortion."

Bennett’s straightforward association of the black race and crime is hardly a utilitarian argument [his argument against abortion was anti-utilitarian—ILANA]. It's a racist one [as I said, mention the facts and you’re labeled a racist—ILANA]. Let's abort all the white people. They seem to be the main problem anyway. And they've had their innings, time to move aside for peoples with less blood on their collective hands. As ever, you right wingers are neglecting white-collar crime and criminals to a wide degree, who, by the way, are far less likely to be caught in the act than are two-bit street hoodlums under our current wild west system of unregulation [Commerce, I'm afraid, is regulated to the hilt. Here’s the real deal on Enron.—ILANA]

From: Dave Lester

Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005

Subject: Bennett, Dowd, And The Dames From Yale

Hi Ilana, This commentary got me going. It ain't "Poor Bill," it’s, "Ego starved, have to have my monthly 15 minutes of fame, Bill." He is an attention-starved, right-wing phony populist, who periodically inserts himself in the public eye by saying something almost irreducibly stupid, almost always with some sort of racial hook to hang it on. If ever the term "empty suit (actually hat)" applied, it is to "poor Bill."

Maureen Dowd: I see her as being to the Bush family as Rush Limbaugh is to Bill Clinton. Someone who just gets under their skin with ridicule and nastiness. Never any real positive contribution just low concentration acid [good one that—ILANA].

Now to the Dames from Yale: Here I think you have it wrong. Lots of folks go to very good universities and wind up using their education only peripherally in ways associated with their majors. I don't think anyone can argue reasonably that having female physicians and lawyers has not resulted in better care and advice to women in this country. All of my female acquaintances with whom I have talked about these issues say that is the case. The fact that there are mediocre practitioners among them is only a reflection of the fact that plenty of men and women get into college who are not prepared or suited intellectually or academically for higher education,

—Dave

From: Koray Erkan

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:57 AM

Subject: "Radical Ideas from A Fearless Culture Critic"

Dear Ilana

Your interview with the Everyman magazine contains a very laudable redeeming defense of Martha Stewart, probably convicted of the most B.S. crime in U.S. history. As another "every" man, I can only feel grateful for your clear stance against a corrosive ideology that has denied us, men and women, probably the most emotionally fulfilling aspect of our lives: the complementarity of the union of a man and a woman who thereby make each other feel even more man and woman.

The strength of every man and woman, regardless of time and place, is indexed to their capacity to represent and stand for Truth regardless of the price.

Thanks for being a fantastic role model.

Cheers

Koray

From: Dave Lester

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005

Subject: Everyman Interview

Hi Ilana,

There have been great benefits from getting more women and minorities into the professions and teaching and law enforcement. Where things have gotten out of control are where quotas are an end to themselves such as at the nearly dysfunctional Post Office and many state and federal bureaucracies. In the private sector, I, as a one-time manager of Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity, got lots of doors broken down and made sure anyone who walked through them was equally qualified as the ones who had previously controlled all the jobs. It was slow but the results more permanent in terms of opportunity, and productivity stayed high.

Cheers,

Dave Lester

—Compiled by Ilana Mercer, October 2, 2005 (Link)

JUDGE ROBERTS: SMOOTH OPERATOR?

It’s hard not to warm to Judge John G. Roberts Jr. His poised and humble demeanor accentuates the lack thereof in Charles Schumer and Joe Biden. He doesn’t display the two Democrats’ detestable uppityness. He’s also easy on the eye. (So he pancaked his face a bit. That’s nothing compared to Botox Babe, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi). I like that he never gets defensive.

Ditto for what he had to say about the case of Kelo v. the City of New London. As if the public-use clause was not bad enough, The Court, as I understood it (perhaps I didn’t), affirmed the transfer of private property from one invariably reluctant owner to another eager and well-connected one. All for the Common Good. In no way can this decision be framed as deference to Connecticut’s sovereignty. This might have been the case had The Court declined to consider the case. Kelo, to all intents and purposes, has nationalized such unjust takings. In any event, Roberts retorted by reminding Congress of its duty to step in and uphold rights. Not bad.

I liked the way he responded to Republican Arlen Specter’s petulant demand that Congress be coddled. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee asked that Roberts not consider his method of reasoning superior to that of Congress. (From where did that come? Specter’s Inner Child? Maybe it’s an inside joke.) Roberts reverted masterfully to the Constitution, and spoke about “institutional competence,” as opposed intellectual competence (neither of which the Congressional clowns possess).

The overweening Biden was knocked out nicely. He ventured that Roberts owed the electorate more than he was giving up. Roberts reminded blowhard Joe that he was not standing for an election. Rather, if confirmed, he’d be going on the bench to adhere to a judicial process—an impartial one, not predicated on promises made to special interests.

When asked about free speech, he quoted jurist Louis Brandeis’ “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Again, good move.

But, here's the thing that unsettles: Roberts seems to be all about the moves. Is that good?

Some Senator, whose name I can’t recall, posed The Mother of All Questions (in my decidedly unmainstream opinion). This good fellow asked Roberts whether the Administrative State under which we strain comports with the Constitution and the Founders’ vision. The Managerial State—its endless rules and regulations—whence does it derive its legitimacy? It wasn’t that Roberts was flummoxed by this First-Principles quandary; it just seemed alien to him. It swooshed right by. He answered what was a philosophical question with a legalistic ramble about administrative law. I find it hard to believe such a gifted man would misconstrue so simple a question. So I worry.

William Rehnquist did not believe the procedures governing bureaucracy-stiffened administrative agencies encapsulated the Constitution’s original scheme. In a superb (and stylish) piece in The Wall Street Journal, Randy Barnett elaborated on the late Chief Justice’s “New Federalism.” Case by case Rehnquist had begun to resurrect the eternal verities of limited and delegated federal power and States’ Rights. Lo and behold: in attempting, piecemeal, to revive the notion of a constitutionally limited government, Rehnquist even deferred increasingly to the 10th Amendment, which has been mocked out of meaning. He also did a great deal to reverse "interstate commerce" judicial abominations.

As affable as he is, Roberts, regrettably, is no Janice Rogers Brown. Their devotion (and dotage) prevents President Bush’s lickspittles from realizing that he too considers Rogers Brown “outside the mainstream,” to use the Democrats' demotic line. Let's hope, at the very least, that Roberts is a Rehnquist.

—Written By Ilana Mercer, September 15, 2005 (Link)

Letters to Barely a Blog in response to Justice for All!, Chronicle of Jewish Community Omits Capitalism, and Gaza Goes to the Dogs (of War):

From: Robert Bidinotto

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:50 AM

Subject: Justice for All!

Hi Ilana,

I saw your column on New Orleans, and wanted to thank you for quoting me on the difference between retribution and revenge.

Of course, a truly proportionate response to the politicians who destroyed New Orleans would be so draconian that Amnesty International would launch a protest.

Keep zingin' 'em.

—Robert

From: STEPHEN MAYFIELD

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Subject: Justice for All!

Excellently spelled out for even the dumbest among us.

Interesting that Ray Nagid has relocated his family to Texas, bought a house, and has enrolled a daughter in school? Nah . . .he needs a dry place to sort out his Caribbean bank accounts.

—STEPHEN

From: STEPHEN BLOCK JR.

Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:24 PM

Subject: Chronicle of Jewish Community Omits Capitalism [The review Appeared in London's Jewish Chronicle, September 9, where it was ingeniously entitled, “Stars and Stripes of David."]

Ilana: I doubt if anyone really wants to mention Judah Benjamin's role in attempting to keep the CSA afloat during what many down here call 'The Southern War For Independence." [Diner is a Leftist, so she would not have had that dilemma. She also happens to be a historian, so it was incumbent on her to mention Benjamin—ILANA] That is similar to the role the Hessian mercenaries played during the Revolution. We would prefer to mention the fact that the German immigrants were our largest ethnic group and despite Ben Franklin's phobia against them did give us Ike, Nimitz, Eichelberger and not to mention their Jewish component which gave us their talent, and as author Stephen Birmingham notes, "Created American philanthropy."

—STEPHEN BLOCK JR

From: E.D. Litvak

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005

Subject: Gaza Goes to the Dogs (of War)

Dear Ms. Mercer,

The recent evacuation of Jews from the Gaza Strip will most certainly lead to peace. A piece of the Golan Heights, a piece of the West Bank, a piece of Jerusalem--the good old salami tactics.

But since it will usher in a period of perfect peace and harmony throughout the Middle East, why not use it as a template to right the wrongs of other people who lost grounds in lost wars?

There is India for a starter, how about letting Pakistan have Kashmir whose people, mostly Muslim, voted overwhelmingly to go with Pakistan in 1947 and but grabbed by Jawaharial Nehru and the democratic rights of Kashmiries be damned when the British lion run away with its tail between its legs at partition time.

How about the Russian Federation allowing the Germans disposed in 1945 to return to the Kalingrad Oblast at the same time restoring its name to East Prussia and its capital, Kalingrad, to its ancient name, Koenigsberg?

Let’s ask Poland to rename Gdansk back to Danzig?

Dare we ask the People’s Republic of China to evacuate Tibet?

Any chance Italy will return its Tyrolean loot gained in 1919 at Versailles and return it to Austria?

How will Japan react should we demand that they restore the Kingdom of the Ryukyus (a.k.a. Okinawa)?

In Australia and New Zealand let all people of European descent vacate those islands and return them to the Aboriginals and Maoris respectively.

And there is the good old U.S. of A. How about returning Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and California to Mexico (though the Mexicans are doing quite a good job reclaiming them) and restoring the Independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii?

There are dozens of others I could enumerate but these should suffice.

Are the Jews the only people on this planet who are required to relinquish territories won fair and square in battles?

In good faith,

—E. David Litvak

—Compiled by Ilana Mercer, September 13, 2005 (Link)

About Classical Liberalism and State Schemes, Norman Singleton (aid to Congressman Ron Paul) writes this: "Ilana Mercer presents one of the best refutations of liberventionism I have read. Mercer demonstrates how support for global crusades for 'human rights' are fundamentally incompatible with a belief in small government, individual rights and a skepticism about state power. Particularly good is Mercer's argument that war is a giant redistribution program."(Thanks Mr. Singleton, and to Tom DiLorenzo, who sent this LewRockwell.com Blog link.)—ILANA, September 7, 2005

TWIN DECEITS: DENYING SHAKESPEARE AND THE HOLOCAUST

Shakespeare too has been the victim of the assault on history and truth. Assorted conspiracy kooks identify “the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, a courtier poet with some twenty fairly conventional lyrics to his name,” as the real deal. Writes Brian Vickers, in the August 19 & 26 issue of the Times Literary Supplement: “There are several insuperable objections to Oxford’s candidature: he died with a dozen of Shakespeare’s sole and co-authored plays unwritten (or at least unperformed); the style of his poetic oeuvre is extremely limited and un-Shakespearean; he led a busy and wasteful aristocratic existence abroad and at home.”

The Oxfordians, says Vickers, have performed all manner of chicanery to get around these difficulties, including to re-date plays and to “invent a new chronology, improbably dating Shakespeare’s early comedies to the late 1570s, and postulating that Oxford left drafts of all the remaining plays for Shakespeare to touch up and pass off as his own, either completely hoaxing everyone connected with the Globe [one of the theatres the busy Shakespeare managed—he worked daily with a host of theatre people], or relying on their connivance.”

“The Oxfordian cause has been vigorously pursued, with perverse enthusiasm…Supporters may sustain themselves with a sense of cocking a snook at official culture, or exposing an evil conspiracy whose existence was unsuspected for 300 years. … But whatever the Oxfordians are producing, it is not scholarship."

Scott McCrea’s The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question is “the latest in an honorable line of books reaffirming Shakespeare’s authorship, of which the most notable are H. N. Gibson’s The Shakespeare Claimants (1962), Samuel Schoenbaum’s Shakespeare’s Lives (1970; revised edition, 1991), Irving Matus’s Shakespeare in Fact (1994) and Jonathan Bate’s The Genius of Shakespeare (1997)." McCrea’s book is said to be of a high scholarly standard.

“In his final chapter, ‘All conspiracy theories are alike,’ [McCrea] suggests that ‘denial of Shakespeare follows exactly the same flawed reasoning as Holocaust denial’ in that it rejects the most obvious explanation of an event, and reinterprets evidence to fit a preconceived idea (‘the ovens at Auschwitz baked bread’). [Curiously, when reporter Johann Hari went “Undercover with the Holocaust Deniers,” he ran into our Shakespeare denier.] Facts that contradict the theory are explained by conspiracy, but this ploy means that ‘conspiracy theories are really not theories at all,’ but faiths, which cannot be proved false. McCrea recognizes that, despite his subtitle, ‘there can never be an end to the Authorship Question,’