The Diplomad has posted, in two parts, a long essay titled "Dealing with the Monster at Our Door, Fidel Castro," that calls for ousting the dictator during Bush's second term.

Part one is here; part two, here.

They also post this note: Our postings on Castro have drawn quite a bit of attention (positive and negative) and several emails asking for information on the drafters.

That is all . . . ..

What makes liberals tick, or ticked off? Ace has an insightful essay up on why disagreeing with a liberal can create a hostile environment:

Liberalism isn't just an ideology. It's not just politics. It's what makes them good people. The political has truly become the personal.

. . . [This] has the unavoidable effect of making liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is a bad person. There's no getting around that implication: If liberal thoughts make one good, then it must be the case that un-liberal thoughts make one bad.

Which means: [L]iberals honestly, genuinely believe that people who disagree with them are just plain bad. Not misguided. Not merely wrong. Not beginning with a different set of unprovable first assumptions which, inevitably, lead to wildly different conclusions. No-- if you disagree, you're a bad person.

Those of us who've spent some time in academe know just how true this is. And here it should be stressed that the disagreement needn't concern anything overtly political. I recall describing my dissertation topic (the disappearance of the classical hero from Italian Renaissance political thought -- sexy, eh?) to a then-colleague at the University of Georgia not long after I arrived in town. She furrowed her brow and replied, gravely, "That sounds as if it could be reactionary." I was taken aback -- reactionary? What was even political, much less far right, about the writings of the likes of Francesco Petrarch, Giovanni Boccaccio, Caluccio Salutati, Leonardo Bruni, and their ilk?

Perceptive readers will see just how naive I was back then, a dozen years and a score of scars ago. You see, I was doing intellectual history, and it's based on the writings of dead white males, and their writings comprise primary sources. Much worse, it was apparent that I thought highly of these men. The topic not only had nothing to do with feminism, but explored the concept of heroism. That implied that individuals could have a dramatic impact on the writing of history and political theory, which in turn opened the door for the influence of great men on history itself (whatever that was). All this is terribly elitist to modern elites, who prefer to explore the lower orders (not to mention base appetites), the better to pose as concerned, empathetic folk unafraid to take on principalities and powers.

Hence, the liberal article of faith -- that those who disagree with them ooze evil -- itself evinces a proclivity to live by ideology rather than observed experience, reason, conclusions derived at logically, or tradition. It's why erudition, especially of the type pursued in the modern academy, is ineffective as an antidote to their worst vices: arrogance, preening, and intellectual rigidity. Having learned that appeals to authority are easier to muster than hard evidence, and that such fallacies are as sweet music to their fellow elites, their decent into intellectual slovenliness was predictable.

George Neumayr has a fine essay on the irrationality of intellectuals; I addressed a similar problem here.

Yesterday I intended to mention John Burns's front page story in the NYT, "Shadow of Vietnam Falls Over Iraq River Raids," but never got around to it. I'm spurred on this morning by a Roger Simon post, in which he writes:

On my last day of a great New York vacation I am even able to laugh at the fusty local paper the NYT which is still, incredibly after the election, living in 1972. (If you're going to be nostalgic, at least give us Paris in the Twenties.) This morning they are sporting an orange "Apocalypse Now"-style photo of what could be the Mekong River (wink, wink - we know it's the Euphrates) with the same writer, John F. Burns, flogging the same story he has for two years now, to wit Iraq could be the next Vietnam. (I know - you're shocked). And it's not even a Sunday. This kind of none-news usually fits better with bagel and cream cheese. Burns, once justifiably regarded as one of our better war correspondents, seems to be suffering from "Burns out," feeding his audience what they want to hear.

That's pretty much what I thought yesterday morning when I opened the paper -- not again! And as Simon points out, Burns was once among the better reporters in the Times's stable. Are his editors assigning him stories that reflect the views of his readers? I will say, in Burns's defense, that he doesn't use the word "quagmire" anywhere in the story. That's not a very strong sign of independent thought, but with the Times I'll take what I can get.

Visit Simon's blog (it's always worth reading) and see the comments for this particular post. I can't help but quote one (written in haste, I suspect) in full:

Vietnam, Watergate, McCarthy, and racism. Almost every major news event of the last 40 years that the LA and New York Times covers is based on those 4 touchstones for the "great" broadsheets of this country. They are like a oldies radio station , they can't stop going to those issues like the oldies station plays the the Beatles. For the radio station it makes sense, they are there to relive the past. For a newspaper it is embarrassing.

Bill O'Reilly has penned a column for the New York Daily News that evinces what we might call an O’Reilly Fracture, a condition that results when cranial pressure from unchecked swelling of the head fractures all strictures of logic and reason to produce morally and factually challenged assertions that, in a remarkable anatomical trick, serve to cover one’s rear end.

I propose that bloggers adapt the term “O’Reilly Fracture,” after the manner of “Fisking,” to describe such feats.

O’Reilly argues, at length and in vain, that smarmy books loaded with half-truths and outright lies, such as Kitty Kelly's tome on the Bush family, are the moral and ethical equivalent of what he calls "smears" against Dan Rather. We’re given to believe that those who first exposed CBS’s ploy to damage President Bush with forged documents – the Freepers, bloggers at Power Line, and others – were engaged in nothing more than a smear campaign against a wrongly maligned public person.

But Bill’s spun the story the wrong way. Being caught pushing forged documents that could prove highly damaging to a sitting president just before a hotly contested election, and then refusing to back away from the story after all evidence disproves it, is no different than creating evidence and stories ex nihilo after the manner of disreputable gossip columnists such as Kitty Kelly. The bedfellows here aren’t Rather’s critics and Kelly, but Rather and Kelly.

But for good measure, O’Reilly uses the occasion to smear the Swift Boat Vets for truth, about which he says:

While some of the Vietnam vets had valid points, more than a few of the accusations against Kerry were simply untrue. It didn't matter though - his war record became a negative.

He goes on to fulminate against "right-wing talk radio," which:

[I]n particular pounded Kerry and also bludgeoned Dan Rather for his role in another smear incident - the charges against President Bush about his National Guard service. Again, Rather was found guilty without a fair hearing. Charges that he intentionally approved bogus documents that made Bush look bad were leveled and widely believed. It was chilling.

From there, it's a short step to a dire warning: [Y]ou'll be seeing more of this kind of thing in the future. All famous and successful Americans are now targets. Unscrupulous people know that any accusation can be dumped on the Internet and within hours the mainstream media will pick it up. [emphasis added] It will be printed in the papers, discussed on radio and TV and become part of the unfortunate person's résumé whether he or she is guilty or not. A click of the Internet mouse can wipe out a lifetime of honor and hard work. Just the accusation or allegation can be ruinous.

Let me ask you something: In the future, do you think potential public servants and social crusaders are going to risk being brutally attacked within this insane system? I don't. I think many good people are simply going to walk away from the public arena.

And this melodramatic, hyperbolic ending: Dan Rather did not get what he deserved in this case. He made a mistake, as we all do, but he is not a dishonest man. Unfair freedom of speech did him in. [emphasis added] This is not your grandfather's country anymore.

Here we can see the disfiguring effects of an O’Reilly Fracture, which in this case takes the form of a tautology:

1. Public persons can be falsely accused.

2. Dan Rather is a public person.

3. Therefore, Dan Rather was falsely accused

This nicely confirms the innocence of anyone accused of misbehavior, whether in matters journalistic, military or, shall we say, more personal in nature. In fact, you may substitute for Rather’s name that of any other media personality who comes to mind and arrive at a similar conclusion, no deliberation needed.

So there you have it: The O’Reilly Fracture exposed for all to see. It isn’t pretty but, in the end, it’s best to let such things air out a little. Otherwise they can fester for years and, left unchecked, cause one’s head to explode.

Update: Captain Ed has a long, and delicious, rebuttal to O'Reilly.

Update II: Welcome readers from the Captain's Quarters! We hope you'll look around and, should you like what you see, bookmark us and visit often.

Update III: Further commentary on O'Reilly's petulance by Jeff Jarvis and Glenn Reynolds.

That's the title of a post by LaShawn Barber, who thinks white liberals will step up their attacks on black conservatives in the months ahead. She has this to say about the motives for such attacks:

People who claim to be “for” black folks can be viciously condescending toward them. Perhaps black liberals don’t notice, but it’s crystal clear to me. Reading what’s written about other black conservatives was more than enough to convince me that liberals don’t really care about us, but being the target of their just-below-the-surface racist attitudes drove it in like a drill.

That’s why I expect to see more articles like Racism, Democrat-style, written by people like Ruben Navarrette, Jr. More “people of color” will begin to see white liberals for what they really are. I suspect they’re not interested in our opinions, even if we’re one of the 90 percent who voted for John Kerry. Blacks are to be seen and not heard. That’s my assessment until I see evidence to the contrary.

In the article linked to above, Ruben Navarrette wrote: As Democrats sink their teeth into the Gonzales and Rice nominations, note the condescension. Liberals can -- in one breath -- convey both the high opinion they have of themselves and the low opinion they have of everyone else.

We'll continue to follow this subject closely. Unfortunately, I have to agree with La Shawn that this is a problem we're going to be dealing with for a long time to come.

The Prowler reports that the White House is taking a close look at former Texas senator Phil Gramm as a possible replacement for John Snow:

While most of President Bush's Cabinet performed well out on the campaign trail, one secretary did not: Treasury Secretary John Snow. The former CEO was considered an important advocate for the Bush Administration's tax and economic policy, but was often caught flubbing things up, particularly in the closing weeks of the campaign in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Gramm has been quietly campaigning for the job . . . .

Gramm flopped as a presidential candidate, but he left the Senate of his own accord and could play a crucial role, the Prowler speculates, in pushing through Bush's tax reforms and efforts to partially privatize Social Security.

Update: The WSJ's Political Diary, which is free today, speculates on Gramm's chances. One correction for John Fund: Gamm hails from Texas by way of Georgia, his home state. Fund reports that "One White House aide tells me his colleagues worry that Mr. Gramm's background and Texas drawl might even further cement the public perception that the Bush administration wants little to do with the Northeast." Drawling's serious business; know your sources.

Back during the 2000 presidential campaign, I had a long conversation with a Washington political reporter who wanted to know if I could think of any historical precedent for the Bush campaign's emphasis on educational reform as a political issue. What so often happens when you get these kinds of calls is that the reporter already knows what he wants to say, or what his editor wants him to say, and simply is looking for an accredited mouth other than his own to which the words can be attributed. Surely, he thought out loud, what the Bushies were trying to do had never been done successfully before, and surely it would not get any traction this time around.

I disagreed, and as a consequence my quotation never appeared in the article. But the reporter was wrong then, and would be wrong now too. Education remains an issue of massive importance, and a tantalizing political opportunity for Republicans, since it's an issue on which the Democrats have absolutely no real flexibility, given the role that the unionized public-education establishment plays in shaping its hard constituency, and given their hard-wired commitment to policies that won't change anything.

The Washington Post has an indicative editorial in this morning's edition, which points very clearly to the problems for Democrats and the prospects for Republicans. It appears that even at the University of Michigan, where the cause of institutionalized discrimination by race (a.k.a., affirmative action) enjoyed its most recent victories, African American enrollment is down---as, in fact, it is down in elite colleges all over the country. (And if one disaggregates by gender, the numbers for African American male enrollments are truly disturbing.) After some obligatory puffing and panting---the editorial is entitled "Diversity Stymied"---the Post basically comes to the right conclusion, the conclusion that should have been drawn years ago, before we wasted so much energy and goodwill and institutional integrity---and generations of children's educational prospects---in this country fighting unprofitable and divisive battles over racial preferences. They admit that "American public schools are preparing many fewer African American students -- particularly males -- for education at elite universities than those universities would like to admit." And then, after genuflecting to the idols of current affirmative-action policy, they speak the unutterable: the solution lies "ultimately in increasing the number of students ready and able to apply. No matter how committed to diversity or recruiting of minority students universities may be, they can compensate only so much for the profound failures of the primary and secondary educational systems that generate their applicant pools."

There it is. The chief impediment to "diversity" is a horrendously inadequate system of public education, on the primary and secondary levels, that penalizes those whose social and economic disadvantages mean that they cannot afford alternatives to it. Bravo to the Post for acknowledging it, however reluctantly and however late in the game. And the only answer that Democrats can offer to this dilemma is to demand increased funding for the very system that has produced this result, and to guard the system's existing perquisites with ferocity.

But education, like media, will only improve when it has to, driven by competitive forces. The Republicans are the only party that is positioned to drive this point home, and offer specific alternatives. Which is one reason why it is a matter of some concern that Rod Paige, whose strong commitment to school choice reflects a growing sentiment in the African American community, has left the President's cabinet, and his replacement, Margaret Spellings, is a bit of a "standards" maven who lacks Paige's attractive vision of reform that "empowers the clients" of educational services. Paige's vision drew on the innate aspirations of minority parents and kids, while Spellings's is more of a strategy to "tighten the screws" on quality. Both are needed. But Paige's is the one that captures the essential force of the American dream, which both simulates and directs the innate desire for self-betterment.

Back in the 2000 campaign some thoughtful observers on the right, notably David Brooks, spoke attractively of a new Republican agenda that would entail a fresh round of "trust-busting"---except that this time, unlike the era of Theodore Roosevelt, the trusts to be busted were public trusts, or rather, the institutionalization of certain interest groups that claim to represent "the public." It was a brilliant insight, and it deserves to be revived. And the chief among these trusts needing to be broken up---for its own good---is that of public education.

And if a Democratic candidate for president is looking for a Sister Souljah issue for 2008....here it is.

William Safire details payoffs to Kofi Annan's son, Kojo. Safire ends by calling for Annan's resignation, something that more high-profile pundits need to join him in saying.

Today's New York Sun, following up on an AP report yesterday, details Iran's efforts to recruit "martyrs" to carry out suicide attacks against one of three targets: American forces in Iraq; Israelis; or author Salmon Rushdie.

More: The New York Sun reported on April 29 that an FBI counterterrorism review concluded that between 50 and 100 Hamas and Hezbollah operatives had already infiltrated America in early 2002. In the November/December 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs, Georgetown University professor Daniel Byman estimates that Iran gives Hezbollah about $100 million annually. Furthermore, the master terrorist who orchestrated Hezbollah's attacks on the American Marine barracks and embassy in Beirut in the 1980s, Imadh Mugniyah, is reported to be a citizen of Iran.

Such reports put into proper perspective stories such as this one, in today's NYT, on Iran's ostensible cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That cooperation means that:

[T]he 35 countries that make up the ruling board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based United Nations nuclear monitoring body, [are likely to] pass a resolution that will be only mildly critical of Iran's nuclear program.

Such a resolution, expected to be passed Monday, is certain to disappoint the Bush administration, which is convinced that despite Iran's denials, it has a covert program to build nuclear bombs, not simply to produce energy. The administration had wanted much tougher language in the resolution.

The administration is correct to be concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Europe is making the same error with Iran that the Clinton administration made with North Korea -- appeasement in the guise of diplomatic victory. These "efforts" handed us a nuclear North Korea and, if allowed to stand, are likely to produce a nuclear Iran. As the leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear, but they've got time -- and feckless Europeans -- on their side. Once again, any significant change in the status quo must stem from American actions, America being the only nation willing to restrain Islamic radicals on their own turf.

Arthur Chrenkoff has posted Good News from the Islamic World, Part 3. Like all of his "Good News" postings, it provides an important balance in the coverage of our world. Bad news drives the media, as we all know, and it's important to follow and analyze the breakdown of order in any part of the world. But it's also vital to keep in mind that not everything is falling apart, everywhere. That's especially true in the Islamic world, which the MSM tends to paint as utterly bleak.

I host a radio show in Vermont, True North, each weekday from eleven until noon, EST. We expect to have live streaming available soon.

Here's the lineup for TRUE NORTH for the week of NOVEMBER 29th DECEMBER 3rd:

Monday: JIM BARNETT, the Vermont State Republican Party Chairman. Jim and I will review the challenges, victories, and defeats faced by Vermont's Republican Party over the past year. I'll be asking Jim what the minority party should expect in the State House next session--what the greatest convergences and clashes between the parties are apt to be.

Tuesday: BEST OF TRUE NORTH

Wednesday: DAN GELERNTER, the high school senior whose article, "An Army of One: What It's Like To Be the Only Republican in Your High School," appeared in the October 25th Weekly Standard.

Thursday: BILL SAYRE, Member of the Board of Directors of Associated Industries of Vermont; of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce; and of the Vermont Forest Products Association.

Friday: DAVID HOROWITZ, President of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which produces David's online newsmagazine, FrontPageMag.com.

Waterbury/Montpelier area: 244-1777

Long distance from anywhere: 1-877-291-TALK or 1-877-291-8255

George Will weighs in on the walking ideological scandal that is American academe. As he conveys in his article, these facts are becoming almost tiresome to relate, and it is even more tiresome to have to listen to academe's smug defenses. Smug, because the leading academic institutions are inbued with a unshakeable confidence that American parents will pay any price to gain for their children the imprimatur of their institutional brand name.

Hence, the real question is the one raised by the indispensable Betsy Newmark, who asks "How long can colleges continue this way?" She finds the prospects depressing and it is indeed hard to see how much can change under the present circumstances, so long as parents are willing to buy into this corrupt status-manufacturing machine. But Tom Wolfe's new novel, I Am Charlotte Simmons, provides parents with a glimpse into what they are buying (largely without even getting into the question of ideological conformity in the classroom). I daresay some will balk at what they see therein. Maybe not that many, not yet. But once parents start balking in serious numbers, then we will see change.

But probably not before. It may take a consumer rebellion in academe, just as it has in mass communications. And, following that same example, it may take the creation of alternative institutions which can work around the stubborn immobility of entrenched and heavily endowed institutions, should those institutions prove unable or unwilling to change.

Pejman Yousefzadeh Fisks the "Buy Nothing" crowd, especially Andrew Sullivan, that you might pay to see. But only if that gives you no pleasure, or every pleasure, or something else smacking of idolatry:

So let me get this straight: It is wrong to derive meaning from buying something, but perfectly all right to derive it from buying nothing?

He links to an entry by Don Boudreaux, where you'll find this succinct reminder that, while material goods aren't the principal reason we should be thankful, we still take too much for granted:

Personal space; privacy; intimacy chosen rather than intimacy inescapable: these features of a desirable life seem to the non-economist to have only the scantiest relationship to markets and economic considerations. But for ordinary people these features are made possible and expanded only by the prosperity made possible only by markets – by markets that permit us to travel at low cost, to occupy homes and apartments that would have seemed magnificently palatial (and amazingly clean and sturdy) to America’s settlers, to allow us to dispose with the many bulky appliances that crowded our ancestors’ tiny homes – appliances such as butter churns, salt barrels, cheese presses, and feed troughs for animals. (Actually, cows, goats, pigs, sheep, and chickens were themselves, in their own way, household appliances.)

Arthur Chrenkoff has a post on good news from Ukraine. He was born in communist Poland and knows the area and culture well, so his observations on Ukraine are particularly pertinent.

About the AP's coverage, he shows that it lacks historical perspective and, as is often the case with MSM, measures real results against an impossibly utopian outcome that no informed observer would predict or expect:

We're a long way yet before a happy ending, but the signs are good. Mind you, the world press is generally repeating after the Associated Press the line that "Nearly three hours of talks involving the two rivals for power in Ukraine's political crisis ended Friday night without resolving the stalemate", but God knows, surely no one was expecting that the first meeting would resolve a crisis of such magnitude.

About the Polish media he says: I'm struck by the role of the Polish media - "Gazeta Wyborcza", probably the most popular Polish daily has changed its bannerhead color from red to orange in solidarity with Ukrainian pro-democracy movement. It actually is sponsoring and promoting pro-democracy rallies throughout Poland. On Friday, it distributed 30,000 copies of its election supplement in Kiev.

We often complain about the politicization of the media in the West, but "Gazeta" puts the "New York Times" to shame. The difference is, "Gazeta" is on the right side of history.

The entire piece is worth your time.

Update: Yesterday's WSJ editorial on Ukraine is now on their public site.

On Nov. 22nd, the 41st anniversary of the death of America’s first Catholic President, the National Organization for Women sent out a press release with the inevitably hyperbolic headline.

Somewhere, a NOW doyenne in a dun-colored dress composes these, curved wasp-like over her computer, her well-thumbed copy of 100 Marketing Tips for Unimaginative Ideologues open in her lap to Tip #24: Use snappy, attention-getting language in your press release’s headline for maximum impact!

The headline for the Nov. 22nd edition of the Daily Vapors: Republican Legislators Reward Radical Right with Dangerous Anti-Abortion Provision.

Now, you’ve got to admit: whatever shortcomings NOW has, you can’t accuse these ole gals of startling folks with any kind of fresh thinking. It’s been the same-old same-old, same-old for thirty-some years: the “Right” will be dubbed “radical,” any limitation on abortion whatsoever will be warning-labeled “dangerous” (if Congress wanted to make it illegal for chimpanzees to perform abortions NOW would oppose it, probably in a joint effort with PETA), and Republicans will be identified as the root of all evil, real or imagined, perpetrated against women.

I mean, good grief: two loaded words in a ten-word headline is a rhetorical effort as sad and desperate for attention as a drunken karaoke singer in a tube top. And the rest of the release isn’t any better. NOW’s hyperventilating style is excusable in an inscription in a junior high school yearbook, but embarrassing when used by adult women attempting to influence policy. Microsoft Word needs to add a tool to their software to alert the radfems when their prose lapses into undignified girlish hyperbole – perhaps a wavy pink underline.

O.K., so what’s that “dangerous” provision that has these ladies all a-twitter? Here’s how NOW’s press release describes it:

"The provision permits health care entities that refuse to provide abortion services, counseling or referrals (even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the woman's life) to collect federal, state and local tax dollars. It overrules state and local regulations requiring full coverage for such services. Current federal law, previously aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training or perform abortions, now provides a farther-reaching 'conscience clause.' The new language expands the exemption to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics, HMOs, and insurers that profess a corporate or individual objection to providing abortion or reproductive health services.

"’This will allow HMO bureaucrats to deny women their constitutional right to reproductive health care,’" said [NOW President Kim] Gandy. "The wrath of the anti-abortion movement is going to send women back farther than the back alleys — we're heading toward the black market."

What’s unusual about this press release—why I’m bringing it to your attention—is that for once, the Henny-Pennys of NOW are right: their sky is falling. Thanks to leaders like Howard Dean and John Kerry, the era of the radical left Democrat is drawing to a close, as that county-by-country red & blue map makes plain.

But it’s not the black market NOW fears. It’s the free market—choice, if you will. The more citizens—even Catholics, like the late JFK—are free to choose doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies whose philosophies are consistent with their deeply held religious beliefs, the more the market will shape health care to meet that demand—and the more transparently peripheral NOW will become.

How sad and silly the retrofeminists of NOW—all noise, no new ideas, like the hen in that old bluegrass song: “Cluck old hen, cluck & sing/ You ain’t laid an egg since late last spring./ Cluck old hen, cluck & squall/ Ain’t laid an egg since late last fall.”

I watched with interest NBC’s special this evening on Tom Brokaw’s career in journalism — all the times he has been eyewitness to history.

I missed the first half of the documentary, but what I did see covered most of the big news of my lifetime (albeit relatively short). The fall of the Berlin Wall is one of my first news memories; I knew so little at the time.

Tom Brokaw was the anchor my family watched when I was growing up — not necessarily because my parents preferred him, but, more likely, because the NBC affiliate 60 miles away was the best signal we could get through the antenna attached to our house. I remember hearing Brokaw’s voice and the NBC nightly news those days as my mother cooked dinner. Oh, the simple times.

I rarely watch Brokaw’s broadcast any more. I’m an insatiable news junkie — I’m not satisfied by the 24-hour news cycle of newspapers or the major networks’ coverage. Instead, I read news on the Internet all day; when I’m at home, I watch the Fox News Channel.

But despite the changing news market in which Americans live, I’m struck with the reputation Brokaw has maintained — deservedly — over all these years. He’s still a newsman people can trust. And Dan Rather’s recent debacle with fabricated documents about President Bush’s National Guard service only affirms Brokaw’s high place as a man of integrity.

Brokaw, though, has contributed more than reporting the news. He has been a leader, too, and for that I thank him. I’ve never read his book The Greatest Generation. I probably should, and likely will get around to it someday. But he’s right: my grandparents are from The Greatest Generation. Their stories of sacrifice and patriotism from the World War II era indeed invoke an appreciation that is difficult to put into words.

I don’t know whether tonight’s special will be rebroadcast. If it is, please watch it.

We've said little about Ukraine thus far, although I suspect that, like many other bloggers, the coming days will see us posting some thoughts on the situation there. Tonight, I recommend this piece from the Daily Telegraph by Simon Seebag Montefiore.

He's not exactly pessimistic -- in fact, one might say he's hopeful -- but he knows too much of the area to assume that all will be well:

If Kiev's brave street protesters triumph over tyranny, corruption and electoral fraud, the Ukrainian revolution will soon glory in one of those wonderful nicknames, such as Georgia's Rose Revolution. My favourite was Estonia's Singing Revolution. What would this be? The Silk Revolution? The Dancing Revolution? Probably the Orange Revolution, after the opposition's colours. But Ukraine has a Soviet-dominated army and security police who are quite capable of turning this into a tragedy. There could be blood, not roses, on the streets of Kiev.

And: Yet Ukraine has repeatedly failed the tests of independent statehood: she has always been surrounded by powerful neighbours, usually Russia and Poland. None the less, this weekend is seminal: will Ukraine remain independent or not? After the 1917 Revolution, Ukraine was trampled by Bolshevik, Polish, White, Anarchist, Austrian, German and Ukrainian armies, while ruled by a succession of bizarre regimes. The first half of the 20th century was a nightmare for Ukraine. Stalin shot and starved millions during the 1930s, then came the Nazis. This was followed by a four-way battle between two large independent Ukrainian armies, the Germans and Stalin's legions, which Stalin's troops finally won.

This history of bloodshed and sovereignty denied makes the support of the West vital for Ukraine's immediate future. President Putin must be told, in no uncertain terms, that amicable relations with America and the EU are dependent on a fair and closely monitored election whose results can be accepted as the will of Ukrainians. (That means Jimmy Carter should be arrested on sight should he show up in Kiev.) The old guard must know that the world is watching intently and that the status quo is unacceptable.

Ukrainian developments also remind us of the importance of George W. Bush's victory. As an opponent of cynical realism, Bush is far more likely to push for democracy in Ukraine than Kerry would have been -- provided, that is, that he overcomes his reluctance to confront Putin on the latter's increasingly autocratic style. For, as Montefiore says, Ukraine has three choices, and we should come out strongly for the Burkean students he mentions below:

These stakes remind me of the national hero, Bogdan Khmelnytsky, who achieved Ukrainian independence in 1648, defeating Poland, only to lose it permanently to Russia. Ukrainians call this event Ruina - the Ruin. Ukraine's destiny is being decided on the streets, in the courts, and in the Kremlin. Three choices: Ukraine becomes a Russian satellite; Ukraine and Belarus reunite with Russia; Ruina again. Or bloodshed with untold consequences. Or the bloodless creation of a new European democracy. Students in Kiev rightly wave a banner quoting Burke: "The only thing that evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

A good column by Lawrence Henry makes sobering reading for blogger triumphalists who overestimate the erosion of Big Media. He points out something that those of us living in the provinces know quite well: that radio affiliate networks play an enormous role in packaging big national and international stories, and in determining what counts as a story. Even talk radio stations that play hours and hours of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al., have their hard news coverage dominated by the story lines put out by the news operations of ABC, CBS, Westwood One, and CNN. One might also add that NPR has disproportionate influence in the provinces, since their target audience has fewer alternatives to it; and that local newspapers are themselves largely "rip and read" operations too, with coverage of all but the most local news dominated by the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and Cox. But the general picture is clear.

Satellite radio could change some of this, in the way that cable changed network television. So could the advent of alternatives, such as a Fox News Radio Network. But for now, there is a remarkable moment of cognitive dissonance on many AM stations around the country, every hour and half-hour, when the news breaks interrupt the talkmeisters' shows with material that is dramatically different in tone and perspective. What I especially like about Henry's column is its recognition that the relatively low-tech arena of AM radio is still so vitally important, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Today's Washington Post contains a heartbreaking story on the desperation and hopelessness of one Sudanese family living in that country's Darfur region. Like every conflict in Africa, the reasons for the violence are often unclear, but Emily Wax's piece is one of the first to explain it:

"The forced exodus is part of a wider, government-backed effort to remove Africans from their land and give nomadic Arabs, who are allied with the Arab-dominated Khartoum government, more room to graze their cattle, according to the United Nations and human rights advocates. A drought has dried the Arabs' land, and they are pushing farther south, into traditional African territory."

Most readers of this blog know the Khartoum-based government harbored Usama bin-Laden during the 1990s, and there is no doubt that the same forces and principles of Islamofascism are at root in driving African Muslims out of their homes in Darfur. I'll admit exasperation at times for President Bush's constant refrain that the United States is not fighting Islam, as all too often it appears that we are fighting a way of life and ideology that we either don't understand or with which we vehemently disagree. Yet, it was a Muslim prayer for the dead recited in Wax's article, that offers hope that we can and will find common ground with those Muslims who are suffering under the failed ideology of Islamofascism:

"God bless them. Take their souls to paradise. Keep them among good people."

And that's our aim in the Middle East -- to decipher between the good and bad people and send the bad ones to hell. I am convinced the next stop is Khartoum, where these Islamofascists have been responsible for not just one civil war in Africa, but three:

1) Systematic extermination and displacement of African Muslims in Darfur;
2) Attempted annihilation of Christians in the South; and
3) Financial and military support of the Lord's Liberation Army in Uganda.

May God bring hope and peace to Sudan and Uganda.

Win's reference below to Max Boot's LAT article deserves to be underscored. We should "give thanks for these patriots" who are fighting and dying in a harsh, faraway place, faithfully fulfilling their commitments to the rest of us. The fact that some vocal (and privileged) Americans have been hostile-to-tepid about the ends to which this bravery and sacrifice have been dedicated does not, thank goodness, seem to have affected the determination of our soldiers much. But a lot more gratitude from the rest of us, loudly and lavishly expressed, would surely help.

Ben Stein has a thoughtful column about this in the American Spectator, in which he observes and laments the "inequality of service" in this cause. But, while I respect his sentiments, I don't think he has it quite right. I suspect that living in the bubble of prosperous Beverly Hills has a lot to do with the quality of his unease. Where I live in Tennessee, it is not hard to find young men---including my own former students, and the church and scout-troop friends of my own son---who are in Iraq or on their way. They don't ask that we share the direct burden of service. That's their job, and they knew what they were getting into, by and large. But they do want to be honored for what they are doing. That is the key thing, and that is something we can, and should, do.

And for those who want to move affirmatively to express their gratitude, see this helpful and fairly comprehensive listing.

Blogging will be light today, and my stomach full. For the latter, I'm especially grateful. Not just for the big meal, but for the unexamined fact that I didn't have to worry about having this huge feast, so cheap and bountiful is food in America. When conservatives examine the reasons for this bounty, we usually seize on the miracle of modern agriculture and the science behind it, and the liberties that allow men and women to take risks, innovate, buy and sell. And we haven't even mentioned the virtues by which we're free to live, or our traditions that give meaning to our lives, and so much more.

George Will's column this morning reminds us both of the extraordinary bravery of those who settled the West, and of how many creature comforts we take for granted. It's about the immigrants from Norway, German, Sweden, and other northern climes who took advantage of the Homestead Act of 1862 to risk life and limb for a chance to improve the lot of themselves and their children. At this time of Red State/Blue State conflict, it's also important to remember that these humble folk were moving to the Dakota territory, a region that today embodies flyover country to coastal elites.

Max Boot has a piece on our modern military, an appropriate topic in this time of war. His gift today is to shine a light on the success that our volunteer services are, a success so complete that, like the peace and prosperity they protect, we take for granted their skill and professionalism.

He writes: Some antiwar protesters want to spread the idea that the military is composed of victims who have no alternative but to become cannon fodder. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in front-line combat units in which everyone is a volunteer twice over.

But it would be a mistake to overlook the simplest and most obvious motive of all: patriotism. People pull on their BDUs (battle dress uniforms) out of a desire to defend a great nation. Such sentiments can sound corny in today's ironic culture, but the military is one place where old-fashioned pieties are uttered without a subversive smirk.

Amen. And we should feel free, anytime and anywhere, to profess our own thanks for this marvelous nation, and to do so in the face of smirks. Remembering the sacrifices of those past and present is a crucial act of piety upon which our pursuit of gain should rest, the better to provide a firmer foundation and to put our lives in starker, more accurate perspective. Let's also remember that the non-smirking public is vastly larger than the smirking elite, and that the latter are today weaker than in the recent past.

For the larger, more profound importance of giving thanks, I urge anyone who hasn't read Wilfred McClay's blog "Think on These Things" over at Mere Comments, the blog of Touchstone Magazine, to do so.

Update: James Kushiner follows up on Wilfred McClay's post at Mere Comments with a moving remembrance of Thanksgivings past, and future.

Update II: Writing from Australia, Arthur Chrenkoff has a brief observation on Thanksgiving Day.

There has been the usual run of depressing stories of late about the ideological tilt (if "tilt" is a strong enough word for it) of American academe. Just this past week, we had stories on the viciously anti-Semitic department chairman at Columbia who thinks CNN should be tried for "war crimes," and the New York Times discovering, for the umpteenth time, that there are almost no Republicans or conservatives on campus. And so it goes.

But there are some very good things going on, and those deserve some sympathetic attention on Thanksgiving eve. The National Endowment for the Humanities under the impressive leadership of the distinguished art historian Bruce Cole has established a program, called "We the People," that has sought to return the serious study of American history and American political institutions to the forefront of scholarly interest. The National Endowment for the Arts, under the equally inspired leadership of poet Dana Gioia, has overcome its controversial "transgressive" past, and reoriented itself around a splendid and unabashedly patriotic motto: "A great nation deserves great art." Amen to that! Not that anyone's noticed, but the cretinous George W. Bush has somehow managed to appoint the best NEH and NEA chairmen in those agencies' history. They are slowly but surely becoming important agents for the renewal of American culture.

And another agent for change, just emerging on the horizon, but whose strength is growing daily, is a movement to create centers for the study of free institutions on campuses around the country. Patterned in part on Robert George's wildly successful James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, the movement now has a clearing house, the Association for the Study of Free Institutions and Free Societies, also located in Princeton. Readers of the Democracy Project website will be especially interest in browsing the ASFIFS website, and acquainting themselves with the programs that have already been established at campuses of all shapes and sizes, all over the country. (Aficionados of the web will notice that, for example, the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, which is well-known as an almost constant stream of excellent web-based content and commentary, is a part of this movement.) We have barely begun to see the effects of such centers, but their potential is enormous. It almost seems too much to hope that the culture of American academia could be reformed and revitalized. But stranger things have happened. Contemplate that possibility as you give thanks tomorrow.

Jamie Dettmer has a good piece in today's New York Sun that highlights the work of bloggers in brining about Dan Rather's resignation. He singles out the work of blogger William Ardolino of INDC Journal.

Meanwhile, there's speculation about his successor (and a thoughtful overview of the whole mess) here. That said, such speculation is unlikely to draw the attention one could have expected during big media's heyday. Michael Goodwin says Rather's fall is Nixonian:

It was all so, well, Nixonian: Accuse your critics of partisanship and wrap yourself in the flag. A younger Rather had a famous run-in with Nixon, but apparently he learned something from the disgraced President. Tricky Dick became Tricky Dan.

Jeff Jarvis has two of the best posts (in one easy link) I've read on the implosion of big media, or what he calls the "end of one-way news." It all boils down to trust:

Oh, trust is still important. In fact, in this new, distributed world of ours, it is even more important. Trust is our organizing principle. Trust is what makes weblogs, Technorati, eBay, Craigs List, RSS, chat, and email work: We pay attention to those we trust; we filter out the rest. We each decide whom to trust; it's no longer decided for all of us.

That's something else to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.

That's the title of a Wall Street Journal ($) editorial run every year, beginning in 1961, on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Taken from the 1620 journal of Nathaniel Morton of Plymouth colony, it is based on the account of William Bradford. I've read it every Thanksgiving for many years and am always moved by the courage and faith of these pilgrims. For those who don't subscribe to the Journal, I've taken the liberty of copying it below.

******

Here beginneth the chronicle of those memorable circumstances of the year 1620, as recorded by Nathaniel Morton, keeper of the records of Plymouth Colony, based on the account of William Bradford, sometime governor thereof:

So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years, but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city (Heb. XI, 16), and therein quieted their spirits.

When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready, and such of their friends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love.

The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other's heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loath to depart, their Reverend Pastor, falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with the most fervent prayers unto the Lord and His blessing; and then with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.

Being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectations, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour; and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts.

Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew.

If they looked behind them, there was a mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.

Update: Fellow blogger Wilfred McClay followed a post of this same editorial at Mere Comments with an deeply insightful meditation titled "Think on These Things."

Bridget Johnson has some thoughts on why Hollywood's elite are silent over the murder of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh. She did a search on responses by prominent persons associated with the movie industry, and her discovery is no surprise:

Giving Hollywood the benefit of the doubt, I did one more search to find industry response to the van Gogh murder. I found the blog of novelist and screenwriter Roger L. Simon, who confirmed that I wasn't the only one who'd been wondering: "It's stunning how silent the American artistic community, Hollywood in particular, has been about the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam," he wrote. "Do they even know what happened to one of their own? Have they even heard of him? Do they care someone was killed for making a film which protested violent abuse against women? Are they even interested?"

Economist Walter Williams uses his weekly syndicated column to call further attention to the racially-motivated attacks on Condoleezza Rice and to offer an explanation. While liberal whites who're defending the cartoons aren't likely to be swayed by his (or anyone else's) arguments, more objective observers, I think, will find his points convincing.

Of the attacks themselves, Williams, who is black, notes a disturbing feature:

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser and now his secretary of state nominee, has been the subject of nasty, demeaning and disrespectful cartoons and commentary. Some of the worst has come from people like Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who said on TV's "America's Black Forum" that he agreed with "The Boondocks" cartoonist Aaron McGruder's characterization of Dr. Rice as "a murderer." A lead article in Black Commentator said, "Condoleezza Rice is the purest expression of the race traitor. No polite description is possible." Those kinds of attacks by blacks have emboldened guilt-ridden white liberals to join in as seen by the recent cartoons of Pat Oliphant and Garry Trudeau ("Doonesbury").

He offers a bit of historical, and personal, perspective:

Being 68, I lived at a time when the idea of a black Cabinet official was little more than a pipe dream. Robert C. Weaver's 1966 appointment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development made him the first black Cabinet officer. Since that time, there have been other blacks appointed to high office. None has encountered the vicious attacks visited on Dr. Rice and Gen. Colin Powell, and what's worse, the most vicious attacks have come from their fellow blacks.

His explanation is clear and tragically on target:

Black people have become Democrats first and whatever else afterward. The Democratic leadership, along with its leftist allies in Hollywood, on college campuses, in labor unions, in the education establishment and in the media, detests President Bush. Too many black people are dependent on the Democrats for handouts and racial preferences. Black politicians depend on the Bush haters for financial resources enabling them to gain office. Black civil rights organizations are beholden to liberal foundations. The bottom line of all of this is that he who pays the piper calls the tune and black people dance along.

The attacks on Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell are the results of one-think where all blacks are to think alike. Any who stray are race traitors. A monopoly on ideas serves no one well and explains why solutions to problems for a large segment of the black community will remain elusive.

I've listed links to cartoons of Rice and Powell here (the big list), here, here, and here. A blog essay on black authenticity is here.

Blogging has been lighter than normal today -- Thanksgiving's approaching and there's much to do -- but it should be back to normal tomorrow.

In the mean time, via James Taranto, Chris Reed at the Spectator has the goods on the latest liftoff by Chris Hedges of the NYT.

Speaking to the Association of Opinion Page Editors meeting in Philly, Hedges said:

"We're absolutely reviled around the world, as we should be," Hedges said. "Our only friends are war criminals" -- a reference, he explained, to Ariel Sharon and Vladimir Putin.

Reed writes: America's amoral, bloodthirsty ways and the hate they generate would be much plainer to the American people, Hedges said, if only so many journalists weren't "trapped" by the government's war clichés and oriented to a Washington-centric view of the world. This group, he said, included his bosses at the Times.

Who knew? The New York Times' newsroom is a place where mockery of France is so severe that a heroic, hardy, death-defying war correspondent would consider it tantamount to workplace harassment.

Indeed. But given the liberal pedigree on the racially charged cartoons of Condi Rice I've been cataloguing, we might have guessed.

I watched from afar, much to my delight, as the Democracy Project site was Instalaunched by Glenn Reynolds for Win’s cataloguing and analyzing the racist depictions of Dr. Rice appearing in cartoons from newspapers across the country. If I had easier access to a computer, I would have noted that just as equally egregious, if not more so as we on the Right have always known that the Left patronizes African-Americans (which of course is why they are proponents of affirmative action), is the implicit sexual innuendo and infidelity proposed by Garry Trudeau in his “Brown Sugar” cartoon here. Isn’t ironic that Trudeau – the Maureen Dowd of the cartoon world – believes it incapable for a man and a woman to have a professional and personal friendship that doesn’t cross the line into the physical or romantic context? I assert that it’s Trudeau, not Bush, who has fantasies of “Brown Sugar,” seeing Dr. Rice as a sexual object rather than a successful African-American woman. Jane Pauley better watch out.

. . . will apparently blow Dan Rather out of his anchor's chair. I'm sure I heard rumors of a March departure back when Rathergate broke, although whether they were based on accurate information or just a lucky guess, I don't know.

But the big question is, will the promised report be ready by then?

Update: The best collection of reactions I've found is at Jim Geraghty's.

So John "Sly" Sylvester, radio talk show host in Madison, Wis., has apologized for his racist comments about Condoleezza Rice, in which he called her an "Aunt Jemima."

"I'm concerned that I have offended many African-Americans by using a crass term to describe an incompetent, dishonest political appointee of the Bush administration. I apologize," wrote Sylvester, who is white.

Sylvester wrote he would not, however, apologize for criticizing Rice, saying "she has allowed herself to be used as a black trophy by an administration."

Such sincerity is deeply moving.

Mychal Massie has an essay at World Net Daily entitled "Negroes vs. Black Conservatives." The first paragraph reads:

In the minds of elite, white, liberal, socialist Democrats, there is an unambiguous dichotomy between Negroes and black conservatives. A glaring example of this truth is the racist bastardization of America's newest secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. And the support for this racism from corporate America to Bob Beckel to rank and file Democrats in leadership.

The heart of his argument: Democrat campaign manager, long-time operative and extreme white, liberal, socialist Bob Beckel invoked a "Saturday Night Live" rendition of Scripture references while debating Ann Coulter regarding the hate-filled racist cartoons of Rice. But he didn't invoke disdain – for the cartoons that is. His disdain was directed at Coulter for daring to argue in support of Rice.

From 1876 until 1960, Democrats successfully blocked all progress in civil rights. Prior to that, from 1860 to 1876, Republicans were singularly responsible for all black civil-rights accomplishments despite fierce opposition by Democrats.

His conclusion: Independent thought, belief in meritocracy, self-initiative and self-determination are not words elite liberals are willing to accept from their black subjects. The question isn't why would blacks be conservatives – the question is why would they ever be Democrats?

I suspect we'll see similar essays by other black conservatives in the days & weeks ahead, and I'll do my best to make a note of them.

I've long thought that the source of George W. Bush's appeal to his supporters, and of his ability to drive his opponents to apoplexy, rests in his peculiar upbringing and patrimony. Born into privilege and educated at the best schools, he was raised in West Texas and speaks with a twang. Rather than marrying one of his social peers, he fell in love with a public school librarian and, after years of drinking, simply quit cold turkey. Baptized Episcopalian, he stepped down socially to Methodism and became an evangelical.

Yet he retains the privileges into which he was born, of course, and his station has given him the liberty to ignore both his own peers and the legions of hangers-on such people always attract -- in any era, on any continent. This is the source of much of the hatred directed at him, especially by other early baby boomers. He can match, if not beat, most of them in pedigree, education, and accomplishment, but he doesn't play their game, at least not by their rules. Many see him as a traitor to his class in much the same way the see Condoleezza Rice as a traitor to hers. They don't behave the way the established rules demand of them, and their erstwhile peers want to make them pay for it.

Weaker personalities would succumb to the threat of social ostracism that such hostility can and often does lead to. That Bush isn't interested in that status -- because he already has it and they can't rob him of it -- allows him to be, as Fred Barnes calls him in a superb WSJ op-ed, an insurgent. By all accounts, this is no feigned pose, no strategy for political gain; it's who he really is, and his genuineness was grasped by voters who stuck with him even if they disagreed with some of his policies.

As Barnes says: By Washington standards, Mr. Bush is a misfit. He's different. He barely socializes at all and on weekends and holidays makes a beeline for Camp David or his ranch in Crawford, Texas. He'd rather invite Christian musician Michael W. Smith and his wife to the White House for dinner than eat out. If Mr. Bush really wanted to soothe establishment types, he'd invite them to state dinners at the White House, after which their names would be in the paper. But he's held fewer state dinners than any president in memory.

Mr. Bush is also a seriously religious man in a largely secular town. This has brought him no end of criticism. He also refuses to hide his loathing of the press, probably the most dominant force in Washington. In short, Mr. Bush hasn't tried to fit in.

Yesterday's New York Sun ran an editorial making much the same point, but in a different context. They compared Bush to former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, especially in the President's unwillingness to follow the same old failed plans for Middle East peace:

Messrs. Sharansky and Bush both reject the idea that political stability can be bought at the expense of democracy. Mr. Sharansky was an early opponent of the Oslo Accords that brought Yasser Arafat to power. In 1993, when other Israeli leaders argued that an autocratic Arafat could clamp down on terrorist groups, Mr. Sharansky wrote that Arafat's dictatorship would only foment more hatred of Israel among the Palestinian Arabs, while only a Palestinian democracy could establish an enduring peace. "Natan focused on the degree of political freedom in Palestinian society," says Mr. Dermer, and found the peace process moving in the wrong direction.

In the same way, Mr. Bush has distinguished himself from his predecessor by refusing to meet with Arafat. The president turns out also to see political freedom as a necessary part of the Middle East peace process. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," he said in June 2002. "I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts."

Insurgents meet resistance; dissidents are sometimes exiled. So the Beltway establishment, coupled with the international set (the U.N., France, Germany) -- the chattering classes the world over -- are horrified that a man of such independence has taken the White House -- again. As Fred Barnes points out, not everyone within Mr. Bush's party is thrilled, either. Some Senators would happily deal with a Democratic president who played by the rules. But the rules are being rewritten, at least for a while, and the old insiders have met their match in this Connecticut/Texas hybrid. What this means for conservatism will be the subject of another blog.

Update: Via RCP, John Podhoretz writes on W's ability to drive the elite mad. I should also mention the front-page brow furrowing of Adam Nagourney & Janet Elder (didn't their mothers warn them their faces will freeze like that?) in today's NYT: "Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda." That's factually true -- those two are Americans, after all.

Via Michelle Malkin, Blogs of War has posts from Democratic Underground on the tragic Houston plane crash that took three lives. The small jet was en route to pick up former President George H. W. Bush. Perhaps in years past we could have seen the likes of DU as the far fringe or beyond the pale of respectable Democrats. But in the age of Michael Moore and Al Gore, it's genuinely difficult to know what's considered out-of-bounds by the left. Until high profile Dems speak up against these crazies, their entire party will continue to suffer from their failure to drive the nuts into the political wilderness.

Our new blogger, Laurie Morrow (see her posts here and here), does a daily radio show in Vermont called True North Radio. It airs weekday mornings from eleven until noon; stations are listed on True North's web site.

Here is her interview schedule for this week (I'm a bit late for today's show):

Monday - November 22, 2004: TRUE NORTH continues our WILDERNESS SERIES: Do Vermont's Trees Really Need a Government Check? with JAMES EHLERS, Editor of Outdoors Magazine (www.outdoorsmagazine.net) and the new magazine, Livin': The Vermont Way (www.livinmagazine.com).

Tuesday - November 23, 2004: JED BABBIN, author of INSIDE THE ASYLUM: Why the United Nations and Old Europe are Worse Than You Think. Jed, a frequent contributor to FoxNews and other major-market outlets, is one of the nation's top experts on the United Nations. We'll be discussion the oil for food scandal, Kofi Annan, and what to expect in the U.N. during the Pres. Bush's 2nd term.

Wednesday - November 24, 2004: BILL SAYRE, a Member of the Board of Directors of Associated Industries of Vermont; of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce; and of the Vermont Forest Products Association. We'll be discussing some things Americans should be especially grateful for this Thanksgiving.

Thursday - November 25, 2004: Thanksgiving Day Holiday

Friday - November 26, 2004: TBA

Several organizations and individuals have issued statements of support for Condoleezza Rice. A few are listed in earlier posts; I'll add to this list as I find new sources.

ChronWatch: Open Letter to NOW: Your Silence on Racism and Dr. Rice.

Excerpt: Perhaps you haven't heard. An American Woman (who also happens to be black) has been nominated for Secretary of State. Dr. Condoleeza [sic] Rice will become the highest ranking African American woman in this country's history. She is 4th in line to the presidency of the United States. Maybe you haven' [sic] heard ~ there is nothing on your website about this momentous event.

Perhaps you missed the incredibly racist cartoons, one run by none other than the New York Times. Danziger, Oliphant and Trudeau - these disgusting, insane cartoons can be seen here. Perhaps you missed radio personalities calling the highest ranking black female in America "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Tom". Perhaps you missed that paragon of womanhood Helen Thomas calling Dr. Rice "A Monster".

J. Matt Barber: The Left's war on Condoleezza Rice.

Excerpt: As a little girl in segregated Birmingham Alabama, Condoleezza Rice, like so many other black Americans, often experienced systematic racism rooted in old-fashioned hatred. On a balmy September morning in 1963 that hatred manifest to sight, the vile portrait of pure evil. A group of radical white supremacists bombed a Birmingham church in a black neighborhood killing four little girls. One of those little girls, Denise McNair, was a friend to Condoleezza Rice.

. . . You see, the Democratic Party, the liberal "mainstream" media and the rest of the cultural elites are having a very hard time handling Dr. Rice's rise to power. They've waged a disgraceful, racist and cowardly back-door assault against her. Why? Little Ms. Condoleezza has wandered away from the plantation. She refuses to slave in the cotton fields of "progressive" ideology. If she is allowed credibility and is perceived as an acceptable role model, then perhaps black Democrats, heretofore taken for granted, will begin to recognize her achievements as legitimate and honorable, and worse…begin to share her socially and fiscally conservative, Republican values. If this happens…all is lost.

I've found a few more cartoons on Condoleezza Rice. Nothing particularly racial about these:

Chuck Asay: Rice as new sheriff opens bar-room doors to find State Dept. employees lounging about reading "Peace through Dialogue," playing Kumbaya on piano, holding "101 Jokes about Dick Cheney" book.

Mike Thompson: Rice is bartender at "Bush's Foreign Policy Bunker." Two Blues Bros.-looking men walk in & one asks, "Ah, what kind of politics do you usually have here?" She answers, "Oh, we got both kinds. We got conservative and neoconservative!" Another dig at appointing people who agree with the President.

Adam Zyglis: Bush using Rice as a bullhorn, with caption, "Bush's New Bullhorn." Point: The new Sec. of State will promote the White House's vision.

Meanwhile, here are a few more Powell cartoons. I don't see any racial overtones in them.

J.D. Crowe: Powell in half-panel under "Powell Doctrine" caption holds sign reading "War as a Last Resort," "Overwhelming Force," and "Exit Strategy." Bush, in other half under "Bush Doctrine" caption, holds sign reading "Trade on Powell's Integrity for 4 Years without Heeding His Advice," "Let Him Leave," and "Stock Cabinet with 'Yes' People."

Bob Gorrell: Powell stands holding a megaphone, pointed wrong way and reading "Credibility" on its side, and holding a blue-ribbon paper marked "Iran Nukes." He's saying, "Strange . . . why isn't anybody listening?" Implication: He was wrong about WMDs and therefore has no credibility. Of course, everyone was wrong about WMDs, right and left.

On the heels of last Thursday's NYT article, "Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies Find," comes the letters to the editor explaining why that's so. The apparent answer is so simple that one wonders why it takes sages with Ph.D.s to figure it out? Why, it's as plain as an old corduroy coat, ill-fitting glasses, and a worn pair of Hushpuppies: conservatives are stupid! Now, why didn't I think of that? Oh yeah, I guess that's obvious, too.

Today's Times runs these gems:

To the Editor:

Markus Meister
Pasadena, Calif., Nov. 18, 2004
The writer is a professor of biology at Harvard.

And: To the Editor:

John McCumber
Los Angeles, Nov. 18, 2004
The writer is a professor of Germanic languages at U.C.L.A.

But (calling all Ivy League deans) one scholar is willing to sacrifice for the greater good. Don't let the sense of humor fool you -- he can't be too bright.

To the Editor:

Alfred S. Townsend
Stony Brook, N.Y., Nov. 18, 2004
The writer is dean of graduate studies at Five Towns College.

Once again today we're reminded of the atmosphere in which the U.S. Marine shot and killed a wounded terrorist in a Fallujah mosque. ABC is reporting that another terrorist, pretending to be dead, opened fire on Marines as they approached:

The US military says marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.

"Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets," a military statement said.

The sanctimoniousness of arm-chair critics rested, first, on their own safety (thanks to people like the Marine upon whom they heaped abuse) and, second, their presumption that American forces are malevolent. Let's hope this latest incident receives even a quarter of the coverage of the earlier story, something bloggers can go a long way toward ensuring by spreading it throughout the blogosphere.

Arthur Chrenkoff's latest in his extraordinary series on Good News from Iraq is up. It's long, has many links, and is worth spending some time with.

Unless I'm wrong, the critics of the Iraq war are losing ground for the reasons Chrenkoff provides -- there really is good news. Despite all the bombings and atrocities, Iraq is building an infrastructure for a more modern, open, and stable society. Just as the left overplayed its hand during the presidential campaign, with dire warnings that a Bush victory would bring an end to civilization as we know it, so it is harming its own cause by exaggerating the bad news -- and ignoring the good -- from Iraq. When Chris Matthews says of the terrorists in Iraq, "I mean they're not bad guys especially, just people who just disagree with us, they are in fact the insurgents, fighting us in their country," we're reminded anew just how morally and intellectually bankrupt the left has become.

Chrenkoff ends his essay on a realistic, but encouraging, note:

A tyrant is gone, and Iraqis now have their country back. But it's only a start of the journey to a better tomorrow. The stories of violence and bloodshed we see and read about every day suggest that the journey will not be an easy one; the stories of progress and achievement like those quoted above give us reason to hope that despite all the obstacles and innumerable challenges, the people of Iraq might eventually get there. The violent abuser is no more, but its victims are yet to overcome the painful legacy and learn how to live again.

Captain Ed links to an article in the Scotsman detailing the discovery in Sao Paulo, Brazil, of some letters and diaries of Joseph Mengele, the sadistic Nazi doctor known as the "Angel of Death." The papers were found in a police store-room.

According to the Scotsman:

In one letter written in December 1972 to his family, Mengele parroted Hitler’s belief that the Nordic races were superior to all others.

"When we measure different cultures, the results of behaviour are very different. Not all races or peoples attain the same cultural level, which forces us to conclude that not all people have the same creative capacity. In the Nordic race, this can clearly be defined."

Indeed: who else could have so perfected a killing industry directed at human beings?

Glenn Reynolds reminds us that CBS president Andrew Heyward promised an investigation into Rathergate, with results in "weeks, not months." He also has links to humorists who're ridiculing Dan, including Dave Barry, who has a warning about undercooked turkeys and a recipe for homemade pumpkin pie. Hint: head to Kroger.

Captain Ed has commentary and linkage to homemade footage showing French troops firing on demonstrators in Ivory Coast. I haven't watched the footage, which the Captain says is violent and graphic. He cautions that it isn't clear what, if any, provocation the French had for firing, and that more information is needed before we can reach any conclusions. He also wonders if this will be the French Amritsar.

It seems that President Bush had to use more than a little diplomacy yesterday in Santiago, Chile. More to the point, he helped break up a fight between his personal Secret Service Agent and some Chilean agents who, in spite of protocol, seemed determined to do the SSA's work for them.

The president's lead agent approached the line of men as quickly as it closed and demanded to be allowed through. Within a few seconds, the confrontation began to escalate with voices being raised and shoving in all directions.

"You're not stopping me! You're not stopping me!" yelled the agent, as captured by several television cameras. "I'm with the president."

Then: Mr. Bush calmly turned right as the other three continued on and inserted himself into the fight. The president reached over two rows of Chilean security guards, grabbed his lead agent by the shoulder of his suit jacket and began to pull.

After which: Mr. Bush then adjusted his shirt cuff and said something to the first dignitary he passed as a grin crossed his face.

Sounds like he combines the talents of Wyatt Earp and Andy Griffith. Maybe that helps explain the left's disdain form him.

Wizbang is calling for nominations for the 2004 Weblog Awards. He has 33 categories, from best blog to design to sports, culture, tech -- you name it. Vote early and often. Well, early, anyway.

Ace of Spades links to Protein Wisdom, where you'll find some good satire and further links. One is to a statement by Project 21, The National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans:

President Bush's nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state has resulted in harsh liberal criticism that members of the black leadership network Project 21 consider racist.

King's comments are echoed by Project 21 member Mychal Massie: "The recent racist attacks and mimicry of Condoleezza Rice are infuriating and despicable. Even more insufferable is the deafening silence of the elite liberals. I believe their silence is proof positive of their personal racist attitudes. Obviously condemning racist attacks against a man and woman who are conservative and black is not a worthy undertaking for them."

Protein Wisdom also links to a good overview of the Rice/Powell story at MensNewsDaily written by Bob Parks, a black conservative who's run for Congress in California.

Jerry Holbert: Condoleezza Rice stands in the spotlight with a poster reading "W is for Women" behind her. To her right, a donkey yells, "Ladies, don't be fooled by these shenanigans!! We're still the party for women and blacks and . . ." Then another bubble, "Hello! Over here, ladies!"

Roger Simon has posted a photo of Condoleezza Rice performing with Yo Yo Ma as a reminder of her remarkable accomplishments, racist liberals notwithstanding. Check out the comments, too.

Patrick Ruffini is Fisking the UCB study that purported to reveal irregularities in Florida's voting machines that gave Bush 130,000 votes. As he says, rebutting the study doesn't require a book-length Fisking, only a couple of sets of numbers. His conclusion, reached by using the study's own numbers: it's bogus.

Update: Hindrocket at Power Line links to the blog of Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub, who has posted an email from a Floridian who, Weintraub says, raises pertinent questions about the Berkeley study. The emailer's conclusion:

All that the study actually found was that Bush's support in Democratic counties of Florida increased more than the level one would have expected from projecting Republican support in 1996 and 2000, and that this increase seems correlated to electronic voting. It does not and cannot tell us whether those "excess" votes are in fact legitimate or a result of fraud... for all that the authors pretend that's what they have found.

There hasn't been much commentary on the racial stereotyping of Condoleezza Rice outside of the blogosphere and talk radio. That's hardly surprising, but it would be nice to see some journalists notice this huge story. Today's Washington Times -- again, notice that it's conservatives who're attacking this ugly stereotyping -- runs an editorial taking liberals to task for their failure to defend Rice's integrity as a black woman, regardless of what they think of her politics.

I'll post additional coverage throughout the day.

O.K., here’s a question for you boys: why is the music in the Catholic Church so AWFUL?

True, I should attend mass a lot more often than I do, if only because having to sit patiently through the insipid and ubiquitous “On Eagles’ Wings” surely must knock a hundred or two years off Purgatory.

Oh, for a priest who would replace that wretched ditty with, say, “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

Now, THAT’s a hymn. O.K., it’s the Sally Ann’s tune, but good music focuses the mind, and elevates the soul, so what difference its history? Meanwhile crabbed rhythm coupled with Elton John-esque keyboard sweeps maketh not the mind to contemplate the Spirit infused in the music, but rather the maple sausage which awaits in the freezer and yes I will microwave it I’m so hungry, and the forgotten wash souring in the dryer after two days untumbled.

Curious as what you lot would nominate for the Worst Hymn of All Time. “Drop-Kick Me Jesus, Through the Goal-Post of Life,” which I’m assured is real, would be too obscure to count. (The email link is at my name below this post.)

A priest at a different church many years ago adored the blindingly singsong “Blackbird is singing,” a selection I never heard but thought fondly of twenty-three of them in a pie, and this one hastening to join them. As we in the choir liked the good priest with the bad taste, we let ole Blackbird out of his nest pretty regularly. Occasionally, we were accompanied by a well meaning but rhythmically impaired accompanist who’d recently acquired both a tenor recorder and the Holy Spirit – a troublesome combination. There was always a friendly, unintentional horserace between the choir and la belle dame sans metronome, each jockeying to see who’d finish first. Our nervous accompanist usually won by more than a nose.

(And beside my name, Saint Peter just put a tick mark in the Charity, Lack of, column. These were not merely well intentioned people but well acting people, kind and charitable and good. But something about hippie instruments in Church, with or without the now-hoary hippie, extinguishes my small flame of virtue like a fire hose.)

How good it would be to hear more often “Onward Christian Soldiers” (when did you last hear THAT?). Or a rollicking round of “A Mighty Fortress.” (Bonus points for singing it in German, which makes it sound like you really MEAN it.)

Was about to start in on the tin-eared de-gendering of contemporary Bible editors, but it’s a quarter to three in the morning, and fresh woods & pastures new await tomorrow.

The race-based attacks on Condoleezza Rice continue, as I've noted since Wednesday, and La Shawn Barber (again, check out the comments section) links to Nykola.com. In a post titled "The Double-minded Haters," the blogger, Ambra Nykol, writes:

There are many unwritten rules in politics. With the exception of Hillary Clinton, most political figures have been subjected to the undercurrent of dos and don'ts that rule our nation's politics. One of such rules states that if you are black and you are conservative, you are a target for racial slander. This rule also states that if such epithets and bigotry come from the Left, they don't qualify as racist. Indeed, the Left-Wing Conspiracy of America has made it widely known that they are not in favor of people of color that refuse to bow down to the John F. Kennedy altar. So when President Bush appointed National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State, it was no surprise that the mental midgets with two-celled brains would crawl from under their rocks to display some typical double-minded bigotry.

Check out the rest of her blog while you're there, including this post on the modern university curriculum.

Running some errands this afternoon I heard NPR's Ann Garrels intone gravely from Baghdad that U.S. troops entered a mosque "with their boots on" -- an "insult" in that part of the world.

It's fine, of course, to ambush U.S. troops from inside mosques, booby-trap corpses or oneself, or use holy ground for military purposes and count on the self-sacrificing fair play of American troops. But walk in with your boots on? Without even wiping your feet? The injustice, the outrage!

Ryan Sager has some thoughts on how libertarians should rethink their traditional positions on foreign policy (or "get serious," as he puts it). It should be read within the context of his series on libertarianism at his blog, Miscellaneous Objections.

This excerpt, from his first post, gives you a hint of where he's going:

The main problem with libertarians right now, frankly, is their inability to have anything serious to say regarding foreign policy. Pacifism combined with isolationism, as preached more or less by many at Cato and Reason is neither the popular nor the correct answer to the threat of global terrorism. And hunting Osama bin Laden, as was the Kerry solution, is, frankly, just an idiotic personalization of a phenomenon that ultimately, make no mistake about it, amounts to a historic clash of civilizations.

Jim Geraghty of Kerry Spot spent several days in Rome recently, and his mini-travelogue makes for wonderful reading.

Food: If you order mozzarella as an appetizer, they bring you this giant wad of mozzarella cheese — bigger than a baseball. And you just eat it with a knife and fork. Mrs. Kerry Spot did order fried mozzarella at one point (in a place with no menus, the proprietor just came out from the kitchen and said, "You want pasta?"), but apparently that was a fried baseball. I guess no one has figured out how to make sticks out of it.

Human traffic: Italians are verbally polite, friendly, and willing to help lost tourists; but physically, when they're walking down the street, it's like a rugby match. On every sidewalk, I'd have three Roman grandmamas standing or walking slowly in front of me, while three speed walkers were pushing behind me.

Everyone smokes: What's really striking is that this comes from the continent full of folks who lecture Americans about a) healthy living and b) pollution. Hey, here's the deal, Fabio: I'll sign on to the Kyoto Treaty when Europe quits smoking, because for all of the greenhouse gases I'm emitting by using electricity and living in a country with a thriving economy, I'm not constantly burning things. And take your stinky diesel-sputtering cars and Vespas, too.