As soon as I knew I was flying to Washington, I called my friends at Let's Adopt. If you have a plane ticket to America, it's the easiest thing to save an animal's life. Click on the link and watch the video to see what Let's Adopt does. The rules:

1. You are already going on holiday or business trip, you pay for your ticket, this is not a free holiday. Let's Adopt! is a network of animal rescuers, contrary to what it may seem from the outside our finances are very limited. This means we cannot buy flight tickets for anybody, we can only use those people that are already flying.

2. We pay for all expenses of the animal and handle all check-in procedures.

3. the animal (and you) are received at the airport by a VERY happy and grateful family. Contact: viktor@myletsadopt.com

Let's Adopt often finds homes in the United States and Europe for animals who have no chance of being adopted in Turkey. I flew with Mickey, a seven-month old kitten who was born on the street with two handicaps--she's black and she's blind. In many peoples' eyes, this would have been justification for killing her.

Anyone who tells you that a blind animal will have a poor quality of life is as wrong as it's possible to be. This kitten obviously wouldn't last long on the street, but in a loving home--where she now is--she will have a wonderful life. She's a delight to herself and everyone around her. I don't think I've ever met a friendlier, calmer, more affectionate animal (and I meet a lot of animals).

She's fearless, by the way. Most cats would go berserk on a journey like that. She positively enjoyed it. She was playing and purring and cuddling the whole way, ears up and curious. 

The amazing thing is how completely competent this kitten is: I'm certain she's blind--I mean, she has no eyes, she has to be--but she's able to do things you wouldn't think possible without sight, like tracking and playing with a moving object. And if you show her where to find something (like the litter box), she doesn't need to be shown twice. As we were waiting for her adoptive family to arrive, we let her go exploring in the bedroom for about an hour. That was all it took for her completely to figure out the entire room. She went back to the litter box without hesitation when she needed it. She figured out right away how to get up and down the bed, where the obstacles were, where the nice warm people who wanted to cuddle her were. 

There is no justification ever, ever, ever, for killing an animal like this as a "mercy." It's not: It's just a killing.

She loves being alive. She's going to bring great joy to her new family.

I'm in Washington D.C. right now. I flew here to visit my grandmother, who is 100 years old and wanted to see me right away. My first thought when I heard that was to say, "Well, that's highly inconvenient, Grandma, given that I'm a journalist. You may not appreciate this, but at this moment in history flying to Washington means flying away from the interesting part of the world. Can't we do this some other time?" My second thought was not so much a thought but a long hot bath in the pure elixir of Jewish guilt. She's 100 years old. So here I am in Washington. As you'll note from the time of this post, though, Turkish Airlines lost my circadian rhythms--I suspect they're circling a luggage carousel in Bora Bora. 

Jetlagged Thought, Part 1: Man, no wonder journalists will say any fool thing that pops into their heads about the Middle East when they're in America. The second you arrive here, even if you've spent the past twenty years swearing up and down to everyone who will listen that the rest of the world really exists, it just seems kind of manifestly untrue. When you're in America, the rest of the world seems like a far-away abstraction.

I can't completely account for this, psychologically. It's not just the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean. It's something about the way America feels--like a safe, impregnable fortress. In reality it isn't: I can illustrate that it's extremely vulnerable with a million reasonable, solid arguments. But I can't make myself feel the reality of that when I'm on American soil.

America's an orderly, predictable, reasonable, moderate, seemingly self-contained universe, surrounded by immense oceans, barricaded by armed guards and sniffer dogs, where everyone drives two miles an hour  and politely gestures to the other drivers--"You first! No, you!"--with no thought whatsoever to getting anywhere fast or winning. (This is actually utterly maddening: American drivers, where is your honor?)

When you're here, the idea of the existence of whole nations full of crazy people just seems like a peculiar fantasy. Of course people here are willing to be persuaded that the Muslim Brotherhood is something like a Tea Party-soup kitchen hybrid, and what the heck, even if it's not, they deserve a chance just like anyone else and they'll probably settle down once they're in office. That's a completely reasonable hypothesis, from an American point of view. It's not willful stupidity or delusion, it's just extrapolating from experience.

If you're told over and over that the Obama is a radical left-winger and the Tea Partiers are radical right-wingers, when you hear the word "radical" applied to the Muslim Brotherhood, you'll intuitively reach for what you know, which just isn't that radical. America has no real extremes. Everyone here is a moderate. The radicals are either in Supermax prisons or mental hospitals.

That's just obvious, the moment you get off the plane. It's not an argument, it's a feeling, and feelings will always trump arguments when it comes down to it.

The problem is, the feeling's a delusion.

Today, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced her state's suit against the federal government. It seems to me that this law suit is political not legal.  It is intended to draw attention to the difficulties that Arizona faces in trying to protect its own citizens.  But the thought that it will generate any specific relief, i.e. orders for the federal government to do certain actions, or monetary damages seems to be far fetched.  There are all sorts of public duties, but many of these are not enforced by law suits.  The ultimate resolution will have to be political on the five claims named in the suit.  

Brewer's ulterior motive is to use these allegations to help beat back the federal law suit now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.  My sense is that it will have little or no effect on that decision.  Once again the federal dominance is powerful along natural borders.  Don't expect this law suit to change that.

Today, live from CPAC, I had the pleasure of interviewing Gov. Gary Johnson, Townhall's Guy Benson, Judge Michael Mukasey, Sen. Rand Paul, and AEI President Arthur Brooks. Tomorrow will be roughly ten times as busy. Who to chat with? What to ask? Some of this is set in stone, but a lot isn't. Your suggestions, requests, and nominations are more than welcome.

I wonder how many of you, like me, watched Hosni Mubarak's address to the Egyptian people with your jaws on the floor. It's hard to think of a way this could have been worse. He repeatedly promised to guide Egypt through “the current crisis”, not seeming to realize that in the minds of the protestors the crisis and the continuance of his regime are coextensive. He made an utterly bizarre attempt to appropriate those killed in the street by referring to them affectionately as “martyrs”. And, oh yeah, he said that he’d still be staying on through September. And he said it as if the Egyptian people should be grateful.

My reaction is much like Claire’s was when Western journalists started being targeted for violence by the Egyptian security forces: “they can’t really be that stupid, can they?” Why Mubarak felt a need to give a speech is beyond me – the text gave virtually no new information (save for a slightly stepped-up role for Vice President Omar Suleiman), but it did underscore his increasingly petulant attitude about staying in power. Also, it was a huge miscalculation not to let word leak early that the remarks wouldn’t mark much of a change from the status quo. Allowing rumors to circulate that Mubarak was stepping down – and then having city streets full of protestors watching him do no such thing – was a recipe for increased anger and aggression.

From the vantage point of a liberal democracy, this all seems a bit surreal. Even the most casual observer of American politics has internalized the acoustics of a politician acknowledging public sentiment -- and it doesn’t sound like this. In context, though, it all begins to make sense. Mubarak has never been a politician; he’s been a strongman. He’s never had to feign contrition or evoke empathy. Unfortunately for him, it’s too late to right that ship. And through his ham-fisted attempt, he’s probably accelerated his departure.

Yesterday, the prickly but impressive junior senator from Virginia, author and former Marine Jim Webb, a Democrat, announced that he won't be running for a second term.  If you'd like a judicious, warm-hearted appreciation of Webb, scroll down to Troy Senik's fine post.  What I have to offer is a crass calculation.

A man of conservative temperament who has spent five years now keeping his name before Virginia voters, Webb represented the strongest candidate the Democrats could possibly have fielded.  Even at that Webb would probably have faced a difficult re-election campaign.  Former Virginia senator and governor George Allen has already announced that he intends to campaign for the Republican nomination.  Webb beat Allen five years ago, but narrowly, after Allen ran a lazy, sloppy campaign, a mistake Allen won't repeat.  And with Barack Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket, Webb would have found himself constantly apologizing for the president.

Anything can happen in two years, of course.  But as of Webb's announcement yesterday, the tumblers of political calculus have turned.  The strong presumption must now be that Webb's seat will flip from the Democrats to the GOP.  Which will make two.  Several weeks ago, as you'll recall, Sen. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat, announced that this term would be his last.  Since North Dakota just elected Republican John Hoeven to the Senate with 76 percent of the vote--yes, 76 percent--it seems likely--overwhelmingly likely--that Conrad's seat will also flip to the GOP.

The GOP has forty-seven seats today, plus, in 2012, Conrad's seat--and Webb's seat.  And while the GOP must defend 10 seats in 2012, the Democrats must defend 21 (that includes the seats held by Independents Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, both of whom caucus with the Democrats).

Harry Reid must be feeling like Napoleon during the retreat from Moscow.

UPDATE:  As Dave Moilinari just noted on the conversational thread, Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona--and, to my mind, one of the finest, best-hearted, and hardest-working members of the Senate--has announced that he, too, will retire at the end of this term.  Arizona is a red state, so Kyl's seat will likely remain with the GOP.  But only "likely."  Every so often a Democrat does well in Arizona.  Sec. of Transportation Janet Napolitano--or, as Mark Steyn calls her, Janet Incompetano--is the former Democratic governor of the state.  Two steps forward for the GOP with the retirements of Webb and Conrad, and, perhaps, with the retirement this afternoon of Jon Kyl, half a step back.

The left's constant harping at President Bush got old fast, especially when so much of it was outright disingenuous or based on lies its Democratic Party leaders had promulgated to discredit Bush.

But I don't believe it's disingenuous or out of line for Obama's critics to regard with skepticism so many pronouncements from his administration given his track record of lies and broken promises. So when I read on CNSNews.com that data from the Border Patrol contradicts Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano's claim that the government had secured "effective control of the great majority" of the northern and southern borders I perk up. CNS says:

According to the data that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has provided to CNSNews.com, as of Sept. 30, 2010 (the end of fiscal year 2010), the U.S. government had established “effective control” of only about 44 percent (873 miles) of the 1,994-mile-long southwest border and only about 2 percent (69 miles) of the approximately 4,000 mile-long northern border.

What makes this easy to believe is what we've come to learn about the administration's attitude toward immigration, open borders, and border protection. Obama played his hand when he declared war on Arizona by falsely painting its immigration law as racial profiling. On a separate matter, we also remember Obama's outrageous statement to Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl in a private Oval Office meeting that he wouldn't secure the border because to do so would destroy any incentive Republicans would have to work with him on "comprehensive immigration reform."

So why would we doubt that Napolitano would continue, as one of the several propagandists for the administration, to make false assurances about border security when we have strong reasons to believe the administration is not even committed to border security?

Without going overboard here, it is constantly disconcerting to have to feel that this administration isn't on the side of the people and isn't looking out for their interests, in ways that far transcend economic and budgetary issues.

Since Claire is traveling today, it's left to me to exhort you to watch Mubarak address Egypt.  Many anticipate that he'll announce his imminent resignation.  The speech should be starting very soon.  Watch the live feed here.

UPDATE (12:41 PST): Reuters -- Mubarak may transfer powers to Suleiman, but not step down

Al Arabiya says Mubarak will say he will transfer powers to Vice President Suleiman according to the constitution

Mubarak confirms he will not run for another presidential term, Al Arabiya says

Mubarak will transfer powers to Vice President Suleiman, Al Arabiya says, citing sources

Mubarak reportedly says in his speech he does not accept orders from outside, Al Arabiya is reporting

UPDATE (12:50 PST) -- MUBARAK DOES NOT STEP DOWN

Highlights from his speech:

• I will hold accountable all those responsible for violent bloodshed
• I am determined to fulfill all of my promises
• I will not accept orders from outside
• I will not run in the upcoming election
• I will continue to shoulder my responsibility, upholding the constitution

Further to Emily's posting on Congressman Lee, everyone enjoys seeing a cheater get his comeuppance. Gawker's conversation with the woman is interesting, however. What, I wonder, would be the reaction if it were the other way around: a woman cheating via Craigslist, caught in lies by a man looking for a date, who then turned over all their correspondence to Gawker?

I'm not a man who would be treated with the same sympathy. And somehow I'm also not sure there's anything wrong with that.

Ricochet member BlueAnt writing last week in response to Peter's conversation on Egypt asked:

What is Obama's doctrine for dealing with a hostile world, even if he's never articulated one well enough to make it a capitalized Doctrine?

I think his general principles can be distilled to a tripartite belief system:

1. Global problems started with Bush and did not transcend him; Obama's non-traditional heritage, postnational beliefs, and singular charisma thus can convince the world that America now runs and thinks like the Harvard lounge and thus perpetual world peace, man's natural condition without a Bush in power, follows;
2. Countries in the past suspicious of the U.S. had good reason to be; those once supportive of us are now suspicious; thus we must lecture former friends on their misdemeanors and ignore the felonies of once enemies;
3. Obama thinks his unique profile allows him avenues other presidents did not have (a Putin who believes in diversity apparently); thus, he alone can deal with Iranians, Syrians, Venezuelans, Cubans, etc. as fellow revolutionary progressives. To the degree a country is fully democratic, capitalist, pro-U.S. and Western (e.g. UK, Israel), it is part of a fossilized American diplomatic past. In this calculus an Ahmadinejad is an authentic revolutionary leader, with genuine cultural fides, the protestors in the street are naive in their pro-Western sympathies for secular democracy and a functioning economy, and are not representative of the true Iranian people.

All the above said, the actual implementation reflects somebody with the experience of two years in the Senate, who had never navigated outside of academia and Chicago tit-for-tat politics. So Mubarak is/is not a dictator, must leave now/yesterday/sometime soon as he serves as sort of a figurative leader/a critical transition player/a suspicious counter-revolutionary inasmuch as the U.S. must lay down conditions/advise only/respect Egyptian prerogatives, as private conversations with Egyptians are spilled to the press, Obama suggests the Cairo desire for freedom somehow channels his own support, and Biden, Clinton, and Obama contradict one another hourly.

This is very sad.  Obama has not articulated what it was about the Egyptian protests that drew his rabid support—that was found lacking when the Iranians tried the same thing against a much more internationally vicious regime; or why we can be pressing for human rights in Egypt but not with Russia, to whom we just disclosed the serial numbers of British nuclear weapons. Once one goes down the sermonizing path, as we learned from Jimmy Carter's disasters, there is no end to the number of contradictions that arise. One either then shuts up, or prepares in advance for inconsistencies and how to deal with them.

But then again, Biden, Clinton, and Obama, our policy-makers on Egypt, were the same Senate trio in September 2007 that tried to humiliate Petraeus during the surge hearings and assured the country that the surge had failed, Iraq was lost, and Petraeus was disingenuous ('suspension of disbelief'). In 2009-10, we have had our 1977 and 1978, and now sadly the reckoning is due and 2011 will be our 1979, when the world had sized Carter up and decided it was time to make 'adjustments' in Tehran, Central America, Afghanistan, etc.

It all reminds me of a tough school as a youth I went to in the proverbial barrio; there was a very nice, quite smart kid who used to lecture everyone about being nice to each other, usually under the watchful eye of playground teachers. Finally, the school's thugs and punks simply took his lunch money away—every day—teachers or not. They let him talk even more as compensation but he had to borrow his lunch money from us to eat. Quite unfair.

More By Victor Davis Hanson:

What Did Hu Jintao's Visit Mean?

Government Intervention Abroad vs. At Home

What to Expect From Mexico in 2011

Yesterday I taped an episode of Uncommon Knowledge with the Claremont Institute's William Voegeli, the author of Never Enough:  America's Limitless Welfare State.  Meticulously researched and carefully argued, Never Enough proves compelling--and horrifying.

With us for more than seven decades now, Bill argues, the welfare state just keeps on growing.  In the early nineteen-seventies, welfare spending first overtook defense spending as the biggest component in the federal budget.  Today welfare spending is three times more than defense spending.

Have Republicans managed to shrink the welfare state?  Ever?  No.  Never.  Not for so much as a single year.  Reagan slowed the growth of welfare spending dramatically.  But still it grew.  While Gingrich was Speaker, Republicans once again slowed the growth rate, but this time only modestly. As Bill writes:

Adjusted for inflation, per capita federal welfare state spending was 77 percent higher in 2007 than it was when President Reagan took office....Liberal victories advance liberalism; conservative ‘victories’ postpone liberalism."

How can this be?  Because, Bill explained, Republicans persistently underestimate the political costs of taking on the welfare state.

Which brings us to this morning.  Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, held a news conference announcing the budget cuts that House Republicans are now formally proposing.  Billions

in reductions across dozens of agencies.  (The plan excludes defense spending.)  Cut, cut, cut.

I applaud Cantor and his colleagues.  I believe they're doing the right thing--the necessary thing.  But I wonder whether they realize what they're getting themselves into.

Are Republicans underestimating, once again, the political costs of taking on the welfare state?

The word is, Mubarak is going to step down tonight, after speaking to the Egyptian people at 6:30 PM GMT.

Now what? 

Go slow, says Max Boot in Contentions:

Better to go slow where elections are concerned but to go fast in matters of individual liberty. Open up the public space, let a thousand opinions be hashed out, a thousand parties organize, a thousand media outlets start up — and then go the voting booth. But not before.

Go fast, says the NYSE.  Stocks are up on the news.

And meanwhile, Iran cracks down.  From the Guardian:

Iran has put opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi under house arrest after he called for renewed street protests against the government, his son told the Guardian.

The move came after thousands of Iranians sympathetic to the opposition green movement joined social networking websites to promote demonstrations on Monday in solidarity with protesters in Egypt and Tunisia.

Let's hope the anemic response the Obama administration delivered during the last Iranian uprising isn't rerun for the next one.   This administration is making a habit of appearing lost, late, and flat-footed. 

I'm in London, where The Independent has an amusing article about the 2012 GOP field.  Of Jeb Bush, the article says,

Among those who have chosen not to turn up is Jeb Bush, the former Governor of Florida, who once again found himself the subject of an attempt to draft him into the race. Mr Bush has said that he has no intention of running, and to many sending yet another Bush to the White House may sound like desperation. But the National Journal, which is behind the latest draft-Jeb effort, thinks not.

Jeb Bush, "once again the subject of an attempt to draft him into the race"?  The article suggests that this effort comes from the staid and generally opinion-free "National Journal, which is behind the latest draft-Jeb movement."  This caused me to do a double take, until I realized that the piece was probably referring to National Review's high profile effort to get Jeb to throw his hat in the ring.

Whoever runs, we need to win. Prospective candidates may want to read my piece in today's Politico on why successful  presidential candidates tend to have low profile staffers staffing presidential campaigns, rather than the traditional party all-stars.  Here's an excerpt:

The glitz and glamour of loud, well-known personalities are tempting, but history recommends caution. To win the staff primary, talent scouts from both parties should look to campaign aides with strong work ethics — and low profiles.

In 1937, the Brownlow Commission recommended to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that he needed White House aides with a “passion for anonymity.” This advice may be even more necessary when it comes to political campaigns.

If failed campaigns past teach anything, it’s that the higher the staffers’ profiles, the worse they do at achieving the goal: getting their candidate elected.

Campaign managers, take note.

Which Christopher Lee do you prefer? The 39-year-old divorced lobbyist who prowls Craigslists' "Women Seeking Men" section, where he describes himself as a "very fit fun classy guy," and sends out shirtless photos of himself to women looking for dates/casual encounters? Or the 46-year-old Republican congressmen from New York who, according to one of his aides, is "happily married" with a young son?

Turns out that the two Lees are the same guy!--kind of. The real Christopher Lee--the Republican congressmen, not the Craigslist playboy--has been misrepresenting himself on Craigslist in an attempt to meet women casually. In reaching out to at least one woman on the site, he used his real name and his real gmail address (really, congressman?) but said that he was a 39-year-old divorced lobbyist. He also posted the above shirtless photo of himself on the site, causing one woman whom he interacted with there to inquire, "Are you sure that's not a photo from a Jcpenney ad?" Lee responded: "Lol…no…Here.. I just took one..i'm relaxing at home."

Here is his initial e-mail to that woman:

Hi,

Hope I'm not a toad. :) i'm a very fit fun classy guy. Live in Cap Hill area. 6ft 190lbs blond/blue. 39.. Lobbyist. I promise not to disappoint.

Gag!

Check out their full correspondence here. 

That woman saw through Lee's flimsy facade and forwarded their e-mail correspondence to Gawker.com, a gossip site that busted Lee yesterday afternoon. Within hours Lee announced his resignation, apologizing for his "profound mistakes." 

The married 46-year-old father of one issued a statement announcing his immediate resignation, and apologizing for "the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents.

"I deeply and sincerely apologize to them all," said Lee, who represents an upstate district that extends from the outskirts of Buffalo to the city limits of Rochester. "I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness."

It all happened so quickly that you have to wonder what other naughtiness the Craigslist playboy was tied up in (pun intended). 

On another note--how did Lee not realize that he would absolutely, without a doubt, get caught? The man made no attempt to cover his tracks! 

Do pundits really "get" any religion outside their own?

We shouldn't be surprised that we battle so hard over the meanings of Islam when this happens. Called "Chronology of the mainstream media's religious ignorance," blogger Eric Sammons summarizes recent events quite tellingly:

Step 1: Confession iPhone app released to help Catholics prepare for confession.

Step 2: Catholic media accurately reports about the app.

Step 3: Secular media picks up story and screws it up, claiming the app proposes to replace confession, with headlines like “Confess via your iPhone and be app-solved of sin”

Step 4: Vatican reminds everyone that absolution cannot be given via an iPhone.

Step 5: Secular media continues in their ignorance, stating, “Vatican bans iPhone ‘God app’”

It sometimes makes you wonder if they are even trying…

Agreed. Does anyone really try to "get" another religion? Or are we too colored by prejudice and/or our own beliefs? 

Interesting news today from Virginia, where Senator Jim Webb has announced that he won’t be seeking a second term in the U.S. Senate. I’ll count this to the good if the notoriously purple Old Dominion restores a Republican to the seat formerly held by George Allen (and right now it looks as the man with the best hopes of pulling that feat off is … George Allen). However, it’ll be a loss if a more conventional Democrat replaces Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan. Why? As David Paul Kuhn wrote in an insightful RealClearPolitics piece in November:

He is an atypical politician. Politics is not his alpha or omega. He's authored more than half a dozen books, succeeded as a screenwriter and won an Emmy for his coverage of the U.S. Marines in Beirut. This success outside politics empowers him to be less political. Yet what suits Webb to criticism is not that. It's the political sociology he embodies.

Webb represents an endangered species. It's more than his red state Democratic stature, although that would be reason enough. The moderate House Democratic coalition lost more than half its lawmakers last week. But that Blue Dog set is still more common than Webb.

Webb's one of the last FDR Democrats. An economic populist. A national security hawk. His Democratic politics are less concerned with social groups than social equality (of opportunity, not outcome). His values were predominant in the Democrat Party from FDR to JFK, the period in the twentieth century when Democrats were also dominant.

Webb walks to this older Democratic beat. Today's Democrats' are more McGovern than JFK. (Could a John Kennedy win the Democratic nomination today?)

I think we all know that the answer to the above question is no. But does that mean that Webb couldn’t have won a second term representing Virginia in the upper chamber? At the very least, he would have had to be one of the most competitive Democrats in the state. That leads me to believe we’re probably witnessing a lack of stomach for the job more than a fear of losing (anyone who is acquainted with Webb knows he doesn’t shy from a fight).

That’s less uncommon than you’d think. In the past decade, we’ve seen a handful of senators – Fred Thompson, Mark Dayton, Mel Martinez -- choose not to re-up because they simply didn’t enjoy the work. That’s their prerogative, but I worry that that trend leaves the Senate to the Daniel Inouyes and Richard Lugars of the world – men who can’t wrap their head around the idea that the republic would survive without their service. 

Personally, I’d like to see more iconoclasts populating the uniquely sterile Senate – whether that’s Jim Webb on the left side of the aisle or Rand Paul on the right. And I’d like to see more of them embracing Tom Coburn’s tenure philosophy – Coburn has promised to retire after his second term and he’s one of the few politicians in America who can be trusted to follow through on such a pledge. I may not agree with Webb on a lot of the issues, but it was nice to entertain the idea of a citizen senator, brief though it may have been.

I'm consistently impressed with Melek Kaylan. His piece in World Affairs Journal this month, The No-Show: Why Values Should Have Mattered in Iraq, articulates many points that have been floating unorganized in my mind for some time. I wish I'd written it, actually. 

There was a time when, in dealing with backward societies—and we were not afraid to call them backward—we advocated an entire worldview whose numerous specific tenets we advanced as being clearly superior to theirs or anyone else’s. Well into the years of the Cold War, before our sense of mission got clouded by notions of cultural relativity and cultural imperialism, we could export  technology, medicine, engineering, empiricism, individualism, scholarship, education of women, hygiene, children’s rights, consumerism, adequate nutrition, good manners, and perhaps most importantly, Western literature and arts with the conviction that we were strengthening these societies’ prospects for freedom.

Although we didn’t force them on people Soviet-style, we believed that our intellectual and cultural customs were all of a piece with our political system. Together they made up a coherent Western way of life, one that it was our duty to evangelize to the less favored nations. From former British boarding schools in India and Pakistan, to American universities in Beirut and Cairo, to French academies in Constantinople, the West built centers of learning in which locals were taught unequivocally to embrace its universalism. Such institutions propounded a clear and explicit message to the locals: If you want to improve your lot, you should not only master the art of the vote but master as well the intellectual “habits,” in Tocqueville’s term, that help support a society’s democratic foundations.

It seems like a politically incorrect way to think these days, but consider the kind of societies with which we now find ourselves embroiled—from Yemen and Somalia to Afghanistan. They are now allowed to export their values in the form of jihad to us, and all we are allowed to export is a system of “freedom” in which they are enabled to do so.

I might quibble with the hierarchy--I am not sure Western literature and arts are "perhaps most important," but in stressing that yes, they are important, he makes an overall point worth making. 

Parents here in Turkey with high aspirations for their children have traditionally tried to place them in the German, French, and American schools. They pull strings and use their contacts to secure places for them; they anguish about how to do it and afford it. It has long been obvious that kids who graduate from those schools are better-equipped to succeed. No one forces them to send their kids to these schools. They want to do it. 

Islamist ideologues might rail against these values, but the ordinary locals know that their own culture has failed them. They want a transformation, with a lucid set of arguments with which to defend their aspirations, to pass on to their kids, to present to relatives. In short, they wanted clearer propaganda from us about what we offer as Westerners, some sort of argumentation about how to resist the pressure to re-embrace their roots, which comes not from within but from without, from jihadis pouring discipline over chaos. Be yourselves: This was the contemporary message from America to Muslims, from the very force that was supposed to deliver them from themselves. Ultimately they knew what it meant: the US was going to “liberate” them and then leave them with no way forward. America was their last chance and it, too, had failed them.

The idea that offering an argument for Western culture is somehow an arrogant act is a terrible betrayal. If you would not, yourself, wish to live in a backward country, as backward people do, without a Western passport, with no possibility of escape--if you are not really willing to do it--it suggests that deep down, you do in fact believe something about the Western way of life has more to offer. To believe that but pretend otherwise is not respectful. It is the opposite.  

We've got Mike Murphy in the Peter Robinson chair this week as we host Red Eye's Greg Gutfeld and Powerline's John Hinderaker. Listen in as they discuss Egypt's revolution and their possible porta-pottie crisis, HuffPo's cash out, and ponder presidential prospects at CPAC. All that and an in depth analysis of The Daily iPad app.

Link-o-Rama: 

• Mike Murphy can regularly be seen on the Meet The Press roundtable segment. Here he is from two weeks ago mixing it up with Harold Ford and Chuck Todd. 
• Greg Gutfeld is of course the host of FNC's Red Eye.  His blog The Daily Gut is equally hilarious. So is his Twitter feed.
• Predictably, Kenneth Cole has deleted his tweet about Egypt that got him into so much trouble. So as a public service, we'll re-print it here: "Millions are in an uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online." Our pal Jonah Goldberg tweeted some very funny parodies. 
• Evidently, Greg isn't the only one concerned with the lack of facilities in Liberation Square. Must be pretty fragrant around there by now. 
• Actually, according to the most recent numbers from U.S. Department of Economics, about 23% of our imported oil comes from the Middle East.
• We are dismayed as you are to learn that one of our august hosts is writing about Bieber on a regular basis. 
• Here's a great piece by the Washington Post's Dana Milbank that tracks the chameleon-like political trajectory of Arianna Huffington. Tough to argue with results, though.
• Greg is absolutely right: AOL did buy Netscape (the first widely used web browser) in 1998 for $4.2 billion, the event that kicked off the internet boom of the late 90's. Arianna, you sold too low!
• Carmelina Avenue, north of Sunset Boulevard is in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles. It's very nice. 
• Sammo Hung is a Hong Kong actor, martial artist, producer and director, known for his work in many kung fu films and Hong Kong action cinema. He has been a fight choreographer for, amongst others, Jackie Chan, King Hu, and John Woo.
• For those not in the know, the Carrie Bradshaw the guys are referring to is the lead character from Sex In The City, played by Sarah Jessica Parker.
• All of the major networks and studios have writer's diversity programs and they are indexed here by the Writer's Guild, including one run by Fox for American Indians. Is that where they got the Slumdog Millionaire script from? Oh, different kind of Indians...
• John Hinderaker co-founded the Powerline blog. Required reading.
• The annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) starts today in DC. We take Mike Murphy at his word that it was wild back in the day, although we do find it hard to believe that the Schlafly girls were the most fun.
• The Twin Cities Metrodome collapsed last December. It was cool to watch then, and it is cool to watch now. 
• Here's the CNN poll everyone is talking about. Well, everyone on this podcast. 
• We're not really sure what the point of Tim Pawlenty's video is, but it sure is purty. Michael Bay did a great job on it. 
• The ACU is the American Conservative Union. The ACLU is something else entirely. 
• Here's the statue of Hubert Humphrey that stands in front of the Minneapolis City Hall, appropriately covered in snow. This picture was taken in July.
• The 1968 election results were not quite as close as Rob and Mike remember: Nixon/Agnew beat Humphrey/Muskie by 55.9% to 35.5% of the popular vote. 
•  Primary documents John F. Kennedy's campaign to win the Wisconsin primary in 1960. It was groundbreaking at the time, using minimal narration and no-frills technique heretofore unseen in TV news reporting (the film originally aired as an ABC news special). However, it was directed by Robert Drew. Albert Maysles was one of the cameramen.
• If you're ever in Santa Barbara, California, do your taste buds a favor and visit La Super-Rica Taqueria. Best. Tacos. Ever.
• The full two minute long Chrysler Eminem Super Bowl commercial - Imported From Detroit, may be viewed here. Not sure where he actually lives though. Maybe on Carmelina, north of Sunset?
• If you don't have an iPad, you can see some videos of The Daily in action here.
• According to today's Wall Street Journal the iPad 2 is already in production. Want.

Music from this week's episode: 

• Let Yourself Go by James Brown
• Party of Special Things To Do by The White Stripes

The direct link to this week's episode. But please be a party animal and subscribe. Don't use iTunes? Visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options.

The Ricochet Podcast is sponsored by Encounter Books and their Broadside series. Our featured title this week is Why America Must Not Follow Europe by Daniel Hannan. Available on February 8th at EncounterBooks.com and for Kindle at Amazon.com.

House freshmen are standing their ground on spending cuts.  NR's Rich Lowry has been covering the story of the House revolt as it develops:

We’re hearing that the Republican Study Committee and GOP freshmen were almost in open revolt at the Republican conference this morning over the initial round of cuts set out by Paul Ryan. The Ryan ceiling falls shorts of the headline number of $100 billion set out in the Pledge, and is therefore considered vastly insufficient. Says a source familiar with the meeting, “It sent a clear unequivocal message to leadership — ‘Houston, you’ve got a problem.’” The leadership assured conservatives at a RSC lunch later in the day that the message had been received. Says a GOP leadership aide, “The bill that passes the House will cut substantially more.”

[...]

A GOP aide close to House conservatives tells NRO: “If the bill that comes to the floor next week does not get to the $100 billion mark ($378 in total non-security spending for the year), our plan has always been to offer an amendment to close the gap. So if they come in at $420 billion for non-security, we’d go for another $42 billion in cuts to get down to the $378 billion total. Leadership has said that their plan is just the ‘first bite at the apple.’ We understand that, but a lot of conservatives just think the first bite needs to be bigger.”

Do you have a "work spouse," or a colleague of the opposite sex with whom you share a close emotional, but purely platonic bond?  A work spouse, says Sue Shellenbarger of the WSJ, is someone with whom "you talk about boss problems, co-worker problems, office politics, home life...and is someone you feel a little closer to than just your average co-worker." According to a survey that Shellenbarger highlights, nearly two-thirds of white-collar workers have or have had a work spouse.

So if you do have a work spouse, or even if you don't, do you think it's appropriate to honor him or her with a gift or a card on Valentine's Day, which is just around the corner?  Or is that just too weird?

I haven't read much about this, if anything, but I am surprised how little blowback Obama gets for his sometimes glib, nonsensical statements. In the interview with O'Reilly there was this exchange: 

O'REILLY: The Muslim Brotherhood, a great concern to a lot of people. Are they a threat to the USA?
OBAMA: I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don't have majority support in Egypt. They are --
O'REILLY: Are they a threat?
OBAMA: But they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There's no doubt about it. But here's the thing that we have to understand, there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well. And it's important for us not the say that our only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people.

Of course not; those aren't the only two options. (What's with the "our" though?) That's not the issue or the concern. The concern isn't how many other factions or options there are, but whether there is a substantial likelihood that this militant, anti-US, anti-Israel, pro-Jihadist group gains significant or total control. In fact, even if it's a small, but real possibility, we have to be very concerned. Can you imagine another radical Islamist regime in the region and directly neighboring Israel.

Sen. Feinstein's admission that we have to be concerned about this is interesting, if belated. But does anyone (not O'Reilly, that's for sure) call Obama on this wrongheaded thinking -- on a matter so deadly serious? Or perhaps he just articulated inartfully, but it doesn't seem so, for his statement was clearly in line with the policy he was pushing at the time, i.e. immediate resignation of Mubarak. 

Is it his air of self-assurance that throws some people off? I just don't get it.

This morning while running errands I made a couple of discoveries.

First, Reagan stamps are almost here!

Second, my favorite sweet treat is already here. Ah, spring is in the air.

When I was in the White House, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank was the occasion of many moments of irritation. But he's a good reporter, and has written an interesting piece on Arianna Huffington and the sale of the Huffington Post.

What do you think?

Keith Olbermann, the former MSNBC anchor, will host a prime time program for Current TV, the low-rated cable channel co-founded by Al Gore. The one-hour program will begin sometime in the spring.

Mr. Olbermann will also become the chief news officer for Current, the company said in a news release Tuesday.

Continue reading at mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com.

Now, apart from the very rare cigar, I have been a nonsmoker all my life. And if my daughters started to smoke, I'd give them the devil for it. That said, I've always sided with the smokers v. the health puritans on issues like this one.

The Boston Globe reports that two city politicians are now trying to ban smoking from public parks and beaches in the same city where colonials rebelled against a British tax on tea. I suppose there is a better argument for a government ban at truly public spots -- i.e., public parks and public beaches -- than there is for a government ban at bars and restaurants.

Anyway, my sympathy is with the smokers here. It reminds me of Hope Springs, the Colin Firth romantic comedy set in Vermont. In it, Minnie Driver plays a love interest who is dying for a cigarette -- but every time she lights up some Bloomberg-style vigilante pops up to remind her she's violating some ordinance.