ECOWEENIES OF THE WORLD UNITE!
John Bono has been crunching some numbers regarding the environmental damage likely to be wrought by the Rolling Stones free concert to fight global warming. Here's the final tally:

"So let's see what a concert to fight global warming means:
One round trip via limo to the airport and back: 2-10 gallons of gas

One round trip on a private jet to LA and back. 7,000 to 12,000 gallons of jet fuel

One overnight stay at the Presidential suite at the Biltmore Hotel: Umpteen million BTUs for AC

One round trip via limo to the hotel: 2 gallons of gas

One round trip via Hummer limo to the stadium: 3 gallons of gas

27,000 6700 Rampaging Volvos to stadium and home: 108,000 27,000 gallons of gas

400 Arch-Ecoweenies flying round trip to LA: 44,000 gallons of jet fuel

400 Arch-Ecoweenies taking a taxi round trip from the airport to hotel and hotel to stadium: 740 gallons of gas

100 Bigass lights to light up the stage for concert: 4.8 Megawatt/hours

53000 Ecoweenies lighting up their bics for mood lighting: 82 gallons of Butane


So if you are a rock star, want to fight global warming, and show the world that you care, it takes 88260.2 gallons of petroleum products and 4.8 Mwatts+ of nuclear power. Gee, and I thought Barbara Streisand was a hypocrite."

SCHRÖDERFREUDE:
This piece in the IHT surveys the ever yawning Euro-rift over Iraq.

"...in an EU expanding eastward to an increasingly pro-American membership of 25, there is incontrovertible evidence that neither the numbers nor instincts are there for a Europe ready to clasp a wavering, tentative French-German pair as its guide on the world stage, and toss out America as de facto leader and guarantor of its survival."

Some homefront questions/thoughts: Why hasn't the European media taken Sweden to task over its silence? Where does prime minister Göran Persson and his bloated band of social democrats stand? Moderate Party head Bo Lundgren has guested a number of panels to openly voice his unequivocal support of enforcing U.N. Resolution 1441.

Sweden's top politicians are languishing on the sidelines, firmly insulated in their Nordic neutrality. It's time to suit up and get in the game.

KINDEST CUT:
On Monday nights I usually watch ER. Last night was no exception. In this most recent installment, two doctors disagree on the best course of treatment for a terminally ill patient. The more pragmatic of the physicians is inclined to heed the wishes of the patient, who asks to sign a DNR form. In his eyes, the patient has had enough and would rather face the inevitable, with a minimum of pain, than endure protracted suffering in the wake of transplants, medication and so forth. The second doctor brings flowers and tries to convince the young patient that hope springs eternal: more tests, better drugs, waiting lists, scientific advancements, etc. He avers fervently that the virus can be contained, but it is belligerent and threatens to unabashedly spread into other areas.

The first, more senior doctor has seen such cases before. He knows that despite a battery of tests, and host of expert opinions, the patient will not respond. The second doctor refuses to give up hope, inadvertently prolongng the agony of the patient through his recalcitrance and refusal to face facts. "Just a few more tests! We haven't tried everything! We need more time!" But the patient has run out of time.

CASUS BELLI:
This New Republic editorial slams the Times, defangs the antiwar left, and makes a number of truly cogent arguments for capping inspections.

"It would be ideal if Saddam could be persuaded to make a clean breast of it and disarm voluntarily. But letting his current recalcitrance continue indefinitely is probably the worst imaginable strategy to persuade him to do so. Allowing Iraq's current noncooperation to go unpunished would codify it as the new baseline, and only a more flagrant defiance would then constitute a casus belli. The level of defiance most objectors seem to have in mind is the "smoking gun." But the chance of finding such a thing without Iraqi help is small."

EXPECT RUN ON SAFETYPINS:
I have to say that I'm a little disappointed in Svenska Dagbladet, one of Sweden's leading daily newspapers. Today's op-ed piece (in Swedish, unfortunately) by Jan Danielson, a "nature journalist" and head of the Swedish arm of Green Cross International, was beyond the pale and second-rate eco-pablum. For non-Scandinavians, here's some bark to chew on:

"A new war has been proclaimed: 'The War on Terrorism!' [The war] is being fought primarily by the world's remaining superpower, the U.S., which, after the events of September 11, 2001, has become shockingly aggressive." [my italics]

The "events" of 9/11 Mr. Danielson speaks of comprised wide-scale, indisciminate, premeditated acts of international terrorism that claimed the lives of over 3,000 human beings. He conveniently chose to elide this little fact.

Now let's turn our attention to the use of "shockingly agressive." In my mind, persuading the U.N. Security Council to fulfill its charter and follow through with its resolution, while at the same time putting pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm, hardly justifies meting out an incendiary phrase such as "shockingly aggressive." The so-called "rush to war" has been plodding along since August last year. Danielson needs to get out of Saddam's lap and address the true aggressor.

"President Bush and his government have even reserved the right to launch pre-emptive attacks on 40-50 countries that they, for one reason or another, dislike."

Dislike? Is this guy still in high school? The Iraqi government has flouted U.N. resolutions for more than a decade. The only logical end to this cycle is Saddam's successful acquisition of a nuclear weapon, at which point disarmament, forcible or otherwise, will no longer be an option. Indeed, this would be the actual result of the policy favored by antiwar liberals--whether they consciously desire it or not. Maybe eliminating all political opposition, gassing your neighbors, strategically starving your own people and colluding with other rogue nations to build illicit WMD isn't enough to raise the ire of Mr. Danielson, but this and other poltical exigencies in the region might just miff America and its European allies.

"War sets the stage for unforeseeable political consequences."

Does the institution of a progressive democracy fall into the category?

Not surprisingly, Mr. Danielson has a solution. Are you ready?

"It is of the utmost importance that we quickly build a wave of strong, global opposition. Green Cross Sweden would like to put forth a proposal."

I can hardly wait.

"Put a simple safetypin in your lapel to show support for the eradication of war, once and for all! This will hopefully blossom into a major global movement."

If Mr. Danielson's dream did come true, wouldn't the manufacture of millions, if not bilions, of safetypins for purely decorative purposes cause harmful emissions and pollute the environment? (OK, I'm overreaching here, but I deserve some lattitude given the source.)

"It is important that we are able to recognize one another out on the streets."

I wholeheartedly agree. I want to know who these people are too.

"We have to be able to make eye contact, exchange words of encouragement, and feel strong in our numbers and resolve."

How quaint. You can all console and reassure each other and curse the meddlesome, imperialistic West and its gunslinging idealogues, collectively wallowing in arrogant guilt and self-hatred with safetypins on your lapels.

Remind me again Jan ol' buddy, how was this little gesture going to help liberate oppressed people in countries run by dictators? Why didn't we think of this during World War II? Instead of engaging Hitler, invading Germany and liberating what was left of the Jews, we could have stayed at home with safetypins in our lapels.

The second half of his article is a shameless plug for the Green Cross.

Danielson asks why civilized nations (read America) start wars. The answer is simple. Contrary to popular belief and reckless caricatures, the Bush administration does not have an itchy trigger finger. Military action is meticulously weighed against the alternatives and is, without exception, a final resort. It is a course of action that, even when all other (viable) avenues, diplomatic and otherwise, have been exhausted, is never entered into lightly or with disregard for innocent civilians. Civilized nations are not in the business of war. They address, and attempt to resolve, potentially disastrous geopolitical problems. They rise to the occasion, investing the human and financial resources needed to bring stability and security to the lives of those who cannot mount a struggle from within.

In other words, they go a lot farther than sticking a safetypin in their collective lapel.

AXIS-OF-WEASELS WEAR:
Get it here!

FELLOWSHIP OF THE STING:
Eight "New Europe" leaders have called upon their community to unite in dismatling the rougue regime of Saddam Hussein. Chirac and Schroder are probably spitting mad and not a little threatened by this power play. Rumsfeld was indeed right: France and Germany belong to the tired old guard. This brave display delivers a stinging ultimatum the the UN: Do your job or face oblivion.

"The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities."

RUMMY MAKES NO BONES:
"No one wants war, but, as the President has said, Iraq will be disarmed, and the decision between war and peace will be made not in Washington, DC, and not in the United Nations in New York, but rather in Baghdad. It is their decision."

COMMUNIST CRISIS IN SWEDEN:

Sweden's Simrishamn tax authority yesterday announced that Left-party chief and ex-communist doyennne Gudrun Schyman overclaimed deductions on her 2001 tax return. News of her "clumsy book-keeping practices" is the latest -- and some pundits say, the last -- of her numerous transgressions in recent years. Ms. Schyman's gaffes have included showing up for a movie premier intoxicated and urinating on the floor during the coming attractions, and paying her 16-year-old maid under the table. Now, Schyman stands accused of deducting travel expenses, lavish dinners, rental cars and so forth -- expenses her party paid for.

Apparently her doctrine of severe, punishing, debilitating taxation was aimed squarely and exclusively at her constituency. The tax-evasion bombshell fragged self-hating Mercedes Marxists and visibly dampened the mood of roving protester charter-groups en route to a last-miunte cut-rate three-day riot extravaganza at The World Economic Forum in Davos. Schyman, who could face a prison term, chalks the whole thing up to sloppiness.

Apologists and bearded sympathizers in brown, shapeless cardigans bristled at suggestions that Schyman was a "hypocrite" and worked feverishly to shore up remnants of the broken party. Indeed, they cooed in the ear of impressionable teenagers and broken hippies, communist leaders and meglomaniacal leftwing idealogues have rarely if ever followed the doctrines they so avidly espouse. Realizing this undeniable truth, an audible sigh was heard as the Swedish left pulled itself off a dingy lime-green sofa, lumbered in a light-beer-induced haze to the garbage cans out behind its subsidized flat and retrieved its beloved, moth-eaten Mao-style red star t-shirt.

Schyman, who showed up at a press conference decked out in a sequined "Che" t-shirt, pleaded innocence, adding that she was late for a "business meeting" at Maxim's in Paris. A press release issued later in the day stated that any questions should be directed to her accountants at Andersen.

AXIS OF WEASELS:
ScrappleFace may have coined the saying of the year -- in January!

Rumsfeld Sorry for 'Axis of Weasels' Remark
(2003-01-22) -- U.S. Secretary Defense Donald Rumsfeld apologized today for referring to France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels."

"I'm sorry about that Axis of Weasels remark," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I didn't mean to dredge up the history France and Germany share of pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators."

The Defense Secretary said he was "way out of bounds" with the comments.

"I should have known better than to remind people that these two nations--which live in freedom thanks only to the righteous might of America, Britain and their allies--that these nations are morally and politically bankrupt, and have failed to learn the lessons of history," he said. "It really was an inappropriate thing to say--you know, the Axis of Weasels thing. I really should not have called them the Axis of Weasels. I think it's the 'Weasels' part that was most offensive...you know, when I said that France and Germany form an Axis of Weasels. Of course, I'm so sorry."


As Homer J. proudly said: "Marge don't discourage the boy, weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what seperates us from the animals...except the weasel."

ENVIRONMENTAL WITCH TRIALS:
Bjorn Lomborg faces down his critics.

CRUSADE IN THE NAME OF IDIOCY:

Apparently the Guardian will print just about anything.

"This 'War on Terror' is becoming the ultimate 'War on Freedom', in the United States and around the world. George Bush has said that 'every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make, either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.'"

"But we do not only have two choices, For the record, I am not with George Bush or with the terrorists. And that is why, when this war finally begins, I will be in Iraq - with the people of Iraq. I invite everybody to join me in declaring themselves not citizens of nations but world citizens prepared to act in solidarity with the most wretched on our planet and to join us or to support our efforts in other ways. In doing so I honour the principles and laws of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And if I should die in Iraq, it will be as a man at peace with himself because he saw the truth and acted on it."

Ken Nichols O'Keefe of the Universal Kinship Society is leading the volunteer mission of peace activists who will be acting as human shields in Iraq. Check your common sense at the door and visit www.uksociety.org for more information on how you too can become a human shield.

KÄRNBORG DIVES IN HEADFIRST:
Ok, I realize that we have been hacking on Dagens Nyheter's poor Ms. Kärnborg during the past couple of days, but she brings it on herself. Her latest cause is the plight of second-generation Kurdish women in Sweden, of which a number have been stalked and/or murdered by male relatives for shunning traditional religious codes and values -- so-called honor killings. Kärnborg shamelessly engages in wholesale evisceration of Swedish society (for allowing this to happen) and grovels in paroxysms of self-deprecation because she failed to come to the aid of a girl she knew at high school who had faced a similar fate. This girl, according to Kärnborg, left her family behind in Sweden, moved to London, pursued a degree in medicine, got married and so forth. The horror of it all.

Everyone agrees that work needs to be done and that a viable support mechanism for these brutalized women must be deployed. Instead Kärnborg offers up her own brand of exquisite liberal self-hatred.

For anyone following her recent pieces, the irony is excruciating. Er, Ulrika, there is something you can do: support regime change in Iraq! Show solidarity with pro-democracy Kurds. The tide of oppression washing over women can be stemmed. Instead of miring yourself (and your readers) in guilt, do something positive!

CHOMSKY IN A RUT:
Noam says, "I think that nobody doubts that the world would be better off if [Saddam] is eliminated. But the means that are proposed are outlandish."

In all the excitement did we forget to ask Saddam to go out back and quietly off himself?

BUT OIL IS THICKER THAN BLOOD:
This piece by Thomas W. Murphy, which Sullivan posted earlier today, puts a whole new spin on the oil angle. No wonder the French government has been slow to back coerced regime change in Iraq: some of the country's biggest corporations are wading knee-deep in lucrative Iraqi oil exploration-and-development contracts. French and Russian blatant economic self-interest has certainly clouded the Security Council's judgment and vitiated its decision-making capabilities. Their duplicity threatens to permenently defang the entire organization. Murphy concludes:

"Critics of possible U.S. military action against Iraq say its all about oil. They are partially right; they just got the 'U.S.' part wrong. Its about Moscow and Paris wanting to protect their oil interests in Iraq. Its about billions of dollars for Russia and France as long as they look the other way while Saddam Hussein develops weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism, and continues to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East."

FRIEDMAN BLASTS LIBERALS:
Thomas L. Friedman sees regime change in Iraq as a critical first step toward dramatically minimizing the future threat of terrorism aimed at the U.S. and its western allies. And although "regime change" is somewhat fuzzy parlance meaning anything from a surgical hit to a one-way ticket to Despotamia, Friedman's line of thinking -- and his vision of the U.S. aiding a post-Saddam Iraqi nation to transition to a sustainable, accountable democracy -- is right on the money. Saddam's ouster is the only way forward. Oh yeah, Friedman also gives the Left a little bop on the nose:

"What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. And simply because oil is also at stake in Iraq doesn't make it illegitimate either. Some things are right to do, even if Big Oil benefits."

"Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables — the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It's these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society."

"If we don't help transform these Arab states — which are also experiencing population explosions — to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible media that won't blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables."

Let's help them cut production -- now.

BLOGGING A DEAD HORSE:
Ulrika Kärnborg says its hard for her to find any legitimate reasons to engage in a war with Saddam Hussein. Hitch has got loads. Here's the money quote:

"There are at least three well-established reasons to favor what is euphemistically termed "regime change" in Iraq. The first is the flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights, which is why the Senate--at the urging of Bill Clinton--passed the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously before George W. Bush had even been nominated. The second is the persistent effort by Saddam's dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide: an effort which can and should be thwarted and which was condemned by the United Nations before George W. Bush was even governor of Texas. The third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority that surrounds those who intone the "peace movement."

Note to Ulrika: I thnk the Palestinian shawl is cutting off the oxygen to your brain.

AXEL WEIGHS IN v2.0:
Sweden's ambassador to Berlin goofs

Incidentally, Ulrika Kärnborg recently put her name to a letter published in Dagens Nyheter advocating a boycott of Israeli products. Another constructive idea to come from the Swedish left. I would have expected nothing less from Ms. Kärnborg given her enlightened take on the Iraqi conflict. Another signatory of the letter, however, was Sweden's ambassador to Berlin, Carl Tham. The official Swedish stance as expressed by foreign minister Anna Lindh is that a boycott of Israeli products is counter productive. So not only does Ambassador Tham weigh in on the wrong side of the debate, but he does it while representing Sweden in Germany, with a total disregard for the special relationship between Germany and the people and state of Israel. The conservatives and liberals in Sweden immediately demanded that Ambassador Tham resign - not at all likely.

FOR A FEW BARRELS MORE: AXEL WEIGHS IN
Sweden: leftist anti-US propaganda in a supposedly "liberal" daily

In an article in Sweden's leading daily, Dagens Nyheter, journalist and author Ulrika Kärnborg opines (weakly) that US plans to attack Iraq are, in effect, an extension of the idea that national sovereignty is the exclusive right of the Western countries.

Below are a few excerpts from her piece (my translation) and my comments:

"UNICEF estimates that a half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of the war and the subsequent sanctions."

The death of a half a million Iraqi children is obviously a great tragedy. The sanctions don't, however, exist in a vacuum. They were put in place because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. They are still in place because he refuses to comply with the agreements he has signed. The responsibility for the death of the Iraqi children rests squarely on his shoulders.

"It proves difficult to find any acceptable reason to once again attack Saddam Hussein."

No comment necessary.

"The hawks in Washington - despite all past experience proving the opposite - seem to have come to the conclusion that Arab nationalism or even democratic development in the Middle East are primary threats to international security and the stability of the world economy. This should be more than enough to make the rest of the world extremely cautious. Did not a similar line of thinking shape the US role in Vietnam? A war that in hindsight proved to be the biggest failure in United States' history and a crime against all humanity."

Ms. Kärnborg has evidently seen some encouraging signs that Iraq is moving towards a more democratic state of affairs. Perhaps she is thinking of the most recent Iraqi presidential election. The US-led smashing of the Taliban was surely a blow to the burgeoning democratic developments in that region.

The failure in Vietnam was more a failure of execution than a failure of intent. The war in Vietnam was an extension of America's leadership in the global fight against communism. Where would be today without that leadership?

"This is the same sort of foreign policy that the US has practiced in large parts of the Third World. A fear of independent regimes leads the US to destroy burgeoning democracy movements. According to this antiquated colonial view, National sovereignty seems to be something reserved for the Western countries."

The United States involvement in the World War II pitted her against some of the most aggressive colonialist powers of all time - Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Ask the citizens of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia what they think about national sovereignty and the US role in their liberation from the yoke of Soviet communism.

Sweden's good luck during the last century - being a mere spectator in the two world wars and an unknowing and ungrateful beneficiary of the US nuclear and conventional weapons umbrella during the struggle against communism - has made her a hotbed for naiveté. Swedes have been lulled into a false sense of security by a smothering welfare state and the non-alliance cushion. Swedes never lived through the Blitz or the burning flesh of thousands in Dresden, the death of humanity at Stalingrad, the smell of mud and blood in the trenches of France. This has led the Swedes to suffer from a skewed vision of the world and of their own importance. They sit back and let someone else do the dirty work for them. And then complain when the work isn't being done according to their exacting standards. Standards that sometimes seem to have come right out of a fairy tale.

Then there is the issue of the Swedish media. Although the majority of newspapers in Sweden have a declared right-of-center leaning, a leaning that is most evident on the editorial pages, many of the journalists writing in these newspapers are much further to the left in their own personal persuasion, and seem to have some difficulty hiding it - witness Ulrika Kärnborg. Now, you might say "So what. It's just like anywhere else. Just take a look at the dominance of the left-wing US media." The main difference is that the Swedish left has in many cases not come to terms with its communist and pro-Soviet past.

YEEHAW, GONNA GET ME ONE OF THEM UTES!
Finally, a bold sybarite steps up to the plate for all the gasoline-guzzling, hybrid-car-mangling, upper middle-class Cromags: SUV owners.

Here's the money paragraph: "This anti-SUV fervor strikes me as a classic geek assault on jock culture. Here are the geeks: thoughtful, socially and environmentally conscious. They understand that only spiritually shallow people could possibly get pleasure from a motor vehicle. Then there are those jocks. They cruise through life infuriatingly unaware of how morally inferior they are to the geeks. They make money, become popular, play golf and have homes that are too large. And they're happy! For all the wrong reasons! And so every few years the geeks pick on some feature of jock life (McMansions, corporations, fraternities, country clubs) and get all worked up about it. And you know what? The jocks don't care! They just keep being happy. The geeks write, protest and fume. The jocks go to St. Croix"

LEVEL-HEADED LIBERALISM:
The London Observer's special report (thanks Andrew) surprisingly makes the case for coercive pressure (translation: military intervention followed by war);

"One thing which has been stressed too little in recent weeks is that it is Iraq's choices that have brought war closer. The debate in Britain and Europe continues to focus largely on what America is doing and why. Too often, it is overlooked that it is Iraq which remains, at the eleventh hour, in defiance of the will of its region and the wider world."

and

"Some will still argue that because the world contains other unpleasant dictators, it would be wrong to get rid of this one. We disagree. The recent past contains several examples of military intervention against sovereign states where the outcome, if not ideal, has certainly been much better in humanitarian terms than what went before: Vietnam's removal of Pol Pot from Cambodia; Nato's Kosovo campaign, with the subsequent indictment of Slobodan Milosevic; the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan."

The editorial even spawns a buzzword the PR guys on Capitol Hill should have patented long ago: "Both Bush and Blair could have emphasised more just how bad Saddam's republic of fear has been for his people and the extent to which ending it is a desirable end in itself."

PROTESTERS IN SF:

"It was the first march ever for Jackie Grant, a retired community college counselor from San Rafael.

'Saddam is evil, but that is not a good enough reason for a war,' she said.

Her husband, Nik Grant, sat next to her holding a sign that read, 'If war is inevitable, start drafting SUV drivers now.'"

Golly, and I thought Sheryl Crow was aware and all that stuff. Chillingly acute commentary.

THE LEFT (BEGINS TO) SEE THE LIGHT:
The cobwebs begin to clear...
"This evidence is, admittedly, anecdotal, and I would be wary of supporting a war [on Iraq] based on my own impressions. But now there is concrete evidence. The International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based independent think-tank, by no means pro-war, conducted extensive interviews with the Iraqi population last year and, as their report explains, 'a significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with surprising candour, expressed their view that, if (regime change) required an American-led attack, they would support it. The notion of leaving the country's destiny in the hands of an omnipotent foreign party has more appeal than might be expected - and the desire for a long-term US involvement is higher than expected.'"

...but the attic is stil cluttered with the detritus of liberal consensus
"If your hatred of Dubya overwhelms your hatred of Saddam, then I sympathise - that is the reason why I, too, once viewed this war with dread and contempt - but I strongly suspect that if you were confronted with the reality of Saddam's Iraq, you would change your mind. Of course, forming an alliance with George Bush is an unpleasant experience, but we formed an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler."

Johann Hari writes for The Independent, where this article first appeared

USEFUL IDIOTS:
Blogger Tacitus acknowledges the "liberals" who gave their tacit approval to the fascists and fascist-supporters that organized their anti-war march

DISPOSABLE HEROES:
Muscle-bound, clean-living Renaissance man Henry Rollins bemoaned recently the ubiquity of America’s disposable culture and its minions, peppering inter-rep bench-press exhalations with clenched paroxysms about Britney CD jewel cases blocking out the sun. Hank, whose very anima spasms in pain when he hears the words “boy band,” is in good company. Julian Johnson, an academic and composer, recently published “Who Needs Classical Music?” (Read a full review in the January issue of The Economist.) Among other things the book takes issue with “a mainstream culture [that] has become saturated with the youth values of immediacy and novelty. Geared to commodities and advertising, it dismisses the more deliberate and complex responses which classical music requires as outmoded, unsellable and elitist.”

As Hell readies a room for the purveyors, perpetrators and consumers of art that you could serve on a cracker, somebody should hook these guys up—sort of a high-art Masterblaster.