Gene Scalia, Hollywood, and more.

The president nominated the younger Scalia in April. Two weeks after a sometimes-contentious confirmation hearing on October 2, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee passed the nomination to Majority Leader Tom Daschle to schedule a floor vote. But there the Scalia nomination stopped, and there it remains.

The delay itself is outrageous. After all, even Ted Kennedy has called Scalia an “outstanding lawyer.” William Coleman, longtime presidential adviser and former head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, agrees, saying Scalia is a “bright, sophisticated” attorney, who would be “among the best lawyers who have ever held that important position.”

But Daschle’s justification of Democrats’ obstruction is more disgraceful. “You know, I have to be convinced that the votes are there, and I don’t think the votes are there for Mr. Scalia today,” he claimed last week. But Daschle is wrong; the votes are there. And that, of course, is why he’s blocking a vote.

The majority leader can’t even keep tabs on his own duplicity. Moments after his dissembling about vote counts, he offered a second bogus explanation for the delay. “I think the more you learn about his record, the more concern there appears to be for the way he would function in that position,” he argued. “That’s a very important position carrying out the rules and regulations of safety for working people, and I think the more you look, the more skeptical you become.”

The Scrapbook urges reporters not to give up. Keep asking. At some point, Daschle is liable to give the real reason for hijacking Scalia’s appointment: petty, vindictive partisanship.

HOLLYWOOD ENLISTS (sort of)

Post-September 11, Hollywood has trumpeted its patriotism and its willingness to aid the war on terrorism just as it promoted America in World War II. But it turns out “Hollywood Goes to War: The Sequel” won’t amount to much. There won’t be encomiums to America’s military, respect for individuals, or mass prosperity. Instead, your local multiplex will be filled with “Hollywood Embraces Multiculturalism,” parts I, II, III, IV, and V.

“You can’t spit out a patriotic pro-American message in the hopes everyone will get it,” Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, told the Los Angeles Times after a meeting with White House officials last week. “It makes more sense to try to humanize the American people through good cross-cultural collaborations.”

It does? Since when do Americans need to be “humanized”? Anyway, what Hollywood has in mind is playing up stories like Muhammad Ali’s love of Islam. Wouldn’t Ali’s expression of love for America be more to the point? The music industry wants to pair American singers with Muslim stars for music to be aired in the Middle East. Fine, but what about a movie touching on America’s tolerance of all religions, including Islam? That would help the cause more.

So far, though, no movies are planned, no “Sands of Kandahar” or “30 Seconds Over Kabul.” But the truth is Hollywood could produce patriotic movies quickly if it wished to. Writer Aaron Sorkin instantly put together a “West Wing” episode on September 11. Hollywood can take credit for “Behind Enemy Lines” and a three-minute patriotic montage by director Chuck Workman, but these were in the can prior to the terrorist attacks on America. The Bush White House says it’s happy with Hollywood’s offerings. Yeah, right. Just like it’s happy with the Saudis, we bet.

The Scrapbook won’t be satisfied until we see a fitting sequel to “Patton.” How about the true story of an officer called back to Washington for one last heroic tour of duty. “Rumsfeld”? It has a nice ring to it, and might even do well at the box office.

RULE BRITANNICA, CONT.

Reader Steve Sorensen compared last week’s passage on Afghanistan from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica with his copy of the 9th edition (copyright 1891). The words were almost identical, he notes, but the 1891 version is attributed to one Col. Henry Yule, C.B., rather than to Sir Thomas Hungerford Holdich. And Holdich had deleted some passages. Yule was also the author (with A.C. Burnell) of “Hobson-Jobson: a Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases.” Yule said his description of the Afghans was drawn in part from Ferrier’s “Journeys,” which he refers to as “recent.”

Here is part of the Holdich version, with the Yule portions added back in and italicized:

The Afghan is by breed and nature a bird of prey. If from habit and tradition he respects a stranger within his threshold, he yet considers it legitimate to warn a neighbour of the prey that is afoot, or even to overtake and plunder his guest after he has quitted his roof. The repression of crime and the demand of taxation he regards alike as tyranny. The Afghans are eternally boasting of their lineage, their independence and their prowess. They look on the Afghans as the first of nations, and each man looks on himself as the equal of any Afghan, if not as the superior of all others. Yet when they hear of some atrocious deed they will exclaim–“An Afghan job that!” They are capable of enduring great privation, but when abundance comes their powers of eating astonish an European.

Hmm . . . a fin-de-siecle plagiarism scandal, or was it expected that each successive Britannica edition would crib from the one before? Anyone who can clear this up should e-mail us at [email protected].

Meanwhile, here is Col. Yule’s further description of the Afghans, from the 1891 edition:

The Afghans are Mohammedans of the Sunni or orthodox body, with the exception of a few tribes, perhaps not truly Pathan, who are Shiahs. They are much under the influence of the Mullahs, especially for evil; and have a stronger feeling against the Shiah heretic than against the unbeliever; their aversion to the Persians being aggravated thereby. But to those of another faith they are more tolerant than most Mohammedans, unless when creed becomes a war-cry.

Contributions are invited from earlier editions of the Britannica as well.

POETS NEED NOT APPLY

This is not a doctrinaire magazine, but there is one bedrock editorial principle we’ve adhered to for six years and counting: no poetry. Not because we don’t like poetry–to the contrary–but because it’s such a thankless chore to strip-mine a mountain of bad submissions in search of the rare nugget.

That said, you should know that our Books & Arts editor, J. Bottum, has just published his first collection of poetry, “The Fall & Other Poems” (St. Augustine’s Press), and it contains only nuggets. In his honor, we will breach our principle long enough to share the shortest of his verses, and one of The Scrapbook’s favorites:

On Publishing His Memoirs

The confidences of my lovers

Were bound to end between these covers.

For the rest, you will have to get your own copy of “The Fall.”