Spartacus

Inside baseball

Two curious emails arrived in my mailbox this morning (well, actually it was more like 30, but I'm ignoring all the penis enlargement ads and attractive business opportunities from Nigeria).   One was from a faithful reader (and huge Kirk Douglas fan) accusing me of "Brit bashing" for this post.   (Silly me, I'd thought I'd been liberal bashing.)   And the other was an email inviting me to a dinner in honor of Magdalen College, Oxford "to discuss the outlook of the College, some significant upcoming events, and the success of the Student Support Fund".

Fortunately, the first email including a link to something funny.

Bad, bad boys

Today's WSJ has an interesting editorial (link expiring October 7th) shining a light on the often ignored subject of union violence and intimidation.  

Union violence gets little media coverage. So we'd like to share a new posting on the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' Web site about a settlement it recently reached with the National Labor Relations Board.

The case stems from a nasty -- and ultimately unsuccessful -- strike against Overnite Transportation Co., of Richmond, Va. The strike was marred by intimidation that the company says includes more than 50 shootings at its trucks or drivers since 1999. What follows are excerpts from a notice the Teamsters are required to post at their locals:

"WE WILL NOT use or threaten to use a weapon of any kind, including but not limited to guns, knives, slingshots, rocks, ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, picket signs, sticks, sledge hammers, bricks, hot coffee, bottles, two by fours, lit cigarettes, eggs, or bags or balloons filled with excrement against any non-striking Overnite employee or security guard in the presence of any Overnite employee...

Here is the link to the full notice (which includes 17 paragraphs specifying prohibited conduct, e.g. "WE WILL NOT....).   Check it out, it really is an extraordinary document.   While the settlement stipulation contains the usual disclaimer that it "does not constitute an admission" of wrong-doing, if the union supporters did a small fraction of the things that they agreed not to do in the future, then they are a bunch of thugs.

For those of you who want to dig deeper into this can of worms, here is a link to the Teamsters homepage for the dispute with Overnite Transportation, which contains a number of interesting documents laying out the Teamster's side of the ten year long effort to unionize Overnite.   There is less available on-line about Overnite's side of the story, since it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Union Pacific and does not appear to have a webpage.   However, Union Pacific, which acquired Overnite in 1986, recently announced that it intends to sell its entire interest in the company via an initial public offering and has filed a draft prospectus with the SEC.   This prospectus includes the following discussion of their labor situation in the "risk factors" section:

Currently, the Teamsters union represents approximately 3% of our 12,600 Overnite Transportation employees at four service centers. Employees at two of our Motor Cargo service centers located in North Salt Lake, Utah and Reno, Nevada, representing approximately 11% of the total Motor Cargo work force at 34 service centers, are covered by two separate collective bargaining agreements with unions affiliated with the Teamsters. On October 24, 2002, the Teamsters ended a three-year nationwide strike of Overnite Transportation, our principal business unit. While the Teamsters ended their strike without obtaining a contract or any concessions from us, the strike did cause us to incur significant expenditures for the protection of our employees and property, and diverted the time and attention of our management from our normal operations. Although we focus on maintaining a productive relationship with our employees, we cannot ensure that we will not in the future be subject to work stoppages, strikes or other types of conflicts with our employees or organized labor. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and serve our customers and could materially impair our relationships with key customers and suppliers. Accordingly, any future labor conflict could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

At the height of the Teamsters’ campaign to unionize Overnite Transportation employees, the Teamsters had petitioned to gain representation rights at over 60 of Overnite Transportation’s 170 service centers, and they ultimately gained certified representation rights at 26 of these service centers. Since July 2002, the Teamsters have been decertified as collective bargaining representatives at 22 of these service centers. Except in one case where the Teamsters disclaimed representation rights, the decertifications were the result of elections initiated by our employees. As a result of the decertifications and the successful resolution of the Teamsters’ strike, the Teamsters’ campaign to organize the employees of Overnite Transportation has become almost entirely dormant.

Lt. Gov. Bustamante: no-talent hack and ignorant, too!

A friend of mine in California sent me a link to this blog entry by Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub:

In the big debate Wednesday night, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante made what might have sounded to some viewers like a creative proposal for reforming workers compensation: give safety discounts to employers with injury-free worksites. Like “good driver” discounts in auto insurance, Bustamante said, his idea would reward good behavior and penalize bad behavior, presumably leading to lower rates for firms that do the right thing.

“There’s no incentive for a good workplace and a bad workplace because they get paid or they get a premium that’s exactly the same amount,” Bustamante said. “So if we were to provide a worker, a safe-workplace discount, and we’d be able to have an incentive for those people who are not doing a good job to do a better job, we could lower premiums on those that are good worksites and increase the premiums on those that have the bad worksites.”

Amazing concept. Maybe that’s why it has long been the concept at the heart of workers compensation insurance. [Emphasis added] Called “experience modification,” it works like this: every company is assessed a basic rate according to its industry, based broadly on the risk involved in its work. Roofers pay a lot more than paper pushers for each dollar of payroll. But after that rating is done, it is modified by experience. Just one expensive injury claim can drive a company’s rates up dramatically, by 50 percent or more. They generally stay up for three years and then decline only if the firm is claim-free. A good safety record gets you – guess what – a discount!

Jesus!   This is a major issue in California, whose notoriously permissive (and costly) workman's comp system has been driving jobs out of the state for years, and the Lt. Governor has absolutely no idea how the current system works!

In a similar vein, James Taranto's Best of the Web reported this story on Lt. Gov. Bustamante's academic prowess:

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

Cruz Bustamante finally finished his college degree this spring. We guess that's admirable, but the Fresno Bee reports that he may have cut some corners. A Fresno State University professor gave Bustamante a C in a speech course he never attended because he decided the lieutenant governor "would have earned at least a C based on his public utterances":

"In my judgment at the time, he had certainly demonstrated minimal proficiency, and I emphasize minimal proficiency . . . in the fundamental skills mandated by the course," Robert Powell, former chairman of the communication department, said last week. He interjected: "I'm not going to make any judgment about the eloquence or anything else" of Bustamante's speeches.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

Is it too late to recall 'em both?

Why am I not surprised that Crooklyn DA Charles Hynes sat on evidence of corruption?

Interesting piece in today's NY Post by Frederic U. Dicker with more evidence of how thoroughly corrupt Brooklyn's pols are.   While I know that the NY Sun, which has had the best coverage of the Crooklyn scandals, thinks that Hynes is honest.   I suspect that honesty among pols in Brooklyn is a distinctly relative concept.

 Here's a little of Dicker's article:

A federal investigator who launched the probe into the potential bribery of several city lawmakers by Florida-based Correctional Services Corp. said he gave his findings to the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office in the late 1990s - but nothing was done about it.

Stephen Grogan, until recently a decorated senior agent in charge of the Justice Department's Inspector General's Office, told The Post he's shocked the pattern of corruption he discovered in the mid-1990s was allowed to continue for so long.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Grogan, 55, also said details of his findings - possible illegal activities by Brooklyn Democratic Assemblyman Roger Green and other city politicians - had been turned over to Brooklyn DA Charles "Joe" Hynes.

Read the whole thing.

Real 'Ole Time Liberal Guilt, front and center at the Chronicle of Higher Education

I shouldn't smirk too much.   The kid's heart is in the right place.   Its just that he has no idea what he's talking about.   Here's an excerpt:

There is a deliberate aura of wealth and power at Harvard, and it is tended to by more than a thousand workers. They dust the portraits, polish the oak panels, and prune the trees. They cook the food and guard the campus; they work in every room of every building, day and night, and yet one of their frequent complaints is that the nation's most perceptive students and scholars simply do not see them.

I was embarrassed when someone had to explain to me that the reason the lights were on all night in Harvard's buildings was that crews of custodians were in those buildings, working all night to clean up the mess of the day before. Then, during my junior year, I read Studs Terkel's Working, and I was shocked that no teacher had ever assigned me that book -- or any other workers' histories, for that matter.

Later that year -- 1998 -- I went to a meeting that my childhood friend Aaron Bartley had called about starting a living-wage campaign on the campus. At the meeting, I learned that while Harvard recently had broken all records for university fund raising -- the endowment had nearly tripled, from $7-billion to $20-billion between 1994 and 2001 -- the university had, at the same time, been cutting the wages and benefits of its lowest-paid employees through outsourcing. Amazed, I presented an outline of what would become Harvard Works Because We Do, consisting of interviews with and photographs of campus service workers, to the history-and-literature program as my proposed senior-thesis topic. It was rejected, on the grounds that it was not adequately academically rigorous. The rejection only made me more stubborn. I started the project anyway, and after graduating I spent the next three years working on it.

As an undergraduate, I always worked. I inspected bags in a library, I tended to a research greenhouse, I cleaned dorm rooms and bathrooms, I shelved books in Widener Library, and, after graduating, I worked as a carpenter's assistant on the campus...

Well, I went to Harvard too.   Though since I did not qualify for financial aid (my dysfunctional family had too much income, though they weren't sharing it with me), I could not get the high-paying work/study jobs like cleaning dorm rooms and bathrooms.   Instead I worked 10 to 15 hour per week during term time setting up slide projectors and sound systems for classes, which had the useful fringe benefit of allowing me to audit all sorts of interesting classes.   During summer vacations, I worked 80 to 90 hour weeks as a limo driver to save enough to pay the following year's tuition.

My senior year at Harvard, I won a Marshall scholarship from the British Government that provided me with two or three years of all-expense-paid study at the UK university of my choice.   For various reasons which aren't worth going into, I chose Magdalen College, Oxford for my graduate experience as well as my introduction to feudalism, welfare state style.

Magdalen is one of the older, larger and wealthier colleges at Oxford.   (Oxford University is comprised of 39 semi-autonomous Colleges, each with their own faculty, endowment, etc.)   When I arrived in Oxford, I was surprised to learn that while my room did not have central heating, I would enjoy the services of a fifty-something year old servant (called a "scout") who would be responsible for cleaning my room as well as those of the other half dozen or so students living in our entryway.   My scout, a very sweet, working class grandmotherly type, would change the sheets, empty wastebins, clean the toilets, wash dishes, and generally tidy up.   The College also had an extensive staff of gardeners, porters, and other domestic servants, and employed virtually no students to perform any of these menial tasks.   In fact, it was unheard of for any student to work part-time when school was in session, and relatively unusual for students to seek paid employment during the generous vacations.   (At that time, in the early days of the Thatcher revolution, the custom was to "sign on" for the dole when school was out.)

At that time, virtually all students from the UK attending Oxford (or the other British universities) had 100% of their school expenses paid by the state, regardless of their family's financial need.   Since this was a very expensive proposition, a much smaller percentage of the university-age population were allowed into post-secondary education.   (This was also a very regressive policy, since most of the aid went to upper and middle class families who's children made up the large majority of university students.)

By comparison, Harvard was (and I believe still is) a paragon of equality and meritocracy.   Sure, there were the WASPy, prep school types, some even from wealthy and/or famous families.   Some of them even joined elitist clubs like the Porcellian or the less-exclusive Fly.   But it was more common to find that most students worked for money part-time during the school year and nearly all had real (if often menial) jobs during the summer vacation.   In my experience, it would have struck most Harvard students as decidedly odd if one of their friends "looked down" on another classmate because he or she had a job cleaning dorm bathrooms.

Harvard is also one of the few universities in the world that offer truly "needs blind" admissions; meaning that an applicant's ability to pay full fees is not considered as part of the admissions process.   Furthermore, there is a virtual guarantee that all admitted students will receive the necessary financial aid (though it may be in the form of loans rather than outright grants).   Of course, this is only possible because of Harvard's "record-breaking" fund raising and substantial endowment.

The sub-text of Greg Halpern's article, support for the "living-wage" movement, reflects the distressing reality that it is possible to graduate from a top-tier American university while remaining appallingly ignorant of basic economic principles.   Artificially raising wage levels to above-market levels may benefit workers who have (and can keep) these high wage jobs.   But overall employment will decline as capital is substituted for labor, and higher labor costs prompt the elimination of lower priority tasks (dusting those portraits, for example).   Were that it were so easy to legislate away poverty and low-wage jobs.   But as Europe's persistently high levels of unemployment and anemic rates of new job creation demonstrate, keeping wage levels artificially high is no recipe for economic success.

(Hat tip to the charming Antic Muse, who first stumbled across this silliness.)

More on Anti-Americanism in Germany

Interesting piece in today's WSJ by Ian Johnson regarding the respectable hearing that 9/11 conspiracy theories are receiving in Germany.   (Link for non-subcribers here, good until 10/6/03.)   Here's a taste...

MUNICH, Germany -- Andreas von Bulow's book has climbed the German bestseller list, his lectures are jammed and, after two years of mounting frustration, his ideas are gaining traction.

His thesis: The U.S. government staged the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a tentative theory, he admits, based mostly on his doubt that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group launched the attacks. "That's something that is simply 99% false," he said at a reading of his book on the second anniversary of the attacks.

A crackpot? A conspiracy theorist who believes that Elvis lives and the CIA murdered Kennedy? Not exactly. Mr. von Bulow, 66 years old, is a former German cabinet minister, a trim, silver-haired man whose book comes from one of the country's most prestigious publishing houses and who lectures at well-known public institutions. He's not alone: In recent months, Germany's leading broadcaster, ARD, ran a purported documentary making similar claims, while half a dozen other German authors have published like-minded books.

"If we are being asked to participate in a new world war that's going to last years, then I expect that the cause of [the Sept. 11 attacks] be explained in the minutest detail," Mr. von Bulow told a crowd of 500 at the reading at Munich's Literaturhaus, which often hosts famous authors. "What we have received is a joke. I've just put together the things that don't match up."

Anti-Americanism in Germany

Reading Tim Blair's blog, I followed a link to this excellent German blog featuring examples and criticism of leftist, anti-American bias in the German media.   Here are some examples of interesting recent posts:

• Der Spiegel:   The blackout in the USA proves the weakness of the American nation.  The blackout in Italy proves the weakness of two major power lines.

• Comments on personal experiences with anti-American sentiment

• German coverage of Bush's UN speach and his meeting with Chancellor Schröder

I really enjoy finding sites that provide another perspective on foreign public opinion.   Into the Blogroll with Davids Medienkritik.

Bernie Kerik reports on his return from Iraq

In my four months in Iraq, spent living with, working with, and learning from Iraqi police, I've seen things that would sicken the worst of minds. In our hunt for the Fedayeen Saddam, Saddam Hussein's trained assassins, I watched video after video of interrogations of Iraqis whose lives ended with the detonation of a grenade that was tied to the neck or stuffed in the shirt pocket of the victim. I watched the living bodies disintegrate at the pull of the pin. And if that's not enough, there's a tape of Saddam sitting and watching one of his military generals being eaten alive by Dobermans because the general's loyalty was in question.

But Iraq is now a different country. The rebuilding of the infrastructure has begun and the streets are full of life, with bustling markets and shops. But reconstruction isn't just about bricks and mortar: Iraq's civic structures were in tatters, too, especially its Baathist police force, an organization that had, in any case, no credibility with the Iraqi people. My job was to assist in setting up this force again, with proper training, new values, a respect for human rights. The latter phrase--"human rights"--has been absent from Iraq's vocabulary for decades. Certainly, no one has heard it uttered, until now, within the four walls of a police station. The magnitude of our task can be measured from the fact that we had to teach cops that when you pull a man suspected of a crime into the station, you can't just hang him upside-down and beat him with an iron bar.

Read the whole thing.   (Hat tip to Tim Blair, who is on top of things, as always.)

What did they know and when did they know it?

Here is an interesting collection of leading Democrats' statements on Iraqi WMDs in 1998 and 2002.   It would appear that the Dems have either become significantly better informed now that they have less access to official government intelligence, or, alternatively, that they've become less enamored of the truth now that partisan political points can be gained.   (From Horsefeathers, via Instapundit.)

Wesley: the perfect concept candidate

Wesley Clark's lighting transformation from "not sure if he's a Democrat and not sure if he's running" to front-runner and media darling in two weeks flat is a symptom of Democratic dissatisfaction with the current crop of presidential candidates, not a ringing endorsement of Clark.   With Bush's popularity flagging in the polls, as a weak economy and the lengthy, bloody and expensive occupation of Iraq take their toll, Democrats see a glimmer of hope that Bush can be defeated in '04.   Unfortunately for the Dems, none of the likely nominees (Dean, Kerry, Lieberman) were setting the world on fire, and Dean, the candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters and momentum, was widely seen as unelectable, a 21st Century version of George McGovern.

Into this bleak landscape comes manna from heaven in the form of our telegenic, moderate retired four star general Wesley Clark.   With his military background as inoculation against the public's lack of confidence in the Democratic party on defense and security issues, Clark was an answer to a maiden's prayer.

It is interesting to look at where Clark drew his new-found support.   Several polls seemed to show that Lieberman, Kerry and Gephart lost support when Clark announced, while Dean's support declined the least or held steady.   This would support the view that Clark supporters see him as an electable moderate (the main appeal of Lieberman, Kerry or Gephart).   Dean's supporters, on the other hand, seem committed to either the man or his consistent anti-war message, rather than looking for any electable alternative to Bush.

I think Clark represents the triumph of hope over conviction on the part of the desperate Dems.   For example, just last week, at a pot-luck supper at my daughters' school, one nice, typically left-wing mom asked me what I thought about Clark.   Knowing that I was one of that rare breed, a Manhattan Republican and a reformed Democrat, she was hoping that Clark's military credentials would lure me back from the dark side.   Needless to say, she was disappointed in my response that I thought he was just another opportunistic pol, who didn't seem to have a straight answer as to what his views were on the war in Iraq (or much else for that matter, including party affiliation).

Though I missed the debate last week and therefore can't comment on his apparently strong performance, I suspect that he is not quite ready for prime time.   We shall see...

Some long overdue Arab soul searching

The latest release from MEMRI translates a September 13, 2003 article by a reformist Arab diplomat writing under the pseudonym Abu Ahmad Mustafa in London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.   Here is the beginning of his essay:

The religious discourse brainwashing people day and night on the government [and] public... satellite [television] channels is a blatant expression of the backward mentality that does not believe in the other and refuses to coexist with him…

The calls to hate and kill the other [that come] at the end of each prayer session and at every opportunity are camouflaged with the assertion that we are a tolerant nation that commands promoting virtue and preventing vice.   Why then are our deeds so different from our words?  In his day, the Saudi philosopher Abdallah Al-Qassimi said many times that 'the greatest distance [between two points] in the world is the distance between an Arab's words and his deeds.'

We have become accustomed to not asking questions and not searching for the truth, doing so only when this suits our personal desires and motivations.  We demand that others adopt the moral standards advocated by Islam, yet we do not implement them at all.   We preach love, [yet] we read of a battle waged by a [political] party bearing the name of Allah [against another political party]…  The interested parties intervene and call the ones who are killed Shahids.   Is there a greater disgrace?

Go and read the whole thing.   I only wish there were thousands more Arab intellectuals like this brave man.

Mazen Dana's boss speaks out

Today's WSJ has an interview with Tom Glocer, Reuters CEO and the first American to hold that post.   In the interview he was asked about the deaths of two Reuters staffers in Iraq:

WSJ: Two Reuters journalists were killed covering the war in Iraq and its aftermath. You have called for a high-level inquiry from the U.S. government. What do you think the U.S. government specifically should do differently to protect journalists in combat zones like Iraq?

Mr. Glocer: I have asked for two things. One, a full and fair investigation. And I believe we will get one. And two, an engagement. I would like personally to begin a real dialogue with the Pentagon about what steps we can take to not let this happen again.

There are things that can be done. Low-tech solutions, like better identification through brightly colored vests, to more high-tech things: Sewing into the clothing or vest of a journalist a little radio transmitter on a frequency that U.S. tanks can pick up and identify friend or foe. That won't solve the potential risk that a terrorist steals the clothing or counterfeits it or whatever, but I think just because there is some risk doesn't mean that you can't take a major step forward.

I certainly don't believe that my government intentionally targets Reuters or anyone else's journalists, but let's just say protecting journalists isn't high enough on the Pentagon's priority list.

It is good to see that unlike some of the rabid critics of the American military (scroll down to the comment posted to an earlier piece of mine on Mazen Dana from Christine Prat in Holland), Glocer doesn't believe that US soldiers are intentionally killing journalists.   However, he is a bit naive if he thinks that preventing the deaths of non-imbedded journalists should be a top priority for the Pentagon.   After all, the military has offered to allow reporters to travel with the troops (and thereby be protected).   It has also warned all news organization that Iraq is a dangerous place and that the military cannot guarantee the security of non-embedded journalists.

All of which is not to say that reporters shouldn't be allowed to travel freely and report what they choose.   Personally, I'm glad that some reporters are brave and conscientious enough to do so.   However, travelling in a war zone will always be a dangerous business and protecting journalists will (and should be) a lower priority than protecting the lives of the young men and women serving in the military.

Even right wing gun nuts support common-sense gun control

Alone among the major papers, today's NYT has a story reporting on a bi-partisan agreement to enhance the national background information database used to approve gun purchases.   This is a good thing, and upgrades to the system have long been supported by the NRA.   Schumer, in one of the hundreds of press releases on his website, notes that if this legislation had been in place earlier, the March 2002 fatal shooting of a priest and a parishoner in a Long Island church could have been prevented.   (The shooter, Peter Troy, had a history of mental illness and violating restraining orders issued against him.   However, since this information was not in the federal database, he was allowed to purchase the rifle used in the killings only days before the attack.)

On an only tangentially related note, I have come to have a grudging respect for Senator Schumer on his positions with regard to Israel, the war against terror, and homeland security.   (Of course, I abhor his partisan obstruction of Bush's judicial appointees, as well as his headline grabbing (but irrelevent) efforts to ban "assault weapons", and his almost comic efforts to attract press attention.)   But to give credit where it is due, Schumer:

• Is one of Saudi Arabia's harshest critics in Congress

• Was one of the earliest political leaders to focus on the need to enhance port security and provide increased funding to the Coast Guard to support this mission

• Has been a reliable supporter of Israeli's right to defend itself against Palestinian violence.

I guess for a liberal Democratic, he's not all bad.

Good Jack Kelly column on media coverage of Iraq

Check out Jack Kelly's latest column on the media's lack of historical perspective on what is going on in Iraq these days.   (Hat tip to Instapundit.)

Heywood Jablome in the news

I missed this the first time around, and its pretty amusing.   Here's the original story (modified by the editors to replace Mr. Jablome's name with the anodyne "one man") reporting on an underwhelming protest during the Master's against the Augusta National's men-only membership policy.   And here is the reporter's mea culpa for having been duped.

Interesting NYT piece on the Beeb

Today's NYT has an interesting feature on the recent upswell of criticism of the British Broadcasting Corporation.  The piece, written by the unfortunately-name Sarah Lyall, does a pretty good job of airing the views of both critics and defenders of the Beeb.   Here is a taste:

"The BBC is no longer relied on in the way it was," said Gerald Kaufman, the Labor member of Parliament who, as chairman of the Commons committee on culture and the media, has emerged as one of the BBC's most vocal opponents. "It's placed itself in a situation where its word isn't accepted automatically anymore. It's gone from being an institution to just another broadcaster, and a shoddy one at that."

Needless to say, you should read the whole thing.

Forests vs Trees at the UN

If one were to be foolish enough to rely on the NYT for information about what was going on in the world, you would be very concerned.   Consider yesterday's speech by President Bush before the UN General Assembly.   According to the Times' front page "News Analysis" by Steven R. Weisman,

The audience of world leaders seemed to perceive an American president weakened by plunging approval ratings at home, facing a tough security situation in Iraq where American soldiers are dying every week, and confronted by the beginnings of a revolt against the American timetable for self-rule by several Iraqi leaders installed by the United States.

Or look at the headlines the Times' editors used for the stories on the speech:

• Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N. (Weisman's piece)

• Bush's Remarks Draw Skepticism (Felicity Barringer's "reaction" piece)

• Bush's Day at the U.N.: It's Chilly, Still, There (David E. Sanger's piece on the "mood")

Not surprisingly, my take on the day's events was a bit different.

This time last year, before the war, President Bush came to New York to address this same audience.   In a blunt warning to the UN, Bush said the following:

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace.  Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance.  All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.  Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?   Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

This year, UN Secretary Kofi Annan made almost the same exact points in his opening address. Here is the official summary of his major points, from his spokesman, Fred Eckhard:

ANNAN SAYS U.N. AT CROSSROADS: "THIS MAY BE A MOMENT NO LESS DECISIVE THAN 1945 ITSELF, WHEN THE UNITED NATIONS WAS FOUNDED"

• Secretary-General Kofi Annan this morning opened the 58th plenary session of the General Assembly by noting the challenges the international community has faced over the past year and asserting, "We have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded."

• He said we must now decide whether it is possible to continue on the basis agreed when the United Nations was first set up, or whether radical changes are needed, to deal with threats ranging from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to the possibility that some States may act pre-emptively to respond to threats.

• He warned against allowing States to respond with pre-emptive action "unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions," but also said "it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action." (emphasis added)

• He said that the Security Council will need to consider how it will deal with the possible use of pre-emptive force, and may also need to discuss authorizing measures to address such threats as terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction at an earlier stage, as well as how to respond best to threats of genocide or other massive human rights violations.

Raising the issue of the performance of the UN Security Council and its need for reform, Annan's remarks were summarized by the UN News Service as follows:

Referring to the need for reform, Mr. Annan noted that no UN instrument is more important than the Security Council but it now had to consider not only “how it will deal with the possibility that individual States may use force ‘pre-emptively’ against perceived threats,” but also with its own constitution.

“Virtually all States agree that the Council should be enlarged, but there is no agreement on the details,” he said of the body which had 15 members – including the five veto-wielding permanent members – when the UN was founded with 51 Member States, and has the same number now even though the UN has now grown to 191 members.

“In short, Excellencies, I believe the time is ripe for a hard look at fundamental policy issues, and at the structural changes that may be needed in order to address them. History is a harsh judge – it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass,” Mr. Annan declared.

I interpret these comments to mean that Annan (and by extension, the rest of the UN community) recognize that if they want to remain a relevant organization, they will have to change the way they do business and react more forcefully to the external threats that member states (like the U.S.) see on the horizon.   Similarly, on Iraq, I felt that the Secretary General struck a conciliatory note and appeared to endorse the current status quo in that country:

Meanwhile, let me reaffirm the great importance I attach to a successful outcome in Iraq. Whatever view each of us may take of the events of recent months, it is vital to all of us that the outcome is a stable and democratic Iraq – at peace with itself and with its neighbours, and contributing to stability in the region.

Subject to security considerations, the United Nations system is prepared to play its full role in working for a satisfactory outcome in Iraq, and to do so as part of an international effort, an effort by the whole international community, pulling together on the basis of a sound and viable policy.

Of course, one could quibble about the cavil regarding "security considerations", given that Iraq is still a war zone.   But the intention is clear, the UN wants to help.

On the other front, the ongoing conflict with our erstwhile friends in Old Europe, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder appears to be throwing in the towel.   On the German government's official website, an interview with Schröder included the following comment:

Chancellor Schröder is scheduled to hold a bilateral meeting with President Bush in New York on Wednesday. He feels confident it will be possible to reach a large measure of agreement on matters regarding the future of Iraq. Schröder noted that Bush made positive reference to the role of the United Nations. He said he was pleased that President Chirac indicated that France will not use its veto in the Security Council to block a resolution on Iraq.

(This was subsequently confirmed in an article posted by the NYT this afternoon.)

Even French President Jacques Chirac, the acknowledged leader of the Axis, while putting on a brave face, has taken France's only credible bargaining chip -- their Security Council veto -- off the table.

Back where it counts, on the ground in Iraq, there was continued good news in the form of a recent Gallup poll which found that 67% of Iraqi's surveyed in Baghdad believed that conditions in the country would be better in five years and 62% said that getting rid of Saddam was worth the hardships they have endured since the start of the Coalition's invasion.   In the end, it will be what the people in Iraq think that will really matter.

As if we needed more evidence that Californian's are nuts

Has California, the country's most populous state with 34.2 million residents (if it were an independent country, it would be the 34th largest in the world in terms of population, with more people than Canada, Venezuela, North Korea and Australia, for example), finally lost it?   Consider some recent evidence:

• Whackos coming out of the woodwork:  A group calling itself the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility in August for setting fire to 20 sports utility vehicles in order to protect the environment (in the process, releasing god knows how many pounds of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere)

• Government a bit, shall we say, touched?:  Millions of Californians sign a petition to recall their Governor, 135 candidates register to run for the post including a world-famous movie star famous for his role as a cyborg from the future, a three judge panel in San Francisco rules that the election should be delayed for six months three weeks before voting was to start, and then a larger panel from the same court unanimously reverses itself several days later.

• And now this latest symptom:   "Duck Freedom Fighters" putting acid on cars, threatening families and defacing restaurants to prevent the force feeding of poultry.

Maybe its time to dust off those plans for that arc and finally figure out what a cubit is in feet and inches...

The Michael Jackson of Federal Courts Reverses Self on Recall

The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, today unanimously reversed itself, deciding that California's recall election should proceed as originally scheduled, and thereby confirming the court's marsupial status.   The full text of the Court's "Mission Statement" is reprinted below, purely for entertainment value.   Readers are cautioned not to rely upon any of the language contained therein.

More first person views on progress in Iraq

Thanks to Glen Reynolds (aka Instapundit) for providing some great links to on-the-ground reporting from Iraq.   Be sure to check out the following:

• An American working for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to get the Iraqi stock exchange back up and running, and

• A second report from the American musician travelling through the mideast on the reputation of Al Jazeera and the Arab media in Iraq.

Ogni homo me guarda come fosse una testa de cazi

Truth is stranger than fiction.   (Makes one feel proud of the old alma mater.)

Wasn't Mexico ruled by France at one point?

I had never stumbled across Daniel W. Drezner's excellent blog until Instapundit linked to this amusing essay comparing the international relations theories held by French President Jacques Chirac with the matrimonial preferences of Mexican actress Selma Hayek.

(Curiously, it says here that Ms. Hayek studied international relations when she was a university student in Mexico.   Perhaps Professor Drezner is onto something.)

Anyway, onto the blogroll he goes.

The Village Voicification of the New York Press

In 1988, a guy from Baltimore named Russ Smith started a free NY weekly paper called The New York Press.   In many ways, the NYP was a typical urban "alternative" paper, like Boston's Phoenix or NY's Village Voice, targeting a hip, young audience interested in music and entertainment listings, classified ads ("drummer wanted for East Village neo-Punk band") and outside-the-mainstream social and political commentary.   However, unlike nearly all other alternative papers, the NYP's editorial stance reflected a right-wing sensibility, favoring what was then a relatively novel form of libertarian Republicanism.

For many "liberal" readers, the juxtaposition of hip graphics, vulgar cartoons, and rock reviews with pro-capitalism, pro-Republican articles and columns, prompted cosmic tilt.   Smith's weekly column (Mugger, which was written pseudonymously for several years), was seen as particularly egregious because, like P.J. O'Rourke, his personal brand of conservatism was leavened with the sensibilities of a former left-wing, pot-smoking hipster. A typical Mugger column included mundane details on Smith's family life, reviews of meals he'd eaten that week, criticism of salient stupidity appearing in that week's NY Times, the latest indignities suffered by Red Sox's fans, and hard hitting right wing political commentary.   In those pre-internet days, the NYP had a very lively reader correspondence section, where Smith and other writers responded directly to their critics.   I fondly recall one outraged reader writing in to say that she was appalled to find political conservatives who had the nerve to be "cool".

Smith, who had co-founded Baltimore's alternative City Paper when he was still an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins, finally decided to pack it in, and sold the NYP late last year.   Unfortunately for those of us left behind in NY (Smith has returned to Baltimore to write full time), his newspaper has lost its distinctive voice.

While some of the oddball and brilliant writers that made the NYP what is was remain (for example, Jim Knipfel, Jonathan Ames, William Bryk, Alan Cabal, Adam Heimlich, J.R. Taylor and Ned Vizzini), the new owners quickly fired longtime editors John Strausbaugh and Lisa Kearns.   They have also brought in a number of newcomers, including the Gonzo wannabe Matt Taibbi (who I liked better when he was writing from Moscow) and a number of other left-wing flakes. (For example, look at the column that ran last week by Paul Krassner alleging that US aircraft carriers carry radioactive "cobalt jackets" designed to be fitted around conventional munitions, turning them into massive "dirty bombs" for use as a doomsday weapon.   I could imagine the Village Voice carrying a wacky article like this, but for the NYP to print this silliness is disappointing.)

Under new ownership, it has become very difficult to pick up either an NYP or a VV and tell them apart without looking at the cover.   While I think its great that NYC has a paper like the Voice, we certainly don't need two of them.

Interesting...

Something you are unlikely to have seen, unless you read Instapundit.

Random drama on 86th Street

Walking home from the subway yesterday I saw two young black kids running down 86th Street towards me.   There was a young cop a few paces behind me, and as the kids ran past him, they yelled something like "bodies down up there".   The cop seemed torn between going after them or continuing ahead to where there was a crowd assembled and he could see several cops.   While he was talking into his radio, I walked ahead and saw the scene in the photographs below.   (Click on the thumbnail for a larger view.)

What happened?   Who knows?   Just a bunch of kids coming home from high school on a Friday afternoon, getting into trouble.   Luckily, there were no weapons involved, so nobody got hurt (other than some scrapes and bruises).  

Good terrorism info

Dan Darling has been on a blogging tear of late and has posted some very interesting stuff on the current state of play in the global war against Al Queda and its allies.   Check it out at his blog, Regnum Crucis.

Hurricane in a teapot

What's the big deal?   The NYT and Electronic Freedom Foundation have their knickers in a twist over the news that Jet Blue gave passenger information to an Army contractor as part of a study to enhance airline security.

I just don't get it.   Most people would be happy to sign up for a voluntary "airline passenger card" issued by the government that would evaluate your threat profile.   When you applied, the Federales would check you out and put you into a risk category (say, 1 to 5 with one being Tom Ridge and five being a recently arrived Saudi flight school student).   Using these cards, airport security resources could be focussed upon the true high risk passengers (those in the high risk categories or those without cards) and the tired industrial pump salesman who flies a million miles a year would be waved on through.   This approach would 1) save money, 2) increase security, 3) speed up airline check-in, and 4) prevent millions of people from being needlessly hassled.   Since it would be voluntary, who could possibly object?   (I know, dumb question.)

Finally, if I were a bearded, Koran-carrying Pakistani-American who was tired of being eyed suspiciously by airport security, I would love having one of these cards.   After applying, and letting the FBI figure out that I don't belong to any Islamist groups and that I haven't been sending half of my paycheck off to support Islamic "charities" in Afghanistan, this card would make my life significantly easier.   If anything, it is a way to prevent dreaded racial profiling from being used as part of a crude approach to assessing security risks.

Seriously, though, how many more airline terrorist attacks is it going to take for our government to adopt a common sense (rather than PC) approach to transportation security? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer to this one: several more, and possibly hundreds of needless foresaken lives.

More granular reports from Iraq

Some brilliant backpacker on the ground reports from Iraq here.   (Via Instapundit.)

More independent eyes on the ground in Iraq

An inspiring tale from an anti-war US Federal Judge describing his recent sojourn in Iraq to assess their legal system.   (Courtesy of the inimitable InstaPundit.)

My problem with my man Wesley

Since Gen. Wesley Clark has become the media's democratic Presidential hopeful du jour, I've been thinking about what I have against the guy.   (After all, it isn't really kosher to write him off just because we had a previous bad experience with a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas.)

My biggest issue with him is the role he played as Supreme Allied Commander Europe during NATO's intervention in Kosovo .   As you may recall, in March 1999, NATO forces began a bombing campaign against Serbia in an attempt to get Slobodan Milosevic to stop mistreating the minority population in its province of Kosovo.   I didn't have a problem intervening in Kosovo.   Milosevic was a genocidal thug whose troops and irregular forces were perpetrating horrific crimes against the minority Moslem population.   (Though it is interesting to note that this intervention was not sanctioned by the United Nations since Russia and China would have vetoed any resolution authorizing the use of force.)   My problem with the intervention was the way it was conducted: from the air, at a minimum altitude of 15,000 feet, to minimize the chance of allied casualties.   Unfortunately, by attacking at high altitudes, it was very difficult to precisely target enemy troops and military targets.   As a result, many innocent civilians (including the very Kosovars that the intervention was designed to protect) died in NATO bombing raids.

In fact, in June 2000, about a year after hostilities in Kosovo ended, Amnesty International released a report concluding that NATO committed war crimes in its attack on Serbia.   Here is a summary of their findings:

NATO bombs are believed to have killed approximately 500 civilians during NATO's campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (March 25 to June 10, 1999). During and after the bombing campaign, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations repeatedly raised questions regarding specific attacks in which civilians died. In most cases, NATO said it was investigating, but never produced full answers to the questions it was asked.

Amnesty International neither supports nor opposes NATO's military intervention. However, it believes that all parties to war must be held to the same international legal standards for protecting noncombatants, regardless of whether their cause is morally justifiable.

In a June 2000 report, after meeting with NATO officials and carefully reviewing NATO's own public statements about these incidents, Amnesty concluded that, in certain attacks, NATO violated Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions. The specific legal requirements NATO violated included the obligations--

1. to suspend an attack once it becomes known that civilians have been hit or are in the vicinity of the target

2. to provide an effective warning to civilians who are in or near a targeted facility, and

3. to refrain from attacking a target if civilians are known to be in or near the target and the anticipated civilian casualties would be disproportionate to the concrete military advantage to be gained from destroying the target.

Amnesty also noted that the Rules of Engagement NATO followed, including the practice of flying above 15,000 feet, seemed to make it difficult for NATO pilots to see whether civilians were near a bombing target. (More details, including a broken link to the full text, here.   See also a similar report by Human Rights Watch.)

Instead of this cowardly approach of high altitude bombing and the destruction of Serbian industrial infrastructure to put pressure on an evil regime, NATO forces could have directly intervened on the ground to protect the Kosovars.   In fact, this course of action was advocated by some observers at the time.   Of course, this would have risked NATO casualties, something that the Clinton administration was determined to avoid.

Now it may not be fair to blame Gen. Clark for this disgraceful policy.   After all, as a US General Officer, he was required to obey the lawful orders of his Commander-in-Chief.   Furthermore, I am not aware of any indication that he championed the "air-only" approach as the preferred alternative.   However, as Supreme Commander, he could have made it difficult for Clinton (and Tony Blair, who was the prime mover behind the NATO intervention) to use airpower in this relatively indiscriminate way.   A more principled (and less ambitious) man, for example, might have resigned rather than carry out this bloody policy.

There are interesting comparisons to the recent Coalition invasion of Iraq.   For one thing, neither use of force was authorized by the UN Security Council.   (Though it is at least arguable that the unanimous passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 (which "warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations") endorsed the concept of using force to disarm Iraq.)   But more importantly, there was a significant difference in the military tactics used to achieve the humanitarian goal of regime change in the Iraqi conflict. In that interverntion, the US policy was to make every effort to minimize civilian casualties, even if doing so increased the risk faced by American troops.   In other words, we were willing to trade American military casualties in order to avoid Iraqi civilian deaths.   This was exactly the inverse of the approach taken by Gen. Clark's forces in the Balkans.

I don't know if we can hold Clark fully responsible for the civilian deaths in Kosovo.   But it bothers me that, at a minimum, he was a willing participant in what some some respected human rights groups are calling war crimes.

(I forgot to acknowledge a helpful comment from Dan Darling that provided several useful links to articles on the good General. Sorry, Dan!)

Remember all those priceless antiquities stolen from the Baghdad Museum?

Here's the definitive briefing on what happened, who did it, what was stolen, what has been recovered and what is still missing.   (Hint: the reality is much better than the early alarmist reports blaming the Coalition for not preventing the looting.)

The best part is that the guy heading up the effort to recover the lost antiquities is a Marine reservist from Bayside, Queens who in civilian life is a prosecutor for the Manhattan DA's office.   As Col. Matthew Bogdanos said in response to a reporter's question:

... when I was given lead of this investigation by General Franks, I was specifically told: Do your thing; that thing you do in New York as a prosecutor, you do that in Baghdad. You find out what happened. Do it. Let the chips fall where they may.

He did.   Go read the transcript of his briefing.

Brother from another planet?

"My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, of every country on earth"

The difference between us and them

Yesterday at the gym, in the shower, I was contemplating the state of the union.   (Perverted, I know, but what can I say?)   Anyway, one of my hottest buttons these days is the rise of judicial rule in this country, and the accompanying decline in the value attached to either law or private contracts.   In my view, this is not a good thing insofar as it reduces personal freedom and undermines democratic rule.

The most proximate cause of my reflections was the recent 9th Circuit decision to ignore the California constitution (which clearly spells out the procedures to be followed in a recall election) and instead rely on what the three judges (all democratic appointees) found to be fair.

Similarly, last October, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to ignore that state's election law which clearly specified a deadline for replacing a candidate on the ballot.   While this legal procedure was put in place for sound reasons (to prevent the last minute substitution of "stealth" candidates shortly before an election), this law was set aside in favor of the judge's view that it would be unfair to force the Democratic nominee, former incumbent Sen. Toricelli, to remain on the ballot.

In Florida, in 2000, the Florida Supreme Court did something similar when they set aside that state's election statute procedures for handling a recount and instead sent the state (and the nation) lurching down the path which led to the US Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore.   (Sorry, I'm not going to stray onto that particular grassy knoll this evening.   Perhaps some other time.)

What struck me, in the shower, was the apparent willingness of the Democratic establishment to set aside procedural legal requirements by advancing novel legal theories when this would advance their partisan interests.   Conversely, on the Republican side, I found a marked reluctance to do so.

For example, when the left's favorite punching bag, Attorney General John Ashcroft, narrowly lost his bid for reelection to the Senate, he was defeated by a dead man, the late Governor Mel Carnahan (who had tragically died three weeks earlier in a plane crash).   Now Article I, Section 3. of the US Constitution states: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."   Mel Carnahan may have been many things, but he certainly was not, when elected, an inhabitant of Missouri.   But did that arch conservative bogeyman Ashcroft take this argument to court, at a time when control of the Senate hung in the balance?   No.   He graciously conceded, and allowed the new governor to appoint the late Governor's wife, Jean, to the post.

Reflecting on why this should be so, I came to the realization that most people on the left sincerely believe that most people on the right are evil.   Not that they are misguided, or deluded, or stupid, but rather that they are consciously dedicated to advancing the self interests of an already privileged class and are unconcerned about the plight of citizens who are economically or socially disadvantaged.   Since leftists are therefore on the side of virtue, nearly any tactics can be employed to advance the cause.

Over here on the dark side, I'm afraid we don't see things in quite that Manichean starkness.   Sure, we think most liberals are wrong, that they don't understand the world as it is, and that the policies they advance hurt, rather than help, those that seek to assist.   But we don't, for the most part, see them as evil.   Stupid maybe, but not evil.   (Hell, some of us even used to be them, back in the day.)

Perhaps as a result of this view, conservatives tend to place more emphasis upon the procedural safeguards to our collective liberty embodied in the US Constitution.   These procedures, designed to limit the power of government and preserve the powers of the people and the rights of minorities, are seen as the very essence of what it is to be an American citizen.   Our side can lose many political battles, but as long as the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law that it manifests remain intact, we can live to fight another day.

Unfortunately, one of the dominant themes of US 20th Century history was the triumph of the gavel over the ballot box as the instrument of choice for achieving social change.   By seeking a shortcut to social justice via the judiciary, rather than choosing the more difficult road of electoral challenges and legislated change, the left may have succeeded merely in weakening the legal and social legitimacy of our democracy.

Petard Hoisting in California

The California recall effort continues to provide entertaining insights into the fecklessness and intellectual poverty of the American left.   Consider the confused and disjointed response of the NYT's editors to the 9th Circuit's decision to delay the vote.

Yesterday, the NYT published several pieces on the court's decision:

• An Editorial, which strongly endorsed the decision, focussing narrowly on the "tens of thousands of votes that would not be counted" if the court allowed the dreaded punch card systems to be used.

• A relatively balanced piece by legal reporter Adam Litpak that nonetheless appeared to delight in the Ninth Circuit "hoisting the Supreme Court on its own petard".

• An article by Charlie LeDuff and Nick Madigan reveling in the right's evident displeasure with the decision.

• A piece of "News Analysis" by John Broder reporting the conventional wisdom that a delay in the vote would help Gov. Gray Davis' avoid a recall.

Today, however, the Times seems to be having second thoughts about its principled [sic] decision.   Consider the following:

• They print an OpEd piece by Yale Law School Professor Bruce Ackerman strongly criticizing the decision on legal grounds.   Ackerman was an interesting choice to articulate this view since he was a vocal critic of the Supreme Courts 2001 decision in Bush vs. Gore.

• Adam Nagourney writes a "Political Memo" highlighting the concerns raised by the Democratic Presidential hopefuls that a delay in the recall vote would siphon contributions and public attention away from their candidates.

Hmmmm.   Maybe those "tens of thousands of votes that won't be counted" are not so important if it turns out that delaying the vote might hurt the Democrats' chances of taking back the White House?

Legal scholar on the fruitcake circuit's decision

Harvard Law School Professor Einer R. Elhauge has a pithy OpEd piece in today's WSJ on the kangaroo 9th Circuit court's decision to delay the California recall vote.   While his language is more temperate than my post on this subject yesterday, he endorses my main points that this was a weakly reasoned and tendentious decision.  (While the link above will be valid until 9/24/03, I have posted the full text below for non-WSJ subscribers.)

Rewire This Circuit By EINER ELHAUGE

The Ninth Circuit federal court's decision delaying the California recall elevates a straw-man argument against Bush v. Gore into constitutional principle, and then employs that bogus principle to deny the California electorate its constitutional right to oust its governor.

The straw man is the claim that the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore made it an equal protection violation for different counties to use different ballot-counting methods. Back when it was electorally convenient to them, Democrats lampooned this equal protection theory because it would lead to the absurd conclusion that it was unconstitutional to use punch cards in some counties and not others, which would invalidate just about every election conducted in the last century.

Now, the Ninth Circuit federal court claims that this absurdity is binding constitutional law, and thus requires enjoining the recall because some California counties use punch card technologies and others do not.

But Bush v. Gore never rested on such an equal protection theory. It couldn't have, because that decision sustained a machine recount despite the fact that some Florida counties used punch cards and others used optical scanners. As the Supreme Court stated, "The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections." Instead, Bush v. Gore expressly stated that the issue there was "whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses." It stressed that, there, the standards about whether to count a dimpled or partially perforated ballot varied not only between counties but within counties over time and between different counters.

If allowed to exercise such standardless discretion in ballot-counting, counters could engage in political discrimination by manipulating the standard to disfavor the ballots and candidates whose political viewpoints the counters disliked. But such discrimination would be hard to detect or prove precisely because there would be no standard against which to judge the counting. As Bush v. Gore stated, "The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application."

If, in advance of an election, a county adopts a counting technology that undercounts votes in a uniform way, that choice is far less likely to affect the election outcome because its predicted effects apply to both candidates equally. Nor would any county have an incentive to adopt a technology that undercounts its own vote compared to the vote in other counties, for that would simply lessen its own political clout.

Precisely the same distinction is recognized for the conventional constitutional doctrine that bans counties from exercising standardless discretion about whether to grant parade permits because of the fear that it might be exercised against disfavored political viewpoints. No one had ever thought this makes it unconstitutional for one county to allow parades from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, while other counties allow them from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Nor, apparently, did anyone think similar county variations in election machinery raised a constitutional problem for all the other elections conducted since 2000, until this recall created a strategic reason for so claiming.

* * *
The Ninth Circuit's decision was as precipitous as it was unsound. It took an incredibly close election result for the relatively small number of incompletely perforated punch cards to arguably matter in Florida, and the media recount suggests it turned out not to matter even there. Nor has the problem been replicated before or since in other elections. But because of the concern that some similar problem might affect the recall election, the Ninth Circuit is with certainty depriving the entire California electorate of its right to vote on whether it wants a different governor for the next six months.

The Ninth Circuit appears not to have noticed the irony that, in so holding, it is keeping in office a governor who himself was elected under a system that used punch cards in some counties and not others, and thus must, under its theory, be holding office unconstitutionally. Does this mean Gray Davis cannot be removed from office by a recall election but can by judicial injunction? Or does the court really think that the best way to vindicate a purported right to vote using equal vote-counting technology is to require voters to keep in office a governor elected with unequal vote-counting technology?

Mr. Elhauge is a professor of law at Harvard.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106376012970857600,00.htm

Get well wishes to Professor Bunyip

Australian blogger (and all-around good bloke) Professor Bunyip has been under the weather of late.   While I would tend to put this down to an overindulgence in Swan lager or some other common Australian malady, this attack seems to have been purely biological in origin.   Fortunately, the good professor appears to be getting back on his feet and fighting the good fight for truth, decency, and real beer.

Wesley throws his hat into the ring

I noticed today that Gen. Wesley Clark finally decided that he was going to run for President.   While I know that Bill Clinton says that he is one of the two rising stars in the Democratic party (the other being his own darling wife), I can't help but think that Clark is nothing more than roadkill in waiting.

Of course, I know that he is great "concept" candidate.   Moderate Southerner, liberal on social issues, a retired General and NATO Supreme Commander, former Rhodes Scholar, first in his class at West Point... and from Arkansas!   What more could Paul Begala ask for?!

But am I the only one who looks at Clark on television and says, General or no General, that he looks like a wimp?   Tonight on Fox's Special Report, Brit Hume aired some file footage of Clark emerging from a television studio in DC, after having appeared on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows.   Met by a camera crew and reporter doing pool coverage, he is asked whether he will agree to answer a few questions.   Clark says something like "I'm not sure" and asks to borrow the reporter's cell phone.   Calling someone named "Gail", he asks whether or not he can answer press questions.   Hearing her response in the negative, he returns the phone to the reporter and apologetically says that he can't talk.

This is not much of an incident, and I ordinarily wouldn't make much of something like this.   But every time I have seen Clark, I am immediately reminded of the spineless goody-good in school who would obediently do and think whatever the powers that be wanted him to do or think.   Looking into his eyes, one sees nothing as much as desire to be liked, and the will to get along.

As a peacetime commander of NATO, this quality, along with a first-class mind and close connections to the White House, would serve him well.   But as Commander-in-Chief of the world's only hyperpower, this desire for approval would result in an unmitigated disaster.   Think Jimmy Carter, only with less political experience.   (Carter (who I must confess I voted for twice for President), at least, had been a successful Governor of Georgia.)

Interestingly, a source in Clark's campaign allegedly told reporters that Her Hillaryness had agreed to be Vice-Chairman of Clark's campaign committee.   This was reportedly then denied by people in Senator Clinton's camp.   Interesting.   I suspect that Hillary is keeping her powder dry in case she decides that '04 is her year after all.

More Beebwatch

Oddly enough, the BBC's world service chose the US court decision to delay California's recall election as its top story for its 11am broadcast (GMT).   I guess that in light of the flak they have been getting about their biased reporting, they think that it is safer to stick to non-controversial "soft news" stories that show how stupid the Americans are.   Can't really say that I blame them.

Wit and wisdom from the Black Table

"They appear to be serious about this.   You'd think that Jon Benet murder would have added some kind of stigma to the whole "dressing up your six year old as a harlot" thing, but then you'd be wrong."

Check it out... (Hat tip to those snarky folks at The Black Table.)

Putting more firewood under the kettle

Over the weekend, several Hong Kong-based newspapers reported that up to 150,000 Chinese troops had moved into position along China's border with North Korea.   While denying that Chinese troops were "massed at the China-North Korean border", a spokesman from China's Foreign Ministry yesterday admitted that China's military had taken over responsibility for patrolling the border in a "routine" move.   Routine or not, analysts are interpreting this step as a signal to Kim Il Jong of Chinese displeasure over their reckless nuclear brinksmanship and/or an indication of Chinese concern over the increasing flow of refugees out of North Korea and into China.

Either way, the international pressure on the Michael Jacksonesque "Dear Leader" is mounting.   This is a good thing.

Judicial shenanigans in California

Three Federal Appeals Court judges (all appointed by Democrats) from the famously liberal (and frequently overturned) Ninth Circuit yesterday decided that the California recall election would have to be delayed until March so that the infamous "punch card" election machines in use in some counties could all be replaced.   Their justification for their ruling?   Equal protection under the law, the same grounds used in the controversial Florida hanging chad ruling.

There are a couple of problems with their reasoning, however.

These bozos (excuse me, distinguished jurists) decided to postpone an election (in spite of the timeline spelled out in California's constitution) because of the potential, future harm that may result.   Even if you buy their determination that using punch cards would result in a higher rate of invalid ballots among certain voters, if the election is not very close, this would not have any impact on the outcome.   Since the results of the election could be contested at that time (if it was close), what is the compelling public interest in postponing the election now, in violation of the state's constitution?   In legal terms, the issue is not yet ripe.

Less significant, but perhaps more obvious, is the fact that Gray Davis himself was reelected back in November 2002 using those same punch card machines that are now considered irredeemably flawed.

I suspect that this decision will soon be overturned by the USSC and that the recall election will go on as scheduled.   However, the Ninth Circuit is certainly doing its best to uphold its reputation as the wingnut court of appeals.

But a more significant point to be made is that this decision is another example of why "judicial activism" is a bad idea.   Liberals like the idea of allowing judges to decide cases based upon their own senses of justice, rather than on strict interpretation of the language of the law.   While this approach has its innate appeal (at least when you agree with the "sense of justice" exercised by the court), it ultimately undermines the principle of government by laws and not by men.

Examples like this case in California merely confirm to the world that our courts are a crap-shoot, where depending upon the luck of the draw (and who happens to be wearing those robes) any outcome is possible.   Said more plainly, we are not governed by laws passed by democratically elected officials, but rather by appointed (often for life) men and women wearing black robes.   Sounds kind of like the form of government practised in Iran under the Mullahs, doesn't it?

African Americans for Social Security Reform?

If Bob Novak is right and Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) is preparing to co-sponsor a bill allowing younger workers to opt to privately invest a portion of their social security contributions, it could be a big deal.

As many of you know, Ford is a young, smart, and telegenic rising star in the Democratic Party.   Having him be the first to break away from the Democratic lock-step position against Social Security reform would provide a big political boost to the reform effort.

SS reform, for those not up on the issue, is particularly important for African Americans because they generally rely upon the system for a higher proportion of their retirement income and are disparately impacted by the way the current system operates.  To cite one particularly egregious example, single, low income African American men born after 1959 are the only demographic group that are actually projected to receive a negative rate of return on their contributions to the system.  (In 1996, a single African-American male in his mid-20s who earned about 50% of the average wage could expect to get back less than 88 cents for every $1 contributed to the system over his lifetime.)

Interesting postscript to my last post from a "liberal" Palestinian columnist

From MEMRI's latest email:

...If this is so, there is no solution but to attain a balance of interests without clinging to a balance of power… There is no way around living together in two countries – a situation that will take decades and will be a prelude to shared life in one democratic state, in accordance with our motto in the PLO in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

"Everyone must arrive at this realization today rather than tomorrow. If not, blood will be spilled on the land of the prophets for decades to come – and in the end we will reach the same solution: living together when neither of the sides can neutralize the other.

"Why not stop the waterfalls of blood and bring hope to both our peoples? Why do we glorify death lovers and not the lovers of life? This is the big question. A great challenge faces us all."

Damned if you do, blown up if you don't

Thoughtful and provocative column from Tom Friedman today in the Sunday NYT.   His main point is that Israel's current attempts to build a security fence between Israel and the Palestinians (as currently being implemented) will only create greater problems for Israel in the years ahead.

On the whole, I agree with him.   From my comfy and secure vantage point nearly 4,000 miles away, it seems that the Israelis face some variants of two choices:

1. Fortress Israel:   Retreat within Israel's 1967 borders, withdraw from all the settlements, and build a big wall around Israel's borders

2. "Real" Peace:   Persevere on the original Oslo path, with two states, inter-related, with open borders, integrated economies, and a genuine renunciation of revanchiste goals on both sides.

Clearly, option number two would be the best for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.   The Palestinians, whether they are cognisant of the fact or not, are blessed with having intimate relations (and relatively open borders) with the only developed, industrial economy in the region.   However, while the Israelis are glad to have access to low-cost, plentiful Palestinian labor, they are somewhat averse to allowing homocidal maniacs to mingle with the other commuters and blow themselves up on buses during rush hour.   (I know, the Zionist oppressors are being unreasonable, but who can blame them?)

After more than two years of trying to persuade, prevent, and coerce the Palestinians from pursuing their tactic of random suicide attacks upon Israeli civilians, the Israeli government decided to say, in effect, "OK, you Palestinians stay over there, and we'll stay over here".   While this is described as being a form of apartheid by the Palestinian apologists, it is easy (at least for me) to sympathize with the Israeli desire to end the bombings by keeping out Palestinians.

Friedman's point, however, is that the current implementation of the wall concept is firmly ensconced between two stools.   It neither represents an Israeli retreat to the status quo ante bellum of 1967, nor does it try to integrate the Palestinians into a "greater Israel".   I think Friedman is right in predicting that this approach is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

If I were an Israeli, I'd vote to wash my hands of the Palestinians.   Let them have back the land seized in 1967, and build a strong fence to keep them out of Israel.   Of course, this assumes that Israel would withdraw from all of the settlements, which creates its own political conundrums for Israelis.

Of course, if the Palestinian state that formed around Israel's 1967 borders rededicated itself to seeking the destruction of Israel, the entire "two states, two peoples" approach would prove to be nothing more than an expedient (and failed) shortcut.   Unless the Israelis were able to build really good walls, and effectively defend them, without making life inside "Fortress Israel" untenable.

A couple of years ago, before 9/11, I suggested that the ideal solution to the Palestinian/Israeli situation would be for the US to give the Israelis the state of Montana, or Utah, or some other sparsely populated US territory.   Within these secure borders, Israelis could create whatever kind of society they wanted, as a completely sovereign nation.   Unfrtunately, the Israelis who heard this idea rejected it as insulting, and disrespectful to the Jewish holy places.   Maybe so, but I often wonder whether it wouldn't be a whole lot easier for everyone involved.

On the other hand, this is exactly the sort of pragmatic flexibility that Islamist bastards like bin Laden are hoping to encourage...

Den Beste on Iraq as the front line of the war on terror

For no particular reason, I haven't visited Stephen Den Beste's excellent blog USS Clueless in a while.   Fortunately, I chose this morning to remedy this lapse and was able to read his typically insightful essay on the current diplomatic wrangling over the legitimacy of the occupation government in Iraq.

Den Beste's piece makes the point that at the Europeans (in the person of Germany's Foreign Minister Joachim Fischer) are finally acknowledging the US strategy of using Iraq as the starting point for building a more stable, democratic, and peaceful middle east.   Of course, our erstwhile allies the French and Germans then go on to make the spurious claim that this strategy isn't working (ignoring the obvious reality that is far to early to tell).   He also points out the many encouraging signs that the strategy is, indeed, working.   For example, the fact that Syria and Libya appear to be beginning to undertake internal reforms, the apparent increased level of cooperation from the Saudi's, etc.   Of course, you should go read the whole thing for yourself.

War on terror a partisan issue?!

This is depressing and this alarming.   Is it going to take an Islamist nuke hidden in a shipping container at the Port of Newark to get the American people to stay focused?   (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for connecting the dots between these inauspicious events.)  

N.B.: I went back at looked at some of the Pew survey data that Lawrence Kaplan cites to support his conclusions.   My interpretation of the data is that there has been some erosion of support for the war on terror (or at least an increased willingness to talk about other issues like the economy).   However, other data seems to suggest that the percentage of Americans who are continuing to take the terror threat seriously has remained high.   For example, A Pew survey taken during July and August found that 58% of those polled were "somewhat" or "very" worried there would soon be another terrorist attack in the U.S.   This proportion has remained relatively stable over time with between a half and three quarters of people being "somewhat" or "very" worried during various periods since 9/11.   (See chart below)

So, I suppose I am not as alarmed as Kaplan apparently is that the American people are beginning to see the war on terror as a partisan issue.   If we, the American people, were to allow domestic politics to get in the way of homeland security, than perhaps the "blame Amerika" crowd would be proven right after all, just for different reasons.

With friends like these...

Michael Moore, the overweight, balding Academy Award winning mockumentary filmmaker, is calling on General Wesley Clark to run for President!   In an open letter to the General posted yesterday on Moore's website, Moore wrote: "your country needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from within, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people.""   If this endorsement is not the final nail in old Wesley "bombs away" Clark's political coffin, I don't know what is.

Call me crazy, but trying to win the Democratic nomination by appearing to position yourself to the left of Howard Dean seems a bit counter-intuitive; even if you are a retired General.   Maybe Tom DeLay was right in saying that the national Democratic Party has finally lost its marbles.

Last night outside our local firehouse

Last night, I walked home past our local firehouse to pay my respects.   There were less flowers than last year (and unlike last year, I didn't leave any), but there were a lot of people there.   Only one of the firefighters was out by the entrance to the house when I visited.   I found it impossible to keep my voice from shaking as I shook his hand and said "thanks; we remember".

The two fire companies stationed there (Engine 22 and Ladder 13) lost nine men on 9/11.

Here are some pictures of the scene.   (Click on the thumbnail for a larger view.)

Barbie threatens Saudi Morality

The Associated Press has discovered that Saudi Arabia's religious police have banned Barbie dolls from the Kingdom.   Of course, faithful readers of MEMRI or yours truly saw this story back in May, when MEMRI released its translation of the religious police's website.   (By the way, their official name is the very Orwellian-sounding "The Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices".)

The AP article makes it all sound vaguely amusing; those wacky Saudis with their religious police.   It is funny, but the beliefs underlying these policies are also very scary.   Be sure to read either my piece or the MEMRI translation to see beyond the laughs.

What is going on in Northern Europe?!

First Olaf Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister stabbed to death 17 years ago in Stockholm, then Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch politician shot to death outside of a radio station in 2002, and now Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh is stabbed to death by an unknown assailant in a Stockholm departement store.

It is tempting to be glib and mock the Europeans, with their condescending view of America as a violent, gun-filled place, populated by hot-tempered cowboys, but these assasinations are a disturbing trend.   (That is, if it is a trend.   I'm not sure that three murders of prominent politicians over a 17 year period are really more than a troubling coincidence.   However, I can't recall any political assassinations in the US since Hinckley's failed attempt to murder Ronald Reagan back in 1982.   Of course, there was that NYC Councilman who was shot and killed in City Hall back in July, but that was just plain bizarre.)

Is something going on in Europe to produce an increase in political murders?   Does it reflect a growing sense of disenchantment with the democratic process?   Are more potentially dangerous lunatics being allowed to live freely in the community without adequate supervision?   Or is it simply that in this modern media age, when television makes public figures seem (perhaps) more real and familiar to the mentally unbalanced, it is simply too dangerous for European leaders to continue their practice of not having bodyguards?   Here in NYC, for example, even the Speaker of the City Council has his own full-time police bodyguard.   Certainly, no A-list celebrity would dare go out without bringing along their own private security.   But in Sweden, for example, only the king and Prime Minister have full-time bodyguards.

Maybe in our modern media age, the idea of allowing public figures to live normal lives without the presence of personal minders is just anachronistic.   This is sad, but I think it may be increasingly true.   (Of course, if you live in America, at least in one of the 34 states that allow any sane adult without a criminal record to carry a handgun, you can defend yourself against loony stalkers.   Though packing heat apparently did not do much to help Councilman James E. Davis, who as an ex-cop was permitted to carry a handgun.)

Two years later

Rand Simberg (Transterrestrial Musings) has an excellent summing-up of where we are two years after that cowardly attack on America. (Hat tip to Instapundit.)

Beebwatch

The UK Telegraph has started an interesting new feature on their editorial page: Beebwatch, devoted to publicizing evidence of biassed reporting at the BBC.   As many of you are aware, there is a growing backlash against the BBC over their biased reporting on Iraq and the apparent Jihad they have been conducting against Labor PM Tony Blair.

I don't have a URL for my pet example of egregious BBC biased reporting, but it happened during the middle of the war in Iraq (say, in late March or early April of this year).   I was listening to the BBC world service's new report via the internet while shaving, as had been my habit.   I found that it made me nostalgic for my student days in England, and I occasionally found coverage of African or Asian stories that the US media tended to overlook.

Anyway, the world news summary led off with the story that a US army unit had shot up a van containing an Iraqi family when it failed to stop at a roadblock.   Unfortunately, as result of the US fire, several innocent men, women and children were killed.   Now I don't mind the fact that this story was reported.   It was news, and the facts were certainly worthy of airing.   What drove me batshit, however, was the complete lack of context or explanation.   The previous day, as had been widely reported in the US, several US soldiers had been killed at a checkpoint when a suicide bomber drove up to a military post and an hysterical woman got out of the vehicle and ran towards the soldiers.   As they tried to assist her, a bomb either on her person or in the vehicle (I forget which), exploded, killing several of the troopers.

Now any reasonable person would agree that in an environment where civilian suicide bombers were targeting military roadblocks, soldiers would tend to be inclined to react forcefully to vehicles approaching them at high speed and showing no intention of stopping.   Not that this would lessen or justify the tragedy of shooting and killing innocent civilians, but it would explain how such a sad accident could happen.   But the BBC's editors, producers or reporters collectively thought that the previous day's suicide attack was completely irrelevent to the story of US soldiers accidently shooting women and children.

I'm glad to see that there is growing talk in the UK of eliminating the "license fee" that all household owning a television are required to pay to the BBC (currently about $185 per year!).   While I appreciate some of the Beeb's programming, their power to, in effect, levy its own taxes on the British public has resulted in a situation where they are answerable only to themselves.   It would be better if they had to answer to advertisers of individual contributors who had the power to financially penalize them for their abuses of power.

Iraqis more sensible than the quagmiristas believe?

Be sure to read the piece by Karl Zinsmeister in today's WSJ reporting the results of an August poll taken in Iraq by Zogby International. (Here is a free link to the article for non-subscribers.)   For those of you who have been worrying about all the bad news being reported by Western journalists, the reality appears to be significantly more encouraging.   You should go read the whole thing, but here are the main findings:

• Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32 percent say things will become much better.

• The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.

• Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37 percent of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28 percent. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

• Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33 percent want an Islamic government; a solid 60 percent say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66 percent to 27 percent. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

• Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43 percent said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.

• You can also cross out "Osama II": 57 percent of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41 percent of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.

• And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74 percent to 18 percent that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.

Karl Zinsmeister also wrote an account of his life as an embedded journalist with 82nd Airborne; Boots on the Ground: A Month with the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq.   I've just added it to my wishlist at BN.com   You can also read excerpts of the book here.

Remembering 9/11

I stumbled across this moving tribute to the victims of the terrorist attacks on 9/11.   The site features comments from people sharing their memories and stories of that terrible day.   It also has links to many other 9/11-related sites.

I found many of the personal stories posted there both touching and inspirational.   Somehow, I feel better knowing that thousands of strangers share the confused mix of disbelief, sadness, and anger that I remember feeling on that day.

I assume it is the work of Michelle, who writes the excellent and popular blog A Small Victory.   Very well done.   I recommend a visit.

Winblows

Mark Pilgrim has a very amusing post about reinstalling Windows XP on his system.   As someone who has wasted more time that I care to contemplate while wrassling with the evil software spawn of Emperor Gates, I can feel Mark's pain...

Snow white and the nine dwarves*

Like most Americans (at least judging from the polls that show a generic Democratic candidate doing better in a matchup against GWB than any of the announced -- or unannounced -- Democratic presidential wannabes), I have been underwhelmed by the current crop of Democratic Presidential hopefuls.   While I must confess that I have not been paying close attention to the Dems' campaign (also probably like most Americans), I, of course, have at least preliminary views on the candidates.   Here they are, in no particular order.

• Howard Dean:  George McGovern lite, without McGovern's distinguished military record during WWII. (For a fascinating look at McGovern's war record, read the excellent The Wild Blue: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany by the late, great Stephen E. Ambrose.)   I doubt that Dean is electable, though that may not matter to the Democratic activists who will turn out to vote in the ridiculously truncated primary season.   In addition to being way to the left of the American social consensus on nearly all the issues, Dean is also notoriously short tempered and can be expected to have a testy relationship with the press. This should be the kiss of death for a relatively unknown, very liberal candidate.

• John Kerry:   The "haughty, French looking" (as the Opinion Journals' brilliant James Taranto insists on calling him) junior Senator from Massachusetts is a joke.   Once the putative Democratic front-runner, Kerry's campaign died after the FEC ruled that he couldn't use his wife's fortune (she is the widow of former Republican Senator John Heinz, and thereby an heir to the ketchup fortune) to bankroll his campaign.   (He would have been able to use the money if it was in effect, his.   That is to say, if Theresa Heinz had been foolish enough to give Kerry legal control over her fortune when they married.)   In spite of voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq, Kerry has been waffling all over the map about his views on the war.   Not to be shallow, but I hate his hair and the the way he seems to be self-consciously styling himself after JFK.    He's toast.

• Rev. Al Sharpton:   Two words: Tawana Brawley.   'Nuff said.   (Though I can't resist observing that he even makes Jesse Jackson look respectable, by comparison.)

• Carol Moseley Braun:   She's only running at the behest of the Democractic establish in an effort to prevent Sharpton from getting the "black vote" by default and thereby embarrassing the party.   A no talent, corrupt loser (and future ambassador to some unimportant country under the next Democratic President).

• Dick Gephardt:   This feels like the former House Speaker's umpteenth run for President.   He's an honorable man (at least he has some integrity on foreign policy issues) but is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the AFL-CIO.   His protectionist and pro-union views are a throwback to (or hangover from) the bad old days of the late 1970s and early 1980s.   He hasn't got a chance.

• Joe Lieberman:   The only Dem in the pack that I could even conceive of possibly voting for, he is a reasonable candidate.   Too bad he won't get the nomination, and too bad he lacks the courage to lead with his moderate, heterodox views on issues like school vouchers and foreign policy.

• John Edwards:   Allegedly the Dem that Karl Rove most feared running against (I suppose because he's young, telegenic, articulate and a Southern populist).   Luckily, he appears to be nowhere in the polls.   From my perspective, since Edwards is a trial lawyer who made his money from mass torts, he is the devil.   Where he to become President, I would be forced to move to France.   I think I'm safe, but it's early days yet.   Another positive is that Edwards recently decided not to run for reelection to the Senate (so he could focus on his Presidential run), making it likely that the Republicans will pick up a seat in North Carolina.

• Dennis Kucinich:   Didn't he used to be Mayor of Cleveland back in the day when Lake Erie used to catch on fire? Or was that Jerry Springer? Anyway, he is clearly not ready for prime time.

• Bob Graham:   It's sad really.   Before he apparently lost his mind, he used to be a respected Senator with an important position on the Senate Intelligence Committee.   Now he's just another Floridian hanging chad, blowing in the wind.

• Gen. Wesley Clark:   Well, at least he's finally decided that he's a Democrat.   So he has that going for him.   Unfortunately he has the charisma of a wet noodle, and his proudest military achievement was bombing thousands of Yugoslavian civilians from high altitude in order to insure that Bill Clinton did not have to incur any US casualties in the Balkans.   Clark is no Colin Powell.   If I were him, I would keep my day job as a CNN "military analyst".

As you can see, I don't think we really have much to worry about in terms of any of these jokers actually becoming President anytime soon.   Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the same can be said for the junior Senator from my home state.   I have a sneaking suspicion that Hillary may well be tempted to jump into the race at the tail end of the process: thereby saving her from a possibly bruising series of primary campaigns. This article by Jim Dwyer in today's NYT, for example, does absolutely nothing to assure me that she has decided not to run.   If she does run, and does get the nomination, I doubt that she will win against GWB.   But it would be awfully scary.   Were she to be elected, I'm not sure France would be far enough away for safety.   Immigration to Australia might be the only viable option, if they would have me.

_______________________________________
* With apologies to Neil.

Just thinking...

Today is a glorious September day here in Manhattan.   The sky is a briliant blue, the air is crisp and fresh, with a hint of the coming autumn.   In short, its a wonderful day to be alive.

It reminds me of that other glorious September day nearly two years ago.   That too was one of those days when you look up at sky and smile, happy to be alive.   At least until I got that phone call from my wife sometime after nine o'clock telling me to turn on my television.

I wonder when (or if), I will ever be able to enjoy a beautiful morning in Manhattan without thinking about that day.

Must read update on conditions in Iraq

Max Boot, who is one of my favorite foreign affairs commentators, has an excellent article about his recent 10-day visit to Iraq.   His experiences support my own sense that conditions on the ground in Iraq are generally better than one would assume given the media reports we receive.   His piece also provides a vivid demonstration of why I love the US Marine Corps.   Here is a taste:

Not the least of their achievement is that no Marine has been killed by hostile fire since May 1, when President Bush proclaimed "major hostilities" at an end. Almost 70 Army soldiers have been slain in that period. This success isn't a result of flooding south-central Iraq with soldiers. Mattis never deployed more than 8,000 Marines, along with some Army civil affairs, psychological operations, and military police units, to control an area the size of Missouri.

There is no doubt that the Marines' task was made easier by the fact that the Shiites suffered under the old regime and welcomed their liberation. But few analysts predicted in May that Shiite holy cities like Najaf and Karbala would emerge as strongholds of pro-American sentiment. Much of the talk back then was of Iranian infiltration and Lebanese-style terrorism. That hasn't happened, at least not against Americans, and every single Marine I met was convinced that the reason had to do with their approach to peacekeeping, which they believe superior to the more heavy-handed methods employed, at least initially, by Army units that occupied Baghdad and the Sunni area to the immediate north and west.

The Marine strategy was based on three principles. First, do no harm. That meant not alienating Iraqis by violating their religious or social customs. Women, for instance, should not be subject to intrusive searches. When talking to Iraqis, Marines were instructed to point their firearms away and take off their sunglasses. Above all, it meant using as little firepower as possible. As Mattis put it: "If someone needs shooting, shoot him. If someone doesn't need shooting, protect him."

The Marines showed restraint when dealing with hostile crowds. They did not have a single incident like the one that occurred in Fallujah in late April, when the 82nd Airborne opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators, killing at least 12. Marines were more likely to greet hostile crowds with free bottles of water than with bullets, on the assumption that someone can't be too angry with you if he's just accepted some water from you.

The Marines' second guiding principle was to win hearts and minds. The Marines repaired schools, distributed candy, handed out free medical supplies, set up Rotary clubs, and undertook myriad other charitable tasks. This earned them goodwill among the community leading to increased intelligence about troublemakers.

Their third principle was to be ready to win a 10-second gunfight. While wanting to be as open and friendly as possible, all Marines were told to be ready to open fire at a moment's notice. When Army supply convoys get attacked by fedayeen, they speed away, I was told. When Marine convoys got hit, they were supposed to stop immediately and disgorge infantrymen to pursue the attackers. Mattis insisted that even convoys carrying the Marines out of Iraq retain a robust offensive capability.

It all adds up to Mattis's widely publicized slogan: "No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" than a U.S. Marine. To see how this yin-yang policy was carried out, we toured some Marine units just before they headed home.

Be sure to read the whole thing, its worth it.

Peace Pipe

Excellent OpEd by Daniel Pipes in today's NYP on the Palestinian/Israeli mess and the shortcomings of the Oslo agreement.   In his view (and I absolutely agree), the major problem with Oslo was that it was based upon the false Israeli assumption that the Palestinians had accepted the permanent existence of Israel and were willing to live peacefully under a "two state" solution.   Pipes' prescription for achieving lasting peace in the Mideast?

• Acknowledge the faulty presumption that underlay both Oslo and the road map (Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence).

• Resolve not to repeat the same mistake.

• Understand that diplomacy aiming to close down the Arab-Israeli conflict is premature until Palestinians give up their anti-Zionist fantasy.

• Make Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence the primary goal.

• Impress on Palestinians that the sooner they accept Israel, the better off they will be. Conversely, so long they pursue their horrid goal of extermination, diplomacy will remain moribund and they will receive no financial aid, arms or recognition as a state.

• Give Israel license not just to defend itself but to impress on the Palestinians the hopelessness of their cause.

When, over a long period of time and with complete consistency, the Palestinians prove they accept Israel, negotiations can be re-opened and the issues of the past decade - borders, resources, armaments, sanctities, residential rights - be taken up anew. The sooner we adopt the right policies, the sooner that will be.

Roach Motel update

They are taking the bait.   At least WaPo reports that they are.

Taking stock

After a too-short but pleasant summer, the kids are back in school, people are getting back to work, and it's time to take stock of where we are.

For myself, I find that I have been slacking off on the blogging front of late.   Partly this has been caused by a lack of outrage.   Howell Raines has been reduced to writing music reviews for Details magazine, depriving me of a daily dose of adrenaline producing idiocy in bold type.   But its not just that.   In some ways it feels as if we are in a waiting period; waiting to see how events unfold, how history develops.   While we are long on theory and opinion, we are short on data and results.   Of course, time will remedy this shortcoming, you just have to wait for things to happen (or not happen, as the case may be).

Anyway, here is my quick and dirty tour of the news horizon from where I am sitting:

• War on Terror:  I think we are making good progress, in spite of what you frequently read or see.   First of all, we have arrested, detained or killed a tremendous number of Al Queda operatives throughout the world since 9/11.   Secondly, the environment in which they are attempting to operate is a hundred times more challenging than it was prior to their attack on the US.   Finally, and most importantly, we have seized the initiative from Al Queda and forced them to respond to our actions, rather than visa versa.   In particular, we have changed the strategic focus of the war away from Jersey City, Brooklyn, Florida, or Arizona and towards Iraq and the Mideast.   Even better, the terrorists are now forced to engage either front-line troops (who are eager to take them on) or "soft targets" that are mainly populated by fellow moslems.

  Of course we have not won this war (yet), and a major strike at a US or Western target is possible at any time.   But I believe that we are safer today than we were a year ago, and have every confidence that we will be safer still this time next year.

• Iraq:   I only caught the tail end of the President's speech on Iraq last night (I was reading Treasure Island to my nine year old). So I can't directly comment on the speech and the all important after spin.   That said, I am fairly comfortable with the progress we have made to date in Iraq.   Conditions in the country are improving for the Iraqi people (though more slowly than we had hoped).   Progress is being made on the political front, with the appointment of an advisory council, cabinet ministers, and the establishment of representative local governments in most of the country.   It is certainly going to take time to definitively put down the rearguard Baathist resistance.   But as conditions improve for the Iraqi people, and new Iraqi police and security forces are up and running, it will be increasingly difficult for the old regime's die hards to strike at coalition troops.

  Of course, it will be interesting to see how our friends Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac respond to the Administration's request for Security Council support in rebuilding Iraq.   From my perspective (and I think this is also the Administration's position), any deal requiring the US to give up ultimate control over events in Iraq would be a mistake, and not worth whatever military and financial assistance could be obtained by such a move.

• Israel/Palestine:   I am cautiously optimistic here as well.   The recent resignation of Abu Mazen and the rapid appointment of his successor is a welcome symptom of the difficult political struggle within the Palestinian nation between those who want to make peace with Israel and those who view peace as a tactical maneuver in the ultimate struggle to destroy the Jewish state.   Resolving this fundamental issue will take time, and may not be possible without intra-Palestinian bloodshed.   But no lasting peace or permanent end to terror attacks within Israel is possible until Palestinians committed to the "two state" solution control the PA and its myriad security forces.

  In this struggle, the West is reaping a substantial dividend from the Coalition's occupation of Iraq and destruction of Saddam's regime.   For one thing, removing Saddam's moral and financial support for rejectionist Palestinian groups helps strengthen the moderates.   Similarly, the strategic threat that a US military presence in Iraq poses for both Syria and Iran inhibits these regimes' support for Hamas and other terrorist groups.  (Saturday's long overdue decision by the EU foreign ministers to freeze the assets of all "wings" of Hamas and declare it to be a terrorist organization will also be extremely helpful in this regard.)

I will leave discussion of the state of the economy, the stock market and '04 elections for another time.   This is already a bit too long for one post.

Excellent news on vouchers from DC

Last week, the House of Representatives narrowly voted to approve a five year pilot program to provide poor children in the District of Columbia with vouchers for up to $7,500 a year to pay tuition at the school of their choice.   The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved the plan, with key support from Dems Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Robert C. Byrd (D-WV).   The last hope of the union hacks to block the bill appears to be an attempt to gather 41 votes in the Senate to support a filibuster.   Hmmm... a filibuster to block government scholarships to poor black kids in failing public schools.   That would be an interesting proposition for liberal Democrats to get their minds around.

Check out this excellent editorial on the subject from the normally liberal WaPo.   (The WaPo web site is pretty thoroughly buggered.   If you find yourself trapped in an endless loop with a pop-up screen asking you for demographic information, try using another browser like Mozilla or Netscape.)

If this proposal becomes law, it could be a watershed event in the effort to overhaul our dismal inner city public school system.   Of course, the voucher system would actually have to work in practice.   It will be interesting to watch.

Its also about time that we are finally trying some something new to help liberate the children of our poorest citizens from the disgracefully bad public school systems in our inner cities.

Shiver me timbers...

All I can say is god help us.   (From Right Thinking from the Left Coast.)

727 Still Missing

I received an odd email yesterday (actually a posted comment) regarding a post I wrote last June about the Boeing 727 that went missing from Angola.   The email was from Joseph B. Padilla Sr., who is a brother of the aircraft mechanic/pilot who was last seen in the 727 before it took off from Luanda Airport without takeoff authorization.  Evidently, the Padilla family believes that the aircraft was hijacked with their relative aboard, and that he was probably killed by the hijackers.   Joseph Padilla has been emailing bloggers around the world in the hopes of gathering more information regarding the fate of his brother.

An interesting update on the search for the plane appeared in the WaPo last month.

Somebody oughta go to jail for this one...

I'm not a big fan of Elliot Spitzer.   Like most state Attorney's General, he is an ambitious pol who spends more time worrying about how he can use the courts to advance his political career rather than enforcing the law.   I also think that his persecution of the big brokerage firms over their bubble-era stock research reports was pretty low, what with the selected leaking of internal emails and litigating via the newspapers.   However, Spitzer's announcement yesterday about hedge funds late trading in large mutual funds was pretty shocking stuff, at least to naive old me.

Essentially, what these guys were doing was buying or selling mutual fund shares after the markets closed at 4pm in a way that was not available to other shareholders.   (If a typical investor put in a buy or sell order after 4pm, the trade would be executed at the next day's closing price; the hedge funds were allowed to trade using today's closing price.)   If there was market moving news announced after the close, these hedge funds could profit from this information by buying or selling at the "old" prices, thereby locking in profits at the expense of the ordinary shareholders in the fund.   As Spitzer aptly put it, this was like allowing "betting on a horse race after the horses have crossed the finish line".   This is about as clear-cut a case of stealing from small shareholders that I've ever seen.   And, to add insult to injury, the mutual fund companies were allowing this to take place because they were getting paid to do so.   Outrageous.

Today's WSJ has the best coverage of the story, with a clear explanation of what was being done here and here.  (Subscription required.)

If I owned funds from any of the mutual fund companies implicated in this mess (Bank of America, Janus, Strong and Bank One), I'd be pissed as hell.   I would also cash out of these funds pronto, as a matter of principle.

Things that make you go WTF?!

From those wacky kids in Korea.

Some nice posts on recent events on the terrorist front

Dan Darling from Regnum Crucis has several excellent posts on the unfolding story of Saudi direct involvement with Al Queda.   He also has some good stuff on the bombing in Najaf.   Check it out.