Pejmanesque

OUTSIDE THE BOX

It comes as no surprise that Ronald Reagan was influenced by Julian Simon, and frankly, I can think of few better positive influences for any President of the United States to have. Like Reagan, Simon was derided for his unconventional beliefs, and yet was dramatically vindicated in the long run.

As Don Boudreaux's excellent post points out, what made Simon unique was his belief in the unlimited possibilities of human potential. Considering the fact that he lived in a time when Malthusian theories were in the ascendant, it must have taken a great deal of intellectual skepticism and courage to refrain from buying into the doom-crying that was so fashionable at the time. But Simon possessed a special brand of mental rigor that allowed him to look past conventional wisdom, and to see what so many ordinary observers missed. Reagan demonstrated that skill as well--especially in forecasting the destruction of the Soviet Union and the communist empire.

I wish more people were like this. One of the unfortunate aspects of the 24/7 news environment is the further establishment of conventional wisdom on a number of issues. I understand that at one given point in time, a particular theory will be the theory du jour, but my objection to conventional wisdom is that so few bother to question it, and think that to deny it is a sign that one is delusional. Of course, skepticism is a valued commodity in a democratic republic, so it is passing strange that skepticism in the face of conventional wisdom would be derided. And yet, it is.

We've all fallen prey to the siren song of conventional wisdom. I know I have--more times than I care to remember, in fact. The thing that strikes me, however, is that if more people employed a healthily skeptical outlook towards conventional wisdom, we might perhaps benefit from an increased number of startlingly original outlooks on the issues of the day--outlooks similar to the one that Julian Simon presented in his bet with Paul Ehrlich, or the one Reagan presented in his debate with all those who believed that contra Reagan's beliefs, the Soviet Union and its empire would exist for decades to come. Instead, when it comes to affecting and influencing the debates of the day, it seems we settle for laziness and a go-along attitude in our application of rigor and analysis to a given theory--especially if that theory is the most popular one. I'm not calling for people to don their tinfoil hats and trust nothing. But it would be nice if conventional wisdom got less of a pass in the analysis department.

WHAT WILL "NEW EUROPE" LOOK LIKE?

If this story is any indication, the European Union hasn't exactly succeeded in inspiring the masses:

Voting started Sunday on the fourth and final day of European Union-wide ballots to elect a new EU Parliament, in an election clouded by both widespread apathy and signs of a surge in support for eurosceptic parties.

Nineteen of the European Union's 25 member states were going to the polls in the biggest transnational elections ever held anywhere, and the first for the EU since the bloc's expansion into the former communust east of Europe on May 1 this year.

EU leaders have pulled out all the stops to persuade people to vote to choose 732 members of parliament, the EU's only directly-elected body, underlining its fast-growing powers within the expanding bloc.

But another Euro-contest -- the football tournament in Portugal -- appears to be gripping more people than the polls, and election coverage Sunday evening faced stiff competition from a keenly awaited match between Britain and France.

"I'm very worried that a low turnout everywhere could produce very strange results and even result in anti-European organisations being elected," EU enlargement commissioner Guenter Verheugen said on the eve of voting.

I suppose that to an extent, it is the bad luck of EU-enthusiasts that there is an epic soccer match vying with the vote for attention. But at the same time, while we in America wring our hands over low voter turnout and look with envy to other countries where civic participation in voting seems just as delightful as a night out with a supermodel, there is every indication that turnout for these elections will be quite low--and that low voter turnout in EU elections is increasingly the norm:

Turnout is also being watched closely in the polls: recent forecasts have suggested it could dip below the EU-wide figure 49.8 percent registered at the last ballots in 1999, although the most recent figures suggest it could just scrape back above the psychologically important 50 percent mark.

Concern focusses in particular on the 10 mostly ex-communist newcomers, where just 40 percent of voters are expected to cast their ballots.

I guess the superstate only succeeds in inspiring trepidation and skepticism. It will be interesting to see not only the results, but how EU-enthusiasts spin those results. They may continue to claim that all is well with the formation of the New Continental Leviathan, but if voter turnout for EU elections continues to register below individual national elections held in EU member-states, the superstate will have serious problems on its hands.

MISLEADING POLLS

Regarding the recent Los Angeles Times poll that shows John Kerry with a 7 point lead on George Bush, Tom Bevan notes some discrepancies. And in the comments to this post, we have the following apt observation:

This poll is absolutely all over the map. Look at the 3-way race. Bush has a larger advantage with Republicans than Kerry has with Democrats, AND he is winning with independents. Yet Kerry is up by 7 and Congressional Democrats are up by 19?? It seems quite obvious to me that there is a massive oversampling of Democrats in this poll. If I were a polling director, and I saw either Congressional party up by 19, I'd trash the poll and do it again. This poll is a joke.

Of course, the danger for the Bush campaign is that such criticism will not receive enough play in the media, people will believe that John Kerry really does hold a significant lead, and there may be a bandwagoning effect. Which is why it would behoove the campaign, and others interested in statistical accuracy when it comes to polling, to point out the errors in the Times poll.

In any event, Tom Bevan's site generally has a very good collection of polls that serve to give a more complete picture of what the horserace might really be looking like. Additionally, one should always make sure to check out the Iowa Electronics Market, where prognosticators actually have to put their money where their mouthes are.

UPDATE: Well, it would seem that the Times poll is quite a mess indeed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Good grief, a trend has been started.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum -- I think I think, therefore, I think I am.

--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

*CHUCKLE*

Ronald Reagan: Marital counselor.

WARMING THE COCKELS OF OUR HEARTS

This ought to brighten everyone's weekend:

Toughening its stance in advance of a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Iran on Saturday said it would reject international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world to accept Tehran as a member of the "nuclear club."

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi rejected further outside influence on Tehran's nuclear ambitions two days before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets to discuss Iran's highly controversial program.

"We won't accept any new obligations," Kharrazi said. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."

Iran has repeatedly insisted its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making weapons, but the United States and its allies say Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has wrestled with the dilemma for more than a year.

Iran has already suspended uranium enrichment and stopped building centrifuges. It has also allowed IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities without prior notice, part of the additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that still must be approved by parliament.

Kharrazi insisted that Iran would not give up its development of the nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full cycle, but is not now enriching uranium.

Some of these claims could, of course, constitute bluffing. But it isn't likely, and we are faced anew with the question of just how much longer we want to allow this kind of thing to proceed before finally kicking our support of the pro-democracy movement in Iran into high gear.

THE REAGAN LEGACY

In reflecting on the events of the past week, and what they will mean for how history treats the man and his contributions, it is important to remember that while Ronald Reagan is dead, the battle over his legacy is not. The same people who vilified him during and after his Presidency, are now redoubling their efforts to ensure that he is remembered poorly.

So it naturally stands to reason that others should endeavor to bring out the other side of the story--particularly when it is told by moral giants like Natan Sharansky, who understands the differences between freedom and tyranny better than most people ever could. Check out this interview with Sharansky, and see what he thinks of Ronald Reagan's legacy. An excerpt:

Were there any particular Reagan moments that you can recall being sources of strength or encouragement to you and your colleagues?

I have to laugh. People who take freedom for granted, Ronald Reagan for granted, always ask such questions. Of course! It was the great brilliant moment when we learned that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire before the entire world. There was a long list of all the Western leaders who had lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire right next to the front-page story about this dangerous, terrible man who wanted to take the world back to the dark days of the Cold War. This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union.

It was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations, and we all instantly knew it. For us, that was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us. The lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin's "Great October Bolshevik Revolution" and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution--Reagan's Revolution.

We were all in and out of punishment cells so often--me more than most--that we developed our own tapping language to communicate with each other between the walls. A secret code. We had to develop new communication methods to pass on this great, impossible news. We even used the toilets to tap on.

[. . .]

Can it really be said that Ronald Reagan was actually responsible for an event as great as the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Yes.

One man in one office?

Yes. Absolutely. But not one man alone. If I would be permitted to widen the credit a little more, I would say the collapse of the Soviet Union is attributable to three men. Andrei Sakharov, Scoop Jackson, and Ronald Reagan. These were the people who brought moral clarity to the conflict and started the chain of events which led to the end of Soviet communism. Sakharov to the Russian people, Senator Jackson to the American government, and Ronald Reagan on behalf of the American people to the world and thus back to the Soviet Union. They created the policy of linkage: That international relations and human rights must be linked. That how a government treats its own people cannot be separated from how that government could be expected to treat other countries. That how governments honor commitments they make at home will show the world how they will honor their commitments abroad.

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS

Don Boudreaux catches Paul Krugman engaging in a bit of misleading history. Of course, that's sort of like reporting that ice is cold, but Boudreaux's post is interesting to read, nonetheless.

PROGNOSIS FOR EUROPE

I'm glad to read that there is hope for Europe, as Tyler Cowen indicates there is. Of course, the fact that antiquated store closing laws remain in force in Germany, and how "70 percent of French schoolchildren aspire to become bureaucrats rather than captains of industry" seems to indicate that the patient isn't exactly out of the woods just yet.

Yesterday, in attending the commencement ceremonies for the PejmanSibling, I heard my old professor, John Mearsheimer make the same arguments he made while I was a student: that national power relied in large part on population and wealth. Europe's population growth is exceedingly small, and is projected to remain small in the near future. It is also not likely to see a large jump in its wealth.

So naturally, one cannot help but wonder why it is that Europe--in addition to having demographics and economic forces running against its re-emergence as a global power of any kind--chooses to handicap itself still further with dull-witted laws, and with a social ethos that appears to encourage kids more towards bureaucracy than towards innovation in private industry. 'Tis a puzzlement, to say the least.

MUCH PROPS TO BIG MEDIA

Three Presidents later, and it finally hits the media suits that you should have paid more attention to the Reagan era. I suppose I should be bitter, but the scary thing about this post is that it may show the media's learning curve is improving.

MUCH MORE DEADLY THAN THE COMFY CHAIR

In one post, Hugh Hewitt notes potential campaign finance violations on the part of the Democratic Party, the new adventures of America's most loathsome political duo, and Michael Moore's increasing fatuousness.

So what are you waiting for? Go!

MYOPIA

Has the United Nations become irredeemable? This article suggests so:

During his years at the United Nations, monitoring sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf war, critics called Michael Soussan a baby killer. One said the oil-for-food programme administered by the UN amounted to "overseeing genocide".

To Mr Soussan's dismay, the most vocal critics worked alongside him at the UN. The genocide charge was levelled by an assistant secretary general in charge of humanitarian work in Iraq.

His colleagues blamed the Security Council - especially the United States and Britain - for the suffering of Iraqis, ignoring evidence that Saddam was stealing food from his own people's mouths.

They could hardly ignore the wickedness of Saddam's regime. Foreign UN staff could sense the terror in Iraqis they met, and saw for themselves the gilded excesses of the Ba'athist elite.

But somehow that wickedness was taken as a given, then promptly smothered in a warm soup of moral relativism.

"We have a notion of sovereignty at the UN that doesn't distinguish between governments that deserve sovereignty and those that do not. And that really skews our moral compass," Mr Soussan told The Telegraph.

"[My colleagues] devoted most of their moral outrage towards the United States and the UK," he said.

Of course, none of the basic outlines of this story should come as any surprise, but somehow, one never fails to be amazed by the warped intellectual and moral sensibility that is to be found at the UN. The cluelessness of the international body is really a wonder to behold, isn't it?

The real question is how many times we have to be gobsmacked by articles like this one before we really insist on reforms at the UN, or before we finally admit to ourselves and each other that maybe, just maybe, the process cannot be salvaged. I'm as much into internationalism as anyone else, and I'm more than happy to have a world body where nation-states can interact and deal with one another. But the United Nations is making a mockery of itself when it cannot recognize the genuine villains in the story of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And what is worse is that it is pulling down the rest of the international structure in the process.

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

Glorified and sanctified be God's great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will. May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

--The Mourner's Kaddish

The principal point of which I wish to persuade you may come as something of a surprise: it is that Ronald Reagan – not his advisers, but Reagan himself – deserves to be ranked alongside Kennan, Nitze, Eisenhower, Dulles, Rostow, Nixon and Kissinger as a serious strategist of containment. Indeed, I will go beyond that to argue that Reagan succeeded, where they all failed, to achieve a workable synthesis of symmetrical and asymmetrical containment – drawing upon the strengths of each approach while avoiding their weaknesses – and that it was that accomplishment, together with the accession to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, that brought the Cold War to an end.

Reagan was, then, no lightweight. He came into office with a clear set of ideas, developed for the most part on his own, on how to salvage the strategy of containment by returning to its original objective: that of convincing Soviet leaders, as Kennan had written in 1947, “that the true glory of Russian national effort can find its expression only in peaceful and friendly association with other peoples and not in attempts to subjugate and dominate those peoples.” He would do this, not by acknowledging the current Soviet regime’s legitimacy, but by challenging it; not by seeking parity in the arms race but by regaining superiority; not by compromising on the issue of human rights but by capitalizing on it as a weapon more powerful than anything that existed in the military arsenals of either side. “The Reagan I observed may have been no master of detail,” Soviet ambassador Dobrynin later observed, “but he had a clear sense of what he wanted.”

--John Lewis Gaddis (Thanks to Patrick Belton for the link.)

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather'd every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

--Walt Whitman, "Oh Captain! My Captain!"

When Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, the New York Times wrote, "Men will thank God 100 years from now that Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House.''

It will not take 100 years to thank God for Ronald Reagan.

--Former President George Herbert Walker Bush

Presidents and prime ministers everywhere sometimes wonder how history will deal with them.

Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "moral equivalence.'' In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of freedom. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right.

--Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney

Ronald Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary people.

And so today the world - in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself - the world mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer "God Bless America."

--Baroness Margaret Thatcher

When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.

--Former President Lech Walesa

He came to office with great hopes for America, and more than hopes -- like the President he had revered and once saw in person, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan matched an optimistic temperament with bold, persistent action. President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economic reform, and he acted to restore the reward and spirit of enterprise. He was optimistic that a strong America could advance the peace, and he acted to build the strength that mission required. He was optimistic that liberty would thrive wherever it was planted, and he acted to defend liberty wherever it was threatened.

And Ronald Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name. There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American President had dared to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor meetings, where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald Reagan.

--President George W. Bush

I've made a concerted effort to ignore most of the anti-Reagan carping from the press and the far Left over the last week. It's no suprise that the Guardians, New York Times, Ted Ralls and Jeff Cohens and Fidel Castros of the world weren't sorry to see the Gipper depart. It's also deeply comforting to know that all of the above still have to wake up every morning realizing that Communism is dead--and knowing in their hearts that Ronald Reagan killed it. In this case, there's no need to ask, "Why do they hate him?" The answer is self-evident: because he destroyed that which they held most dear.

As George Bush (41) aptly noted, Communism didn't fall. It was pushed.

--Will Collier

The second-greatest president of the 20th century dies (with Theodore Roosevelt coming a close third), and the liberal establishment that alternately ridiculed and demonized Ronald Reagan throughout his presidency is in a quandary. How to remember a man they anathematized for eight years but who enjoys both the overwhelming affection of the American people and decisive vindication by history?

He was right.

--Charles Krauthammer

Neither his friends nor his enemies will ever be able to fully repay him.

--Epitaph for Scipio Africanus the Elder

POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE

One of the PejmanSiblings received a Master's Degree from my alma mater today, so it was like old home day for me as well. There are few things more beautiful than the Chicago campus in the late spring/early summer, so this was most enjoyable. Thankfully, the rain held off too, and the PejmanSibling's name was properly pronounced. That--along with the PejmanSibling's most excellent academic accomplishment (for which said PejmanSibling deserves high praise and hosannas)--counts as a big win among the Yousefzadehs.

I met a celebrity at the commencement as well: Rep. John Lewis, who was there for a relative of his own, and who was kind enough to come and congratulate our family. I had seen him earlier, and thought that perhaps he was there to give the commencement address, but he was a spectator like the rest of us. I thought of gently reminding him that contrary to popular opinion, Republicans are not Nazis, but decided to remain civil, and hope instead that he regretted the outburst in retrospect. (Hey, hope springs eternal!)

I failed to see any Chicago bloggers. Jacob Levy is away, and I didn't have the chance to go and see if Dan Drezner was around. I hope to however, especially so that I don't end up being on the receiving end of a conversation like the following:

DREZNER: Yousefzadeh, we know each other for years, but this is the first time you come to us for a social call. I don't remember the last time you called on us while in Chicago. . . even though our blogs are linked.

YOUSEFZADEH: What do you want of me? I'll give you anything you want . . .

LEVY: You never think to protect yourself with real bloggers. You think it's enough to be Pejmanesque. All right, InstaPundit protects you, there is Tech Central Station, so you don't need friends like us. But now you come to us and say Professors, you must give me linkage. And you don't ask in respect or friendship. And you don't think to call us Professor; instead you come to our campus on the day our students are to be graduated and you ask us to throw you linkage . . . for publicity.

I'd better get cracking with that blog-social call. Otherwise, my site might sleep with the fishes.

Finally--and this is blog-related--I noticed in the commencement program that a number of the bloggers at Crescat Sententia were up for academic honors. My congratulations to them all, and my best wishes for them as they prepare to meet challenges after college.

BAD, BAD PUNDIT!

Doesn't Arthur Chrenkoff know by now that all is lost? How dare he mess with the received conventional wisdom!

RAY CHARLES REMEMBERED

Joe Katzman has a nice tribute. In Chicago Bulls home games, when an opposing player fouls out, the sound system blares "Hit The Road, Jack"--which everyone sings along with. The PejmanMother, who became a major Bulls fan during the era of six championships, loves that song. I'm not sure whether she watched games to see spectacular Jordanesque moves on the court, or in the hopes that multiple opposing players would foul out and treat her to a musical delight.

That was Ray Charles for you: The Michael Jordan of music. Or was Jordan the Ray Charles of basketball?

SO HOW MANY JOBS ARE LOST DUE TO OUTSOURCING?

An exceedingly small amount as a percentage of total jobs lost, as Dan Drezner points out. Naturally, this leads one to wonder when--if ever--those who demagogued this issue will actually muster up the courage and decency to apologize for it.

LOTS OF VIOLATIONS OF GODWIN'S LAW GOING AROUND

I just don't have any patience for this stuff anymore, and my hometown paper embarrasses itself by publishing such dreck. Good for Jeff Goldstein for treating it with the contempt it deserves.

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

A whole host can be found here. Of course, if I were one of those who issued said thoughts, I really wouldn't want them publicized.

But since I'm not one of those who issued said thoughts, I am more than happy to publicize them.

YOU'RE NOT TRULY FAMOUS UNTIL YOU'VE BEEN PUBLISHED BY A HIGHBROW BRITISH NEWS MAGAZINE

I liked Stephen Bainbridge's original letter better too. But the revised and edited version still makes the point quite well.

YES!

Suffer, Lakers. Suffer.

STOP THAT HISTORY REWRITE

Kudos to Tim Cavanaugh for pointing out just how fatuous this article is. It is rather impressive to see just how far people will go in order to try to spin their convenient version of history, even when that history is so diametrically opposed to common sense.

Look, Reagan never said that he wouldn't negotiate with the Soviets. He did say, however, that he would do it from a position of strength--which was the message behind that whole "Peace Through Strength" mantra. People like Lawrence Martin seem to think that capitulation is cleverness, and that therefore, the Soviets somehow outwitted us by hoisting the white flag. In a sense, the Soviets were clever to capitulate, but only insofar as the Soviets finally realized that the system of government they were running was no longer viable. And that fact didn't get hammered into their heads until the Reagan Administration. Yes, the Soviets finally offered to negotiate, but only when Ronald Reagan dramatically shifted the ground to ensure that his side--our side--would have the upper hand in those negotiations. As inconvenient as those facts might be for Martin, they are supported by the historical record, and there are more than a few of us who were alive to see it, and to testify to it.

FIRST BRIAN LEITER, THEN MATT STOLLER . . .

Who will be the next halfwit to volunteer to be annihilated at the hands of Daniel Drezner?

WE'LL SEE ABOUT THIS

A nail bomb has gone off in Germany, and the Germans are claiming that there is no connection between the bomb blast and terrorism. Steven Den Beste, however, isn't so sure.

I'll wait and see how this develops before saying anything further. Nevertheless, I am classifying this post under "Terrorism," because I really don't think that any other label would apply. It remains to be seen who is behind this, but whoever is culpable, the detonation of a nail bomb seems rather terroristic to me.

POLITICS AND THE ECONOMY

Quoth PowerLine:

During the four quarters of 1992, GDP increased by 6.7%, 6.2%, 5.9% and 6.7% in current dollars. (In constant 2000 dollars, the percentages were 4.2, 3.9, 4.0 and 4.5) When Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid," he should have been endorsing President Bush for re-election. But the press, almost without exception, reported economic news in 1992 as though the country were in a recession. Economic growth actually slowed after Bill Clinton took office, but hardly anyone heard about that, either.

I think the same phenomenon explains why most voters have no idea that over the last four quarters, GDP has increased by 4.2%, 10%, 5.7% and 7.2% in current dollars (3.1%, 8.2%, 4.1% and 4.4% in constant 2000 dollars).

I don't know who will win November's election, but I will venture one firm prediction: if John Kerry wins, the economy will take off like a shot. On the pages of the Washington Post, anyway.

That appears to be the way the spinning seems to point. I would just add that the homeless will disappear as a national problem if John Kerry wins, regardless of whether there will actually be less homeless people on the streets.

GMAIL: A REVIEW

Some cursory thoughts:

Overall, I rather like the new tool, and will probably be using it a fair amount as one of my primary e-mail tools? Why? Storage space, baby!

That said, I really don't need to have Gmail constantly remind me that I don't have to ever delete a message again because I have all of this storage space on my hands. Look, if I get junk mail (haven't yet, but I figure that I will in short order), I'm going to delete it. I don't care if my storage space will accommodate it. Junk mail is an abomination. My Gmail account should be purged of it.

I know that Gmail is in the beta-testing phase, but just out of curiosity, why is it that it doesn't have some of the buttons that Yahoo! has for its e-mail service? You know, buttons for cutting, copying, pasting, embedding links in a word, aligning paragraphs, bolding, underlining, etc.? Just because they are beta-testing does not mean that e-mail needs to return to the Stone Age.

I may be persuaded to dole out Gmail invitational accounts, à la Will Baude. The question, of course, is what will I get in return?

"THE BERKELEY INTIFADA"

Michael Totten's latest essay is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the culture and legacy of the PC movement.

RIEMANN, SCHMIEMANN

A very interesting report on a potential solution to the Riemann Hypothesis:

A mathematician at Perdue University in the US claims to have proved the Riemann hypothesis - called the greatest unsolved problem in maths. The hypothesis concerns prime numbers and has stumped the world's mathematicians for more than 150 years.

Now, Professor Louis De Branges de Bourcia has posted a 23-page paper on the internet detailing his attempt at a proof.

There is a $1 million prize for whoever solves the hypothesis.

"I invite other mathematicians to examine my efforts," says de Branges.

"While I will eventually submit my proof for formal publication, due to the circumstances I felt it necessary to post the work on the Internet immediately."

The Riemann hypothesis is a highly complex theory about the nature of prime numbers - those numbers divisible only by 1 and themselves.

It has defeated mathematicians since 1859 when Bernhard Riemann published a conjecture about how prime numbers were distributed amongst other numbers.

Since then the problem has attracted a cult following among mathematicians, but after nearly 150 years no one has ever definitively proven Riemann's theory to be either true or false.

Such is the importance, and difficulty, of the problem that in 2001 the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge, Mass, offered a $1 million purse to whoever proves it first.

De Branges solved another problem in mathematics - the Bieberbach conjecture - about 20 years ago.

(Via Tyler Cowen, who also provides a link to the actual proof.)

WHAT THE MULLAHS HATH WROUGHT

This article helps bring to light an overlooked portion of the Islamic regime's sordid legacy in Iran:

A measure of Islamic fundamentalists' success in controlling society is the depth and totality with which they suppress the freedom and rights of women. In Iran for 25 years, the ruling mullahs have enforced humiliating and sadistic rules and punishments on women and girls, enslaving them in a gender apartheid system of segregation, forced veiling, second-class status, lashing, and stoning to death.

Joining a global trend, the fundamentalists have added another way to dehumanize women and girls: buying and selling them for prostitution. Exact numbers of victims are impossible to obtain, but according to an official source in Tehran, there has been a 635 percent increase in the number of teenage girls in prostitution. The magnitude of this statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. In Tehran, there are an estimated 84,000 women and girls in prostitution, many of them are on the streets, others are in the 250 brothels that reportedly operate in the city. The trade is also international: thousands of Iranian women and girls have been sold into sexual slavery abroad.

The head of Iran's Interpol bureau believes that the sex slave trade is one of the most profitable activities in Iran today. This criminal trade is not conducted outside the knowledge and participation of the ruling fundamentalists. Government officials themselves are involved in buying, selling, and sexually abusing women and girls.

Many of the girls come from impoverished rural areas. Drug addiction is epidemic throughout Iran, and some addicted parents sell their children to support their habits. High unemployment ? 28 percent for youth 15-29 years of age and 43 percent for women 15-20 years of age ‑ is a serious factor in driving restless youth to accept risky offers for work. Slave traders take advantage of any opportunity in which women and children are vulnerable. For example, following the recent earthquake in Bam, orphaned girls have been kidnapped and taken to a known slave market in Tehran where Iranian and foreign traders meet.

Popular destinations for victims of the slave trade are the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. According to the head of the Tehran province judiciary, traffickers target girls between 13 and 17, although there are reports of some girls as young as 8 and 10, to send to Arab countries. One ring was discovered after an 18 year-old girl escaped from a basement where a group of girls were held before being sent to Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The number of Iranian women and girls who are deported from Persian Gulf countries indicates the magnitude of the trade. Upon their return to Iran, the Islamic fundamentalists blame the victims, and often physically punish and imprison them. The women are examined to determine if they have engaged in "immoral activity." Based on the findings, officials can ban them from leaving the country again.

If you actually have the stomach, I urge you to read the rest.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution. In this very minute, a child is being born to an American family and another child, equally valued by God, is being born to a family in India. The resources of all kinds that will be at the disposal of this new American will be on the order of 15 times the resources available to his Indian brother. This seems to us a terrible wrong, justifying direct corrective action, and perhaps some actions of this kind can and should be taken. But of the vast increase in the well-being of hundreds of millions of people that has occurred in the 200-year course of the industrial revolution to date, virtually none of it can be attributed to the direct redistribution of resources from rich to poor. The potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production.

--Robert Lucas (Thanks to Alex Tabarrok for the link.)

COMPRESSING THE LEGACY

It's more than a little amusing to peruse left-of-center blogs that tell us that the way to honor Ronald Reagan is to support stem cell research (and conveniently, to oppose the Bush Administration's stance on stem cell research). The issue of stem cells is obviously one that has generated a lot of debate, and it is a debate that is--fortunately--dominated by and large by people of good will on both sides. No one wants to see people dying of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or any other disease that might conveniently be treated by stem cell research. At the same time, it is folly not to acknowledge the potential moral implications of using embryos to further the research. Even if one believes that such moral implications are not enough to stand in the way of the research, at the very least, one should make that argument with some degree of humility and respect. It may be a blastocyst now, but it could be a life later, and in my mind, the proper way to argue in favor of stem cells is to say that while it may be a sacrifice of a potential human life to go forward with embryonic stem cell research, the ends would justify the means and there would be some kind of utilitarian benefit to going forward with the lives that may potentially be saved if embryonic stem cell research delivers on its promises.

But that's not what a lot of stem cell research advocates say. Instead, they tell us that it's just a blastocyst, and nothing more, and that we shouldn't even give a second thought to the issue. Now, I respect the argument that people make on behalf of stem cell research. Indeed, it's a much more appealing argument than the one made in favor of abortion rights--as evidenced by the fact that many pro-life advocates are also for embryonic stem cell research. But again, I don't think the other side can be dismissed so easily. After all, if it is eventually proven that adult stem cells could cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other diseases, we wouldn't even be discussing the use of embryonic stem cells, since the use of one's own adult stem cells would present no moral qualms whatsoever.

I wish that people would recognize this fact, and recognize that there are those who genuinely want to see breakthroughs in the prevention and treatment of terrible diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, but have genuine and deeply felt moral qualms about the use of embryonic stem cells to accomplish this. The way to potentially change their minds is not to ridicule their positions, but to treat them with some respect and decency, while at the same time sticking to one's intellectual position with every ounce of one's intellectual honesty.

And as for the Reagan legacy, if it prompts a discussion on stem cells, that is fine with me. It's an important topic, and it deserves to be discussed with passion and seriousness. It would be nice, however, if some of the aforementioned blogs might also note other Reagan legacies . . . like, oh, say, being instrumental in winning the Cold War, turning around the pre-Reagan conventional wisdom that our economy was irretrievably broken, etc. After all, it is more than a little disingenuous to say that the only Reagan legacy of any note just happens to be one with which the Bush Administration can be bashed by its opponents.

UPDATE: Via the comments section, we have this report on the feasibility of stem cells. I'm no expert on the matter, but it definitely seems worth a read.

DREEEAM . . . DREAM, DREAM DREAM . . .

Sebastian Holsclaw has infinitely more patience than I do with unbelievably improbable arguments. While that may qualify him for sainthood, it will also raise his blood pressure to abnormal and dangerous levels eventually.

JOHN KERRY'S DEFENSE RECORD

The definitive historical compilation. You can judge for yourself whether Kerry's positions on defense are in accord with yours, but in any event, it is a valuable--and revealing--source with which to check his rhetoric against reality.

ON TORTURE

Guest-blogging over at Crescat Sententia, the Curmudgeonly Clerk gives some valuable history on the issue of torture, history which undermines the self-serving argument that current questions regarding torture are in any way unique to the American experience.

OLD-FASHIONED

I like my Bible just the way it is. I don't want the language modernized, I don't want the message unnecessarily softened or hardened, and I don't think it constantly has to be tinkered with. There are segments of the Bible that I take seriously, and others that I do not, but I am firmly reconciled towards having the whole of the Bible remain just the way it is--whether or not I agree with certain portions of it.

Which is why stories like this one give me such a headache.

A SOLDIER REMEMBERS

Ralph Peters pays tribute to Ronald Reagan. I won;t even try to excerpt favorite parts. Just read it all.

I'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE. IT DOESN'T END WELL

While I am as impressed as anyone with the ability of the Detroit Pistons to hang in there with the mighty Lakers, Detroit is going to have to keep from giving games away. The Lakers came back from a 2-0 hole against San Antonio. They surely can come back now that the series is tied 1-1.

Memo to Detroit: We want Goliath dead. Really, we do. How 'bout not missing with the slingshot next time?

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.

--Walter Bagehot

"IRRETRIEVABLE OPALS"

Will Baude has this retrospective up summarizing his thoughts as a soon-to-be college graduate. As with just about all of his work, it is well-written, well-thought out, and very interesting. Be sure to read it.

(Via . . . well . . . Will Baude.)