The UK Independent has a news story purporting to describe the new security alert going on, and while they are somewhat fair and accurate in the story, despite giving too much notice to Howard Dean's lunacy, their headline is pure nonsense:

A nation in danger. Or a president in peril?

That is likely a gratuitious slur against the current President, but even more than that, it is probably a transparently stupid false dichotomy. Is it not possible for our nation to be endangered, and the President to also be doing poorly in the polls?

This observation actually depends on the common perception of the meaning of the word 'or'. In normal usage the word implies a clear A vs B choice (ie 'I can do this, or I can do that'), where one may be true but not both. In the logical context there are several other conclusions that could be assumed, if one wants this headline to be true:

A: The nation is not in danger and President Bush is.

or

B: The nation is in danger and President Bush is not.

or

C: The nation is in danger and so is President Bush.

Unfortunately, in common understanding, pure logic does not appply. Only A or B are possible assessments of the Independent's headline if one assumes the common A vs. B interpretation

The simple logical understanding describes the difference between what we computer geeks call an 'exclusive or' or 'XOR' and and ordinary 'OR' comparison. An OR allows that either or both conditions could be true to make the statement true. The common understanding is an 'XOR' which means that one assertion may be true, but not both.

Regardless of my points about simple logic, this headline has to be understood as misleading on the basis of common language usage. They know their semantic formulation implies A vs B to most people, and they shouldn't mislead their readers in that way.

While I doubt the UK Independent's editors can feel shame, or even know what it means, I say shame on them.

I've often had a bit of fun poking holes in George Monbiot's contentions in his Guardian column. If he says the sky is blue, I'm going to crack the window and check for myself. Suffice to say that I agree with him on almost nothing.

That makes what I read tonight extremely surprising: Monbiot actually wrote something that is not a steaming pile of mushy thinking.

Let's take it from the top, where George makes an assertion that thinkers from Thomas Jefferson to Milton Friedman would probably agree with:

...the first rule of politics - power must never be trusted - still applies. The government will neither regulate itself nor be regulated by the institutions which surround it. Parliament chose to believe a string of obvious lies. The media repeated them, the civil service let them pass, the judiciary endorsed them. The answer to the age-old political question - who guards the guards? - remains unchanged. Only the people will hold the government to account.

Holy frozen perdition, Batman! A Euro-statist has finally turned the corner! There may be hope for the left after all. That his quibbles are over supposedly obvious lies that I thinik are probably not lies, obvious or otherwise, is a minor detail compared to the magnitude of this moment. Has George been struck dumb on the road to Damascus?

Monbiot goes on to bemoan the anti-terrorism legislation that has been codified into law in the US and UK. His examples of official misuse of police power in the UK are disturbing, if not exacly draconian, and assuming they are true.

At the Fairford air base, for example, the police used the act to terrorise the peace campaigners protesting against the Iraq war. The protesters were repeatedly stopped and searched: often one team of police would let someone go after a full body search, and another one would immediately seize her and repeat the whole procedure (this happened to one protester 11 times in one day).

George being George, he can't resist throwing in some leftist cant, despite it being false:

The US Patriot Act, passed by Congress before any representative had read it, allows the state to treat dissenting citizens as if they were members of al-Qaida.

I find it wonderful that a fairly traditional left-wing Euro-statist would begin to see the light on the dangers of government power, but I really wish that he'd enjoyed this revelation before his side of the aisle championed their own incursions on individual liberty, such as hate-crime laws, anti-smoking legislation based on second hand smoke fears, environmentalist takings, or anti-discrimination laws aimed at private institutions. I have to assume that recognition of the dangers of governmental power are similar to, but not the same as, the recognition of the power of human liberty.

Perhaps he's begun to see the light, perhaps not. Either way, I found it both startling and refreshing that George Monbiot wrote something I tend to agree with.

Senator Kerry needs to learn there is virtue in brevity. And how to salute properly. At least it wasn't as bad as that awful, limp wristed wave that Clinton had.

I thought "ready for duty" and the salute were lame. Does he have to wrap himself in his Vietnam service so damned tightly? Got it, OK, you signed up, you did your duty 35 years ago. You deserve all due respect for that, but isn't this election about what you are going to do over the next 4 years?

And that west wing joke was horrible. Not only is it a lame joke, his delivery was so wooden. Maybe it was funny in the original French.

I'm also not thrilled with his desctiption of health care as a right. Last time I checked, no other rights come with a price tag someone else has to pay for.

Overall, it was much better than most of the speeches I've seen him give. If he had gone with his normal delivery, and droned on for an hour in that metronomic monotone of his, even the delegates would have tuned him out.

He certainly could of done much worse.

But why are we going to wait to be attacked before we do something about our enemies? "Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response." is not the defense strategy I am looking for. That's the kind of reactive, linear thinking that brought us 9/11.

Come on Kerry, you're supposed to be so smart. Put that big brain of yours to work on providing some real foreign policy innovation. Your platitudes about alliances are not good enough. First, our alliances are generally doing well right now. Second, France, Germany, and Russia aren't going to swoon over you the way the Democrats do. Being Anyone But Bush is not the standard by which nations determine their interests. They'll want to know what's in it for them.

As a libertarian minded guy I have been having a lot of, shall we say, issues with our current President. I'm certainly not thrilled with his ludicrously spendthrift ways, or his Cro-Magnon social policies towards gays, or his protectionist impulses.

The only thing that has kept me (mostly) on his side these past few years has been his hawkish intent to take the war to our enemies. But I have to admit, in this upcoming election I am seriously conflicted and wavering between Bush and Kerry. I don't expect Kerry to be any more fiscally responsible or free market minded, but he will be set against a Republican congress that will be more inclined to close the purse strings with a Democrat in the White House.

It really comes down to whether Kerry can convince me he's serious about proactively protecting this nation.

In that vein, this is not what I wanted to hear.

Good evening. Welcome to a special edition of LARRY KING LIVE here in New York with Senator John Kerry, who's frequently appeared on this show, and Teresa Heinz Kerry, her first appearance on this show. We thank you both very much for coming.

Let's get to, first thing's first, news of the day. Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States, didn't increase the -- do you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time.

Come on Senator, you have an opportunity here. Close the deal, don't scare off your customers.

Via Andrew I found George Will's recent column on The Left, At a Loss In Kansas

For a century, the left has largely failed to enact its agenda for redistributing wealth. What the left has achieved is a rich literature of disappointment, explaining the mystery, as the left sees it, of why most Americans are impervious to the left's appeal.

An interesting addition to this canon is "What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America." Its author, Thomas Frank, argues that his native Kansas -- like the nation, only more so -- votes self-destructively, meaning conservatively, because social issues such as abortion distract it from economic self-interest, as the left understands that.

Will goes on to argue that with increasing individual economic comfort, more of us will tend to spend our political efforts on non-economic issues, such as all the culture war craptrap.

Will has a valid point, but I think he misses something here. For decades now, Americans have tended to strongly vote their wallets. By that I mean we tend to vote based on who we perceive will better serve our economic self interest.

But there is a twist. Let me rephrase that prevous bit slightly, and say that each Americal tends strongly to vote his or her wallet. Is the distinction clear? My point is this: we vote based on our own wallet, not that of our neighbor or our boss or Theresa Heintz-Kerry's. The politics of envy and covetousness, as represented by the various redistributionist schemes cooked up over the last century or so, have failed to appeal to an electorally significant number of Americans since the days of Willam Jennings Bryant.

The Left wants to take from one person and give to another based on criteria chosen by them. I think most Americans reject that, and would prefer to get ahead through their own work and merits, rather than at the expense of our countrymen.

The real rub for the Left is that we keep refusing to be French.

The Prof links to a story in the Economist abouot Paul Allen's latest investment, Space Ship One:

The craft's sponsor, Paul Allen (who co-founded Microsoft), could have spent as much, or more, on a luxury yacht.

Actually, Mr. Allen already has spent much, much more on a yacht.

It's called Octopus, and here is what it looks like:

Here is what the Seattle Times has to say about it:

Touring cable executives said the 8-month-old vessel cost Allen $200 million and had a permanent crew of 60 people, including several former Navy Seals. It has two helicopters, seven boats and a remote-controlled vehicle for crawling on the ocean floor.

An accompanying submarine, under construction, will have the capacity to sleep eight for up to two weeks underwater.

Allen gave a personal demonstration of the professional recording studio that is on board, playing electric guitar with his rock band and treating guests to renditions of "Brown-Eyed Girl" and "Mustang Sally."

I worked on that project, which just happens to be the largest private yacht in the world. It's an incredible vessel. I'm under NDA about what exactly it has on board, but the "professional recording studio" is just the beginning. The Economist will just have to take my word for it - he doesn't need to buy another one.

My kids, when they are more skilled at reading, are going to have to read this.

The NY Times has a story by R.W. Apple that attempts to put an historical perspective on President Reagan's ultimate legacy, and while some of it is laughably parochial and small-minded in that inimitable New-York-Leftist-Received-Wisdom way ("he demonstrated his pragmatism in rolling back some of his huge 1981 tax cuts" while not mentioning the deleterious result of the luxury tax increases), most of it is as fair as one can expect of the NY Times.

However, there is one apparently inadvertent howler right at the end of the piece:

But hagiography will not determine their leader's ultimate standing, and whether he is entitled to be called "great." Only what the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called "the cool eye of history" will do that, many years hence.

I'll admit Mr. Schlesinger is a well known historian, but to quote him while making a point about dispasionate, clear eyed analysis is hysterically funny.

Here's Arthur Jr, circa 1982

I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street ... those in the United States who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink are wishful thinkers who are only kidding themselves.

Who is engaging in wishful thinking now, hmmm?

What I pointed out below about hindsight and Reagan is echoed by Charles Krauthammer today.

Rarely has a president been so quickly and completely vindicated by history.

What he said.

While perusing The Corner I followed a link to Jim Hoagland's latest column in which he attempts to paste a few blemishes on the Ronald Reagan hagiography. To his credit, Hoagland avoids the silly whining that characterizes so much of the left's critique of Reagan, but Hoagland lets slip one odd notion:

Perhaps this is how contemporary history is made or, in the electronic era, mismade and distorted. Reagan's growing reputation as the great victor in the Cold War who made Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall depends on looking at Reagan and his times through the light cast by subsequent events.

I don't wish to argue with Hoagland over the relative merits of Reagan's foreign policy with regards to the former Soviet Union. What I take issue with is his odd notion that thinking well of Reagan's deeds "depends on looking at Reagan and his times through the light cast by subsequent events". To ordinary people, that simply means assessing Reagan with what little historical perspective there can be after such a short time. In other words, it means employing 20-20 hindsight, and finding that Reagan had uncanny foresight, at least on this issue.

Further into his article, Hoagland quotes an unnamed TV executive saying

Today history is what we say it is.

That may or may not be accurate, but the net result of such arrogant narcissism has been the near total collapse of public faith in the media. I work in the media business, albeit on the technical side of things, and I for one don't want to see my livelihood destroyed by the kind of egoism displayed by that comment.