Pejmanesque

GONE FISHIN'

Actually, I'm gone to a wedding in New York between Asparagirl and Scott Ganz. Blogging will be limited at best until Sunday. Have fun until then in case I don't see you earlier.

MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP

This week, I discuss the merits of the consumption tax.

MAKING AN IMPACT

New Volokh Conspirator Cori Dauber has this post on the post-Raines/Blair New York Times. Apparently, the paper still has some improving to do.

TV IS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER

I'm so going to watch this:

Dennis Miller, the sardonic comedian who delivered a fake newscast on "Saturday Night Live" and told jokes in the "Monday Night Football" booth, will host a prime-time political talk show on CNBC.

The network said Thursday it had inked Miller to a multiyear deal for the political chat show, set to begin in January.

Miller said he would work four nights a week at 9 p.m. ET.

He spent six seasons on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" before launching his own HBO show, "Dennis Miller Live," winning five Emmy Awards. He drew mixed reviews for his work in the "Monday Night Football" booth, leaving in 2002 when John Madden was hired.

Miller, who was considered for a prime-time talk show on MSNBC last year before Phil Donahue was hired, said he was looking for work and intrigued by the CNBC idea after being approached by Jeff Zucker, NBC entertainment president.

"I have the same approach I would use if I were crossing a prison yard late at night," Miller said about his career in an interview with The Associated Press Thursday. "I zigzag to stay ahead of everyone."

This, by the way, is a triumph for the South Park Republicans as much as for anyone else. And it'll make for intelligent TV. What's not to love?

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval.

--George Santayana

NO EXCUSE FOR ASININE BEHAVIOR

Benjamin Franklin once said that "our critics are our friends, for they show us our faults." Should Donald Luskin read this post, I hope that he will consider me especially friendly for telling him and the world that his decision to potentially sue Atrios is idiotic on so many levels, that one hardly knows where to begin. I'll restrain myself to saying that Luskin's suit cannot be maintained on either legal or ethical grounds, and is a disaster for his public reputation (as it should be).

First, the legal issue. Luskin's attorney alleges the following:

This firm represents Donald L. Luskin, a Contributing Editor to National Review Online and author and host of Poorandstupid.com, among other activities. You recently linked to Mr. Luskin’s October 7, 2003, posting on his website entitled “Face To Face With Evil,” in which he chronicles his attendance at a lecture and book signing presented by Paul Krugman. You chose the unfortunate caption “Diary of a Stalker” for your link. More importantly, your readers, in responding to your invitation to comment, have posted numerous libelous statements regarding Mr. Luskin. Picking up on the theme you introduced, several have made false assertions that Mr. Luskin has committed the crime of stalking. Such a statement constitutes libel per se, an actionable tort subjecting both the author and the publisher to liability for both actual and punitive damages. As a result of your control over and participation in the comment section of your site, as well as the fact that Mr. Luskin has personally brought these libelous comments to your attention already, you face personal liability for their distribution. Determining your identity for the purpose of making service of process can be easily accomplished through a subpoena to Blogspot.com.

Defamation consists of the following elements:

1. Defamatory statement of fact;

2. Of and concerning the plaintiff;

3. Publication;

4. Damages.

Let's take the elements in turn:

1. Defamatory Statement of Fact: Luskin alleges that Atrios defamed him by calling Luskin a "stalker" in the title of a post discussing one of Luskin's columns about Paul Krugman. The problem is that the statement may have been (1) of opinion or (2) humorous, and not a statement of fact, as discussed below in the "Damages" portion for the purposes of convenience.

2. Of and concerning the plaintiff: The comment was made about Luskin.

3. Publication: Atrios published the comment on his site.

4. Damages: This discussion--combined with a fuller discussion about the first element of defamation--is where Luskin's suit falls apart.

First of all, Atrios's comment that Luskin is a "stalker" might very well fall into the realm of opinion statements. Atrios didn't pull out a penal code and specifically go down the elements of "stalking" and then argue that since Luskin may have met the elements, that qualifies him as a stalker. Atrios's comment was made in an editorial context, and defamation law is very clear that opinion is not actionable.

Secondly, even if Atrios meant to state that Luskin met the legal definitions of stalking, Luskin still has a very tough legal standard to meet. Luskin is very likely a public figure thanks to thrusting himself in the public spotlight. For a public figure to be able to prevail in his suit, he/she must allege that a defamatory statement was made with "actual malice." Actual malice is defined as "knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."

Proving that Atrios made the comment with actual malice is going to be very difficult under the best of circumstances. It is made even harder when Luskin himself writes a column called "We Stalked, He Balked". Atrios can rather easily claim that he relied on Luskin's own statement before writing the title of his post.

On a related matter, Atrios can argue that truth is an affirmative defense--that since Luskin admitted to stalking, Atrios is justified in calling him a "stalker." Luskin may reply that he was just being facetious about himself, but there is no evidence to suggest that Atrios was not being similarly sarcastic about Luskin. Luskin may object to Atrios's sense of humor, but humor is not actionable--particularly when it is clearly demonstrated to be humor, and not a statement of fact.

Thus, it appears much more likely than not that Atrios is not liable for defamation.

The second issue is whether Atrios is liable to Luskin for comments made by Atrios's commenters about Luskin. This is a slam-dunk: Atrios was not the one who made the alleged defamatory statements, and he didn't publish them. The statements were made by commenters, and they were published by the commenters themselves by hitting the "publish" button on the HaloScan comments boxes. Atrios is not even remotely liable for the statements and publications of others.

So much for the legal issue. Now for the ethical one:

Consider again the following passage from the e-mail from Luskin's attorney to Atrios:

Determining your identity for the purpose of making service of process can be easily accomplished through a subpoena to Blogspot.com.

Such a subpoena would likely not be issued once a judge has the chance to hear the "merits" of this case, and realize that there is frankly nothing to this suit. However, I find it appalling and offensive that this suit may potentially be used to "out" Atrios's identity. Should this suit be the Trojan Horse for an unnmasking operation, my opinion of Luskin--already low thanks to this sordid and stupid lawsuit--would plummet to hitherto unimagined levels.

And finally, the public relations aspect. Whether Luskin wants to sully his name and allow public opinion of him to plummet to levels plumed by Dante and Virgil (you just knew that I would sneak in a reference to Dante, didn't you?) is entirely his business. But Luskin is embarrassing himself beyond compare with this lawsuit. He looks mean, petty, vindictive, and above all, comical in his efforts. He reflects badly on those with whom he is associated. And he does precisely the opposite of what he wanted to do: he makes Atrios look heroic and martyresque to those witnessing this spectacle. I cannot imagine a more self-defeating decision on Luskin's part, and I cannot even begin to imagine the thought process that led to this absurd action.

To coin a phrase, Donald Luskin's decision to threaten Atrios with legal action is both poor and stupid. I hold no brief for Atrios's views, or for his method of arguing and debating with others. I've said so before, and I will likely be given occasion to say so again.

But two wrongs don't make a right. Never have, and never will. Luskin should cut the losses to his public reputation, and drop whatever legal action he is contemplating. Should he refuse to do so, I strongly urge my readers to go over to Atrios's site and contribute money to his tipjar so that he may hire an attorney and defend himself against what would be an utterly frivolous legal action.

And to readers who might wonder what on earth I am doing defending Atrios, my reason for this post is simple: This lawsuit could have been just as easily directed against me by a liberal pundit.

BLOGROLLING

Be sure to check out ActivistChat for many of the breaking stories about Iran. It's an excellent source for news and views.

PEJMANESQUE: HUGE IN AUSTRALIA!

An Australian reader sends me this link showing the most popular blogging languages. Note the language currently occupying fourth place.

A day doesn't go by without my being fascinated by the blogging phenomenon.

BLOGGING THEIR WAY TO FREEDOM

Via the lovely Sulizano, I see that a blogging café has sprung up in Tehran. This is excellent and delightful news, and I look forward to the spread of more such establishments in the country. I can't think of a better way to spread democratic values and undermine the Islamic regime than to facilitate the free exchange of ideas--something that blogging and establishments dedicated to furthering blogging can help bring about.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

A belated happy blogiversary to Moxie. Long may she reign!

CRY THE RAVAGED COUNTRY

I'm not going to excerpt any part of this report on North Korea, because to do so would be an injustice to the rest of the report. It is sick, horrifying, and stomach-churning. It is also required reading.

Note to the A.N.S.W.E.R. folks: This is the regime you defend and speak up for? And you're proud of that?

NO VIETNAM--DESIRES TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING

Here's Thomas Friedman on the reconstruction of Iraq. He correctly identifies the major issues at stake:

Since 9/11, we've seen so much depraved violence we don't notice anymore when we hit a new low. Monday's attacks in Baghdad were a new low. Just stop for one second and contemplate what happened: A suicide bomber, driving an ambulance loaded with explosives, crashed into the Red Cross office and blew himself up on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. This suicide bomber was not restrained by either the sanctity of the Muslim holy day or the sanctity of the Red Cross. All civilizational norms were tossed aside. This is very unnerving. Because the message from these terrorists is: "There are no limits. We have created our own moral universe, where anything we do against Americans or Iraqis who cooperate with them is O.K."

What to do? The first thing is to understand who these people are. There is this notion being peddled by Europeans, the Arab press and the antiwar left that "Iraq" is just Arabic for Vietnam, and we should expect these kinds of attacks from Iraqis wanting to "liberate" their country from "U.S. occupation." These attackers are the Iraqi Vietcong.

Hogwash. The people who mounted the attacks on the Red Cross are not the Iraqi Vietcong. They are the Iraqi Khmer Rouge — a murderous band of Saddam loyalists and Al Qaeda nihilists, who are not killing us so Iraqis can rule themselves. They are killing us so they can rule Iraqis.

Have you noticed that these bombers never say what their political agenda is or whom they represent? They don't want Iraqis to know who they really are. A vast majority of Iraqis would reject them, because these bombers either want to restore Baathism or install bin Ladenism.

Let's get real. What the people who blew up the Red Cross and the Iraqi police fear is not that we're going to permanently occupy Iraq. They fear that we're going to permanently change Iraq. The great irony is that the Baathists and Arab dictators are opposing the U.S. in Iraq because — unlike many leftists — they understand exactly what this war is about. They understand that U.S. power is not being used in Iraq for oil, or imperialism, or to shore up a corrupt status quo, as it was in Vietnam and elsewhere in the Arab world during the cold war. They understand that this is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched — a war of choice to install some democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

Precisely so. Would that more people digest this lesson.

IT'S BACK, AND WHILE IT'S NOT BETTER THAN EVER, IT'S STILL QUITE ALL RIGHT

Nick Gillespie celebrates the return of Napster. I plan on doing the same with more downloads than you can shake a stick at.

SHORTER MOVEON.ORG

Just click here.

UPDATE: And while we're on the general topic, be sure to check this out.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

Or perhaps not so strange. Look and see who is at the forefront of the antiglobalization movement:

There is no shortage of symbols representing peace, justice, and economic equality. The dove and the olive branch. The peace sign. The rainbow flag. Even the emblem of the United Nations. So why did some protesters at the 2003 World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, display the swastika?

Held two months prior to the U.S.-led attack on Iraq, this year’s conference—an annual grassroots riposte to the well-heeled World Economic Forum in Davos—had the theme, “Another World is Possible.” But the more appropriate theme might have been “Yesterday’s World is Back.” Marchers among the 20,000 activists from 120 countries carried signs reading “Nazis, Yankees, and Jews: No More Chosen Peoples!” Some wore T-shirts with the Star of David twisted into Nazi swastikas. Members of a Palestinian organization pilloried Jews as the “true fundamentalists who control United States capitalism.” Jewish delegates carrying banners declaring “Two peoples—Two states: Peace in the Middle East” were assaulted.

Porto Alegre provides just one snapshot of an unfolding phenomenon known as the “new anti-Semitism.” Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the oldest hatred has been making a global comeback, culminating in 2002 with the highest number of anti-Semitic attacks in 12 years. Not since Kristallnacht, the Nazi-led pogrom against German Jews in 1938, have so many European synagogues and Jewish schools been desecrated. This new anti-Semitism is a kaleidoscope of old hatreds shattered and rearranged into random patterns at once familiar and strange. It is the medieval image of the “Christ-killing” Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers. It is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement refusing to put the Star of David on their ambulances. It is Zimbabwe and Malaysia—nations nearly bereft of Jews—warning of an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world’s finances. It is neo-Nazis donning checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of Mein Kampf.

And so it goes.

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO "HMM"

Jonathan Adler reports one of the mysteries of the day.

GETTING IT ALL WRONG

Sean Rushton dissects and excoriates National Public Radio's coverage of the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. For more in this vein, be sure to check out this post. Also--and I know I'm late to this, Larry Solum's words are worth remembering:

I worked extensively with Janice Brown several years ago when she was a member of the Commission on the Future of the California Judiciary. This was before her appointment to California Supreme Court--at the time she was serving as legal counsel to California's governor Pete Wilson. Brown was a quiet and intelligent presence on the Committee. I was serving as the author of a White Paper on alternative court structures, and towards the end of the interactive process of drafting, Brown provided several handwritten pages of sophisticated and thoughtful comments on the draft. Whatever you think about Janice Brown, you should not be hasty to reach the conclusion that she is a simple-minded blowhard for an extremist ideology. Quite the opposite, this is a quiet, sophisticated, and intellectual woman.

Not that you would know that from listening to NPR.

UPDATE: More on NPR's biases--albeit on a different issue--from David Bernstein.

THE PERILS OF RETICENCE

Also sprach John Kerry:

John F. Kerry won a Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts as a naval officer in the Vietnam War, but the U.S. senator from Massachusetts said few voters in neighboring New Hampshire even know he's a military veteran.

"It is stunning," he said. "That's the one thing you'd think the voters would know about me. Especially in New Hampshire. You can't take anything for granted. You have to tell people about yourself again and again."

I'm sure that Kerry will do exactly that. Again and again.

And just to make it clear: I honor and respect anyone who fought on behalf of the country. But you can't blame me--and others--for being turned off about it if we have to hear self-glorifying statements over and over. I'll give credit to Wesley Clark for not overplaying his military record. Contrary to what Kerry thinks, a silent dignity may be more attractive to voters than over-the-top self-aggrandizing statements. I know he's campaigning to be President, and that he has to talk about himself, but this is really getting ridiculous on some levels.

THE UNRECONSTRUCTED MAHATHIR MOHAMMAD

Once a racist, always a racist, I suppose. In any event, while the United States has progressed from the days of slavery, Mahathir has yet to progress from the neanderthal worldview he maintains, and the abominable rhetoric he so willingly embraces.

I'm amused by the following:

On Thursday, at a news conference after he tendered his resignation as leader of Malaysia's ruling party -- a key step toward his retirement -- Mahathir was asked if he had a parting message for Jews.

"They must never claim they are the chosen people, who cannot be criticized at all," Mahathir replied.

"We sympathize with them, we were very sad to see how the Jews were so ill treated by the Europeans," Mahathir said. "The Muslims have never ill-treated the Jews, but now they are behaving exactly in the way the Europeans behaved toward them against the Muslims."

While there are certainly plenty of Muslims of goodwill who deplore the ill-treatment of Jews, it is at best a stretch to claim that "the Muslims have never ill-treated the Jews." Plenty of Persian Jews--my father and other members of my family being among them--would beg to differ.

WE'RE IN THE MONEY . . .

There's been delightful news on the economy released today:

The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

"This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy in the third quarter," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "The key challenge now is jobs," he said.

How good was the news? So good that the glee appears to have crossed partisan divides (and we should all be glad when that happens). Quoth Kevin Drum:

Wow. The economy grew 7.2% last quarter, a blistering pace. And possibly even better news is how it grew:

The major contributors to the increase in real GDP in the third quarter were personal consumption expenditures (PCE), equipment and software, residential fixed investment, and exports. The contributions of these components were partly offset by a negative contribution from private inventory investment.

Consumer demand (including cars), capital equipment, and higher exports are all great fundamentals, unlike last quarter when a big fraction of GDP growth was due to war expenses. The residential investment boom is unsustainable, I think, but even if you discount that the growth number is still terrific.

The reports I heard on NPR this morning indicate that while it isn't expected that GDP will grow as much as 7.2% in the next quarter, it will still grow a healthy 4-5%, which remains quite strong.

As for why this quarter's performance was so impressive:

"There should be no doubt that the president's jobs and growth package was largely responsible for the torrid third quarter growth rate," said economist Rich Yamarone of Argus Research in New York. "Meanwhile the Federal Reserve's [low interest rate] monetary policy helped spending on the most interest rates sensitive sectors of the economy, autos and housing."

The more this argument gets out, of course, the greater the chances that Bush will win a second term. I imagine that the White House is full of happy faces today.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those whom we cannot resemble.

--Samuel Johnson

ANY EXCUSE WHATSOEVER TO TALK ABOUT DANTE

During his kindly interrogation of me Will Baude mentioned that he was a fan of W.S. Merwin's translation of Dante Alighieri's Purgatorio. Based on this strong recommendation from an unimpeachable source, I went ahead and placed the Merwin translation on my ever-expanding Amazon Wishlist. I then searched to see if Merwin did any translations of the Inferno or the Paradiso, but found nothing.

Is there a reason for this? Was Merwin just interested in the Purgatorio, or am I missing out on any other translations he has done? If anyone can let me know, I would appreciate it. Specifically, if you find links to Merwin translations for the other books of the Divine Comedy, I'd be most grateful. Thanks.

UPDATE: Ask and ye shall receive the answer.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ELECTIONS IN BRITAIN

As many people know, Britain's Conservatives have ousted party leader Iain Duncan-Smith. Kevin Drum has been covering the Tory leadership contest more comprehensively than most, and his latest post on the issue can be found here.

According to this report--which Kevin links to--nominations for Tory party leader will be made on November 6th, with the balloting beginning on November 11th. The frontrunner for the job appears to be Shadow Home Secretary Michael Howard. I like Howard, and have long hoped that he would take the reins of the Conservative Party and restore it to its former glory. He nearly did so in 1997--after the Party was ousted from power for the first time in 18 years--but was undermined in the election struggle when his secretary said that Howard had "something of the night about him." At this point, however, Howard appears to be the strong consensus favorite, and other Tory heavyweights are bowing out to give him a clear shot. His debating skills are rather formidable, and I suspect that he will be quite the opponent for Tony Blair during Prime Minister's Questions.

If you are interested in what the Tory front bench might look like after the leadership contest is at an end, this post might be a good place to look for clues. I'd be rather surprised if Duncan-Smith--after his rather disastrous tenure as party leader--would be able to land the post of Shadow Defense Minister, and I would be equally surprised if William Hague (who became the Tory party leader in 1997 instead of Howard) is resurrected to be Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. But anything can happen, and a lot already has.

THERE'S NO DENYING IT ANYMORE

At some point, people of goodwill who oppose the Administration's policy on Iraq are going to have to denounce elements of the antiwar coalition who engage in the worst kind of irresponsible behavior--behavior that at the very least borders on the treasonous. "Treason" isn't a word that I toss around lightly--unlike Ann Coulter--but as Eugene Volokh points out, it may very well be merited thanks to the latest statement made by the International A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition.

Really, these people are appalling and disgusting in the extreme. Why any "peace movement" would want to associate with them in the slightest is beyond me.

MEMO TO ERIC ALTERMAN

Your argument is looking more and more discredited.

(Link via Andrew Sullivan.)

DOES LEX LUTHOR KNOW ABOUT THIS?

While a yellow sun is supposed to be Superman's best friend (and while it ultimately helps him develop an invulnerability to his most famous weakness), the picture contained at this post make the sun look like a big ball of kryptonite.

Watch where you fly tonight Kal-El.

"CAVALIER CLARK"

This post makes a good point. Just about every profile I have read on Wesley Clark has made the case that the enlisted men under his command strongly disliked him, and his rather egomaniacal ways. I'm somewhat egomaniacal myself, so I'm not criticizing Clark for his self-regard, but he may have a very hard time relating to the average voter--especially if the average voter finds out what the average enlisted man thought of Clark.

UPDATE: Somewhat off-topic, is there any stance Clark will not sacrifice for the Presidency? Or is personal glory that much more important than intellectual honesty or much-needed intellectual consistency?

HOW SCIENCE COULD SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY

A thought-provoking article by the always thought-provoking Arnold Kling.

A TEMPLATE FOR IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION

I like this plan by Bernard Lewis and James Woolsey to help build a political structure in Iraq:

Following the recent passage of the Security Council resolution on Iraq, the key issue continues to be how quickly to move toward sovereignty and democracy for a new government. The resolution's call for the Iraqi Governing Council to establish a timetable by Dec. 15 for creating a constitution and a democratic government has papered over differences for the time being.

But there are still substantial disagreements even among people who want to see democracy and the rule of law in Iraq as promptly as possible. The U.S. sees the need for time to do the job right. France, Germany and Russia want both more U.N. participation and more speed--a pair of mutually exclusive objectives if there ever was one. Some Iraqis call for an elected constitutional convention, others for a rapid conferring of sovereignty, some for both. Many Middle Eastern governments oppose democracy and thus some support whatever they think will fail.

There may be a path through this thickening fog, made thicker by the rocket and suicide-bombing attacks of the last three days. It is important to help Ambassador Paul Bremer and the coalition forces to establish security. But it is also important to take an early step toward Iraqi sovereignty and to move toward representative government. The key is that Iraq already has a constitution. It was legally adopted in 1925 and Iraq was governed under it until the series of military, then Baathist, coups began in 1958 and brought over four decades of steadily worsening dictatorship. Iraqis never chose to abandon their 1925 constitution--it was taken from them. The document is not ideal, and it is doubtless not the constitution under which a modern democratic Iraq will ultimately be governed. But a quick review indicates that it has some very useful features that would permit it to be used on an interim basis while a new constitution is drafted. Indeed, the latter could be approved as an omnibus amendment to the 1925 document.

As Lewis and Woolsey point out, at the very least, the 1925 document could be used as a transitional guide towards a final and permanent Iraqi constitutional structure. The biggest problem would be filling in the position of a monarch--though the two authors provide a plan for doing even that. If the monarchy aspect proves too big a burden, however, the best aspects of the 1925 constitution could still be used--along with updated provisions that guarantee things like women's rights--to create a governing document for a new Iraq.

NEVER TRY TO BE WHAT YOU ARE NOT

It's times like this when Andrew Sullivan's famous "Poseur Alert" comes in handy:

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean tried to be all things, except George W. Bush, to all voters on fundraising stops in Boulder and Denver on Tuesday.

The pack-leading Democrat hit all the marks, courting fiscal conservatives and social liberals. He bashed the war and pumped up his plans for universal heath care, renewable energy and investments in schools, highways and broadband Internet for everyone.

Dean declared himself a "metrosexual," the buzz phrase for straight men in touch with their feminine sides, as he touted his accomplishments in "equal justice" for gay and lesbian couples.

But then he waffled.

"I'm a square," Dean declared, after professing his metrosexuality to a Boulder breakfast audience with an anecdote about being called handsome by a gay man. "I like (rapper) Wyclef Jean and everybody thinks I'm very hip, but I am really a square, as my kids will tell you. I don't even get to watch television. I've heard the term (metrosexual), but I don't know what it means."

This really doesn't count as a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I hate it when politicians do this. We're supposed to believe that Dean--a middle aged white guy--likes Wyclef Jean, doesn't watch television, identifies with metrosexuals without knowing the meaning of the term, and that above all, he's a square? Come on. And yes, Republicans pull this same kind of nonsense from time to time, and it is equally comical then.

I'm more than a little interested in the personal tastes, likes and dislikes of presidential candidates. I wish they would just tell the truth about those likes and dislikes. It probably won't cost them any votes to do so, just as it probably won't win them any votes to pose so disingenuously.

CROSSING THE AISLES

I'm sure that he will be labeled a "traitor" for this, but Zell Miller's disenchantment with the Democratic Party has got to be considered a source of concern for any Democrats who are interested in winning back the South:

SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA, the nation's most prominent conservative Democrat, said today he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to. Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."

Miller, who is retiring from the Senate next year, has often expressed his admiration for Bush. He was a co-sponsor of the president's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The two got to know each other in the 1990s when both were governors.

The senator's endorsement is important for several reasons. With Miller on board, Bush will have a head start on forming a Democrats for Bush group in 2004. Such a group would woo crossover votes from conservative or otherwise disgruntled Democrats next year. In 2000, an effort by the Bush campaign to form a Democrats for Bush organization fizzled.

Miller remains wildly popular in Georgia, where he could potentially win re-election once again had he chosen to run. His support should help Bush nail down the state, as well as other states in the South. And between the two defectors (although Miller is more of a semi-defector since he remains a Democrat), I imagine that the Senator from Georgia is going to be more valuable to a presidential campaign--any presidential campaign--than the "independent" Senator from Vermont is.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.

--Robert Maynard Hutchins

STOP ME IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE

Once again, we appear to be the target of trolldom over here at this blog. This particular troll (or trolls) seems to think that the height of cleverness is to leave a fake e-mail address that makes his/her point in crude fashion--in addition to leaving a fake e-mail address that would have mail sent to the servers of other bloggers. I doubt anyone would be taken in, but it is rude and classless nonetheless.

I've said this before, and apparently, I am forced to say it again: I respect all opinions, and all points of view, but I don't have to give bandwidth to people who come here to denigrate or insult. If you want to remain anonymous, I respect that as well, but if you abuse the comment privilege, I'll delete your post. I doubt that your behavior on my blog is the kind of behavior that you would appreciate being displayed on your blog if you were the blogger.

THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS

In this post decrying efforts on the part of Democrats to obstruct the confirmation of Bush judicial nominees, Jane Galt says the following:

But in some sense, this is a distinction without a difference. The idea that some Democrats have that George Bush should, because he narrowly lost the popular vote, nominate the judges Al Gore would have picked is quaintly cute, but also risible to anyone who is not a party loyalist. Bill Clinton won a lower percentage of the popular vote than Bush did, and no one seems to feel that he should have nominated Republican judges because of it.

In response, a commenter decides to get snarky:

What's dishonest is that no Democrat is demanding that Bush nominate Democrats. They are insisting that he nominate center-right candidates the way Clinton appointed center-left ones.

Well, I seem to remember this oldie-but-goodie from Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman, where Ackerman argued the following:

In our democracy, there is one basic check on a runaway Court: presidential elections. And a majority of the justices have conspired to eliminate this check. The Supreme Court cannot be permitted to arrange for its own succession. To allow this president to serve as the Court's agent is a fundamental violation of the separation of powers. It is one thing for unelected judges to exercise the sovereign power of judicial review; it's quite another for them to insulate themselves yet further from popular control. When sitting justices retire or die, the Senate should refuse to confirm any nominations offered up by President Bush.

(Emphasis mine.) I suppose that technically, the commenter is right in saying that "no Democrat is demanding that Bush nominate Democrats." It's even worse than that. For the Supreme Court, at least, one Democrat is demanding that Bush nominate no one in the event that a nomination is necessary. And quite frankly, compared to that extreme example, the argument that Bush should only nominate Democrats would almost sound reasonable by comparison.

THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVORITE PET PEEVES

Eugene Volokh touches on one of the more annoying and ridiculous memes out there--the meme that the conservative message is "jammed down the throats of the American people." No it isn't. The statement is not only not literally true, it isn't even figuratively true (I note the difference for the benefit of certain unnamed bloggers who are confused about the definitions of "literal" and "figurative"). If you are listening to a conservative radiocast, you are, in all likelihood, choosing to listen to it. You're not being coerced. Oh sure, you might be in someone's car, and he/she is listening to a conservative radiocast, or you may be in someone's house, and they get to pick the entertainment, but suffice it to say that such examples are probably few and far between. In general, there is no Radio Gestapo forcing you to listen to conservative radio.

So why all the talk of having the conservative message "jammed" down peoples' throats? Well, Eugene answers:

. . . "Jammed down their throats" figuratively means "forced onto people who aren't really willing to hear it." And that is nearly the opposite of how radio actually works -- people who really believe that this is how right-wing talk show hosts have gotten their influence are just deluding themselves.

Yes they are. But that doesn't mean they will stop anytime soon.

UPDATE: Rather ridiculously, commenters to this post are claiming that my argument precludes any further discussion of any liberal media bias that I perceive. Nothing could be further removed from the content of this post--which is how conservative talk shows have gotten their influence, and which deals with the so-called "coercion" factor that is allegedly linked to conservative radio. Linking this post to an argument that supposedly makes illegitimate any mention of potential liberal media bias is one of the more spectacular attempts at a non sequitur that I have seen in a long time.

SCORE ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS

Via Andrew Sullivan comes this splendid bit of news:

Prime Minister José María Aznar's conservative Popular Party regained control of the Madrid regional legislature in elections on Sunday, reversing a vote five months ago that had briefly given control to the leftist opposition.

The Madrid election has been widely considered a litmus test for national elections in March, in which the Socialist Party hopes to unseat the Popular Party after eight years of rule. The results on Sunday seemed to diminish that possibility.

The Popular Party candidate, Esperanza Aguirre, and her deputies received about 48 percent of the vote, more than the two major opposition parties, the Socialists and United Left, combined.

And as Andrew notes, all of this is happening while Gerhard Schröder's political standing collapses like a lead balloon.

There is justice in this world. You may have to look long and hard for it, but there is justice to be found.

JUST A HUNCH . . .

But maybe the fact that Britain now has to arm its police is yet another indication that its efforts at gun control do nothing to stop criminals from using guns, and violent crime from increasing. I'm sure the threat of terrorism has something significant to do with the arming of the police, but I highly doubt that it is the only significant influence, or even the most significant one.

TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SAID

Via Gabriel Syme, an excellent explanation for why terrorism is ultimately so self-defeating from Iranian parliamentarian and reformer Reza Yousefian:

It is unjustifiable to kill ordinary people in the name of an anti-American campaign. On the contrary, the more insecurity prevails in Iraq, the longer Americans will stay.

What can I say? The man is dead-on accurate.

FELICITATIONS ALL AROUND

A very happy birthday to Howard Bashman.

And thank God I'm only 31.

BUT . . . BUT . . . BUT . . .

I wasn't asked about which bloggers I thought were brilliant, sexy and Siren-like! Had I been asked, I surely would have said something!

Go blame Will Baude. He's the one who controlled the interview!

Harumph!

And incidentally, what was the "more than acceptable substitute"? I'm really curious now.

THE METRICS OF GENEROSITY

Tyler Cowen points out that contrary to popular belief, the United States is the most generous country in the world.

UPDATE: Dan Drezner believes that remittances are important to measure, but adds the following caveat:

Remittance flows are clearly important, but counting them as examples of American generosity strikes me as a bit off-kilter. Americans aren't remitting this money -- foreign nationals are. The U.S. deserves a measure of credit for permitting foreign workers into the country and sending money back -- indeed, I agree with Tyler Cowen that remittances are, "the most effective welfare programs ever devised." However, this policy is of a different kind than either public or private aid.

Dan's right, but I think that the key point that should be emphasized is that the remittances are possible in the first place because of the American policy towards foreign nationals. So while remittances may not be an example of "American generosity," they could very well be an example of the American facilitation of generosity.

ANOTHER DAY . . .

Another reason to encourage the reform of the Iranian political establishment:

Iran will refuse requests to extradite captured al Qaeda members to the United States, instead trying them under Iranian law, a top official has said.

Seyed Mohammad Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France, also said Tuesday there were "links between al Qaeda and the military elements of the Baath party," the party once run by deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

He described al Qaeda and the Taliban as "essentially the illegitimate children" of the United States.

U.S. officials blame recent attacks in Iraq on Baath party remnants, members of terrorist groups, and other insurgents.

The United States has called on Iran to send al Qaeda members within its borders to the United States, because of the terrorist attacks the group has launched against the U.S. and its interests overseas.

I don't think I really need to comment any further. You know my position on what to do with regards to Iran's intransigence, support for terrorism, and general brutality. The only question is when we are going to get genuinely serious about doing it.

(Also posted here.)

THE STATE OF THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT

According to this article, there is no reason whatsoever to take antiwar advocates seriously anymore--assuming that anyone ever did. Consider the following passage:

Allan Johnson, a high school English teacher and debate coach from Fairfax, Va., held a sign saying "U.S. Troops Out of Iraq. Bring Them Home Now!" at Saturday's "End the Occupation" rally in Washington. In fact, though, Johnson isn't sure he wants to bring the troops home now, or to end the American occupation of Iraq. At least, not yet.

"We've made a giant mess," said Johnson, a handsome man who wore his long snowy hair in a ponytail and had a sparkling stud in one ear. "I would hate for the Bush administration to halfway fix things and then leave, and then blame the Iraqis if things go wrong. Once you go to somebody's house and break all the windows, don't you owe them new windows?"

Why, then, was he marching at an End the Occupation rally? "I don't agree with all the people here, believe you me," he said. But his own sign? He glanced at it, startled, and explained that someone had handed it to him. "I didn't even look at it," he said. "I was just waving it."

"OK," you respond, "but surely some of the public officials opposed to the war and the postwar management are being responsible, right?"

Nope:

Meanwhile, the influence of the antiwar movement, which has done much to catapult Howard Dean to the front of the Democratic primary pack, continues to be felt in the party. On Oct. 17, 11 Democratic senators, including presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards, and a majority of House Democrats voted against an $87 billion spending package for Iraq and Afghanistan. Previously, Democrats tried to split the funding bill in order to provide for the troops while subjecting reconstruction money to further scrutiny and cuts.

Some who voted no objected to the lack of administration accountability. But much of the rhetoric coming from liberal Democrats suggested a strangely conservative resistance to the whole idea of aiding foreigners when Americans are in need.

"We cannot afford to give this president another blank check to spend on his Iraq adventure when so many people are suffering through a recession here at home and when our nation's critical infrastructure needs are being neglected," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., explaining why she voted no on Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Watson's viewpoint is one encouraged by antiwar groups. MoveOn.org, the online progressive fundraising powerhouse, has been running isolationist commercials against the $87 billion appropriation. Over shots of sad-looking Americans, a voice-over says, "We could have built 10,000 new schools, or hired almost 2 million new teachers. We could have rebuilt our electric grid. We could have insured more of our children. Instead, George Bush wants to spend that $87 billion in Iraq. If there's money for Iraq, why isn't there money for America?"

[. . .]

George Packer, editor of "The Fight is for Democracy," a collection of essays about America and its role in the world after Sept. 11, would like to see progressives put pressure on the administration to do more for the people of Iraq, rather than less. But Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says, "I see little evidence of any such liberal alternative that is serious and constructive for the people of Iraq, unfortunately." Liberals who care about the welfare of Iraqis, he says, must "start to distinguish between their dislike of Bush and their recognition that the mission must succeed. That would be a big start, and the crucial one."

"Hatred of Bush and the opportunism of Democratic politicians has created a tactical alliance between mainstream Democrats and the fringe," says Packer, who writes about his own six-week trip to Iraq in a forthcoming New Yorker article. "It's disappointing to see both presidential candidates and leading members of Congress really fail to see the importance of what's going on in Iraq right now. You can object to no bid contracts, you can object to cronyism and waste as I do, without undermining the basic understanding that we are committed to this and we have an enormous obligation to the Iraqis. I don't see why you have to choose between disliking Halliburton and supporting the Iraqis in their efforts to create a decent society."

Right now, though, there's no liberal message that separates the welfare of the Iraqi people from that of the Bush administration. In a New Republic article this week, Michael Crowley quotes Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., complaining that his colleagues' Iraq stances are driven by blind rage. "In trying to pin them down, I say, 'At the end of the day, we have to have a policy to cope with what to do now,'" he told Crowley. "And they say, 'Well, we're just pissed off.' They don't really even attempt to argue the policy of it."

Remember, these people are running for office iin 2004. Many of them want to remain in Congress and control the appropriations process that will determine whether we are successful in the postwar atmosphere in Iraq. Some of them even want to be President of the United States. And what is their policy? "Well, we're just pissed off."

As yourself whether that kind of thinking deserves your vote--or deserves any votes whatsoever, for that matter.

And while you're pondering that, ponder the constituency that drives this kind of irresponsible thinking on Iraq:

Because the rally was smaller that those preceding the war, there was a larger ratio of would-be communist revolutionaries, Zionist conspiracy mongers and skinny teenage anarchists with black bandannas covering their faces. Someone flew an Iraqi flag, the version Saddam instituted in 1991, which added the words "Allahu Akbar" to the three green stars at its center. At one point, a dapper, avuncular white-haired man in a nice camel coat sidled up to me and said in a thick European accent, "So, what are we going to do about the Zionists?"

"I don't know," I said. "What do you think?"

"I think we should oppose them. I think that Malaysian guy hit the nail on the head," he said, referring to Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who recently said that Jews rule the world by proxy.

Again, will these kinds of people determine who is in power? Or will you?

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny . . ."

--Isaac Asimov

OUR HERO IS INTERVIEWED

Here is the transcript of my "20 Questions" interview over at Crescat Sententia. Many thanks to Will Baude for a very enjoyable Q&A; session, and for his superb blog in general.

THE SPORTS RECAP

How did my sports teams do this weekend? Thusly:

1. The Bears win! We'll ignore the fact that they nearly blew a 24-0 lead--after all, a win is a win. The bitter taste after the victory is finding out that Our Girl in Chicago was rooting for Detroit. For shame.

2. Note to the Chicago Cubs: Given the fact that the Yankees failed to avenge you, perhaps you should take the task on your own shoulders, and take care of business the first chance you get.

3. The year for my adopted Division I football team has been an unmitigated disaster. The disaster continued on Saturday.

4. Ditto for my alma mater.

Overall, despite the Bears win, things didn't go all that well. So what do I have to cheer myself up with?

Well, the downfall of the Lakers would be a fairly good pick-me-up. Not to mention being downright hysterical.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Hypocrisy, thy name is Abbott.

"IRAN'S FIRST LADY"

Here's a very interesting interview with Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi. It's too good to excerpt, so be sure to read it all.

"POLITICAL TRADE BARRIERS"

Arnold Kling on the Angry Left:

One could have a debate over whether the Angry Right came before the Angry Left. Regardless, I am not calling for an uprising by an Angry Right today. Quite the contrary.

I think that it would be a mistake to react to the current anger of the left by writing them off or by getting angry in turn. We ought to try as best as we can to discern the ideas of the group-thinkers, even if it means that we have to sift carefully through their rhetorical rubble.

I think that the main consequence of political rage is to shut out other opinions. I would argue that barriers against ideas are to politics what barriers against trade are to economics. An import tariff on goods hurts both countries, but generally does the most damage to the country imposing the tariff. Similarly, when one side puts up barriers to listening to the other side's ideas, then both sides are damaged, with the side that refuses to listen suffering the worst.

Open systems win. The Angry Left, because it is closed-minded, is in no condition to govern. Barring a catastrophe at home or abroad, I doubt that it will be given the opportunity to do so.

DEFENDING JANICE ROGERS BROWN

Clint Bolick does the honors in an erudite and informed article, which should be mandatory reading in the United States Senate.

PITHY AND DEADLY ACCURATE

Chris Muir on the state of women's rights in Iran.

HER WISH IS OUR COMMAND

Quoth Katha Pollitt:

What's the matter with conservatives? Why can't they relax and be happy? They have the White House, both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships and more money than God. They rule talk-radio and the TV political chat shows, and they get plenty of space in the papers; for all the talk about the liberal media, nine out of the fourteen most widely syndicated columnists are conservatives. Even the National Endowment for the Arts, that direct-mail bonanza of yore, is headed by a Republican now. Never mind whether conservatives deserve to run the country and dominate the discourse; the fact is, for the moment, they do.

What I want to know is, Why can't they just admit it, throw a big party and dance on the table with lampshades on their heads? Why are they always claiming to be excluded and silenced because most English professors are Democrats? Why must they re-prosecute Alger Hiss whenever Susan Sarandon gives a speech or Al Franken goes after Bill O'Reilly? If I were a conservative, I would think of those liberal professors spending their lives grading papers on The Scarlet Letter and I would pour myself a martini. I would pay Susan Sarandon to say soulful and sincere things about peace, I would hire Al Franken and sneak him on O'Reilly's show as a practical joke. And if some Democratic dinosaur lifted his head out of the Congressional tarpits to orate about the missing WMDs, or unemployment, or the two and a half million people who lost their health insurance this year, I'd nod my head sagely and let him rant on. Poor fellow. Saddam Hussein was his best friend, after Stalin died. No wonder he's upset.

Well, if it is a celebration that Pollitt wants, it is a celebration she shall have.

Never let it be said that we are unresponsive to The Nation's concerns. Of course, I'm not entirely certain that it isn't too early to celebrate, but apparently Katha Pollitt is a party gal, and I just didn't want her to have to wait any longer for the next big right-wing shindig.

A MUST-MISS MOVIE

Any credibility that the upcoming Reagan movie had should be officially gone now:

During Iran-Contra Scandal --

INT. REAGANS'S BREAKFAST ROOM -- WHITE HOUSE -- MORNING

Reagan and Nancy sit in front of their breakfast. They can't eat. Can't drink. They're numb.

REAGAN: It's Armageddon... that's what it is. Armageddon. The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down. That's me. I am the anti-Christ.

NANCY: No, Ronnie...

REAGAN (overriding): And the Lord will strike down all of civilization, in order to make way for the new order... a new Heaven and a new Earth...

Nancy reaches out, grabs his hand, strongly.

NANCY: Hold on. You've got to hold on, Ronnie.

Reagan's eyes are filling with tears. He can't help it. He's crumbling.

I don't care what your politics are: Does anyone actually believe that this conversation--which would be utterly self-serving to the producers of this movie, whose politics are entirely different from those of Reagan's--really happened?

"GET RID OF THIS MICROBE"?

This is sick:

AN influential Lebanese politician and leader of its Druze community triggered US outrage today when he expressed regret US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was unhurt in a Baghdad rocket attack.

"We hope the firing will be more precise and efficient (next time), so we get rid of this microbe and people like him in Washington who are spreading disorder in Arab lands, Iraq and Palestine," Walid Jumblatt said in a statement.

Jumblatt, who is also the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party, called Wolfowitz a "friend of Ariel Sharon", the hardline Israeli prime minister, "and one of the main architects of ... the destruction of Iraq".

[. . .]

A government source said that Beirut did not intend to publicly condemn the remarks.

"It is not the habit of the Lebanese government to publicly condemn the words of a member of parliament who sits as the head of an important party and who also enjoys popular support," he said.

Especially not when the parliament is a rubber stamp for Syrian actions, eh?

NEW ADDITIONS TO THE GLORIOUS PEJMANESQUE EMPIRE

It's time to update the blogroll. The new admittees are:

1. Crescat Sententia. They are University of Chicago students, they have blogrolled me twice (go look--I'm not kidding), and they espouse all the right principles, and argue them with vigor. What's not to like?

2. The Curmudgeonly Clerk. Because I don't want him angry or curmudgeonly at me, and because he is a genuinely superb writer.

3. Arnold Kling. He should have been blogrolled long ago. I hope that he subscribes to the theory of "Better Late Than Never."

4. Marginal Revolution. Another great place to get all of your economics news.

And finally . . .

5. Jon Henke. Much power do I sense in this one.

Welcome citizens to the Empire. Please do your part to keep out the Visigoths.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

--Abraham Lincoln

NO, I'M NOT DEAD

Apologies for the low amount of posting, but a number of projects caused me to scale it back a bit today. You should see more tomorrow.

If it is of any consolation whatsoever, one of the things I was involved in was answering Will Baude's 20 Questions, which were directed my way. So you could consider that as deferred blogging on my part--the benefits of which you will partake when Will posts my answers. Alternatively, you can just blame Will for taking up my posting time, although I--and I'm sure he--would really prefer that you don't.

And yes Will, I really will blogroll you. Honest. I'm just a wee bit lazy right now, but don't think you haven't deserved it. And thanks for a very entertaining and interesting group of questions.

DEFENDING JUSTICE BROWN

David Bernstein fisks a New York Times editorial attacking Brown--one whose general premise appears to have been recycled from previous works attacking Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Wood, William Pryor, and other conservative judicial nominees. Be sure to give it a read.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

It's Iain Murray versus John McCain on the issue of military modernization. My vote is with Murray.

UPDATE: I promise you all, I got the link URL right, but for some reason, the page isn't loading. It didn't even load when I clicked on it from Iain's page.

THE ATTACKS IN BAGHDAD

As I've mentioned before on this blog, I hate talking about terrorist acts because it's always a challenge for me to express my disgust in a way that shows just how truly appalled I am by terrorism. The one thing I would state with regards to this act is that it does not reflect the views of most Iraqis--who are pleased to be freed from the rule of Saddam Hussein. It does reflect, however, the continued fear of a certain few that their days of glory are gone and destroyed if the rebuilding process in Iraq succeeds. Thus their actions. If we want to defeat this kind of terrorism, we have to continue in Iraq undaunted.

I know this sounds familiar, but it cannot be overemphasized what precipitous wiithdrawals from Beirut and Somalia, and what the memory of Desert One did for the American reputation--not to mention the abandonment of the Kurds and Shi'ites in 1991 after the first Gulf War. My father regularly tells the residents at the hospital where he works and teaches that while one gains credibility in inches, one loses credibility in miles. Botched military operations and withdrawals from fights caused America to lose credibility in miles--credibility it is only now beginning to win back. We've made some significant strides in that regard, but we're not near the point where people who wish us ill will fully understand that when we come to fight them, we'll bring the A game, and we'll keep doing the job until it is finished. Terrorist attacks on Americans are despicable. Even more despicable would be surrendering to those attacks by cutting short--in any way--our rebuilding efforts in Iraq, and our war on terrorism elsewhere.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

--John Stuart Mill

BOOK REVIEW--HONOR UNTARNISHED

In between reading City of God and War and Peace, I took a slight detour to read Honor Untarnished by retired four-star general Donald V. Bennett, a graduate of West Point, a veteran of World War II, and the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. In his book, Bennett tells his story of World War II.

If you are looking for a book that is well-written, Bennett's book is not for you. There are a number of spelling errors in the book, as well as phrases repeated once too often (Bennett would have done well to employ a thesaurus). The manner in which the story was somewhat repetitive, and could have been managed better.

But it didn't matter.

It didn't matter, because Bennett's story was so compelling. He traced the evolution of the U.S. Army from a state of complete unpreparedness, to the finest fighting machine the world had ever seen, and the basis of a superpower's strength. He laid out his own evolution as a soldier, his climb up the leadership ladder, the bond that was created between him, and his comrades at arms, and the cause he fought for. He discussed the disaster at Kasserine Pass, the recovery of the American army and the demonstration of its valor in the battles of Sicily, as well as his own involvement in Normandy. Along the way, Bennett talked about his personal interactions with men like Omar Bradley and George S. Patton, his approval of Patton's actions and methods of leadership, and his belief that the U.S. betrayed the very people it was trying to save through the agreement at Yalta.

Above all, Bennett wrote movingly about what motivated him throughout the war--his desire to keep the men under his command safe, his wife waiting at home, and the sense of honor that was instilled in him by the Cadet's Prayer, which Bennett learned in West Point, and which he recited to keep up his inner strength.

This is a meat-and-potatoes story, one that is told in a plainspoken manner. Honor Untarnished could have been subtitled "A Tale Unvarnished." For a more eloquent book about World War II, one would do better to check out the works of Stephen Ambrose, or Tom Brokaw's writings about "the greatest generation."

But Bennett's story--despite its unvarnished nature--is eloquent and moving in its own way, and gives a fascinating insight into the life that was lived by a soldier in the thick of World War II. It's the kind of story you would hear from your grandfather, or from the old man at the bar who looks a little lonely until he is asked if he has a story to tell--or until he volunteers to tell the story himself.

And maybe that kind of story carries a value that Brokaw and Ambrose couldn't convey. In fact, I'm betting it does.

A.N.S.W.E.R.'S NEW SLOGAN

"Kim Jong Il Needs Comrades!"

MY GIFT TO YOU

With all the turmoil, trouble, and tension in the world today, it is important that we retain our ability to laugh and be mirthful.

In that spirit, I give you this. To paraphrase Gregg Easterbrook: Warning--may contain chuckle-inducing items.

(Link via Stuart Buck.)

WE AIM TO PLEASE

Amy Lamboley is a gentlelady and a charmer--not to mention a potential latter-day Beatrice.

AND AS IF ON CUE . . .

We have this righteous and justified denunciation of the United Nation's maddening policy of overregulation when it comes to gene-splicing and genetic modification:

Secretary-General Annan has proven once again (as though we needed further evidence) that talk is cheap. During the past decade, delegates to the UN-sponsored Convention on Biological Diversity negotiated a "biosafety protocol" to regulate the international movement of gene-spliced organisms. It is based on the bogus "precautionary principle" which dictates that every new technology -- including, in the case of, an improvement over less precise technologies -- must be proven utterly safe before it can be used.

An ounce of prevention is certainly desirable, but because nothing can be proved totally safe -- at least, not to the standard demanded by many activists and regulators -- the precautionary principle has become a self-defeating impediment to the development of new products. Precautionary regulation shifts the burden of proof from the regulator, who previously had to demonstrate that a new technology was likely to cause some harm, to the innovator, who now must demonstrate that the technology will not cause harm under any circumstances.

This shift is ominous, because it frees regulatory bodies to require any amount and kind of testing that they wish. Rather than creating a uniform, predictable, and scientifically sound framework for effectively managing legitimate risks, the biosafety protocol establishes an ill-defined global regulatory process that encourages overly risk-averse, incompetent, or corrupt regulators to hide behind the precautionary principle in delaying or deferring approvals.

Examples include a five-year-long moratorium on approvals of gene-spliced plants throughout Europe, and the rejection of badly needed food aid by several African countries -- only because it contains the same superior gene-spliced varieties of grain consumed routinely in North America.

What did I say about looking a gift horse in the mouth?

THE NASTY STING OF INGRATITUDE

For the life of me, I can't understand the aversion some people have to genetically modified foods. We eat them all the time, there have been no studies that show any conclusive link between the consumption of GM foods and an increase in the incidence of serious illnesses, the presence and development of GM foods could serve as a veritable godsend in areas afflicted by famine, and they can be modified to aggressively fight all sorts of diseases--whether those diseases are local to a particular region, or whether they are found throughout the world. And yet, an appreciable segment of the world's population continually looks a gift horse in the mouth, and protests against the use and spread of GM foods.

This article explores both the promise of GM foods, and the bizarre rejectionist reaction to it found in so many parts of the world. And here is the key explanation for that element of rejectionism:

Consumption of inferior products has become a growth industry in affluent societies particularly in the area of food and health where the fetish of ‘inferior is better, safer and healthier’ has deep ideological roots. Terms like "organic," "biodynamic," "all natural," "alternative therapies," "herbal" and "holistic" have lost any meaning that they may once have had and are to be understood as endowing a commodity with immeasurable, not fully definable vital properties. The quintessential inferior vitalist product is the homeopathic remedy whose mystic vitalist potency is derived from having virtually every last molecule of the "medication" diluted away.

Here is one example of how the rejectionism manifests itself:

Much of the opposition to transgenic food crops is that they are allowing and will increasingly allow farmers to produce food crops with reduced pesticides or even no pesticides and use agronomic methods such as sustainable conservation tillage which prevent soil erosion, conserve water and preserve biodiversity in ways that "organic" agriculture cannot. When honestly and properly understood, pesticide-free transgenic food crops (crops using lower amounts of less environmentally toxic pesticides than the "all natural" pesticides of "organic" farmers) undercut the benefits of "organic" food consumption. This means that conventional farmers could mass-produce food that more than matches the alleged health and environmental benefits of "organic" food at a lower cost and price. Why then, would anyone buy "organic" food let alone pay a premium for it? Further, the transgenic food crops have vastly lower levels of fungal or other infestation, and as recent pro-organic studies show, they produce far fewer toxins. Even the most optimistic supporters of pest resistant Bt corn and cotton fully expected that in time some insects would develop resistance to their bioengineered insecticide (the Bt gene expresses a protein fully digestible by humans but lethal to target insects), yet six years have passed and "target insect pests have developed little or no resistance to Bt crops thus far, according to US Department of Agriculture-funded scientists." Ironically, the diamondback moth "evolved resistance to Bt sprays used by organic growers, but no pest has evolved resistance to transgenic Bt crops in the field" (Fox 2003, see also DeGregori 2003). The irony is of course that it is the organic growers who have vociferously complained that the transgenic Bt varieties would lead to the emergence of super bugs resistant to their Bt spray.

More than 500 species of insect have evolved resistance to one or more conventional insecticides. So far, the track record for Bt is better. In the field, only one pest, the diamondback moth, has evolved resistance to Bt sprays, and none has evolved resistance to Bt crops. Despite this success, the incredible adaptive ability of insects means that resistance remains a threat (Fox 2003).

Transgenic food crops using rDNA are the most predictable and therefore the safest form of plant breeding humans have ever devised. And almost everywhere in the world they are regulated, as they are the only food crops where we know what to test for. The potential for enhanced nutrition or even using the plant to express a protein that has pharmaceutical capabilities at an incredibly low price is enormous. But in the perverse logic of inferior-is-better, because "organic" foods are inferior to those resulting from transgenic food crop production, they are really superior.

And here is the end result of the "inferior-is-superior" mindset--a needless fight to prove the obvious:

The inferior-is-superior food fetish is harmless as long as it is the exercise of personal consumption practices of those who can afford it. But it has taken a nasty turn, as these ideas are now lined up in opposition to the use of the latest and best in modern science and technology to contribute to meeting the needs of a growing world population for improved nutrition provided in an environmentally sustainable way. When these ideas galvanize street protests, the burning of crops in the field and buildings, the destruction of research in improved crop production, and other actions that make advances in agriculture more difficult, then these ideas have become dangerous and must be countered vigorously and continuously with better ideas. Freedom of speech and freedom for research must protect the minority but also the majority that may wish to carry forward the enterprise of science/technology and promote the benefits that they allow. This means that the laws protecting crops in the field, research, and researchers must be enforced. Modern agricultural science has given us much and our task is both to defend it and to find ways to allow access to those who have not fully realized these benefits.

Do yourself a favor, and read the whole thing.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG . . .

But doesn't this represent progress in Iraq?

The overnight curfew that has been in effect in Baghdad for the past six months will be lifted on Sunday, in time for the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, authorities announced.

"Coalition authorities have informed the Baghdad City Council that the curfew in Baghdad will be lifted beginning 4am on October 26," council chairman Adnan Abdul Sahib Hassan said.

"Despite some highly publicised attacks by terrorists and supporters of the former regime, the overall security situation in Baghdad has improved," he said.

Yes, I know that the country is not 100% secure (and of course, no country is). Yes, I know that more needs to be done to curb terrorist attacks. But this and other stories indicate what is becoming clearer and clearer--that the situation in Iraq is rapidly improving. While there remains much to be done, we shouldn't forget the fact that much has already been accomplished.

I propose that we acknowledge and--in our own way--celebrate those accomplishments as Americans who want to see the operation in Iraq succeed, whatever misgivings some may have about it. Not as Republicans, or as Democrats, but as Americans. Let's do this at least for a little while before the partisan divisions run rampant again--as they inevitably will.

Who knows? We might make a habit out of national unity and overcoming factionalism for factionalism's sake. Stranger things have happened.

OH, THE FUN THAT COULD BE HAD WITH THIS

"Discourse with the people? We don't need no stinkin' discourse with the people!"

Their nearly weekly debates have been the biggest events of the season for the Democratic presidential candidates. They build their travel schedules around the televised encounters. Their aides devote hours to coming up with catchy retorts. And the forums draw more press coverage than anything else the candidates do.

Even so, many of the top candidates and their aides are at their wits' end over the televised jousts. Some openly contend that the events are simply a waste of time.

"I think the crowded field allows the most shrill, conflict-oriented, confrontational voices to be heard," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said Thursday in Iowa, "and not necessarily the person who might make the best candidate or the best president."

"They're very superficial," he added.

Politicians discover that their canned soundbites are superficial! Film at 11:00!

The heart of the problem, officials at many of the campaigns say, is that a debate of nine people hobbles candidates from standing out above the amusing wisecracks of stragglers in the polls like, say, the Rev. Al Sharpton. They have so little time that the only way they can win notice is to level a direct, nasty attack — and even that does not always work.

You know it's gotten pathetic when leading Democratic presidential candidates are upset about the stage-stealing prowess of Al Sharpton. Yes, I know that the good Reverend is the most oratorically gifted of the bunch, but Al Sharpton is never going to be President. Why worry about him? Is this the presidential nominating process, or the National Forensic League?

My snarkiness notwithstanding, I have to be fair and admit that the complaining candidates do have a point. The debates are inane, and it is impossible to imagine a situation where any of these highly prepped candidates are tricked into displaying even a semblance of spontaneity--unless, of course, we run into yet another precious situation akin to Howard Dean's . . . um . . . implausible claim that he really digs the music of Wyclef Jean. Still, one doesn't just dismiss the debates out of hand, because it becomes very easy to accuse candidates who deride debating as being afraid to face the voters and offer up answers to questions. And as the debates--whether they are Lincoln-Douglas quality or not--offer the Democrats the best chance to make themselves known, and to beat up on the Bush Administration, I think that the intellectual deficiencies of the debate format still won't merit the tactical sacrifice of giving up the debates.

SCANDAL OF THE DAY

Robert Tagorda is a pervert. "Boomshock" must be his porn star name.

I'm shocked. Shocked and outraged. And dismayed--I'm totally dismayed.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Everything comes to him who hustles while he waits.

--Thomas Edison

CORRELATION DOESN'T CONSTITUTE CAUSATION . . .

But assuming that other factors are controlled and accounted for, the study commented on here is one of the most devastating indictments of high marginal tax rates that I have seen in a long time.

A FOND FAREWELL

Like Johnathan Pearce, I'm saddened by the demise of the Concorde--which I was hoping to fly on one day. I understand the economics behind it, but not having the opportunity to revel in the Concorde's full glory is something I regret.

Cheery fellow that he is, Pearce ends his post with some optimism--which we can all sign on to. My response is a heartfelt "Amen."

BASHMAN ON HENTOFF ON PICKERING

The title of the post pretty much says it all. Click here and follow the links.

AND SPEAKING OF THE AMERICAN PROSPECT . . .

Let's have a look at this post on Tapped by Matthew Yglesias, who starts out with the following:

Ordinarily, I'm a Paul Krugman fan, but I think he got off track as he tried to hold Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush responsible for the rise of anti-Semitism in the world.

Well, that's reassuring--although we could have done with stronger language than stating that Krugman merely went "off track." But--and you just knew there would be a "but" involved in this--we must consider the following, according to Matt:

That said, his point that Mahathir Mohamad is a pretty canny politician who wouldn't have said what he said unless there was a domestic audience for those kinds of sentiments still holds and is worth thinking about a bit. Reading Mahathir's remarks and denouncing them feels good and is probably necessary and worthwhile as well, but moral clarity will only get us so far.

First of all, as Dan Drezner pointed out (and I linked to) the argument that Mahathir's comments could be explained in part by the argument that he was merely playing to a domestic audience is absurd. Mahathir will soon leave the premiership--which means that he has little, if any incentive to campaign and demagogue issues for political gain anymore. Additionally, his comments were not made to a domestic audience, but rather to an international conference. I'll throw in a third point as well: Why should we accept some sort of predetermined marker for "moral clarity"? Mahathir made hateful comments about Jews that were cheered by other Islamic "statesmen" and are approved of by the constituents of those "statesmen." Shouldn't we be resolving ourselves to fight such hateful sentiments, instead of merely issuing dismissive statements about the supposed limits of "moral clarity"? I know I'm funny this way, but I think that hate can kill. It certainly has killed in the many terrorist attacks that have been carried out against Israelis (the Jews whom Mahathir attacked) and Americans (who either control the Israelis, or are controlled by them--depending on which latter-day Goebbelsian propagandist one believes). Whaddaya all say we denounce in the strongest terms possible such hate, make it as unacceptable as our power permits, and perhaps--just perhaps--change a few minds in the process? Matt calls for just that, but dismisses the "moral clarity" that is indispensable in the process.

And finally, we have this:

Firing Jerry Boykin would at least prevent us from heading in the wrong direction, but it isn't a solution.

I have little use for Boykin's "My God is bigger than your god" rhetoric, and it's no skin off my nose if he goes. But riddle me this: If we are to adopt a general policy (one that I have no problem with in principle) of trying to refrain from antagonizing the Muslim world with stupid and insensitive cultural statements, shouldn't we demand reciprocity from the Muslim world in the process? In short, if "moral clarity" can be used by us to police and repudiate ignorant and antagonistic statements made by members of our own society, why can't it be used to police and repudiate ignorant and antagonistic statements made by Muslim society?

UPDATE: Just out of curiosity, can we use a little moral clarity with regards to this? Remember, the Swedes don't have Boykin to kick around.

THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

The American Prospect does not quite appear to know how to stand regarding the candidacy of Wesley Clark. Here's Jason Vest on Clark's campaign:

In the context of the democratic primary, retired Gen. Wesley Clark's campaign seems less like Sherman's quick and decisive March to the Sea and more like Grant's shaky, protracted offensive against Vicksburg. Initially some were heralding the general's candidacy as the beginning of the end for an already-peaked former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) and an underwhelming Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). But Clark has proven less than prepared, leaving the media -- not Clark -- to define the candidate. He seems increasingly disingenuous, if not outright schizoid: a Democratic contender who had not been a registered as a Democrat; a self-proclaimed outsider with that quintessential token of insiderdom, a Washington lobbying contract; an acerbic critic of the Bush administration who, just over two years ago, lauded the architects of the new Pax Americana at, of all places, a Republican fund raiser; and a self-styled reformer who apparently violated campaign-finance laws by taking money for speeches (he has since returned the money).

Not exactly a cheery description if you are a Clark fan. But not to worry. Vest assures us that if Clark gets his act together, he could be a formidable candidate in that he might steal Republican voters from George W. Bush in the general election.

One is tempted to respond by saying that the same argument could theoretically be made about Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley-Braun (yes, I know that it's outside the realm of probability, but in principle, it is possible that they might steal Republican voters as well in the general election). One is also tempted to point out that one of the reasons Clark may win Republican votes is because he has agreed so much with Republicans in the past, and has failed to take some of the perfunctory steps necessary to prove that he really is a Democrat.

But forget that. Instead, let's go to Harold Meyerson's analysis of the Clark campaign:

But if there's one thing a candidate for president can't do, it's issue-hop -- especially when that candidate is a political newcomer whose public identity is still jelling. Much of Clark's considerable appeal, after all, derives from the sense he conveys that his commitment to democratic values is deeper and tougher than the president's. "Democracy demands dialogue," he said in a talk last week at Hunter College. "It demands discussion and disagreement and dissent. And there is nothing -- nothing -- more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable, whether in a time of peace or a time of war."

You can't hold a leader accountable, though, if he ducks the tough questions. Clark did amend his non-position after a couple of days, saying that "Congress should send the president's request back to the drawing board." But the entire episode only dramatized the gap that's developed between the articulate, center-left multilateralist and the stammering, back-tracking self-reinventor.

I think that Meyerson is closer to the mark in his analysis, although he wastes valuable column space blaming Clark's advisors for not being James Carville and/or Paul Begala. In the end, Clark--and no one else--is responsible for bringing ideas to his campaign, and for projecting himself as a candidate of ideas. Should he fail to do so, he'll fail to carry out Vest's mysterious plan/wish to get his campaign off the ground--and thus won't win either Republicans or Democrats to his side.

WELL, THANK GOD FOR THAT

Postmodernism is dead--or so one hopes:

Indeed, it is hard to give an overview of the major postmodernist tenets without seeming to fall into parody. All knowledge, scientific knowledge included, is held to be socially constructed through and through. Science is therefore merely one story among others. The world we know is one that is constructed by human discourses, giving us not so much truths as ‘truth-effects’ which may or may not be pragmatically useful. From this point of view, epistemologically speaking, a scientific text is understood as being on a par with a literary text. Further, given that for Derrida language is a self-referential system, all communication is reduced to the model of an avant-garde poem in which all meaning is indefinitely deferred.

[. . .]

Critical realism, then, rescues us from the postmodernist nightmare and restores us to reality. We cannot manage without a concept of truth. There is (as most of us thought all along) a pre-existing external reality about which it is the job of science to tell us. True, we must be cautious about claims to objective reality, alert to ideological distortions, and aware that the world is a messier, more complicated place than the accounts of physicists would suggest. This does not mean that such claims cannot plausibly be made. A central plank of critical realism is that science can no longer be considered as just another myth or story.

DON'T WORRY, WILL

A lot of other people--myself included--are just as angry as you are.

STRANGE JUSTICE

This is how law and order is maintained by the Palestinian Authority:

Masked Palestinian gunmen killed two Palestinian men suspected of collaborating with Israel on Thursday before displaying their bodies in the central square of the Tulkarem refugee camp, witnesses and Palestinian security officials said.

The two men were abducted two weeks ago with six other men in a kidnapping planned by two militant groups, the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade and Islamic Jihad. The men were suspected of giving away the hideout of a wanted Al Aqsa militant, Palestinian security sources said.

Al Aqsa is loosely affiliated with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction. Islamic Jihad, which receives funding from Iran, often cooperates with Al Aqsa in the northern West Bank.

A source in Al Aqsa said the men had been kidnapped and interrogated by Islamic Jihad, but that the two groups had carried out the killings together "to share the honor."

The two men reportedly confessed to betraying Sirhan Sirhan, a militant shot dead by Israeli troops in Tulkarem on Oct. 4 after a yearlong manhunt. One of the men, who had been an Islamic Jihad member, also confessed to betraying two comrades who were killed by Israeli troops.

Sirhan - who is not related to the Robert Kennedy assassin of the same name - was wanted by Israel for killing five people on an Israeli communal farm, including a mother and her two small children.

Turning in a cold-blooded murderer is "collaboration" apparently. I just love seeing how language gets abused.

UPDATE: Charmingly, we also have this:

Fatah's Aksa Martyrs Brigades distributed leaflets in Jerusalem on Wednesday threatening to execute Palestinians who sell their property to Jews or act as intermediaries in such deals.

"The Aksa Martyrs Brigades warn those thieves and traitors who are selling [Arab-owned] lands through Israeli real estate agents," said the leaflets, some of which were distributed on the Temple Mount.

They accused a group of Palestinians of trying to sell land to Jewish families near the Shimon Hatzadik Tomb in Sheikh Jarrah. Two of the Palestinians named in the fliers are lawyers accused of serving as middlemen in land deals with Jews.

Six Jewish families have moved into Sheikh Jarrah in recent years, prompting Palestinian activists to renew their call for imposing the death penalty on Palestinians involved in the transactions.

"The Aksa Martyrs Brigades has decided to execute the traitors in public," the leaflets stated.

The PA mufti of Jerusalem has in recent years issued repeated threats to Palestinians involved in land deals with Jews.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

There is only one way to defeat the enemy, and that is to write as well as one can. The best argument is an undeniably good book.

--Saul Bellow

MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP

More on the occupation of Iraq--and the historical context to be considered.

CONFIRMATION PROCESS INANITIES

Stuart Buck has all the sorry details.

THE SOCRATIC METHOD

I didn't have the problems with the Socratic Method in law school that the Curmudgeonly Clerk has. In the hands of a good professor--dedicated to teaching students instead of humiliating them, the method can be quite effective and successful. If the professor is a "jerk" . . . well . . . the results can be somewhat different.

After I graduated from law school, I heard a story about a new property professor who used the Socratic method on a 1st year student, asking the student to summarize a case. When the student reached a word in Latin denoting a legalism, the professor asked the student what the word meant. After some hemming and hawing, the student confessed that she did not know. Without missing a beat, the professor handed her a copy of the definition out of Black's Law Dictionary, saying "Well, if you had looked it up, you would have found this."

The professor then asked the student what one particular word in the definition meant. The student admitted she didn't know. Again, the professor handed her a copy of the second word's definition, and said "maybe if you looked that up, you would have found this."

All of this was done in a friendly manner. And yet, the pedagogy made it clear to the students that this wasn't college anymore. From what I hear, the students came in much better prepared afterwards--without hard feelings for a well-demonstrated lesson in the demands of law school.

A LEGAL PRIMER

Here is the proper response to Jonathan Chait's charge that Republicans set "a perjury trap" for Bill Clinton:

You know, Mr. Chait, the beauty of a "perjury trap" is that is only catches perjurors. All Clinton had to do was tell the truth instead of daring the Republicans to prove him wrong. As it was, he proved that not only was he a liar, but one with really poor judgment too.

Well, duh.

"VERY DISTURBING" INDEED

Eugene Volokh catches People for the American Way misrepresenting the law, and the decision of Justice Janice Rogers Brown in a case touching on free speech. As Eugene notes, PFAW is effectively arguing for free speech to be lessened.

I don't like racist commentary anymore than anyone else, but the fact is that some forms of such commentary are protected by the First Amendment. At times, that makes me very uncomfortable, as it makes others uncomfortable as well. But there is a difference between disliking the scope to which free speech can reach, and trying to restrict it in a manner that itself potentially brings about a constitutional violation.

THE LEGACY OF "OLD EUROPE"

It looks like the U.S. is not the only country upset with France and Germany:

A top Iraqi official attending an international conference on raising funds to rebuild Iraq warned Thursday that France and Germany's limited donations would not be forgotten.

Ayad Allawi, the current head of Iraq's U.S.-appointed governing council, said he hoped German and French officials would reconsider their decision not to boost their contributions beyond funds already pledged through the European Union.

"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

Movements born in hatred very quickly take on the characteristics of the thing they oppose.

--J.S. Habgood

Hatred - The anger of the weak.

--Alphonse Daulet

Hatred of enemies is easier and more intense than love of friends. But from men who are more anxious to injure opponents than to benefit the world at large no great good is to be expected.

--Bertrand Russell

INSTAHATRED

Someday, someone will have to explain to me the reasons behind all of the mass hatred on the part of left-wing bloggers for Glenn Reynolds (this snippy little post being the latest manifestation of said hatred)--a blogger who quite frankly should be the last person to be attacked as he is; as some sort of right-wing shill. I mean, after all, Glenn is a self-described former "yellow dog Democrat" who cut his political teeth working for Al Gore--among other things. If anyone should go after Glenn, it should be right-leaning conservative/libertarians like me. (Hmm . . .)

I suppose that part of the hatred may have to do with the fact that Glenn simply outdistances the competition in terms of traffic, but if that is the case, it sounds like an exceedingly silly reason for people like Atrios, Hesiod Theogeny [sic], and others to constantly obsess on their blogs about how monumentally evil Glenn supposedly is. I suppose that all of the attention may have the practical effect of letting left-of-center bloggers counter memes from the Right that they aren't too fond of, but that wouldn't really explain the nasty tone, now would it?

Then again, we do see a great deal of nastiness from the Left nowadays, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

In any event, one of the more hilarious side effects of InstaHatred is seeing what happens in the comments sections of blog posts that attack Glenn. A whole host of people come out of the woodwork and start claiming that while they once read Glenn religiously, they just don't do it anymore because it's "such a waste of time." Methinks the commenters doth protest too much, but it does remind one of what a twelve-step program for former InstaPundit readers must look like:

Commenter: My name is John, and I'm an InstaHolic.

Commenter #2: I couldn't stand it anymore. All of those stories regarding the crushing of dissent not authorized by John Ashcroft--even though he advertised it as being because of John Ashcroft, the examples of French unilateralism screwing up my black-and-white worldview of international relations. The echoing of "Heh!" and "Indeed" in my head . . .

You get the point. Of course, these confessionals could also take the tone of what one found in labor camps at the height of the Cultural Revolution, and not detract one iota from their comedic value.

I can't tell people how to run their blogs, but here's some non-mandatory advice: If you don't like InstaPundit, then don't read him. And don't waste our time telling us over and over how much you hate and despise the guy. We know. We processed the information. We got the gist of your commentary long ago. Thanks. I mean, I know that bloggers have runnning debates, and I'm not trying to put the kibosh on that sort of thing because oftentimes, such debates can be illuminating, but there is a difference between a running reasoned debate on one hand, and manic obsession on the other.

So for the obsessed among us, let's move on to more interesting discussions, shall we?

Unless, of course, you have nothing more interesting to tell us. Which would explain a great deal, by the way.

SO THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO?

Tyler Cowen has an informative post on the terrible state of the Canadian single-payer health care system. Maybe it's just me, but I have trouble understanding why some people actually think the Canadian model is a desirable one for the U.S. to adopt.

THE THINGS PEOPLE DO

This story is both sad and hilarious.

THE RUMSFELD MEMO

I'm just shocked and amazed at the release of the Defense Secretary's memo, which demonstrates definitively that the war on terror is an ongoing disaster. After all, Rumsfeld cops to the chaos that is inherent in the effort. It's a startling indictment of our current national security strategy.

For one thing we have the following passage:

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

Stunning. Rumsfeld is focused on transformation of a huge bureaucracy and the most complicated warfighting machine in human history, and he points out that the changes cannot come fast enough. Boy, now that's a jaw-dropper, isn't it?

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

So in other words, some things are going well, while other things could be going better? The horror!

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get?"

Good grief! Rumsfeld is asking tough questions, and is inviting answers that subordinates may be uncomfortable in giving to their bosses in other circumstances! What a scandal.

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

You mean the win won't be quick and easy? Impeach Bush!

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Oh God, more questions. We just can't have that from a leader, can't we?

Well, all sarcasm aside, I'm quite reassured by the fact that the Defense Secretary is inviting people to come to him with what may be uncomfortable truths about the war on terrorism. I can't imagine a better way for the U.S. to improve its warfighting skills regarding this matter. And as for those who take the memo to say something truly derogatory about the Administration's efforts, well, it says more about their understanding of proper management styles than it does about Rumsfeld's.

UPDATE: Quoth Virginia Postrel:

Probing questions are exactly what DoD needs, no matter how unpolitic they may be. The Pentagon is set up to fight not just traditional armed forces but traditional armed forces in countries with centrally planned economies and innovation-suppressing totalitalitarian governments--adversaries who make the Pentagon look nimble by comparison. But the future security of Americans depends on responding to nimble enemies with flexible tactics. Rumsfeld is asking the right questions. And, while there will certainly be a p.r. flap over the leak, it's better to have them out in public.

You would think that this is just stating the obvious. But apparently, some people actually have to be reminded that asking tough questions is a good thing, and isn't necessarily equivalent to an admission of bad news.

"YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!"

David Bernstein provides a public service by revealing the extent to which workplaces have become Orwellian environments. Hopefully, his unmasking of the ridiculous effect of the hostile environment law on freedom of expression will force a fundamental re-examination of those laws.

UPDATE: Speaking of Bernstein, the man's on fire.

YOU DON'T SAY

It certainly took long enough to admit to the obvious:

The tarnish is thickening on the New York Times’s most controversial Pulitzer Prize.

A report commissioned by the Times said the work of 1932 Pulitzer Prize-winner Walter Duranty had a “serious lack of balance,” was “distorted,” and was “a disservice to American readers of the New York Times…and the peoples of the Russian and Soviet empires.”

According to the writer of the report, a Columbia University history professor, Mark von Hagen, a committee of Times senior staff that included publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. read it and then forwarded it to the Pulitzer board, along with a recommendation from Mr. Sulzberger.

The nature of that recommendation is unknown.

Duranty’s award is under review by a subcommittee of the Pulitzer board, as reported by The New York Sun in June.

The study, commissioned less than a month after the resignation of the executive editor, Howell Raines, over the Jayson Blair plagiarism and fraud scandal, marks a change in position at the Times.

In June, the paper issued a prepared statement that said,“The Times has not seen merit in trying to undo history.”

A Times spokeswoman said she had no comment on the apparently new policy. The administrator of the Pulitzer board, Sigvard Gissler, would not comment, saying,“This is an internal matter.”

In an interview with the Sun, Mr. von Hagen said, “I was really kind of disappointed having to read that stuff, and know that the New York Times would publish this guy for so long.”

I don't imagine Mr. von Hagen was alone in his sentiments.

MORE ON PAUL KRUGMAN AND MAHATHIR MOHAMMAD

I don't think that Paul Krugman is an anti-Semite, and were a President of Krugman's choosing in office, with all other things being equal, I don't think that Krugman would have had any problem whatsoever criticizing Mahathir Mohammad's recent and despicable statements about Jews.

That being said, I think that this press release describes Krugman's problem perfectly. Krugman allowed his hyperpartisan nature to blind him, and to cause him to try to explain away Mahathir's comments by blaming the sentiments behind them on the Bush Administration. Krugman's comments were ignorant in the extreme, and betrayed just how much Krugman has sacrificed his better judgment to the desperate cause of making political points against an Administration he despises.

UPDATE: Dan Drezner shows why Krugman's appraisal is so wrongheaded on a geopolitical level.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Have patience with all things, but chiefly have patience with yourself. Do not lose courage in considering you own imperfections but instantly set about remedying them - every day begin the task anew.

--St. Francis de Sales

ALL THE COOL KIDS ARE DOING IT . . .

Given the fact that Glenn Reynolds is mentioning the tip jar, I figured I would too--along with the ads on the left, which you can click through. And yes, Pejmanesque is a labor of love, and no, I won't stop blogging if I don't receive donations. But hey, at the risk of sounding egotistical, if Atrios can raise $3400 in an afternoon, what is holding me back? (Other than selling my soul to Satan, that is.)

One question: If Glenn mentions his tip jar at Virginia Postrel's suggestion, who prompts Virginia to mention hers?

DEAR LORD . . .

Greg Hlatky depresses me to no end.

ANOTHER DOUBLE STANDARD

Eugene Volokh's criticism of the cartoon reproduced at this post is quite genteel. I'm tempted to write a critique that wouldn't exactly be fitting for a family blog, but I'll restrain myself to noting that once again, it appears to be perfectly all right to be racist when the subject of one's racism is an African-American conservative--something I find appalling and despicable in the extreme.

THE STATE OF HIGH-CULTURE JOURNALISM

I really don't know whether to be happy or depressed about the conclusion in this post. On the one hand, I can see the Web making high-culture journalism accessible to more people than would be exposed to it absent the Internet. On the other hand, I'm sufficiently nostalgic to be saddened when an On-Dead-Tree production closes down. Maybe it's the old-fashioned curmudgeon in me, but in any event, I find the new state of affairs more than a little disconcerting.

"PROGRESS EXCEEDS PROGNOSTICATION IN IRAQ"

Via reader Barry Kaplovitz, I came across this very informative column on the state of affairs in Iraq:

Not only was the war itself vastly less bloody and difficult than some predicted, but its aftermath has also been quieter. We were told by prewar prognosticators to expect a refugee flood, a food crisis, destruction of the oil fields, and public-health disasters. We were warned that Iraq's multifarious ethnic and religious groups would be at one another's throats. Environmental catastrophes, chemical poisonings, and dam breaks were predicted. It was said Turkey might occupy the north, that Israel could strike from the south, that the Arab "street" was likely to resist.

None of these things happened. Nor have other predicted troubles materialized. When 300,000 mourners gathered for the funeral of assassinated Shiite spiritual leader Bakr al Hakim, they didn't rampage, or call for vengeance against Sunnis, or lash out against the US authorities. They and their leaders showed the political maturity to let the official investigation into the leader's murder proceed.

Whatever the setbacks, we must remember that much of this war has been a case of the dog that didn't bark.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT

This report is more than slightly interesting:

Iran today agreed to suspend its disputed uranium enrichment programme and sign an agreement allowing tougher UN inspections of its nuclear sites.

The Reuters news agency reported that an Iranian official and a European diplomat had both told it that uranium enrichment would be suspended, but it was unclear for how long.

The French, German and British foreign ministers were today visiting Tehran to attempt to defuse international tensions over Iran's nuclear programme.

The country insists that its facilities are for a civil electricity programme, but the US, UK and other governments claim there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has given Iran until October 31 to prove that it does not have a nuclear weapons programme.

It would be nice to think that this will simply resolve the matter, but I'm not so sure that the Islamic regime will so quickly renounce a nuclear program. In any event, here's hoping that the international community continues to closely monitor Iran's compliance--or lack thereof--on this issue.

(Also posted here.)

PEJMANESQUE HAS RECEIVED A LOT OF PRAISE . . .

But as of yet, we have no Royal endorsement from the House of Windsor.

Something to shoot for, I guess.

HOWARD DEAN MAY BE GETTING A LOT OF VOTES . . .

But he won't be getting Eric Raymond's.

Incidentally, Democrats may want to color themselves concerned by the fact that they aren't attracting Libertarians like Eric to their cause. These are people who on a number of levels are displeased with the Bush Administration, and yet, the Democrats are giving them no alternative candidates to vote for--except possibly for Joe Lieberman, who neither I, nor Eric believes will win the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS

Robert Alt has a good summary decrying the latest tactic used to get Bush Administration judicial nominees into trouble:

During recent confirmation hearings, Senate Democrats have taken to asking candidates very specific questions about legal issues which are likely to come before their prospective courts. Such questions have presented the nominees with a Catch-22: If the nominees answer the questions, then they risk running afoul of the codes of judicial ethics, and may be required to take no part in cases raising that issue coming before the court. If, however, the nominees choose to point out that judicial cannons prohibit them from answering the question, then they face rejection by Senate Democrats for not being sufficiently forthcoming.

Miguel Estrada's failed nomination demonstrates just how pernicious this recusal Catch-22 can be. During his marathon Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Estrada was asked numerous questions that were almost certain to come before the D.C. Circuit Court to which he was nominated. These were not general questions intended to evoke a sense of the nominee's jurisprudence, but rather targeted questions designed to elicit how the nominee would decide particular cases. For example, Senator Leahy asked whether Estrada could think of any use of race or gender-based affirmative action "that would pass the strict scrutiny test that was articulated . . . in the Adarand case[.]" If Mr. Estrada answered this question, he could have been precluded from hearing any case involving racial preferences in contracting. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) was not alone in asking inappropriate questions. Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wis.) asked Estrada specific questions about protective orders in product-liability litigation, including what test should be applied. And Sen. Feinstein (D., Calif.) asked "[t]o what extent do you believe that Congress can regulate in the area of dangerous firearms, particularly when those weapons travel in interstate commerce, when they affect commerce and tourism, and when they have such a devastating impact on the children of this country?" In each case, Estrada expressed his hesitancy to answer based on his understanding of the codes of ethics. Rather than respect his legitimate objection, the Democrats accused Estrada of "failing to fill out his job application." Not a bad system if you are an obstructionist in the Senate: Heads we win — tails you lose.

The intellectual dishonesty of this tactic is nothing short of appalling an infuriating. And remember: Senators who pull this kind of scam are on the Judiciary Committee, and are themselves lawyers. In other words, they know better than to do this.

LEVEL OF OUTRAGE--RISING

Reliability of Hosting Matters sites appears to be intermittent at best. The DoS attacks keep coming on and off--for about five minutes, I once again had trouble accessing this site, and other HM sites. So be sure to check the backup site in case you run into any problems.

"OH, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!"

I'm sorry, but did anyone really fail to expect this hatchet job?

In the upcoming CBS telefilm on President Ronald Reagan, producers fail to mention the economic recovery or the creation of wealth during his administration, nor do they show Reagan delivering the nation from the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years.

The film depicts Nancy Reagan as a pill-popping control addict, who set the president's schedule based on her astrologer's advice and who had significant influence over White House personnel and policy decisions.

[. . .]

"This was very important for me, to document everything and give a very fair point of view," says Leslie Moonves, the CBS chairman and a top Democrat supporter [he sat next to Hillary Clinton during her husband's re-nominating convention].

[. . .]

The film's producers, Zadan and Meron, acknowledge their liberal politics, as do the stars of the television movie, James Brolin and Judy Davis. But Meron tells the TIMES: "This is not a vendetta, this is not revenge. It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way. We all believe it's a story that should be told."

Raise your hands if you actually believe this.

UPDATE: More on this issue from Virginia Postrel.

ANOTHER UPDATE: There are already plans for a follow-up story of a Presidential couple. You can find the information here.

STILL ANOTHER UPDATE: More from Porphyrogenitus.

FOOT INSERTED RIGHT BACK IN MOUTH

I guess that Mahathir Mohammad will just never learn:

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad says his comments about Jews during a speech at an Islamic summit last week, which prompted harsh criticism in the West, had been taken out of context.

``In my speech I condemned all violence, even the suicide bombings, and I told the Muslims it's about time we stopped all these things and paused to think and do something that is much more productive. That was the whole tone of my speech, but they picked up one sentence where I said that the Jews control the world,'' he told Bangkok Post in an exclusive interview yesterday, which covered aspects of his 22 years as leader of Malaysia, as well as his straight-forward views on terrorism, democracy and US policy.

Dr Mahathir added, however, that ``the reaction of the world shows that they [Jews] do control the world''.

So there you have it. Because the world was outraged at a statement that only served to revive the worst sentiments from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it shows that we Jews control the world. There's some logic for y'all.

UPDATE: Quoth Paul Krugman

. . . Not long ago Washington was talking about Malaysia as an important partner in the war on terror. Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.

And bear in mind that Mr. Mahathir's remarks were written before the world learned about the views of Lt. Gen. William "My God Is Bigger Than Yours" Boykin. By making it clear that he sees nothing wrong with giving an important post in the war on terror to someone who believes, and says openly, that Allah is a false idol — General Boykin denies that's what he meant, but his denial was implausible even by current standards — Donald Rumsfeld has gone a long way toward confirming the Muslim world's worst fears.

This comment is ridiculous on so many levels, that one hardly knows where to begin. Is Krugman really implying that the reason for Mahathir's anti-Semitic comments is the Bush Administration's policies? Anti-Semitism has reigned in the Muslim world for centuries, and has been especially prevalent since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. To argue--as Krugman appears to--that Mahathir's comments represent some kind of new phenomenon (one that is traceable to supporting Ariel Sharon and waging war in Iraq) is both the product of ignorance, and the product of a hateful partisanship that ditches the truth in favor of scoring political points.

This may very well be Krugman's worst column ever. I am tempted to write that it may also be the worst column Krugman will ever write, but that wouldn't be wise--given that he seems to outdo his demagoguery with the passage of every week.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This article does quite well in revealing Krugman to be not worth reading. I suppose I will read Krugman every once in a while to see what the other side is up to, and what they are thinking, but I can fully understand why some would decide that they just can't get anything worthwhile out of a Krugman column.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Stefan Beck comments on Krugman's column thusly:

Enough is enough. Anti-Semitism is pandemic in the Muslim world, and is demonstrably on the rise elsewhere. Whether Mahathir's inflammatory comments were sincere or just a political gambit, they're guaranteed to worsen animosity between Muslims and Jews; they'll probably contribute to violence, too. Remember all the outrage about Mel Gibson's The Passion? Critics came down on Mel not for anti-Semitism, but for making a movie that might fuel it. We'll see if the same folks attack Krugman for excusing the inexcusable Mahathir.

Somehow, I doubt they will, but they can feel free to surprise me if they want.

NEW BACKUP SITE

In the event of future DoS attacks on Hosting Matters sites, you can find me blogging here. Be sure to bookmark the site. Meanwhile, I'm going to transfer some of my posts over to this site so that people can comment on them.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Books are hindrances to persisting stupidity.

--Spanish Proverb

THE POLITICS OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RATINGS

Stuart Buck has a revealing post discussing the rating given to Justice Janice Rogers Brown by the ABA--which serves as a follow-up to this earlier post of mine. All I have to say is that if Justice Brown is the equivalent in training, intellectual firepower, and competence of such legal luminaries as Richard Posner, Alex Kozinski and Michael Luttig, it only serves to reinforce the need to have her confirmed to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

ANTI-STATISM IN INDIA

This post is very encouraging, and the news it reports is long-awaited. Imagine just how powerful India's economy could be if it continues in its efforts to shake off its "statist shackles." And just imagine how powerful the Indian economy would already be, if the country's leadership had committed to a course of economic liberalization years earlier.

IN PRAISE OF FUNCTIONAL AUTOMOTIVE MACHINERY

Viva Gus! And Gus's owner too.

THIS TIME, IT WASN'T MY FAULT

Apparently, there was yet another problem with the servers at Hosting Matters, thus making me unable to blog, or to reach other HM sites. Thus, the limited blogging.

I wonder what it says about HM that their reputation is beginning to reach BlogSpot levels.

IF YOU'RE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR ANTI-SEMITISM . . .

You should stop looking towards Gregg Easterbrook, and instead look here:

He stood before them speaking of solidarity, introducing himself with words from the Bible: "I am Joseph, your brother." But Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut was pelted with jeers as he brought his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination to an Arab-American leadership conference in this Detroit suburb on Friday.

"Go home to Tel Aviv," one woman called in disgust as Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, cast Israelis as victims of Palestinian terrorism.

"No! No! No!" others shouted as Lieberman defended Israel's right to build a wall around territory it claims for its citizens and settlers. Their anger all but drowned out the senator.

[. . .]

"He makes me so mad," said Hanan Rasheed, a Palestinian activist from Danville, Calif. During Lieberman's speech, she derided him under her breath, at one point muttering: "He is such a Jew." Later, she said: "He's running for the wrong office. He should be running for the prime minister of Israel."

Charming. For the very few of you who don't know, I'm also "such a Jew" but I don't know how that makes me any less an American.

And then, we have this report:

The Arab American Institute conference here over the weekend saw visits from Senator Lieberman, Rep. Richard Gephardt, Howard Dean, and President Bush’s campaign chairman, as well as satellite appearances by Senators Kerry and Edwards.

It also saw a former Jesse Jackson aide, Robert Borosage, appear on a panel and say, “one of the reasons that we have been unable to talk sense about the Middle East is that we had a very organized Jewish community that made it known to legislators that if you stray, we are going to punish you.”

And it saw an Arab-American leader from Philadelphia, Marwan Kreidie, refer to the attorney general of America, John Ashcroft, as “that lunatic Ashcroft, who is a lunatic, he really is.”

Mr. Lieberman was the only presidential candidate to have his talk interrupted by outbursts from the audience. As Mr. Lieberman defended Israel’s right to protect itself with a security fence, one woman shouted, “It’s an apartheid wall.” Other hecklers yelled “no, no, no.”

[. . .]

“When Joe Lieberman got up, my blood was boiling,” said a Republican from California, Michael Farah, who is chairman of the American Lebanese Chamber of Commerce of North America. “The Israelis, if they want to build a wall, let them build it on their own damn land.”

Mr. Farah referred to “the Israeli PAC, which is extremely powerful.”

He wasn’t the only one in attendance who seemed to have trouble differentiating between American Jews and Israelis. Samear Zaitoon of Baton Rouge, La., a civilian translator of Arabic for the Department of Defense who just returned from six months of service in the Middle East, sat next to this reporter Friday night at a dinner addressed by Mr. Gephardt and by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,Terry McAuliffe.

“You don’t know about Americans of the Jewish faith having two passports?” Mr. Zaitoon asked. By way of explaining the Israeli-Arab conflict, he said, “Our problem is a civil war inside Judaism between Orthodox and Reform, and it’s spilling over.” A quick check of the Internet turns up a letter to the editor from a Samear Zaitoon of Baton Rouge, La., asserting that “the Zionists — Jewish and their misguided so-called ‘Protestant Christian’ supporters (who are really Jews in church pews) — have succeeded in hijacking not only Palestine but also America…Jewish Zionist terrorists have hijacked two whole countries!"

Shouldn't we be worrying about these statements more than we worry about Gregg Easterbrook's?

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The movies are the only business where you can go out front and applaud yourself.

--Will Rogers

AN UNSCIENTIFIC POLL

Speaking of my movie-watching experiences, I mentioned before the movie experience I had that might qualify as my coolest ever. But yesterday, when I went to watch Lost In Translation with a friend of mine in Santa Monica, we ended up being right behind Jamie Lee Curtis, and her husband, Christopher Guest, in the concession line. I didn't recognize them from the back (Jamie Lee has gray hair!), and being more interested in swiftly getting my popcorn and drink, I moved to a shorter line with my friend (who later laughed at me for failing to notice that we were in the presence of stardom). If that wasn't enough, Jamie Lee and Christopher sat in the row across from my friend and I while we watched the film.

So just out of curiosity, which experience do my readers think was the coolest--hobnobbing with Jamie Lee and Christopher, or my Godfather moment? I suppose that running into celebrities isn't that big a deal in southern California, but still, this was interesting. Vote in the comments section below.

Incidentally, while I considered getting Jamie Lee all hot and bothered over my sexy polyglot person, I refrained from any mention of linguini, Cavaliera Rusticana, Benito Mussolini, Dostoevsky, Gorbachev, or the current roster of dancers from the Kirov Ballet. I just didn't think it would be fair to cause the poor lady to lose control of her inhibitions while everyone was watching.

Never let it be said that chivalry is dead.

MOVIE REVIEW--LOST IN TRANSLATION

I saw this movie yesterday, while presumably, my site went on the fritz. I had been looking forward to making time to see the movie, and as it turns out, I wasn't disappointed.

The arrangement of the movie was rather spare, with a lot of jagged camera shots and stark cuts from one scene to another--as well as stark endings to dialogue between actors. In some situations, such Spartan filmmaking doesn't work, but here, somehow it did.

Part of it had to do with the actual dialogue. It wasn't particularly clever or witty. There aren't really any lines that I remember as being notable or outstanding. But the dialogue was terrific nonetheless--if only because it resembled how people talk in real life in so many instances. The dialogue, along with the directing, helped make the movie, and while one can certainly say that for a lot of films, the lack of special effects, cataclysmic emotional confrontations, and a particularly dense or original plot (other than a glimpse into two lonely yet hopeful lives) put a lot of pressure on the writer and director to produce a compelling film. As the writer and director, Sofia Coppola delivered--partially absolving her for her soul-deadening performance in Godfather III ("Daad?").

Bill Murray was hysterically funny when he had to be, and moving as well. Scarlett Johannson is both beautiful and intense. Each actor blended in, and worked brilliantly with the other. It was an improbable combination, with excellent results.

Is Lost In Translation going to be an all-time favorite? No. Will I watch it again and again? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm glad to have seen it at least once, and I think you should too.

THE SPORTS RECAP

Here is the rundown on how my sports weekend went:

1. My Bears played valiantly, and avoided the massacre I was fearing, but still lost. On the upside, if anyone really needed it, we have confirmation that Chris Chandler is a better quarterback than Kordell Stewart.

2. My adopted Division I football team's performance was anything but valiant, and they got blown out.

3. It always sucks when the wrong Bears win.

4. And while it didn't happen over the weekend, this continues to rankle. As such, it may not surprise some people to find out that I'm rooting for the Yankees to win the World Series. Although this is nowhere near as enthusiastic as was my Cubs boosterism, I promised long ago that because of their wonderful performance in the 2001 postseason--a performance that I am convinced helped New Yorkers get their lives back to normal post-September 11th--I would root for the Yankees if my beloved and wonderful (if heartbreaking) Cubs were out of the playoffs. And so I am.

Besides, if the Yankees win, the evil and monstrous Marlins--who have been the cause of my psychic pain over the past week--lose. And hopefully suffer in the course of losing. Suffer so much, in fact, that they regret ever beating the Cubs.

Go Yankees. Take up the fallen Cubs' banner. And make the Marlins pay.

Because there is no revenge like petty revenge.

FELICITATIONS ALL AROUND

Happy Birthday, and 120 years to Kevin Drum.

Kevin, don't worry about growing older. With age comes wisdom, and with wisdom comes a change in political ideology to the conservative/libertarian side. Best wishes to you and yours.

SACKING THE TUESDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK

I think that it is wrong and outrageous that ESPN has decided to fire Gregg Easterbrook. While I certainly found fault with Easterbrook's comments, I also found his apology sincere and convincing, and his character references impeccable. As such, I'm disgusted to see that ESPN has decided to parcel out a million dollar fine for a hundred buck crime, and fire Easterbrook.

Contact information for ESPN can be found here. Please contact them and let them know that they made a mistake by dismissing Easterbrook, and that they should correct their error immediately.

LET'S SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES THEM TO CORRECT THIS ONE

Howard Bashman notes that the New York Times has made a couple of mistakes in its story about Justice Janet Brown, and her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. One of the mistakes--about Justice Brown's endorsement from the American Bar Association--is quite significant.

I WONDER IF THERE IS SOMETHING HE WANTS TO TELL US

Is Wesley Clark sure that he is a Democrat?

BUSH-HATING

Howard Kurtz has a comprehensive column that covers the Left-Right divide on the issue of "hating" President Bush. In the column, I came across the most accurate reason why the hatred of the President is so widespread on the other side of the partisan divide--an observation which was offered by Ramesh Ponnuru:

"Being beaten is never fun," Ponnuru says, "particularly when you're being beaten by someone you consider a moron."

Yep.

THE GLORIES OF NANOTECHNOLOGY

It's progressing at a breathtaking pace, and appears more and more to have the potential to save lives:

Scientists in the United States have developed a new way of taking medicines which could improve the effectiveness of some treatments including HIV therapy.

Writing in the journal Nature Materials they describe a drug-containing microchip which can be implanted in the body.

This then releases the medication slowly so the patient no longer has to take any pills.

Most drugs are still taken orally - but this has drawbacks, the biggest one being human error.

Simply forgetting to take your medicine can seriously affect how well a medicine works.

So this new microchip, which is just over a centimetre in length, could provide a way of delivering exactly the right dose at exactly the right time, therefore making the drug work as well as possible.

I'm sure that the seriously ill will be thrilled about this new development, and I can't wait to see what other advances will be made in the nanotech field.

APOLOGIES ALL AROUND

I am really sorry that people haven't been able to access the site since last night. The fault was mine--I thought that I had paid my website hosting bill, and as it turned out, I hadn't. Thus the problems.

As you can see, the problems have been solved. They would have been solved earlier had I not been out last night, and had I not slept late this morning. Again, my apologies, and thanks to all of you for your forbearance.

UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the only one to have had my site go down--although in Andrew's case, I'm sure that the successful fundraisers that he has had ensure that his problem wasn't a forgotten site maintenance payment.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

If we cannot live so as to be happy, let us least live so as to deserve it.

--Immanuel Hermann Fichte

OUR HERO IS DUBBED A ROUGH RIDER

I got the following e-mail regarding my latest TCS column:

Enjoyed your column on freedom versus peace in TCS. It made me think immediately of Theodore Roosevelt's Nobel Peace Prize lecture that he delivered after winning the 1906 prize. People like him are few and far between who can use the peace prize platform to make an argument for just war. No one like him will win a prize again in our era because the elites no longer understand the logic of righteous peace rather than peace at all costs. No, a Reagan, a George W. Bush, a Churchill (who won for literature but not peace) have no chance at the Nobel Prize in our era. Imagine that Gorbechev won a Nobel Peace Prize but not Reagan. Hard to believe yet true.

The reader included in his e-mail a link to Theodore Roosevelt's Nobel Prize Lecture. The following passage is particularly interesting:

We must ever bear in mind that the great end in view is righteousness, justice as between man and man, nation and nation, the chance to lead our lives on a somewhat higher level, with a broader spirit of brotherly goodwill one for another. Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.

Moreover, and above all, let us remember that words count only when they give expression to deeds, or are to be translated into them. The leaders of the Red Terror prattled of peace while they steeped their hands in the blood of the innocent; and many a tyrant has called it peace when he has scourged honest protest into silence. Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.

As you can tell from the quote at the top of my blog banner, I admire TR a great deal, and think that he was one of the most brilliant Presidents the United States had. Certainly, in terms of intellectual firepower, Roosevelt was right up there with some of the smartest people to have ever occupied the Oval Office. And when it came to his understanding and conduct of foreign affairs, and issues of war and peace, few could match him. As such, and given the topic of my most recent article, I naturally found his speech very interesting. Hopefully, Roosevelt's comments and philosophy will be remembered the next time we are confronted by the possibility of conflict--a possibility we now live with as a part of "the new normal."

SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM . . .

Alex Singleton has an interesting post on the best way to stop spam e-mails.

SOCIAL ANTEDILUVIANISM

Proving once again that racial pigeonholing and stereotyping has not quite gone out of style, some people have decided to announce that their noses would be horribly out of joint at the prospect of a judicial candidate who is both black and a conservative:

The Congressional Black Caucus denounced White House judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown of California on Friday, with one member saying she was "cut from the same cloth as Clarence Thomas" and should be kept off a federal appellate court.

"This Bush nominee has such an atrocious civil rights record she makes Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif.

But Republican senators immediately defended Brown. "If critics don't like Justice Brown's decisions, they should change the law, rather than attack her for partisan political gain," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

President Bush has nominated Brown, a California state justice, for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She is expected to appear next Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing.

The 12-member appeals court decides important government cases involving separation of powers, the role of the federal government, the responsibilities of federal officials and the authority of federal agencies. It now has five Republican and four Democratic appointees.

The black Democrats said Brown's conservative credentials make her unfit for the D.C. judgeship. Brown, who is black, is considered among the California high court's most conservative justices.

She supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely votes to uphold death penalty sentences and opposes affirmative action.

Bush "hasn't fooled us," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C. "She's cut from the same cloth as Clarence Thomas."

The references to Clarence Thomas--who is regularly derided as an "Uncle Tom," are, of course, meant to tar Brown with the same "traitor to one's race" charge that has unfairly been applied to Thomas, and to other African-Americans who dared to think that maybe conservatism or libertarianism offered the best solutions to political and/or societal problems. I suppose that one shouldn't be surprised at this line of argument--after all, if Brown's opponents tried to argue about her actual professional credentials (remember the time when professional credentials were actually considered important? Boy, those were the days!), their arguments would be laughed out of the public sphere of debate. So instead, this old line of character assassination is trotted out once more.

It's predictable. But that doesn't make it any less depressing or disingenuous.

"THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE UGLY"

David Brooks breaks down the factions in the Democratic Party in relation to their stances on the reconstruction of Iraq. I share his hope that the Cantwell Democrats will emerge triumphant, while sharing his fear that the Pelosi Democrats will be in the ascendancy of their party--with the Bayh Democrats serving as silent accomplices, and the Clark Democrats looking the other way, too afraid to confront the irresponsible members of their party in the way leaders should if they want to be taken seriously as leaders.

And as I mentioned, those Republicans who joined the Bayh Democrats should be ashamed. At the very least, the overwhelming majority of Republicans called this issue right with their statements and their votes. Still, that doesn't change the fact that certain Senate Republicans blew a no-brainer.

Hopefully, the legislative abomination of making the Iraqis pay back the money that is being offered to them to reconstruct their country, will die in the conference committee that will meet to resolve differences between the House and Senate packages. And hopefully, presidential candidates Kerry and Edwards will pay dearly for their demagoguery and their votes on this issue, while presidential candidate Clark will pay dearly for his indecisiveness and his inability to stand by his convictions on Iraq, as well as his unwillingness to confront and repudiate the demagogues in his party.

APOLOGY ACCEPTED

I was appalled and disgusted when I read Gregg Easterbrook's blog entry reviewing the movie Kill Bill, and its seeming attempt to tie the promotion of the movie with the need of Jewish entertainment executives to make money. I think that Easterbrook's apology, while good, leaves something to be desired. Easterbrook's mistake went beyond a mere "mangling of words," and had nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of an editor. Bloggers don't have editors, but that doesn't cause the bloggers to write statements that cause others to believe them to be racists, or anti-Semites.

Still, I believe that Easterbrook was being sincere in apologizing, and judging him is made relatively easy in that we have a character witness of unimpeachable judgment and integrity. Josh Chafetz is such a witness, and states unequivocally and categorically that Gregg Easterbrook is not a racist or anti-Semite. I believe him, and because of the strength of Josh's recommendation and reputation, I am prepared to accept Easterbrook's apology. I hope that he is more careful with his words than he was with his Kill Bill interview, lest next time, even people like Josh develop doubts about Easterbrook's feelings. But at this time, in my mind, the evidence that Easterbrook made an innocent--if spectacular--phrasing blunder far outweighs any evidence that he may be bigoted. So I will assume the former, and not the latter.

AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF BASEBALL . . .

Right now, on Bravo, the movie Eight Men Out is being shown. I mention this because few things could help a recently devastated Cubs fan overcome his profound sense of desolation more than a retelling of the story of White Sox corruption, greed, and shame.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Proving that I'm still not quite over the Cubs losing:

It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops.

--A. Bartlett Giamatti, on Baseball

"OH, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!"

It's bad enough to allow bias to creep into one's reporting. It's even worse when the bias comes rampaging in like a bull in Pamplona.

YOUR ONE-STOP SHOP

All you really need to know about the Senate vote on the $87 billion aid package to Iraq can be found here.

UPDATE: Another one-stop shop. Add my name to the list of those thinking that loans are a stupid idea, John.

ANOTHER UPDATE: While we decry the idea of converting part of the aid package into loans, we shouldn't neglect to denounce the votes of people like Senators Byrd, Boxer, Edwards and Kerry, and Representatives like Nancy Pelosi, all of whom have promised to vote against any aid package to Iraq. This attempt to leave Iraqi reconstruction high and dry, without any alternative plan except the usual partisan nostrums against "unilateralism" and "preemption" (at least when "unilateralism" and "preemption" are practiced by a Republican President) is cynical politics at its absolute worst, and most unappealing. And lest I be accused of being selective in my outrage, I would view a similar vote by a Republican Senator or Representative as also being transcendentally stupid and self-defeating (although I know of no prominent Republicans who have promised to vote against, or cast a vote against the aid package as a whole).

Additionally, it should be noted that the attempt to convert part of the aid package into a loan could very well have been intended to serve as a poison pill provision--one that would cause more people to vote against the aid package as a whole. Such a tactic would redouble my contempt for those who initiated it. Playing politics with aid to Iraq serves as the height of irresponsibility, and if the bulk of the membership of a major party has decided to throw its weight behind such an irresponsible act, it does not deserve to be given the trust of the people to conduct foreign policy and national security matters when the next election cycle is in full swing.

THERE'S NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

This is probably one of the best reminders around to not pay too much attention to the Cassandras of the present day, when said Cassandras declaim about Iraq.

UPDATE: Another blast from the past. (Link via InstaPundit.)

ANOTHER UPDATE: The full text of the Life Magazine article can be found here.

DISCRETION IS THE BETTER PART OF VALOR, BUT TRY TELLING SOME PEOPLE THAT

It used to be an ironclad tradition that when a new President came into office, former Presidents would refrain from criticizing him too much. Oh sure, there would be the occasional comment or two, but generally, Presidents and former Presidents would lay off attacking one another. Thus, when Bill Clinton became President, George Bush the Elder, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon kept their critiques to a minimum.

Well, so much for that tradition:

Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.

Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the September 11 attacks.

Time magazine reported last year that a plan for the United States to launch attacks against the al-Qaeda network languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved only a week before the September 11 attacks.

But the White House disputed parts of that story, which was published by the magazine in August 2002.

"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition," a White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at the time.

[. . .]

Clinton said that after bin Laden, the next security priority would have been the absence of a Middle East peace agreement, followed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Clinton said that after bin Laden, the next security priority would have been the absence of a Middle East peace agreement, followed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."

For information on just how committed the Clinton Administration was in attacking bin Laden and al Qaeda whenever it got the chance, be sure to check out Richard Miniter's book, as well as Col. Robert Patterson's opus (Patterson was Clinton's chief military aide, and the man responsible for handling the "football"--the briefcase that contained the nuclear launch codes. His account of Clinton's utter neglect of national security issues is nothing short of damning and devastating).

And as for this comment:

"I would have started with India and Pakistan, then North Korea, and then Iraq after that," he said. "I thought Iraq was a lower order problem than al Qaeda."

Well, that's not the tune Clinton was singing in the past:

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent, democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit, the information age is chipping away at the barriers--economic, political and social--that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.

They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us. I want the American people to understand, first, the past: How did this crisis come about? And I want then to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom- loving people in the world.

[. . .]

We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it. Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too.

(Emphasis mine.) Sounds like Iraq wasn't exactly the "lower order problem" the former President made it out to be. Maybe he's just upset that he can't take the credit for solving that problem.

UTTERLY COOL

I want this Internet connection in the worst possible way.

IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY

While I've often dreamed of writing like the lovely Emily Jones, I've thus far resisted the temptation to plagiarize her. Unfortunately, not all people are as scrupulous.

If you are a blogger, please consider linking to Emily's post so that it gets the widest distribution possible. It's scummy to see this kind of thing occur, and it should stop ASAP.

I'LL BE DESIGNATED A PEACEKEEPER IN SHORT ORDER

Stuart Buck has conclusive evidence that California has turned into a quagmire. I guess this means that Senators Kerry and Edwards will oppose any funding that comes to this state.

"RUSHING TO JUDGMENT"

A long, but very good article about global warming. Be sure to give it a read.

I LOVE MY HOMETOWN

More evidence that Chicagoans are class acts.

And yes, I signed the petition.

SHOULD I BE OUTRAGED OR FLATTERED?

Mahathir Mohammad causes conflict in my emotions:

Faced with furious criticism from the United States and Europe over Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's assertion that Jews rule the world, Malaysia apologized Friday for any misunderstanding and claimed that no offense was intended.

Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar struggled to contain the damage wrought by his blunt-spoken boss, who told a summit of Islamic leaders Thursday that "Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

Repeated assertions of Jewish dominance dotted the speech to buttress Mahathir's analysis that Muslims needed to embrace modern knowledge and technology and overcome divisions over religious dogma that have left them weakened on the world stage.

In additon to not being sure whether to be enraged over Mahathir's remarks, or flattered at my newfound power, I want to know why, if we Jews run the world, I'm still single.

IT GETS REESULTS

I really have to wonder just how much longer we're going to hear kvetching about American "unilateralism." This line of attack is getting harder and harder to buy.

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

Are you in adversity? Do not mourn in the darkness of solitude, do not regulate your sorrow according to the indulgent sympathy of your intimate friends; return, as soon as possible, to the day-light of the world and of society. Live with strangers, with those who know nothing, or care nothing about your misfortune; do not even shun the company of enemies; but give yourself the pleasure of mortifying their malignant joy, by making them feel how little you are affected by your calamity, and how much you are above it.

--Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Link via Dan Drezner.)

Hung be the heavens with black, yield day to night!

William Shakespeare, King Henry VI (Courtesy of reader Bruce Lagasse in comments to this post.)

NEVER LET IT BE SAID THAT I DON'T TRY TO DO MY PART

Okay, I don't necessarily believe that there is any kind of curse on the Cubs, but in the event that there is, I'm going to try to reverse it.

This is Addison. Addison is a billy goat who has been granted admittance to Pejmanesque in an attempt to ensure absolution for any curse that may be on the Cubs. Addison's admittance should therefore bring about a removal of the curse. I can't invite a billy goat to Wrigley Field proper. And my apartment building doesn't allow me to keep a billy goat in my place. So this is the next best thing, and the best I can do. Call it the supernatural, bloggish, Jewish equivalent of the widow's mite.

Now, as for the Red Sox, and their fans, I suggest a way to remove the Curse of the Bambino after tonight's events: Some rich Bostonian should write a check to the Yankees for an amount that is equivalent--after adjustment for inflation--for $120,000 in 1918; the amount of money for which Babe Ruth's contract was purchased by the Yankees from the Red Sox that year.

It can be done, although admittedly, getting a billy goat into a blog, or into Wrigley, costs a lot less.

There had better be good karma in this for me. I'm not kidding.

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

Sorry about the lack of posting--it appears that there were problems with Hosting Matters blogs all around. I couldn't access InstaPundit, Jessica Harbour, CalPundit, Daniel Drezner, or a bunch of other blogs today. Posting will resume tomorrow.

NOW THIS IS CHEERY NEWS

Just the thing to serve as a balm on my sports wounds:

The U.S. jobs market is showing signs of improvement and inflation remains low in the economy outside the energy sector, government reports on Thursday said.

The number of Americans filing an initial claim for jobless benefits fell last week to the lowest level since early February, the Labor Department said, a hopeful sign for job seekers.

Underlying inflation, stripping out volatile food and energy costs rose 0.1 percent in September, in line with expectations. Over the last 12 months, the core CPI has risen just 1.2 percent, the smallest increase since February 1966, the department said.

"By and large these numbers so far today show a strong economy," said Pierre Ellis, senior international economist at Decision Economics.

First-time filings for state unemployment aid fell 4,000 last week to 384,000 from the previous week. The number was broadly in line with analysts' expectations that claims would be 388,000.

"The jobless numbers were certainly encouraging. We got a decline and it suggests that the labor market is recovering," said Parul Jain, Nomura Securities International.

Excellent. More of this, please.

MORE ON THE CUBS

Ozzie Guillen can go to Hell:

After Tuesday's debacle in Game 6, Cubs fans were on edge, waiting for another stroke of misfortune.

"Your ballpark is quiet tonight," Marlins coach Ozzie Guillen yelled at fans during batting practice. "The first three games here, everyone was yelling 'Cubs, Cubs, Cubs.' What, are you guys scared? It was just one game."

Taunting the fans--really classy, Ozzie. What do you do for an encore? Kick cripples? Drown puppies? Tell three year olds that Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny don't exist?

What a jerk. I thirst for vengeance.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

AS IF A CUBS LOSS ISN'T ENOUGH . . .

In addition to being told what we are supposed to write about in our blogs, conservative and libertarian bloggers are also told what we are not supposed to write about, or think about. One of these verboten topics is Hillary Clinton's potential presidential ambitions. If we write about this subject, we are "obsessed" and we are "fantasizing."

Heavens to Mergatroid (whatever that is, and however you spell it)! We can't have that now can we?

Well, actually, this has nothing to do with "obsessing" or "fantasizing" about Hillary Clinton. What this has to do with is the tendency--repeated in just about every single Presidential campaign, given that in politics, there is nothing new under the sun--to be fixated about a particular superstar entering the Presidential race. It is not centered around specific people. It is only centered around finding an individual of considerable star power, and speculating on his/her presidential chances so as to increase interest in the news, and thus increase readership of newspapers and magazines, ratings for television, and hits on Internet news sites.

Don't believe me? Think I'm just trying to rationalize the behavior of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Well, just consider history:

2000: Intense speculation (eventually fulfilled) as to whether Governor George W. Bush would try to pull a John Quincy Adams, and run for President--thus avenging his father's loss in 1992.

1996: Intense speculation (unfulfilled) as to whether General Colin Powell would try to pull an Eisenhower.

1992: Intense speculation (unfulfilled) as to whether Mario Cuomo would stop playing Hamlet on the Hudson, and run for President.

1988: See 1992. Additionally intense speculation (fulfilled for a short period of time) about whether Gary Hart would finally get the nomination.

1984: Intense speculation (unfulfilled) as to whether Senator Edward Kennedy--having presumably paid his dues in 1980--would try to capture the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

1980: Intense speculation (fulfilled) that Kennedy would challenge Jimmy Carter, and that Ronald Reagan would capture the Republican Presidential Nomination as the leader of the conservative movement, as a former movie star (now there's celebrity for all y'all), and as the former Governor of the largest state in the country--having presumably paid his dues for challenging (and nearly defeating) President Gerald Ford in 1976.

1976: See 1980 for Republicans.

1972: Intense speculation (fulfilled) that Hubert Humphrey would try to make another run for the Presidency.

1968: Intense speculation (fulfilled or unfulfilled, depending on one's point of view) about the emergence of a "new Nixon" to erase the defeat of 1960.

1964: Intense speculation (fulfilled) about the emergence of the conservative movement in the Republican party thanks to Barry Goldwater's candidacy.

1960: Intense speculation (fulfilled) that having broken out of anonymity thanks to the open convention to select a Vice Presidential candidate in the 1956 Democratic Convention, John F. Kennedy would try to run for President.

1952: Intense speculation (fulfilled) that a heroic general from World War II would run for President.

1948: Intense speculation (unfulfilled) regarding the same issue of 1952.

I trust this is enough history to show that in every presidential election cycle, people fixate on the idea of one particular superstar entering the race, and potentially giving professional and amateur pundits something especially exciting to gab about around the water cooler. All of which means that if Hillary Clinton didn't exist, someone would invent somebody with her star power to fixate on. This doesn't have anything to do with the Clintons, or with conservatives or libertarians "obsessing" or "fantasizing."

Can we now stop pretending otherwise?

WAIT UNTIL NEXT . . . OH, F*** IT

Brevity is the soul of bitterness, so for the second post today, I'll be brief in encapsulating the news. The Cubs lost. My team blew a 3-1 series lead in the NLCS, and is now out of the playoffs. Either an upstart team that has only been in the league for 11 [expletive deleted] years is going to win the World Series--for the second time in its [expletive deleted] history, or another team will have its curse broken--despite the fact that it has lasted ten years less than the Cubs' curse, or the Yankees will bore us all to death and win again.

Huzzah. How endlessly appealing.

That's the encapsulation of the news. I trust it was brief.

And now, for my rant. This won't be brief.

I get so goddamned sick and tired of hearing about how my hometown is the "Second City." Horses***. One of the universities in Chicago racks up Nobel Prizes left right and center. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra has won more Grammys than any other symphony in the country. Chicago's skyline and architecture are second to none--thanks to the efforts of people like Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies van der Rohe. "Second City"? Whoever came up with that is either ignorant or a liar.

That's what makes nights like last night and nights like tonight so frustrating. I know that it's just a game. I know that there are more important things in life. But whether we are sports fans or not, sports matter in the life of a big city. And Chicago deserves better than this.

Big time sports constitute big time commerce for the city, and a World Series would have done wonders for the commerce in Chicago. People would have gotten jobs. The city would have gotten richer, and its riches as a city would have been better known by those too wrapped up by the glamour of the coast cities to notice the jewel in the Midwest. Chicagoans are robbed of that commerce and that attention. They deserved better than this.

Big time sports and the success of various sports teams mean something for class players in those organizations. A World Series would have done wonders for people like Kerry Wood and Mark Prior, and would have cemented the reputation of Sammy Sosa as one of baseball's all time greats. These aren't just talented players. They are class individuals in an era where class appears to be at a premium. They deserved better.

There were old people in the stands who were cheering the Cubs on like little kids. They were happy, they were excited, they were caught up in the magic of the moment. They've never seen a Cubs world championship, and only a few of them saw or remember the Cubs making it to the World Series in 1945. They want to see the Cubs win at least one in their lifetimes. It was heartbreaking to see one old lady decked out in Cubs gear crying her eyes out at the end of the game. She--and others like her--deserved better.

Ron Santo may not be long of this world. God forbid that be true, but the fact is that his health is not good. All he wanted was to see a Cubs World Series win. Just one. He would sacrifice his place in Cooperstown for that. Didn't he deserve better?

So now I hear on WGN that there are commentators already rationalizing the past 24 hours of pure, unadulturated crapulence and Wrath of Satan by saying "Wait until next year." Well, we have no choice but to do that, so thanks for the advice. I presume these are the same people who also tell us that we should put on our socks before our shoes, that we should chew our food before we swallow it, and that we shouldn't forget to respirate. Cool. Got the tasks down. Understood and much obliged for the guidance, O Most Worthy and Venerable Captains Obvious.

But I'm only going to be content to "wait until next year" if from tomorrow until the playoffs in 2004, every single member of the Cubs' playing, coaching and management staffs wake up every single morning with the following thought:

I'm supposed to be depressed and heartbroken about something. It's early in the morning, and I just can't remember what it is because my brain is still sleepy and groggy, but I just know that there is something that is supposed to be gnawing at my soul and causing me to experience the sports version of stigmata. There is something that is supposed to be making me wish I was never born.

God, that hurts.

I want them to experience that every single morning, from now until the next round of the playoffs. Every. Single. Morning. Until. Then.

Then, and only then, will I be content with waiting until next year. Because the way I figure it, no curse, no bad luck from Billy Goats, and no crap about "The Second City" is going to make the Cubs want to go twice through the kind of emotional Hell they need to go through in order to do better. There is no worse feeling in sports, but it's a feeling beyond the traditional Cubs heartbreak that is going to have to be visited on the team.

Because otherwise, it will just be visited every year on the fans--fans who can't live the lives of sports stars, and don't have millions of dollars, huge mansions and sports cars with which to console themselves after a devastating loss.

I love and adore my city and hometown. I love and adore its sights, its history, its contributions to culture, and its personality. Above all else, I love and adore its people--people who are defined by intelligence and passion in all of their endeavors--whether those endeavors center around professional or artistic enterprises, or whether they center around being the absolute best, most loyal, and most knowledgeable sports fans in the country.

And Chicago fans deserve better.

MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP

It's all about freedom, baby!

As a postscript, may I recommend that you also check out this TCS column, which I wouldn't be able to tear my eyes away from even if I wasn't in the slightest bit interested in the future of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

UPDATE: Apparently, I'm the inspiration for another blogger's Thought For The Day. Cool!

YOU MAY THINK THAT I'M A DREAMER, BUT I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE . . .

Apparently, Jeff Jarvis wants to see Andy Rooney off of television almost as badly as I do.

AN OPEN LETTER

TO: Stephen Green

FROM: Pejman Yousefzadeh

RE: Are You Serious?!?!?!

Dear Stephen:

You're wrong. You're completely, totally, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt wrong. We Chicagoans and the Chicago-raised do not want to simply live in perpetual hope, only to have that hope denied and crushed year after year. Imagine if that sort of thing occurred in your love life, or in your finances, or wih that child of yours you desperately want to do well, but somehow keeps falling short. And yes, I know that baseball isn't as important as love, finance and the kids, but speaking personally, I'm sick and tired of having my heart broken. I want to win, and I want to win now.

Anyway, are you sure you didn't write that post from the perspective of a former resident of St. Louis, who is sorry to see the Cubs doing well and the Cardinals (not to mention, the Rockies) out of the playoffs?

All the Best,
Pejman

I'LL BE BRIEF

This is utterly stupid.

(Link via Andrew Sullivan.)

THE REAL REASON FOR THE CUBS LOSS LAST NIGHT

It was the dreaded cork, again. Perhaps if we look closely, we might also find cork in Alex Gonzales's glove.

JUDGING SCHOOL VOUCHERS

Alex Tabarrok has some encouraging news regarding the use of school vouchers in Colombia, while at the same time pointing out flaws in a study of a "voucher" system in Chile.

Read the post, and you'll see the reason for my scare quotes.

THANK GOD FOR SMALL FAVORS

I'm glad to see that Ed Asner really doesn't admire Joseph Stalin. It's a relief, since I could never understand why Stalin's crimes are so underplayed in any examination of history, and I thought that Asner's comments were yet anothr manifestation of the general ignorance regarding the true and horrific depth of Stalin's crimes. I'm glad to see that I'm wrong about that.

THE PERSIAN INFLUENCE ON THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

You really do learn something new everyday.

BLOGROLLING

Be sure to check out Varenius, who blogs with wit, fervor, and bemusement at the antics of famous people.

HOW FRUSTRATED IS THE WEST WITH IRAN?

This frustrated:

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he wanted the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme resolved peacefully but did not rule out possible military action.

Asked in parliament if he ruled out such action if Iran did not cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog, Straw said: "We wish to see this matter resolved peacefully. I'm not going to predict what is going to happen except to say we have adopted a consistent approach in respect of Iran."

As they say in the news business: Developing . . .

(Also posted here.)

IT'S A PITY

Why, oh why can't we have a foreign policy that persuades our allies to follow us every once in a while, instead of repeatedly having to go it alone?

Or do we have such a foreign policy already?

France, Russia and Germany on Tuesday dropped their demands that the United States grant the United Nations a central role in Iraq's reconstruction and yield power to a provisional Iraqi government in the coming months.

The move constituted a major retreat by the Security Council's chief antiwar advocates, and signaled their renewed willingness to consider the merits of a U.S. resolution aimed at conferring greater international legitimacy on its military occupation of Iraq.

All three countries seem willing to accept a resolution that would retain U.S. authority over Iraq's political future while extending only a symbolic measure of sovereignty to Iraqis. But a major sticking point remains: The three governments made new demands, including setting a timetable for ending the U.S. military occupation in Iraq and strengthening the Security Council's role in monitoring Iraq's political transition.

Still, the shift by the United States' toughest critics in the 15-nation council has placed the Bush administration within reach of a diplomatic victory a week after it was on the verge of withdrawing the resolution, officials here said. Although U.S. officials acknowledge adopting the resolution is unlikely to bring new troops or resources from other countries, they say the U.N. imprimatur would help legitimize the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi Governing Council -- and help defuse opposition in Iraq.

Damn that American unilateralism!

A VALUABLE PARTNER FOR PEACE

Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority gets more and more charming with its inability--or unwillingness--to crack down on terrorist groups.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The horror! The horror!

--Mr. Kurtz, Heart of Darkness

NO LEDE CAN DESCRIBE MY DESPAIR

I am going to be sick.

Oh, and whoever that jackass fan was who interfered with Alou, he had better be banned from any and all Cub games for the rest of his life. Thanks for potentially ruining the opportunity for us to finally go to the World Series you $%*&head.; We really appreciate it. You are to fans what Bill Buckner was to first basemen.

God, I'm really going to be sick.

SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN BLOGGING

Jeff Cooper, his son, and his family will be in my thoughts and prayers. I hope that he will be in yours as well.

COUNT ME IN AS A CUBS CONSERVATIVE

If you don't understand my lede, just check out this post. And I would be proud to be a member of the Emil Verban Society--along with the 40th President of the United States.

Go Cubs. Win one for the Gipper.

BUSTED

Stefan Beck catches Howard Dean in an untruth--and an absurd untruth at that. I cannot understand for the life of me what would have been so terrible about admitting that the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein were good things. If Dean can't bring himself to give credit when credit is most emphatically due simply because of the political considerations involved, he naturally throws his own credibility into doubt.

THE CLINTON LEGACY

As told by his closest associates.

LYING LIARS

However much this column may insult Al Franken, he had it coming--and then some. I can't believe any 50 year old man could be so childish and stupid to act the way that he acts.

WISHFUL THINKING

It's just so cute to see Mohammad Khatami try his darnedest to whistle past the graveyard:

Iran's President Mohammad Khatami has urged the country's first Nobel Peace Prize winner, human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, to use her award for the good of Iran and world peace. In his first comment since the award was announced last Friday, Mr Khatami said he hoped Mrs Ebadi would pay attention to the interests of the Islamic world and Iran and "not let her achievement be misused at all".

At the same time, the president played down the significance of the award, saying it was "not very important" and was awarded on the basis of "totally political criteria".

I love the smell of fundamentalist mullahs in a state of preternatural political fear in the afternoon. And Ebadi has the Islamic regime running scared.

UPDATE: More on this issue via Michael Ledeen.

POLITICAL FERMENT IN SAUDI ARABIA

This is highly encouraging:

Hundreds of Saudis took to the streets Tuesday demanding reforms, witnesses said, the first large-scale protest in this conservative kingdom where demonstrations are illegal.

Police fired tear gas to disperse the protesters and arrested some, witnesses said.

The protests appeared to be in response to repeated calls by the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia for Saudis to gather in central Riyadh to ask for political, economic, and administrative reforms.

Witnesses said hundreds of people, mostly youths, demonstrated in front of Al-Mamlaka shopping mall and blocking traffic before police moved in. Some of the protesters chanted religious phrases such as, ``God is great,'' but no anti-regime chants were heard, witnesses said.

Police officials were not immediately available for comment.

The Saudi royal family is under pressure to bring democratic reform to the country--especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States and increasing terrorist violence at home. On Monday, the government announced it would hold the kingdom's first-ever elections, a vote to select members of 14 municipal councils.

Given the climate of hate currently in Saudi Arabia, and given how that climate encourages acts of terrorism, political reform there is vital to destroying the breeding ground for fundamentalist groups. Hopefully, the process has begun, and will reach a conclusion that will see the liberalization of Saudi politics and society--and hopefully, lives will be saved as a result of a corresponding decrease in terrorism.

ANSWERING TED BARLOW

Concern about MEChA didn't go anywhere--at least not for me. I remain concerned about MEChA, and the hate message that it spreads through many of its chapters. However, I haven't seen any new stories about MEChA to merit my revisiting the issue, which is why I haven't discussed MEChA in the recent past. But my silence--and I daresay, the silence of others on this issue--doesn't necessarily demonstrate a newfound lack of concern that resulted merely because Bustamante lost the recall election. It just demonstrates that there is nothing new to report regarding MEChA, at least as far as I know.

Speaking personally, if I run into a fresh story regarding MEChA, and I think it is newsworthy, I'll be sure to post about it. But seeming to imply that there is no longer concern about MEChA merely because no one has posted about it in a while is more than a bit misguided. It's sort of like me asking why no one has been blogging about Trent Lott recently, when the answer may just be that Trent Lott hasn't done anything particularly newsworthy to blog about.

YOUR PATRONAGE IS APPRECIATED

Many thanks to those who have hit the tip jars recently. It's appreciated, and I'm glad you enjoy the site. Keep coming back, and tell your friends to pay a visit too.

VANITY: THE DEADLIEST OF SINS

God forgive me for my pride, which very well may goeth before the fall, but it certainly is delightful to be considered "high-caliber" by a very smart blogger.

On a related subject, what's that sulfur I smell in my room?

NOTE TO ALL

I am not a slacker!

FACT-CHECKING THE GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT

After reviewing a comprehensive study of gun control laws, Jacob Sullum discovers that at the very best, the following could be said about the atmosphere in which gun control legislation has been crafted:

The panelists considered 51 published studies examining seven different kinds of laws, including bans on specific firearms, restrictions on who may own a firearm, and waiting periods for gun purchases. They "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws."

In other words, after more than half a century of local, state, and federal gun control legislation, we still don't know whether these laws do what they're supposed to do. The report's most consistent finding was inconsistent findings: Sometimes gun control is associated with reduced violence, and sometimes it's associated with increased violence.

The world is messy, and it can be difficult to control for all the relevant variables when you're trying to determine the impact of a particular law. Not surprisingly, the CDC panel calls for more and better research, and it cautions that "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."

But it's scandalous that politicians have been legislating in the dark all these years, promising that the gun control solution du jour would save lives when there was no evidence to back up such claims. If gun control laws have any positive effect at all, it must be pretty modest to have escaped documentation so far.

Of course, "legislate in haste, repent in leisure" is hardly a winning philosophy for good government, but I'm sure that won't stop gun control advocates from "legislating in the dark" in the future.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS INDEED

This is one of the few times that you will see me hyping an article from The Nation, but you should really check out Afshin Molavi's "Letter From Iran". The following is the key passage that caught my eye:

Iranians, frustrated by nearly twenty-four years of economic mismanagement and social and political repression, are eager for change. Reformist failures coupled with a stagnant economy, high unemployment and a seemingly unending and unexplainable rise in prices have left them embittered. These feelings cut across all socioeconomic lines, and even religious ones. In fact, some of the most pugnacious regime opponents are religious-minded young men from poor neighborhoods, many of whom flock to student protests, chanting slogans against the ruling clergy. Many say things like, "The clergy have abused Islam for their own gain." Others from those same poor neighborhoods, who are less religious, also flock to the protests, eager for a fight with what they call "the Hezbollahi kids from our neighborhood"--the hard-line youth who swell the ranks of groups like the Ansar-e Hezbollah or the Basij militia. Unlike affluent North Tehran youth, who fear the "Hezbollahi" types, South Tehran's disgruntled youth display far less fear and a willingness to confront them.

But it's not clear how the changes Iranians are seeking will come about. Not long ago the reformist movement, which burst onto the scene in 1997 with the presidential election victory of reform-minded cleric Mohammad Khatami, engendered great hope. Iranians embraced the movement with vigor, flocking to the newsstands to buy reformist papers that wrote breathlessly of democracy, freedom, civil society and limits on the power of the conservative ruling clergy. They swooned before reformist politicians, treating them with rock star-like adoration, especially Khatami, whose public appearances turned into mob scenes. Today, however, it is not uncommon to hear people chant for his resignation in public protests.

Meanwhile, over the past year, Iran's conservatives have used unelected power centers such as the hard-line judiciary, the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (who has virtual veto power over all matters of state) and the Guardian Council (an unelected body with "supervisory" responsibilities over Parliament), coupled with their control over security services, to veto key prodemocracy legislation in Parliament, jail leading dissidents and journalists with impunity, scrap presidential initiatives and intimidate protesters with violent crackdowns.

As a result, Iranians increasingly talk of "outside solutions." On many occasions, people expressed to me the hope that America would "do something." Just outside a government building a guard whispered, "Mr. Molavi, please tell the Americans to help us, to liberate us like they did the Iraqis and Afghans." Not an uncommon statement among frustrated middle-class Iranians, though when I probed further, I found that most Iranians feared an Iraq-style invasion. Instead, in traditionally Iranian conspiratorial fashion, they spoke of a posht-e-pardeh (literally, behind the curtain) solution, a covert action, so to speak, that would "liberate" them.

Though most Iranian intellectuals and elites vehemently oppose this idea, it is a measure of Iran's middle- and working-class desperation that more and more people in a proud, traditionally nationalist country with bitter memories of the last US posht-e-pardeh solution--the 1953 CIA-sponsored overthrow of nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq--would even entertain such thoughts, even if they might be dismissed as frustrated posturing or, as one Iranian journalist put it, "something people say in frustration, but will retract as soon as bombs begin to fall on Tehran or a coup goes awry."

Immediately after this paragraph, Molavi tells us that the "posht-e-pardeh" solution is less popular because of all of the problems the U.S. is supposedly having in the occupation of Iraq. However, the major problem the U.S. is having is getting out the story that things in Iraq are significantly better than what the media portrays, as commentators like David Adesnik have pointed out. In which case, once the conventional wisdom changes, even assuming that Molavi is correct in saying that the posht-e-pardeh solution is less popular now, it could very well become more popular later. An outcome that would be very troubling to the Islamic regime.

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO "HMM"

Is Howard Dean push-polling?

Retired General Wesley Clark may have only entered the presidential race three weeks ago, but he he may already be the victim of campaign tactics intended to damage a political career still being written.

According to the Clark campaign at least three people, all located in vicinity of the Seacoast area, received telephone calls Sunday and Monday that appeared to be 'push polling', a method of asking how a potential voter might react about a candidate, in this case Clark, had they known some negative, possibly untrue fact, about the candidate.

Sue Mayer, a 53-year-old former Ph.D. student from Lee, said that around 5pm Monday she received a call from a female identifying herself as Shannon working for NH Opinion Research, a group that appears to be bogus.

Mayer said she had been slightly interested in Clark at the time of the call. At first she confirmed she was a Democrat that votes regularly in in elections. Then she was asked her preferences of candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In the next series of questions she said she was asked whether she thought candidate "A", which had the background similar to Gov. Howard Dean's, was best prepared for the presidency or candidate "B", who had a military and non-political background like Clark.

When she said she preferred candidate "B" she was then asked a series, she says, that asked her if she would still support General Clark (saying Clark by name and no longer using terms like candidate "B") more if she had known he had voted for Republicans or had his integrity questions by former General Hugh Shelton, Clark former commanding officer.

"The questions appeared to go from a regular poll that I usually take to getting slimy in tone," Mayer said in an interview. "At one point I said 'what are you doing', but she didn't say anything.

"It was kind of like she was relishing and enjoying the whole thing like she was having fun doing political dirty work."

To be fair to Dean, it could be that a group supporting him, but not necessarily affiliated with the official Dean campaign might be doing this on his behalf, and without his knowledge. Nevertheless, it is obvious that Dean should get on top of this, and tell all of his supporters that if they are involved in this, they should knock it off.

WHY DO THEY HATE US?

Or better yet, why does everyone think they hate us?

When Gallup set out recently to poll Baghdad residents, the biggest surprise may have been the public's reaction to the questioners: Almost everyone responded to the pollsters' questions, with some pleading for a chance to give their opinions.

"The interviews took more than an hour to do, people were extremely cooperative with open-ended questions," said Richard Burkholder, director of international polling for Gallup. "People went on and on."

But many of those Iraqis still have sharply mixed feelings about the U.S. military presence.

The Gallup poll found that 71 percent of the capital city's residents felt U.S. troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26 percent felt the troops should leave that soon.

However, a sizable minority felt that circumstances could occur in which attacks against the troops could be justified. Almost one in five, 19 percent, said attacks could be justified, and an additional 17 percent said they could be in some situations.

These mixed feelings in Baghdad come at a time when many in the United States are urging that the troops be brought home soon.

Almost six in 10 in the poll, 58 percent, said that U.S. troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying "very well." Twenty 20 percent said the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9 percent said very badly.

I'm sure that there are circumstances the average Iraqi can imagine in which attacks on American troops can be justified. If, for example, American troops start acting like the Iraqi secret police under Saddam's rule, it would be kind of hard to justify their presence to the Iraqi people on moral grounds. This part of the poll appears to be pure speculation, however. The rest of the poll--which has to do with how things are in Iraq currently--appears to be quite positive and favorable to the American military presence.

So tell me about the hatred that is omnipresent on the Arab street again. Because I'm dying to revisit that myth just for laughs.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

In light of tomorrow's main event:

A Chicagoan dies and is sent to Hell. He had been a horrible man his entire life. The Devil puts him to work breaking up rocks with a sledgehammer. To make it worse he cranks up the temperature and the humidity.

"How can you be so happy? Don't you know its 40 below zero!?" screams the Devil. Jumping up and down the Chicagoan throws a snowball at the Devil and yells, "Hell's frozen over!! This means the Cubs won the World Series!!"

--Courtesy of reader "triticale" in a comment left to this post.

Go Cubs!

MORE ON "TYPE M" ARGUMENTS

Following up on Arnold Kling's critique of Paul Krugman--which was linked to in this post--the erudite and Curmudgeonly Clerk has some cogent commentary that should be read. Be sure to check out his post.

THE IRAN-AL QAEDA CONNECTION

It can't be ignored anymore:

Saad bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden's oldest sons, has emerged in recent months as part of the upper echelon of the al Qaeda network, a small group of leaders that is managing the terrorist organization from Iran, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.

Saad bin Laden and other senior al Qaeda operatives were in contact with an al Qaeda cell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the days immediately prior to the May 12 suicide bombing there that left 35 people dead, including eight Americans, European and U.S. intelligence sources say. The sources would not divulge the nature or contents of the communications, but the contacts have led them to conclude that the Riyadh attacks were planned in Iran and ordered from there.

Although Saad bin Laden is not the top leader of the terrorist group, his presence in the decision-making process demonstrates his father's trust in him and an apparent desire to pass the mantle of leadership to a family member, according to numerous terrorism analysts inside and outside of government.

Like other al Qaeda leaders in Iran, the younger bin Laden, who is believed to be 24 years old, is protected by an elite, radical Iranian security force loyal to the nation's clerics and beyond the control of the central government, according to U.S. and European intelligence officials. The secretive unit, known as the Jerusalem Force, has restricted the al Qaeda group's movements to its bases, mostly along the border with Afghanistan.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but unless we get to work fast* on supporting anti-regime, pro-democracy groups in Iran who want to establish closer relations with the United States, we are going to end up having to resolve this militarily. And I still don't understand why we shouldn't do more now to avoid having to invest our resources in a full military operation to bring about regime change later.

(Also posted here.)

*And by "fast," I mean "yesterday."

MORE FUN THAN BLOGGING

Jeez, Suman, you really know how to rub it in, don't you?

"MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN A SNICKER"

Stephen Green has the definitive word on the Rush Limbaugh/OxyContin controversy.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I LINKED TO MARK STEYN . . .

So let me make up for my shameful neglect right now.

THE SHAME OF IT IS THAT HE IS MY FELLOW ALUM

Tim Blair works over Ed Asner--a post that you should be sure to read.

Of course, it could be said that Asner just worked himself over, and Tim pointed the way to the party.

THE FUTURE MRS. YOUSEFZADEH?

Sabine Herold is incredibly hot.

FEELINGS, NOTHING MORE THAN FEELINGS . . .

Jay Rockefeller wins the "Most Convoluted Attempt To Spin" award for the week with his performance on this show:

SNOW: OK, I want to get to that. But you've laid down a number of factual predicates, and I want to examine them.

Number one, you mentioned twice in your initial answer that the administration talked about an imminent threat. I want you to listen to what the president said in the State of the Union address in 2002 about imminent threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Senator, I misspoke. That was this year's State of the Union address. But the president never argued there was an imminent threat.

ROCKEFELLER: Tony, if you listen to that as an average American person would, you and -- at least myself included, that is talking about the danger of an immediate attack. And, in fact, the intelligence committee, the one thing they did not say was that there was -- we were in danger of being attacked in this country.

SNOW: But, Senator...

ROCKEFELLER: They did not say that there was...

SNOW: I'm sorry, I just -- I don't -- we've done a lot of research on this. And the president never said -- and we've been looking for it because you and a lot of your colleagues have said that he's proposed -- he talked about imminent threat. And he never did. As a matter of fact, the key argument -- was it not? -- that you can't wait for it to become an imminent threat because then it's too late.

ROCKEFELLER: No, the argument, Tony, was based upon -- I was there, and I heard the speech very close, and he was talking about weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear. And that was more or less signed off on by the intelligence committee, which raises a whole other set of questions.

And the whole problem was that there was a danger of attack. If the word imminent threat wasn't used, that was the predicate; that was the feeling that was given to the American people and to the Congress, whose vote the president clearly was trying to argue or to convince during the course of that State of the Union message.

First Rockefeller says that the President was talking about the danger of an immediate attack, when in fact, the portion of the speech quoted stated that Americans should not wait until a threat is imminent. Then, when Snow confronts Rockefeller on his language, he backtracks and talks about "the feeling that was given to the American people." This is classic dishonesty. If Rockefeller got a certain "feeling" from the speech that was directly contrary to what the speech actually said, then he has problems comprehending basic oratory. President Bush stated in no uncertain terms that he wasn't going to wait until the threat was imminent before he acted. There is simply no way to make the statement any clearer.

What's worse is that Rockefeller himself said that the threat from Iraq was imminent, as well as stating that we shouldn't have to wait for an imminent threat before we act--as Snow pointed out:

SNOW: All right, Senator, let me read to you a quote from another speech you attended. As a matter of fact, you gave it a year and two days ago.

You said this: "There's been some debate over how imminent a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat." That's what you said.

"But I also believe that after September 11th, the question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, the documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot."

And again:

SNOW: OK, let me read another quote from that speech. You talk about Saddam Hussein. You say...

ROCKEFELLER: Which speech? My speech?

SNOW: This is your speech from October 10th, 2002.

ROCKEFELLER: Right.

SNOW: You said, "But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."

So in fact, Rockefeller agreed with the very statement out of Bush's State of the Union that he criticized. Oh sure, he goes on and tries to explain that there is a difference between his comments and Bush's, or that somehow, his comments were justified and Bush's weren't, and you can go right ahead and read those explanations in the transcript. Of course, if you believe Rockefeller's spin, I'm sure that you also answer e-mails from Nigerians with the hope of getting rich quick.

I suppose there is a silver lining in all of this. Within a few short minutes, Rockefeller went from claiming differences between himself and the President, to being shown that he was in full agreement with the President. It's a pity the show didn't run any longer--if it did, Rockefeller may have switched parties at the end of it.

TODAY'S SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER

Brought to you courtesy of Chris Muir.

WHAT'S WITH THOSE UNSOPHISTICATED EUROPEANS ANYWAY?

Irony abounds:

Call it the "Arnold Effect."

The straight-talking Hollywood action star's election win in California has had an electrifying impact on Germany, leading to calls Friday for top politicians to voice clear ideas in simple language or be swept away at the polls.

"The more confused we are by what they say, the greater our longing for a man or woman with simple words," wrote Bild newspaper columnist Franz Josef Wagner. "The only problem is that it's the wrong ones who usually master simple language."

Schwarzenegger's victory in the California race for governor has led to editorials calling for German politicians to abandon their barely comprehensible speaking style in favor of "Klartext" (straight talk).

But Wagner and others also warn of the dangers of falling for simple remedies from loud Austrians who enthrall the masses. Austrian-born Adolf Hitler still casts a long shadow in Germany.

Celebrities, columnists, ordinary citizens and even some politicians have joined the chorus of calls for less talk and more action to get Germany moving again after years of economic stagnation and political standstill.

"My first thought was 'Oh my God, not another Austrian emigrant -- the first one caused enough damage"' wrote Peter Boenisch, a former government spokesman and newspaper editor, in an analysis on Schwarzenegger for the tabloid Bild.

"But Germany urgently needs something Schwarzenegger-like: a can-do spirit, unconventional thinking, courage, strength and vision. We're facing the worst crisis since the war," he wrote.

I didn't vote for Arnold, but I have a feeling that he is more likely to inspire similar campaigns in Europe than he is to evoke comparisons to Adolf Hitler. And the discontent in Germany must be tremendous if the Germans are suddenly thinking about imitating Americans.

SO IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY WAR?

Try telling these people that:

The surging water from the Euphrates River first quenched the desiccated soil around this village. Then, with a steady crescendo, it smothered farming tracts, inundated several homes and enveloped the landscape to the horizon.

"Hamdulillah," intoned Salim Sherif Kerkush, the stout village sheik. Thank God.

Thin reeds now sprout on the glassy surface. Aquatic birds build nests on tiny islands. And lanky young boys in flowing tunics spend the first few hours of each day as generations of adolescent males in their families have: gliding across the water in narrow wooden boats to collect fish trapped in homemade nets.

"The water is our life," Kerkush said as he gazed at the marsh that now comes within a few feet of his house and stretches as far as the eye can see. "It is a gift from God to have it back."

A dozen years after Saddam Hussein ordered the vast marshes of southeastern Iraq drained, transforming idyllic wetlands into a barren moonscape to eliminate a hiding place for Shiite Muslim political opponents, Iraqi engineers have turned on the spigot again.

The flow is not what it once was -- new dams have weakened the mighty Tigris and Euphrates rivers that feed the marshes -- but the impact has been profound. As the blanket of water gradually expands, it is quickly nourishing plants, animals and a way of life for Marsh Arabs that Hussein had tried so assiduously to extinguish.

In Zayad, a tiny hamlet about 210 miles southeast of Baghdad that was one of the first places to be flooded, residents have rushed to reclaim their traditions. Kerkush drove to the port city of Basra to buy a wooden boat known as a mashoof. His children assembled fish nets. Other relatives scoped out locations to build a house of reeds.

The marsh has once again assumed its omnipresent role in the village. Women clad in black head-to-toe abayas wade into the water to wash clothes. The mullet found in the murky depths, though small and bony, is grilled for dinner every night. Swamp grasses are cut to feed the cows and sheep that will eventually be traded for water buffalo.

"Everyone is so happy," Kerkush said as he watched his son stand in a mashoof and steer it like a gondolier with a long wooden pole. "We are starting to live like we used to, not the way Saddam wanted us to live."

[. . .]

Sitting atop a reed mat on his concrete porch, Kerkush said he dreams of once again building a mudheef -- a long, domed-roof structure made of tightly woven reeds that Marsh Arabs used to receive visitors. Clad in a crisp white tunic and a black-and-white head scarf, he would sit inside and entertain other sheiks with black coffee and tales of days past.

"The mudheef was center of our social life," he said. "We didn't need television."

Because of new roads and with his shop in a nearby trading town, outside influences have permeated the marshes faster than the water. He has heard of the Internet and would like to "bring it" to the village.

"I'd like a mudheef and the Internet," he said with an optimistic gleam. "I don't want to live entirely in the past."

When his son piloted his boat back to shore, Kerkush walked over to examine the morning's catch, just as his father did years ago. The metal bucket was half empty. The tiny mullet inside would be worth no more than 2,000 Iraqi dinars -- about $1 -- at the nearby market.

It was not his son's fault, Kerkush said. "The marsh is not fully back to life," he said. "The fish have not had enough time to grow."

The rest of the marsh is similarly nascent. The reeds are not yet sufficient to rebuild the huts destroyed by Hussein's army. The birds that have returned are not the right species to trap.

But as the scion of a clan that has lived here for perhaps 5,000 years, Kerkush said he is willing to be patient while engineers and politicians figure out how to pump more water into the marshes.

"Saddam did everything he could to kill us," he said. "You cannot recover from that right away."

Clearly, it was a terrible thing to liberate these people. What were we thinking?

POLLS EVERYWHERE

I usually don't pay that much attention to presidential job approval ratings since they vary and are all over the map, and since the methodology is so different when you examine different polls. But given the fact that 10,000 people and their pet canaries are going off about President Bush's job approval ratings falling, I figured that I would link to this:

President Bush's job approval rating, which had slumped in several recent polls, has bounced back to 56 percent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday.

In mid-September, the president's approval was at 50 percent in a similar poll and at 49 percent in an NBC-Wall Street Journal survey -- some of the lowest numbers of the Bush presidency. But the recent poll, conducted Oct. 10-12, shows the president's standing with the public improving.

Citing a specific reason for the change is difficult, said Gallup Executive Editor Frank Newport, who instead mentioned several possible factors for the recent increase. Newport pointed to signs of an improving economy, including the uptick in the stock market; the Bush administration lobbying on Iraq and media coverage of the California recall that pushed criticism of the president off the front pages.

In the survey, 53 percent of registered voters said the president deserves a second term, 45 percent said he does not.

I imagine that the numbers would be even better if the poll was of likely voters, as they are more apt to vote Republican. I imagine as well that the numbers will go up and down some more, so I won't be tracking every poll. And as no politician ever tires of reminding us, the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

AND AS FOR THE BEARS . . .

Well, let's just say that they aren't going to be running roughshod over many people, as shown by today's performance.

If I may take just a minute to unburden myself of one of my pet peeves, the reason that the Bears' defense is so bad right now, is that the offense fails to give it any support through bringing about poor field position for the other team's offense, or through actually scoring points and forcing the other team to abandon its gameplan, thus allowing the defense an easier time. Yes, the Bears need some personnel help with their pass rush, and their secondary. But it's kind of hard for any defense, no matter how good, to be successful when the offense brings to mind the sluggishness and snail-like nature of Montgomery's army at Caen--without the attendant success the Allies eventually enjoyed.

WAITING IS THE HARDEST PART

There's a reason I repeatedly said that yesterday's Cubs-Marlins matchup was the most crucial of the series: Carlos Zambrano is inconsistent, and not at the top of his game. While it may be true--as Dusty Baker has said--that Zambrano will eventually end up being the ace of a very strong Cubs pitching rotation, right now, Zambrano simply cannot be counted on to bring in the wins the way that Prior, Wood and even Clement can be. And today's game proved it.

So the trip to the World Series will have to wait at least another couple of days. But thank God anew for yesterday's win. The Marlins are still behind 3-2, they have to overcome Prior and Wood, and they have to do it in confines that will be decidedly unfriendly to them. While all Cubs fans remember and inwardly groan about their team's tendency to break their hearts, knock on wood (not Kerry), I still have to like our chances.

But no fooling around anymore. Wrigley Field is built for power, and the Cubs have to bring the lumber to Tuesday's matchup--lumber that was missing today. Dusty Baker will have to instill the killer instinct in his team, and Prior will have to squash the Marlins' hopes the way one squashes a bug under one's feet.

And it will help to view today's game as a blessing in disguise for the Cubs. Now, we can see our beloved team win at home, in front of its fans. And what sight could match that?

Well, a Cubs World Series win in Wrigley, or in either Yankee Stadium or Fenway Park could match it. But for now, I'll take the NLCS celebration at Wrigley, and then think about the future.

Come on, Cubbies. Get back on that horse, and ride roughshod over the fish. Let's end it in six.

PLUS CA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MÊME CHOSE

Via Dan Drezner, I find this very interesting article discussing efforts on the Left to compete with conservative and libertarian think tanks and policy organizations. The project is headed up by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, and after the article spends an inordinate amount of pixels reiterating how smart, and shrewd and cunning Podesta is, it gets down to the problems he faces in constructing his new think tank:

''The question I'm asked most often is, When are we getting our eight words?'' Podesta said. Conservatives, he went on, ''have their eight words in a bumper sticker: 'Less government. Lower taxes. Less welfare. And so on.' Where's our eight-word bumper sticker? Well, it's harder for us, because we believe in a lot more things.'' The Center for American Progress, Podesta said, was concerned with articulating these principles carefully, over time, rather than rushing out an agenda to help win an election in 2004. ''We're trying to build an idea base for the longer term,'' he said, to bring about ''an enduring progressive majority.''

There was genuine excitement in the room. ''This is the first thing I've heard that gives me hope in a very long time,'' one woman said. The audience, however, had varying notions of what a think tank should do. Most of the questioners seemed to assume as a matter of faith that the liberal message would naturally triumph in America if not for Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a president who, they insist, has lied. One guest urged Podesta to concentrate on briefing liberal TV guests before they appeared on talk shows; another thought Democrats were losing because they used the wrong language.

Podesta gently reminded his audience that a think tank was for developing new policy solutions, not simply repackaging old ones. ''We've got to fill the intellectual pail a little,'' he cautioned, before worrying too much about how those ideas should be conveyed.

This is precisely the challenge facing Podesta. Just about every leading Democrat in Washington agrees that the party could use a new Big Idea, something to compete with the current conservative agenda of slashing programs and toppling rogue regimes. But what kind of idea? Is it as simple as an image makeover? Is it a left-leaning TV network to fight back against a right-tilted media? Or does the party need a new and bolder policy agenda, even if it means years wandering in the wilderness to find it?

[. . .]

Podesta stressed that the think tank was not an organ of the Democratic Party. Rather, he pledged that American Progress would offer its voice and ideas to any policy maker or party that would have them. It was obvious that he wanted the center to be seen as an insurgent force in politics, beholden to no one, although it was difficult to imagine who besides the Democrats would stand to benefit from a revitalized liberal agenda. (Presumably Podesta isn't raising $50 million in order to take over the Green Party.)

In the months that followed, as I talked with Podesta regularly, I came to understand that he was, in fact, caught between powerful forces in his own party, an exceptionally deft navigator trying to steer his way through treacherous crosscurrents. On the one hand, there is the party's struggle between elements of the left and center -- the battle personified by Howard Dean and Moveon.org on one side and Joe Lieberman and the D.L.C. on the other -- from which Podesta has vowed to remain aloof. ''I'm trying to be ecumenical on the center-left thing,'' Podesta said. ''When you've got such a radical direction of the country on the right, that's where our fight should be, and not with each other.''

The other conflict, and the one that involves Podesta and American Progress more directly, is between those who believe the party can ''message'' its way out of exile and those who believe it will have to innovate its way out. It is a difference of opinion that divides Podesta's potential financial backers, powerful allies and even some of those working for him. And it could, if left unresolved, leave American Progress as confused about its own mission as Democrats seem to be about theirs.

[. . .]

. . . The Democratic National Committee's idea of debating the opposition is to produce and post on its Web site a painfully slow and nonsensical animated video of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as Frankenstein and Igor. With no one coordinating the message, liberals rely on an array of single-issue groups -- environmental, abortion rights, civil rights -- who pursue disparate agendas, and not always effectively.

Commenting on all of this, Dan Drezner highlights the following remarks from the article that explain how conservatives and libertarians built up their formidable think tank establishment:

It may be that Podesta is willing to confront the party establishment, but there is nothing in his past -- or in the resumes of any of his main hires at the center, all of whom are veterans of the Hill or the White House -- that suggests he and his team want to divorce themselves from the party's political aims. They are the Democratic establishment, and that means there will always be the temptation to forgo the longer, harder conversation that the party probably needs to have in favor of a short-term strategy.

It is worth remembering, too, that activists like Weyrich and Feulner didn't start with either the message or the specific policies. They started, instead, with a core philosophy that deftly articulated the way a lot of frustrated Americans felt. They knew what they believed and how to put it into words, and they were passionate about living in a country that closely resembled their vision. What Podesta dismisses as a bumper sticker -- ''less government, lower taxes and so on'' -- is, in fact, the starting point from which a generation of powerful ideas took flight.

Podesta has undertaken this process in reverse; he is building up a machine for finding new ideas and marketing them in hopes that all this effort will somehow coalesce into a new and compelling governing philosophy for Democrats. Even before its official debut this month, American Progress began assembling focus groups in nine cities and among a number of ''elite'' Democrats to get a sense of what the progressive vision ought to be. This is what consultants do when they want to win elections, but it is a less promising way to locate a bold new concept of American government.

And then Dan says this:

As a member of the opposition who nevertheless truly wants to see this project succeed in part (click here for why), I'd suggest that Podesta may be aiming too high. Part of the reason the right-wing think tanks have thrived is not just their willingness to take on the Republican establishment, but to take on each other. Cato and Heritage hardly see eye-to-eye on all matters, and I'm sure that there are different strands of the Democratic party that feel the same.

The key is not just to fund the construction of new ideas -- it's to encourage competition among new sets of ideas.

My advice to Podesta -- one think tank can't house every strand of the Democratic party -- aim for ideological coherence first, and then try to wipe the floor with other think tanks that lean Democratic.

It's good advice. But of course, before Podesta's new project can wipe the floor with anyone, it has to figure out what to say--something the Democrats haven't come close to doing. Their message changes with the onset of a new week, they appear to have no platform other than the hatred of Republicans in general, and George W. Bush in particular--as Jonah Goldberg has learned anew. Such a platform will only win an election if Republicans answer in equally contentless fashion, and even if the election is won, there will be no mandate for a governing majority--which defeats the stated purpose of Podesta's project, and causes the Democrats to start back at square one--thus my lede.

As I've written before, I think that it's kind of silly for Democrats to complain that they have been shut out of the public debate, or that they lack the instruments to get their message across. But even assuming arguendo that the Democrats are right to complain about their lack of a public voice, no amount of think tanks, media-savvy operations, and public bookings of left-of-center political and social advocates on television and Internet programs is going to cover up the fact that at the moment, the Democrats have nothing to say that is of any interest to the moderates and independents that they will need to win elections, and build governing majorities. The article and the quotes I've excerpted make that much clear. The Democrats have a more fundamental problem than the supposed lack of leftist think tanks to support them. And until that fundamental problem is solved, people like Podesta will see their projects come to ruin.

Finally, as a conservative with libertarian tendencies on certain issues, let me say just how happy and proud I am that right-of-center think tanks and institutions have engaged in vibrant and demanding internal debate, as Dan points out. Such behavior demonstrates that we are not afraid to question one another, that we abhor an intellectual environment which resembles an echo chamber, and that we understand the value of running our ideas through an internal "quality control" mechanism to ensure that they are as rigorous and vibrant as possible. This kind of honesty and tough-mindedness is a fundamental reason why conservatives and libertarians have been politically successful in the recent past. If we refuse to rest on our laurels, there is no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't be successful in the future as well.

AN OPEN LETTER

TO: Jonah Goldberg

FROM: Pejman Yousefzadeh

RE: Civility

Dear Jonah:

I'm sorry it appears to have taken you this long to realize that while there certainly are people on the Left willing to have a reasoned and reasonable debate about the issues of the day, those people are apparently largely silent, and are allowing the slack-jawed Neanderthals of their movement to serve as their public face. I'm even sorrier that you had to discover the centralized Fortress of Stupidity from which those Neanderthals draw their inspiration.

My advice--the content of which should come as no surprise--is to delete e-mails and shun blogs that can't make an argument and instead have to resort to stupid insults that reflect worse on the insulters than they do on the insultees. Reading their drivel simply causes you to lose time that you will never get back. And reading idiotic justifications for said drivel isn't exactly pleasurable brainwork either.

Yes, sure, there are reasons to argue against and disprove the febrile rantings of a few people who never quite grew up, got a good education, or possess an organ of any value in between their ears. Even gross stupidity can spread as a meme. But in the end, there is a limit to how much you can try to persuade fools of their foolishness. Some people just revel in their ignorance and boorishness, and there's no way to save them.

So we don't save them. We just laugh at them instead. That's the good thing about buffoons--they serve as wonderful comic relief. In the meantime, we seek out the smart and serious liberals with whom we can carry on grown up and meaningful conversations.

And while the latter quest may at times seem quixotic and Sisyphean in nature, we should keep at it. Let other people reinforce their own backwardness by staying in their echo chamber, and reassuring one another that their toilet rhetoric is somehow justified, proper, and objectively correct. We win by rising above that. So while it's fine and good to mock the ridiculous and Fisk the inane, a balance must be maintained, and from time to time, stupidity simply shouldn't be dignified with a comment. There are better and more interesting things to read out there, and they cry out for some attention. So let's give it that attention.

It'll do all of us more good to focus on the genuinely interesting--even if it is material we disagree with--than to see grown people embarrass themselves online. And besides, it's just more fun to read than the juvenile scribblings of troll-like bloggers and their drooling fanbase.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WINS AGAIN

One of the toughest things for educators to deal with is to teach literature that contains statements, quotes or comments that contain a clear racist sentiment--especially if said literature is considered a classic. While it may be difficult or awkward to confront such racism, a good teacher, rising to the occasion, would teach his/her students to analyze, read, and even act out a scene with the statement included so as to get a full sense of the literature, while at the same time, making clear that such sentiments can't be accepted in society.

I read To Kill A Mockingbird when I was in the 8th grade, and I read it in unvarnished form. I didn't turn into a racist as a result of reading it anymore than I turned into a whale hunter as a result of reading Moby Dick. Reading Oedipus didn't screw up my relations with my parents, and Hamlet didn't cause me to see ghosts, feign madness, put on plays, or become a mortal threat to any of my uncles.

The reason, of course, is that I had teachers who decided to confront tough issues rather than avoid them. My 8th grade English teacher taught all of us that even though there are a number of characters making a number of racist statements in Harper Lee's classic, that didn't make the statements anymore acceptable than they would have been had the book been written differently, or not written at all. We all learned instead that To Kill A Mockingbird was an indictment of racism, and not an endorsement of it--a lesson that was re-learned when I read Othello in high school. Again, all of this came about because my teachers chose to actually treat students like adults, work with them and with the community around them with the assumption that people aren't dumb enough to need to have literary material censored out of a discussion or a presentation for their own good, and to convey the message that while specific aspects of certain literature may be uncomfortable, the overarching message of that literature needs to be heard--in the manner that the author intended it to be heard, with the language that the author used.

Unfortunately, teachers in Indianapolis haven't learned this basic lesson. Neither has the local newspaper. Once again, people are treated like idiots who can't discern the not-so-subtle difference between an aspect of literature, and the general positive message of that literature. And once again, the cause of intellectual honesty and courage suffers another blow.

Disgusting. What's next?

ALMOST THERE . . .

And no, I'm not trying to do my imitation of Red Leader out of Star Wars: A New Hope. Instead, I speak as a Cubs fan, whose team is one game closer to achieving something amazing.

All the Cubs have to do now is to make sure that Zambrano is calm, cool, and focused for the next game--which hopefully won't be too hard to arrange, as Zambrano should have no pressure on him whatsoever. If Chicago's bats remain smoking hot, Florida could see its season come to an end very shortly, and Chicago's impossible dream may come true.

I have to pinch myself when watching the Cubs. I can't believe what may lie ahead. This "winning" thing is wonderful, isn't it? May it continue--we only need five more wins in this postseason to put on a celebration that will put all other celebrations to shame.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Electricity is actually made up of extremely tiny particles called electrons, that you cannot see with the naked eye unless you have been drinking.

--Dave Barry

THE CONFLICT WITH IRAQ: A HISTORY

About the only mistake I find in reading this article is the statement that Saddam Hussein expelled UN inspectors in 1998. In fact, they were withdrawn by the Clinton Administration--although at that point, remaining in Iraq was clearly untenable. Overall, however, the article does a great job of recapping the history of Iraq's violation of multiple UN resolutions, and putting the lie to a number of claims made about the recent war in Iraq. Be sure to read it.

"IRAN'S FRAGILE FAULT LINES"

Via reader Mike Daley comes this very interesting article examining both the hardline and reform movements in Iran. A shortcoming of the article is that it only examines the reform movement in the context of the failed Khatami government, and doesn't pay attention to the activists in the street, or to reformers outside of government, like Shirin Ebadi, both of whom could give the reform movement new life. But that's just my take. Read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

HAVE COMPUTERS SURPASSED HUMANS IN CHESS?

While the consensus answer to this question is either "yes," or "no, but they will soon," Jeff Sonas surprises by answering in the negative. A very interesting article.

LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM

It's good to see that at long last, certain untruths are being vigorously challenged.

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

[David] Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi foreign intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum toxin; and my favorite, "new research on BW [biological weapons]-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin" -- all "not declared to the U.N."

Moreover, for those who care about the United Nations (I do not, but many administration critics have a weakness for legal niceties), Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council, ordered Hussein to make a full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors, and warned that there would be no more tolerance for concealment or obstruction. Kay's finding of "dozens of WMD-related program activities" concealed from U.N. inspectors constitutes an irrefutable material breach of 1441 -- and an open-and-shut justification for the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

--Charles Krauthammer

I do not object to all those who oppose the war. I do object those who accuse the United States of war crimes and genocide in order to lend weight to their pacifism.

But I won't expect those who call for "peace" to help me.

--Sgt. Nathan J. Todd, United States Army Reserve

NOTHING SAYS TENSION . . .

Like an NLCS playoff game that stretches to 11 innings, and ends with a rundown between second and third.

This was an absolute must-win game for the Cubs, given that Wood was on the mound. With Clement and Zambrano inconsistent, every game where Prior and Wood can give the Cubs a start is nothing short of crucial. That said, tomorrow's game is the most pivotal of the series, as it will require Clement to rise to the occasion. A win would allow the Cubs to put the series away with Zambrano on the mound, and allow Chicago to set its rotation for the World Series with Prior going first, and Wood going second.

2 games to the World Series. One game at a time. Eyes on the prize.

I think I'm hyperventilating.

THE INTEMPERATE PAUL KRUGMAN

Over two weeks ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an article (blogged about here) in which he attacked those who were waging "The Presidency Wars." In my post, I stated the not-so-secret-and-quite-widespread belief that Brooks was castigating his fellow columnist at the Times, Paul Krugman.

Now, in his latest column, Krugman fires back by telling us all that "All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years." The theme throughout Krugman's column is that it is better to be rude and truthful (the way Krugman presumably is) than to be polite and sweep things under the rug (the way Brooks presumably is). Oh, and since people didn't like Bill Clinton, it's okay not to like George W. Bush. Closing out his column and ending his latest rant on the Bush Administration, Krugman seeks to justify his comments by saying that "Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth."

Through his argument, Krugman only serves to make Brooks' point better than Brooks or anyone else ever could.

First of all, let's assume for the sake of argument that all of those attacks on Clinton by conservatives were unjustified. If Krugman is making the argument that because of those attacks, conservatives now have attacks on Bush coming, he is committing a clear logical fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right--a fact that Krugman either doesn't understand, or ignores in dishonest fashion.

Krugman's second mistake is his disingenuous construction of modern Presidential history. According to his column, hating Presidents and vilifying them personally only began with Bill Clinton. This is utterly misleading, as any fair-minded individual could tell you. Ronald Reagan was derided and ridiculed throughout his presidency, with Democratic eminence grise Clark Clifford referring to Reagan as an "amiable dunce"--one of the many personal attacks and insults issued in this vein. Despite the fact that he was a star athlete at the University of Michigan, and a top graduate at Yale Law School, Gerald Ford was dismissed as a fool and a clumsy oaf. Despite the brilliance with which he outwitted and outthought Hitler's generals, and despite the liberation of Europe that he initiated with the Normandy invasion, Dwight Eisenhower was attacked and mocked as being out of it and clueless during his Presidency (a notion vigorously disputed by, among others, the late Stephen Ambrose). Herbert Hoover continues hilariously to be blamed for having brought about the Great Depression singlehandedly (it's always fascinated me that anyone could think that one person--even if that one person was President of the United States--could have started a worldwide economic cataclysm all by his lonesome). And even though he was never President, it is instructive to remember how Barry Goldwater was supposedly adjudged too insane to be President by 1,000 psychologists who never met Goldwater, much less examined him, that his campaign slogan was changed from "In Your Heart You Know He's Right" to "In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts" by a Johnson campaign determined to keep up the illusion that Goldwater was crazy, that a President Goldwater would somehow start a nuclear war (through the showing of the infamous "countdown" campaign ad), and that Goldwater would somehow get the United States mired in a war in Southeast Asia (a charge so ironic that the following joke became fashionable in the late 1960s: "I was told that if I voted for Barry Goldwater for President in 1964, we would be at war in Vietnam. I did, and damned if we aren't!").

So you see, hating Presidents and presidential candidates, making personal attacks against them, and demonstrating gross incivility towards them started well before the Clinton Administration. After all, it was Democrats in the South who called Abe Lincoln a "baboon." Shall Republicans bear a grudge for that as well? Would it have excused the attacks against Clinton, since after all, for their attacks on Lincoln, the Democrats surely had it coming?

Well, no, it wouldn't. The notion is absurd, but it is perfectly consistent with Krugman's "Two Wrongs Make A Right" philosophy.

But the most basic problem with Krugman's latest screed is that it ignores the simple lesson that you and I learned from our parents when we were five years old. We learned that no one is impressed with an argument that includes one personal attack after another. We learned that no one is impressed with the substitution of reason with diatribe. We learned that when we seek to make our points, demonstrating civility shows others that we can make our arguments without having to resort to personal attacks--and that failing to make our arguments without civility only serves to show the poverty of our positions. And we learned that when making our arguments, it did well to show that we could enforce and reinforce our positions by not relying on just one assertion being repeated over and over again.

Paul Krugman, however, has learned none of these things. His columns are less illuminating than they are intemperate. They are less erudite than they are shrill. He recycles the same column time and again, and phones it in when it comes to providing material for the Times to publish. And to all of the Krugman fans out there who like to remind critics of their hero that Krugman has a Clark Medal and may someday win the Nobel Prize, and that somehow, his proficiency as an economist makes him right on the money in his critiques as well, I'll remind them that there are plenty of economists who actually did win Nobel Prizes, and dispute Krugman's theories and arguments. Besides which, it doesn't take a genius to know that even if Krugman is a skilled economist, that doesn't necessarily make him a skilled pundit or commentator. And no amount of Clark Medals or Nobel Prizes can change that.

I rather like and appreciate Brooks' comments about civility, and if Krugman had agreed to carry on the debate in a civil tone, I would state civilly that it is unfortunate that Krugman chooses to sacrifice his talent at economics and his legacy as an economist with a series of emotionally overwrought articles that simply rehash the same arguments repeatedly, in true one-trick pony fashion. And I would leave it at that because to go further might be uncivil.

But since Krugman admonishes us to sacrifice politeness for honesty, I'll do just that, and note that when it comes to judging the value of columns written by this Clark Medal-winning, potential Nobel Prize-garnering Princeton professor, a fundamental truth applies: You can take a certain animal from which trayf food products can be derived, dress it up in the finest evening gown available, adorn it with the best jewelry that money can buy, smear lipstick on it, take it out to a fancy restaurant, and glorify it by referring to it constantly and adoringly as "My Darling Aphrodite." But in the end, a pig is still a pig.

And no amount of Clark Medals or future Nobel Prizes can change the fact that the hog butcher should come calling to apply the meat cleaver to Krugman's piggish columns.

"Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth."

"OH, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!"

Valuable and pithy commentary on the disingenuous nature of the news coverage on Iraq, via Andrew Sullivan.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

If you are a celebrity and you use your status to lend support to a left-of-center candidate, much of the media world yawns and moves on.

If you are a celebrity and you use your status to lend support to a right-of-center candidate, the tut-tutting begins.

I'm sorry, but do these overly concerned media critics really think that people don't notice the hypocrisy?

DIFFERENTLY INTELLIGENT WHITE MAN

Michael Moore appears to have problems keeping his facts and statements straight.

Note to Moore: Always tell the truth. Then you'll be able to remember what you said the last time.

A FUNNY MOMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Byron York has the scoop:

You can say this about Richard Gephardt: He sticks to his ideas, even when they make absolutely no sense.

Gephardt's unerring consistency was on full display at the presidential debate Thursday night when a woman named Joy Clayton, the owner of a small business called Bobby C's Lounge and Grille, rose to ask the candidates what they would do to help ease the burden that government places on her business.

"I found that there were so many taxes associated with going into business," Clayton said. "There were taxes upon taxes. There's a privilege tax that you're levied just for the privilege of doing business. What would you do to try to help those of use who are trying to be in small business accomplish it without so much of the pain?"

Debate moderator Judy Woodruff turned to Gephardt. You've advocated repealing the entire Bush tax cut, she said. Wouldn't that be a tax increase for people like Joy Clayton?

Perhaps Gephardt didn't hear the question. Or perhaps he just didn't understand it. In any event, after telling Clayton that "small businesses like yours are having to pay a lot of tax," Gephardt said the solution to her problem would be to...repeal the Bush tax cut.

Gephardt explained to Clayton that even though she was struggling under high taxes, by raising her taxes even further, he would be able to fund universal, single-payer health care, which would save her the money she spent providing health care for her employees.

The problem was, almost anybody watching could guess that Bobby C's Lounge and Grille, like many small businesses, probably didn't have a full-scale employee health-care plan. Even John Kerry could figure that one out.

"I'm not sure that's even applicable here," Kerry said, jumping in to the exchange. "Do you even have health care for your employees?" Clayton nodded her head no, meaning that the answer Gephardt had just given her was resoundingly irrelevant to her actual situation. Sensing that he had scored a takedown, Kerry went on to tell Clayton that he would not raise her taxes.

Other funny moments can be found in the story. Be sure to check it out.

SOMETIMES, GOOD PEOPLE WIN

You can imagine just how thrilled I was to hear about this:

Moments after learning Friday that Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the mother of the Iranian human rights lawyer prayed to Allah. Ebadi's husband, too, gave thanks for what may lie ahead.

"The reform movement is reborn," said Javad Tavassolian, the husband of Ebadi, the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the peace prize.

Ebadi - who also is Iran's first female judge - was hailed around the world as a courageous champion of political freedom after the Norwegian Nobel Committee honored her for promoting peaceful and democratic solutions in the struggle for human rights.

The prize, announced Friday in Oslo, Norway, also gave hope to the dispirited reformers challenging Iran's ruling clerics that the 56-year-old lawyer's newfound clout and international stature may breathe life into their tired ranks.

"This prize doesn't belong to me only. It belongs to all people who work for human rights and democracy in Iran," Ebadi said in Paris, where she was attending a conference.

Ebadi, who was jailed for three weeks in 2000, has been a forceful advocate for women, children and those on the margins of society.

"As a lawyer, judge, lecturer, writer and activist, she has spoken out clearly and strongly in her country, Iran, far beyond its borders," the Nobel committee said in its citation.

Reformers in Iran may now expect even more: a firebrand willing to directly battle the powerful theocracy in the model of other history-shaping Nobel laureates such as Nelson Mandela and Lech Walesa.

"She is an international figure now," said Isa Saharqis, a prominent reformer and editor of the monthly political journal, Aftab, or Sun. "The conservatives cannot close their eyes to this."

Iranian state media waited hours to report the Nobel committee's decision - and then only as the last item on the radio news update.

It was not until late Friday that Iran issued an official statement, with government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh congratulating Ebadi for her prize.

I can only imagine just how discomfited the hardliners must feel as a result of this award, and its political implications. Mobarak to Shirin Ebadi, and here's hoping that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize focuses international attention on the plight of reformers in Iran--thus generating the sea change in Iranian politics so many of us have hoped for.

(Also posted here.)

UPDATE: The following e-mail, sent to Glenn Reynolds is very instructive:

Your link to the Ebadi story reminds me of what the WaPo, NYT and the AP did after the fall in the Soviet Union. All of a sudden the most hard-line communists became, miraculously, "conservatives." Now, in Iran, the WaPo uses "conservative" to refer to the mullahs, with the implication that "conservatives" are against freedom. Used out of an American context and left undefined this leaves the reader unaware that American conservatives were/are in the vanguard in supporting freedoms for people in the Soviet Union and in Iran.

Glenn's response is equally on point.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More on Ebadi found here.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Walked with my editor a ways until he had to head towards home. Said goodbye and marched south, down to the hole in the sky.

But you can only do it once.

--Lileks in New York

BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE STARTING A FIGHT . . .

I may regret doing this, given the virulence with which some people hold and express their opinions on this issue, but tell me gentle readers: Why should one prefer a Mac over Windows, or vice versa?

And please, don't let the discussion descend into ad hominem attacks on one or another camp. Just tell me why one system is superior in your mind to the other.

If comments to this post don't reach the triple digits, I'll be stunned.

STATE OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM

Dan Darling has an excellent and comprehensive analysis. Be sure not to miss it.

AND SPEAKING OF RIDICULOUS LITIGATION . . .

You have got to be kidding me.

(Link via Virginia Postrel, who still needs to blogroll me.)

IT'S ABOUT TIME

One of the most common forms of litigation currently doing violence to any intellectual integrity that may remain in the area of tort law is the litigation that is brought up against gun manufacturers for the crimes or bad acts of others with a gun. This report indicates that such litigation may finally come to an end. Thank God.

Negligence law requires that a jury find that the defendant has a duty to act as a reasonable person/entity towards foreseeable plaintiffs. Only a minority of jurisdictions take the view that everyone is foreseeable, and yet, litigation against gun manufacturers adopts as one of its inherent points the belief that a whole class of thousands of people who are either injured or killed by guns are foreseeable plaintiffs. This alone makes a hash of the majority view of negligence law. But on top of the perversion of the duty requirement, and the standard of foreseeabilty, litigation against gun manufacturers also fails because of the inability to meet the cause-in-fact requirement. The cause-in-fact requirement states that a jury must find that "but for" the defendant's negligence, there would have been no injury--a finding that would be ridiculous in the overwhelming number of circumstances, because of the actions of the person actually using the gun (not to mention the fact that there are usually no design or manufacturing defects on the gun being used).

It should therefore come as no surprise that because of the inability to meet the duty and cause-in-fact requirements, gun suits are invariably thrown out of court, as the article itself points out. The only thing that is accomplished in bringing these suits is to compromise judicial economy by clogging up the courts, and to cause manufacturers to waste money having to go through initial phases of the litigation until a motion to dismiss is granted. And that is no accomplishment to boast of.

As such, it is a relief to know that such frivolous litigation may finally be stopped. Kudos to Senator Craig for authoring his bill, and to the ten Democrats--including Tom Daschle--for being intellectually honest enough to support it. Here's hoping the bill passes, and soon.

(Link via Howard Bashman.)

UPDATE: More on this issue from Eugene Volokh, who also has disturbing news about an egregiously overbroad proposed gun ban here. And as Eugene points out, even "paranoids" are right sometimes.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Inane policy proposals regarding guns are not solely found in the United States, as Iain Murray points out.

NO PAPER LION

This is probably one of the nicest obituaries written for George Plimpton, in part because it makes even some of his less-than-impressive life experiences sound impressive indeed:

. . . But although in 2002 the American Academy of Arts and Letters graciously named Mr Plimpton as a “central figure in American letters”, it is difficult to think of a title of his that will endure. Possibly “Paper Lion”. It is a funny account of his disastrous experience playing football with the Detroit Lions. He was applauded as he hobbled from the field “in appreciation of the lunacy of my participation”.

There were other lunatic moments in Mr Plimpton's experiences in what he called participation. In tennis, Pancho Gonzalez beat him easily. In golf, he lost badly to Arnold Palmer. He climbed from the boxing ring his face blooded by Archie Moore; never mind, hadn't Hemingway once been floored by Morley Callaghan, a Canadian writer then in Paris?

It wasn't a bad journalistic idea: the outsider taking on the professional, and showing that being a pro takes more skill than is often realised. Other writers have done the same. But the public, uninterested that Mr Plimpton might have a serious motive for his jaunts, took the view that he was simply a moneyed idiot looking for ways to pass the time. He persuaded Leonard Bernstein to let him join an orchestra he was conducting, and was allowed to help out with the percussion. But even playing the triangle is a skill. He missed his cue in a Mahler symphony. Determined not to miss out next time, he prepared to strike the gong softly in a Tchaikovsky piece. But, in a state of nerves, he bashed it with all his strength, bringing the performance abruptly to a premature end. Mr Plimpton's oeuvre includes a number of movies, but his parts tended to be brief. He was an Arab in “Lawrence of Arabia” and was beaten to the draw by John Wayne in a western.

Despite the fact that you were a Detroit Lion and not a Chicago Bear, we'll miss you in the huddle, George. Rest in peace.

THE BEAUTY OF CAPITAL LIBERALIZATION

Dan Drezner expounds on a neglected facet of bringing about a free trade economy--removing capital controls and ensuring liberalization when it comes to areas such as equity markets and general financial development. It's an excellent article, which I strongly encourage you to read.

By the way--and forgive me for shilling for my alma mater yet again--can I get a "Thank God" from the congregation for the Chicago School of Economics? Their vibrant theories, eloquence, and articulate defenses of the free market are invaluable in doing battle against the statist theories and arguments of a Krugman, or a Stiglitz. We would be intellectually and financially impoverished without the Chicago School, whose contributions to the debate over economic policy are ongoing and without measure.

EINE KLEINE NACHTMUSIK UND EINE KLEINE GELT*

If the import of this post really is true, I should play Mozart in my CD player a lot more often than I actually do.

*I have no idea whatsoever if my German lede is grammatically accurate, as I have never taken German in my life. Feel free to let me know if I have blundered, but please be kind--this is virgin linguistic territory for me.

MORE SPIN DECONSTRUCTION

Byron York has more on the Democrats' "we won by losing" spin following the outcome of the California recall election. And in the event that you missed it, be sure to read Hugh Hewitt's take on the Democrats' spin, posted here.

THE EMPLOYMENT MARKET

More encouraging news:

New claims for unemployment insurance fell last week to their lowest level in eight months, a hopeful sign that companies may be having a bit more faith in the staying power of the economic recovery and thus are easing the pace of layoffs.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that for the work week ending Oct. 4 new applications for jobless benefits dropped by a seasonally adjusted 23,000 to 382,000, the best showing since Feb. 8. That marked a better performance than analysts were forecasting. They were predicting claims would dip to 395,000 last week.

New claims hit a high this year of 459,000 in the middle of April. With claims last week dipping below 400,000, a level associated with a sluggish labor market. Economists are encouraged that the pace of firings may now be stabilizing.

The more stable, four-week moving average of new claims, which smoothes out weekly fluctuations, declined by 11,500 last week to 393,500, also the lowest level since Feb. 8.

The number of unemployed people collecting jobless benefits for more than a week also went down by 7,000 - to 3.6 million for the week ending Sept. 27, the most recent period for which that information is available.

Hopeful signs on the labor market front come as the economy, which grew at a annual rate of 3.3 percent in the April-to-June quarter of this year, is believed to have picked up more speed and grown at a rate of around 5 percent in the July-to-September quarter, economists said.

For the first time in eight months, the economy actually added jobs in September - 57,000 of them - helping to keep the nation's unemployment rate at 6.1 percent, the government reported last week.

THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE DRINKING GAME

It's not a bad list. But won't there be mandatory drinks if someone mentions that we were led to a war in Iraq via false pretenses, or that it is a quagmire and we should turn over control to the United Nations, or that the tax cut was bad, or that the Patriot Act was awful despite the fact that the denouncer of the Patriot Act may very well have voted for it, or that . . .

I'd better stop now, lest I am inadvertently responsible for inducing mass alcohol poisoning. Kids, don't play my game. Your liver is your friend.

COMMENTARY ON THE CALIFORNIA RECALL

Quoth Marc Cooper:

The toxic Gray Kool-Aid so vigorously and blindly lapped up by Democrats and liberals over the past week seemed fully ingested by the time the polls closed Tuesday night. As the 8 o’clock hour ominously tolled at the Biltmore, the ballroom bleachers sagged under the weight of 200 or so journos, and a couple of very bored white-shirted fire marshals milled at the doorway, but nary a single living human being could be found on the floor of the Davis election-night party, a neat little reproduction of Jonestown.

I ran into my pal UCLA music maven Robert Winter, who had sauntered over to the Biltmore after being shut out from the Paul Krugman reading across the street at the public library. He was so amused by the deathly void of the funereal ballroom that he rushed out into its center so I could snap a souvenir picture of him standing starkly alone in Gray Davis’ new domain: the Big Nowhere.

Two hours later, when Davis formally surrendered, a roomful of supporters from Jesse Jackson to Dolores Huerta were dutifully assembled to stand with him before the cameras. But they shimmered onscreen as little more than political ghosts, having sacrificed themselves for such an unworthy ally as Davis.

Face it. Just about everything liberal activists said about the recall, just about every Cassandra-like prediction spooned out by the party hacks at MoveOn.org, failed to materialize. Far from being a Republican "power grab," the recall election culminated as a raucous festival of direct democracy. Turnout was much greater than in November. The voting system didn’t collapse. No Hurricane Chad ripped through the counting rooms. No masses of people of color were disenfranchised. Thousands of not-very-confused-at-all citizens did not mistakenly vote for Gary Coleman instead of Cruz Bustamante.

[. . .]

Refusing to validate or even recognize the raw voter resentment against the political cesspool of Sacramento, liberals wound up pinned up against the wall, on the losing side of an historic voter revolt. As the insurgency swelled, the best that liberal activists could do was plug their ears, cover their eyes and rather mindlessly repeat that this all was some sinister plot linked to Florida, Texas, Bush, the Carlyle Group, Enron, and Skull and Bones. By bunkering down with the discredited and justly scorned Gray Davis, they wound up defending an indefensible status quo against a surging wave of popular disgust. So gross was their miscalculation that the campaign ended last week with the lobbyist-infested state Capitol being surrounded by 10,000 broom-waving Arnold supporters instead of by what should have been an army of enraged reformers and progressives.

If you think it odd that Schwarzenegger and the California Republican Party should be able to effortlessly assume the posture of populist slayers of special interests, then you are normal. But if you can’t figure out that it’s Gray Davis’ coin-operated administration and the liberals’ refusal to divorce themselves from it that allows such a comic-opera, then you’re, to be polite, naïve.

Yet, by election eve, liberals had worked themselves into quite a self-deluding and frenzied lather. The same apologists for Clinton’s sex scandals transformed themselves into the new morality police — shocked, even outraged by Arnold’s boorishness. Can you imagine someone like that in public office? (As a matter of fact I can, vividly recalling Juanita Broderick’s accusation of rape against Big Bill.) Defeat of the recall, in the heads of lefties, merged with images of the Durutti column heroically defending Madrid against the Franco onslaught. (No pasaran, Austrian swine!) And why not? Arnold, actually the most liberal of statewide GOP candidates to come along in a generation, was now a Hitler-loving Nazi. Like father, like son and all that. Today English only — tomorrow mandatory Deutsch.

Bear in mind that the L.A. Weekly ain't exactly a conservative rag. And while I opposed the recall for policy purposes, Cooper hits the nail on the head in my view. This is what incoherent political rage gets you--a wipeout for the enraged party that is the direct result of that party's inability to articulate a vision beyond "We hates the Republicans! We hates 'em and their tricksy ways!" It happened in California, and unless someone on the national stage comes up quickly with a positive vision for the Democrats, it'll happen nationwide as well.

PUTTING OUT THE SCANDAL

In response to the story blogged here regarding the potential violations of federal election laws by Wesley Clark's campaign, Clark has decided to return the controversial speaking fees. Although, of course, the return of the fees was accompanied by the traditional "we didn't do anything wrong, and we'll never do it again" language that one often comes across:

"Based on our review of the FEC guidelines, we believe that the paid speeches Gen. Clark delivered since he announced his candidacy were appropriate," campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani said. "From here on, Gen. Clark will give no more paid speeches."

I'm not familiar with federal election laws, but I'm not sure that this is enough to absolve Clark from paying at least some kind of fine or penalty for the violation. Stay tuned, I guess.

LET THE DEATHWATCH BEGIN

More medical woes for Yasser Arafat, a man who most definitely will not be missed when he shuffles off this mortal coil.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Books are the carriers of civilization. Without books, history is silent, literature dumb, science crippled, thought and speculation at a standstill. I think that there is nothing, not even crime, more opposed to poetry, to philosophy, ay, to life itself than this incessant business.

--Henry David Thoreau

CAN'T KEEP A GOOD TEAM DOWN

I've seen the weakness of the Florida Marlins. It is pitching. We can rock their pitchers in a big way.

The Cubs have to feel good with Wood on the mound for Game 3. Hopefully, he will deliver the kind of performance that Prior (God Bless Prior) gave us this evening, with the Cubs' bats continuing to be hot. Game 4--with Clement pitching--will probably be key (although we certainly can't afford a loss with Wood). If Clement can get us a win, Zambrano will hopefully break out of his slump in Game 5, and bring an end to the series. This would allow the Cubs to set their rotation so that Prior and Wood go in Games 1 and 2 of the World Series respectively.

But let's not look too far ahead. One game at a time. For now, the Cubs are tied with the Marlins. Now, they have to go up 2-1.

One game at a time.

MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP

This week, I discuss how nanotechnology fits into national priorities.

Surprisingly, one reader comments that I am a "central planner" when it comes to suggesting how nanotech policy should be shaped. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm all for the free market having a vibrant role, and I note in the article that the private sector is spending many times more on nanotech research than is the federal government. However, there are national security issues that are brought up by research and development into nanotech, and this invariably brings the government into the debate. Additionally, if we want to educate the public on the benefits and potential risks of nanotechnology (and I believe that the benefits far outweigh the risks), we need to have national leaders--including the President and his Administration--foster a national dialogue. No one else has the public pull to put nanotech on the map as an issue of the day.

"DIGNITY IN DEFEAT"

Or lack thereof.

HEADS THEY WIN, TAILS WE LOSE

I always love hearing the self-serving Democratic postmortems that appear immediately after the party gets swamped in an election. In 1994, after the Republicans retook the Senate, and ended a 40 year Democratic stranglehold on the House of Representatives, RNC Chairman Haley Barbour appeared with DNC Chairman David Wilhelm on Larry King Live, where Wilhelm attempted to explain to an incredulous audience that the Republican sweep was just part of the forces of political change that propelled Bill Clinton to office, and that somehow, the GOP takeover wasn't a bad thing. The argument was transparently self-serving, and was dropped in about a day as the only reaction it provoked was peals of laughter and ridicule.

Today, after the recall election, Democrats are trying out that same brand of spin. Hugh Hewitt sets them straight.

THE IMPOVERISHED IDEOLOGY OF "CULTURAL EXCEPTIONALISM"

An excellent article by Jean-Francois Revel on the palliative effects of globalization regarding culture and society, and the shortsighted ideology of "cultural exceptionalism" adopted by the French:

“Cultural diversity” has replaced “cultural exceptionalism” in the French-inspired, Eur- opean rhetoric. But in actuality, the two terms cover the same kind of cultural protectionism. The idea that a culture can preserve its originality by barricading itself against foreign influences is an old illusion that has always produced the opposite of the desired result. Isolation breeds sterility. It is the free circulation of cultural products and talents that allows each society to perpetuate and renew itself.

The proof of this goes back to the old comparison between Athens and Sparta. It was Athens, the open city, that was the prolific fount of creation in letters and arts, philosophy and mathematics, political science, and history. Sparta, jealously guarding its “exceptionalism,” pulled off the tour de force of being the only Greek city not to have produced a single notable poet, ora- tor, thinker, or architect; their achievement was “diversity” of a sort, but at the price of emptiness. Parallel phenomena of cultural vacuity are found again in contemporary totalitarian states. Fear of ideological contamination induced the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Maoists to take refuge in an “official” art and a pompously dogmatic literature, sheer insults to the heritage of the peoples on whom they were inflicted.

When, in December 2001, Jean-Marie Messier said that “French-style cultural exceptionalism is dead,” he aroused horrified protests, but he was not going nearly far enough. He could have added: in fact, French cultural exceptionalism has never existed, thank goodness. If it had, it would be French culture itself that would be extinct. Let’s suppose that the sixteenth-century kings of France, instead of inviting Italian artists to their courts, had said to themselves: “This predominance of Italian painting is insufferable. We’ll keep those painters and their pictures out of the country.” The result of this castrating démarche would have been to thwart a renewal of French art. Again: between 1880 and 1914 there were many more French Impressionist paintings in American museums and the homes of private collectors than there were in France, despite which—or because of which—American art was subsequently able to find its own wellsprings, and then influence French art in turn.

These cross-fertilizations are indifferent to political antagonisms. It was during the first half of the seventeenth century, when France and Spain were frequently at war, that the creative influence of Spanish literature on the French was particularly marked. The eighteenth century, which saw repeated conflict between France and England, was also the period when the most active and productive intellectual exchanges between the two countries occurred. And between 1870 and 1945, diplomatic relations between France and Germany were hardly idyllic, yet those were the years when German philosophers and historians had the most to teach the French. And wasn’t Nietzsche steeped in the ideas of the French moralists? It would be possible to extend indefinitely the list of examples illustrating this truth: cultural diversity arises from manifold exchanges. This applies just as well to gastronomy: only McDonald’s-hating lunatics are unaware of the obvious fact that there have never been so many restaurants offering foreign cuisines, in practically every country, as in our day. Far from imposing standardiza- tion, international exchange diversifies. Withdrawing behind a wall can only dry up inspiration.

Revel points out that the United States--by welcoming different cultures and their unique perspectives in full compliance with the American tradition of being a nation of immigrants--is infinitely more intellectually interesting than the staid and static French culture, which tragically is turning a blind eye to positive cultural influences from outside its own borders:

You don’t have to be an Aristotle or a Leibniz to grasp that “universal exceptionalism” is a contradiction in terms on the most elementary level of logic. And it is not the only such contradiction in a confused quarrel that has more to do with strong emotions than rational analysis. So Denis Olivennes, who heads Canal +, a television network that plays a big role in the French film industry’s financing, argues that a linchpin of this financial support is a tax on all new releases. In this way, he writes, “American films, which represent about half of new releases, contribute half of the funding.” Here is impressive sleight of hand. For it’s obvious that American films would not provide the funds, but rather the French filmgoer. More generally, the opposition between the state and the market in relation to the arts, between public moneys and the money of the public, is a misleading one. Public funds have but one source: the public, which is taxed by one means or another, directly or indirectly. The question is what proportion of the public’s contribution is freely offered and what proportion is milked from it by government fiat, then spent according to the whims of a minority of political and administrative decision-makers and commissions whose members are appointed, not elected.

A culture becomes decadent when it takes to running down other cultures while heaping praises on itself. Thus the professionals of radio and television keep harping on the notion—which they end up seeming to believe and making their audiences believe—that American television movies, produced with the sole aim of making a profit, avoid all controversial social and political issues. But French series, we are told over and over again, draw from a tradition of publicly funded state television; even productions from our privatized networks follow the aesthetic canons of this tradition. So they escape the “tyranny of profit” and can risk upsetting some of their viewers by courageously airing serious, painful controversies.

But actually, the opposite is true. Michel Winkler has given ample proof of this in his book Les Miroirs de la vie, subtitled Histoire des séries américains. In an interview on Monde television, Winkler (who is a physician and a novelist, and author of the 1998 bestseller La Maladie de Sachs) said: “French television series are not designed to make you think. The three main networks have one and the same policy when it comes to TV drama: … catering to conformism. The viewers are treated like sheep.” Conversely, in the United States “television, with its social critiques, has taken over from the cinema of the years between 1930 and 1950.” Conventional French productions hold the public all the more captive in that only 15 percent of French people have access to cable or satellite television, compared with 80 percent in America.

Bringing grist to the mill, let me cite the episodic television drama about the Watergate affair that was filmed and broadcast in the United States very soon after Richard Nixon’s resignation in the mid-seventies. The actor who played the president was virtually his double, and all the others were easily identifiable as real characters. And of course this was not the only national scandal that furnished the plot for an American TV production or movie, or a scenario close to actual events. But I’m still waiting for French equivalents: exposés, perhaps, of the insider trading that led to Pechiney’s buy- out of Triangle—insiders, it seems, at the highest levels of government—and of the Crédit Lyonnais and Elf scandals. If they were to be comparable to American productions, they would have to be accurate renditions of these episodes, highly unflattering to France, with a cast closely modeled on the original. It’s likely that we’ll have to wait a long time for these programs.

Rehashing one of the stalest Marxist clichés, Catherine Tasca, the French minister of culture, confided to the Figaro magazine that “market laws are the totems of American power.” In fact, market laws are not so much totems as the explanation.

Read the whole thing, and marvel at the level of cultural isolationism reached by French society. And bear in mind that I'm not reveling (pardon the pun) in any of this. I think it would be a tragedy to French culture, and to the culture of the world if France has irrevocably decided to engage in cultural navel-gazing, rather than to be open-minded about the benefits that globalization can bring to cultural development.

KEEPING TABS

Both the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and the American Enterprise Institute have joined forces to create NGOWatch, whose self-explanatory name leads one to the conclusion that they are in the business of monitoring the activities of non-governmental organizations. There appears to be a lot of interesting information on the site, so be sure to check it out.

SORRY, BUT NOT THIS TIME

At the risk of upsetting plans to revel in partisan displays of schadenfreude, behold the winners of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Economics.

None of them are named "Krugman," though to be perfectly honest, I wish that one of them was named "Bhagwati."

WHITHER JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY?

Something's rotten in the state of the L.A. Times:

Senior Democratic strategists knew the particulars of last Thursday’s L.A. Times exposé on Arnold Schwarzenegger well in advance of the story’s publication, the Weekly has learned from well-informed sources. This knowledge came not only in advance of publication but also before anyone outside a close circle at the Times knew of the story’s timing and particulars.

While the Times insists that its reporting uncovered the allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Schwarzenegger, there can be no doubt that advance knowledge of the story was very helpful to Governor Gray Davis’ efforts to retain his office in the recall election.

[. . .]

. . . According to a well-informed source at the paper, the story, which hit the political world with a thunderclap, never appeared on the paper’s internal or external publication schedules. Indeed, project editor Joel Sappell and the three reporters working on what the Times has described as a seven-week-long investigative project were very tight-lipped about both the scheduling of the piece and its contents. They discussed the story only with the paper’s senior editors. Although the story did not appear on the schedule, it was reportedly placed in the "write basket," in which other Times editors and reporters can look at upcoming pieces, after hours last Wednesday night, just a few hours before it appeared on the Times Web site.

Even with utmost secrecy surrounding the piece, senior Democratic strategists with long-standing ties to Davis knew not only when the story was coming but also the particulars of what was in it. These strategists felt that the story held the possibility of tipping the election away from Schwarzenegger and of defeating the governor’s recall.

All together now: "Oh, that liberal media!"

IT'S AWFUL TO FEEL NO SYMPATHY FOR THE ILL OF HEALTH . . .

But count me among those who has no sympathy whatsoever for Yasser Arafat's medical problems.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

--Theodore Roosevelt

YOU CAN'T WIN 'EM ALL . . .

But this smarts. I know it's just one game, but how in hell does Zambrano give up a four run lead? Spoons says in the comments to this post to take heart, and Lord knows, I'm trying. Still, we should have won this one. And we should have won fairly easily at that.

Now the Cubs will find out what they are made of. Time to bounce back guys.

THE CALIFORNIA RECALL ELECTION

Well, the circus is over, and it's "Governor Schwarzenegger" by nearly half a million votes over Bustamante, his closest rival. In fact, if you put together Schwarzenegger's and McClintock's totals, the center-right beats the center-left by nearly 700,000 votes. Don't tell me that a Republican can't win in California.

One bizarre sight was seeing Arnold's victory party, a party peopled with oodles and oodles of . . . Kennedys. Well, Shrivers to be exact, but you get the point. And they were cheering Arnold on as strongly as any Republican would. I guess it really is true what they say--the Kennedys think of themselves as their own political party.

WHOOPS!

Well, this would be a problem:

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark may have violated federal election laws by discussing his presidential campaign during recent paid appearances, according to campaign finance experts.

Clark, a newcomer to presidential politics, touted his candidacy during paid appearances at DePauw University in Indiana and other campuses after he entered the presidential race on Sept. 17. Under the laws governing the financing of presidential campaigns, candidates cannot be paid by corporations, labor unions, individuals or even universities for campaign-related events. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) considers such paid political appearances akin to a financial contribution to a candidate.

Clark is getting paid as much as $30,000 for speeches, according to people familiar with his arrangement. He has two more scheduled for next week.

Clark, like any other candidate, would likely be permitted to deliver the paid speeches only if they did not "expressly" cover his campaign or his political opponents, the experts said.

But in his speeches, Clark has talked about his campaign positions and criticized President Bush's policies. At DePauw, during a question-and-answer session after the speech, Clark "absolutely" covered his political views on everything from education to the economy, said Ken Bode, a visiting professor of journalism who moderated the session.

Larry Noble, a former FEC general counsel who heads the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, said Clark's speeches are "problematic" because "the insertion of campaign-related items into his speech can turn it into a campaign speech." If so, the paid appearances would amount to "illegal contributions," Noble said.

"If somebody is going to get involved in a presidential campaign, they need to know the rules," Noble said.

William Oldaker, Clark's general counsel, said the retired general did not run afoul of FEC laws because Clark "is not attempting through those speeches to specifically . . . influence his election."

Oldaker said Clark only "incidentally" mentioned his candidacy in the speeches, and, therefore, the purpose of his appearances had nothing to do with his presidential campaign.

But Don Simon of Common Cause, a campaign finance watchdog group, said, "It's potentially a real problem if he used these speeches in any way to even refer to his campaign." Simon said the FEC should investigate whether Clark crossed the line by talking too much about his campaign, even if that wasn't the candidate's intent. Simon said the FEC would look at the "totality" of Clark's appearances to determine if he violated any laws.

IN WHICH OUR HERO GOES AND VOTES

I did my civic duty and cast my vote in the California recall election. I voted "No" on the recall, and cast my vote for McClintockon the second question, in case you were wondering.

There appeared to be a fair amount of turnout here in Orange County. The ballots were interesting as well--they were paper ballots that had boxes right next to each question, and a pen available to fill in the boxes. Simple, to the point, and free from chad problems. Maybe paper ballots are the wave of the future, as InstaPundit has said more times than I can count.

In any event, my fearless prediction is that Davis will be recalled, and Arnold will win on question 2. As of this moment, however, I'm more concerned about the Cubs-Marlins game that is on, so you will excuse me if my political obsession has temporarily given way to an obsession of a different kind.

BACK AND BLOGGING

Stephen Green has some new posts, and appears to have returned from his hiatus. Go over and read.

THE NEW SOLDIER FIELD

Writing over at Terry Teachout's blog, Our Girl in Chicago has some thoughts on the new stadium. I don't think she likes it much.

PLANNING BIAS AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ

Via Virginia Postrel, I came across this excellent Jonathan Rauch article which says the following about the reconstruction of Iraq:

Planning bias. Again and again, critics charge the government with having no plan or strategy. Whenever the Pentagon or administration changes course, they charge it with having planned poorly. Headlines speak of events "out of control" in Iraq. More than just hindsight bias is at work here. Many people, particularly the sophisticated sort, hate messiness. They like to know that smart managers are in charge, figuring out everything. Surprises are defeats.

In truth, the planning mind-set is exactly wrong for Iraq. Anything might have happened after the war: a flood of refugees, a cholera pandemic, a civil war--or, for that matter, the discovery of an advanced nuclear program. The fact that the Bush administration keeps adjusting its course, often contravening its own plans or preferences, is a hopeful sign. The administration's decisions to raise rather than reduce troop levels, to ask for $87 billion that it never planned on needing, to go looking for help from the United Nations--all this suggests not that the Iraq effort is failing but that the administration is more flexible than its rhetoric.

I'm all for planning, but plans have to be open to change, and it is funny that the criticisms are coming in whenever a plan shows too much inclination for flexibility. American military planners were attacked for changing their designs on a moment's notice during the war with Iraq--only to find that such adaptability was essential to winning the war. You would think that maybe they would be somewhat more tolerant of adaptability in planning, but apparently not.

REBUILDING

Now that the Atlanta Braves have been dispatched by my beloved Cubs, the lovely Atlanta blogstress Jessica Harbour gives advice on how the Braves can renew themselvees, and rise like a Phoenix from the ashes. Talk of strip clubs is included.

I'm glad to see that Jessica is now rooting for the Cubs. Somehow, there must be a way to make her allegiance to the North Siders permanent.

Hmm, what to do? What to do?

THE HUMAN PUNCHING BAG

Why Michael Moore continues to make himself a target for abuse from people like Tim Blair is frankly beyond me. But hey, if Moore wants to keep embarrassing himself, I'll be glad to keep laughing.

YAY!

A hearty bravo to Alexei Abrikosov.

THE "TYPE M" WORLD OF PAUL KRUGMAN

Arnold Kling nails Krugman with an excellent open-letter revealing Krugman to be a demagogue with whom a constructive discussion is next to impossible

A POSTBELLUM REVIEW

Jon Henke has an excellent review discussing whether the war in Iraq was justified pursuant to the terms of the Congressional authorizing resolution. Be sure to take a look.

BET YOU NEVER THOUGHT YOU WOULD SEE THIS

Khomeini calls for U.S. invasion of Iran:

It's not strictly necessary to speak to Hossein Khomeini to appreciate the latter point: Every visitor to Iran confirms it, and a large majority of the Iranians themselves have voted for anti-theocratic candidates. The entrenched and reactionary regime can negate these results up to a certain point; the only question is how long can they do so? Young Khomeini is convinced that the coming upheaval will depend principally on those who once supported his grandfather and have now become disillusioned. I asked him what he would like to see happen, and his reply this time was very terse and did not require any Quranic scriptural authority or explication. The best outcome, he thought, would be a very swift and immediate American invasion of Iran.

It hurt me somewhat to have to tell him that there was scant chance of deliverance coming by this means. He took the news pretty stoically (and I hardly think I was telling him anything he did not know). But I was thinking, wow, this is what happens if you live long enough. You'll hear the ayatollah's grandson saying, not even "Send in the Marines" but "Bring in the 82nd Airborne." I think it was the matter-of-factness of the reply that impressed me the most: He spoke as if talking of the obvious and the uncontroversial.

Just imagine how many other Iranians must feel the same way.

(Also posted here.)

DIARY ENTRY

6:00 am: Wake up. Get out on left side of bed. Hit foot against nightstand because it's still dark. Curse.

6:15 am: Brush teeth with Crest toothpaste. Make sure to reach neglected second molars. Floss.

6:30 am: Shave face with new razor. Apply skin cream to prevent razor burn. Shaving results are satisfactory, except for a slight cut right underneath the chin. Note to self: Enhance shaving technique to avoid this.

6:45 am: Finish breakfast of wheat germ, coffee, milk and orange juice. Read Washington Post front page. Fail to find name listed anywhere. Ditto for the New York Times. Reach fateful conclusion.

8:00 am: Withdraw from Presidential race.

OK, all kidding aside, this is actually rather bad for Republicans, as it increases the chances that Graham will run for re-election to the Senate. That, along with Don Nickles' decision not to seek re-election, puts a crimp in Republican plans to increase their Senate majority.

OH, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!

I have to wonder why this didn't get more attention in the California recall race. I mean, if we're investigating candidates' personal histories . . .

WHILE WE TOIL IN THE U.S. . . .

They're partying in China.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

We're advising all of our clients to invest in canned foods and shotguns.

--Line from Gremlins II

Ah'ma Ah'ma Ah'mageddon out of here!

--Potential reaction of Porky Pig to the Cubs winning a postseason series for the first time in 95 years.

GONE FASTIN'

There will be no posting tomorrow, as it is Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, and I will be busy atoning for my sins. Speaking of atonement, Dan Drezner does a good job of getting right with the Lord. His words are my own.

I'm going to go to the synagogue now. I would and should in any event, but given the fact that we are in the Days of Awe, and the Cubs have broken one portion of a 95 year curse, it would seem that making sure one is right with the Lord is extra important. I hope and wish that all would be inscribed in the Book of Life, but if Chicagoans past, present and future get some extra credit, that might be a nice thing. I'm just sayin' . . .

See you all on Tuesday.

HEY, HEY (PART II)

Behold symmetry. Cubs Win! Cubs Win! Cubs Win! Cubs Win! Cubs Win!

First. Postseason. Series. Win. Since. Nineteen. Oh. Eight.

Now, onward to take on the Marlins. Go Cubs! Squish the fish! One curse is over. Let's end the other one.

HEY, HEY (PART I)

Surprising me, you and just about anyone even remotely familiar with the game of American football, the Chicago Bears won their first game this year. So much for the 0-16 season coming about. And interestingly, today, the Atlanta Falcons lost.

Why do I bring up the Falcons losing on the same day the Bears won? Well, because of symmetry.

A WINNING MOVE

This kid is classy on and off the chessboard:

Thirteen-year-old Alex Edwards, an eighth-grader at da Vinci Middle School, loves playing chess. So for his bar mitzvah last July, he suggested that instead of bringing gifts, guests could make a donation to Chess for Success, a nonprofit that brings chess programs to Portland's low-income schools. This will be Alex's second year as a Chess for Success volunteer at Sabin Elementary School in Northeast Portland.

Alex's generosity -- and that of his guests -- paid off. The event brought in a total of $2,600 for Chess for Success. As for Alex, he now sits on the Chess for Success planning and fund-raising committees. He also will be introducing Maurice Ashley, a chess grandmaster, at a special Chess for Success event in November.

"If someone told me I was going to be a volunteer, donate money from my bar mitzvah, then sit on the committees, I would be like, 'Yeah, right,' " Alex said. "It's such a great organization."

Chess for Success started out as the Portland Chess Project, an after-school chess program founded in 1992. Funded through a four-year grant from the Meyer Memorial Trust, the Portland Chess Project was launched in nine schools to see what effects chess might have on academic performance, self-esteem and classroom behavior.

Well played, Alex. Very well played indeed.

FOOT, MEET BULLET

If this story is true, I cannot imagine a more devastating development for the Iranian reform movement:

Secret 'back-door' diplomacy involving some of the Middle East's most influential figures has led to unexpected signals of a rapprochement between America and Iran despite angry public rhetoric on both sides. Tensions between Washington and Tehran remain high, particularly over the question of Iran's nuclear programme and alleged attempts to destabilise the US occupation in Iraq, but a tentative dialogue has been established.

One go-between has been King Abdullah II of Jordan, who visited Tehran shortly before meeting President Bush at Camp David last month. King Abdullah is understood to have been briefed by Mohammed Khatami, the Iranian president, and Kamal Kharrazi, the foreign minister, and to have transferred their 'analysis of the regional situation' to the Americans.

Last week US officials confirmed that they had received 'positive signals' from Iran. 'There is some indication that the Iranians want to talk to us about a range of issues and we are responding appropriately,' one State Department official said.

Why on earth would we want to negotiate with a regime that is a threat to our national security interests, and is opposed by the Iranian people themselves--many of whom welcome American intervention to rid them of the Islamic Republic?

I'M NOT A FAN OF MARIJUANA . . .

But I definitely think that certain attempts to campaign against its use are ridiculous beyond measure.

THE NEW FACE OF THE GOP?

I'm very glad to see that Bobby Jindal is the Republican nominee for the gubernatorial race in Louisiana. Not only is he terribly bright and accomplished, not only is he a very eloquent voice for new and vibrant policies, he will also help show by his own example that minorities need not consider themselves wedded to the Democratic Party. This will give both parties an incentive to fight for minority votes instead of merely taking them for granted--something many minorities now feel that the Democrats are doing with their votes.

Oh, and in case you are wondering, I gave Jindal's candidacy a brief mention some time ago. I look forward to writing and reading more about him--preferably as he assumes the office of Governor of Louisiana.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper. To judge whether he is fit to be employed may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ an improper person is evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive.

--Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Via Dan Drezner)

A PERSONAL PLEDGE

If the Cubs win tomorrow against the Braves, I promise not to complain about any loss that the Bears suffer in their game tomorrow. You can take that to the bank.

The fact that I am resigned to the Bears losing tomorrow makes this pledge easier to make than it would be under normal circumstances. Still, will not Almighty God take notice of the sacrifice I make, and render His approval by ending tomorrow the 95 year curse on my beloved North Siders affecting their ability to win a postseason game?

*CUE EVIL LAUGHTER*

"Curmudgeonly"? He's downright wicked!

THE TIN EAR OF BOB MULHOLLAND

Substituting for Tacitus, Macallan tells us that the California Democrats may have drastically miscalculated in their latest (probable) smear attempt.

EMPLOYMENT IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR

I really wish that more people would recall this when discussing manufacturing layoffs:

Some fallacies just keep coming back no matter how many times they have been exploded. Jobs in the manufacturing sector are disappearing and have been doing so for 30 years. The reason this has occured, however, is not because we have "sent the good jobs overseas" and it is not because our manufacturing sector is "rusting." Jobs have disappeared because the manufacturing sector has been spectaculary succesful. When measured in terms of what ultimately matters, output, the U.S. manufacturing sector has more than doubled in size over the past 30 years. We are now producing more "stuff" than virtually ever before and because of productivity improvements we are doing it with less labor.

I read somewhere--can't recall where--that job losses due to outsourcing have amounted to a mere 0.1% of total job losses in the past few years. If anyone has the source for this, or a source that claims something else, I'd appreciate it if they dropped it in the comments section. In any event, not enough people seem to understand that the layoffs in the manufacturing sector are due to fabulous efficiency. Perhaps this aspect of the employment economy should be discussed a wee bit more.

THE WMD HUNT

If there really are no WMD's in Iraq, someone is wasting a lot of good bullets for nothing:

Two Iraqi scientists were shot in Baghdad after they talked to the U.S.-led team hunting weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and others believe they will be in danger if they collaborate in the search, Washington's chief weapons inspector David Kay said on Friday.

Kay, who is directing the WMD hunt as an adviser to the CIA, presented an interim report to U.S. lawmakers this week that said no banned weapons had yet been found.

Some Iraqi scientists have sought relocation in the United States out of fear for the safety of their families, and others who want to stay in Iraq seek security guarantees, Kay told reporters on a conference call. "They believe they are in genuine danger ... if they collaborate with us," he said.

One scientist was "assassinated literally hours after meeting" with a member of the WMD-hunting team, killed by a single shot to the back of his head outside his apartment, Kay said. There were no signs of robbery.

Another scientist, who was "really golden for us," was shot six times but survived, he said. Kay declined to name them.

It almost makes you wonder whether those doing the shooting have something to hide, doesn't it? Boy, wouldn't that be a shocker.

GROUNDHOG DAY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

I'm sure that the people responsible for bringing this about must have thought their timing to be marvelous:

A Palestinian woman blew herself up in a crowded seaside restaurant at lunchtime Saturday, killing 19 people including three children. It was one of the deadliest attacks in the past three years, prompting new calls for Yasser Arafat's expulsion.

About 40 people were wounded in the attack on the Maxim Restaurant, co-owned by Arabs and Jews in the Mediterranean port of Haifa, an ethnically mixed and tolerant city but also a frequent target for suicide attackers - perhaps because they can easily blend in. Both Arabs and Jews were at the restaurant at the time.

The militant group Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing and said the attacker was 20 years old. The Sabbath attack also came a day ahead of Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar.

*SIGH*

Why couldn't it have been over today, at Wrigley, in front of the fans. Why do we have to continue the agony of seeing whether a 95 year curse will finally come to an end with a Cubs postseason series win?

If anyone has any encouraging remarks to leave in the comments section, I would deeply appreciate it. Meanwhile, is there any way to sneak in a damn billy goat in Turner Field? Does Ted Turner himself qualify?

Oh, and by the way, Robert Fick is an a**hole for what he tried to do to Eric Karros. Maybe Kerry Wood has a nice pitch saved up just for Bobby. Replace the "C" in Fick's name with an "S," and it recalls another a**hole in a totally different field.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

A semi-original composition (which is not meant to offend):

Our Cubbies, who art in Wrigley,
Hallowed be thy game.
Thy victory come,
Thy series be won,
In Turner Field, but we prefer in Wrigley.
Give us this year a World Series win.
Preserve us from errors,
But let others commit many errors against us.
And lead us to hit home runs, but deliver us from the home runs of others.
For thine is the series, and the next series, and the World Series, for ever.
Win, Cubbies! Win!

HANDS ACROSS PARTISAN DIVIDES

In response to this post, the estimable Professor Jeff Cooper wrote the following in my comments section:

. . . I promise to root for the Cubs tonight. Unless you worry that my doing so (as a Mets fan) might curse them. In which case, I will root for the Braves.

Now, this presents something of a dilemma. The Mets are certainly cursed, and what's more, they deprived the '69 Cubs of what should have been rightfully theirs. In addition, while the good Professor Cooper has many virtues, he is a registered Democrat with quite liberal tendencies. How exactly can a Mets-loving Democrat make common cause with a conservative/libertarian Republican Cubs-lover like me?

But then, I realized that this is our chance to create a new and grand coalition. One that sets aside partisan concerns in both politics and sports in order to achieve the higher cause of seeing the Cubs win. This could bring us together as a people, allowing us to achieve a miasma of bliss and universal oneness so as to herald a new dawn for humanity.

Imagine all the people
living for today . . .

So Professor Cooper, I welcome your support for the Cubs. Many thanks for your graciousness and generosity of spirit. Welcome to the bandwagon.

And if--God forbid!--the Cubs end up failing to win the World Series, we'll now be able to blame bad Mets karma.

TOMORROW, TOMORROW, I LOVE YOU, TOMORROW . . .

You're only a game away.

Mark Prior rules the world. We are but his minions.

Note to Matt Clement: Tomorrow, be like Mark.

ANOTHER EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES

If you read nothing else today, read this, and this, and this, and this.

And this is just at the preliminary stage of the investigation. Imagine what else will be found as the investigation proceeds.

Oh, I was warned by a number of left-of-center bloggers and I'm currently assured by "Oh, that liberal media" that the Kay report is one giant disappointment. No thinking person could come to that conclusion when reading the damning evidence that has already been uncovered in the infancy of the investigation, but I fully expect some people to purposefully close their eyes to the fact that the Kay team has made significant progress in finding weapons (a plethora of them found in the Ammunition Storage Points (ASPs)), and in confirming the existence of an active weapons program.

Willful blindness doesn't change the emerging picture, however.

AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES

Dan Drezner has so many good posts up, that it's impossible to point to just one and recommend its reading.

So I didn't.

MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE

Good news on the jobs front.

"PHONY MACHO BUSINESS"

A gem of a column by James Bowman.

IT'S NOT JUST JUDICIAL NOMINEES WHO ARE HELD UP

The Senate confirmation process is just getting ridiculous.

AND IN KEEPING WITH THE POLYGLOT NATURE OF THIS BLOG . . .

Iain Murray reports that questioning global warming theories may not be nekulturny after all.

MON DIEU!

Pourquoi ils détestent la France?

WHEN I WISH UPON A STAR . . .

I wish that all Republicans were like Lindsey Graham.

HYPOCRISY

But darling, we can't let them in. They're Republicans:

Turning the tables on the nation's leading civil rights organization, three Republican Senate hopefuls accused the NAACP Thursday of unfairly excluding from a scheduled debate the only two GOP minority candidates in the race.

"What the NAACP was based upon is giving equal opportunity to African Americans to strive and reach their potential," said Dr. Chirinjeev Kathuria, who was born in India. "So for me, it's ironic that we're not being allowed to participate."

Kathuria, 38, and Antonio Davis-Fairman, the only black Republican vying to succeed Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), were nixed from the lineup of this Saturday's debate. That's because they placed last in a public opinion poll the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Illinois State Conference commissioned to winnow down the crowd.

The civil rights organization decided to include only the top six candidates from each party in the two-hour debate.

But Kathuria and state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger (R-Elgin) scoffed at that reasoning, arguing that the poll really showed the race was wide open. The candidate finishing first among each party's voters, Democrat Dan Hynes and Republican Jack Ryan, received just 10 percent apiece. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus 4.8 percentage points, making the results one big statistical tie.

"Polling this early is bizarre and foolish," Rauschenberger said. "It just shows you that there is no front-runner."

Ah, but the polling really wasn't "foolish," was it? I'm sure the people who did the excluding would call it "convenient" instead.

A LEGAL PRIMER

Okay, it's time for me to put on my "Nerd" hat for all y'all:

In this post, Randy Barnett corrects a statement made by Peter Robinson, and states that at least some of the allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger are still "hearsay," even if they are proven true. In response, a reader wrote in with the following comment (found here):

More on Barnett: Your usage was right not only in the colloquial sense, but legally as well. Professor Barnett's very court-centric discussion ignores the essence of hearsay: a speaker (or writer) reporting someone else's words. In or out of court, hearsay is reciting what someone else said, in contrast to direct testimony which is reporting things you have experienced or observed yourself.

The word almost defines itself. Hear-then-say. Our legal system traditionally regards such second-hand information as unreliable. But when a person reports her own direct experience, it's not hearsay.

Thus, when the charges against Arnold went from rumors and whispers to actual accusers who said "Arnold groped me," the accusations were not hearsay, not even in the legal sense. The accusers are reporting their (alleged) personal experience.

Randy is right, and the reader is oh-so-wrong.

As Randy alludes to in his post, Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as the following:

"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Now, there are a number of clauses that make a statement "not hearsay" (found under Rule 801(d)) and there are a number of hearsay exceptions, but the definition is right there, and it is obvious. Hearsay is a statement that one (1) makes out of court and (2) is offered to prove the truth of that statement. Thus, if I testify at a trial that it was raining today, and I knew that since I heard someone tell me that, unless under Rule 801(d) it is not hearsay, or unless any of the hearsay exceptions under Rules 803, 804, or 806 apply, the statement is still hearsay.

This is true even if I'm offering "direct testimony which is reporting things [I] have experienced or observed [myself]." Just because the testimony may center on my perceptions, or my statements, doesn't make the statement any less hearsay if the statement was made (1) out of court, and was (2) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e. offered to prove the truth of that statement). So it matters not a whit that the experience is "personal" or "secondhand." All that matters is (1) the definition of hearsay, (2) whether the statement has been ruled explicitly as "not hearsay" under Rule 801(d), and (3) whether the statement can be excused under any of the hearsay exceptions found in Rules 803, 804, or 806. If (2) and (3) don't save the statement, it is hearsay.

ARE THEY SERIOUS?

This column starts off with one of the dumbest questions I have come across in recent times:

Will success spoil the Cubs?

Um, gee, can we have a little success in winning the World Series this year, and then maybe find out? Two games into the playoffs, and already the killjoys are rising up to try to ruin it for the rest of us.

INTERVIEW WITH DENNIS MILLER

There's a lot of funny and insightful stuff in this interview. I won't even bother trying to find a favorite part to excerpt--just go and read the whole thing.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

A merry heart doeth good like a medicine, but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

--The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 17, Verse 22

YAY!

My alma mater may not be all that great in sports, but we rule at Nobel prizewinning.

Awesome. Very, very awesome.

A REVEALING INTERVIEW

David Adesnik learned a lot from a recent interview with Wesley Clark.

QUERY

Will this mean that we will no longer have to hear whining about FoxNews? Because if so, I might even support it.

(Link via Tim Blair, who is always fair and balanced.)

MICHAEL BELLESILES IS GINNING UP A NEW BOOK AS I WRITE THIS

This one will call for crossbow-control.

UPDATE: Okay, if you really want serious news about the fallacy of "gun control," go here.

"THE NATIONAL SECURITY GAP"

In describing efforts on the Left to make the Democrats credible on national security issues in advance of next year's election cycle, Hugh Hewitt slams Jonathan Chait and Peter Beinart but good:

Perhaps the most daring tactic in the race to fill the gap is the attempt to immunize Democratic candidates from criticism of their judgment on matters of national security. The perfect example of this campaign came in last week's New Republic, in the now much-discussed article on Bush hatred by Jonathan Chait.

Deep in the article Chait wrote:

Having spent the better part of a year denying the need for any Homeland Security Department at all, Bush aides secretly wrote up a plan with civil service provisions they knew Democrats would oppose and then used it to impugn the patriotism of any Democrats who did--most notably Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a triple-amputee veteran running for reelection who, despite his support for the war and general hawkishness, lost his Senate race thanks to an ugly GOP ad linking him to Osama bin Laden.

The Cleland refrain is now as familiar as it is bogus, and the ad does not lead viewers to question Cleland's patriotism. The key attack in Chait's argument was not the Cleland campaign, however, but the much broader charge that "Bush aides . . . impugn[ed] the patriotism of any Democrats" who opposed the creation of the Homeland Security Department.

That's a charge of McCarthyism, of course, and false charges of such vile tactics are McCarthyite themselves. They are useful in scaring off discussion of judgment on matters of national security. If any Republican who challenges any Democrat's record on terrorism or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be successfully charged with attacking another citizen's patriotism, the national security issues will get swept under the rug in a hurry.

On air I questioned Peter Beinart, the editor of the New Republic, closely on the evidence for Chait's broad accusation of McCarthyism among Bush aides. He hadn't edited the article, he told me, but would be pleased to send me "chapter and verse" supporting the allegation. Chait wrote the next day:

I plead guilty to constructing the sentence somewhat imprecisely. It was the Bush aides who wrote a Homeland Security bill that was almost certainly designed as a wedge issue. But it was not Bush aides who impugned the patriotism of Democrats who supported a slightly different version of a Homeland Security Department--it was Bush himself.

Chait continued:

On September 23, 2002, Bush said, "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." As many have noted--see Ramesh Ponnuru, in his debate with me online--Bush used the phrase "the Senate" to refer to Democrats when the chamber was under Democratic control. The main point of this, of course, was that Bush manipulated his position on Homeland security entirely for political ends. First he opposed creating a new department when Democrats were for the idea. Then he came out for it at a moment when he was suffering politically due to disclosures about White House intelligence failures before September 11. Then, to distract attention from this story, he endorsed the department, but did so in a way that would guarantee Democratic opposition. In my opinion, calling opponents "not interested in the security of the American people" in the wake of a massive attack on American soil is tantamount to questioning their patriotism.

This response provides no evidence at all, of course, and the obvious dodginess of his argument as well as the lame reliance on the much discussed Bush speech led me to conclude that he hadn't really focused. So I sent another email, noting that Peter Beinart had promised me "chapter and verse." "Is that all the evidence you have to support the statement?" I asked. Chait's one word response: "Yes."

In fact, Hewitt could have done more to show just how bogus Chait's commentary on the September 23, 2002 speech was. Here is the full passage of the pertinent remarks, courtesy of John Cole:

So I ask Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time so we can better assure America that we are doing everything possible. The House responded but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a department of homeland security that does not allow this president and future presidents (the flexibility) to better keep the American people secure. People are working hard to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. You see this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future.

(Emphasis mine). Sayng that "people are working hard to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats" constitutes "questioning [the Democrats'] patriotism"?

Beinart and Chait presented underwhelming justification for underwhelming evidence of Republican demagoguery. At least in doing so, they have achieved symmetry. A pity they cast out the truth in the process.

I WISH WE HAD SOME MORE JUDGES LIKE THAT IN AMERICA

Personal responsibility? Who woulda thunk it?!?!

"GOOD GUYS WIN!"

Yes, sometimes they do. It was good to see this story. Kudos to the Institute for Justice for helping to bring about the victory.

IT'S THAT TIME AGAIN

A new month means a new edition of The New Criterion. And as always, the Notes & Comments section is interesting and provocative. Be sure to read it.

THE EVIL ROBERT MUGABE

In case you need to be reminded about just how god-awful Zimbabwe's dictator is, look here.

And this, by the way, is a mild description.

SO LET'S GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY

Here's my take on the controversies of the day:

Arnold: Stupid and insulting to grope women at any time during his life. We condemned Clinton for rape and sexual harassment allegations. We should condemn this.

Rush: Stupid to bring in the issue of race in a discussion about Donovan McNabb. Also stupid--and possibly law-breaking--if he purchased OxyContin on the black market in order to satisfy any adddiction that he may have had to the drug.

As for developing the addiction itself, my understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the OxyContin was necessary to dilute the pain from his cochlear implant for his hearing loss problem. Given the fact that my father recently had hip replacement surgery, and was on a morphine regimen for the first couple of days, and took powerful painkillers for weeks afterwards to dilute the horrible pain that he must have been in, and given that despite the pain, he didn't want to take painkillers because he feared dependency (the fact that he is a doctor, and that he was being taken care of by excellent doctors prevented this, but still . . .) my heart goes out to anyone who develops a dependency in this manner. Of course, it's tragic if anyone develops a drug habit for any reason, but this seems especially poignant.

Finally, I notice that some liberal blogs (which shall remain nameless) are taking quite a lot of delight in the possibility that Rush may have developed a dependency. I hold no brief for Limbaugh, I don't listen to him, and I get my news and commentary elsewhere, but I find it sickening that anyone could take delight in the personal pain of another. Be sure to let me know when you or your loved ones go through some tough times. I won't jeer because I'm a civilized human being, but I'll remind you that by your standards, I could mock you 24/7.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else.

--Winston Churchill

ALAS

I suppose that there are some losses that must be absorbed along the way to a World Series (which hopefully, Chicago will have), but it still sucks that Chicago lost a game it could have easily won. After all, when you load the bases in one inning, you expect to get in more than two runs that were gotten in by a fluke.

The Cubs have to be happy with the fact that they split the Atlanta stand. But it is frustrating that this game was lost, and in a 5 game series, each game matters a little bit more. The key will be Friday. I feel good with Prior on the mound, and I hope that Maddux's 37 years and nearly 4.00 ERA weigh heavily on him (not to mention some clean, old-fashioned hate from Chicago fans). But I fear Maddux. Who wouldn't? If we can get past him, maybe Kerry can take us home in the fourth game of the series. God willing.

[Knocks on wood, rubs rabbit's foot, searches for four leaf clover, prays to God . . .]

SORRY I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF . . .

But apparently it must be said again that if you come to my site merely to troll in the comments section, insult me, and insult others, I'll simply delete your posts. You'll have wasted all of that hate, bile, and incoherent rage that must have gone into writing whatever nonsensical screed I will delete with just a mouseclick.

Remember kids, you're not wasting my time in making me have to do this. You're just wasting your own. If you can't disagree without being disagreeable, your rant will vanish from my site.

THE IDEOLOGICAL BIAS IN ACADEMIA

David Bernstein has a firsthand account of the challenges he faced as a right-of-center scholar in getting a teaching job in academia--despite his sterling credentials. And Randy Barnett tells us that if anything, David was understating what Randy called "the venomous tone" that was directed at David in his job talk.

I read too many of these stories to believe that there is no bias against right-of-center scholars in academia. And yet, there are people who put their heads in the sand, and swear up and down that such bias simply must not exist. I guess this must mean that all of the stories are imagined--something I highly doubt. Of course, there are limits to how much anecdotal evidence can be trusted, but the empirical evidence is there as well.

PROGRESS IN IRAQ

This story is very interesting, and highly encouraging. I guess I should wonder why viewpoints such as this one don't get more coverage, but I've really given up on the mainstream press to get much right, or at the very least, to get it right fairly quickly.

Thank God for the Blogosphere. Where would we be without it?

MATH WORD PROBLEMS

Contrary to popular opinion, they can be fun to do.

HE'S ALL ABOUT THE PROOF

Chris Muir can be a mean, mean man.

IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE

I guess that some leaks are just judged to be less important than others. I wonder if the same people pontificating about national security breaches regarding the Plame affair got as exercised by past breaches.*

*And no, I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right. But it's kinda important to remember history, isn't it?

WHEN YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT . . .

It's good not to neglect the fundamentals:

It may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, but Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley K. Clark still hasn't joined the Democratic Party. According to the Pulaski County (Ark.) Voter Registrar's office, the former four-star general remains a registered independent. Even though he has been a declared candidate for the Dem nomination for two weeks now, he has yet to officially change his party affiliation.

A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat.

He adds that the fledgling White House seeker plans to make his Democratic status official as soon as he gets a breather. "This has been a whirlwind two weeks," says Fabiani. "There are a lot of things we have to do, and that's one of them."

Maybe Clark just wants to leave himself open to doing another fundraiser.

INTERESTING

We'll see if anything comes of this:

Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.

The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested.

The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when.

I don't know when this plan was hatched, or whether it involved any members of the former Ba'athist regime, so I'll refrain from drawing any particular conclusions. But stay tuned--the story appears to be still developing.

DESTROYING THE NEOCONSERVATIVES?

Quoth Joseph Wilson:

Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both.

I know that there are supposedly marching orders out there that state that we should lay off Wilson, and I'll go on record (again) and say that nothing involving Wilson's behavior should mitigate any leak of classified information. But you know what? This kind of statement is just ugly, and will only serve to undercut how believable and sympathetic Wilson can potentially be as a public figure.

Whether people like it or not, Wilson's credibility and motives are going to be at issue in this investigation at least in some way. We already know that he has it in for Karl Rove, and that he was forced to backtrack on claims about Rove's culpability. Now, we find out that he is so ideologically motivated, that he feels he is "on a personal mission" to destroy neoconservatives and religious conservatives that have supposedly "hijacked" the Bush Administration. Again, regardless of what Wilson says, let's have an investigation into whether or not there was a leak. But let's also keep in mind that since Wilson is very much a public figure in this controversy now, his hyperbole and veracity can certainly be examined in judging his credibility. And in many ways, it is clear that Wilson is undercutting his own credibility, and giving people valid reasons to question his motives.

MORE ON VALERIE PLAME

This frankly grows even more bizarre. Via InstaPundit, we have this article by Robert Novak, which tells us that Valerie Plame's name was included in Joseph Wilson's "Who's Who In America" entry. Recall that Plame is also identified by her maiden name on Wilson's bio webpage.

I can't find a link online to "WWiA," but if this is true, it only serves to increase my puzzlement; Why on earth would Plame's name be so open to the public given that she was working under her maiden name--apparently as a covert operative?

YE GODS!

It is official Pejmanesque policy to excerpt portions of Gregg Easterbrook's always entertaining Tuesday Morning Quarterback that have to do with my beloved Chicago Bears (a.k.a. the Daxiongmao), and then write a haiku. Unfortunately, in this week's edition, Easterbrook spends so much time bashing the Bears, that to excerpt would be ridiculous.

For the record, I think that the newly designed Soldier Field looked rather good from what I could see on television. Of course, it was nighttime, and I couldn't tell what the outside looked like, so I remain open to changing my mind. If they really did screw up the classical outside look of the stadium, I'll be enraged.

Additionally, it really need not be said that the aesthetic quality of renovations aside, Soldier Field would look a hell of a lot better if there weren't so many goddamn Packers scoring so many goddamn touchdowns so many goddamn times and so goddamn quickly. The same thing would go for other Bears opponents (goddamn them all).

And now, a haiku:

TMQ makes fun
Of completely inept Bears.
Thank God for the Cubs.

FRENCH POLICY ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ

Want to understand it? Then look here.

I GUESS I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE PERPLEXED BY ARIANNA HUFFINGTON

Dan Drezner can't figure her out either.

JOSEPH WILSON'S POLITICAL LEANINGS

Robert Tagorda has the breakdown on Wilson's past political contributions--addressing an issue that has been brought up by a number of people; what, if anything, do we learn from Wilson's political ideology.

Regardless of Wilson's political leanings, of course, we need to find out if laws were broken by the alleged leak of his wife's name to the media. Nevertheless, I agree with Robert that "we would all be wise to bear in mind these political considerations." We certainly would.

AND SPEAKING OF THINGS TO READ

Tyler Cowen shares with us his online reading habits. He tells us the following:

. . . How many Op-Ed columnists do I really look forward to reading? Paul Krugman (though I frequently disagree with him), and some of the economists who write for The New York Times, Hal Varian would be another. But I spend as much time reading Brad DeLong, he has the liberty of writing for other economists, plus he channels the best of Krugman. I prefer Andrew Sullivan and Daniel Drezner to the regular conservative/libertarian politics commentators in the newspapers. I would rather browse Atrios than read Maureen Dowd.

(Emphasis mine.)

My question is why would one have to choose between Atrios and Dowd? Can't you just junk them both? I know I have.

Imagine, gentle reader, a horrible, horrifying universe where your reading selection was limited to choosing between Atrios, and Dowd. No Tolstoy. No Shakespeare. No Khayyam. Instead, you have to choose between a blogger who has drained deep the chalice of Kool-Aid, and a columnist who hasn't come up with an original, non-snarky bit of writing since bell-bottoms were all the rage.

I think I would sooner disembowel myself with a plastic knife than go on living.

SLOPPY, SLOPPY

Tacitus thinks that Josh Marshall's blogging standards are slipping recently. I respect Marshall as one of the more interesting left-of-center commentators around, so I certainly hope this is not the case. I'd like to know that there is an informed blog that I can read even though I disagree with the ideology it propagates, and if Marshall jumps the shark, that will be one less such blog I can rely on to get the other side of the story.

And considering the paucity of good blogs on the Left, it would be quite a loss if Tacitus was indeed right.

BELIEVE!

I love reading stories like this. They give me hope.

I just have to pinch myself as I read them, that's all.