Oyez Oyez! Moira is back. This is a good thing, except that in her absence she seems to have developed a bias against coffee.

Moira, coffee is what it is, and all of us must learn to accept coffee as it is. It comes from a culture in which coffee stains are marks of honor. Thus, to complain of coffee stained reports merely shows your Western cultural bias. And besides, I am sure that each of those stained reports (or their authors, or perhaps their author's second cousins by marriage on their mother's side) did something, sometime to deserve their stains. I mean, coffee stains don't just happen, they happen for a reason. If we, as Americans, could all just discover that reason and learn to get along with coffee in peace and harmony, I, for one, am convinced that coffee stained reports would quickly become a thing of the past.

 
On Effective Procrastination

I moved into the house I now live in about seven years ago. I moved from a house with a 25 foot driveway and no sidewalks to a house with a 50 foot driveway (which, for about half of its length, has 8 foot walls over which one must throw snow) and 200 feet of sidewalks (since the house is on a corner lot). The first two winters I was here consisted of one snowstorm after another after another. I dutifully went out and shovelled. Pretty much alone, I might add. The kids were too young to help, and, while my wife helped when she could, that wasn't much. Along about the fiftieth snowstorm of the second winter I gave up and hired someone to come in with a plow.

Following those near heart attack experiences, (from both shoveling and paying the plow guy, since I am known to be somewhat parsimonious) I broke down and purchased a snow blower. In the off season, because I really am cheap. A big one, because I am (a) even more lazy than I am cheap, and (b) male. It was a very effective expenditure of funds, too, because for the next three years it caused all major storms to avoid northern Jersey altogether. I further assured the complete absence of snow by religiously paying to have the damn snow blower serviced.

Fast forward to the most recent snow storm, a week or two ago. For the first time is something like four years, we got five, maybe six inches in my area. It had stopped snowing before I went to sleep, so I could have gone out and done the driveway like my more industrious neighbors. But, being the lazy soul that I am, I try never to do today what I can put off until tomorrow. I decided that I would get up early the next morning and do the driveway. The wife would be pleasantly surprised at my industry.

Or so I thought.

I awoke early, as planned (about 5:30) , only to find an entirely snow free driveway and fully shovelled sidewalks. This was not one of those jobs where you cut an 15 inch path down the middle of the sidewalk. The whole thing was clear of snow. I concluded that since I had been such a good boy, the snow shovel fairies had come in the night and shovelled the driveway and sidewalks.

Alas, reality is a bit more prosaic. My wife informed me (somewhat archly) that she had never told the plow guy not to come back, so he had shown up done the job an hour before I got up.

You think next time I should go to sleep with a snowball under my pillow?

 
The VodkaMan asks why the proposed replacements for the WTC look as though they've already been attacked by terrorists.

Protective coloration?

 
Drive by blogging will continue for the foreseeable future. In the meantime:

Martin Devon has been one of my favorite bloggers since I read Barbarians last April (which, in blogyears, was centuries ago).

Today, Martin writes about the weapons inspections in Iraq. In that post, he argues that there are only three possibilities in terms of results of the inspections. Those are:

(a) Iraq has WMD and the Blix team could find proof that they exist.

(b) Iraq has WMD and the Blix team could miss them.

(c) Iraq does not have WMD and the Blix team won't find them, since they aren't there.

I disagree. There is, in fact, a fourth possibility:

(d) Iraq does not have WMD, but despite that fact, they (or false evidence of their development) are "found" by Blix, et al.

Pop Quiz: If the inspectors report back with a discovery, which of the foregoing alternatives do you think Saddam will claim to have occurred? You get three guesses to choose one of the two "we found WMD" alternatives. And the first two guesses don't count.

Anonymous Iraqi General: "That thing that looks so much like a gas centrifuge is simply one of my more elaborate cappucino makers. I bought while I was on vacation in Italy. No one with any technical background could ever mistake it for a real gas centrifuge. Silly inspectors. Evil Bush." See Scott Ott.

The inspections were never the issue. It is too easy to cloud the issue. Anyone who already wants to oppose a war with Iraq will continue to do so, regardless of what the inspectors find. Few, if any, will be convinced a report that WMD or evidence of same have been found. The entire purpose of the inspections (from Bush's point of view, at least) is to convince the American electorate that his administration has attempted to work within existing multlateral structures (the UN) and despite the best efforts of the US, that attempt was a complete failure.

The report by Iraq is the issue. Is it truthful and comprehensive?

My opinion: It is unlikely to be. If that is the case, the "material breach" has already happened, and all those "serious consequences" are already in the pipeline. The only real question in my mind is how much Bush is willing to expose our intelligence sources in proving that the report is neither comprehensive nor truthful.

 
Calls for tax simplification make me smile. This was not always so. When I first began my career as a tax lawyer, I thought that simplified tax laws might reduce my income, or at least force me to work for very large organizations. But that did not happen. So now I am simply quietly amused when reading editorials demanding one form or another of tax simplification.

Since at least WWII, those intent on reforming the tax code have faced a dilemma: Any tax scheme that is simple will ultimately turn out to be unfair in many (perhaps even most) instances, and any tax scheme that is fair will always be mind numbingly complex. This is a direct result of the complexity of the economy. And the evidence to date suggests that, to the extent simplicity is achieved, it is fleeting. As businesses and people take advantage of newly enacted rules in ways not foreseen by less than omniscient legislators and bureaucrats, complexity creeps back into the law, the regulations promulgated under the law, and the court and IRS interpretations of both. And of course, this complexity creep ignores the wrinkles intentionally introduced into the tax code for the purpose of creating an incentive to behave in a certain way. The social and economic engineers will always be with us.

So I think that simplicity is a goal that cannot be reached in the context of a tax code. Fairness (at least universal fairness) is also unreachable. But, while simplicity is nice, fairness, or at least perceived overall fairness, is required in a tax code.

Our tax system is almost entirely voluntary. Each taxpayer is required to keep track of and report his income to the government, with various criminal and civil penalties available to the government to impose where a specific taxpayer fails to do so. But only a very small handful of the returns filed (something like 2%) are actually examined for anything more than errors in arithmetic. Since the odds of "audit roulette" clearly and massively favor the taxpayer, I think that it is fair to conclude that the level of tax compliance achieved in the US is largely voluntary on the part of the vast majority of taxpayers.

And that voluntary compliance is a valuable thing. It needs to be maintained. I do not envy the IRS its mission of extracting the federal budget (more or less) from the citizenry on an annual basis. But their job is a piece of cake compared to their counterparts elsewhere around the world. Tax evasion has been raised to the level of a national sport in some countries.

Change the tax laws in a way generally perceived to be unfair, and voluntary compliance will sink like a stone, to the detriment of all of us.

One of the recent tactics of the "simplifiers" has been to reduce the number of people subject to the income tax. This does indeed simplify the problem. But it does so by imposing a larger and larger portion of the burden of the income tax on a smaller and smaller portion of the population. Eventually, that will be perceived as unfair.

Another recent tactic has been to suggest the complete or partial replacement of the income tax with a value added tax. The VAT does nothing to reduce the complexity of the tax code. It merely hides that complexity from the general public by making it inapplicable to them. It is inapplicable not because they don't pay the VAT. They do. It is inapplicable because they cannot alter or appeal the amount of the VAT they pay. Eventually, that will also be perceived as unfair. In addition, the income tax has probably been the single most successful tax in history. I would think long and hard before replacing it.

The moral of the story: Beware of policy wonks bearing simplified tax codes.

 
I'm back. Sort of.

This rant was triggered by Steven Green. I'm still way too busy to be spending time on this, so there must be another reason. I blame him.

My wife and I have been married for ... Oh shit! Well, let's just say we've been married for a hell of a long time. I acknowledge but do not understand her need to hang on to things that might become useful at some point in the future. (Paper things, like the receipt for the toaster oven don't count. I'm talking worn out knicknacks, bad art and thirty year old stuffed animals, here.)

This phenomenon became apparent shortly after we purchased our first home. For years we had been living in apartments. Usually one bedroom apartments, and always without adequate closet space. Typically, there was a coat closet, a linen closet and one closet in the bedroom (sometimes two!). Of course that was not enough, so we called upon my parents to store those precious goodies that could neither be thrown out nor stored on site.

We then purchased a four bedroom home with a double closet in each bedroom (two in the master bedroom), a linen closet and a coat closet. So we went from four single closets to five double closets and two single closets. And a whole basement. And a garage. You would think that an increase of that magnitude would be sufficient for to house our junk, at least for a short while.

That was when I discovered, to my horror, that the love of my life actually intended to repatriate all of that stuff that had languished for years in my parents' attic. I had been laboring under the illusion that, having achieved the moral equivalent of exiling the stuff to Siberia, I was rid of it. Wrong again, peabrain!

Within a month of moving in to our new home, ALL of those closets were full. Now, I have never listened to Fibber McGee and Molly (the radio show with the running gag about the overstuffed closets), it was before my time. Yes, children, there is a specific historical period which legitimately counts as "before my time" and it ain't the pleistocene era. Despite never having personally experienced Fibber McGee and Molly, I am quite sure that we are talking McGee level full closets, here.

So, Steven, please know that there is no such thing as "sufficient" closet space for the female of the species.

 
Explanation for lack of posts: I've been extraordinarily busy, and that looks to continue for a while. In the words of the immortal Moira, there will only be drive by pissantry for the time being.

 
More on the synergy between the problem of energy production/energy independence and lyposuction:

I heard a report on CBS radio this morning that women who have power assisted lyposuction suffer a very interesting side effect. Their breasts get enlarged. Ain't that a shame? There is a study to be released tomorrow with those results. They think that the fragments of fat cells left by power assisted lyposuction (PAL, now there is an appropriate acronym) cause a hormonal reaction.

Now, my more faithful readers (both of them) will recall that about a month ago I severely reprimanded Cap'n Clueless for overlooking our national treasure house of fat as an the obvious source of animal fat for biodiesel. I'd love to link you to that post (September 26), but my archives are screwed up and I don't have time to figure out what's wrong. (I think I did something to my template during the week of September 15 that Blogger doesn't like, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out.)

Anyway, now my plan to have a nationwide chain of lyposuction clinics harvest animal fat from the patriotic couch potatoes of the nation for the purpose of converting that fat to energy just got even more attractive.

Women of America, your patriotic duty requires that you get fat and undergo lyposuction. Your men will just have to live with the resulting breast enhancements. Reduced fat, better health, lower medical insurance premiums, energy independence AND bigger boobs, all in one swell foop. What more could you ask for?

There's an email campaign in that for an enterprising soul, I'm sure.

By the way, there’s no word on whether males undergoing PAL obtain the same result, so my advice to men is that they should stick to manual lyposuction until the data is in. Hey, real men don't need power assisted steering, so why should they need power assisted lyposuction?

 
Lileks: What if I could go back in the past, take myself aside and say: You know, in the future, you will be convinced that Russian computers are sending you messages about barnyard sex photos.

The man has a peculiar way of looking at things.

 
A while back, I emailed Robert Torricelli, Douglas Forrester and Bill Pascrell asking how they would vote on an Iraq resolution. Torricelli turned out to be too busy deciding to get out of the Senate race to respond. Forrester turned out to be too busy to respond, period. Bill Pascrell, on the other hand, responded with what I felt was an evasion. So I asked him again. A new response has been received. As promised, my exciting correspondence with a real Congressman:

Dear Mr. Gage:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Iraq resolution. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

On October 10, I voted to approve the Congressional resolution granting the President the authority to use force against Iraq if he deems it necessary to protect our national security. This was a very difficult decision, which I arrived at after careful and thorough deliberation.

I do not view the resolution as a declaration of war from Congress. As a result of bipartisan negotiations, the resolution advises the President to seek Iraqi compliance through the U.N. Security Council. It also requires that the President submit a determination to Congress, before using force, that further diplomatic means will not protect national security. In addition, the resolution mandates that the President regularly consult with Congress thereafter.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons at his disposal. Ultimately, I believe that the Congress had to unite behind its Commander-in-Chief to protect the security of all Americans against a deadly threat. I urge you to read my remarks on the resolution from the House debate which you can access at www.pascrell.house.gov/issues2.cfm?id=3699.

Well, I suppose I shouldn't complain. First, he responded, and second he voted in favor of the resolution. But I don't think that the waffling about the resolution not being a declaration of war (the last one of which was passed in December,1941) and all the nonsense about the requirements imposed on the President will carry much weight with the anti-war crowd.

Oh, and by the way, I added the link to the URL provided in the letter, proving, I suppose, that I am slightly less technologically challenged than my Congressman.

 
The best thing about blogs is that they are wildly diverse and pretty much constantly updated, so that whatever your jones is, you can find the instant gratification of a new post in a few clicks.

Not me, though. Not today. I'm going through Blair withdrawal. Tim Blair is one of my favorites and he is allegedly on his way to the US. I say allegedly because he said he would be on a plane for twenty hours and that was about forty eight hours ago. To satisfy the strange cravings that have come over me, I decided to read Tim's latest column. I knew it would not be as satisfying as his website postings. It seems that, even in the Land of Oz, you just can't call someone "the fucking dumbest dumb fuck of them all" (ah, sweet redundancy) in print. Still, it would be better than nothing.

So I followed the link I found here for the opinion page of The Australian. No Blair column in sight. At least not in immediate sight. It seems I was too successful in staving off the Blairshakes. Tim's column was listed in a single line at the bottom of the page because it was published yesterday (and yesterday in Oz is two days ago).

When I didn't see what I wanted immediately, I decided to browse a bit, and I found this.

One Doug Bandow, writing about the bombing in Bali, says:

As the shock of personal loss reverberates across Australia, its citizens must confront the terrible dangers of living in a terrorists' world.

Even the most innocent tourist in the seemingly safest resort is now at risk. More urgent is the Government's response. Prime Minister John Howard says Canberra will not be deterred from its support for US policy.

Such a public stance is necessary, if only to demonstrate that murdering civilians is not a useful tool for changing government policy.

So far so good. But then he jumps in with both feet in his mouth.

But Australia, no less than the US after September 11, 2001, must reconsider its foreign policy goals and tactics. After all, Canberra's broad, tight alliance with Washington has had no justification for years, especially in the post-Cold War world.

So Bandow thinks that Australia needs to state publicly that they will not be forced by terrorists to change their policies, but then must change their policies anyway. I guess those stupid terrorists are too dumb to notice a disconnect between what the object of their affections does and says. All the terrorists care about is words. Actions are irrelevant. In the immortal words of Bill Cosby, Riiiiiiiiiight.

As the September 11 and October 12 attacks show, the threats against both nations today are far subtler, more decentralised and asymmetrical than any traditional security threat. Which makes co-operation for more limited goals and a new division of labour ever more important.

Despite the Bush administration's pretensions to deal with every violent conflict everywhere on earth, the US has been unable even to root out terrorist cells from the scores of countries in which al-Qa'ida alone is thought to be operating. Australia is far better equipped to confront terrorism and instability in South-East Asia.

Why the asymmetrical nature of the security threat requires a reduction in the ambitions of the joint US/Australian goals is left unexplained. As to the division of labor, actually being next to Southeast Asia, I agree that Australia might well be in a better position than the US to do something about terrorism there than are we. More on the claim that the US has been unable to "root out terrorist cells" later.

In doing so, Canberra should act not as Washington's deputy, but as an independent player – a friendly one, to be sure, but nevertheless one with its own interests and objectives.

Did I miss something? When did the US ask Australia to abandon its own interests or objectives? Isn't that what the French are all hot and bothered about in connection with US policy: That we refuse to abandon our own interests or objectives? The fact is that, with respect to any specific objective of the US campaign (Afghanistan and Iraq, so far) we are refusing to seek coalition partners whose membership in the coalition would require the alteration of the goals of the coalition because of the interests and objectives of the potential coalition member. Having, for example, France join the Iraq campaign would require changing the goals of that campaign because France's stated interest is to prevent the invasion of Iraq. So the US is saying to France, "OK, no problem, you need not join us. We'll do it without you."

Of course, Canberra's assistance to the US after the September 11 attacks was appreciated, but more for moral than material reasons. Australia can do more by being active in its own region than by contributing to the fig leaf of an international invasion force for Iraq.

You bet Australia's response to 9/11 was appreciated, and if the reasons were more moral than material, so what? On the other hand, whether Australia can do more by being active in Southeast Asia is a judgment call on which reasonable people can disagree. First, Australia, should it chose to do so, can probably contribute more than a fig leaf. Their special forces are supposed to be excellent. Second, I think that whatever contribution Australia decides to make (or not to make) to an invasion of Iraq will have little or no effect on what it can do in its own region. The Oz contribution with respect to Iraq will probably be military and/or logistics related. But Indonesia has a government that apparently is not yet owned by extremists. That one fact puts Indonesia in a position more analogous to that of Pakistan, and makes the use of Australian special forces within Indonesia unlikely. My guess, therefore (and it really is a guess), is that Australia's actions in Southeast Asia will probably be related to intelligence and investigation. So Bandow's unstated assumption that Australia cannot simultaneously contribute to the coming action in Iraq and act within its own region appears to be false. If, however, Australia decided that it needed whatever resources it would otherwise commit to Iraq to pursue Indonesian terrorists, however, Bandow could be correct.

The fact that terrorism has suddenly imposed such a cruel toll Down Under illustrates another important responsibility for Canberra: to offer tough counsel to the Bush administration. The US should deal with first things first.

The Iraqi regime is ugly; Saddam Hussein is pursuing weapons of mass destruction; the world will be a better place after the dictator's demise. But none of these factors has changed since September 11 and none is unique to Iraq. Without serious evidence of a connection between Hussein and al-Qa'ida, there seems to be little reason, and certainly no hurry, to invade Iraq.

No connection, little reason and no hurry have all been dealt with elsewhere better than I could. Bandow is correct that none of the bad things about Iraq is unique. However, the combination of bad things about Iraq (murderous tyrant, thirsting for revenge against the US for Gulf War I, potential access to nuclear weapons, confirmed access to biological and chemical weapons, willingness to use unconventional weapons, willingness to attack its perceived foes without provocation, ties to terrorist groups) is unique.

But the nightclub bombing in Bali, ship attack in Yemen, shootings in Kuwait and terrorist arrests in Portland, Oregon and Buffalo, New York, all demonstrate that much remains to be done to defeat terrorism. Attacking Iraq would foolishly divert resources and attention from this fight.

Wait one. I thought that the US had been unable to date to root out terrorist cells. If Bandow means we are not done rooting out terrorist cells, and that therefore we can do nothing else in the meantime, he is wrong. I'm not saying that we have found and dismantled all of the cells. That certainly has not happened. Indeed, there is a real possibility that it may never happen, given that there are some six billion people in the world and given percentage of them will always be crazies. In any event, no one has ever said that it could be done in a short period of time. Everyone, from Bush on down, has said that it will take a long time. My guess is between five and ten years, but what do I know. However, regardless of how long finding and dismantling terrorist cells takes, whether its thirty minutes or thirty years, Bandow is wrong when he says that until that goal is accomplished we can do nothing else.

Moreover, an invasion would inflame Islamic hatreds and aid terrorist recruitment. An American attack would be sloshing gasoline from the Middle East to South-East Asia at a time when Muslim fundamentalists dominated the elections in Pakistan, the Philippines war against Islamic insurgents stagnates, Israelis and Palestinians are at war, and Indonesia faces perhaps its greatest security challenge yet. Should the sparks from America's Iraqi strikes light a larger conflagration, Australians almost certainly will be burned.

Inflame Islamic hatreds: The dreaded Arab Street. Do you remember the Arab Street? That was the group that rose up en masse and ignited a general conflagration in the Middle East when the US invaded Afghanistan. That was the group that caused a revolt in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan because the US invaded a supposedly devout Muslim nation for the purpose of imposing secular government. I remember them. I remember that the Arab Street celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center. I remember that the Arab Street said the US deserved what it had gotten. I remember that the Arab Street was completely and utterly silent when the US achieved in Afghanistan in eight weeks what the Soviets failed to do in eight years. The Arab Street respects strength, despises weakness and sees compromise as weakness. Why compromise when you can enforce your will? There is no such thing as magnanimity in the Arab Street. The Arab Street cares for one thing and one thing only in an adversary: Victory. Win, and the Arab Street is silent. Vacillate or compromise and they will be at your throat. So let's win. We can, you know.

Aid terrorist recruitment: Islamic fundamentalist terrorists will flock to the banner of the secular Baathists in droves. The same secular Baathists who attacked Iran, the very first "pure Islamic" nation in the modern world. The same Baathists who attacked Moslems in Kuwait. The same secular Baathists who murder Moslems within Iraq with impunity. In droves.

Worsen the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: Yes, the Israelis and the Palestinians are at war. Removing Iraq as major source of funding for the Palestinian's particular brand of terror will not worsen the situation, it will improve it. It may also have the effect of putting the fear of Allah into Syria, another butcher of Moslems and the source of Hezbollah's power.

Canberra, however, is in a unique position to try to slow the Bush administration's rush into another unnecessary war. Unlike Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, for instance, the Howard Government has resolutely supported Washington. Now that Australians, too, have suffered from the murderous hatreds loose about the globe, the Bush administration at least would have to listen.

The UK and Australia are both in a position to offer advice to the US. I agree that their position is unique among all of the nations of the world. I assume that both nations are in fact offering advice. I don't think that its advice of which Bandow approves, nor do I think that either of those friends wants to spend even a small amount of their good will with the US as Germany did through futile gestures.

The US and Australia have much in common – a shared ancestry, related culture, diverse geography, and joint commitment to the values of human life, dignity and freedom. That commonality now includes the enormous sorrow caused by young lives tragically cut short.

And Bandow argues that this common sorrow should cause both Australia and the US to turn away from the values of human life, dignity and freedom, cravenly slinking away in fear of an Arab Street that is, in Bandow's opinion, omnipotent, but in fact is wholly absent.

Yet security ties should serve a purpose, not exist as permanent institutions constantly seeking new justifications for their existence.

I agree that security ties should serve a purpose. The purpose they should serve is the mutual security interests of the parties to the security pact. Security ties should not serve to enable one partner to dissuade the other from pursuing its own security interests when those interests are not identical to both members. The fact that the NATO treaty was invoked after 9/11 (apparently) for the purpose of attempting to restrain, as opposed to assist, the US, has severely damaged NATO. I think that both the US and Australia realize that if Australia were to attempt to do the same thing, similar damage to the US/Australian relationship would occur. I think that both the US and Australia want to avoid that damage, and that therefore no such attempt at restraint will be made at all, much less made publicly.

The sort of threat reflected by the Bali bombing calls for a continued strong relationship, but one with a new division of labour. The two nations' partnership should evolve, reflecting changing strategic realities for both Canberra and Washington.

The world is changing, as it always has. The pace of that change is accelerating. All institutions, including nations and international organizations, must also change in response. So in that limited sense, Bandow is correct. But what he wants Australia to do in response to the bombing in Bali is to restrain and change what he perceives as America's misguided foreign policies. That should not happen. I trust that it won't.

 
Sid Stafford, at Silflay Hraka, has noted that blogs are generally little more than vanity publishing writ small. He is attempting to enlarge the species by posting collections of articles by various bloggers. In my ever expanding efforts to satisfy my own vanity (by having lots and lots of readers), I decided to "submit" a post. Since you're already here, you've probably already read that post, but check out the other entries.

 
In the aftermath of 9/11, I was genuinely moved by the gestures of sympathy made by people and nations around the world,from my country's friends and adversaries alike. I was not comforted. My anger was not lessened. Even so, I appreciated the gestures more than I can say.

Now it is our turn to make a futile attempt to comfort terror targets, and I don't know what to say or do. To express my sympathy to the friends and relatives of the dead and injured in Bali gives no comfort, at least it didn't for me. No matter how eloquent and sincere, no condolences, no expressions of sympathy uttered in response to the latest atrocity will fill the hole the barbarians have hacked into hundreds or thousands of souls.

I suppose the most I can do is to repeat the conclusions I reached following the attacks on New York and Washington. We did not bring those attacks upon ourselves. Nor did you. We were attacked not for what we had done but for who we were. As were you. We were attacked because our ancestors wrote what they believed, and what they believed was this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Any human being can chose to adopt those words as his own, as can any nation. Many have, and they are being joined by more and more as each year passes. For as long as there have been people in this world who believed in the power of those words, those who did not have felt threatened. For as long as they have felt threatened, the people who reject those words have continued to war on those who did. Call them ignorant, call them misguided, call them evil, in the end it simply does not matter why they chose not to believe those words. It matters that they do not believe, and it matters that they chose make war on those of us who do. It matters that technology has extended their murderous reach to New York, Washington and Bali. It matters that the use of any weapon within their grasp, any tactic of which they can conceive, is acceptable to them in this war.

This conflict is a war of extermination. But what needs to be exterminated is not a person, not a nation, not a government, not a weapon, not a tactic. What needs to be exterminated is the belief that man is not worthy of freedom. What needs to be exterminated is the belief that whatever answers are to be found in whatever authority is being cited, whether it be the Quran, the Bible, Mein Kampf, das Capital or DC Comix, are the answers for everyone, everywhere.

Until that happens, either the people who oppose and attack freedom where ever they find it must be restrained or eliminated, or they will continue their attacks. They will continue to attack using the technologies that their own system did not and could never have developed, under the cover of the very freedoms we enjoy that their own system denies them. If they were to decide tomorrow that freedom is acceptable (even if it is only acceptable for others), then we would not need to kill them or cage them. In the meantime, until that day comes, whenever you hear that the attacks are something we bring on ourselves, whether by some failure of foreign policy, or this or that supposed arrogance, remember that any system which is politically and economically free will deliver more material and spiritual wealth to its members than any system which is not. Remember that, for all the claims that "if only we did not support Israel so blindly," or "its all about oil," the real motivation of those who attack us is the freedom we have to chose which system of beliefs we will follow.

If our adversaries in this war were willing to limit themselves to rhetoric, I would laugh them off as the religious, political and economic naifs that they are. But they no longer limit themselves to opposing us by rhetoric alone, if ever they did. As a direct and unavoidable consequence of their actions, I am forced to chose who will live, them or me. I am forced to chose between my own political and economic system and theirs. Without apology, I choose life over death for me and mine. Without apology, I choose my own political and economic system over theirs.

I hope you do, too.

 
Who says Canadians have no sense of humor?

 
How does he do that?

This is more accurate than can be believed.

 
One of the most remarkable phenomena in American politics is the effect of television. A majority of the people who saw the televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 thought Kennedy won the debate. But a majority of the people who listened to the very same debate on the radio thought Nixon won. It seems that a recent shave, a little pancake and the ability to control ones sweat glands can have a major, if subliminal, impact. Since there is no particular reason to believe that people from other nations are not subject to the same "TV effect", that's something I try to bear in mind at all times when thinking about how major addresses are viewed by others around the world. The fact that someone would be seeing the speech, as opposed to reading it can and will affect his or her reaction to it.

The reason for the foregoing bloviation is that I had to work late last night (yeah, I do work), so I missed Bush's speech. I read it this morning, here. I thought it was a good speech. I wonder how good the delivery was, and how that delivery played on the air. I am sure that the political elite around the world could get a tape of the speech if they wanted to. I could, too, probably, but I didn't, and I won't. No time. I wonder how many foreign leaders did. The Guardian appears not to have waited for the speech to be made before it published a reaction to it, so we know that they didn't get video. I am sure that, outside the US, the average Joe would, at best, see a clip of ten or fifteen seconds on the nightly news. On the other hand, the text is widely available for anyone who is interested enough to spend three seconds on Google.

As I said, I thought it was a good speech. One word in particular literally jumped out at me as if it was in boldface type. It's the word "unified" in the sentence "If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors." If anyone thought that there was any chance that Turkey would sit this one out, that word, all by itself, puts that fear (in some cases, that hope) to rest.

Being a lawyer and making my living by the pen, so to speak, of course there are things I would have changed or added. For example, where Bush said "I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein", I would have said "I'm reluctant to stake my life on trusting Saddam Hussein, and I completely unwilling to bet your lives."

But that's probably why I labor in obscurity (sigh) instead of writing speeches for Presidents.

 
Via Instantman, who erroneously attributes it to Dawson (It's on Limbaugh's site).

Here is the first really good political satire I've seen in a long time that wasn't by you know who. Yo, Scott! Quit fooling around with the wife and kids and get back to work. The rest of us are waiting for you.

 
Captain Den Beste discusses (again) the need for and consequences of an invasion of Iraq. He says of the Arabs:

They know full well that we can stomp them all flat, but they have never believed that we'd actually be willing to do so, and they won't believe it until we actually do so once and prove it.

The only comment I wish to add is that they won't believe it until we do it at least once.

Accomplishing a regime change in Iraq has been our policy goal (whether or not it was explicitly stated) since the end of the first Gulf War. It seems clear to me that there is no chance at all of establishing that we have the will to act in the region unless and until we act to accomplish that policy goal. But it is open to question whether a successful invasion of Iraq will (would?) itself be sufficient to convince the Palestinians, Syrians, Saudis and others that we have the will to crush them if they push us far enough.

We have a great deal of history to overcome in this regard, since we have been pushing Israel for years to make concessions (ie: provide signs of Israeli weakness, complete US impotence and imminent Arab victory) to the very people dead set on its extermination. This, of course, is comes on top of having been in the position to figuratively slit Saddam's throat and having backed away from doing so, apparently for fear of bloodying our hands.

Actually invading Iraq (and winning) will, at the very least, go a long way towards overcoming that history. It may even be probable that it would achieve the goal of establishing our credentials, so to speak. However, that is far from certain. We may end up having to act (and be seen as having acted) to replace the Iranian theocracy and/or Little Assad in Syria. Invasions of those countries might not be required.

For example, it is entirely possible that an Iranian revolution would be triggered simply as a result of our having deposed Saddam. Several years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, I read about a CIA assessment of many of the nations of Eastern Europe. The CIA concluded, correctly, as it turns out, that many of those nations were on the brink of revolution. I would be very interested in reading a similar assessment of Iran. I would also be interested in seeing the sources on which the CIA relied in making that assessment and comparing those sources to those used in making the earlier assessment of Eastern Europe. Since I don't work for the New York Times, however, I don't have the right job for that.

The situation in Syria appears to be more "stable" (scare quotes are used to denote that stability is not necessarily good for children and other living things) and less likely to revolt. Therefore, I would imagine that, to the extent there is a plan at all, it is to invade Iraq, foment an Iranian revolution and then see whether and how we can take advantage of whatever effects that has in Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

 
Mmmmmmmmmm, Lileks.

Oh, and I almost forgot the best line from the Bleat: We now return you to the residual background radiation in the universe left over from the Big Bang, already in progress.

Jesus I wish I could write like that.

 
Why they hate us and what to do about it (via Emperor Misha I, The Enlightened and Gracious, Omnipotent and Omniscient Ruler of the Anti-Idiotarian Empire, Defender of The Clue™, Squasher of Dissent and Fisker of the Moronical)

TANSTAAFL has some suggestions on how to address the root causes of the 9/11 attacks and Islamic fundamentalism in general. Using the the behaviour of the Taliban as an indicator of what al Qaeda is so annoyed with us about, TANSTAAFL asks whether the wrong groups or behaviors are being identified as the root cause.

The "why do they hate us" crowd seems not to be suggesting that:

Women should withdraw into the home and leave the affairs of men to men.

Homosexuals should be forcibly returned to the closet, and the rights granted them under the US system should be revoked.

The use of the Scarlet Letter in cases of adultery should be reinstituted, "with a view to life imprisonment at a minimum".

TANSTAAFL notes that this is precisely the kind of policy/group/behavior that set off the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalist groups, and thus really should be included as part of the package of changes to be adopted in the US if we are to address the root cause of their hatred.

Some possible additions: I'm pretty sure that abortions are illegal under sharia, so Roe v. Wade should be overruled. Pig farming is out, of course, as is the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Let us not even discuss the excesses of the entertainment industry as presently consituted.

Sadly, I do not believe that addressing these particular root causes is likely to occur any time soon at the Hall of Cognition. Were I to so much as consider adopting any of the foregoing positions, much less attempt to impose same upon She Who Must Be Obeyed, life at the Hall of Cognition is likely to become somewhat difficult. Granted, the parts of the Hall which I do not constantly use might be somewhat neater, since I have observed over the years that SWMBO simply will not sit around and veg (vege?) out. If prohibited from leaving the Hall without being escorted by me, SWMBO will use her time to do something (because I seldom venture outside the Hall), and, eventually, that something will be to clean up (but, of course, not to clean up after me, since I am a big boy and can do that myself).

But in most, if not all, other respects, life in the Hall of Cognition would degrade catastrophically, as Cap'n Clueless would put it.

I would venture to say that this is likely to be true of most American households. If so, it also is likely to be the root cause of the failure to identify and address the correct root causes. Not only are those brazen American women one of the main reasons Osama hates us, they are also the reason we cannot address the reasons that Osama hates us.

See? Its all their fault.

 
Congressman Pascrell was the first to respond to my letter asking whether he would vote for a resolution authorizing war in Iraq. The letter, in its entirety, follows:
Dear Mr. Gage:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the potential invasion of Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Saddam Hussein is a dangerous dictator who has committed untold human rights atrocities against his own people. He is suspected of trying to develop nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and has not been cooperative with the United Nation's weapons inspectors for over a decade. Hussein clearly represents a serious threat to the interests of the United States and to the stability of the entire Middle East.
Undertaking a military campaign to oust Hussein from office will have serious ramifications for our country and around the world. I am pleased that the President, after much prodding, has consulted with Congress, and that he has gone to the United Nations to make his case.
Congress and the White House are currently working together to draft a final resolution that will have the greatest possible support from Members. The first draft of the resolution was simply too broad, granting the President authority to use force anywhere in the Middle East and requiring no Congressional oversight. There is every indication that the Administration will take our concerns to heart, and adjust accordingly.
Please be assured that I recognize the extraordinary gravity of the situation and am deliberating carefully. When the moment comes, I will vote to safeguard the national security interests of all Americans.
Once again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If I can be of assistance to you in the future, do not hesitate to let me know.

He is "deliberating carefully. Fine. He recognizes the gravity of the situation. Good. When the moment comes he will vote to safeguard the national security interests of all Americans. Sorry, that doesn't answer my questions, because it doesn't mean anything. My questions were:

Knowing what you know today, and if a vote were held today on a resolution authorizing the US to wage a war on Iraq, would you vote in favor of or against that resolution?

Would it make a difference to your vote that the resolution did not require the consent of the UN Security Council before the US could initiate a war?

Both questions call for a yes or no answer, and he weaseled. I'm disappointed. Not surprised, just disappointed.

My response, in its entirety:
Thank you for your email of today's date in which you stated that when the moment comes, you will "vote to safeguard the national security interests of all Americans."
I do not understand what you mean by that. My questions were:
1. Knowing what you know today, and if a vote were held today on a resolution authorizing the US to wage a war on Iraq, would you vote in favor of or against that resolution?
2. Would it make a difference to your vote that the resolution did not require the consent of the UN Security Council before the US could initiate a war?
I'm disappointed that, rather than answer those questions with a simple yes or no, you tried to leave room in your answer for both a vote for such a resolution and a vote against it. And, of course, you did not even mention the UN Security Council in your response. To me, your response implies that you believe that a straightforward answer would anger me and cause me to vote for your adversary.
Quite frankly, unless I can get a much better idea of exactly what your position on this important issue is, I won't have much choice but to vote for your opponent.

 
I can't link to the decision yet, so I'm not sure of the language, but if I now have a right to a competitive election, does anyone out there care to file suit on my behalf to have the recent redistricting overturned? My district is distinctly noncompetitive.

Assuming that this decision is made to stick with the US Supremes, how about this as a political line for Forrester:

Now this race isn't about how best to serve the people of New Jersey, its about how to best to protect the Democratic Party's razor thin majority in the Senate, which they achieved, not through an election, but a defection.

 
This is an interesting but vague comment on Instapundit which I am taking to mean that the argument made this morning before the New Jersey Supreme Court (that voters have an overriding right to a competitive election) means that there should be no more districts gerrymandered to be safe for incumbents. Makes sense to me. Sauce for the goose, etc.

 
Apparently there is agreement on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.

The President is supported and encouraged by Congress in his efforts to resolve the problem through the UN Security Council. (The emphasis is mine.) The resolution continues:

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The phrase emphasized in the first part of the resolution is noticeably absent from the second part. Bush has been authorized to use force without action by the UN.

Before using force, Bush is required to make a determination that

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Since Bush apparently already believes that reliance on means short of war won't adequately protect our national security and already believes that waging war on Iraq is "consistent with the US and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations," requiring him to say that to Congress is not a problem.
Bush must convey that determination to Congress in advance of the use of force, or within 2 days after the commencement of the use of force. So he doesn't have to tell Saddam in advance that he can expect the arrival of the Air Force over Baghdad.

He is also directed to report to Congress every 60 days "on matters relevant to this resolution."

I think Bush got pretty much everything he wanted, short of the ability to wage a war on a country other than Iraq, which he may well have put in his initial proposal for the purpose of allowing Congress to take it out.

 
Interesting, if unscientific, tidbit:

MSNBC is running a poll: "Should the Democrats be able to replace Torricelli on the ballot?"

Results at 11:20 am EDT:

29965 votes
Yes: 29%
No: 71%

 
Lawyer joke making the rounds on the Internet, entitled "The Compassionate Lawyer":

One afternoon, a wealthy lawyer was riding in the back of his limousine when he saw two pathetic men eating grass by the road side. He ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate, and asked, "Why are you eating grass?"
"We don't have no money for food," the first man replied.
"Oh, well, you can come with me to my house," insisted the lawyer.
"But, sir, I got a wife and three kids here."
"Bring them along!" replied the lawyer.
"But how 'bout my friend?"
The lawyer turned to the other man and said, "You come with us, too."
"But, sir," said the friend, "I got a wife and six kids!"
"Bring them as well!" answered the lawyer as he headed for his limo.
They all climbed into the car, and once underway, one of the poor fellows says:
"Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."
The lawyer replied, "Glad to do it. You'll love my place. The grass is almost a foot tall."

 
Memo from Department of Strategery

Spelling is a very important aspect of blogging. It is important to distinguish yourself from the run of the mill blog by strategic use of spelling designed to take advantage of the properties of search engines. For example, by spelling liposuction with a "y", instead of an "i", CognoCentric will not only be high in the Google rankings for searches such as "lyposuction clinics in Chicago" (without the quotes), it will be the only result shown for that search. Use of the correct spelling of liposuction would result in CognoCentric being reported on approximately the 15th page of results for the same search.

The benefits of spelling strategery should be obvious.

It is important, however, to employ this strategery only in instances where we can reasonably claim to have made a typographical error or to have dictated the post over the phone to a new and very stupid assistant, who would then post an unproofread version of our dictated pearls of wisdom.

The Department of Strategery thanks you for your time. Our desire to assist you in your future endeavors remains firm.

 
CognoCentric as trendsetter:

OpinionJournal
Dave Kopel
and now Eugene Volokh
Not even Bill Smela could fly the "right to a competitive election" argument.

 
Torricelli Update.

Instapundit links to a report by Dave Kopel at TNR. Kopel says that the courts have no authority under NJ statutes to replace a candidate, and he cites the relevant statutes. He also points out that the candidate switch tactic has been tried in the past. Where there was no impediment to the old candidate serving in the position he had been seeking, permission was denied to replace the old candidate with the new one on the ballot. Kopel suggests the Carnahan Gambit.

Advantage CognoCentric.

And OpinionJournal.Com weighs in with the same analysis (second item down). They refer to it as the "Jean Carnahan model." I prefer the Ludlum-like Carnahan Gambit, myself.

 
I just learned that Scott Ott, of Scrappleface fame, and I have some geography in common. I probably should have realized that earlier, based on his name. Scrapple is ... , well, you don't want to know what scrapple is. Suffice it to say that tastes great and is a favorite dish in a wide area around Philadelphia. I have never seen it anywhere else in the country.

I took flying lessons at an airport a few hundred yards from Scott's home at the time, run by Bill and Mary Jo Smela, who later became friends, instead of just the people who rented me an airplane for an occasional hour. Bill was a wizard. He could both fix and fly anything with wings. And he could also fly a lot of things without wings: I heard that he had once accepted an invitation to fly the Goodyear blimp. I swear, if he saw a brick with a propeller on the front, he would climb in and take off.

They had a tradition that when a student soloed for the first time, a piece of his shirt was cut off, labeled with name and date and hung on the office wall. Despite the fact that the airport has long since changed hands, my tshirt tail might still be on display (if it hasn't decayed from the passage of time).

 
CBS Radio has announce that the NJ Democrats have filed a suit in Superior Court (the trial level court) in Middlesex County seeking to amend the ballot to replace Torricelli's name with someone else (as yet unnamed). The law seems to be that any ballot changes must already have taken place, so they are late.

Question 1: Why Middlesex? That's not where Torricelli lives, but its where McGreevey's base is. He was mayor of Woodbridge, which is in Middlesex County. Does anyone think that politics might not have dictated that choice?

Question 2: Can the ballot be changed? I have no clue.

Question 3: What happens if the ballot can't be changed? I think that the Carnahan Gambit would work. Treat Torricelli as if he had died. As Governor, McGreevey gets to appoint his replacement, so McGreevey announces that Torricelli's name will stay on the ballot and that in the event of a Torricelli victory, McGreevey will appoint X. Thus a vote for Torricelli will be a vote for X. This does not risk any other seats in the election, because if X is a sitting House member like Menendez, McGreevey gets to appoint his replacement, too. It doesn't risk anyone's political reputation as a winner of elections. The only drawback might be if the replacement could only be temporary and a special election were required. But even a special election is better than having your guy come into the race 5 weeks before the election. In fact, the more I think about it, the better this option looks. It looks so good compared to attempting to change the ballot that I wonder why the Democrats are even attempting to change the ballot.

Any thoughts?

 
OK, he did it. Torricelli dropped out. According to Stephen Green, this was done at the urging of Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe. Of course, according to Scrappleface, The Big Me has changed his legal residence to the corner table at the Paramus Starbucks. (It figures. Two hours after I mention him, he comes up with an absolutely hilarious take on the whole mess and gets yet another Instalink.)

Still no word on who the sacrificial lamb (replacement candidate! I meant to say replacement candidate) will be. This article assumes that McGreevey gets to appoint someone to run in Torricelli's place. That seems unreasonable. Why would the Governor of New Jersey get to appoint someone to run under the rubric of the Democratic Party?

Does anyone out there really know?

 
More names being floated (on CNN) as replacements for Torricelli in the NJ Senate race (without Torricelli having stepped down yet, as far as I know):

Frank Pallone (Congressman from NJ's 6th district) and Bob Menendez (Congressman from the 13th district)

I guess Bradley and Lautenberg turned them down.

Since each of these potential candidates is already in the House of Representatives, they are each running for reelection and are each likely to achieve that. But if one or the other steps into the Senate race, isn't the Democratic party admitting that they've given up on getting control of the House by risking an otherwise safe seat on a high risk gamble to retain a razor thin margin in the Senate? There can be no real answer to that question without knowing who will replace Torricelli's replacement, but it seems to me that the Democrats would simply be compounding their problems by changing an almost certain winner out of a House race and into a probable loser in the Senate race.

 
Via Drudge:

NBC is reporting that Torricelli is going to drop out of the race for the New Jersey Senate seat if a "suitable replacement" can be found before the election. The story is based on anonymous Democratic sources, so it might be someone's idea of a trial balloon.

If the story is true, it does not bode well for the New Jersey Democrats. Some kind of miracle would have to happen for a candidate to be found, gather a campaign staff and make himself known to the electorate in the remaining month or so before the election. Some of that can be sort of prepackaged by selecting a candidate already known by the electorate, which is why the anonymous sources are floating Bill Bradley's name, along with Frank Lautenberg's.

On the other hand, if the story is false, then it does not bode well for New Jersey Democrats in general and Torricelli in particular. As to Democrats in general, the mere existence of the story gives the distinct impression that the party believes Torricelli can't win. And from Torricelli's point of view, try to imagine running for the Senate for months (spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars) and spending the last leg of the campaign answering questions about whether or not you're going to drop out of the race..

Does anyone out there know what kind of legal hurdles would have to be surmounted to replace Torricelli on the ballot? NBC says "The deadline for candidates to file for the race has passed, although the party presumably would seek permission, from the courts if necessary, to fill a vacancy on the ballot." That's not very enlightening.

 
A while back I added people to the list of blogs appearing on your left. I just realized that I made no note of having added them. Susanna Cornett, of Cut on the Bias is a fellow Jerseyan (and even though she is unfortunate enough to live in Jersey City, she never complains about it). She just changed the design on her site, and now lacks any outbound permalinks. That will be remedied shortly, I assume.

Scott Ott, aka Scrappleface, and I were the subject of a simutaneous Instalink a few days ago. Scott went on to fame and fortune by being linked three times in a single day by the Perfesser. There was a reason (besides making me insanely envious). He has a decidedly wicked sense of humor.

Go see them both. Often.

 
What's wrong with this picture?



The picture is displayed on the main page of CNN.com with the caption "Residents in Kingston, Jamaica, form a human chain as they cross a flooded road."

Question: Have you ever seen a group of people form a human chain to walk through water that is calf deep? Have you ever seen a group of people form a human chain while holding umbrellas? Have you ever seen a group of people form a human chain without touching one another?

I wonder if the caption writer and the photo editor have ever seen anyone form a human chain, or even pretend to form a human chain.

 
Cap'n Clueless is bemoaning the poor allocation of university resources. Alas, spake the Cap'n, "It may be that there is good work going on in those departments [African American Studies, American Studies and Ethnicity, Asian American Studies, Chicano/Latino Studies, and Gender Studies]. But I cannot believe that there is anything like as much as we would get if those professorial seats and money were invested in more practical subjects. And I emphatically believe that those departments are a waste of good students, who would not only benefit this nation more but also benefit themselves more if they actually studied something that helped them get ahead in life with a real career."

I swear, the internet is pure magic. Literally within hours of Den Beste's crie de coeur, the inestimable Moira Breen has come to the rescue. Asks Moira, "Has anyone ever explored the mathematics of cord tangling, that most fascinating of household phenomena?"

A very good question, indeed. One with all the practicality needed to keep the Captain interested and happy, and one with nearly universal application in the information society. And if anyone can ever figure out how to prevent the rat's nest of cables perpetually residing under desks and behind VCRs throughout this fair land, it would be a boon of significant proportions to mankind.

Studying the tau of cord tangling: there's a career.

Now who's going to tell Cornell West that there's been a small change in plan?

 
About three weeks ago, I emailed Senators Torricelli and Corzine and Congressman Pascrell concerning their positions on Iraq. Not having heard back from any of them, I have written again. This time, I also wrote to Douglas Forrester with the same question. All of the letters looked essentially like this, adjusted to reflect the fact that the other addressees were already in office:

Dear Candidate Forrester:

Knowing what you know today, if you were a member of the Senate and if a vote were held today on a resolution authorizing the US to wage a war on Iraq, would you vote in favor of or against that resolution?

Would it make a difference to your vote that the resolution did not require the consent of the UN Security Council before the US could initiate a war?

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Carey Gage

http://www.cognocentric.blogspot.com

Based on the comments of another blogger (who shall remain nameless because I can't remember his or her name), I included a hint that I maintain a blog, such as it is. Maybe that will help generate a response.

 
Go see this. No kidding. Just go see it.

Via Instantman (of course).

 
Are we watching the same program?

I discovered via The Cutlery Channel that the Chicago Tribune has an article on The West Wing. (Registration required to view article.) Now, mind you, I like West Wing. I don't watch it because I am thrilled to see a liberal President in action. I watch it because it is a well written soap opera. But I don't think I am watching the same program as the Tribune.

The Trib:

Sorkin says that this season, generally, will be lighter than last, and that he feels more comfortable writing the show again after a year in which the terrorist attacks left him a little at sea.

In any event, the two-hour opener (8 p.m., WMAQ-Ch. 5) sees President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) on the campaign trail, trying to win re-election against his canny, Reagan-like opponent (James Brolin).

Reality:

Because Sorkin's statement is about the season as a whole, and only the season opener has aired so far, Sorkin could be correct that the season generally will be lighter than last. But not so far. The opener included the terror bombing of a swim meet in the midwest, with something like 50 dead. Also, from a propaganda perspective, given that this season will undoubtedly focus on the fictional reelection campaign, Sorkin will surely use his soapbox to strenuously push his own particular brand of liberal politics, especially in the run up to the real elections in November.

And the comment (not attributed to Sorkin) about Bartlett's opponent in that campaign, a Republican governor (of Florida!) is just a tad off. Governor Ritchie is portrayed as having both the brains and the political instinct of a particularly stupid chimpanzee. I am willing to admit that Reagan may not have been the brightest bulb in the bunch. I don't think he was stupid, I just don't think that he was in any danger of being saddled with the Nobel prize for economics (unlike Bartlett of West Wing). But whatever you believe about Reagan's intellect, his political instincts were, without a doubt, first rate.

 
Via Drudge.

Does this sound familiar?:

Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin announced Thursday night that his re-election campaign had hired a lawyer to investigate what the attorney considered the legal but "unacceptable" conduct of Harkin's campaign staff.

To me, it bears a striking resemblance to the Catholic Church trying to head off state run investigations of the child abuse scandals. Granted that the activity being investigated is nowhere near as blatantly illegal or as politically explosive as child abuse, but the concept is the same. The Harkin campaign is investigating itself for possible criminal violations of the law, and it is doing so for the purpose of heading off a criminal investigation by state and/or federal authorities. "No need for you to trouble yourself, officer. We're looking into that ourselves. We'll be sure to keep you posted." Uh huh.

I have some questions. What previous connection does David Wiggins (the attorney hired by Harkin to investigate) have with Harkin and/or the Harkin campaign? Is there any reason at all to believe the results of an investigation of Harkin's campaign by his own attorney? Isn't that exactly the same as Harkin "investigating" the matter himself? Will anyone give me odds on the "investigation" resulting in a clean bill of health for Harkin? How effective is this investigation going to be without the ability to issue subpoenas (the story notes that at least some of the people Wiggins wants to talk to have retained lawyers and those lawyers are not permitting Wiggins to interview their clients)? Would Harkin be dumb enough to attempt to cloak the "results" of said "investigation" in the attorney client privilege if, by some miracle, Wiggins actually reports bad news? Is that why he hired a lawyer to do a job that a private investigator or a reporter or even his own campaign staff could do?

For that matter, how could Wiggins report bad news? He has an obligation not to harm his own client and (except in one case: where there really is no bad news to report) that obligation seems to create a conflict of interest.

 
A plan for complete and immediate energy independence.

Captain Den Beste posts about something called biodiesel:

It represents a process whereby things like waste cooking oil and excess animal fat from slaughterhouses can be converted into a fuel which can be burned in existing diesel engines. It evidently works now.

It doesn't help. The problem here is scale. There isn't a sufficiently large source from which to make this stuff so that it could actually produce a total quantity of energy per year large enough to even begin to offset our petroleum use.

Scale? Foolish Captain, which country on this earth has the greatest amount of animal fat on the planet? We do,by a longshot. This new technology is a godsend. It will solve many many problems all at once.

The plan: Americans not only continue their bad eating habits which have led over the years to an obesity epidemic, they increase their overconsumption and continue to add pounds and pounds of fat on every man, woman and child in the country. Do we exercise that fat away? Certainly not. That fat is a national treasure. It should be collected at a nationwide network of lyposuction clinics and converted for immediate use in today's diesel engines.

To say that storage of animal fat is inefficient is absolutely terrible. I personally know one specific animal (me) whose wife says he consumes large amounts of plant products and converts all of it to fat. I am sure that there are literally millions of animals just like me willing and even anxious to do their patriotic duty.

It is also extremely misleading to state that there are only limited sources of animal fat. By God, patriotic Americans will flock to the lyposuction clinics by the millions to do their duty to attain energy independence from the vile regimes of the middle east. With the appropriate tax incentives (the fat credit) the government can provide even more incentive to get Americans to do what they already love doing anyway.

Not only will this result in energy independence, but other serious problems faced by the nation will literally melt away. High medical insurance premiums due to complications arising from obesity? As Americans attend lyposuction clinics in droves, the cost of other medical care will be reduced because the obesity epidemic will disappear.

Couch potatoes of the world, unite. Stay in front of the boobtoob. Exercise not, for, verily, your sloth is good. You might even be able to convince your wife that your patriotic sacrifice entitles you to control of the remote.

 
Uh oh. Daschle is no longer "concerned". He has moved all the way to "chagrined". Sorry, make that very chagrined.

From CNN:

"I must say that I was very chagrined that the vice president would go to a congressional district yesterday and make the assertion that somebody ought to vote for this particular Republican candidate because he was a war supporter and that he was bringing more support to the president than his opponent," Daschle said Tuesday. "If that doesn't politicize this war, I don't know what does."

Well, let's bear that statement in mind: If Cheney's statements don't politicize the war, Daschle doesn't know what does.

Let's see what Cheney said. A little googling music, please.

Well, Google has failed to locate a transcript of the speech. So we'll just have to go with the news reports for now.

From the Topeka Capital Journal:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday repeated the Bush administration's commitment to stopping Iraq's alleged stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons and winning the war on terrorism.

Is restating the Bush administration's commitment to stopping Iraq's alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction and winning the war on terrorism "politicizing" the war? I don't think that stating some of the goals of the war is politicizing it, but if Daschle disagrees, he can simply refuse to bring a war resolution to the floor of the Senate for a vote. And by the way, wouldn't this new definition of "politicizing the war" make every statement that Daschle has ever uttered on the subject "politicizing the war" also?Back to the Capital Journal:

During a ... fund-raising luncheon for 3rd District congressional candidate Adam Taff, Cheney said the administration doubts Saddam Hussein's claim that he isn't stockpiling chemical and nuclear weapons...

The letter "was another attempt by Hussein to avoid weapons inspections," Cheney said. "We have seen this tactic before. It is beyond dispute that Saddam has large quantities of these weapons."

How about that one? Politicizing the war? Does Daschle believe Saddam's claim? Is the determination of whether or not one believes Saddam's claim a matter of one's political persuasion? No? Then we have to go back to the Capital Journal.

Cheney said the administration's efforts would be helped by sending Taff to Congress. Taff is a Navy veteran running against two-term incumbent Democrat Dennis Moore, and Cheney said Taff's military experience would be an asset.

Since it came up, let's look at the military experience of both candidates. From Moore's official biography:

Moore was born ... in 1945. In 1967, he graduated from the University of Kansas, and received his law degree from Washburn University School of Law in 1970. After service in the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserve, Moore started his legal career as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Kansas. He entered private legal practice in Johnson County in 1973.

Graduated from college 1967 at age 21 or 22. Three years later, graduated from law school (law school takes three years, so there was no military service in between). Served in the Army and the reserve for an undisclosed period of time performing undisclosed services. Then worked as an AAG for an undisclosed period of time. And three years after graduation from law school, having squeezed in service in both the Army and the reserve and working as an AAG, he started in the private practice of law. So with his time in the Army and the reserve combined, there was less than three years of service. That's not a whole lot of time to develop experience.

And Taff's experience? From his campaign website:

Fourteen years experience as a Naval officer and aviator. Maintains a Top Secret Clearance and continues to fly the F/A-18 as an instructor in the Naval Reserve.

Is this it? Is Daschle so mad because Cheney thinks that having someone with more (and probably more appropriate) military experience in a position of leadership during a military operation might be helpful? What is the military experience of each of the candidates? Well, no, Daschle couldn't possibly be complaining that a legislator with three years experience between the Army, the reserve and the Attorney General's office would be in a better position to evaluate matters pertaining to the war which come before Congress than a person with fourteen years experience in precisely the type of military operations that are going to play a large part in the war. Could he? So that can't be it. Back again to the Capital Journal:

Cheney said Taff would be an "effective voice for Kansas and a fine addition to your state delegation, which is already one of the best in the country."

Maybe that's what set Daschle off: One politician endorsing another. Right. That must be it. The Capital Journal again:

Cheney said the administration has "kept first things first. The most important responsibility we have is to protect the American people against future attacks and win the war that began on Sept. 11, 2001." ... Cheney said the United States wants to work with the United Nations to enforce resolutions against Saddam, but if the U.N. doesn't strongly enforce those resolutions, the United States "must -- and will -- take whatever action is necessary to secure our freedoms."

Nothing "politicizing" there that wasn't in Bush's UN speech, which Daschle cautiously praised.

Somehow, I don't think that anything Cheney said set Daschle off. Instead, I think Daschle saw this poll:

Nearly half of those polled, 46 percent, said they viewed Saddam as a greater threat to the United States now than Osama bin Laden.

51 percent of Americans said U.S. President George W. Bush had clearly explained the U.S. position on Iraq. That was up from 35 percent two weeks ago, before Bush addressed the issue in a speech to the United Nations.

In other words, there has been a large and rapid increase in the number of people who reject Daschle's position that he doesn't "think that the case for preemptive attack has been made conclusively yet." Put another way, Daschle is losing the PR campaign on the war and needs to mount an offensive in order to keep his majority in the Senate and try for a majority in the House.

Exactly who did you say was politicizing the war, Mr. Majority Leader? You might want to spend some time listening to your own rank and file:

Several Democrats pointedly suggested that Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and Gephardt (D-Mo.) are putting politics over policy by rushing to back a unilateral strike against Iraq."

Remember Daschle's statement that if Cheney's statements don't politicize the war, Daschle doesn't know what does? Maybe Daschle doesn't know what does.

And as an unrelated aside, Congressman Moore is reported by the Capital Journal to have responded to Cheney's remarks by saying (among other things), "I have 20-plus years of service." Twenty plus years of service doing what? His own biography says that he spent less than three years in the Army, the reserve and his position as Assistant Attorney General position. And he has four years in Congress. Where are the other thirteen plus years, Mr. Moore?

 
This Molly Ivins prediction from Insta-Reader Donald Burton:

Now that we're sending troops into the Ivory Coast on a rescue mission, is Molly Ivins going to write a column claiming it's really about the cocoa?

Well, you'll notice that Bush's decision to invade the Ivory Coast (using the pretext of "stranded" and "endangered" "children") was only a few days after the board of directors at Hershey were prevented from making their billions in the stock market.

Bush cannot point to a single American "child" who was "harmed". We only have scattered news reports (and the Bush administration's "allegations") on which to rely for the fact that there were any "children" "stranded" at a "school" in need of "rescue". Bush hasn't produced one iota of evidence that anyone in the Ivory Coast is "linked" to al Qaeda or bin Laden, whom the administration "suspects" in the "attacks" on the "World Trade Center" and the "Pentagon".

Hmmm. Hershey, Ivory Coast, cocoa, no terrorist link ... Coincidence? I think not.

UPDATE: Homer Simpson comments: "Mmmmm, cocoa."

 
Glenn Reynolds says very few lawyers inspire the kind of devotion shown by Aimee Deep in this letter to David Boies. Comments Reynolds, "God knows that my clients never wrote anything like this about me."

Glenn, every once in a while some of my clients actually do show that kind of devotion, but I'm holding out for a client who can wear this kind of dress.

 
On another matter, does anyone know why I get "Error 503: Unable to load template file. We're working on this. Please try back later" when I hit "publish"? The posts are eventually published without further machinations on my part after receiving that error message. I suspect that they are not really "working on this" because it has been going on for about a week. The problem may be with my template, but I have no clue as to what it might be.

If there is a genius out there who can give me a magic bullet, I would appreciate it.

 
Many thanks to the benificent (and undoubtedly beautiful) Moira for the link. Both of my readers may also find Inappropriate Response to your left.

 
The Washington Post brings us the facts:

For now, the Bush administration does not anticipate inoculating the nation's 288 million residents -- partly because the threat of an attack is unknown and partly because the vaccine can cause severe, sometimes fatal, side effects.

Except there is one other minor detail that I would be interested in hearing: How often is the vaccine likely to cause severe or fatal side effects?

A little Googling music please ...

Well, that didn't take long. The BBC reports:

Scientists from the University of Michigan have calculated that targeting young people - those under the age of 30 - would mean the vaccination of approximately 82.5m Americans.

Of these, say the researchers, approximately 190 people might be expected to die from vaccine complications.

An even more comprehensive campaign, covering almost 180m people, would cause 285 deaths, they say.

In addition, serious but survivable side effects would occur in 1,600 people in the smaller campaign - and 4,600 in the larger one.

Reaching for the trusty calculator, 190 deaths divided by 82.5 million innoculations equals 2.3 deaths for each million innoculations. Put another way, 2.3 ten thousandths of one percent of all the people innoculated will die. The wider campaign to innoculate 180 million people will result in a little less than 1.6 deaths per million innoculations. The difference in death rates is not explained.

To paraphrase Aaron Sorkin making a Republican governor (of Florida, no less) look real stupid: Gee, death, I don't know.

Come on guys. How is 2.3 deaths per million innoculations "a high incidence of adverse side-effects" (World Health Organization, October 2, 2001)?

The Sixty Four Thousand Dollar Question is high compared to what? Certainly it can't be high compared to the deaths which would occur in the absence of the innoculations. Because if it were, the additional statement that "existing vaccines have proven efficacy" (Same WHO link) would be entirely false. If the vaccine is efficacious, then it will certainly kill fewer people than the disease it prevents. High compared to other vaccines? Could be, but is that a rational comparison? What exactly does it mean when you tell me that a mass smallpox vaccination will kill more of the people taking it than, say, a mass tetanus vaccination? Nothing whatsoever.

WaPo closes the linked article with this delightful little tidbit:

Last month, [HHS Secretary Tommy] Thompson sent recommendations to the White House on how many people should be inoculated in advance. Although a CDC advisory panel has recommended vaccinating about 20,000 medical personnel, several administration sources said President Bush is weighing a proposal on the order of 500,000 people.

"Until a decision is made on pre-vaccination," Hauer said, "our efforts continue to focus on bioterrorism detection and response."

Detection and response. Whatever happened to deterrence? Question: Do you think that terrorist X is (a) more likely or (b) less likely to attempt a smallpox attack on the US if the entire nation has been vaccinated?

Newsflash for WaPo: Me and mine will be as close to first in line for this dangerous vaccine as we can get at the first hint of an outbreak. And the only reason we will wait for an outbreak of smallpox is that we apparently won't be able to get vaccinated prior to that time. I recommend the same to you and yours, not to mention them and theirs.

However, if WaPo wants to await the development of an entirely harmless (ie: perfect) vaccine, they are welcome to do so, since that will make the line shorter for the rest of us.

It may take awhile, though.

And in the meantime, should WaPo really be trying to scare the living hell out of their readers with Luddite crap like this?

 
The FEC has imposed a record set of fines in connection with the campaign finance scandals of the Clinton Gore 1996 campaign.

The Clinton Gore campaign itself agreed to pay $115,000 and to fork over an additional $128K in illegal contributions which it had not previously returned to the donors. Remember the Buddhist monks who were suddenly flush with enough cash to make a contribution of 100 large to the campaign when Gore appeared at the temple?

I guess this means the Iced Tea Defense didn't work.

 
There is a campaign afoot in Canada to suggest to the National Post that they hire James Lileks (or at least take his column on a syndicated basis). I agree that Lileks is a terrific writer. There are none better in the blogosphere, in my opinion. The problem is that any editor or publisher who doesn't already know that he should be running Lileks and paying him major bucks is probably beyond help and would not profit from the suggestion.

 
Lileks:

In the past if you wished for fish, you spent half the day getting it. Now it’s not only netted for you, it’s gutted, chopped, formed into a pleasing portion, coated with one of several dozen sauces or breadings, frozen, shipped across the continent to a location six blocks from your home, and offered in a variety of quantities that fit your particular needs.

And half it ends up on the floor, eaten by the Dog.

One of my mother's favorite stories about me is the reaction she used to get when the family went out to dinner when I was one or two. She would order two hot dogs for me. When the waitress stared questioningly, my mother would politely explain that one hot dog was to drop and the other was to eat.

That was in the mid fifties. Plus ça change .....

 
My plan for world domination continues apace. CognoCentric is NUMBER ONE on Google for the following words:

opinion on invasion of Iraq

Umm, not really. But it is number one on Google for opinon on invasion of Iraq. Even typographical errors fit neatly into my evil plan. BWA HA HA HA HA.

What's that? You say you want proof? Here's proof.

 
Rope-a-dope goes mainstream.

Congratulations to Stephen Green of VodkaPundit. He was the first (as far as I know) to characterize Bush's actions (and inaction) as a rope-a-dope strategy. Now the Bush administration itself has picked up the term:

"He has a history of playing 'rope-a-dope' with the world -- all the while he develops a more powerful punch," Fleischer said.

 
It was there all along, staring me in the face. Naturally, Den Beste saw it and I did not.

To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

How nice of them. They are ready to sit down at a table to discuss the practical arrangements necessary, etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. Of course, first, we must decide on the shape of the table (and perhaps the color of the carpet). Having gotten that issue out of the way, we can then discuss how many inspectors there will be, what their nationality will be, what equipment they will have, who will accompany them on their journeys, where they will be able to go, etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

 
Iraq's letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

Dear Secretary-General,

I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.

I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

If he had ended the letter there, I would say, okay, now we have inspections. But he didn't end the letter there. He continues:

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.

The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). T this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

No problem yet.

In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.

Oops. What commitment to Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence would that be? Did the US make a commitment to respect Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence? Weren't any such commitments waived when Iraq executed the various commitments it undertook to end the Gulf War? What does respect for Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence have to do with weapons inspection? Nothing whatsoever. But the fact is that this was the basis Saddam used to throw the inspectors out in 1998: They were supposedly violating Iraq's sovereignty.

I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.

Dr. Naji Sabri
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq

So the Arab League went to Saddam and told him in no uncertain terms that Bush meant what he said and there would be an invasion unless the inspectors were let back into Iraq without precondition. I have absolutely no doubt that, if ever the inspectors show up, there will be the same dog and pony show that we witnessed for the six or so years between the end of the war and the time the inspectors were tossed out of the country. Does this mean, as Steven Den Beste (capital D, I have been told) says that Saddam thinks he is within a few months of making his bomb? I hope not.

Bush has established to my satisfaction that he is no bumpkin. He is not flying by the seat of his pants. This has been planned out with all of the foreseeable permutations accounted for. Certainly this is one of the foreseeable permutations. So now we sit back and watch how Bush responds.