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?