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?