"This is a gratuitous and extremely unhelpful decision at a time when there is a general recognition of the need for the international community to work together for stability and reconstruction in Iraq," Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for international relations, said through a spokesman.

Hardly gratuitous, Mr. Patten. You earned every bit of it.

 
I watched a Scientific American program on PBS the other day. Alan Alda goes to MIT and talks about computers. One segment showed computer directed laser (really just a modified printer) cutting sheets of plastic into shapes drawn on a computer screen. The various pieces of plastic then became a bicycle (or at least the frame, pedals and handlebars of a bike, since they hadn't figured out how to make tires, brakes or a chain) and a flash adaptor for a camera (to change the direction from which the flash lit the photo subject in order to prevent "red-eye").

Alda waxed enthusiastic about the future of this particular technology, saying that we would no longer have to go to the store to buy a bike, but could receive the bike design by email and simply print it out after making modifications to suit our own particular needs or tastes. I wouldn't just be purchasing or making "a" bike, I would be making "my" bike.

I really enjoy stuff like this, especially the mechanical engineering contests staged regularly by one particular professor. But the engineers at geek central (and I mean that in a good way - these people are great, and I guess I am a geek wannabe) forgot one thing.

There are three words dreaded by every parent in the world, especially in western nations where Christmas is a big deal. The engineers completely failed to take those words into account.

Some assembly required.

Americans (and this American in particular) will have to become a whole lot more adept at inserting flange A into slot B before this particular technology will migrate to the home. This is in addition to the need to create all sorts of infrastructure to facilitate this type of manufacture. The materials that will be used as the basic building blocks already exist (sheet plexiglass, at this point) but the printers are not generally available.

If the technology does catch on, there are all sorts of fascinating implications. Mass production (and the mostly unionized jobs involved) will shrink even further than it already has, except for sectors making and shipping the materials used in home manufacturing. Products liability law will be in for a rough time. Once the consumer himself is actively involved in the design and manufacture of a product, there will be substantial questions about who is responsible for the inevitable flaws in the design or manufacture of a product.

 
The wife of Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay should be given prisoner of war status.

"They were captured while fighting a war," Teresa Heinz Kerry said at an informal discussion with minority activists in Seattle. "They should have the rights that other prisoners of war have had."

Yes, they were fighting a war. No, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. Being captured while fighting a war is not the sole criterion for the application of the Conventions. There are lots of reasons why they are not entitled to the protection of the Conventions. There is one reason that is more important than the others, however. They are not prisoners of war.

A quick check on Google:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

The people being held at Guantanamo are not members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict or members of militias or volunteer corps forming a part of those armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

Please note that the requirement is that you have to meet all of the conditions listed below.

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

I seriously doubt that anyone being held at at Guantanamo meets that condition.

Failure to meet this criteria alone would disqualify them for POW status. But let us continue.

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

This is a requirement that the supposed POWs be in uniform. They were not in uniform, so the prisoners don't meet that condition, either.

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

Most or all of the prisoners at Guantanamo concealed their weapons, so this condition isn't met, either.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Somehow I don't think that the "laws and customs of war" include driving a truck filled with explosives into a clearly marked Red Cross building and pushing the detonator, or the use of marked ambulances to transport weapons and personnel.

So, all in all, number 2 is out.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

These are hardly members of the regular armed forces, regardless of to whom or what they profess allegiance.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

Nor are these guys civilians accompanying or supporting the regular armed forces.

And there are, of course, no identity cards.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

No members of the Afghan merchant marine or crew members from civil airlines at Guantanamo, to my knowledge.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

This may be the one that Mrs. Kerry is talking about, although I don't know how "spontaneously" they took up arms to oppose us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regardless of any spontaneity, note that they must carry arms openly (they don't) and respect the laws and customs of war (they don't).

So these guys simply aren't POWs within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions. You know, the ones Mrs. Kerry wants applied to them.

Heinz Kerry said that denying the detainees the protections of the Geneva Convention is "insulting, ignorant, and insensitive" to the rest of the world.

Great alliteration for the sound bite,but let's take a closer look at those one at a time.

Insulting:

How has keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo insulting? And if an insult has been hurled (other than the obvious insult to our intelligence involved in Mrs. Kerry's statements) exactly who has been insulted by keeping these guys at Guantanamo? Have the prisoners been insulted? Their relatives? Their societies? The people of the US? The world?

Sound bites are nice, especially alliterative ones. But I need a few specifics.

Ignorant:

As previously noted, Mrs. Kerry appears to be completely unaware of the terms of the Conventions she wants applied to the prisoners. I'm pretty sure that combatants captured out of uniform can be summarily executed as spies according to the Geneva Conventions. And most (all?) of the prisoners at Guantanamo were not, by any stretch of the imagination, in any kind of uniform. But if I had to guess, I would say that summary execution is not exactly the outcome Ms. Kerry desires.

No, the only ignorance on display here is that of Mrs Kerry.

Insensitive:

Let's see, now. We mustn't mustn't mustn't lock up people who not only want to kill us, but have done so in the past and promise to continue to do so in the future just as soon as they get the opportunity.

Because locking them up hurts their feelings.

Words fail me.

A spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign said Senator Kerry supports his wife's position that the detainees should be given basic protections such as the right to an attorney.

That's right, let's give them all lawyers and let them go to court. Then they can tie up commanders in the field with court sanctioned requests for information concerning the circumstances of their capture. Kerry (who, by the way, according to James Taranto, served in Vietnam) is touting his national security credentials every other hour. This is how he wants to conduct the war that was started on 9/11 by a vicious unprovoked attack on civilians that left 3000 dead? WITH GODDAM LAWYERS?

Sorry. Lost it there for a minute.

I am a lawyer. Since I am not a Moslem, nor will I ever become one, I am also one of the people these guys want to kill. My wife is also one of those uppity females they want to cage and cow. She (shudder) works and (double shudder) drives a car and (God help me!) leaves the house unaccompanied by a male member of my family and (the crowning insult) without a veil. Both of my children would also be killed by the people to whom Kerry wants to give lawyers . I am allowing my daughter to get a college education (insisting, actually). My daughter also drives and goes male-less and veil-less. My son ..., well let's just say my son would not have very much patience with these assholes. If it was up to them, he would almost certainly be dead.

I've lost count of the ways that my family and I have violated the rules that Islamist terrorists want to impose on me by force.

Lawyers just aren't going to get the job done. When the people on the other side are using guns and howitzers and rocket propelled grenades and shoulder mounted anti aircraft missles and roadside bombs, then only people with guns are going to get the job done.

And Kerry (not his wife, but Kerry) wants to use lawyers.

Ain't this a wunnerful country, where even complete idiots can run for President?

Update: Another reason they want to kill me is that I laughed like hell at this (via Meryl Yourish)

 
Citizen Smash poses an interesting problem:

The all volunteer armed forces are too isolated from too many Americans, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the members of the armed forces identify themselves as Republicans and the fact that an increasing number of Americans have little or no contact with the military.

He wants to know how to remedy this problem.

My suggestion is to simply wait. Odds are the problem will fix itself in the long run.

The real issue here is not how to change the military. It is well educated, professional and, most importantly, the most effective in the world, bar none. It ain't broke and it don't need fixin. So don't fix it.

The real issue is how to effect change in the Democratic party so as to eliminate the need of candidates from that party to pander to the far left in order to obtain the nomination. If and when the party moves toward the center of the political spectrum, especially on issues of national security, the political makeup of the armed forces will become more diverse, thus increasing the overlap between the membership of the armed forces and the membership of the Democratic party. Increased overlap equates with increased contact, and Smash's problem is solved.

I should note at this point that the problem is not unique to the Democrats. One only needs to think of Patrick Buchanan to realize that the political spectrum has two places where a candidate or party (or a portion of a party) can reasonably be characterized as extreme. Perhaps the first thing for centrist organizations within the Democratic party such as the DLC to do is to give some thought to how the Republicans managed to marginalize the Buchanan wing of their own party.

To change the Democratic party, I think you have to work from both above and below. Clinton attempted change from above. He succeeded, at least for a while. He led the party towards the center. But no one from the current group of candidates has been able to duplicate Clinton's feat. Howard Dean's striking success in the earliest portions of the Presidential campaign meant that all of the candidates had to do what they could to emulate him or risk losing the nomination. If you aren't nominated, you can't run. If you can't run, you can't win. If you can't win, you can't govern. So candidates do what they can to win the nomination first, the election second and worry about the fallout from each later.

So what would the most successful Demcrat since FDR do? We know what he actually did: He promoted the candidacy of Wesley Clark, who, as a highly successful career officer is presumably no wuss on matters of national security. I don't think the strategy is working, but that's because Clark simply wasn't ready for prime time. Good strategy, poor execution in both timing and the choice of candidate. Although Clark might have been the best available, I don't think he was or is good enough. He has spent the last four weeks trying unsuccessfully to extricate his foot from his mouth. Additionally, he was a late entry with no organization. In national politics, its tough to work out the kinks as you go.

The evidence at this point is that the strategy of reforming the Democratic party from the top only by providing a centrist candidates can only have limited success. After a maximum of two terms, the same problem resurfaces. Therefore, in addition to having centrist candidates, the Democrats need an institutional incentive to prevent the need to kowtow to the far left during the run up to the nomination. That requires change from below, which, at least in theory, is relatively simple. The more moderate members of the party have to take back control of the nomination process from what James Taranto calls the angry left. To do that, moderate Democrats have to vote in the primaries in significant numbers. This, however, is one of those areas where theory is difficult to turn into practice. The far left wing of the Democratic party is very committed but relatively small in numbers. The moderates in the party are far greater in numbers, and could easily control the nominating process. The problem is that the moderates are difficult to involve in the primaries.

For the Democratic party to be moved toward the center of the political spectrum by the rank and file, the sum of the moderates' commitment and numbers has to outweigh the sum of the commitment and numbers of the far left. The numbers take care of themselves. What the Democrats need is a large group of committed centrists. If that sounds like a contradiction in terms, it probably is, to some extent, and therefore effecting a sea change in the party from below will be very difficult.

In addition, I would suggest re-examining the rules governing the convention put into place by the McGovern campaign for his 1972 debacle. There are probably a lot of areas in which rules changes might foster more moderation within the ranks of activists.

Regardless of how change comes to the Democrats, I think Smash's problem is self correcting to a large degree. With the far left in control of the nomination, only far left candidates will be nominated, but they won't win in the general election. Continuous failure in the general election means that either the party will marginalize itself and lose its status as a force in national elections (and be replalced by another, more centrist group) or will reform itself so as to be able to field candidates capable of winning national elections.

The reform of the Democratic party is much more likely than its marginalization and eventual replacement. After losing five (Nixon-Humphrey, Nixon-McGovern, Reagan-Carter, Reagan-Mondale and Bush-Dukakis) out of six Presidential elections (the sixth was Carter-Ford, which Republican loss is almost wholly attributable to Watergate) the Democrats put forward a centrist, Clinton, who won two terms. Given that politicians want more than anything else to win, continuous losses are unacceptable. Additionally, while America is not particularly kind to politicians who lose, it is even less kind to third parties. Perot's campaign in 1992 was the high water point for post WWII third party movements. He won no electoral votes and some twenty percent of the popular vote. As a practical matter, he hasn't been heard from since.

 
The Weekly Standard has published a leaked memo on the ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. It has been linked by Instapundit and many others in the blogging community and is extensively referred to on the Fox News site. It provides strong evidence of a longstanding well established relationship between nonsecular Iraq and secular al Qaeda that the anti-war pundits said could not exist. It's news.

The very first quote from the memo tells us what captive operatives have told our government.

The memo also tells us what our intelligence and military services knew from specific confidential sources. The sources are not explicitly identified in the Weekly Standard article (and probably not in the memo itself), but there are dozens of clues that can be used to identify who on the other side has been talking to us.

The memo is news, alright. It's news that should never have been published. What the Weekly Standard tells us is also available to any al Qaeda or Baathist with a computer and a modem. Don't bother telling me they don't use the internet.

The leak was obviously an attempt to put to rest the claim that there was no relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda, and that administration claims to the contrary were either wrong or exaggerated. But the damage done by the disclosures in the memo is simply not worth winning a political argument over whether Bush was correct when he asserted that Saddam and al Qaeda were cooperating.

If Bush has to take a political hit because he can't disclose the memo, them's the breaks. This is not a memo by a staffer or a Senator on the Intelligence Committee detailing political plans. Leaking that memo won't result in anyone's death. This is a memo that provide militarily useful information to people who will use that very information to kill our people. And no one, not the leaker, not Stephen Hayes, the author of the article, and not one of the bloggers who linked to the article, apparently gave that aspect of the matter sufficient thought.

I acknowledge that the bloggers and news services who referred to, linked to or otherwise reported on the article could not undo the damage done by the Weekly Standard, but I still think they were wrong. They could not unring the bell, but they sure as hell didn't have to ring it again, louder.

 
Inspired by James Taranto (scroll down to "Maybe We Should Call It a Bye-Ku"):

Haughty French looking
Brain was seared in Vietnam
Taxes need raising

In other news, I have to take issue with Taranto's posts (here, here, here and here) concerning Terri Schiavo. Taranto correctly points out that Schiavo is not brain dead, but consistently misses (or, given his intelligence, chooses to miss) the point, which is that Mrs. Schiavo, were she competent, could elect not to receive any treatment, and could also elect to refuse nutrition. Since she is not competent, the law provides that she can still act through a proxy such as a guardian. Without any written evidence of her desires, in the form of a living will, the parties (her husband on the one hand and her parents - and apparently Jeb Bush - on the other) are reduced to arguing about what Taranto dismisses as "secondhand reports of offhand comments."

First, it is not clear that the reports are secondhand or that the comments were offhand. Personally, I would not lightly make a comment like "I would not want to live like that" or "Don't let me live like that".

Second, even if it is true that these are "secondhand reports of offhand comments", no one is claiming that this is the best possible evidence, but it is evidence. And I have seen no reports of comments leaning the other way.

Third, and most importantly, Taranto is clearly wrong when he tries to argue (here) that the absence of a living will by Mrs. Schiavo should doom her to continued existence in an "undead" persistent vegetative state. Yes, her desires would presumably be clear if expressed in a living will. Unfortunately, not many twenty five year olds (Schiavo's age when she was last competent) have them. No one has any real desire to think about the possibility of being in Schiavo's situation. It most frequently comes up when discussing your Last Will and Testament, when the subject of ones death is already on the table. Not too many twenty five year olds have discussed estate planning.

The absence of a living will creates no presumption one way or the other as to a person's desire to continue, commence, withdraw or withhold medical treatment or procedures such as feeding tubes. Florida law (and every other law permitting living wills with which I am familiar) states that where there is no living will, a proxy will be appointed from a ranked list of classes of people, and that proxy may make health care decisions:

Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxy's informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patient's best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.

Florida Statutes, Title XLIV, Chapter 765, Section 401, emphasis added.

In the Schiavo case, even according Taranto, there is an indication of what his wife would have chosen. The issue of the weight to be accorded to that indication was settled by the Florida Legislature in the statute. It is given controlling weight.

As near as I can tell without being actually involved in representing one of the parties, the best medical evidence available is that Mrs.Schiavo, while not dead, is gone, and she won't be coming back. Her husband and her parents both have my sympathy. For their sakes, I wish it were not so.

But it is so, and the parties simply have to deal with both the situation and the law as they find it, not as they would wish it to be.

 
I came across this post on AMCGLtd.com via Instantman.

Newsweek reports that even Saddam did a better job than Dubya in restoring post conflict electricity. Excerpts from the article:

Some CPA officials concede privately that the problem stems from the lack of preparation before the war. “It always comes back to the same thing: no plan,” says one CPA staffer.

And:

Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months.

You get the idea. There's no plan, we're losing the peace, Bush is a failure, yada yada yada.

So a "lowly blogger sitting in Northern Virginia with little more than Google and a good memory for stories" does a little fact checking and comes up with the goods: Saddam restored electricity selectively to reward his pals and punish his enemies. Since the pals were in Baghdad and the rest of the Sunni Triangle, that's where the juice flowed. The US is taking a different route, restoring power throughout the nation "fairly." I'm not sure how they are choosing which part of the grid to work on, but clearly it isn't based on political favoritism (since the Sunni Triangle would be completely blacked out for the next twenty years if that were the case).

OK, nothing unusual about that so far, but then I read in the comments:

"... does this mean that you will now go through all other "outlandish" articles looking for the historical inaccuracies? And when you find these written atrocities will you highlight the mistakes that are within the article? If so, then why didn't you start back when the repubs were showing all those ads about the amazing lies that Gore was doing? And does this mean we can expect a balanced "lie detector" with the upcoming elections and ads coming from both sides?

"Besides, good job in taking away from the remaining parts of the article. You know, the areas where they are talking about the no-bid contracts going to certain companies and the corners cut to make that happen."

No Joshua, finding an "inaccuracy" (spin, mistake or lie, it doesn't matter, just call it like you see it) and writing a blog post on it is not an undertaking to critically review any statement by anyone anywhere anytime. If you want to criticize Bush campaign ads (three years after the election!), be my guest. You've got a blog. Use it.

The fact is that someone found an "inaccuracy" in an old media publication. You either want to defend that publication or you simply can't stand having Dubya look like anything other than a complete failure. Either way, a blogger's failure to also criticize the people you want criticized does not make the Newsweek story any more accurate.

The only failure here (besides Newsweek's) is yours. If you think the guy's post on the story is inaccurate or misleading, show me why you think so. Sarcastic references to completely irrelevant matters such as the 2001 election or portions of the article that the blogger was not commenting on just don't make it anymore.

Heres a clue: This is the NEW media.

 
"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration." - Thomas Edison

"A lot of that perspiration comes from figuring out which inspirations to ignore." - Steven Den Beste

 
Via Andrew Sullivan:

...[A] year from now, the last desperate card in the hands of the anti-Americanists will be not that Iraq is democratic, but that it is democratic solely through the agency of the United States — a fate worse than remaining indigenously murderous and totalitarian. Victor Davis Hanson

 
Tales from the Gage household.
6:45 pm:
(ring)(ring)
CG: Hello?
Voice: Hello, my name is _________ and I am calling to see if you are interested in refinancing your ...
CG: I am not interested, thank you.
(hang up)
(ring)(ring)
CG: Hello?
Same Voice: Was there some reason that you hung up on me ...
CG: Uhh, yeah. It was a while back, so I'm not sure I remember correctly, but I'm pretty sure it was because I'm not interested. Thank you.
(hang up)
(ring)(ring)
CG (stupidly answering the damn phone): Hello?
Same Voice: Don't do that again.
CG (annoyed): I AM NOT FUCKING INTERESTED, DIPSHIT. DON'T CALL ME AGAIN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THANK YOU!
(hang up)
(ring)(ring)
CG: Look, even if you don't mind wasting my time, are you so stupid that you don't realize that you're wasting yours? I mean, I'm pretty sure the words "I'm not interested" would give a normally intelligent salesman a hint. Oh, and by the way, it hasn't changed in the last fifteen seconds.
(hang up)

That had to be the dumbest telephone solicitor I have ever received a call from. He even listened to my last rant.

 
Fritz Schranck discusses the well documented fact that lower income people contribute disproportionately to government revenues by playing state lotteries. Fritz' comment that purchasing a lottery ticket is a voluntary action by adults who are apparently relatively well informed about the nature of their bet is well taken, and I cannot disagree more with the "critics" who consider state run lotteries just one more exploitation of the financially challenged.

But Fritz left out the best part. Part of the reason that New Jersey, at least, adopted the lottery was to displace organized crime. One major reason behind the move by New Jersey into gambling was that it would cut off a source of funding for the mob. And my guess (without any research whatsoever) is that state lotteries have been somewhere between moderately and wildly successful in this regard. Organized crime just doesn't appear to be in the numbers racket any more. So in addition to providing the state with a substantial alternate revenue source to replace the lottery the "critics" would ban, those same "critics" should should also have to explain how they are going to prevent a renaissance of the mob's numbers game, and why it is so much better for a poor person to place a bet with organized crime than to place that same bet with the governor of the state.

This is one area in which the nanny state is powerless to protect us from ourselves. It appears that people in general, and poor people in particular, are going to gamble. The only question about which there can be any debate is who the bookie is.

 
Somewhere, George Santayana just has to be smiling.

It was Santayana who wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." That was in 1905, the last time the Cubs won the Series.

And by God, there it is, plain as the nose on your face: An absolutely amazing example of Santayana's observation.

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

On ... [the regime], which plunged the ...[area] into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of ... [the region]. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations.

Forgive me the Dowdified elipses, but those quotes could have been taken from any one of a number of current stories in mainstream newspapers and magazines. They weren't. They are from two stories in Life magazine dated January, 1946, one by novelist John Dos Passos and the other introducing the Dos Passos article.

January, 1946. That's about six months after V-E Day.

The complete quote that I altered to make my point:

"On Germany, which plunged the Continent into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of all Europe. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations. "

A question for those Senators who voted to convert half of the reconstruction aid into a loan: Did the Marshall Plan involve any loans?

From Jessica's Well, via the prof.

 
Another attack in the Middle East. This one was in Gaza. This one was aimed at us.

GAZA CITY (CNN) -- A bomb went off underneath a convoy carrying U.S. diplomats in Gaza Wednesday, killing three American members of a security detail and injuring another in an unprecedented attack, U.S. officials said.

...

The convoy was carrying U.S. Embassy officials to Gaza to interview Palestinian students who have applied for Fulbright scholarships in the United States, Kurtzer said.

...

A senior U.S. State Department official said the convoy had just entered Gaza through the Erez Checkpoint and was traveling a commonly known route often used by U.S. diplomats.

According to the State Department, a roadside bomb was triggered immediately after the Palestinian police cars in the convoy passed by, hitting the second U.S. vehicle that followed.

(Emphasis added.) So they waited for the Palestinians to pass and triggered the bomb under the car carrying the Americans.

An Associated Press correspondent at the scene reported seeing a gray wire leading from the bomb crater to a small concrete building nearby. He said an on/off switch was attached to the wire. ...

So they watched and waited for the Palestinians to pass and triggered the bomb under the car carrying the Americans.

No group has claimed responsibility. Two Palestinian militant groups -- Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- told news agencies they had nothing to do with the bombing.

Well, no one said they were stupid in a tactical sense. Strategic issues are another matter altogether. I think it might finally be getting through to the Palestinians that it is no longer open season on Americans. Even if (as I stongly suspect) they are lying about their culpability.

The attack was believed to be the first aimed at Americans since the beginning of the current Palestinian uprising, now in its third year.

Kurtzer said the Palestinian Authority had been asked to arrest those responsible.

Don't hold your breath.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei strongly condemned the attack, offered his condolences, and promised an investigation.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat also offered his condolences and condemned the attack.

Nice words. Again. No action. Again.

"These people were here to help us," Erakat insisted, saying an attack on what he described as U.S. monitors was not in the interest of the Palestinian people. "I don't think this was a deliberate attack against the Americans.

Let's see. They watched and waited for the Palestinians to get safely by and triggered the bomb under a vehicle they undoubtedly knew to be carrying Americans, maybe even John Wolf, described below as "U.S. special envoy to the Middle East." But this was not an attack on Americans. Oh, and the Palestinian government is cool with blowing up cars passing through Gaza as long as said cars are only occupied by Jews. Why are there still people who believe that this government is itself not a terrorist organization?

"We offer to have an immediate, joint Palestinian-American investigation committee to investigate the matter," Erakat said.

Why do I think that no investigation is necessary, that they know damn well who did it and won't shoot the SOB (or send him to us) because Arafat and the factions he controls don't want to?

John Wolf, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East, was not in the country at the time of the attack despite media reports that said he was in the convoy, the embassy said.

A little bit out of order within the story, but they watched and waited for the Palestinians to pass and triggered the bomb under the car they thought would be carrying an American of ambassadorial rank. But this was not an attack on Americans.

Erakat said the Americans were in Gaza as part of the U.S.-backed "road map" for peace in the region.

The road map -- a plan put forth by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- calls for an end to "violence and terrorism" and envisions an independent Palestine existing side-by-side with Israel by 2005.

Let's try that one again. The roadmap calls for the immediate and unconditional cessation of violence (without the scare quotes) by the Palestinians, dismantling of the Palestinian terror organizations, Palestinian political reform, drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections under that constitution, with supportive measures and security cooperation by Israel. (Phase One) Anyone see any of those things happen yet? No? So we don't get to Phase II, do we?

Dore Gold, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, also offered condolences, noting that Israelis "understand exactly the kind of grief this terrible, terrible terrorism causes."

"Clearly these attacks are motivated by the same anti-Western, anti-American feelings that unite all these forces in the Middle East," he said.

Gold said "this attack would never have occurred" if the Palestinian Authority had cracked down on terrorist groups.

He got that last one right. How long do we have to wait until we hear that the failure to award those scholarships (because the people who were going to award them are dead) is evidence of Amerikkkka's racist bias in favor of those Jews?

 
For those of you wondering why we went to Iraq:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 13 — Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, announced on Monday it would hold its first elections to choose municipal councils in what is widely seen as the first concrete political reform in the Gulf Arab state.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT by the cabinet followed increased demands by reformists, intellectuals and academics on de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah to allow wider political participation, elections and freedom of expression in the conservative kingdom.

“The council of ministers decided to widen participation of citizens in running local affairs through elections by activating municipal councils, with half the members of each council being elected," the state news agency SPA said.

The kingdom, under the dynastic rule of the house of Saud since it was founded, has an appointed advisory Shura Council but had never had elections for public office at any level.

Is this move toward popular elections enough? No. Does it mean that Saudi Arabia (or the Middle East in general) is about to become a secular democracy? No. But its a start and a start is one whole helluva lot better than nothing. Left out of the story: Are women permitted to vote? To run for the positions open?

I think the House of Saud is going to find (over the course of years, if not decades) that half measures like this one lead to increased, not decreased, demands for more freedom and political and economic self determination. The Chinese are currently discovering this, and are reacting by attempting to censor the internet. Talk about hopeless tasks.

Would anyone care to speculate whether the "reformists, intellectuals and academics" would have been able to demand anything at all of Adullah without 150,000 US troops next door? How about some speculation on how likely a development like this would without a nascent democracy next door being installed by those 150,000 US troops?

 
With apologies to the Little Red Hen:

“Who will help me find these terrorists?” asked the United States.

"Not I," said the French. "If we help the United States, it will become too powerful and we cannot allow that."

"Not I," said the Germans. "The United States has not yet asked itself why it is so hated around the world."

"Not I," said the Belgians. "Americans who defend themselves are automatically committing war crimes and we cannot participate in such things."

"Not I, said NATO. "The purpose of this alliance is for the United States to spend money defending Europe under the wise tutelage of our superior European intellects, so as to enable Europe to spend its own money building dysfunctional welfare states."

"Not I," said the Security Council. "The purpose of this organization is to take huge sums of money from the United States while providing legitimacy to the world's dictators and avoiding, as much as possible, doing anything which might conceivably benefit the United States."

"I will," said the British. "Our cousins have been brutally murdered and need our help."

"I will," said the Australians. "The same people who attacked the United States also attacked us."

"I will," said the Poles. "We know what it is like to live under regimes such as the Taliban and Saddam Hussein."

“Then the British, Australians, Poles and I will find them ourselves,” said the United States.


“Who will help me catch these terrorists?” asked the United States.

"Not I," said the French. "Americans who are not dying in large numbers to save us from the Germans are simply obnoxious and deserve no help."

"Not I," said the Germans. "Our government faces an election and the only way it can stay in power is to blame America for all of the troubles in the world."

"Not I," said the Belgians. "Now you see the price you pay for failing to agree to prostrate yourselves before the environmental altar of the Kyoto Protocol."

"Not I, said NATO. "We cannot participate with anyone other than Bill Clinton in committing warlike acts."

"Not I," said the Security Council. "We are presently much too busy attempting to resolve whether the Commission on Human Rights should be chaired by Libya or Cuba."

"I will," said the British.

"I will," said the Australians.

"I will," said the Poles.

“Then the British, Australians, Poles and I will catch them ourselves,” said the United States.


“Who will help me prevent these terrorists from attacking me again?” asked the United States.

"Not I," said the French. "The United States is led by a country bumpkin who is a tool of the Jews living in that shitty little country."

"Not I," said the Germans. "You simply cannot take members of an army which attacked you and place them in a prison in a far away land without affording them all of the rights of the very same criminal justice system they are sworn to destroy. You are as bad as they are."

"Not I," said the Belgians. "The United States refuses to explore the possiblity of immediate and unconditional surrender to all of the terrorists demands, and therefore is unworthy of our assistance."

"Not I, said NATO. "It might come to pass that a soldier or airman other than an American might be injured or killed if we were to participate."

"Not I," said the Security Council. "We have not yet exhausted our supply of resolute frowns and cannot consider more serious consequences for repeated violations of the resolutions we adopted over the last decade until no one in the world is capable of at least sternly speaking to the admitted miscreants."

"I will," said the British.

"I will," said the Australians.

"I will," said the Poles.

“Then the British, Australians, Poles and I will prevent them ourselves,” said the United States.


"Who can I pay to provide services to the Afghani and Iraqi people and to build the thngs they need?" asked the United States.

The line immediately formed on the right.

 
I just read an article on Kobe Bryant, and it brought to mind something that's been bothering me for a while.

For quite some time, there has been a rule (law or custom, I don't know which) under which the victim's name is never published. The purpose of keeping a rape victim's name out of the papers is to protect her from the stigma attached (wrongly, in my judgment) to having been raped.

OK, fine. There shouldn't be a stigma attached to having been attacked, but in the real world, there is. Some people will think that she is lying. Others will believe that she had it coming or led the guy on or something. No matter what the evidence is, there are those in this world who will blame the victim. And of course, regardless of what actually happened, she is claiming she had sex with the guy and the "damaged goods" crowd is still with us, even though in smaller numbers than in the past.

My question is, what about the man? Prior to conviction, he is innocent. Isn't he entitled to the same consideration given to the alleged victim? Isn't there a stigma attached to being accused of rape? Are there not people in the world who will think that he is lying, regardless of what the evidence shows? Aren't there people who will believe that the SOB escaped conviction as a result of prosecutorial error, slick defense lawyers, stupid juries, unfair judges or medieval laws? Just as some will blame the victim, others will blame the supposed perpetrator.

So why is there no prohibition on publishing the guy's name before the trial? I don't care about post trial publicity if there is a conviction. The conviction establishes that he did it. That makes him an asshole, at best, and undeserving of any consideration in this regard. But before trial (and post trial as well, if there is an acquittal), he is just as deserving of protection as the alleged victim is.

The double standard involved creates a perverse incentive for an unscrupulous female. Assume for a minute that woman A wants to shake down male celebrity B. Because she gets to hide (at least temporarily) behind the barrier of the publishing ban, and he does not, an unfair advantage exists. The celebrity accused pays the price (as Bryant is now paying) in terms of horrendous publicity and possibly cancelled endorsements, appearances or even careers, not to mention high priced defense lawyers. And, even under the best circumstances, only the two people actually involved know what really happened. Practically by definition they were alone at the critical time. The rest of us have no clue until the trial. Sure, there can be physical injuries, but no one except the two participants knows how they came about. So there is a huge incentive to the celebrity to avoid the whole mess by paying the woman to go away, regardless of what happened.

Come to think of it, you don't even need a celebrity defendant. Can you say Tawana Brawley?

To eliminate the problem, all you have to do is to avoid publication of both names, not just hers.

Sauce for the goose ...

 
So today is the big day on the Left Coast. Recall day in Collyvornia.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, I think California politics will suffer from this for a long time. And maybe other states as well, if there are similar provisions in their laws. (The US Constitution thankfully has no analogous provisions. Short of death or resignation, you either impeach and convict the office holder or he serves his full term.)

As I understand it, the recall provisions have been part of the California Constitution for almost 100 years, and that recall petition drives have been mounted about three or four times since then, all of which, except the current one, were unsuccessful in obtaining the required number of signatures. For the foreseeable future, I think every California governor will at least have to deal with a recall petition, and quite possibly a recall vote (given the numbers required).

There are a couple of reasons for that conclusion.

First, the math involved. For a recall petition to be placed on the ballot, the petition must be signed by twelve percent of the number of people who voted in the previous election (spread out over a minimum number of counties). That means that unless the candidate achieves a Cuban (or pre-war Iraqi) type majority, just the people who voted against him can easily trigger a ballot vote.

Next, technology. Gathering those petition signatures used to be a huge task. Damn near impossible to do in any reasonable amount of time in a large state like California. Not anymore. Now we've been shown how its done.

And last but not least, revenge. The justification for the next recall will be"They started it." And, true enough, "they" did. (I had nothing to do with it. Really!) What one thinks of the motives behind the current recall (stealing an election or ousting an incompetent) will be completely irrelevant to the next, since the people in favor of the current recall will oppose the next one. Not that this is much of a justification. It doesn't even work too well on the playground, at least after the adults arrive.

So when James Taranto mourns the passing into history of the Gray Davis recall, I am pretty sure he is being a tad premature.

The recall provisions in the California Constitution seem alot like nuclear weapons to me. It is better to have them then not to have them. They are convenient to rattle every once in a while when things get really bad. But using them will have ugly consequences for decades.

 
Cap'n Den Beste has written a number of times on the "tragedy of the commons". Now a reader writes to him discussing the problem and doesn't buy the example of sheep on the commons. A better "real life" example illustrating the problem of the tragedy of the commons in today's world where all of the sheep are in Australia and New Zealand:

Ten houses are on the shores of a lake. Each house has a cesspool that drains into the lake and the lake is therefore polluted enough to prevent swimming and fishing. With the lake polluted, each house is worth $100,000. With the lake cleaned up, each house would be worth $125,000. To clean up the lake, at least six householders have to spend $5,000 each on plumbing.

Without the intervention of some outside force (ie: government), no one will install the plumbing required to clean up the lake. At best, each householder makes a rational decision to wait for five others to install the plumbing first. That way, when the sixth householder spends his $5K, he is assured of a $25K return. Householders one through five spend their $5K with no assured return. Of course, each of the ten householders also wants to be one of the four holdouts who spend nothing and get the $25K return anyway.

The generalization is: the sum of a series of rational decisions can be an irrational outcome. This can happen literally anywhere. It even occurs in government.

Assume a legislature is divided politically into three groups of equal size (Groups 1, 2 and 3), and that, on a particular issue, there are three available choices (Choices A, B and C). Assume further that each political group orders its preferences among the available choices as follows:

Group 1 prefers A over B and B over C
Group 2 prefers C over A and A over B
Group 3 prefers B over C and C over A

If all three alternatives are presented for a vote at one time, there is no majority and no plurality for any one alternative.

If the three alternatives are presented for a vote one pair at time, the outcome is determined by the order of presentation.

In a contest between alternatives A and B, Groups 1 and 2 vote for A, so A survives to face alternative C.

In a subsequent contest between alternatives A and C, Groups 2 and 3 vote for C, so C wins and is presumably enacted into law.

But change the order of the presentation and you get the following:

In a contest between alternatives B and C, Groups 1 and 3 vote for B, so B survives to face alternative A.

In a subsequent contest between alternatives B and A , Groups 1 and 2 vote for A, so A wins and is enacted into law.

The change in the order of the presentation of the alternatives changed the outcome. The order of presentation has nothing to do with anyone's preferences, much less the merits of the issue. Having the outcome determined by a factor like order of presentation is irrational, but each group ordered its priorities rationally and voted rationally on those preferences.

For those of you with a mathematical bent, the problem can be described as an impossible equation:

A > B > C > A

In the (increasingly) dim recesses of my memory, I recall that someone once researched the issue and found that the problem had occurred on at least a few identifiable occasions on the record in Congress over the last two hundred years. And, of course, there are vastly greater possibilities of it having happened off the record as well, for example within administrative agencies.

For those of you foolish enough to want to know more, pick up a book on game theory. As I recall, the one I used in college (way too old) was by William (?) Riker and was, oddly enough, entitled "Game Theory". But since I can't find either Riker or the book in the Library of Congress catalogue, I must be either searching or remembering incorrectly.

The above examples illustrate Arrow's Theorem. The subject also encompases other problems and quirks concerning how choices are made in the public policy arena. While driving through the midwest in the late 40s, someone (Arrow?) noticed that, in each town large enough to have both a Sears and a JC Penney, the stores were located on opposite corners in the center of town, from which he theorized that each organization was locating itself at a geographical point which minimized the distance between itself and its potential customers, thus maximizing the number of potential customers, who were assumed to treat the two stores identically and buy from the closer one. Arrow or whoever applied that observation to political parties. The opinions held by the population on a given issue will be distributed along a bell curve. Each political party will adopt a position it hopes is closer to the center if that curve so as to maximize the parties appeal to voters.

And we can't forget the ever popular the Prisoner's Dilemma. Two people accused of jointly participating in the same crime are arrested and interrogated separately. Each is offered the following choice: If the prisoner confesses and agrees to testify against his partner, he will receive a sentence of 3 years, while his non-confessing partner gets 15 years based on that testimony. Each accused criminal knows that if neither confesses, neither will be convicted, and that if they both confess, they will both get 10 years. Unless there is some reason for the prisoners to trust each other, the likely outcome is that they both confess and the aggregate sentence is maximized. This is the reason that organized crime presents such a problem for law enforcement.

By the way, you can thank a certain Iowa housewife for this post. Memorial link indeed. The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.

 
Is it me, or is this just plain crazy?

Secretary of State Colin Powell appealed to both sides Sunday not to let the talks fail again. “What we have to do now is to make sure we don’t allow this tragic, terrible incident to derail the momentum of the road map,” Powell said on “Fox News Sunday,” referring to the Gaza attack.

The attacks on Israelis will stop if and only if the Palestinians in general want them to stop. When the terrorists lose the support of the population among which they are hiding, they will be caught, thus preventing further attacks.

Simple, no? Too simple, but basically true.

The obvious solution, then, is to try to separate, politically, the general population from the terrorists. But you can't do that unless you impose a cost on the general population in the event of further attacks. One that the general population is unwilling to bear. So what does Powell propose? Continuing to reward Palestinians with Israeli concessions in the face of continued attacks. No negative consequences whatsoever.

Sorry, Colin, but there have to be serious negative consequences imposed on the Palestinians for the continuing deadly antics of Hamas, Hezbollah, et al. What those consequences are should be left to the Israelis. After all, they are the ones who are dying.

I am not suggesting that I would go along with a plan to nuke Ramallah in retaliation for the murder of an Israeli, but to say that the Israelis should pay no heed to those men with bombs and guns over there in the corner and just continue on their merry way following the roadmap for peace makes no sense whatever to me.

I hear over and over again that we can't let the terrorists derail the process, that the failure of the negotiations means the terrorists will have won. I expect to hear that from the people in whose name the terrorists are acting. If they support the terrorists, they will be in favor of extracting any and all possible concessions from Israel by any means available. If they don't support the terrorists, they will be in favor of extracting all possible concessions by means of negotiation. But that requires the continuation of the negotiations. In either case, therefore, they want the negotiations to continue.

From any other perspective, however,

 
Memo to Howell Raines: Give this woman a job. She's a journalist. She's even female and pregnant. How much more of a minority do you need to diversify?

Via Drudge.

 
Having failed miserably at influencing either public opinion or public policy on the war in Iraq, True Majority has decided to switch topics. Now Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry's fame, wants to talk about health care, and he is making just about as much sense as he did when talking about Iraq. Once again, Cohen proposes to flood DC with faxes, this time urging more federal spending on Medicaid. His "personal message" that legions of True Majoritarians should send to their legislators:

Health care that working families depend on is at risk because our state, as well as virtually every other state in the nation, is facing its worst budget crisis in decades.

Editorial note to Mr.Cohen: Momma always said "Tell the reader you are writing the letter in the opening paragraph." Cohen waits until the end of the personal message to tell Your Senator or Congresscritter why he is receiving multiple copies of this missive.

Cohen's proposed message is about sending more money from the federal government to the state governments in order to fund Medicaid. If either of my two faithful readers was hiding under a rock during the HillaryCare debacle early in the Clinton administration, Medicaid is essentially a welfare program. In wonkspeak, it is means tested. In the real world (or New Jersey, should you happen to reside there), that means that if you have too many assets or too much income, Medicaid is unavailable. Period. Find another way to pay for health care. Too much income means about $17,500 annually. Too many assets means $2,000, not counting the value of your home if your spouse lives there, and not counting an additional $1,500 if you have it salted away in a separate account intended to pay the cost of your own funeral. I think its a fairly safe bet that there is a significant number of "working families" in New Jersey who earn $17,500 or less. The provision that really blocks access by most people to Medicaid is the asset limitation. How many "working families" don't have $2,000? People who qualify for Medicaid in New Jersey really are poor, but given the fact that they cannot have even two grand to their name, they cannot fairly be described in general as "working".

The crisis is so severe that children could lose their health coverage, seniors who need nursing home care might not get it, people fighting cancer and heart disease could have to pay more for the medication they need, and anyone who needs urgent care is more likely to face overcrowded emergency rooms. We can't afford cuts like that

There is an old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto. They are surrounded by hundreds of rampaging Indians, all of whom are intent on inflicting serious bodily harm on the pair, when the Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, "Faithful companion, we are in a lot of trouble." Tonto replies, "What you mean we, paleface?" That covers a large portion of my reaction to a Vermont gazillionaire who says we can't afford something.

The rest of my reaction is: The feds are not even talking about cuts. The issue at the federal level is how much to increase spending on this program. If you want to discuss avoiding budget cuts, it would seem to be more effective to talk to the people at the state level who are actually considering, you know, actual budget cuts.

You have the power to help. You can send more of our federal tax dollars home to our state to protect health care for working families.

Yes they have the power to send more money. No, they can't really help much by doing so. As the Soviet Union discovered, no government can repeal the law of supply and demand. More money will not unwind the vast bureaucracy regulating every aspect of the provision of health care services in New Jersey. More money will not reduce the fraud and abuse known to exist. More money will not reduce the skyrocketing costs faced by health care providers which must be passed along to consumers if the health care providers are to remain economically viable.

No, more money will simply allow our various state governments to continue to do what they are now doing. And the fact is that what our state governments are doing is at least partly responsible for this mess to begin with, in ways too numerous to mention. In addition, Cohen ignores the fact that money is fungible. Providing more money to the states for purpose X allows the states to spend money on purpose Y which otherwise would have been spent on X.

Please stop any federal Medicaid cuts and make sure this year's final Congressional Budget Resolution includes state fiscal relief to put families first.

What federal Medicaid cuts were those, again? I thought the issue was how much to increase federal Medicaid dollars. In fact, that's what even Cohen's site says:

The Senate is considering adding $30 billion dollars to the budget for aid to the states, much of it for Medicaid.

Cohen combines a number of my favorite political tactics. First, the people to talk to about budget cuts are not the ones doing the cutting. Second, a budget increase is really a budget cut. Third, a corollary of one of my father's favorite maxim's, "Let's you and him fight", this is "Let's you and me spend his money." All right, spending other people's money (OPM) is what government does, so I can't really bitch too much about it. But when spending OPM, I think one should, at a minimum, seek to spend it wisely. That means not pouring vast sums into treating symptoms (high prices) while ignoring the disease (high costs, high demand, inadequate supply).

We need to ask whether it is a good thing that we depend on government to provide health care, thus subjecting that health care to the budget crisis du jour. In doing so, we need to look at other examples of publicly provided health care (Canada and the UK come to mind, and the examples are, over all, not good ones) to see what should be copied and what should be avoided. The answer to that question will not be a simple yes, we should do it or no, we shouldn't. Cohen, on the other hand, considers it axiomatic that government should be in the business of providing health care. To anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, because they (we) need it. To Cohen, the answer is so blindingly obvious that it is not even worth the cost of the electrons needed to discuss it.

 
Over and above a recent brush with the dreaded Blogger Archive Bug, my archives have been fubar for some time. I finally got fed up and decided to fix them, but of course, I had no idea how to do it.

I discovered that my archive template had somehow gotten trashed. I have no clue what goes into an archive template, but Blogger has a whole bunch of them. So I created a temporary second blog and copied the archive template from that to the Cognocentric archive template.

It didn't work. Reference to my archives was eliminated altogether.

In for a penny, in for a pound. I copied the blog template from the temp to Cognocentric, too.

Lo and behold: Archives, in all their splendor

One drawback: Site meter is gone. Well, come to think of it, that's probably just as well. My numbers were just above seriously depressing.

So I am going to celebrate my newfound archives by linking to an old post about the beast.

Why that one? Because I have art!

This:



has become this



and this

 
The professor notes several bloggers (Robert Schwartz and Porphyrogenitus) who say that the looting of the National Museum in Iraq is a little fishy.

No one seems to have tried to tie in the fact that Saddam apparently turned the electricity off in Baghdad:

The city was experiencing the first widespread power outage of the war. Bombs rocked the city before the blackout, but U.S. military officials said they had not targeted Baghdad's power grid.

The AP story quoted above was on April 4 (Friday) about the loss of power the day before.

 
Poker, anyone?

I have got to get a deck of these cards.



Two questions:

How long will it take for them to show up on Ebay?

And

If Saddam is the ace of spades, who is the joker, and who is relegated to the card displaying the ranks of poker hands?

Via CNN.

 
An interesting open letter (with a small addition from a little noted but very astute blogger ... AHEM!) from Andy on the WorldWide Rant.

The same also appears at the Command Post, if you prefer.

More than a hundred comments so far, but no signers.

I think he hit a nerve.

Betcha no one signs it.

Via Stephen Green.

 
Hanoi Jane on what it means to win a war:

"What it's going to mean for (America's) stability as a nation, for terrorism, for the economy - I can't imagine,'' Fonda said Tuesday.

The admission that she has no clue somehow fails to prevent her from expressing her opinion, however.

"I think the entire world is going to be united against us.''

Her uninformed opinion has consequences, too:

That frightens her, she said, but she isn't sure what Americans can do about it.

"I don't know if a country where the people are so ignorant of reality and of history, if you can call that a free world,'' she said.

Just free enough for you to tell us you can't imagine what will happen, followed immediately by you telling us what will happen, Jane.

Speaking of ignorance of history and reality, do you think Jane has looked at the history and reality in Southeast Asia, recently? (At any time since, say, 1976?) I was against the war in Vietnam, too. Not to put too fine a point on it, my actions, along with those of millions of others useful idiots, prevented the US from winning that conflict, and that entitled millions of Vietnamese to death, starvation and "re-education", and other social benefits available in that peculiar workers paradise. Would the US have won in the absence of the massive protests? Maybe not, given the strategy being employed. But neither Jane nor I helped the situation.

The difference between us is that I now realize what my error cost (despite being American and thus totally ignorant of reality and history). She doesn't.

 
It's taken 10,000 years, but look how far we've come. All the way from the Assyrians and Sumerians to the bliss that is modern day Iraq.

From CNN:

Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf said postwar Iraq would continue to stay under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, and the coalition forces would be gone.

"We will chase them and go after them as war criminals," he said, adding that the "United States will no longer be a super power and its demise will be very quick" after the invasion of Iraq fails.

Sahaf warned that the war would bring nothing "except humiliation and defeat" to the coalition forces.

"Iraq will stay. Its civilization is 10,000 years old and it will not change by villains like those British and American villains," he said.

I suppose the UN would give them another few thousand years to see if they can get representative democracy right. I don't think either we or the current population of Iraq can afford that luxury.

 
DoD has weighed in with their choice of name for Saddam International: Baghdad International. BOR-ING! Even worse than Liberation. They get extra credit, though, for having captured the place to begin with.

 
OK, we control the airport. It's time to stop calling it Saddam International. We need a naming contest. My entry:

Liberation International.

Dull but accurate.

All entries received by email at careygage-at-yahoo-dot-com (you know what to do with the dashes) will be posted here.

 
Who, exactly, does he thinks believes this crap?

From CNN:
Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf called reports of coalition forces on the outskirts of Baghdad "an illusion."

"They're not even [within] 100 miles," he said. "They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion. ... They are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

This is with our people at the damn airport twelve miles away! You think maybe we could time the final offensive so that a Pfc from 3rd Infantry could walk in and make a guest appearance during the next news conference this fool holds?

 
This is a scathing attack?

Via Drudge.

Funnyman Robin Williams has launched a scathing attack on President George W. Bush and his decision to go ahead with war on Iraq.

The "One Hour Photo" actor also criticizes what he sees as his country's mixed messages when it comes to national security.

He says, "America is broke, basically, but Bush wants to wage a war that costs pretty much a billion dollars a month.

America is broke? Well, I agree that this economy is not the one we had in 1998, but it is hardly the Great Depression. In 1932, we were broke. Now? No. Certainly we are in better economic shape than we were at the beginning of World War II. And Williams' proposed alternative is ... Well, he doesn't say. He says we can't afford the war, but doesn't discuss the cost of not replacing Hussein. He doesn't say what we should do, only that we can't afford to do what we are doing.

"We have a president for whom English is a second language.

The gibe about Bush's oratory has become commonplace. The man is no Reagan, when it comes to public speaking. But then, Reagan needed a script. Did you ever see him answer questions at a press conference? It was awful, with a few exceptional one liners, like "I'm paying for this microphone." Clinton was a far better speaker, in both scripted and especially contemporaneous situations. But being a good speaker doesn't mean the proposals you are speaking about are automatically good. Come on, Robin, if you want us to agree with you, give us something besides old and irrelevant sarcastic comments.

He's like 'We have to get rid of dictators,' but he's pretty much one himself.

Just how is Bush a "pretty much" a dictator? Can we have some specifics, please? Is Williams a candidate for the plastic shredder? Is the FBI about to arrest him for dissing Dubya? And, by the way, does Williams not want to "get rid of dictators"?

"In America, we have orange alert, but what the hell does that mean? We're supposed to be afraid of Krishna? Of orange sorbet?

I'm no fan of the color coding, either, but I haven't heard any suggestions concerning what should be done to keep the nation aware of the likelihood of another terrorist attack, either instead of or in addition to instead of the existing system. Williams certainly provides no guidance on the matter.

Then it's like, 'You can't go out and shop, it's too dangerous out there,' but if that happens then the economy falls.

Only two or three paragraphs ago, we were told that the economy had already failed. We're broke, remember? And of course, I haven't heard any Bush administration representative say it was too dangerous to go out and shop, much less Bush himself.

"The message is so mixed: 'Be afraid, but not too afraid.'"

Actually, I think the message from the beginning of the color coded threat level system has been "Be alert, but don't be afraid." In announcing the system, the press release stated, "At all Threat Conditions, we must remain vigilant, prepared, and ready to deter terrorist attacks." And while I don't know how much help it will be to have 300 million Americans being "alert," I certainly don't think it will do any harm.

I like Robin Williams. I find him hilarious, and I have for years. I think he is an excellent "serious" actor, as well. But, if this "scathing attack" was intended to be funny, I have to tell you, it didn't even make me crack a smile, much less laugh. And if it was intended to be a serious criticism of the Bush administration, then Williams seems to be completely out of ideas for solving the problems he is complaining about. And that is not funny, either.

I think I made the right choice when I stopped taking political advice from show biz types, and that was when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi.

 
Is Saddam alive and in command?

According to official Iraqi sources, the answer is yes.

This CNN account describes a taped meeting of Saddam and his advisers which is said to have occurred on March 29 (Saturday). This, obviously, is after the initial attack of the war in which Saddam was a target, and is intended to show that Saddam is alive and in control. It is only one of many such tapes. But they all seem to suffer from the same flaw: None of the tapes contains sufficient information to establish when it was made. We are supposed to take their word for it.

According to official coalition sources, the answer is no because there doesn't seem to be any evidence of Saddam's having survived the March 20 attack. The coalition spokesmen note the foregoing flaws in the tapes emanating from Iraq, and also state that neither the conduct of the war nor the existence of radio communications between Baghdad and the front line indicate that Saddam is alive and in control.

I cannot comment on the evidence of Saddam's survival based on Iraq's conduct of the war or sigint because (surprise!) I don't have access to that intelligence. The same is not true of what Iraq has produced, however.

Consider this MSNBC report concerning the suicide bomber who recently killed four US servicemen and himself:

Iraqi television said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had awarded the man, identified by the TV report as Ali Hammadi al-Namani, with two posthumous medals.

And CNN says "Iraq TV announced Sunday that President Saddam Hussein would give the family of the man who carried out Saturday's attack 100 million dinars, or about $35,000."

"Iraqi television said..." "Iraq TV announced ..." Press releases. Why just press releases? Why not personal appearances?

Saddam is no slouch at propaganda, and no shrinking violet when it comes to TV cameras. This was a perfect opportunity for Saddam to personally announce the award of these decorations and to personally hand over the Iraqi equivalent of the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes Prize Patrol check, with the name of the bomber's family on it in big letters. Such an appearance would have put an end to questions of whether or not he survived that initial attack on March 20. Taped or live, it would make no difference, because the event being rewarded occurred well after the attack.

And that is not the only opportunity missed by a Saddam who is supposedly alive and in control. There have literally been hundreds of times Saddam could have commented on specific events which occurred after March 20. Civilian deaths in Baghdad. An Apache helicopter down. A Predator UAV down. Specific numbers of POWs. Names of POWs. Specific battles within Iraq. Missile attacks on Kuwait. The list is practically endless. He does not seem to have done so. As a result, even though I cannot comment on the "no evidence based on the conduct of the war and signals intelligence" claim by coalition officials, I am nevertheless leaning heavily towards dead, or at least wounded and not in full command of himself, much less Iraq.

There was also (I think) one post attack "appearance" in which Saddam praised various military leaders by name, including at least one who had surrendered. I may be wrong about that one, though, or it might turn out that the surrender had not yet happened, that Saddam simply did not yet know about it, or that the surrender never really happened at all.

Is it important? Well, Iraqi officials seem to think so, otherwise they would not bother with the videotaped appearances. The same seems to be true of the leadership of the coalition, which mounted the initial attack and is obviously courting a post-Saddam Iraqi uprising in order to avoid having to take Baghdad (and maybe Basra) street by street.

Both sides clearly think its important to establish whether or not Saddam is alive and in control. Just as clearly, there are simple and effective ways for Iraq to conclusively answer that question in the affirmative, which pose absolutely no danger to Saddam. After all, they are already taping him. Why not tape him with audio, handing over the medals and a check to the family of the person he is hailing as a hero for having killed four GIs and himself? Why not show him praising the farmer who is supposed to have shot down the Apache with the equivalent of a hunting rifle? What about showing him lauding the magnificent job his people did in their missile attack on a Kuwaiti shopping mall? The only logical conclusion that can be reached from the fact that Iraq has not conclusively answered the question of whether Saddam is alive and in control in the affirmative is that it is not possible to do so.

I think we nailed him.

I am open to suggestions on how to use that fact in prosecuting the war.

UPDATE 4/1/03: Saddam was supposed to make a speech on TV this morning. He was a no show. I wondered why the regime would schedule an appearance by the Maximum Leader and then not produce. I also remembered a couple of reports to the effect that Hussein's family was attempting to flee the country. Could it be that Hussein is actually alive, considers the war lost and is constructing the fiction of his own death so as to avoid post war difficulties such as trial for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity?

Either way, it will make no difference as to whether or how we use Hussein's death (or "death") in the war.

 
The fog of CNN:

Coalition troops working their way north toward the capital have been engaged in heavy fighting with Iraqi forces -- particularly in the southern cities of Nasiriya and Tikrit.

And from the same article, several paragraphs later:

The Hammurabi Division, which was west of Baghdad, was moving south in hopes of reinforcing the Medina, and another division -- which was around Tikrit in the north -- was moving in to replace the Hammurabi, U.S. officials said.

(Emphasis added in both quotes.)

Isn't Tikrit north of Baghdad? Well, yes. At least according to the map found here in PDF format. Tikrit is located on the Tigris River a little less than 100 miles northeast of Baghdad. It's really big news if we've got troops engaged in heavy fighting (or, for that matter, any other kind of fighting) there.

Or mayb we jst need to proofred.

UPDATE: I could do with some of my own proofreading. Tikrit is northwest of Baghdad. Not northeast. D'oh!

 
Saddam's pal speaks.

The French president said at a European Union summit he would "not accept" a resolution that "would legitimize the military intervention (and) would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq."

"That would justify the war after the event," Chirac told reporters.

How does he reach that conclusion? Acknowledging the existence of a war does not legitimize it. Recognizing the fact that Hussein has been defeated militarily and that what civil authority there was in Iraq (see this or this for examples of the exercise of Saddam's civil authority) has evaporated with his rule says nothing about whether Hussein should have been attacked in the first place.

Back to Yahoo:

At the summit, British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged his 14 colleagues to support a new U.N. resolution authorizing a post-Saddam "civil authority in Iraq."

Britain has not yet introduced such a Security Council resolution, however.

If I were Bush, I would not be happy that Blair is even thinking about going to the UN. Again.

Yahoo:

Neither the United States nor Britain has stated publicly that it was planning to seek Security Council authorization to administer postwar Iraq. Chirac's comments appeared to be aimed at putting Washington and London on notice that France would oppose, and probably veto, any such resolution.

Fine by me. Having abdicated its responsibility to disarm Iraq, the UN should not be allowed to expand its authority (which is to bureaucrats as heroin is to a junkie) by governing post Saddam Iraq.

Yahoo:

The majority of the 15 Security Council members would probably favor installing a U.N. administration in Iraq, similar to the U.N. administration now running Kosovo. That possibility has been discussed in the corridors of U.N. headquarters in New York.

Might I take this opportunity to remind you just how well the tender mercies of UN administration have served that other group in the Middle East?

From the UN website:

The General Assembly adopted in November 1948 its first resolution on providing assistance to Palestine refugees. In response to a report of Acting Mediator Ralph Bunche that "the situation of the refugees is now critical", it established United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees (UNRPR). During its brief existence, UNRPR channelled emergency assistance to refugees from Palestine through international voluntary agencies.

...In December 1949, ...[the General Assembly] ... established the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to succeed UNRPR and to carry out refugee-related activities in collaboration with local Governments.

If you want Iraq to look like Gaza and the West Bank 54 years from now, by all means, give the problem to the UN to "solve." Can you say suicide bombers, kleptocrats and petrodollars three times all in the same breath?

And that doesn't even take into account the necessity of punishing the French for their idiotic ploy in blocking an eighteenth resolution on Iraq.

 
This is the guy the anti war guys want left in power:

The only area where Saddam can rely with confidence on the loyalty of his security forces is in the Ba'ath party's heartland around Baghdad. In an attempt to reassert his authority Saddam last week issued a directive ordering Iraqi officials not to give up their positions and flee the country.

To set an example, members of Saddam's security forces arrested a civil servant in the al-Hurriyya suburb of Baghdad on suspicion of preparing to leave the country. The unfortunate official was then tied to a pole in the street and passers-by were ordered to watch as his tongue was cut out and he was left to bleed to death.

From the Telegraph.

Question: Does this new directive apply to such human shields as might desire to leave the country? They are "Iraqi officials" in a sense.

 
Chris Patten, is at it again:

"It is in the interests of the whole world that power should be constrained by global rules, and used only with international agreement. What other source of international legitimacy but the U.N. exists for military intervention?"

Any number of responses come readily to mind.

First: The interests of the whole world would be served by restraining the US? Is Mr. Patten telling us that the interests of the United States would be best served by restraining ... the United States? I guess we here in the States (or at least the solid majority of us that are in favor of taking Saddam out) are all just stupid cowboys who need to be told what to do with our dangerous toys. Only everybody else is smart enough and mature enough to be able to know what to do. Patten (or Europe, or the UN) knows best. That's a tad arrogant and condescending, don't you think?

Second: Global rules? Call me when everyone agrees. Until everyone abides by these supposedly global rules, what rules exist, by definition, are not global. (Duh!) As Mr. Patten may recall, Americans did not knock down the WTC. Americans do not send suicide bombers to kill civilians by the truckload. Americans do not kidnap and slit the throats of journalists because they are Jewish. (OK, I'll just stop here, as long as everyone agrees that there are plenty more examples where those came from.) These acts were each characterized as "military" in nature by the people were committed them and they were committed without UN or other international approval. So when al Qaeda stops driving airplanes into buildings without the prior consent of the international community, when Hamas stops sending teenage bombers into pizza places without authorization from the UN, and when whoever the hell it was in Pakistan that murdered Daniel Pearl stops slitting the throats of infidels without asking Europe pretty please, then, and only then, we can talk about US compliance with these global rules. Otherwise Patten's "global rules" are nothing more than a suicide pact.

Third: This is a fine sentiment. There are two possibilities here. The EU could develop its military power and place it at the disposal of the UN. I have no problem with that. But something tells me that Mr. Patten is not talking about European military power (because one does not normally talk about the need to "constrain" a capability that does not exist). No, methinks Mr. Patten has US military power in mind. That leads me to the second alternative: Mr. Patten can (a) immigrate to the US, (b) apply for citizenship, (c) run for and win elective office (or convince someone who has to hire him as an advisor), and (d) make his suggestions concerning US policy from that position. No problem there, either. Until either one of those alternatives occurs, though, Mr. Patten really has nothing to say that I would be interested in listening to. He is either talking about European military power, (which, with the exception of the British seems to be largely nonexistent) or US military power. But, you see, I'm just not interested in Mr. Patten's opinion concerning how the US should exercise the power acquired (at great cost) by the US for the US in defense of the US.

Fourth: Who makes these "global" rules? Would it be, perchance, a certain collection of national leaders who frequent a building on the East River in New York City and whose rule in their own countries can, in large part, be charitably described as despotic and/or corrupt? Or are we talking about a smaller, more efficient group of nations, who shall remain nameless but whose capitals are Paris and Berlin? The current leaders of each of these countries has made it abundantly clear that, in their respective opinions, there are absolutely no circumstances which justify the use of military force. Therefore the talk of "legitimizing" military intervention is, to say the least, poppycock. Plainly, if these nameless leaders of these nameless nations had their druthers, there would never be any military intervention to legitimize. So why are they interested in having an international organization (consisting of two nations or two hundred) with which to legitimize the use of force that will never be used?

Fifth: Given French and German (oops, they were supposed to remain anonymous) actions over the last year or so, it will be a cold day in hell before I consent to giving Europe or anyone else a veto over US policy, foreign or otherwise. The proposal being made by Patten is that someone who we will never get to vote for and who therefore does not have to answer politically to America or Americans, will control a large chunk of American foreign policy and (because there is no power without the power of the purse) about one third to one half of the federal budget. God knows, there are many things that Bush favors with which I vehemently disagree (abortion in general, the Patriot Act, Patriot Act the sequel, politically correct feel good airport security measures, public prayer, consumption of strong drink, the proper method of consuming pretzels ...). But I do agree with the overall direction of the administration, especially concerning foreign policy. Patten and the EU, on the other hand, are, imho, going in exactly the wrong direction, in terms of both foreign and domestic policy. Since I will never get to vote against Patten (unless he decides to take the above advice and immigrate) I really don't want the UN, the EU, Patten or any other EUnik, in control of any policy concerns of this country.

 
Re the Security Council:

Did Chirac just make Bush's job easier? By promising to veto the 18th Iraq resolution come hell or high water, Chirac has guaranteed that it will not pass. He has therefore freed all of the non-veto UNSC members of any responsibility for voting against it. The resolution will fail to pass anyway, so why take the chance of seriously antagonizing the US by casting a useless "No" vote? The flip side is that a "Yes" vote is also useless, but who, exactly, is going to be angered by such a vote? France, Saddam (not even Iraq, just Saddam), and the Islamic theocratic fascists (which, I suppose would include Iran, the Saudis and various terrorist NGOs).

Regardless of the UNSC vote, the war will happen anyway. Therefore, in the relatively near future, all of the people angered by a yes vote other than France will either be gone or emasculated.

And France won't be in tip top form, either, I would imagine.

 
On the Turkish election, three questions, one comment.

Question number one: Will the election (and, I suppose, the rather dramatic market reaction to the prior vote) make any difference in a new vote in Parliament concerning the use of Turkish soil to launch an attack on Iraq from the north? My guess: Probably. The original vote was decided by the abstainers (the rules apparently treating an abstention as half a vote for and half a vote against by requiring that the measure pass by a majority of those present, rather than a majority of those voting). Even without anyone changing their pro or con vote, having just a couple of the abstainers also abstain from attending the session would change the outcome.

Question number two: Assuming that there is a different outcome, will that different outcome occur in time to be of any use to the US? My guess: Probably in time to be of at least limited use. First, we would not be talking about it with Turkey if it were already too late. And we are talking about it with Turkey.

Second, March 18 appears to be the date on which hostilities will commence, regardless of the outcome of the kabuki dance at the Security Council. The air campaign will be shorter than it was in Gulf War I, due to several factors. There are fewer targets, we have better bombs and missiles and we can deliver them quicker. Additionally, we have Special Forces in place within Iraq to (I suspect) a much larger extent than we did in 1991. So my guess (and it is a guess) is that there will be a few days, maybe a week of action from the air before the major ground assault from Kuwait. That puts the ground assault around March 25. Since the new moon is April 1, maybe the March 25 jump off should be revised to that date, with two weeks of activity primarily from the air prior to the major ground offensive. That would give the Army three weeks from today to get the troops off the transports, into position and organized to go into Iraq from the north. My guess is that's just barely enough, and it assumes that the vote is held today, which is unlikely in the extreme. While I would assume that are benefits to a simultaneous attack from both north and south, I don't know that the costs of starting a northern offensive other than simultaneously with the action in the south would be excessive. So its possible that there will be a northern front, just not one commenced simultaneously with the assault from Kuwait.

Question three: Assume that the Turkish Parliament changes its collective mind. 3A: If we don't base an invasion from Turkey, do we still provide the $30 billion? Not a guess, but a desire: Absolutely not. 3B: If we do base an invasion from Turkey, but later, and either smaller or less effective, do we still provide the $30 billion? Again, not a guess but a desire: Money, yes.but less than $30 billion.

Observation: The total of $30 billion has some unfortunate connotations.