Author Archive

This is terrifying.  (Via Instapundit).

I’ve added links on the left to 4 sites that are following the polls and, importantly, provide the information on a state-by-state basis. Also included are links to the presidential voting markets at Iowa Electronic Markets and Tradesports — the price on the market indicating the percentage chance that the market, as a whole, gives the candidate to win. (You have to scroll down to the bottom of the Tradesports page, to the “Winner Takes All” market.)

In 2000, a bunch of sites had Internet funding and essentially tried to “cover” the election competitively with the major media. I think this time, we’ll see more sites like those to the left, which contain lots of data, and you probably won’t see so many sites that try, in a formal way, to aggregate that information. I mean, who’s going to finance such sites this time around? Obviously, there will be no shortage of commentary on the Web, but I think the interesting buzz will be coming from less traditional outlets.

Hopefully, these sites will be interesting to watch — feel free to send other suggestions.

I really can’t wait to see this movie. Review by the National Review.

This new series on HBO looks hilarious. Mark Wahlberg is the executive producer, and the show is based on his posse.

One thing: I can’t for the life of me figure out why the NY Times runs a TV review but doesn’t tell you when the show is on.

How, Americans have asked since 9/11, can I contribute to the War on Terror? One man took the War into his own hands:

This week, Jack, a convicted felon whose real name is Jonathan Keith Idema, was arrested with two other Americans and accused of running his own vigilante antiterrorism campaign in Kabul. Afghan and American officials said that Mr. Idema, 48, and the two other Americans posed as government officials and illegally imprisoned at least eight innocent Afghan men for 10 days or more.

As BM pointed out, people do some crazy s—.

…and why both the Dems and GOPers are wrong. From the New Republic.

…and why both the Dems and GOPers are wrong. From the New Republic.

…and why both the Dems and GOPers are wrong. From the New Republic.

Jason Alexander (not the one from Seinfeld) tells all.

Matt was very angry at the administration when news of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair broke, and he immediately assumed the administration was at fault. The bi-partisan Senate report, and the Washington Post, now call Wilson’s credibility into serious question.

I’m not saying this administration is perfect, but the vitriol of its opponents (see, Michael Moore) leads them to make claims that just don’t add up. Again, if the Dems allow the Deaniacs to steer the ship, there’s no way Kerry can win. Swing voters just won’t buy the line that, for example, Bush went to Iraq for oil. Cooler heads in the DNC need to prevail.

Matt was very angry at the administration when news of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair broke, and he immediately assumed the administration was at fault. The bi-partisan Senate report, and the Washington Post, now call Wilson’s credibility into serious question.

I’m not saying this administration is perfect, but the vitriol of its opponents (see, Michael Moore) leads them to make claims that just don’t add up. Again, if the Dems allow the Deaniacs to steer the ship, there’s no way Kerry can win. Swing voters just won’t buy the line that, for example, Bush went to Iraq for oil. Cooler heads in the DNC need to prevail.

Matt was very angry at the administration when news of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair broke, and he immediately assumed the administration was at fault. The bi-partisan Senate report, and the Washington Post, now call Wilson’s credibility into serious question.

I’m not saying this administration is perfect, but the vitriol of its opponents (see, Michael Moore) leads them to make claims that just don’t add up. Again, if the Dems allow the Deaniacs to steer the ship, there’s no way Kerry can win. Swing voters just won’t buy the line that, for example, Bush went to Iraq for oil. Cooler heads in the DNC need to prevail.

I know my conclusion will not come as a surprise, but hear me out: The Edwards Hangover will commence shortly.

I really don’t have many personal views about Edwards, but I think his selection was bad politics. All the analyses today talk about what he brings to the ticket — essentially, a smile and a Southern drawl. He fills “likeability” gaps in the Kerry resume, but no one even pretends that he adds substance to ticket. Or, for that matter, that Kerry and Edwards even like each other.

I was terrified that Kerry would pick Sam Nunn or, say, Richard Holbrooke — someone who would have allowed Kerry to get to the right of Bush on some aspect of the war — be it nuclear proliferation, Middle East diplomacy or the hunt for Osama. Take it for what it’s worth, but when I heard that it was Edwards, I was relieved.

Although it’s difficult to see right now, I think the selection was a sign of weakness — that Kerry had to choose Edwards to mollify the left and pick up the financial support of the trial lawyers. Had Kerry already locked up his base — as he should have by this time in the cycle — Kerry would have been in a position to be more creative with his pick and to go on the offensive.

Ultimately, in order to win, Kerry needed to pick someone who added substance to the ticket, someone who would have been acceptable to the Deaniacs, but only just so. More than anything, they needed someone who would convince centrist voters that the Dems are serious about terrorism. The Dems keep saying that this election will be won or lost on domestic issues. But what Kerry’s pick demonstrates is that Dems still don’t understand that having solid anti-terror credentials is a necessary, baseline precondition for acceptability in a presidential ticket. In other words, all else being equal, domestic issues would sway the election, but first, you’ve gotta prove your ticket has the goods on Terror. Kerry failed the test.

This morning, I came across the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which was based on the federal Constitution. On a first read, it’s striking that, less than 100 years after ratification of the Constitution, people already saw pork as a problem that the Founders failed to anticipate or address. For example Article I (dealing with the powers of the legislative branch) of the CSA Constitution contains these provisions:

Article I, Section VII (presidential power to sign or veto a bill passed by the House and Senate) contains a line item veto provision:

The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriation disapproved, and shall return a copy of such appropriation, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

Article I, Section VIII (the Commerce Clause) contains an express prohibition on individual pork projects:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in this Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors, and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all such cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof;

Article I, Section IX puts further limitations on the Congress’s appropriations power

Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been officially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.

All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Just thought it was interesting…

…in the Men’s 10,000m (26:20.31) and the Women’s Pole Vault (15′10″) at an international meet in the Czech Republic. Perfect time to be peaking — it’s Olympic summer baby.

I had never heard of howmanywouldittake.com, hotornot.com, bangable.com or any other of those “ratings” sites, but this story is pretty funny.

Look at Drudge, which has on his front page a photo of Gore - a la Howard Dean - screaming like a mad man during his speech today. I’m sure the speech has plenty of other evidence that Gore has lost it, but I couldn’t get past the third paragraph, which has this nugget:

And now he [Bush] will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

In fact, there are two arguments why Bush won’t allow the coffins to be photographed: (1) if you’re willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, it’s because such photos would be too upsetting to the families of the dead and the soldiers who remain in service, or (2) if you think Bush is a crapweasel, it’s because he doesn’t want to hurt morale on the home front with the true reality of the war.

For those who want the photos shown for the second reason — and Gore is clearly one of them — I disagree that the educational value of the photos outweighs the damage they do, but that’s a value judgment on which reasonable people can disagree. But Gore hides the reason he wants the photos shown. He says it would honor those soldiers. Well, maybe in his warped world, but most anyone can see it’s a completely illogical, disengenuous argument. You don’t honor the dead by allowing reporters and photographers to swarm around a coffin, disrupting military rituals.

Gore’s statement about Bush’s failure to attend any funerals is just as disengenuous. To claim that Bush doesn’t care about the soldiers is absurd. Even the most virulently anti-Bush critic cannot deny the love Bush has displayed for the troops, both as a whole and as individuals — and, frankly, the love they have shown for him on numerous occasions. There are many other reasons why he wouldn’t attend the funerals, and they’re much more compelling — namely, Bush doesn’t want to make a spectacle out of an event that is supposed to be quiet, dignified, and designed to assist the families with their grief.

On both fronts, Gore makes ridiculous arguments to score cheap political points. What gets me so upset about this is that his arguments, and those of the extreme left time after time, is that their arguments assume — indeed, are based upon — the very fundamental bad faith of the other side. That is, you cannot believe the things that Gore has said unless you also believe the other side is evil.

This is why politics in this country are so partisan and nasty. It’s not that Bush has the best interests of the country at heart, but the left believes his efforts are less than optimally effective because he needs to tweak Policy A in Way X. Rather, it’s that he’s a greedy hatemonger trying to destroy all non-Christians and the environment in order to enrich a few buddies in Houston.

If this is the way we speak, we cannot have a conversation.

Fortunately, for my side at least, I believe this path leads to defeat for the Dems. If their leaders are making such assumptions on the campaign trail, they will not connect with voters. The assumptions are so extreme that they won’t resonate with voters. In fact, I confidently predict, they just sound plain crazy. It’s too bad, really — we need two parties contributing to this war. For now, we’ll just have one.

(Sorry for any typos, no time to proof.)

This guy doesn’t like Zell Miller very much, apparently.

This guy doesn’t like Zell Miller very much, apparently.

This guy doesn’t like Zell Miller very much, apparently.

Sherpa climbs Everest in 8 1/2 hours.

Only if you’re a dolt.

I don’t think I’d be tempted to eat one of these, but I might wet myself if I ran across it…

I don’t think I’d be tempted to eat one of these, but I might wet myself if I ran across it…

I don’t think I’d be tempted to eat one of these, but I might wet myself if I ran across it…

Kim Strassel on the S.C. Senate race.

For those of us who haven’t been paying attention, it appears David Beasley has crawled out of his hole to run on a protectionist platform.

[Maybe God will tell him to be a free trader after he's elected! -ed. I don't have that much faith...]

Kim Strassel on the S.C. Senate race.

For those of us who haven’t been paying attention, it appears David Beasley has crawled out of his hole to run on a protectionist platform.

[Maybe God will tell him to be a free trader after he's elected! -ed. I don't have that much faith...]

Kim Strassel on the S.C. Senate race.

For those of us who haven’t been paying attention, it appears David Beasley has crawled out of his hole to run on a protectionist platform.

[Maybe God will tell him to be a free trader after he's elected! -ed. I don't have that much faith...]

On the Abu Ghraib front, if there’s one group of people I don’t have sympathy for, it’s the prison guards who say they didn’t receive proper training.

Similarly, NPR ran a story this morning diagnosing the problem as a lack of training about the Geneva Convention. (Leave it to the crazy leftists at NPR to assume training in abstract principles of international law would teach soldiers something they failed to learn from their mamas.)

Umm, we may ultimately hold the military brass accountable for the abuse, but to say that lack of training is the culprit is reeediculous. The argument reminds me of a brief BM worked on, when defending a small fire department accused of failing to prevent hazing of new firefighters. The brief concluded with something like this: “If grown men do not know that jumping naked atop another man’s face constitutes unacceptable behavior, no training program would reasonbly be anticipated to teach them so.”

Local high school basketball start Randolph Morris announced yesterday that he will forego the NBA draft and will go to Kentucky instead of Georgia Tech, which recruited him since 9th grade. His explanation?

A stellar student with a 3.9 GPA, Morris also said Tech was a “perfect fit” for him, but he passed on the North Avenue campus because “I would not be comfortable as a student-athlete at Georgia Tech.” He said the academic load is a “lot more rigorous at Tech. . . . I want to set myself up to be successful.”

Tubby ought to make this kid take multivariable calculus first semester.

If you read the major news sources, all you learn about Fallujah and Najaf is that our guys are there, and everyone is shooting at each other — it all seems totally random. But actually, it’s a battle. This post from a blog called Belmont Club, is the best explanation of the tactics being employed (by both sides) that I have seen (scroll to “Thrust and Parry” if the permalink doesn’t work). The short answer: the good guys are winning in Fallujah.

(Via AS.com)

This is devastating. Pat Tillman was the biggest bad ass in America (as I noted here, in March 2003). He died last night after being wounded in a firefight in Afghanistan.

The 9th edition of the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators has been released by the Pacific Research Institute. Gregg Easterbrook calls it the “best summary of [environmental] trends.” It’s an interesting read. Shorthand conclusion: during the 20th Century, all trends — air quality, water quality, species protection, land protection, forestation, etc. — other than greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions show positive improvement and continue to improve.

Two interesting nuggets from the report:

1. The global warming models on which the Kyoto Protocol (and other global warming policy proposals) are based use projections of CO2 emissions into the future. In order to predict future GHG emissions, the modelers use as a proxy projected growth in gross domestic product (GDP), on the theory that, as economies grow, they will emit more carbon dioxide and other GHGs. So far, sensible enough. The problem is that the GDP projections are wildly unrealistic, leading to predictions such as that, by the year 2100, South Africa will have four times the GDP of the U.S. and that the GDPs of such economic powerhouses as Libya, Algeria and North Korea will surpass that of the U.S. Therefore, the most “authoritative” models are based on preposterous assumptions about the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that global warming won’t happen, but it does mean the models need to be completely re-worked. And the problem — which Easterbrook laudably has been highlighting — is that any scientist who wanders off the reservation by making any such criticisms is abused by the environmental lobby, and even some environmental “scientists.”

2. The “Weekend Effect.” The study notes that many media outlets have been highlighting increasing ozone levels as evidence the Bush administration, in particular, is soft on environmental controls. While the cause of this increase is not entirely understood, the best theory is that ozone creation depends not on absolute levels of pollution, but on the ratio of various nitrous oxides to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere. As a result of lowering absolute levels of nitrous oxides (particularly on weekends), our cities have unfortunately “improved” the ratio for ozone creation. Thus, over decades, policies that have effectively reduced certain pollutants have increased levels of other pollutants. Again, the point is not to relax environmental standards, but that blind religiosity toward reducing pollutants sometimes has negative effects. The policies must be based on sound science.

This brings us back to Easterbrook, who although a liberal, has it out for both parties on the environment. On the left, he argues, the enviro-lobby has become a de facto wing of the Democratic party, and anyone who challenges conventional wisdom or the most loosely-scientifically based theory is demonized as an enemy of the environment. On the right, he says, the Republicans appear to bask in a reputed hostility toward the environment. Both trends are counterproductive.

Easterblogg is now daily reading for me. I’ve added it to my links.

Matt has said that the flip-flopping label won’t work and implies that Kerry gets more and more attractive as the campaign proceeds. I disagree. Maybe the criticism of Howard Fineman doesn’t concern you because, as a peddler of conventional wisdom, his analysis will change as the political sands shift. But how then to respond to the constant criticism and dismay of a liberal like Mickey Kaus?

In the “I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it” vein, Kerry has now announced a “nuanced” position on his own ownership of SUVs: he doesn’t own one, his family does. Ahh, that clears it up — your wife is one of those greedy, environment-busting turds that you have condemned.

The problem is Kerry isn’t defining himself with what he stands for, but what he stands against. There’s nothing wrong with opposing the Iraq war (or the administration’s prosecution of it) or, for that matter, owning an SUV. But when his entire platform is based on “Bush LIED!” or “Bush is raping the environment!” rather than his own set of alternative proposals, it’s all too easy to conclude that he’s merely a political opportunist. That’s why he will lose.

Frampton & Shores, check this development out. It’s being done by Charles Brewer, the founder of Mindspring who recently started Green Street Properties in Atlanta. Looks pretty cool.

Look at this picture before you read the caption. It’s pretty amazing, if a little disturbing.

(Via AS.com)

Spent the day in Augusta for the Monday practice round. Unbelievable weather. Here’s the 13th green as we arrived around 9:30.

Tiger putting on the 7th green:

And Nick Faldo teeing off on 6, I believe:

Big Fun.

…and why they’re so high:
1. Demand is high, fueled by growing economies in China and the U.S.
2. Supply is decreasing — OPEC has announced a 1.5 million barrel per day supply cut, in addition to another 1.5 million bpd reduction in the amount member nations are cheating

But also interestingly:
3. Hedge funds are driving prices up as they look for good investments in a low interest rate environment with overpriced equity markets
4. The U.S. continues to buy oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and
5. There’s a risk premium added to the price, based on a concern about a terrorist-induced supply shock

Link here (may be subscription only)

-Chris Frampton, March 23, 2004

“Israelis Stop Teen Wearing Bomb Vest“
-AP Headline, March 24, 2004

HAWARA CHECKPOINT, West Bank (AP) - A 16-year-old Palestinian with a suicide bomb vest strapped to his body was caught at a crowded West Bank checkpoint Wednesday, setting off a tense encounter with Israeli soldiers whom the army said he was sent to kill.

The soldiers, taking cover behind concrete barriers, sent a yellow army robot to bring scissors to the teenager so he could cut off the vest. They then made him strip to his underwear to ensure he was unarmed before detaining him.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the latest in a series of foiled attacks on Israel by Palestinian youths.

The family of the teenager, identified as Hussam Abdo, said he was gullible and easily manipulated.

“He doesn’t know anything, and he has the intelligence of a 12 year old,” said his brother, Hosni.

Is there a shred of doubt that, if instead a Jewish boy had strapped a bomb onto his body and walked into the Palestinian territories, Yasser Arafat’s security forces would not have shot him in the head?

As much as the Euroweenies dismiss the idea, there are in fact good guys and bad guys in this conflict.

The son of a prominent Boston doctor, David Arndt was on his way to becoming a leading surgeon in his own right when a bizarre blunder interrupted his climb: He left his patient on the operating table so he could cash his paycheck. A series of arrests followed, exposing a life of arrogance, betrayal, and wasted promise…

Scary.

From Arts & Letters Daily.

The son of a prominent Boston doctor, David Arndt was on his way to becoming a leading surgeon in his own right when a bizarre blunder interrupted his climb: He left his patient on the operating table so he could cash his paycheck. A series of arrests followed, exposing a life of arrogance, betrayal, and wasted promise…

Scary.

From Arts & Letters Daily.

The son of a prominent Boston doctor, David Arndt was on his way to becoming a leading surgeon in his own right when a bizarre blunder interrupted his climb: He left his patient on the operating table so he could cash his paycheck. A series of arrests followed, exposing a life of arrogance, betrayal, and wasted promise…

Scary.

From Arts & Letters Daily.

The son of a prominent Boston doctor, David Arndt was on his way to becoming a leading surgeon in his own right when a bizarre blunder interrupted his climb: He left his patient on the operating table so he could cash his paycheck. A series of arrests followed, exposing a life of arrogance, betrayal, and wasted promise…

Scary.

From Arts & Letters Daily.

…this would be the first story I read:

96-year-old denies cocaine charge:
7 crack rocks found on seat of her wheelchair

…this would be the first story I read:

96-year-old denies cocaine charge:
7 crack rocks found on seat of her wheelchair

…this would be the first story I read:

96-year-old denies cocaine charge:
7 crack rocks found on seat of her wheelchair

…this would be the first story I read:

96-year-old denies cocaine charge:
7 crack rocks found on seat of her wheelchair

The AJC is hyperventalating over $80,000 in legal fees paid to a lawyer hired to as defense counsel in a death penalty case, who apparently wasn’t prepared when it came time for trial. The article includes highlights from his time sheets, and some of the entries are pretty funny (”Nov. 4, 2002: Read AJC articles [about the Hispanic juror decision], bought and clipped articles — 1 hour.”)

But still, the paper needs to settle down. The county was paying $100 per hour. Before the AJC gives itself a hernia (that’s three figures!), it should realize that’s simply not enough for a lawyer competent to handle a death penalty trial in metro Atlanta. If the rate is that low, of course he’s going to bill every possible second that he even thought about working on the case. This is to say nothing of the fact that the guy got a pretty good result — a mistrial. Even if it was the result of his own lack of preparation, if I’m the defendant, I take a mistrial any day over the death penalty.

HJR Verdict: Brilliant defense!

UPDATE: here’s the lawyer’s Martindale Hubbell bio. Note he’s a KSG alum. Hmm…

In Seoul, they really mean it:

The parliament voted to impeach Roh after hours of scuffles and protests that included one Roh supporter setting himself on fire and another man trying to drive his car up the parliament steps and into the building.

OK, so Georgia can be embarassing, but it’s better than Canada right now. First, the “federal language commissioner” censored Don Cherry, the host of some hockey show called Coach’s Corner, for implying that most high sticking in the NHL is committed by European and French players. (As if it weren’t bad enough that Canada has a “language commission,” it turns out this person actually has some influence.) Now they’re attacking Conan O’Brien:

Canada’s government on Friday condemned a show by U.S. late-night television host Conan O’Brien that insulted people in French-speaking Quebec and seemed to suggest everyone in the province was homosexual.

* * *

“We want to disassociate ourselves from the comments which were broadcast last night because we do not support them in any way,” junior government minister Mauril Belanger told Parliament.

At one point in the show, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog — a hand puppet that is a regular on the show — said to a Quebecer: “You’re French, you’re obnoxious and you no speekay English.” It told another: “I can smell your crotch from here.”

O’Brien’s team were also shown replacing street signs in the province with those that read “Quebecqueer Street” and “Rue des Pussies.”

Are you kidding me that Conan O’Brien can cause a Canadian uproar? To be fair, they’re claiming only to want a rebate from O’Brien of a government subsidy that was paid to him to host the show in Toronto last year after the SARS scare, but the government (over)reaction seems to demonstrate at least a bit of truth in O’Brien’s joke.

First it was evolution. Now it’s the Big Bang Theory that they don’t teach in Georgia schools. (They also don’t teach plate techtonics, which won’t get as much attention but is perhaps even more stupid.)

If we’re going to harp on grammar for a while — and believe you me, I’m OK with that — well then of course you must go visit The Gallery of “Misused” Quotation Marks, which is hilarious.

Follow-up: Holy cow, I almost missed this hilarious, and relevant, editor’s note from the above-linked site:

I get a lot of e-mail from people suggesting that I add a section for misused apostrophes. Sorry, folks, but it’s not going to happen. First of all, the reason I started this site almost four years ago was because I was at once amused and mystified by the peculiar usage of quotation marks. Misused apostrophes usually aren’t that funny; they’re just annoying. Even if I wanted to do such a site, I just don’t have the time (especially since apostrophe misuse is much more widespread, I think, than misused quotation marks). A friend of mine has been thinking of doing a misused apostrophe site, so if he ever does I’ll let you know. In the meantime, you may want to take a look at The Home For Abused Apostrophes — not a lot there, but high quality choices.

(Note, the apostrophe palace is not as funny as the “Gallery.”)

Two unrelated articles, one in the American Enterprise Magazine and the other on the Easterblogg, highlight the environmental left’s total disregard for science.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, writes about the organization’s fight against genetically modified food. GM seeds hold enormous promise for increasing productivity of farming, especially important in third world countries that lack the economic resources to compensate for bad harbests by purchasing excess food on world markets. Moore shows how Greenpeace has manipulated facts and distorted science to convince governments to ban the use of GM seeds, the benefits of which are manifestly obvious to the poor farmers who are being prevented from using them:

For six years, anti-biotech activists managed to prevent the introduction of G.M. crops in India. This was largely the work of Vandana Shiva, the Oxford-educated daughter of a wealthy Indian family, who has campaigned relentlessly to “protect” poor farmers from the ravages of multinational seed companies. In 2002, she was given the Hero of the Planet award by Time magazine for “defending traditional agricultural practices.”

Read: poverty and ignorance. It looked like Shiva would win the G.M. debate until 2001, when unknown persons illegally planted 25,000 acres of Bt cotton in Gujarat. The cotton bollworm infestation was particularly bad that year, and there was soon a 25,000 acre plot of beautiful green cotton in a sea of brown. The local authorities were notified and decided that the illegal cotton must be burned. This was too much for the farmers, who could now clearly see the benefits of the Bt variety. In a classic march to city hall with pitchforks in hand, the farmers protested and won the day. Bt cotton was approved for planting in March 2002. One hopes the poverty-stricken cotton farmers of India will become wealthier and deprive Vandana Shiva of her parasitical practice.

Meanwhile Gregg Easterbrook posts to his New Republic blog about a recent National Academy of Sciences (i.e., non-partisan) report on air pollution, which shows that a “multi-state, multi-pollutant” regulatory regime that caps pollution at current levels and allows polluters to trade emission permits would result in greater pollution reduction than the current litigation-based Clean Air Act regulatory system — i.e., the scientific report supports the very type of proposal that the Bush Administration has been lobbying.

The Washington Post and New York Times both buried the story about the NAS study. No big deal, you say: it’s science that people don’t understand or really care about. Why, then, did both papers run above-the-fold page-one stories about other “studies” that came to opposite conclusions? Easterbrook has an answer:

The ill-named Clear Skies plan would replace the Clean Air Act’s cumbersome site-by-site litigation formula with a new system that sets broad overall reduction targets, then allows industrial facilities to trade reduction permits with each other. The Clear Skies plan has been roundly condemned by Democrats, especially in the Senate–among the president contenders, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have been withering in their denunciations of Clear Skies–and mocked by editorial writers. As this space noted in December, Democrats are fighting Clear Skies exactly because they know it would reduce air pollution: They want to deny George W. Bush a progressive victory going into the 2004 election. But the official reason Democrats, and editorial writers, have derided Clear Skies is their claim it wouldn’t work.

Environmentalists used to debate whether they should support proposals that provide incremental, but less than optimal, improvements in environmental conditions, over proposals that would radically alter the way things work — the question being whether obtaining the less-than-optimal reform would sap the necessary motivation for implementation of the preferred solution. That debate is over; the bad guys won.

The New York Times Magazine this weekend contains the most offensive interview of the new year, by Deborah Solomon, of Todd Bassett, the head of the Salvation Army.

The interview begins as one would expect: asking Bassett about the recent announcement that Joan Kroc, the McDonald’s heiress, bequeathed $1.5 billion to the Salvation Army to build recreation and community centers around the U.S. Solomon doesn’t even disguise the contempt she holds for the S.A. or the gift itself: “Isn’t it pretty hard to think about the salvation of your soul if you are starving?”

What is Bassett supposed to say? Kroc’s will stipulated that the money be used for certain purposes. Should the S.A. just turn down the money because some liberal NYTM reporter doesn’t think it is being directed to the highest and best use? I guess the question is fine, though. Everyone can question the priorities of someone who donates, say, computer equipment to starving children in Africa. (Although I suspect Solomon would have no problem with spending millions to save some rare species of fish that is being decimated by evil people who need it to avoid starvation.)

But Solomon is just getting warmed up. She goes on to insult McDonald’s for destroying families (by encouraging people to eat in their cars rather than around the family dinner table). Next, she wonders, does Bassett consider himself “poor” because the S.A.’s salaries are so low? These are all strange questions, but then she takes a truly bizarre turn: “Does the Salvation Army have any rules about sexual conduct between consenting adults?”

Bassett answers this curveball politely and with dignity, but you can only imagine him wondering what he’s gotten himself into. Solomon concludes the interview by getting inappropriately personal (”what is the biggest sin you have ever committed”) and then insulting Bassett and the Salvation Army as being “out of touch with contemporary America.”

Where does the Times get off in allowing this breathtaking hostility to a man of religion, whose life work is helping the less fortunate, get into print? Sure, the white(?) Christian male is so . . . simple-minded: he doesn’t even believe people should have consensual premarital sex!

This is unbelievable. Imagine, on the other hand, if Kroc had given $1.5 billion to some Muslim charity. Do you think for a moment the Times would treat that charity’s use of the money with such disdain, all the while insulting the imam and his religion for being “backward?”

Somehow, I doubt it.

Tony Blair has been completely vindicated in connection with the allegations that he and his government “sexed up” the July 2003 intelligence dossier, which indicated, among other things, that Iraq was prepared to deploy WMD in 45 minutes. It was the BBC, in fact, that lied, and Gavyn Davies, Chairman of the BBC, resigned yesterday.

As to Frampton’s suggestion that the Administration should not have played up the WMD aspect over the humanitarian reasons, Jonah Goldberg argues in The Corner that it was the State Department (read: not the Defense Department) that pushed the WMD angle, because State Department lawyers argued that WMD was the only legal justifaction under “international law.” Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle all along minimized the importance of WMD and in fact made a much broader case for deposing Saddam.

As you point out, we may have had a massive intelligence failure. (We still don’t know, and David Kay suggests that some weapons programs may have been moved to Syria.) But the anti-war zealots’ conspiracy theories that “Bush Lied!” are both factually incorrect and completely illogical. After all, such a lie would have required the cooperation of the Blair government, to say nothing of the fact that Bush Administration intelligence was entirely consistent with the intelligence gathered by his predecessor, who, it should be noted, has remained on the sidelines in the Bush Lied debate.

Finally, note the dignity with which Tony Blair yesterday rebuffed those who so viciously attacked him: “I ask that those that have repeatedly claimed that I lied over this issue . . . now withdraw that allegation . . . unequivocally and in full.”

UPDATE: Now, initial reports are circulating that Jacques Chirac was bribed with Iraqi oil money. Funny, they were right, but about the wrong guy: It was all about the oil.

Known problems: asbestos, the facade is falling off, the building sways too much in the wind, and now the elevators free fall from the 36th floor.

Suspected problem: structural soundness.

I used to work there.

Known problems: asbestos, the facade is falling off, the building sways too much in the wind, and now the elevators free fall from the 36th floor.

Suspected problem: structural soundness.

I used to work there.

Known problems: asbestos, the facade is falling off, the building sways too much in the wind, and now the elevators free fall from the 36th floor.

Suspected problem: structural soundness.

I used to work there.

Known problems: asbestos, the facade is falling off, the building sways too much in the wind, and now the elevators free fall from the 36th floor.

Suspected problem: structural soundness.

I used to work there.

Nice tackle, although a bit surprising.

Nice tackle, although a bit surprising.

Nice tackle, although a bit surprising.

Nice tackle, although a bit surprising.

Peggy Noonan thinks Wes Clark is weird and that he lacks nuance:

More telling is Gen. Clark on abortion. A pro-lifer wouldn’t have the smallest of chances in the Democratic Party, but a certain Clintonian politesse is expected when the question is raised. “Abortion is always a tragedy but denying a woman her reproductive rights under the Constitution would also be a tragedy”–that kind of thing. This is what Gen. Clark said when he met with the Manchester Union-Leader and was questioned by the newspaper’s Joseph McQuaid:

Clark: I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion–
McQuaid: At all?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Late-term abortion? No limits?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?
Clark: Nope, nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?
Clark: I say that it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. . . . You don’t put the law in there.

Gen. Clark was then asked, “What about when she’s grown up and at the prom, can you kill her then?” He said, “Absolutely. Chase her across the dance floor. This is a personal decision for the mother.” Oh–sorry–I made that last part up. He did not advocate killing children 18 years after they’re born. Though one wonders why not.

He does kind of seem like a scrubbed android.

In the debate last night (transcript here; search for “marriage”), John Edwards announced the principle that the issue of gay marriage should be decided on a state-by-state basis — a sensible, defensible position, even if one disagrees.

In the same breath, though, he attacked the federal Defense of Marriage Act and praised John Kerry for voting against it. The DMA provides that marriages in one state do not have to be recognized in another state if the marriage does not meet the second state’s requirements for marriage. It’s an attempt to prevent courts from applying the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause in the marriage context. (It may be unconstitutional, but that’s another matter.)

In other words, the DMA effectuates the very principle on which Edwards claims to base his position: it attempts to prevent the imposition of nationwide gay marriage upon the recognition of gay marriage in a single state.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the DMA and the proposed constitutional amendments regarding marriage. But it’s not valid to oppose the DMA because one believes gay marriage should be decided on a state-by-state basis. Such a statement is internally inconsistent.

Edwards’s position is politically sophisticated: it’s not easy to support two popular principles that are entirely contradictory. But it’s also incredibly cynical, because it plays on the public’s ignorance.

Edwards possibly didn’t know any better; he did claim ignorance on the subject. But it’s more likely that he knew exactly what he was doing. Too bad Brit Hume (who tried) wasn’t able to pin Edwards down on the issue.

To rehash a topic from which everyone has moved on, Pete Rose is not thinking clearly about what it’s going to take to get re-admitted to baseball. Now, he’s going to Foxwoods for a book signing.

Our society can be harsh and unforgiving. Howard Dean, for example, may never recover from The Screech. But in cultural matters, we’re incredibly forgiving of rogues, especially when they show contrition. The pressure on Bud Selig to re-admit Rose probably would have been overwhelming, if only Rose had: (1) admitted everything (c’mon, Pete, we know you bet from the clubhouse), (2) apologized in a way that seemed sincere (on tv — importantly, he didn’t have to convince the people who know him best), and (3) created the appearance that he’s “reformed” or, at the least, working on it. After all, OJ, it’s not as if he committed murder.

Rose obviously thinks #1 is all it takes. But, when everyone knows that you’re making admissions in the hopes of obtaining something in exchange, the contrition and reform elements become far more important. Rose’s ham-handed efforts probably have increased the pressure on Selig not to readmit him.

Selig should force Rose to convince the real skeptics: the Veterans Committee. If readmitted today, the Baseball Writers probably would vote him into the Hall — although that proposition seems more questionable after recent weeks. If Rose is ever readmitted, it should be after the window for the Writers to induct him into the Hall has expired.

Mark Katz drafted Clinton’s speeches given at, among others, the White House Correspondents’ Dinners, during which process he taught the president the power of self-deprecating humor. Recalling a thank you call he received from Clinton after the 1995 Correspondents’ Dinner, Katz observes:

This, I would learn, is a common phenomenon among people who find themselves in a conversation with a president. They interject the words “Mr. President” into nearly every sentence, as if afflicted with a very proper strain of Tourette’s syndrome. There is just something about talking to the president that makes you punctuate your sentences with the words “Mr. President.” Not because he wants to hear it-he knows very well who he is–but because you just love to hear yourself say it. After all, when is the next time you’ll get to say “Mr. President” in a sentence? A co-op board meeting? More than that, interjecting those words adds import to any sentence you might say. Compare these sentences:
A. Cheese sandwiches are very tasty.
B. Cheese sandwiches are very tasty, Mr. President.

Pretty funny. Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Lawrence Wright spent a couple of weeks (months?) teaching reporting to employees of the Saudi Gazette. A long, fascinating and miserable look at Saudi life and press.

Original piece from the New Yorker.

Jacko’s legal defense is off to a bad, bad start. Yesterday, he arrived at his arraignment wearing this:

He was 21 minutes late to the hearing, which prompted the judge to warn him, “Mr. Jackson, you have started out on the wrong foot here. … I want to advise you that I will not put up with that. It’s an insult to the court.” Although it does not appear in the AP story this morning, I heard last night that Jacko also had to excuse himself mid-hearing, and the judge chastized Mark Gerragos to instruct his client to “limit his fluid intake” prior to future hearings.

We’ve all heard the talk about the “massive crowds” outside the courtroom that arrived to support him. This is an obvious attempt to influence the jury pool in Jacko’s favor. I think it’s a hamhanded effort that will backfire. All of those supporters will be stricken from the jury pool, and most people selected for the jury will think that display of support was, at the least, weird.

So what did they accomplish yesterday? They pissed off the judge and weirded out the jury pool. The whole thing seems designed to ameliorate Jacko’s massive, damaged ego. If this kind of crap keeps up, though, Jacko’s heading for the slammer.

This kind of talk, from a MoveOn meeting, is not going to help the Dems. Somebody forgot to invite the grownups.

On Survivor, Jeff Probst tells departing contestants, “The tribe has spoken. It’s time for you to go.” On The Apprentice, Donald Trump’s new reality game show, losers are told, “You’re fired!”

I love it.

So does the NY Times:

A personality clash between Ereka and Omarosa, 29, a political consultant/pageant coach and the only African-American woman competing on the show, festers into a racial standoff in the second episode. Those are the ragged, unpleasant frictions that made reality shows like MTV’s “Real World” and CBS’s “Survivor” so popular in the first place; they have been airbrushed out of the more contrived dating shows like “The Bachelor.”

In the through-the-looking-glass morality of reality shows, the quest for money is more honorable than the pursuit of love, which as almost every variation on “The Bachelor” has shown, is actually a grab for fame and fortune dressed up as romance. Viewers may doubt the sincerity of Larissa on “Average Joe Hawaii,” but it is hard to question Omorosa’s determination to finish first.

The show premieres tonight. (Note that the Times spells Omarosa’s name differently in two adjacent paragraphs. Nice editing.)

Grim Times at U.S. Air

Archie and Carroll should read this, from the NY Times:

What young doctors say they want is that “when they finish their shift, they don’t carry a beeper; they’re done,” said Dr. Gregory W. Rutecki, chairman of medical education at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, a community hospital affiliated with the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University.

Lifestyle considerations accounted for 55 percent of a doctor’s choice of specialty in 2002, according to a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September by Dr. Rutecki and two co-authors. That factor far outweighs income, which accounted for only 9 percent of the weight prospective residents gave in selecting a specialty.

Many of the brightest students vie for several hundred dermatology residency spots. The National Residency Matching Program, which matches medical school graduates to residency openings, reported that in 2002, 338 medical school seniors were interested in dermatology, up from 244 in 1997 � though the 2002 figure still represented only 2.3 percent of the potential doctor pool.

I’d be interested to hear what yall have to say, but I would think this is kind of a big problem.

No, no, no, I won the $162 million lottery, but I lost the ticket. If someone would kindly return it to me, I’ll pay you a $5,000 reward.

The New Yorker has an excellent biography on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor and Osama bin Laden’s second-hand man. Extremely long, but a good case study on how someone goes from disgruntled muslim to terror mastermind.

(Also via Arts & Letters Daily.)

The New Yorker has an excellent biography on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor and Osama bin Laden’s second-hand man. Extremely long, but a good case study on how someone goes from disgruntled muslim to terror mastermind.

(Also via Arts & Letters Daily.)

The New Yorker has an excellent biography on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor and Osama bin Laden’s second-hand man. Extremely long, but a good case study on how someone goes from disgruntled muslim to terror mastermind.

(Also via Arts & Letters Daily.)

The New Yorker has an excellent biography on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor and Osama bin Laden’s second-hand man. Extremely long, but a good case study on how someone goes from disgruntled muslim to terror mastermind.

(Also via Arts & Letters Daily.)

Stephen should read this speech by Michael Crichton, about the degradation of scientific standards that started with the SETI project in the 1960s. He goes on to discuss nuclear winter, second hand smoke and, finally, global warming. It’s long. Shores, search “second hand” if you just want to read that section.

(Via Arts & Letters Daily.)

In a move clearly intended to counter UPS’s acquisition of Mailboxes, Etc., FedEx is acquiring privately held Kinko’s for $2.4 billion. Interesting.

Howard Dean says that Osama bin Laden is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and that death should come only after a jury has declared him guilty. Sure, he later retracted the statement, but doesn’t it speak volumes that the Democratic frontrunner doesn’t have a clear sense of what to do with America’s #1 enemy?

Then Dean, who has kept religious talk to a minimum says he’ll dial it up when he heads down South. This guy keeps talking about what he’s going to do when he starts campaigning in the South, but he keeps making idiotic, condescending statements about Southerners. The fact is, he has no Southern strategy, and it is becoming increasingly clear that he stands no chance with Southern voters. Clearly, he’d have a long way to go winning any Southern states, but do the Dems really want to concede 140 electoral college votes without a fight?

Now, after all the accusations about Enron and the Administration’s secretiveness, we learn that Dean had his own secret energy advisory group.

When are the Dems going to wake up? This guy’s a train wreck waiting to happen, and he’s going to take the whole party with him.

…and all I got was this lousy story.

The Times reported the other day that Halliburton’s alleged corruption has resulted in a whopping $46 million in profits on over $1 billion in revenue. (That’s sarcasm. Pretty small margin for the most corrupt company in the history of the earth.)

The oil contracts? Seems the Pentagon wanted the gas flowing the next day, so Halliburton got telephone bids and put the contract up for normal, written bidding within days. The White House connection? Turns out everyone bent over backward to avoid the appearance of a conflict, and the Administration said screw it, do what has to be done, and we’ll take the political heat. Pretty noble, actually.

The problem seems to be that Iraq is devastated and needs to be rebuilt quickly, it’s a very dangerous place, and only so many companies can do the jobs being asked of Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root. Hmm, you’d think some Dems would have figured that out.

Once again, Matt, I believe you should retract. I don’t mean to be inflammatory, but doesn’t it give you pause that a significant portion of your political beliefs these days are based upon conjectures about the Administration’s motives and factual predictions that don’t turn out the way you guessed? Could it be that the Administration is actually making the best decisions possible under extremely difficult circumstances? The Dems keep saying they oppose the Administration’s policies because they will lead to devastating consequences, but the Administration keeps getting results.

The New Republic has a blog about why Howard Dean will be a terrible candidate. From Saturday’s entry:

The Republican strategy for years has been to pair giant tax cuts for the rich with small tax cuts for the middle class. The idea is to tie the middle class together with the well-to-do. Of course, such tax cuts aren’t really in the interest of the middle class. But few voters really understand that the three hundred bucks they’re getting comes at the cost of thousands of dollars in higher debt. Sure, they’d prefer to use the money for something other than tax cuts, but they’re happy to get their three hundred bucks.

The classic Democratic counter-strategy has been to support middle-class tax cuts and fight against the upper-class tax cuts. This is fairly easy to do, since the middle-class portion of President Bush’s tax cut is a tiny compared to the portion that goes to the affluent. This allows Democrats to claim the political high ground–under their plan, the vast majority of the voters will get just as much (or more) in tax relief, at a fraction of the cost to the Treasury. This strategy severs the link between the middle class and the very rich.

By proposing to repeal the entire tax cut, Dean would play right into Bush’s hands. Republicans could claim, truthfully, that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class. Dean would be doing exactly what Bush would like him to do–put the middle class back in the same boat as the rich.

Check it out.

The New Republic has a blog about why Howard Dean will be a terrible candidate. From Saturday’s entry:

The Republican strategy for years has been to pair giant tax cuts for the rich with small tax cuts for the middle class. The idea is to tie the middle class together with the well-to-do. Of course, such tax cuts aren’t really in the interest of the middle class. But few voters really understand that the three hundred bucks they’re getting comes at the cost of thousands of dollars in higher debt. Sure, they’d prefer to use the money for something other than tax cuts, but they’re happy to get their three hundred bucks.

The classic Democratic counter-strategy has been to support middle-class tax cuts and fight against the upper-class tax cuts. This is fairly easy to do, since the middle-class portion of President Bush’s tax cut is a tiny compared to the portion that goes to the affluent. This allows Democrats to claim the political high ground–under their plan, the vast majority of the voters will get just as much (or more) in tax relief, at a fraction of the cost to the Treasury. This strategy severs the link between the middle class and the very rich.

By proposing to repeal the entire tax cut, Dean would play right into Bush’s hands. Republicans could claim, truthfully, that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class. Dean would be doing exactly what Bush would like him to do–put the middle class back in the same boat as the rich.

Check it out.

The New Republic has a blog about why Howard Dean will be a terrible candidate. From Saturday’s entry:

The Republican strategy for years has been to pair giant tax cuts for the rich with small tax cuts for the middle class. The idea is to tie the middle class together with the well-to-do. Of course, such tax cuts aren’t really in the interest of the middle class. But few voters really understand that the three hundred bucks they’re getting comes at the cost of thousands of dollars in higher debt. Sure, they’d prefer to use the money for something other than tax cuts, but they’re happy to get their three hundred bucks.

The classic Democratic counter-strategy has been to support middle-class tax cuts and fight against the upper-class tax cuts. This is fairly easy to do, since the middle-class portion of President Bush’s tax cut is a tiny compared to the portion that goes to the affluent. This allows Democrats to claim the political high ground–under their plan, the vast majority of the voters will get just as much (or more) in tax relief, at a fraction of the cost to the Treasury. This strategy severs the link between the middle class and the very rich.

By proposing to repeal the entire tax cut, Dean would play right into Bush’s hands. Republicans could claim, truthfully, that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class. Dean would be doing exactly what Bush would like him to do–put the middle class back in the same boat as the rich.

Check it out.

The New Republic has a blog about why Howard Dean will be a terrible candidate. From Saturday’s entry:

The Republican strategy for years has been to pair giant tax cuts for the rich with small tax cuts for the middle class. The idea is to tie the middle class together with the well-to-do. Of course, such tax cuts aren’t really in the interest of the middle class. But few voters really understand that the three hundred bucks they’re getting comes at the cost of thousands of dollars in higher debt. Sure, they’d prefer to use the money for something other than tax cuts, but they’re happy to get their three hundred bucks.

The classic Democratic counter-strategy has been to support middle-class tax cuts and fight against the upper-class tax cuts. This is fairly easy to do, since the middle-class portion of President Bush’s tax cut is a tiny compared to the portion that goes to the affluent. This allows Democrats to claim the political high ground–under their plan, the vast majority of the voters will get just as much (or more) in tax relief, at a fraction of the cost to the Treasury. This strategy severs the link between the middle class and the very rich.

By proposing to repeal the entire tax cut, Dean would play right into Bush’s hands. Republicans could claim, truthfully, that he wants to raise taxes on the middle class. Dean would be doing exactly what Bush would like him to do–put the middle class back in the same boat as the rich.

Check it out.

As everyone here knows, the downtown connector in Atlanta split the city in much the same way as did the above-ground highway in Boston, recently corrected by the Big Dig. Several years ago, a Tech student suggested building a platform over I-75/85 to reconnect the east and west sides of midtown and downtown. This was dismissed as crazy talk. We don’t do things like that.

Well, the first stage is set to be built — a 256 foot extension (width-wise) of the Fifth Street bridge is going to be built, on which a 1-acre park will be located. The developers hope that the platform is eventually extended all the way to 10th Street. I’m shocked that this is actually going to happen. But no doubt it’s a good thing.

Hall of Famer hits on Suzie Kolmer during a sideline interview at the Jets-Pats game this weekend.

(Via Drudge.)

…but only with 18.1% of likely Democratic voters. Clark is second with about 13%. Interestingly, John Edwards’s campaign has not taken off at all (3.8%). All that said, 42% of likely Democratic voters in Georgia remain undecided.

…but only with 18.1% of likely Democratic voters. Clark is second with about 13%. Interestingly, John Edwards’s campaign has not taken off at all (3.8%). All that said, 42% of likely Democratic voters in Georgia remain undecided.

…but only with 18.1% of likely Democratic voters. Clark is second with about 13%. Interestingly, John Edwards’s campaign has not taken off at all (3.8%). All that said, 42% of likely Democratic voters in Georgia remain undecided.

…but only with 18.1% of likely Democratic voters. Clark is second with about 13%. Interestingly, John Edwards’s campaign has not taken off at all (3.8%). All that said, 42% of likely Democratic voters in Georgia remain undecided.

Read this. It’s hilarious. “And that’s our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he’s Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he’s languid and laconic and blas�. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he’ll hunt you down wherever you are.”

He also points out that Dean has no opinion whether Osama Bin Laden should be tried in the U.S. or the Hague. That is a stunning statement from a presidential candidate, really.

Read this. It’s hilarious. “And that’s our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he’s Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he’s languid and laconic and blas�. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he’ll hunt you down wherever you are.”

He also points out that Dean has no opinion whether Osama Bin Laden should be tried in the U.S. or the Hague. That is a stunning statement from a presidential candidate, really.

Read this. It’s hilarious. “And that’s our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he’s Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he’s languid and laconic and blas�. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he’ll hunt you down wherever you are.”

He also points out that Dean has no opinion whether Osama Bin Laden should be tried in the U.S. or the Hague. That is a stunning statement from a presidential candidate, really.

Read this. It’s hilarious. “And that’s our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he’s Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he’s languid and laconic and blas�. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he’ll hunt you down wherever you are.”

He also points out that Dean has no opinion whether Osama Bin Laden should be tried in the U.S. or the Hague. That is a stunning statement from a presidential candidate, really.

Gregg Easterbrook, a dem who actually knows something about the environment trashes the congressional dems for blocking the Clear Skies bill. Why have they done it? Because doing so, Easterbrook argues, and actually achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act, would allow Bush to take credit on an environmental issue. Now that the dems blocked Clear Skies, Bush is doing it through regulatory action — which will reduce midwest power plant emissions by an astonishing 70%. Have you heard about this? Probably not. The press isn’t covering the story with the same vehemence with which it attacks Clear Skies. Easterbrook:

Because Democrats and Jeffords have thrown their bodies in front of Clear Skies, it cannot pass in the current session of Congress. Recognizing that, the Environmental Protection Agency and Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality wrote a series of administrative rules that impose most Clear Skies goals without legislation. Power-plant emissions, including mercury, will be capped at an almost 70 percent reduction over current levels; industry will be required to spend billions of dollars for new pollution-control equipment.

The administrative approach chosen by Bush isn’t as good as Clear Skies, because administrative rule-making must use the litigation-prone language of the Clean Air Act. Energy companies may sue to block Bush’s rules as too strict, while enviros may sue to block the rules so that they can continue charging that the president is doing nothing against pollution. If, however, Bush’s administrative changes announced last week are allowed by judges to go into force, power-plant pollution blowing from the Midwest to the East Coast will decline substantially; airborne mercury will be restricted for the first time; air quality will improve enough that all but a few counties in the Northeast will come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

My view on the environment is much like my view on education: if you actually care about the environment or kids, you should be willing to do anything that will achieve a cleaner environment or help kids learn, respectively. That includes giving GOPers credit where credit is due, even if the method for achieving results is not the one traditionally espoused by your chosen political party. But when environmentalists throw up road blocks to real environmental progress (Clear Skies) because Bush proposed it, or “education experts” block education reforms (school choice trial programs) because the NEA opposes it, they prove that the environment (or education) are not their true goals, but political power for their allies. It’s, frankly, disgusting.

Gregg Easterbrook, a dem who actually knows something about the environment trashes the congressional dems for blocking the Clear Skies bill. Why have they done it? Because doing so, Easterbrook argues, and actually achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act, would allow Bush to take credit on an environmental issue. Now that the dems blocked Clear Skies, Bush is doing it through regulatory action — which will reduce midwest power plant emissions by an astonishing 70%. Have you heard about this? Probably not. The press isn’t covering the story with the same vehemence with which it attacks Clear Skies. Easterbrook:

Because Democrats and Jeffords have thrown their bodies in front of Clear Skies, it cannot pass in the current session of Congress. Recognizing that, the Environmental Protection Agency and Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality wrote a series of administrative rules that impose most Clear Skies goals without legislation. Power-plant emissions, including mercury, will be capped at an almost 70 percent reduction over current levels; industry will be required to spend billions of dollars for new pollution-control equipment.

The administrative approach chosen by Bush isn’t as good as Clear Skies, because administrative rule-making must use the litigation-prone language of the Clean Air Act. Energy companies may sue to block Bush’s rules as too strict, while enviros may sue to block the rules so that they can continue charging that the president is doing nothing against pollution. If, however, Bush’s administrative changes announced last week are allowed by judges to go into force, power-plant pollution blowing from the Midwest to the East Coast will decline substantially; airborne mercury will be restricted for the first time; air quality will improve enough that all but a few counties in the Northeast will come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

My view on the environment is much like my view on education: if you actually care about the environment or kids, you should be willing to do anything that will achieve a cleaner environment or help kids learn, respectively. That includes giving GOPers credit where credit is due, even if the method for achieving results is not the one traditionally espoused by your chosen political party. But when environmentalists throw up road blocks to real environmental progress (Clear Skies) because Bush proposed it, or “education experts” block education reforms (school choice trial programs) because the NEA opposes it, they prove that the environment (or education) are not their true goals, but political power for their allies. It’s, frankly, disgusting.

Gregg Easterbrook, a dem who actually knows something about the environment trashes the congressional dems for blocking the Clear Skies bill. Why have they done it? Because doing so, Easterbrook argues, and actually achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act, would allow Bush to take credit on an environmental issue. Now that the dems blocked Clear Skies, Bush is doing it through regulatory action — which will reduce midwest power plant emissions by an astonishing 70%. Have you heard about this? Probably not. The press isn’t covering the story with the same vehemence with which it attacks Clear Skies. Easterbrook:

Because Democrats and Jeffords have thrown their bodies in front of Clear Skies, it cannot pass in the current session of Congress. Recognizing that, the Environmental Protection Agency and Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality wrote a series of administrative rules that impose most Clear Skies goals without legislation. Power-plant emissions, including mercury, will be capped at an almost 70 percent reduction over current levels; industry will be required to spend billions of dollars for new pollution-control equipment.

The administrative approach chosen by Bush isn’t as good as Clear Skies, because administrative rule-making must use the litigation-prone language of the Clean Air Act. Energy companies may sue to block Bush’s rules as too strict, while enviros may sue to block the rules so that they can continue charging that the president is doing nothing against pollution. If, however, Bush’s administrative changes announced last week are allowed by judges to go into force, power-plant pollution blowing from the Midwest to the East Coast will decline substantially; airborne mercury will be restricted for the first time; air quality will improve enough that all but a few counties in the Northeast will come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

My view on the environment is much like my view on education: if you actually care about the environment or kids, you should be willing to do anything that will achieve a cleaner environment or help kids learn, respectively. That includes giving GOPers credit where credit is due, even if the method for achieving results is not the one traditionally espoused by your chosen political party. But when environmentalists throw up road blocks to real environmental progress (Clear Skies) because Bush proposed it, or “education experts” block education reforms (school choice trial programs) because the NEA opposes it, they prove that the environment (or education) are not their true goals, but political power for their allies. It’s, frankly, disgusting.

Gregg Easterbrook, a dem who actually knows something about the environment trashes the congressional dems for blocking the Clear Skies bill. Why have they done it? Because doing so, Easterbrook argues, and actually achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act, would allow Bush to take credit on an environmental issue. Now that the dems blocked Clear Skies, Bush is doing it through regulatory action — which will reduce midwest power plant emissions by an astonishing 70%. Have you heard about this? Probably not. The press isn’t covering the story with the same vehemence with which it attacks Clear Skies. Easterbrook:

Because Democrats and Jeffords have thrown their bodies in front of Clear Skies, it cannot pass in the current session of Congress. Recognizing that, the Environmental Protection Agency and Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality wrote a series of administrative rules that impose most Clear Skies goals without legislation. Power-plant emissions, including mercury, will be capped at an almost 70 percent reduction over current levels; industry will be required to spend billions of dollars for new pollution-control equipment.

The administrative approach chosen by Bush isn’t as good as Clear Skies, because administrative rule-making must use the litigation-prone language of the Clean Air Act. Energy companies may sue to block Bush’s rules as too strict, while enviros may sue to block the rules so that they can continue charging that the president is doing nothing against pollution. If, however, Bush’s administrative changes announced last week are allowed by judges to go into force, power-plant pollution blowing from the Midwest to the East Coast will decline substantially; airborne mercury will be restricted for the first time; air quality will improve enough that all but a few counties in the Northeast will come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

My view on the environment is much like my view on education: if you actually care about the environment or kids, you should be willing to do anything that will achieve a cleaner environment or help kids learn, respectively. That includes giving GOPers credit where credit is due, even if the method for achieving results is not the one traditionally espoused by your chosen political party. But when environmentalists throw up road blocks to real environmental progress (Clear Skies) because Bush proposed it, or “education experts” block education reforms (school choice trial programs) because the NEA opposes it, they prove that the environment (or education) are not their true goals, but political power for their allies. It’s, frankly, disgusting.

Can’t you just see the young John Kerry signing his name (probably preceded by “President”), over and over again during school? I’m no handwriting expert, but this perfectly crafted signature is that of a haughty man:

At least he leaves out the “F.” when he could play up the whole JFK thing… but I suspect if he became President, the dreaded letter would no doubt suddenly appear. See, Clinton, William Jefferson.

From the Kerry Website.

From the Dean Website:

The Fund to Restore America

Governor Dean will begin his work to improve the economy by proposing a two- year, $100 billion Fund to Restore America, designed to add more than one million new jobs to the economy. The Fund will benefit the economy in both the short and long term.

I may have posted on this before, but the idiocy of this idea continues to astound, and I frankly can’t believe he hasn’t ditched it. How does he propose to pay for it? I thought he was supposed to be a centrist. More importantly, rather than coopting 0.5% of GDP ($50 billion per year in a $10 trillion economy) to “create” 1 million jobs, why not just give 1 million people $50,000 per year. I’m certain he’s not talking about creating 1 million jobs that pay more than that, so why not just cut out the bureaucr…. er, middleman?

From the Dean Website:

The Fund to Restore America

Governor Dean will begin his work to improve the economy by proposing a two- year, $100 billion Fund to Restore America, designed to add more than one million new jobs to the economy. The Fund will benefit the economy in both the short and long term.

I may have posted on this before, but the idiocy of this idea continues to astound, and I frankly can’t believe he hasn’t ditched it. How does he propose to pay for it? I thought he was supposed to be a centrist. More importantly, rather than coopting 0.5% of GDP ($50 billion per year in a $10 trillion economy) to “create” 1 million jobs, why not just give 1 million people $50,000 per year. I’m certain he’s not talking about creating 1 million jobs that pay more than that, so why not just cut out the bureaucr…. er, middleman?

From the Dean Website:

The Fund to Restore America

Governor Dean will begin his work to improve the economy by proposing a two- year, $100 billion Fund to Restore America, designed to add more than one million new jobs to the economy. The Fund will benefit the economy in both the short and long term.

I may have posted on this before, but the idiocy of this idea continues to astound, and I frankly can’t believe he hasn’t ditched it. How does he propose to pay for it? I thought he was supposed to be a centrist. More importantly, rather than coopting 0.5% of GDP ($50 billion per year in a $10 trillion economy) to “create” 1 million jobs, why not just give 1 million people $50,000 per year. I’m certain he’s not talking about creating 1 million jobs that pay more than that, so why not just cut out the bureaucr…. er, middleman?

From the Dean Website:

The Fund to Restore America

Governor Dean will begin his work to improve the economy by proposing a two- year, $100 billion Fund to Restore America, designed to add more than one million new jobs to the economy. The Fund will benefit the economy in both the short and long term.

I may have posted on this before, but the idiocy of this idea continues to astound, and I frankly can’t believe he hasn’t ditched it. How does he propose to pay for it? I thought he was supposed to be a centrist. More importantly, rather than coopting 0.5% of GDP ($50 billion per year in a $10 trillion economy) to “create” 1 million jobs, why not just give 1 million people $50,000 per year. I’m certain he’s not talking about creating 1 million jobs that pay more than that, so why not just cut out the bureaucr…. er, middleman?

I feel pretty gross after having visited all those democratic presidential websites. The one thing that struck me at the sites, however, was how unserious each of these people are. Here are some headlines found on the candidates’ sites:

Dean: “Governor Dean Blasts Bush For Signing Partial Birth Abortion Ban” (isn’t that supposed to be “the procedure known by its opponents as ‘partial birth abortion’ “?)

Gephardt: “Dick Gephardt worked to issue federal ergonomics standards” (My wrist would have felt better, but al Queda blew my head off!)

Kucinich: “Employ the Jobless to Rebuild America’s Decaying Infrastructure” (there’s a new idea)

Sharpton: “THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE OF EQUAL HIGH QUALITY AMENDMENT” (when Osama blows up Philadelphia during the Sharpton administration, we’ll be glad the Rev passed this Constitutional amendment first…)

Moseley-Braun: “Protecting and defending the civil rights of people living with disabilities.” (with Moseley-Braun as commander in chief, we’ll all be disabled — discrimination problem solved!)

Clark: “Turnaround Plan for America: Child Poverty” (impoverishing children certainly would be a turnaround, but how would it help the economy?)

Edwards: “Edwards Assails Bush on Toxic Fish” (umm, OK)

Each of these may raise serious issues that I’m sure are important to various constituencies. The problem is that the prominence with which these headlines are displayed on the candidates’ websites makes it unmistakably clear that these guys simply don’t understand or care about the importance of security. If they don’t care, they’re not fit for service. If they do care, the paucity of ideas on these massive web pages is breathtaking. Put it this way: issues like the minimum wage are irrelevant IF WE’RE ALL DEAD.

(Admitted cheap-shot against Gephardt: the ergonomics issue was pretty deep down on his site.)

Note to self: when designing Frampton’s presidential candidate website, remember not to post new, but relatively unimportant, matters prominently on the home page just because they’re new. Only the big issues should go on the front page, so as not to trivialize the candidate, especially in the eyes of new visitors. Repeat visitors looking for articles on, say, toxic fish will know to use the prominently displayed “what’s new” link.

From the Washington Post: “Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, asked about the decision during a candidates’ debate last night, said, ‘I can’t think of anything dumber or more insulting or more inviting to the disdain of countries and potential failure of our policy.’ ” So John Kerry can’t think of anything dumber than not allowing France to be lead contractor on U.S. Government reconstruction contracts in Iraq?

Hmm… (scratch of chin)

How about enacting laws that hinder private citizens’ ability to do business with private citizens of other countries? Gephardt and Kucinich to repeal NAFTA. Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman just want to gut it with wage and environmental “standards” (first world, not third world standards, of course). I was going to link to each of those candidates, but I got tired of reading such drivel.

My question is, why is it so important to the Democrats all of a sudden that the Bush Administration open up U.S. government contracts to foreigners, when they’re so busy attacking Republicans on trade? The fact of the matter is, if all the contracts went to foreign companies, the Dems would be the first to jump on the Administration for costing American jobs.

It’s not possible, is it, that the Democratic presidential candidates’ complaints are not actually rooted in principle?

UPDATE: If this string of posts doesn’t dredge up a Higdon, nothing will.

Great site. My scores put me in the libertarian right:

Economic Left/Right: 3.62 (center right)
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44 (slightly libertarian)

Interestingly, the chart fails to list any famous politicians in the libertarian right. The reading list includes Hayek, Friedman, and Rand.

Frampton, I’m not so sure I’d be comfortable in the company of Jean Chretien. That guy’s a turkey. I bet Shores and Brittany turn up positive (authoritarian) scores, but let’s wait and see. Good post.

Two thoughts on the existence of a housing bubble. Last night, in an unrelated conversation, a friend pointed out that, among the people he knows, if they aren’t doctors or lawyers, they work in one area or another of the real estate business. Obviously, it’s a big, diverse industry, but I’d bet the stats bare this observation out. (I mean, there’s three of us just here on this page.)

On a completely separate front, the NY Times this morning notes an apartment bubble in all areas of the U.S. other than the northeast and California, where building regulations and a lack of land have prevented a buildup of supply.

In Atlanta, the word is the glut has been in homes selling for more than $1 million, which havent’ been moving for over a year. Houses under $500,000 have continued to sell. If this article is right, though, you’d think that young people, especially, may start forgoing the first home purchase in favor of a few more years in the post-college apartment.

AP: “Five-legged dog undergoes surgery to remove two legs”

Woodward beat Cairo 35-7 last night in the first round of the Georgia AAAA playoffs. See the blurb here (scroll down). And, for you sophisticates, in Georgia, it’s pronounced “kay-roh.”

Congratulations Freer. Next up, Shaw or Greenbriar.

Like health care issues, which I will leave others to debate (Archie, care to summarize and comment on this debacle for us?), the gay marriage debate is one that I somewhat dread. I fear that it will last for years, be extremely divisive and I suspect that we’re headed, in any event, toward an inevitable conclusion (in favor of some sort of marriage rights for all), so why don’t we just get on with it. As a result, I don’t plan on commenting much on the debate, but David Brooks makes a decent argument that conservatives should be the ones pushing for gay marriage rights in the NYT today:

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Daniel Henninger is right on the money this morning in the Opinion Journal, writing that the President has been abandoned to deal with problems of terrorism and WMDs on his own:

With this speech we have reached a juncture, I think, where people have to agree with the president about the nature of the threat, or disagree. The threat is the proliferation of the technical knowledge beneath weapons of mass destruction, and the existence of people willing to use these technologies against large civilian populations or whole nations. That, in sum, is terrorism.

For those of us who agree about the nature of the threat, I think the time has come to recognize, in a formal way, that we have entered a period of history analogous to the Cold War–and that we now need Cold War institutions to win the war on terror.

We don’t require another mass murder next week in London, and the week after in New York, Madrid or Sydney to understand that this threat will recur for years until it is defeated. Yes, a long, hard slog. And those of us who know this should also recognize that we’ve been standing around with our hands in our pockets, watching, and leaving one president and his associates to carry the whole load–the fight, the arguments, the counterarguments and the flak.

To read Mr. Bush’s London speech is to understand clearly that a grand struggle is unfolding, and it will need structures outside government to win it.

Daniel Henninger is right on the money this morning in the Opinion Journal, writing that the President has been abandoned to deal with problems of terrorism and WMDs on his own:

With this speech we have reached a juncture, I think, where people have to agree with the president about the nature of the threat, or disagree. The threat is the proliferation of the technical knowledge beneath weapons of mass destruction, and the existence of people willing to use these technologies against large civilian populations or whole nations. That, in sum, is terrorism.

For those of us who agree about the nature of the threat, I think the time has come to recognize, in a formal way, that we have entered a period of history analogous to the Cold War–and that we now need Cold War institutions to win the war on terror.

We don’t require another mass murder next week in London, and the week after in New York, Madrid or Sydney to understand that this threat will recur for years until it is defeated. Yes, a long, hard slog. And those of us who know this should also recognize that we’ve been standing around with our hands in our pockets, watching, and leaving one president and his associates to carry the whole load–the fight, the arguments, the counterarguments and the flak.

To read Mr. Bush’s London speech is to understand clearly that a grand struggle is unfolding, and it will need structures outside government to win it.

Daniel Henninger is right on the money this morning in the Opinion Journal, writing that the President has been abandoned to deal with problems of terrorism and WMDs on his own:

With this speech we have reached a juncture, I think, where people have to agree with the president about the nature of the threat, or disagree. The threat is the proliferation of the technical knowledge beneath weapons of mass destruction, and the existence of people willing to use these technologies against large civilian populations or whole nations. That, in sum, is terrorism.

For those of us who agree about the nature of the threat, I think the time has come to recognize, in a formal way, that we have entered a period of history analogous to the Cold War–and that we now need Cold War institutions to win the war on terror.

We don’t require another mass murder next week in London, and the week after in New York, Madrid or Sydney to understand that this threat will recur for years until it is defeated. Yes, a long, hard slog. And those of us who know this should also recognize that we’ve been standing around with our hands in our pockets, watching, and leaving one president and his associates to carry the whole load–the fight, the arguments, the counterarguments and the flak.

To read Mr. Bush’s London speech is to understand clearly that a grand struggle is unfolding, and it will need structures outside government to win it.

Daniel Henninger is right on the money this morning in the Opinion Journal, writing that the President has been abandoned to deal with problems of terrorism and WMDs on his own:

With this speech we have reached a juncture, I think, where people have to agree with the president about the nature of the threat, or disagree. The threat is the proliferation of the technical knowledge beneath weapons of mass destruction, and the existence of people willing to use these technologies against large civilian populations or whole nations. That, in sum, is terrorism.

For those of us who agree about the nature of the threat, I think the time has come to recognize, in a formal way, that we have entered a period of history analogous to the Cold War–and that we now need Cold War institutions to win the war on terror.

We don’t require another mass murder next week in London, and the week after in New York, Madrid or Sydney to understand that this threat will recur for years until it is defeated. Yes, a long, hard slog. And those of us who know this should also recognize that we’ve been standing around with our hands in our pockets, watching, and leaving one president and his associates to carry the whole load–the fight, the arguments, the counterarguments and the flak.

To read Mr. Bush’s London speech is to understand clearly that a grand struggle is unfolding, and it will need structures outside government to win it.

I never followed Gateway, so I was unaware of how poorly the company has done over the last couple of years:

-Once the leader in U.S. PC sales, it now owns only 3% of the market
-It has laid off (including planned layoffs) 18,000 people
-Stock down from all-time high of $80 to $5.38

Now, the company is moving into the consumer electronics business, hoping to capitalize on its network of stores. The CEO says thhe reformation is 90% complete and they’re starting to roll out products.

I don’t know if the strategy will work, but it seems like the company will now go one way or the other — it will either stabilize or go belly up. Either way, the stock would seem to be ready to make a big move in the next 12 months. Good candidate for a straddle?

UPDATE: It closed at $4.58 yesterday. Here’s the one-year chart. And here’s the chart for options that expire in January 2005 — you can buy a call ($5.00 strike) for $1.20, and a put for $1.35. So, it looks like the gains are limited to $2.00 per share ($4.58 - 1.20 - 1.35) if the strategy fails, but pretty big upside if it works. Thoughts?

according to MSNBC, some people have . . . umm . . . self control issues with their TiVo’s.

A few weeks ago, I posted a feature on Bankrate.com about Gene Simmons and how he handles his money. Since then, they’ve run similar articles about David Cassidy, Linda Gray (Sue Ellen on Dallas) and, this week, Toby Keith, who, apparently, is some sort of country musician. These aren’t huge stars, obviously, but that also makes it interesting, because they’re closer to real people. Check it out.

What a snore.

Here’s a pretty good article about the competition between JetBlue and Song, Delta’s low-cost startup. For example, Song has just about finished putting digital TVs on all the seats, and JetBlue has increased legroom by 2 inches on nearly all its planes.

It’s interesting to me that Delta has gone head to head with JetBlue, rather than looking for other underserved point-to-point routes. Any thoughts business people?

It ain’t easy being a Georgia Tech fan.

MWAHHAHAHAHAHA.

It ain’t easy being a Georgia Tech fan.

MWAHHAHAHAHAHA.

It ain’t easy being a Georgia Tech fan.

MWAHHAHAHAHAHA.

It ain’t easy being a Georgia Tech fan.

MWAHHAHAHAHAHA.

He says it’s unconstitutional, but not for the reason you liberal crazies want the Court to rule it so.

No analysis necessary. This is a good thing.

No analysis necessary. This is a good thing.

No analysis necessary. This is a good thing.

No analysis necessary. This is a good thing.

Tunku Varadarajan thinks the two groups are mutually exclusive, and Howard Dean’s mistake was trying to appeal to them both at nearly the same time:

Mr. Dean, in the space of a week, claimed first to be a “metrosexual” and, later, to be a presidential candidate “for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.” How he could possibly be both is a mystery to your humble servant, a non-metrosexual, non-Confederate, reflexively skeptical newspaperman. Can one really rest one’s Perrier on a gun-rack? Or sip Burgundy with one’s savory cheese-food snack?

Not a bad strategy, he concludes, but poorly executed.

Dean, I would say, compounded his problems with Southern Dems last night during the sixth debate:

Dean added that the [Confederate] flag is a racist symbol, “But I think there are lot of poor people who fly that flag because the Republicans have been dividing us by race since 1968 with their Southern race strategy. …. I want to go down to the South and talk to people who don’t make any more than anybody else up North but keep voting Republican against their own economic interests.”

Edwards, who represents North Carolina, was unwilling to let the subject go.

“Let me tell you, the last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do.”

Dean walked into it, and Edwards gets no particular points for giving the response that was sitting at his feet, but Dean is showing an incredibly tin ear for issues Southern.

This is important both for Dean in the primary race and for the Dems in the general. As Taranto pointed out yesterday, it is the third primary — South Carolina — that will be most influential, because the state is probably more representative of the rest of the country than Iowa (which Gephardt will naturally dominate) and New Hampshire (Dean). South Carolina’s the key for the rest of the primary season, and Dean is fouling up his chances.

From the NYT.

From the NYT.

From the NYT.

From the NYT.

Tonight features a rematch between Woodward and Sandy Creek High School, which last year upset the War Eagles to win the region. It should be a scorcher. My only question is, why didn’t the AJC talk to Coach Freer?

BTW, for you out-of-towners, the game is being broadcast live tonight on Comcast. How cool is that?

Zell Miller endorses President Bush 13 months before the election. Oh my word, I wish he were running for re-election. By the way, if you haven’t been following the story, the Dems can’t get anybody to run for Senate in Georgia.

The Comcast onscreen channel guide’s description of the 9:30 episode of the Real World tonight:

Real World TV-PG
9:30-10:00p 50 (MTV)
Music Television
Real World (2003): CT’s girlfriend Jamie’s friend Wendy confides to her Christina’s concerns about CT, who then goes to Christina about it. (Reality TV).

As Dr. Evil would say, “Right.”

BofA and Fleet
RJR and Brown & Williamson
Anthem and WellPoint Health Networks

On the chopping block:
AT&T
SunTrust and other regional banks
Other predictions?

Bank of America to buy Fleet, reported the Associated Press just 1 minute ago.

This kid Channing Crowder just seems excited to play. Until you get to the end of the story.

On April 13, he was arrested for his role in a brawl outside a Gainesville nightclub. According to police reports, Crowder and freshman defensive end Steven Harris were accused of repeatedly hitting and kicking a Florida student during an altercation in the parking lot. Brian Assent, 22, was knocked unconscious and suffered multiple injuries, including lost teeth and a facial laceration that required 11 stitches. Police said the wounds resulted in “permanent disfigurement.”

This is what we’re up against.

Sweet. Next, we’ll be kicking children out of school for expressing their views. Oh wait.

Now they’ve attacked the Red Cross in Baghdad, killing 12, as well as 4 police stations killing 28 others. This looks to be well-coordinated and is a reminder that Bush was right — when their victims are doctors and nurses, the other side is evil.

Hey - do any of you know about James Traub? He writes for the NY Times. I was unfamiliar with him. In the Magazine this weekend, he had a piece about Bush hatred, starting off by noting the large number of books on the subject currently on the best seller’s list. In the second paragraph, he states: “For those of us of hopelessly moderate temperament, dipping into the inky depths of these volumes [about Bush hatred] offers something of the wicked and barely licit pleasures of a Victoria’s Secret catalogue.” So now I’m interested. Maybe this guy will have something interesting to note about this phenomenon.

He continues setting up the argument:

There are obvious ideological answers to this question. The liberal answer is that George Bush is a craven, lazy, hypocritical nitwit. The conservative answer is that liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal. And then there is the generalized, nonpartisan lament that the public arena has become so vulgarized and polarized and Jerry Springerized that everyone is now at everyone else’s throat. O tempora! O mores!

So now, he’s introduced the subject, and the reader knows we’re about to get his analysis, and it’s looking even more interesting. But then he throws down the gauntlet: “The problem with this last view is precisely that it’s nonpartisan. Our political culture has not been infected by some virus from outer space, or from TV. The carrier was Newt Gingrich.”

Traub then goes on a liberal diatribe: “Today’s Republican Party is arguably the most extreme — the furthest from the center — of any governing majority in the nation’s history.” It just gets worse from there. He concludes:

It’s satisfying; but I don’t see how it can be a good thing, either for public debate or ultimately for the electoral prospects of the Democrats, to have liberals descend to the level of rabid conservatives. Maybe Al Franken has the right idea, since ”Liars” is not so much an actual diatribe as a sly parody of conservative extremism. Anybody heard a good John Ashcroft joke? [HAHAHAHA!!!]

Disappointed at the turn the column had taken, I ran a quick search, where I learned Traub got into a pretty well-publicized debate with Ramesh Ponnuru of The National Review earlier this year about Traub’s argument that the Dems keep losing because they “play fair,” while mean, bad Republicans keep playing their dirty, dirty tricks.

Now, all of this is fine, and I don’t begrudge Traub any opinion he wants to express. And I understand that the Times pretty much has to lay off a columnist in an opinion column. But I do have a serious problem with the Times’ editors allowing Traub to describe himself as “hopelessly moderate.” The Times would never let Pat Buchanan make such a statement, and frankly, I doubt they would allow Ralph Nader to say it either. Those guys obviously are on the edges, but by allowing a clear partisan to make such a statement, the Times either (a) is allowing a columnist intentionally to mislead his readers or (b) is so extreme that it can’t see a lefty partisan for what he is. Either result is unacceptable.

Someone tell me the writer is so well-known that the “hopelessly moderate” statement can only be interpreted ironically.

Go Mountaineers.

Go. Dogs.

…will like the quirky McSweeny’s, if he hasn’t already found it. Brought to you by Dave Eggers.

Mitt Romney was hit today with questions about controversial statements made by his Secretary of Aministration and Finance, Eric Kriss, to the Boston Chamber of Commerce. What type of comments, you ask. Racist? Nope. Anti-semite? Not even close:

In his speech Kriss, the secretary of administration and finance, made a distinction between ”those who contribute through taxes and those who receive government benefits.”

”Of course, all of us receive some benefits — like the roads and rails that brought us all here this morning. But we all know that some — most in this room probably — are net contributors, while others are net beneficiaries. The ratio between givers and takers turns out to be a critical variable of government,” said Kriss, who was not available yesterday to elaborate on his remarks.

”What ratio is sustainable?” Kriss asked. He noted that when President Lyndon Johnson launched his Great Society programs in the 1960s, the ‘’sustainable” ratio of givers to takers was thought to be 9 to 1 — that is, 90 percent of the population should pay taxes to help the bottom 10 percent rise up by receiving government services.

Scandalous!

…about the Catholic Church:

The current pope is obviously a deep and holy man; but that makes his hostility even more painful. He will send emissaries to terrorists, he will meet with a man who tried to assassinate him. But he has not and will not meet with openly gay Catholics. They are, to him, beneath dialogue. His message is unmistakable. Gay people are the last of the untouchables. We can exist in the church only by silence, by bearing false witness to who we are. I was once more hopeful. I saw within the church’s doctrines room for a humane view of homosexuality, a genuinely Catholic approach to including all nonprocreative people - the old, the infertile, the gay - in God’s church. But I can see now that the dialogue is finally shutting down. Perhaps a new pope will change things. But the odds are that hostility will get even worse.

…about the Catholic Church:

The current pope is obviously a deep and holy man; but that makes his hostility even more painful. He will send emissaries to terrorists, he will meet with a man who tried to assassinate him. But he has not and will not meet with openly gay Catholics. They are, to him, beneath dialogue. His message is unmistakable. Gay people are the last of the untouchables. We can exist in the church only by silence, by bearing false witness to who we are. I was once more hopeful. I saw within the church’s doctrines room for a humane view of homosexuality, a genuinely Catholic approach to including all nonprocreative people - the old, the infertile, the gay - in God’s church. But I can see now that the dialogue is finally shutting down. Perhaps a new pope will change things. But the odds are that hostility will get even worse.

…about the Catholic Church:

The current pope is obviously a deep and holy man; but that makes his hostility even more painful. He will send emissaries to terrorists, he will meet with a man who tried to assassinate him. But he has not and will not meet with openly gay Catholics. They are, to him, beneath dialogue. His message is unmistakable. Gay people are the last of the untouchables. We can exist in the church only by silence, by bearing false witness to who we are. I was once more hopeful. I saw within the church’s doctrines room for a humane view of homosexuality, a genuinely Catholic approach to including all nonprocreative people - the old, the infertile, the gay - in God’s church. But I can see now that the dialogue is finally shutting down. Perhaps a new pope will change things. But the odds are that hostility will get even worse.

…about the Catholic Church:

The current pope is obviously a deep and holy man; but that makes his hostility even more painful. He will send emissaries to terrorists, he will meet with a man who tried to assassinate him. But he has not and will not meet with openly gay Catholics. They are, to him, beneath dialogue. His message is unmistakable. Gay people are the last of the untouchables. We can exist in the church only by silence, by bearing false witness to who we are. I was once more hopeful. I saw within the church’s doctrines room for a humane view of homosexuality, a genuinely Catholic approach to including all nonprocreative people - the old, the infertile, the gay - in God’s church. But I can see now that the dialogue is finally shutting down. Perhaps a new pope will change things. But the odds are that hostility will get even worse.

When you have about an hour, check out this story from Studies in Intelligence. The story follows the CIA’s operation with Oleg Tolkachev, a radio engineer who passed on volumes of extremely sensitive information about Soviet military systems in the early and mid-1980s. The story follows his initial contact with the CIA, through the operation, until he was compromised in 1985. It’s fascinating to see the Agency’s official post-mortem on a hugely successful operation.

Check out the technology they were using as early as 1980:

In September 1980, CIA headquarters suggested that planning begin for the possible use of Short-Range Agent Communications (SRAC) with Tolkachev, as an emergency backup communications system. It could be used if Tolkachev wanted an emergency meeting, or if there were a need for a brief exchange of data without the risk of a personal meeting.

Headquarters proposed the use of the latest and best SRAC system available at the time. It consisted of two identical units, one for the case officer�s use and one for the agent�s use. These units were about the size of two cigarette packs laid end to end. Each unit came with detachable antennas, Russian or English keyboard plates, battery packs and batteries, chargers, and instructions.

Before any planned transmission, both the agent and the case officer entered their messages by keying them into their respective unit one letter at a time. The messages were automatically enciphered as they were keyed into the units. The units had a capacity of several thousand characters. With no major physical obstructions between them, the units had a range in the hundreds of meters. They were programmed to exchange messages in a burst transmission that lasted only seconds. The messages could then be read by scrolling the deciphered text across the unit�s small screen.

There’s also a hilarious note about retaliation conducted by the KGB when they realized a CIA case officer had shaken a tail in order to conduct covert operations:

It was preferable not to overuse this technique [using a jack-in-the-box device in a car to make it appear that two people were riding around] because the KGB would be well aware that the case officer had eluded surveillance and that almost certainly some operational act had been carried out. Typically in such situations, some KGB retaliation could be expected�such as air let out of the case officers� tires, cars blocked on the street, or other harassment�and surveillance of suspected CIA personnel in general would be increased temporarily. Nonetheless, at times the use of this technique was the only way that a case officer could get free to meet with Tolkachev.

If you want some real cloak and dagger stuff, this is it. I found Studies in Intelligence via, you guessed it, Arts & Letters Daily.

When you have about an hour, check out this story from Studies in Intelligence. The story follows the CIA’s operation with Oleg Tolkachev, a radio engineer who passed on volumes of extremely sensitive information about Soviet military systems in the early and mid-1980s. The story follows his initial contact with the CIA, through the operation, until he was compromised in 1985. It’s fascinating to see the Agency’s official post-mortem on a hugely successful operation.

Check out the technology they were using as early as 1980:

In September 1980, CIA headquarters suggested that planning begin for the possible use of Short-Range Agent Communications (SRAC) with Tolkachev, as an emergency backup communications system. It could be used if Tolkachev wanted an emergency meeting, or if there were a need for a brief exchange of data without the risk of a personal meeting.

Headquarters proposed the use of the latest and best SRAC system available at the time. It consisted of two identical units, one for the case officer�s use and one for the agent�s use. These units were about the size of two cigarette packs laid end to end. Each unit came with detachable antennas, Russian or English keyboard plates, battery packs and batteries, chargers, and instructions.

Before any planned transmission, both the agent and the case officer entered their messages by keying them into their respective unit one letter at a time. The messages were automatically enciphered as they were keyed into the units. The units had a capacity of several thousand characters. With no major physical obstructions between them, the units had a range in the hundreds of meters. They were programmed to exchange messages in a burst transmission that lasted only seconds. The messages could then be read by scrolling the deciphered text across the unit�s small screen.

There’s also a hilarious note about retaliation conducted by the KGB when they realized a CIA case officer had shaken a tail in order to conduct covert operations:

It was preferable not to overuse this technique [using a jack-in-the-box device in a car to make it appear that two people were riding around] because the KGB would be well aware that the case officer had eluded surveillance and that almost certainly some operational act had been carried out. Typically in such situations, some KGB retaliation could be expected�such as air let out of the case officers� tires, cars blocked on the street, or other harassment�and surveillance of suspected CIA personnel in general would be increased temporarily. Nonetheless, at times the use of this technique was the only way that a case officer could get free to meet with Tolkachev.

If you want some real cloak and dagger stuff, this is it. I found Studies in Intelligence via, you guessed it, Arts & Letters Daily.

When you have about an hour, check out this story from Studies in Intelligence. The story follows the CIA’s operation with Oleg Tolkachev, a radio engineer who passed on volumes of extremely sensitive information about Soviet military systems in the early and mid-1980s. The story follows his initial contact with the CIA, through the operation, until he was compromised in 1985. It’s fascinating to see the Agency’s official post-mortem on a hugely successful operation.

Check out the technology they were using as early as 1980:

In September 1980, CIA headquarters suggested that planning begin for the possible use of Short-Range Agent Communications (SRAC) with Tolkachev, as an emergency backup communications system. It could be used if Tolkachev wanted an emergency meeting, or if there were a need for a brief exchange of data without the risk of a personal meeting.

Headquarters proposed the use of the latest and best SRAC system available at the time. It consisted of two identical units, one for the case officer�s use and one for the agent�s use. These units were about the size of two cigarette packs laid end to end. Each unit came with detachable antennas, Russian or English keyboard plates, battery packs and batteries, chargers, and instructions.

Before any planned transmission, both the agent and the case officer entered their messages by keying them into their respective unit one letter at a time. The messages were automatically enciphered as they were keyed into the units. The units had a capacity of several thousand characters. With no major physical obstructions between them, the units had a range in the hundreds of meters. They were programmed to exchange messages in a burst transmission that lasted only seconds. The messages could then be read by scrolling the deciphered text across the unit�s small screen.

There’s also a hilarious note about retaliation conducted by the KGB when they realized a CIA case officer had shaken a tail in order to conduct covert operations:

It was preferable not to overuse this technique [using a jack-in-the-box device in a car to make it appear that two people were riding around] because the KGB would be well aware that the case officer had eluded surveillance and that almost certainly some operational act had been carried out. Typically in such situations, some KGB retaliation could be expected�such as air let out of the case officers� tires, cars blocked on the street, or other harassment�and surveillance of suspected CIA personnel in general would be increased temporarily. Nonetheless, at times the use of this technique was the only way that a case officer could get free to meet with Tolkachev.

If you want some real cloak and dagger stuff, this is it. I found Studies in Intelligence via, you guessed it, Arts & Letters Daily.

When you have about an hour, check out this story from Studies in Intelligence. The story follows the CIA’s operation with Oleg Tolkachev, a radio engineer who passed on volumes of extremely sensitive information about Soviet military systems in the early and mid-1980s. The story follows his initial contact with the CIA, through the operation, until he was compromised in 1985. It’s fascinating to see the Agency’s official post-mortem on a hugely successful operation.

Check out the technology they were using as early as 1980:

In September 1980, CIA headquarters suggested that planning begin for the possible use of Short-Range Agent Communications (SRAC) with Tolkachev, as an emergency backup communications system. It could be used if Tolkachev wanted an emergency meeting, or if there were a need for a brief exchange of data without the risk of a personal meeting.

Headquarters proposed the use of the latest and best SRAC system available at the time. It consisted of two identical units, one for the case officer�s use and one for the agent�s use. These units were about the size of two cigarette packs laid end to end. Each unit came with detachable antennas, Russian or English keyboard plates, battery packs and batteries, chargers, and instructions.

Before any planned transmission, both the agent and the case officer entered their messages by keying them into their respective unit one letter at a time. The messages were automatically enciphered as they were keyed into the units. The units had a capacity of several thousand characters. With no major physical obstructions between them, the units had a range in the hundreds of meters. They were programmed to exchange messages in a burst transmission that lasted only seconds. The messages could then be read by scrolling the deciphered text across the unit�s small screen.

There’s also a hilarious note about retaliation conducted by the KGB when they realized a CIA case officer had shaken a tail in order to conduct covert operations:

It was preferable not to overuse this technique [using a jack-in-the-box device in a car to make it appear that two people were riding around] because the KGB would be well aware that the case officer had eluded surveillance and that almost certainly some operational act had been carried out. Typically in such situations, some KGB retaliation could be expected�such as air let out of the case officers� tires, cars blocked on the street, or other harassment�and surveillance of suspected CIA personnel in general would be increased temporarily. Nonetheless, at times the use of this technique was the only way that a case officer could get free to meet with Tolkachev.

If you want some real cloak and dagger stuff, this is it. I found Studies in Intelligence via, you guessed it, Arts & Letters Daily.

Have we discussed how much stronger David Brooks makes the NYT editorial page? It doesn’t really matter if you think he’s an idiot — although I think that’s a difficult conclusion to draw. Hiring him goes a long way toward adding some balance to a page that had become so shrill that, I suspect, many people just avoided the page altogether. When you know that it’s going to be Frank Rich, MoDo, Krugman and, sometimes even, Friedman, most people at any point right of the very center will simply be turned off. It’s not that I always need to read someone with whom I agree, but it takes a certain level of energy to return, day after day, to a page with which I am certain not to agree. And it’s a rare person who can sustain that energy over long periods of time.

So adding Brooks not only makes business sense, by drawing me (and others, I’m sure) back to what should be a strong page, but it helps to keep the others honest. One of Brooks’ first columns was a thinly veiled broadside at Paul Krugman’s intellectual dishonesty and ridiculous partisanship.

Today is a good example of the balance that Brooks adds to the page, in a column discussing the 3-way split among Democrats on the $20 billion aid package to Iraq. Brooks’ thoughts contribute to the discussion in a way that Rich or Krugman never could.

This is one of the greatest things the federal government has done in years. If you haven’t signed up yet, it’s incredibly easy. Call 1-888-382-1222 from the phone that you want to register. Here’s the official site: www.donotcall.gov, sponsored by the FTC.

Today’s top headline on My Yahoo news is that Howard Dean wants to raise taxes. Well, actually, the headline says “Dean pledges to repeal Bush tax cuts.” (There is a difference — primarily that the headline accepts the Democratic spin (repeal the cut) rather than the reality (it’s a tax increase)). But my point is not about biased media. It’s about waking up on the right side of the bed and being greeted by anyheadline putting leading Dems and the prospect of higher taxes in the same sentence.

What’s funny to me is that Dean isn’t modest or quiet about his tax increase — he brags about it:

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean offered several new proposals to help the economy during a speech at Georgetown University but it was his renewed pledge to repeal all of President Bush’s tax cuts that grabbed the most attention. . . . Dean’s pledge to balance the federal budget was at odds with another rival � Dick Gephardt � who said this week that improving the economy was a more pressing concern than the deficit.

Dean on Thursday called for the creation of a $100 billion fund to assist states and local governments in creating jobs and offered a plan to close tax loopholes. During the speech, he tied together elements of economic proposals he has made on the campaign. The job creation fund and the goal of closing down $100 billion of tax loopholes were among the new proposals.

Three points. First, the $100 billion fund idea is so dumb it almost hurts. Second, that Dems think running on a platform of raising taxes is smart policitcs will never cease to amaze me. Third, Gephardt is running toward the center, big time. Yesterday, he voted for the $20 billion aid package to Iraq, and today he’s against Dean’s tax cut. Next thing you know, he’ll be proposing this system by which incoming missiles are shot down with high powered lasers…

…since we had any Kevin Bacon humor on the site. The Bleat provides some:

I Tivo�d �Trapped,� a movie about a kidnapped child. The bad guy is Kevin Bacon. The good thing about a movie where Kevin Bacon plays the bad guy is that you get to see Kevin Bacon get it in the end. Guaranteed, brother. I mean, if you called a movie �Kevin Bacon Gets A Harpoon in the Groin, and Deservedly So� people will line up around the block. It�s not because people necessarily harbor any great burning hate for the fellow, but there had to be some payback for �Footloose,� and this is it. He does the whole despicable bad-guy thing well, too, and that makes you like him a little; if you saw him in a restaurant, you�d say �hey, Kevin, keep making those movies where you make that big wide-eyed surprised face when you get the harpoon in the groin, okay? They�re great!� You�d never say that to Judd Nelson.

I think Judd Nelson and Steven Seagal should make a John Woo movie where they swap faces. It would be called �Pudge/ Off.� Main joke: no one could tell that they switched faces! Hah ha.

It was from a sheep.

Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball is a good site with predictions and analysis about the 2004 elections. (Taranto linked to the site today.) Sabato has an interesting study about the results of tough primary battles on presidential elections. Sabato concludes that, since 1960, vigorous intra-party competition in the primaries has not had a negative impact on the primary winner’s general election chances. When the vigorous competition spills over into bitter in-fighting, however, the results have been disastrous for the nominee. Obviously, this study has huge implications for the 2004 democratic primary.

So far, while the dems have bickered a bit, they seem to have avoided causing any irreversible damage. But here’s the problem: with Howard Dean in the race, it’s hard to see a result that doesn’t involve, one way or the other, an extremely bitter democratic result. If Dean is in the hunt toward the end of primary season, he’ll lob bombs against Kerry, Lieberman and Clark (whoever is the strongest challenger) that will be hard to repair after the convention. He will (and already has) attack the rival as too soft on Bush and too supportive of the war. If he wins, many centrist voters, turned off by attacks from the left, will turn to Bush. If he loses, it’s hard to see that his left wing primary supporters will turn out in droves for someone who Dean previously argued was, essentially, a traitor.

The only “out” would be for someone in the party — presumably neither the candidate or the loser — to bridge the divide. But I don’t think Terry McAuliffe is up to the task — he isn’t the uniter that his patrons are.

Thoughts?

“Found on the Downtown Connector . . . in Atlanta: one human heart, cold and nonfunctional.

“Wanted: evidence leading to an owner and word of how it got there.”

…says Ramond Damadian about this year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine, and he’s not afraid to let you (and everyone else) know about it. He’s even waging a campaign to get his name added to the prize before the actual awards are handed out at the end of the year.

Victim of the Nobel Committee or Shameless Self-Promoter?

I report. You decide.

(Via Arts & Letters Daily.)

Check out this article about Irene Pepperberg, who studies parrots:

There are some things that the birds do that, colloquially speaking, “just blow us away.” We were training Alex [one of her parrots] to sound out phonemes, not because we want him to read as humans do, but we want to see if he understands that his labels are made up of sounds that can be combined in different ways to make up new words; that is, to demonstrate evidence for segmentation. He babbles at dusk, producing strings like “green, cheen, bean, keen”, so we have some evidence for this behavior, but we need more solid data.

Thus we are trying to get him to sound out refrigerator letters, the same way one would train children on phonics. We were doing demos at the Media Lab for our corporate sponsors; we had a very small amount of time scheduled and the visitors wanted to see Alex work. So we put a number of differently colored letters on the tray that we use, put the tray in front of Alex, and asked, “Alex, what sound is blue?” He answers, “Ssss.” It was an “s”, so we say “Good birdie” and he replies, “Want a nut.”

Well, I don’t want him sitting there using our limited amount of time to eat a nut, so I tell him to wait, and I ask, “What sound is green?” Alex answers, “Ssshh.” He’s right, it’s “sh,” and we go through the routine again: “Good parrot.” “Want a nut.” “Alex, wait. What sound is orange?” “ch.” “Good bird!” “Want a nut.” We’re going on and on and Alex is clearly getting more and more frustrated. He finally gets very slitty-eyed and he looks at me and states, “Want a nut. Nnn, uh, tuh.”

Not only could you imagine him thinking, “Hey, stupid, do I have to spell it for you?” but the point was that he had leaped over where we were and had begun sounding out the letters of the words for us. This was in a sense his way of saying to us, “I know where you’re headed! Let’s get on with it,” which gave us the feeling that we were on the right track with what we were doing. These kinds of things don’t happen in the lab on a daily basis, but when they do, they make you realize there’s a lot more going on inside these little walnut-sized brains than you might at first imagine.

Fascinating, if a little offbeat. Via Arts & Letters Daily.

One thing you’re totally missing out on by living out in the Nether-lands is CSS, the Comcast Sports Southeast cable channel. Every Monday is Tennessee night, starting with the Phillip Fulmer Show, followed by an encore presentation of that week’s game. Tuesday is Georgia night, with Mark Richt show and game recap. Let’s just say I’m booked up until Wednesday. Plus, they don’t use the ESPN or CBS telecast, but instead you get some southern flunkie who wants your team to beat the hell out of BC or whomever. Oh, and Clemson-UVA is being replayed Wednesday and Thursday. Time to come on home, boys.

The Woodward War Eagles are 5-0. Congratulations Freer.

What an incredible game. Hard to describe the intensity in the first half, the utter, stunned silence on the last play of the 2nd quarter, and then how close the teams and fans came to an all out stadium-wide brawl in the third quarter. Absolutely incredible.

#4 ain’t too shabby. Bring on the Gators baby!!!

Go Dogs!

When the Governor calls it “cool,” it must be lame. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm doesn’t quite get it.

It’s Shirin Ebadi, and Iranian lawyer — there’s hope for you in Stockholm, yet, BM!

It’s Shirin Ebadi, and Iranian lawyer — there’s hope for you in Stockholm, yet, BM!

It’s Shirin Ebadi, and Iranian lawyer — there’s hope for you in Stockholm, yet, BM!

It’s Shirin Ebadi, and Iranian lawyer — there’s hope for you in Stockholm, yet, BM!

Prime Minister Koizumi dissolved the lower house of the Japanese parliament today, calling for national elections on November 9:

After the lower house was dissolved, lawmakers stood and yelled “Banzai!”_ an expression of congratulation that means “long life.”

Excellent article from the New Yorker about people who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, including some who have survived, and the authorities’ refusal to install a jump barrier. I found it on a new site (for me), Arts & Letters Daily, which I’m adding to my links. Enjoy.

Check out this post from John Derbyshire, who is British, in The Corner. He’s on his first trip to Alabama this weekend, including a day at the races:

Then on Sunday–Talladega! I was never at a NASCAR race before, but, like the late great Hank Williams (whose grave I visited Friday) I saw the light. What a spectacle! I got to shake hands with the winner, Michael Waltrip, who describes himself as a “redneck,” but who seemed to me like a perfect American gentleman. I got to meet Miss World, did a pre-race lap of the track riding in the open back of a pickup truck with David Green while the crowd cheered us (all right, they cheered HIM), and I stood in a pit while the pit crew changed all four wheels of an automobile faster than you could get out of your car. (”Slicker ‘n snot on a doorknob,” as one of the pit guys said approvingly.) Another great crowd–and HUGE: 150,000 or so, and more RVs than I shall ever again see in one place. People camp out here for a week beforehand. The NASCAR people were wonderful to me–Hey Les, Beau, Gary, Gary and Mac–THANKS! But Beau… what was that humongous great rubber band for?

Plus, he saw the Arkansas game in Tuscaloosa. Hilarious.

Bankrate.com delivers the goods. Shores, you should have gotten your MBA at KISS U.

Bankrate.com delivers the goods. Shores, you should have gotten your MBA at KISS U.

Bankrate.com delivers the goods. Shores, you should have gotten your MBA at KISS U.

Bankrate.com delivers the goods. Shores, you should have gotten your MBA at KISS U.

The AJC has a scoop on the story, which is unfolding in Georgia.

Give the man a little slack — he just entered the presidential race, so he’s bound to make some gaffs. But the fact that Wesley Clark can’t decide whether he would have voted for or against the war, the biggest issue of the day and the ostensible reason he is running for the office, speaks volumes about his preparedness — to say nothing of the obvious opportunism displayed by his bid (i.e., there’s not a viable Democratic candidate with credibility on the War on Terror, so let’s put a general up there!).

The general’s people say he’s learning as he goes along, but you’ve got to wonder what he’s been doing for the last 6 months…

Due to the hurricane risk, the military told the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery that they could abandon their post if necessary. They said no way.

…Gen. Sultan Hashim Ahmad surrenders after long negotiations with the Americans in Mosul. It’s especially interesting, even touching, to see the respect shown by Maj. Gen. David Petraeus of the 101st Airborne Division in a letter to Ahmad:

“Although we find ourselves on different sides of this war, we do share common traits. As military men, we follow the orders of our superiors. We may not necessarily agree with the politics and bureaucracy, but we understand unity of command and supporting our leaders in a common and just cause,” said Petraeus.

“However, the collapse of your regime necessitates your thoughtful reconsideration of support. I am concerned that your perceived resistance to the coalition’s efforts to bring back this country’s honor is detrimental and will result in further and needless loss of lives.”

He warned that the U.S. Army would “do all that is necessary to ensure that we achieve our objectives.”

“For the future of this great nation,” Petraeus said in conclusion, “I pray that you make the morally right choice.”

What TV news personality from one of the Big Six networks annoys you most, for non-ideological reasons?

My answer: a tie between Robert Hager of NBC and Bill Schneider of CNN. What do they have in common? I don’t know. I suppose Hager is harmless enough on his space/transportation beat, whereas Schneider’s DC coverage allows him to play a more insidious role. But sticking to my non-ideology rule, I’d have to say it’s the annoying way they both overmodulate the tone of their voices as though they just graduated from the Barbazon school of (local) TV news reporting. I’d rather eat grass than watch these guys.

“[H]e’s a cocky, arrogant punk and he has a really, really bad attitude.”

(Warning: NASCAR related)

Susan Estrich, the liberal USC law professor who’s always on MSNBC, etc., is pretty tough on Arianna Huffington:

In truth, I find her charming, as such people can be. She is who she is, and she makes no bones about it. She used to be against feminism and now supports it; used to be a conservative and now isn’t; encouraged her husband to support Proposition 187 and now opposes it; used to support Gingrich and now opposes him; opposes corporate tax breaks yet takes advantage of them; rails against oil wealth and lives off it; vows to take care of children and ignores the needs of her own.

Ourch. Via Drudge.

The lede in today’s Associated Press report about developments in Israel contains this nice little bit of moral equivalence:

NABLUS, West Bank - Palestinian leaders, acting under intense U.S. pressure, on Thursday approved what appeared to be a limited clampdown on militants, as Israeli troops hunting terror suspects raided three West Bank towns and killed a 16-year-old bystander in a shooting.

While technically true, the sentence suggests the inadvertent death of an innocent is merely tit-for-tat for yesterday’s bombing. It’s not until the 17th paragraph, however, that we learn the shooting occurred while Israeli forces were “chasing two Fatah gunmen.” Not exactly the same, morally, as intentionally killing civilian children riding a bus.

MORE: if you’re still on the fence in this debate — e.g., you think the Palestinians’ tactics are abhorable, but you can’t stomach the pictures of IDF forces running tanks through neighborhoods where kids are just throwing rocks — try this little thought experiment: what is the result for the losing side if either the Palestinians or the Israelis achieve total victory?

If the Israelis prevail (utterly) the result would be that Arafat dies (probably) and the PLO, Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are dismantled or otherwise removed from the Israeli picture. The Palestinians themselves, however, are permitted to remain in Israel and may even obtain their own state. Even today, the U.S. probably could pressure Israel into offering the same deal that Clinton proposed in 1999, where the Palestinians were to receive 95% of the territory requested.

If, on the other hand, the Palestinians achieve victory, what is the result for Israel? Total annihilation, and a refugee crisis as (the surviving) Israelis are forced to leave the Middle East to parts unknown.

Steven den Beste argues that, in setting up the U.S.-North Korea talks, China has backed down. Nothing new in the piece, but he puts a lot of things together in a long informative post:

If I’m right about this, it is a major diplomatic victory. But if so, it’s happened entirely behind the scenes in part because of our diplomacy, in part because of steadfastness, and in part because the North Korean government is the diplomatic equivalent of a rabid dog. I haven’t seen any reports which suggest that China actually had a hand in forcing this concession out of NK. But I’m convinced that’s what actually happened.

Follow up: Fred Kaplan notes that the Russians are turning on the North Koreans as well, by participating in joint military exercises this week with the Japanese and South Koreans, and by staging an exercise to prepare for an influx of North Korean refugees:

The significance of these events, both reported in Tuesday’s New York Times, is potentially staggering. Russia (which has long been one of North Korea’s chief allies and suppliers) has never taken part in naval exercises with South Korea and Japan (which have long been North Korea’s chief foes). Add to that the border drill�which suggests that Russia is figuring out how to deal with, but not necessarily to prevent, the possibility of Kim’s downfall�and the “Dear Leader” of Pyongyang must be getting a tad nervous.

As den Beste notes, if you know that the U.S. won’t back down to (i.e., buy off) the North Koreans, as China and Russia apparently are coming to understand, there’s no other rational response. Kim is a mad man, literally. You can stand by him and watch the region enter both nuclear and conventional arms races almost certain to end in military conflict. At the very least, the only certainty is that the U.S. would be dragged even more intimately into the region’s security affairs, which obviously the Chinese and Russians can not tolerate.

What’s crazy is that it’s taken the U.S. — half way around the world — to get anyone to notice how bad Kim is to have in the neighborhood. Great Amercian leadership here (so far), but further evidence of the U.S. as the indispensable nation. If I were Japan, South Korea, China or Russia, I’d be ashamed…

And another update: the Great Leader’s Live Journal is updated again - this time a chat with Dick Cheney.

Does anyone else think it’s ridiculous that Dr. Roberts hasn’t even visited BetterShorter? Just asking. He should cllick on “no comments” below for his first contribution.

There’s something disturbing about the Canadian government’s explanation of the blackout. First, they said it was caused by a lightning strike at a Niagara power plant. People in the upstate New York area were stunned by the allegation, as the closest lightning strike yesterday was in eastern Michigan. Then, Jean Chretien’s government said the outage was caused by a fire at a Pennsylvania nuclear station, which sparked this response:

That is absolutely not true,” said Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Maria Smith. “It’s bizarre. We have a direct line to each of our five (nuclear) power plants and they are all running at 100 percent … There’s not even a trash can fire, we would know.”

Meanwhile, the Bush administration simply said that it would conduct an investigation (although there were vague allegations that the blackout started from a source in Canada).

I understand that governments are always going to attempt to shift blame in a situation like this, but Chretien’s efforts seem ham-handed at best. Clearly, the Canadians don’t have the slightest clue as to the cause. That being the case, you’d think they’d just pipe down and wait for accurate reports. But this response is more nefarious, as it fits an ongoing pattern of behavior in the Canadian government: in a very European way, no matter what happens, it must be the Americans’ fault.

There’s no telling what will turn out to have been the cause, but that’s the point. Given the lack of information, it can serve no purpose to start blaming others. And in any event, any politician with a lick of sense knows that, if the problem did start on his side of the border, better not to have started a pissing match straight out of the gate.

There’s something disturbing about the Canadian government’s explanation of the blackout. First, they said it was caused by a lightning strike at a Niagara power plant. People in the upstate New York area were stunned by the allegation, as the closest lightning strike yesterday was in eastern Michigan. Then, Jean Chretien’s government said the outage was caused by a fire at a Pennsylvania nuclear station, which sparked this response:

That is absolutely not true,” said Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Maria Smith. “It’s bizarre. We have a direct line to each of our five (nuclear) power plants and they are all running at 100 percent … There’s not even a trash can fire, we would know.”

Meanwhile, the Bush administration simply said that it would conduct an investigation (although there were vague allegations that the blackout started from a source in Canada).

I understand that governments are always going to attempt to shift blame in a situation like this, but Chretien’s efforts seem ham-handed at best. Clearly, the Canadians don’t have the slightest clue as to the cause. That being the case, you’d think they’d just pipe down and wait for accurate reports. But this response is more nefarious, as it fits an ongoing pattern of behavior in the Canadian government: in a very European way, no matter what happens, it must be the Americans’ fault.

There’s no telling what will turn out to have been the cause, but that’s the point. Given the lack of information, it can serve no purpose to start blaming others. And in any event, any politician with a lick of sense knows that, if the problem did start on his side of the border, better not to have started a pissing match straight out of the gate.

There’s something disturbing about the Canadian government’s explanation of the blackout. First, they said it was caused by a lightning strike at a Niagara power plant. People in the upstate New York area were stunned by the allegation, as the closest lightning strike yesterday was in eastern Michigan. Then, Jean Chretien’s government said the outage was caused by a fire at a Pennsylvania nuclear station, which sparked this response:

That is absolutely not true,” said Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Maria Smith. “It’s bizarre. We have a direct line to each of our five (nuclear) power plants and they are all running at 100 percent … There’s not even a trash can fire, we would know.”

Meanwhile, the Bush administration simply said that it would conduct an investigation (although there were vague allegations that the blackout started from a source in Canada).

I understand that governments are always going to attempt to shift blame in a situation like this, but Chretien’s efforts seem ham-handed at best. Clearly, the Canadians don’t have the slightest clue as to the cause. That being the case, you’d think they’d just pipe down and wait for accurate reports. But this response is more nefarious, as it fits an ongoing pattern of behavior in the Canadian government: in a very European way, no matter what happens, it must be the Americans’ fault.

There’s no telling what will turn out to have been the cause, but that’s the point. Given the lack of information, it can serve no purpose to start blaming others. And in any event, any politician with a lick of sense knows that, if the problem did start on his side of the border, better not to have started a pissing match straight out of the gate.

There’s something disturbing about the Canadian government’s explanation of the blackout. First, they said it was caused by a lightning strike at a Niagara power plant. People in the upstate New York area were stunned by the allegation, as the closest lightning strike yesterday was in eastern Michigan. Then, Jean Chretien’s government said the outage was caused by a fire at a Pennsylvania nuclear station, which sparked this response:

That is absolutely not true,” said Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Maria Smith. “It’s bizarre. We have a direct line to each of our five (nuclear) power plants and they are all running at 100 percent … There’s not even a trash can fire, we would know.”

Meanwhile, the Bush administration simply said that it would conduct an investigation (although there were vague allegations that the blackout started from a source in Canada).

I understand that governments are always going to attempt to shift blame in a situation like this, but Chretien’s efforts seem ham-handed at best. Clearly, the Canadians don’t have the slightest clue as to the cause. That being the case, you’d think they’d just pipe down and wait for accurate reports. But this response is more nefarious, as it fits an ongoing pattern of behavior in the Canadian government: in a very European way, no matter what happens, it must be the Americans’ fault.

There’s no telling what will turn out to have been the cause, but that’s the point. Given the lack of information, it can serve no purpose to start blaming others. And in any event, any politician with a lick of sense knows that, if the problem did start on his side of the border, better not to have started a pissing match straight out of the gate.

Jim Taranto recognizes our resident politico. (Catch it before Thursday afternoon.)

Pretty interesting story in the Weekly Standard about (lucrative) tunnels between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.

Interesting piece in the NY Times Monday about European efforts to curb smoking, which have met more resistance than over here. Note this paragraph about Germany:

New York City’s recent ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has prompted widespread ridicule in parts of Europe, especially Germany, a country with a complicated history of smoking laws. Hitler was virulently antismoking and banned public smoking.

The current regime of anti-smoking laws are Fascist in effect, though cloaked in language of public health. I wonder what king of justification Hitler provided for his anti-smoking laws…

Tom Friedman was on it Monday.

Actually, Chris, I don’t think this is as weird as it sounds, and I for one am extremely disappointed that the Pentagon wasn’t permitted to kick this idea around a little longer. The idea is based on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a futures market that seeks to study the predictive qualities of markets in the context of elections and Federal Reserve rate moves.

Go here to view current quotes on the IEM for futures contracts on who will win the 2004 Democratic nomination. Each contract is a $1 “bet” that a candidate will win the nomination — that is, you pay (currently) $0.06 to buy a contract that Hillary will win the nomination, and if she does, the contract pays you $1.00. The system uses actual cash (but limits individual traders to $500 or less in contracts), so you’ve got to put your money where your mouth is.

The available contracts are Clinton, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman and “Rest of Field.” Because there is a 100% chance that one of these folks will win the nomination, the prices of contracts on all candidates must add up to $1 — otherwise, arbitrage opportunities arise. The convenient thing about a $1 bet is that the price on any candidate’s futures contract translates directly into the percentage chance that (the market believes) the candidate will win the nomination. Currently, the IEM believes that Kerry is the front-runner with a 32.8% chance of winning. Interestingly, Rest of Field has the highest price — $0.425 — obviously reflecting Dean’s popularity (but also, I suspect, the failure of any candidate to break away from the field).

As this paper shows, the IEM has had extraordinary success in predicting election outcomes, especially in highly liquid markets with discrete and limited (i.e., only 2 or 3 choices) candidates. The authors show that in such markets, market participants predict presidential winners more accurately than polls in 9 out of 15 cases. I would bet that this market will be highly liquid in the 2004 general election, because more people will have heard of the IEM, and, if you think about it, this is one of those things the blogosphere will love. Therefore, the IEM will be a seriously important (and interesting) place to go in the run-up to the 2004 election.

Now, terrorism is obviously different, and I’m not sure the market would have worked, mainly because I don’t see how you can have futures contracts with discrete choices. Apparently, they were talking about having contracts asking, say, “will Arafat be assasinated within the next year?” I don’t know how liquid the market would have been or how predictive such questions would have been for American security, but in the end, I think the idea failed for the very reason that the only way to structure the contracts was to ask such macabre questions.

That said, it’s truly a shame from a policy perspective that the Pentagon was so forcefully and quickly beaten down on what might have become a useful tool — all because some d-ckbags on Capitol Hill saw a chance to argue that the Pentagon is promoting “betting” on terrorism. And it’s not like these guys are coming up with any ideas of their own. It’s just political grandstanding, and destructive grandstanding at that. A-holes.

MORE: Glenn Reynolds is all over this story, saying that, in this episode, the “idiots win a round.” Just One Minute says IEM is “sooo yesterday” and points to TradeSports, which looks like a cool site. And read this defense by Greg Lindsay (also via InstaPundit).

A pack of wild dogs is terrorizing Atlanta. From the AJC this morning:

“It looked like something out of ‘Wild Kingdom,’ these three dogs just ripping at this cat,” said Deborah Beers, who broke up one attack in Inman Park. The black cat, a neighbor’s pet, was taken to a veterinarian but did not survive.

Anne White of Ponce de Leon Terrace buried her cat Rusty in her front yard after it was found in a drainage gully with its neck snapped on June 28. She found bits of fur on her back deck not far from where the body was found.

“He was trying to get into his cat door,” White surmised of Rusty’s last moments.

Whoever said Shores and I didn’t grow up on the mean streets didn’t know what they were talking about.

The editorial board of the Dallas Morning News has started a blog (first noted by Rod Dreher on The Corner, but linked by Glenn Reynolds this evening). This is an important development for a number of reasons. First, the DMN’s influence is disproportionate to its readership. You never hear about the AJC breaking big stories, for example, but it’s pretty common for the DMN, so it’s likely to be watched — and copied.

Second, I guess I understand the justification for the traditional unsigned editorial — i.e., it speaks for the institution rather than any individual, and anonymity allows editorial board members to voice potentially unpopular opinions without fear of individual retribution (Matt feel free to chime in here). But I think that aspect of the traditional editorial has become more of a liability than an asset to the persuasiveness of editorials — and the credibility of newspapers in general. The public realizes that an institution reflects the biases of the individuals forming that institution, and anonimity merely renders the process opaque — we have no idea how the editorial board came to a particular conclusion. At a time that the public places a premium on transparency, an editorial’s persuasiveness would be greatly enhanced if the public can see that it was the result of a deliberative process rather than of dictat from on high. (Note also, if this becomes a widespread trend, papers that refuse to open up the process will have exposed themselves as non-deliberative.)

Third, the right to dissent is so deeply ingrained in modern America that people now cry censorship when there are any consequences to even the most offensive or ridiculous opinions — e.g., country music fans’ refusal to continue showering millions of dollars on Natalie Maines after her comments about Bush. Don’t get me wrong — this political tolerance is a good development — but it means that writers of traditional editorials no longer need anonymity. In this atmosphere, the only purpose of anonymity is to prevent accountability. In that sense, the anonymity of editorials is no longer a shield for writers but is instead a weapon against readers. It is the readers who need protection.

Finally, I suspect that some editorial boards will balk at the idea, because they consider the process in some way sacrosant, akin to anonymous Supreme Court deliberations. Hooey. This ain’t life or death. Let your readers see how this stuff works. If nothing else, it’ll be fun, and it might show the public that editorial board members aren’t faceless monsters but thinking individuals.

Frankly, I’m surprised it has taken this long for a major newspaper to open a blog. But I expect the idea to take off quickly — and to have a substantial impact.

PREDICTIONS: Which major U.S. daily (Times, Post or USA-T) will be first to follow?

The Economist is hilarious. From an editorial about parliament’s overreaction to the 14-year-old-kidnapped-by-ex-marine story:

There are sensible public-policy reasons for encouraging teenagers to engage in sex later rather than sooner, but using the criminal justice system to do it is wrong. It makes the law look an ass; it blurs the important distinction between real child abuse, which is wicked, and teenage canoodling, which is not…

Link here (may require subscription).

…can be found here, according to knowledgeable sources. Marcel, click on “___ comments” below if you want to add anything.

…but maybe this tells us:

Marcel should tell us in a comment, I think.

Where did he find this:

Answer later.

From last night:

Ah, these kids today! Whadda they know! They know they should be having sex with everyone all the time, that�s what they know - at least if they�re Abercrombie & Fitch customers. The Southdale Ab & Fitch store has changed its big in-store pornboards; no more the buff guy with the corrugated stomach on one sign, and the tawny lass with her tousled hair barely covering her abundant bazungas on another. Now there�s a big scene of a threesome - two naked guys flanking a dreamy-faced young woman. She�s kissing one, and caressing the face of another. Yeah, that�s going to work in the long run. It�s quite amusing: all the new ads in the store feature people who are not wearing any clothes. And it�s a clothing store.

This sort of marketing only works with clothes, oddly enough.

He’s got some good stuff on Blair’s speech too.

From last night:

Ah, these kids today! Whadda they know! They know they should be having sex with everyone all the time, that�s what they know - at least if they�re Abercrombie & Fitch customers. The Southdale Ab & Fitch store has changed its big in-store pornboards; no more the buff guy with the corrugated stomach on one sign, and the tawny lass with her tousled hair barely covering her abundant bazungas on another. Now there�s a big scene of a threesome - two naked guys flanking a dreamy-faced young woman. She�s kissing one, and caressing the face of another. Yeah, that�s going to work in the long run. It�s quite amusing: all the new ads in the store feature people who are not wearing any clothes. And it�s a clothing store.

This sort of marketing only works with clothes, oddly enough.

He’s got some good stuff on Blair’s speech too.

From last night:

Ah, these kids today! Whadda they know! They know they should be having sex with everyone all the time, that�s what they know - at least if they�re Abercrombie & Fitch customers. The Southdale Ab & Fitch store has changed its big in-store pornboards; no more the buff guy with the corrugated stomach on one sign, and the tawny lass with her tousled hair barely covering her abundant bazungas on another. Now there�s a big scene of a threesome - two naked guys flanking a dreamy-faced young woman. She�s kissing one, and caressing the face of another. Yeah, that�s going to work in the long run. It�s quite amusing: all the new ads in the store feature people who are not wearing any clothes. And it�s a clothing store.

This sort of marketing only works with clothes, oddly enough.

He’s got some good stuff on Blair’s speech too.

From last night:

Ah, these kids today! Whadda they know! They know they should be having sex with everyone all the time, that�s what they know - at least if they�re Abercrombie & Fitch customers. The Southdale Ab & Fitch store has changed its big in-store pornboards; no more the buff guy with the corrugated stomach on one sign, and the tawny lass with her tousled hair barely covering her abundant bazungas on another. Now there�s a big scene of a threesome - two naked guys flanking a dreamy-faced young woman. She�s kissing one, and caressing the face of another. Yeah, that�s going to work in the long run. It�s quite amusing: all the new ads in the store feature people who are not wearing any clothes. And it�s a clothing store.

This sort of marketing only works with clothes, oddly enough.

He’s got some good stuff on Blair’s speech too.

I’m all booked up right now, but I’ll put “start magazine” on my todo list, Chris. Thanks for the suggestion.

I think your article is right on the money, and it raises a couple of interesting points. First, I don’t know why USA Today (or any paper, for that matter) should be ashamed to have a stunningly good sports page. Instead, what’s surprising is that the NY Times didn’t even have a sports section until recently, and the WSJ still doesn’t. That’s a huge mistake. I’d bet 97% of the WSJ’s readers are moderate to obsessive sports fans. Throw the resources and talent of the WSJ behind a sports page, and imagine the results: you’d have a hell of a section, your regular readers would be psyched, and you’d open up an entirely new market with folks who otherwise don’t give a lick about business.

Second, I think the article makes an excellent point that USA Today’s Business section is just as likely to run stories on rising local cable rates than the previous day’s mega-merger. Again, that’s just plain smart and demonstrates that USA Today knows its readers, who would clearly seem to care more about personal finance than international economics. Anyone who actually needs to know about such stuff for business reasons is going to buy the WSJ anyway.

Finally, I think USA Today is on the right track by beefing up its news & reporting. The article claims the paper has moved away from the type of reporting that screamed “our readers are idiots!” That’s smart. But it needs to do a similar makeover of the editorial page, which, from my recollection, retains the idiot’s tone. If they really want their paper to be taken seriously, it seems to me, all they need to do is hire a great editorial page editor and 3-4 serious columnists who are recruited outside traditional paths.

Hugh Hewitt makes just this point in yesterday’s Weekly Standard, pointing out that the blogosphere is the place editorial page editors ought to be scouring for new talent. As an example, he notes how gutless and boring it is to put Ellen Goodman on your editorial page, when great writers like James Lileks, Mark Steyn and Glenn Reynolds command much more respect. (I’d add Andrew Sullivan, who doesn’t currently have a regular domestic column (notwithstanding Matt’s claims that he’s an “idiot”) and Martin Kramer for Middle East issues (if he could avoid writing about academics)). With just a few hires, and maybe a third editorial page, USA Today could become indispensable reading.

SIDENOTE: I’m adding The Bleat (Lileks) to my links, but somebody else can have him if they want. Read it and let me know.

…in a story about I-85 and its effect on the south. Not too bad.

…in a story about I-85 and its effect on the south. Not too bad.

…in a story about I-85 and its effect on the south. Not too bad.

…in a story about I-85 and its effect on the south. Not too bad.

Meet Betty Jack DeVine — Atlantan, NASCAR fan, drag queen.

And the best way to get to know her, rather him, is on his Web site: www.gaytona.com.

* * *

Statistically, DeVine, who works in corporate communications, fits this profile of a typical NASCAR fan: a male homeowner over age 35, with a household income over $30,000 and a full-time, professional job.

But when one of DeVine’s favorite drivers wins, the scene in front of DeVine’s TV is probably a little different than in most stock car fans’ living rooms. When Jamie McMurray won last fall, “We were hollering and crying like Cher was winning another Oscar.”

Hilarious.

Meet Betty Jack DeVine — Atlantan, NASCAR fan, drag queen.

And the best way to get to know her, rather him, is on his Web site: www.gaytona.com.

* * *

Statistically, DeVine, who works in corporate communications, fits this profile of a typical NASCAR fan: a male homeowner over age 35, with a household income over $30,000 and a full-time, professional job.

But when one of DeVine’s favorite drivers wins, the scene in front of DeVine’s TV is probably a little different than in most stock car fans’ living rooms. When Jamie McMurray won last fall, “We were hollering and crying like Cher was winning another Oscar.”

Hilarious.

Meet Betty Jack DeVine — Atlantan, NASCAR fan, drag queen.

And the best way to get to know her, rather him, is on his Web site: www.gaytona.com.

* * *

Statistically, DeVine, who works in corporate communications, fits this profile of a typical NASCAR fan: a male homeowner over age 35, with a household income over $30,000 and a full-time, professional job.

But when one of DeVine’s favorite drivers wins, the scene in front of DeVine’s TV is probably a little different than in most stock car fans’ living rooms. When Jamie McMurray won last fall, “We were hollering and crying like Cher was winning another Oscar.”

Hilarious.

Meet Betty Jack DeVine — Atlantan, NASCAR fan, drag queen.

And the best way to get to know her, rather him, is on his Web site: www.gaytona.com.

* * *

Statistically, DeVine, who works in corporate communications, fits this profile of a typical NASCAR fan: a male homeowner over age 35, with a household income over $30,000 and a full-time, professional job.

But when one of DeVine’s favorite drivers wins, the scene in front of DeVine’s TV is probably a little different than in most stock car fans’ living rooms. When Jamie McMurray won last fall, “We were hollering and crying like Cher was winning another Oscar.”

Hilarious.

“Obviously the best bid won,” International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge said. “The games are not just venues, bricks and mortar. You need expertise, you need democracy, you need a stable economy, you need champions. Vancouver had all that.”

Course, Democracy wasn’t a criterion for hosting the 2008 games…

“We need to find out if there’s a way to preserve public health and allow people to drink and smoke at the same time.” — Queens Councilman Tony Avella, on the NYC smoking ban.

Put that man on the ticket!

(And yes, that’s two links tonight to USA Today. Not a trend — don’t even have a bookmark to the site yet, but now considering it…)

This AJC piece makes an important point that yall probably knew, but I didn’t — NCAA rules don’t allow a conference to have a football championship unless it has 12 teams. So the speculation is that the conference will continue shopping for another member. I don’t buy that any SEC team would be willing to make the move, other than, perhaps, Vandy, but it’s not even mentioned in the aritcle.

Meanwhile, the AJC’s Mark Bradley argued today that the addition of Virginia Tech and Miami doesn’t strengthen the conference overall. This guy likes to throw bombs though…

Pretty good analysis of why HBO kicks it, while Showtime gets ignored.

If it weren’t already abundantly clear, Paul Krugman has lost his marbles. Today, he descends into conspiratorial theorizing at its worst in the New York Times.

He argues that, because Republicans determine which lobbyists are hired, and because big, bad corporations (and the media, especially) only support the GOP, we’re heading toward “one-party rule” (emphasis added), a la Mexico throughout most of the Twentieth Century. The absurdity of the argument is plain on its face. To the extent Republicans do have any say in lobbying matters, however, I don’t recall Krugman complaining during the previous 50 years when the tables were turned. More telling, note that Republican control of the White House and Capitol Hill is not the result of, say, “superior Republican electoral strategy” or the “Democratic failure to craft a message at a time of peril.” To Krugman, the Democrats are so obviously right that it’s literally inconceivable that the Republicans are winning with anything other than dirty tricks and corruption.

If there’s a kernel of truth in Krugman’s column, it may be that some Republican leaders — e.g., Tom Delay — have wielded power arrogantly. But Krugman and other “intellectuals” making broader arguments like the one here (and there’s no shortage of examples) appear to have an increasingly tenuous grip on reality. In that respect, I think Krugman goes a long way toward demonstrating the poignance of David Brooks’s analysis, which I noted on Monday.

That some MIT economist unknown to 99% of Americans is so blinded by partisanship is of little matter, and wasting 2,500-3,000 words a week in the most influential publication in the country doesn’t amount to a tragedy. But it’s certainly a shame that someone with such a platform adds so little to the national debate.

FOLLOW UP: The New Republic agrees. Although a recent Washington Post analysis shows that Republicans are receiving 60% of corporate dollars, that’s no better than the Dems captured pre-1994. What’s going on here, obviously, is that money is following power. You’d think an economist would be able to recognize that concept and spare us the “neoconservative cabal” arguments.

I tried to post this quote from Dick Gephardt this morning but couldn’t:

When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.

Glenn Reynolds concludes this quote should disqualify Gephardt from contention in the democratic primary. At first, I thought he was making too much of it, but on further thought, I’m not so sure. To even think such a thought — much less to utter it in the middle of a presidential campaign — requires that Gephardt either has no concept of separation of powers or believes constitutional restrictions on executive power can be utterly disregarded.

The whole point of the Constitution is to prevent fools like Gephardt from doing the very thing he advocates in this quote — indeed, how would Gephardt respond if W made such an outrageous statement? Whatever his thinking, he’s proven himself a deeply unserious candidate. He needs to retract the statement — immediately — but I doubt he will — or that the press will follow up on the issue.

Has everyone else been receiving their e-mail copies of BOTWT? I haven’t gotten mine in a couple of days. Get on it Taranto!

1. Like Blogger Pro.
2. Comments still not working.
3. Might be time to move the archives down below the links — they’re getting long. (Can we change to monthly archiving?)
4. Why does the blockquote tag change the font on the remainder of the post?

Andrew Sullivan was diagnosed with HIV ten years ago today. Still kicking.

W opened the third season of t-ball on the South Lawn on Wednesday with some great action:

T.J. Flood, 6, of the Little League Braves, hit an inside-the-park home run with a hard drive to right-center.

Hilarious. I originally saw this on the Washington Post, but couldn’t post it last night. The link here is to the Washington Times, which has revamped its website. Looks pretty good.

David Brooks applies the Robert Kagan analysis (Europe’s interests are diverging from American interests, and their perceptions of the world differ from our’s, due to an imbalance of power) to the current general shrillness coming from the left:

It’s mystifying. Fury rarely wins elections. Rage rarely appeals to suburban moderates. And there is a mountain of evidence that the Democrats are now racing away from swing voters, who do not hate George Bush, and who, despite their qualms about the economy and certain policies, do not feel that the republic is being raped by vile and illegitimate marauders. The Democrats, indeed, look like they’re turning into a domestic version of the Palestinians–a group so enraged at their perceived oppressors, and so caught up in their own victimization, that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering.

I liked the Palestinian metaphor quoted here, but the article is much more analytical than the quote suggests. Check it out.

The others might need a new invitation too.

Good luck finding Frank Anthony…

Al Gore’s plan to start a cable television and radio network to counterbalance FOXNEWS, as I’m sure everyone read about yesterday, is such a bad, bad idea. I can’t get into the ways in which this is stupid. Let’s just say, if Al Gore comes a-callin’ I’d keep my investment dollars in the lockbox.

I haven’t been posting recently. I’ve been on the phone for weeks waiting to speak with someone about refinancing. Just locked in at 4% baby! (Fixed for 6 years).

This raises an interesting point. The Clintonites always said that the Clinton tax cut, and the resulting lower deficits, knocked long term interest rates down, enabling the tech boom to happen. I’ve always thought this was bunk. First, as everyone knows, the tech boom was financed with equity, not debt. Second, if the Clintons were right — and it was the lowered government demand for debt that lowered interest rates in the 90s — then we should have seen a concomitant increase in interest rates when we returned to deficit spending in this decade. Yet that hasn’t happened. Rates across the yield curve are at historic lows.

Instead, I suspect that the lower rates of the 90s (and on) were caused not by demand factors, but decreased expectations about future inflation. The Fed (and economists, academics, etc.), for the most part, seems to have figured out pretty well how to lick inflation. That means people do not expect inflation in the future, and the long end of the curve can be flatter. Moreover, the tech boom showed that we may have a prolonged period of higher than normal productivity growth, meaning we can have higher-than-historically-believed rates of nominal GDP growth without sparking inflationary pressures.

I don’t know enough about this stuff to prove my point with statistics and equations and charts that would convince everyone, but I know enough to say that Clinton always thought his (and the government’s) impact on the world was far greater than it really was. Is it possible that there’s an economy beyond the Beltway where real things happen and the government is only a marginal consideration?

Banish the thought…

Great story in the Times (another one of those that demonstrate the paper’s strength) about the e-mail marketers and distributors scrambling to meet demand for the Iraqi playing card sets:

By Thursday, April 17, Mr. Amoroso was frantic that he had sold 200,000 decks he might not be able to deliver. And new orders were coming in at a pace of 40 a minute, and dozens of competitors were appearing. He finally reached executives of United States Playing Card in their 100-year-old factory in Cincinnati. By this point, he needed 500,000 decks. The card company was wary of selling them to a company it did not know. Mr. Amoroso sealed the deal by wiring the card maker a hastily borrowed $500,000 that afternoon. In return, he got exclusive rights to use the official joker in the Iraqi deck.

… on Serena Williams. What a bunch of tools.

Here’s a cool story about two buddies from WWII, separated when one of them took shrapnel in the arm on Okinawa, who have just found each other 58 years later — thanks to the internet.

Michael Adams, president of UGA, will be showing Vince Dooley the door next June. I have mixed feelings about this. Vince is obviously a legend at Sanford Stadium, but his record as AD is mixed at best. Hiring Ray Goff was a terrible decision. Hiring Tubby Smith was a great decision. Firing Ray Goff, great. Hiring Jim Donnan, not so good. Hanging on to Donnan for one year too long, and then arguing for yet another year, disastrous.

The Mark Richt hiring appears to have been a great call, but I don’t recall who is responsible for that one. Mostly, and somewhat sadly, Adams has pushed Vince into irrelevance over the last several years. When the AD vigorously and publicly lobbies to keep a coach (Donnan) on board and is overruled, he probably should resign. When the president hires a close friend and unrepentant scoundrel (Harrick) over the AD’s call for a search committee, he definitely should quit.

So, while I don’t doubt that it’s probably time for a change, it would have been nice to see Dooley exit a bit more gracefully. In the end, Vince’s loyalty to and love of the Dawgs probably led to a less distinguished retirement than he deserves. That’s unfortunate.

I think Frank just forgot to “publish.”

Al Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazille tells the Dems to get real on national defense in today’s Opinion Journal:

The American people agree with us on many vital issues–but they believe that we Democrats are weak and indecisive when it comes to standing up to dictators and terrorists, and when it comes to the primary responsibility of government: defending the nation. No matter how compelling our positions on the economy, health care, Social Security, the environment and privacy, if voters continue to see us as feckless and effete they will not listen to our message next year and they will re-elect Mr. Bush.

Brazille led the charge on the fight in Florida, and I think many people blamed Gore’s shrill “for the people not the powerful” message on her. But her recent praise of Bush and this article indicate that she’s a lot more politically savvy — and less politically “tone deaf” — than the Gore campaign might have led one to believe.

Bill Kristol asks, after the Jayson Blair affair, what organization will replace the Times as the paper of record:

The country needs such a paper. Its editorial page could be conservative or liberal, as long as it was thoughtful and serious, and not ignorantly disdainful of Red America–or anyone else. Its op-ed page would be intellectually interesting, mature, and diverse. This paper’s editor would never be the former editor of the editorial page. And it would be possible for a member of the staff to enjoy career advancement even if he were known to hold some politically incorrect views.

Kristol believes no current organization can step into the place. Stanley Kurtz disagrees, arguing that the Washington Post, with its fair reporting and more balanced editorial stance, is uniquely positioned to fill the Times’s shoes, if only the Post could shake its local roots:

Oddly, despite its pervasiveness on the web, the owners of the Post still think of their paper as local. It isn’t. But this antiquated notion that the Post is a local paper has dampened the business sense of the Post, and risks allowing a major cultural and financial opportunity to be lost. We need the Washington Post to become a national paper that helps keep the Times honest by giving it real competition.

I agree with both writers that competition is the key. But neither one gets the solution right. Kristol’s cynicism about the current players leads him to a solution that could never happen. The obstacles a new paper would face — setting up the business and building a reputation in addition to a national readership would require an investment that is simply not going to be made in today’s investment environment. On the other hand, the Post’s business conservatism leads me to doubt its owners would be willing to risk its local readership on such a huge gamble.

Both Kristol and Kurtz ignore the most obvious candidate: USA Today. Obviously, nobody takes USA Today seriously, and, as is, they shouldn’t. In trying to be all things to all people, USA Today appeals to none. The only market it owns is the hotel travel market — where else do you read it? So it’s not that surprising that neither Kristol nor Kurtz even consider it.

But what’s more improbabe: (a) starting from scratch, (b) risking the Post’s current success, at huge cost, with little hope of meaningfully improving ROI, or (c) building a weak, but already national, paper’s reputation? All USA Today would have to do is fire a few editors, hire a couple of writers who are leading the national debate, and reconfigure its layout and format to look more serious. The answer is right there in front of Kristol and Kurtz on the airport shuttle. They’ve just gotten so used to ignoring it that USA Today doesn’t even come to mind.

Despite all the cliches and (now) discredited theories on how the laws of economics no longer apply, the 90s were exciting, writes Daniel Henninger in today’s Opinion Journal:

I miss the dot-com bubble. It was more fun reading about the driven Bill Gates trying to build a great company than it is to read about the sainted Gates trying to rid the world of disease. I miss hostile takeovers, guys pushing millions of shares of tendered stock to the middle of the table and saying, “All in, raise me.” Those people were fun; they were characters. The closest thing I’ve seen to this kind of action recently was the World Series of Poker on ESPN, won by an amateur from Brooklyn.

What’ve we got now? This week, a credit-card processor named iPayment Inc. brought out what was described as the first IPO to come to market in two months. It was a success, but that wasn’t the story. What excitement existed around iPayment’s public birth was whether Bear Stearns violated the jots and tittles of some new rule by letting an analyst–in public–say nice things about the company.

The result:

One of the great American icons of economic ennui is Dustin Hoffman’s character in “The Graduate”–out of school and clueless about workaday life. He’s back. Days ago the New York Times’ front page detailed the current graduating class hitting the streets, with no job prospects. And if you asked them what they’d like to do, even without the flatliner economy, most wouldn’t know. They’ll say: I don’t quite know what investment bankers do. I know that doctors mainly get sued–by lawyers. I don’t think I want to do any of that.

It wasn’t like this a mere 10 years ago. The phrase “dot-com bubble” is supposed to be shorthand for something that at bottom was mostly nothing. I don’t believe that. Whatever its undeniable miscalculations and excesses, the “dot-com” era, broadly defined, unlocked, animated and excited more smart young minds than any one event I’m familiar with. Maybe the Age of Exploration, 500 years ago.

He’s got a point. The news does seem really priggish these days…

You may have noticed this blurb in BOTWT, but I checked it out because I have used the website www.howstuffworks.com (no link — I will NEVER link to, or visit, that site after this idiocy). Never in history has a human being publicly expressed such a stupid idea — the abolition of corporate dividends:

McDonald’s is a typical dividend-paying corporation, so let’s use it as an example. McDonald’s had its initial public offering in 1965. If you purchased one share of McDonald’s stock in 1965, you paid $22.50 for it. Today you own 743 shares, because McDonald’s stock has split many times since 1965.

In 2002, McDonald’s paid a dividend of 23 cents per share. Therefore, an IPO investor received 23 cents for each of the 743 shares he/she now holds. In return for the investment of $22.50 in 1965, investors received $170.89 in dividends in 2002. That represents a 760 percent annual return on investment 37 years after the fact.

Does it make sense for a corporation to pay a 760 percent annual interest rate 37 years later? Companies sell stock in the stock market ostensibly to raise capital. McDonald’s could have borrowed the capital it needed from a credit card company with an interest rate of 24 percent per year. Consumers and consumer advocates think that 24 percent per year is an obscene interest rate, and rightly so. But compared to 760 percent per year ad infinitum, 24 percent would have been a tremendous bargain for the corporation.

* * *

If we eliminate dividends, what will corporations do with excess cash? I propose that we create a central account. Corporations deposit their excess cash in this account quarterly. These deposits are then distributed equally to every American citizen.

Here’s the justification: the excess cash comes because corporations charge too much. Doesn’t it make sense to send the money back to the consumers it came from? It is a bit like the Alaska Permanent Fund (www.apfc.org), which pays each man, woman and child in that state over $1,000 every year.

No comment required. Please join me in ignoring this man’s website from now until eternity.

This is why W is not going to suffer the same fate as his father in the 2004 election. Listen to reactions of women to photos of W landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln:

Alexandra, an unmarried event planner in her 30s, e-mailed: “Hot? SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!” In a more restrained way, my friend Maggie, a writer/mom, explained: “I think he is actually protecting me and my sons, and I find that attractive in a man.” Suzi, who did her mom time and now writes biographies, also began with restraint. I asked, casually, what she thought about President Bush. She answered, carefully, “He’s so confident. He is a very credible, trustworthy leader.” “Yeah,” I pursue, “but do you think he’s sexy?” “Oh God, yes,” she said. “I mean, that swagger. George Bush in a pair of jeans is a treat to watch.” This from a soft-spoken woman inclined to intellectual pursuits.

This would make the ACC something to talk about. Plus, it would kill off the Big East, ending their complaints about being treated with no respect, when they don’t deserve any. I’m all for it. Bueller?

This would make the ACC something to talk about. Plus, it would kill off the Big East, ending their complaints about being treated with no respect, when they don’t deserve any. I’m all for it. Bueller?

This would make the ACC something to talk about. Plus, it would kill off the Big East, ending their complaints about being treated with no respect, when they don’t deserve any. I’m all for it. Bueller?

This would make the ACC something to talk about. Plus, it would kill off the Big East, ending their complaints about being treated with no respect, when they don’t deserve any. I’m all for it. Bueller?

The FOX News tv affiliate in Atlanta reported the other day that a judge in Gwinnett County (northeast of Atlanta) left work 15 days — out of the 25 in which they followed him — to drive 29 miles to the Beer Mug, a bar down the street from BM and me.

The report alleges that Fuller consumed 19 drinks — beers or shots — in a 7-hour period April 18. Fuller, slurring his words in the broadcast, insisted he drank only iced tea, then refused to let someone else drive for him.

The tv report was hilarious. Now the judge has been suspended. Apparently, the judge was so popular, his picture appears on the bar’s Website. (I can’t be sure, but I think his picture is here, on the left, fourth down.) One shot showed him carrying a big, plastic promotional beer bottle out to a friend’s car in the parking lot.

If nothing else, this is what local news reporting should be all about and shows how local reporters can actually inform the public rather than just running puff pieces about the weekend art festival.

The AJC reports this morning that Kedric Golston, a sophomore nose tackle on the UGA football team, is in trouble because his 2002 SEC and Sugar Bowl rings were sold on e-Bay the other day. Golston claims he didn’t sell the rings, but that he gave them to someone else who did. The AJC gives the last word to Golston:

“If there’s one thing I would like to get out there, I would like to say that those rings mean a lot to the football team and the state of Georgia,” Golston said. “We hadn’t been there for 20 years. If anything, I didn’t have enough respect for the rings. I didn’t show how much the rings meant to me. I know some Bulldogs fans are going to ask, ‘How could he do that?’ I’d like to apologize to them. I sort of [diminished] the whole thing.”

Yeah, “diminished.” That’s what he said.

Here’s an interesting site for information about baseball parks new and old around the country.

Those interested in New York, real estate, or New York real estate, might enjoy this article in today’s Times, about a study conducted on the New York housing market, trying to figure out (a) why the co-op predominates in that market, but nowhere else in the U.S., and (b) what effect on value does the co-op vs. condo ownership structure have. Pretty interesting.

This story, about the death of Lyric Benson, an aspiring actress in New York whose early successes led her to question whether she should continue her relationship with Robert Ambrosino, her aspiring firefighter boyfriend who eventually killed her (and himself), shows the Times at its best — writing with a style and a depth that no other paper can match. No other daily would give this story the space, or the resources, required, and it shows why the Times, despite all its faults, remains the paper of record.

Check out this story about the firing of Alabama’s football coach, Mike Price, before he ever coached a game in Tuscaloosa. The Alabama program is in utter disarray, and this story is certainly newsworthy, but spare me the condescension:

The denouement of Price’s four months here played out baroquely before a football-consumed state. Two dozen television trucks and satellite vans arrived on campus to broadcast live the coach’s firing by the university president, as well as Price’s own defiant rebuttal to such harsh punishment for what he called an isolated indiscretion.

* * *

There was a time when Price’s excessive behavior might have been tolerated, unreported, even embraced with a boys-will-be-boys wink at self-indulgence. The greatest Alabama football player, Joe Namath, built a professional career on a playboy’s celebrated carousal.

But Price violated a Southern covenant that permits indiscretion so long as it does not have to be confronted in public. “In the South, there is a different moral code,” said Corie Sloan, a senior student at Alabama.

Check out this story about the firing of Alabama’s football coach, Mike Price, before he ever coached a game in Tuscaloosa. The Alabama program is in utter disarray, and this story is certainly newsworthy, but spare me the condescension:

The denouement of Price’s four months here played out baroquely before a football-consumed state. Two dozen television trucks and satellite vans arrived on campus to broadcast live the coach’s firing by the university president, as well as Price’s own defiant rebuttal to such harsh punishment for what he called an isolated indiscretion.

* * *

There was a time when Price’s excessive behavior might have been tolerated, unreported, even embraced with a boys-will-be-boys wink at self-indulgence. The greatest Alabama football player, Joe Namath, built a professional career on a playboy’s celebrated carousal.

But Price violated a Southern covenant that permits indiscretion so long as it does not have to be confronted in public. “In the South, there is a different moral code,” said Corie Sloan, a senior student at Alabama.

Check out this story about the firing of Alabama’s football coach, Mike Price, before he ever coached a game in Tuscaloosa. The Alabama program is in utter disarray, and this story is certainly newsworthy, but spare me the condescension:

The denouement of Price’s four months here played out baroquely before a football-consumed state. Two dozen television trucks and satellite vans arrived on campus to broadcast live the coach’s firing by the university president, as well as Price’s own defiant rebuttal to such harsh punishment for what he called an isolated indiscretion.

* * *

There was a time when Price’s excessive behavior might have been tolerated, unreported, even embraced with a boys-will-be-boys wink at self-indulgence. The greatest Alabama football player, Joe Namath, built a professional career on a playboy’s celebrated carousal.

But Price violated a Southern covenant that permits indiscretion so long as it does not have to be confronted in public. “In the South, there is a different moral code,” said Corie Sloan, a senior student at Alabama.

Check out this story about the firing of Alabama’s football coach, Mike Price, before he ever coached a game in Tuscaloosa. The Alabama program is in utter disarray, and this story is certainly newsworthy, but spare me the condescension:

The denouement of Price’s four months here played out baroquely before a football-consumed state. Two dozen television trucks and satellite vans arrived on campus to broadcast live the coach’s firing by the university president, as well as Price’s own defiant rebuttal to such harsh punishment for what he called an isolated indiscretion.

* * *

There was a time when Price’s excessive behavior might have been tolerated, unreported, even embraced with a boys-will-be-boys wink at self-indulgence. The greatest Alabama football player, Joe Namath, built a professional career on a playboy’s celebrated carousal.

But Price violated a Southern covenant that permits indiscretion so long as it does not have to be confronted in public. “In the South, there is a different moral code,” said Corie Sloan, a senior student at Alabama.

The Raleigh News & Observer ran a poll on Sen. Edwards’ support in North Carolina last week. Among likely voters, Bush led Edwards 58-39, up from a margin of 55-41 in March. Among Democrats, Edwards leads Kerry in the primary race 43-23. In a potential Senate match-up (Edwards can run for President and Senate at the same time), Edwards leads potential GOP rival Richard Burr 49-35.

These numbers actually may not be so encouraging for Edwards. For one, John Kerry gained 9 points in the primary poll, while Edwards lost 8. This is probably to be expected, as more and more people are becoming familiar with the candidates, but campaigning hasn’t kicked into full gear yet, and Kerry’s performance hasn’t exactly been blockbuster. Rather, his main exposure has been criticism of his “regime change” statement, and his response to White House comments that he was “French-looking.” So, losing ground to Kerry in this environment can’t be good news for Edwards. Jim Geraghty has a pretty good analysis in NRO.

(Side-note, could Jim Tarranto’s daily “the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts senator who, by the way, served in Vietnam” be any funnier? Shades of “Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.”)

Sen Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) was on CNBC’s Capitol Report the other night to provide a Democratic response to W’s speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln. I was expecting the usual waffling — W led us into this mess, but our soldiers got us out of it — that type of thing. But Dodd was effusive in his praise, not only for the troops, but for W’s leadership, planning and conduct of the war. I was stunned. Now, Tom Daschle is saying the President deserves “great credit.” Clearly, then, this is the new Dem line on the war. Even though I suspect the line is politically motivated — the lefties who are still carping about the war sound like complete morons at this point — it’s still encouraging. This may be the first time since W’s election that the Dems have uniformly had anything good to say about him.

If you haven’t heard about Aron Alston, the guy who amputated his own arm after being pinned by a rock in the Utah wilderness for 5 days, check out this MSNBC story. Unbelievable.

Matt, check out this story in the Weekly Standard, by a writer in Baghdad for the NY Post. He argues that the majority of reporting from Baghdad vastly exaggerates citizen exasperation with U.S. occupation, mainly because the reporters aren’t willing to stray far from the Palestine Hotel. Pretty interesting. (Via Instapundit.)

Registration may be required.

I’ll shut up about this soon, promise. Well, after the referendum, maybe…

Registration may be required.

I’ll shut up about this soon, promise. Well, after the referendum, maybe…

Registration may be required.

I’ll shut up about this soon, promise. Well, after the referendum, maybe…

Registration may be required.

I’ll shut up about this soon, promise. Well, after the referendum, maybe…

Now, you might wonder why post this story, about Ken Oxendine, the Georgia insurance commissioner, and his new car. Well, two reasons. First, here’s a Republican who appears to be corrupt — or, at the very least, “careless” with the voters’ trust and the spirit of the law. Frampton wanted me to criticize Republicans once in a while. (Check me off for April, Frampton.)

The second reason is, well, it’s just kind of funny how “sweet” a car he ordered for himself — a loaded Crown Victoria. I also like the part at the end, where they had to take away his siren because he was abusing his privileges. I could definitely see my own siren privileges being revoked for similar reasons… We are still very red here in GA.

The first (and last, no doubt) post about football and securities fraud: Steve Bowden’s plea bargain.

As part of Wall Street’s $1.4 billion settlement with Eliot Spitzer, former analysts Henry Blodget (Merrill Lynch) and Jack Grubman (Salomon Smith Barney) will personally pay fines of $4 million and $15 million, respectively. Now, I shed no tears for Henry Blodget — I always thought he was way smug — but the personal fines seem questionable to me. If Blodget and Grubman hadn’t existed, Wall Street would have invented them — there was an institutional problem and, regardless of which individual was providing the research “analysis,” I think the same result would have occurred. Therefore, personal fines seem inappropriate.

On the other hand, you have to wonder how an “analyst” made the kind of dough to be able to pay a $15 million fine. The only way to justify that level of compensation — i.e., to add that kind of value — is for the “analyst” to actually play the role of salesman. I guess this was the whole problem, so screw ‘em.

By the way, they both got lifetime bans from employment in the securities industry. Maybe Amazon has a warehouse slot for Blodget…

As part of Wall Street’s $1.4 billion settlement with Eliot Spitzer, former analysts Henry Blodget (Merrill Lynch) and Jack Grubman (Salomon Smith Barney) will personally pay fines of $4 million and $15 million, respectively. Now, I shed no tears for Henry Blodget — I always thought he was way smug — but the personal fines seem questionable to me. If Blodget and Grubman hadn’t existed, Wall Street would have invented them — there was an institutional problem and, regardless of which individual was providing the research “analysis,” I think the same result would have occurred. Therefore, personal fines seem inappropriate.

On the other hand, you have to wonder how an “analyst” made the kind of dough to be able to pay a $15 million fine. The only way to justify that level of compensation — i.e., to add that kind of value — is for the “analyst” to actually play the role of salesman. I guess this was the whole problem, so screw ‘em.

By the way, they both got lifetime bans from employment in the securities industry. Maybe Amazon has a warehouse slot for Blodget…

As part of Wall Street’s $1.4 billion settlement with Eliot Spitzer, former analysts Henry Blodget (Merrill Lynch) and Jack Grubman (Salomon Smith Barney) will personally pay fines of $4 million and $15 million, respectively. Now, I shed no tears for Henry Blodget — I always thought he was way smug — but the personal fines seem questionable to me. If Blodget and Grubman hadn’t existed, Wall Street would have invented them — there was an institutional problem and, regardless of which individual was providing the research “analysis,” I think the same result would have occurred. Therefore, personal fines seem inappropriate.

On the other hand, you have to wonder how an “analyst” made the kind of dough to be able to pay a $15 million fine. The only way to justify that level of compensation — i.e., to add that kind of value — is for the “analyst” to actually play the role of salesman. I guess this was the whole problem, so screw ‘em.

By the way, they both got lifetime bans from employment in the securities industry. Maybe Amazon has a warehouse slot for Blodget…

As part of Wall Street’s $1.4 billion settlement with Eliot Spitzer, former analysts Henry Blodget (Merrill Lynch) and Jack Grubman (Salomon Smith Barney) will personally pay fines of $4 million and $15 million, respectively. Now, I shed no tears for Henry Blodget — I always thought he was way smug — but the personal fines seem questionable to me. If Blodget and Grubman hadn’t existed, Wall Street would have invented them — there was an institutional problem and, regardless of which individual was providing the research “analysis,” I think the same result would have occurred. Therefore, personal fines seem inappropriate.

On the other hand, you have to wonder how an “analyst” made the kind of dough to be able to pay a $15 million fine. The only way to justify that level of compensation — i.e., to add that kind of value — is for the “analyst” to actually play the role of salesman. I guess this was the whole problem, so screw ‘em.

By the way, they both got lifetime bans from employment in the securities industry. Maybe Amazon has a warehouse slot for Blodget…

Holy cow. The earthquake this morning woke me up, and I had no idea. In my daze, I thought a train was going by our house and otherwise wouldn’t have even remembered it. (This makes no sense — we live 1/2 mile away from the tracks and wouldn’t ever have rattling from a train.) Funny quote from the story:

David Ludecke, who opens up the Gold’s Gym Peachtree City East on Ga. 54, said the tremors happened right before 5 a.m.

“The reason I know that is because it’s right before I opened up. There were people standing outside waiting to get in and I was busy trying to get the computer running.

“I thought they were rattling the doors to get in, that’s what it sounded like. I was frustrated because that seemed really excessive. ‘What’s going on here?’ I thought. But when I looked up, they were just standing out there talking.”

Freer, did you feel anything?

Through the first three rounds, looks like Miami wracked up, Georgia did outstanding, and Tennessee made a strong showing. Clemson did not come to play, but finds itself in the noble company of Duke and Tufts. At least they have good academics! Freer, any former players drafted?

Check out the the BetterShorter 2003 Draft Table.

FOLLOW-UP: I didn’t get to watch the draft yesterday, so I just saw that Minnesota LOST its first round pick by not selecting a player in the allotted time. Unbelievable.

I know no one here cares about the flag issue, but this morning’s AJC story is interesting for the politics. The horse trading in D.C. is a lot more subtle than in downtown Atlanta. Also, it turns out the ultimate deal (tobacco tax votes for the revised flag referendum) was brokered by BM’s former co-worker, Sen. Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta). I’ll shut up now.

Probably.

The Georgia legilsature did not deadlock over the flag in the final minutes of the session, as I had expected. Black lawmakers used the governor’s demand for increased tobacco taxes to their advantage, stating that they wouldn’t vote on the tax increase until any flag with the confederate battle emblem was removed from the choices. So now, we’ll have a straight choice between two flags in a referendum in March — between the current flag and this new one, which is decent looking. The resolution is non-binding, but the old (new) flag is so lame that the new one will get overwhelming support. I’m actually shocked that they were able to do anything about this issue — I’d assumed that we’d have this lame flag for years because everyone would be afraid to touch the issue.

FOLLOW-UP: MSNBC gets the story wrong. It says the new version of the flag, which it calls the “temporary” flag, contains the state “coat of arms” — which, as I pointed out in my previous post, was a typo in the original bill (it’s actually the state seal). The story correctly states that the words “In God We Trust” will be printed in the blue field, but the flag in the picture alongside the story has those words smack dab in the middle of the main part of the flag. That version was considered but rejected. The incorrect flag is here, in the MSNBC story. The correct new flag is here, in the AJC story posted above.

UPDATE: the MSNBC story is pulled from the Associated Press, so it’s the AP’s error, not MSNBC’s.

If you haven’t been following the story, the Georgia legislature has been messing with the flag again. The governor proposes that the voters get a chance to vote on the new flag, possibly twice. First, we’ll vote on the new, cheesy flag, up or down. If it’s voted down, then we vote again, choosing between the post-1956 flag (with the Confederate battle emblem) and a totally new flag.

Problem is, when the legislator sent a picture of the redesigned (third) flag to the drafting office, the lawyer screwed it up. The legislation that was written describes the flag (it doesn’t have a picture), and it got the dimensions wrong, describing it as 3′ X 6′, a foot longer than any other normal flag. In addition, the drafter said the state “coat of arms” should be in the corner — but it should really be the state seal. It would be interesting to find out the real story behind this screw up — i.e., was it actually an accident?

Yesterday, the state Senate voted to correct the problems, but this means that the versions passed by the House and Senate are now different, so the House has to vote again. Black members of the house are threatening a filibuster today, in the last day of the session, so there may be no bill at all. It’s a ridiculous story made more ludicrous by the legislature’s screw up. Gotta love the Georgia legislature.

is America’s Hottest Beer, according to the WaPo.

Love it.

There’s a hilarious discussion going on in The Corner right now, demonstrating, again, the buffoon that Madonna can’t help making of herself. It all started with this article about her in USA Today, in which she states that she is studying Kabbalah, a form/offshoot of Judaism. The writer explains, worshipfully:

The wake-up call came seven years ago, when Madonna began studying Kabbalah. The Jewish mystical tradition predates organized religions and offers a path to fulfillment based on spiritual laws of the universe. Some aspects parallel Judaism. Rather than studying the Talmud, an academic interpretation of Jewish law, Kabbalists embrace the Zohar, a mystical interpretation devised by decoding ancient texts rather than accepting literal accounts. Conversant in Kabbalistic teachings and origins, Madonna considers herself a student, not a guru.

Problem is, Madonna doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about (see the readers’ various responses in The Corner). Even funnier, but not surprisingly, she has no idea just how clueless she is. It’s kinda like that phony British accent she’s taken on — she thinks it makes her appear “deep,” but it’s blatantly transparent and vapid.

Shortly before the war, I made a comment that toppling Saddam would (marginally) improve chances of solving the Palestinian problem. (I can’t find the post. Frampton, can we add a search function?) Matt responded by saying that the argument required a logical leap “hardly worth addressing.” Well, now the war’s over, and Monday’s suicide bombing in Netanya was the first since early March, and it didn’t kill anyone except the terrorist. Heh, heh. I wonder if Matt (or anyone else) would like to revisit the issue now. What we do know is that Saddam no longer will be paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Ultimately, I doubt many terrorists kill themselves for a $25K check, but we do know that Palestinian terrorists are interconnected with other groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., and the war may have disrupted their operations even more than we know. It may also have sent a signal that the U.S. isn’t f’in around anymore.

The Opinion Journal weighs in here. Thoughts?

but I love reading stories like this report in the NY Times today, about Dr. Grigori Perelman, who allegedly has found a solution to the Poincare Conjecture, “one of the seven most important unsolved mathematics problems of the millenium.” It has to do with how someone who can only observe part of a three-dimensional object — e.g., a person standing on the earth — can tell what that object is. The article seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the problem. I really don’t understand it, but it’s neat to see all these mathematicians’ excitement over a purely theoretical issue. And the $1 million prize for solving it ain’t too shabby either.

Hey BM, check out Stacey Pressman’s column about women’s basketball in The Weekly Standard today:

“Women’s basketball is the best pure form of basketball out there,” they’ll tell us. “They play the sport the way it’s meant to be played, below the rim and with more team play as opposed to one-on-one.”

I have to disagree: Women’s basketball sucks. …

I’m a woman and I love sports, but enough already. Promoting women’s basketball on equal footing with the men’s is an embarrassment because they’re not co-equals. At both the collegiate and professional levels, the women’s game is a parasite that feeds off the men’s.

Ouch.

From the NY Times Correction section today:

Editors’ Note

An article on Saturday about the search by United States forces for chemical, biological and radiation weapons in Iraq included a comment attributed to Amy Smithson, a chemical weapons expert at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research institute in Washington. Ms. Smithson was depicted as suggesting that Bush administration officials might be less certain of finding such weapons now than before the war. She was quoted as saying that “they may be trying to dampen expectations because they are worried they won’t find anything significant.”

In fact the comments were paraphrases of a remark Ms. Smithson made in an e-mail exchange for The Times’s background information, on the condition that she would not be quoted by name. Attempts to reach her before publication were unsuccessful. Thus the comments should not have been treated as quotations or attributed to her.

In other words, not only did the Times reveal a confidential source, but it manufactured the quote! This is at least the third time in the last couple of months they have made this error — the first time was a quote attributed to Condi Rice “accidentally.”

FOLLOW-UP: while we’re on a Times bashing spree, check out David Tell’s column in The Weekly Standard today, in which he rips the Times editorial board for publishing an editorial about a Supreme Court decision “upholding” the Virginia cross-burning statute, when Linda Greenhouse (correctly) reported in the very same edition that the Court ruled the statute unconstitutional. Whoops again.

Also via The Command Post.

This is a great day.

Also via The Command Post.

This is a great day.

Also via The Command Post.

This is a great day.

Also via The Command Post.

This is a great day.

“A Tale of Two Cities” (San Francisco and Baghdad).

Via The Command Post.

Great day in Augusta. The practice round is pretty interesting. The players call in with their groups and play with their buddies. You come onto the course, and there’s a board with the match-ups and when they started. We walked in just as Tommy Watson was teeing off from no. 1. Sweet. Also saw Ballesteros, Mize, Love, Mickelson, the Japanese crew, Janzen, Freddie, Fuzzie, etc. No Tiger, but we didn’t go looking for him. Some notes:

1. Jack Nicklaus played alone, interestingly. The fans were pretty annoying around him. “See you on Sunday Jack!” “It’s gonna be another ‘86, Jack!” Wow, now you’re best friends with the greatest golfer ever! Shut up.

2. The crowd at 16 (par 3 over water) was heckling each golfer until they tried to skip a ball off the water up onto the green. The players were happy to oblige, and the crowd would go nuts when a ball actually made it onto the green. Pretty funny.

3. When you receive your tickets in the mail this year, you also receive a letter saying that absolutely no political clothing or signs will be permitted on the premises. Outside the grounds, there are a couple of tents where people are selling “Hootie!” hats and various items telling Martha Burke where to shove it. Saw a few of those things in the gallery, not too many, but if there is one group of people in this world unsympathetic to Martha Burke, it’s the fans at Augusta National.

4. Tiger and Mark O’Meara played together today. I was a little surprised that they didn’t pair up with a couple of other buddies, but I guess there’s a big difference between the players who are there to win and those that are just enjoying the experience.

5. I’d post pictures, but a digital camera wasn’t in the birthday goody bag this year… Sorry fellas.

will be interested in this story, about the revitalization of East Lake in Atlanta, from the AJC Monday.

Story about the Iraqi man who found PFC Lynch in the hospital and passed the information along to the Marines. Sounds a little propaganda-ish, but cool story nevertheless.

(Via The Command Post)

is really funny.

Robin Williams was in so many terrible movies, but this article is hilarious.

I had been avoiding Mickey Kaus, because his most interesting posts are about partisan political issues, which seem somewhat depressing (if not inappropriate) at times like this, but he’s on a roll. He’s got great posts on (1) the “start with light forces” strategy of the war, (2) Daniel Patrick Moynihan and (3) what else, welfare reform. Scroll down to March 30 and keep reading. He even bashes Microsoft, his employer…

French “antiwar protesters” defaced a British war cemetery in Northern France. These people are despicable. Moreover, as Andrew Sullivan points out, they don’t want peace — they want us to lose.

FOLLOW-UP: a poll in Le Monde indicates one-third of the French are pulling for Saddam to win.

Mark Steyn blasts his fellow Canadians:

Which country is engaged with the world and which is the irrelevant backwater? The one sending Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships with food and supplies up the mined Shatt al-Arab? Or the one that wants to stick with Hans Blix even after he’s quit and gone back to Sweden? Who are the real internationalists and humanitarians? The young men and women of the British Army? Or the masturbatory poseurs of the Canadian Liberal Party who refuse to lift a finger to stop Saddam from feeding his subjects feet first into industrial shredders but noisily insist on their right to participate in the “humanitarian” work afterwards because everyone knows Canada’s indispensable? Sorry, folks. The humanitarian work’s going on right now, and you chose to sit it out.

This is ridiculous. Give these boys their due:

“It’s frustrating knowing that there’s a box more of it back there that I haven’t gotten yet,” said Capt. Daniel Schmitt, 31, of Glen Ellyn, Ill., a serial dipper who ran out days ago.

With smokers and dippers becoming more desperate, the value of tobacco has exploded.

Check out Michael Barone’s obituary of Daniel Patrick Moynihan in today’s Opinion Journal. I won’t spoil the conclusion for you, but it includes comparisons to Lincoln, Mozart and Jefferson. Here’s an example of his insight, years ahead of his time (note especially the last sentence):

As an aide to Gov. Averell Harriman, Moynihan had gotten interested in the problem of auto accidents. Previously it was thought to be a problem of engineering (build safer highways) or law enforcement (enforce the speed limit). Moynihan came to see it through the lens of epidemiology. Accidents and injuries should be thought of as a public-health problem; statistics should be collected; action should be taken, by government, by auto manufacturers, by drivers and passengers, that would reduce the number of accidents and injuries. And so it happened. From 1965 to 1993 the death rate per 100 million vehicles was reduced by two-thirds. Moynihan, who did not drive, pointed the way.

Phil Valentime, the talk radio guy who led the income tax revolt in Tennessee, has discovered a link between the “Nashville Peace and Justice Center,” which is organizing many of the anti-war protests in the area, with the Communist Party U.S.A. NRO’s Dave Shiflett has a story on the episode. The link between the groups is interesting, and the story is hilarious, especially if you know anything about Tennessee.

Phil Valentime, the talk radio guy who led the income tax revolt in Tennessee, has discovered a link between the “Nashville Peace and Justice Center,” which is organizing many of the anti-war protests in the area, with the Communist Party U.S.A. NRO’s Dave Shiflett has a story on the episode. The link between the groups is interesting, and the story is hilarious, especially if you know anything about Tennessee.

Phil Valentime, the talk radio guy who led the income tax revolt in Tennessee, has discovered a link between the “Nashville Peace and Justice Center,” which is organizing many of the anti-war protests in the area, with the Communist Party U.S.A. NRO’s Dave Shiflett has a story on the episode. The link between the groups is interesting, and the story is hilarious, especially if you know anything about Tennessee.

Phil Valentime, the talk radio guy who led the income tax revolt in Tennessee, has discovered a link between the “Nashville Peace and Justice Center,” which is organizing many of the anti-war protests in the area, with the Communist Party U.S.A. NRO’s Dave Shiflett has a story on the episode. The link between the groups is interesting, and the story is hilarious, especially if you know anything about Tennessee.

Our KSG friend Todd Garrett is now a tank commander with the I Marine Expeditionary Force, southeast of Baghdad. A reporter from the Detroit News is embedded with the I MEF. The story is about a tank crew waiting on spare parts while their buddies are up at the front. One thing I can be certain of — Todd would appreciate a tank named “Money Shot.”

Our KSG friend Todd Garrett is now a tank commander with the I Marine Expeditionary Force, southeast of Baghdad. A reporter from the Detroit News is embedded with the I MEF. The story is about a tank crew waiting on spare parts while their buddies are up at the front. One thing I can be certain of — Todd would appreciate a tank named “Money Shot.”

Our KSG friend Todd Garrett is now a tank commander with the I Marine Expeditionary Force, southeast of Baghdad. A reporter from the Detroit News is embedded with the I MEF. The story is about a tank crew waiting on spare parts while their buddies are up at the front. One thing I can be certain of — Todd would appreciate a tank named “Money Shot.”

Our KSG friend Todd Garrett is now a tank commander with the I Marine Expeditionary Force, southeast of Baghdad. A reporter from the Detroit News is embedded with the I MEF. The story is about a tank crew waiting on spare parts while their buddies are up at the front. One thing I can be certain of — Todd would appreciate a tank named “Money Shot.”

Organica is an interesting site. Some way, and for some reason, the folks over there have figured out how to determine all links to and from individual blogs. Check out Organica’s entry for BetterShorter. Pretty cool, although the list of links to us is…um…short.

This news is really disturbing to me, as it says so much about our “ally” Canada, although other putative allies suffer from much worse hypocrisy. Today, the Canadian parliament unanimously passed a resolution urging the government to set up a war crimes tribunal for Saddam Hussein, in order to be tried for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In other words, Canada agrees that Saddam is a genocidal maniac, but they’re not willing to life a finger to do anything about it — even after their most important ally, trading partner and friend finds itself at war with said maniac.

With friends like these…

France can no longer be considered an ally.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said the United Nations must be at the heart of the reconstruction of Iraq following a crisis which has “shattered” the established world order. He was speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London on his first visit to the UK since the outbreak of war in Iraq…

At the end of de Villepin’s talk, he held a question and answer session in which he refused to answer the question: “Who do you want to win this war?”

See this site for an explanation of the terms squad, platoon, brigade, division, etc. I’m embarassed not to know this stuff.

A telling caption on the photo on the front page of the AJC’s website this morning:

Spc. Shawn Sullivan, a medic with the 3rd Infantry Division, attends to an wounded Iraqi Wednesday after suicidal fighters took over a civilian bus and rammed it into a Bradley Fighting Vehicle near Najaf, Iraq.

This is a little off-topic (if that’s possible), and I don’t have any links, but while we’re discussing loathesome things, has anyone else noticed how despicable and wasteful these “Truth Campaign” commercials are? As an initial matter, half of them don’t make any sense. The ones that do are aimed not so much at tobacco as a product, but to bashing the tobacco industry. I mean, I suppose these people have fancy psychology/marketing degrees that indicate a link between people’s dislike for a company and their willingness to buy a product made by that company, but it seems to me they could just, I don’t know, lay out the facts about tobacco use and be 100 times more effective.

Worst of all, it seems to me, these ads are funded by the tobacco lawsuit settlements. In other words, this is a one shot deal — a one-time infusion of an enormous amount of money, and when the money’s spent, it’s gone. With all those billions, it seems like they could’ve built, for example, a hospital devoted to treating lung cancer in every state. Or, at the very least, devoted the money to cancer research. Those efforts would have had some lasting effect. Instead, we’ve had one big whine-a-thon about the evils of an industry that everybody already hates. Great job, guys.

“MSNBC is showing great images from Umm Qasr showing Iraqis cheering the Royal Marines as they entered the heart of the town and other shots of Royal Marines handing out food to the locals. Tellingly, the reporter states that the men of the town are telling them that they cannot talk to them openly, as ‘Saddam’s men are still about’. Not for long, it is hoped . . .”

“MSNBC is showing great images from Umm Qasr showing Iraqis cheering the Royal Marines as they entered the heart of the town and other shots of Royal Marines handing out food to the locals. Tellingly, the reporter states that the men of the town are telling them that they cannot talk to them openly, as ‘Saddam’s men are still about’. Not for long, it is hoped . . .”

“MSNBC is showing great images from Umm Qasr showing Iraqis cheering the Royal Marines as they entered the heart of the town and other shots of Royal Marines handing out food to the locals. Tellingly, the reporter states that the men of the town are telling them that they cannot talk to them openly, as ‘Saddam’s men are still about’. Not for long, it is hoped . . .”

“MSNBC is showing great images from Umm Qasr showing Iraqis cheering the Royal Marines as they entered the heart of the town and other shots of Royal Marines handing out food to the locals. Tellingly, the reporter states that the men of the town are telling them that they cannot talk to them openly, as ‘Saddam’s men are still about’. Not for long, it is hoped . . .”

Check out The Command Post for a bunch of information. (Via Instapundit.)

Fox News is confirming the earlier Jerusalem Post story about our seizing a chemical weapons facility today. Fox says we got the general in charge of the facility as well.

I changed the time zone to EST. I hope that’s OK with everyone in the mountains.

As a test, I am posting this at 6:08 EST on Sunday, March 23.

We haven’t discussed this on b.s, but Pat Tillman is the biggest bad ass in America. If you don’t know, he gave up a 3-year, $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals to join the Army, and he went on to become a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment (Airborne), the U.S. Army’s “premier light infantry unit.” Tillman and his little brother Kevin (a former minor league baseball player) were deployed in the last 2 weeks. It is impossible to describe the sacrifice these two (among many others) have made, or to express the gratitude we owe them.

FOLLOW-UP: doing some quick research on Rangers, I came across these dudes, whom I’m hoping won’t kill me for being such a wuss:

(From www.specialoperations.com)

BM and I have been discussing the issue that those of us who advocated fighting this war bear some portion of the responsibility for the casualties suffered. Although we may have an inclination to ignore or turn away from these stories, I think it’s incumbent upon us to, at the very least, put a human face on the statistics of the dead, injured, missing and captured. It’s a small, meaningless gesture, but here is a list of the dead, from the Associated Press, as of around noon Sunday:

Marines killed Friday in helicopter crash in Kuwait: –Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, of Bloomington, Ill. –Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy, 25, of Houston. –Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 29, of Baltimore. –Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin, 36, of Waterville, Maine.

Marines killed in action in Iraq: –2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers, 30, of Harrison County, Miss., killed Friday. –Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, 22, of Los Angeles, killed Friday.

Navy officer killed Saturday in collision of two British helicopters: –Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, of La Mesa, Calif.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that the 3rd Infantry Division has captured a chemical weapons production facility in An Najaf. I thought they had dismantled the chemical weapons program. Good thing they don’t have any missiles to deliver those chemical weapons.

Check out this essay on one man’s virgin experience drinking Boddingtons. You can learn how to pour the perfect Boddingtons at a site created by the former brewmaster. At Beerpal.com, you can rate Boddingtons along with other (lesser) beers. The guy at Brian’s Belly really likes Boddingtons. If you search for Boddingtons on E-Bay, you might find the perfect gift for your favorite Boddingtons drinker’s birthday on April 7. Unfortunately, there are no U.S. Job Opportunities at Interbrew, the owner of Boddingtons, but you can always enjoy the official Boddingtons site.

Have a nice Saturday night.

Drudge is reporting that ABC is reporting that (a) eyewitnesses saw Saddam being carried off on a gurney, with an oxygen mask over his face, after the initial strike on his compound, and (b) communications are non-existent between Saddam and his leaders in the field.

FOLLOW-UP: Here’s the ABC News story.

Drudge is reporting that ABC is reporting that (a) eyewitnesses saw Saddam being carried off on a gurney, with an oxygen mask over his face, after the initial strike on his compound, and (b) communications are non-existent between Saddam and his leaders in the field.

FOLLOW-UP: Here’s the ABC News story.

Drudge is reporting that “senior officials” think there is a chance we hit Saddam last night. I’m not willing to hold out hope for that — but it would be amazing.

Drudge is reporting that “senior officials” think there is a chance we hit Saddam last night. I’m not willing to hold out hope for that — but it would be amazing.

U.S. Launches Iraq War; Bush Set to Speak
5 minutes ago
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - U.S. forces launched a surgical military strike against a “target of opportunity” near Baghdad after U.S. intelligence detected the possibility Iraqi leaders were in the area, a senior government official said Wednesday night.

The official declined to identify the leaders who were targeted or to say whether the attack was successful.

Frampton, I messed up the fonts in the links boxes. I think I’ve corrected the problem, so don’t try to fix the template until my changes, put in at 9:45 EST, have time to promulgate. Sorry about that.

This is probably inconceivable from a military standpoint, but think about this strategy. What if all the “shock and awe” talk is just disinformation? What if the plan were not to blow the crap out of Baghdad with 3,000 missiles on minute #1 of war, but instead, when the “Attack!” order came, all that happened is the trucks/tanks start rolling, slowly and steadily, toward Baghdad. With everyone so concerned about civilian casualties and rebuilding Baghdad, and with the outcome seemingly assured, it seems this would be the way to go.

I don’t know about this stuff, but it would shock the world, again, with our restraint (see Afghanistan). I guess you have to take out artillery, especially when you’re concerned it may be equipped with chemical weapons, and you’d have to take out the anti-aircraft installations, but many (most?) Iraqis seem already to be surrendering. How scary would it be for Saddam if we barely fired a shot, took all the fleeing troops as POWs, and just, kind of . . . walked . . . slowly into Baghdad…

Just a thought.

UPDATE: as I was about to post this message, Tom Brokaw came on TV to say that the air-raid sirens are going off in Baghdad, and there’s anti-aircraft fire. So, this looks moot. I will still post the message, however, to demonstrate adherence to some sort of blogger’s code. (Just wouldn’t seem right to delete it…)

UPDATE II: BM points such a strategy would put the boys at too much risk. Probably right.

Where is Raed? is a blog from Iraq. He says that everyone in Iraq is for regime change, against war. And they blame the way Gulf War I ended. There’s a lot of day to day type stuff, too, like what life is like in Baghdad as the war approaches. Pretty interesting.

U.S. Launches Iraq War; Bush Set to Speak
5 minutes ago
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - U.S. forces launched a surgical military strike against a “target of opportunity” near Baghdad after U.S. intelligence detected the possibility Iraqi leaders were in the area, a senior government official said Wednesday night.

The official declined to identify the leaders who were targeted or to say whether the attack was successful.

Frampton, I messed up the fonts in the links boxes. I think I’ve corrected the problem, so don’t try to fix the template until my changes, put in at 9:45 EST, have time to promulgate. Sorry about that.

This is probably inconceivable from a military standpoint, but think about this strategy. What if all the “shock and awe” talk is just disinformation? What if the plan were not to blow the crap out of Baghdad with 3,000 missiles on minute #1 of war, but instead, when the “Attack!” order came, all that happened is the trucks/tanks start rolling, slowly and steadily, toward Baghdad. With everyone so concerned about civilian casualties and rebuilding Baghdad, and with the outcome seemingly assured, it seems this would be the way to go.

I don’t know about this stuff, but it would shock the world, again, with our restraint (see Afghanistan). I guess you have to take out artillery, especially when you’re concerned it may be equipped with chemical weapons, and you’d have to take out the anti-aircraft installations, but many (most?) Iraqis seem already to be surrendering. How scary would it be for Saddam if we barely fired a shot, took all the fleeing troops as POWs, and just, kind of . . . walked . . . slowly into Baghdad…

Just a thought.

UPDATE: as I was about to post this message, Tom Brokaw came on TV to say that the air-raid sirens are going off in Baghdad, and there’s anti-aircraft fire. So, this looks moot. I will still post the message, however, to demonstrate adherence to some sort of blogger’s code. (Just wouldn’t seem right to delete it…)

UPDATE II: BM points such a strategy would put the boys at too much risk. Probably right.

Where is Raed? is a blog from Iraq. He says that everyone in Iraq is for regime change, against war. And they blame the way Gulf War I ended. There’s a lot of day to day type stuff, too, like what life is like in Baghdad as the war approaches. Pretty interesting.

Glenn Reynolds links to this story, indicating that Tariq Aziz tried to defect and has been shot.

He also links to this story, which says the British Foreign Office is taking the rumors seriously enough to look into the matter.

Instapundit should have a bunch of good info today.

Glenn Reynolds links to this story, indicating that Tariq Aziz tried to defect and has been shot.

He also links to this story, which says the British Foreign Office is taking the rumors seriously enough to look into the matter.

Instapundit should have a bunch of good info today.

and certainly don’t want to beat up on Matt, but I’ve been thinking a lot about the “why Iraq, why now” question for a while. Last week, a commentator noted that the best way to predict the Administration’s next move is not to read what strategists and pundits are saying, but merely to listen to the words of the president — because he does what he says he’s going to do.

Apply that thinking to the Iraq question. Why Iraq now? The president has said that the war on terror will take years and will involve actions against a number of nations. Most notably, remember the Axis of Evil, and think of it not as a mere catchphrase, but as a roadmap for action. Then return to the question, why Iraq now. The reason, I would suggest, is that Iraq is the “low apple on the tree.” It is not the problem, but it certainly is part of the problem, and it’s the easiest to address at the moment. Moreover, an occupied Iraq will provide maximum leverage for actions (military or otherwise) taken with respect to Iran. Once the mullacracy is removed, Hezbollah loses its support, and the Israeli-Palestinian problem suddenly doesn’t seem as intractable, to say nothing of the pressure that will be brought to bear on Riyadh and Damascus. Then where will the terrorists go? Yemen? The newly reformed Arab states won’t permit the small states to harbor terrorists.

Obviously, it probably will not go as smoothly as I’ve described, especially if the North Korean problem requires military attention. But W surely has earned our trust that he will do what he says he will do, even if you don’t agree with the strategy. Therefore, I think the likelihood of turning our attention to Iran, in the very near future, is incredibly high.

He should read this piece in Tuesday’s Opinion Journal, by Laurie Mylroie. She’s the writer I mentioned in the mountains, who has written extensively about the connection between Ramsi Yousef (convicted for the 1993 WTC bombing, even though we don’t even know his real identity) and the Iraqis. Today, she writes about the connection between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the Iraqi intelligence service. In this column, she doesn’t try to establish the case definitively (as she did with Ramsi Yousef), but she explains how one could conduct the investigation. Good stuff.

Her work also highlights the American press’s failure to do much (any?) original reporting with respect to terrorism. In almost every other context, the press uncovers useful leads — not here.

I mean, I go out of town for one night, and you people go crazy with the posts.

Excellent.

and certainly don’t want to beat up on Matt, but I’ve been thinking a lot about the “why Iraq, why now” question for a while. Last week, a commentator noted that the best way to predict the Administration’s next move is not to read what strategists and pundits are saying, but merely to listen to the words of the president — because he does what he says he’s going to do.

Apply that thinking to the Iraq question. Why Iraq now? The president has said that the war on terror will take years and will involve actions against a number of nations. Most notably, remember the Axis of Evil, and think of it not as a mere catchphrase, but as a roadmap for action. Then return to the question, why Iraq now. The reason, I would suggest, is that Iraq is the “low apple on the tree.” It is not the problem, but it certainly is part of the problem, and it’s the easiest to address at the moment. Moreover, an occupied Iraq will provide maximum leverage for actions (military or otherwise) taken with respect to Iran. Once the mullacracy is removed, Hezbollah loses its support, and the Israeli-Palestinian problem suddenly doesn’t seem as intractable, to say nothing of the pressure that will be brought to bear on Riyadh and Damascus. Then where will the terrorists go? Yemen? The newly reformed Arab states won’t permit the small states to harbor terrorists.

Obviously, it probably will not go as smoothly as I’ve described, especially if the North Korean problem requires military attention. But W surely has earned our trust that he will do what he says he will do, even if you don’t agree with the strategy. Therefore, I think the likelihood of turning our attention to Iran, in the very near future, is incredibly high.

He should read this piece in Tuesday’s Opinion Journal, by Laurie Mylroie. She’s the writer I mentioned in the mountains, who has written extensively about the connection between Ramsi Yousef (convicted for the 1993 WTC bombing, even though we don’t even know his real identity) and the Iraqis. Today, she writes about the connection between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the Iraqi intelligence service. In this column, she doesn’t try to establish the case definitively (as she did with Ramsi Yousef), but she explains how one could conduct the investigation. Good stuff.

Her work also highlights the American press’s failure to do much (any?) original reporting with respect to terrorism. In almost every other context, the press uncovers useful leads — not here.

I mean, I go out of town for one night, and you people go crazy with the posts.

Excellent.

Interesting that those two decided not to show up on such a contentious issue.

Interesting that those two decided not to show up on such a contentious issue.

I couldn’t agree more with Jonah Goldberg’s assessment in the Corner on the return of Elizabeth Smart. Yes, it’s great that she’s been found, etc., etc., but something about this just ain’t right. Why didn’t she escape when she could? Then, there’s this from the AP story this morning:

“Elizabeth seemed to adjust well on her first night home, struggling to play a few tunes on the harp and watching her favorite movie, ‘The Trouble with Angels.’ “

I couldn’t agree more with Jonah Goldberg’s assessment in the Corner on the return of Elizabeth Smart. Yes, it’s great that she’s been found, etc., etc., but something about this just ain’t right. Why didn’t she escape when she could? Then, there’s this from the AP story this morning:

“Elizabeth seemed to adjust well on her first night home, struggling to play a few tunes on the harp and watching her favorite movie, ‘The Trouble with Angels.’ “

The most beautifully written, cogent, insightful and thought provoking words ever found in the greatest publication on the face of the Earth, with more than a century of history:

” ‘AND if I had a son, sir, I’d tell you what he’d do/He would say “To hell with Georgia”, like his daddy used to do.’ So goes a verse in a whisky-soaked dirge of Georgia Institute of Technology. It is directed against Tech’s main rival, the University of Georgia�which is bigger, better-known, nicer-looking, and generally better at sport.”

–The Economist, March 15, 2003 (emphasis added).

The story is here. If you can’t access it, e-mail me and I’ll send you the whole thing.

On second thought, the rest of the story ain’t so great, so keep your messages to yourselves — especially you, Frampton, pipe down. Now’s no time for gloating.

NPR ran a story about Davidson this morning. Davidson and the University of Baghdad set up a video phone call yesterday, and 100 students from each side participated in a debate. Many of the DC students were against the war, but when one of the Davidson students mentioned that none of the Iraqi students had anything negative to say about their despotic government, here’s how one of the Iraqi students responded:

“Yes, there are things we want to change. I, for example, want to see cleaner streets. But right now we’re focusing on major changes, we’re focusing on stopping a war, we’re focusing on surviving through a blockade. It’s just like when the tragedy of 9/11 happened, you stopped criticizing the government, you stopped criticizing everything in general. It was a crisis, and that’s exactly what we have now.”

Cleaner streets??? Now those are the words of an Iraqi with a gun pointed at her head.

You can find the transcript of the whole radio story here, or you can listen to it here (look under the entries for March 13).

FOLLOW-UP: The Charlotte Observer also covered the event, and its story is, frankly, better reported (maybe the difference between print and radio, but there it is).

FOLLOW-UP: This one should get me no. 8 on BOTWT. See Friday’s edition…

FOLLOW-UP: DOH! Snubbed again!

The most beautifully written, cogent, insightful and thought provoking words ever found in the greatest publication on the face of the Earth, with more than a century of history:

” ‘AND if I had a son, sir, I’d tell you what he’d do/He would say “To hell with Georgia”, like his daddy used to do.’ So goes a verse in a whisky-soaked dirge of Georgia Institute of Technology. It is directed against Tech’s main rival, the University of Georgia�which is bigger, better-known, nicer-looking, and generally better at sport.”

–The Economist, March 15, 2003 (emphasis added).

The story is here. If you can’t access it, e-mail me and I’ll send you the whole thing.

On second thought, the rest of the story ain’t so great, so keep your messages to yourselves — especially you, Frampton, pipe down. Now’s no time for gloating.

NPR ran a story about Davidson this morning. Davidson and the University of Baghdad set up a video phone call yesterday, and 100 students from each side participated in a debate. Many of the DC students were against the war, but when one of the Davidson students mentioned that none of the Iraqi students had anything negative to say about their despotic government, here’s how one of the Iraqi students responded:

“Yes, there are things we want to change. I, for example, want to see cleaner streets. But right now we’re focusing on major changes, we’re focusing on stopping a war, we’re focusing on surviving through a blockade. It’s just like when the tragedy of 9/11 happened, you stopped criticizing the government, you stopped criticizing everything in general. It was a crisis, and that’s exactly what we have now.”

Cleaner streets??? Now those are the words of an Iraqi with a gun pointed at her head.

You can find the transcript of the whole radio story here, or you can listen to it here (look under the entries for March 13).

FOLLOW-UP: The Charlotte Observer also covered the event, and its story is, frankly, better reported (maybe the difference between print and radio, but there it is).

FOLLOW-UP: This one should get me no. 8 on BOTWT. See Friday’s edition…

FOLLOW-UP: DOH! Snubbed again!

The AJC is hosting a forum on the “Storm of the Century” — that is, the blizzard of 1993 (spring break, junior year). The tales of woe from Chattanooga are long and . . . well . . . long. Enjoy, BM.

The AJC is hosting a forum on the “Storm of the Century” — that is, the blizzard of 1993 (spring break, junior year). The tales of woe from Chattanooga are long and . . . well . . . long. Enjoy, BM.

Have I mentioned that I think Peggy Noonan gushes too much in her columns?

Well, apparently, Mark Halperin and Elizabeth Wilner (The Note) agree. Commenting on the coverage of W’s press conference, they point out:

“Rich Galen, on the other hand, is positively Noonanian in his bullish write up of the president’s perf.”

Have I mentioned that I think Peggy Noonan gushes too much in her columns?

Well, apparently, Mark Halperin and Elizabeth Wilner (The Note) agree. Commenting on the coverage of W’s press conference, they point out:

“Rich Galen, on the other hand, is positively Noonanian in his bullish write up of the president’s perf.”

Last night, Tom Friedman gave a speech to the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, which was covered by C-SPAN. I generally find him insightful and usually interesting, but a little arrogant. (Take, for example, his regular use of the first person in his columns.) Apparently, he gives speeches in the same fashion — he talks as though every word he utters, much of which is merely conventional (though informed) wisdom, is the most profound thing ever spoken.

That said, one idea struck me as interesting. He suggested that Bush should (his exact words were “If I were Bush” — see previous paragraph) invite Chirac, Putin, Blair and Jiang Zemin to Camp David for a weekend, ask what amount of time each thinks is reasonable, and then set forth objective, measurable tasks that Saddam must perform before the deadline, or a Security Council resolution authorizing war would be unanimously passed.

Friedman’s point was that Bush would eliminate the “cowboy unilateralist” argument, show that we’re not “rushing to war” and allay the fears that the U.S. intends to dominate the world. The problems, of course, are that we already have a substantial coalition but are still called unilateralist. Moreover, we gave the UN route a chance in 1441, and the other security council members (excluding the UK) have proven themselves untrustworthy — 1441 was clear in what Sadam had to do, and everyone thought so at the time it was passed. But then the French, especially, prevaricated and claimed 1441 did not place the onus on Saddam, but the inspectors.

Friedman’s idea would be much more palatable if, in return, Bush demanded that the other UNSC members paid for the US military presence in the Gulf. Everyone knows, after all, that the only reason Saddam takes any steps toward disarmament is that 200,000 soldiers are at his door waiting for their marching orders. If we allow them to delay us another month, we may be better off waiting 4 months, until the summer heat abates (this may be utterly wrong — I don’t know about those things). That would be incredibly expensive, so let those countries bear the burden. But would having them foot the bill give them too much authority over U.S. military matters?

In any event, Friedman’s main problem seems to be that he can’t stand the fact that he agrees with the Bush argument on an intellectual level, so he goes to enormous lengths to distinguish his support for the cause from support for the Administration.

Thoughts?

Last night, Tom Friedman gave a speech to the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, which was covered by C-SPAN. I generally find him insightful and usually interesting, but a little arrogant. (Take, for example, his regular use of the first person in his columns.) Apparently, he gives speeches in the same fashion — he talks as though every word he utters, much of which is merely conventional (though informed) wisdom, is the most profound thing ever spoken.

That said, one idea struck me as interesting. He suggested that Bush should (his exact words were “If I were Bush” — see previous paragraph) invite Chirac, Putin, Blair and Jiang Zemin to Camp David for a weekend, ask what amount of time each thinks is reasonable, and then set forth objective, measurable tasks that Saddam must perform before the deadline, or a Security Council resolution authorizing war would be unanimously passed.

Friedman’s point was that Bush would eliminate the “cowboy unilateralist” argument, show that we’re not “rushing to war” and allay the fears that the U.S. intends to dominate the world. The problems, of course, are that we already have a substantial coalition but are still called unilateralist. Moreover, we gave the UN route a chance in 1441, and the other security council members (excluding the UK) have proven themselves untrustworthy — 1441 was clear in what Sadam had to do, and everyone thought so at the time it was passed. But then the French, especially, prevaricated and claimed 1441 did not place the onus on Saddam, but the inspectors.

Friedman’s idea would be much more palatable if, in return, Bush demanded that the other UNSC members paid for the US military presence in the Gulf. Everyone knows, after all, that the only reason Saddam takes any steps toward disarmament is that 200,000 soldiers are at his door waiting for their marching orders. If we allow them to delay us another month, we may be better off waiting 4 months, until the summer heat abates (this may be utterly wrong — I don’t know about those things). That would be incredibly expensive, so let those countries bear the burden. But would having them foot the bill give them too much authority over U.S. military matters?

In any event, Friedman’s main problem seems to be that he can’t stand the fact that he agrees with the Bush argument on an intellectual level, so he goes to enormous lengths to distinguish his support for the cause from support for the Administration.

Thoughts?

Time is reporting that, with the arrest if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Pakistani and American intelligence folks believe Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri (#2) may not be far behind. They have even intercepted handwritten notes from Osama to Mohammed.

It’s gotten to the point where OBL doesn’t seem real — i.e., we’ll never find his body, or we’ll never track him down — such that, if we actually captured him, I can’t imagine the impact or reaction.

What then, trial in U.S. court? Some sort of military tribunal? I don’t think we would summarily execute him, but you’d think there’d be a firefight at the very end where he might “unfortunately” be shot. I have no idea.

[Drudge]

Time is reporting that, with the arrest if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Pakistani and American intelligence folks believe Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri (#2) may not be far behind. They have even intercepted handwritten notes from Osama to Mohammed.

It’s gotten to the point where OBL doesn’t seem real — i.e., we’ll never find his body, or we’ll never track him down — such that, if we actually captured him, I can’t imagine the impact or reaction.

What then, trial in U.S. court? Some sort of military tribunal? I don’t think we would summarily execute him, but you’d think there’d be a firefight at the very end where he might “unfortunately” be shot. I have no idea.

[Drudge]

Stanley Kurtz argues that we’re on the brink of war with North Korea:

“Up to now, hawks have had an answer to the charge that they apply a double standard to Iraq and North Korea. The hawks point out that we are attacking Saddam Hussein, but not North Korea, precisely because Saddam does not yet have nuclear arms, while North Korea does. We are trying to prevent Saddam from putting us into the same sort of impossible situation that the North Koreans already have. That is a fine answer. Yet it does not go far enough. The sad truth is that we do still face a terrible choice in North Korea, quite like the one we face with Saddam. And as the North Koreans begin to produce plutonium, that choice will be forced. Either we allow ourselves to lose the war on terror by subjecting ourselves to a nuclear-armed al Qaeda, or we place our faith in bogus international guarantees and inspections regimes, or we go to war with North Korea. That war, with a power capable of killing hundreds of thousands of South Koreans � and Americans � may force us to use tactical nuclear weapons.

“Our choice will likely grow more acute with an invasion of Iraq. North Korea will probably choose the moment of invasion, when we are least able to launch a war, to begin its plutonium processing.

“The nature of our oncoming choice has been hidden from view by the administration’s downplaying of the Korean crisis. Our silence has seemed to ratify our powerlessness, while our refusal to negotiate has seemed to reveal our lack of policy. But if our policy is to strike when we may and must, silence makes a good deal of sense. Another reason for silence is the difference between our own interests and the interests of the South Koreans. Dare we put Seoul at risk in the present, to protect Washington and New York in the future? Perhaps not. Yet surely, by its pleas for a unreliable negotiated settlement that will save Seoul (for now), yet allow plutonium to slip into the hands of al Qaeda, Seoul is risking New York and Washington to protect itself.”

I think Kurtz ignores the fact that war is not in the interest of North Korea’s leaders, because they will inevitably lose. Rather, it seems likely to me they are blustering now precisely because we are at our most vulnerable (with troops deployed in the Gulf), and doing so will generate the largest amount of food, energy and economic aid necessary to keep them in power. I don’t know enough about it to judge one way or another, but this is scary as hell.

Stanley Kurtz argues that we’re on the brink of war with North Korea:

“Up to now, hawks have had an answer to the charge that they apply a double standard to Iraq and North Korea. The hawks point out that we are attacking Saddam Hussein, but not North Korea, precisely because Saddam does not yet have nuclear arms, while North Korea does. We are trying to prevent Saddam from putting us into the same sort of impossible situation that the North Koreans already have. That is a fine answer. Yet it does not go far enough. The sad truth is that we do still face a terrible choice in North Korea, quite like the one we face with Saddam. And as the North Koreans begin to produce plutonium, that choice will be forced. Either we allow ourselves to lose the war on terror by subjecting ourselves to a nuclear-armed al Qaeda, or we place our faith in bogus international guarantees and inspections regimes, or we go to war with North Korea. That war, with a power capable of killing hundreds of thousands of South Koreans � and Americans � may force us to use tactical nuclear weapons.

“Our choice will likely grow more acute with an invasion of Iraq. North Korea will probably choose the moment of invasion, when we are least able to launch a war, to begin its plutonium processing.

“The nature of our oncoming choice has been hidden from view by the administration’s downplaying of the Korean crisis. Our silence has seemed to ratify our powerlessness, while our refusal to negotiate has seemed to reveal our lack of policy. But if our policy is to strike when we may and must, silence makes a good deal of sense. Another reason for silence is the difference between our own interests and the interests of the South Koreans. Dare we put Seoul at risk in the present, to protect Washington and New York in the future? Perhaps not. Yet surely, by its pleas for a unreliable negotiated settlement that will save Seoul (for now), yet allow plutonium to slip into the hands of al Qaeda, Seoul is risking New York and Washington to protect itself.”

I think Kurtz ignores the fact that war is not in the interest of North Korea’s leaders, because they will inevitably lose. Rather, it seems likely to me they are blustering now precisely because we are at our most vulnerable (with troops deployed in the Gulf), and doing so will generate the largest amount of food, energy and economic aid necessary to keep them in power. I don’t know enough about it to judge one way or another, but this is scary as hell.

Bill Clinton has been called to serve jury duty in a gang-style murder case in the Bronx. At this point, the court and the attorneys are sifting through questionnaires of potential jurors to determine who to call for voir dire (more intense questioning before final selection of the jury that will sit through the trial). The story is pretty funny, because the judge and the lawyers are trying to act like he’s just another candidate (referring to him only as “Juror No. 142″), but revealing answers to his questionnaire such as:

Q: Do you think you could be fair and impartial?

A: Yes, despite “my unusual experience with the O.I.C.” [Office of the Independent Counsel]

Pretty interesting.

FOLLOW-UP: Clinton wasn’t selected for the jury. They filled the 12 slots before they ever got to No. 142.

Bill Clinton has been called to serve jury duty in a gang-style murder case in the Bronx. At this point, the court and the attorneys are sifting through questionnaires of potential jurors to determine who to call for voir dire (more intense questioning before final selection of the jury that will sit through the trial). The story is pretty funny, because the judge and the lawyers are trying to act like he’s just another candidate (referring to him only as “Juror No. 142″), but revealing answers to his questionnaire such as:

Q: Do you think you could be fair and impartial?

A: Yes, despite “my unusual experience with the O.I.C.” [Office of the Independent Counsel]

Pretty interesting.

FOLLOW-UP: Clinton wasn’t selected for the jury. They filled the 12 slots before they ever got to No. 142.

Real GDP increased 2.4% during 2002. That’s less than full-capacity, but not too shabby. The news story is here. The news release from the Bureau of Economic Affairs, which is contains more information, is here.

It’s interesting that people are so down on the economy, when there’s still modest growth, and the job market has remained relatively strong — i.e., unemployment remains at 6%. I wonder if the hand-wringing is caused by the fact that, this time, it’s white collar jobs (internet, finance & law, especially) that are tough to come by. It may be that journalists associate more closely with the people that want these types of jobs (and can’t currently find them) than they do with more blue collar workers, who seem to be doing O.K.

Party in the Back (dot com).

Check it out.

Real GDP increased 2.4% during 2002. That’s less than full-capacity, but not too shabby. The news story is here. The news release from the Bureau of Economic Affairs, which is contains more information, is here.

It’s interesting that people are so down on the economy, when there’s still modest growth, and the job market has remained relatively strong — i.e., unemployment remains at 6%. I wonder if the hand-wringing is caused by the fact that, this time, it’s white collar jobs (internet, finance & law, especially) that are tough to come by. It may be that journalists associate more closely with the people that want these types of jobs (and can’t currently find them) than they do with more blue collar workers, who seem to be doing O.K.

Party in the Back (dot com).

Check it out.

Turns out, David Wells was drunk when he pitched a perfect game for the Yankees (against the Twins) in 1998.

Not quite the same as my alcohol-flavored ping-pong domination, but impressive nevertheless.

Turns out, David Wells was drunk when he pitched a perfect game for the Yankees (against the Twins) in 1998.

Not quite the same as my alcohol-flavored ping-pong domination, but impressive nevertheless.

Glenn Reynolds links to this book review by Richard Posner, the most well-known American judge not on the Supreme Court, writing about Bruce Allen Murphy’s biography of Justice Douglas, the longest-serving member of the Surpreme Court, and, among other things, an inveterate liar. The book is Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas, and here’s the hilarious opening of the review, but read the whole thing:

“I met justice William Douglas, the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court, when I was clerking for Justice William Brennan. Douglas struck me as cold and brusque but charismatic–the most charismatic judge (well, the only charismatic judge) on the Court. Little did I know that this elderly gentleman (he was sixty-four when I was a law clerk) was having sex with his soon-to-be third wife in his Supreme Court office, that he was being stalked by his justifiably suspicious soon-to-be ex-wife, and that on one occasion he had to hide the wife-to-be in his closet in order to prevent the current wife from discovering her. This is just one of the gamy bits in Bruce Allen Murphy’s riveting biography of one of the most unwholesome figures in modern American political history, a field with many contenders. Murphy explains that he had expected the biography to take six years to complete but that it actually took almost fifteen. For Douglas turned out to be a liar to rival Baron Munchausen, and a great deal of patient digging was required to reconstruct his true life story. One of his typical lies, not only repeated in a judicial opinion but inscribed on his tombstone in Arlington National Cemetery, was that he had been a soldier in World War I. Douglas was never in the Armed Forces. The lie metastasized: a book about Arlington National Cemetery, published in 1986, reports: ‘Refusing to allow his polio to keep him from fighting for his nation during World War I, Douglas enlisted in the United States Army and fought in Europe.’ He never had polio, either.

“Apart from being a flagrant liar, Douglas was a compulsive womanizer, a heavy drinker, a terrible husband to each of his four wives, a terrible father to his two children, and a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible, and at times unethical Supreme Court justice who regularly left the Court for his summer vacation weeks before the term ended. Rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed, and devoured by ambition, he was also financially reckless–at once a big spender, a tightwad, and a sponge–who, while he was serving as a justice, received a substantial salary from a foundation established and controlled by a shady Las Vegas businessman.”

Glenn Reynolds links to this book review by Richard Posner, the most well-known American judge not on the Supreme Court, writing about Bruce Allen Murphy’s biography of Justice Douglas, the longest-serving member of the Surpreme Court, and, among other things, an inveterate liar. The book is Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas, and here’s the hilarious opening of the review, but read the whole thing:

“I met justice William Douglas, the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court, when I was clerking for Justice William Brennan. Douglas struck me as cold and brusque but charismatic–the most charismatic judge (well, the only charismatic judge) on the Court. Little did I know that this elderly gentleman (he was sixty-four when I was a law clerk) was having sex with his soon-to-be third wife in his Supreme Court office, that he was being stalked by his justifiably suspicious soon-to-be ex-wife, and that on one occasion he had to hide the wife-to-be in his closet in order to prevent the current wife from discovering her. This is just one of the gamy bits in Bruce Allen Murphy’s riveting biography of one of the most unwholesome figures in modern American political history, a field with many contenders. Murphy explains that he had expected the biography to take six years to complete but that it actually took almost fifteen. For Douglas turned out to be a liar to rival Baron Munchausen, and a great deal of patient digging was required to reconstruct his true life story. One of his typical lies, not only repeated in a judicial opinion but inscribed on his tombstone in Arlington National Cemetery, was that he had been a soldier in World War I. Douglas was never in the Armed Forces. The lie metastasized: a book about Arlington National Cemetery, published in 1986, reports: ‘Refusing to allow his polio to keep him from fighting for his nation during World War I, Douglas enlisted in the United States Army and fought in Europe.’ He never had polio, either.

“Apart from being a flagrant liar, Douglas was a compulsive womanizer, a heavy drinker, a terrible husband to each of his four wives, a terrible father to his two children, and a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible, and at times unethical Supreme Court justice who regularly left the Court for his summer vacation weeks before the term ended. Rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed, and devoured by ambition, he was also financially reckless–at once a big spender, a tightwad, and a sponge–who, while he was serving as a justice, received a substantial salary from a foundation established and controlled by a shady Las Vegas businessman.”

Call me insensitive, but I think Bobby Vagt’s blast e-mail about the Davidson College Duck Massacre of ‘03 is a bit over the top. The statement isn’t posted on the college website yet, but I’ll send a link when it is. Frampton linked to the original story, which pretty much covers all the bases. The Charlotte Observer, however, has had wall to wall coverage ever since. Here’s the latest roundup:

Davidson chapter of Kappa Sigma apologizes.

The arrests now number seven students.

Columnist Don Hudson bashes the house.

Kappa Sigma national responds.

Here’s how Charlotte Observer readers think the perpetrators should be punished.

The Observer posts a few poems about the incident.

Call me insensitive, but I think Bobby Vagt’s blast e-mail about the Davidson College Duck Massacre of ‘03 is a bit over the top. The statement isn’t posted on the college website yet, but I’ll send a link when it is. Frampton linked to the original story, which pretty much covers all the bases. The Charlotte Observer, however, has had wall to wall coverage ever since. Here’s the latest roundup:

Davidson chapter of Kappa Sigma apologizes.

The arrests now number seven students.

Columnist Don Hudson bashes the house.

Kappa Sigma national responds.

Here’s how Charlotte Observer readers think the perpetrators should be punished.

The Observer posts a few poems about the incident.

50 subscribers to the ultra-liberal The Nation have cancelled their subscriptions because of an ad placed on the back cover by Fox News.

This is hilarious and serves as proof-positive that extreme lefties are, in fact, crazy. Rational responses to such an ad would be (a) “Well, that’s $8,100 Fox News wasted, since it won’t convince any Nation readers to view their biased network,” or (b) “The Nation [notorious for losing money] needs every dime it can get — Fox News Suckers!” But no, they cancel subscriptions in a huff. These folks think anyone to the right of “Baghdad Jim” McDermott is literally evil.

Although I highly doubt The Nation would ever advertise in a publication like the National Review or the Weekly Standard, can you imagine ANY of their readers having a reaction stronger than a brief chuckle? Yet, on the other side, it’s an outrage. I truly pity their complete lack of humor. Their new radio network should be a real barrel of laughs.

50 subscribers to the ultra-liberal The Nation have cancelled their subscriptions because of an ad placed on the back cover by Fox News.

This is hilarious and serves as proof-positive that extreme lefties are, in fact, crazy. Rational responses to such an ad would be (a) “Well, that’s $8,100 Fox News wasted, since it won’t convince any Nation readers to view their biased network,” or (b) “The Nation [notorious for losing money] needs every dime it can get — Fox News Suckers!” But no, they cancel subscriptions in a huff. These folks think anyone to the right of “Baghdad Jim” McDermott is literally evil.

Although I highly doubt The Nation would ever advertise in a publication like the National Review or the Weekly Standard, can you imagine ANY of their readers having a reaction stronger than a brief chuckle? Yet, on the other side, it’s an outrage. I truly pity their complete lack of humor. Their new radio network should be a real barrel of laughs.

If you haven’t been following the recent coverage about Germany’s foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, you should check out these two pieces. Michael Kelly writes a good introduction to the subject in the Washington Post. But the real kicker is in the National Review Online yesterday, in a story by Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served as the chief of one of Romania’s intelligence gathering offices in West Germany during the Cold War. He shows how Fischer collaborated in Carlos the Jackal’s Libyan-backed plot to storm OPEC’s Vienna headquarters and take hostages in 1976.

This guy is nothing short of a communist terrorist. That he has any serious position in the German government defies belief.

FOLLOW-UP: On Monday, Germany endorsed the joint EU statement calling for immediate Iraqi compliance with UN Resolution 1441. Germany’s ensorsement, reversing its “no war under any circumstances” is seen as the result of the influence of Joschka Fischer.

Salon announced that it isn’t paying its rent this month and will close unless someone invests cash immediately. Frampton, you appear to be one of the few who is actually paying for their content. Only 47,000 paying subscribers. This place is done.

If you haven’t been following the recent coverage about Germany’s foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, you should check out these two pieces. Michael Kelly writes a good introduction to the subject in the Washington Post. But the real kicker is in the National Review Online yesterday, in a story by Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served as the chief of one of Romania’s intelligence gathering offices in West Germany during the Cold War. He shows how Fischer collaborated in Carlos the Jackal’s Libyan-backed plot to storm OPEC’s Vienna headquarters and take hostages in 1976.

This guy is nothing short of a communist terrorist. That he has any serious position in the German government defies belief.

FOLLOW-UP: On Monday, Germany endorsed the joint EU statement calling for immediate Iraqi compliance with UN Resolution 1441. Germany’s ensorsement, reversing its “no war under any circumstances” is seen as the result of the influence of Joschka Fischer.

Salon announced that it isn’t paying its rent this month and will close unless someone invests cash immediately. Frampton, you appear to be one of the few who is actually paying for their content. Only 47,000 paying subscribers. This place is done.

Check it out here.

Turns out, we were linked from Vodkapundit. Search the website for “Frampton.”

Check it out here.

Turns out, we were linked from Vodkapundit. Search the website for “Frampton.”

They’re crying in Chattanooga tonight, as the Dell Dude shuffles off to the Big House for a pot bust.

They’re crying in Chattanooga tonight, as the Dell Dude shuffles off to the Big House for a pot bust.

I never realized how badly she was injured. Link.

Update: David Justice is calling it quits too.

Update: RJR is retiring from NASCAR — it will no longer be the Winston Cup. Any bets? My money’s on the Coca-Cola Cup.

I never realized how badly she was injured. Link.

Update: David Justice is calling it quits too.

Update: RJR is retiring from NASCAR — it will no longer be the Winston Cup. Any bets? My money’s on the Coca-Cola Cup.

He’s “devastated” by the film that was aired about him in England yesterday. Hey Jacko, it’s a DOCUMENTARY:

“In a rare behind-the-scenes look at his fiercely guarded private life, Monday’s documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir showed Jackson revealing he shared his bed with children at his Neverland ranch.

“He insisted there was nothing wrong with that and vowed to kill himself if there were no children left in the world.”

Bettershorter.com was down this morning, if you’re keeping track of these things.

John Fund writes about the effort underway in California to get a recall of Gray Davis on the ballot. Pretty interesting story, but it also is a good example of why the WSJ editorial page is so strong. Fund isn’t just spouting off — instead, as is common on that page, there’s a lot of reporting in the piece as well.

As part of our continuing coverage of this weekend’s Players Ball in Atlanta, it appears protesters are planning a rally, but the hosts of the event are undaunted:

“In the hip-hop culture today, the word ‘player’ means someone who dresses nice, who can afford a lavish lifestyle, capitalism at its best.” — Uwonda Carter, attorney for Upscale Entertainment, Inc., which is sponsoring the Players Ball.

Apparently, these folks are republicans!

He’s “devastated” by the film that was aired about him in England yesterday. Hey Jacko, it’s a DOCUMENTARY:

“In a rare behind-the-scenes look at his fiercely guarded private life, Monday’s documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir showed Jackson revealing he shared his bed with children at his Neverland ranch.

“He insisted there was nothing wrong with that and vowed to kill himself if there were no children left in the world.”

Bettershorter.com was down this morning, if you’re keeping track of these things.

John Fund writes about the effort underway in California to get a recall of Gray Davis on the ballot. Pretty interesting story, but it also is a good example of why the WSJ editorial page is so strong. Fund isn’t just spouting off — instead, as is common on that page, there’s a lot of reporting in the piece as well.

As part of our continuing coverage of this weekend’s Players Ball in Atlanta, it appears protesters are planning a rally, but the hosts of the event are undaunted:

“In the hip-hop culture today, the word ‘player’ means someone who dresses nice, who can afford a lavish lifestyle, capitalism at its best.” — Uwonda Carter, attorney for Upscale Entertainment, Inc., which is sponsoring the Players Ball.

Apparently, these folks are republicans!

This is getting too damn easy.

WC

This is getting too damn easy.

WC

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

A devastating account from The Weekly Standard.

Citation number 6, thank you very much.

Citation number 6, thank you very much.

People have been talking about this article, “Beam Me Out Of This Deathtrap, Scotty: 5…4…3…2…1 Goodbye, Columbia,” which Gregg Easterbrook wrote about the shuttle program for the April, 1980 Washington Monthly. It’s long, but amazing to see his analysis and predictions 23 years ago. Here are some of the highlights:

“The main cause of delay [getting the shuttle into space] is currently the shuttle’s refractory tiles, which disperse the heat of reentry from the ship’s nose and fuselage. Columbia must be fitted out with 33,000 of these tiles, each to be applied individually, each unique in shape. The inch-thick tiles, made of pyrolized carbon, are amazing in two respects. They can be several hundred degrees hot on one side while remaining cool to the touch on the other. They do not boil away like the ablative heat shieldings of capsules and modules; they can be used indefinitely. But they’re also a bit of a letdown in another respect-they’re so fragile you can hardly touch them without shattering them.” (Emphasis added.)

” ‘The tiles are the long pole holding up the tent,’ says Mike Malkin, NASA’s shuttle project director. Fixing them to the Columbia without breaking them is like trying to eat a bar of Bonomo Turkish Taffy without cracking it. Most of the technicians swarming over Columbia are trying to glue down tiles. The tiles break so often, and must be remolded so painstakingly, the installation rate is currently one tile per technician per week. All this mounting was supposed to be finished before Columbia left Rockwell’s factory. When it wasn’t, the work had to be resumed at the Cape.” …

“Some suspect the tile mounting is the least of Columbia’s difficulties. ‘I don’t think anybody appreciates the depths of the problems,’ Kapryan says. The tiles are the most important system NASA has ever designed as ’safe life.’ That means there is no back-up for them. If they fail, the shuttle burns on reentry. If enough fall off, the shuttle may become unstable during landing, and thus un-pilotable. The worry runs deep enough that NASA investigated installing a crane assembly in Columbia so the crew could inspect and repair damaged tiles in space. (Verdict: Can’t be done. You can hardly do it on the ground.)”

* * *

“The partially finished Columbia was mounted on the back of its 747 ferry plane for the flight to Cape Kennedy. The instant the 747 nosed off the field, Columbia began to rattle itself to pieces. Tiles flew off; tape and electrical connections began flapping everywhere. The big jet hastily banked back to the field and rolled to a stop. There was so much damage to Columbia after 17 minutes in the air-a Sunday afternoon stroll disabling a spaceship!-that it took a week to get her ready to go up again.”

* * *

“The external fuel tank, for instance, is full of oxygen and hydrogen cooled to -400� F. to make the gases flow as liquids. Ice will form on the tank. When Columbia’s tiles started popping off in a stiff breeze, it occurred to engineers that ice chunks from the tank would crash into the tiles during the sonic chaos of launch: Goodbye, Columbia. So insulation was added to the tank.”

* * *

“Once you get into space, you check to see if any tiles are damaged. If enough are, you have a choice between Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is hope they can get a rescue shuttle up in time. Plan B is burn up coming back.”

Easterbrook’s response to the crash yesterday, The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped, is therefore worth serious consideration, I think.

Drudge links to the Herald-Sun (Australia), reporting that the Mossad has found the Smoking Gun. We’ll see if this checks out, and, if so, how Iraq (and Euroweenies) try to explain their way out of this…

People have been talking about this article, “Beam Me Out Of This Deathtrap, Scotty: 5…4…3…2…1 Goodbye, Columbia,” which Gregg Easterbrook wrote about the shuttle program for the April, 1980 Washington Monthly. It’s long, but amazing to see his analysis and predictions 23 years ago. Here are some of the highlights:

“The main cause of delay [getting the shuttle into space] is currently the shuttle’s refractory tiles, which disperse the heat of reentry from the ship’s nose and fuselage. Columbia must be fitted out with 33,000 of these tiles, each to be applied individually, each unique in shape. The inch-thick tiles, made of pyrolized carbon, are amazing in two respects. They can be several hundred degrees hot on one side while remaining cool to the touch on the other. They do not boil away like the ablative heat shieldings of capsules and modules; they can be used indefinitely. But they’re also a bit of a letdown in another respect-they’re so fragile you can hardly touch them without shattering them.” (Emphasis added.)

” ‘The tiles are the long pole holding up the tent,’ says Mike Malkin, NASA’s shuttle project director. Fixing them to the Columbia without breaking them is like trying to eat a bar of Bonomo Turkish Taffy without cracking it. Most of the technicians swarming over Columbia are trying to glue down tiles. The tiles break so often, and must be remolded so painstakingly, the installation rate is currently one tile per technician per week. All this mounting was supposed to be finished before Columbia left Rockwell’s factory. When it wasn’t, the work had to be resumed at the Cape.” …

“Some suspect the tile mounting is the least of Columbia’s difficulties. ‘I don’t think anybody appreciates the depths of the problems,’ Kapryan says. The tiles are the most important system NASA has ever designed as ’safe life.’ That means there is no back-up for them. If they fail, the shuttle burns on reentry. If enough fall off, the shuttle may become unstable during landing, and thus un-pilotable. The worry runs deep enough that NASA investigated installing a crane assembly in Columbia so the crew could inspect and repair damaged tiles in space. (Verdict: Can’t be done. You can hardly do it on the ground.)”

* * *

“The partially finished Columbia was mounted on the back of its 747 ferry plane for the flight to Cape Kennedy. The instant the 747 nosed off the field, Columbia began to rattle itself to pieces. Tiles flew off; tape and electrical connections began flapping everywhere. The big jet hastily banked back to the field and rolled to a stop. There was so much damage to Columbia after 17 minutes in the air-a Sunday afternoon stroll disabling a spaceship!-that it took a week to get her ready to go up again.”

* * *

“The external fuel tank, for instance, is full of oxygen and hydrogen cooled to -400� F. to make the gases flow as liquids. Ice will form on the tank. When Columbia’s tiles started popping off in a stiff breeze, it occurred to engineers that ice chunks from the tank would crash into the tiles during the sonic chaos of launch: Goodbye, Columbia. So insulation was added to the tank.”

* * *

“Once you get into space, you check to see if any tiles are damaged. If enough are, you have a choice between Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is hope they can get a rescue shuttle up in time. Plan B is burn up coming back.”

Easterbrook’s response to the crash yesterday, The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped, is therefore worth serious consideration, I think.

Drudge links to the Herald-Sun (Australia), reporting that the Mossad has found the Smoking Gun. We’ll see if this checks out, and, if so, how Iraq (and Euroweenies) try to explain their way out of this…

At least you expect such ridiculous comments from the Iraqi government, and if you hear it from Iraqi people, you have to assume (a) they’re a member of the Baath party or (b) they’re being watched by a government minder. Much, much worse, however, are comments from our supposed allies that the accident was caused by American “arrogance.” A Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) reporter apparently made such statements shortly after the crash. Repulsive.

At least you expect such ridiculous comments from the Iraqi government, and if you hear it from Iraqi people, you have to assume (a) they’re a member of the Baath party or (b) they’re being watched by a government minder. Much, much worse, however, are comments from our supposed allies that the accident was caused by American “arrogance.” A Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) reporter apparently made such statements shortly after the crash. Repulsive.

Glenn Reynolds links to Spaceflight Now, a website tracking the shuttle mission. Note (a) how normal things were up to 8:59 a.m. and (b) how quickly experts knew there was a problem (9:01 - 9:04). Very sad.

there’s nothing worse than getting pinned by a girl.

Atlanta is known as a convention city, but one convention outshines them all: The Player’s Ball, scheduled for next week. Can you say “Flashy Pimp Shindig“?

“It’s more or less a fashion show. [More or less??] The mink coats, alligator shoes, they’re ‘pimpish.’ ” …

“Since the 1970s, self-proclaimed pimps or ‘players,’ decked out stereotypically in furs and diamonds, have staged elaborate parties where they crown the ‘pimp of the year.’ Bishop Don Juan, a former pimp, is credited with founding the events. A preacher today, he has become somewhat of a celebrity, appearing on talk shows and in HBO videos.” …

“The flier [advertising the Player's Ball], which features three men dressed in white fur coats and hats and boasts an appearance by the ‘2002 Pimp of the Year,’ has been widely distributed.”

Glenn Reynolds links to Spaceflight Now, a website tracking the shuttle mission. Note (a) how normal things were up to 8:59 a.m. and (b) how quickly experts knew there was a problem (9:01 - 9:04). Very sad.

there’s nothing worse than getting pinned by a girl.

Atlanta is known as a convention city, but one convention outshines them all: The Player’s Ball, scheduled for next week. Can you say “Flashy Pimp Shindig“?

“It’s more or less a fashion show. [More or less??] The mink coats, alligator shoes, they’re ‘pimpish.’ ” …

“Since the 1970s, self-proclaimed pimps or ‘players,’ decked out stereotypically in furs and diamonds, have staged elaborate parties where they crown the ‘pimp of the year.’ Bishop Don Juan, a former pimp, is credited with founding the events. A preacher today, he has become somewhat of a celebrity, appearing on talk shows and in HBO videos.” …

“The flier [advertising the Player's Ball], which features three men dressed in white fur coats and hats and boasts an appearance by the ‘2002 Pimp of the Year,’ has been widely distributed.”

First, when do we get our bettershorter.com e-mail addresses? Will they just be forwarding addresses, or will they actually be kept on the server?

Second, Frank and Brittany, to post a link, copy the link from Internet Explorer. Then, when you’re writing the post, hit shift+ctrl+a and paste the link into the box that comes up. Then, to make a specific word or phrase the actual link, type the word or phrase in toward the end, between the >”.

First, when do we get our bettershorter.com e-mail addresses? Will they just be forwarding addresses, or will they actually be kept on the server?

Second, Frank and Brittany, to post a link, copy the link from Internet Explorer. Then, when you’re writing the post, hit shift+ctrl+a and paste the link into the box that comes up. Then, to make a specific word or phrase the actual link, type the word or phrase in toward the end, between the >”.

While it may be impossible to prove a negative philosophically, we find a way to prove negatives every day in law and diplomacy (OJ “proved” he wasn’t the real killer after all).

But the press frames the question incorrectly anyway. It is not that Iraq has to disprove the existence of a smoking gun; rather, Iraq must prove, to the satisfaction of the UN, that it has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction — an affirmative action. The press acts shocked that the Administration has “changed its tune” — i.e., before, we were looking for a smoking gun, now we’re looking for proof of disarmament. No. It always was the press that was looking for a smoking gun (of course they were — what a great story it would be). The difference is that the administration has started correcting the press on this issue in the last couple of days.

We are still at war with Iraq. There was no truce in 1991. The UN agreed to a cease-fire that was conditioned on Iraq’s promises affirmatively to disarm. The inspections today are about verifying that Iraq has disarmed. They are not about doing the disarming for Iraq. That is why a smoking gun is not only unnecessary, it’s completely irrelevant.

A thought… Instead of villifying W, the anti-war dems ought to be thanking their lucky stars that a GOPer is in the White House. If, instead, AlGore were president, his reaction to 9/11 may have had to be much quicker and more forceful (i.e., in the terms of the anti-war crowd, more impatient, more unilateralist and more imperialist) in order to prove that he wasn’t soft on terrorism. Instead, everyone was freaked out that W would nuke the Middle East 10 years back to the Stone Age.

As it stands, because the GOP holds the WH, Daschle has the freedom to carp and complain, because he bears no responsibility for the nation’s defense. Frankly, when I consider this fact, Daschle, et. al’s complaints begin to make me sick, because it demonstrates how much they are using 9/11 and aftermath for political purposes.

While it may be impossible to prove a negative philosophically, we find a way to prove negatives every day in law and diplomacy (OJ “proved” he wasn’t the real killer after all).

But the press frames the question incorrectly anyway. It is not that Iraq has to disprove the existence of a smoking gun; rather, Iraq must prove, to the satisfaction of the UN, that it has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction — an affirmative action. The press acts shocked that the Administration has “changed its tune” — i.e., before, we were looking for a smoking gun, now we’re looking for proof of disarmament. No. It always was the press that was looking for a smoking gun (of course they were — what a great story it would be). The difference is that the administration has started correcting the press on this issue in the last couple of days.

We are still at war with Iraq. There was no truce in 1991. The UN agreed to a cease-fire that was conditioned on Iraq’s promises affirmatively to disarm. The inspections today are about verifying that Iraq has disarmed. They are not about doing the disarming for Iraq. That is why a smoking gun is not only unnecessary, it’s completely irrelevant.

A thought… Instead of villifying W, the anti-war dems ought to be thanking their lucky stars that a GOPer is in the White House. If, instead, AlGore were president, his reaction to 9/11 may have had to be much quicker and more forceful (i.e., in the terms of the anti-war crowd, more impatient, more unilateralist and more imperialist) in order to prove that he wasn’t soft on terrorism. Instead, everyone was freaked out that W would nuke the Middle East 10 years back to the Stone Age.

As it stands, because the GOP holds the WH, Daschle has the freedom to carp and complain, because he bears no responsibility for the nation’s defense. Frankly, when I consider this fact, Daschle, et. al’s complaints begin to make me sick, because it demonstrates how much they are using 9/11 and aftermath for political purposes.

…will be interested in this Atlanta development story from the AJC this morning.

…will be interested in this Atlanta development story from the AJC this morning.

With Scott Ritter, the erstwhile Iraqi arms inspector & U.S. Marine turned Saddam apologist, the hits just keep on coming. From the beginning, his abrupt about-face on Saddam indicated more was going on than the public knew. This is total speculation but:

1. We know the Pentagon/State Department/CIA must have wanted Ritter to provide them information that he gathered in his role with the UN. He was a marine and was supposed to have access to the most sensitive sites in Iraq. In fact, the government would have been insane not to at least contact Ritter about providing info to the U.S.

2. Ritter’s former stance on Iraq — Saddam is pursuing WMDs and must be stopped — rang much truer than his later line — that the U.S. is bullying a country that poses no threat to its people or neighbors. His factual arguments never added up. (Tony Andragna covered the story extensively on Quasipundit).

3. The recent stories about his arrests for alleged sex crimes certainly make more plausible theories that the U.S. tried to recruit him, failed, then tried to coerce him, failed, and that he’s now feeling the retribution. The arrest records were supposed to be sealed, after all.

The Sidney Morning Herald is reporting that U.S. war plans call for 800 cruise missiles to fly into Baghdad during the first 48 hours of combat, in an effort to demoralize Iraqi soldiers and convince them that fighting will be futile. That’s more cruise missiles than were used during the entire 40-day Gulf War.

Although by no means am I an expert on the ADA’s facility seating requirements, I did a little work on the issue in 1998 for a southern university that was renovating its basketball arena. The key issue was that the ADA required the builder to provide “comparable sitelines” for disabled patrons to those offered to the non-disabled. The implications on an arena are much more complex than in a theater, because (a) the non-disabled may prefer endzone, midcourt, higher or lower seating, and (b) those seating choices have pricing implications (i.e., “I want a midcourt ticket as close to the court as possible for $20″). Thus, an arena needs to provide disabled patrons with a choice of seating locations at the various price levels. In a theater, however, all pricing is the same — you don’t pay more for the best seat in the house — and, as Last’s article points out, at least 2/3 of the seats in a stadium seating theater are optimal.

Therefore, if you place the disabled seating section anywhere within the optimal viewing location in the theater, a court should find that you complied with the ADA. It would be absurd, however, for the courts to iinterpret the ADA as requiring a choice of seating locations other than the optimal viewing section, in essence requiring theater operators to offer disabled patrons a choice that includes the worst seats in the house.

With Scott Ritter, the erstwhile Iraqi arms inspector & U.S. Marine turned Saddam apologist, the hits just keep on coming. From the beginning, his abrupt about-face on Saddam indicated more was going on than the public knew. This is total speculation but:

1. We know the Pentagon/State Department/CIA must have wanted Ritter to provide them information that he gathered in his role with the UN. He was a marine and was supposed to have access to the most sensitive sites in Iraq. In fact, the government would have been insane not to at least contact Ritter about providing info to the U.S.

2. Ritter’s former stance on Iraq — Saddam is pursuing WMDs and must be stopped — rang much truer than his later line — that the U.S. is bullying a country that poses no threat to its people or neighbors. His factual arguments never added up. (Tony Andragna covered the story extensively on Quasipundit).

3. The recent stories about his arrests for alleged sex crimes certainly make more plausible theories that the U.S. tried to recruit him, failed, then tried to coerce him, failed, and that he’s now feeling the retribution. The arrest records were supposed to be sealed, after all.

The Sidney Morning Herald is reporting that U.S. war plans call for 800 cruise missiles to fly into Baghdad during the first 48 hours of combat, in an effort to demoralize Iraqi soldiers and convince them that fighting will be futile. That’s more cruise missiles than were used during the entire 40-day Gulf War.

Although by no means am I an expert on the ADA’s facility seating requirements, I did a little work on the issue in 1998 for a southern university that was renovating its basketball arena. The key issue was that the ADA required the builder to provide “comparable sitelines” for disabled patrons to those offered to the non-disabled. The implications on an arena are much more complex than in a theater, because (a) the non-disabled may prefer endzone, midcourt, higher or lower seating, and (b) those seating choices have pricing implications (i.e., “I want a midcourt ticket as close to the court as possible for $20″). Thus, an arena needs to provide disabled patrons with a choice of seating locations at the various price levels. In a theater, however, all pricing is the same — you don’t pay more for the best seat in the house — and, as Last’s article points out, at least 2/3 of the seats in a stadium seating theater are optimal.

Therefore, if you place the disabled seating section anywhere within the optimal viewing location in the theater, a court should find that you complied with the ADA. It would be absurd, however, for the courts to iinterpret the ADA as requiring a choice of seating locations other than the optimal viewing section, in essence requiring theater operators to offer disabled patrons a choice that includes the worst seats in the house.

Jonathan Last writes about the Justice Department’s attacks on AMC’s stadium seating theaters under the ADA. From the Weekly Standard:

“What makes this case different, though, is that AMC is now being charged with an ADA violation for a design innovation that has actually dramatically improved the disabled patron’s moviegoing experience. Stadium seating wasn’t perfect at first. But AMC has since perfected it. If you’re confined to a wheelchair and you go to a stadium-seat theater built after 1997, your experience will be markedly better than it would have been any time before 1994. Indeed, you’ll have the best seats in the house. And for that, you have AMC to thank.”

are unemployed.

Jonathan Last writes about the Justice Department’s attacks on AMC’s stadium seating theaters under the ADA. From the Weekly Standard:

“What makes this case different, though, is that AMC is now being charged with an ADA violation for a design innovation that has actually dramatically improved the disabled patron’s moviegoing experience. Stadium seating wasn’t perfect at first. But AMC has since perfected it. If you’re confined to a wheelchair and you go to a stadium-seat theater built after 1997, your experience will be markedly better than it would have been any time before 1994. Indeed, you’ll have the best seats in the house. And for that, you have AMC to thank.”

are unemployed.

It’s about the French stance on Iraq:

“But, as the German who was tired of fighting said, let’s get back to the French. President Chirac now favors containment…”

The whole thing is hilarious.

It’s about the French stance on Iraq:

“But, as the German who was tired of fighting said, let’s get back to the French. President Chirac now favors containment…”

The whole thing is hilarious.

Don’t tell Brittany about the Rocky Top Brigade or South Knox Bubba.

Don’t tell Brittany about the Rocky Top Brigade or South Knox Bubba.

Yvette will find this hilarious.
(Via Jonah Goldberg at The Corner).

On the day Zell Miller announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate, I predicted that Cathy Cox, the current Secretary of State of Georgia, would run for the Democratic nomination. Tonight, the AJC reports she won’t run.

Yvette will find this hilarious.
(Via Jonah Goldberg at The Corner).

On the day Zell Miller announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate, I predicted that Cathy Cox, the current Secretary of State of Georgia, would run for the Democratic nomination. Tonight, the AJC reports she won’t run.