I like it when other bloggers link to us (there are quite a few now thanks to the kind help of North State Blogs), and so I try to check them out when they send readers to us. Today I found one I may start visiting regularly, Tightly Wound. Here, for your reading pleasure, is her balanced and careful consideration of the Foundation for Individual Right's lawsuit against Shippensburg University's speech code:

Hooray for The Fire, as they are successfully suing these draconian dipshits. But take a gander at the 'unreconstructed' language of the original policy, which defines harrassment rather broadly:

Harassment shall be defined as unsolicited, unwanted conduct which annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group.

Well, I'm alarmed at this assinine policy. Can I sue for harassment? It's called the Real World, you bunch of idiots--we're not all just going to get along, no matter how hard you try to legislate human thought and emotion.

I like her. Check her out. Maybe you will, too.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 6:06 PM 0 comments

 
The snide comments from the media regarding the number of deaths since the end of major combat operations is even worse than Tom describes them below. Here is a gem from CNN:

"The number of war dead after the major conflict was declared over May 1 by President George W. Bush is now at 139, surpassing the 138 U.S. service members to die during the first phase of warfare."

Notice that this sloppy wording actually says Bush declare the major conflict over on May 1. Here is the exact wording from the Bush speech: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

The point to all of this is very simple. Much of the media is desparately trying to say the administration was just wrong about everything. Wrong about WMD. Wrong about the threat of Saddam. Now they are saying the administration is wrong about something it never claimed in the first place.

I would like to think that the wording above is just a mistake, but it seems to me that people who write for a living should have a better handle on exactly what they are saying. If that is the case, this quote is simply a blatent misrepresentation of what Bush said on that aircraft carrier.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:44 PM 0 comments

 
I am in total agreement with Jonathan's take on the Alabama Ten Commandments issue, and I appreciate the pointer to a good column on it. To round out the debate, here is Justice Moore's defense of his actions, from yesterday's opinionjournal.com.

Frankly, I think there are some coherent arguments to be made against the ACLU/Americans United for the Separation of Church and State position in this case, although I don't think they would or should carry the day. Justice Moore's defensive editorial, unfortunately, does not even hint at them. He is certainly not doing any favors to those of us who want thoughtful conservative judges to be appointed and confirmed.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:29 PM 0 comments

 
The Ten Commandments and Jurisprudence

opinionjournal.com has a well written column on recent events in the Alabama Supreme Court. I think it is exactly right. I had a conversation with left-wing political science professor over the weekend at a friends wedding and all he could talk about was what an example this guy is of the kind of conservative judge Bush would put on the federal bench. That is of course nonsense, but this Chief Justice's actions in Alabama are allowing those who know little about jurisprudence (or who do know about it, but have an agenda to pursue) to tar conservative judges with the actions of Chief Justice Roy Moore.
- posted by Anonymous @ 12:00 PM 0 comments

 
Today, exactly eight months after Commissioner Paul Tagliabue declared Tampa Bay the winners of Superbowl XXXVII . . .

You don't often see that line, and there is a good reason for it: no one disputes that Tampa Bay won Superbowl XXXVII so you don't need to cite Tagliabue's declaration. Media outlets just say, "since Tampa Bay won Superbowl XXXVII . . . " So why is this line in every story about casualties in Iraq:

Since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations

The Washington Post did it today, but they are not alone. It's everywhere: the Australian Age, CNN, the Charlotte Observer, and even the fair and balanced (TM) FoxNews. Why? Major combat operations did end about that time, and I'm not sure anyone disputes it. US soldiers are still being shot at, but by guerrillas with ak-47s, not regulars with tanks.

Come on, guys, save the ink, and say it with me, "Since major combat operations ended on May 1 . . . " Is that so hard?
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 8:58 AM 0 comments

 
This piece in the New Yorker on events in France is worth reading. It starts slowly and ends weakly, but the middle features a lucid and interesting discussion of the few intellectuals in French high culture who are resolutely pro-American, or at least, as the author puts it, anti-anti-American.

In some ways, the thinkers discussed make more coherent cases for the war in Iraq than the administration did, and they are convinced that the wave of Islamic terror out there is far more dangerous than even the administration recognizes. Still, they're still no fans of Bush - they are French, after all. I find this and some of their other views disagreeable, but their views are interesting, especially since most French voices we hear these days are so reflexively anti-American.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:09 PM 0 comments

 
Johnny Cash is going be celebrated by MTV for what is apparently an amazing video, featuring Johnny - who is horribly ill with autonomic neuropathy - singing as an old man, interspersed with clips of him as a younger (and healthier) man. The song, a Nine Inch Nails number called "Hurt," addresses dealing with the wreckage of a life ruined by drug abuse, a topic Johnny knows well. If his choice of a Nine Inch Nail's song seems odd, this is not the first time he has covered contemporary rock music - his version of Soundgarden's "Rusty Cage" is unbelievable. The first link above goes to the Washington Post; here is one to a similar CNN story, and you can see the video here on the director's web site.

I realize this topic is a little out of keeping with the general discussion here at Remove All Doubt, but good news about the legendary Man in Black is, in my view, always appropriate.

UPDATE: The best place to see the video seems to be at the Rolling Stone website, on this page. Click on "Hurt" - you have to register (free) to see it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:06 PM 0 comments

 
Bork on the Patriot Act and other Matters

opinionjournal.com posts an essay by Judge Bork that is worth reading in its entirety.

UPDATE: Link here.

- posted by Anonymous @ 1:59 PM 0 comments

 
Terrorism Subpoenas

Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is back in the news. The debate has focused on libraries because that's where the opponents of the Act believe they have the most rhetorical leverage, but, as Heather MacDonald pointed out in yesterday's Washington Post (thanks to Jonathan for the pointer), the rubber meets the road in the comparison of Section 215 orders and Grand Jury Subpoenas, which have been used for decades to conduct criminal investigations. In my fairly uneducated judgment, they are quite similar, and the differences seem justified by the threat of terrorism.

Section 215 is broad grant of authority, applicable to more than just libraries:

(a)(1) The [FBI] may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

It applies to anything relevant to the investigation from anyone other than the person being investigated. (Ostensibly that person would keep his or her right to avoid self incrimination.)

A Federal Grand Jury subpoena, however, is similarly broad. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 states:

A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates.

A grand jury subpoena is limited to anything relevant from anyone other that the defendant (who can invoke his right to avoid self incriminatior), just like the Section 215 order.

Furthermore, both the grand jury subpoena and the Section 215 order have very little oversight. In practice, a prosecutor doesn't even have to go to the grand jury to get a grand jury subpoena. Rule 17 has been interpreted to allow federal prosecutors to issue subpoenas without the prior approval of the grand jury (see 957 F.2d 749), and to decide what parts, if any, of the subpoena's evidence to present to the grand jury. Compared to that limited oversight, the requirements of Section 215 look pretty good:

(b) Each application under this section--
(1) shall be made to . . . a judge of the court established by section 103(a) . . . [and]
(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted . . . against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Its true that grand jury subpoenas are regulated by grand jury members, who are not paid by the government, while 215 orders are regulated by judges, who are paid by the government, but I'm not sure that makes a practical difference. If anything, the judge in the 215 context provides at least a chance to stop the investigation before it occurs, while a grand jury can't stop a subpoena they don't know is being issued. So, unless we're willing to claim that there is something really wrong with the grand jury system (which, in fairness, some folks are willing to say), it seems like 215 orders should be ok, too.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:33 AM 0 comments

 
The New York Times weighs in with an anti-Ashcroft/anti-Patriot Act editorial this morning. The Times hyperventilates about "[o]ne section that has produced particular outrage is the authorization of "sneak and peak" searches, in which the government secretly searches people homes and delays telling them about the search."

This ties into Tom's earlier post about the blaming the Patriot Act for everything. Sneak and peak searches were already legal before the Patriot Act. I even saw a sneak and peak search figure prominently in a Sapranos episode from 2000. One would think that the scholars at the times editorial page, if they aren't keeping track of search procedures, at least watch the Sapranos.

I am not sure to what extent the Patriot Act changed the procedures for sneak and peak searches, but it did not invent the use of them as the Times implies.

- posted by Anonymous @ 11:07 AM 0 comments

 
Rock and a hard place

Perhaps the trickiest political position in America is held by Bill Pryor, the young attorney general of Alabama. Pryor, a candidate for a federal judgeship, has long a darling of conservative Christians. But he has come out against former ally Roy S. Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who has drawn national attention for his refusal to obey a court order to remove an enormous statute of the Ten Commandments he installed in the Montgomery courthouse (he has since relented).

Pryor is now drawing fire from the left for being associated with Moore at all, and from the right for abandoning him. When liberals see you as a conservative nut and conservatives see you as a traitor to the cause, there's not much room left. Good luck, Bill.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:52 AM 0 comments

 
Nat Hentoff writes another in his line of anti-Patriot Act screeds in his "Sweet Land of Liberty" column printed in this morning's Washington Times. The column compares nicely to yesterday's column in the Washington Post entitled "In Defense of the Patriot Act" by Heather MacDonald. MacDonald's main point is to criticize the ACLU's brief challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. Based on MacDonald's selected quotes, the ACLU brief appears to be written in the hysterical prose of a public relations campaign, rather than a well reasoned legal argument. In particular MacDonald points out that searches and wire taps under the Patriot Act cannot be conducted without the a court order. There is judicial oversight in every case.

Hentoff, to his credit, concedes that there is judicial oversight, though he repeatedly refers to the court that oversees espionage and counterterrorism as a "secret court" (query: just how secret can it be if Hentoff keeps talking about it). The central vaue in Hentoff's piece is that he raises the question of the legal standard that must be met before certain actions can be taken in investigations. I don't know the answer to this and would appreciate any information my fellow bloggers might have. According to Hentoff, the standard is somewhere below "probable cause" but his description of the standard, that "all the FBI must claim is that records and other "tangible things" are wanted to investigate foreign intelligence, clandestine intelligence or international terrorism," strikes me as either disingenuous or misinformed. Is he saying that a naked assertion that the information is needed for an investigation is enough? The court requires no information about the investigation or anything else? I find this hard to believe.

Both columns deserve a read.

UPDATE: Hentoff's article is here, MacDonald's is here.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:48 AM 0 comments

 

"There are hard cases and there are easy cases," the judge said. "This is an easy case. This case is wholly without merit, both factually and legally."

So ends Fox's lawsuit against Al Franken. Most people, including me, thought Fox was crazy for bringing this lawsuit. Not only was the suit just this side of frivilous, it also created great publicity for the exact person Fox seemed to be mad at, Al Franken. But, wait, maybe Fox was crazy like a, well, fox. The lawsuit also creates a lot of publicity for FoxNews, whose audience is hardly going to be put off by Al Franken's criticism of FoxNews's Fair and Balanced (TM) coverage. Franken's criticisms actually make FoxNews look more legitimate to its audience. Maybe that Murdock fellow is on to something.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:37 PM 0 comments

 
Eugene Volokh, over at the Volokh Conspiracy gives an excellent example of the "Everything Is The Patriot Act's Fault media line," which, as he describes it, works like this:

If the government is doing something bad related to terrorism, throw in an obligatory criticism of the Patriot Act, which would suggest to readers that the problem here is a Patriot Act problem, rather than an inevitable effect of traditional law enforcement rules and practices (or even of heightened law enforcement activity post-9/11 that is far outside the Patriot Act problems). And do that even if in fact the search is not at all linked to the actual Patriot Act as it was enacted, rather than the Patriot Act of myth.

I think he's exactly right about this approach, and I'd like to suggest two reasons the Line is so popular.

First, it makes any unsuccessful law enforcement action a more sensational story. If an unsuccessful search by the FBI is the result of standard, usual law enforcement practice, most folks will give it the benefit of the doubt. The system worked for a long time, so they'll assume it's ok now. But, if the search was possible only because of a law that changed the balance between saftey and civil liberties, the issue of whether the law went too far is front and center. That's a big story. That's sensational. That sell papers and gets your story on the front page.

The other reason this Line is so popular, I fear, is that it places the blame for any civil rights abuses at the feet of the Bush administration. If the abuse results from traditional law enforcement rules, or even hightened enforcement activity, the blame question is a complex one. But, if the abuse results from the Patriot Act, and Bush passed it, it must be his fault.

I don't approve of either reason, but I hope (in vain, I'd guess) that the first reason is more common than the second.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:36 PM 0 comments

 
If you wake up without one of these, you're making a big mistake. Especially if you ever wake up before the dawn. Really, one of these will change your mornings.

But, don't make the mistake I made and replace a good one with a cheaper unit. It's just not the same.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:37 PM 0 comments

 
The Star Wars Kid. Wow.

I still haven't watched this (damn corporate firewalls!), but I can't wait to get home an see it. For those who haven't heard about him yet, the Star Wars Kid is a 15-year-old from Quebec who was goofing off at a school video studio and recorded himself fighting a two minute mock battle using a golf ball retriever as a lightsaber. He even makes his own sound effects. Some of his "friends" put the video up on the internet, and now he's famous. People have juiced up his video, and newspapers all over the world are talking about him. Here's the Toronto Star, the Age from Australia, the Guardian, the AP, and even the Raleigh News & Observer. A couple of bloggers raised $4,000 on his behalf, and there's even a petition to get him into the next Star Wars movie (which I have already signed, and suggest you do the same). Currently 64,000 people have signed it.

The pathetic part of the story, however, is that his parents have filed a lawsuit against the parents of the Kid's (that's right, Captial Letters for the Kid) "friends" for $160,000.

Star Wars Kid - AWESOME.
Star Wars Kid's parents - not awesome.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:41 AM 0 comments

 
Follow ups
First, Jonathan is right that the British claimed to have killed Chemical Ali in April, but those claims were later proven untrue.

Second, the Washington Post this morning actually carried a profile of Dick Gephardt claiming he was the really radical candidate:

At a time when many voters complain of little distinction between the two political parties, Gephardt is calling for a bigger and more activist federal government, one markedly different from the one envisioned by President Bush and by the other contenders for the Democratic nomination.

A Gephardt administration would impose higher taxes on individuals, restrict foreign trade and pick up a huge chunk of the nation's soaring health care tab. At a time of near-record deficits, Gephardt would lobby Congress to increase spending for several education programs, including a universal preschool program, and create a new energy program.

The article even features criticism of Gephardt's plans by the apparently comparatively conservative Howard Dean, who Jonathan accurately characterizes below as a classic income-redistributing democrat.

Between these guys and Lieberman's problems, I am starting to share Jonathan's optimism for a 49-state landslide.
- posted by Anonymous @ 11:00 AM 0 comments

 
Didn't they British claim to have kiled this Chemical Ali guy down in southern Iraq during the war? Am I remembering this right.


- posted by Anonymous @ 10:42 AM 0 comments

 
Possible fate of "Chemical Ali"

US troops have captured Ali Hassan Majeed, one of Saddam Husseins most trusted and brutal aides. He earned international infamy and the nickname "Chemical Ali" for brutal gas attacks on Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. There's a lot of debate about what to do with the captured members of Saddam's regime, but the Iraqis seem pretty clear on what they want:

Laith Zuheir, a 25-year-old worker, said he wanted a public trial of Majeed, then his execution.
"I wish I could torture him with my own hands, shoot him with a pistol, beginning in his leg until I reached his head, so that he could feel the pain of every innocent person he killed," he said. "Then he would see how they suffered."

- posted by Anonymous @ 9:55 AM 0 comments

 
Please go to opinionjournal.com and read Howard Dean's column today (sorry I don't have the fancy software to provide a link). Here is the money quote that has to scare the crap out of sober democrats:

"I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it."

There are many falacies in his base assumption that repeal of the tax cuts (read tax increase) will lead to more revenue, but aside from that, this is an open declaration of tax increases for redistribution. Forget about that clause about "invest in the nation's infrastructure." That is a throw away line so devoid of meaning it needs no comment. But the last sentence is pure soak the rich rhetoric.

This is good stuff, here. I am starting to think we might be looking at the Democratic nominee and also starting to have visions of an 49-state general election landslide dance around in my head. Too optimistic??????

UPDATE: Here's the link. -- Tom Sawyer
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:22 AM 0 comments

 
Blogging going commercial

People are trying to make money off blogs, reports The Economist.


- posted by Anonymous @ 5:29 PM 0 comments

 
One of the areas about which Tom claimed I would blog when he introduced me was European football. I am going to keep those to a minimum, since it is a fairly esoteric topic, but the latest events in Italy's professional leagues, which have always had a reputation for corruption, warrant a brief mention.

Like most European leagues, Italy features a system of promotion and relegation, by which teams move up and down between divisions based on their success or failure the previous year. There is lots of money to be made at the top - and much less at the bottom - so winning promotion or avoiding relegation is a huge issue. This offseason, several Serie B (second division) teams successfully went to court and blocked their relegations, compelling the league to expand from 20 to 24. A short version of the affair:

Here's what happened: on April 12 Catania had drawn a home match against Siena in which visiting team defender Martinelli had played. Martinelli had been suspended for a game two weeks before, so Siena had left him home for their following match but he had played in a reserve game and according to Italian FIGC rules (since modified) this did not amount to serving the ban, so he was ineligible to play against Catania.

Catania got their three points from a FIGC court on May 12 but the ruling was overturned a few days later so they went outside the football courts to seek justice, and in a stomach-turning succession of court decisions were promoted back and sent back down at least four times, with a circus act of judges, lawyers, politicians and other assorted types trying to put their foot in the door and grab their 15 minutes of fame.

This led to a series of other teams seeking relief in civil courts, leading the Italian socer authorities to expand the division to accommodate these teams without relegating any others. Now the rest of the teams are planning a boycott.

America is both sports crazy and famously litigious, but this is one phenomenon we have thus far luckily avoided. Although I suppose it is now only a question of time . . .

N.B.: Anyone interested in Italian football, and the passion and folly it inspires, should read Joe McGinnis' wonderful book The Miracle of Castel di Sangro, an amusing and heartbreaking account of a season spent with an overachieving team in Serie B.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:41 PM 0 comments

 
Post supports USA Patriot Act

A few days ago Tom blogged about Attorney General Ashcroft's recent vigorous defense of the USA Patriot Act. The Washington Post this morning actually defended the Act, even taking a minor swipe at Al Gore along the way.
Being that this is the Post, however, it still attacked Ashcroft for failing to keep the public and Congress informed of what Justice is up to:

In reality, the Patriot Act has become something of a repository in the public mind for wider worries about Mr. Ashcroft's Justice Department. As the attorney general barnstorms the country, he might do a little less preaching to the already converted and a little more listening to the legitimate concerns of the American public.

I agree with Tom that a debate on this law is healthy, and that the administration will likely win it. But I have to wonder whether describing Ashcroft's activities as "barnstorming" and "preaching" suggests his opponents are prepared to listen.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:34 AM 0 comments

 
My wife and I are vacationing next week in our native, and landlocked, Midwest. It may seem a little dull to those of you with more exotic vacation plans, but I can guarantee that no 40-foot, 10-ton whales will crash into us, as happened to a British family vacationing in Autralia this week. Amazingly, no one was hurt, though one vacationer was moved to say, with classic British understatement: "I was very shocked -- it was very scary."
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:10 PM 0 comments

 
Stuart Buck's blog, The Buck Stops Here has earned a spot on the blogroll, with this fisking of this horrendous New York Times editorial.

Thanks, Stuart.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 6:03 PM 0 comments

 
The future Mrs. Sawyer will be so pleased to learn that she'll no longer have to worry about picking out our wedding cake.

Taking over the world, I tell you. Taking over the world.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 3:28 PM 0 comments

 
Fox v. Franken
Oral arguments are scheduled for tomorrow in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Fox News against Al Franken for his use of the phrase "fair and balanced," which Fox has copyrighted, in his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Fox is taking a tough line:

The news channel described Franken, an author and liberal commentator, as "neither a journalist nor a television news personality. He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight."

It's hardly Lawrence v. Texas, but this has the makings of a very amusing lawsuit.
- posted by Anonymous @ 12:36 PM 0 comments

 
About time.

Ashcroft Talks Up the Patriot Act

In the first of more than a dozen speeches that he is planning over the next month, Ashcroft characterized the Patriot Act as an incremental but crucial tool in helping the Justice Department root out terrorists and prevent additional attacks.

I don't claim to understand everything about the Patriot Act, but the sky is falling crowd (that means you, ACLU. And you, Al Gore. And you, Howard Dean) lost most of its credibility after I read an article by Orwin Kerr (of Volokh Conspiracy fame) on the Patriot Act and internet surveillance. To convince me that the Patriot Act is bad news, I'll now need more than empty platidudes about civil rights. What have you guys got?

I'm glad the Attorney General is out there talking about this. I think a debate on the issue is one he'll win.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 8:47 AM 0 comments

 

Suicide Bomber Attacks Jerusalem Bus:

The Islamic Jihad group called journalists in the West Bank and claimed responsibility for the bus attack.

Tragic, but it's even worse if most Palestinians want the road map to succeed. I really don't know what most Palestinians think, but my guess is that terror groups like Islamic Jihad not only anger Israelis by trying to scuttle the peace process, but also anger those they claim to represent: the Palestinian people, many of whom, though unhappy with their plight, want the violence to end so they can start to build a life.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:17 PM 0 comments

 
One more reason not to invest in Myanmar

According to a report released in July by the Economic Freedom Network, along with the Cato Institute, among others, the top five countries for economic freedom are, in order, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The report summarizes:

The rankings of other large economies are Japan, 26; Germany, 20; Italy, 35; France, 44; Mexico, 69; China, 100; India, 73; Brazil, 82; and Russia, 112. The bottom five nations are Guinea-Bissau, Algeria, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Myanmar.

A news release and summary are availabe here, and the more complete data sets, downloadable in PDF format, are here.
- posted by Anonymous @ 3:47 PM 0 comments

 
Joseph Lieberman is angering Democrats by running right and slamming the other Democratic candidates for being too liberal. So, he's losing friends on the left, but I can't imagine he's really gaining friends on the right. In fact, comments like this just anger everybody:

"By its actions, the Bush administration threatens to give a bad name to a just war. But by their words, some in my party are sending out a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom."

One has to wonder: Does he really think he can win anything with this strategy?
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:46 AM 0 comments

 
The numbers never lie

So Charles Taylor has left Liberia, finally, and the warring factions have signed a peace deal meant to bring stability to the country, thanks in large part to a small but welcome (by the locals) American presence.

The Liberian situation is tragic on so many levels, one of which is that it was once one of the most stable African countries. But under former president Samuel Doe, who ruled from 1980-97, GDP per head fell by an astounding 76% overall, from over $800 to a low of well under $50, according to this article.

I've seen all kinds of pictures and reports from Liberia, most far more emotional than these dry economic figures. But this captures perhaps most starkly the devestation there, and what it must be like for average Liberians trying to live on 24% (or so) of their 1980 incomes.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:38 AM 0 comments

 
Garrison Keillor has written a new book, Love Me, about a Midwestern novelist turned New York advice columnist, who learns that maybe the big city isn't all it's cracked up to be. Here, from the Washington Post, is our hero, in New York, struggling with writers block:

Unable to write so much as a single decent paragraph, Larry sits down and compiles a list of answers to the question 'Why do I write?' 'Am otherwise unemployable,' he acknowledges, adding, moreover, that he hopes to please his old English teacher and impress women.

That, and the Post's comparison of the novel to the funniest book I've ever read, Lucky Jim, has earned Love Me a spot on my Amazon.com wishlist.

Anyone feeling generous?
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:37 PM 0 comments

 
American imperialism?

An interesting essay from The Economist this week on whether America's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq constitute a new form of imperialism, and whether, if true, this would be a good thing. The article casts our actions as a kind of limited imperialism, not likely to last overly long in either place, and assuming this comes true, argues it would be a good thing. It is careful to point out, however, that "not lasting overly long" does not mean immediate or easy:

In other words, running colonies collectively as an empire requires the intention of either continuous control or, more likely, some sort of transformation, which is where state-building comes in, ideally laced with a bit of missionary zeal. The thrills of empire are not those of the one-night stand.

This is, it seems to me, a powerful point, and it captures the central tension of American policy in Iraq, where troubles outweigh successes, if we're to believe The Washington Post. I am still hopeful that The Economist has this one right, and that we'll have the stamina to see out a successful transition and leave the country far better than we found it.

Of course, if we left right now, we'd probably have achieved that goal.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:29 PM 0 comments

 
Breaking News

In response to Bag and Baggage's comments on my co-bloggers' (ahem) participation in the blog, and in order to stregthen our coverage in the areas of tax law, the church and religion, European football, and all things midwestern, I am happy to announce that MSR will be joining us as a guest blogger for the next few weeks. MSR is a government trial lawyer in DC with upper midwestern roots, and, until this promotion, had been a frequent Remove All Doubt reader. We are very hopeful that MSR will find blogging as enjoyable as whitewashing a fence, and will stick around after his trial period.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:56 AM 0 comments

 
Former NATO Chief Might Run for President. When does he have to declare he's a candidate for Vice President?
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:34 AM 0 comments

 
Pravda's fair and balanced reporting(TM):

For Bush, Loss of Jobs May Erode Support in South Carolina.

The author found 2 South Carolina Republicans who were considering not voting for the President, learned a textile manufacturing group is lobbying the White House for protectionist trade regulation, and pestered an academic to say its possible Bush could lose. That's a news story? Is this really any different than FoxNews?
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:32 AM 0 comments

 
There was a ridiculous story on NPR yesterday morning about some congressional staffer who has decided to "translate" the U.S. Constitution into more easily understandable English. A few points here. First the U.S. Constitution is a triumph in clarity (at least until certain judges get their hands on it). It is short, to the point and, most importantly, limited in its goals. The Constitution just wasn't meant to do too much when it came to the details. Provide the broad rules and then let the process go. Second, "translating" the Constitution to me seems like another word for redefining the words to suit ones view. Take, for example, the second amendment. To my eyes it is carefully worded to acknowledge a preexisting right to keep and bear arms, and noting that because of the need for a well regulated militia, that right will not be infringed. My guess is that this staffer might "translate" this passage into something similar to the position of the gun control advocates who maintain that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to the militia.

Finally -- and this is the best part -- the interviewer in this story pointed out the fact that the Hill staffer had discovered what was referred to as a "dirty little secret" in the Constitution. Namely Aricle I Section 9, which forbade Congress from outlawing importation of slaves until 1808. Certainly nobody is proud of this section of the Constitution, but we were dealing with the political reality of creating a union of slave-owning vs. free states. The sad part of the NPR story is that this staffer and it seemed the interviewer were shocked by the existence of this clause. All this tells me is that one of our citizens managed to make it through high school, college and then get a job working for the legislative branch (governed by Article I of the Constitution) ignorant of this part of the Constitution which was one of the compromises need to forge the union. Proud moment.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:25 PM 0 comments

 
My co-bloggers called out by Bag and Baggage. For the record, blogging is more fun than whitewashing a fence. Really.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:47 PM 0 comments

 
Once again, America's brazen unilateralism rears its ugly head:

'We love you people!' said Famata Hassan, peering from a rise toward about 60 Marines who had just arrived by helicopter at the city's idled seaport.

The French must be furious.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:41 PM 0 comments

 
Not since the Treaty of Versailles . . .

I recently read an argument that conspiracy theories thrive where people feel powerless. If so, Germany may be in trouble. The Washington Post reports this story, about the trial of Abdelghani Mzoudi, a 30-year-old Moroccan student, who has been charged in Germany with providing critical logistical support to the 9/11 attacks. His defense attorney apparently thinks this will resonate:

The defense said further that it might attempt to explore theories that the hijackings served the foreign policy goals of U.S. conservatives by creating a pretext to transform the U.S. military posture in the world. 'It appears the U.S.A. was aware of the political advantages of the attack on the World Trade Center, as an idea, in advance,' defense attorney Michael Rosenthal said.

Bill Kristol bombed the twin towers. Riiiiiigghhht.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:52 AM 0 comments

 
I had not been too concerned with the intersection of terrorism and the sea until this week when I read a fascinating article, available, sadly, only in the print edition of the most interesting magazine in the world. Now, I see the threat everwhere. Most recently here, from the Washington Post:

The results of India's investigation, shared among a small circle of intelligence and defense analysts, offer an extraordinary glimpse into the shadowy world of weapons proliferation, in which missile parts and bomb materials circle the globe undetected, secreted away in cargo containers and suitcases, concealed by phony ship manifests and fictitious company names, eluding customs agents and defying international treaties.

The near complete lack of regulation of ocean shipping is troubling, to say the least. To take one example, the article I mention above discusses how an entire freighter, carrying thousands of tons of aluminum, was stolen by pirates. That's right. Pirates. And I don't mean this kind. If they can steal something that big, how hard can it be to sneak something small into the country?

Thank goodness for the recent good news on the terrorism front, which really has made me feel better.

UPDATE: More about pirates here, and here. Apparently, this is a serious problem.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:41 PM 0 comments

 
The New Republic has an excellent discussion of the the problems created by the Federal-State Tax Switcheroo:

Ever since World War II, the nation's governors, Republican and Democrat alike, have relied on a bookkeeping switcheroo in which Congress taxes Americans (that is, residents of states) at a higher rate than the federal budget actually requires and then sends some of the revenue back to states.

The article addresses the current debate about whether the federal government should be sending more money to the states, but, more importantly, it draws attention to the systematic problems the switcheroo creates -- most importantly, in my view, that it distorts democracy:

This arrangement allows governors to denounce the big spenders in Washington while simultaneously relying on the big spenders in Washington to keep state budgets in the black. It also allows state income taxes and other local levies to be artificially lower than if they reflected the true cost of state spending, while focusing voter rage on a federal tax line that is artificially high.

Definitely worth reading.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:20 PM 0 comments

 
If Lawyers Didn't Exist, We'd Have to Invent Them

Lawyers are none too popular, and there is a perception that there are way too many of us. But, I think the recent decision by the Episcopal Church to approve blessings of same sex unions or to recognize that such blessings take place (depending on who you ask), is a good example of why those positions are off base. This NYT article shows that problems of complexity and communication are just part of our heterogeneous culture. Note how similar the issues facing the Church in this context are to common public law issues. The Church voted to allow each Bishop to decicde whether to allow blessings of gay unions. That decision was partially driven by concerns similar to those that animate federalism debates. And, the debate in this article about what exactly the Church's decision means is reminiscent of a statutory interpretation disagreement. The Bishops sound eerily like Congressmen who have bartered for language vague enough to allow both sides to claim victory.

These problems come up everywhere in our society. Lawyers didn't create the conflict in the Episcopal Church, and they don't create the conflicts in many other contexts (although I will admit, they do in some places). But, in order to work out these problems, you need people who have thought about not just the substance of the problem, but also the procedure necessary to solve the problem. That's what lawyers do, and that's why, if we didn't have them, we'd have to invent them.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:16 AM 0 comments

 
What is this guy talking about?

Modernism a beneficiary of war in Iraq

The grand modernist-postmodernist coalition is, then, the result of a friendly takeover, in which Derrida remains the CEO of a substantial minority interest.

Once I learned that reporters often don't understand the substance of what they write about, I began to see evidence of it all around me. This is a perfect example.

I'm no philosopher, but even I can tell this is hogwash. No self described "post-modern" believes that one's epistemology dictates one's politics. That sort of rationalism is the antithesis of "post-modernism." Thus, the "post-modern" professors mentioned in this article would not be at all suprised to discover that, on foreign policy issues, they agree with the "modern" professors mentioned in this article. And they certianly wouldn't admit that their political agreement is evidence that the "moderns" were right about epistimology.

So, to summarize, this article fills us in on this fact: some left-leaning mostly-european "post-modern" professors agree with some left-leaning mostly-european "modern" professors that European foreign policy is better than American foreign policy.

This guy gets paid for this?
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 2:02 PM 0 comments

 
Hmmm. A horribly disappointed visitor recently found us here at Remove All Doubt because MSN Search recommended us as the 11th best site to learn about "norwegian chicks." Unless someone here has some expertise I'm not aware of, I think MSN needs to improve its search engine
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:42 PM 0 comments

 
Arnold is running for Governor or California. There is sure to be lots of commentary on Schwarzenegger as the Running Man (groan), but I wonder if his candidicy is helpful for Republicans. By running, he kept former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, another moderate Republican, out of the race, and polls have shown that Riordan would be a stronger candidate than Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger may also hurt the Republicans in another way. He is less likely than Riordan to scare other Republicans out of the race. That's important because of the recent decision of Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, who chose to run for Governor as a Democrat. Bustamante's decision makes presenting a unified front crucial for the Republicans because of the way the balloting works for the recall election. As I understand it, the ballot will consists of two questions: (1) Should Davis be recalled, and (2) Who should replace him. If no Democrat declared, then as many Republicans could run as wanted to, and, as long as Davis was recalled, the party would be sure to win. In that situation, in fact, the more the merrier, because each candidate might bring out more votes to vote against Davis. However, now that Bustamante will be in the mix for question (2), a split Republican vote might allow him to win, and cost the Republicans the election.

Who knows, though. Regan did better than anyone expected, why not Arnold?

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:36 AM 0 comments

 
Krispy Kreme is taking over the world.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:53 AM 0 comments

 
The Washington Post has a new publication, the Washington Post Express. I'm a fan. It's almost devoid of substance, mindless, and uninformative. But, it's also free, easy to pick up, and just long enough to keep me busy on my commute.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:06 AM 0 comments

 
Just watched Braveheart this weekend. Its a good flick, no doubt, but it could be so much better without the awful historical inaccuracies. For example, that atrocious mention of Prima Noce is an invention of Hollywood. As is the story of Robert Bruce taking the wrong side at the Battle of Falkirk, where Edward I defeated Wallace and the Scots. Bruce was nearby, but he was definately not helping the English. After the battle, he burned the town of Ayr in order to deny it to the English as they returned south.

What makes these inaccuracies so tragic is that there is more than enough truth to make the movie great. Much of the Bravehart story is true. William Wallace really was a hero of Scottish Independence. Despite his relatively low rank as the son of a knight, he led a fierce and determined struggle against the English, remaining unwilling to compromise even when Scotland's more powerful nobles were ready for peace. Edward I really was a son of a bitch to the Scots. In 1296, for example, he destoyed the Scottish town of Berwick. This is a contemporary report:

When the town had been taken in this way and its citizens had submitted, Edward spared no one, whatever the age or sex, and for two days streams of blood flowed from the bodies of the slain, for in his tyrannous rage he ordered 7,500 souls of both sexes to be massacred...So that mills could be turned round by the flow of their blood.

With acts like that, I have no idea why Hollywood decided it needed that stupid Prima Noce thing.

There is a lot of truth in the other characters, too, even if its not strictly accurate. Although Robert Bruce did not switch sides at Falkirk, he did, often, switch sides; for example Bruce supported Edward I's 1296 invasion of Scotland, the invasion that led to the massacre at Berwick. In addition, Edward II really was a dandy with an unusally intimate male companion named Piers Gaveston, and he really was later deposed by his Queen, Queen Isabella of France, in favor of their son, Edward III. Isabella also also really did take a lover, although it wasn't William Wallace, but a noble named Roger Mortimer.

Tragic really. Why not be dramatic and accurate?

I'm also not sure what this means for Mel Gibson's new movie about Jesus's life, Passion, but its likely not good.

Two quick asides. The first is a story about Wallace not depicted in the movie: during the Battle of Stirling, the Scots killed England's hated Treasurer, Hugh Cressingham. Wallace, not content to merely have him killed, made a sword belt out of his dead skin. More than a bit creepy, if you ask me.

Second, led by Robert Bruce, the Scots won their independence at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, almost 700 years ago. Yet, the Scots are still clinging to it. Every time they play the English in rugby, they sing The Flower of Scotland:

O Flower of Scotland
When will we see
Your like again,
That fought and died for
Your wee bit of hill and glen
And stood against him (‘gainst who?!)
Proud Edward's army,
And sent him homeward
Tae think again

Let it go, guys. If your last big win over the English was 700 years ago, maybe you shouldn't be drawing attention to it.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:31 PM 0 comments

 
An interesting criticism of the left's argument against the Iraq War by a self-identified leftist:

Why this miserable response? In a nutshell, it was a displacement of the left's most fundamental values by a misguided strategic choice, namely, opposition to the U.S., come what may.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:55 AM 0 comments

 
Is this really news?

Aug. 3, 2003 | CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush got a chance to renew his favorite vacation pastimes on a hot, hazy Sunday at his ranch. He took a walk, cleared brush and went fishing.
The temperature was climbing toward the high 90s through the afternoon, the National Weather Service said.

I mean, really. That's not People magazine, folks. Its the AP.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:46 AM 0 comments

 
An interesting take on Lance Armstrong:

"'Why do you do it?' I asked him once. 'What's the pleasure in riding a bike up a mountain for six hours?'
'I don't understand the question,' he said.
'Well, there has to be some pleasure in it,' I said. 'I mean, your back hurts, your neck hurts, your butt hurts. What's the payoff?'
'I still don't understand the question.'
I went away baffled -- and convinced that unless I could get him to talk to me on the subject, I'd never understand him. After a couple of days of thought, I realized I'd been asking the entirely wrong question.
'You don't do it for the pleasure,' I said. 'You do it for the pain.'
'That's exactly right,' he said."
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:32 PM 0 comments

 
FYI, America's pastime, despite what everyone says, remains baseball (see page 10). In 2000, approximately 74 million people attended a major league baseball game. Football is second - college football 39 million, pro football 21 million. Basketball is third - college basketball 29 million, pro basketball 21 million. Hockey, a distant fourth - 18 million. No numbers for Nascar, but I'm betting it would beat hockey.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:17 PM 0 comments

 
A law review title available only to those with tenure: Equal Protection, My Ass!
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 2:31 PM 0 comments