Perspective

An article reviewing the official opening of Northcom, the anti-terrorism headquarters, contained this striking quote:

We must continue to refine our operations and wonder what the terrorists thought of that we haven't,' [the Northcom spokesman] said. 'I draw the analogy of the Cold War. It was a war of decades, not a war of years. It will take the same commitment we had in the Cold War to win this war.'

That attitude is why I'm not quite as disheartened as MSR by the recent bad news in Iraq. There's no denying all is not rosy is Iraq, but in my view we're unquestionably moving in the right direction.

There were lots of reasons to go into Iraq, many mentioned in the President's 2003 State of the Union Address. But to me, this is the most important:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

It is the nexus between WMD and terrorists dedicated to killing as many people as possible that is our largest threat. Such an attack is America's Achillies heel. A WMD attack would not only cost lives, it would have other devestating effects. If you think Ashcroft is a threat to civil liberties now, imagine what would happen after a biological attack, or, heaven forbid, a nuclear attack.

If the attack on Iraq did nothing else, it eliminated the threat that Hussein would provide such weapons to terrorists. Hussein may not have been closely allied with Al Queda, but his actions proved two things: (1) he had consistently tried to develop WMD and (2) he led a renegade government, willing to flout the direct commands of the international community. The failure to find WMD in Iraq doesn't change either of those facts, and thus doesn't change the calculus: Iraq was a very real - if not imminent - threat to provide WMD to Al Queda. Removing that threat was the right thing to do. The recent bad news in Iraq doesn't change that.

Of course, I hope that we're able to do far more than remove that threat, like create a stable, liberal, functioning democracy in the Middle East. I think we will, but even these loftier goals require us to think longer term. Like the War on Terror, rebuilding Iraq will take place over years, or more likely decades, not months. Think Japan after World War II, or Bosnia, or even Kosovo today, where 22,000 U.S. and U.N. troops still remain. Its those efforts, not Vietnam, that are analgous to the situation here. Like we did with Japan, if we stay committed, we'll get to where we want to go. But we'll do it the only way we can: one step at a time.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:36 PM 1 comments

 
Quick, seal the borders

Washington post columnist E.J. Dionne weighs in today with an anti-globalization screed titled "Gone With Globalizaion." In it, he posits that "the overwhelming support for free trade and globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a prejudice rooted in their own self-interest than a matter of high principle," and while he ostensible softens that harsh view, he never really strays from it. In fact, he is arguing straight from the anti-globalization playbook, arguing that gloablization has led directly to a loss of manufacturing jobs in America which has led directly to a decline in family incomes.

He recognizes that others, including those who know what the heck they're talking about, disagree, but that does not slow him down:

The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a "lagging" indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up again. But will it? Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to China and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many of our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?

As previous blogs show, I am obviously a free trader/pro-globalization sort myself, and I have difficulty knowing even where to begin with this sort of stuff, so I'll limit myself to one observation (and leave aside his complaint (!) about rising productivity). It has become a left-wing bromide that the Bush administration's problems in iraq all stem from a shunning of the international community. Dionne himself has recently taken this view here and here. So, on some international matters, we're supposed to be multilateralists, suborning American interests to those of the international community. But then on trade, we're supposed to be insular and closed off, because we need to prevent those jobs from going to - and providing food for - the people of (to use an example from the quote above) - China. We're supposed to ignore the good that free trade would actually do for the world's poor, as explained (just for a few examples), here and here.

Is it really evident that it is the free traders who have "prejudice rooted in their own self-interest"?
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:47 AM 0 comments

 
Tough day

Lots of bad news from and on Iraq today. According to the New York Times (reprinted by Yahoo!), some Iraqi defectors provided "worthless" information about the Hussein regime. According to the report,

several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said.

And of course, we have the White House scrambling to defend itself from accusations that some staffers leaked a spy's name to discredit her and her husband.

That's all disheartening news, at a time when the the news out of Iraq itself is generally bad enough. The Post also reports today that the Iraqis don't like us as much as recent polls (I blogged about them here) said they did, and they apparently don't like each other much, either.

For those who have been broadly supportive of the Iraq war - as both I personally and Remove All Doubt generally have been - this is all terribly depressing (at least for me; I can't speak for other Remvoe All Doubt correspondents). I still think the war was right, and I remain hopeful for the future, but one has to be honest and admit that things are looking ugly on several levels now. Some good news would not go amiss at the moment.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:26 PM 1 comments

 
Amazing

A Kenyan has run a new marathon record of 2:04:55. It is almost impossible for me to believe he did that. I am going to run my first marathon in a few weeks (wish me luck), and I would be hugely thrilled if I finished in double this guy's time. In fact, I ran 14 miles yesterday in almost the same time in which he did more than 26. Apparently, I have quite a bit of work to do . . .
- posted by Anonymous @ 7:17 PM 0 comments

 
Monsieur, ont une vie*

Now and again, I like to point to websites or stories which help to remind you of the quality of us here at Remove All Doubt (see, e.g, What really Happened. Thus, I am thrilled to bring you this story about a French group which has produced a deck of playing cards, like those of Iraqi leaders produced by the Pentagon, of "dangerous" American officials. You can see the cards, in all their glory, here.

The leader of the group that made the cards is, according to the AP, "the author of a one-time French best seller, '9-11: The Big Lie,' claiming that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, and that the attacks were plotted by a faction within the U.S. military." This book can actually be had at amazon.com, where it has received one glowing review.

Bartender, please - a stiff drink, a make it a double.

* Babelfish, the only internet translator I really trust, gave me this as a translation of "Sir, get a life." Sorry if it should be a more nuanced - the translator is a fairly blunt tool (although not as blunt as this Cockney Rhyming Slang translator).
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:46 PM 0 comments

 
This's gotta hurt.

I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote.

-- Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11.

Ouch. As MSR has just pointed out, much of Clark's credibility rests on his perceived military competence. Apparently not everyone is satisfied that he's all that competent.

Tip o' the hat to Andrew Sullivan.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:34 AM 0 comments

 
"Look ma, I can tie my shoes"

Time for a quick blog about former general Wesley Clark, the newest Democratic candidate, poster boy, and former general. The former general, who is a former general, has thus far run on a platform consisting mainly of saying, over and over again, "I'm a former general." Somehow, this has brought him absurdly high approval ratings from Democrats and Americans generally (some polls give him a higher overall approval rating than the president). He has also mobilized the Clinton wing of the party, bringing along with him some of their top people (insert your own joke here).

Last night he took place in his first real life, grown up debate (although since he was matching wits, as it were, with Dean, Kerry, et al, it's not like he was playing the varsity). This is how the Post described his performance, in its charmingly non-ironic way:

He looked comfortable on the stage and in front of the cameras, and came armed with some good lines. Speaking about the economy, Clark said, "I've got a better jobs program in eight days than George Bush had in three years." But through much of the debate, he was, like the rest, a bystander to action somewhere else on stage.

Now, I am trying to be charitable. He is obviously a bright guy, and he just got in the race. But if the best the guy currently leading the Democratic polls can do is look comfortable on stage and memorize a few lines, surely the Democrats are running on fumes with the current candidates.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:40 AM 0 comments

 
You can't make this stuff up

The Post reports, briefly, that French scientists have become the first to clone a rat. My cup runneth over with potential jokes - so many that I can't bring myself to choose one here - so I simply encourage you all to make some yourself, perhaps as a way to spend more time with your families.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:35 AM 0 comments

 
Better Late Than Never

I'm pleased to see that Congress can act quickly when it needs to: House Approves Do-Not-Call Legislation
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:48 PM 0 comments

 
Of all the dating reality shows, the Bachelor is definitely the classiest . . . .

Or at least that's what Becky told me at lunch today. While flipping channels last night, she was completely sucked in by the opening episode. That intrigued me. Becky is, after all, reknown for her extraordinary good taste (especially in men) and is the proud holder of a women's studies minor. I don't claim to speak for her (that's dangerous - like I said, she has a women's studies minor), but, this review seems to me to touch both the beauty and horror of the show:

One of the highlights of the show was after the rose ceremony when Heather hysterically cried over being rejected. While sobbing, Heather said she had never truly been rejected
"I'm just so, I thought Bob [the Bachelor] was so cute. I thought he might be the one for me," she said. "I have never truly gotten my heart broken and to get it heart broken on national TV. Why did this have to happen to me?"

As Becky pointed out, there is certainly something interesting about that - namely, is Heather for real? She attended one party with the guy, and now she's sobbing because "he might be the one"?? Heather, honey, you've got some pretty serious emotional issues.

On the other hand, however, it's a bit horrifying that the "highlight of the show" is applying the zoom lens to the emotional issues of a obivously fragile person. Heather is, after all, a real a human being, even if her reactions are pretty unreal.

So what does all this mean, other than I'll have to find someone else to join me for Wednesday night adventures? I come down here: I don't begrudge anyone their entertainment, and all these folks volunteered to be on the show, but, Aunt Sally always told me its not nice to make fun of the freaks, so I'd just as soon leave them alone.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:01 PM 0 comments

 
Monkeys have a "highly developed sense of fairness"

Apparently, some female capuchin monkeys have been trained to exchange tokens for food, and they even get angry when they know that other monkeys are exchanging the same number of tokens for better food. Really - I couldn't make this up if I wanted to. The researchers have inferred that this behavior developed so that individual monkeys in a group can show their fellow monkeys that they believe they're being treated unfairly.

The implications of this behavior for humans remain untested, but those of us who favor prices being set by transparent markets might draw some comfort from it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:21 AM 0 comments

 
A veritable avalanche of posts this morning. Everyone got their coffee, I guess. To keep the ball rolling without getting fired for just blogging, I'll point you to an interesting editoral in the NYT, Democracy, Closer Every Day by Noah Feldman.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:21 AM 0 comments

 
Leadership Qualifications

Today's Washington Post contains this editorial, apparently misplaced in the news section, criticizing the US reconstruction in Iraq, and arguing that U.N. participation in the rebuilding is necessary. It also contained this information:

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is considering ordering the total withdrawal of U.N. personnel from Iraq, a step recommended by his top political and security advisers after two bombing attacks against the world body in Baghdad over the past month, according to U.N. and U.S. officials.

If the UN lacks the toughness to stomach two bombings, exactly what kind of leader would it be in Iraq?

The most important thing to do in Iraq is to get it right. If we have to do that with the current coalition and no one else, that's what we have to do.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 8:56 AM 0 comments

 
Painful to Watch

I didn't watch the entire California debate last night (it was just too painful), but I did watch enough to decide that the Terminator should be the one getting the push from republicans to get out of the race. McClintock(sp?) sounded like he was right thinking on just about all the policy issues that matter to me. Of course I worry about how socially conservative he is, but the broad trend of history prevents views like that from making too much difference. I think he will have enough to occupy him be concentrating on taxes and budget cutting.


- posted by Anonymous @ 8:49 AM 0 comments

 
Bush, Iraq, and popularity

In the next to last paragraph story entitled NBC Office In Baghdad Is Bombed, which appears deep into the front section and does not make the top page of its website, the Washington Post reports this bit of news:

A Gallup poll of 1,178 Baghdad adults offered a rare scientific sampling of popular sentiment here. The poll, conducted Aug. 28 through Sept. 4, found that 62 percent of those responding said removing Hussein was worth the hardships that have followed. About half said the country was worse off than before the U.S. invasion, but two-thirds said they believed Iraq would be better off in five years than it was before the war.

One might think this would get more prominent billing, given that it suggests that Iraqis have a more positive view of events than is commonly credited. In fact, if one assumes that those who favored removing Saddam Hussein thereby implicitly approve of President Bush, his approval rating among Iraqis is higher than it is among Americans. Of course, with the Democrats now firmly locked into attacks against each other, see especially the Gephardt attack site www.deanfacts.com, that number may change soon enough.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:17 AM 0 comments

 
Democracy:
Sometimes, the worst form of government except for all the rest.
Other times, just the worst.

The Washington Post reports here that a District Court has stopped the FTC's "Do Not Call Registry" because one of those sharp tacks over in Congress crossed his Is and dotted his Ts:

Although Congress gave the agency funding to run the list, it did not give the FTC specific authority to implement the list

Um, guys . . . . Duh.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 12:17 PM 0 comments

 
The Bush Speech

I have read several articles and seen a few talking heads repeating the mantra that the Bush speech at the UN was intended for a domestic audience in the United States instead of the the assembled foreign dignitaries at the UN. According to the NYT Bush painted a "Panglosian" portrait of the situation in Iraq for consumption by the, presumably, easily fooled American public. Besides the fact that very few people (even NYT readers) are familiar enough with Voltaire to know what the hell the NYT is talking about, this theme is basically that unless Bush was going to the UN to grovel, he had nothing constructive to say to the Assembly. Rubbish!

Bush told them what he told them before. We did what needed to be done and we continue to do what needs to be done. We wanted your help then (didn't get and shame on you for it) and we want it now (we expect to get it, but we are not holding our breath). The NYT and sundry other commentators who still insist that we never tried to bring the UN along in the first place were hoping for a self flagellation on the part of the Bush administration for the whole world to see. Anything less is portrayed as more arrogance of the Bush administration.

It is the point of view of those who believe we were wrong all along and now it is time for apologies. It does not occur to them that we were right, are right and that continued obstinance of the UN to live up to its responsibilities does not reflect poorly on us but on them.


- posted by Anonymous @ 11:11 AM 0 comments

 
Know Thyself

Hockey fans will love this profile of Mel Angelstad, a career minor leaguer in the Washington Capitals farm system. He knows he'll never make the NHL, but he hangs around, doing his job, which consists mainly of fighting other teams' tough guys to protect the Caps' future superstars. This might seem pathetic if he didn't have such a finely-honed sense of self:

"One thing I know about myself is my ambition far exceeds my talent," Angelstad said. "So I'm happy to have gotten where I am, and I knew early on that I would have to take the role of a fighter if I wanted to play this game professionally. I was willing to do it and it allowed me to find a life for myself in hockey."

"My ambition far exceeds my talent" - what a great thing to know about yourself. I can only hope this guy ends up like the hero in the late Warren Zevon's "Hit Somebody":

In his final season on his final night
Buddy and a Finn whom were pegged for a fight
30 seconds left and the puck took a roll
And suddenly
Buddy had a shot on goal
The goalie committed
But he picked his spot
20 years of waiting went into that shot
The fans jumped up
And the Finn jumped to
He cold cocked Buddy on his follow through
The big man crumbled
But he felt alright
'Cause the last thing he saw was the flashing red light
he saw that heavenly light
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:10 AM 0 comments

 
Democrats deride special interests; promise union members unicorns for their children

In another of its wonderrful, nonironic juxtapositions today, the Washington Post ran the following two stories:

1. "Dean Sharpens Rhetoric on Bush", in which that august personage is quoted as saying, among other pithy bits of down home wisdom, that his supporters should

"lead a modern-day grass-roots campaign to oust the president by pointing to the Revolution as a comparison. 'A King George, who had forgotten his own people in favor of special interests, was replaced by a government of, by and for the people,' he said.

The article contains similar claims by Edwards and others.

2. "Democratic Hopefuls Cool on Free Trade". And why are they cool, you might ask? Because free trade supposedly hurts unions, of course. And the article notes that both Dean and Edwards, among others, wants to "reopen" NAFTA and require Mexico to impose the same labor standards as American companies.

Now, I understand that complaining that the current government is beholden to special interests is part of what all candidates do. And I also understand that promising programs to help your base is an equally important part of the political playbook. But something about this is so unseemly, given that unions are the single most important special interest to whom the Democrats are beholden, and promises to "reopen" NAFTA are just shamleless sops to them.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:49 AM 0 comments

 
En banc Ninth Circuit rules California recall will go ahead next month

Read the opinion here. Of particular note are the two sentences with which the Court disposed of the Bush v. Gore/equal protection issue:

In Bush v. Gore, the leading case on disputed elections, the court specifically noted: “The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections.” 531 U.S. at 109. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the plaintiffs have not established a clear probability of success on the merits of their equal protection claim.

Short, sweet, and right.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:30 PM 0 comments

 
Iran to "scale back" cooperation with UN nuclear regulators

Iran has announced it will "scale back" its cooperation with the UN's nuclear watchdog in response to a deadline of October 31 set for its full compliance. Very few people believe Iran's claims that it wants nuclear technology only for energy, not the Washington Post, not The Economist, and certainly not your humble correspondent. The evidence suggests that the uranium they have has been enriched beyond the point required solely for energy, and Iran has other, less costly energy resources.

So what's to blame? Why, we are, of course. At least according to The Guardian:

The Bush administration's ham-fisted, provocative policies, deeply hypocritical in terms of its own nuclear arms and its neglected NPT disarmament obligations, make proliferation more, not less likely, not only in Iran but also in states like North Korea. Given Iraq's fate, what confidence can Iran have that any level of UN inspection will satisfy the US? Or that Washington will ever soften its overtly hostile stance?

It is hard to know where to start with this sort of drivel, but let me offer just one thought to our friends across the sea: Iran is out of compliance with the UN nuclear apparatus, not any unilateral US apparatus. The English left pilloried Blair and the US for working without the UN in Iraq; now Iran flounts the UN and we get blamed. Ah, the easy intellectual life of an angry European liberal - there's no need to analyze anything, because everything is the United States' fault. To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, they're like a cook with one recipe: toss the salad, toss the steak, toss the dessert . . .
- posted by Anonymous @ 6:54 PM 0 comments

 
American Toys for Iraqi Tots

A great idea from Chief Wiggles, an American soldier in Iraq.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 6:24 PM 0 comments

 
The most thoughtful consideration of the furor over Mel Gibson's movie, Passion, that I've read.

In the interest of disrupting the already-off-on-the-wrong-foot public discussion of Gibson's movie—and with curiosity about whether I can alienate both my Christian and Jewish relatives in one article—I propose the following

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:08 PM 0 comments

 
Interrogation News

There is some good news trickling out about the interrogations of Al Queda operatives. I must admit that I really want to believe news like this, but I remain a bit skeptical that we're getting anything like the full picture. As Mark Bowden pointed out in the September issue of the most interesting magazine in the world, our government has a lot of incentives to misrepresent the information they get from interrogations. There are, of course, domestic political concerns, but there are also practical issues as well. For example, relevations that people are cooperating will lower the spirits of Al Queda operatives, but may also encourage them to change their plans, making it harder to catch them. This article, unfortunately, gives us very little information that we can use to evaluate how reliable these reports are. All we know is the information came from "interrogation reports." We don't know what interrogation reports, who provided them, or even who did the interrogating.

So, the problem is, Mohammed could be completely uncooperative and those reports could all be nothing but dishonesty. But, we can still hope for the best. I'm hoping all this information is true, but that we're getting lots more that the goverment has decided not to share.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 12:22 PM 0 comments

 
Farm tade redux

Not long ago I blogged about the insane direct subsidies and other trade distorting subsidies parceled out on US farmers. Shortly thereafter, the Doha round of WTO negotiations held in Cancun, Mexico, crumbled, leaving virtually everyone involved, rich and poor, looking like greedy jackals (The Economist's cover captures the spirit exactly).

Still, even I will concede that the issue is complicated, and cases can be made for farm subsidies. But surely this is the worst example of a farm price support system ever:

It cost the U.S. Department of Agriculture $661 million and is fit for nothing but the trash heap. And that is where 121,000 tons of fragrant but poor quality tobacco is heading, after sitting in warehouses for four years.

The government bought the stuff to "save" farmers after a bad crop year, and now it just has to trash it. Why not just send them all checks and save the destruction costs?
- posted by Anonymous @ 11:34 AM 0 comments

 
Howard Kurtz, in his Media Notes summarizes the response of the press to Clark's decision to run for President. I suppose that kind of response is bad news for Clark, but, its worth considering that most, if not all, of the writers criticizing Clark now thought our current President was a dolt all through the 2000 campaign. And look how that worked out.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:53 AM 0 comments

 
Live free or die!

According to this story, it looks like New Hampshire (whose state motto is set forth above) will win the Free State election, which will theoretically lead to 20,000 libertarian types moving there and influencing policy. Other finalists included Wyoming, Alaska, Delaware, and North Dakota. See the website for official results.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:58 AM 0 comments

 
Guns and a salad bar

The Washington post (which was delivered on time throughout the hurricane, by the way), has a great story in its this week's magazine about North Dakota, my home state. It's actually a very good story, focusing on rapidly decaying small town prairie churches. But like all stories about North Dakota by non-midwesterners, it is filled with a kind a good-hearted amazement that the place exists at all and wonderment at the quirks of life there. My favorite example of this wonderment from this article is easily this:

he red scoria ended up back on pavement near Amidon, population 24, the Slope County seat and the smallest county seat in America. Amidon is big enough, however, to have a wonderful, quirky restaurant in an old filling station called Georgia's and the Owl. There we ate delicious chicken-fried steak, blackened filet and an amazing venison burgundy stew. To enter the dining room (which is decorated with, among other things, mannequins dressed in Victorian garb) you had to pass through a smoky room full of hunters in camouflage and blaze orange. The salad bar was situated next to a table that was piled high with rifles.

I can see it now.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:29 PM 3 comments

 
Other Options

I am sitting in an office right now watching the weather get increasingly foul as hurricane Isabell roles into DC. I am waiting on comments on a short document delivered to a partner hours ago.

Young associates quickly become accustomed to the ability of partner to ignore them until the last minute, which usually results in wasted time, high levels of stress, mistakes, late nights (that would have been unnecessary with minimal time management from superiors), a generally soul crushing experience and now, apparently, risking one's life fighting through a hurricane.

I can't wait to read next year's Vault Report on law firm. "They made stay at work until the hurricane hit," said one disillusioned associate.

I would appreciate suggestions on new career paths for a JD degree.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:25 PM 0 comments

 
The Hopeless v. the Hilarious

USA Today reported the following accusation by CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour. On a CNBC talk show, Amanpour was asked if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war." Her response:

I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti gave the accusation exactly the respect it deserved:

Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.

Indeed.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:30 PM 0 comments

 
About time

The BBC reporter who claimed the Blair government "sexed-up" its dossier on Iraq's WMD - a claim which led his confidential source, government analyst David Kelly, to kill himself - has admitted that he made mistakes. It's a pretty tepid admission:

Andrew Gilligan, testifying before a public inquiry, also acknowledged that he had failed to correct several false statements made by the BBC in defense of his reports. And Gilligan apologized for sending an e-mail message to two members of Parliament that identified the confidential source of another BBC journalist's report on Iraq's access to weapons of mass destruction.

"It was quite wrong to send it and I can only apologize," Gilligan told the inquiry, which is investigating the apparent suicide of weapons expert David Kelly, Gilligan's confidential source for his original report. "I was under an enormous amount of pressure at this time and I simply was not thinking straight."

Others have made more serious criticisms of the BBC's handling of the affair, which I won't rehash here. And it must be said that the Blair government is not emerging from the official inquiry with totally clean hands. Still, The BBC's actions were atrocious, and an apology is a good start.
- posted by Anonymous @ 3:48 PM 0 comments

 
A new study suggests that how a person sleeps can predict his or her personality traits. For example,

Fetal sleepers tend to be shy and sensitive while people who assume the soldier position, flat on their back with arms at their sides, are quiet and reserved.
Sleeping on one’s side with legs outstretched and arms down in what Idzikowski refers to as the log, indicates a social, easy-going personality. But if the arms are outstretched in the yearner position, the person tends to be more suspicious.

Oddly, the researchers have not cataloged any traits which might be revealed if one usually sleeps fully dressed, sitting at one's desk, while reading motions for summary judgment.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:24 PM 0 comments

 
Does this mean I'll get to see fewer pictures of Mia Hamm? If so, I'm against it.

UPDATE: I should also note that I attended college with Ms. Hamm. Even then it was clear she was a little different than the other players. By her senior year she had scored more goals, herself, than all of UNC's opponents had scored on Carolina, combined. She's a great representative of our Alma Mater, and all UNC grads are pretty proud that we have the best women's soccer player of all time, and the greatest basketball player of all time too.

UPDATE 2: Just to be clear, I want to confirm that while I'm a big fan of Ms. Hamm, there is no way she could replace my Becky.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:08 AM 0 comments

 
Leaving Iraq

The Bush administration has recently started calling for some UN support in Iraq, although there are lots of details to be worked out and France and others still remain unwilling to endorse UN action. One major issue is the timetable for turning over power to Iraqis, with the US unwilling to do so too quickly while some Iraqis (even our supposed friends) and others wanting it to go much faster.

Yesterday, I blogged about this topic in a general way, suggesting that the Iraqis are as yet incapabale of managing security without US help. Today, two pieces in the Washington Post agree with this view. First, the lead editorial argues that too quick a US pullout would be an error.

More trenchantly, however, Fareed Zakaria not only argues that we should stay longer, but points out the fallacy that the UN would (or should) be any quicker:

It is strange that U.N. officials argue that we must quickly move, in Kofi Annan's phrase, from "the logic of occupation" to that of Iraqi sovereignty. The United Nations has blessed and assisted in the occupation of Bosnia, where it took seven years to transfer power to the locals. It boasts of "the logic of occupation" in Kosovo, which has gone smoothly for the past four years, with no prospect of ending anytime soon. It administered tiny East Timor for two years before handing over power. Does Kofi Annan really think that what took seven years in Bosnia can take one year in Iraq, with six times as many people?

Short lesson: You can't go from dictatorship to democracy in a few weeks. This enterprise will take some time if it is to be done right, and the cost of doing it wrong are too high to contemplate. So please, everyone, a few deep breaths . . .
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:05 AM 0 comments

 
Looking for a laugh?

Then visit despair.com, which sells amusingly "pessimistic" products. I think my favorite is the poster for the word "Pretension", featuring the phrase "Pretension: The Downside of Being Better Than Everyone Else Is That People Tend To Assume You're Pretentious."

A better logo for us here at Remove All Doubt I cannot imagine.
- posted by Anonymous @ 3:42 PM 0 comments

 
This is good news. Limiting Bin Laden to a 20 mile area is not as good as catching him, but it's still good:

Although US officials say they have set their sights on a 20-square-mile section within this northwestern region of South Waziristan, they face a number of obstacles to going after America's Enemy No. 1.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:58 AM 0 comments

 
Remarkable:

If you really wish to know what someone thinks about the war on terror, however, that person's opinions about Monica Lewinsky and the Florida recount offer a more reliable guide.

And remarkably frightening for the future of our anti-terrorism policy.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:42 AM 0 comments

 
From the painful juxtaposition file

Two stories on Iraq in the this morning's Washington Post (one on the cover and one deeper in the main section) jump out for their mixed messages. One, "Iraqi Leaders Pressing for Power," covers the desire of the Iraqi governing coalition, comprosed mainly of those friendly to the US, for a quicker US pullout.* The other, "Kidnappers Prosper in Baghdad," details the rise of kidnappings for ransom in Iraq, and emplhasizes that victims' families are unwilling to go to the Iraqi police, which they see as ineffective or corrupt.

So, we need to hurry up and leave since the Iraq's have it all together for themselves, led by their intrepid police forces.

* Actually, I am not sure if this position is for real or is just semantic wrangling: "[T]he five leaders contend the best way to reduce attacks on U.S. forces and improve attitudes toward the American presence here would be to give sovereignty to the council, which then would invite U.S. troops and civilian reconstruction personnel to remain in the country." If we thought we could actually avoid attacks with this sort of bait-and-switch routine, surely we'd do it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:55 AM 0 comments

 
What's sauce for the goose . . .

Is sauce for the gander. This hagiographic profile of Bill Richardson (who is apparantly not only the best Democrat around but also plans to cure cancer and learn to fly), says that he has a practice of giving everyone nicknames:

"I call him Geppy," Richardson says of his old friend from Congress. "I try to give nicknames to all the guys." Such as: "I call Kerry 'Johnny,' but I don't think he likes it too much. We don't know each other that well."

Of course, the president's practice of nicknaming everyone is well documented, and has led to much scorn and parody from the left (see, e.g., here, here, and here, for examples.

It would be reasonable to assume Richardson will get the same treatment, wouldn't it?
- posted by Anonymous @ 6:13 PM 0 comments

 
More dumb quotes

Here's Al Sharpton, chiming in:

Al Sharpton sent a letter to Dean Thursday, challenging him to oppose a plan to allow Internet voting in Michigan's presidential caucus. Sharpton said the plan would give an advantage to voters who are wealthy enough to have a computer and Internet access.

Right. What we need is to discourage voting by rich folks.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 3:48 PM 0 comments

 
Some see the the glass half full, some see it shattered on the floor

Here's a dire report about the stock market, Winning Streak May Be Ending, from the Washington post. It reports, ominously, that, "Weak retail sales and weakening consumer confidence are finally ending the stock market's long summer winning streak." Now, there are some indications that all is not well, but this dude has completely lost perspective.

Have a gander at the NASDAQ over the last 6 months: a rise form 1250 to 1850. But, this guy sees that tiny decline at the end there, and sees a collapse. That's right, this decline, this "end of the summer winning streak", lasted, as you can see on this closeup of the last 5 days, 2 days and dragged the market all the way down from 1880 to 1820. Lest you worry the NASDAQ is out of step, here's the last six months of the Dow, climbing from 7500 to 9500, and here is the recent "collapse" seen over the last five days. You can see there the dizzying nosedive the Dow took this week from 9600 to 9450. You'll also notice that its already back to 9500. The S&P?? Same story. Here's the last 6 months of apparently meaningless rise from 850 to 1000, and the terrifying collapse we've experienced over the last five days, going from 1025 to 1010.

I mean, it must be all this guy can do to stop himself from drinking some cyanide kool-ade. And what about Mrs. Financial Reporter? You gotta pity her. The Post needs to get this guy somewhere his talents can be used. Somewhere like Iraq.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 3:28 PM 0 comments

 
Another echo

I'm just bouncing off of Jonathan today, this one off his blog on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict below. Charles Krauthammer'sop-ed piece in the Post today is excellent and along the same lines:

The fundamental principle of U.S. policy now must be to prove that Abbas was right. That means no negotiations with Arafat or with any new prime minister beholden to him. That means supporting Israel in its war on terror. And that means not only supporting military responses to atrocities such as the double suicide bombings on Tuesday -- responses such as the expulsion of Arafat -- it also means reconsidering the administration's puzzling opposition to the Israeli security fence.

- posted by Anonymous @ 10:28 AM 0 comments

 
Israel's Restraint

Much is being made of yesterday's editorial in the Jerusalem Post calling for the killing of Arafat and as many of Hamas as possible. The editorial is excellent and should be read in its entirety. There are a number of points in it that I will blog about over the weekend (I know you will quiver in anticipation).

But, right now I would just like you to imagine that Bin Laden and his gang were sitting across the border in Canada (actually it may not be so impossible) and that we knew exactly where he was. His crowd is routinely sending explosive laden maniacs into Detroit, Buffalo and other cities along the border and knocking off our citizens left and right -- let us just say 800 in the last two years (a similar number to those in Israel). Could any U.S. government allow this? We sent our Army to the other side of the world to poke through caves to find the guy who had attacked us once and we knew would do it again. If he was sitting in the middle of Toronto does anybody believe for a second we wouldn't be across that border putting a bullet in his head after a few attacks (maybe a few more if a Dem were in office).

So, what is the difference. Some might say my comparison is inapt because actually killing Arafat would be the equivalent of killing the Prime Minister of Canada in my hypothetical above. But at the very least Arafat is complicit, and probably actively supporting these attacks. Wasn't Mullah Omar on our hit list in Afghanistan? At the very least, Israel's systematic hunting down and execution of Hamas operatives is no different than our war on terror. In terms of imminent threat it is very possible it is more justified. Arafat, though perhaps more controversial is part of the same argument. If Arafat is simply impotent to control Hamas than Israel should reoccupy all of the Palestinian territories and do the job for him. If, as many suspect, he is an active participant than he should also be on the list for capture or elimination.

Israel is at war no less than we are and I believe they have been showing extraordinary restraint in not more forcefully addressing this reality on the ground.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:55 AM 0 comments

 
Act quickly, Jonathan
Jonathan's blog about the media's treatment of Bush is spot on. Just a piece of advice, though, from one Remove All Doubt correspondent to another: Get a copyright on the title "Vietnam to Iraq: Reaping the Whirlwind of Imperial Hubris," and quickly. It's too perfect to go unused, and you should be able either to block its use or profit from it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:46 AM 0 comments

 
The man in black

Johnny Cash, about whom I blogged effusively a few weeks ago, has died from complications from diabetes. He was 71.

For some reason, this refrain from "Folsom Prison Blues" jumps out at me:

Well, if they freed me from this prison,
If that railroad train was mine,
I bet I'd move out over a little,
Farther down the line,
Far from Folsom Prison,
That's where I want to stay,
And I'd let that lonesome whistle,
Blow my blues away.

- posted by Anonymous @ 9:37 AM 0 comments

 
Thanks to Tom for turning me on to the Kaplan piece. I will read it when I get a chance as the thesis sounds quite plausible. I have a somewhat pesimistic view with regard to Tom's advice to the media however. I think journalists are obsessed with the body count for several reasons. First, it takes no work to write the story and you are guaranteed it will be printed. Provide the facts of the particular death and the mandatory body count "since Bush declared the end of all fighting and the beginning of an era of peace, prosperity and happiness in Iraq tantamount to Kubla Khan's pleasure-dome" and you have a story.

Second, successful rebuilding is to some degree a man bites dog story. How sexy is it to report that the lights are on for 18 hours a day. How interesting is it to describe the way the Army Corps of Engineers restored water service to X number of Iraqis. News always gives the gloom and doom even though a million acts of kindness and good will occur on a daily basis and keep the world going round.

Third, and more darkly, many (nay most) journalist hate our President (see reason one above with regard to misquoting and sneering at him) and reporting the difficulties allows them the pleasure of sticking a thumb in the eye of a high flying administration that just won one of the most startlingly successful military victories in the history of war.

Fourth, many journalists expected disaster in Iraq and reporting on any adversity allows them to hold on to the idea that they might have been right.

Some of these reasons above are pretty half-baked, but the consequences of these one-sided reports are more important anyway. If what Kaplan is saying is true, the media is well capable of creating the story for which it longs. Constant stories of gloom and doom can indeed turn the public against the war and then all of these journalist can write long stories about our defeat in Iraq and the hubris (a very fashionable word of late to describe America) of this President. Then they can come home and write the longwinded books: I can't wait for "Vietnam to Iraq: Reaping the Whirlwind of Imperial Hubris."

This blog is becoming a rant -- I think you probably get my point by now which is this -- the media is going to keep reporting exactly what it has been and it is up to the administration to demonstrate irrefutably that progress is being made and it is up to all of us to keep the reports in perspective.

- posted by Anonymous @ 6:17 PM 0 comments

 
They keep pulling me back in . . .

Just when I'm about to decide that the New Republic is a mindless cheerleader for the Democratic Party, they pull me back with a thoughful, insightful piece. They've done it to me so often, I'm about to conclude they do it on purpose.

Most recently, they did it with this article by Lawrence Kaplan (subscription required), which argues that the American public isn't afraid of wartime casualties; it's afraid of losing. He points out that the U.S. public did fine with the 200,000 casualties Americans suffered before 1945 during World War II. The public was supportive of the Korean War up to December of 1950, despite the 5,000 deaths in two months. Support only fell when the Chinese entered the war and started beating up on U.S. forces, then rose again after the Americans bounced back. Even in Vietnam, Americans were not too worried about casualties until the Tet Offensive. Before the attack, a clear majority of Americans supported continuing or escalating the war. After the press represented that attack as a major US defeat, the percentage of Americans who felt casualties were the most disturbing part of the war went from 31% to 44%, and support for the war plummeted, even though the rate of casualties didn't increase.

So, what does this all mean for the Iraq war? Assuming that public support is critical to finishing the job we started in Iraq, I think Kaplan has it right. The most important thing for the President is not reducing American casualties, but making progress in Iraq. That in turn means that if we need more forces, then whether they are US or UN forces is irrelevant. Now is not the time to go soft.

For the press, it means that their incessant beating of the casualty drum is largely pointless. They should instead focus their reporting on the progress of our rebuilding efforts. That is, the American public needs more stories like this, and this, and less like this. Which is something we all should have known already.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:52 PM 0 comments

 
Open mouth . . . insert foot

Yesterday, Tom posted Dean's great reaction to well-founded criticism of his Middle East "position" by Joe Lieberman, his most-aggressive Democratic rival. I love the idea of posting outrageous things said by the Democratic candidates, so here is today's offering from John Kerry, who said this at the Democratic debate the other night (if you can stomach it, the whole transcript is here):

"Well, you know, I look out at this audience, and there are people from every background, every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is, indeed, John Ashcroft's worst nightmare here."

This quote is so bad it has even been criticized by the Post's editorial page, which said Kerry "sullied himself" by making it, and the folks at This Just In, the webite of The Progressive, which gave it the "Smug Award" and suggested it might backfire on him.

Memo to Kerry: When correspondants at Remove All Doubt join with the Post's editorial page and The Progressive in criticizing your campaign, it is time for a major reevaluation of strategy.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:50 AM 0 comments

 
South Korean protestor burns himself to death at the WTO meeting in Cancun, while waving a banner reading "WTO Kills Farmers." I realize I posted yesterday lambasting US farm policy, but this seems just a tad excessive.

- posted by Anonymous @ 10:27 PM 0 comments

 
One of the joys of the Internet is that anyone can make his opinions heard, as we do here at Remove All Doubt. Unfortunately, one of the downfalls of the Internet is that anyone can make his opinions heard, including the wingnuts at What Really Happened, bringing you "the History the Government Hopes You DON'T Learn" (emphasis most certainly in original). The site is full of . . . words fail me. It's full of stuff. But it is worth a quick look, if only to remind you of the high quality of Remove All Doubt.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:05 PM 0 comments

 
Isn't It Ironic, Don't You Think?

From the Democratic debate last night, here's Howard Dean's penetrating insight on the source of the Israeli Palestinian conflict:

'It doesn't help, Joe [Leiberman], to demagogue this issue,' Dean said. 'We're all Democrats; we need to beat George Bush so we can have peace in the Middle East.'

Somewhere, Alanis is smiling.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:07 PM 0 comments

 
The OpinionJournal reveals a different situation than is commonly protrayed in Iraq:

Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views . . . . The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

Very good news.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 12:04 PM 0 comments

 
Farming the government

In prior posts I have described myself as a transplanted midwesterner (a North Dakotan, to be exact), and while I did not grow up on (or really near) a farm, many of my friends did, and I did quite a bit of agricultural law while clerking for a judge there. Prior posts have also shown me to be something of a free trader (see especially the posts to The Economist. So I was fascinated to read this report, which shows that American farmers received $114 billion in direct transfer payments between 1995 and 2002.

Other statistical highlights for the year 2002 include:

Iowa received the most of any state (10 billion); Rhode Island the least (a modest 3 billion)*

The top 10 percent collected 65% of total subsidies ($7.8 billion); it was 55% in 1995.

Quite a few wealthy celebities were among the recipients.

The largest single recipient in 2002 was Riceland Foods, Inc, of Stuttgart, AZ, which received over $110 million in commodity subsidies (and zero for conservation or disaster relief).

And these are only direct subsidies, mind you, not indirect subsidies such as high tariffs on imported agricultural products (such as Brazilian sugar or African cotton).

Now, I don't claim to know the solution to the farming problems, and it must be said that many American farmers do struggle. But these massive subsidies - matched if not exceeded by our friends at the EU and even defended by such odious characters as French anti-globalization gadfly Jose Bove - are indefensible from those who wish for free trade (even the Post attacks them). They are the main topic of discussion at the ongoing Doha round of trade talks in Cancun, Mexico, although I doubt seriously that eith the US or the EU will be able to give them up. It's a pity, because talking tough on free markets and open trade is meaningless if it is matched by such blatant protectionism (and because it has forced me to agree with the Post's editorial page).

* North Dakota is in 8th place with over 5 billion, which is remarkable considering there are only about 550,000 people there (it's a great place for those who like a little elbow room).
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:51 PM 0 comments

 
Bush the aristocrat

I've been pondering Jonathon's well-taken comments below on today's New York Times editorial ripping the President (there's lots of other objectionable stuff in the editorial, by the way, which makes it worth reading). The line Jonathon quoted is:

Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections.

Setting aside the truth of that statement, which is at least debatable, one has to ask what the Times is driving at. Surely they don't mean to excluse all wealthy elites from office, or if so they ought to be ripping John Kerry, who attended Harvard and is married to a woman worth $160 million in inherited wealth (here's where it comes from), and Howard Dean, who may cast himself as a humble doctor but in fact grew up in the Hamptons in a family with social ties tro the presumably detestable Bushes (Bush's grandmother was a bridesmaid to Dean's). And of course Al Gore, that stellar "Man of the People," grew up in Washington hotels as the scion of a wealthy political family but somehow never got blamed for it.

There seems to be no consistency in the Time's position, and I suspect that Jonathan is right: They just HATE him.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:38 PM 0 comments

 
Now you see how multi-lateralism works, oui?

[France threatened to] veto the [Security Council] resolution [lifting sanctions against Libya] because it still has not finalized an agreement with Libya to increase compensation for victims of the 1989 bombing of a French airliner over Niger, council diplomats said.
The United States and Britain have pressed for a vote since Aug. 15, when Libya agreed to a $2.7 billion compensation deal for the families of the Lockerbie victims and acknowledged responsibility for the attack. The deal will give each victim's family $5 million to $10 million, a settlement that embarrassed France. The French government settled with Libya in 1999 for just $33 million to be shared by families of the 170 people killed in the bombing of a UTA flight over Niger in 1989 -- giving relatives of each victim about $194,000.
When French families learned of the Lockerbie settlement, they demanded more money.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:37 PM 0 comments

 
They Just HATE Him

During and in the immediate aftermath of the Florida election mess I got the sense that the New York Times had simply lost the ability to report on anything related to the Bush presidency with anything approximating distinterest. Up until Raines was canned I figured it just came from him and his cronies, but today's lead editorial shows what seems to me to be a hatred of the man beyond that of his policies. How is this for an inappropriate personal attack:

"Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections."

Aside from the fact that this probably describes about half of the governing class of this country, it is a completely ad hominem attack on Bush not on his policies. the "Newspaper of Record" strikes again.

- posted by Anonymous @ 2:33 PM 0 comments

 
Unfair labor practices
In the interests of avoiding excessive idiosyncracy, I am keeping soccer-related blogs to a minimum. But a recent event in Britian warrants a quick blog. Bobby Convey, a 20-year-old budding superstar with DC United of Major League Soccer and the United States National Team, was recently transferred to Tottenham Hotspur, a team in England's top league. But the deal fell through because he was unable to obtain a work permit to play in England.

The rules are pretty arcane, but a non-EU player can get a permit as a matter of right if he has appeared in 75% of his country's official international games over a two-year period. Convey could not make that hurdle, but one can get a permit through an appeal by showing the player is of "international distinction." This should have been easy, since Convey played in 15 and started 11 of the U.S. men's 16 games in 2003, but not many before that. What this means, essentially, is that the men's team is phasing out some veterans after the 2002 World Cup and reloading for the next cycle, and Convey is a key part of that.

But the review panel not only rejected Convey, it took the unusual step of issuing an insulting statement, explaining that he "was adjudged to not be of the highest caliber and unable to make an immediate impact on the English game." This was wholly gratuitious and unecessary. Now, there are several possible reasons why the rejection, including some unrelated to Convey (some think Tottenham has gone to the well once too often with foreign players), but it is an insult no matter how one slices it, both to Convey and to American soccer overall, since it amounts to a statement that American soccer is so weak that only those who can get a permit by right should.

But is this fair? After all, the US is ranked 9th in the world, only one place and two points behind England in FIFA's world rankings. So America's sucess relative to Britian's couldn't be the answer, could it . . .

(In the interests of full disclosure, I am a commited Arsenalfan who hates Tottenham (it's a big rivalry), so I have no interest in seeing Tottenham get a bright young player. But I do hate to see Americans get hosed like this).
- posted by Anonymous @ 1:40 PM 0 comments

 
Bush's Speech

I am a little late with this commentary, but nonetheless I think one thing in Bush's speech Sunday night reassured me more than anything else. Or, more accuratly, 87 billion things. Nothing says commitment like dollars and the President's request for $87 billion says it pretty loudly. It also tells the UN that yes we are asking for help, but don't think we are coming in from a position of weakness. Once again, if the UN won't pitch in we will do it alone. I also suspect that the very public acknowledgment of the costs involved for the United States, and what I believe will be a very public refusal of France and Germany to provide either material or financial support will make irrefutable a future argument that future proceeds from Iraqi oil production go nowhere near these two countries.

Of course Democrats (its has already started) will scream bloody murder over the cost. The irony of this is amusing. The only spending programs a Democrat opposes are those meant to keep Americans safe from being blown up in our streets -- whether during the cold war by Soviet nuclear weapons or now by terrorist weapons (possibly nuclear). Is there some pathological problem in the minds of Democratic leaders against the core function of self defense by the national government?! This could be a very interesting question on the campaign trail.

Add to this another argument about the short sightedness of Demoratic objections. Democrats love to call spending "investment." But most of these "investment" programs would have somebody hauled into court for fraud in the real world of investing. Is it an investment to pump trillions of dollars into the bottomless pit of the welfare state that destroys initiative, incentive and self respect? Is it an investment to pump trillions of dollars into a public education system that rewards failing teachers, schools and administrators with more funds?

Compare this to a true investment that was alluded to by Bush. The Marshal Plan. Billions of dollars spent to rebuild Europe has resulted in decades of prosperity that has repaid the United States and Europe many times over. One can only imagine the benefits of friendly and stable Iraq (optimistaclly other states in the region as well). Perhaps in twenty years the the "Bush Plan" of $87 billion will repaid as generously as the Marshal Plan before it.


- posted by Anonymous @ 9:32 AM 0 comments

 
Progress in Iraq

Most everyone would agree with the following two propositions:

1. Things are not going as well in Iraq as would be ideal; but
2. Gradual progress is being made.

But it is so rare that the second proposition makes it into the media. In today's Washington Post, for example, are several articles about Iraq, including this one on pre-war intelligence warnings about postwar problems, but none even suggest that the situation there it improving in any way (we do get an article dedicated to the lack of WMD, however). I have not done anything like a scientific survey, but I read the Post basically every day and can't remember an article that pointed out even a minor success.

But successes there have been, even if they're harder to see than the problems, particularly in the long-term, overall sense. As this week's Economist points out, in an article available only to subscribers, despite problems in Iraq (which the article addresses):

Nevertheless, four months after America's invasion, Iraq has a government that is promised day-to-day administration of the country's affairs, including its security. Your correspondent, travelling on September 1st on the road from Baghdad to Najaf, found all but one of the five checkpoints manned by Iraqis. That night, an American soldier was shot dead at the fifth.

So, no one expects things to be easy, especially given how they have gone so far. But the fact that Iraq is not entirely at peace with a free and fair society and stable economy three months after Bush declared major combat over (see Tom's views on that phrase below) is not a per se failure of the war. This is a major undertaking, and while judging it day-to-day is necessary, we have to bear in mind that it will take time before it can be wholly and fairly judged.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:16 AM 0 comments

 
Miller's Choice in Literature

I clicked on the Miller link below and found his bio. His son is named Holden. If this means his favorite book is "The Catcher in the Rye" then I have another reason to like this guy.


- posted by Anonymous @ 12:56 PM 0 comments

 
Dennis Miller is apparently a conservative:

I think you're talking about 7 out of 10 people are thinking what I'm thinking. They want to be protected. It's fine to talk about health care, but I think most people are thinking they don't want to have to use their health care to get stitched up after they're blown up in a bomb blast by a nut case. They want the nut case killed before that happens. So, in that case, it becomes preemptive health care. As I get older, it seems unsafe to me to be anything but a conservative.

[as for] John Ashcroft, the main civil liberty I'm looking to protect is the 'me not getting blown up' one. I don't know if it's written down anywhere in Tom Paine's crib sheets, but that's my big one.'

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:09 PM 0 comments

 
Weekend

I'm having a hard time getting work done today (yes, even harder than usual, smartass) because I'm looking ahead to Sunday, when I'll be competing in my first 1/2 Ironman Triathlon. That's a 1.2 mile swim, a 56 mile bike, and a 13.1 mile run. Most folks, when they hear I'm doing it, fear for my sanity, and they make a fair point; no one is chasing me those 70 miles. So, I've been thinking about exactly why I want to do it.

Here's how I justify it. First, endorphins are GREAT, and you get A LOT of them racing for 6 or 7 hours. Never underestimate the power of drug addiction, even legal, natural, drug addiction. Second, and more to the point here, as a young lawyer I don't get many challenges. My own cases are small and easy to win, which is why a more expericenced person doesn't have them. The other cases I work on are important and tough, but the work I do for them could be done by a trained monkey. Basically, my job description is, push paper and don't screw anything up. Not terribly satisfying. A 6 hour race, on the other hand, THAT is a test, THAT's a challenege, and THAT'll make you know you accomplished something.

The sad thing is, I don't think I'm so alone in my opinion of my job. If I'm not, then here's my question. Do experienced lawyers still feel this bad about their job? And if not, why not? Is it because more experienced lawyers do more challenging stuff, or is it because they like the money, lie to themselves, and lack the courage to get out? I'd like an answer, 'cause I gotta make some career decisions here, and I'm not going to spend my life watching the clock so I can start living when I leave work.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 3:48 PM 0 comments

 
Ack! Accidental guest bloggers!!

Although I like it when others bloggers visit us here, I'm less sure how I feel about it when they are able to post on our site. That post is not from Johnathan, but is instead from Lexi, who, after accidentally finding herself logged on to our blog was kind enough to leave us that nice note.

Lexi, thanks for your friendly post, and I want you to know that my visit to your blog made me feel just like your visit to ours: weird.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 3:27 PM 38 comments

 
I just want you to know, this is the weirdest thing that's ever happened to me, when I came to bloggers page your blog was logged in and unless you're a ghost and just logged in seconds ago (I was just using my blog) I don't know how to explain it... but I didn't change anything, I just thought this was a freaky thing to happen...
I am here by the way.
This is really weird. Have a great day though.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:46 AM 0 comments

 
Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.

I've only now realized, thanks to the Weekly Standard, that I missed the 200th anniversary of the birth of Ralph Waldo Emerson. I can't help but think Emerson's reputation is enhanced by his common use of ambiguous aphorisms, which allow people to read what they think rather than what Emerson wrote, but he was an inspiring thinker of whom America should be proud. I hope this small, and late, praise from me is, while less than what he deserves, better than nothing.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 3:55 PM 0 comments

 
Fox News is reporting that Estrada has withdrawn from consideration for confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

I can't say that this is unfortunate after everything that has occured. Of course it is sad that someone of Estrada's legal qualifications and jurisprudential views will not be serving in the judiciary, but I have become tired of the administration's apparently inept strategy (or more accurately, complete lack of strategy) in getting its appointments confirmed. If the administration and senate republicans are not willing to do what it takes to get the confirmation, these appointees should abandon the adminstration en masse. Perhaps that will incentivize the Senate leadership and the White House to get something going. My vote is to put Rummy in charge.

I say this for two reasons. First, no person should be expected to go through the prolonged uncertainty to which these appointees are subjected. Second, and more importantly, leaving them twisting in the wind is politically stupid. It shows a lack of resolve on the part of the White House and the Senate Republicans and allows the left to bash away on them endlessly. Put the appointment up and either ram it through or withdraw it within a reasonable time.

Finally, one final bright spot. As far as I am concerned, conservatives win this battle in the long run. A shrinking federal judiciary incapable of handling its case load is far scarier to the left than to the right. So let's just ride this out and if the Senate Democrats want the federal judiciary to whither away to nothing -- so be it.


- posted by Anonymous @ 11:38 AM 0 comments

 
Pass the kielbasa

A study released this week reports that views of American foreign policy are down across Europe - 64% majority of Europeans disapprove of us, up from 56 % last year. The one exception is Poland, where 58% approve of American foreign policy. Poland is also poised to join the EU with the
stated goal of integrating its traditional pro-American stance into its role in Europe and is the only other country to send a significant group of troops to Iraq. Clearly, Poland is the future - so pass the kielbasa and some good Polish beer (I recommend Zywiec)!

Actually, the study mentioned above has some interesting data, and it is especially interesting given that the UN - which the study shows Europeans continue to love - may be posied to take a greaer role in Iraq - apparently at Kofi Anan's suggestion.

UPDATE: France and Germany do not like the new UN resolution allowing them to help in Iraq.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:18 AM 0 comments

 
From Scappleface:

U.N. Troops to Lead 'Operation Haughty Weasel'

"It's really a goodwill gesture," said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "We want to let the Iraqi people know that even though we opposed their liberation, we still love their petroleum. So...you know...no hard feelings."

Heh.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 3:47 PM 0 comments

 
I'm back from my vacation to Minnesota and North Dakota, where I satisfactorily avoided unprovoked whale attacks (see here if that confuses you).

An interesting article in the Washington Post this morning reports that new research suggests that IQ scores are influenced both by genetics and socio-economic class. This undercuts the pervasive suggestion that disproportionately low minority test scores are evidence of "innate genetic inferiority," as the article puts it.
The article explains:

Like corn in depleted soil, the thinking goes, minorities and the poor (two categories with so much overlap that researchers find it difficult to tease apart their effects) perform worse not because of their genes but because they are raised in an environment lacking in resources and poisoned by racist attitudes.

This is an interesting hypothesis, and if proven would arguably have a wide variety of implications. I have long argued that class division is a grander social problem than race, but that they are so intertwined it is difficult to disucss them separately. Presumably, however, there will come a time when they are not so linked. Perhaps this will be due to the University of Michigan's new Supreme Court-mandated policy, although I somehow doubt it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 11:38 AM 0 comments

 
Q:Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?
A: (according to Robert Nozick) Because they're smarter than everyone else, or, at least, they think so.

A fascinating and recommended read.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:23 AM 0 comments

 
Cities Bad. Country Good.

Over the weekend I vacationed in Western Virginia, where Roanoke qualifies as The Big City. While there, I tried to buy some Mountain Dew and a couple of Moon Pies from a convienience store, but found I'd left my wallet behind. The cashier, without blinking an eye, told me to not worry about it, but to just bring the $3 next time I came by.

Do what?? Not in a million years would you get that in a city, where your word of honor and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Its pleasant to be reminded that, at least some places, the social fabric remains somewhat intact, and you can afford to trust others.

As for me, that little exchange left humming "Take me home, country roads, to the place I belong . . . ."
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:23 AM 0 comments