A Memorial Too Far

Riding into work today, I saw the granite monstrosity that will be the National World War II Memorial (here are some pictures). The decision to put this memorial in the center of the mall rather than on the side of the mall basically boiled down to a decision that World War II more like the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, than like Korea and Vietnam. The WWII monument has joined the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial as only the third monument on the mall, while the Korea and Vietnam memorials are off to the side. See this map for details.

I'm not sure this a decision I agree with. I don't think WWII really defined our nation like the Civil War and the Revolutionary War did. We were certainly the good guys in WWII, and making the world safe for democracy is a great accomplishment, but the existence of our nation was simply not at stake like it was in the Revolutianry and Civil Wars. The WWII memorial is up there, I think, because we've created a mythology about WWII based on three things: Hitler's genocide is the example of evil today - so we were moral; we tried to stay out of the war until Pearl Harbor - which makes the pacificts happy; and we won - which makes everyone happy. Well, almost everyone. I suspect these folks are disappointed.

But, for now, for all but the crackpots, these beliefs combine to make WWII a "good war," and a symbol equal to the Civil and Revolutionary Wars, but I doubt it'll stay that way. At some point, we'll start to question the mythology of WWII. If Bush's aggressive pre-emption doctrine becomes widely accepted, for example, we may begin to doubt whether waiting until Pearl Harbor was smart, or even moral. We may have saved the lives of millions of Jews by acting earlier. If that happens, or if something else changes, the WWII monument will look a bit out of place. Here's my prediction: Those of us my age will, during a long shuffle down the mall in our autum years, have a hard time explaining to our grandchildren why WWII was such a big deal.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:12 PM 0 comments

 
Unions stab Gephardt in back . . . Dean, Republicans rejoice

The AFL-CIO looks poised to endorse Dean. This, of course, does great damage to "man of the people" Dick Gephradt:

"It's Dean or no one," SEIU spokeswoman Sara Howard said Thursday, days before the union's 63-member executive board will decide at its Nov. 6 meeting.

Dean's favored status is a huge blow to rival Dick Gephardt, the former House minority leader who has positioned himself as labor's candidate. Gephardt has 20 major union endorsements so far, but was unable to secure the support of the entire AFL-CIO because several large unions, including SEIU, questioned the viability of his second White House run. In his 27 years in the House, the Missouri congressman has carried labor's banner on trade legislation and other issues.

Note that some people would describe "carrying labor's banner on trade legislation" as "engaging in shameless protectionism," which both Dick and Dean (and everyone else but Lieberman) are promising us all More noteworthy, though, is the intensity with which this Dick v. Dean handbags battle seems to shaking out. First, Gephardt creates this attack web site against Dean, and now the Dean campaign has accused a Gephardt staffer of manhandling and insulting a Dean staffer at an Iowa debate, where the two are running very close. And these guys think they'll beat the president? Good stuff.

N.B.: For an unintentionally hilarious description of what a Gephardt presidency would be like, see this Washington Post article of a few months ago, featuring my favorite line:

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.

It never stops being funny.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:01 PM 0 comments

 
Dark days in Russia (but not for all Russians)

President Vladimir Putin has almost certainly approved the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the last of the post-Soviet oligarchs (he made his money in oil) and increasingly vocal opponent of Putin. This has been decried in various quarters as signaling the death, or at least terminal illness, of the new Russian capitalism - see, e.g., The Economist's views here and a Washington Post op-ed piece here. This is a disheartening development, and I can only hope that it gets rectified, quickly.

On a semi-related and lighter note, the efforts of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich to buy a championship for Chelsea Football Club, an English soccer team, may be paying dividends - they're currently in second place (behind my team Arsenal, of course). This success follows a massive spending spree this summer on all kinds of players. Actually, some have suggested that Abramovich has bought Chelsea, and is building this fame in England, to insulate himself from the kind of attention Putin is paying Khodorkovsky. All sports fans should be so lucky as Chelsea fans, who have begun chanting in recognition of their newfound luck (as reported by Arseweb, the ultimate Arsenal blog):

A couple of the Chelsea fans' chants deserve a mention. Instead of "shall we sing a song for you" it was "shall we buy a ground for you" but my favourite was (to the tune of "Can't take my eyes off of you" ie Freddie's song) the simple and honest "We're f**king loaded".

- posted by Anonymous @ 10:06 PM 0 comments

 
Debating the War

Once again, the Democratic Presidential Debate focused on the war and related issues, and once again the candidates, with Liebermann and Gephardt as the honorable exceptions, took turns competing for who hates the Iraq War more. On one hand, I think this is good. When the time comes, Americans will be faced with a stark choice, and I think almost all of them will realize that an aggressive war on terror - a war that recognizes the greatest theat we face is the connection between rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism - is the best way forward. On the other hand, it currently appears that a Democratic win will end the War on Terror. It's not healthy for the debate on a pro-active fight againts terrorism to be a binary choice - R: fight beyond our borders, D: don't.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 6:42 AM 0 comments

 
A Sad Day: John Hart Ely Dies at 65

His book, Democracy and Distrust was likely THE most important book on constitutional law written in the 1980s, and remains a central part of the Con Law curriculum until even today. I don’t agree with his conclusions for a variety of reasons, but the book was brilliant. I was even more impressed by him when I learned he left Stanford to take a job at the law school at Miami so it would be easier to go scuba diving. As a measure of my respect for him (and, also the extraordinary nerdiness I exhibited in law school), I remember searching the walls of a restaurant near my law school for a business card he was said to have pinned to the wall 10 years previously, when he was a visiting professor. His death is a great loss.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:23 PM 0 comments

 
Reflections on a bad day

I ran (or at least started) my first marathon today, and it went badly. After training for almost six months, I had to quit around mile 18 when the IT bands on both sides of my legs more or less gave out entirely (the IT band is my new worst enemy - learn more about the face of evil here, here, and here). In truth, I probably should have quit sooner - the left knee gave out around mile 10, and I limped around for a while before the right knee gave out. I am probably dumb enough to try to limp through to the end, but luckily Mrs. MSR, who's a doctor, was smart enough to pull me off the course (with the encouragement of Tom, who was running with me and who was cool enough to slow down for me until it became evident I was finished). I'd been carrying this injury since running 20 miles in this race, and while I thought it had time to heal, it just didn't.

As you might imagine, I'm feeling pretty badly about this. This race was my goal for months, and at times it became all consuming. I gave up a lot of Saturdays for long runs, and hauled my tired butt out of bed early four times a week to run before work (and before the NoVa summer heat got crazy). For moths, the W&OD trail was my second home. I also invested a lot of money with lots of folks, like these guys and these guys.

On balance - and after spending an afternoon crushed by disappointment - I think the whole experience was worth it. It got me hooked on running and into a good exercise routine again, and I lost a bunch of weight. I also feel some sense of accomplishment, because I know I could have run the damn thing if this injury had not reared its ugly head (curse you, IT band). But I certainly won't feel a full sense of accomplishment until I run a complete one, which I am determined to do. Endurance sports are addictive, and I am hooked. I have to stop for a while now, both to heal and to refocus, but I am not finished - in fact, until I finish one of these, I don't really feel I've fully begun.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:35 PM 0 comments

 
Evidence of Steady Progress, II

The New York Times has brought itself to admit that things are getting better in Iraq: Iraqis Get Used to Life Without Hussein, and Many Find They Like It. Come on fellas, it's OK - you can admit it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:33 PM 180 comments

 
I won't call these folks Anti-American

Allowing protests like this one is part of a free society, so I don't think these folks are anti-American. But, with all the information about the horrors of Saddam's regime, with the evidence that significant numbers of the perpetrators of those horrors are still armed and dangerous, and with the clear conclusion that an American withdrawl would send Iraq into a dizzying whirlwind of violence, I will say that that these folks are anti-Iraqi. Their apparent belief that a few hundred American lives are more valuable than tens of thousands of Iraqi lives is grotesque.

As an aside, I find it a little disturbing that the Washington post is apparently calling the Iraq operation an "occupation" rather than a "rebuilding."
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 12:06 PM 0 comments

 
Slow, but Steady Progress

Midway through the conference, countries and international lenders had pledged about $19 billion in grants and loans, on top of the $20 billion promised by Washington.

Although the article does its best to make this look like a failure, $19 billion is a lot of money, no matter how you slice it. Especally for a "unilateralist." We're moving forward in Iraq - one step at a time.

UPDATE: Don't tell me that the press just reports the facts. Compare this title, Donors Promise Iraq $33 Billion, Smashing Expectations, with the title of the article I linked above, Iraq Donations Fall Short. Hmmmmmm.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:49 AM 0 comments

 
My head is spinning. There is nothing I like more than a good deep philosophic discussion. I sometimes fantasize about returning to school for a PhD in Philosophy. To my delight, two years ago I was assigned by my Dept. Chair to create a curriculum for a semester long high school philosophy course. I'm now in my third semester of teaching (and loving) it.

I also participate in a program run by our State Dept. to share our (US) method of teaching civics with former Soviet republics. After years of totalitarian government, they have no idea how to teach about democracy or even do things as simpe as run a student council/gov't. So I am paired up with two Georgians and after a week (that is today) they have expressed their desire to have me help them write a philosophy text for all Georgian students to use. Apparently they are influential enough to make this happen. The mere thought of it makes me as gleefull as a five-year-old on Christmas morning.


- posted by Anonymous @ 11:44 PM 0 comments

 
Anti-Spam

The Senate has just passed anti-spam legislation, an idea I wholeheartedly support, and not just because spam is a nuisance. Spam, as this article points out, now accounts for 60 percent of all e-mail traffic and is costing businesses and consumers roughly $10 billion per year. That’s a lot of dough. What’s more, a recent Pew Center study indicates that people are using the internet less because of spam. That’s a problem worthy of Congressional action.

On the other hand, I would like to point out the main culprits here are NOT the spammers. They’re just good capitalists who realized that because email is so efficient, you can make money with extraordinarily small response rates. The culprits are those that give them those responses, which the Pew Center study puts at 7% of email users. In fact, 33% of users have clicked a spam link to get more information.

It would be better if these folks could control their itchy mouse fingers, and stay away from those enlarge your penis pills, but since they won’t, Congress should get involved.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:12 AM 0 comments

 
Troublemaker

This kid deserves to get prosecuted. There is no doubt that he intentionally placed a weapon on an aircraft, which is against the law. I know that he clearly lacked the intent to hurt anyone, but his antics forced a lot of people to spend a lot of time searching every commercial airliner in the United States, and likely caused significant economic damage by scaring more people out of flying. What’s more, this is at least the second time he’s knowingly broken the law. When he turned 18, he refused to register for the draft. I understand civil disobedience is a form of protest, but its practitioners accept the risk that they’ll be punished. I don’t suggest sending him up to the big house, but getting a felony conviction on his record may deter him and others like him from causing even more trouble.

All in all, its hard for me to disagree with his classmate:

"I don't know him, but I hate him," said Ben Rothenberg, a junior from Potomac, Md.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:42 AM 0 comments

 
Tom Sawyer - 1, GRE - 0

Thanks to all those who sent me good vibes yesterday. Because of computer scoring, I received my scores 20 seconds after I finished the test, and they were not disappointing. If you count as a win every time a standardized test predicts greater success for me than the rest of my record, my lifetime score is: Tom – 3, Standardized Tests – 0, with 1 tie (the GRE, the LSAT, and the SSAT were wins, the SAT was a tie). Sort of makes one doubt the efficacy of those tests. If any one of them were accurate, then my performance following the test should have risen to the level of the test, and the next test would be a tie – it would predict the same amount of success as my record. Of course, there may be reasons for the 3-0-1 results beyond the test, like, for one, I’m just lazy once I get admitted. For obvious reasons, I prefer to blame the test.

As an aside, instant scoring is a superb system. I remember weeks of nervous twitching as I waited for my LSAT to come in. Now, that’s gone. As an additional bonus, you learn your score while your mind remains in the test-induced uber-focused fog, protecting you from panic much like shock protects accident victims from the full impact of their injuries. There’s no moment of panic when you see the envelope in the mail. Instead, it’s just click, click, click, score, move on with your life.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:21 AM 0 comments

 
Three Kinds of Democrats. Ok, Maybe Four.

David Brooks has a typology that’ll allow you to cast your what-the-hell-are-they-thinking-about-Iraq aspersions more accurately. Here’s the punchline:

Those are the three Democratic visions — the good, the bad and the ugly. Right now the Pelosi wing of the party is dominant, and the Cantwell wing is beleaguered. So this is a party teetering on the brink of full-bore liberal isolationism.
Who is going to pull it back? Probably not Wesley Clark. The Clark Democrats are actually the fourth category in the party: the ones who are too mealy-mouthed to take a stand either way.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:08 AM 0 comments

 
Isn't the story here, "Bin Laden Issues New Threats Against America," not, as MSNBC has it, "New tape bolsters Bush’s message"?

There is also some good news in there, that Bin Laden recorded the tape before September, and only got it aired now. If his communications are so limited that it takes him a month to get a videotape out, he must be less effective directing terrorism. I wonder how long it took him to get his other tapes out.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:17 AM 0 comments

 
Let the nerd wrestling begin

I recently got the Pocket World in Figures 2004 from the most interesting weekly news magazine in the world (I am trying to maintian inter-blog peace here and not challenge too overtly Tom's repeated claim that this is the most interesting magazine in the world). It is an absolute trove of absurdly trivial but interesting information, and I keep flipping through it while I should be doing something else. For example, by opening the book three times at random, I learn:

1. Gabon has the highest percentage of its land devoted to forests (87%); Oman the least (0%);

2. There are 14 people per square kilometer in New Zealand; and

3. The lowest male life expectancy is in Lesotho (32.3 years); the highest is Andora (80.6 years).

I need to throw this thing away.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:36 PM 0 comments

 
Patriot Act redux

We've had some discussion on these pages of the USA Patriot Act, the much maligned set of anti-terrorism statutes enacted after 9/11. For examples of that maligning, see here, here, and here, and a comprehensive discussion of the Act - written from an alarmist viewpoint - here.

The Department of Justice has now launched a website devoted to defending the act and its use. I am not informed enough to opine on the substantive issues, but it is interesting to see the government's side. Check it out here.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:01 PM 0 comments

 
Democratic voters speak, tell candidates to shut it

According to a report in the Post today,

Majorities of likely Democratic voters in three states with early primaries or caucuses say they prefer a presidential nominee who supported military action against Iraq but criticized President Bush for failing to assemble international support over a candidate who opposed military action from the beginning, according to new polls conducted by the liberal Democracy Corps.

So presumably Dean will have trouble winning by saying, as he does here, "I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning." And the otherwise powerful Kucinich campaign may have trouble with statements like this one, which includes "The war in Iraq was wrong. " And former general Wesley Clark, a former general who's been in the military, for this statement: "I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It's that simple."

Sorry for the short blogs this morning, but I am so tired from watching the stupid Red Sox lose last night that I can't do much more. Is there anyone in America who thinks Grady Little was right to leave Pedro in for the eighth. I was screaming at the TV. But I digress . . .
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:59 AM 0 comments

 
When you're in a hole

Keep digging. At least, if you're Malaysia's government. In the wake of yesterday's broadly anti-Semitic remarks by its prime minister, Malaysia attempted to quell criticism with this clarification:

“Islam has never advocated being anti anybody including the Jews,” Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar told reporters. “The only problem with the Jews is when the State of Israel was created."

Well, that's better, then.

Look, I realize his remarks were intended to addrerss the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and I understand that they stop well short of being as menacing as they appear in the surface. Still, there is no excuse for saying things like that, and Malaysia is rightly to be condemned for it. This "apology" adds nothing, and it arguably makes things worse.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:53 AM 0 comments

 
Word

At the risk of becoming less popular around here, and to show that Remove All Doubt accepts diverse philosophical viewpoints (if not political ones), I will say this: Richard Rorty is absolutely correct in praising Davidson and Wittgenstein for these ideas:

Both philosophers asked us to stop thinking of language as an attempt to communicate the content of nonlinguistic experiences. We should, they argued, stop thinking of our minds as inner theaters. Instead we should think of the possession of a mind -- the feature that distinguishes humans from brutes -- as the ability to use language in order to coordinate our actions with those of other people.

As a matter of fact, most of the things he says about philosophy are dead on balls accurate (its an industry term). Word to your mother, Dick.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:47 PM 0 comments

 
Shocking

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad today said that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and called on Muslims to unite to achieve "a final victory" over them. To quote:

The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. For well over half a century, we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before. If we had paused to think, then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory.

Because his speech included calls for nonviolent means to reach this "final victory," and because he called for more education and science in the MUslim world, he is being hailed as a hero by other Muslim leaders. For example:

“I think it was a shrewd and very deep assessment of the situation,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, without commenting on the remarks about the Jews. “I think he elaborated a program of action that is wide and very important. I hope the Islamic countries will be able to follow this very important road map.”

I am not impressed, and I imagine few would be, by the "without commenting on the remarks about the Jews" caveat.

The Israelis have condemned the speech, of course, and rightly so. We have yet to comment officially. I don't have any commentary on this, but I wanted to report it. I am sickened and shocked, but I suppose I shouldn't be - this sort of thing is nothing new. I can only hope our comment, when it comes, is as harsh as it is possible to be.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:38 PM 0 comments

 
And the miscues continue... sorry. I'm in Montana and it is a beautiful fall day; crisp air, snow in the mountains, and I've just had lunch with my wife. I am a teacher on fall break and loving every minute of it! (two days off). Why am I telling you this? The answer: to give you a little ammo. If you ever get in a conversation with a teacher (or anybody for that matter) talking about teacher pay and how they don't get paid enough, I want you to tell them they are wrong and refer to me. I get so much time off per year that the enjoyment I get from it more than compensates for my low pay. Not only do I only work thee quarters of the year, but the peace of mind and flexibility that this time off gives me significantly enhances my lifestyle. Of course there are trade-offs, but every teacher enters the field knowing what they are. Cheers!
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:38 PM 0 comments

 
I haven't posted for some time, but have thoroughly enjoyed reading the commentary. I just ran some errands and cuaght a couple of minutes of whoever is replacing Rush. Apparently the UN unanimously passed a resolution to provide help in Iraq this morning. According to the host (and I apologize for not catching his name), this good news was overshadowed by the humor of the mornings debate.

China, Syria, Pakistan and several other countries on the Security Council demanded that the US include a set date for Iraq to finish its Constitution and hold free elections and that the date be soon. I just love that these countries care so much more about the rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people than their own.

Could we just unleash Negroponte for a few minutes? Let him ask China, "When will you be having your free elections?"
- posted by Anonymous @ 12:40 PM 0 comments

 
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

That's one of my favorite Emerson quotes, and it applies perfectly to the Post, or at least the Post's conception of itself. Today they call for the Supreme Court to decide the Pledge of Allegiance/Under God case on narrow grounds, ideally that of standing. Otherwise, "the court could rule too broadly and thus unnecessarily lower the barriers between religion and public life."

I don't entirely disagree with this position, but I never saw calls for judicial restraint and narrow decisional bases when the Court decided Lawrence v. Texas on the widest grounds conceivable, indeed wider than were necessary to reach the result.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:54 AM 0 comments

 
Overtraining

The GRE for those who don't know, has recently been revamped. They removed the logical reasoning section (familiar to our legal readers from the LSAT - its the games section), and replaced it with two essays, a statement of issue and an analysis of argument. After law school and writing for judges for 2 years, I should be able to handle that, but I'm actually better at the MATH, for goodness sakes.

And here is the reason: the GRE folks give us penetrating questions like, "It is important for higher education to challenge established traditions and values." Arrggh! What the hell kind of question is that?? What "traditions" are you talking about? What "values?" What do you mean "important"? For the love of God, give me something! Give me something more than the platitudes of a late night high school bull session about the meaning of life. I don't even know how to answer a question like that. I want to define terms, divide the question into 37 different subparts. Limit the scope of my answer. I could write for a year about a question like that, but how can I be expected to write for just 45 minutes? I can't even use footnotes for godness sake! Arrggghhhh! A pox, a pox I tell you, a pox on all the houses of ETS!!
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:48 AM 0 comments

 
Identity conflict

Are Democrats the party of blue collar workers or high priced lawyers? Rust belt union members of east coast urban elites? Should these candidates be moving left or right to claim the middle class and labor? And does it matter? Apparently it does, judging from the number of pieces out there asking these questions. For two quick examples, here's EJ Dionne condemning Democrats for "Drop[ping] the Lunch Pail" and not focusing on blue collar folks enough, and here's Michael Moran on whether Reagan Democrats are real Democrats or Republicans in disguise or what, and whether they'll vote for Bush or the Democratic candidate. They make for interesting reading.
- posted by Anonymous @ 1:50 PM 0 comments

 
I am speechless

A stunning advertising move by British personal injury lawyers. Amazing.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:28 AM 0 comments

 
Lies and the lying liars who tell them

Harold Myerson weighs in with an op-ed piece in the Post entitled Fact Free News. In it he describes a new study which "proves" that Fox News viewers are far more likely than other Americans to have the facts about Iraq wrong. Not surprisingly, from his view, those who watch PBS and listen to NPR are the least likely to have the wrong facts.

Interesting stuff, but what is more interesting is his explanation for it:

Take a wild flight of fancy with me and assume for just a moment that one major goal over at Fox is to ensure Bush's reelection. Surely, anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were in cahoots, that we've found the WMD and that Bush is revered among the peoples of the world -- all of these known facts to nearly half the Fox viewers -- is a good bet to be a Bush voter in next year's contest. By this standard -- moving votes into Bush's column and keeping them there -- Fox has to be judged a stunning success.

Hmmm . . . that seems a stretch, doesn't it? But let's assume he's right. Isn't it just as true to say that "one major goal over at NPR and PBS is to ensure Bush's ouster?" In fact, one might even say that about the Washington Post, where "within just three or four sentences [of a recent front page story], innocent readers were told a half-dozen statistical lies." That according to this Cato Institute analysis, which suggests the Post story "may be a new record."

I am not a huge fan of Fox News (I even listen to NPR), and I'll freely concede that the statistics to which Myerson alludes, if true, are disturbing. At the same time, though, blaming a vast right wing conspiracy has never been the best way to respond to news you don't like. Just ask her.

(The title, by the way, references Al Franken, who is apparently doing a classy line of Rush Limbaugh drug addiction jokes.)
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:04 AM 0 comments

 
Ok, Just One More. Then the Zoo Plankton.

I couldn't resist posting this insightful commentary from Tightly Wound, a blog I really enjoy, on Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case. She makes a subtle point, but I think this line is a reasonable summary:

You, sir, are an asshole.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:15 AM 0 comments

 
New Job. GRE. This Weekend. Sucking Time. Must. Blog.

Life interfering with blogging right now. Damn it. No time for much, but just so you don't forget about me, here's an article claiming there are even Frenchmen who think France is "going down the pan." Here's another reason to read mysteries, other than the crucially important fact that they are short enough to read before bed: Agatha Christie had, "'a radical theoretical engagement' with Burkean conservatism." And here is an interesting summary of what sounds like a very interesting talk that gave an inside look at the Justice Department's reaction to 9/11. The summary is from our co-North State Blogger, Eric Muller

Now, back to that insightful reading comprehension question about the dietary habits of zooplankton.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:04 AM 0 comments

 
Lying in ponds

A few weeks ago, we were linked by the blog Lying in Ponds. It was a cool reference, which we appreciated, and since then I have become hooked on his site. He has developed a teriffic partisanship scoring system, and he systematically rates columnists on a partisanship meter. Remove All Doubt targets EJ Dionne, Paul Krugman and Michael Kinsley score high, though the undisputed queen of partisanship is Ann Coulter. It's a cool site, and I recommend that all Remove All Doubt readers take a buzz around it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:41 PM 0 comments

 
New numbers

Bush's approval numbers are up, and Clark leads among the Democrats.
- posted by Anonymous @ 1:36 PM 0 comments

 
Quick! Hide the money in the mattress

Paul Krugman has an op/ed piece in the Times today about an economic model called "Damocles," which measures the likelihood that a country will suffer an economic crisis. Being who he is, he takes it as an oppportunity to rip the administration. Still, even he admits that there are problems with using a model designed to evaluate emerging economies on the US. He notes three:

1. The inherent weakness of economic modeling;

2. The fact that, unlike emerging countries, our current account deficeit is in our own currency (for more on this see here); and

3. Markets react differently to problems in an estsblished economy than they do to an emerging economy (problems in the US don't trigger the same panic as problems in Egypt, say).


If you look at this list of caveats, you really wonder what is left. Damocles is left pointing out that there is a gap between revenue and spending in America. That is true, and it is a problem, but it hardly seems likely to generate an economic crisis, especially given that, as Krugman admits, "there's no question that the U.S. has the resources to climb out of its financial hole," and "the crisis won't come immediately."

Now Krugman is a smart guy, and far more knowledgeable than I in economic and financial matters. But given that he has previously described Bush as the "leader of a movement that wants to smash the system as we know it, the social contract, the safety net that was built up since Franklin Roosevelt," you have to wonder whether he is stretching just a bit with this one.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:08 AM 0 comments

 
At least we don't need to learn a new name

The Washington Post reports this morning that Saad bin Laden, one of Osama's sons, is taking an increasingly prominent role in al Queda and may have been involved in several recent attacks, including the Riyadh bombings. And, by the way, he is being harbored by Iran:

Like other al Qaeda leaders in Iran, the younger bin Laden, who is believed to be 24 years old, is protected by an elite, radical Iranian security force loyal to the nation's clerics and beyond the control of the central government, according to U.S. and European intelligence officials. The secretive unit, known as the Jerusalem Force, has restricted the al Qaeda group's movements to its bases, mostly along the border with Afghanistan.

And you wonder why we're so uptight about their nuclear ambitions, which they either have or don't have, depending on who you believe. This to be contrasted with North Korea, of course, about whose nuclear plans there is no doubt. It's almost as if there were a kind of "axis of evil" out there . . .
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:42 AM 0 comments

 
They eat their own, part III

Michael Kinsley of Slate has some interesting things to say about former general Wesley Clark, a former general who has been in the military and is running for president:

Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not. They think that Clark has the best chance of defeating George Bush, and that nothing else matters. Their assessment is based on what seems to me a simple-minded view that you can place all the candidates on a political spectrum, then pick the one who's as far toward the other side as your side can bear, and call it pragmatism.

As you might imagine, he's not much impressed by this kind of pragmatism. Now, I am not huge fan of Kinsley, as should be fairly obvious to anyone who has read Remove All Doubt at all, but he has an interesting perspective here. But the rejoinder, it seems to me is this: The reason Clark is doing so well is that almost no one else seems to have any chance of winning, and that does matter, to some people. But I say to Kinsley: Good luck. Bring on Dean. We'll be looking forward to it.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:15 PM 0 comments

 
Et tu, Wesley?

Former general Wesley Clark, a democratic candidate and former general who has been in the military, has been criticized by other former generals for his military career. Since Clark's campaign to date has consisted entirely of reminding people he was in the military, this could hurt. Too bad.
- posted by Anonymous @ 7:22 PM 0 comments

 
Arnie Goldwater?

The Economist speculates that Arnie's election may represent a new libertarian direction for the party. In unusually prosaic terms, it suggests that his victory

is a reminder that there is a strand of Republicanism which was always more in tune with the counter-culture than the Bible-thumping variety that has dominated the party for the past decade. This is the libertarian wing associated with Barry Goldwater, another western Republican. In some ways, Mr Schwarzenegger represents a return to that tradition. His victory could begin a contest, against the current dominance of southern conservatism, for the party's soul.

- posted by Anonymous @ 4:32 PM 0 comments

 
They eat their own, Part II; or "I was poorer than you"

Ah, the great sounds of class warfare blowing on the wind. But this time it's democrats attacking each other, not Republicans. In last night's debate (full transcript here), John Edwards as asked whether he really believed that it was that important that he comes from humble roots, especially since JFK and FDR grew up rich. After he hedged on an answer, we get this follow up:

GREENFIELD: So, if Senator -- if I may... [I]f Senator Kerry or Governor Dean, both born in more comfortable circumstances, lay out their vision for health care and education, is there any reason why we should be more suspicious of them because they didn't share your background?

EDWARDS: No, no. First of all, you've identified two great presidents who come from similar backgrounds. We grew up a very different way, Senator Kerry and Governor Dean and myself.

What I would say to the American people, if you are looking somebody to stand on a stage with George Bush in 2004, which I intend to do, and make our case to the very group of Americans who he has to get in order to be reelected, the working middle class of this country, that we have a more powerful case to make if in fact our advocate, our voice, is somebody who has grown up with it, lived with it and fought for those very people their entire life.

That doesn't mean that Governor Dean and Senator Kerry aren't completely sincere in their ideas. I think the world of both of them. And I think that their heart is in the right place, they want to do the right thing. They have terrific ideas for the future of this country.

But it is a significant difference, and it is a difference between me and at least some of these candidates.

(APPLAUSE)

I think it's that last "APPLAUSE" that strikes me so much - likely Democratic voters applauding someone simply for being born "working middle class." As much as they criticize Republicans (with some cause) for being the party of the wealthy, I just cannot imagine Bush and McCain arguing four years ago over who was more authentically wealthy.
- posted by Anonymous @ 1:30 PM 0 comments

 
Interesting

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting column in the Post today called "WMD in a Haystack," in which he discusses the recent Kay report on Iraq's WMD. His thesis is that Hussein made a strategic decision no to maintain stocks of weapons but rather the ability to make them quickly:

The fact that Hussein may have decided to go from building up stocks to maintaining clandestine production facilities (may have: remember, Kay still has 120 depots to go through) does not mean that he got out of the WMD business. Otherwise, by that logic, one would have to say that until the very moment at which the plutonium from its 8,000 processed fuel rods is wedded to waiting nuclear devices, North Korea does not have a nuclear program.
Hussein was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable. His intent and capacity were unchanged.

This is an angle I have not seen explored before, and it is worth a quick look.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:39 AM 0 comments

 
Social criticism with a hammer

EJ Dionne, a Washington Post columnist I am quickly coming to dislike intsensely, weighs in today with a column entitled "Where's the Outrage Now?". His thesis is that all conservatives everywhere have been exposed as hypocrites by Arnie's eletion in California; he equates Arnie's alleged groping of women (which he says conservatives ignored) to the entire Clinton imbroglio, in which all conservatives (as he sees it) denounced Ol' Bill solely for sexual pecadillos:

In the California recall, the right wing's moralistic masters of attack choked on their own partisanship. These are the people who praised the "courage" of anyone who reported anything embarrassing about the sex life of a certain former president. Then they painted all who did not respond with indignation as "apologists" complicit in America's moral decline and the "death of outrage."

Dionne misses a few points here. His argument rests on two assumptions: (1) the Arnie and Clinton issues are the same and (2) all and only conservatives voted for Arnie. But neither of these is accurate.

To take the second point first, it is not at all axiomatic that all and only conservatives voted for Arnie. McClintock got 1 million votes to Arnie's 3.7, and those voters were, I assure you, not generally more liberal than those who plumped for Arnie. Second, as even Dionne admits, Arnie won over a lot of traditional democratic voters: According to Dionne's figures, he got "37 percent from union members, 31 percent from Hispanics, 20 percent from self-described liberals and 18 percent from Democrats." And Arnie's first act has been to appoint a transition team full of liberals and others who are not traditional conservatives. So making him into the prototypical conservative poster boy is foolish and wrong.

Second, Dionne misses the point that thoughtful conservatives made about Clinton. I don't want to rehash this argument over and over, but Dionne just ignores that fact that Clinton lied under oath, which is a federal crime. I am not discounting the unpleasant moralistic tone with which the Starr report was written, and I recognize that many Republicans took a perverse glee in the sexual details it contained. I also concede that many (me included), did not think the impeachment was right or wise. But to reduce the entire Clinton affair to sex and nothing more is intentionally to close your eyes. But it gets the results Dionne wants, and it enables him to lambast conservatives, which is what he's invariably looking to do.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:30 AM 0 comments

 
The Humility of Howard Dean

From Dean's lunch with the editors of Pravda

"This country's a great country, and the reason it's an important country is not just because I'm an American and proud to be an American."

Gee, Howard, ya think we've got more going for us that your patriotism? That's good to know.

Ok, ok. I know. It's out of context and not what he meant, but well, ok, no excuse. I apologize. However, that article is interesting for other reasons. One is the apocalyptic theme of Dean's campaign:

"I think what the president is doing is setting the stage for the failure of America. If you look at what's happened to other great countries," Dr. Dean said . . . "they get in trouble when they can't manage their money - and this president's certainly proven himself adept at that - and they get in trouble when they overstretch their military capabilities."

I'd be interested to hear more this historical claim: Is he comparing us to the Soviet Union? Great Britian? Rome? In any case, the analogy likely loses its punch the minute you go past the broadest level of generality. I don't hear anyone talking about eminent financial collapse, a la the Soviet Union. In fact the economy has been doing better. I'm pretty sure the British would dispute the characterization of their nation as a "failure." And the Roman Empire "overstreched" its military for, well, centuries. By that timing, we've got another 200 years in Iraq. I think Dean is going too far, and I think most Americans agree with me.

I hope the Democrats nominate someone who I can at least take seriously on the War on Terror and on Iraq.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:03 AM 0 comments

 
The president talks tough on the war in Iraq:

There's only one decent and humane reaction to the fall of Saddam Hussein: Good riddance

You'll hear no dissent from these quarters.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:15 PM 0 comments

 
Just a quick pointer to this sobering call for America to deal more directly with North Korea's nuclear ambitions. It makes an especially prescient point about potential terrorism:

If this is not a crisis, it is a great imitation of one and it will certainly do until the real thing comes along. We now face the prospect of the world's most ruthless, bizarre, and unpredictable regime possessing a significant number of nuclear weapons. Even worse, the nearly bankrupt North Korean regime might be tempted to sell one or more of those weapons to a cash-rich terrorist organization.

- posted by Anonymous @ 9:57 AM 0 comments

 
Gotta love it

The Washington Post keeps it coming with this story about problems at the Kerry campaign. Apparently he has set up two entire teams who dislike each other, and he seesaws between the two of them. The Post suggests this fact may "help explain the persistent criticism of Kerry -- both from Democratic Party operatives and from the media -- that his campaign lacks focus, speed and discipline." But it does not explain the persistent criticism - made by all sorts of folks but quite compellingly here - that Kerry simply does not know what he stands for and can't convey it to anyone:

This is what audiences always have to wade through to get at whatever it is Kerry is trying to say: Nuggets of nothing, wrapped in pretentious rhetoric, compounded by the pretense of plain speaking.

Even though several polls show Bush's popularity flagging on several fronts - including the economy and foreign policy - the fact remains that he won't just lose by magic. Someone has to beat him. And the more you dig into the chuckleheads trying to do that, the less likely it seems to me that he'll lose.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:03 AM 0 comments

 
Has US action in Iraq and Afghanistan de-stabilized the region? We've seen the protests in Cairo, but what do Arabs really think? I'd love to see this tech central station story on the nightly news.

- posted by Anonymous @ 5:53 PM 0 comments

 
Note to Alanis - This is Irony

Syria is a member of the United Nations Committee on Counter-Terrorism. Yes. That Syria.

How can anyone not doubt the moral authority of the United Nations?
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:44 PM 0 comments

 
Final results

The Washington Post has published this list of California's overall vote figures. Arnie won handily, with over 1.2 million votes more than Cruz Bustamante. McClintock was third with under a million, then Camejo (the Green) with around 200,000, and then Huffington fifth with 42,000. Notably, Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman finished 7th and 8th, respectively, and porn star Mary Carey finished 10th.

Finishing very last: Todd Richard Lewis, with 171. Here is Mr. Lewis' web site - he promotes a video called Bum Fights. Finishing dead last in this race is actually something of an accomplishment in and of itself, so congratulations to Mr. Lewis from Remove all Doubt.
- posted by Anonymous @ 2:27 PM 0 comments

 
Arnold's Victory and Career Politicians

Andrew Sullivan has been ecstatic over the prospect that Arnolds victory will awaken the libertarian wing of the Republican party. I share his optimism and also think that there is something else going on here that shows how career politicians and party politics have created a vast disconnect between the views of the majority of Americans and those who lead both major political parties.

Take Arnold as an example. It is my understanding that he for the most part 1) pro-choice (but would probably vote in favor of bans on late term abortions) 2) pro gay rights; 3) pro reasonable gun control 4) pro business and 5) against oppresive taxation.

To a highly conservative leader of the Republican party this might look like a standard liberal position because they can't get over 1, 2, and 3 above. And to the liberal wing of the democratic party 3, 4 and 5 will make him an apostate. (Please note that putting "reasonable" in 3 causes both parties to hate you). But what is the reality of these views. The reality, I suspect is that this platform probably captures 60-70 percent of the electorate in this country. But if he ran in the democratic primary the unions would destroy him and if he ran in the Republican primary the conservative right wing would destroy him.

So what do does my hypothesis mean. It means the two political parties (and the fact that the media does not take seriously any candidate that is not endorsed by them) act as barriers to entry for candidates that actually represent the views of most Americans. The question is this: does it take a sui generis situation like California (ie, crazy recall, move star candidate) to overcome this problem?

Maybe. But think about it another way. Maybe people will wake up to the fact that Arnold isn't just a star, but actually was touting views that when people listened they found they agreed with. Maybe this will inspire other heavyweight citizens (business people, etc.) who have not been funneled through the party system to get out there and start talking about reasonable, practical policies in a way that most Americans will find they support.

One thing is for sure. The consumate career politician and party political hack went down hard last night, and the minions of the party and their special interest boosters could do nothing to stop it.

Here's looking to the future.




- posted by Anonymous @ 9:05 AM 0 comments

 
Brokenhearted

I'm never one to revel in the agony of those I dislike, so it is with great sadness that I point you to this Washington Post report that former general Wesley Clark's erstwhile campaign manager has quit among accusations that Clark is too focused on Washingtion insiders at the expense of his core supporters, and this report that Clark may have violated campaign laws by plugging his candidacy during paid speeches. So, in the spirit of bipartisanship, here's hoping the good folks at the Clark campaign get it together so they can pursue their goal of stopping Bush's relentless drive towards a new American imperialism,about which we at Remove All Doubt are gravely worried (see, for example, prior posts here, here, and here). I assume the Clark folks will stop this drive by pursuing Clark's self-avowed belief in the potential for human time travel.

Also in the spirit of bipartisanship, I suggest that Clark folks begin buying these for their walls.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:56 AM 0 comments

 
File Under "Evidence of Steady Progress"

The Post reports that Turkey's parliament voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to dispatch peacekeepers to Iraq. Like the economy, things are getting better in Iraq. Not as fast as we'd like, but we're making steady progress.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 7:11 AM 0 comments

 
STRONG Words

So here's the question of the week, month, year: After Iraq, will the media ever again allow a democracy to topple a fascist dictatorship?

I'm trying hard not to believe this, but, frankly, I'm having a hard time convincing myself.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 6:55 PM 0 comments

 
Ack! I agree with the Times

That Medicare needs some sort of means testing, especially if it is to be expanded.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:17 AM 0 comments

 
Four perspectives on Israel v. Syria

The Washington Post is full of stories and columns this morning about Israel's attack on claimed terrorist training facilities Syria in retaliation for a deadly suicide attack on the weekend, and it is interesting to consider a few in one place.

First, there are Bush's powerful statements that the attack was more or less justified: "Israel's got a right to defend herself; [and] Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland."

Then, there is the Post's view; it argues that while retaliation was justified, retaliating against Syria is a provocation with lots of risks and fewer benefits (it also features this horrifying sentence, which tells you a lot about the relative power of terrorists: "Though Syria is not strong enough to retaliate directly against Israel, it can work through Hezbollah").

So, where to come down? Was Israel justified, or has it made a colossal mistake? First, I offer a third perspective, that of Richard Cohen, a Post columnist whose columns I variably love and hate. His column, entitled "Israel is Losing," is a passionate call for Israel to rethink its long term strategy, but it pointedly does not condemn the retaliation. It is centered around an unnamed man who recently left Israel because he could not handle the violence any longer:

Israel lashes out. It has now bombed Syria. What next? Iran? This is not strategy. It is fury. I can understand. But I can understand, too, why, after more than 20 years, that man I met left Israel. You could say he lost his nerve. He would say he lost hope.

Now, I am entirely supportive of Israel's right to defend itself and to exist in peace, and as the post a few down shows, I have no sympathy for the terrorists. But I think Cohen has identified the real problem facing Israel: Finding a way to win this war that leaves something worthwhile for both sides when it's over. If this attack on Syria helps that, then it was a good thing. Time will tell, I suppose.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:28 AM 0 comments

 
And then there were nine

Florida senator Bob Graham has dropped out of the democratic primaries, leaving nine candidates. The Graham campaign never really got going, and his rhetorical attacks on Bush, fully as fiery on the page as anything Dean says, came out flat when delivered by a speaker with the fire and passion of a toaster oven. As usual, Scrappleface had it right a few days ago:

Senator Bob Graham, D-FL, announced today that he has been running for president for several months. The news came as a surprise to many Democrats.

- posted by Anonymous @ 8:12 AM 0 comments

 
What can you say?

An interesting article in the International Herald Tribune about the family of the most recent Palestinian suicide bomber, a young woman. Her attack could be more significant than prior ones, since it provoked Israel to attack Syria, leading to who knows what results (although most immediately, perhaps, to a UN resolution condemning Israel's actions). This is not of course to minimize the immediate damage done to the killed Israelis and their families, as this story shows so poignantly.

In any event, the IHT discusses the bombers' family:

[O]n almost everything linked directly to the bombing, the family sounded programmatic, as though human responses were repressed. In place of tears, there were wan smiles when they talked about Hanadi's death, and a studied indifference towards the carnage she caused. The two parents spoke of the attack as "God's will", and said they felt honoured at the stream of visitors throughout Sunday "congratulating" them on their daughter having become an Islamic martyr.
When asked if they had any words of sorrow for the Israeli victims and their kin, a lengthy silence fell on the room. Eventually, Rahmeh Jaradat, Hanadi's mother, spoke up. "Tell them they should think about why our daughter did this," she said. After another pause, she resumed. "She has done what she has done, thank God, and I am sure that what she has done is not a shameful thing, she has done it for the sake of her people.

But Mrs. Jaradat - those were real people your daughter killed, not just abstract Israelis. And your daughter was a real person, not just a faceless Palestinian warrior. And her actions are only going to lead to more killing, on both sides, and make it harder to get to a peaceful and stable Palestinian state. There just don't seem to me to be any prospects for peace in this climate, and I cannot agree with the Washington Post's contention that it is ultimately Bush's fault. Both Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to take some responsibility for this, and make some hard sacifices of their own - harder than killing themselves and dozens of others with a bomb.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:17 PM 0 comments

 
One answer

I was talking with Tom about the Israeli raid into Syria last night (he joined me and Mrs. MSR for dinner and to watch the Redskins lose again), and he said something to the effect that it would be interesting to know if Israel did this with our clearance or without our clearance. Well, according to the Post, the answer is without:

U.S. and Israeli officials said Israel did not warn the Bush administration it was planning the attack. "You don't ask for a green light and you don't get a green light," an Israeli official said.

- posted by Anonymous @ 8:53 AM 0 comments

 
Waking Up

As I've mentioned before, these light alarms are great if you want to wake up early. Something else that works great is to start a new job. Which is why I'm posting now, instead of my usual 3 hours later.

I also hear these will get you right out of bed, although I don't have any personal experience, thank goodness.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 6:14 AM 0 comments

 
As I feared, there was a mistake in my first post. The correct and full name of the article I referenced is, "In the Land of the Roccoco Marxist" and it can be found in the book titled Hooking Up.
- posted by Anonymous @ 1:03 PM 0 comments

 
Who would have thunk it?

With good economic news like this:

The economy has improved in recent months, growing at a 3.3 percent rate in the second quarter of this year, with analysts predicting even more momentum in the current quarter, growing at a rate of 5 percent

and the continued hand wringing over Iraq, we may find that the strongest suit in the President's reelection hand is the economy. I still doubt it, because, unless the bottom really falls out of the economy, most folks will see the war on terror as the question for the election, but even the possibility would have seemed outrageous 3 months ago.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:49 AM 0 comments

 
Rush Limbaugh Was Right

Allen Barra disagrees with MSR on the McNabb question:

If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback."
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:32 AM 0 comments