Just One Minute

Posted 10/26/2002 10:02:00 AM by The MinuteMan

My Open Letter to Prof. Krugman

Dear Professor Krugman;

I greatly enjoyed your NY Times magazine article titled “The End of Middle Class America (and the Triumph of the Plutocrats). I think the notion of an explosion in wealth at the top end of the income scale is well worth exploring and I certainly agree that it may have many profound consequences for American politics and society.

Now, I should provide a bit of a warning here – I am one of those deplorable right-wing bloggers that pounce on you from time to time. My own background is an MBA, and twenty years in finance, but beyond that, I am no one – I am probably overestimating my impact when I describe myself as the flea that bites the flea that bites Paul Krugman. Hmm, do fleas even bite each other? Anyway, I am also, in my dark and twisted way, an admirer of yours, as I am of my fellow bloggers. I have a certain respect for anyone who actually gets “in the arena” and publishes their thoughts, if I may borrow Teddy Roosevelt’s metaphor. Anyone who is putting their ideas out there for the rest of us to peck at deserves credit.

So, enough with the compliments – it’s treacly, and it’s over! On to the article. Snide comments are sort of inevitable at some point to follow, but maybe it will liven this up. In fact, I can hint at a poem to come. However, it’s all meant to be positive – the underlying topic clearly merits serious discussion.

The Title: – “The End of Middle Class America…”: Well, wouldn’t that best be demonstrated by defining a poverty line and a “wealthy” line, and showing how there is a declining population in the middle? My recollection is that the percent of folks living below the poverty line is roughly stable at roughly 12%. If the middle class is disappearing, where are they going? Upward to prosperity? Is this really happening, and is this really a problem? I think a better “scare headline” might be “Triumph of the Plutocrats and the Purchase of American Democracy”.

Your introduction is as follows:

We are now living in a new Gilded Age…

The explosion in C.E.O. pay over the past 30 years is an amazing story in its own right, and an important one. But it is only the most spectacular indicator of a broader story, the reconcentration of income and wealth in the U.S. The rich have always been different from you and me, but they are far more different now than they were not long ago -- indeed, they are as different now as they were when F. Scott Fitzgerald made his famous remark. "

Your article cites Thomas Piketty, at the French research institute Cepremap, and Emmanuel Saez, who is now at the University of California at Berkeley, as the experts in the field. May I quote what they say on this subject?

One might also be tempted to interpret the large upturn in top income shares observed since the 1970s as a revival of very high capital incomes. The interesting point, however, is that it is not so. In fact, as shown in Figure 6, the income composition pattern has changed considerably between 1929 and 1998. In 1998, salary income and business income form the vast majority of the largest incomes. Wage and entrepreneurial income make about 80% of the resources of fractile P99.99-100, and capital income brings a mere 20% income supplement. Therefore, highest incomes at the end of the 20 th century are very different from the highest incomes in the early part of the century. Before WWII, the highest incomes were overwhelmingly composed of rentiers deriving most of their incomes from their wealth holdings (mainly in the form of dividends). Today, the “working rich” celebrated by Forbes magazine seem to have overtaken the “coupon-clippers”."

So, the rich may be different from us, and the F Scott Fitzgerald reference may be meant to take us back to the Roaring 20’s. One presumes the “Gilded Age” statement has a similar impact. However the researchers are clearly seeing something else. Interesting.

Causation: What caused this compression of income? From your article, we enter the Golden Era of income equality thusly:

The Great Compression -- the substantial reduction in inequality during the New Deal and the Second World War -- also seems hard to understand in terms of the usual theories

I imagine you will admit that this is pretty light on causation. In fact, when I do a word search of your text, the word “depression” as in, for example, “Great Depression” does not appear. Perhaps the Great Depression caused the Great Compression, and the New Deal was an attempt to address the depression?

From Saez/Pikkety:

”The large depressions on the first part of the century destroyed
many businesses and thus reduced significantly top capital incomes. (p. 2)”

or

“This very specific timing, together with the fact that very high incomes account for a disproportionate share of the total decline in inequality, strongly suggests that the shocks incurred by capital owners during 1914 to 1945 (depression and wars) have played a key role. The depressions of the inter-war period were far more profound than the post-WWII recessions. They destroyed many businesses and had a stronger impact on capital income than labor income.” P. 9

Now, with respect to wage income (as distinct from capital income) they say this:

”We also show that top wage shares were flat before WWII and dropped precipitously during the war.” P. 2

I have electronically searched your article and found no mention of “depression”. I have eyeballometrically searched their document and found no mention of “New Deal”.

As a marketing decision, associating compression of incomes with the “New Deal” makes perfect sense – bold government action producing a desired result. However, the folks doing the analysis do not make that association. So, Professor, are you providing your readers with analysis or advocacy?

Now, I can find points where the authors cite New Deal programs as an example of changes in social norms, and New Deal progressive taxation as preventing a re-accumulation of vast fortunes. But this is a follow-up to the Great Compression, not a cause.

Social Norms: Well, I expect your Nobel Prize will be for something other than pop sociology. You offer us this:

”Some -- by no means all -- economists trying to understand growing inequality have begun to take seriously a hypothesis that would have been considered irredeemably fuzzy-minded not long ago. This view stresses the role of social norms in setting limits to inequality. According to this view, the New Deal had a more profound impact on American society than even its most ardent admirers have suggested: it imposed norms of relative equality in pay that persisted for more than 30 years, creating the broadly middle-class society we came to take for granted. But those norms began to unravel in the 1970's and have done so at an accelerating pace.
Exhibit A for this view is the story of executive compensation. In the 1960's, America's great corporations behaved more like socialist republics than like cutthroat capitalist enterprises, and top executives behaved more like public-spirited bureaucrats than like captains of industry. I'm not exaggerating.”

Let’s see what the authors you cite had to say on this:

”…we emphasize the role of changing social norms as a potential explanation for the observed patterns.

Although our proposed interpretation for the observed trends seems plausible to us, we stress that we cannot prove that progressive taxation and social norms have indeed played the role we attribute to them. In our view, the
primary contribution of this paper is to provide new series on income and wage inequality.” p. 3

Hmm, they use the word “changing” where you elect to use “unraveling”. More advocacy?

Perhaps something about the social norms adopted in 1950 required modification over time. A few points:

- Absence of foreign competition: our natural industrialized competitors were devastated by WWII. Did US steel or auto workers face significant foreign competition in the 60’s? How about the 70’s, or the 80’s? Might this have affected the ability of US corporations to pay high wages for semi-skilled work?

- Did these “socialist republics” you mention actually work? The Dow crossed 1,000 in 1966, and again, briefly, in 1974. Chrysler went bankrupt in 1979. Ford was believed to be on the brink of bankruptcy then. People who did not know Japan made cars in 1965 wanted nothing else by the late 70’s. If these corporations were failures at their basic business, shouldn’t we expect them to change? Perhaps you remember Jimmy Carter’s “national malaise” speech of 1979.

Let’s talk about change for a moment. Another well known economist, Keynes, had some thoughts. He is ranked slightly ahead of you alphabetically and perhaps by other measures, so let’s consider this comment attributed to him:

“When somebody persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?"

Cold it have been time for a change in America? And why did America change, per your article?

” Let's leave actual malfeasance on one side for a moment, and ask how the relatively modest salaries of top executives 30 years ago became the gigantic pay packages of today. There are two main stories, both of which emphasize changing norms rather than pure economics

So, changing norms. Surely you do not fear change. Or, is this an unexpected conservative side to your thinking, heretofore unrevealed? I am sure you have given this some thought, as have the professors you cite. However, neither your article nor theirs offers much speculation on why norms might have changed. May I offer mine?

Wartime solidarity: WWII represented a nearly complete mobilization of the US economy, and nearly universal military experience for men of a certain age. Especially since this was followed by the Cold War (Berlin Airlift, 1948), and the Korean War, that sense of shared experiences, shared values, and a common foe may very well have promoted a sense of equality and community. By 1980, the proportion of veterans in the work force had fallen due to retirements. New workers included women, blacks, other ethnics, and 60’s Baby Boomers who viewed the military and hierarchies through the prism of Vietnam. I applaud increased diversity in the work place as a good thing, as I am sure you do. However, a probable consequence would be a decline in the sense of community created by the War, and an introduction of new values, i.e., a change in norms. In fact, a change in certain norms, specifically the belief in the unsuitability of woman and minorities in the workplace, was, I expect we agree, a very good thing.

Could this “life in wartime” idea be tested”? Well, the Civil War represents a comparable level of national commitment, but good luck finding statistics. WWI was shorter and, I suspect, represented a lesser percentage level of male involvement.

Both of these post-war experiences would be confounded by another factor to which you give short shrift (if you give it any shrift at all): immigration. America took in many starving Irish during the 1880’s. Good for them, good for America, but bad for any statistics on income inequality in that Gilded Age. Similarly, I have read that immigration was low in the 50’s and 60’s, then increased in the 70’s through to today – good for low-skilled workers already here, good for certain statistics for that time period. I do not know when the surge in illegal immigration began – a modest hint comes from the release of “The Border” with Jack Nicholson in 1981, but as you are an economist I have no doubt you can do much better research on this.

The point - allowing lots of poor, unskilled, poorly educated people into the country is, I believe, a great thing for the people in question. I still believe in “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. I am sure you do to. However, it plays hell on statistics such as literacy, lowest quintile income, longevity, and health-related numbers. Far better, for presenting better such statistics, to manage your country like an exclusive, hereditary country club – poor foreigners need not apply. For an example of such a country, how about Sweden, which you mention in your article? I understand their population is about 5% immigrants, and they find it to be a strain. Regrettably, I do not know how to say “Hard Luck” in Swedish.

So, I have mentioned a couple of reasons that income on the low end may have been “above trend” in the 50’s and 60’s – lack of foreign competition, wartime solidarity, and low immigration. The “wartime solidarity” argument may explain a bit of moderation at the high end as well.

The authors you cite believe that their analysis covers this point as to income distributions at the top end. However, I believe my point is valid as to literacy and health statistics.

Yet another point – in 1950, earnest capitalists could look back on a fairly bleak twenty years. Confidence that capitalism was a better system than socialism did not have tremendous supporting evidence, based on a depression and a war. Nor did early Soviet advances in science, such as rockets, reassure us that we had the winning formula. However, through the 70’s as the failure of socialist states abroad and the failure of socialist corporations at home became clear, confidence in capitalism may have had good reason to increase. Hence, the advice of Keynes – what we were doing was not working – time for a change.

That is my pop sociology: norms changed to reflect new entrants into the workforce, the passing of a WWII generation, and the failure of the “socialist” style adopted immediately after the War. I don’t expect I will be getting any prizes for it either. But it does suggest that the Golden Era of Income Equality that you look back to with fondness was a bit of an historical anomaly not easily repeated.

Now, your article blends together what I think of as three ideas. First, what happened to unskilled or low skilled workers – the high school grads? I have already hit on reasons for their decline, summarized as globalization and new entrants to the work force. But how about the top end of the income scale?

Wealth: Here, I think you are a bit of a prisoner of the limitations of the data. I will, after warning deeply committed Marxists to avert their eyes, boldly assert the following: there is “good” wealth, and “bad” wealth”. Bad wealth seems easy to depict – Enron. Truly committed free-marketeers will argue that that is the price you pay for a free and vibrant system. Good point! But Enron-style abuse is still a “price”, not something to be desired. If it could be costlessly eliminated, we would choose to eliminate it, I suspect.

And “good” wealth”? Well, Craig Venter was a pioneer in mapping the human genome as founder of Celera. The possible health benefits are enormous, and I recall reading that Celera had a big sign in their lobby reminding employees that, paraphrasing, “The sooner we finish this, the sooner we start saving lives”. So, Mr. Venter is rich – I don’t begrudge him his wealth.

Similarly, we have seen a tremendous upsurge in worker productivity in the US economy. This is attributed to the widespread adoption of new technology. Well, some techies, like Steve Jobs, helped make this happen and are newly wealthy. But they have greatly benefited society – this is not a zero-sum game.

The income statistics you present are not designed to separate “bad” wealth” from “good” wealth. Failure to make this distinction puts a lot of sand in the gears of your presentation. If we “all agree” that some forms of wealth represent socially desirable outcomes, then the observation that there is an explosion of the super-rich may simply be an observation that we have passed through a wildly innovative era. This is a problem?

Saez and Pikkety mention this:

”Obviously, explanations based on technical changes that point out that periods of industrial revolutions such as the end of the 19 th century or the end of the 20 th century are more favorable to the making of fortunes than other periods, might also be relevant.34 Unfortunately, there are not yet rigorous studies trying to quantify the relative contribution of the technological effect versus the fiscal effect on the pattern of top incomes in the US.” p. 20

So, time will tell. But they at least give a nod to the possibility of wealth associated with innovation.

You might save the day by pointing to other social organizations that have a comparable level of innovation without the emergence of the super-rich. Good luck. Europe is a terrible laggard in new drugs and new technologies generally. Their one-time lead in telecoms seems to have vanished. Japan? Well, as I said, good luck. However, the authors do present data showing that France is trudging along nicely at its earlier levels of income inequality. By that limited measure of success, vive la France!

Consequences: As to consequences, I think it is well worth a discussion of where this emergence of a new plutocracy might take us. You seem to worry that politics have become more partisan. To highlight just one of my responses, and for variety, I actually have a poem:

The egos are large
And the issues are small
So Faculty politics
Are most brutal of all.

OK, no Pulitzer Prize coming my way either. And you are better positioned to comment on the accuracy of the underlying observation regarding faculties.

However, I think Ralph Nader had a point in complaining that, in 2000, voters contemplating Bush and Gore were being offered a choice between chocolate ice cream with vanilla swirls, and vanilla ice cream with chocolate swirls. How do you tell them apart? And what about angel food cake, or tofu and fried rice? I am not original in thinking that a lot of the partisan posturing today is for the sake of “energizing the base” to vote and write checks. For example, it’s not enough to disagree with Ashcroft – he must be depicted as the Anti-Christ. Maybe we should attribute this partisan rhetoric to the financing challenge caused by the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms.

For context, let me offer some phrases to spark a bit of free association. “Who lost China”; Alger Hiss; Joe McCarthy; the Civil Rights movement; the Vietnam protests; the Eugene McCarthy campaign; the Kennedy assassinations; the King assassination; the urban riots of several “long, hot summers”; the Chicago police riots of ’68; the Kent State killings; Cambodia; Watergate. Now, tell me, honest Injun – is this nation more polarized now than it was then? The end of the Cold War opened the door to some partisan kookery culminating in an impeachment, but that was faculty politics. The contemporary “partisan” list could have: the follow-up to Roe v. Wade, Robert Bork, John Tower, Clarence Thomas, Iran-Contra, a hundred Clinton scandals about nothing, and impeachment – how do the lists compare?

You also mention a study that shows a congressmen’s vote is today more reliably predicted by party affiliation. Please. We saw a big realignment in the South of conservative Democrats over to the Republican Party. Something similar happened to the Rockefeller Republican in the Northeast. If this is related to the emerging plutocracy, you ought to tell us why.

As to policy, even if you were to demonstrate that the presence of these plutocrats was undesirable, certain policies advocated by the Democrats do not connect. For example, higher income taxes on “the wealthy” start at incomes of roughly $250,000 per year – a good living, but “super-rich”? Especially if this is a two-earner household, probably not.

Similarly, the estate tax threshold is $5 Million – a comfortable figure, but hardly enough to go out and purchase a Senate seat. Perhaps if you advocated policies that pointed the guns at the identified target, you would be more convincing.

OK, let me exit by the same door I entered – I think you have brought useful attention to an important issue, and I eagerly await part 2. I think you have a much stronger piece if you explore the causes of the Great Compression more carefully and address the suspicion many of us feel, that not all wealth is created equal, and consequently, not all evidence of wealth concentration is evidence of a problem.

Regards,

UPDATE: Boy, that upgrade to Blogger-Pro went smoothly! Other than deleting this entire post, no problem.

Thans to Brad DeLong for the link. We will see how long this stays up. Yes, we know that somewhere at Prof. DeLong's site is the correct Keynes quote. But did you know that admirers of Prof D. will find him in the footnotes of the NBER Working Paper? He notes that reduced anti-trust enforcement in the 80's was also a factor in wealth accumulation.

Posted 10/25/2002 04:52:00 PM by The MinuteMan

OK, A Nearly pain-Free Transition to Blogger-Pro!

The Krugman piece to which Prof. DeLong linked, prior to its disappearance, has reappeared, and is directly above. Sorry, thanks, whatever. Have a great weekend - I sure am.

Paul Wellstone, his wife, his daughter, and five others die in plane crash

Our prayers and condolences to their family and friends.

The Man Without Qualities said this about Wellstone several days ago:

"There are signs that the widely but vaguely perceived change in voter attitudes may have consequences in these elections that are not being clearly identified by ordinary methods. For example, politicians who have treated the current mix of national issues as a matter of principle, such as Senator Paul Wellstone may have benefited even while going against the public by voting against the Iraq war resolution."

Stand up, state your position, vote your beliefs, face your voters; Paul Wellstone, 1944-2000.

Posted 10/25/2002 10:41:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Prayers and Good Luck To Putin In Moscow

There but for the grace of God go we. The hostage situation is Moscow is stunning, and I can scarcely imagine plausible scenarios with a happy ending. Prayers and good luck.

And for the US? It seems totally inappropriate, but we probably should pause and consider how it affects us. My guess is that we will see Russia more inclined to support us at the UN on Iraq, in exchange for a continued US blind eye towards Russian action in Chechnya. If not, it will be because, at this point, the Russians won't be worried about international reaction, or anything else - this will be their 9/11. If bombing a few apartment buildings could start a war (or was it the KGB?), this will surely not end it.

Posted 10/25/2002 08:40:00 AM by The MinuteMan

So Much To Do, So Little Time

Interesting headlines for their columns today:

Krugman: "Dead Parrot Society". Looks like another calm, balanced presentation. I wonder if he mentions Bush?

Kristof: "Saudis in Bikinis". Hmm, I have a hard time believing this is the sort of "uncoverage" I am looking for in the Times. Still, if I can only read one...

UPDATE: Trust your instincts! Oh, don't do that - trust MY instincts! Krugman has a partisan screed from which I infer he is nervous about the upcoming election. I will save you time by presenting the comic highlight here:

"Mr. Bush retains a public image as a plain-spoken man, when in fact he is as slippery and evasive as any politician in memory."

Well, it depends on what the meaning of "slippery and evasive" is. Or maybe it depends on what the meaning of "memory" is. Apologists for Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton are loving this column, as is anyone who enjoys a hearty guffaw. This is a golden "Karaoke Krugman" moment: "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you (tell me true)"

Or maybe it depends on what the meaning of "politician" is. Al Sharpton, Mr. Probity? Bob Torricelli? Or, for balance, Simon in California? Oliver North? "Read my lips" Bush Sr.? Just who is Krugman remembering? Take two aspirin and call me in November. After the election.

Meanwhile, Kristof is great, in a strange, provacative, yet fully clothed way. Are Saudi woman, forced into traditional dress, repressed? Check this:

"I cover up my body and my face, and I'm happy that I'm a religious girl obeying God's rules," a dietician named Lana scolded me after I wrote a typically snide reference to repressed Saudi women. "... Why should I show my legs and breasts to men? Is that really freedom?"

In Riyadh, several Saudi women offered the same scathing critique, effectively arguing that Saudi women are the free ones — free from sexual harassment, free from pornography, free from seeing their bodies used to market cars and colas. It is Western women, they say, who have been manipulated into becoming the toys of men."

Hmm. Well, Kristof responds manfully, err, forcefully:

"If most Saudi women want to wear a tent, if they don't want to drive, then that's fine. But why not give them the choice? Why ban women drivers and why empower the religious police, the mutawwa, to scold those loose hussies who choose to show a patch of hair?"

Well, I suppose I could ask plenty of young women in the US why they want to dress like young hookers. Just because Britney Spears has made millions, and lots of other girls dress that way, doesn't mean everyone should. And not everyone does. However, I have the strong impression that in our culture there is a certain race to the bottom, and once standards slip, those who stay behind are, well, left behind. Man, no more sociology from me. Ladies?

Posted 10/25/2002 08:12:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Great Baseball Moment

George Vecsey picks a great World Series moment:

"10. SAVE BY SNOW Casey Stengel used to say that every day in baseball you see something you never saw before. This time we see 3-year-old Darren Baker, son of the Giants' manager, nearly trampled at home plate in his role as youngest batboy in World Series history. Fortunately, J. T. Snow scoops the boy up in his arms as Snow crosses the plate. This playing-in-traffic might be carrying Giants family values to a dangerous extreme."

Props to the production crew at Fox for providing great reaction shots - Dusty Baker laughing in disbelief, and then J.T. Snow and little Darren Baker in the dugout. Snow smilingly delivered a pep talk, they rapped knuckles, Darren walked off, Snow laughed - classic baseball. Oh, the Giants won.

Posted 10/25/2002 12:06:00 AM by The MinuteMan

A Gothic Mystery

The divine Ms. E has a puzzle - first, this:

"A federal official said the two were being sought for questioning about possible ties to ``skinhead militia'' groups. This entire case is beyond bizarre, but this is the nuttiest thing I have ever read in the NY Times. Have they seen a picture of the chief suspect? What do they think a black man named "John Muhammad" would have to do with skinhead militias?"

Good question. But following the link raises a new question, as she tells us in an update:

"Moira Breen writes to inform me that the reference to "skinhead militias" in the NY Times article below is not there. I re-read it, and even Nexised it, no dice. It's gone. I swear I read it there. They must have yanked it."

Hey, I believed her. And I have been swearing at that little trick of the Times, too, although I suppose they should be allowed to update their own stories. "All the news that's fit to print.. and re-print... and revise".

Anyway, how cool would I be if I knew how to take screen shots? I checked Google-news for "skinhead militia" and guess what? Two citations: the NY Times piece Diane E had, and the ever-reliable St. Pete Times! No editor there, I guess. Well, not yet anyway - they might pull the rug any minute now. How do you do screen shots? I have a page printout - do I send the printer output to fax?

Well, here is the St. Pete quote:

"Moose also cautioned that the public should not assume Muhammad is involved in any of the shootings that have stricken the Washington area since Oct. 2.

Moose said Muhammad also goes by the name John Allen Williams and may be traveling with a juvenile.

An alert for a car presumed to be carrying the two was issued at 10 p.m., calling on area police to be on the lookout for a 1990 blue or burgundy Chevrolet Caprice bearing the New Jersey license plate NDA-21Z, the New York Times reported.

A federal official said the two were being sought for questioning about possible ties to "skinhead militia" groups, the newspaper said.

Emphasis added, and how! The good people at the St. Pete Times are reporting about an account in the NY Times? Man, will their face be red. What was that about the moving pen has writ, and having writ moves on? Except when it writ electronically, I guess. Then, it leaves us looking like half-writs.

UPDATE: Hmm, a post about old NY Times archives that links to Blogger archives? Do I get credit for a touching faith in technology? Looks like you have to trust me - there is a NY Times, a "Letter From Gotham", and, I believe, a Santa Claus.

UPDATE 2: Editorial assistant? Hey, a promotion! Probably that great coffee I made, back when my job was making coffee. Is the new pay as bad as the hours? And, boss-lady, you are over the e-mail limit.

As to screen shots, thank you - I now have the power. Will I turn it to good, or ill?

Posted 10/24/2002 01:48:00 PM by The MinuteMan

OK, Jane G Is a Genius, Too

Darn, what were the other points? Someone I meant to mention...

Posted 10/24/2002 01:21:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Non-Story About the Non-Event

Mohammed Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. We knew that from an earlier Times story, and commented "in this space", as my man Safire likes to says.

Now, the Times has a follow-up: top Czechs still discount the possibility of the meeting, but the phone calls from Havel reported earlier never happened. However, Havel has said for a while that the meeting didn't happen.

So, the non-story about the non-meeting. I am sort of non-linking, too, just to stay with the spirit. The Hammer tipped me to some "Best of the Web" reporting. Hey, another new blog!

Posted 10/24/2002 01:02:00 PM by The MinuteMan

How Often Do I Have To Tell You: Brad DeLong Is A Genius

There are four other points I want to make. But first, a word from our sponsor...

Posted 10/24/2002 12:47:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Increasing Crime? Eroding Civil Liberties? Mais, Non!

Well, the NY Times and the AP leave me wondering - how do you say "Ashcroft" in French?

Posted 10/24/2002 10:22:00 AM by The MinuteMan

GOTCHA!

Jumping ahead of the story? I'm jumping for joy!

Posted 10/23/2002 10:35:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Connect Enough Dots...

And you go dotty.

First, we have Bush's "gaffe" that may not have been, about regime change in Iraq.

Second, we have the news that the "Prague Spring" meeting between 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official didn't happen. The White House had downplayed these reports, but they were more or less fully squashed just this week.

Finally, we have the puzzling decision by Saddam to open his prisons.

Does it all mean anything? Well, Mark Kleiman had suggested this as one explanation of Bush's regime change comment:

"Here's another [piece of raw speculation], which seems less likely: the Iraqis sent some sort of signal that they'd prefer Baghdad not be reduced to smoking rubble, and for some reason the Bush team believes it enough to want to dance it out."

Well, that prison situation could be a signal that moderates are getting a toehold, either inside Saddam's palace or inside his own mind. And, since I am feeling upbeat, I can easily link it to the US urgency at the UN: if the pressure is working, keep it up.

Meaning what? Well, if Saddam takes a villa in sunny Libya sometime soon, and a new moderate government pops up in Baghdad, I can guarantee three things:

The peaceful liberation of Iraq will not get Bush a Nobel Peace Prize;

Many pundits will credit the patience of Tom Daschle and the crafty diplomacy of the French;

It will be a triumph for Bush, America, and freedom.

OK, I am dreaming out loud. Probably it all adds up to nothing at all. Darn.

UPDATE: OK, scrap the Czech "news". It's the weakest link, good-bye. Leaving me with a chain forged of putty, rather than Kool-Whip.

Posted 10/23/2002 04:21:00 PM by The MinuteMan

I Did Not Know This

And Google-News barely knows it either.

"Albert Gore III, son of the former vice president, was recently ticketed for driving under the influence."

Well, it is one sentence in a story headlined as follows:

"Noelle Bush could be your child"

OK, I am puzzled. Back in 2000, young Albert was arrested for speeding, and that was widely, if belatedly, reported. This story, dated Oct. 6, 2002, says "DUI", and "recently". It seems to be a new, and almost totally unreported, story.

So, maybe Al Gore Jr. is no longer an interesting public figure. Really? Former Vice-President, former Presidential candidate, leading candidate for the nomination of the Democrats in 2004? I am pretty sure this is the same Al Gore III who was a stage prop in the intro to "Earth in the Balance", as well as at Big Al's Democrat Convention speech in 1992. And DUI, after an earlier speeding violation, is dangerous - folks can get hurt, or killed. We remember that the Bush girls made the cover of People for having drinks in a restaurant. Friends don't let friends drink and walk. Or something.

If anyone knows about this incident, or knows why the reporting has been non-existent, I expect there is a blogosphere (or at least, a right half) that would be curious to learn more. This story actually seems to be Drudge-worthy.

Susanna Cornett got me started on this, BTW, and she has a link to this fellow. Third time lucky?

UPDATE: I get by with a little help from my friends. Here is a link to a message board with an AP story. Here is the NRO back in 2000 (so, pre-Jenna) on Al Gore, family man. Sort of an "All the Good News That's Fit to Print" situation.

Posted 10/23/2002 09:07:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The NY Times on Atta and the Prague Connection

Is there a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq? After Bush's mis-statement yesterday, what is our plan for Iraq? The Times wonders thusly:

"President Bush seemed to change course on Monday. He said the United States was trying to disarm Mr. Hussein "peacefully" and suggested that if Iraq complied with all United Nations resolutions, it would "signal the regime has changed." This may have been aimed at mollifying nervous allies, but it added to the impression that Mr. Bush isn't sure what his goals are in Iraq."

Oh, please. The notion that Bush has been unclear as to his goal in Iraq in ludicrous. Means, maybe. End? Regime change has been US policy since at least 1998, one mis-statement aside. Check this timeline, and "Saddam Out!" goes back to 1991.

As an aside, we continue to be curious to see how Mr. Safire treats the disappearing Atta connection.

UPDATE?: Man, Blogger has barely burped this up, and I am getting flak. Who else read Mark Kleiman's Very Interesting piece on this? I had merrily assumed we were victims of "Bush-speak". Mark links to this ABC News story which leaves us wondering, what is going on, if anything? Mark also has some ideas.

Do I have an idea? Well, fog of war, and its diplomatic counterpart. Meanwhile, between reading comics, teaching classes, and doing, like, real-world stuff, my man Drezner has left me high and dry on this.

UPDATE, AGAIN: OK, "Ooops" at the Times; not only did the meeting not take place, the Times story did not take place either. The non-story about the non-event.

Posted 10/23/2002 08:14:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Blogging: Unto the Next Generation

We have an ongoing effort to uncover hot new writing talent. Today, we feel a bit like Dorothy, when we discover there's no place like home. My seventh grade daughter had an intriguing homework assignment - imagine yourself as a newspaper editorialist in 1776. You are solidly behind the newly-announced "Declaration of Independence" - what do you write? And no help from the 'rents.

Go, MinuteKid!

The Patriots Declare Freedom from the British

Fellow patriots, a great thing has happened today. The lousy scum bags who call themselves Englishmen received our Declaration of Independence. They claim that their unfair taxes were fair, the liars, and that we are using them. Ha! As if! They had it coming. Not giving us our rights and freedom, not allowing us a representative in parliament, levering huge taxes on us. Yet they are still under the false illusion that we did something wrong. They refuse to see that they are in the wrong. They used us, not the other way around. They used us to get more land, more money, and to make themselves feel more powerful.

Well my friends, today they realize the truth: we are free and independent. And if anyone tries to tell us otherwise than we will show them, we are as powerful as any other country in the world. We have been stupid to wait so long to declare our independence. So if they think that they can use us like that then they are even stupider than has previously been proven. Thanks to our legislature we are free from stupid, manipulative England. So patriots, if you truly love your county then you will join your local militia or the minute man teams to help prepare for the coming war.

OK, let freedom ring! But wait! It's the old switcheroo! Now she has to put herself in the place of a London editorialist back in 1776. Well, creative backpedaling is a hallmark of this site. Let's see if she can tap-dance like the old man.

Crazy Colonists Announce Independence

Earlier today the King of our fair country received word that the american colonists have written a document called the declaration of independence. This document claims that the colonists were mistreated by our wise, all knowing king! The lazy, good-for-nothing colonists claim that we are over reacting about their "civilized" Boston tea party, and that we are putting unfair taxes on them to pay for our war. What war? We fought it for them. Why should we, honest, respectable citizens of England, pay for a war fought for them? They used us. They used us to get our land, food, money, support and protection. Then they turn around and say that we are bad people who mis treat them. They are all criminals, every one of them.

Our king has a right to tax them if he needs to. It is, after all, his land that they are living on. They took advantage of us and I hope that the king will do something about it. If he lets them become independent then it is a scandal. They will think that they've won! Our poor king, so honest and hardworking, its a miracle that he hasn't gotten rid of them before now. Those lousy colonists will rue the day they lost us as allies.

Good news. The future of this site is secure for another seventy years. Well, good news for me, anyway.

Posted 10/22/2002 07:29:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Hey-la, Hey-la, My Boyfriends Back!

Taylor resumes his race for the Senate out in Montana. Someone deserves props for calling this. They used a basketball metaphor to describe "out-of-cash" Taylor's strategy - run some time off the clock, let the air out of the ball, have a conference on the mound, something like that. After a brief hiatus, a newly energized and publicized Taylor would be back. Anyway, whoever you are, great call!

UPDATE: The Village People opine. Look for other good stuff there, as well.

Posted 10/22/2002 01:39:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Are Pleased To Present A Solution to This Problem

What problem? Rising inequality of income. Despite our criticisms of Prof. Krugman's article, we are satisifed that income inequality is rising, and we are inclined to believe that this is not good. Our customary restraint is due to our uncertainty as to causes, and a desire not to inappropriately mingle the baby and the bathwater in an untimely fashion.

That said, a reader has been kind enough to send along a Very Intriguing Idea. Jim Kennedy and his partner, Francesso Vitelli, have been successful businessmen for quite some time. This, I should note, despite an awkward "leftward tilt" to much of Jim's political thinking. So, their thoughts on how to reform the tax code to promote entrepeneurship, promote greater income equality, and provide corporate tax relief - something for everyone! Hey, the rest of you should get readers like this.

The K-F Plan

Few sensible people actively applaud the economic distortions of double-taxation (ie, corporate taxes, then taxes again on dividend income).

Few sensible people actively applaud robber-baron type abuses of corporate power (ie, Kozlowski et al).

Why not tie together a response to both phenomena?

That is, let's gradually reduce and eliminate the taxation on dividends-paid for corporations that meet specified criteria with respect to income-distribution from CEO down to janitor.

Nature loves variations on the same theme over and over again - the Normal Distribution; resistance seems to be futile. Fat tails get squashed one way or the other, eventually.

So let's make some semblance of statistical normality a GOAL, as least with respect to discouraging greedy behavior which generates the conditions for its own eventual punishment. (No robber barons, no FDR, no unfair historical
images of Herbert Hoover -- everybody wins!)

The practical idea is this:

1) Corporations that wish to reduce the tax-burden on their investors apply
for tax relief. They submit income distribution data (including all perks,
options, hidden benefits, etc) for their staff. Deep thinkers study their
college texts and comes up with some simple robust measures which applicants
must satisfy to be relieved of double-taxation on dividends. (Ratio of
highest income to lowest income, skew, fatness of tail, similarity to
log-normality, stability of distribution over time, etc.)

2) Corporations that meet the criteria can pay dividends to investors
knowing the investors will pay no taxes on that money.

3) Corporations that choose to apply for this program but fail to meet it
due to the inevitable accounting and lawyering trickery which will accompany
this new rule must pay a penalty-surtax as punishment for wasting the
people's time and resources. This will spawn a cool industry for forensic
accounting and lawyering to detect the would-be cheaters. Lawyers will try
to split companies into 'classes' just as mortgage-backed bonds are split;
former leftists will earn good money and great satisfaction catching them.
Investors will require management stay away from the tricksters and
concentrate on business.

4) Corporations which rely on exceptional individual efforts and
contributions -- which could not succeed without Michael Jordans or Barry
Bonds on staff -- just keep going along. They will not apply for this
program because they rely on special inputs for their success. They are not
being punished, so they have nothing to complain about unless they choose to
whine (which, no doubt, they will, but that is another story).

Predicted Result:

Corporations operating in genuinely competitive (ie, replicable-work)
industries will be prompted by their shareholders to meet the tax-relief
criteria, and will do so. Corporations which rely on special labor
contributions will not pay dividends.

The distinction in tax-rates between capital gains and ordinary income will
become meaningful. If you think you've got something special on your
company team, like a 10-year Derek Jeter income generator, you hold on and
cash in later at the lower tax-rate. If you are not sure, you meet the
normal-distribution requirements and you pay dividends, your investors pay
no additional tax for the dividends, and cash is freed up to so Adam Smith's
invisible hand can make its optimal investment decisions anew.

And, hey, maybe the janitor can afford to invite the spouse to stay home and
raise the kids right, and still buy the kid a new baseball glove in hopes of
raising the next A-Rod. And maybe the 'dead-peasants' mentality, now
most-wickedly exemplified by COLI scams, that threatens to bring with it the
destruction of our free markets is diminished slowly and naturally by the
nearly-invisible and most-excellent hand of Jim, Francesso, and the IRS....

OK, they're flexible. Instead of tax relief for dividend payments, maybe generic tax relief. But only if you want to qualify by presenting yourself as a "fair-pay" company. Oh, picture the stormy board meetings then - CEO pay really comes out of the shareholder's pocket, the PR is crummy, why are we paying so much in taxes....

OK, my e-mail is above. Some of the obvious objections can, I think, be answered. Others, as they occur to me, are harder. Still, get ready to change corporate America!

Posted 10/22/2002 09:23:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The French Have A Word For It

Bush said what?

"President Bush said today that the United States was trying diplomacy "one more time" to disarm Saddam Hussein "peacefully" and suggested that if the Iraqi leader complied with every United Nations mandate it would "signal the regime has changed."

The White House immediately said that Mr. Bush was not backing away from his past insistence that Mr. Hussein must leave office. His spokesman said he could not imagine a situation in which the Iraqi leader, after 11 years of defiance, would suddenly comply with the United Nations. The president himself said today, in an appearance with Lord Robertson, the secretary general of NATO, that "the stated policy of the United States is regime change."

Well, the French word is "faux pas". OK, two words. In English, it's "Huh"?

Posted 10/21/2002 10:25:00 PM by The MinuteMan

In Which I Salute The Swedish Troll

I want to salute the Swedish Troll. Paul Krugman, in his NY Times magazine piece, picks up a discussion Glenn Reynolds launched back in May with this post. I resisted manfully, until my man Nathan pushed me over the edge.

Now, I believe the notion that a serious economist is discussing the relative economic strength of Sweden and Mississippi in a major publication is a triumph of something or other. Something very funny.

Two thoughts, ladies first: if you are having a serious argument about whether your man is better looking than Tom Cruise... you've already won! And guys, if you are having a serious discussion about whether your lady is not as ugly as RoseAnne Barr... you've lost!

Hello, Sweden is not as poor as Mississippi? Who cares? What kind of an advertisement is that for Swedish syle socialism - hey, we're not even as lame as Mississippi! Its the Absolut Truth! I can't keep a straight face.

Oh, second point - instead of looking at 1998 snapshots, run the film from, I don't know, 1970. I haven't even looked this up, but I promise you - Sweden was way ahead of Mississippi then. No serious debate about who was Numero Uno would have been imaginable.

Put it another way - South Korea and Taiwan are considered two great success stories of the last thirty years - I am sure that they are not richer than the US, but they are making great progress. It is the trend, not the current position, that is important. And with Sweden, the trend is not a friend.

Really. You could look it up.

UPDATE: I am taking on water here. A keen-eyed observer points out that Krugman mentions Mississippi briefly, then segues into a US-Sweden comparison. Hmm. My man Nathan does the same thing. Let's check out Prof. Krugman:

"A few months ago the conservative cyberpundit Glenn Reynolds made a splash when he pointed out that Sweden's G.D.P. per capita is roughly comparable with that of Mississippi -- see, those foolish believers in the welfare state have impoverished themselves! Presumably he assumed that this means that the typical Swede is as poor as the typical resident of Mississippi, and therefore much worse off than the typical American.

But life expectancy in Sweden is about three years higher than that of the U.S. Infant mortality is half the U.S. level, and less than a third the rate in Mississippi. Functional illiteracy is much less common than in the U.S.

How is this possible? One answer is that G.D.P. per capita is in some ways a misleading measure. Swedes take longer vacations than Americans, so they work fewer hours per year. That's a choice, not a failure of economic performance. Real G.D.P. per hour worked is 16 percent lower than in the United States, which makes Swedish productivity about the same as Canada's.... "

OK, so Krugman can't stay on topic. Nathan can't stay on topic. Glenn has lost focus, too. Hmm, this has turned into any ordinary cocktail party. Just as I am entering my eleventh minute on the subtleties of the Montana Senate race, folks suddenly take a desperate interest in their daughter's college application process, or their son's football game, or some darn thing of no possible general concern.

Well, at a cocktail party I know how to handle this sort of insurrection. With careful use of the interior walls, some potted plants, and perhaps a sofa, an audience is assured! A small, helpless, whining audience, but hey! What to do in the blogosphere is less clear, but I will say this - the topic is Mississippi, people - check the very first post!

Posted 10/21/2002 10:04:00 PM by The MinuteMan

More on Krugman and Inequality

OK, Brad DeLong has TWO posts going, with energetic comments in each. Pick a side, join in, pick the opposite side in the other forum - great fun!

And, the often informative and always great-looking Jane Galt has her long thoughts, and points us to Andrew Kling for something short and sweet.

Posted 10/21/2002 09:58:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Free Legal Advice for Andrew Sullivan

Regarding his "blog challenge", in which he suggests that someone

"take a look at Ann Coulter's recent columns and Maureen Dowd's. Using strict criteria - personal smears, rhetorical hyperbole, unprovable accusations of ill-will, bigotry (towards a class or race or group of people), unsubstantiated claims, and so on, see how the two stack up."

Look, Andrew, anyone crazy enough to sit down and read competing stacks of columns from Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd will be ruled a suicide. And if Dr. Kevorkian can be jailed, so can you.

Posted 10/21/2002 03:28:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Central Park Jogger - More Time

TalkLeft was right, and I was wrong - the DA will have more time to assess the case of the Central Park Jogger.

The single best summary of the story is this ABC News piece.

A surprising follow-up: there was a violent rape committed by one man a few blocks from this rape in Central Park, just two nights before the "wilding night". But the police never told the defense? And, eventually, we learn that Matias Reyes, involved with the Central Park Jogger rape, committed the earlier one? Police confusion, or police misconduct?

Posted 10/21/2002 02:38:00 PM by The MinuteMan

What Was North Korea Thinking?

So wonders the Times.

"Experts who disagree on many other matters concerning North Korea say decision making in the country whose future holds the key to peace and stability in northeast Asia is driven by an impulse for survival amid ever constricting options...

For years, North Korea has perfected a kind of bloodcurdling official polemics used by the national radio and newspapers to denounce the United States, South Korea and Japan, and to warn its enemies that they will suffer humiliating defeat if they dare attack."

As an aside, we see that in blogdom ALL the time. Doesn't always deter folks, however.

"Faced with the urgent need to fend off economic collapse, Mr. Kim's confession of a uranium-based nuclear weapons program appears to many experts to have been a pragmatic, if ultimately misguided response to an insurmountable obstacle: a Bush Administration that had little interest in engagement."

Oh, man, is the Times admitting that this simplistic "axis of evil" stuff might be working?

"Admission of the nuclear program rather than denial, appears to have been intended to "persuade the world that Kim Jong Il is a new kind of leader, and his leadership does not resort to terrorist means, or secrecy," said Han S. Park, director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues at the University of Georgia.

Now, here is a well informed deep thinker:

""North Korea has always wanted to pursue normalization with the United States, and however awkwardly, now they are bargaining," said Selig S. Harrison, director of the National Security Program at the Center for International Policy in Washington. "What they are saying is that they are prepared to negotiate an end to all nuclear activity and allow inspections, if we agree to two things: not to threaten them militarily and to pursue normalized relations."

Mr. Harrison, who is the author of "Korean Endgame: A Strategy for Reunification and U.S. Disengagement," said Pyongyang's position was spelled out to him this week by the country's representative to the United Nations."

So, if we resume the 1994 deal, the North Koreans will too, and this time they really, really mean it? Look, I accept that this will be solved diplomatically, but I wonder just how happy the North Korean leadership will be with the solution. We may have reached a point where the neighboring powers announce that it is over. My solution - give Kim Jong Il and his family and friends $10 Bilion and an island somewhere. No trials, no hassle, just go. Worked for Marcos, sort of.

I skipped over an important part of the story: a month ago, the North Koreans came clean with the Japanese about Japanese nationals that were kidnapped in the late 70's. The initial Japanese reaction was "oh good, we are making progress with our relationship with these inscrutable North Koreans". As more press attention turns to the actual stories of these people, popular opinion in Japan seems to be turning towards revulsion - just who are these barbarians running North Korea?

So, not a good news-month for North Korea. I doubt either China or Russia wants kooks with nukes on their border. Hence, the MinuteMan Plan for East Asia - pay them off, good-bye.

UPDATE: Drezner chimes in. But how seriously can we take a guy who doesn't like the "Golden Parachute" idea for the N Koreans rulers? Kim has never left Korea, there is no reason to think he likes to travel... hey, George Bush hardly went abroad prior to has election! Anyway, never stop learning! Step out and see the world! How can you keep Kim down on the farm, now that he's seen Paree! I Love New York! Let's get this guy traveling. We'll all like it.

Posted 10/21/2002 02:21:00 PM by The MinuteMan

William Safire Took a Bad Czech

Fascinating story in the Times:

"The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials"

The Times coyly adds this:

"The White House has generally been cautious about using the reports of the Prague meeting to help make the case for war with Iraq. Yet the Prague meeting has remained a live issue with other proponents of military action against Iraq, both in and out of the government."

Yes, "out of government" would include Mr. Safire, as, for example, here.

And, fans of John LeCarre will love the Times supplemental piece of the workings of the Czech intelligence service, the British M I 6, and the CIA.

UPDATE: I see the obvious, given enough time. Look, Safire is arguably a victim here. Stop laughing and listen. This Mohammed Atta connection did not come to Safire in a dream - he has government sources that were pushing this story to advance their own agenda. Rather than a two-line "ooops, I was wrong", Safire may name names as to who played games. Or, we may get what he would call a "thumbsucker" on the odd relationship between the press and its sources. But this new revelation seems to merit a full column. Let's give him a bit of time.

Posted 10/21/2002 02:13:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Riding the Tiger - Dismount to Follow

"Tens of thousands of Iraqi prisoners stormed out of their cells to freedom today after President Saddam Hussein declared an amnesty that appeared to have all but emptied a sprawling, nationwide network of prisons that have served as the grim charnel houses of one of the world's harshest police states.

...Mr. Hussein's reasons for emptying the prisons were shrouded in the blanket of secrecy that envelops much in Iraq...

But much else suggested that the growing threat of war with the United States may have spurred what is undoubtedly the most punitive government in the Arab world toward a sudden gesture of magnanimity.

Among Iraqi exiles, the common view was that President Bush, in demanding the ouster of Mr. Hussein, has already struck at the foundations of his power, by serving notice that the days of the 65-year-old president, an absolute ruler since he seized power in 1979, may be numbered by America's military might....

Diplomats in Baghdad with memories of the rapid collapse of Communist power across Eastern Europe in 1989 said Mr. Hussein and his aging inner circle in the Revolutionary Command Council may be drawing on that experience, concerned that the specter of war with the United States could cause a crumbling of loyalties that could bring the government tumbling down from within.

But the Eastern European example, and the scenes of frenzy that developed at Abu Ghraib, suggested that gestures by autocratic regimes to release pressure can have unexpected results, signaling to people who have lived for years in fear of the state that their rulers may be wavering, and that ordinary people, gathered in large numbers, can take power into their own hands. That lesson seemed unavoidable today, as the crowds forced some cell blocks open, while jailers mostly stood passively by."

Oh, we love this story. But it gets better:

" For two hours, as the crowds gathered in their thousands outside the gates, the prison release looked like it was turning into a rally for Mr. Hussein. Young men, apparently government supporters, led relatives of the prisoners in firing Kalashnikov rifles into the air...

Once the prison gates collapsed, the mood changed. Seeing watchtowers abandoned and the prison guards standing passively by or actively supporting them as they charged into the cell blocks, the crowd seemed to realize that they were experiencing, if only briefly, a new Iraq, where the people, not the government, was sovereign. Chants of "Down Bush! Down Sharon!" referring to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, faded. In one cell block, a guard smiled broadly at an American photographer, raised his thumb, and said, "Bush! Bush!" Elsewhere, guards offered an English word almost never heard in Iraq. "Free!" they said. "Free!"

The Times saves that for their big finish. And how great would it be if this signals a big finish for Saddam.

Posted 10/20/2002 05:16:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Paul Krugman Delivers A Left Dream Sequence

Writing for the NY Times magazine, Krugman delivers the intellectual equivalent of a gift-wrapped box of chocolates. All for the benefit of his left-wing readers, of course. Phrases such as "conservative commentator" appear only prior to a phony argument that manipulates and distorts the data.

It's a long article, and presents many opportunities for criticism. I'll throw out a few here.

Statistical assertion that won't withstand scrutiny: "Mansions have made a comeback... Needless to say, the armies of servants are back, too."

Armies of servants? I have vague memories of reading that Vanderbult had sixty to one hundred servants just at his summer estate. Does Bill Gates have anything like that?

Carville quality spin: "We became a middle-class society only after the concentration of income at the top dropped sharply during the New Deal, and especially during World War II."

Oh, good old FDR and his many plans. Of course, some people might attribute the change in the concentration of income to the Great Depression, but that just sounds so unpleasant, and, well, depressing. We don't really want that again, do we? Actually, avoiding World War might be a good idea, too. But the New Deal, hey, we liked it!

Non-rebuttal of plausible argument: Krugman mentions three possible causes of rising inequality: globalization, "''skill-biased technological change", and the "superstar" theory - more jobs, and businesses, resemble "winner-take-all" competitions. The rebuttal of the third theory?

"The superstar theory works for Jay Leno, but not for the thousands of people who have become awesomely rich without going on TV."

Oh, my. So much for superstar bankers, or lawyers, or economists, or software gurus, or anything beyond TV.

Most dangerous approach to "He must be kidding?!": A tie.

"John Kenneth Galbraith described the honest executive of 1967 as being one who ''eschews the lovely, available and even naked woman by whom he is intimately surrounded.'' By the end of the 1990's, the executive motto might as well have been ''If it feels good, do it.''

Please. We know what we are thinking. Second entry:

"Economists also did their bit to legitimize previously unthinkable levels of executive pay. During the 1980's and 1990's a torrent of academic papers -- popularized in business magazines and incorporated into consultants' recommendations -- argued that Gordon Gekko was right: greed is good; ...

It's hard to escape the suspicion that these new intellectual justifications for soaring executive pay were as much effect as cause. I'm not suggesting that management theorists and economists were personally corrupt. It would have been a subtle, unconscious process: the ideas that were taken up by business schools, that led to nice speaking and consulting fees, tended to be the ones that ratified an existing trend, and thereby gave it legitimacy."

As I suggested, is "Mr. Enron Consulting Fees for I Know Not What" kidding? An unconscious cry for help?

Now, a very broad criticism of interest only to folks who have made it through the article: Krugman deplores the rising income inequality in America, and wonders why we can't stay on the same path as the 50's through the 70's. It is clear, although not emphasized, that this period was anomalous. Why might that be the case? Well, US industry had not been devasted by WWII. Unskilled and union labor in this country had no significant foreign competition. Probably a good time to be a US worker. Left unmentioned is that, by the late 70's, the US economy was a disaster. The recent talk about Jimmy Carter may have reminded a few folks. But I remember, for example, that all through the 70's, Detroit refused to focus on improving the quality of their rolling rubbish, preferring instead to grovel for import quotas on Japanese cars. Is that the situation to which we should turn back the clock?

Secondly, Krugman bases a large part of his argument on the unraveling of a social compact in which executives restrained their pay back in the anomalous "Golden Era". Well, yes. Executives restrained their pay in exchange for lifetime employment, generous, unscrutinized, untaxed expense accounts, generous perks, and light hours. Remember the infamous "three-martini lunch" of the Carter era? Do you still hear about it?

And beyond that, this era of conformity in executive pay was also an era of conformity in political thought, which, at its extreme, lead to McCarthy. It was also an era of conformity in notions of professional capability: woman and blacks need not apply. Krugman does not wonder whether these forces are linked. Can we eliminate the white male country club of 1950's style corporate management, but preserve those notions of lifetime employment and stable, modestly rising compensation?

Krugman focusses entirely on higher executive pay with no mention of the other changes in executive lifestyle or expectations that have occurred since the 80's. Sort of the sound of one hand clapping. The left hand.

UPDATE: Well, well. Google. Why not? Here is stuff on the Vanderbilt Mansion, and the Vanderbilts themselves.

UPDATE 2: Yes, some of this material does seem a bit familiar. Here is a Brad DeLong piece to which we linked on June 16, suggesting it is not all darkness. And Andrew Sullivan comments on Krugman's article.

UPDATE 3: A new entrant for "Most absurd argument"? Why not? Let's go to the text:

"modern American politics is bitterly polarized. But wasn't it always thus? No, it wasn't. From World War II until the 1970's -- the same era during which income inequality was historically low -- political partisanship was much more muted than it is today.... My Princeton political science colleagues Nolan McCarty and Howard Rosenthal... have done a statistical analysis showing that the voting behavior of a congressman is much better predicted by his party affiliation today than it was 25 years ago. In fact, the division between the parties is sharper now than it has been since the 1920's.

What are the parties divided about? The answer is simple: economics... the growing inequality of our incomes probably lies behind the growing divisiveness of our politics."

Whoa. Other possible explanations of the unsurprising statistical result predicting Congressional votes: the massive realignment of Southern Democrats, who voted with Republican on many issues relating to crime, national defense, labor law, and taxes. Many of those DINOs are now formally Republicans. Similarly, where are the "Rockefeller Republicans" of yesteryear? Some, like Jeffords, have gone independent; some, like Chafee, think about it; and many have just been voted away. Please tell me that this is not news to Krugman or the professors he cites - I haven't read their work, but I am sure they address this.

As to other factors that may have contributed to a certain partisanship, one might mention the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War, a facade of national unity was important - man, am I actually writing this? I can't go on - this is so obvious a point that I can only assume Krugman is trolling us. Which also saves me mentioning Watergate, the Chicago police riots of 1968, the Viet-Nam War, the Civil Rights movement, and other profoundly bipartisan activities of the 60's and 70's.

Posted 10/20/2002 04:50:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Euro-follies

OK, the Euro is the common currency introduced in much of Europe. The Euro-zone stability pact is meant to assure that no one country "cheats" by running a large budget deficit and forcing the rest of the Eoru-participants to take steps to assure the credibility of the common currency. All for one and one for all. In fact, the Times describes it thusly:

"The 1997 Stability and Growth Pact, as it is called, is the fragile if grand framework for the European single currency. It requires each of the 12 governments that have adopted the euro to hold its deficit to less than 3 percent of gross national product each year and to balance its budget by 2004."

You got a problem with that? Well, the normal governmental tools for dealing with a slow economy are monetary policy, and fiscal policy. Monetary policy is out of the hands of member nations participating in the Euro. Fiscal policy is tied by the stability pact. Pretty clever, huh?

The current president of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi of Italy, did not think so. His preferred word is "stupid", as in:

" 'I know very well that the stability pact is stupid, like all decisions that are rigid.' "

Awkward moment, since both France and germany may be about to violate the stability pact. Surely the Euro-diplomats can smooth this over? What do the French have to say?

"Francis Mer, France's finance minister, ... has likened the zone's members to a family of "big people, small people, fat people, thin people," who must compromise to get along. After Mr. Prodi's remark, Mr. Mer noted with apparent satisfaction, "The president of the Commission himself declares that the Stability and Growth Pact may need to show a bit more flexibility and a little more simplicity."

Oh my, the French calling for "simplicity"? A bold new approach!

On the other hand, the Greeks may have a word for it:

"Greece's finance minister, Nikos Christodoulakis, ... called the pact "a very essential tool for fiscal stability," and likened it to Christianity, in which "we have the Orthodox, we have the Catholics, we have the Protestants — but we believe in the same God."

The rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe. Not to mention the obvious anti-Muslim slant.

As for German reactiom, let's try this:

"In Frankfurt, the business daily Handelsblatt said: "Prodi is known for putting his foot in it, but whether his description of the E.U. budget rules as `stupid' was intentional or just another clumsy `faux pas' is not important. Credibility is vital to the pact, but following these unspeakable remarks, that credibility is more damaged than ever before."

Subtly worded, but they seem to be unhappy.

So, a fine day in Euro-land, and just one more reason to reflect sadly on the inability of the US to develop a coherent foreign policy in coordination with our vital, sensible, and always entertaining allies.

UPDATE: Less fun, but more content with Prof. DeLong. Good link to the Economist, but you'll have to take de long way.

Posted 10/20/2002 12:45:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Tom Friedman: The New Face of Terror

NO, he is not writing about terror, he is terror! He has a very interesting and sensible article today, which reprises some of his earlier themes. However, a small chunk of the NY Times readership probably sputtered with rage and died of cardiac arrest when they staggered across this passage:

"For all these reasons, if we really want to hasten the transition from autocracy to something more democratic in places like Iraq or Iran, the most important thing we can do is gradually, but steadily, bring down the price of oil — through conservation and alternative energies."

He explains why. I agree, and have considered the failure to re-think our energy policy and call for increased conservation the great lost opportunity of 9/11.

However, as Bush-bashers slapped their knees in delight, the rug was promptly pulled out from under them with this passage:

"Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union by using two tactics: he delegitimized the Soviets and he defueled them. He delegitimized them by branding the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," and by exposing its youth to what was going on elsewhere in the world, and he defueled them by so outspending them on Star Wars that the Soviet Union went bankrupt."

Ooops, something positive about Ronald "irresponsible deficits and social collapse" Reagan? Not in My Times! Shockingly, MoDo said this in an adjacent column:

"I [Richard Perle] persuaded Reagan to ignore the weak-kneed, striped-pants set at the State Department and buy every weapon in sight until the Evil Empire was scared stiffer than a perfectly executed meringue."

We think that means Reagan had a large arms build-up that gave the Soviets problems. MoDo and Tom, working as one!

Posted 10/20/2002 12:40:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Aim To Please With "Post-Relevant" Maureen Dowd

Business first: Josh Chafetz has a Weekly Standard piece which, in his estimation, needs google-bombing. Very well: go check out "The Immutable Laws of Maureen Dowd."

Next, constructive comments on Josh's article: The best point is made early:

"THE FIRST IMMUTABLE LAW OF DOWD: The first and most important rule is what might be termed the People magazine principle: All political phenomena can be reduced to caricatures of the personalities involved. Any reference to policy concerns or even to old-fashioned politicking is, like, so passé. And, of course, with every caricature goes a nickname.

The First Law is the reason that Dowd used to be so much fun to read--it's the reason she won the 1999 Pulitzer for her columns on the Lewinsky scandal. The Lewinsky scandal was all about personality; more than that, it was about personalities that lent themselves to caricature. So when Dowd wrote about President Clinton ("the Grand Canyon of need") and Monica Lewinsky (the "relentless" woman "clinging to some juvenile belief that the President loved her") and Linda Tripp (who "rides on a broomstick") and Ken Starr (a "sex addict"), it just seemed apt.

The problem is, the nation now has matters of life and death to attend to. But Dowd is still drawing caricatures..."

Not to say the remaining four laws are not apt, but the first is so true that the remainder pale. Anyway, five immutable laws of Dowd? Why not call them "Juris Dowd", shortened to JuDo? Just who is off-balance, or left on the mat, is for the reader to decide.

Ok, on to the most recent MoDo column. Josh wonders about this passage:

"I am the chairman of your Defense Policy Board," an amused Richard Perle replied. "I am an adviser to Rumsfeld, a friend of Wolfowitz's and a thorn in Powell's medals. Je suis un gourmand, Monsieur le President. I have always dreamed of opening a chain of fast-food soufflé shops based on a machine that would automatically separate eggs, beat the yolks and combine them with hot milk and sugar, add the desired flavorings, whip the whites until stiff, fold them into the mixture and bake in individual pots without human intervention. Then conveyor belts would bring the glass-enclosed ovens to the table and patrons would get to see their meals rise. I've never found investors smart enough to realize the dazzling ingenuity of the Perle Soufflé Doctrine. Meanwhile, I'm killing time trying to get your foreign policy to rise. I'm known as the Prince of Darkness."

Does anyone have any idea what the joke is meant to be here? Did Perle once say "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs?" Josh and I are at sea with this one.

Finally, my own criticism of the latest MoDo piece. My impression is that even Bush's critics have recognized that he has an extraordinary memory for the faces and names of people he has met. So, if a caricature is meant to distort recognizable characteristics, what is up with the intro to the passage above, where Bush does not even recognize Richard Perle?

"The Boy Emperor was starting to feel bamboozled by his war tutors. He needed a fresh perspective. There was a guy on TV with a round face and deep voice running around Provence, London and Berlin, where he suggested Schröder resign. He was pre-eminent on pre-emption. The Boy summoned him to explain the Bush doctrine.

"Do I know you?" he asked his visitor.

"I am the chairman of your Defense Policy Board," an amused Richard Perle replied."

Just wondering. I know, I am looking for logic in all the wrong places, but still.

Posted 10/19/2002 03:42:00 PM by The MinuteMan

More On North Korea

The NY Times has a guest piece by Joel S. Wit, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. How serious is the North Korean problem:

"As a result, the stage could be set for a repeat of the 1994 crisis with North Korea over a previous effort to build such weapons, a crisis that brought us close to a second Korean War.

A nuclear-armed North Korea would pose a serious threat to the 37,000 American troops in Korea and to the security of South Korea and Japan. It would undermine the global nonproliferation regime, creating pressure on Seoul and Tokyo to acquire their own nuclear weapons. Finally, it violates the 1994 Agreed Framework between America and North Korea that froze Pyongyang's nuclear program.

...Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policy toward Pyongyang has left it with very few options to solve this problem. The Clinton administration succeeded in negotiating access to a suspected nuclear production site in 1999 because it had an ongoing dialogue for putting that arrangement in place...

The Bush administration is in a comparatively weak position because it has not demonstrated a serious interest in dialogue. Also, Pyongyang's recent initiatives to improve relations with South Korea and Japan may make both hesitant to confront the North. Even without these disadvantages, seeking tough multilateral measures against North Korea and Iraq at the same time may be more than the diplomatic traffic can bear.

So, clever timing by the North Koreans. As to the notion that the South Koreans and the Japanese will elevate process over results, well, I can't say I would be surprised if they do.

If the Bush administration's recently published security strategy is truly a guide to White House thinking, a third option is to launch a pre-emptive attack against North Korea's nuclear program. However, the rhetoric of a pre-emptive strike may have little to do with reality, and the administration has so far been very reluctant to discuss a military option. There are good reasons for hesitation: Seoul, with a population of 10 million, is so close to the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas that it is in range of thousands of North Korean artillery pieces. The possible chain reaction set off by an attack could have catastrophic consequences...

Yes, the military options seem to be limited.

"This latest development itself seems to have come as a surprise. "Don't let the United States turn us into another Iraq," have been words to live and die by in the North Korean leadership. Giving in to American demands now could do precisely that, perhaps fatally undermining the stability of a regime that needs the fiction of proud self-reliance to keep any legitimacy with its people."

Whoa. Of all the paragraphs the author might like to revise, expand, or explain, this one stands out. How much legitimacy does he suppose the regime has right now? Why does he think the good people of North Korea will learn of these diplomatic maneuverings, or anything else?

So, what should we do?

...rather than abrogate the Agreed Framework, Washington — in close consultation with Seoul and Tokyo — should suspend its implementation for the time being. Pyongyang has admitted violating the spirit if not the precise terms of the agreement and Washington must respond. That will mean halting two critical programs agreed to in 1994: construction of two reactors and monthly shipments of heavy fuel oil.

But any suspension must be coupled with a sustained, serious diplomatic dialogue with North Korea. One objective would be to secure international inspections to ensure that all North Korea's nuclear activities end."

Grounds for optimism?

"Leaving Pyongyang's defiant rhetoric aside, the fact that it confessed to a secret nuclear program is a sign that North Korea may be looking for a way out of a potential crisis."

They are reaching out to us. Maybe.

"In the end, diplomacy may fail. But it must be seen by our allies and the international community as failing because of North Korean, not American, intransigence. Only then will the United States be on a firm footing to seek international action and, if necessary, to use force.

Well, I would love to see even an outline of proposed military options. Bombing their reactors doesn't solve the problem of the nuclear material they have already collected. Regime change? How?

Questions, questions.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan provides some biographical background on the author that the Times, in the course of delivering all the news that's fit to print, sonehow overlooked:

"He was most recently the coordinator for the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework and was responsible for U.S. policy related to the implementation of that agreement."

OK, so he's an expert - good! But perhaps his background is relevant in assessing his support of the diplomatic process, and his criticism of Bush. Maybe?

Posted 10/19/2002 03:05:00 PM by The MinuteMan

It's Easy To be Gracious When You Are Right

OK, I'm guessing - someday I'll be right, and we'll see just how easy it is for me to be gracious. But Daniel Drezner makes it look easy.

Prof. Drezner concluded that "The hypocrisy charge sticks" in his post evaluating North Korea. In response to my anguished query, he then modified and clarified his point in a follow-up. My argument was that, absent a viable military option with N Korea, the Administration is stuck with the diplomatic route, and that the "Bush Doctrine" included pre-emption as an alternative, not as a commitment to hopeless warfare. And, Holy Cow, he agrees with me that the Administration is not acting in a manner inconsistent with its stated principles. I may never blog again!

However, he goes on to clarify his hypocrisy argument - referring to the NY Times piece, he points out that the arguments offered by the anonymous Admin officials do not make this point. Instead, the reasons given are a bit of a stretch. Prof. Drezner nicely summarizes this as arguing that, between Saddam and North Korea, we are being assured that there is a "malevolence gap". Well, that is silly. However, it is the outside experts in the Times piece that offer the real reasons for pursuing the diplomatic route.

I will Boldly Predict that this will be clarified on the Sunday talk shows. Some official will be sent out to tell us what we already know, that North Korea is too hard a target, militarily. Invade North Korea? Call that "re-invade" North Korea: the idea has a ghastly "been there, done that, got the t-shirt shot full of holes" quality.

Posted 10/18/2002 09:12:00 AM by The MinuteMan

This Is The Right Idea

Dave Shiflet at NRO has the right spirit - we have this Maryland Sniper outnumbered. Look, the idea of hijacking planes as missles was rendered obsolete after about one hour, and it wasn't because of reinforced doors, or armed pilots, or improved airline security. It was because ordinary people stepped up to the challenge.

Similarly, I expect that the sniper is having a much harder time operating in the DC area now. Every person out there could be armed with a cell-phone, and therefore dangerous. We will see how many people feel hunted, and how many feel like hunters.

Posted 10/18/2002 08:48:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Krugman Discovers Partisanship in Washington

Vicious attacks, distortions of the truth - my goodness. Fortunately, it's only Republicans.

Posted 10/18/2002 08:44:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Totally Retro, But Amusing

In a lame attempt to create some sort of "faux-interactivity" with their readership, the Dead Tree NY Times has a feature quaintly titled "Letters to the Editor". Please. The editor gets hundrds of letters and picks a few that make some damn point or other. But let's check out the letters regarding the news that North Korea has cheated on their nuclear agreement.

First letter: "The administration's decision to withhold this information was apparently another cynical ploy to force a vote in Congress about Iraq while withholding critical and relevant facts."

Hey, suddenly I like this creative new feature offered by the Times! OK, this reader thinks it weakens the case for action against Iraq, but still. Who's next?

"But one wonders if President Bush isn't reasonable in his fears that too much trust and negotiation with Iraq could lead to even worse results."

Hey, this is what I'm talking about right here. What are the odds of hitting three straight?

"The Bush administration's preparations for an invasion of Iraq and its declared intention to pre-emptively attack any country that it deems a terrorist threat will encourage many countries to aggressively pursue a technology that promises protection against more powerful foes."

Oh, well. But let's applaud those crafty North Koreans - since they began cheating years ago, they must have anticipated not only Bush's nomination, but the controversial role played by Scalia in his eventual ascension to the Presidency. Maybe one of these North Korean analysts should get a job covering elections at one of the networks.

Any more?

"Should the worst happen in Korea, would fighting in the Taiwan Strait be far behind? So where are we headed? A three-front war? Or possibly World War III?

He who persists in denial of the danger may be doomed to live in fear — fear of the destruction of the world."

Now that is frightening - not the three-front war scenario, but the odd fortune cookie ending: he who persists in denial is doomed to live in fear. What the heck is the point of denial, if not to avoid living in fear? Maybe he means, if Bush lives in denial, the rest of us are doomed to live in fear. Well, I'm already afraid, and thanks for caring. But it is the failed policies of Clinton-Gore that have me on edge.

And finally, either Bush is a hypocrite and Iraq is just a political exercise, or:

"Since North Korea has, along with Iraq and Iran, been labeled by President Bush as part of an "axis of evil," I would expect nothing less than a "regime change," by force, in Pyongyang."

Myself, I would love to see regime change in North Korea. Hard luck that militarily they are a very tough nut, and have Seoul within range of their artillery. Sort of why we have had a stand-off there for about fifty years. But guided by a "do what you can, endure what you must" philosophy, Bush wants to deal with Iraq while it is still relatively manageable. And we do appreciate the writer's endorsement of the concept of regime change. Having established what the writer is, we are now reduced to haggling over his price. I, of course, have already sold out.

Posted 10/17/2002 10:15:00 PM by The MinuteMan

North Korea: What Did They Know, And When Did They Know It?

So the Bush Administration knew about this twelve days ago. Meanwhile, Congress was debating what to do about Iraq.

Now, I happen to think that the news that a member of Bush's "axis of evil" is cheating on past agreements in an attempt to develop nuclear weapons is vaguely relevant to the Iraq debate. I even think that it bolsters the case for the hawks - what, exactly, is the point in negotiating with unreliable, untrustworthy dictators like Saddam? And, if we think North Korea with nukes is a serious problem, shouldn't we be even more intent on preventing a similar problem in Iraq, while we still can?

But that said, how can Congress be kept in the dark? CNN gives us this:

"While the administration said it has consulted with Congress, Daschle said he had not been briefed on the matter. House Minority Leader, Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said he had not been fully briefed on the situation, as well as Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi.

"We have not been briefed, and we have not been given any new intelligence information," Daschle said."

Now, I don't want these guys to resume the whining about "process" that took up so much time earlier this year. But we are looking for an informed debate on war and peace - let's give these people some facts.

UPDATE: The Hauser Report points us to Ted Kennedy - psychic, briefed, or just paying attention? We have this from a TNR piece describing the debate on Iraq, posted Oct. 10:

"And when senators did offer new information on the floor it was, as often as not, wrong. On Friday, for example, Ted Kennedy blurted out a startling assertion. "What about North Korea?" he roared. "They've already got nuclear weapons!" Kennedy presumably recognized his error after the fact. Thanks to an apparent airbrushing, the Congressional Record now renders Kennedy saying, "They may have nuclear weapons." (Even that isn't likely.) "

Well, as I said, maybe Ted was paying attention. Here is a Rich Lowry piece from last March, reprised yesterday at NRO:

"...Walpole is the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs for the CIA and was there to update senators on the National Intelligence Estimate.

He calmly delivered the following blockbuster: "The Intelligence Community judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons."

OK, the new reports do not conclude that N Korea has produced a weapon. Still, it does seem to be the logical next step.

Posted 10/17/2002 08:21:00 PM by The MinuteMan

CSI: Cental Park Jogger

Joyce Purnick of the NY Times devotes a Metro column, right there on page B1, to the case today. Although basically a summary, she does raise new points:

"Another question: If detectives imposed a fabricated story, why would they risk being contradicted by the victim? There was no guarantee that if she awoke from a coma, she would have no memory of her attack."

Well, these were homicide detectives, so being contradicted by the victim was not their normal experience. In this case, the woman was found near death, and her survival and recovery were considered to be miraculous. However, it is an intriguing queston.

"THE five have served from just under 9 years to 13 years, and now Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney, says he is prepared to agree to vacate the convictions because of newly discovered evidence — that Mr. Reyes, now 31, raped another woman in Central Park two days before the jogger was raped...."

Well, Morgenthau admitted that vacating the sentences was a possibility. But his statement today, and earlier reporting, contradict the assertion above.

"That, as well as Mr. Reyes's confession and the collapse of some DNA evidence, would make a new trial futile."

We said so a while back. Hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

"... Throwing out the convictions, though, does not give the five men what they want: a declaration of innocence. Only if they are exonerated, in a separate legal proceeding, can they seek civil damages."

OK, I have never heard of such a thing. Since I try to learn something new every day, I will commence to plague the resourceful and inexhaustible team at TalkLeft.

Finally, a psychologist who interviewed Matias Reyes comments:

"The forensic psychologist who interviewed Matias Reyes after he was charged in an unrelated rape and murder case said yesterday that Reyes would have had no problem sexually assaulting the Central Park jogger if he had found her lying unconscious.

"He could definitely do that," the psychologist, N.G. Berrill, said. "He's a very violent, anti-social individual. It's in the realm of possibility that he could have done something like that."

Posted 10/17/2002 08:02:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Still Get Google Hits For Alex and Derek King

So anyone interested, check out TalkLeft. Apparently, a judge has set aside the convictions of the two boys, but we are awaiting word as to why.

UPDATE: Here is a NY Times story explaining it. Apparently the judge, who oversaw both trials, had the same question the rest of is did - if the prosecution is presenting two different theories to two different juries, does that not, in itself, suggest reasonable doubt? One is reassured that wisdom comes to us all, one wonders what took so long, and again one asks: is Florida ready for self-government?

Posted 10/17/2002 06:42:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Overnight Forecast: Dark, With Scattered Light Towards Morning

So, now George Carlin is drafting speeches for Fed Board members? Here is a topical, yet timeless, headline:

"Market volatility to stay until uncertainty abates"

So now we know.

Posted 10/17/2002 09:35:00 AM by The MinuteMan

What A Month!

Ok, we have impending war with Iraq, nukes in North Korea, and the Washington sniper. On the other hand, the sun is shining, and it's a beautiful day. Decisions, decisions....

Posted 10/17/2002 08:17:00 AM by The MinuteMan

We Expand the Dictionary

Es-chat-a-ton-ic: totally non-responsive to arguments that contradict one's previously established world-view.

Diane E. seem to have identified a case, down in the comments.

Posted 10/17/2002 08:12:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Lefty Bloggers, I'm Begging You...

Commercialize your talent! Or, just volunteer your time. But man, oh, man, Barbra Streisand needs someone who can fact-check, spell-check, string together words into sentences, and then perhaps spin sentences into coherent arguments. An eye (or ear) for Shakespearean prose would be a plus. So, check her website and send her an e-mail. Very little effort required beyond that in the application stage - your blog is your resume.

So, help your party, astonish your friends, maybe make a little cash... a chance like this comes along every day?

Posted 10/17/2002 12:49:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Texas Steel-Cage Death Match

Or at least an interesting argument. The nearly all-powerful Volokh likes this Michael Kelly piece on Jimmy C. and the Nobel Peace Prize. My man at Pandagon hated the same piece.

OK, my money is on Pandagon. Younger, excellent quickness, and I think he has a good counter-argument that makes the Kelly piece seem a bit less convincing. GO!

UPDATE: OK, Prof. Volokh graciously admits that Kelly may have engaged in a bit of hyperbole, and makes an interesting point. Peter Beinart at TNR has a fascinating view of this.

Posted 10/16/2002 11:56:00 PM by The MinuteMan

And This From The Minister of Silly Walks

I say, "Walk Like an Egyptian". With about as much reason.

Posted 10/16/2002 11:04:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Ruling Opens New Arena in the Debate on Abortion

A pregnant woman may use deadly force to protect her fetus even when she does not fear for her own life, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled. Legal experts say the decision has opened another front in the legal wars surrounding abortion....

From the NY Times.

UPDATE: Hey, a Brother saw this.

Posted 10/16/2002 10:45:00 PM by The MinuteMan

North Korea Cheating On Their Nuclear Weapons Agreement?

At least the Bush people kept this quiet until after Jimmy was awarded his Peanuts Prize.

So, chest thumping and "I told you so" from the Right (and they ARE right). Instant rationalizations and "what we really meant was..." from the Left. All tomorrow, presumably.

UPDATE: More from the NY Times. Hey, a positive spin on this! North Korea is reaching out to us with this admission - sort of Step One in a Twelve Step Treatment program.

Sensible concerns from Demosthenes. "Nightmare" seems to be the operative word, but he concludes it weakens the case against war with Iraq.

Drezner, our foreign policy guru, is out until Friday? Hand in your "instant analysis - instant gratification" blogger badge!

A Brother Judd thinks this strengthens the case for Action Now! against Iraq.

I know it's not really a blog, but here is Jonah Goldberg, saying this news vindicates the Bush approach.

And these blogger archive links seem to be working great! Jinx!

Posted 10/16/2002 02:41:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Clark For President!

Clark Kent? GREAT choice, but no - retired General Wesley Clark has created a boomlet. This story (scroll waaay down) was noticed by The Brothers Judd, provoking a rare appearance by the Other Brother! The New Republic also noticed, which drew in Atrios.

So, would the General have an opinion on Iraq?

In his visit, Clark was noticeably critical of President Bush’s pre-emptive strike policy and for the administration’s willingness to fight a war in Iraq without support from allies."

Well, is this part of a larger plan?

"... this visit is just one of many Clark is doing around the country to understand public sentiment about the war."

About which, TNR says:

"... Clark does have more or less instant credibility on foreign policy and national security. Clark could use it to express the views many Democrats privately hold--that the administration's Iraq policy is hopelessly misguided--but which would get any other Democrat slaughtered in a general election."

Ironists would delight in seeing a retired General at a benefit hosted by Barbra, or at an anti-war rally. However, the General would have an instant constituency and easy access to money. Would the media fawn over a straight-talking anti-war General? Please. Start reserving those domain names now. And if he ends up as Secretary of State, or Defense, or as somebody's VP, well, there is always 2008, and beyond!

Posted 10/16/2002 12:27:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Even I Have Heard Of Flushing Pheasants

NO, that is not a delicacy out in Queens! It's scaring a flock of birds away from cover and concealment so that you may gun them down ruthlessly as they soar aloft in beautiful flight. Great Sport! One animal can also be flushed - they have lucky folks called "tiger-beaters" in India (or so I recollect from my Kipling). And no, they don't beat the tiger. Gee whiz, that would be daft. They beat sticks, and make noise, and drive the tiger towards the waiting hunters, who gun it down ruthlessly... oh, we have covered that.

Anyway, a Tennessee lad like Glenn Reynolds should not need lessons in hunting techniques from a Jersey guy like me. But, I guess he does.

Posted 10/16/2002 11:59:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Central Park Jogger: Hall of Mirrors at Parole Hearings

A Parole Board is unlikely to set you loose if you won't take responsibility for the crime for which you were sentenced. This can be a bit awkward if you believe you were wrongfully convicted. Jim Dwyer of the NY Times has more. However, the best summary may be simply the placement of headlines at the Times. Directly below the story about the five youths convicted in the Central Park Jogger trials is this unrelated story:

"Teenager Falls Down Shaft at High School"

Posted 10/16/2002 11:33:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Central Park Jogger: Now the NYC District Attorney Wants More Time?

So we learn from Newsday:

"Morgenthau, who has assigned two prosecutors and two other investigators to the case full time since May, has said he plans to seek a 30-day extension on Oct. 21, when prosecutors are due to respond to defense motions to overturn the convictions."

The hearing is scheduled for Monday, and my bold prediction is that the judge will vacate the rape and sexual assault convictions at that time.

Posted 10/16/2002 11:26:00 AM by The MinuteMan

John Henry Is Making It Interesting

Posted 10/15/2002 12:52:00 PM by The MinuteMan

An Odd Request, But We May Be Able To Help

My man at Pandagon announces that:

"The adjective is DEMOCRATIC.

If a politician is a Democrat, he is not a Democrat politician, or a member of the Democrat Party. He is a DemocratIC politician, a member of the DemocratIC Party."

Well, gee whiz, that should be easy. "Eeek!" for mice, and "Ick" for Democrats - a simple mnemonic. I pretty much think that when I see a proposal from a Democrat anyway, so a quick adjustment to the spell-check, and we're all set! Glad to help.

Posted 10/14/2002 11:46:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Fisk, Sullivan, and The Fighting Irish

Commenting on the bombing in Bali, and the possibility of an al-Qaeda target list, famed Brit reporter Robert Fisk said:

"Our support for the United States – an infinitely closer alliance than any support from France – makes Britain the most likely candidate for attack after the US. Then there are the small, more vulnerable nations that give quiet assistance to the American military; Belgium, which hosts Nato HQ; Canada, whose special forces have also been operating in Afghanistan; Ireland, which allows US military aircraft to refuel at Shannon."

So, in a burst of Celtic pride, Andrew Sullivan comments:

"Dear Osama. Don't forget to murder the Irish. They've been nice to the Great Satan."

But I rally to the comment of NY Firefighter Michael Moran from last fall, as reported here:

"In the spirit of the Irish people, Osama bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish ass."

He added: "I live in Rockaway and this is my face."

And, in the sprit of such bravado, and because I finally read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" just this weekend, I will simply add that Osama may be crazy, but he isn't stupid.

UPDATE: Seriously? Look, the IRA has had connections to Middle Eastern terrorist groups for decades. Connections to al-Qaeda? Seems possible. Hence, the IRA and al-Qaeda teaming up against the British seems plausible. Al-Qaeda embarrassing the IRA by operating against the Irish in Ireland? I doubt even Mr. Fisk is seriously considering this.

Posted 10/14/2002 10:04:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Why Didn't They Tell Me This On Saturday Afternoon?

Posted 10/14/2002 09:49:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Say Good-Bye to Montana and the Former Hairdresser

God bless you all. Good luck with your Senate race. Now, quit annoying the rest of us.

Some whiz-bang Montana-based news service gives us their thoughts on dirty pool in Montana. And Republican Darling Racicot Speaks!

But the last word should go to the author of LetterFromGreatestCityinWorld. The Divine Ms. E points out that, in the Big Apple, men are men and clothes do NOT make the man. She goes on to wonder whether Montana is "Big Sky" country, or "Big Cry" country, and then gets really nasty. Those poor boys may never recover.

Posted 10/14/2002 09:27:00 PM by The MinuteMan

He's Back, And He Believes!

I want to believe, too. And if it's true that even paranoids have real enemies, shouldn't it follow that even optimists will see brighter days?

UPDATE: Correcting an oversight: the post was at 9:16 Friday, which we guess to be Pacific time. The S&P 500 was about 840; the Nasdaq was about 1200.

Posted 10/14/2002 09:15:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Election Junkies Go Here

Posted 10/14/2002 06:48:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Sure, They Say This Now

But will they still respect it in the morning?

Posted 10/14/2002 06:29:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Last Thoughts on Jimmy and the Nobel Peanuts Prize

OK, my man Drezner says I should get over it. These folks wonder why we care about the opinion of five unelected Norwegian leftys. And I say, hey, the silver lining: I'll bet this really irks that other small time Southern Governor turned big time Presidential loser, Bill Clinton. Look forward to forty years of explanations of how bombing Kosovo from 15,000 feet merits a prize.

UPDATE: Hmm, the Nobel Pizza Prize? Only if it ever goes to Fat Bill. For Jimmy, I stand by my reporting.

Posted 10/14/2002 06:23:00 PM by The MinuteMan

In Which We Propose A Grand Compromise on Copyright Law

AND, a Grand Timesaver! Extend copyright protection by twenty years? It might take me twenty years to make it through all this stuff, although it all looks great.

So, the Grand Compromise: Walt Disney & Co. have already scored a minor miracle by getting their darn Angels into the World Series. Can we just give a World Series trophy to Michael Eisner and the Angels if he gives up the sole rights to the early Mouse? Just One Hope.

Posted 10/11/2002 12:01:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Get Some Perspective on "Saturday Night" Taylor

Taylor withdraws from Montana Senate race, citing an ad which made him appear to be gay, maybe. A bit of perspective as to how this played in Montana comes from our oft-cited Billings-Gazette. And, from a Democrat who actually thinks this ad was inappropriate:

"State Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network, said Thursday morning the ad "is an overt and obvious appeal to the homophobic (voter) that is playing to that stereotypic imagery."

Toole, who has fought for homosexual rights for years in the Montana Legislature, said he had complained to the state Democratic Party.

Toole said the Democratic response was that the image was not intended to imply that Taylor was gay.

"It is hard to believe their advertising firm did not see it," Toole said. "Bottom line is it is obvious and it ought to be pulled.

"Once you play these cards, inject this crap into a campaign - race, gay - nobody controls it," Toole said."

Ted Barlow, reliably left, also sees problems with the ad, as well as with the posturing of both sides.

Other principled Democrats continue to think it over.

Posted 10/11/2002 09:55:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Wow, Here Is The "Unsurprising Headline du Jour"

Posted 10/11/2002 09:04:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Now, Here Is A Hero

Take the bus, and leave the wrestling with suicide bombers to us. Hmm, maybe that is not as scary as it seems when your key equipment is made of brass.

Posted 10/11/2002 09:01:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Forrester Plays the "Ridicule" Card"

Well, I like it, but he already has my vote. Or will, once I can figure out how to sidestep those arbitrary residency and registration requirements that are impeding my "voter choice".

Posted 10/11/2002 06:42:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Cry Havoc! And Let Slip the Dogs of War!

Or at least, the dogs of Jimmy-bashing. Although overshadowed by subsequent Clinton-bashing, I expect we will see that the old feeling is still out there, following this news. Heck of a headline to wake up to.

UPDATE: OK, maybe something got lost in the translation: perhaps he was awarded the Nobel Peanuts Prize.

Anyway, here is a link to the memorable "National Malaise" speech, in which he does not utter those words, but otherwise succeeds in defining his Presidency. And here is Jay Nordlinger of NRO with a Carter-palooza from last May.

Now, my own personal favorite Carter story, and this is straight from my twisted memory. Interesting chance to see how much is accurate, and how much of a crank I have become:

Way back in 1986, Reagan ordered the bombing of Qadaffi's personal compound in Libya, with the hope of terminating the man who had sponsored numerous terrorist attacks, including a recent attack on US serviceman at a disco in Germany. Qadaffi escaped, but the experience did seem to change his behavior. Regrettably, one of his children was hurt or killed in the attack.

Carter, in criticizing this US attack, said, roughly, if someone hurt my daughter, I would hunt that man to the ends of the earth. This being pre-botox, eyebrows were raised. Hmm, a former President pre-endorsing terrorist retaliation? Or, a former President unaware that some of the Libyan sponsored terrorist attacks had killed American children, so that we were, arguably, hunting Qadaffi to the ends of the earth? The confusion was understandable: Mr. Carter had not made clear that, having hunted the fellow to the ends of the earth, he would next attempt to jaw him to death.

Oh, please, of course you remember that air-raid! The bombers left from England, and France denied us overflight rights. Some wag suggested a possible compromise: extend the air-space vertically, and see if a flight plan could be devised that hopscotched from one American cemetery in France to the next. Just another great moment in Franco - US relations.

UPDATE 2: Oh, the Brothers Judd are steaming.

Posted 10/10/2002 04:02:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Bush Coasting to a Big Win

These look like veto-proof majorities, although I don't have my calculator. Will the Times hail a bi-partisan triumph?

Posted 10/10/2002 03:44:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Birds of Prey

As part of our ongoing attempt to provide the finest in whatever it is we are providing here, we have a review of a new fall television show from WB called "Birds of Prey". My interest in this derives exclusively from a desire to do a bit of a parental screening - my pre-teen daughter was eager to see this, and I am never sure with "WB" just what bizarre and inappropriate mixture of sex and violence to expect.

So, Birds of Prey: Once upon a time, Batgirl battled crime the old fashioned way, slugging it out alongside the Caped Crusader. However, the Joker gunned her down, leaving her paralyzed. Now, operating from a wheelchair, she continues her fight against evil by operating all sorts of gee-whiz, high-tech equipment from an incredibly well-equipped apartment, or hideaway, or, as they call it, "lair". Must be rent-controlled, whatever it is. Anyway, her cool name is "Oracle", and we can only hope she is having more success than the company of the same name.

Her partner is "Huntress", the illegitimate daughter of Catwoman and Batman. Given her parentage, she has impressive genetic endowments gifting her with extraordinary strength, quickness, and ferocity. She has other impressive endowments as well, which are nicely displayed by her improbably skimpy "fighting" costume. Please. Suitable for fighting a bartender at a disco, maybe, but that is about it.

And, as a newby to this crime fighting team, some out of town chick with pre-cognitive powers shows up to help solve the latest crime wave. A cop duo is also introduced, one a skeptic, one a bit of a believer, so we may see an X-Files thing develop. Can't wait.

So, if you like babes with brains and brawn battling baddies in bustiers (YES, the bad guys too! Something for everyone!) you will TOTALLY DIG this show. Although how you overlooked "Dark Angel" and "Charmed" is a bit of a puzzle - these writers certainly didn't.

UPDATE: Oh my gosh, DARK ANGEL was cancelled?!?!

Posted 10/10/2002 11:50:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Democrats Caught Between Iraq and a Soft Base

Money talks, BS walks. So say Mickey, the Brothers Judd ( with a cryptic link), and the WaPo.

So, what does it mean? Evidently, the reliably wily team of Daschle and Gephardt have once again out-maneuvered the "too dumb to speak, too dumb to lead" George Bush. This time, the scheme seems to be for normally enthusiastic Democrats to sit on their wallets now, as a prelude to sitting in their easy-chairs come Election Day. George will never know what hit him!

Now, let me take you back in time to the movie "Cool Hand Luke", and the Mad Magazine parody thereof. There is NO chance of my finding this online, so we will rely on a straight "memory dump".

A classic moment in this movie is when George Kennedy has a fistfight with Paul Newman. Newman is licked, but is too cussed to stay down, so the fight ends in an odd sort of draw.

And how do I remember the MAD Magazine version? The strategy session between Newman and his handler goes something like this:

"First, I am going to tire him out."

"How?"

"By letting him beat me to a pulp. Them I am going to make him think he killed me."

"How?"

"By dying."

OK, I have no idea what made me think of that.

UPDATE: OK, seriously. This story will appear tomorrow in the Times, but re-written as an urgent fund-raising appeal. Just One Guess.

UPDATE 2: Hmm, no visible mention of this in the Friday Dead Tree Edition. Darn this "Dark Force" Decoder Ring anyway!

Posted 10/10/2002 08:54:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Maryland Sniper Stuff

Before I forget:

The sniper's actual shooting skill doesn't seem to be that high. It is everything else that seems to be suggest training and planning. Here is an article on that theme.

And, geographic profiling in Wednesday's Times. Will the cool graphic load? Will I find the story online at all? Not yet, although I am staring at the Dead Tree version. Well, here are stories giving local reaction, and the Fed response. And a profiling story including the story of a NY sniper who was caught.

Posted 10/10/2002 08:28:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Deeply Irritating, But Not Totally Wrong

Following the Maryland Sniper case, the InstaPundit links to a chap I will characterize, on my brief reading of his blog, as a concerned civil libertarian. Apparently the police were checking his building following reports of a man with a long gun, and knocked on his door. Since he had been walking around with a handgun that day (all legal), he said yes, I was walking around with a gun, the cops came in, and not much seems to have transpired.

Deeply irritating quote:

"It's not pleasant to have cops come to your door..."

I suppose not. How it ranks relative to having five people (six?) killed, and a schoolkid put in critical condition is, I suppose, for each of us to assess. But I am sorry if this guy is having a bad day.

The author goes on to make some perfectly valid points which I find, in the current context, ludicrous. But that's just me. I seem to have more confidence in the ability of our society to manage short-term trade-offs, and I guess I don't see every slippery slope ending in a mud-bath. I also have this weird idea that, in this special case, a reaction of "Glad I could help, Officer, good luck catching the guy" might be more appropriate than "Hey, Officer, why are you hassling me?". Again, that's just me being quirky, or civic-minded, or blindly trusting, or hopelessly unprotective of my civil liberties, or something.

Posted 10/09/2002 05:44:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The NY Times Sound-bites the Iraqi War Opposition

We bite back.

War with Iraq will not bring peace to the Middle East," said Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia. "War is easy. But peace is hard. Peace is right, and it is just and it is true."

We can only infer the Congressman's position on motherhood and apple pie.

Representative David E. Bonior, a Michigan Democrat who was one of three lawmakers who traveled recently to Iraq, asked, "By going it alone, what signal do we issue by tossing aside diplomacy?"

I'm guessing now... Seriousness?

Other Democrats clashed with Republicans over the extent of American cooperation with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, saying previous administrations had provided the Iraqi leader with the foundation of his biological weapons program.

"Sure he has biological weapons," said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York. "We gave them to him."

Well, then, maybe it's time to take them back.

Hey, and these were the people who got quoted.

Posted 10/09/2002 10:58:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The Brothers Judd Enjoy a Punk Rock Concert

Who would have imagined?

Posted 10/09/2002 09:35:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Is This Spaghetti Ready Yet?

The blogosphere can play a role in the Maryland sniper case. How? There are a number of different creative processes for generating solution to problems. One such technique is "Throw the spaghetti at the wall, and see what sticks". Let's break that down:

Throw the spaghetti at the wall: Generate ideas, the more the better. One idea will spark another. Some ideas will suggest lines of inquiry. This part of the process can be very difficult, since no one wants to "look stupid", and everyone want to suggest "the right idea". At this point in the process, there are no right ideas! The only bad idea is the idea you keep to yourself. Brainstorming requires an active imagination and a high threshold for later rejection.

See what sticks: Now, so many ideas - which ones make sense? Get facts, do some research, follow some thoughts to see where they lead. Some interesting ideas will fizzle out, maybe some new ones will pop up - that's good!

Action: We don't do idle chit-chat here. By God, people leave here knowing what to do next! Look, five minutes work and you can get the e-mails for many of the reporters at the NY Times. I suspect that to be true for the local papers covering the Maryland sniper situation. So, you have focussed on one or two interesting ideas, you have some research to back it up, and you have some interesting follow-up questions. An intrepid reporter might be able to turn this into a story - make yourself a new best friend! Find some reporter who is desperate to open a new angle, turn them loose with your questions, the story starts shaking and breaking, et voila! Pulitzer Prize for your new buddy, a morning with Katie Couric for you. Try to remember your friends back in the blogosphere.

A longshot? Bit of a lottery ticket, yes. But you can't win if you don't play.

So, lets get started. Diane E from Gotham has a great idea. Why is it great? Because it is a fascinating, "out-there" connection that suggests some ideas. I can think of little things wrong with it, but I can think of one big thing right with it - it gets the ball rolling.

SO, other ideas:

Happy anniversary: The first anniversary of the war in Afghanistan was last Sunday (worth checking). Revenge of al-Qaeda? Obvious questions: Does al-Qaeda have a history of celebrating anniversaries this way? Do reports from Afghanistan suggest that al-Qaeda troops operate as snipers?

Happy St. Patrick's Day: The IRA links with some other terror group, as per the divine Ms. E. Why? Unhappy with the US imposed accord in Ireland? You tell me.

Homegrown: Everybody's first choice. More?

Tamil Tigers: I have NO IDEA if this makes sense. Still, they conducted a campaign of terror for years, and it shouldn't be hard to rule them out.

The War on Drugs comes home: Columbian paramilitary units tied to the drug cartels decide to operate in the Washington area. Hey, the story Diane E. linked to mentions a South American-IRA connection. So, what is the history of terror in Columbia - do they use snipers, target civilians, what? Shouldn't be hard to check.

Dirty Harry: haven't we seen this movie? And now we have the Tarot cards. But I will say this - if I were an operator, I would laugh out loud as I left clues like that.

So, there is a start. More ideas, some research - go, Blogosphere! Someone with a cool comments section and an interest in this case would be an obvious rally point. My nominee is Susanna Cornett, but it might be worth asking her first. Hmm.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan joins in.

UPDATE 2: Lots of coverage of this from local Jum Henley.

Posted 10/09/2002 09:27:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Civility, and The New Fall Television Shows

If the networks can trot out their new televison series, I guess I can go into re-runs. I posted some thoughts on civility a while back, and I recollect that some maor hitter like Asparagirl liked them. Anyway, they're back, with an addendum for the current civility discussion.

The MinuteMan Way!

There have been some questions about what we laughingly call an "editorial policy" around here, so, to set the record straight, here is JustOneRule, and some addendum, presumptiously offered as a guide to bloggers everywhere.

The Rule:

There are no strangers here, as Will Rogers reminds us, just friends we have't met yet.

Simple, huh? But a little supplementation might be helpful, so:

A. "Be nice, and have fun". If you can't manage both, you pretty much have to tip towards "Have Fun". But if are running into this conflict a lot, you might want to look into your heart.

B. "Attack the idea, not the person". I know some wonderful people with some wonderfully daft ideas, so the distinction is worth maintaining. However, it is important to note the limitations to this "Attack the idea" concept. At a cocktail party, many a raving knucklehead who can not seem to grasp your subtle yet irrefutable logic can be silenced by a sharp blow to the solar plexus. Worth remembering, especially if you are wearing your track shoes and the wife remembered the Mace.

C. "Keep your sense of humor". Remember, someday, somebody somewhere will be laughing, or snorting derisively, at one of your posts or opinions. So you may as well laugh at someone else's right now. Carpe diem!

D. "Don't come between a person and their tirade". There are therapeutic rants all over the blogosphere, sometimes even sneaking into otherwise serious posts. You sort of spoil the fun by dissecting these rants in a spirit other than the one in which they were offered, and you know how we feel about "Having Fun". Any exceptions? Sure: for otherwise responsible journalists, or anyone who attempts to seriously defend their own fevered ravings, anything goes.

E. "E is for e-mail: privacy, please". If you send me something with a juicy, red-hot, smoking gun, career ending quote, you know I will be tempted to post it. However, I will respect your privacy and would be ever so grateful if you could reciprocate.

Simple rules, really. And other than (E), don't hold me to them: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Nice weekend, all.

Now, a bit of an addendum with respect to public figures: look, I'll boo at Yankee Stadium, but not at a Little League game. Your fellow bloggers are putting their blog up one post at a time, just like the rest of us - try to respect the effort, if you can't respect the output. OK, some fellow bloggers are so big they look like cross-over public figures, but still, 99.9% of us are not even big enough to be the flea that bites the flea that bites Paul Krugman.

That said, this is the internet - five minutes after Al Gore invented it, Rush Limbaugh invented the "flame". So, don't pretend you don't know the neighborhood.

Clear? I doubt it. Excellent!

Posted 10/08/2002 11:51:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Does Anyone Remember This?

Remember the three people jailed for killing a baby that may have never existed? Down in Alabama? Bob Herbert of the NY Times wrote about it over the summer, and, we learn from this story, NBC Dateline had a story about a month ago. Well, there is good news for the accused, as shown here.

if I could get into my archives, I expect I would find a post in which I wondered whether Bob Herbert had presented us with all the material information. It seemed to be such a bizzare, unmotivated prosecution that I wondered what he might have left out. For example, Herbert had, I recall, left out the potentially inflammatory fact that one of the three had also been convicted as an accessory in the abuse of a minor. That is the "unrelated charge" referred to in this story.

Well, I may never know what I wrote, or whether there really is more to this. The closest I found to a story speculating about the prosecutor's motive was this BBC piece. Bob Herbert pretty much left it to his readers to assume that law-folk in Alabama are racist and stupid. Maybe he is right in this case.

Anyway, this result looks like mixed news - Medell Banks can withdraw his guilty plea, but the local prosecutor is eager for a new trial, for reasons which still elude us. Unless, of course, he really believes a murder took place. Anyway, a triumph for Bob Herbert and concerned citizens everywhere. Which I think included me.

UPDATE: Yes, I have tucked a new motto under the optimistically-named "Archive" link.

Posted 10/08/2002 10:52:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Bush For President

Fine, the speech was measured, sober, serious - did you think it was going to be delivered by Jerry Seinfeld? We can't rely on the mainstream media to cover this properly, so here we go, selective excerpter at the ready:

"Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight. I appreciate you all coming."

Right, we are going to skip HUGE chunks now. Lots of stuff we have already heard, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddams a bad guy, hold on:

" Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror."

If Al Gore is in the audience, please slink out now. Good-bye, Al.

So, George, why act now, having waited all this time?

"...there's a reason. We have experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact they would be eager, to use biological or chemical or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Hmm, so you say. Care to offer any supporting authority?

"As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

Oh, man, a reaction shot of Ted Kennedy spraying scotch out his nose in disbelief would be priceless! Well, maybe at a State of the Union.

So, what is the Next Step?

"The time of denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end."

Also ruled out were dickering, dilly-dallying, dodging, and dancing around the issues.

"Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

I heard that, but it all sounds so dangerous. Could we go back to the "Wait and see" scenario?

"There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait, and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence."

You don't like the idea of just waiting this out, do you George?

"... through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear."

Well, good news news for real estate brokers here. Do you have any other good news?

"The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban...

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity.

People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture.

America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted, the long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture and resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time.

If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq, at peace with its neighbors."

Yes, there was a time when America was a beacon of hope to the world. Didn't the French give us the Statute of Liberty, a copy of which we saw at Tianenmen Square? Nice to see someone remembers. I know the Brothers Judd do.

And he concludes with more for friends of freedom:

"We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America.

Stand and applaud. Hear, hear!

Posted 10/08/2002 10:36:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Andrew Sullivan Shows (Again) His Tin Ear

Why is Sullivan taken seriously as a political commentator of the American scene? Read his latest faux pas, describing "Baghdad Jim" McDermott:

"Here he is, marching in front of a poster that has the word "terrorist" plastered over President Bush's face. Nice to know that his kowtowing to Baghdad's tyranny is also reflected in a complete moral equivalence about the difference between Saddam and Bush. This is one face of the anti-war left. And it's depraved."

Please. First, McDermott is not making any attempt to represent the "Loyal Opposition", or the "Responsible, Anti-War Left". How could he be, with comments like this:

"This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor — to create Empire America."

or

"One of the dilemmas we've had since 9/11 is that this country has been continuously terrorized by the government. Every week they announce a new threat. 'Today is a code orange.' 'Today is a code red.' "

or

"And what we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not."

A coup, his detractors point out, that seems to include sizeable majorities in the House and Senate, as well as noted plotters Gephardt and Lieberman.

No, Andrew has, perhaps unsurprisingly, missed the point again. Completely.

McVarmint does not represent any sort of responsible opposition, nor do his view reflect the views of what may one day emerge as sensible opposition. This is simply his loyal attempt to bail out the Democrat party with a "double-play" - Democrat leadership, queried about McVarmint, no longer need to defend him - they can simply plead an "insanity" defense. This segues nicely to their attempt to re-focus on domestic issues, since they will then explain that folks like "Baghdad Jim" illustrate the need for expanded mental health care benefits.

Andrew, as usual , misses all of this. What, don't they have crazies in England?

Posted 10/08/2002 10:20:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Daschle For President!

The InstaPundit linked to this transcript of "Meet The Russert", and whoa! Daschle grapples with Tiny Tim, and demonstrates yet again why it is impossible to run for the Presidency as Senate Majority Leader. Reading the transcript without the video is a bit puzzling. I can only imagine that something had spilled on the floor, and, lacking anything else to mop it up with, Russert used Daschle. Iraq and the farm bill were highlights.

Posted 10/07/2002 11:52:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Here Is Your Outrage

Back to the swamps of Jersey. From Newsday, the Long Island newspaper that is my new go-to source for Jersey news:

When asked whether it was fair for Lautenberg to replace Torricelli on the ballot, 54 percent in the Quinnipiac poll said no, but only 30 percent said they would not vote for Lautenberg because of the switch."

And, Battling Doug Forrester wants to take it to Old Man Lautenberg by proposing 21 debates in what is roughly 30 days. If Lautenberg dies of a heart attack, is Forrester guilty of murder? These Jersey Courts can be hard to predict.

Meanwhile, Forrester is working with a combination of audacity and ridicule:

"For my sake, it would be better to beat the pants off of Frank Lautenberg in the polls"

and

"If we come to Nov. 5 and we find out that I'm ahead, I hope that's the final date," Forrester said, his hands on his hips. "The Democrats may change it so I'll be running against Barbra Streisand in December."

This may turn into "Die Hard", people.

UPDATE: OK, I am worried about Lautenberg's health and this whole debate thing. Here is the juicy excerpt from the story above, if you are slacking off and not following every link:

[Newsday]

The two candidates ran into each other Saturday at the Old Bridge Town Center, in Middlesex County. Forrester challenged Lautenberg to 21 debates in 21 counties. Lautenberg responded by saying, "I thought you didn't want me to be a candidate," but later told reporters he would debate "Any place, any time."

The Forrester campaign quickly sent out a press release announcing Lautenberg's acceptance of the 21-debate offer, but Lautenberg spokesperson Tom Shea said no schedule has been set.

"They're not hemmed in by the truth," Shea said. "We will debate, but nothing's been scheduled yet."

Forrester accused Lautenberg of "fast back-pedaling," then quipped that it might be for the best.

"I'm afraid that after they see the first debate, they're going to switch (Lautenberg) for someone else," Forrester said.

Well, Old Man Lautenberg will have better days. Still a month to go, unless he drops out.

Posted 10/07/2002 11:08:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Here Is A Guy Who Totally Does Not Get It

We have observed comments about civility in political discourse at the Hegemon, Ted Barlow, and Atrios, all of whom link to a broader discussion. However, for a new concept of "clueless", go here.

There. Have I done my bit to lower the tone? My work is done.

Posted 10/07/2002 10:55:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Money Talks! Finally.

Yes, please, let me have some coffee and your cash to go with that toast.

Posted 10/07/2002 10:04:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Back to the Central Park Jogger

Jim Dwyer of the NY Times deserves major plaudits for his work on this case. He continues to dig up astonishing new information, as shown in the Saturday Times.

The soundbite is, perhaps as a sign of good writing, is right there in the opening paragraph. Hmm, I should remember that trick:

"The man who has claimed sole responsibility for the rape and beating of a jogger in Central Park in 1989 has also told investigators that he committed an identical crime two days earlier in the same area of the park. The man, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist, maintains that he acted entirely by himself in both attacks."

Well, if you have been following the case, you know that this calls into question the "good faith" of the Police investigation. Up until now, apologists for the NYPD and the DA could argue, look, it is possible, after the fact, that the five kids who were convicted of these crimes on the strength of their confessions were, in fact, not gulty of this. However, since three other people were also beaten by a gang of youths that night, it was not unreasonable for the police to suspect them in this beating as well. General lesson for the rest of us: if you commit three assaults, don't confess to four.

Now, we learn that the cops knew about a rapist operating in the same area of Central Park. Mr. Dwyer describes it as an "identical crime" - we learn later that the victim was beaten about the head so severely that she was hospitalized for at least two nights.

In what we can only describe as an uncharacteristic understatement, a defense attorney for one of the boys said this:

""No law enforcement officer gave us any information that there was a prior crime connected to our case, or might have been connected to it," said Michael P. Joseph, who represented Antron McCray. "It would have been helpful."

Yes, I imagine it would have been. Did the police handling the Central Park Jogger case know about this other rape:

"For reasons that are not clear, investigators say, there is no sign that the information about the April 17 rape was turned over to the detectives handling the attack on the jogger."

Inconceivable? Well, Mr. Dwyer offers this bit of bureaucratic cover-up:

"Those two rapes, on April 17 and April 19, were the second and third of the year in the Central Park precinct. The investigation into the April 17 attack was handled by the sex crimes unit of the Police Department. Detectives from another unit, Manhattan North Homicide, oversaw the investigation into the attack on the jogger, because her condition was so grave that officials originally expected that she would not survive."

Well, that covers it. The Sex Cimes people handled the first rape, Homicide handled the second, and never the twain shall meet. However, and we suspect Mr. Dwyer knows this, in the very early phases of this high profile case, both the Sex Crimes unit and the North Homicide unit were involved. North Homicide had bettter success rounding up suspects and eliciting their cooperation, so they took over the case. But there was a time, if only the first day, when Sex Crimes worked this. My source for this, for late arrvals, is "Unequal Verdicts - The Central Park Jogger Trials" by Timothy Sullivan.

What happened? Just a guess, but at some point someone from Sex Crimes must have mentioned this other rape to someone at North Homicide. Probable response from a very proud Homicide cop: we have a theory of the case, we have five suspects, we have confessions, why do you want to mess us up with unfounded speculation? Aren't there some perverts for you to chase, or something?

So, will the rape convictions be vacated at the October hearing? Well, I had already predicted that, so yeah, I think this reinforces that opinion. Will the judge set aside the other convictions? This evidence does not really speak to that. It might leave one thinking that, if one part of the confession is false, it all is. On the other hand, over-confessing is a common phenomenon: a scared kid, guilty of three crimes, confesses to four. A certain psychological momentum develops. In any case, the other three assaults were committed by gangs of youths, and there was, at one time, a cooperating gang member who put these guys there. However, if the judge is angry enough, I expect he can set everything aside.

But the other convictions may not matter. In terms of criminal penalties, the real punishment was for the rape. The five convicted youths were sentenced to 5 to 10 years for rape and robbery; among the plea bargains, a 17 year old (adult, we presume) got 1 year for assault; a 15 year old juvenile believed to be the ringleader got 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years for robbery.

So, if the five men can show that the prosecution was unreasonable and in bad faith, the damages at a civil suit could be significant. Prior to this latest development, my belief was that the City had a reasonable "good faith" defense. Now, it looks like it's time to open the checkbook. Although, given the spate of new information, my very first reaction is looking pretty sensible too: maybe we should wait and see what else the investigation reveals.

UPDATE: NO, I cannot link to my own archives, this is Blogger! The moving hand writes, and having writ, moves on, or some such. Anyway, check out JeraLyn at TalkLeft for some comments. And now, right now the Blogger editor is not working either! Better and better!

Posted 10/07/2002 09:25:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Too Damn Funny

Caution - Dark Genius at work. The Right should tremble, because his power is growing!

Posted 10/06/2002 12:47:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Did We Mention We Don't Like the Diamondbacks?

We didn't like them. But after this story about the radio "shock-jock", we really don't. So, the Cards got mad, and beat them at the BoB - excellent!

Now as to this DJ jerk: K J Lopez is on this, but has there been a blogosphere rally? One sponsor has dropped them already - we need sponsor lists, pressure points - Go, Arizona Bloggers, Go! My personal fantasy: John McCain gets involved and asks the FCC to update him on this stations's compliance. Chilling effect on free speech? Go for it. And Jean Carnahan from Missouri is a widow, too - what does she say about this?

But please, someone get Big John to say the following: "I am going to kick this DJ's ass until I wear out my boots or his butt - and I just bought new boots."

Posted 10/05/2002 10:22:00 PM by The MinuteMan

A Pure Indulgence Of My Dark Heart

Never have so many provided so much mirth to so few. We have lit the "Torch" again, and are contemplating the following:

Ted Barlow: Well, it's the issue that everyone is talking about. To me, it seems pretty clear. Deadlines are deadlines, and rules are rules. When candidates miss them, especially after disgracing themselves by violating the laws they're sworn to uphold, they shouldn't be on the ballot. There is no legal argument to support these candidates, just vague appeals to "the will of the people." That's why I join with principled, consistent conservative commentators to insist that Katherine Harris be removed from the ballot in Florida."

Jeff Cooper: "The New Jersey Ballot : Ted Barlow [above] is back... with an amusingly pointed observation about the New Jersey ballot controversy..."

Josh Marshall: "(Where these gun-slingers for the rule of law were when Mitt Romney got a pass, and rightly so, on his Massachusetts residency requirement I just don't know.)"

Daily Kos: [Referring to Josh Marshall's piece]: The Mitt Romney angle is brilliant, and I'm kicking myself for not have thought of it myself....

At the time, I criticized Democrats for trying to get Romney off the ticket. Look it up here if you don't believe me. I made the same arguments in the Kathleen Harris case."

First, this is an impressive roster. Ted Barlow is new to me, but the other three are consistently smart and interesting. My problem is entirely one of disappointed expectations. Three of these folks provided no links to anything about Harris or Romney. Sure, there's "google", but how about a bit of help, since you seem to be so knowledgable about these cases, and expect me to be as well?

The Daily Kos did provide some story links, and some very revealing links to his own archives. Perhaps we will find clarion calls for voter choice - solve these disputes at the polling place, not the courthouse! Hmm. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself, but in each case, the entire Daily Kos sentiment seems to be, these lawsuits might be a tactical mistake. The only discernible principle is power - lawsuits in the case of Harris and Romney don't make sense because they won't help elect Democrats. Admirably consistent, but it is not clear how a Republican ought to apply this to the Torricelli Debacle.

All four seem to endorse the notion that someone who did not articulate a view on Harris, Romney, or both, should not comment on Torricelli, or perhaps, should not be taken seriously if they do.

My goodness. Well, folks are free to set their own standards for judging the consistency of another, just as we are free to set our own standards in judging the intellectual coherence of another. To help gauge the intellectual coherence of this particular "where were you on Harris and/or Romney" argument, let me offer the following defense:

As to Harris, I paid very little attention. My impression was that she was one of several Republicans qualifying for a Primary in a safe Republican district, and that, whether she or another Republican won would have roughly zero impact on the tussle for control of the House. Having read through the linked story from Daily Kos, it is still not clear to me whether that is the situation, but we do see a principled Dem in the last paragraph:

"Jan Schneider, one of four Democrats seeking the seat that most experts assume Harris will win easily, said she is consulting a lawyer about the situation but doesn't know whether she'll take legal action.

``for someone who purports to comply with the letter of the law, this doesn't sound like it,'' Schneider said. ``I think the voters deserve a race on the issues - for this to be decided on a technicality might be unfortunate.''

Well, good for her. Anyway, yes, guilty as charged: I don't obsess about Florida, I don't care about Harris, and I made a judgement that this story was amusing but inconsequential. Here's a blog that refers to the same "automatic resignation" statute mentioned in the news story, but you know what? I still don't care.

And Romney, prospective Governor of Massachusetts? Well, can he affect the Red Sox? If yes, then I guess I'm interested. But since my Yankees had the Boys from Beantown under control all summer, I could care less about this state race, and anyone who thinks I am going to immerse myself in the minutia of Massachusetts residency requirements should be kind enough to send me some of whatever they are smoking.

So again, you got me - a race of no national import that is out of my area, and I don't care. Grab your heart medicine.

Now, given my deplorable lack of intellectual curiousity and consistency, how dare I comment on Torricelli? Well, I am from New Jersey originally, I read the NY Times, which couldn't keep this story off the front page, and the story has great significance for the control of the Senate. Please, is anyone seriously suggesting that these three stories are remotely comparable in news-worthiness? Hey, like lots of folks, I blog about what interests me. Check the Times, see how much ink they splashed on Harris and Romney.

I will grant the following: it might be fair to ask someone what conclusion they might reach in applying whatever principles they appled to "Torricelli" to the other cases. Bit of a retro-spective consistency check. But to make the clear suggestion that, if you did not have a contemporaneous interest in these minor cases, you are somehow disqualifed from commenting on this major case - silly.

So, gentleman: it's an amusing chant. "Harris and Romney, Harris and Romney". I hope that none of you are pretending that chanting is a substitute for reasoned argument.

Posted 10/05/2002 09:19:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Start Spreading the Word... They're Leaving Today...

The Yanks don't want to be a part of it, evidently. "It" being the now-irrelevant baseball playoffs. Well, we still have a rooting interest: Donnie Moore was an Angel pitcher who gave up a key home run back in 1986, when the Red Sox stunned the Angels with a dramatic comeback. Several years later Moore committed suicide, citing this homerun as a reason. His daughter (now 30, with kids) never goes to Angels games or watches them because she remembers Angels fans as being rotten to her Dad. Hey, that's good enough for me - I just hope the Angels are trounced at home so their fans can be humiliated on national television watching some other team boogie down at the Angel's ballpark.

OK, in other baseball news, I am now at liberty to reveal the background of some Very Big Talks. The network broadcasters, and of course the fans, have a compelling interest in competitve playoff series. Frankly, after losing two of the first three games to the now-hated Angels, Mr. Steinbrenner of the Yankees was concerned that the Boys from the Bronx were not providing an adequate level of competition. He approached the Commissioner with a seemingly novel idea: Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez of the once-hated Red Sox were finished for the season - why not let them play a couple of games with the Yanks? Balance things out a bit, help the fans. The Commissioner loved this idea, drew up the papers, and everything was ready to go for Game 4 in Anaheim. Incredibly, for a Democratic state, no judge could be found to issue the appropriate waivers and court orders. So, despite the blow to baseball fans everywhere, the non-competitive Yankees were eliminated from the playoffs. Rumors that the Yankees are resuming their efforts to secure a stadium in New Jersey, where judges are visionary and accomodative, can not be confirmed.

Final Comment: Yes, a link to some archived posts would be kind of helpful. However, we don't do archive links at Blogger. The moving hand writes, and having writ, moves on, or some such. I imagine it is one more problem they are working on. Jeralyn at TalkLeft has some coverage of this too.

Posted 10/05/2002 03:07:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Shocker in Central Park

Is this inexplicable, or inexcusable? Keystone Kops, or cover-up? My flash reaction: this is an appalling breach of the public trust. If I were the judge reviewing this case, the NYPD would know the wrath of a righteous man. I don't know quite what I would do, but the NYPD would sure know that I had done it.

UPDATE: TalkLeft has more. Frankly, I admire her restraint. I'm still not sure why I'm not using bad language, and I am impressed that she is not.

Posted 10/05/2002 08:14:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Disenfranchised? How Do You Even Keep a Straight face?

In an earlier post on the Torricelli Debacle, I noted that:

"181,468 registered Democrats voted for Torricelli in an uncontested Primary on June 4. These votes, and their choice, have been set aside by the National Democratic leadership, who pressured Torricelli to resign and petitioned the NJ Supreme Court to strike him from the ballot."

Oh, please, says a Puzzled Reader, these are loyal Democrats. It was time to douse the Torch, and they knew it. Do you seriously think they feel disenfranchised, or is this just idle rhetoric?

Well, in response, first, I find the crack about "idle rhetoric" deeply insensitive. This is a blog, and it would be fair to characterize all of the rhetoric here as idle, a fact of which I am glumly aware.

But to the main point, Yes, I think that there are Democrat voters who feel disenfranchised. Not all of them, naturally. But I am a strangely empathetic guy. By relaxing slightly and listening to old Sinatra albums, I have been able to "channel" a Torricelli supporter. You may find his thoughts interestings:

I am furious that my man Bob was forced out of the race by those weasels in Washington and their toadies in Trenton. I backed Bob in the '96 Primary, the '96 election, the 2002 Primary, and I damn well would have voted for him in November if these gutless wonders had given me a chance. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? The Republicans get a little smear campaign going, my man has a few bad weeks, and the top Democrats fold up like a cheap suitcase. What happened to fighting for your principles, to standing up to your opponents, to trusting the voters to see the truth? Was it over when Clinton had scandals? Was it over when the other Clinton had scandals? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No, No, and NO!

I'll tell you what, I don't want to hear any of this "count every vote" crap. I voted for Torricelli - did my vote count? Those Democrat jokers went to court to get his name taken off the ballot. Hey, Mr. "Count every vote" Democrat, I'll give you something to count all right - how many fingers am I holding up? Yeah, one, that's right, the same one you help up to me after I voted for Torricelli. Hey, you want something to count, come here and count the knuckles on this knuckle sandwich. Then maybe we can count how many teeth are on the floor, yeah, "Count every tooth", that's my new policy, hey, damn right I'm talking to you, weasel, that's right, yeah, I want some, you got some...."

Oh, sorry, that got a bit too authentic at the end there. And there is no place for violence in American politics. However, I left that in to properly reflect the depth of feeling among some imaginary Torricelli supporters. And yes, I do feel that they have been disenfranchised, and denied the chance to see their man stand, fight, and vindicate himself.

Posted 10/04/2002 05:31:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Your People's Court

Hey, great news from the land of fruits and nuts! A jury found a woman who smoked, and got cancer - what were the odds? Let's see, she's 64, so she must have been born around 1938. Started smoking at 17, so call it 1955. And I am not even going to look up the date of the Surgeon General's report linking cigarettes to disease, but it was the early 60's. Of course, as a casual Hemingway reader, I know that cigarettes were referred to as "coffin nails" even before then, but so what. Hmm, is that a pun on "coughin' "? Ernie, we hardly knew ye.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because when faced with a choice between the Surgeon General and the cigarette companies, she chose to believe the cigarette manufacturers, who were very reassuring on the connection between smoking and health. And they lied! Well, it was a more trusting era then, so a jury has awarded her $28 Billion dollars. Might be enough for some reading lessons, and maybe some self-restraint.

Posted 10/04/2002 05:09:00 PM by The MinuteMan

"Old Man" Lautenberg - Not a Blogger

Nor, evidently, a blog reader, or he wouldn't have said this:

If we had the court loaded with more Bush appointments, we would have more of these Enron and WorldCom people going scot-free."

Oh, old-timer, keep up. Enron exec Andy Fastow did the perp walk just Wednesday, and someone in NJ might find these headlines interesting. Hmm, preferential treatment of valued corporate insiders who then rewarded the firm with transactions generating millions of dollars in fees, much of which flowed into the bonus pool? Who the heck was running Goldman Sachs while these outrages occurred? If you guesed "Jon Corzine, head of Goldman Sachs from 1994 to 1999, currently both a Democrat and the junior senator from NJ", very good. And now, since you are so smart, can you tell me why Lautenberg would want to make this some sort of signature issue? These guys desperately need a stafff that doesn't moonlight for Jon Stewart.

UPDATE: OK, not one damn "Blogger" link is going to work. Back to the news services.

Posted 10/04/2002 04:35:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Torch: It's a Mousetrap, But Who Is the Mouse?

My personal news blackout continues, so stop me if you have heard this before, but here comes another bold prediction:

Forrester will withdraw his petition to the Court and ask everyone to take all reasonable steps to get Lautenberg on the ballot ASAP.

Why?

Mainly, because it's brilliant - people like a fighter, and Forrester is already being quoted in today's Times as saying:

"I've already beaten six opponents in this race, including Mr. Torricelli. If I have a seventh, so be it. We'll beat him, too."

And imagine the headscratching as the Times Editorial Board tries to dismiss this as a cheap ploy designed to mask a weak case. Well, they will say that, but the voters will feel differently. Especially when Forrester starts with his new slogan "I'll fight for New Jersey, and I'll never quit on you." Hmm, let Old Man Lautenberg, 78, explain why he retired in 2000. Old, bored, what?

But some of you wonder if I have more reasons. Here are a few:

-- It's the principled thing to do. No, really. The Democrat voters of New Jersey have been disenfranchised by the National Democratic leadership, and they should have a chance to express themselves at the polls. 181,468 registered Democrats voted for Torricelli in an uncontested Primary on June 4. These votes, and their choice, have been set aside by the National Democratic leadership, who pressured Torricelli to resign and petitioned the NJ Supreme Court to strike him from the ballot. If the voters of NJ do not mind this sort of disenfranchisement, so be it. If Democrats generally accept this as a model of participatory democracy, hey, it's your party. I would personally be grateful if Democrat partisans could drop the "count every vote, respect the people" mantra that is, within the Democrat Party, evidently BS. But look, that is probably too much to ask for. As for the principled Republican position, We don't need to hide behind a court - Let the people be heard!

-- Legally, the Republican case is not strong. The NJ Supremes offered up a laughably weak opinion - maybe the fax machine from Tom Daschle's office got jammed, or something. But eventually, they will provide something that reads like a court opinion, rather than a Saturday Night Live skit. At that point the fundamental logic - that the court does have equitable powers, and the authority to do this - will come clear.

-- Politically, the Republican case is stupid. A replay of Florida 2000 will energize Democrats who have been lulled to sleep by their "leaders" uninspiring effort on the war. And did I notice, while carefully ignoring the annoying caveats and analysis, a good headline on Unemployment? Let sleeping dogs lie.

SO, Forrester will do the right thing, the citizenry will applaud, the NY Times will choke (which is all I really want, anyway), and Forrester swoops to a big win in November. The people will be heard!

UPDATE: OK, in my quest for the Current Conventional Wisdom, I find Jonah Goldberg and Robert Levy, both at NRO. Jonah explains what a real democratic Republic would look like. Mr. Levy points to "US Supremes - out! Let the voters decide". Oh, and Ramesh says "Start the Debates". Flickers for me, but so far, the "MinuteMan Plan" is looking like wet leaves and no match. So far....

UPDATE 2: Hmm, a bit of lighter fluid and a spark from Mickey!

UPDATE 3: I respond to questions about "Disenfranchised". It gets a bit raw, so if you are accustomed to reading this blog aloud to your children, please be advised.

Posted 10/04/2002 10:01:00 AM by The MinuteMan

A Quick Guess on the Torch

OK, I have been too busy to read or think this morning (Hey, tell us something new!). However, in a rare display of intellectual courage, I will boldly predict the "Emerging Righty Position" on the Torricelli Debacle:

The Dems have behaved shamelessly. Man, do I have a scorcher coming on this subject! However, proper recourse is to be found at the ballot box. Beyond that, the US Supremes would have to be insane to put themselves in a position of appearing to have selected a Republican President and then a Republican Senate.

Therefore, huffing and puffing from the real Supremes, but the decision of the NJ Supremes ultimately stands, supplemented by a coherent opinion. Let the voters decide.

As to the Dems - hey, the ref swallowed his whistle. Great play.

UPDATE: An Alert Reader is curious. "Huffing and puffing from the real Supremes", you said, but I feel that you are holding back. Care to share?

Well, only because you asked. So, what I REALLY think, unburdened as I am by a law degree or any such encumbrance:

The US Supreme Court is not insane, and will not be seen as having picked a Republican President and then a Republican Senate. Beyond that, the NJ SC position, through reliance on their equitable powers, is tenable, although the opionion is laughable. Therefore, we will see something like the following unfold:

The Real Supreme Court will request a full and formal opinion from Diana Ross and the NJ Supremes. Will they get snarky? The request might read like this:

"Dear Victims of Alien Abduction:

We read with amusement your recent opinion re Forrester et al, but still think "Doonesbury" is a better comic strip.

Could you please submit an opinion that reads like something other than a Saturday Night Live skit, and send it to Washington? If you could take the time to touch on a few of the following points, we would be deeply appreciative:

Regarding the two party system, and the $800,000 new-ballot expenses to be borne by the Democrat Party: we would love to belive that all parties are treated fairly and equally in NJ. Can you provide your thoughts on whether there is one set of rules for "the many with the money", and another set of rules for everyone else?

And, while on the subject of rules, perhaps you could present your thinking on "Rules and Roles". There must be great news on the crime front in NJ, if you guys and gals have enough free time to double as Election Board Supervisors. However, one worries. Perhaps the legislators, having gone through all their boring hearings and what-not, and the governor, having been obliged to read and actually sign their legislation, ought to be allowed a bit of involvement in setting the rules for elections? Perhaps you could provide a bit of clarification as to whether any of their rules would actually be upheld, or is the entire process that has been established by the other two branches of government (the ELECTED branches, BTW) arbitrary and irrelevant to the conduct of a fair election?

Just asking.

Regards,

Your friends in DC."

OK, the Supremes have questions. If Scalia is in the mood for a snack, they might schedule oral arguments so that he can feast on a few of these lawyers.

However, the entire purpose of the exercise will be to frighten and humilate the NJ Supremes, and any other legal buccaneers who might be paying attention. After much breathing of fire, the US Supremes will accept a dramatically re-worded opinion that arrives at the same conclusion. Lautenberg on, Torricelli off, let the voters pass judgement on this.

Posted 10/04/2002 06:35:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Clothes Make the Judge

Any of us can readily picture a British judge. The robes and wigs are meant to invoke a centuries-old legal tradition, thereby giving added weight to their least pronouncement. Although it has been under-reported during the "Torriceli Debacle", the NJ Supreme Court also has traditional garb meant to convey their dignity and authority, as seen in this photo where the "Trenton Seven" grapple with yet another vexing issue.

Posted 10/03/2002 05:11:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Life Imitates Life

While the Security Council sat helplessly inside, a gunman fired shots at the UN. He was overpowered by the U.S. Government, in the person of U.S. Secret Service Agents.

Posted 10/03/2002 02:28:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Know Your Demographic, Sports Fans

OK, the Angels won last night. But that is not what I want to talk about. When I watch "60 Minutes", I expect ads for Metamucil and Geritol. When I watch sports on TV, I expect ads for cars, beer, and trucks. So, what the heck was I seeing last night during the ballgame? Let me emphasize, the manly, beer-drinking, truck-driving ball game?

Viewers saw a long and, actually, quite interesting advertisement describing some of the symptoms and diagnostic issues surrounding bi-polar disorder. This, we learn, is a mental disorder easily mistaken for depression (in the down cycle - talk to your doctor.) Whoa. Why are they telling me this?

OK, I could see the connection if a Boston Red Sox crowd had tuned in. They probably haven't invented medication strong enough to help with that. But c'mon, this is the Yankees! We don't have a problem that can't be solved by winning, or spending! And then it hits me - hello! The opponent is the Angels, the Anaheim Angels, from Southern California! Got it. Chill, dude, it will be over soon.

Posted 10/02/2002 08:36:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The NJ Supreme Court Rules Unanimously

Election laws? Oh, whatever! Nominate whoever, whenever, and do try to let us know.

The seven justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a seven-page order that replacing Torricelli two weeks after a Sept. 16 state deadline for ballot changes was "in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system."

May I make a prediction about "Submerging Issues 2002"? - Hi, we're the Democrats, and we are opposed to corporate cheats who abuse tax and accounting loopholes to advance their own financial interest. Please do not, however, ask for our position on political cheats who abuse legal loopholes to advance their own political power.

Other "Submerging Issues": can we please, please stop hearing about how Bush and Ashcroft are scary on the subject of civil rights? The NJ Supreme Court has just decided that a state with a Democrat Governor, a Democrat legislature, and two Democrat Senators can re-write the election laws for the benefit of the Democrat candidates. A bit of a rough go for the minority parties, such as the Greens, the Libertarians, and, in this state, the Republicans. Democrats respect the law, and respect the rights of minority groups? Save it.

And yes, there's more. The NY Times bleats happily that

"... legal wrangling over ballot access cannot be allowed to obscure the central issue, which is one of democracy. The guiding principle should be the voters' basic right to a genuine election."

Is there any chance whatsoever that a voters "basic right to a genuine election" could be extended to include greater free speech rights, over at the Times? If we don't need these confusing election laws, perhaps we could dispense with the confusing McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform". Such friends of freedom!

I can only think of the classic Mae West line from "My Little Chickadee". In a tense courtroom scene, a judge is angered by Ms. West's flippant attitude. Pounding his gavel, he thunders "Young lady, are you trying to show contempt for this court?". "No, your honor", she replies cooly, "I'm trying to hide it".

UPDATE: The Man Sans Q has deeper thoughts, to offset my darker ones. He mentions the First Amendment; some relevant commentary seems to be here.

UPDATE 2: The NJ Supreme Court can't be this stupid by accident. The truth is out there.

Posted 10/02/2002 05:49:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The One Minute Torricelli

Bob "The Torch" Torricelli was lawfully nominated by the Democratic Party as their candidate to contest a seat for the US Senate this November 5. "Lawfully nominated"? Yes, perhaps surprisingly, there are rules governing this sort of thing. These rules allow for an orderly distribution of ballots and prevent frivolous candidates (see the UPDATE) from appearing on what might become an overcrowded ballot.

Four parties complied with these rules and nominated candidates: the Democrats, the Republicans, the Greens, and the Libertarians. Within 51 days of the election, parties are not allowed to change their nominee except in the event of unusual hardship, such as death.

Bob Torricelli, the Democratic candidate, faced death in the polls due to long-standing ethics problems. He has announced his withdrawal from the race. Is it too late for the Democrats to put a new candidate on the ballot? Surely, voters are entitled to a choice?

The voters have four lawful choices, as noted. If Torricelli declines to campaign vigorously, shame on him; if the Democrats now regret their choice of nominee, well, better luck next time. But the Democrats are in the NJ Supreme Court arguing that voters are being denied a choice because of the State's election laws, with which all four parties have complied, and which the other three parties expect to see enforced.

The voters have four choices, including Bob Torricelli. Any pretense to the contrary is posturing; any notion that the Democrats are somehow entitled to present a fifth choice does not seem to be legal. Of course, that is what the Court will decide. But the notion that voter choice is being restricted by the Republicans, or the Courts, or the law, or anything other than the decisions of the Democratic Party, is absurd.

UPDATE: Did I say "absurd"? I meant to say that the Democratic position was "in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system."

Posted 10/02/2002 05:27:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Buck Stops in New Jersey

So says the Man. But which exit?

Posted 10/02/2002 05:26:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Here Comes a Perp Walk

Hey, it's NOT Torricelli!

Posted 10/02/2002 11:33:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Putting Principle Before Party

We are still on Torricelli, and it is always fun watching a Democrat with principle struggle with his party's total absence of same. Normally, the object of blame when the Democrats run afoul of boring old election laws is Jeb Bush. But for something new, let's amuse ourselves with Josh Marshall:

"A few days back New Jersey Republican Senate candidate Douglas Forrester called on Bob Torricelli to resign. Now Torricelli's in effect done that and Forrester says it's not fair and that no new, clean Democrat should be allowed to take his place on the ballot. He's complaining..."

Hmmm. Josh is a responsible newsie, so I have no doubt that he can produce a Forrester quote that says something like, "I want Torricelli to resign, and then I want the Democratic Party, the Democratic Governor, and the NJ Supreme Court to shred our state's election laws in order to allow the Democrats to replace him".

No, I am intrigued by something else - what are the limits to Forrester's great power? Can he successfully call on Daschle to resign? How cool would it be if Forrester could make Saddam Hussein step aside? And what kind of a December Holiday season might we expect if Forrester calls for "Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards men"? I have no doubt that you share my excitement.

Well, just a thought. Let's press on with Josh:

"...Election law -- as we saw in Florida two years ago -- is the most vexed kind of law in a democratic society since it sets such powerful interests against each other -- the rule of law and democracy. In a democratic society, the presumption in favor of putting significant questions before voters should almost always prevail. If New Jersey law is crystal clear on this point, and it specifically bars any means of putting another name on the ballot, then so be it. But if there's a legal way to do it, then it should happen.

This is the advantage Democrats do have and should have in this case. In a democratic polity, the absence of black letter law to the contrary, the interests of democracy -- having real elections -- always trump procedural squabbling."

Cheers! Democracy, ho! And just a picky aside - do minority parties have rights? Josh's flexibility on the interpretation and enforcement of election law would be much more appealing if this were not a Democrat controlled state juggling the law for the benefit of a Democrat. Surely the right of minority parties to a fair election held under pre-agreed rules is also important?

I mean, why do we close the polls at certain hours? Or have voter registration requirements? Or have people petition to put a candidate, or in California, an issue, on the ballot? Maybe we should just let the party in power tell us, hopefully before the election, what we are voting on, where to vote, who can vote, and so on. Just so the people can be heard. All these rules, and laws, and procedures seem to be such an impediment to Democracy.

Josh's big finish:

The rather shabby truth here is that Republicans understand that Forrester could only get elected in a state like New Jersey not simply if he were facing a bad candidate but essentially no candidate.

Well, the rather shabby truth is that the Republicans faced a lawfully chosen opponent, Torricelli - a bad candidate, perhaps, although the Dems didn't seem to think so a few month ago. But no candidate?

Posted 10/02/2002 10:37:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Coments on the Torricelli Debacle

Sorry, you may have to do some homework to follow all this. A lot of discussion is swirling around different legal strategies that Torricelli might employ to get off the ballot and get Lautenberg on. So, I hope to provide summaries, links, and comments.

First, "Nuclear Autumn": the idea is that the Democrats can use election law to threaten to delay the election unless Lautenberg is put on the ballot. The Times described this:

"Democratic leaders also say privately that if the courts keep Mr. Lautenberg off the ballot, and Mr. Torricelli resigns from his Senate seat within 30 days of the election, Mr. McGreevey could appoint a successor and the election could be postponed. While such a move would open Mr. McGreevey up to fierce criticism from Republicans, the prospect could compel Republicans to drop their court fight."

Some wit described this as the "nuclear option", and here we are. Well, it has eventually occurred to Mickey Kaus, and others, that this is a nuclear warhead without a missile - if the Democrats show this sort of disregard for democracy, they will blow up only themselves in a public relations disaster. Cancelling elections that are not going your way? Great idea.

Now, this next bit is absurdly complicated. Dave Kopel of NRO had a piece outlining the election law issues. A question - if Torricelli resigns within thirty days of the election, what happens?

The statute in question is here:

If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefore, which he is authorized hereby to do.

The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.

So, it seems that, if a vacancy occurs more than thirty days before the election, the seat will be filled at the next election. If the seat is vacated "close to" the election, i.e., within thirty days, then it will be filled at the next regularly scheduled general election, unless a special election is called.

So, a simple scenario: Torricelli resigns within thirty days of the election. McGreevey appoints his succssor, who would serve until the next general election in Novermber 2003 (elections are annual nightmares in NJ).

Wrong! says Kopel - the US Constitution trumps the NJ State Law - Senate terms are for six years, and NJ can't change that.

Right!, say others, with ghastly perma-links - scroll down like crazy, then really scroll down: The Seventeenth Amendment to the US Constitution applies, and it says that States may make reasonable provisions to fill vacant seats. Is the NJ provision reasonable? Lots of states have similar language.

But wait!, says Eugene Volokh: there are a lot of sensible scenarios where this statute makes no sense. Suppose, for example, Torricelli were not a candidate, but simply the retiring incumbent. Two (or more) candidates are campaigning for the seat in an election scheduled for Nov. 5. The Democrat is trailing in the polls on October 25. No problem - Torricelli resigns, the Democratic Governor appoints a successor who serves until November 2003, and the Democrats try again then. Is that really what the statute is saying?

Good point! So, to help resolve this seeming paradox, and in what surely represents hard times all around, I have some simple, clear, and free legal advice for everyone: statutes are generally the beginning of the story, not the end.

Courts will often look at legislative history, legislative intent, and past precedent in interpreting a statute - I mean, hello! We all know this, but, given the excitment, has anyone actually had time to do this? Absent research into those points, staring at this statute is intriguing, but not definitive.

So, a possible interpretation, based on wild surmise - the legislature seems to have two objectives:

(1) they want offices to be filled by election, rather than by appointment.

(2) elections should be properly scheduled. A vacancy could occur "too close" to an already scheduled election. If a seat became vacant a week before an already scheduled election, the process of selecting candidates, preparing ballots, and having a sensible campaign would be impractical. Hence, the thirty day window.

So, as to the "Volokh paradox" - what is the law when the election, as in the current case, is already scheduled? Well, the legislature seems to like prompt elections. Are there serious problems with proceeding with an election where the candidates have been campaigning and the ballots are set? No. So, the legislative intent would be that this portion of the statute does not apply. If there is no precedent on this point, and no legislative history, the NJ Supreme court may let stand a statute that clearly could, in easily imagined circumstances, be abused by the party in power.
Notice that it is not the withdrawal of a candidate that creates a vacancy; it is the withdrawal of the incumbent. If Torricelli the incumbent chooses to resign, fine, a vacancy occurs. If Torricelli the candidate chooses to withdraw from the race, well, State election law offers guidance there. But, since he has not died or experienced unusual circumstances other than hideous poll numbers, special relief does not seem to be appropriate.

Is this interpretation correct? Further research is needed,and I won't be doing it. I am not familiar with whether these legal research tools kick out every relevant precedent and the legislative history when they deliver the statute, so it is possible that these points have already been looked at, and dismissed. In which case, I am a little embarrassed, and a lot surprised. But my guess is that when the plain language if the statute is puzzling, other sources will be used to provide guidance.

And, a ray of light for Democrats: a reasonable interpretation of this statute is that the State needs thirty days to prepare for an election. So, what is magical about the "51 day" rule that guides the candidate selection process? OK, the only magic is that it is what the legislature wrote, but clearly they contemplated special circumstances in which 30 days was enough. The Republican response? What is special about a candidate trailing in the polls?

UPDATE: Was it obvious when I requested more research into "legislative history, legislative intent, and past precedent" that I was including, in legislative history, other relevant statutes? Having done more research, Eugene Volokh drops this on us:

"In fact, another statute, N.J. Stat. 19:27-4, seems to recognize that vacancies that happen right before a seat is about to be filled in a normal election should generally be taken care of through the normal electoral calendar:

When any vacancy happens in the representation of this State in the United States Senate or in the House of Representatives, the Governor shall issue a writ of election to fill the same unless the term of service of the person whose office shall become vacant will expire within six months next after the happening of the vacancy and except as hereinafter provided.

So if Torricelli resigns within 30 days before the November 2002 election, the Governor wouldn't even have the power to call a special election (note that 19:27-4 was enacted after 19:3-26, so if the two conflict, 19:27-4 prevails)."

Well, well. Look, politically this strategy is a loser. And legally, it may be dead as well.

Posted 10/02/2002 10:02:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Angels in the Bullpen

How about that game last night? The Yankees went back and forth with the Angels until, with some late inning heroics, the Yankees win. Just another day of New York Yankee Playoff Baseball!

But enough about he Yankees, what about me? Yesterday, people questioned my commitment, and my heart. Did I have what it took to watch Playoff Baseball? How would I hold up to playoff pressure?

Well, we admit to a bit of a head-loll in the bottom of the eighth inning, with the Yankees trailing 5-4. When I came to, my lucky Yankees cap was gone, and Soriano was on first with two out. How did he get there? A walk, after being down 0-2? Jeter draws another walk, and now Jason Giambi strides to the plate. New pitcher! The Angels have, in their bullpen, Troy Percival, one of the top, top closers in the game. And he stays in the bullpen! Oh, we were burying Mike Scioscia, Angels manager, even before Giambi got the game-tying single. You need four outs to win, bring in Percival! We were brutal.

And, as Bernie Williams strode to the plate with two men on and the score tied, we turned our wrath on the announcers, who gave us this: “Here comes Bernie Williams, who is often overlooked in this Yankees lineup”.

The crowd went nuts, and instantly delivered an American Express commercial:

“Hi, you may not know me. Although I bat clean-up and play centerfield for the most successful ball club in history, have four World Series rings, am a regular at the All-Star game, have earned one batting title and was in the hunt for a second this year, I am often overlooked by national television announcers. My name? Bernie Williams”.

Oh, do these announcers practice “stupid”, or does it come naturally? We got all that out even before “Bernie goes Boom”, for the 8-5 lead. Mariano in, the Angels out, Yankees up 1-0. I found my lucky Yankees cap, with the tinfoil lining intact. And please, how about a laugher? Does every game have to be done the hard way?

Posted 10/01/2002 12:28:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Vote For [Insert Name Here]

We are back to New Jersey, and the passing of the Torch. Yesterday I suggested that principled Democrats should get behind an organized write-in campaign, such as was recently perpetrated, pardon me, executed, in Washington, DC. This would show respect for the law and offer voters a choice. Just to show that, if you read enough news, you will find something you like, I offer these bits from the Times:

"First of all, it's simply not legal for them to try to put someone on the ballot in less than 51 days," said Ginny Wolfe, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "That's simply the law, and I suspect that the people in New Jersey are simply tired of laws being ignored."

That's what I'm saying! Laws are made merely to frustrate well-intentioned Democrats.

"The laws of the State of New Jersey do not contain a `We-think-we're-going-to-lose-so-we-get-to-pick-someone-new' clause," Mr. Forrester said at a news conference after Mr. Torricelli announced his withdrawal.

Yeah, yeah, more legalistic Republican whining. They would have exactly that clause if anyone had thought of it, so why not put one in there now? Where's the good stuff?

"...law professors at Rutgers University differed on the legality of a party changing candidates so close to Election Day.

"I'm inclined to think that the Republicans are right; I don't think they can replace him at this point," said Frank Askin, who runs the Rutgers Law School's Constitutional Law clinic in Newark. "I think the Democratic option is to take a page from the mayor of the District of Columbia's playbook and run a big write-in campaign, get behind another candidate and print two million stickers with his name on it."

Exactly. But wait...

"...Richard J. Perr, who teaches courses on election and political campaign law at the Rutgers Law School in Camden, said that a trend in court rulings favoring expanding voter choice at election time would probably allow Democrats to prevail.

"The state statute says you can substitute a name on the ballot within 51 days of the election," Mr. Perr said. "However the statute then stops, and doesn't say what happens if you are closer than 51 days. So what it will come down to is a battle over the common law and practices of the state."

Which is to say, don't bore me with your common sense or "intent of the legislature" nonsense. We want to change candidates, and we will, and these laws are just a bunch of confusing obstacles desgned to frustrate the will of the voters. And anyway, did you ever see Michael Jordan whistled for travelling? Exactly.

So away we go. Another thoughtful debate on "will of the people" versus "rule of law".

UPDATE: The Man, the Torch, the Tribute. Employees must wash hands afterwards.

Posted 10/01/2002 12:26:00 PM by The MinuteMan

October Baseball

The baseball playoffs are underway, and it is time for some predictions.

First, we should review the scouting reports. Having done so, I can say this flatly - The MinuteMan simply does not have the stamina or the mental toughness required to spectate at this level. He will make mental mistakes, such as flooping down in front of the tube after dinner, only to learn that he has missed an afternoon game. He will make physical errors, such as clicking over to "Buffy, the Vampire-Slayer" during a beak in the action. Fifteen minutes later, when Significant Action is occurring in the game, he will still be looking for the remote and studying Ms. Gellar's significant action. The MinuteMan will fail to follow double switches, and lose track of how many lefties and righties are available in the bullpen. Most damaging of all however, is a conclusion we simply cannot escape - he is a quitter! If a game looks like a rout, he will go to bed rather than sit through endless pitching changes and beer commercials. No, people, when it comes to post-season play, this guy has earned his nickname - Mr. August.

And what about the teams? Beats me. But I will say this: I will not live to see another playoff and World Series as emotionally fraught and exciting as in 2001. Or, put differently, if we see the defensive plays such as Jeter made against Oakland, or the ninth innning home runs against Arizona, the excitment will cause my heart to fail.

Last guess: The Yankees beat Anaheim, Oakland, and Atlanta to win it all. And I'll close with a bit of a soundbite from the Yankee General Manager, speaking on SportsRadio WFAN: "People say that the Yankee payroll is so high. But our guys are playing seven months each season and the other teams only play six. Adjust for that, and we are not out of line."

Posted 9/30/2002 10:12:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Torch Songs

The Torch is out, the NJ Senate race is in a tizzy, and it may be headed for the courts.

Here at The MinuteMan, we value principle, and expect the leaders of both parties to do the same. Consequently, we have complete confidence that, in the next day or two, we will see solemn announcements from the rival camps. Republicans first:

Although we deeply regret the irregularities in the Democratic Party nominating process, the good people of the great state of NJ are entitled to a choice on Election Day. Therefore, as the party committed to the highest principles of democracy, we will not contest the replacement of Sen. Torricelli on the Nov. 5 ballot. May the best person win!

Oh, frabjous day amongst the Republicans! However, since idealistic Democrats would never put power ahead of principle, we would immediately see this from the state Democrats:

The good people of the great state of NJ are entitled to a choice on Election Day. Beyond that, however, they are entitled to have complete confidence that whoever they choose as Senator respects and upholds the law. Sen. Torricelli has withdrawn because he did not show that respect; the Democratic Party will be strictly honest and accountable in attempting to replace a man who seems to have fallen short of those high standards. Although the nominating process of our party has broken down, we will not cheat to replace a cheater.

Therefore, in order to provide the voters with a choice while, just as importantly, demonstrating our respect for the law, the Democratic Party will not formally present a candidate on the ballot; rather the Party will put its support behind the write-in candidacy of [Bruce Springsteen / Barbra Streisand / Frank Sinatra / Jon Bon Jovi / candidate to be named later].

Oh, I will be proud to be a Jersey boy! So many high roads! And in New Jersey, too, where the high road can seem a bit lonesome. Still, I think we have a solution here that principled Democrats can get behind - back a write-in candidate. Good luck in this election, and next time, see if nominating someone honest works out a bit better.

So, fun things to watch for: Let's watch the NY Times grumble and endorse, reluctantly, whoever it is the Democrats nominate, however they manage to nominate him or her. There are more important principles at stake than whether the two parties need to obey the law. In fact, if Republicans gain control of the Senate, we may see new judges who take the law seriously - death spiral!

Secondly, it may matter less than we think right now - Forrester's ads will refer to the new kid in town as "Torricelli's replacement" for the next five weeks, and this slogan of "They cheated to replace a cheater" will, I humbly predict, be a winner. Unless the Republicans are so heavy handed as to turn the newcomer into a victim (Note to Republicans: Forrester, and the voters of NJ, are the victims of a failed Democrat nominating process), the Republicans coast to victory in November. Then, the slogan becomes, "They lost trying to replace a loser".

Posted 9/30/2002 03:06:00 PM by The MinuteMan

How Far Will The Democrats Go to Keep The Senate?

By the time you read this, Sen. Torricelli's re-election campaign may be dead. There are reports that Sen. Torricelli may withdraw from his troubled Senate race if a suitable replacement can be found in time for the Nov. 5th ballot. But wait:

"Republicans said they would contest any effort to have a substitute candidate take his place, arguing that it is barred by state law so close to an election. According to GOP lawyers, the only exception acknowledged by a court has been in the case of the death of a nominee."

The Torch - team player? Politics ain't beanbag, Bob.

UPDATE: OK, the candidacy is dead, but the former candidate is still alive. Advice to Republicans: We the People want an election, not a court fight. Follow the John Ashcroft 2000 model, even if the Dems are cheaters.

Posted 9/30/2002 02:04:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Wisdom From the Ages

Speaking on Iraq, David Bonior, second ranking Democrat in the House, had this to say:

"We've got to move forward in a way that's fair and impartial. That means not having the United States or the Iraqis dictate the rules to these inspections."

I suppose this may require a bit of clarification: Mr. Bonior is a member of the House of Representatives of the United States. That may not be clear from the quote.

Other people have had thoughts on this. I don't suppose being dead gives one greater authority, but here we go:

"We have nothing to do, but to choose what is right, to be steady in the pursuit of it, and leave the issue to Providence. "
ATTRIBUTION: Samuel Richardson (1689–1761), British novelist.

"Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side..."
ATTRIBUTION: James Russell Lowell (1819–1891)

And, from a former US Senator:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Barry Goldwater, with an interesting eulogy here, and some background here and here. None of these sources confirms my recollection that he was instrumental in reforming the chain of command structure of the US Military, reforms that proved their value in Desert Storm.

Posted 9/30/2002 12:11:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Most Brutal Dismissal of Al Gore Yet

Al Gore spoke about Iraq on Monday. Reaction was mixed: some people hated the speech, some people hated both the speech and Al Gore. But now, Peggy Noonan of the WSJ chimes in with a piece evaluating the merits of both sides of the Iraqi debate. About the Democrats, she says this:

"The Democrats on Capitol Hill have so far failed to mount a principled, coherent opposition. I am not shocked by this, are you? One senses they are looking at the whole question merely as a matter of popular positioning: Will they like me if I say take out Saddam? Will they get mad at me if we try to take him out and it's a disaster? Will they like me if I say there's no reason to go to war? Have I focus-grouped this? Such unseriousness is potentially deeply destructive. It is certainly irresponsible. And here's the funny thing: If some Democrat stood up and spoke thoughtfully and without regard for political consequences about what is right for us to do, he'd likely garner enhanced respect and heightened standing. He'd seem taller than his colleagues. At any rate, more than usual, I am missing Pat Moynihan and Sam Nunn."

Ouch. OK, she does say "The Democrats on Capitol Hill", but my goodness - Is Al Gore even allowed to speak? "I see your lips moving on the videotape, Al, but I have turned off the sound?". Capitol Hill, eh? I guess former future Presidents need not apply.

Posted 9/30/2002 11:40:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

George and Saddam - working as one.

Bad News For the "BigFoots" in Blogdom

You know what this links to. Is it Number One at Blogdex yet?

Susanna Cornett is Looking Good

And we like the new blog look, too.

Posted 9/29/2002 01:54:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Al Gore: Political Death Wish, or Terrible Staff?

Yes, I will accept (c), both of the above. I am marveling at this gem, highlighted by Stan ("The Man") Musil:

"As an amusing aside, Mr. Gore revived his old embarrassing campaign problem of asserting bizarre factoids which almost certainly will not check out once the inevitable investigative leg work is done by the media or Republican partisans:

[From the Washington Times]
Mr. Gore also said Mr. Bush's Justice Department and the FBI had spent more time and resources investigating a suspected brothel in New Orleans than monitoring bin Laden and his terrorist network. "Where is their sense of priorities?" Mr. Gore asked."

Or, from the WaPo:

"The warnings were there," Gore said. He contended the Justice Department had assigned only one FBI agent to monitor Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida, while 13 FBI agents were assigned to eavesdrop on a brothel in New Orleans.

"Where is the sense of priorities?" asked Gore.

He commented Thursday at a fund-raising breakfast for Delaware attorney general candidate Carl Schnee."

So, Gore throwing out a bit of red meat at a fundraiser. And where is this story likely to take the ever-astute "Big Al"? I have some thoughts:

First, will it check out? Of course not. The very best Big Al can hope for is that some aide will produce a puzzling organization chart showing only one Justice Dept. official assigned full-time to Al-qaeda. Maybe in the prosecutors division, at a time when no cases were being developed. Maybe. But the FBI was involved in the investigation of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and the investigation of the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, so, eventually, we will learn that many Justice Dept. officials work on international terror full-time, and includes Al-qaeda among their responsibilities.

We will also be told that, if you want to criticize the Administration, you should criticize the relevant agencies. Both the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have been slackers in the pursuit of Al-qaeda; the CIA and the US Military have been quite diligent, since Al-qaeda operates primarily overseas.

We will be reminded that, unless Big Al can produce a memo from George Bush saying "right, then, we are putting too many agents on terrorism and not enough on brothels", Administration apologists will observe that, as of the summer of 2001, these were the priorities inherited from Clinton-Gore. Left to our imaginations will be the question of why Bill Clinton was so interested in New Orleans brothels. And, to round out the day, we will learn that this was not just any brothel - it was a Very Serious Investigation into Organized Crime or the War On Drugs, or anyway, Something Big.

So, having launched this particular ship, to what safe harbor might Big Al be sailing?

-- KIDDING! Hey, I was just having fun at a fund-raiser, gimme a break.

Hmm, Al Gore, the King of Comedy, riffing on civil liberties and the lighter side of 9/11. Insensitive and tone-deaf.

-- No fair, I was taken out of context!

Please. He had to know this would be a soundbite. If it requires four pages of footnotes and a bibliography, save your defenders a lot of pain and leave it out. Pedantic and inept.

OK, enough of the favorable scenarios. What else is out there?

-- Stare closely at the puzzling chart. Although, in a broader sense, I may be wrong, clearly there is a technical sense in which I am correct.

Don't defend this, Al. Put down the shovel and stop digging. If you really believe this, you are ignorant as to how the Justice Dept. is organized, and soft on crime to boot.

-- Ooops, looks like we made a mistake.

Ooops, it looks like you don't have the common sense of a housecat. If there was a nano-second when you actually believed you could get away with this FBI story, either you are a stone-idiot, or you take me for one.

And I think that is about it. So, what is happening with Big Al? Political suicide? Look, this would be a gaffe for anyone. However, Big Al has a rep for straying from the facts. Yes, I know, he didn't really say he invented the Internet, that was a distortion by an unsympathetic media and evil Republicans. But guess what? The media is still unsympathetic, and Repuplicans are still evil - Big Al shouldn't supply the dirt to shovel on his own grave.

But I think the problem goes deeper. In the 90's, there were Republicans who hated Clinton with such passion that their brains froze - "Clinton-lock" was the technical term. If Clinton said at breakfast that he enjoyed watching the sun rise in the East, you would see the rebuttals by lunchtime: "Clinton said the sun rises in the East? More lies. Everyone knows that the sun is the center of the solar system and it is only the rotation of the earth about its own axis that creates the illusion of a rising sun. More spin from the master of illusion...." Oh, you remember.

Anyway, I think Gore may have become a rally point for Democrats affected with "Bush-lock", and we are seeing the evidence in his staff work. Heaven knows, Gore may be afflicted himself, and with some reason. Perhaps the recent voting debacle in Florida pushed him over the edge. But if he and his staff don't stop loathing and start thinking, they are going to have serious problems during their short campaign. As to suggestions for a cure? Well, time, and the Marc Rich pardons, worked for me. For Big Al, I cannot offer hope.

Posted 9/29/2002 12:58:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Too Ridiculous to be Serious; Too Serious to Ridicule

Which way to go on Nicholas Kristof's "Fighting Street to Street": "Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years? " The Bothers Judd take a serious look at this, and I admire their intellect and restraint. For myself, this column is war, this column is death and destruction, but most especially, this column is silly.

Nicholas, Our Man in Baghdad, is going to scout Saddam's war preparations. Very sensitive info. We can see him, trench coat, fedora, the letters of transit... - does he smoke? NY Times writer, probably not. Press on.

"BASRA, Iraq — To understand why an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects, pay $20 (round trip) and board an Iraqi Airways flight that soars from Baghdad straight through the American-enforced "no-flight zone" to Basra on the southern tip of Iraq."

The fog rolls across the airstrip. The engines of the airplane rev up. "If that plane leaves the ground and you're not on it, you'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday, and soon - MoDo is going to write on Saddam's war plans any day now."

"... American restraint is Iraq's ace going into war. Iraq knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent on a different approach.

From Basra I drove to the Kuwait border on the "highway of death," to see how Iraq will guard what may be a principal invasion route for American troops. The only military presence was a few guards on the edge of Basra, amounting to what you'd expect at the entrance to an urban U.S. high school."

Huh? U.S. High School? Are we discussing vouchers and school choice and education reform? Get me back to Iraq, please.

"...Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place."

We'll always have Baghdad. If we didn't, we lost it along the way. We got it back last night, or at least, last week when George Bush spoke at the UN. Here's looking at you, Saddam.

"...The Americans are good at bombing," one Iraqi official mused. "But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets."

"Fighting in the streets"; George Bush "won't be fooled again". Man, is everyone channeling the Who?

"...This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly seven million more in Al Quds militia.

Karar Hassan, a 22-year-old member of the militia in the city of Najaf, said he had just completed a training session in street fighting, including fighting house to house and even from trees. "I'll fight them till my last drop of blood," he added, in the kind of boast that is heard everywhere in Iraq."

Well, there are reports that young Karar's idea got a bit muddled in the translation. "I'll fight until the first drop of blood", or perhaps, "I'll fight until the risk of bloodshed", would be more accurate.

If someone tries to threaten us, we know how to respond," said a farmer named Hakim al-Khal in the bazaar of Karbala, and then he reached under his shirt and brandished a handgun."

Courage, Nicholas! A handgun! I know how sensitive you Times chaps can be about uncontrolled handguns, but we can get past this.

No, we can't! A farmer has a handgun? Geez, does Don Rumsfeld know? My God, Hakim has a gun and he knows how to use it! Did Blair put this in his dossier? OK, we can get comfortable with nukes, bio-terror, chemical weapons, and general undirected nastiness, but now put Hakim in the mix, and where are we? Get me Kofi Anon - twelve years of sanctions, and now this? A handgun? Did anyone check for bullets?

OK, that's fine, I've made my point. But I can't stop laughing! Oh, man, Nicholas, did you check out Hakim's brother, I heard he has a chainsaw. And Ma might have a pitchfork. This is great intel, guy, be sure to expense the fedora.

Enough. Oh, I may never blog again - I have seen the mountaintop. But here we go:

"Most Iraqis seem to have no love for Saddam, and the great majority will probably spend the war hiding under their beds. But if even a tiny proportion of the braggarts are serious, then look out. Moreover, some tribes are armed with mortars and large-caliber machine guns, so that even if they could not stop tanks rolling through to Baghdad, they could seriously hurt an American army of occupation.

Perhaps the American invasion will be a breeze after all. The Iraqi army is less than half the strength it was when it crumpled in a 100-hour ground war a decade ago, and U.S. forces are much stronger now."

Also, in 1991 we only had CNN. Due to the proliferation of cable news services, there will be many, many more news crews available to accept the surrender of Iraqi forces.

"...But if we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops.

Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years?"

Alright, this is serious. I am not interested in a bidding war, especially with someones else's sons and daughters - one casualty is too many. And Kristof mentioned Iraqi casualties earlier, but let's note them again now - a war will involve thousands of casualties, most of them Iraqi, and that is bad. The current sanctions regime results in the death of thousands of malnoruished, under-treated Iraqi children, we are told, and that is also bad. If Kristof has a pain-free solution, this would be a great time to present it.

I also excerpt this from the Brothers Judd very thoughtful post:

"do we still have the national will, demonstrated on battlefields from Massachusetts to Virginia to France to the Pacific Isles, to stand and fight for freedom, even if we may have to pay a horrible price or, almost as bad, make others pay a horrible price for opposing us?"

They think, I link.