Posted 3/31/2003 08:02:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Michael Tomasky Palms A Card

Michael Tomasky, writing in The American Prospect, gets very slippery with his excerpts and assertions. He is writing about right-wing critics of the anti-war protestors:

Never to be out-demagogued on such questions, Andrew Sullivan chirped in: "If [protesters] go ahead and try to impede those people in the military doing their jobs, if they launch a 'stop-the-war' movement after it has begun and American and British lives are at stake, it strikes me that they will massively overplay their hand. It took a long time in the Vietnam War for people to start campaigning against an existing war, and longer still for some to withhold support from the troops facing battle. If the anti-war brigades decide to cross that line instantly, then the backlash could be enormous. And deservedly so."

It gets worse still....

...This is a small sampling, and once the shooting does start -- and the countervailing protests, which will be immediate -- this kind of chest thumping will only get more insistent. Keep an eye open for the demagogue's standard tricks, the main one of which is on display in the O'Reilly and Sullivan quotes above -- to wit, intentionally blurring the line between protesting and harming the military. Impeding the military means giving away troops' positions and interfering with their progress; that's treason, or something very close to it, and we all agree that's bad. (The Prospect's Web log, Tapped, properly rebuked the "human shield" movement.) Protesting is ... protesting.

All very well. The Andrew Sullivan piece in question is here, and certainly seems to be referring to protestors impeding the military. And, since this is the Web, we can follow the link Sullivan provides to more clearly establish the context of Sullivan's statement:

Organizers of Antiwar Movement Plan to Go Beyond Protests

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 3, 2003; Page A14

LONDON, March 2 -- The people who helped organize the largest worldwide peace demonstration in history last month say they are not through yet.

...they intend to further disrupt war plans with acts of civil disobedience against U.S. military bases, supply depots and transports throughout Europe.

And, much later in the story:

Campaigns to disrupt U.S. forces have also been launched. Besides the dozens of activists who have traveled to Baghdad to volunteer as "human shields" against a U.S. attack, nine Dutch antiwar activists were arrested Tuesday for chaining themselves to the gates of a U.S. military center outside Rotterdam. In Italy, hundreds of protesters occupied train stations and railway tracks for nearly a week to delay trains carrying U.S. military equipment from northern Italy to the Camp Darby military base near Pisa. Irish protesters broke through the perimeter fence at Shannon airport in January and damaged a U.S. Navy plane, causing other planes to divert their flights and refuel elsewhere. Trade union movements in Italy and France are pledging work disruptions and considering general strikes if war breaks out.

Quite plainly, the activities described above clearly fall within the scope of "impeding the military" as explained by Tomasky.

Howard Kurtz grasped this distinction in reporting on Sullivan's remarks by placing them just below this:

In California, dozens of protesters plan to infiltrate Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central coast, hoping to disrupt work. A San Francisco-area collective called Direct Action to Stop the War plans to blockade the TransAmerica Pyramid, the Pacific Stock Exchange and the Federal Reserve in San Francisco.

"Protesters in Washington may focus on the White House. A spokesman for a national group, Peace Action, said plans called for activists to gather at 5 p.m. on the day the United States goes to war, or at that time the following day if an attack begins at night. Scott Lynch said protesters would probably block one of the White House driveways."

All of which will accomplish what?

Well, maybe Kurtz was blurring the line, but interfering with an Air Force base in wartime is not acceptable, even by the Tomasky Standard.

Might Tomasky have known any of this? Of course he did, or should have. But he knew the story he wanted to write, he knew he wanted to include Sullivan, and all that was missing was the evidence.

Posted 3/31/2003 04:36:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Power Of the Blogosphere

Are we supposed to be able to fact-check, or what? And we can! Sort of, anyway. Over the weekend, the power of the blogosphere was on display.

Prof DeLong started things off with a post that included this:

...Those of us who read the Agonist remember that it was not all that many months ago that Ari Fleischer was... boasting, I guess... that Ari Fleischer actually said that "[General Tommy] Franks wasn't invited to the next strategy meeting because 'the president doesn't have time to listen to what the president doesn't want to hear,' "

The source for the quote was this post from Agonist.

One of the commenters pointed out that such a quote can not be found with Google, which includes the White House press briefings in its searches. A subsequent post at Agonist invited readers to track down the quote.

Relatively quickly readers found the original Agonist post, which sort of missed the point. Eventually, this story was settled upon as being the source. See if you can spot any problems:

Bush given Iraq invasion plan
By RICHARD SALE

U.S. Central Command head Gen. Tommy Franks briefed President Bush this week about a scaled-down contingency plan to strike Iraq that calls for an invasion force of some 80,000 to 100,000 personnel including only 50,000 ground troops, administration officials said.

In this new proposal, an invasion would take place during November and December, administration officials, who asked not to be identified by name, told United Press International.

A spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House said they had no information on the meeting and could neither confirm nor deny that it had taken place.

But a well-placed Pentagon official said, "Franks was asked to brief. The president doesn't have time to bother what with he doesn't want to hear." This official asked not to be quoted by name or assignment. Recent pressure from Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith to try and mount a scaled back invasion by October was turned back by staunch resistance from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, these sources said.

Ahh, did you notice that Fleischer is NOT the source? And are you perplexed by the news that Franks DID give the briefing? If this is suppport for the Agonist quote, well, we are all living in Australia and walking upside down.

Now, late in the comments we find two folks saying that heard Fleischer say it on live TV. Of course, the original Agonist post suggests that the comment was made months ago, but folks do have long memories, if not always reliable. But, unless someone can drive up in their Lexis-Nexis to save us, this Fleischer quote appears to be doomed.

UPDATE: A revised post by the Prof suggests that we are no longer waitng for the Lexis. As to the central question, why did "Shock and Awe" morph into "Aw, Shucks", reactions vary. Kaus, attacking up the center, says its about multiple wars. On the right flank, Kurtz of NRO says its about transformation: Rumsfeld prefers a lighter, quicker Army, while current officers prefer job security and opportunites for promotion (NO, he doesn't say it that way, I snuck my own snidery in there). Sullivan fights a rearguard action against what he might have called a "Coalition of the Cavilling", pointing out that after two weeks we have secured the oilfields and the sites that might have been used to launch missles at Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel. Maybe it's too early for the US to surrender. Time will tell!

Posted 3/31/2003 03:20:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Natives Appear To Be Friendly

Iraqis seem to be willing to welcome us, but have terrible memories of 1991, when we stood aside and let Saddam crush their revolt.

Posted 3/31/2003 02:45:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Good News About North Korea

From Daniel Drezner, who also answers another question. I hve been annoying folks at cocktail parties for months with the idea that North Korean nukes are as much of a problem for China, Russia, and Japan as they are for us, and those folks ought to be able to help us out, if we ask nocely. How did I get so smart? One of his old posts, of course.

Posted 3/31/2003 02:14:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Orwellian Moment At The NY Times

The NY Times has a piece describing how the peace movement has made a sensible decision to link peace with patriotism.

...love of country, its traditions and great leaders has emerged as a central theme in the street protests, as many left-leaning critics of the war try to wrestle patriotism from its traditional conservative grip.

...Many conservatives don't buy it.

James Q. Wilson, emeritus professor of management and public policy at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the surge in patriotic speech from the left amounted to a good marketing strategy for groups generally regarded as out of touch with mainstream America, but he doubted its effectiveness. He said patriotism, especially in a time of war, was about defending "an idea that defines the United States." That idea, he said, was freedom, and it was not one that wavered when American troops were put in harm's way.

Well, I think it is a fine idea which flatly contradicts my post here.

However, the Times also flatly contradicts reality with this statement:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public," Roosevelt wrote in a newspaper column in 1918.

"Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else," he continued. "But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else."

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, Natalie Maines, could have used a little Roosevelt in her defense after criticizing President Bush during an appearance in London. She has still not recovered from the public relations backlash. But few in the broader antiwar movement have made the same misstep.

Ahh, few in the peace movement have criticized Bush? Does the Times watch the Oscars? But beyond that, on Monday AM, I saw a CNN report on the recent Columbia peace rally, made famous by Professor Degenova's comment that "I wish for a million Mogadishus". But this account of the rally suggests that a bit of criticism of Bush was also offered.

Bush and his administration also took personal blows.

Robbins called them "shameless liars and hypocrites."

Remarked Professor of Journalism and Sociology Todd Gitlin, "The Bush administration, instead of answering reporters' more difficult questions, repeats mantras--9/11, Iraq, 9/11, Iraq--a Pavlovian association on the basis of dubious claims and outright forgeries."

Katznelson stated that "the Bush administration has failed spectacularly--even if it wins this war militarily." He elaborated: "This administration abhors real politics, where outcomes might be provisional and uncertain--the hallmarks of any democracy. ... Let us not accept the erosion of real politics."

Others offered advice to the Bush administration.

"I would be careful in promising wrath, shocking and awesome, to those who dismiss and ignore legitimate election results," Associate Professor of Anthropology Rosalind Morris told the absent Bush. "People might take you seriously and respond."

I do not know what the Times is thinking, but they might want to read their own paper.

UPDATE: Dr. Dan provides the context for DeGenova's remarks. Oh, that is much better. I thought that when he said "a million Mogadishus", he was just looking for something alliterative. I'm just glad he did not come up with "a googol of Ground Zeros".

Posted 3/31/2003 01:36:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Saddam's Endgame

I nearly got booed off the dinner table when I floated this idea Friday night, but it's a new day. My question - if you were on Saddam Hussein's payroll as a consultant, what advice would you be giving him? If we can assume for a moment that he has a strategy, what might it be?

First, if he is seeking glorious martyrdom, make sure his check clears before you dispense with the advice. However, imagine that he truly hopes to remain in power. What then?

Plan A relied on world opinon and the United Nations to restrain the US. Well, that is why we have a Plan B.

Under Plan B, we (his somewhat conflicted consultants) advise Saddam that he needs to think outside the box. Abandon the tired zero-sum "win-lose" mindset, and think in terms of "win-win". "Look, Saddam, baby, (the "baby" works ONLY if you are videoconferencing, which I would strongly recommend), you are not going to WIN this war. Face reality. Denial is not just a river, and neither is the Tigris, which you now have by the tail", we tell him, but does he get American humor? No. More wasted time.

Saddam can't "win" unless he can redefine winning in a way that leaves him with what he really wants, but lets the US declare victory. And what does the US want? Working off of Rumsfeld's list of eight goals, we see:

1. Regime change - Saddam out
2. Disarmament - no WMDs
3. Drive out terrorists
4. Gather intelligence on terrorists
5. Gather intelligence on the international network of WMDs
6. End sanctions and deliver humanitarian relief
7. "Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people"
8. "to help the Iraqi people create the conditions for a rapid transition to a representative self-government".

OK, and what does Saddam want? To stay in power, we presume. So, here is our proposal, which might pass as a mission statement. Saddam needs to present this war as follows: Saddam Hussein, responsible world citizen, leads the patriotic Iraqis in defense of their homeland against foreign invaders. Please, snickering during the presentation is distracting.

What does this mean for our military plan? Three things, immediately:

A. DO NOT attack Israel. This is about patriotic Iraqis versus the imperialists, remember? Shelve the old "Arab v. Jew" script.

B. DO NOT torch the oil fields. If you hold them, great, but what are the odds? If the US gets them, well, think of it as throwing them a bone - it's something they want that you don't need.

C. DO NOT use chemical or biological weapons. Of course you have them, but as a "responsible world citizen", you need to maintain "implausibe deniability". Stay with the script.

Anything else? Of course. Fight like fury in some of the southern cities so the world gets a good, ghastly look at urban combat. Wait for the coalition to surround Baghdad, then ask the UN for a cease-fire. You agree to inspections, and since you haven't used WMDs, the UN keeps a straight face and says OK. They want documents, you have documents, on terrorists and WMDs, and anything else. Regime change? Agree to a partition of Iraq - you keep "Inner Iraq", located around Baghdad, and the coalition gets "Outer Iraq". Promise elections in five years, and try to keep a straight face when you sign the documents.

Result - of Rumsfeld's eight points, the US can claim satisfaction on seven and a half. That is a win for Bush, isn't it? And if the alternative is to level Baghdad, he might go for it. And for the client, who appears impoverished and alone as ruler of Greater Baghdad? Well, those oil fields are for all the Iraqi people, right? How about a share of the revenue, then, for humanitarian purposes. This is not precisely a clear win for Saddam, but it is not a total defeat, and tomorrow is another day.

LIVE UPDATE: Nick Denton proposes a three part partition. The Insta-man does not sputter with rage. Could the politics be such that a deal like this could develop? For whatever it's worth, on Friday it was three lefties who hated this idea, pounding the table with the idea that Bush would never go for it. What do they know about the mind of the right? Little, since, it now appears that a couple of non-lefties are able to accept the concept.

Posted 3/30/2003 05:16:00 PM by The MinuteMan

It's Deja Vu All Over Again, Again

President Bush is being briefed on the Pentagon plan to deal with Iraq. Cautious generals present a plan calling for overwhelming force. Unhappy civilains reject the initial effort, and force the Pentagon to accept a plan calling for many fewer troops. The result...

Well, the NY Times is the paper of record when I agree with it, and today they tell me that the above story describes Bush I and the run-up to Desert Storm. Here we go:

In 1990, for example, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Mr. Powell, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, presented the first President George Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney with a proposal to oust the Iraqis with a show of force substantially larger than was eventually used.

"I was not happy with the briefing," recalled Brent Scowcroft, then the national security adviser, in the memoirs he wrote with the first President Bush. "It sounded unenthusiastic, delivered by people who didn't want to do the job."

In 1991, Mr. Cheney and his aides devised a lightning strike at Iraqi troops from the west. It was generally regarded as a military success despite the decision, stemming from political constraints, to stop, letting large numbers of Iraqi Republican Guards escape and leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

Well, I am not as savvy as a NY Times reporter, but I can imagine that Brent Scowcroft, as one of the civilians in this story, might have reasons to present the story this way. However, we get a somewhat similar version here.

In his book, Colin Powell describes the fateful October briefing as a flop, but also describes the plan as a first draft which lacked the support of Schwarzkopf and the Pentagon - the plan no one devised, apparently. Calling Bob Woodward!

Posted 3/28/2003 06:54:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Pre-emptive Props To Professor Paul Krugman: Praise For The Phrase That Pays

Krug 3.28 contains what can only be interpreted as a subtle cry for help:

So the [Cheney energy] task force was subject to what military types call "incestuous amplification," defined by Jane's Defense Weekly as "a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation."

NO, I am not praising Krugman for "great moments in self-awareness", although one wonders whether non-defense types, such as cloistered academics, could experience a similar amplification.

The huge props are for popularizing what I have no doubt will become "the phrase that pays" of the next week. As of early morning on March 28, "incestuous amplification" returns a mere nine Google hits (6 are presented, 3 are suppressed as duplicates). We will monitor the popularity of this phrase closely. Could it become this week's "shock and awe"? That's asking it to fill some mighty big footsteps - currently 17,600 Google hits.

Shall I address the content of this piece? Groan (yours, I expect, not mine). As I read it, the theme seems to be, "Cheney was wrong about energy, and now he is wrong about the war". Pointed excerpt:

Right now, pundits are wondering how Mr. Cheney — who confidently predicted that our soldiers would be "greeted as liberators" — could have been so mistaken. But a devastating new report on the California energy crisis reminds us that Mr. Cheney has been equally confident, and equally wrong, about other issues.

Let us go back to Mr. Cheney's "confident prediction".

CHENEY: ...Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. And the president’s made it very clear that our purpose there is, if we are forced to do this, will in fact be to stand up a government that’s representative of the Iraqi people, hopefully democratic due respect for human rights, and it, obviously, involves a major commitment by the United States, but we think it’s a commitment worth making. And we don’t have the option anymore of simply laying back and hoping that events in Iraq will not constitute a threat to the U.S. Clearly, 12 years after the Gulf War, we’re back in a situation where he does constitute a threat.

And, a bit later:

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.
Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

Clearly we have not quite seen parades and flower-strewn streets that Cheney might have expected. However, my impression is that it is Saddam loyalists that are motivating the resistance, rather than the Iraqi people generally. As to the determination of the Republican Guard, it looks as though we will soon find out.

I think it is fair to say that we (among the great unwashed) have been surprised by Saddam's tactics and their effectiveness. As to the mood of the Iraqi people, the jury is out. It seems like we only took half the lesson from the uprisings back in 1991, and forgot about Mark Twain's cat.

UPDATE: The Natives Appear To Be Friendly

Iraqis seem to be willing to welcome us, but have terrible memories of 1991, when we stood aside and let Saddam crush their revolt.

Posted 3/28/2003 12:40:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Overwhelming Force

Apparently the Wall Street Journal ran a guest editorial explaining the merits and glorious history of France. But these rebuttals are an instant classic:

More About France Is Actually Less

In regard to the March 11 Leisure & Arts column, In the Fray, by Mary Ann Caws, "There's More to France Than a Veto Threat":

There's also less; that is, less that is good, and more that isn't.

No one denies the contribution of some individual French men and women to Western Civilization, but Prof. Caws's list is noteworthy for its weaknesses rather than its strengths. Marie Curie was Polish by birth, not French, and Rousseau was Swiss and Beckett Irish. Debussy is fine but hardly in the class of Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms and many others. Moliere can't be compared to Shakespeare. Not mentioned was Descartes, but rational thinking and, indeed, the Enlightenment, both things of which the French can be proud, would hardly have failed to occur had the French been absent.

She is justly prideful of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, but that August 1789 document was clearly derivative of our earlier Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. It was also closely followed by the Reign of Terror, somehow not mentioned and something not seen in the Anglophone countries. The French contribution to democracy was followed almost immediately by the Directoire, Napoleon as Consul (1799-04), Napoleon as Emperor (1804-14), King Louis XVIII (1814-24), King Charles X(1823-30), King Louis-Philippe (1830-48), Louis Napoleon, President of the Second Republic (1848-52) until he declared himself Emperor Napoleon III (1852-70). This was followed by three more Republics and the Vichy regime of World War II. Perhaps there is a French taste for autocracy, Jacques Chirac being the latest in the line of De Gaulle and the Bonapartes.

The Napoleonic Code was needed because there was no tradition of common law, but it is hardly better than the systems in use in the Anglophone countries. Since the criminal system is inquisitorial rather than adversarial under the Code, the presumption of innocence is weakened. (Interestingly, it makes French prosecution of terrorists easier. )

Nowhere was mentioned the issue at hand: the political demeanor of the French from the suppression of the Huguenots (St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre where 100,000 innocent Protestants were slaughtered within a week) and the betrayal of Joan of Arc to the English, after she had served a purpose, to French colonial policies in Indo-China and Algeria, disgraceful by any conception of civilization. Perhaps they are more proud of the Dreyfus Affair.

Presumably, a distinguished professor of English, French and comparative literature, wanting to compliment the French, led with her best shot. Now that she brought the matter up, the record is less than most realize.

Stuart L. Meyer
Department of Management & Strategy
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University
Evanston, Ill.


The Great Corrupters of Our Discourse

Yes, yes, yes, we've heard it all before. Personally, I love Paris, I love French music, cuisine, drama and fiction. Yet I ask myself, why did Ms. Caws, scholar that she is, stop her litany of achievement before mentioning the great corrupters of our discourse -- Derrida, Foucalt and the rest? French deconstructionism and French Marxism have so affected current intellectual pursuits, insisting that all issues must be seen through the lens of gender, race and class, that our universities and their intellectual products have become the many talking only to each other with no relevance to the world as it is.

And, by the way, is French existentialism, Sartre, Camus, et alia, still discussed by anyone?

Paul N. Duggan
Truckee, Calif.

Posted 3/27/2003 01:51:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Here Is A Frenchmen WIth More Guts Than You

Or me, I hasten to add. The odds are, he is also a better writer and more persuasive than you, so fellow bloggers, take note:

On Dec. 26, 1971, François Bizot, a 31-year-old French ethnologist, walked away from a jungle prison in Cambodia after three months of incarceration by Khmer Rouge guerrillas. He had talked his way to freedom, but he also owed his life to his captor and interrogator, a math teacher turned Communist revolutionary who went by the nom de guerre Duch.

During long conversations with his jailer, Mr. Bizot concluded that the young man's idealism was misguided but sincere. Once Duch had accepted that his prisoner was not a C.I.A. operative, he convinced the rebel high command to release him. "I acted according to my conscience," Duch explained. In response, to underline his scholarly credentials, Mr. Bizot resumed his research into Khmer-language Buddhist manuscripts...

Then the adventures begin.

Meanwhile, for a bit of balance, here is an American with more guts than you. I should add, he is a highly visible Texan who may well be considered a symbol of American power and dominance, and might make a lovely target. Daniel in the lion's den had it easy.

Posted 3/26/2003 01:55:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Never Say Never Again

I knew the future ain't what it used to be. Now, however, I have learned that "never" is not a very long time at all.

TAPPED tells us that "The United States has never been the most welcoming country for those seeking asylum". A typo? No, they link to an American Prospect article which opens "The United States has never opened its arms to immigrants seeking asylum."

Perhaps over at TAPPED the word "never" means, "not since breakfast", or "in my lifetime", or something else entirely. However, a quick review of US immigration policy suggests that, if "never" is extended all the way back to the formation of the United States, we have a long period where the US was quite welcoming to all immigrants, presumably including asylum-seekers. Folks who wonder about the early settlers seeking asylum from religious persecution will want to remember that much of that activity pre-dated the formal creation of the United States, although it certainly typified what some of us consider to be the "American spirit".

The Man Sans Q has suggested a field trip down to the Statue of Liberty for the staff at the NY Times. Perhaps he can include some TAPPERS.

For myself, I would just love to watch the end bit of the original "Planet of the Apes" with a TAP staffer. They will be as puzzled as any of the apes as they peer at the partly-buried statue.

UPDATE: It's TAPPED's World - I'm Just Seeking Asylum In It


A rebuttal from the fine folks at TAPPED. Oh, this blogosphere thing - TAPPED starts out writing about asylum seekers, and ends up linking to asylum leavers.

Their rebuttal is a bit of a disappointment. Kevin Drum shows how to step up to a mistake (see the UPDATE), which is what TAPPED made here. TAPPED opted for obfuscation. Fine. Their point seems to be that "asylum" has a specific meaning, as anyone should know. Thus, when we read "The United States has never been the most welcoming country for those seeking asylum", we should immediately understand that letting a person in freely is not "welcoming" them. Only a formal recognition of their persecuted status accomplishes that. Thus, anyone fleeing religious persecution before the US formally created the category of "asylum" was self-evidently not an asylum seeker.

Humbug. Even if it is true that "asylum seeker" has a specific legal meaning today, it is a long stretch to assert that, in the introductory sentence of a general interest magazine, only the specific legal meaning and not the more general usage should apply.

I can see some poor chap back in 1820, a victim of some damn persecution or other, arriving in the United States seeking a "place offering protection and safety; a shelter". Upon learning that, although he is free to enter the country, the US has no formal means of recognizing his persecuted status, does he then leave in disgust, and tell the world that America did not welcome him?

Now, I actually anticipated (and dismissed) this "asylum is not immigration" argument, which is why I wrote that "we have a long period where the US was quite welcoming to all immigrants, presumably including asylum-seekers". This time I added emphasis. TAPPED is hairsplitting. Why do they hate America? (Oh, you know I'm kidding. KIDDING!)

I don't have a copy of the special TAPPED dictionary that evidently is a perquisite for proper enjoyment of their publication. Perhaps they could send me a complimentary copy? And they might also send copies to these fine folks, all of whom seem to be as confused as I am about the connection between "asylum seekers" and the Statue of Liberty.

Pre-emptive UPDATE: NO, I don't want to hear that TAPPED said "the most welcoming", and that I have not successfully ruled out the possibility that somewhere, some country gave each asylum seeker a parade and a pot of gold. The post to which they link says"The United States has never opened its arms to immigrants seeking asylum", so I think we can agree as to their point.

And, NO again, I don't want to hear about some chap fleeing a political crime, and hoping to avoid extradition by means of a formal declaration of asylum, which the US would not provide. Many immigrants, such as European Jews, came here as a result of religious or ethnic discrimination, and found asylum from same.

Posted 3/26/2003 11:36:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Spot The Hawk; Find The Dove

Today we have front page stories on the mood inside Baghdad from both the NY Times and the Washington Post. From the Times:

In one family today, among professional, middle-class people who have long yearned for a freer Iraq unburdened by sanctions and repression, there was one obsessive concern....

... Today, with the invaders more than 300 miles closer to Baghdad, the question was the same: How long would America take to close its account with Mr. Hussein?

...Only a week ago, two of the three grown men in the family were eager for the United States to act against Mr. Hussein. The third, still a university student, hoped for a free Iraq, but leaned toward rejecting the Faustian deal, as he saw it, that Iraqis would be making in taking their liberty from America...

...they feared what might befall Iraqis like themselves if, faced with continued stiff resistance by Mr. Hussein's troops, Mr. Bush did what his father did at the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, and decided that a settlement was preferable to a long and grisly campaign to topple Mr. Hussein.

"That is our nightmare," one of the men said, "and we ask, `What will Mr. Bush do to help us then?' "

And the ostensibly more hawkish WaPo:

"You can't surrender easily; we should fight," said Ahmed, the man at the barber shop. "Our religion says we should fight for our honor. We fear God. We're more afraid of God than we're afraid of the Americans."

The Times writer focuses on one educated Iraqi family, perhaps to show solidarity with the NY Times readership. The author is John F. Burns, who may be Western. The WaPo article is by Anthony Shadid, who may not be of Western appearance, and interviews many Iraqis.

Posted 3/26/2003 09:59:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Do You Believe In Magic?

We can find a number of stories that echo the same theme presented in the NY Times on March 3:

The Pentagon ordered about 60,000 more troops to the region, bringing to over 250,000 the number of American forces deployed on land, sea and at airfields within striking distance of Iraq, officials said today. That has long been considered a magic number — the quarter-million troops the military would like in place before any invasion begins.

Check for yourself, but the news services feeling the magic included the BBC, CNN, ABC News, and an NBC affiliate.

Yet today, we have a hand-wringer from Maureen Dowd worrying (among many other things) that we did not send enough troops, and that our supply lines are stretched. Mickey Kaus notes these fears, which seem to have been inspired by Ralph Peters, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, and, of course, Josh Marshall.

Please. There is an old legislative dictum (Russell Long?) which runs as "never support a bill that passes; never oppose a bill that fails". As in any well-functioning bureaucracy, every Pentagon planner knows the importance of protecting the rear area - the principle is described as "CYA". It was pre-ordained that, as soon as the Iraqi plan was approved, whatever it was, the survival minded types inside the Pentagon were obliged to alert their friends in Congress, the press, and the old-boy network to every conceivable caveat buried in the fine print.

So now, 250,000 is not the magic number. Never was, in fact. What could Rumsfeld have been thinking?

Posted 3/25/2003 07:29:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Something For Everyone

OK, maybe not everyone. Let's say this story has something for Bush-bashers, Clinton-haters, and conspiracy theorists everywhere. The rest of you, feel free to leave.

Are they both gone? To work, then.

From Ted Barlow, and in an unlikely alliance with Julia of Sisyphus Shrugged, I learn that Barbara Bodine will be part of the US team to administer Iraq after the Allied liberation.

And what does Ms. Sisyphus have to say about this?

"You may remember Barbara Bodine. She's the Ambassador to Yemen who single-handedly stopped the investigation into al Qaeda's (and bin Laden's) role in the attack on the Cole, going so far as to pull strings to have the ranking anti-terrorism expert in the region pulled out for persisting in his investigation after she told him it was undiplomatic. The Yemenis shut down their cooperation after that.

He later died in the World Trade Center.

Yes, you've got it - the Bush administration is putting the woman with arguably the highest personal responsibility for the death of 3,000 americans at the hands of terrorists of any U.S. official, through stupidity and an overpowering need to emphasize that no-one was the boss of her, in place in post-"liberation" Iraq.

...Matthew Yglesias quotes Skimble (< - sidebar) as pointing out that the only connection between Saddam and bin Laden is Barbara Bodine."

As I said, something for the Bush-bashers. But who else is on this team? According to the NY Times, the proposed team will include Timothy Carney, former US Ambassador to the Sudan. Are the conspiracy theorists and Clinton-haters getting a tingle? YES, Mr. Carney was our Ambassador back when the Sudan offered to arrest Osama and give him to the US, and the Clinton Administration refused.

So, maybe Ms. Bodine moves down in the rankings as "most culpable", as we forge another solid link between Osama and Baghdad. Here is a link to the "Where's Osama?" WaPo story. Ambassador Carney comes off as a good guy in this version, but who knows what happened behind the scenes, hmm? Mr. Carney tells us himself here, but what does it really mean? The truth is out there.

The good news is, we can't say this team lacks for relevant experience.

Posted 3/25/2003 05:21:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Mickey Kaus Gets A New Reader

Back when the war started in earnest on March 20, Mickey announced that it was "Jo Moore" Day, and has been awarding "Jo Moore" prizes ever since.

"Jo Moore Day: Jo Moore was the British government aide who famously wrote in an email on September 11, 2001, that it was "a good day to get out anything we want to bury." Today's a Jo Moore day too -- a good day for P.R. men and public affairs officers to hide bad news by releasing it when it will be drowned out by the war news. Which means it's also a good day to keep an eye on small stories on the inside pages of the paper. They are likely to include some front-page disasters. ... "

And now, only five days later, we get this from TAPPED:

THE OTHER FRONT PAGE (A CONTINUING SERIES). While the invasion of Iraq progresses, Tapped will be making a special effort to identify and discuss press reports that, were it not for the war, would be getting a whole lot more attention.

Fair enough - and I will make a special effort to keep a straight face while reading TAPPED, which may be tinkering with a new motto such as "TAPPED - What, Me Hurry?"

And, in other news, TAPPED delights its readers with this tidbit:

COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER OURSELVES. From the New York Press' new feature, "The 50 Most Loathesome New Yorkers," Ann Coulter, clocking in at #4...

Of course, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we should note that Michael Moore clocked in at #3.

Yes, and in the spirit of even more complet disclosure, I will point out that Ted Rall is #2, and earned this tribute:

"Much like Loathsome New Yorker #3, Michael Moore, Ted Rall’s attempts at political commentary and liberal activism do more harm to the cause than any amount of conservative clampdown."

FYI, Number 1 was Keith Blanchard, the editor of Maxim.

Posted 3/25/2003 07:29:00 AM by The MinuteMan

How Many Different Ways Can This Question be Asked?

Because we are as subtle as we are insightful, we detect a recurring theme here, here, here, and here.

The recurring question seems to be - is the Left interested in persuading people to their own ideas, or demonstrating their own moral superiority? One early answer is here, but I am still Googling and brain-wracking to find the post I read recently and am REALLY looking for.

UPDATE: And I am not going to find it, or at least, i won't find it until I stop looking. But the post I was looking for was inspired by this Tom Wolfe essay describing the American intellectual. Famous Excerpt:

From the very outset the eminence of this new creature, the intellectual, who was to play such a tremendous role in the history of the twentieth century, was inseparable from his necessary indignation. It was his indignation that elevated him to a plateau of moral superiority. Once up there, he was in a position to look down at the rest of humanity. And it hadn't cost him any effort, intellectual or otherwise.

Not a description of folks interested in persuading the great unwashed.

UPDATE: I love this quote from an anti-liberation protestor:

``It's very symbolic,'' said Adam Miles, 22, after he was hauled away from a sit-in outside a federal courthouse in Boston. ``It's not like it's going to effect a policy change, but it shows I'm committed.''

Link from Pandagon, who is moving on up, and congrats.

Posted 3/25/2003 12:21:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Krug 3.25 - The Jeers, the Smears, The Fears, And The Tears

Professor Krugman comes out strongly today against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. A big media company is engaged in an activity that is legal, visible, disclosed, and annoying to the Professor. Let him tell it:

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Eerily reminiscent of what? The Cat Stevens record smashings in 1989? Or perhaps he is thinking of the Nazi book burnings which destroyed works by authors such as Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, Karl Marx and H.G. Wells. Who knew that the earnest Prof held the Dixie Chicks in such high esteem?

But enough frivolity, we have some heavy lifting to do.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists.

"Pro-war" rallies, again? NO, they're "pro-liberation", or "pro-American". Anyway, watch the bait and switch. We are about to learn that the Dixie Chick bashing has nothing to do with the main story, and was just there for all of us to have fun with.

Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

OK, a link to a Salon compendium of the Boehlert's work on this.

...now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management.

Boy, I would hate to give up on that explanation too quickly. We are talking about rallies for the listeners of right-wing talk radio. As business promotions go, this is not a bad idea. The pro-liberation position is popular in the country, and very popular (I bet) amongst talk-radio listeners. So, management may be following their personal conviction that this might help them to make a buck. Get Randolph Hearst on the line!

But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused.

Let's pause and admire that rhetorical ploy. A "quid pro quo" has not even been established, and now the Professor is slyly refining it. Anyway, here is a link to the current state of play at the FCC. Interesting factoid:

Victoria Raskin..., said 73 of the 91 biggest cable networks are owned at least in part by six companies, including Viacom, Walt Disney Co., News Corp., NBC parent General Electric and AOL Time Warner, all of which also own broadcast networks and control a combined 75 percent of prime-time viewing....

And none of which are named "Clear Channel". If the villains of Krugman's piece are planning to insinuate themselves into television, it wil be as a small fish in a shark tank.

Back to Krugman:

Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies...

Clever use of the passive voice here - "Clear Channel was revealed". One can imagine an intrepid investigator gasping "Clear Channel is behind it" with her dying breath.

Or, one can imagine reading the newspaper announcing a local rally. Readers patient enough to make it all the way to the third sentence of the story learn that Clear Chanel is the mysterious force behind these rallies.

And is that legal? The Chicago Tribune (annoying registration required) said this:

In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people...

The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

While labor unions and special interest groups have organized and hosted rallies for decades, the involvement of a big publicly regulated broadcasting company breaks new ground in public demonstrations.

"I think this is pretty extraordinary," said former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Virginia. "I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news."

So, not illegal. And the idea of talk radio manufacturing news is murky - are they making news when they encourage their listeners to phone their Congressfolks?

Well, these questions have also been hiding in plain sight at the WaPo and the Instapundit. Glenn also points out that this is not the first instance of media companies promoting a political viewpoint, although that observation does not earn him a prize either for courage or insight.

And Krugman's Big Finish - the Vice-Chaieman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, a Texas buddy of George Bush, both of whom were involved with the Texas Rangers. The evil intersection of busines and politics, crony capitalism at its worst, etc. We get an amusing reference to the Buffalo Springfield Jurassic Rock hit, so we have evidence that Krugman is aware of his tendency to present himself as creeping towards... well, whatever. He returns to the question of his own mental health in his conclusion:

"...the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions..." says the chap who recently won Columnist of the Year, presumably while traveling incognito.

So, is this the first Administration to mix business with pleasure? If I could get Terry McAuliffe on the line, I could ask him. Or ask any trial lawyer, or Hollywood biggie, or any business exec, if this is new. Or perhaps the Psychic Connection could get me a clear channel to Warren Harding.

Krugman is worried that "we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy." But he has refinanced his home mortgage because, in a few years (give or take), hyperinflation will destroy the US financial markets. Is this what the new oligarchs really want?

Sorry, I keep looking for consistency from one column to the next. My bad.

UPDATE: The Man Sans Q is looking for the economics in a column by an economist. I am looking for archive links to a "Blogger" post. We are both disappointed, but I suspect neither of us is surprised.

Posted 3/24/2003 10:51:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Comrades In Arms

The NY Times presents one of their war demands in an editorial today:

Thanks to changes in the law in 1994, women, who make up 15 percent of the military, are eligible for about 90 percent of all service positions....

But while the law opened the door for women a little wider, glass ceilings have held firm and women have made gains in just a small fraction of the jobs supposedly open to them. Helping to hold them back are the remaining taboos and the misperceptions of physical and mental inadequacies that they perpetuate. Servicewomen remain barred from the roles that Hollywood would cast with Tom Hanks or Bruce Willis — Navy Seals, special forces, short-range artillery or tank operators and infantry. The present war with Iraq, which will engage the greatest-yet number of American women, could change much of that by debunking the arguments against fully employing them.

Emphasis added. Apparently, the Times could fully embrace this war if we could only promise to have woman face disfigurement and death in close combat situations.

Now, some of us are so hopelessly hidebound as to think that, beyond any questions about physical competence, it is not a sign of an advanced society to put women in combat. But the Times reassures us on this point:

The United States, with the most advanced military in history, is simply a laggard on the topic of women in combat. One million women served in the Soviet Army in World War II, and Israel, Canada and South Africa are among the countries that now give women combat roles.

Stalin's Russia is now aspirational at the Times? South Africa, eternal beacon of freedom, is our new lodestar? Israel, under siege for over fifty years, is our role model? And I know nothing about Canada, but this chap believes that their military is hopelessly over-politicized on many issues, including women.

The Times missed the argument most like to resonate with cave-dwelling chest-thumpers such as myself, of course - the French military is not fully integrated.

Posted 3/24/2003 06:08:00 PM by The MinuteMan

This Morning, I Knew Nothing About Urban Warfare

Now, I am an expert. You can be one too. Then, stories like this won't upset you. [Link from Atrios].

Careful readers of the "Herald-Sun" piece will note the sourcing "bait and switch: a "British defence source" says the battle for Baghdad is near; we switch to "defence experts" for the ghastly casualty estimates. Only the careless reader concludes that British Defence sources have plans that include these kinds of casualties.

UPDATE: Or you can turn to the War Times.

Posted 3/24/2003 04:00:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The War Is Nearly Over

I refer, of course, to the battle for sympathetic political labels. "Anti-war" is a pretty good label, but was there ever a chance that the other side would opt for the label of "pro-war"? NO! So now we have the anti-war movement pitted against pro-American rallies. Advantage - America!

And on the question of symbolic protests at the Oscars - apparently Susan Sarandon and others were wearing a small pin meant to depict a flying dove. OK, I didn't really think the pin was a Screaming Eagle, but I had some idea that it might be a chickenhawk. And why ABC didn't feature tighter close-ups of Ms. Sarandon's chest is an ongoing source of puzzlement.

The NY Times describes the symbolic battle thusly:

While actors deliberated over whether to wear American flags or peace symbols in their lapels (most chose neither),..

So what is with "or"? Hello, deep thinkers of the anti-liberation movement - maybe someone could wear both.

Posted 3/24/2003 01:19:00 PM by The MinuteMan

This Guy Does It All

Jim Dwyer, the NY Times reporter who was all over the Central Park Jogger story, is apparently embedded with a US military unit and is filing from "Central Iraq". Godd luck.

Posted 3/23/2003 10:31:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Michael Moore Wins Academy Award

And delivers a ridiculous acceptance speech, which I paraphrase:

We documentary makers are here because we like non-fiction - but we live in fictitious times. We have a fictitious election and end up with a fictitious President. We enter a war for fictitious reasons. We do not want this war! And a final thought, Mr. Bush - if the Dixie Chicks and the Pope are against you, your time is almost up!

Well, the crowd reaction was interesting. The camera panned across a lot of folks looking non-plussed. I would say there were some cheers, but many more boos. The boos struck me as having a "not now" tone - I thought I was hearing "shut up and sit down" rather than "you're wrong", but that could be my own biases. And either one works for me.

The follow-up was fascinating. By what I presume to have been coincidence, Jack Valenti, Hollywood spokesman and President of the Motion Picture Association forever, came out next. Do not ad-lib, Jack! Despite his years as a Hollywood lobbyist, Valenti just carried on with the script and totally ignored the Moore speech.

Steve Martin, host for the evening, came back next. Paraphrasing again:

"Oh, it was a touching, beautiful scene backstage. A bunch of Teamsters were helping Michael Moore into the trunk of his limousine."

Huge laugh from crowd. Can't fault their good sense on this one.

UPDATE: Sticklers for detail can see the transcript of Moore's comments. And, in blogdom's fines 45seconds, RJ West sends us to Bobby Allison-Gallimore for the audio.

Posted 3/23/2003 10:18:00 PM by The MinuteMan

I Am Convinced That We Have To Fight This War

I am also convinced that we don't have to enjoy it. It is hard to say whether Fox or MSNBC is more annoying. Lester Holt of MSNBC seems to be a genial chap, but his demeanor would leave him much better suited to handing out NCAA results. Surely a sports desk somewhere could use him?

And the crew at Fox is just having too much fun to suit me.

Meanwhile on the blogging front, some quick hits:

InstaPundit and the Dixie Flatline - lots of controversey swirling about this statement from the Flatliner:

"I'm angry right now, and I may regret these words. But, I think it is entirely reasonable for Americans to suspect the loyalty of American Muslims. There is substantial evidence that their allegiances lie not with their country, but with their god."

Well, the pressure of war will affect all of our soldiers, and may well have a greater effect on an American-Muslim, who might very well feel some conflicts that a person of another religion would not. However, the leap that we should suspect the loyalty of all American Muslims is a bit extreme.

As an abstract matter, I am intrigued by this question of loyalty to god or country. Surely this does not apply exclusively to Muslims?

The other irritating post du jour is provided by Andrew Sullivan, who loses this battle in his war against the NY Times:

RAINES WATCH: How do you insinuate that the precision targeting of the headquarters of a murderous tyrant is the moral equivalent of a terrorist assault on civilians? If you're the New York Times, it's easy.
UPDATE: Another beaut captured by London blogger, Belgravia Dispatch.

Andrew, quit while you are ahead - the UPDATE killed you. And the chap at Belgravia has a fine looking blog, and congrats on the rare Sully link, but what happened here? Roll the tape, please:

In a NYT story about a Navy Seals operation to gain control of several oil platforms:

"Swooping silently out of the Persian Gulf night, Navy Seals seized two Iraqi offshore oil terminals in bold raids that ended early this morning, overwhelming lightly armed Iraqi guards and claiming a bloodless victory in the battle for Iraq's vast oil empire." [my emphasis]

Evidently, this is meant to be taken as evidence that the Times has joined the "it's all about oil" chorus. But not so fast! We will probably read about a battle for Basra, or a battle for air supremacy, or a battle for Baghdad, and so on. It hardly follows that this was "all about Basra". Minimizing damage to the oil production facilities was, in fact, one of the war objectives cited by Rumsfeld in a link provided by the Belgrave chap:

Military forces also will "secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

SO, we fight battles in order to win the war. Some battles will, in fact, be about oil, as Sully himself notes here. No problem. The Times walks on this one.

Posted 3/22/2003 05:59:00 PM by The MinuteMan

France Demands The Surrender Of US And UK Troops

Speaking at the UN today, the French Foreign Minister declared that, if Saddam will not accede to UN demands, then the US and the UK must. "Sacre bleu", he said, "Does no one listen to us? Our squeaky little voice will be heard!"

Proposed terms of the Allied surrender are still being discussed. The French Ambassador has threatened that, in the event of Allied non-compliance, the UN kitchen will commence to serve an exclusively English menu. The UN translators are looking for the words to describe "Bubble and Squeak" and "Toad-in-the-Hole". Less diligent translators will probably settle for a generic "what is this sh**!"

Observers are relieved that, so far, the French have not threatened the UN gastronomes with the "Irish Option", which of course is the insistence that the kitchen serve only the traditional Irish seven course supper. However, many observers suspected that the French delegation must have recently tested the "Irish Option" on themselves.

OK, link back to "reality".

Posted 3/22/2003 05:36:00 PM by The MinuteMan

My Stint On Madison Avenue

I am very excited about me chance to work with an ad agency to help promote the new Hummer. Just look at that photo - can't you feel the power, see the testosterone, smell the crushed earth beneath your wheels as you blast by and through once-living vegetation? I know I can.

So I am hoping to help on a campaign to talk up some key aspects of the latest toy for boys.

Let me first set the scene, since I am picturing a TV spot. Our star is young, energetic, handsome and outdoorsy - sort of a "Marlboro Man", but with functional lungs. Maybe John Edwards is available.

He is standing next to his Hummer in a scenic forest setting when a bevy of beauties approach, seeking assistance. Perhaps the Swedish Bikini Team is lost in the woods? That sort of thing, anyway.

And our ever-so-manly hero delivers the BIG LINE:

"I let Detroit sell me a Hummer, so I may have an itty-bitty brain, but hey, ladies - [pointing to the vehicle] come check out the size of my equipment."

Too subtle? Maybe the close will reinforce the message:

"Hummer - ride it anywhere."

OK, for the second spot, we are going to address the environmental puzzle raised by a huge machine with tiny gas mileage. This time our he-man is parked at the beach, admiring a posse of..., uhh, lets go back to a bevy of bikini-clad beauties. Some dweeby type wonders, in a voiceover, whether a "car" that gets 10 Miles Per Gallon makes any sense at all.

John Edwards then reassures us:

"In my world, buddy, "MPG" stands for "Miles Per Girl". And take it from me, pal, with my new Hummer, the figures are looking good."

This is delivered while he leers at yet another hot chick, in case someone is not sure what kind of "figures" he is thinking about.

And, the tag line:

"Hummer - Go all the way anywhere."

With any luck, Martha Burke will object to the ghastly sterotyping, Tiger Woods will arrive at Augusta in a Hummer, and the free publicity will be endless. This plan is still in development, of course. Wish me luck!

Posted 3/22/2003 03:59:00 PM by The MinuteMan

With Friends Like These...

Who needs enemies? Not me! I need to award some prizes. But first, some background.

Josh Marshall recently posted yet another attack on the Bush Administration, this time explaining how they did not understand Security Council Resolution 1441. I pounced, pointing out that the statement that US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte made at the time the resolution was adopted more or less demolishes Marshall's argument.

Brad DeLong gets swept into the mix with his post that begins:

Josh Marshall Parses SC 1441

Josh Marshall does an excellent job parsing the meaning of Security Council Resolution 1441.

And now Kendall of TitusOneNine creates a bit of disharmony with his post. Special K has linked to some recent comments by Colin Powell which also refute Mr. Marshall. Ahh, unexpected support for my view! But wait:

[The Minuteman offers his take on this, but, fatally in my view, ALSO doesn't quote Colin Powell].

Fatally?!? Hey, not only am I still standing, I don't even feel a cold coming on. Anyway, I'll accept that the Colin Powell information is more dirt on the grave of Marshall's argument. However, one might argue that statements made by Powell in March may simply be an attempt to re-write the history of a poor decision made in November.

But I promised prizes, not more arguments! SO, without further ado:

To Josh Marshall, who managed to provide two links to the same LA Times article but could not find the relevant statement by the John Negroponte or Colin Powell's recent statement, we award a free subscription to "Google". Now, I should warn Mr. Marshall - this may not work if you are "feeling lucky". The UN statement is actually number two on this search as I type this.

For Brad DeLong, for his confusion of "parse" with "partisan", we have the Inigo Montoya "I don't think that word means what you think it means" Award.

And for Mr. Kendall, whose blog is one sentence short of brilliant, we have the Glenn Close "maybe the wrong rabbit is in that pot" Fatal Mistake Award, which will come with a cool link if I manage to think of one.

UPDATE: Confusion! Apparently James Taranto at "Best of the Web" took a shot at Mr. Marshall, who responds in an update. I am safe from return fire, as explained here. And since Mr. MArshall objects to the most minor of points in the WSJ piece, I continue to believe that my argument is secure.

OTOH, this, from Marshall, is puzzling:

Now James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal says my "hair-splitting legal analysis completely ignores Resolution 678 of Nov. 29, 1990, which authorized U.N. member states 'to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.'"

Now, I'm all for fig leaves in their place... But let's know a fig leaf when we see one. For conservatives to hang this on 678 in any serious sense is sad and unseemly. Better just to have the courage of your own unilateralism -- since unilateralism has its place -- rather than resort to this sort of feeble caviling.

Well, I accept that Mr. Marshall is an authority on the subject of "feeble caviling". But let me get this straight. Back when 1441 was passed in November, Ambassador Negroponte said that the US believed it had authority under existing "relevant UN resolutions". In its submission to Congress, the White House explicitly mentioned 678 as the basis for, e.g., the no-fly zones and Clinton's "Desert Fox" in 1998. But now reliance on 678 is "caviling?" Starting when?

Well, maybe this calls for another "Inigo Mopntoya" Award - big day for Mr. Marshall. Instead of "caviling", perhaps he is engaged in "Carvilleing", where a Democrat relentlessly spins long after no one can take him seriously. Never admit you are wrong, and wait for the conversation to move on. Fine.

MORE UPDATES: Tom Friedman on the perfidious French. Key quote:

"...But some voices within the French foreign policy elite and the business community — which depends heavily on the U.S. for trade and investment — are now saying that Messrs. Chirac and de Villepin did indeed go too far. The term you hear most often is "intoxicated." These two became so intoxicated by how popular their anti-U.S., antiwar stand became across Europe, and in the whole world, that they went from legitimately demanding U.N. endorsement for any use of force in Iraq to blocking any U.N.-approved use of force — effectively making France Saddam's lawyer and protector."

Hmm, that is a bit different from blaming the inept and confused Bush Administration.

And let's bring Belgravia into the "coalition of the willing" to debunk Marshall.

Posted 3/21/2003 03:09:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Krugman 3.21

Krugman is back on his favorite subject, the phony Bush budget numbers. However, fans of the paranormal will not be disappointed by this latest column, so stay with me.

Krugman opens with a funny bit from The Onion. Since the Professor gave us such good laughs with Krug 3.11, in which he seemed to forecast both deflation and hyperinflation, it is encouraging to see his ongoing use of humor as a rhetorical device. Works for me! (Or will, someday).

However (paranormal fans, perk up), the fun begins in earnest with this:

The latest official projections acknowledge (if you read them carefully) that the long-term finances of the U.S. government are in much worse shape than the administration admitted a year ago. But many commentators are reluctant to blame George W. Bush for that grim outlook, preferring instead to say something like this: "Sure, you can criticize those tax cuts, but the real problem is the long-run deficits of Social Security and Medicare, and the unwillingness of either party to reform those programs."

"Many commentators"? And who might they be? What a great opportunity for a quote, or a link, or a footnote, or any reference at all to buttress this point. Who are we arguing with here, anyway? Krug 3.14 regaled us with the following:

...more people than you would think — including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon — don't just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality.

Does the NY Times have any rules at all on sourcing? More people than you would think believe that Krugman is simply hearing voices.

Bother. Well, despite the flashing from my "Strawman Detector", I will soldier on, mindful of the possibility that Krugman is rebutting an argument that no one has made.

The Bush tax cuts, not the retirement programs, are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly looks so bleak.

I base that statement on a new study that compares the size of the Bush tax cuts with that of the prospective deficits of Social Security and Medicare. The results are startling.

...Accountants estimate the "actuarial balance" of Social Security and Medicare the same way a private insurance company would: they calculate the present value of projected revenues and outlays, and find the difference. ...both programs face shortfalls: the estimated actuarial deficit of Social Security over the next 75 years is $3.5 trillion, and that of Medicare is $6.2 trillion.

But how do these shortfalls compare with the fiscal effects of recent and probable future tax cuts?

The new study, carried out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates the present value of the revenue that will be lost because of the Bush tax cuts — those that have already taken place, together with those that have been proposed — using the same economic assumptions that underlie those Medicare and Social Security projections.

OK, here is the Center, and here is the study in question. The first author mentioned, Peter Orzsag, is a former Clinton official who may carry some partisan baggage. Imagine my surprise. But hey, Democrats are allowed to speak too, even in the NY Times. It's still America!

The [tax cut] total comes to $12 trillion to $14 trillion — more than the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls combined. What this means is that the revenue that will be sacrificed because of those tax cuts is not a minor concern. On the contrary, that revenue would have been more than enough to "top up" Social Security and Medicare, allowing them to operate without benefit cuts for the next 75 years.

Excellent, we have arrived at a point! Economists are trained to think at the margin, which may explain why some marginal thinkers are allowed in. The baseline for these tax calculations seems to be the 2000 Tax Code. Perhaps I should put my JK Lasser 2000 Tax Guide in a time vault? Or perhaps that millenial tax code was a third tablet carried down by Moses from Mt. Sinai, and only recently discovered.

Or perhaps the tax code was going to be revised after the 2000 election regardless of who won. Gore, in his bid for the mantle of "tax-cutter", had offered up a tax package which I vaguely recollect as being around $800 billion [mini-update: oops, let's try $500 billion, and scale back accordingly], versus a Bush package of $1.3 trillion. (Yes, maybe $1.6 trillion under some other calulation, I am typing quickly here and the point is, Gore would have cut taxes too.) Also, the Center is including a fix to the AMT that "everyone knows" must occur. Well, presumably Al Gore would have known that too, since he knew everything else. And, although I suppose the prospective AMT fix would be smaller because the standard Federal tax would have been higher under a Gore Administration, I suspect that most of the AMT adjustment would have occurred anyway.

So how much of this $14 trillion, at the margin, should we attribute to Bush? Unknown. The report shows a range for the original Bush tax cut of $7.9 to $10 trillion. If Al's tax cut would have been half of that, then we are talking, roughly, $4.5 trillion.

Bush's new proposals have not been enacted. They total $4.3 trillion. Will we get half of that? Who knows? Since the point of the exercise is to oppose the proposal, let's accept them at face value.

So, the adjusted comparison shows the Bush Program reducing Federal revenue by $7.6 to $9.7 trillion. We are still not sure why we are comparing this tax revenue to Social Security and Medicare, but the Center report tells us that some Administration report mentions this. Could the Bush Administration be the mysterious "many commentators?" We may come back to that, but meanwhile let's ponder this bit of wisdom from the Prof:

"that revenue would have been more than enough to "top up" Social Security and Medicare"...

Well, sure, taxes can do that. Is the Democratic Party proposing that Social Security be funded from general revenues? They do not speak with one voice, so perhaps I missed it, but just what is going in to that lockbox, anyway?

On to his Big Finish, and mine:

"Without those tax cuts, the problems of an aging population might well have been manageable; with them, nothing short of an economic miracle can save us from a fiscal crisis."

Ahh, can I take a page from Arlen Specter's playbook and vote "not proven"? The US GDP is roughly $10 trillion, so if we finance the entire "marginal" Bush tax cut, we are incurring new debts of less than 100% of GDP. Is this a big number relative to US history, or other economies? I think some research will show it to be big, but not unmanageable. And anyway, this number does not necessarily represent new debt - it means that the Federal government must plan to reduce spending or increase borrowing to make up the difference.

Secondly, the Federal Government typically spends about 20% of US GDP, if I remember the many WSJ tirades on this point. How did the Federal share of GDP behave over the 75 year horizon? Were taxes growing as a percentage of GDP, or falling? Perhaps a professional economist could take a moment to sort this out - maybe even a NY Times columnist could do so. If these projections showed the Federal Government growing steadily as a share of GDP, well, maybe that is not appropriate.

Thirdly, what should we make of this: "nothing short of an economic miracle can save us from a fiscal crisis." Over in Europe, the demographics are less favorable then in the US, immigration is less, unemployment is higher, social programs are more generous, current taxes are higher, and, I recollect, budget deficits in at least a few of those countries (e.g., France and Germany) are higher as a percent of GDP, as is current national indebtedness. What sort of a miracle are they hoping for?

The conclusion of the Center report is frank:

The nation faces significant long-term fiscal problems, which will increasingly manifest themselves after the baby boomers retire in large numbers. The nation also is likely to face needs in the decades ahead that will require resources in other areas, including areas relating to children, the environment, the large number of Americans without health insurance, the lack of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the uncertain costs of homeland security, as well as other problems that inevitably will arise in the future but that we cannot foresee today. A balanced long-term fiscal policy is likely to entail some changes in Social Security and Medicare to reduce their future claims on the budget. The Administration's tax proposals, however, make the long-term budget problem substantially worse and consume resources that could play a constructive role in Social Security and Medicare reform.

So many unmet needs, and more tax revenues would be lovely to pay for them, under the guise of "Save Social Security First". Oh, and tsk, tsk - in the last sentence, tax proposals "consume resources"? Please, they redirect resources, gents. And maybe some of these new programs just aren't going to hapen at the scale envisioned by optimistic Dems.

UPDATE: Peter Orszag has been studying Social Security for years, and sems to be a Krugman favorite. Here is just a tip of the iceberg from an Orszag paper that Krugman plugged in his Times column back in July 2002.

Posted 3/21/2003 03:03:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Hauser Report Is Pretty Funny Today

I hate to steal his thunder, but I can't master his timestamps, so I will repeat his proposed slogan for the Kerry campaign:

KERRY - A Rich Guy You Can Trust

OK, should that be "guy", or "goy"? And is there a risk that one of his opponents (or all of them) will attempt to snare for themselves the mantle of 60's style crusader with the following - "Don't trust anyone over $30 Million"?

Just trying to help.

Posted 3/20/2003 07:41:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Life Is Full Of Surprises

I rally to the defense of Josh Marshall, sort of. Mr. Marshall argues here that:

When historians get around to trying to explain the last six months (i.e., how we got from resolution 1441 to the breakdown of the UN process and war) I don't think they will chalk much of this up to anyone 'losing their will.' I think the truth is more prosaic and straightforward. Yes, everyone voted in favor of 1441. But there were two groups amongst those fourteen member nations. And they had very different conceptions of what they were voting for.

Actually, I think this is a generous interpretation. But let's set that aside for the moment.

And he goes on to argue that Security Council 1441 was not automatic, that a second resolution was contemplated, and that the US is wrong to argue that it has authority under 1441 to act against Saddam.

Well done! Lacking Mr. Marshall's rhetorical and reasoning skills, I unimaginatively read the statement of the US Ambassador to the UN explaining the US position at the time of the vote:

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.

Well, the first highlighted point supports the Marshall Plan - a two step process was contemplated. Of course, his suggestion that the US was beguiled into accepting this unwittingly seems to fall a bit flat, as does his suggestion that we misled our colleagues at the Security Council.

And his point that the US can not rely on 1441 for authority to act against Saddam is also moot - as the Ambassador Negroponte made clear at the time, the US considered itself to have authority under UN resolutions already in force.

But other than those minor points, props to Josh!

UPDATE: The NY Times summary of the Administration's description of its legal authority for going to war. Interesting excerpt:

...U.S. action is consistent with the U.N. Charter. The Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, provided that member states, including the United States, have the right to use force in Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Council authorized the use of force in Resolution 678 with respect to Iraq in 1990. This resolution on which the United States has relied continuously and with the full knowledge of the Security Council to use force in 1993, 1996 and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones remains in effect today. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts, including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense, recognized in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Posted 3/20/2003 04:20:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Affirmative Action - Good For Everyone Except Students, Faculty, and Administrators

Or so says a recently published study, according to the NY Times. Yeah, yeah, if this study were promoting affirmative action, I would pull out my Dark Force Decoder Ring and be on it like sand in the desert. So OK, I will get to it.

UPDATE: OK, the author is Stanley Rothman, who is mysteriously missing from the directory at Smith College, although Google certainly puts him there. Here is a thought provoking cite:

Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman (1986), "Science, Politics and theIQ Controversy." The Public Interest 83 (Spring): 79-97

Another teaser: "The Myth of Black Low Self-Esteem"

And, if your Acrobat reader is working, here is the paper we seek!

Posted 3/20/2003 04:16:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Interrupt This Blog

We are going to deviate from our "All Non-War, All the Time" format for just a moment to comment on last night's television coverage. I had lost the darn remote control, so I settled down with my man Tom Brokaw for an hour of useless chatter and haphazard speculation." Are we or are we not bombing Baghdad, and if not, why not?" Oh, man, after a bit of this I was nostalgic for the calm, cogent coverage of Election Night 2000.

SO, my own useless chatter - maybe we bombed everywhere EXCEPT Baghdad - why give Al-Jazeera the satisfaction, or the film footage? Presuming, of course, that there are targets elsewhere.

We should keep hinting that Saddam is dead, thereby pressuring him to appear frequently to maintain control. Sort of like shooting the ducks in a video game.

A ground attack by daylight to facilitate mass surrenders - this was one commentator's idea, and why not?

We resume our regularly scheduled total denial.

Posted 3/20/2003 12:44:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Seeing Double At The NY Times NY Times

The NY Times Sunday Book Review adored Alterman's effort on liberal media bias last, uhh, Sunday. But once was not enough! Today, they give space to Orville Schell to further praise Mr. Alterman's output.

It seems like only yesterday that I had fun with the Sunday review provided by Ted Widmer by noting how the NY Times slanted his biography. Last August when Mr. Widmer had a guest editorial in the NY Times, he was identified thusly:"Ted Widmer, director of the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College, was director of speechwriting at the National Security Council from 1997 to 2000.

However, for purposes of evaluating liberal media bias, the NY Times no longer found the Clinton Administration tidbit relevant, so from the Sunday review we learned that "Ted Widmer is the director of the C. V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College in Chestertown, Md." The cover-up continues!

And since I am a one-trick pony, I thought I would check the background of Mr. Orville Schell, who sounds like a fascinating guy. From his bio, there is at least a chance that he could be characterized as a mainstream lefty - consultant to CBS and PBS, Dean at Berkeley, how does one know? Fortunately, back in 1998, someone asked him about media bias:

One final question. Is there a liberal bias in the media?

I don't know. You could ask another question: Is there a liberal bias amongst educated people? Probably there is. If you ask what I am, I don't know; and I feel many of my kindred spirits in the Fourth Estate don't know what they are either. We are basically truth-mongers, I hope.

He doesn't know what he is! Well, if his guess is as good as mine, I will guess "liberal". And walk tall, that's nothing to be ashamed of.

And dare we address the content of the latest review? We do.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and our subsequent military involvement in Central Asia shocked Americans into a fleeting recognition of how dependent we actually are on the news media to keep us informed about complex global issues. Now at the brink of a war against Iraq and with the United States trying to redefine its leadership role in the world, we are reminded how crucial it is to have fair and accurate news media at home, especially as we find ourselves dealing with unprecedented national security concerns, resurgent patriotism and increasingly vituperative party politics.

Ahh, for the carefree innocence of the late 90's impeachment, or the mid 90's and the war in Bosnia, or the early 90's and Desert Storm, or the late 80's and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, or the mid 80's and the Reagan defense build-up, or Iran Contra or - hmm, just when is there a good time to have an unfair and inaccurate media? We're off to a bit of a rough start here.

Instead of focusing on how journalism might serve this country better as it faces these hours of decision, however, we find ourselves distracted and divided by a barrage of accusations from conservatives charging the media with liberal bias.

I can't even decide just how absurd this sentence is, but I doubt I will read something sillier today, or this week. Let's see:

1. Is this the Red Queen School of Journalism - "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!" How do we focus on "on how journalism might serve this country better" without discussing flaws in the current media machine? I can picture Mr. Schell tapping his feet impatiently in a doctor's waiting room, wondering why he can't simply get a prescription, or an x-ray, or some damn thing, and dispense with the tedious exam.

2. Send it to rewrite! "Instead of focusing on how [the Administration] might serve this country better as it faces these hours of decision, however, we find ourselves distracted and divided by a barrage of accusations from [Democrats charging the Bush Administration with incompetence.]" Ohh, no one likes that, I bet.

3. Time and Tide Wait For No Man: In his next paragraph, Mr. Schell cites the books by Goldberg, Coulter, and Savage as examples of this distracting assault on our media. Goldberg's book came out in December 2001, so it was probably written before the WTC attack. Should it not have been published in response to the attacks? Ms. Coulter's effort seems to have been published in June of 2002 - might this have been a better time to suspend freedom of the press?

Fine, in the balance of the review, Mr. Schell praises Alterman. Bravo.

Posted 3/19/2003 06:35:00 PM by The MinuteMan

JFK Raises Money In NYC

The greatest candidate in the world came to the greatest city in the world, and I was there!

Well, the event was a few days ago, and this post has been lurking as a "draft" for a while now, but since Jeff Hauser has just awarded California to Howard Dean, I feel obliged to respond.

You may wonder why I am contributing to a Democrat, since to outward appearances I am an evil Righty, complete with Dark Force Decoder Ring and an autographed picture of Karl Rove on my desk.

Never fear - appearances do not deceive! However, a friend asked me to go, my wife wanted to go but could not, and I have my secret reason: I am aware of the vague possibility that, come November 2004, we will have a weak economy and a quagmire in the Middle and Far East. That strikes me as a bad time to be puzzling over a choice between George Bush and James Dean, or Howard the Duck, or whoever it is a bunch of unreliable Lefties seem to have fallen in love with.

So, my civic duty. Besides, as a Yankee fan I am accustomed to having all the money, but it seems like an odd way to run a political system.

Hence, my report. All quotes are, in fact, paraphrases, unless they appear in italics. And I actually attended two events on the same night, so I got a double dose of the stump speech.

First Impression as the candidate mingles: Kerry clearly and easily passes the "Stature Test": could you seriously imagine this person as President of the US? Yes, he walks and talks like a potential President.

His aides introduce him with particular emphasis on his war record: "the only candidate on either side who has actually served in combat". And Kerry speaks!

He opens with some health related jokes, since his recent prostate surgery has been in the news. "I'm here tonight, and let me tell you, it's amazing what they can do with plastic sheeting and duct tape. Now, I know some of you are worried about the rigors of the upcoming campaign - can he handle the travel, the meetings, the fatigue. Well, I am going to tell you not to worry - I met recently with Dick Cheney, and he is doing just fine."

The first campaign theme Kerry introduced was voter apathy, and nobody cared. Apparently 60% of prospective voters don't, and he wants to change that. He came back to this theme at a later point, suggesting that he wanted to rekindle the spirit that energized his generation in the 60's, and lead his own generation in one last hurrah. He also wanted to energize the youth of America. A questioner later wondered what he saw as the galvanizing issue for America's youth, and he replied "the environment." Oh, boy. Not only did that seem so last decade, but it ignored the donkey in the room that is the anti-war movement. Kerry's determination to link himself to the spirt of JFK and RFK struck me as hollow, buy I understand that to be a Dem thing.

Next, the economy - it is doing badly! But the 90's was a bubble, so Kerry is not promising a return to riches.

Education - the property tax results in separate and unequal schools; the solution is Federal grants to assure each child "full citizenship". OK, my evil puzzle - just how many suburban soccer moms want to pay more Federal tax in order to subsidize the inner-city schools they moved to the suburbs to escape?

Energy - Kerry's big push was for a plan he has been billing as "2020": 20% of energy from renewables by 2020; energy independence; ANWR preserved; "we can not drill our way to energy independence, we must invent our way there".

Environment - he likes it! Thinks it will be a rally point for young people.

Social Security - he likes it!

Health Care - should be affordable for all!

Prescription Drugs - another good thing! But now a real clunker - Kerry mentions that his devoted wife, Theresa Heinz of the catsup fortune, was deeply involved in the Massachusetts effort to reform prescription drug coverage. If we are going to reprise the best moments of "Hillarycare", then Sweet Jesus, kill me now. For folks who care, this link should get you started on the Massachusetts medical miracle, and yes, the Heinz charity was a major force.

Iraq - this was not a subject the Senator hurried to address, but eventually he go to it. "My vote did not give the President power he did not already have. I authorized diplomacy, but not this failed attempt. America must have friends! [Crowd cheers for friends]. War should be our last choice, not our first choice! [Big cheer for first choices]. But, Kerry is committed to disarming Saddam, as any responsible President must be. In fact, he said so in 1998 on Senate floor. [Don't rush him].

And that, roughly, was that. Theresa Heinz Kerry spoke at one of the events, and was so dull and depressing that I would hesitate to book her for a convention of morticians. In the mingling phase, an Edwards spy asked Kerry whether he could possibly make the Electoral Map add up to victory. "Gore showed that a Democrat could win the Presidency without winning any Southern States, if he had carried New Hampshire, which I will," said Kerry. Perhaps he sensed a possible follow up on the point that, with redistricting, the Gore states plus NH won't work in 2004, because he then added that he expected to add several other states to the Gore basket - Ohio stuck in my mind, but there were several others that savvy Dems will guess immediately. Wisconsin, maybe? I should look it up, but I am already weeks late with this.

I did not sense the annoying aloofness at all. However, the "both sides of the issue" issue was alive and well.

My strong impression was that I had just met the next Democrat nominee. My opinion is that the Dems have four credible candidates (Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Graham, and boy, did the Edwards spy sputter when I told him that). Of those four, Lieberman has been described as "too conservative", in those exact words, by the last seven Dems I have asked. Probably a bad sign. Gephardt strikes me as too stale, Graham has a fabulous resume but is probably too old, too ill, and too Southern, and that leaves my new main man, Kerry. Not that I am ready to vote for him, of course, but here we are.

UPDATE: Hmm, the "No Southern strategy" has been repeated, and made a bit of news. Ricky West feels left out.

Posted 3/19/2003 04:04:00 PM by The MinuteMan

I Make A MAJOR Contribution To Civil Liberties

Jeralyn at TalkLeft is in Washington working on the "Innocence Protection Act". Now, she is a talented woman, but how can the Government prevent my child from learning the truth about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and isn't this a bit different from Ms. Merritt's normal work in the area of civil liberties?

Well, I follow the links, and guess what? This act is intended to prevent the execution of innocent people on death row. My goodness, doesn't that mean it should be the "INNOCENTS Protection Act"?

Look, if someone really wants to protect our innocence, quit with the movies like "The Santa Clause". And stop with all these reports about wrongful executions, and let me cling to my illusion (shared by Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry, and James Dean (Sorry, Howard the Duck) that capital punishment accomplishes something.

SUbject to the gutless caveat that I have only spent about five minutes looking into this, I fully support the goals of this bill, as any death penalty supporter would. However, if attention to detail is important in capital cases, maybe the supporters of this bill could demonstrate their own attention to detail by getting the correct word usage. My NY Times provides a timely example of the English as she is written.

UPDATE: Here is an interesting Peter Beinart piece from TNR written in June 11, 2001. It ought to be a premium piece, but it is still available at the Google cache. Excerpts here:

Last week, the Supreme Court, for the second time, stopped the state of Texas from killing Johnny Paul Penry. Penry is a serial rapist and confessed murderer. He also has an IQ of between 53 and 60, well below the mental retardation threshold of 70.

...Confronted with the question of whether a civilized society executes men like Johnny Paul Penry, the public is rather clear. There are no national polls about capital punishment for the mentally retarded, but in North Carolina, 64 percent oppose it. In Arizona, 71 percent oppose it. In Connecticut, it's 77 percent. And in Texas, it's 81 percent--which is why both houses of the state legislature voted to end the practice last month.

Which means the Texas state legislature is more troubled by the execution of the mentally retarded than is the national leadership of the Democratic Party. Because over the past several months, as the Penry case and the legislation in Texas have put capital punishment of the mentally retarded on the front page, not one of the likely 2004 Democratic presidential candidates has publicly condemned it. TNR's Caryn Tamber ran their names through Nexis for me--Tom Daschle, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh--and none of them has uttered a single word.

Evan Bayh? Pronounced "Buh-bye", I guess. Sorry.

This moral capitulation must be understood in context. When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he made an implicit deal with American liberals: He would support the death penalty even though he and they knew it was wrong, because otherwise he'd end up like Michael Dukakis. Capital punishment, Democratic strategists insisted, was an albatross preventing liberals from achieving anything else. So Clinton, in the middle of the '92 campaign, returned to Arkansas to execute the mentally retarded Ricky Ray Rector. Liberals were repulsed, but they went to the mat for Clinton anyway. And they were probably right to do so.

But the terms of that bargain were clear: Democrats would swallow the death penalty only because it was overwhelmingly popular.

Yes, trade a few lives for a few votes. The party of principle in action!

...As with the drug war, Washington is several years behind public opinion and the states--where the shift away from ever-harsher crackdowns is well underway. And as with the drug war, it is often state and local Republicans who have taken the lead. Last year, the Republican governor of Illinois announced a moratorium on executions. Nebraska's GOP-controlled state legislature passed one as well. In overwhelmingly Republican New Hampshire, the state legislature passed legislation outlawing capital punishment altogether--only to have it vetoed by the Democratic governor. During last year's presidential campaign, Al Gore steadfastly refused to criticize the death penalty in Texas--only to have the Texas state legislature, including the Republican-led State Senate, now pass a series of reforms itself.

...What Europeans think about the death penalty doesn't matter--they don't have much moral credibility with most Americans, given their positions on topics like China and Iraq (nor should they). America--with unique reverence for human rights and due process--doesn't need Italy to tell us it's wrong to execute a man who still believes in Santa Claus. The question isn't how loudly death penalty opponents abroad scream--it is how long the party that claims the mantle of social justice at home stays silent.

Posted 3/19/2003 03:16:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Countdown To Terrible Jokes Has Begun

Reports of mass defections by Iraqi troops prompts the following: The good news is, the Iraqis are properly dressed. When it is time to throw in the towel, all they have to do is grab their headgear.

War is hell.

Posted 3/19/2003 03:05:00 PM by The MinuteMan

There Is No Liberal Media Bias

Eric Alterman is a genius, and all is well with the world. The NY Times Sunday Book Review has finally gotten around to "WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? The Truth About Bias and the News" by Eric Alterman. Excerpts:

''What Liberal Media?'' issues a riposte to the notion that a vast left-wing conspiracy controls America's airwaves and newsprint... [It has] important things to say.

...Alterman is ready for a bar fight, and he comes out swinging.

...In fact, Alterman argues, the bias is hard to find. The Times was hardly soft on the Clinton administration, chasing after Whitewater for years, and The Washington Post has been slouching rightward for some time.

...it would be strengthened if it examined liberal shortcomings more forcefully -- why is it that liberals fare badly on live radio and on television? That is a difficult but important question. Still, ''What Liberal Media?'' is bold, counterintuitive and cathartic.

Fine, and a Happy Valentine's Day to you as well. Unmentioned are any of the objections raised by other critics, or my own questions - what about NPR, what about the NY Times, what about the network news, what is a liberal, and so on. And who provided this puff piece, anyway?

Checking the bio provided at the end of the review, we learn the following:

Ted Widmer is the director of the C. V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College in Chestertown, Md.

Fascinating. But checking this bio, provided in an earlier NY Times column, suggests the the Times is aware that the author has a slightly more interesting background:

Ted Widmer, director of the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience at Washington College, was director of speechwriting at the National Security Council from 1997 to 2000.

Oh, well then, a former Clinton administration speechwriter supports the notion that the media lacks a liberal bias. Did April Fools Day come early this year? Or perhaps Mr. Widmer is non-partisan? That would hardly explain his comment here:

...[Joe Klein] lapses into a lazy, hindsighted jeremiad on terrorism, faulting Mr. Clinton for his 1998 attack against Osama bin Laden (as so many Republicans did at the time), then claiming that Mr. Clinton did little to fight this invisible scourge. In fact, he did far more than any previous President, though Congress made it difficult, and massive public indifference made it harder still.

Yes, massive public indifference despite Clinton's obsession, which we had fun with a month ago.

Set a thief to catch a thief - maybe. Set a liberal to find liberal media bias? Maybe not.

Posted 3/19/2003 01:49:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Good Luck To The Gamma-Man

This may be one of the wildest option expiration weeks ever. The forty eight hour deadline for Saddam passes Wednesday night and we have a triple witching hour on Friday (Friday morning for some of the index contracts, Friday afternoon for equity options). My guess - nobody with sense is short calls, which explains why I am. Hey - they were out of the money when I sold them! And I am pretending they are covered, just so you know.

Posted 3/19/2003 01:23:00 PM by The MinuteMan

A Krugman Flashback

Was it only March 14, reporting live from Krugmanistan, that the Earnest Professor K gravely warned us that "British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush"?

Clearly that was many news cycles ago, because those fickle Brits seem to have swung wildly about on this point. In a poll conducted on March 14 to 16, and published on March 18, we learn this:

Surprisingly the poll also shows quite good ratings for George Bush with 53% of voters saying they have confidence in him to make the right decisions on Iraq, while 43% have no confidence in him.

Well, the question is narrowly drawn to focus on the war with Iraq. Perhaps if it were expanded to include thier views on the proposed dividend tax exemption or the phony Bush budget numbers, the virulence would be more apparent.

UPDATE: If we can rely on the Man Sans Q, further predictions from the leader of Krugmania will be made from under his bed.

Oh, darn it, now that I have been drawn into the vortex, let me add a few thoughts about Krugman's column from last Tuesday, March 18.

First, this excerpt:

The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome our troops, or that our bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis) or that what the world thinks doesn't matter. They're wrong on all counts.

Emphasis added. Well, Krugman seems to have been wrong about the Brits, so could he be wrong about other nations as well? Perhaps his future is brighter as an authority in international trade than international opinion.

And secondly, I find this statement to be an absolute puzzler:

There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998.

Considered it? And after four days of bombing, in an operation called Desert Fox, Clinton re-considered it? Gee, after four days, Clinton declared the operation to be a success.

Posted 3/19/2003 12:13:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Ever-Optimistic French

According to CNN (as reported in Newsday), the French may yet fight!

in an interview with Cable News Network in Washington, Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said Iraqi use of biological or chemical weapons in a war would change France's position.

"If the war starts and if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government," Levitte said.

"President Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation," the ambassador told CNN.

Levitte did not provide specifics of what kind of help the French could offer, saying only, "We have equipment to fight in these circumstances."

Now, one imagines that mundane tasks such as assigning target lists, coordinating air-traffic control codes, and positioning aircraft carriers and troops may have already been thought through prior to the commencement of hostilities. Whether there is a sensible way to accomodate a late arriviste is something the generals will need to contemplate, and it is possible they will recommend against tearing up the playbook just to include the French.

However, it is also possible that some politician may order them to do just that, although this quote suggests otherwise:

The White House largely ignored the statement and made no move to accept the offer to join the coalition. "I think they'd have to fight us to get into it," a senior administration official said.

Circumstances change, so the French must not despair! If the US led forces are instructed to take on the French, the following points will cushion the blow to the US planners:

1. However overwhelming the initial US air assault, it will almost surely be possible to locate some latrine in the western Iraqi desert that will make a suitable target for a sustained French bombing effort.

2. Somewhere in the outskirts of Baghdad there will be a hospital, orphanage, or old folks home which we suspect is being used to conceal Something Evil. How do you say "Bombs Away!" in French? Bombez-vous, s'il vous plait?

Posted 3/19/2003 10:25:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Go Ahead, Tom Friedman, Make My Day

Tom Friedman begins his latest column with a ghastly misrepresentation of a classic bit of Americana:

President Bush is fond of cowboy imagery, so here's an image that comes to mind about our pending war with Iraq. In most cowboy movies the good guys round up a posse before they ride into town and take on the black hats.

NO, NO, NO! The American hero acts alone, or with a small group of loyal friends, and fights for the right, the system be damned. Consider the list of classic Westerns at Amazon:

1. The Searchers: "Perhaps most notably, it's the definitive role for John Wayne as an icon of the classic Western--the hero (or antihero) who must stand alone according to the unwritten code of the West...."

3. Red River: Red River features one of John Wayne's greatest performances. Like his Ethan Edwards in John Ford's 1956 masterpiece The Searchers, the Duke plays an isolated and unsympathetic man who is possessed by bitterness...."

4. High Noon: this 1952 classic stars Gary Cooper as just-married lawman Will Kane, who is about to retire as a small-town sheriff and begin a new life with his bride (Grace Kelly) when he learns that gunslinger Frank Miller (Ian MacDonald) is due to arrive at high noon to settle an old score. Kane seeks assistance from deputies and townsfolk, but soon realizes he'll have to stand alone in his showdown with Miller and his henchmen...

The Brother Judd also discussed the High Noon - George Bush parallel last fall, in a great post.

OK, let's speed this up - Shane, Unforgiven, Rio Bravo - no "good guys" rounding up posses. Granted, "Unforgiven" is morally complex, and there is a posse at the big finish, and it is led by the sheriff. But is "Little Bill", the character that got Gene Hackman an Academy Award, really a "good guy"? Anyway, they never make it out of the saloon before Clint Eastwood reminds them not to pit amateurs against professionals. And what about the Lone Ranger, or Maverick, or the Texas Ranger motto - "One riot, one Ranger", or the two men facing off in the dusty street for the final gunfight? And does Friedman forget the whole Clint Eastwood library - A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, High Plains Drifter, Pale Rider - oh, please. The Europeans are right - Bush is acting like a cowboy, which is why the polls in the US support him.

Friedman is wrong on this point - heck of a way to start his column. But he also makes a substantive point that I find intriguing:

The president says he went the extra mile to find a diplomatic solution. That is not true. On the eve of the first gulf war, Secretary of State James Baker met face to face in Geneva with the Iraqi foreign minister — a last-ditch peace effort that left most of the world feeling it was Iraq that refused to avoid war.

It stretches his words somewhat, but let me put this in the "why can't Bush and Powell handle this the way Bush and Baker did" camp of critics - where is the broad coalition and the UN support?

And this is the source of my puzzlement. As recently reported, President Bush defended his father for stopping short of toppling Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
"That was not the mission in 1991," when his father, George H.W. Bush, was president, he said to reporters. "The mission in the early 1990s was to liberate Kuwait, and the United States achieved that mission."

This article mentions an amusing role reversal: [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher was worried about delays and did not want to wait for the United Nations support for military action, but the U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, argued that United Nations authority was crucial to sustain the support of American public opinion.

It also reminds us that "The resolution... from the United Nations arrived on November 29. On that day the Security Council authorized "all necessary means," including military force, against Iraq if it does not withdraw from Kuwait by Jan. 15, 1991."

But no mention of regime change. Dick Cheny, then Secretary if Defense, addressed the "finish the job" question, and warned against the perils of regime change, in this speech:

There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no."

One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives.

And we can guess at the promises made to the Arab members of the colaition:

At the end of the Gulf War, some idealists argued that it was time to spread democracy to a part of the world that knew little of it. They suggested starting with Iraq, using U.S. military might to topple Saddam Hussein and install a democratic regime, as had been done in Germany and Japan after World War II....

These ideas got short shrift at the time. President George H.W. Bush strongly preferred the regional status quo, and America's Arab allies, determined to return to business as usual, were quick to reinforce his instinct. ...

Even while the Iraq crisis was raging, these Arab allies had anticipated the idealistic U.S. impulses and had found a way to deflect them. They extracted from the president and his secretary of state, James Baker, a promise that after the war the United States would focus on solving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Which leads to my question - if the Bush-Baker diplomacy was so brilliant, why did it result in a coalition that was not committed to the "regime change" course that, with hindsight, seems blindingly desirable? Or, if we agree that forming the coalition led to a watered down effort that was ultimately incomplete, why are we in such a hurry to repeat it?

Now, I can defend the path actaully taken in 1991. For roughly five years after the end of Desert Strom, diplomacy seemed to be on track in the Middle East. The UN sanctions and inspections were disarming and containing Saddam. Meanwhile, the Arab Conference in Madrid had inspired the Oslo proscess. Don't you love it when a plan comes together?

By 1998, the containment of Iraq had come undone, and the Oslo process collapsed several years later. But who knew?

Posted 3/14/2003 11:55:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Is This The Grand Gesture? Or Just "Petit Mal"?

Bush will go to the Azores on Sunday to meet with Blair of Great Britain and Aznar of Spain to discuss plans for the disarmament of Iraq. And today, Bush announces that he holds in his hand a road map to peace in Palestine, and will hand it over as soon as someone stops and asks for directions. Being men, they won't, at least until the new Palestinian Prime Minister takes office.

And what does it mean? Well, I have some ideas that are presented in the order that they appeared in my brain:

1. Petit Mal - we are just thrashing about as the diplomatic live improv of the last week continues. I thought the President said that he was going to ask folks to show their cards this week; instead, he is showing road maps and airline tickets. Confusion Reigns!

2. Stand By Me - surely there are Arab leaders who have supported Bush on Iraq, and have gotten so nervous waiting for President Godot to lead this invasion that they have no more fingernails left to chew on. This "road map" announcement simply gives them something else to chew on - stand by your man for a few more weeks, and Bush will reveal himself to be your partner for peace in Palestine.

3. The Grand Gesture - bring out the stepladder for the Big Climbdown. If this comes through, then Mickey and Josh Marshall were right, and I was wrong. Hmm, I worry that not all of you share my surprise. Here is the plan:

Bush meets with Blair and Aznar in the Azores, and it is karaoke night. Blair and Aznar share their story of domestic political woe over Iraq by joining to sing "I Would Do Anything For Love, But I Won't Do That". Bush takes the subtle hint that more time is need, and goes home to deliver the big speech, which I paraphrase here.

I am a bold and resolute man, and I am ready to be bold and resolute for peace.

We have a unique opportunity for peace in Palestine. I will not let Saddam hold hostage our hopes for peace. Therefore, I am proposing a six month extension of the UN deadline, and offering specific compliance targets.

In Palestine, we have a timetable which is important...

Fine. The upshot is, if we make GREAT progress in Palestine, we will stay out of Iraq. Message: I Care! Sorry, that was a 41 flashback. Message: anyone who wants to prevent the forcible disarmament of Iraq had better turn up the heat on the Palestinians to make a deal.

Now, once you yoke these two horses, who knows where you will be pulled? And the most likely outcome is that, on both issues, we won't have enough progress to placate the hawks, and we won't have enough transgressions to ruffle the doves. But if nobody cooperates on anything, then we lash out this fall, and they will know the wrath of a righteous man!

Anyway, this linkage may be a reason to delay a war with Iraq that some hawks can accept (I can't spell "Likudniks", or I would mention it here). And who knows, it may work. In which case, I boldly predict the following: if Saddam goes into exile, we have peaceful regime change and the disarmament of Iraq under UN supervision, a new Palestine state, and the dismantlement of Israeli settlements, Bush will NOT get the Nobel Peace Prize. Messr. Chirac and (maybe) Mr. Blair, are you ready for your photo?

Posted 3/13/2003 11:55:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Calm And Sensible As Ever

Paul Krugman exhibits his flair for understatement yet again. But despite his low key demeanor, I expect he will attract attention with his latest column, which includes this keeper:

...more people than you would think — including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon — don't just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality.

Lacking a degree in psychology, I feel ill-equipped to comment. However, if forced to express an opinion, I imagine I would smile agreeably and back away slowly while murmuring, in my most soothing tone, "Lost touch with reality... No doubt about it, Professor, none at all."

And while we are attempting to maintain contact with reality, if anyone can show me a link documenting Krugman's assertion that " British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush", I would be thrilled. But please don't bore me with the Pew Research Center report from last December showing that 75% of Brits have a favorable view of the US. One can be pro-American and anti-Bush, as our many lefty friends rightly observe.

And the MORI poll showing that 75% of Brits would support a war with UN backing is hardly dispositive either - one can be pro-war and anti-Bush, as folks like Mark Kleiman demonstrate. And yes, the MORI poll shows that a mere 23% of Brits approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, versus a robust 36% approval for Blair. Room for improvement, granted, but "virulent"? If the Brits are "bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful", then why would a little UN vote swing them to 75% support for a Bush-led war? Where is the constancy? Or, put another way, I do not fully support the way this has been handled, but I am not virulently anti-Bush.

No, I am sure there is a solid source for that factoid, but I need help nailing it down.

UPDATE: Hold the phone, and pass the meds! Over in his comments, Atrios assures me that "plenty in state and pentagon are on record, and krugman surely knows people in treasury."

I am sure he does, so I am hoping for just a couple of examples from State and the Pentagon of folks who think the Administration has lost touch with reality. If I have put my foot in my mouth, then a tasty follow-up will be a serving of humble pie. Bring it on!

MORE: A lot of pro-Krugman sentiment amongs the Atrios commenters, but no humble pie yet. One reader makes an excellent suggestion - Krugman has written many times on the causes of depression, so shouldn't we accept him as an authority in the field of mental health? Great point, but sorry, Hamletta, it is not to be.

FINAL UPDATE: Ah, those fickle Brits. Poor Professor K surely did not foresee this poll result, which came out after his column was published:

Surprisingly the poll also shows quite good ratings for George Bush with 53% of voters saying they have confidence in him to make the right decisions on Iraq, while 43% have no confidence in him.

Still, the question is narrowly drawn and focusses on the prospect of war with Iraq. Perhaps British public opinion is virulently anti-Bush on the matter of the dividend tax exemption, or his phony budget numbers, or his position on affirmative action. One wonders.

Posted 3/13/2003 02:07:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Krugman And DeLong - The Center Does Not Hold

Mickey Kaus has kicked off an interesting discussion about Paul Krugman's column in which the earnest Professor worries about possible deflation now, and hyperinflation later. "Must we have both?", Mickey wonders aloud, and Brad DeLong responds. Deflation now, hyperinflation to follow, is what Krugman must have meant, although he was in such a hurry to refinance his home mortgage that he had no time to explain how much later "later" might be.

Well, it is hard to know how seriously to take these long range forecasts, and I don't know whether Micky or Prof. DeLong are still taking questions from the floor, but here are mine:

(1) Does this mean we do not need to worry about a housing market bubble, as Krugman did last August? As markets commence to worry about future inflation, surely that will be a prop to real estate prices.

Or perhaps there will be a whipsaw - deflation, homeowners screaming for relief, the will to control inflation gone, Congress and the Fed to the rescue, and a dramatic overshoot resulting in hyperinflation! Cool.

(2) Social Security has COLAs linked to wages. Lots of Gov't debt is short term, and will be re-issued at higher rates as the expectation of onflation settles in. Can the Government really hyper-inflate its way out of this, or will it be clear that the amount of fixed rate long term debt available to expropriate is too small a fraction of the total Gov't obligations?

Again, YES! If we can hyper-inflate beyond people's expectations, wages and interest rates will never catch up. Watch your wallet!

(3) Regime change: Krugman refers to "some future administration". An evil Republican one? Is Krugman so gloomy as to imagine that Dems are unelectable at the national level for the foreseeable future? It's the McCain-Feingold effect! Or does Krugman see irresponsible Dems in the cards, or crystal ball, or whatever he is using? C'mon, Hillary! won't let the country down.

(4) Is this hyperinflation simply a ploy to render McCain-Feingold even more absurd, in the waning days of the American Empire when $2000 won't buy a loaf of bread?

As prospective "worst case" scenarios go, hyperinflation in the US seems more likely than nuclear blackmail of the US by France, as noted below. Thanks for the heads up! We eagerly await the next long range forecast a few months hence.

UPDATE: I'm late to the party! The Man Sans Q, the now-many Brothers Judd, and Don Luskin are already enjoying themselves.

Posted 3/13/2003 02:01:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Spoiler Alert! Behind The Scenes at "The Two Towers"

An unexpected source seems to have gotten ahold of the script for one of the scenes to be included in the extended version of "Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers", and it looks great! Peter Jackson delves into "The Silmarillion" for this one, folks, and you will not believe the result!

Posted 3/12/2003 02:10:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Den Beste Theory Is Not Up To Quality

The Man Sans Q pans the Den Beste theory that Franco-German opposition to a war with Iraq is intended to conceal their own dealings with Iraq. He is silent, perhaps even speechless, on the Den Beste scenario in which France nukes us.

Posted 3/12/2003 10:29:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Mark Kleiman Has Questions

Mark Kleiman has some questions about his newly adopted pro-war position:

1. Assume, as now seems at least plausible, that we can't get the next resolution through the Security Council. An invasion of Iraq without Security Council authorization (or, rather, in the teeth of the Security Council's refusal to authorize) would be a clear violation of the UN Charter, which is a treaty with binding force, and one that we virtually drafted as well as having signed. Is it really our position that treaties are mere scraps of paper? Is it really our position that it would be in the best long-term interests of the United States to discard the United Nations machinery?

Wow, I'm already jealous, because Mark must be going to cocktail parties that are a lot more interesting than the ones I attend. At a recent engagement, the most heated discussion of the evening centered on whether nine year old girls should be using deodorant soap. I regret that I am unable to report back as to the various viewpoints, or even my own position on this.

But do I have a positon on this "Ain't it illegal?" question? Oh, how cool would it be if I could drag a professor of international law into the discussion right now to buttress my "Don't be daft, we have current resolutions and past precedent on our side!" argument? Or even better, two professors!

A quick flip to my Daily Anti-War Reader, and I am good to go:

"I just disagree with the secretary general's legal view because there are fundamental Security Council resolutions that underlie this," said Ruth Wedgewood, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University.

Richard N. Gardner, professor of international law at Columbia University, said that since Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire, "the United States and other countries revert to their rights to restore peace and security in the area" under the resolution authorizing that war, passed in 1990.

Yes, they mention some shades of gray. But "clear violation of the UN Charter"? Hardly.

And nice slanted coverage at the Times, BTW. NO table-pounding prof supporting Mr. Annan's assertion. Couldn't Howell Raines evil minions find one? Andrew Sullivan will be shocked.

Posted 3/12/2003 10:12:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Ronald Dixon Aims For "Jury Nullification"

We have been following the travails of Ronald Dixon, the young Navy vet who shot a career criminal outside his toddler's bedroom, and now faces an illegal weapons possession charge.

In the latest wrinkle, the DA has offered to reduce the charge to attempted possession of a weapon. However, this is not a charge for which Dixon could demand a jury trial.

Dixon and his attorneys have rejected the reduced charge and are preparing for a jury trial, at which point, if there is justice in the world, the jury will laugh the DA out of court.

UPDATE: Well, the NY Times tells us that the defense can not successfully oppose a reduction in the charge. Evidently, the result will be a non-jury trial.

Posted 3/11/2003 08:24:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Great Moments In Democracy

The Old Crow flies us to an article about Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who seems to be a "speak first, reflect later" type of guy. Speaking to an overwhelmingly anti-war audience, the soundbite that caught the world's attention was:

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Moran said at the forum in Reston, Virginia, outside Washington last Monday. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."

Oh, please. But rather than join in the bashing on that comment, I enjoyed the rest of the article. A photo of the soon to be former Congressman in floppy shoes and a big red nose would complete the picture, but we will have to settle for text.

So how about this at a meeting of concerned citizens, most of whom are anti-war?

Democratic opposition in Congress would be futile at this point, he said, and may cost the Democrats their seats, a risk Moran said he was unwilling to take.

Can't fault his lack of candor.

"We look to you to make it not happen," Reston resident Adrian Farrel told Moran. "...So what are you going to do?"
Moran replied that his 13 years in Congress had given him a certain measure of credibility but added, "I need to use that in a measured way so I don't lose it."

Well, I think you just lost it. Bummer. And others found him to be a bit of a downer as well:

"I'm really depressed," said Farhanahz Abdul Haseeb of Herndon. "In between all the 'blah blah blah' he did, the most important thing he said is he won't say anything on the floor because he will lose his seat."
"I think some of us wish he would push the members of Congress a little more perhaps," said Paul Murphy of Reston.

Well, the "lose his seat" scenario seems to have developed in any event. Now, a great moment in citizen's democracy:

SEVERAL PEOPLE got up during the question-and-answer session and asked Moran how they could help prevent a war.
"Use the tools of democracy," he answered urging them to write letters to the editor, call the radio shows and send letters to their senators and to the White House.

Yes, just don't expect Congress to act, as noted above. And evidently, he had developed an appetite for shoe leather, because he re-inserted foot in mouth with this next bit:

...he cautioned against taking part in the protest movements that have sent millions of people into the streets worldwide.
"The protest marches so far have been relatively ineffective in the United States," he said. "The speakers chosen have not been credible."
When asked who these speakers were, he said: "The worldwide socialist movements, the Al Sharptons of the world, the Cynthia McKinneys."

Yes, socialists and blacks. Can anyone stop this guy?

Posted 3/11/2003 06:34:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Screaming Media Bias At The "Dovish" NY Times

As a goad to their friiends on the left, the Times gives this headline to their story about a recent CBS/NY Times poll:

Growing Number in U.S. Back War, Survey Finds
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

Americans are growing impatient with the United Nations and say they would support military action against Iraq even if the Security Council refuses to support an invasion, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council.

OK, that was the headline and lead. But pressing on, the next paragraph delivers this surprise:

But a majority of respondents, 52 percent, say inspectors should be given more time to search for evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons on the ground in Iraq. Still, that number has dropped over the past month, and there has been an increase in the number of Americans who say the United States has done enough to find a diplomatic solution in Iraq.

Well, then, here is the headline that could have been:

Give Inspectors More Time, Survey Finds
ADAM ANNOYING and JANET ELDEST

Despite a strong diplomatic and public relations effort, the Bush Administration has failed to convince a majority of Americans that time is running out for Saddam...


Over at CBS, we have this account of the same poll:

Poll: Losing Patience With The U.N.

Americans may be growing frustrated with the United Nations and its progress in conducting weapons inspections in Iraq. Although a majority of Americans still favor giving weapons inspectors more time, the figure is lower than seen in previous polls.

Support for U.S. military action remains high, though less than half believe the U.S. should move ahead if France, Russia or China uses its veto power to block a U.S.-sponsored resolution in the Security Council.

OK, better, but still lacking the full lefty tilt that the facts could have supported. Very interesting.

Posted 3/10/2003 11:38:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The Rule Is, War Tomorrow And War Yesterday - But Never War Today

Mickey pointed to Josh Marshall and Tom Friedman as prime examples of "balkenhawken" - they supported a war against Iraq, but having surveyed the diplomatic wreckage, now prefer to wait a bit.

Let's passd the time admiring Mr. Marshall's recent post. He begins by recounting his many reasons for supporting a war of disarmament - time is on Saddam's side, sanctions and US troops in the region are two sources of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, and the previous inspection regime was not sustainable. Apparently, he still believes all of that.

However, his current thought is that "... we need to pursue this goal [robust inspections] for the next several months and keep ratcheting up the pressure, knowing that we may have to go to war at a later point, even when weather conditions and so forth aren't ideal.

Ok, he may be cavalier about expecting US troops to wear biohazard suits in 110 degree heat, but the Pentagon will not be. "A few months" means six months - late September. And just how we ratchet up the pressure beyond the current level is left to the imagination - perhaps send even more troops to the region to bask in the Middle Eastern sunshine? Threaten sanctions? Impose deadlines? Blank.

And what are we waiting for? Does he propose any reason at all that Saddam, having seen us back down in March, will not expect us to back down in September? Does he suggest a reason for the antiwar activists, having won the first round, to switch sides? A reason for the "inspections are working" chorus to change its tune?

Well, he does present a resaon to wait, sort of: ...I think the answer is that we have to wait. I feel confident that an able foreign policy mind could come up with a tack that would allow us to secure our vital objectives and yet work our way out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into. I'm not sure what that grand gesture is.

Excellent idea! We have forty-eight Democratic Senators, over two hundred Democratic Congressmen, and former Presidents and former future Presidents littering the landscape. None of these fine people have, as yet, suggested an idea that impresses Mr. Marshall as credible. But don't despair! Any day now, the grand gesture will occur to someone, and we should wait until it does. Perhaps revealing his own lack of commitment to this proposal, Mr. Marshall does not volunteer to hold his breath.

Please. The deus ex machina is a discredited dramatic device; it is not a basis for US foreign policy.

Posted 3/10/2003 11:37:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Great Moments In Fence Straddling

Al Gore, in one of the 2000 Presidential debates, on his support for capital punishment:

GORE: I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. If, for example, somebody confesses to the crime and somebody is waiting on death row, there has to be alertness to say wait a minute, have we got the wrong guy? If the wrong guy is put to death, then that's a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed, but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it. And in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases.

Now, I have some "file compression" software installed right between my ears, which boiled this down to "I support capital punishment as long as no one is ever executed".

This delightful memory came rushing back to me as we watch various Dems grapple with the seemingly imminent war with Iraq.

Posted 3/10/2003 11:31:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The Economist, Indirectly, On Media Bias

A cool link I meant to post weeks ago:

...This does not explain why right-wing think-tanks are so much more vibrant than left-wing ones. Money is the reason most often cited by liberals. The right certainly has its wealthy supporters, notably Richard Mellon Scaife, a reclusive billionaire based in Pittsburgh; Joseph Coors, a Colorado brewer; and the Koch family, a business dynasty from Wichita, Kansas. But these are dwarfed by liberal organisations such as the Ford Foundation. And the left can call on the resources of America's giant universities, which, as every right-wing think-tanker moans, are stuffed with neo-socialists.

The right's real advantage lies in commitment and organisation. Many of the conservative think-tankers grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, when conventional wisdom held that government spending would solve most problems. They recruited a small army of passionate maverick dissenters, notably academics who felt marginalised at those left-leaning universities. Even now, when they are rich and powerful, there is something endearingly rabid and unhygienic about many think-tankers.

UPDATE: Jeff Hauser sees my "Economist", and raises me an "Atlantic Monthly". And how could a Brit magazine fully appreciate the futility and political non-directedness of the so-called liberal foundations and universities, he doesn't ask, but might be thinking?

Well, sometimes a foreign observer can bring detachment, objectivity, and a fresh viewpoint - it worked for de Tocqueville! But on the broader question of the futility and ineffectiveness of liberal organizations, I have no comment.

Oh, this ought-to-be-patented "Strawmanufacturer" is working great! NO, Hauser didn't say those thing, give the guy some credit.

Posted 3/10/2003 11:24:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, And The "Just War"

Born again Christain Jimmy carter evaluates the "just war" theory as it relates to Iraq.

The Economiost, brilliant when I agree with them, had said this only last week:

The truth is that when it comes to Iraq, the just war arguments are very finely balanced. Just war theory says that war can only be waged as a last resort; by a legitimate authority; with a reasonable chance of success; to re-establish peace; in proportion to an injury suffered; and it must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. There is room for arguing all these points—whether, for instance, Saddam Hussein poses a sufficient threat to peace, and whether the last resort has been reached. The case can be made both for war and against it; but the clerics are in no better position than Mr Blair to make that judgment.

Something for everyone.

Posted 3/06/2003 11:06:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Oh, For Heaven's Sake

TAPPED continues to amuse and confuse with this post:

HOW MANY EVANGELICALS, EXACTLY? Blogger Jerry Bowles fact-checks Nicholas Kristof's op-ed on (yawn) how the mainstream media has an "institutional bias" against evangelicals. Kristof inadvertantly illustrates the actual problem: most reporters don't know much about religion, period, especially the difference between an evangelical and a non-evangelical.

Now, the Kristof comment in question is his assertion that "nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans.

That's the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians.

OK, let me declare my bias up front: I thought the 46% figure seemed high, and I love catching Kristof in error, but instead of double-checking this, I moved on. However, it is now a double-play - either Kristof or TAPPED is wrong, so I will have fun either way. And in an article about media ignorance of religion, it would be great if Kristof added together several categories of poll respondents and blithely (but inaccurately) called them "evangelicals". So, high hopes! And its off to the TAPPED sanctified de-bunking:

Just as the Bush-Ashcroft-Falwell God Squad is striving mightily to batter down the door between church and state and invade the bedrooms and hard drives of law-abiding Americans, along comes New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof claiming the mainstream media has an "institutional bias" against the "46 percent of Americans" who are evangelical or born-again Christians.

Hmm, this is analysis seems to have the slightest of political slants.

...The part about Bush being a true believer is certainly true but do nearly half of Americans really share the Holly Rolling, tongue-speaking, washed-in-the-blood-of-the-lamb, every-word-of-the-Bible-is-the-literal-truth, everybody’s-going-to-burn-in-hell-except-us faith of those simple folks who now occupy the White House?

Whoa, fella! That may be your understanding of "evangelical" or "born-again", but unless the Gallup poll defined it similarly, we may have a huge gap between your perception and the public self-perception.

...Since the Census doesn’t ask about religion, the most current and definitive information available on church affiliation is the National Council of Churches (NCC) annual Yearbook. In 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, the NCC found more than 159 million adherents in some 216 different Christian denominations. In other words, about 55% of America’s 281 million people are affiliated with one Christian church or another.

That leaves 45% of Americans who are either non-Christians or not active, church-going Christians. (Are you taking notes, Mr. Kristof?)

The 10 largest churches, in order, are:

• Roman Catholic: 65.2 million
• Southern Baptist Convention: 16 million
• United Methodist: 8.3 million
• Church of God in Christ: 5.5 million
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 5.3 million
• Lutheran Church in America: 5.1 million
• National Baptist Convention USA: 5 million
• National Baptist Convention of America: 3.5 million
• Presbyterian (USA): 3.5 million
• Assemblies of God: 2.6 million

So if we eliminate as Bush-Ashcroft-Falwell born-again soulmates Catholics, Mormons, Presbyterians, Lutherans (they have a different conception of born-again) and most Methodists (other than our President and a relative handful of “hardshell” Methodists) we can easily identify 60% of America’s Christians as non-evangelical. Throw in the number of “moderate” Baptists and the figure comes closer to 70-75%.

Oh, I get the drift. Rather than troubling purselves to ask people whether they are "born-again", we will infer their beliefs from Census data. Catholics, for example, are not evangelicals. Nor, I suppose, are "Jews for Jesus". Well, this technique should save the Gallup organization a great deal of time in the future. In fact, since party affiliation is a matter of record for those reigistered to vote, we can dispense with a lot of silly political polls as well.

Well, we have the subtlest of straws in the wind here. Maybe "born-again" and "evangelical" should not be lumped together interchangeably, as both Kristof and the Gallup organization are doing? If that is the point being made, don't be shy! However, this debunking left me somewhat unsatisified, so I went back to my simple-minded scheme of attempting to locate the Gallup poll to which Kristof referred. Hey, a hit and a miss. Here is a Gallup press release describing the aggregation of five polls taken over the last two years. Payoff pitch:

About 8 in 10 Americans (79%) identify with the Christian faith in one way or the other, and about half of all Americans (47%) are Protestants. Forty-one percent of Americans say they are "born again," which is a New Testament term that evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants routinely use to signify a significant conversion experience.

Hmm, 41% over five polls. If Kristof is wrong, it may not be by much.

The December 2002 poll seems to be available only to deep-pocketed or truly committed subscribers. However, a Google search indicates that Google can see it, even if I cannot. This search - "site:gallup.com born again December 2002" produces two responses. The first response is:

... all Americans (46%) say they describe themselves as "born-again or evangelical ... interviews
with 1,009 national adults, aged 18+, conducted December 9-10, 2002. ...

However, both the link and the cached linked take me to a premium page.

So, Kristof sems to be spot on in his ability to read a Gallup poll. Extraordinary!

And what is happening at TAPPED? They have happily endorsed a piece which ends thusly:

But, the bottom line it this: Kristof is full of shit when he says evangelicals have become “mainstream” and that the press owes them some sort of respect for their narrow-minded, anti-scientific, sanctimonious holier-than-the-rest-of-the-world bigotry....

Does TAPPED do any independent fact-checking at all? This Gallup poll exists! Maybe the Gallup organization is wrong, maybe the question needs to be re-worked to accomodate the prejudices of the TAPPED reviewer, maybe TAPPED is trying to reinforece the notion of a media blind-spot with respect to religion. But Kristof survives this fact-checking intact.

Now, given the tone of the author, one infers an anti-Bush tilt. But Democrats, fear not! According to the Gallup information, evangelicals are well represented in your party as well - 41% of self-described evangelicals are Repubs and 31% are Dems. No prizes for guessing the racial breakdown.

So, TAPPED - try to get out in the world, or even in your own party, before you endorse this bigoted nonsense. Or even get a subscription to Google.

UPDATE: I will offer TAPPED a bit of comfort from the Left, and assure that that at least some evangelicals are acceptable. Charles Murtaugh and Atrios have posted on this. Mr. Murtaugh,at least, is able to distinguish between "evangelists" and "fundamentalists", unlike TAPPED. And we will give the last word to the Rev. Al Sharpton: "The Christian Right has to meet the right Christians."

UPDATE 2: This is far from over! If I ever get fully back from the weekend, I hope to have more, but let's just quickly note that Jimmy Carter describes himself as a "born again" Christian. He also told reporters he had seen a UFO, so go figure. BTW, has anyone asked him about Elvis?

Posted 3/06/2003 10:26:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Veto, Schmeto - You're Either On The Bus Or Off The Bus

Bold Predictions - the US will demand a vote on the US resolution on Iraq next week. It will not be vetoed. If it is, the US will ignore the veto. And, a headline flickered by saying Blair would ignore it too, so I am looking less bold, and more like CW each moment. In fact, I see that "Until now, Blair has said he reserved the right to go to war without U.N. authorization in case a singular "unreasonable veto" was wielded, so this is yesterday's news.

Reasons: the US will demand a vote because it will line up nine votes for passage (the magic 2/3). The US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria are committed and enough of the smaller countries will decide that it is better to be on the bus than off the bus. If the US is going to do this anyway, why annoy us by standing in our way?

Now, will there be a veto by France, Russia, or China? No. No one wants to be a hero and cast the sole veto. However, the voting procedure in the Security Council seems to be by show of placards unless someone requests a roll call vote, in which case votes are cast in (English) alphabetical order.

France and Russia may have mutually promised to veto, but where is the trust? The Prisoners Dilemma arises as, by roll call, France votes first. Veto, and Russia can ingratiate itself with the US by abstaining, knowing that the measure has failed. But if France does not veto, Russia will decline to veto alone. So, both abstain.

And we don't care. Why not? Because Americans understand democracy, "get" majority rule, don't like the French, and distrust veto power unless it is ours. If Bush appears on national television and says that the US sponsored resolution received two thirds of the Security Council votes but failed because of sneaky French and puzzling Russian objections, We the People will be placated. Fine, the anti-war folks won't be, but that would be true anyway. Bush has said he would lead a "coalition of the willing" many times, but now the NY Times adds this:

A nine-vote majority, even with vetoes by France or Russia, American officials believe, might still carry some moral authority in a trembling world.

It was said back in the Haight-Asbury days by one of Ken Kesey's Merry Pranksters, but the wisdom is timeless and true for UN delegates today:

"It's great to be part of the greatest jack-off in history".

Posted 3/06/2003 08:07:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Who Is Marcy Kaptur?

Today, she is famous for the following quote:

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

Well, we all recognize red meat when we see it, so we know that talk radio will bury her for this. [Mini-Update: Reactions from Reynolds, Volokh...]

The story above provides a link to Ms. Kaptur's web site. And here is the original interview in the must-read Toledo-Blade.

Well, from her attempt last fall to run for Minority Leader as the senior Democratic woman in the House, we infer that she is not an insignificant back-bencher. In our insatiable quest for ghastly background info, we note her proud opposition to NAFTA, ten years later.

She mentions the Green Mountain Boys in her interview. I am reasonably certain they did not crash airplanes into London skyscrapers, but perhaps they engaged in acts that would today be considered terrorism. Hmm:

Green Mountain Boys, popular name of armed bands formed (c.1770) under the auspices of Ethan Allen in the Green Mountains of what is today Vermont. Their purpose was to prevent the New Hampshire Grants, as Vermont was then known, from becoming part of New York, to which it had been awarded by the British. Land speculators, such as Allen and his brothers, and settlers banded together in armed groups to defend their lands. Their methods were threat, intimidation, and actual violence against the New Yorkers, and they managed to keep the region free from New York control, establishing (1777) instead a separate government that ultimately achieved (1791) statehood for Vermont.

And more about their Revolutionary War exploits.

Well, she may be on to something here, with the "Green Mountain Terrorists". However, the moral equivalence watch is still VERY concerned, since we worry about objectives as well as methods. But since my kids are off something, namely school (snow day!), I will have to pursue this later.

UPDATE: Ahh, the "Evil Excerpter" is working again! Here is a lovely out of context sound-bite from non-patriot Marcy Kaptur: We have a plutocracy. We don’t have a republic."

Oh, whatever. Here is a more complete excerpt, just to spoil my fun:

Miss Kaptur has campaigned for candidates in Iowa and given speeches in New Hampshire, but she did not disclose any 2004 presidential aspirations.

She said she wants to be "a burr under the saddle" to bring down the high cost of running for office. "[I want] to make it possible for ordinary citizens who have distinguished themselves to run for president," she said. "The system we have today doesn’t allow it. We have a plutocracy. We don’t have a republic.

"People better pay attention to how much it’s costing - $200 million to run for president, $10 million to run for governor or senator in Ohio," the congresswoman said.

Whatever. But it is sooo fun to bash Democrats. [You may have to scroll down a bit, sorry. And this source attributes it to a staffer.]

OK, this next bit is not quite "No Blood for Oil", and the source is what it is, but here we go:

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) accused President Bush of treason on the Fox News Hannity and Colmes show, saying,

Bush wants war in Iraq to "pump up his corporate interest" and that the Bush family "would love to have their war to enhance their oil profits".

That may not be an accusation of treason, but still, I am not sure this is an example of responsible leadership.

Next is from 1997, we presume she means Bush I, and we wonder if this has a factual basis, or simply falls in the category of random character assasination:

I think for the country, there’s no more important priority than campaign-finance reform, even though I think it’s at 4 percent in the polls... [President] Clinton got in trouble because of the acceptance of money from foreign interests like the Chinese, and the Lincoln Bedroom scandal—which, by the way, I’m sure George Bush did too, absolutely.

Next up, a Warblogger Feast - her statement on the House resolution last October authorizing the use of force against Iraq. L et me summarize - it's all about Palestine, oil, and the corrupt oil companies associated with Bush and Cheney.

Posted 3/06/2003 07:04:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Probable Rate Cut In Europe

Economists, with or without a PhD, will cheer.

UPDATE: Fine, a Bronx cheer. Only a quarter point?!?

Posted 3/06/2003 06:53:00 AM by The MinuteMan

I Would Like Her To Be My Guest At The Kentucky Derby

The inscrutable Diane E. said that "I believe that Saddam will be history on March 18, 2003", as we noted earlier.

Now, we have this story from the "Daily Torygraph":

BRITISH troops had been told an invasion of Iraq would begin on March 17, with a huge bombing campaign being launched four days earlier, the Daily Express in London has reported.

The tabloid quoted a senior government source, who it reported had direct access to British military planning in Kuwait, as saying that "everything is being geared up towards a ground invasion beginning on Monday week".

So far, the prediction looks good. How did she do that?

Posted 3/05/2003 10:35:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Poor Al And The Evil Media

Bob Somerby of the Endless Howler continues his series on the mistreatment of Al Gore by the major media in the 2000 race.

This series could have some potential value as a cautionary tale for Kerry supporters, since Big John may not have the best relationship with the Washington press corps.

However, it serves instead only as a delightful stroll down memory lane for unreconstructed Gore-bashers.

The problem - Al and his staff disappear from the story. Al is a passive victim. Somerby chronicles outrageous press behavior with no attempt to describe Gore's reaction, or non-reaction. Were Al and his team oblivious, or simply incompetent? And doesn't either choice speak to his Presidential qualifications?

There is a hidden tidbit here - liberal media bias lives! Or at least, the press treatment of Al does not disprove its existence, since, according to Somerby, the press originally turned viciously on Al in favor of liberal Bill Bradley.

We eagerly await future installments. Eventually, we expect Mr. Somerby to regale us with tales about how the three Al Gores that we all saw in the three debates with Bush were also the invention of an evil media.

Posted 3/04/2003 10:00:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The French Foreign Minister Does NOT Read Volokh!

I admit I am less than astonished. However, both Matthew Hoy and Eric the Red Menace pick up this comment from Mr. de Villepin: "I think you cannot remake history. You can take lessons.”

C'mon, Monsieur, the future is now! But more importantly, here is one of E Volokh's reader's on the subject of history:

...Kirk Parker, responding to "If you can't predict the future, what can you predict?" recalls the old Soviet line: "Only the future is certain; the past keeps changing." Indeed.

How would one say that en francaise?

Posted 3/04/2003 08:37:00 AM by The MinuteMan

A Summary of the Ken Pollack Case For Invading Iraq

Provided by Eric T. Miller, whose bio tells us that "Eric Miller, former Chief Investment Officer at Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, has agreed to join bankstocks.com as a Senior Contributor.

The article summarizes the Iraqi situation since the Gulf War, including the glorious history of UN inspections. Also, there are some tidbits for those waiting for the "silver bullet":

The CIA had been given the green light in 1997 to pursue coup attempts, but at least six attempts didn’t come close to succeeding.

and

Some politicians have advocated an attempted coup, but we’re tried that a number of times, never successfully. Pollack isn’t impressed with the quality of leadership among the opposition groups. Hussein’s security wall seems almost impenetrable, especially after he eliminated any potential adversary. George Tenet, the CIA director, has said that the chances of success of covert action are no better than 20%.

Posted 3/03/2003 04:23:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Gift-Wrapped For TAPPED

We have been following the TAPPED discussion on "what is an economist", and one things seems clear - if you laid one thousand TAPPED writers end to end, they wouldn't reach a sensible conclusion.

TAPPED reprises and restates their argument, and we are puzzled by their big finish:

"So: Perhaps the 250 people who signed the White House letter are right, and the 450 who signed the opposing letter are wrong. But then why play the game at all? If Lawrence Kudlow is such a damn good economic forecaster, why not put that on the letter? Our point is, if you're going to play the game, as the White House clearly wanted to do -- "Hey, we have economists on our team, too!" -- you have to at least be consistent. "

Now, in their original post, TAPPED said this:

Now, one needn't be a credentialed economist to have an opinion on the Bush budget. But traditionally, you don't get to call yourself an economist without that sheepskin. If the White House wants to play a credentialing game to even out the P.R. battle...

Here we have two references to some credentialing "game" being played by the White House, so evidently TAPPED considers it to be a point worth repeating. But just what is their point? Did the White House question the credentials of some of the 450 economists who signed the letter opposing the Bush tax cut? Did the Administration attempt to disqualify some of the 450 signatories to the opposing statement? Does the Economic Policy Institute, sponsor of this letter, define an economist? Some of their signatories are not associated with academic positions - did the White House question their credentials? Has TAPPED attempted to verify them?

My strong impression is that the EPI did not require their signatories to have a PhD in Economics. Donald Vial appears as a signatory from California. Mr. Vial has an admirable resume, but no PhD. Since one example makes the point, I have given up, but let's note that "California" appears near the top of the list, and my search was far from exhaustive. (I am still scratching my head over "Marshall Pomer of California, BTW)

And I am sure you want to know a bit about the Economic Policy Institute, whose founders include Robert Kuttner of TAP.

TAPPED points out that, although they have provided a definition of "economist", Mr. Luskin has not. Neither, apparently, has the White House, nor, as noted, the EPI. However, the WaPo described the letter supporting the Bush plan as "a letter from more than 200 academic, think-tank and corporate economists", which seems to be accurate.

In this complicated world, perhaps being an economist is like pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

So, points for TAPPED to ponder - by their definition, neither John Maynard Keynes, Alan Greenspan, nor Robert Rubin would have been qualified to sign either letter - they are, respectively (and respectfully) a mathematician, an "all but thesis" grad, and a smart guy.

Next point - the TAPPED criteria were not articulated or employed by either the EPI or the White House.

More for TAPPED: A list of speakers at the 2002 National Association of Business Economists meeting. Roughly half of the folks have a PhD in economics. I see some with a PhD, but they are coy about the underlying subject. And I see some with different credentials. Not economists? I am sure TAPPED would deplore sexism, so let's check this resume:

Sheila Smith
Senior Economist, Office of the Actuary
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Sheila Smith is a Senior Economist with the Office of the Actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). She holds primary responsibility for model development for CMS' econometric model of the health sector (the NHE Projections Model) , and plays a key role in the forecasting process associated with CMS annual ten-year projections of national health expenditures (NHE)....

Ms. Smith holds a B.A. in economics from Wellesley College, and an M.A. in economics from the University of Virginia.

And, last point (I promise!): in an earlier post I linked to the the American Economic Association, and checked their job openings, on a page subtitled "Job Openings for Economists". Well, they don't define "economist" either, but I found numerous examples of openings for non-PhD economists.

Give it up, TAPPED.

Posted 3/03/2003 02:41:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Mickey Has A Question

We have an answer. From Mickey:

Why did we find out about the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed almost immediately after the event? Wouldn't it have been better to keep the arrest secret while the U.S. and its allies rolled up those al Qaeda operatives whose whereabouts could be traced through Mohammeds' cell phone and computer, etc.? Why send out a worldwide alert, through CNN, to his co-conspirators, telling them it was time to scatter? Did the need for good publicity trump sound anti-terror techniques?

Now, my first reaction upon hearing the news of this arrest on Saturday night was to assume that the Administration was providing the Sunday talking heads a bit of good news to offset the debacle in Turkey. I have detected a whiff of news management before.

However, in my part-time role as apologist for the Bush Administration, let me offer some ideas. First, this story wonders whether KSH really was just arrested over the weekend.

Secondly, we recently had the increase in terrorist alert status, and reports that a major attack was imminent. Presuming for a moment that this is being taken seriously inside the Administration, then announcing the arrest of KSH may be an effective and immediate way of disrupting the terrorist cells, thereby preventing an immediate attack. This is a tricky trade-off, because a "stealth arrest" may have allowed the arrest of more al-Qaeda, as Mickey notes.