Posted 11/19/2002 04:07:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

I'm reading TAPPED, right? So what's with this:

..., this was about as bad an incident of P.C.-inspired censorship as Tapped had seen in years, although it was quickly followed up with more examples from the University of California at Berkeley and other hotbeds of left-wing censorship. (Liberals ignore this growing trend -- groups of students demanding apologies and redress from papers that have printed articles with which those students disagree -- at their peril. The new left-wing campus culture, for all its newfound energy and activism, provides principled liberals with plenty to be worried about.)

or this criticism of the NY Times:

HOW STRANGE . . . That the secretive, late-night, voice-vote confirmation of conservative judge Michael McConnell received only an A.P. note in The New York Times.

or this:

One of the best indicators of a political writer's intellectual honesty is his or her willingness to accurately describe the opposition. A dishonest pundit, seeking to radically shift political definitions, will describe even the most milquetoast centrist as a "left-wing radical." (By the same token, a lot of liberals seem to consider every Republican a "right-winger.")

Que pasa? We are confounded by their new-found awareness of some of the peculiar symmetries of American politics.

However, re-assurance can be found promptly. Over at Spinsanity, we see a report on the response of the Left to the election:

...a number of liberal commentators have let loose a barrage of attacks on President Bush and his party featuring dire claims about what will happen when Republicans take control of Congress.

The attacks started immediately after last Tuesday's election. Writing in the American Prospect Online, Harold Meyerson claimed that "Only the filibuster now stands between the nation and the unchecked rule of the most rightwing, xenophobic and belligerent administration in the nation's history."

Ah, order restored.

Posted 11/19/2002 10:58:00 AM by The MinuteMan

This Sounds Like Great News

Hope for RAIN.

Posted 11/19/2002 10:14:00 AM by The MinuteMan

I Hate To Steal His Big Finish

A nice "bon mot" on San Francisco Democrats. I am sooo tempted to steal his close. OK, I am strong.

The author also links to this laugh-out-loud self-rebutting piece from some San Francisco columnist, as an example of the mind of a San Fran Dem in action. "Inaction", really, one word, no brain activity, flatline, am I clear?

The subject is creeping fascism under Bush, as exemplified by the new traffic stops by the INS:

In Michigan last week, federal agents started to use roving checkpoints to seek illegal immigrants, drug runners, weapons and terrorists.

Is this legal? Yes, according to the Detroit Free Press. "Under federal law," the newspaper reported last week," the Border Patrol can set up checkpoints up to 100 air miles from any international border, or from the shoreline. Within the first 25 miles, federal agents can stop drivers who seem suspicious, and they can search and conduct surveillance of private property."

Who knew?

Think of the places within those 100-mile or 25-mile limits. To name a few: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Savannah, Jacksonville, El Paso, San Diego, Portland, Sacramento, Bangor, Buffalo, Detroit, Tucson...

And so on for several more paragraphs outling the commencement of the dark night of fascism. Then, the first of several flickers of neural activity:

What I didn't know, until I read the Free Press last week, is that federal cops have been setting up their little checkpoints all over the Southwest border for several years now.

In Texas, Arizona and California, the newspaper reports, "temporary checkpoints have become permanent, and agents now patrol neighborhoods in cars and on bicycles."

OH! MY! GOSH! The dark night has already descended in his very own California, and he did not even know it! More than evil, these fascists are unobtrusive. Probably the soothing earth tones of the Brownshirts. Let's stumble on:

Fascism doesn't descend on a nation overnight. A nation has to be prepared for it first. In California, we long ago accepted checkpoints for imported fruits and vegetables.

Wait, California has checkpoints for fruits? Man, no wonder there is so much sensitivity to this gay-baiting thing. NO, I'M KIDDING! Can I strike that, yet leave it in the record? Blame it on my evil doppelganger? Oh, I said it, I'm sorry.

I had a real point before the last shred of self-discipline vanished. Doesn't California have a Democratic Governor, and Statehouse, and all that? I am sure I read that Simon lost. If these fruit and veggie checkpoints are so intolerable, let Gray Davis get rid of them. Oh, sure, the medfly cost Jerry Brown his governorship, but that can't be a consideration when standing up to fascism. I doubt these checkpoints are protecting the agricultural interests of the good people of Nevada or Arizona. Dump them. Let Freedom Ring! My goodness, man, you're blaming Bush for a creeping fascism that overcame California under Davis and Clinton!

Or maybe it didn't. Maybe you are just a kook. Or a San Francisco Democrat. Careful at the next checkpoint when they ask for fruits and nuts.

UPDATE: The Instapundit sent us to Agenda-Bender, for a singularly excellent post on San Fran Dems.

We see Common Sense applying itself to the San Fran columnist. Hmm, they seem to be going with calm logic and some powerful historical citations. Something for everyone.

Posted 11/19/2002 12:21:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye

Safire and Sullivan noticed this story. So did I. Trifecta!

Posted 11/19/2002 12:13:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Tom Friedman Does the NASTY

Well, it worked for him. Let's go:

"...most NATO countries have fallen so far behind the U.S. in their defense spending and modernizations, they really can't fight alongside of us anymore anyway.

...The old NATO has been replaced as a military alliance — not by the expanded NATO but by a totally different NATO. The "new NATO" is made up of three like-minded English-speaking allies — America, Britain and Australia — with France as a partner for peace, depending on the war. What these four core countries all have in common is that they are sea powers, with a tradition of fighting abroad, with the ability to transport troops around the world and with mobile special forces that have an "attitude." That is what you need to deal with today's threats.

Also, as one European official noted, all four of these countries play either rugby or American-style football — violent games where success depends on hurting the other team. This should be a prerequisite for joining the new NATO, which should henceforth be called "Nations Allied to Stop Tyrants," or NASTY.

Pause. Someone is missing. A country with it own football league, speaks English, except the parts that speak French.... O, Canada!

And what are the French doing on this list?

Said one U.S. official: "The French are bad-weather friends and their troops certainly have an attitude."

Margaret Thatcher did assure George Bush that he could count on the French, back in the days when giants walked the earth.

Posted 11/18/2002 03:41:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Gore in '04

Oh, help me, please. I need a rhyme for Gore and " '04". What is the English for "No mas"?

Gore gets a valentine from Time magazine. Great new info:

Gore now acknowledges that he micromanaged his campaign into incoherence. "I don't think I'm a very good political tactician. As a matter of fact, I think I'm pretty lousy at it," he told Time. "I don't think I'm a good campaign manager, particularly not good at managing myself as a candidate." Or managing others: Where Bush relied on—and trusted—a few key advisers like Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, Gore's team was a shifting cast of backbiting pollsters and strategists, none of whom were ever sure where they stood with the candidate. His wife and kids seemed to be the only people he really trusted.

Well, yes, there is much anecdotal evidence that he annoyed his staff as much as he annoyed the rest of us. More:

Our polling has good news and bad news for him. In a Time/cnn survey conducted last week, 61% of Democrats said they would like to see Gore run for President in 2004, so at the moment, the nomination is his to lose. Against the six most likely challengers (Joe Lieberman, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards and Howard Dean), Gore is favored by a whopping 53% of Democrats. (No one else gets more than 10%.) If Hillary Rodham Clinton's name is included, it becomes a contest, though Gore would outpoint her 36% to 26%.

So, Big Al is running strongly in early "name recognition" contests. What TIME does not report is that, in another poll that includes Hillary!, Michael Jordan, Dale Earnhardt, and Elvis, Gore drops behind former Vt. Governor Dean, both of whose supporters stuck with their original pick. But perhaps this is a new Al Gore?

"This is the New Gore..."

Oh, please. "New Al Gores" are like street-cars - there will be another one along in a minute. And, finally, a bit of cliff-dancing by the once and future candidate:

"He [Gore] has a much more easygoing attitude toward the world than I ever knew him to have." One clue as to how he got there may be a little book in the Arlington, Va., house where he and Tipper have spent most of the past two years—The Meditation Year: A Seasonal Guide to Contemplation, Relaxation and Visualization. "Both Tipper and I have meditated for quite a while," he says, "and we both believe in regular prayer."

Oh, good supplement, Al! Without the "prayer" coda, you would not have had one. Nice to see you've still got it.

The Man Without Qualities and the Woman With Many reflect on Big Al.

Posted 11/18/2002 03:17:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Sauce For The Goose

The NY Times is full of free advice for folks involved with the Augusta National controversy about the refusal of this private club to admit women as members.

...If the club that runs the Masters can brazenly discriminate against women, that means others can choose not to support Mr. Johnson's golfing fraternity. That includes more enlightened members of the club, CBS Sports, which televises the Masters, and the players, especially Tiger Woods.

...Mr. Weill and Mr. Chenault should lead the way by resigning from the club and encouraging other C.E.O.'s to do the same. CBS Sports, which seems to think this issue is no big deal, needs to think again.

Tiger Woods, who has won the Masters three times, could simply choose to stay home in April.

Such noble attention to other people's behavior. My pithy Letter to the Editor will read as follows:

Dear Sir;

I read with interest your editorial describing the refusal of Augusta National to admit women as members. ("America's All-Male Golfing Society") You call on Sanford Weill of Citigroup and Kenneth Chenault at American Express to resign from the club; you call on Tiger Woods to boycott next year's Master, one of the four legs of golf's Grand Slam; and you seem to suggest that CBS Sports should not broadcast the Masters.

May I suggest that these lofty principles can be applied somewhat closer to home? I call upon the NY Times to announce immediately that, unless and until Augusta National admits a woman, the Times will not send any sports reporters to cover the Masters, and that Times coverage will consist of burying the Masters daily leaderboard results back in page nine of the sports section.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this.

Regards,

A Skeptical Reader

UPDATE: Hey, I like the way this guy thinks. Although, with this kind of coincidence, it may be time to change the tinfoil in my Yankees cap.

Posted 11/18/2002 03:02:00 PM by The MinuteMan

MoDo Held Hostage: Day 12

Twelve days after the election - the election here in the US, for those of you who may have forgotten Ms. Dowd's home base - Our Woman In Riyadh contiunes to file from (or at least, about) Saudi Arabia. Perhaps she has taken inspiration from a History Channel documantary about Pearl S. Buck or Margaret Mead.

Her subject: "Driving While Female", in Riyadh. Apparently, a critical moment in the potential modernization of Saudi Arabia has passed us by:

The moment when America should have tried to use its influence to help Saudi women came on Nov. 6, 1990, as U.S. forces gathered in the kingdom to go to war in Iraq. Inspired by the American troops — including female soldiers — 47 women from the intelligentsia went for a joy ride to protest Saudi Arabia's being the only place where women can't drive.

"We were very, very careful to plan it correctly not to be too antagonistic to the culture," recalled one of "the drivers," as they are still known. "We were mothers, well covered, nothing anti-Islam."

Using international licenses, the women took the wheels from their brothers and husbands and drove in a convoy until police stopped them.

At first, the drivers were exhilarated. But then the clerics pounced, blaming "secular Americanist" ideas and branding the women "whores" and "harlots." They were publicly harassed, received death threats and lost their jobs..."

This is all presented quite uncritically. No "faux" balancing quotes from MoDo! Presumably, she does not delude herself that her whinings are taken seriously.

But let us surprise her, and ourselves, by trying to put ourselves back in November of 1990. Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990. James Baker III had a bloody index finger from dialing world leaders in an attempt to organize a coalition to reverse this. The US Senate was two month away from mustering a full 52 votes in support of the Kuwaiti liberation effort.

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, US troops had arrived, to the horror of conservative Muslims. Western troops defiling their Holy Land? Osama bin Laden spent the next decade plotting revenge.

So, in this very ticklish situation, Ms. Dowd tells us what? The US Government, having had troops in Saudi Arabia for at least a few weeks, should have commenced a re-ordering and modernization of Saudi society? For heaven's sake, opening a McDonalds in France is the worst kind of cultural imperialism, and she straight-facedly reports this?

My Bold Prediction: MoDo returns to the States this Wednesday. Probably "the States" circa 1960, to talk about JFK, drugs, and testosterone enhancement. Perhaps the new Bond film gets mentioned, as a testosterone tie-in. But I am sure she will be back. I have to conclude, after this column, that her own prescription medicines have run out.

UPDATE: Nothing in her life became her like the leaving it. Or some such. The Man Sans Q is also giving a lot more thought to the Maureen that might be than he ever gave to the Maureen that was. I think everyone should play - e-mail one of us with suggestions for MoDo's Wednesday column. First prize - you don't have to read her column.

Posted 11/18/2002 01:33:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Nancy Pelosi: How Conservative A Catholic?

So she says, in this NY Times piece:

"...leaders of both parties have grown far more savvy about the image they project. Republican leaders were carefully pledging to reach across the aisle and build bipartisan coalitions last week, while Ms. Pelosi was arguing, with a centrist's smile, "It's not about left and right." As she noted at one point, "I'm a liberal Democrat, but I'm a conservative Catholic — put that into the mix."

Andrew Sullivan noted this as well, so perhaps between his readers and mine, this riddle will be answered.

Now, Sullivan poses the following questions to verify Ms. Pelosi's "conservative Catholicism":

"Does she oppose women priests? Does she oppose married priests? Does she favor allowing gay priests to serve openly and chastely?

Well, as a political figure she may not feel obliged to comment on those church-related issues. However, Mario Cuomo famously and eloquently agonized, as Governor of New York, over his role as a Catholic in, for example, capital punishment or abortion. I am unable to find similar agonistes at Ms. Pelosi's website. In fact, putting her views as a "conservative Catholic" into the mix would not be possible based on this website, which does not contain any obvious reference to her religious background. Here, for example, is her personal data:

PERSONAL BACKGROUND. Prior to her election to Congress, Rep. Pelosi served as the State and Northern Chair of the California Democratic Party and Chair of the 1984 Democratic National Convention Host Committee. She served as a Democratic National Committeewoman from California for 20 years between 1976 and 1996.

Congresswoman Pelosi comes from a strong family tradition of public service. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., served as Mayor of Baltimore for 12 years, after representing the city for five terms in Congress, where he served on the Appropriations Committee. Her brother, Thomas D'Alesandro III, also served as Mayor of Baltimore. Rep. Pelosi graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C. in 1962. She and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a native of San Francisco, have five children: Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul and Alexandra, and five grandchildren."

Well, her father could be Italian - bit of a clue. And Trinity College was "founded in 1897 by the Sisters of Notre Dame as a Catholic liberal arts college for women. Today, the College continues the founders' commitment to offer students of all faiths...", so perhaps this is a straw in the wind.

But surely her public statements and recorded votes are a better place to look. Here she strongly opposed to the "Defense of Marriage Act". In a thought provoking bit of alliteration, she says this:

"Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-named Defense of Marriage Act and I do so on the basis of conscience, Constitution and constituency."

Hmmm, "Catholicism" would have fit the alliterative scheme, although not, perhaps, the intellectual one.

And, on the partial birth abortion ban, she has several statements, none supporting it. To her credit, she does say this:

"This is a very sad debate today. Abortion is a failure in every respect. We want to keep them safe, and we want to keep them legal."

But no clear mention of any reservations she may personally feel as a "conservative Catholic".

So, add "conservative Catholic" to the mix - but only for certain audiences, when the politics work.

UPDATE: Bold words from Ms. Pelosi via Tacitus. Hmm, I guess the link sort of revealed that, didn't it?

Posted 11/16/2002 11:49:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Lawyers Work Overtime For Justice

I know, I didn't believe it myself. But check this WaPo story:


Justice Told to Pay Overtime to Lawyers


OK, the InstaPundit has a serious comment on this. I just wonder whether it means more blogging or more money for this earnest clock-puncher.

Posted 11/16/2002 08:53:00 AM by The MinuteMan

A Feast For Fans Of The "Martha and Hootie Show"

Trust me, it's ubiquitous. Scroll down and around. There is other good stuff too.

Posted 11/16/2002 12:28:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Even I Recognize News Management When It's This Obvious

Sen. Daschle criticizes our progress in the War on Terror. So we have this anouncement:

U.S. Captures Senior Al Qaeda Leader

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A high-ranking al Qaeda leader sought by the United States in its war on terrorism was captured recently and is in American custody, U.S. government sources said on Friday.

The sources declined to name the operative for Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network, caught in the past week or so...

Emphasis added. Is this sort of "saving for a rainy day"?

Posted 11/15/2002 11:35:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Brad DeLong and John Derbyshire Agree

Use Google. The InstaPundit sends us to Heather Hurlburt (oh, man, nickname hell in High School!), who writes on national security and the Democrats. Very interesting. But, being a small-minded literalist, I stuck on this:

"the closest anyone came to articulating a coherent theory of force was Lawrence Eagleburger's infamous dictum on Bosnia, "We don't have a dog in that fight."

Well, I "googled" my brain, and immediately came up with James Baker as the source of that policy statement. But, for those who prefer the real Google, here is a link. Or go to Google itself for about twenty more.

When will these monthly mags get editors?

Posted 11/15/2002 11:03:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Oh, Those Annoying Pop-Ups!

The Man Sans Q describes his experience with software that blocks pop-up windows:

"However, Pop-Up Stopper often blocks access to certain "click-ins" - including most notably the "comments" sections of many blogs."

Say it with me, people: that's not a bug, that's a FEATURE!

In fact, we are waiting for a "Blog-Stopper", that will prevent annoying bloggers from promoting their bizzaro views. "Blogger" was partway there, with a version that prevented folks from publishing or archiving, but they seemed to have backed off from that product.

Anyway, here is a good, free pop-up stopper. And if you want to open a "click-in" window, either turn off the pop-up stopper, or simply press CTRL-C.

BTW, are you taking tech advice from the MinuteMan? Hard times all around.

Posted 11/14/2002 03:20:00 PM by The MinuteMan

So Glad We Cleared This Up

The Times reports, seemingly without irony, the following:

Prosecutors in St. Paul vacated a 1985 rape conviction yesterday after a review of old cases led to DNA testing that showed they had the wrong man. It is believed to be the first time that a prosecution-initiated review, as opposed to a defendant's appeals, has resulted in exoneration.

Well, that was very forward-looking of them. But, oh, the wasted years. Can society repay its debt to this innocent man?

The man convicted of the rape, David Brian Sutherlin, is serving a life sentence for a double murder committed while he was out on bail on the rape charge.

Oh. Well, then, why, exactly, did they bother, other than an admirable intellectual curiousity?

Prosecutors expect the lifting of the rape conviction to ease his path to parole, for which he became eligible this year.

OK. Sorry I asked.

Posted 11/14/2002 03:12:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Please Come to Boston

Democrats select Boston for their 2004 Convention, to start July 26. John Kerry smiles.

We applaud the Dems for a wise choice - now, their party and the Red Sox can begin their mid-summer swoon together.

Time for a Bold Prediction: If, I say IF, Gov. Pataki can convince Karl Rove that George Bush can win NY in 2004, we will see the following:

- The Republican Convention in 2004 will be in the greatest city in the world.

- There will be a Federal bail-out of the NYC budget, linked to 9/11, so don't everyone crowd the trough. Look for Pataki and Giuliani at center stage of the signing ceremony, with Senators Schumer and Junior Senator What's 'er Name stuck at the edge of the crowd.

- As a twofer, either Pataki or Giuliani will contest Schumer's Senate seat in 2004.

UPDATE: Neither The Brother Judd nor the New Republic seem to be Boston fans.

Posted 11/14/2002 10:22:00 AM by The MinuteMan

MoDo: You Can't Go Home Again

As the Man Sans Q observes, Maureen Dowd resolutely refuses to confront the election news, the ascendance of the Bush Administration or the Bush success at the UN. Did she make an "Alec Baldwin" style promise to leave the country if Republicans re-gained control of the Senate?

We are reminded of Tex Cobb, a minor pugilist and actor ("Raising Arizona"). Mr. Cobb was tabbed for a hopelessly one-sided boxing match against Larry Holmes, covered by Howard Cosell and ABC Sports. Mr. Cosell was so embarrassed by the spectacle that he asserted he would never cover boxing for ABC Sports again.

Informed of this news, Mr. Cobb reflected briefly and asked "If I fight Larry Holmes again, will Cosell quit Monday Night Football?"

If it took an election to silence MoDo, let's have another one soon.

Posted 11/14/2002 10:07:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Free JK Rowling!

We are total fans of JK Rowling, creator of the classic "Harry Potter" series. In our very own household, we have two youngsters who basically taught themselves to read so they could make it through the first books without having to wait for Mom or Dad to read the stories aloud. When the fourth book, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" came out, we bought three copies (Mom is not a great sharer, either). 750 pages and two days later, I had three copies available to read. We are talking commitment here.

However, time is passing. Where is book five in what has been promised to be a seven part series? Over two years have gone by, and no relief is in sight!

OK, Ms. Rowling has gotten married, and is expecting a child. We applaud this, especially the traditional sequencing. But our fear is that the studio is taking too much of her time, consulting with her on details about the film adaptations - the movie version of book two is coming out tomorrow, as you may have heard.

This was fine for one film. But the delay in the release of book five is no longer acceptable. Therefore, it is with deep regret that I must announce the following:

Free JK Rowling! No Book, No Movie!

If Hollywood won't let her deliver the book, then we must stand firm and boycott the movie! Send a message - We Want Book Five! Give us "The Order of the Phoenix"! We are not going to foolishly buy tickets for a movie today in the hope of getting a book next year. Show Me The Manuscript! When a release date for the book is announced, this boycott will end. Only solidarity amongst Harry Potter fans can free JK Rowling from the clutches of the Hollywood studios!

This message caught on like wildfire in our household. Desperate for Book Five, my two no-longer-quite-so-youngsters seized on the boycott as a beacon of hope. Last year, we drove straight from school to a 3:30 showing on the Friday afternoon that the movie was released. Well, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on you. This year we are standing firm - my girls have rallied their friends, and ten of them are steadfastly refusing to see the film until Saturday afternoon.

Posted 11/13/2002 01:55:00 PM by The MinuteMan

What Did Bush See In Putin's Soul?

Putin lets it rip at a press conference following the EU-Russia summit:

Responding to a question from a reporter on whether Russia's assault against terrorists would also eliminate portions of Chechnya's civilian population, Putin did not mince words, even leveling at the journalist a thinly veiled threat of castration. "I think you are from a country that is, in fact, an ally of the United States of America. You are in danger. They speak about the necessity of killing all kafirs [nonbelievers], all non-Muslims, all 'cross-bearers,' as they call them. If you are a Christian, you are in danger. But if you reject your religion and become an atheist, you are also slated for liquidation, according to their way of thinking and their rules. You are in danger. If you decide to become a Muslim, even this will not save you, because they consider traditional Islam to be hostile to their aims. Even in this case, you are in danger. If you want to become a complete Islamic radical and are ready to undergo circumcision, then I invite you to Moscow. We are a multidenominational country. We have specialists in this question [circumcision]. I will recommend that they carry out the operation in such a way so that afterward, nothing else will grow," Putin said.

Well, well. This reminds me of a story that I find mentioned here, about the behavior of the Russian SPETSNAZ in Beirut:

In 1985, terrorists stormed the Soviet Embassy in Beirut and abducted several Russian officials, demanding that the Soviets force Syria to stop its efforts to drive Palestinians supporting Arafat out of Lebanon.

Then Soviet president Gorbachev was quickly able to get Syria to stop its operation, but the kidnappers were slow in releasing the hostages. The SPETSNAZ quickly went into action, rushing to Beirut and giving the extremists 48 hours to free their people. When the terrorists let the deadline pass, the SPETSNAZ actually kidnapped four of them and sent one of their decapitated heads in a bag to the terrorist chief, promising further unrestrained action. The captives were quickly freed.

I have a vague memory of hearing that more than the head of one terrorist was in the bag. Apparently, the SPETSNAZ took this opportunuity to demonstrate necro-auto-fellatio, a technique not endorsed here.

Putin, cold-blooded killer? Yes. Want to make something of it?

Posted 11/12/2002 06:47:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Why Can't We Filet People So Delicately?

This is how to do it. We always get all snarly, and the result is more of a puree - sort of the difference between using a stiletto and a sledgehammer. Well, this gives us something to which we may aspire.

Posted 11/12/2002 11:02:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Krugman Is On Vacation

So Kristof tackles an intersection of economics and medical ethics. Why not? Maybe when George Vecsey takes a vacation, Krugman can swing by the Sports Desk and deliver an article on free agency and revenue sharing. Mix it up!

Posted 11/12/2002 10:23:00 AM by The MinuteMan

OK, It's Tasteless, But Is It Intentional?

What do we find near the bottom of Friday's "Best of the Web"? [Yes, I have noticed the calendar, what did YOU do last weekend?] There is a story about the Left titled "Anti-American Implosion".

The story begins with a well known quotation, and an interesting link to the source thereof: "if a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain." Well enough, but the article concludes with the following news item:

The San Francisco Chronicle reports "the second of two anti-war protesters who suffered severe head injuries when they poked their heads from a private bus in San Francisco's Broadway Tunnel has died"...

Maybe, given the intro, this story could have been omitted.

Posted 11/12/2002 09:54:00 AM by The MinuteMan

An Interesting Peggy Noonan Post-Election Piece

Ms. Noonan congratulates the Dems on their many victories and suggests they go home. Once they figure out where that is. Hillary 2008, if not sooner.

Posted 11/12/2002 06:34:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Everything Reduces To "Good Cop - Bad Cop"

Has the Bush Administration been using Powell and Rumsfeld in a "good cop - bad cop" tactic on Iraq? This routine is so much fun, everyone can play. Apparently, the Iraqi Parliament has rejected the UN Resolution on disarmament. Gosh, Iraq has a parliament? I suspect gerrymandering has left this institution sadly unresponsive to the views of the people.

In any case, we deplore their unreasonable stance and can only hope that wisdom, patience, and good judgement will be found elsewhere in the Iraqi government. This is an opportunity for Saddam to position himself for a Nobel Prize by bringing these two seemingly irreconcilable sides together. Step forward, man of peace and good will!

UPDATE: Hmm, the White House does not think this sets the stage for a grand entrance by Saddam. They may have a point.

Posted 11/11/2002 10:35:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Resolutely Non-hunting Dog

TAPPED is aglow with this:

BUSH IS A LIAR, PART XIV. The always-excellent Spinsanity has the definitive take on the Bush administration's serial mendacity. Unlike Tapped, Spinsanity is free of cant or rage. They stick to the facts. And the facts are devastating enough.

Oh, I bet this will be devastating. Let's check it out:

Making Bush Tell The Truth

...the White House has dissembled wildly rather than admit mistakes or mendacity.

WARNING! Is it Bush that is lying, or "the White House"? I suspect this is a significant distinction to the American people. Carry on:

Take Bush's false claim to have publicly listed three exceptions during the campaign under which budget deficits would be acceptable. As revenues declined last year and deficits appeared imminent, the president claimed the following to try to protect himself from criticism: "As I said in Chicago during the campaign, when asked about should the government ever deficit spend, I said only under these circumstances should government deficit spend: if there is a national emergency, if there is a recession, or if there's a war."

Oh my goodness, they are leading with the Trifecta! This was beaten endlessly a while back. Let's see if they provide the rebuttal, or make us do the dirty work.

After much investigation, it was discovered that Vice President Al Gore listed the exceptions during the campaign, not Bush. A Bush advisor did indicate at the time that he also supported them...

Yes, that was Larry Lindsey, now Economic Advisor to the President, then the campaign's leading economic advisor. So, the "trifecta" was authoritatively part of the Bush economic message during the campaign, a fact not in dispute. The rest is "who said what, and where", and frankly, who cares?

Continuing with "the mendacity":

Then, in July, the Office of Management and Budget issued a press release that severely underestimated the percentage decline in the 10-year federal budget surplus caused by the Bush tax cut (apparently an inadvertent error). Rather than admit its mistake publicly, OMB deleted the error and posted an altered version of the release (Adobe PDF file) on its Web site with no indication that it had been changed. After my initial report on this was picked up by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, OMB was finally forced to add a disclosure to the release (Adobe PDF file).

So, the OMB made what Spinsanity is prepared to admit was an inadvertent error. They failed to trumpet the correction. Oh, dear. And, although the headline says "Making Bush Tell The Truth", this mistake is attributable to the Administration, not Bush personally.

Well, it must get worse:

Now, with matters far more grave at stake in the debate over Iraq, the administration has been no less brazen in its dishonesty. At a Sept. 7 appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

An IAEA report in 1998 (around the time that inspectors were "finally denied access") did say Iraq was six to 24 months away from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991, but its efforts to produce weapons-grade uranium were largely crippled by the war and subsequent inspection regime. It appears Bush was referring to that estimate to underscore the point that Iraq has already come close to developing nuclear weapons and will try to do so again.

However, he should have been clearer about when that capacity was discovered. By tying the pre-Gulf War estimate to when inspectors were "finally denied access," Bush appears to imply that IAEA's conclusion that Iraq was "six months away from developing a weapon" dated from 1998, rather than 1991.

Oh my goodness. Bush should have been clearer at a live press conference! Was he so wrong, and so misleading, that this can be called a lie? No, he should have been clearer.

But surely there must be whoppers ahead of us. This cannot be the entiire indictment that set hearts aflutter at TAPPED. Sorry, that's all, folks. Big finish:

This dissembling is a betrayal of Bush's promise to restore honor and dignity to the White House. With so much at stake domestically and abroad, it's time to hold the president and his administration to a higher standard of truth.

And my big finish, which will be clear: Rubbish. An uncertain but irrelevant story, a bureaucratic mistake, and a reasonable statement open to misinterpretation? A story about lies probably ought to feature some.

Posted 11/11/2002 11:45:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The Times Sticks The Knife In Deeper

One little election, and the Times has surrendered. Commenting on Bush's economic agenda, we read this:

No `Rubinomics' for Them

Behind the emerging Bush economic strategy is a shift away from the bipartisan consensus of the late 1990's that fiscal responsibility should come first when setting budget policy. Instead the administration is reasserting conservative economic orthodoxy and giving itself more room for tax cuts.

...White House officials say there is nothing to support the primary economic benefit claimed by proponents of fiscal responsibility, that cutting deficits or running surpluses puts downward pressure on interest rates.

"As an economist, I don't buy that there's a link between swings in the budget deficit of the size we see in the United States and interest rates," Mr. Hubbard said. "There's just no evidence."

Indeed, Democrats are having a difficult time invoking the interest-rate argument because rates have declined sharply even as the budget has moved from surplus to deficit in the last two years.

...The White House formulation — that economic growth leads to an improved budget situation, not the other way around — reminds many analysts of the assertions of the so-called supply-siders in the 1980's, when Republicans promised that tax cuts would pay for themselves.

Stanley Collender, managing director of the federal budget consulting group at Fleishman-Hillard, the public relations firm, summed up the administration's fiscal philosophy this way, "Cut taxes because we have a surplus, and cut taxes because we have a deficit."

Democrats agree that running moderate deficits during a downturn is appropriate. But they say the administration is leading the nation down a path of more or less permanent deficits.

Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the nation would burden future generations with heavy government debt and find it even more difficult to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat as the population ages.

So far, voters do not seem to care. When he asked voters this week to pick among 12 reasons to support Democrats, Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, found that dealing with the budget deficit came in dead last.

Emphasis added, just to demonstrate that sometimes we read this stuff as well as link to it.

Posted 11/11/2002 09:07:00 AM by The MinuteMan

This Only Looks Complicated From A Special Perspective

The NY Times takes us to an odd Twilight Zone with a front-page story about a Federal irrigation project to help Arkansas rice farmers. The Army Corps of Engineers has information; taxpayer groups and conservation groups oppose the project.

Rice, as you may remember, is a subsidized crop in this country. We are not alone in our puzzlement:

"Mr. Carruth, the critic of the plan, said a better approach would be to retire some farmland and to spend federal money on technology to enable farmers to use water more efficiently. That approach, he says, eases overpumping of the aquifer without the costly river diversion.

"Why should we subsidize a pump that will sell subsidized water to grow a subsidized crop?" he asked, noting that federal price guarantees mean that rice farmers receive $3.10 a bushel for their crop, more than twice the current $1.40 market price."

And, of course, water is a "free resource" in this area - no property rights, pump all you want, yahoo! And rather than attempt any sort of market based allocation scheme, we are being taken in this direction.

But what about the "Twilight Zone" aspect to this? The Times story seems to have been written in a world in which all politicians have disappeared - there are no comments from the Arkansas Senators, the Governor, Congressmen, or the White House. The closest we get to an acknowledgement of a political issue here are a few hints like this:

"Congress has allocated $45 million for the project, and farmers and the State of Arkansas have spent an additional $11 million. The Bush administration has not included the plan in its budgets. Although withholding a final decision, the Office of Management and Budget has limited how the corps can spend money already allocated for the plan, restricting it to conservation purposes.

Here is a guest editorial in another newspaper by Dale Bumpers, former Senator from Arkansas, containing a bit of timeless, priceless logic:

"The question of subsidies is a political argument worthy of debate. But it is a separate issue from that of how we are going to save our underground water supplies from being depleted."

Separate but equal, maybe? If we quit subsidizing rice, and the farmers quit growing it, I am guessing the water problem would be solved.

So, what are the politics of this project? A Republican boondoggle? Arkansas Dems helping their farmers? A bi-partisan fleecing of the taxpayer? At whom should we direct our ire? Surely the Times must be curious. Or is this just a puzzling bit of front-page filler?

UPDATE: Well, at least the editors read the Times. They have a follow-up editorial on Tuesday in which they oppose this project. Highlight:

...Wisely, however, President Bush's Office of Management and Budget, which has grown increasingly skeptical of the Corps's projections, has so far refused to spend $45 million that Congress has allocated. It should keep on refusing.

OK, I remember the word "impoundment". When Nixon did it, refusing to spend money allocated by Congress, it was an outrage. Times change, even at the Times.

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

Democratic Analysts Blame Some Losses on the Failure to Win Moderate Whites

By JIM YARDLEY and DANA CANEDY

Democrats who are examining some of their most disappointing losses on Tuesday are learning that minority voters turned out in respectable numbers and voted Democratic — but that the party apparently lost thousands of moderate white voters who supported Bill Clinton and helped elect Southern Democratic governors in 1998 and 2000....

Ghastly news for the Dems. If "energizing the base" is not the problem, Nancy Pelosi is probably not the solution.

Posted 11/10/2002 03:35:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Beat Goes On: Post-Election Reviews At The Times

Tom Friedman: "Let's be blunt: the Democratic Party as a force for shaping U.S. foreign policy is out of business, until that party undergoes regime change."

Bob Herbert: "The Democratic Party is like an army that dutifully goes off to battle but leaves its ammunition and its principles behind. It's bad enough to lack the firepower that you need to win. It's worse to not even know what you're fighting for."

Nick Kristof: "Already the Republicans are oozing hubris.

(You can't much blame them. As David Letterman observed about the Democrats, You know you're in trouble when your bright young star of the future is Frank Lautenberg.)"

William Safire: "What message will Democrats take from Bush's validation day? G.O.P. partisans fervently hope defeated Democrats will say "No more Mr. Nice Guy," angrily return to class-war, peacenik principles and oppose Bush on the liberation of Iraq and on tax cuts, including the "death tax." However, the Clintons — with control of the purse strings — will likely keep their party on the moderate middle-road message of me-too."

Paul Krugman: "...There are essentially no moderates left in the Republican Party, so change will have to come from the Democrats. And they are deep in a hole."

MoDo remains committed to writing about Riyadh, apparently unable to confront her domestic demons. Prof. Krugman seems to have chosen to detach himself from reality. The other columnists at the Times, Safire excepted, have concerns about the Democrat Party.

Posted 11/10/2002 12:25:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Presenting The Instantly And Totally Credible Frank Rich

When he says these things about Bush, we dismiss it as partisan griping. But when committed Lefty Frank Rich treats the Dems to a scathing review, we are agog. Just let the acid wash over you:

The Democrats are farcically — or, if you choose, tragically — even more mired in the past than the press is. Terry McAuliffe has been fond of saying that defeating Jeb Bush was his top priority this year. The notion that avenging 2000 could be more important than, say, holding onto the Senate into 2004 is so nonsensical that only a party chairman cryogenically entombed in the Clinton-Gore fin de siècle could say it with a straight face.

...I'm not sure what we did wrong," Mr. McAuliffe declared on Wednesday, no less clueless in defeat than in anticipating victory. Denial, the first of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's five stages of death and dying, is his party's order of the day. (No. 2, anger, is rapidly yapping at its heels.)

...The Democrats were not done in by Osama bin Laden or the media or anyone other than themselves. Their intellectual vacuity in this year's campaign was apparent well before 9/11.

...This election was not about nothing; it's the Democrats who were about nothing.

...Foreign policy is a nonstarter with Democrats. At home, we know that they are in favor of "protecting" Social Security and that some of them dream of energy independence, or of universal health insurance in a nation where 41 million people have none at all. But they put forward no serious plans to accomplish such goals, let alone plans specifying a price tag and the means by which to pay the bills.

...This lack of seriousness is sometimes matched by a soullessness that all the eulogizing of Paul Wellstone could not obscure. Fear of the N.R.A. led poor Jean Carnahan to invite reporters to watch her shoot skeet. Defending Bob Torricelli, Mr. McAuliffe enthusiastically observed that the controversy over his sleazy gift-grubbing was "creating excitement out there and helping raise more money."

...Two Democratic Senate campaigns a continent apart were marked by gay-baiting.

...With Mr. Gephardt leaving his leadership position, many Democratic politicians are calling for Mr. McAuliffe's head. Everyone wants "new faces" — not an easy task for a party whose 11th-hour new faces in this campaign were Frank Lautenberg and Walter Mondale and whose favorite form of ingenue, "new" Kennedys (Andrew Cuomo and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend), went belly-up in the friendly confines of New York and Maryland. The bench is so sparse that Gary Hart's name was tossed around this week. Next up, no doubt: Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Mike Dukakis.

...Yet Clintonism without Clinton... remains the party's fantasy. This is exemplified... by the relentless search for a telegenic savior, ideally from neither coast, who might magically finesse the difference between the party's liberal base and the American middle (at least until Hillary is ready to run).

That's the role John Edwards is meant to play, but his timidity to date makes even Al Gore sound like Harry Truman. As for Mr. Gore, he turned up in full sanctimonious lather the day after defeat to instruct Democrats, via Barbara Walters, that they "need to draw clear lines" about their policy differences with Republicans — a task he utterly failed to accomplish in his own October speech assailing the administration's economic record.

Well. In attempting to re-connect with the base, Ms. Pelosi might start here.

Posted 11/10/2002 12:21:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Deplore This Behavior At Dinner Parties

This is a much more vigorous "Fisking" than we can endorse. So why are we smiling?

[From Drudge]

Posted 11/09/2002 07:27:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Those Who Do Not Understand The Past...

Are giving the rest of us a sense that somewhere, a time vault has opened and people are walking out of it, available for interviews.

Commenting on the seemingly-inevitable ascension of Nancy Pelosi from the # 2 spot to the # 1 spot in Democratic House Leadership, we see this:

"Democrats are making a bold choice to change their image by choosing a woman as their public face in a chamber of Congress.

``It brings me joy and tears to see that we are going here. I have wanted to be president since I was a little girl,'' said Helen Grieco of Napa, executive director of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women. ``I think there are a lot of women and girls like me, and this move makes those dreams more of a reality than ever before.''

Oh, for heaven's sake. If she is the most qualified, and she may well be, then good for her. But this interest group pleading takes us back to Walter Mondale and the Democrat convention in 1984. The one in San Francisco, which many of us found annoying even then.

"Some observers believe that the decision to name a woman as the party's top congressional leader could pay huge political dividends.

``We have a very diverse society and we have a society in which women are playing a larger role, and the party that gets that message first I think is going to be in good position for the future,'' said Leon Panetta, a former Monterey congressman who served as chief of staff in the Clinton administration."

Wow, insight is flowing like champagne at Democrat Headquarters! Ooops, scratch "champagne", substitute "tears". Diversity, and the emergence of women! Tear out the front page. And how was this secret kept from Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Susan Collins, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Sandra Day O'Connor, Janet Reno, Harold Ford, Jesse Jackson, and at least one or two others?

Now, from the Times:

"Tony Coelho, a former California congressman who served in the Democratic House leadership under former Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill in the early 1980's, described the elevation of Ms. Pelosi as a good thing, ...

Mr. Coelho rejected the idea that Ms. Pelosi would be a burden on her party because of her ideologies. He noted that Mr. O'Neill was similarly disparaged as a Massachusetts liberal, and proceeded to lead his House into winning back 26 seats in 1982."

He failed to note that the House passed Reagan's first tax cut in 1981, and that 1982 was a mid term election during a weak economic period.

Now, I have seen only one story comment on Nancy Pelosi's circumstances in Congress, and of course I can't find it. Apparently she won a special election in 1987, and has not been in a competitive election since. With gerrymandering, it is a safe bet that most of the Congressfolks voting for her as Leader have not been in a competitive race either. OK, the same is true on the Republican side, but we are running a partisan rag-sheet here, not making some attempt at faux-balanced reporting.

Anyway, unlike Governors, Senators, and Presidents, the notion of "electons" is somehat abstract for these people - "coronations" suits better. Hence, elevating an old-school liberal to the top leadership post makes sense - it's great for fund-raising, and it excites the base that sends these people back bi-annually. It seems that, for many of these Congresspeople, their closest contact with alternative views comes on Election Night, when they watch CNN and wonder why it is all going so badly. As they will in 2004.

So, welcome, Nancy. Amongst Republicans, your ascension does not cause apprehension.

UPDATE: I knew Ms. Pelosi's appeal went beyond women.

Posted 11/08/2002 11:53:00 PM by The MinuteMan

How Cold Can It Get In Vermont?

The Man Sans Q has a weather report for JJ.

Posted 11/08/2002 11:32:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow

Orrin Judd inspires an Election 2004 Preview.

Posted 11/08/2002 09:20:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Light Up That Joint - And The Terrorists Win

I have a mole in the advertising side of the War on Drugs. Slick Madison Avenue ad agencies make up War on Drug ads, and other slick Madison Avenue types conduct focus groups, both to test the effectiveness of current ads, and to pre-test proposed new ad campaigns.

Here is a brief description of a new television campaign:

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America today released a new series of ads focusing on the dangers of marijuana use. The ads are a response to research showing that American youth want to be provided with the facts about marijuana. The bold new ads, which start today in heavy rotation across the country, speak in a vernacular that teens understand and will find hard to dismiss.

...The contents of the ads are a direct result of research conducted with teens of various ages and ethnic backgrounds across America.... In focus groups, teens identified two major reasons to avoid marijuana: it can lead to stupid, sometimes tragic mistakes (such as driving with someone who is high, or having unplanned, unprotected sex), and it can get you into trouble with the law. These disincentives were incorporated into the four ads titled, "Drive-Thru," "Den," "Couple," and "Concert."

Well, I am betting that I have seen "Den" twice, and it could be re-named "Date-rape". The party, the dope, the cute blond chick, the lapse into near-unconsciousness... not a good scene.

My mole tells me that focus groups love these ads. Furthermore, just as the press release says, the underlying research is, as these things go, solid. The scenarios are specific, plausible, disturbing, and give kids a real reason to say no. Soundbite: "In focus groups, the kids are always saying 'Scare me'".

And now let us turn our attention to another Gov't backed ad campaign - when you buy drugs, you are supporting an international network of terror. This may take you back to last year's Super Bowl, and many folks howled in outrage then.

John Walters, Drug Czar, loves these ads, I am assured. John Ashcroft is apparently a backer of the drugs-terror linkage as well, although Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Stuttaford of NRO see it differently.

Currently a new set of print ads is being prepared based on the idea that the war on drugs is part of the war on terror. The ads are being pre-tested in focus groups, and guess what? Glenn and Andrew are not alone. Preliminary results show that focus group reaction ranged from apathy, across skepticism, all the way to hostility. This would not normally be taken as the foundation for a successful campaign.

Well, awkward moment. There is frustration for the folks fighting over ad budget resources - the teen oriented ads work in discouraging irresponsible drug use, while this "terrorists win" stuff looks like a loser. But of course, the big-time agency that produced the new campaign doesn't want to admit defeat, and John Walters, your Drug Czar, doesn't want to hear it.

So, get ready: War on Drugs equals War on Terror. Don't laugh. But do look for your Congressman's e-mail address.

Posted 11/08/2002 08:20:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Always Time For Some Euro-follies!

OK, the Fed cut their benchmark rate by 50 basis points on Wednesday. If you are just learning this now, you really don't care. But you will find the follow up out of Europe to be riveting!

FRANKFURT, Germany - Bucking both the Federal Reserve and the increasingly plaintive calls of European politicians, Europe’s central bank said on Thursday that it would leave interest rates unchanged.

A day after an unexpectedly large cut in rates in the United States, the European Central Bank (ECB) said it would wait for more evidence that Europe’s economy was faltering before it lowered its key rate.

This is a search for evidence that only Inspector Clouseau could admire. Sort of "Eyes Wide Shut", dubbed into German.

With new statistics showing rising unemployment in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, economists say a cut in the benchmark rate, which now stands at 3.25 percent, is long overdue. Germany, they say, needs a looser monetary policy to revive an economy on the brink of a double-dip recession....

Huefner and other critics said that in holding the line on Thursday, the European bank seemed motivated less by economic calculations than by the desire to avoid looking like a handmaiden of the Fed.

The bank also does not like the appearance of capitulating to pressure from the leaders of the 12 countries in the euro zone, for which it sets monetary policy. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and other officials have urged the bank to lower rates, as have major companies like Siemens.

Appearances must be preserved!

However, this story suggests that the ECB has a little Christmas treat for the market. Whatever is left of it.

UPDATE: We are totally jealous of this headline, which links to a gloomy Economist piece.

Posted 11/08/2002 02:29:00 PM by The MinuteMan

I Would Love To Get A Peek At His Football Card

The elections on Tuesday, the UN Security Council today - any chance that Bush picked the Jets over Miami?

UPDATE: I am sorry. I would have described the UN vote as a triumph for Bush, but I was giving the Washington Post the chance to to go first.

Posted 11/08/2002 02:27:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Times, The Towel, The Throwing-in

From Friday's lead editorial:

"President Bush's measured tone and modest demeanor at his post-election news conference yesterday provided a timely reminder of why he has the support of so many voters who appear to disagree with so many of his policies....[He] did not gloat, and indeed seemed at pains to avoid the triumphalism that some Republican leaders couldn't resist expressing.... The image he projected was one of inclusive leadership rather than narrow partisanship, and while the country is clearly in for some bruising ideological battles come the next Congress, the president's manner — at turns affable and somber, and wholly disarming — seemed well suited to the needs of the moment.

... The president set two very appropriate goals for the necessarily brief lame-duck session that begins next week.... One is to complete work on a Department of Homeland Security. The other is to approve terrorism insurance. We would add a third: helping the unemployed.

Homeland security has been blocked by Democratic opposition to Mr. Bush's plan to reduce civil service protection for the employees of the new department. This is no longer a fight worth pursuing. While we believed the Democrats had the better position, the one thing voters made clear on Tuesday is that they support the president on the homeland security issue. The Democrats should go along, and Senator Robert Byrd, the powerful Democrat from West Virginia who believes that the antiterrorist apparatus was constructed too quickly, should drop his threat to filibuster the bill."

Well, that's the fighting spirit that should rally the base! Maybe the Times should stick to faux-news, and skip the free political advice.

Posted 11/08/2002 12:41:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Lead, Follow, or Run For President

We will let our candle of sympathy for Richard Gephardt flicker briefly. He was a hero in 1998, when the Republicans had a bad election and Newt Gingrich stepped down. Now, Gephardt has stepped down as Minority Leader, amidst speculation that hs is contemplating a run for the Presidency.

In what we must presume to have been an unguarded moment with Adam Nagourney of the NY Times, Gephardt said the following:

I feel the need to step back and to take some moment and some time to better understand where the country is, where the country is going and what we need to be saying in terms of a vision or a set of new thinking for the future," Mr. Gephardt said.

He said it had been difficult to do that over a 14-month period in which the nation absorbed a succession of shocks, starting with the Sept. 11 attacks and continuing through the sniper attacks.

"I don't think we had the time and the ability to sit down and really think about where the country is and where the people are and what we need to suggest to transfer our values into today's circumstances," he said. "I don't have all the ideas yet to do it."

Well. It has been a confusing fourteen months, and I suppose we should admire his honesty in saying so. I, too, am confused. On the other hand, I am not planning to run for the Presidency.

Just what is Gephardt saying here? "I need more and better focus groups, and, frankly, I have lost confidence in my pollsters?" Or is it, more simply, "What should we as a nation be doing? Man, you're guess is as good as mine!"

Either way, as a crystal light of vision, courage and leadership, this falls short. And does Mr. Gephardt have a timetable for developing some ideas, as time and tide march on? Perhaps, given his union support, he can adopt the following slogan:

Gephardt: Leadership that's working.... to rule.

Posted 11/07/2002 01:46:00 PM by The MinuteMan

All Politics

Check this out at the Daily Kos:

... I will soon start work on my latest and greatest blog project -- the Political State Report. For those who are new around these parts (and considering my traffic lately, that's a lot of you), I am putting together a collaborative weblog with politically astute commentators "on the ground" in all 50 states providing regular reports on local political developments.

I hope to have at least two commentators per state, one representing the left, and another the right. This is not a hard and fast rule -- many states, especially the big, more complicated ones (like California, Texas, and Florida) will probably get more coverage. And when I say "left and right", I am also happy to include Libertarians, Greens, and everything in between.

...Everyone should understand that the new blog won't be a platform for ideological debates -- I am more interested in how local and national events are playing in each state, who the rising stars of each party are, election predictions, etc.

If interested in participating, please email me at

kos@dailykos.com"

He would like readers, of course, but he is especially interested in enlisting some writers.

Posted 11/07/2002 09:32:00 AM by The MinuteMan

A Wedge Issue For Democrats

How can the party of Big Government increase its appeal to the libertarians who are drifting into the Republican camp? How about a major re-thinking of the War on Drugs? Enough with this "we, too, are tough on crime" approach - show us something new. Here is an example of a guy who won't need much convincing. William Buckley is another, although getting his vote might be harder.

Posted 11/07/2002 08:31:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Those Who Do Not Understand The Past...

Are doomed to inspire variations on a well-known quotation, not all of which will actually have a point. As here.

However, let us ponder Andrew Sullivan's sense of how Bush should proceed after his election night triumph:

"NOW WIN THE WAR: I've been reading with some disbelief all sorts of proposals for president Bush's next two years. Here's the only one that matters: win the war. If we can rid the world of Saddam Hussein and see Iran's dictators pushed to the brink, then an entirely new set of circumstances prevails in the world....

Well, yes. However, I have no doubt that Bush Sr. received very similar advice in January of 1989 - manage the peaceful transiton of the Soviets from empire to freedom, and nothing else matters. Or, conversely, fail in that task, and surely no other success will matter.

So, a peaceful collapse of the Evil Empire, the peaceful re-unification of Germany, the victory in Desert Storm, and Bill Clinton in the White House. Historians will applaud his administration, if that is a consolation.

Or, as a Brit, Andrew may remember that Churchill was replaced as Prime Minister in July of 1945, shortly after the defeat of the Nazis in Europe.

In war, there is no substitute for victory. In politics, there is currently no substitute for some good judicial appointments, tax reform, a partial-birth abortion ban, and a real Homeland Security bill.

Posted 11/06/2002 10:27:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Lose One For The Gipper

He cheated our hopes in 1984 by a few thousand votes, but with his defeat to Coleman in Minnesota, Mondale has finally lost in all fifty states.

More sinister thoughts: No, I don't suppose Jeffords would like a copy of this book.

Posted 11/06/2002 09:37:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Election 2002: What Does It Mean?

First, a few rays of light for Democrats:

1. The Dems picked up a few key Governorships.

2. OK, Bush and Rove are geniuses. But if a few states had swung by 2%, Gephardt and Daschle would be geniuses.

3. Maybe the Republicans will lurch right, alienate the electorate, and self destruct. I think this is a very slim reed - this victory is being hailed as a triumph for Bush, not the NRA or the Christian Right. Republicans need simply to unite behind a proven winner. Does Trent Lott have an agenda? Does Tom DeLay? Who cares? When Bush walks into the room and announces a decision, their job is to shut up and say, "Yes, sir".

Beyond that, Rove and Bush were criticized for recruiting moderate Republicans for key races. Coleman in MN was a former Dem who is not going to imperil his seat by a crazed lurch right. In fact, he and other new faces will probably plague Dems for years, as Orrin Judd explains. We will arrive shortly at the mechanism which placates the Restless Right.

Reasons for Terror amongst Dems:

1. Well, Gore doesn't win in 2000 with peace and prosperity. Bush doesn't lose in 2002 with war and recession. Wait for floods and plague in 2004?

2. Does McCain-Feingold really help the Dems?

3. Dems need to unite. Great advice, but behind who, and with what message? Does this unity message of "We hate Bush" seem to be working?

Two "soccer moms" managed to blurt out five second sound-bites before my harangue reached full volume. Their thought - these Democrats are so negative. Probably not the image Dems want. Maybe Dems should re-read Kristof's last column. And re-read it again.

4. Will Dems lurch left? I will now predict Karl Rove's sinister plan to placate the Right and disorient the Left: nominate a series of sensible conservatives to the Federal courts. Dems will need to show they are spirited, aggressive, and ready to fight, fght, fight for Barbra Streisand and her money. Oppose Attilla the Hun! Let the Battle Royale begin, reflexively rather than reflectively.

The Right will figure, hey, if they hate Attilla, we must like him (or her). And when Attilla gets 65 votes in the full Senate, it is a big win for Republicans and the Right. The public at large wonders why the Dems are so shrill and disorganized. And the Left gets even more frustrated. Hey, its Just One Plan, but it could happen.

5. To be the champ, you have to beat the champ. Underestimating Bush and Rove has not been a winning ticket so far.

6. We had the Southern realignment, when conservative Dems defected or were replaced by Republicans. A symmetric shift in the Northeast seemed to be inevitable, as Rockefeller Republicans gave way to Dems. Now we have newly elected Republican Governors in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. New Hampshire elected a Republican Senator (replacing a Republican). Chuck Schumer in NY, contemplating a run in 2004 against either Pataki or Giuliani, must be nervous. Not only will Sen. Chafee (R, RI) not be switching (see below), but Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia might go Republican. When does the Northeastern re-alignment occur?

Well, the sun will come out tomorrow. But there is a good chance it will shine on Bush and Rove.

UPDATE: Thoughts for the Dems from Pandagon: "Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."

Even more from the prolific and terrific OJ.

Jeff Cooper tells McAuliffe, Daschle, and Gephardt what he really thinks.

Posted 11/06/2002 12:57:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Chaffee (R, RI) Switching Sides?

It's pretty unusual to quit the majority party to join the minority party. Besides, Rhode Island just elected a Republican Governor. So, Chaffee stays put and Jeffords (I, VT) looks like the premiere idiot of the Western World.

And speaking of Senate switches, Zell Miller (D, GA), just saw the defeat of two incumbent Dems, a Governor and a Senator. He has been mooted as being ready for a walk on the wild side - why wait?

Posted 11/05/2002 11:51:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Read My Lips

Erskine Bowles, who called for a freeze on the Bush tax cut - gone.

Massachusetts referendum to abolish the state income tax - defeated, but with about 46% support.

Rhode Island, where Rep. Senator Chaffe is presumed to be available to switch to the Democrats, elects a Republican Governor.

So, should Dems mount a vigorous assault on the tax cut as part of their strategy for 2004?

Posted 11/05/2002 10:27:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Is Turnout the Story?

Fox has anecdotal reports of reduced turnout on the Dem side. Meanwhile Talent (R, MO), comes out to thank his supporters for the huge state-wide turnout.

UPDATE: Just a guess; Dems out-worked Reps in 1998 and 2000. The story this year may have been "discouraged Dems stay home": what was the distinctive message to bring them out to vote?

Or, the story might be "Reps figure out how to work as hard as Dems". In which case, the Dems need to correct their problem with a strategy other than "energize the base". Develop a coherent message, maybe.

The number crunchers and exit pollers will let us know.

Posted 11/05/2002 09:31:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Fox News Has Not Started Their Strut

But as of 9:30, they are reporting that Canrahan (D, MO) is not doing well enough to win as early votes come in from St. Louis. Similarly, Shaheen (D, NH) leads in New Hampshire, but the early returns are from her strong areas, and her lead is not enough to win. However, they are NOT calling these races.

Posted 11/05/2002 09:13:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Harvey Pitt Resigns

Clever news managment to hide this amongst Election Day headlines.

Posted 11/05/2002 09:27:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Election Night Prediction

I have to go with Mr. T as "Clubber Lang" on this - my prediction: PAIN!

OK, let the best candidates win!

And let the other candidates sue.

Now, bit of an odd wish for a zero-sum evening, but good luck, all.

Posted 11/05/2002 08:55:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Kristof Must Be Reading Krugman

Kristof continues the refeshing burst of candor we noted at the Times with a column titled "The Left Dumbs Down". His intro:

"In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look sillier than the way they excoriated Bill and Hillary Clinton as traitors and even murderers.

Yet these days, the intelligent left is dumbing down and showing signs of slipping into a similar cesspool of outraged incoherence. It's debasing and marginalizing itself by marshaling epithets rather than arguments."

Well, yes. We noted this phenomenon a while back with respect to Al Gore. Just as in the 90's when there were Republicans who loathed Clinton so deeply that their brains froze, so today we see Democrats experiencing the same thing with Bush. The medical term is "Bush-whacked".

Now, if Righties were truly compassonate, we would form support groups, and initiate an outreach effort. We've been there, we feel your pain. Or would, if we had any empathy. Instead, I expect we will leave you to suffer, raving incoherently and swatting at shadows, for what will probably be six more years - but, like dog-years, they will seem much longer.

Posted 11/05/2002 08:44:00 AM by The MinuteMan

New Candor At The Times

Paul Krugman chooses Election Day to roll out the new slogan for his column: "Stop Making Sense". Appropriate, but hasn't that been done?

Well, he must have worked out the licensing arrangement in time to deliver this:

"Here's the story: In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush portrayed himself as a moderate. Toward the end the public started to catch on to this ruse, but... Mr. Bush made it to the White House. Once there, his true radicalism quickly became apparent, and voters didn't like it."

A "radical" agenda? Krugman uses the word four times to describe Bush's program. Echoes of Al Gore and the "risky tax scheme". Anyway, we presume that the radical agenda includes the tax cut, cleverly hidden in plain sight during the campaign; education reform, similarly concealed; the nomination of conservative judges, to everyone's surprise; and the jaw-dropping decison by Bush and Cheney, former oil-men, to support drilling in ANWR.

How to explain this rhetoric? Krugman open his column thusly:

"It's Election Day, and it's your duty as a citizen to be irrational."

He has done his duty.

Posted 11/04/2002 10:49:00 PM by The MinuteMan

I'm Dizzy

Last week, Jonah Goldberg explained the similarities between Wellstone, Saddam Hussein, and Hitler, and forged the link between Ted Kennedy and Osama bin Laden. Today, he comes out in agreement with Hamas. Am I standing at the magnetic North Pole? My compass is spinning.

Posted 11/04/2002 05:56:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Don't Even Ask

Top 100 American speeches of the 20th century, and the accompanying press release. Hmm, no mention of Sally Field's "You like me". And what about Jack Palance and the one-armed push-ups? All politics.

And for those of you fretting about the current deplorable state of partisanship, here is a laugh-out-loud historical review. A highlight:

"The 1828 campaign reached depths of malice that have never been equaled. The Jackson campaign nicknamed Adams "The Pimp," based on a rumor that the president, while serving as ambassador to Russia a decade earlier, had coerced a young woman into an affair with a czar. One pro-Adams publication railed: "General Jackson's mother was a COMMON PROSTITUTE brought to this country by British soldiers! She afterward married a MULATTO MAN, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson IS ONE!!" '

Nathan Newman had a bit on this, but whoa, Nellie!

Posted 11/04/2002 03:20:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Normally, This Guy Doesn't Do Comedy

So it is fun to see Mark Kleiman branch out a bit.

First, the self-styled conscience of the blogosphere lectures us on a Republican ad in Tennessee:

The Tennessee Republican Party is suggesting that a school curriculum that mentions Buddhism and Hinduism in discussing the history of India is an offense to "Tennessee values."

...Aside from Andrew Sullivan, who doesn't like gay-baiting no matter who does it (but seems ok with other forms of prejudice), I have yet to see anyone in the right blogosphere object to the persistent use of bigotry and other dirty tricks by Republican candidates. This is in fairly sharp contrast to the practices of the left blogosphere, and seems to me to reflect a real difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of willingness to criticize their own side.

...I think the difference is a legitimate source of pride: to be liberal is, fundamentally, to be fair-minded."

All conservatives are close-minded? Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I suppose objectivity is, too. And it may be that both are easiest to see when looking in the mirror.

Now, bit of a disappointment to my readership, but I am not going to rise to Mark's bait and denounce this ad. Nor do I endorse it. Bit of suspense. I will leave it to his judgement whether I support this sort of talk or not. And just as he will judge me, I will judge him.

But did I say comedy? Yes, indeed. In an update to this post, Mark links to an obviously over-the-top ad run by a Democrat and criticized by a fellow Democrat. But wait, says Mark, this ad is not so bad! So, complete silence on the Left would not have been evidence of close-mindedness, or partisanship - just good judgement. Hmm, maybe the conscience need a conscience of his own. Folks who mostly agree with Mark are fair-minded, the rest are not. Whatever.

But lest we miss this not-so-subtle descent into self-parody, Mark continues with his very next post, an account of impending polling place snafus in Broward County, FLA. Apparently, the polling process takes a long time, the ballot is complicated, there are too few machines, and turnout in this heavily Democratic county will be supressed.

I'm sorry the county administrators did not do a better job. But here we go - in an update to the original post, Mark suggests "Express Lane" voting.

"Designate a quarter of the machines as "express lanes" with a three-minute limit, for people who don't insist on voting for assistant sewer commissioner or on the initiative to require that pooper-scoopers be made of recycled plastic."

Well, that shows a great respect for the democratic process (small "d", to signify actual voting, as opposed to Big "D", signifying "race my people through"). And in yet another update, a reader objects, reminding us that there are equal protection issues, and that chasing voters through a hurry-up line may not be exactly what a court would approve.

But, as Mark explains, this is NO PROBLEM:

"Still, it's quite likely that Levy is correct about what a court would say about the proposal. But would a court enjoin an administrative decision, made in what is clearly an emergency setting, and would it do so fast enough to matter? I'm not sure. And if it didn't, then it's not clear what the court could do about it afterwards, other than enjoining a repetition. The votes would count.

The same applies to the Secretary of State: he could clearly rule that the procedure was improper, but it's not clear what he could do about it."

Or, briefly, it may be illegal, but no one could stop us in time. Well, well, well. We eagerly await Mark's denunciation of this proposed Democratic "dirty trick".

Hmm, is "conscience of the blogosphere" an elective post? I don't remember voting. Slowly or quickly.

UPDATE: Sometimes, when you are digging yourself a hole, the best thing to do is put the shovel down. Mark has a new update in which he pretends he did not write the previous update. Let's see:

"Glenn Reynolds is shocked -- shocked! -- that I'm advocating an extraordinary emergency procedure that would allow people to vote who would otherwise, through no fault of their own, be denied the option of voting, despite the fact that a court might later rule against it."

Well, Glenn seems to be shocked that Mark is saying, hey, I've been advised that it is illegal, but so what? Catch me if you can.

Mark then gets what we hope will be the final update form his legal source, suggesting that maybe this "Express Lane" would pass muster. None of which matters a whit - when advised that it was illegal, Mark quite clearly said, so what. Which is, regrettably, what we have come to expect from these "fair-minded" Democrats.

As for Mark, he is looking in the mirror, and we presume he likes what he sees. And we will eagerly await his next lecture on ethics. Always make time for a smile!

Posted 11/04/2002 12:03:00 PM by The MinuteMan

A Bit Of Disorientation Is Normal After Defrosting

We are with Walter Mondale in the Monday morning debate:

Mondale said the race ``is a question about the future, but the basic question is, which future?''

C'mon, gimme a break! The future is now!

Posted 11/04/2002 11:54:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Defying the Times

Republicans gain seats in House? Lose seats?

I feel like a kid waiting for Christmas. Or outside the dentist's office.

Posted 11/04/2002 10:50:00 AM by The MinuteMan

I Solve The Problem At The SEC

Must I do everything around here? Look, Harvey Pitt has to go. Replace him with his son, Brad. There be no fall-off in credibility, and the press conferences will be a lot more interesting. If televised.

Posted 11/04/2002 10:45:00 AM by The MinuteMan

I Am a Wrestling Fan

My little secret? NO! I was at a charity fundraiser Saturday night. Linda McMahon of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment gave a nice talk, and one of the guests was Rod van Dam (In wrestling circles he is, evidently, "the whole F'n Show").

So, shake the hand of the man who shook the hand of Rod van Dam. Oh, just touch your screen, then. Long after he could have politely left, RVD was mingling and chatting with the guests. He turned out to be funny, interesting, very approachable, and a great ambassador for the sport. Well, the entertainment. He also wrote some hefty checks to support the cause. Salute!

Posted 11/02/2002 04:14:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Hats Off to Michele

From the InstaPundit we learn that Michele of "A Small Victory" is having a bit of a public relations challenge. We will let her tell it:

"Alrighty. Now four people have taken me off their links list and publicly announced it."

Seems a bit rude. Your thoughts, Michele?

"I'm 40 years old and this is grade school all over again, when Gloria told everyone that she hated me, so of course everyone else came out of the woodworks to hate me, too. It's like bringing your lunch into the cafeteria and realizing that there's nowhere to sit because no one will make a space for you.

Well, I have some grade-schoolers, too. And I sense your anger.

But I am not a rush-to-judgement type of guy. There are always two sides to a story. My guess is somebody had a good reason. I happened to track this fellow down with Google. His thoughts?

"I do like Michele. She's a nice person, smart and witty and interesting. The problem is that lately when I go to A Small Victory, I leave frustrated and angry....

Michele, as I mentioned before, does also write at raising hell and blogcritics. Those places haven't made my head explode...yet.

Oh, sweet mercy! She made his head explode! Does her blog come with a warning label?

I will 'fess up: I am in awe of Michele's dark powers. I like to think that I have occasionally induced a bit of head-scratching. Perhaps even furrowed a brow in my time. But a full pre-frontal Vesuvius? How cool is that?

On the other hand, what do we really know about this woman? Sure, I see lots of expressions of solidarity and support in her comments. But I have a wife and kids to think about - am I in danger? What if my wife walks into the room expecting to find me at the computer and it looks like a frat house after a pizza oriented food-fight?

So, I will tread cautiously. And I suggest others do as well, at least until we know more. A bit of a heads-up - while you've still got one.

Posted 11/02/2002 07:59:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Is This a New Feature?

Am I blogging with invisible ink?

Posted 11/02/2002 07:29:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The Last Boy Scout - Is Nothing Sacred?

Oh, for heaven's sake. Eugene Volokh posted on a fascinating story about an atheist in the Boy Scouts. Apparently, the Boy Scouts require a belief in God, this otherwise fine young man is an atheist, so out he goes. Or not, it is still being discussed. Well, Prof. Volokh does not approve:

"the Boy Scouts ought to change their policy, and it's right for people to publicly fault the Scouts for having their policy (though such faulting should keep a sense of proportion -- as wrongs go, this is a fairly minor one)."

Well, I disagree. But hold on, here comes Mark Kleiman:

"...in the end Eugene doesn't come down on the Scouts nearly as hard as I would. He doesn't call the policy by what I think is its right name: religious bigotry."

And, in a follow-up, Prof. Volokh becomes a bit sterner:

"They have a constitutional right to exclude people on these grounds. But we are right to condemn them for it."

So, condemning what Mr. Kleiman describes as religious bigotry. Pretty strong stuff.

A bit of background. The Boy Scouts of America were founded in 1910. The Boy Scout Oath starts like this:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country...

Their are twelve points to the Scout Law. The final one is:

REVERENT
A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

Perhaps the US is aberrant? No, similar faith-based languages appears in Scout Oaths and Laws around the world.

But it should not. How do we know this? Well, Prof. Volokh says so in his update:

"My point is simply that the Scouts shouldn't take belief in God as one of their core beliefs. I can understand if they only wanted devout Protestants, or some such -- that belief would at least have something to do with one's likely actions and attitudes about the world. But that just isn't true of the mere possession of belief of any intensity in any God, which is all that the Scouts demand."

Which clears up that puzzle. They have had a religious component to their oranization since its inception in 1910, but they shouldn't.

Well, here is a link to the International Interfaith Centre, an ecumenical group trying to promote mutual understanding among the religions of the world. Although I am not an expert in this group's work, I infer that all religions are welcome, which is to say, the "mere possession" of a religious belief is sufficient.

Now, perhaps Prof. Volokh means that the Scout Oath is a bit of a relic, not taken seriously today as to "God", if it ever was.

From the BSA fact sheets:

The Roman Catholic Church has used the Scouting program since the early days of the Boy Scouts of America. It is one of the most extensive users of the BSA program. There are more than 351,000 Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Venturers in more than 9,600 packs, troops, and crews under Catholic auspices, and an equal number of youth members in other Scouting units. Scouting is used in about one-third of the parishes in the United States.

Scouting Serves the Jewish Community

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law .

Scouting as a Jewish Youth Group

Jewish institutions have used the Scouting program since 1916. Today, Scouting is flourishing in Jewish communities. Jewish leaders Dr. Cyrus Adler, Frank Weil, and Mortimer Schiff helped guide the development of the Scouting movement in the United States.

Scouting serves an important role in the Islamic community. Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, and Venturing crews operated by Islamic organizations can be found in major cities throughout the United States .

In 1982, the National Islamic Committee on Scouting (NICS) was formed by a group of concerned Muslims who represented many national Muslim organizations.

Scouting in the Buddhist Community

Buddhist youth have participated in Scouting for more than 75 years. Since 1920, with the formation of Troop 4 by the Fresno Buddhist Church, young Buddhists in America have enjoyed the benefits of Scouting.

Scouting in Protestant Churches

Many local Protestant churches organized Scout troops in the early days of the Scouting movement. Of the 7,375 registered troops at the close of 1915, more than 4,000 were chartered to Protestant churches, and 1,645 Scoutmasters were ministers.

Scouting in Churches of Christ

There are 13,000 Church of Christ congregations in the United States, with a total membership of 1.3 million. Approximately 600 Scout units are chartered by Churches of Christ, serving more than 15,000 youth.

Based on that evidence, I hope that Prof. Volokh will hold open the possibility that at least some of these Scout packs take the religious component of the Scout Oath and Law seriously.

Next, both Prof. Volokh seem to be worried that, if the BSA is allowed to draw lines, they might draw the wrong line - what if they excluded Catholics? Surely, that would be bad. We will let Mr. Kleiman go first:

"Now imagine that the policy singled out any other religious belief for similar discrimination: that anyone could be a Scout who wasn't a practicing Roman Catholic, for example..."

or, Prof. Volokh:

"If the Scouts excluded Catholics -- everyone else, Jewish, Protestant, or what have you is fine, but not Catholics -- we'd rightly condemn them, ....

Well, yes. One of the obvious reasons for condemning them would be that such an exclusion would stand in total contradiction to both the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. This hypothetical simply does not fit the facts - the Scouts would be, under their own code, required to accept Catholics.

Prof. Volokh recognizes the flaw in his own argument, which we see as we continue past the ellipsis:

"we'd rightly condemn them, even if they said "Rejection of Catholicism is one of our core beliefs." Likewise, I think, when they exclude atheists."

Well, if their charter said "all religions are OK except Catholicism", the BSA would certainly have some explaining to do. But atheism is not a religion ( Is it? I like to learn something new every day). It may be an admirable alternative as a moral world-view, but it is not an alternative path to God. Now, I expect that an atheist who lives a good life will be in for a pleasant surprise in the afterworld - their worst punishment will be listening to a lot of "told you sos" - but that is just my opinion.

I have no doubt that atheists can be admirable people, but they have made a choice which disqualifies them from the Boy Scouts. Now, the current BSA policy may not reflect contemporary attitudes, and it may change. But to condemn a belief that has been held consistently since 1910 seems to require some strong reasons. The argument that the Oath is not taken seriously seems to require a lot more suppoert before we can acccept it. The argument by counter-example with the Catholic Church seems untenable. Let's see what else Prof. Volokh offered in his original post.

"the Scout policy doesn't even exclude atheists -- an atheist can be a Scout so long as he pretends to religiosity, and keeps quiet about his atheism. Dishonest atheists are allowed; honest ones are excluded. Pretty counterproductive, I think.

Well, point one of the Law - a Scout is trustworthy. This is largely self-enforcing. Lying about one's religion would be a violation, which is how this story got started.

"excluding people, especially if you're a charitable organization, for no good reason is not a nice thing to do.

It's rude to the excluded person, because it tells them that there's something bad about them; it's not just "We want to promote Catholic ideas, so we'd like to have a place where Catholics can raise their kids in a Catholic environment," but "We're happy to have our kids around virtually everyone, except those who hold your beliefs." It conveys a harmful idea, which is that there's something uniquely bad about professed atheists "

No. It teaches them they are different. They have made a choice (or their parents have) which excludes them from certain activities. Different is not bad.

Different hypothetical - a concerned young man, back in 1998, says, look, this "trustworthy, a Scout will not lie" thing troubles me. I respect Bill Clinton, I think his defenders make many good points, I can imagine situations where lying under oath is appropriate, I can not accept this "trustworthy" requirement as part of the oath.

Let him in anyway? Is he a victim of political persecution if he is disqualified? Will he be made to feel bad? People make choices and deal with them. Doesn't make them bad people. Every Hannukah I explain to my very disappointed kids that no, we are not Jewish, they don't get eight days of gifts. Life goes on, and then we have Christmas and, later, Easter.

OK, final hypotheticals, or perhaps, rhetoricals. The Scouts revise their laws and oath to allow atheists. Does scouting then mirror the debate over religion in the public schools? Scouts have guidelines for presenting ecumenical services - must an atheist attend? If he rises to a leadership position, is presenting such a service one of his duties that he must perform? Can he be elevated to leader if he refuses to perform these duties? Can Scouts continue to meet in Church facilities? And, as in the public schools, one wonders - can Scouts pray?

Now, there is an interesting issue to all this as regards state support, use of public facilities, and the establishment of religion. I at least am a new arrival on a well-trod battlefield. The modernizers and the traditionalists have been sluugging it out for years, and will continue to do so. In fact, we are probably noticing a sympathatic case developed by the modernizers. Several years back, the local council promoted this young man to Eagle Scout despite his assertion that he was an atheist. Well, no good deed goes unpunished - yesterday's exception is tomorrow's guideline, and this young man is being used as a wedge to force a revison of guidelines everywhere.

Now, amongst Prof. Volokh, Mr. Kleiman, and myself, we all agree that this exclusion is legal - a quick review of the Supreme Court opinion on "gays in Scouting" makes that clear, or take their word for it. However, to condemn the exclusion of atheist? I strongly disagree. If the Boy Scouts were being invented today, they might very well adopt similar language - church and religious leaders evidently value the organization as another way of appealing totheir community. Or, they might not have that language. But they do have it, and it does not strike me as so unreasonable as to merit condemnation, or even to be considered as rude.

Posted 11/01/2002 11:26:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Let's Just Settle This Now

OK, Andrew Sullivan says the Simon ad is gay-baiting. Mark Kleiman agrees. Orrin Judd says, no way. Pretty heavy thinkers. So, to add my piece of lint, let me first repeat a bit of the ad in question. This has been run in Latino districts in support of Simon for the California gubernatorial race .

"The 30-second Spanish-language radio ad, paid for by the Republican Party of Glenn County, features the dinnertime conversation of a couple identified as Panchito and Lupita. Over a plate of enchiladas, the couple discuss a laundry list of problems with Democratic Party.

"I am scared that Democrats are supporting abortion . . . and they are teaching our children in the schools that homosexual practice is OK," says the male voice, "instead of using those hours to teach them to read and write."

OK, I do not know the specifics of what is being taught in California schools. But my very first reaction to this ad is "Well, aren't they?" In NYC, there was a furor when a school board introduced "Heather Has Two Mommies", meant to promote understanding of lesbian couples. I presume California to be at least as progressive in intent, and I expect there are some dissatisfied parents as a result.

So, out in California, is it not the case that, from time to time, schools promote the notion that homosexual practice is OK? Teaching tolerance, yes? And perhaps there is some question as to the priorities of the educational system, as suggested in the ad.

So if Republicans decide to test the reaction of Latinos to this particular educational concept, is that not why we have public policy discussions? Who is being smeared by this? Who has been outed? What is the innuendo? What is the allegation? Where is the gay-bashing? Or is any disagreement with this agenda "gay-bashing"?

Look, this ad may be stupid. It may backfire. Teaching tolerance in schools makes sense, and I wonder whether this is a calm and sensible method of broaching a difficult subject. But why don't Democrats stand up and say "Damn right we do, and proud of it!"?

Or, as Orrin wonders, is this something we just don't talk about?

Posted 11/01/2002 10:41:00 AM by The MinuteMan

We Update "A Day At The Races"

The "Today Show" has not called.

Posted 11/01/2002 06:13:00 AM by The MinuteMan

That Powder Isn't Green

Someone tell Hollywood.

Posted 10/31/2002 01:23:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Bellbottom Blues

No, the bluesy bit isn't that they look ridiculous. Actually, that is not a bug, that's a feature - it's Halloween!

And I understand that the fact that I can actually find these things after lo these decades lapsed might merit a bit of self-examination - what do I value, what do I cling to, why can't I Just Let Go?

But we don't have time for deep thoughts - the unexamined life may not be worth living, but the fully examined day will never be completed.

No, our issue is much broader - how did I ever, ever fit into these things, and where is my card to the YMCA?

Happy Halloween!

Posted 10/31/2002 01:18:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Leadership: It's About Making Choices

Or maybe it's about promoting your agenda. Hmm. Maybe it's about telegenics. Hard to decide.

And it's not just me who can't decide. Let's hear from the late (to the race), great Walter Mondale, in his acceptance speech last night:

"He quoted the biblical verse, "To every thing there is a season," and said: "Fate has thrust upon us a double season, it is both a time to break down and a time to build up."

Well, he must be right once. At least. I suppose.

Posted 10/31/2002 01:00:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Safire Delivers

Safire answers our questions about the mysterious Mohammed Atta and the Prague connection. My man:

"...Because the C.I.A. had refused to interrogate Al Qaeda assassins captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, I had a hunch that our spooks' overly eager "discreditation" of the Czech report was misleading..."

And now, following the "Havel called Bush", "Havel didn't call Bush" byplay:

"...it's time for a follow-up hunch. I suspect that the coterie around President Havel — the great former dissident we all admire — despises the prime minister, the interior minister and the Czech intelligence agencies. In Havel's name, that weakening coterie misled a fine reporter and lashed out at the rest of the government's officials by making them out to be publicity hounds of war. Why? The dispute about Atta's visits to Prague and contact with Iraq is not about Middle Eastern intelligence; it's only about middle European politics."

Well, that is clear. Or, I am sure it would be if I had opened the same Chinese fortune cookie Safire did.

Posted 10/31/2002 12:52:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Why Is It Always Political?

SO, I am continuing my parental due-diligence by watching "Birds of Prey" with my twelve year old. Huntress, the super-powered Baddy-Bashing Beauty has, you may be interested to know, met with a fashion consultant. Now, she dresses for fights in, well, fighting clothes. Something I might wear to the gym, she wears to kick ass - good for her! The disco wardrobe is saved for, we presume, the disco. An unexpected ray of light.

But not my point! Last night's show revolved around some poor kid/adult/geezer with a weird disease that caused accelerated aging - roughly eighty years in three days. It's not all bad - everything he buys comes with a lifetime guarantee. But the highlight was the big finish, when he ages about twenty five years in two minutes. Man, I thought I was watching the Senate races in New Jersey and Minnesota. Where is the Fairness Doctrine now?

Posted 10/30/2002 11:17:00 PM by The MinuteMan

This Will Be Interesting

Check out No War Blog. The goal is to present a range of views across the political spectrum opposing the war in Iraq. I am firmly of two minds on this. I support a war against Saddam (Sully approved construction, there), but I can not say I found the national debate to be particularly edifying.

So, check it out. With luck and skill, it will be a valuable forum for sensible debate. Or, it may become an intriguing sociological exercise. Go, read, contribute.

Posted 10/30/2002 10:50:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Darn It! This Equipment Is Expensive!

Pat Leahy just broke my Irony Detector. We may have a real humor blackout here until it is fixed. (YES, this is a new development, I resent that "what else is new" guff). Anyway, the killer quote came here, in response to a Bush plan to change the judicial confirmation process:

"Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., in a Friday letter to the president, complained that the White House has chosen to "politicize" the judicial selection process to "create a partisan campaign issue."

Uhh, here in my section of the time warp, keeping control of the Senate in order to rein in Bush's judicial selections is one of, if not the, central motivators of the Dem side in this election. Is that not partisan, or am I confused?

And have we not moved past this idea that politics should not be "politicized" or "partisan"? Oh, forget it.

Posted 10/30/2002 02:58:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Drift From "The Picture" to "The Memorial"

As to the memorial, outrage. Two issues strike me:

The Fairness Doctrine: this memorial was broadcast, evidently live, as "news". As a political rally, it would have been covered very differently. Atrios calmly explains why this does not matter.

The campaign moratorium: the two sides had agreed to suspend campaigning until after the memorial. Story, and killer Dem quote:

"In a letter to [Rep.] Eibensteiner Monday, [Dem.] Carlson wrote that "the sensitivities of the Wellstone family should be respected." He also wrote, "I understand your desire to get on with politics. However, I would respectfully request that the Republican Party cease issuing debate challenges, etc., and wait until the Democratic Party has named its candidate."

Which is happening this very Wednesday morning.

So, remember Paul Wellstone any way you want. But I am surprised to think that he would want to be remembered as a man who broke his promises, and side-stepped campaign rules. All of this could have been avoided by "ending the truce", agreeing to resume campaigning, and billing this as a memorial rally. All of it.

UPDATE: Hmm, the head of the Wellstone campaign seems to be leaning this way.

"In the wake of the controversial memorial service for Sen. Paul Wellstone Tuesday, the head of the Wellstone campaign apologized Wednesday for the event’s sharply political tone."


OK, I have my "Dark Force" Decoder Ring working. Why did he apologize? Is he a stand-up guy who made a mistake? Or is he trying to head off the TV people?

And it is worth remembering - the good people of the great state of Minnesota will have a chance to comment on this next Tuesday.

Posted 10/30/2002 11:36:00 AM by The MinuteMan

If The Shoe Fits...

Wear it, and walk tall. When Jeff Hauser gets his new site, he will have easy time-stamps, and I will be green with envy. Meanwhile, he points to this cartoon as the story of his life. Worth squinting over.

Posted 10/30/2002 11:28:00 AM by The MinuteMan

"You Want Me On That Wall"

Follow the links, and wonder with me - what was this guy thinking? He made Susanna mad, he paid the full price, and for what? Next time, buddy, go with Plan B - it can't be worse, and it will introduce some variety.

Oh, a housekeeping note - if you link to Susanna'a archives, you miss the comments section. Hmm. Well, at least you will know what story you are looking for if you want to come in the front door and comment.

UPDATE: She is resisting the power of the Dark Side.

Posted 10/30/2002 06:46:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Instant Grief Analysis

Atrios was critical of this comment by the InstaPundit. Gentleman, we have walked this road before, complete with Clinton-bashing for faux-emotion.

UPDATE: When Worlds Collide: I am currently getting more hits from Atrios than from the InstaPundit, both of whom have linked. May I say one thing? I am afraid to look. If I had any guts, I would get out from under my desk and see what they said. Just give me a minute.

OK, time for a forceful statement. I did not think of Wellstone, per se, when I saw the picture of Carter and Mondale laughing together. My first thought was "Clinton must have forgotten about the cameramen, here we go again". My second thought was, this pic needs a little explanatory dialogue. So, my suggestions:

(1) "Walt, you'll be a great candidate. You're not even as old as Lautenberg."

(2) "Hey, did you hear your old boss won the Nobel Peace prize?"
"Yeah, I wonder if he knows about North Korea?"

And, if they bring in a righty from the bullpen, I am ready:

(3) "The Treasury Secretary says the economic figures look pretty good."
"Well, the economy would be even better if Paul O'Neill hadn't retired".

And, a final thought, which will exhaust me on this subject. It passes as a word to the wise to the Dems, and it is "Reap what you sow". It is a sad fact that Ronald Reagan is an old, sick man who might, because life is so damn funny, die in the fall of 2004. In which case he may confound the Constitution by being elected to a third term.

UPDATE 2: Oh, final, not final, whatever. Nathan Newman has a good piece on why Wellstone's memorial had to be a political rally. But below that is a post that, beyond being interesting, has a computer generated graphic that any drug-law liberalizer could love. Check it out, and then explain it to me.

Can't stop. The Man Sans Q is unhappy. Orrin Judd drops the gloves. And a few stories have noted that both campaigns had agreed to suspend campaigning through Tuesday, and that the memorial was given three hours of expensive TV time. So, celebrate him as you wish - if that includes breaking a promise to your opponent, and exploiting the sometimes blurry line between legitimate news and partisan campaigning, so be it.

Posted 10/29/2002 05:29:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Strange Things Happen

So says the InstaPundit. But did he notice this "Day at the Races" story?

Oh, you know one explanation - how many "Pick Six" events are there each year? How many do you read about? Do newspapers report all the incidents when lightning does not strike?

But I know better - he hacked the system. The clock changeover has something to do with it, even though the races were on Saturday. That's my longshot. If I'm right, it's the "Today" show for me!

Posted 10/29/2002 02:02:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Wow! This Will Be The Last Word On Krugman and Income Inequality

Well, until the next time. From Andrew Kling at Tech Central Station:

"In fact, most economists who examine the income distribution do so because they worry about how to eliminate poverty, not how to eliminate wealth. In making the argument that disparities between the highest earners and median matter in a society with a prosperous middle class, Krugman is breaking new ground.

Hmm, I had put that slightly differently: After the Clinton boom years, Democrats are fretting about how to achieve growth and general prosperity without anyone actually getting rich.

Posted 10/29/2002 11:57:00 AM by The MinuteMan

The Political Pros Take Over

There is, after all, an election to win.

Posted 10/29/2002 09:13:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Here Is A Forceful Statement Of The Obvious

Well, obvious to me. A much simpler explanation - we are a reasonable people who do not rush to judgement - totally eludes the reporters.

Posted 10/28/2002 02:24:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Did the WaPo Bury The Lead?

The anthrax investigation is getting a new look. So says the Old Crow, who has survived the first wave of the baffling assault on right wing bloggers noted below.

Now, here is the lead paragraph, and deep in the story, my candidate for hysterical scare headline:

"A significant number of scientists and biological warfare experts are expressing skepticism about the FBI's view that a single disgruntled American scientist prepared the spores and mailed the deadly anthrax letters that killed five people last year...."

Instead, suggested Spertzel and more than a dozen experts interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks, investigators might want to reexamine the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism..."

And you will not be surprised that the state in question is Iraq. An Administration leak?

"The Defense Department and FBI refused repeated requests from The Post to discuss recent developments in the anthrax investigation."

OK, it was on the front page, so the WaPo did not bury the story. Well, there is at least a chance they know what they are doing. And the NY Times endorsed Bush's approach to the UN!

UPDATE: In answer to a reader's question, yes, I do read these stories, a lot of the time. And yeah, I kind of noticed this, and yes, it is sort of odd. Sort of. But judge for yourself:

"The FBI acknowledged that the sender may not have been a native English speaker but emphasized that there was no "direct or clear" link between the attacks and foreign terrorism.

More recently, investigators appear to have abandoned the idea of an amateur attacker, but they continue to focus on a lone, domestic scientist, probably an insider...."

Really? That hardly squares with our sense of the Bush Administration, as described here:

"Bush administration officials have acknowledged that the anthrax attacks were an important motivator in the U.S. decision to confront Iraq, and several senior administration officials say today that they still strongly suspect a foreign source -- perhaps Iraq -- even though no one has publicly said so."

Posted 10/28/2002 02:11:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The InstaPundit Down?

Om my goodness, sheep without a shepherd! Now we are going to get flocked! Could this be a left-Blog pre-election counterinsurgency? Can Sullivan survive?

While I refesh the tin-foil lining in my Yankees cap, let me say one thing - I voted for Carter in '76! AND, Clinton in '92! OK, that's two things. Anyway, Safire went for Clinton too, if you read his pre-archival columns carefully, although how can you? And as for all those times I said "Never again", well, never say never again. People can change. I can change. Oh, mercy.

UPDATE: Damn, when I'm right, I'm right.

Posted 10/28/2002 12:29:00 PM by The MinuteMan

OK, It Can't Be Made Any Easier Than This

And time will tell who has failed, and who's been left behind...

Posted 10/28/2002 12:20:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Drezner on Bush, the NY Times, Carter...

Well, Drezner on a roll.

Posted 10/28/2002 12:04:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Am I Joining In, Or Predicting?

Re: "Melissa Rules": A bit of whimsey from Sully, right?

Posted 10/28/2002 11:40:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Get Your Ice Skates

Last week, Paul Krugman had Part One in a NY Times magazine series about wealth in America. This week, Michael Lewis has Part Two: "In Defense of the Boom". The Times makes a Very Interesting choice of authors - I have had a bit of a motto at this site: "How Many Trees Must Die In Vain - before the Times gives Krugman's space to Michael Lewis?". Not "Blogger delenda est", but still, a straw in the wind?

The blogosphere reviews are piling up. Are they? Well, here is Charles Dodgson. A bit of head-scratching at TAPPED. And I expect I will say something eventually. One dark obsession at a time, that is the editorial policy around here.

Posted 10/28/2002 12:46:00 AM by The MinuteMan

All Saddam, All The Time

This news might prompt Saddam's surrender. Give him the Condit treatment! Or, really jazz the ratings: give OJ a mike, and let him continue his relentless pursuit of the real killers right in Saddam's bunkers. Have the audience vote one weapons inspector off the team each week. "You are the weakest nuclear engineer - good-bye." Oh, this could be big.

Posted 10/28/2002 12:11:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Just Take Two Aspirin and Call Me Angel In The Morning

The Angels win the World Series. If this had happened a week ago, I would have celebrated by driving down to Washington DC and pumping some gas. Now, I am at a bit of a loss.

Posted 10/27/2002 09:36:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Now, Why Can't I Manage To Speak Like This?

This story on the sniper raises the bar on clear communication:

"...the investigation turned on a series of cryptic communications between the sniper and the police. "You are dancing with a guy and you know the lights are out and you don't know where the edge of the dance floor is," one senior government official said in an interview earlier this week."

Huh? Was Mike Taylor a suspect?

Posted 10/27/2002 07:19:00 PM by The MinuteMan

We Provide The Ritual Denunciation

Oh, Hillary, throwing red-meat to the crowd at a fund-raiser!

"At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been "selected" president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue. "You know, I'm a fan of Clintonomics," she told the crowd while standing from a perch on the staircase of movie producer Alan Horn's art-filled Bel Air home, "and this administration is destroying in months our eight years of economic progress.' "

Well, several points:

Roe v. Wade was "selected", not "elected", or more properly, made into law by elected representatives.

Secondly, as to Clintonomics, the stock market peaked while old Bill was in office. But set that aside. Since we are still darkly obsessing on income inequality, we can predict some good news: When the stats are available in a few years, we will surely see that the stock market collapse has reduced income inequality in this country after the surge in inequality under the previous administration. Bushnomics works!

UPDATE: Hey, welcome back to Jesse from Pandagon. In a bit of a role reversal, I seem to have given him a bit of indi"Jess"tion. I provide something like a clarification in the post above.

Posted 10/27/2002 07:10:00 PM by The MinuteMan

The Partisan Nature of Politics

OK, first, a comic.

Second, we continue to mull over Prof. Krugman's concern that politics have become increasingly partisan as wealth has become more concentrated in this country.

Here is an interesting quote from our "not to be doubted" NY Times:

"Since at least 1992, when Bill Clinton won the White House by, in part, appropriating traditionally Republican issues, the nation's two political parties have increasingly sounded the same notes during campaigns.

If the Republicans were left at the gate in 1992, they have surely caught up this year, blurring the lines on everything from prescription drug coverage to corporate malfeasance to the handling of Social Security.

Democrats and Republicans are lamenting the prospect of another election with low voter turnout, but in truth, they have only themselves to blame. What initially had been seen as a clever, if perhaps cynical, gambit for political advantage has ended up giving voters a choice between beige and brown."

Well, something for everyone: If politics is more partisan, gerrymandering and safe seats may be a part of it.

How any of this reinforces Prof Krugman's thesis eludes me. But hey, it's only the Times.

Posted 10/27/2002 01:04:00 PM by The MinuteMan

Truth Takes a Holiday

We admire Jeff Cooper. But check this:

It's inevitable that, as election day draws nearer, partisanship is going to increase... . At a time like this, I think it's unrealistic to expect that people are going to engage in extensive criticism of those who fall, roughly speaking, on their side of the political divide.... if a Democratic commentator is reluctant to criticize the flaws in a Democratic candidate for fear of assisting the campaign of an even worse Republican, I'm not going to throw stones.... At this point, I'm much more concerned with keeping control of the Senate than I am with reforming the Democratic Party; as far as I'm concerned, we can return to that long-term project two weeks from today.

Oh, I'm just having fun with my "Creative Excerpter"; it makes more sense when he says it. I have noticed a distinctive leftward drift over at Kausfiles. Of course, motion is relative.

Posted 10/27/2002 12:55:00 PM by The MinuteMan

I Don't Have The Stomach For This

Oh, game six of the World Series was going beautifully. Not only were the hated Angels, a subsidized "small market" team owned by Disney, losing, but they were doing it with style - offering no resistance through six innings, and seemingly poised on the brink of total humiliation and abject submission. Excellent! 44,000 Angel fans could watch the Giants dance on the Angels home field. Oh, how great would that be?

Instead, what happens? Three runs in the seventh, three more in the eighth, and the Angels win 6-5. In style! A gritty comeback, showing patience and character.

And what about the Angels fans? These clowns can't figure out how to cheer so they give them those Thunderstix. They can't figure out when to cheer, so the management has to have a "rally monkey" jump around to remind them there is a ballgame underway. Oh, man, if the Angels win the decisive game tonight, will these undeserving lamers even know that it's time to celebrate? Or will they just sit in their seats, spanking the rally monkey? This is not going well.

Posted 10/26/2002 11:57:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Weekend Relief

I have a short, snarky comment about an Egyptian television series, a death march through Prof. Krugman's NY Times magazine article, and then back to Friday.

Posted 10/26/2002 11:52:00 AM by The MinuteMan

Must-See TV

Anti-Semitic 'Elders of Zion' Gets New Life on Egypt TV

An Egyptian satellite television channel has begun teasers for its blockbuster Ramadan series that its producers acknowledge incorporates ideas from the infamous czarist forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." That document, a pillar of anti-Semitic hatred for about a century, appears to be gaining a new foothold in parts of the Arab world, some scholars and observers say.

The series, "Horse Without a Horseman," traces the history of the Middle East from 1855 to 1917 through the eyes of an Egyptian who fought British occupiers and the Zionist movement...

The "Protocols," which purports to depict Jewish leaders plotting world dominion, has long been recognized as a fabrication by the czarist secret police. It was used in early 20th-century Russia and in Nazi Germany as a pretext for persecution of Jews. Still, the show's backers say they are keeping an open mind about its authenticity. They say that in any event, reality seems to bear them out, in that Israel controls part of the Middle East.

In a way, don't they dominate?" said Hala Sarhan, Dream TV's vice president and feisty personality on the air. "Of course, what we read from the `Protocols,' it says it's a kind of conspiracy. They want to control; they want to dominate. I represent everybody in the street. We will see whether this happened throughout history or not."

...An Egyptian government spokesman, Nabil Osman, rejected criticism of "Horseman Without a Horse."

So, watch for it - "Horseman Without a Horse" - although it looks like they have at least found the horse's ass.

UPDATE: OK, the name of the show flip-flops during the Times story. I figure my chances are 50/50 when they edit their site.

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

My Open Letter to Prof. Krugman

Dear Professor Krugman;

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

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

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

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

Your introduction is as follows:

We are now living in a new Gilded Age…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Saez/Pikkety:

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saez and Pikkety mention this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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








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

Our prayers and condolences to their family and friends.

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

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

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

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

Prayers and Good Luck To Putin In Moscow

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

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

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

So Much To Do, So Little Time

Interesting headlines for their columns today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Baseball Moment

George Vecsey picks a great World Series moment:

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

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

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

A Gothic Mystery

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, here is the St. Pete quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, Jane G Is a Genius, Too

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

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

The Non-Story About the Non-Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increasing Crime? Eroding Civil Liberties? Mais, Non!

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

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

GOTCHA!

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

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

Connect Enough Dots...

And you go dotty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Did Not Know This

And Google-News barely knows it either.

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

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

"Noelle Bush could be your child"

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NY Times on Atta and the Prague Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogging: Unto the Next Generation

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

Go, MinuteKid!


The Patriots Declare Freedom from the British

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

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


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


Crazy Colonists Announce Independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Are Pleased To Present A Solution to This Problem

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

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

The K-F Plan

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

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

Why not tie together a response to both phenomena?

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

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

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

The practical idea is this:

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

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

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

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

Predicted Result:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The French Have A Word For It

Bush said what?

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

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

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

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

In Which I Salute The Swedish Troll


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

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

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

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

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

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

Really. You could look it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Krugman and Inequality

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

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

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

Free Legal Advice for Andrew Sullivan

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

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

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

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

Central Park Jogger - More Time

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

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

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

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

What Was North Korea Thinking?

So wonders the Times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, here is a well informed deep thinker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Safire Took a Bad Czech

Fascinating story in the Times:

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

The Times coyly adds this:

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

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

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

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

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

Riding the Tiger - Dismount to Follow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Krugman Delivers A Left Dream Sequence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euro-follies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for German reactiom, let's try this:

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

Subtly worded, but they seem to be unhappy.

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

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

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

Tom Friedman: The New Face of Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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