3LinDC

2003-05-25T21:00:00.000-04:00

Graduated

On to the bar.

2003-05-10T21:14:00.000-04:00

Outer Banks Bound

All of the 3LinDC bloggers will be heading to the Outer Banks this week for some (hopefully) well-deserved R&R.

As a result, no blogging for the next several days -- although I doubt anyone will actually miss us.

2003-05-08T14:41:00.000-04:00

Senior Death Discount: Republicans Eager to Kill Elderly

Quick... Phil, call the AARP. They need to know about this article from the N.Y. Times:

[The] Bush administration [has a] policy to base some regulations on a calculation that the life of each person older than 70 should be valued less than the life of a younger person . . . .

Instead of the traditional assumption that all lives saved from cleaner air are worth the same, administration officials in two environmental studies included an alternative method that used two values, $3.7 million for the life a person younger than 70 and $2.3 million for an older person, a 37 percent difference.

This Bush administration policy is the ?senior death discount.? Applied to air pollution regulations, the senior death discount means that the air senior citizens breathe is 37% less valuable than the air breathed by younger citizens.

This is hideous, insidious, and sinister. Here is why:

1. The senior death discount makes no economic sense. We all breathe the same air!! Life expectancy calculations may make sense in the context of medical resources such as rare organs for transplant operations. Human organs are discrete, distinct, and rare commodities. Nevertheless, the senior death discount makes no sense whatsoever in air pollution.
2. The senior death discount makes no environmental sense. We all breathe the same air!!
3. The senior death discount enables the administration to turn on older Americans as a rationale to weaken environmental regulations.
4. The senior death discount blatantly devalues the lives of older citizenry to raise money (from polluters) for the Bush 2004 War Trust. That's filthy!! Go elephants!!

Comments??

2003-04-29T22:29:00.000-04:00

Inclusiveness -- What it Means to be a Democrat

CBS News daily Internet column Washington Wrap reports:

The Democrats aren't so inclusive when it comes to Lyndon LaRouche. The perennial presidential candidate says he's planning to run again but South Carolina Democrats will not allow them in their debate this Saturday.

"It's my call," Democratic state chair Dick Harpootlian told the Charleston Post and Courier on Monday. Democrats say LaRouche is neither a Democrat nor a legal voter.

LaRouche blamed former Democratic National Chair Don Fowler, a South Carolinian, for the snub. Fowler has said in the past that LaRouche wasn't a bona-fide" Democrat because he held views that were "explicitly racist and anti-Semitic." In 2000, he wasn't registered to vote, and he has spent five years in jail.

That's funny -- nobody seems to be questioning whether Al Sharpton is a "bona-fide Demorcrat" even though he has a clear history of being anti-Semitic and racist. What about Robert Byrd -- would he be allowed in this debate if he were running for President? I think he may have expressed some "explicitly racist and anti-Semitic" views at some point as well. Now I think LaRouche is a nut job as much as the next guy, but if the "racist/anti-Semitic" standard is applied to Democrats in this debate, at the very least, an arguement could be made that Kucinich (anti-Semitism), Mosely-Braun (anti-Semitism/racism) and Sharpton (anti-Semitism/racism) should not qualify as "bona-fide Democrats." Oh, and don't forget that Reverend Al has also spent a significant amount of time in jail. Nobody has said that he can't come to the debate.

I blog -- you decide.

2003-04-29T09:57:00.000-04:00

Hillary's Got a New Book Coming Out

From Inside Politics:

Publisher Simon & Schuster is betting millions of dollars that the reading public will be breaking down the doors of bookstores to buy Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's memoir when it comes out later this spring.

The list price for the book, according to Amazon.com, is $28.

The book, which took two years to write, will be billed as a "complete and candid" accounting of her years in the White House, from the health care debate to her husband's impeachment to the start her own political campaign in 2000.

"Complete and candid," and no doubt absurdly self-serving.

2003-04-25T12:08:00.000-04:00

I Support Any and Every Gun Control

Phil, I don't know enough about the robbery in NE last week to comment on that issue, unfortunately. I do know about the shooting in Red Lion, PA, where a middle schooler killed his principal in front of roughly 700 class mates or so and then killed himself. Your comments suggest that, man, if only the principal had packed heat in school himself, he could have prevented the teenager from killing him. Or even better, he could have blown away the teenager before the youth had an opportunity to hurt himself publicly. If every teacher, principal, guidance counselor, and lunch aide walked around school with an AK-47, that would really deter school violence. (This is sarcasm.)

Additionally, I do not see any possible unconstitutionality in the DG gun law. Yes, the bad guys have guns. No, the innocent victims of violent crime do not. How is this unconstitutional? (You can save this for after finals if you want. Note that I am not defending the constitutionality of gun laws either right now, and don't plan to think about it until after finals.)

I also want to use this opportunity to criticize in the strongest possible terms the ludicrous House Bill indemnifying gun manufacturers from citizen suits. This extra-judicial hamstringing of judicial remedy-making is unfair, unnecessary, and generally assenine. Courts can decide for themselves the extent of gun manufacturer liability for urban crime, the costs of policing gun crime, exorbitant hospital emergency medical room expenses, and the other woes associated with rampant gun violence. If you want unconstitutionality, start with the House's preposterous bill. I'll sleep better at night (NOT) knowing that the Gun manufacturers have bought the United Stated House of Representatives.

Cheers, Jaime.

2003-04-24T20:05:00.000-04:00

DC Gun Control -- Unconstitutional?

Robert Levy has a great essay on National Review Online about a woman named Shelly Parker. Shelly Parker is a longtime DC resident who is constantly threatened by drug dealers who live near her home because she has the courage to call police on them. Because she is a law abiding citizen, she does not keep a loaded gun in her home. In fact, under DC law, any gun in her home must either be dissembled or in a trigger lock. I doubt her tormenters feel constrained by these same laws.

You should read it, it is quite powerful.

Also, after reading Levy's piece I was reminded of the triple homicide/robbery of a popular restaurant in NE DC last week near Catholic University. The perpetrators of that heinous crime no doubt knew that anyone they encountered in the restauarant would be unarmed (because in DC it is illegal to carry a gun anywhere). They had no fear of being injured in the robbery, and as a result, we more than happy to do it. Like it or not, if the bad guys thought for one minute that someone in that restaurant was in possession of a gun, they probably would have not come in like they did. These gun laws cause innocent deaths every year. When are the DC politicians gonna wake up to this fact?

2003-04-22T09:45:00.000-04:00

It's Finals Time

As a "3L in DC" I must pass my three finals in order to graduate. As such, posting will be light for the next ten to fifteen days (that is, unless something really annoys me). Let's hope Tim Robbins and Martha Burk keep their mouths shut so I can study.

2003-04-16T00:17:00.000-04:00

I Don't Like to Pick on Jaime, But...

The other day, Jaime gave us a post entitled "Unfinished Business" in which he observed that their is much work left to be done in Iraq, and that this work has been made much more difficult be the Bush Administration's lack of foreign policy acumen. He made eight points which I reproduce below in their entirety (in italics). My response to each point is also included.

1. The coalition was a patchwork team of countries that in no way represents global unity or will.

The coalition of the willing included 49 countries as of March 27. Among them were: African nations Ethiopia and Eritrea and predominantly Muslim nations Albania, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. We had support from every populated continent. Hardly a patchwork.

2. France and Russia have provided the world anti-American leadership that has been a spoiler to U.S. diplomatic goals. France and Russia do not presently show any signs of relenting to the U.S. They are working against the U.S. because we have made them our diplomatic enemies. Regardless of their economic or military might, they are world leaders, and they are using their position of leadership to burden the United States. The longer things continue like this, the more difficult compromise becomes.

Actually, Russia has quickly backed away from supporting France. An article in the Telegraph (thanks Instapundit) yesterday reported the following:

The anti-war coalition of France, Germany and Russia seemed to be crumbling yesterday after President Vladimir Putin put out a series of conciliatory signals to America. Senior Russian officials told the Izvestia daily newspaper that the Kremlin has "no illusions about any long-term perspectives for the axis"... The source added that Russia never expected any long-term principled position from either France or Germany.

Other reports indicate that Russia is considering all of the eight billion dollars in Iraqi debt that it is currently carrying in order to improve relations with the United States.

3. There is intense jockeying throughout the world for the billions of dollars of contracts related to the rebuilding of the U.S. The fractiousness of the Security Council members right now

You bet there is. And you know what? The people who helped free Iraq will rightly get first dibs on the contracts. This whole "let the UN rebuild" movement is nothing more than a way to get France's dirty little hands back in the cookie jar.

4. Arab moderates around the world are disgusted with the U.S. for attacking Iraq. After 9/11, many moderates began to question the underpinnings of Arab society with new force. They are the best hope within Arab society for stable, Arab-led democratic movements. It would be positive for the U.S. to promote stronger ties with them. Now, they’re fed up with the U.S. More importantly, the war has caused them to lose ground within Arab society to more radical elements.

As I noted above, several Muslim countries will members of the coalition. Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan provided material support to the war effort. Arab moderates are not disgusted with us -- unless you consider moderate the extremists on the streets of Cairo. Second, what if any evidence do you have that "moderates" have lost ground within Arab society to more radical elements? I have seen nothing of the sort. In fact, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has recently picked a reformist cabinet. (Which was, of course, rejected by that asshole Arafat.) Sounds to me like the more moderate elements have been emboldened by the U.S. action.

5. The war destabilized the U.N. Before this war, there was global sympathy for the U.S. because of 9/11. The Bush administration could have removed Saddam Hussein with true global support if it had practiced more intelligent diplomacy. More Colin Powell and less Rumsfeld/Chaney/Wolfowitz. Ultimately, a multi-national body of consequence is vital to world order. The U.N. better serves U.S. interests than those of any other country. The U.N. does a lot of good. The world needs it. So does the U.S.

The U.N. has always been unstable. Any sympathy we had from 9/11 was lost as soon as we went into Afghanistan to exact our revenge. Jaime, you allege that the Bush Administration could have removed Saddam with true global support if only it would practice more intelligent diplomacy (by the way, notice the "Bush is stupid" slant to this comment – won’t you guys ever learn?). You suggest that more Powell, less Rumsfeld is the answer. Yet, when Powell took the diplomatic route at the U.N. he was treated with the utmost of disrespect, and has widely be called a failure for it (take, for example Sen. Dachle's comments to that effect). Do you really think he could have changed anybody’s mind if given additional time? You offer no suggestion as to how Powell would have accomplished removing Saddam, nor do you offer any timetable for an "intelligent diplomacy" plan to work. One thing is for sure, though. If we followed the "intelligent diplomacy" that you suggest, hundreds of children would still be in the "Children's Gulag" that we liberated in Iraq the other day. As for the necessity of the U.N., you make assertions, but offer no reasons why the U.N. is good and more importantly, why the U.S. needs it. That the U.N. is vital to American interests is not entirely clear to me. We certainly did not need their help in this war -- nor will we need their help in this peace.

6. Iraq is an ethnically fractious amalgamation of lots of different tribes and peoples. There is a clear expectation now that the U.S. succeed in getting these groups to work together. Failure to do so will amount to a U.S. failure.

First of all, they are not tribes anymore than different races/religious sects are tribes in this country. Second, are you really saying that if we don't get the groups to work well together, then they are not better off than they were while living under Saddam Hussein? The simple fact that he is gone means success. Providing a framework for a new Iraqi government that respects human dignity and freedom will mean additional success.

7. Turkey is an unpredictable force on Iraq’s northern border.

Actually, the Turks are entirely predictable. As long we say that we'll kick the crap out of them if they go in, they will not go in.

8. Only time will tell whether other world leaders who aid and abet terrorists will hear the message that Bush attempted to send. The flipside of this war is that developing WMD (especially nuclear) may be the only way to prevent the U.S. from invading.

Time is already telling us. First, we have North Korea coming to the multi-lateral table for talks on the U.S.'s terms. Second, Palestinian Authority PM appoints a reformist cabinet. Third, a high-profile Iranian conservative calls for a reexamination of Iran's relationship with Israel. Fourth, Belarussian dictator Alexandr Lukashenko has agreed to allow human rights groups back into his country after a two year absence.

Jaime, I encourage you to respond to my response (with facts, not ad hominems).

2003-04-15T08:01:00.000-04:00

Developments in North Korea -- I'm Right Again

With all due respect to my good friend Jaime, he and his leftist views have been again disproven in the area of foreign policy. Yesterday it was reported that North Korea has made it known that it wishes to resume multilateral diplomatic talks with the United States government and the Bush Administration.

Back in early March, Jaime wrote the following:

There are steps the U.S. can take to improve the situation, and the Bush administration is declining to do them. The first step that we can do is open direct dialogue with the North Koreans. This is the only way to beginning building trust. Although the Clinton administration's relationship with North Korea wasn't perfect, it was a lot better than what we are doing now. At least we were communicating with North Korea then. I have never understood what there is to gain from breaking off dialogue with an entire nation. North Korea wants to develop diplomatic and economic ties.

Second: just negotiate, stupid. Negotiation alone will not convince Kim Jong Il to quit his enrichment of uranium. Nevertheless, negotiation contains more potential for a good ending than our current, alarming, and rapid escalation of hostilities between North Korea and the U.S.
...
They are willing to say, "NO" to the U.S. The Bush administration needs to a better job of decreasing tension with North Korea and reopening dialogue.

I responded by noting that North Korea was a rogue state and should be treated accordingly. I also pointed out that any negotiation should occur only on our terms. More specifically, I said:

I agree with Jaime that this situation is very delicate and will eventually require direct engagement with the North Koreans. I disagree, however, in his assertion that doing so now would improve the situation. He argues that we must do so in order to build trust. My question is this: Why do we want to build trust? The North Koreans have proven time and time again that they are anything but trustworthy.

Basically, I think we need to play hardball here. Yes, the North Koreans are rattling a pretty loud sabre, but I think that fundamentally, even with the nuclear weapons they possess, they are a toothless tiger. Their belicosity stems from their realization that their country is starving and soon will implode. I say we step back, let them become more and more desperate, and eventually, they'll realize that it is a lot more fun to be friends with America than enemies.

Well, what to you know? They appear to have seen the light. If we had followed Jaime's course of action, we'd be negotiating with North Korea directly, and they would now know that in order to gain the respect in the international community that comes with direct, high-level talks with the United States, they need only threaten to send a few nukes across the border to Japan. Instead, the Bush Administration wisely insisted that we would only speak to the North Koreans through their neighbors in the region. Basically, we called their bluff -- and won.

Come to think of it, Jaime, you and I should play some poker some time.

2003-04-12T14:25:00.000-04:00

They Still Don't Get It

Jaime has a very interesting post below that outlines the challenges that the coalition forces face as we move forward in Iraq. Although some of his points are misguided (I'll address these points in a future post), he does a nice job of demonstrating that most of the work still is before us rather than behind us.

Nevertheless, I was just pointed (by Drudge) to a story in the rabidly anti-American left-wing newspaper known as the Guardian. In it, former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix complains that the United States wasn't fair to him. Here is the text below:

War against Iraq was a foregone conclusion months before the first shot was fired, the chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has claimed.
In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign.

Letting rip after months of frustration, he told the Spanish daily El Pais: "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the [weapons] inspections."

Mr Blix said Iraq was paying a "a very high price in terms of human lives and the destruction of a country" when the threat of banned weapons could have been contained by UN inspections.

The 74-year Swedish diplomat made clear that he believes he was misled by President Bush. At a White House meeting last October Mr Bush backed the work of Unmovic, the UN inspection team.

But at the time Mr Blix knew "there were people within the Bush administration who were sceptical and who were working on engineering regime change". By the start of March the hawks in Washington and London were growing impatient.

He said he believed that finding weapons of mass destruction had been relegated as an aim and the main objective had become the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Here is what I don't get. Assuming everything that he says is true, what exactly is the problem? Let's look at what he alleges:

1. "The United States and Britain planned the war well in advance." So what? That's how wars happen. You plan them, then you execute them. Even if we had capitulated to the naysayers and not gone to war, it would have been irresponsible not to have at least developed a war plan in case we had eventually gone in.

2. "this raises doubts about their attitude to the [weapons] inspections." Like that's news or something. The U.S. made it entirely obvious and clear as far back as last September that we were dubious of the ultimate effectiveness of weapons inspections. I remember Cheney saying on Meet the Press that he doubted that they would work. As usual, he was correct.

3. "Iraq was paying a "a very high price in terms of human lives and the destruction of a country" Oh, come on Hans. Saddam killed as many as 1 million innocents purposely. We killed several hundreds innocents accidently -- all while taking the utmost care not to harm them. Why is the price that the Saddam Hussein inflicted upon his people somehow less than the price that we inflicted?

4. "there were people within the Bush administration who were sceptical and who were working on engineering regime change." Again, why is this a bad thing? Can't we all now agree that the Iraqi people truly wanted to be liberated from the death grip of Saddam Hussein? Weren't the celebrations in the street at least compelling evidence of that fact? You just don't get it.

Finally, I should say that it is entirely possible that Blix's remarks, when put into context, are not nearly as ridiculous as the Guardian makes them sound. The Guardian has a habit to twisting story into some sort of a slam on the Bush Administration. Blix may have just been stating his view of how the war developed out of the inspection process. Either way, someone on the left is being silly here.

2003-04-12T14:00:00.000-04:00

Unfinished Business

The liberation of Iraqis so far has been wonderful and a clear military victory for the United States and the coalition. Nevertheless, Phil and his cronies are equating this military victory with global vindication of Bush foreign policy. I do not think that this is the case, either domestically or abroad. The Bush administration still has a lot to deliver, and we will see that Bush diplomacy has made real success in Iraq more difficult. By real success, I mean the creation of stable Iraqi governance that is democratic and respects the human rights of both men and women.

The war has produced some positives. It eliminated the government of Saddam Hussein. It demonstrated yet again U.S. military power. It has sent a warning to countries that aid and abet terrorists that the U.S. is serious about preemptive strikes against terrorists and those that harbor them. It allowed the world to see Iraqis rejoicing at the downfall of Saddam. It produced a lot less civilian casualties than doomsayers predicted. It also

The problem with these accomplishments is that they are only part of the larger task. The next part is rebuilding. The war and the diplomatic efforts before the war have started many alarming trends that will increase the difficulty of rebuilding Iraq.

1. The coalition was a patchwork team of countries that in no way represents global unity or will.
2. France and Russia have provided the world anti-American leadership that has been a spoiler to U.S. diplomatic goals. France and Russia do not presently show any signs of relenting to the U.S. They are working against the U.S. because we have made them our diplomatic enemies. Regardless of their economic or military might, they are world leaders, and they are using their position of leadership to burden the United States. The longer things continue like this, the more difficult compromise becomes.
3. There is intense jockeying throughout the world for the billions of dollars of contracts related to the rebuilding of the U.S. The fractiousness of the Security Council members right now
4. Arab moderates around the world are disgusted with the U.S. for attacking Iraq. After 9/11, many moderates began to question the underpinnings of Arab society with new force. They are the best hope within Arab society for stable, Arab-led democratic movements. It would be positive for the U.S. to promote stronger ties with them. Now, they’re fed up with the U.S. More importantly, the war has caused them to lose ground within Arab society to more radical elements.
5. The war destabilized the U.N. Before this war, there was global sympathy for the U.S. because of 9/11. The Bush administration could have removed Saddam Hussein with true global support if it had practiced more intelligent diplomacy. More Colin Powell and less Rumsfeld/Chaney/Wolfowitz. Ultimately, a multi-national body of consequence is vital to world order. The U.N. better serves U.S. interests than those of any other country. The U.N. does a lot of good. The world needs it. So does the U.S.
6. Iraq is an ethnically fractious amalgamation of lots of different tribes and peoples. There is a clear expectation now that the U.S. succeed in getting these groups to work together. Failure to do so will amount to a U.S. failure.
7. Turkey is an unpredictable force on Iraq’s northern border.
8. Only time will tell whether other world leaders who aid and abet terrorists will hear the message that Bush attempted to send. The flipside of this war is that developing WMD (especially nuclear) may be the only way to prevent the U.S. from invading.

My point is not to belittle the accomplishments of the U.S. military. This has been a stunning military victory. My point is that Phil and co. need to temper their “I love Bush and I love myself” rhetoric with some reality. To be successful in their foreign policy, the Bush administration needs to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure and establish the framework for viable democratic governance. To date, Bush's military victory has done its part. But his diplomacy has more than hurt his policy goals.

2003-04-09T23:51:00.000-04:00

Can Anyone Name Anything that the Antiwar Crowd Hasn't Been Wrong About?

I mean, seriously, is there a single thing that these folks haven't completely gotten wrong?

They said: We'll be viewed as conquerors, not liberators.
I (and other like-minded people) said: Wrong, the Iraqis will celebrate the day Saddam is gone from power.
What actually happened: They love us.

They said: The Iraqis will hate us because we are likely to kill innocent women and children in the war.
I said: Saddam tortures children for sport.
What actually happened: We freed a "Children's Prison" today. Yes, that's right. There was a prison for children under Saddam Hussein. Oh, and the Iraqis love us, because they evidently agree with the great state of New Hampshire: "Live Free or Die."

They Said: We (i.e. the U.S.) are the terrorists.
I said: Can you say anything more stupid if you tried?
Outcome: Well, it wasn't us faking surrenders, driving truck bombs through check points, stockpiling chemical weapons, and murdering non-combatants who refused to take up arms with us. So I guess maybe the bad guys were actually the terrorists here.

They Said: It won't be worth the loss of life.
I said: Sometimes in life, freedom has a price. Fortunately, there are people unlike these protestors who are willing to help pay the price.
Outcome: It hasn't been easy, and sacrifices have been made. But, I don't think you'll find many in the streets of Baghdad who don't think freedom was worth what they've been through the past 3 weeks.

They said: We did not send in enough troops -- Rumsfeld and Cheney are idiots because they refused to allow the military to bring in more personnel.
I said: Rumsfelds and Cheney are two of the most wise, experienced, mature, non-egotistical people in government service today. We, as a nation, are blessed to have them.
Outcome: Advantage chickenhawks.

They said: Our forces will be bloodied and crushed in the urban combat of Baghdad.
I said: It could happen, but I'm sure we'll think of something.
Outcome: We thought of something -- and it worked.

They said: War is always wrong.
I said: Only if you don't mind living in tyranny.
Outcome: No more tyranny in Iraq.

Are these people ever going to admit they got it wrong? Are they going to admit that they were wrong when they fought Reagan's defense build up that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union? Are they going to admit that they were wrong when they voted against the first Gulf War? Are they going to admit that they were wrong when they refused to support this war? Are the going to see that they ARE WRONG when they argue that the United Nations should take the lead role in rebuilding Iraq?

Of course they won't. That would require some amount of humility, maturity, and basic understanding of human nature. If they haven't got it by now, they never will.

2003-04-09T23:35:00.000-04:00

The Best Thing Anyone Said to Me Today

My good friend Ed, in discussing the liberation of Iraq said the following:

Sorry France, but you're not a world leader.

So short, but oh so sweet.

Update: Kelly & Jaime, note the corrected spelling. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm an idiot.

2003-04-09T11:44:00.000-04:00

Baghdad is Liberated -- God Bless America, God Bless the Iraqi People
OK, so I just got done watching thousands of Iraqis celebrate the dismantling of a Saddam Hussein statute in the middle of Baghdad.

Yet, in the face of such obvious joy on the part of the formerly oppressed peoples of Iraq, some people here still did not get it as recently as last week:

In a letter to the editor of the Winston Salem Journal dated April 8, some genius named Mark H. Smith wrote the following:

Our troops are not liberators but perpetrators. America's armed forces are committing a crime against Iraq and against the world community.

I'd love to see Mr. Smith try to make this argument to the celebrating masses in Baghdad today. I doubt that they share his view.

2003-04-08T17:46:00.000-04:00

Got Spam? Here is What to Do!

Antispam activist claims victory

By Lisa M. Bowman
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
April 8, 2003, 11:43 AM PT

An antispam activist who posted a purported spammer's contact information on his Web site is claiming a legal victory. Francis Uy said a Maryland state judge refused the Internet marketer's request to remove his address and phone number from the site.

Uy, a Web coordinator at the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University, said he posted the address and phone number of George Alan Moore Jr. on his "Maryland's most wanted spammers" list to give the Internet marketer a taste of his own medicine. Moore's company, Maryland Internet Marketing, hawks products including Fat-N-Emy and Extreme Colon Cleanser via email.

Moore responded to the posting by suing Uy, claiming harassment. In a handwritten filing submitted to Maryland's lowest court, Moore claimed that as a result of the posting, he received 70 products and 200 magazines via the mail that he did not order and was subject to about five threatening phone calls a day, including one that said, "We are watching you." Moore said that Uy acted "in a persistent pattern of conduct, composed of a series of acts over time, that shows a continuity of purpose to harass."

But on Monday, a judge disagreed, Uy said, ruling that Uy did not violate the state's harassment laws in part because he posted true information about Moore's business contact data on his site. Uy plans to keep the site up and running.

Uy said he decided to post Moore's name on the Web after receiving a message from him offering what appeared to be an unauthorized copy of a Norton Antivirus product. Uy said he often tries to track down sources of spam, particularly looking for those that originate in Maryland. On his site, he urges people to sue under Maryland's antispam law.

I know we pretty much all hate spam -- but have no idea what we can do about it. This seems like a good start, provided that nobody threatens the spammer as alleged....

2003-04-07T20:56:00.000-04:00

Predictions of the Far Left

OK, so it might be a little early, but let's see how the prediction I referenced here made by Mr. Jimmy Walter is holding up.

You may recall, he said back on March 12:

Jimmy Walter, president of the foundation, said the purpose of the ads was to turn public opinion against a military campaign against Iraq.
"We are trying to create a practical utopia. And that can't be done in a world full of terrorists and a collapsed economy, which would result if we attacked Iraq." he said.

Well, we've attacked Iraq. Has the economy collapsed?

Dow Jones Industrial Average on March 12: 7552.07
Dow Jones Industrial Average on April 7: 8300.41

Evidently, an economic collapse in the eyes of the far left involves a stockmarket that goes up 10% in inside of a month.

2003-04-03T08:49:00.000-05:00

NY Times Bias Watch

Although I don't really read the NY Times enough to regularly criticize their slanted news coverage, I noticed an something that might consitute bias in a story about the conflict between Fox News and MSNBC. The story, by a fellow named Jim Ruttenberg, covers the "battle" between MSNBC and Fox News over the various indiscretions made by Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera. Its actually pretty interesting how these guys are running commercials that seem to rip into each other pretty hard.

Up until the very end, the story seems balanced -- but then, in the final sentence, Ruttenberg writes:

Fox News Channel is the top-rated cable news network. MSNBC has lagged behind in third place, but it has had significant improvements since the war began.

Reading this sentence, we are is left with the impression that MSNBC is gaining on Fox News in the TV ratings race -- an impression that is grossly inaccurate. In fact, according to this article in the L.A. Times, all three major news networks have quadrupled their audience since February. Why do I consider this bias? Because Fox is generally known as the more conservative network (although I think they are pretty fair as a rule because they tend to allow both sides of the story to be heard). Thus, the take-away message here is that Fox is on its way into the toilet.

I maybe be reading too much into this simple statement. But even if it is simply an innocent mistake/oversight, I find it rather typical that the mistake sheds a favorable light on the more ideologically liberal news station, at the expense of the "conservative" news outlet. I wonder whether (assuming that Ruttenberg is liberal) his subconscious hope that Fox News will not continue to dominate the ratings, caused this sentence to come out the way it did.

Again, I may be nitpicking here, but as I said before, its hard to imagine that a relevant fact that would shed a positive light on MSNBC would have been left out of the story.

2003-04-03T08:27:00.000-05:00

DC in the Spring Time -- Nothing Better

It's 8:23 AM, and I'm sitting outside on the law school patio blogging via a wireless connection recently set up by the school. I'll tell you what, spring time in DC is fabulous. Cherry Blossoms on the way (although I must confess I've never bothered to go see them in my 8+ years year), perfect temperature highs of around 70 with not a cloud in the sky.

Yeah, I know San Diego is like this year round, but I think that maybe I can appreciate it more because in about 45 days it will probably be in the 90's and feel like a sauna.

2003-03-28T21:43:00.000-05:00

Law School Softball -- Big Stuff

My co-blogger Justin and myself will be heading to the University of Virginia for the annual Law School Softball tournament. There are 108 teams currently entered from law schools as far away as San Diego, CA. Last year, our men's team did not do very well, but they intend to turn it around this year. I play on the co-rec team. Last year we won 4 and lost 2, which I think was good for a tie for seventh out of 40-something teams.

I'm optimistic that we can do better this year if we don't get rained out. UVA wins it every year, so I'll probably be reporting the result on Monday, but who knows maybe someone will get lucky and steal a couple of games from them....

UPDATE: We tied for fifth among 60+ teams. We lost to crosstown rival Georgetown. All in all, not a bad showing.

2003-03-26T22:04:00.000-05:00

Former Sen. Moynihan Has Died

May he rest in peace. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one of the few Democrats I would have never hesitated in voting for. He was a true intellectual -- not the kind of intellectual we conservatives sneer at -- but rather, a thoughtful, passionate man who was principled to the very end.

The world will miss his wisdom and courage.

2003-03-26T06:42:00.000-05:00

I Can't Wait to See What PETA Has to Say About This

Dolphins enlisted to locate mines in Persian Gulf

By Sarah Shiner

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Navy has deployed a key natural resource to the Persian Gulf: 75 mine-hunting dolphins. The mission of the California-based U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, as part of the Navy Special Clearance Team ONE, is to comb the waters for mines to provide safety for ships, including those containing humanitarian aid and cargo, said Tom LaPuzza, public affairs officer of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego.

Using their highly sensitive biological sonar, the dolphins locate the mines and alert handlers so that divers can disarm the explosives, he said. The mammals are incredibly effective, Mr. LaPuzza said.

"They don't miss anything," he said. "If a mine is there, they will find it. Nothing gets by them." Mines will not detonate when the dolphins swim by, Mr. LaPuzza said. They can identify small objects at great distances and note tiny differences in sizes.

That is very cool. Also, in response to the inevitable letter from PETA that criticizes this practice, I suggest the following:

Dear PETA Member,

I understand your concern for the safety of the dolphins in our program. You may be correct that in your belief that animal life is more important than human life. Accordingly, we would like to offer members of your organization the opportunity to save these dolphins from this cruel and risky work by replacing them in the field. PETA members can place their lives on the line so that the dolphins may be saved.

If you or any other member would like to volunteer, please contact the Navy immediately, and we'll get you some enlistment papers.

Sincerely,

Uncle Sam

p.s. Prior to enlisting, you may want to purchase some life insurance.

2003-03-26T06:25:00.000-05:00

Ali G Translates this Blog

Here. Check it.

Here is a sampling from Jaime's post below:
This:

I was just watching the PBS special on George Wallace. George Wallace was the governor of Alabama who was the South's preeminent statesman for segregation and against civil rights in the 1960s. PBS showed a clip of George Wallace railing against "pinkos running around doing nothing." Sounds quite a bit like Phil railing against liberal protestors in DC, eh? Phil, check yourself before you wrickety wrickety wreck yourself.

Translates to:

me was just watchin da PBS special on George Wallace. George Wallace was da governor hof Alabama who was da South's preeminent statesman fer segregation hand against civil rights in da 1960s. PBS showed a clip hof George Wallace railin against "pinkos runnin around doin nothing." Sounds quite a bit dig Phil railin against liberal protestors in DC, eh. Is it coz I is black? Phil, check yourself before me Uncle Jamal wrickety wrickety wreck yourself.

according to Ali G.

Respec.

2003-03-25T22:53:00.000-05:00

French Military = Iraqi Military?

Yes, according to Gregg Easterbrook of the New Republic:

Saddam's professional army is now fighting like it doesn't plan to give up--exactly as the French fought in the early days of the Nazi attack in 1940. And that makes perfect sense: Saddam's professional army doesn't yet have to give up because it still has men and materiel. But every day it will have less of both, while every day the United States has more, as more forces enter the region. France in 1940 went from determined resistance to collapse almost without warning. This may still happen to Iraq, just not the in 48 or 72 hours that commentators foolishly predicted.

I'm not sure who should be insulted here, the French or the Iraqis. If I were either, I'd be disheartened by the comparison.

Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.

2003-03-25T09:36:00.000-05:00

More on Protesters:

I don't think the question is lazy just counterproductive and missinformed. I don't think breaking windows, shutting down businesses, stopping traffic (including emergency traffic) and otherwise invoking threatening demonstrations is something to praise. Taking thousands of police away from their normal jobs and requiring them to baby sit protesters who often become violent is not productive. It is a sign of people who cannot accept others who do not agree with them. It is one thing to write letters to the editor, hold signs on the sidewalk, wear a slogan on your shirt or pass out leaflets. That is fine but much of the liberal protests often become violent.

For a group that screams tolerance and acceptance they have had a hard time practicing that. I am sure this is a small group of people that just spend their days protesting everything- but these are the only protesters I saw near the Whitehouse this weekend. I saw no discussion let alone serious discussion (besides hey hey ho ho the fill in the blank has to go). Are we really relying on the protesters to provide a serious debate. You should have watched the senate debate or the debate we had since November 2002 or since 1991. Debate is fine but when you lose on the merits don’t turn to violence. Most of us learned not to throw fits to get our way when we were children. When talking does not work for some liberal protesters, because many disagree with them, the excuse for drastic protests is always to “get the message out.” The issues of debate are obvious to everyone without the need for citywide disruptions. Open a newspaper.

By the way, in reference to Phil’s post and presumably the one Jamie is responding to: “The Ugly (and Stupid) Face of the "Peace" Movement" for those of you who listened, I didn’t hear any protestor answer how leaving Saddam in power will bring peace to a place where almost 2 million have already died at his hands. Where is that discussion?

2003-03-24T22:02:00.000-05:00

Striking Parallel!!

Many conservatives like to run their mouths. It's true. One drum that some of them particularly like to beat is that liberal demonstrators are lazy. Thay they ought to do something worthwhile with their time. That standing on the street and demonstrating for X cause has no merit.

I was just watching the PBS special on George Wallace. George Wallace was the governor of Alabama who was the South's preeminent statesman for segregation and against civil rights in the 1960s. PBS showed a clip of George Wallace railing against "pinkos running around doing nothing." Sounds quite a bit like Phil railing against liberal protestors in DC, eh? Phil, check yourself before you wrickety wrickety wreck yourself.

Some demonstration/protest has merit. 10 kids blocking a major intersection at rush hour to perform a "Die-In" may be assenine, immature, and counter-productive. Nevertheless, some of the peace protests have certainly been purposeful and stimulated real dialogue. So there.

2003-03-22T15:54:00.000-05:00

Human Shields See the Light -- When Will Anitwar Demonstrators?

National Review's indispensible Corner pointed me to the following story from UPI:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Oh yeah, sure we're not viewed as liberators by the Iraqi people.

I hope that when this is over, people take note of just how wrong world opinion was, and how right America was.

2003-03-22T07:16:00.000-05:00

Post War Iraq -- Part II

I guess this somewhat answers my question from two posts below about what would happen to lower ranking officers:

IRAQI conscripts shot their own officers in the chest yesterday to avoid a fruitless fight over the oil terminals at al-Faw. British soldiers from 40 Commando’s Charlie Company found a bunker full of the dead officers, with spent shells from an AK47 rifle around them.
Stuck between the US Seals and the Royal Marines, whom they did not want to fight, and a regime that would kill them if they refused, it was the conscripts’ only way out.

Someone please try to tell me again that the Iraqi people do not want us there.

2003-03-21T16:34:00.000-05:00

The Ugly (and Stupid) Face of the "Peace" Movement

If you want to know why I view most of these "peace" protesters with such disdain, just listen to this.

Seriously, you need to click the link above.

UPDATE: Thanks to Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online for the pointer.

2003-03-21T16:20:00.000-05:00

Post War Iraq

I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but I've spent some time thinking about the situation that will emerge after Saddam has been finally ousted and the Iraqi military has completely surrendered. Some people have said were should rebuild Iraq in the same way that we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII. Ideally, this would be the case, but I see some key distinctions that will make it impossible.

First, what will happen to those who were complicit in Saddam's regime, yet chose to surrender early in the war? I'm talking about "middle management" -- low ranking officers who carried out orders of the evil Hussein regime, but then surrendered to American forces at the outset of this war. Will they be tried as war criminals? Will those who were liberated exact revenge on these low ranking officers in such a way that destabilizes post-liberation Iraq? Will it be a blood bath?

Something tells me that it won't be, but I am not sure if people will be able to forgive and forget. Controlling the revenge-takers could prove to be the greatest challenge to building a post-Saddam Iraqi democracy.

2003-03-20T13:47:00.000-05:00

War Has Started -- A Few Observations

1. Saddam might be dead already. If true, damn we're good.
2. Fox News is reporting that Senior Republican Guard leaders have already contacted U.S. forces in order to surrender.
3. Evil will lose.
4. Our stuff (i.e. weaponry) is way better than anyone else's stuff (outdated crap).
5. I walked through the war protesters on H Street near the White House yesterday. They smell baaaaaad. Is there some rule that says you can't protest a war and take a shower in the same week?
6. All the protestors were moved from Pennsylvania Ave. (directly in front of the White House) to H Street (about a block away) except for the crazy lady who wants to ban all nuclear weapons. If you've walked by the White House in the last 21 years, you should know who I am talking about. She has maintained her 24/7 vigil since 1981. I think she's crazy, but I have a lot of respect for her committment. Evidently, by letting her stay, so does Secret Service.
7. NCAA tournament games have moved from CBS to ESPN (owned by ABC/Disney). I wonder how that deal got worked out?
8. God Bless our soldiers. May they come home safely and undamaged.
9. God Bless the Iraqi people. May they finally be able to enjoy a life of freedom and dignity.
10. God Bless America.

Oh, and f#ck France.

2003-03-19T09:28:00.000-05:00

This is Too Funny

2003-03-18T23:21:00.000-05:00

The Range Resource – Big ranchers are ripping us off.

Cattle grazing on federal land is one of the most discouraging (and maddening) areas of natural resource law. Grazing occurs on over a quarter of a billion acres of federal land, a land area 2 1/2 times that of California. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under the auspices of the Department of Interior, controls 180 million of these acres. Particularly in the lower 48 states, BLM land is arid scrubland. Although historically BLM lands were seen as wastelands, today it is generally recognized that BLM lands possess immense scientific, environmental, scenic, and recreational value.

Grazing on public lands is wasteful and destructive. The aridity of BLM land indicates its inherent and fundamental unsuitability for cattle grazing. Nevertheless, 90% of BLM land is operated for cattle ranches. There are three environmental consequences of this grazing. 1) 70% of western water is used to grow fodder for cattle. There are better uses for this water. 2) The intensity of cattle grazing on these public lands causes rapid desertification. The UN targeted the western US as a “major risk” for desertification. Only one other area in the world received this designation: sub-Saharan Africa. 3) Cattle tend to concentrate near the few creeks and streams that course through these lands. These areas are the most environmentally important and the most sensitive. They take the hardest hit.

Grazing on public lands is also bad economics. Between Forest Service and BLM lands, the federal government permits grazing for forage on 268 million acres of public land. Despite this huge acreage, the public rangeland provides only 7% of the beef cattle forage and 2% of the total feed consumed by beef cattle nationally. Only 2% of our beef comes from public land! All this destruction and waste for 2%!
Furthermore, 90% of BLM is controlled by large operators. These operators own in fee small base ranches adjacent to vast tracts of federal land. The value of the base ranch depends entirely upon the continued availability of federal lands. Does BLM charges these cattle barons market rates? No! BLM’s grazing fees grazing fee do not recover the cost of BLM’s direct expenses for covering even the permit program. BLM’s grazing fees are ¼ of the fee charged by private owners and 1/3 of those charged by states. Thus BLM’s grazing fees are well under the market price. In addition, BLM performs range management programs such as chaining, controlling prairie dogs, predator control programs, and herbicides. The elimination of these subsidies would more than compensate for any raise in the price of beef stemming from the reduction or elimination of cattle from public lands.

BLM has a duty to care for these lands. Congress mandated that BLM manage its lands for “multiple use and sustained yield.” FLPMA § 1732(a). This is not happening. Congress also stated that BLM “shall take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” FLPMA § 1732(a). It is noteworthy that among all the land management agencies, only FLPMA has this authority. BLM is failing to achieve its mission and hemorrhaging federal funds in the process. The courts have deferred to BLM “expertise” no matter how shoddy. Judicial review of BLM decisions is nonexistent because western district judges refuse to be “range masters” and consider eliminating grazing on federal land “unthinkable.” NRDC v. Hodel (D. Nev. 1985).

History, myth, and a strong lobby have granted large ranch operators a stranglehold on public lands. Their cattle grazing wastes water, wastes money, and destroys priceless environmental resources. Ranchers argue that they know how to care for rangeland better than anyone, and they probably do. While they practice sustainable grazing on their own ranges, however, clear scientific data show that these ranch operators abuse public rangelands mercilessly. The history of public rangeland is a tragedy of the commons. It is time for BLM to do its job.

Any thoughts?

2003-03-13T17:22:00.000-05:00

It Makes No Difference to Me Whether Saddam Had Anything to Do With 9/11 -- He Needs to Go

I am getting sick and tired of hearing the liberal line about how we should not go to war in Iraq because no Al Queda link has been proven and no weapons of mass distruction (WMD) have been unearthed. As far as I'm concerned we don't need evidence of either to justly proceed with this war.

Why? Let me give a few reasons. How about this one:

HORRIFYING details of the torture Saddam Hussein is accused of perpetrating against his own people were revealed yesterday.

Researchers preparing an indictment of Saddam for crimes against humanity detailed evidence of torture, murder and ethnic cleansing from witnesses in northern Iraq.

Their report included eyewitness accounts of prisoners being killed by being fed through industrial shredders and children gassed in jail.

Or this one:

The star witness against the government of Iraq hobbled into the room, her legs braced with clumsy metal callipers. "Anna" had been tortured two years ago. She is now four years old.

Her father, Ali, is a thick-set Iraqi who used to work for Saddam's psychopathic son, Uday. Some time after the bungled assassination of Uday, Ali fell under suspicion. He fled north, to the Kurdish safe haven policed by Western fighter planes, but leaving his wife and daughter behind in Baghdad. So the secret police came for his wife. Where is he? They tortured her. And when she didn't break, they tortured his daughter.

"When did you last see your father? Has he phoned? Has he been in contact?" They half-crushed the toddler's feet. Now, she doesn't walk, she hobbles, and Ali fears that Saddam's men have crippled his daughter for life. So Ali talked to us.

or this one:

A witness saw Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, murder another man some years ago, before the assassination attempt left Saddam's oldest son half-paralysed and impotent.

As Uday was turning into the car park, a tennis ball came over the fence and bounced against the car of a woman he desired.

The tennis player came into the car park to retrieve the ball, apologised to the woman. Maybe there was a bit of flirting - that does happen at tennis courts, even in England.

From his car Uday watched the two of them. Enraged, he took out a wooden cosh and beat the tennis player's brains out. And then - get this - a few days later, the dead man's relatives apologised to Uday for the distress their son had caused him.

or this:

"If someone didn't break, they'd bring in the family," Kamal explained. "They'd bring the son in front of his parents, who were handcuffed or tied and they'd start with simple tortures such as cigarette burns and then if his father didn't confess they'd start using more serious methods," such as slicing off one of the child's ears or amputating a limb. "They'd tell the father that they'd slaughter his son. They'd bring a bayonet out. And if he didn't confess, they'd kill the child."

Any questions?

2003-03-12T09:19:00.000-05:00

Predictions of the Far Left

I've always been amazed at how the mainstream media lets Democrats and other left wingers get away with crazy predictions of doom and gloom that wil result from following the policies decisions of Republicans and other conservatives. 3LinDC is going to attempt to track these predictions and see how they come out. Our first prediction comes from Mr. Jimmy Walter, the president of the Walden Three, a group that, among other things, wishes to impeach Secretary of State Powell. They have taken out several full-page advertisements in the Washington Times over the past few days against the war and the Bush Administration. Here is what Mr. Walter recently had to say:

Jimmy Walter, president of the foundation, said the purpose of the ads was to turn public opinion against a military campaign against Iraq.
"We are trying to create a practical utopia. And that can't be done in a world full of terrorists and a collapsed economy, which would result if we attacked Iraq," he said.

Well, I guess we'll have to see about that collapsed economy that will result when we attack Iraq.

2003-03-11T19:13:00.000-05:00

Welcome Aboard Justin E.!

Well folks, another co-blogger among us. Mr. Justin Endres from the great state of Indiana!!

Welcome aboard, Justin.

2003-03-11T19:09:00.000-05:00

North Korea Is a Rogue State - And Should Be Treated Accordingly

Jaime provided us with a thoughtful post a few days ago regarding the Bush administration's treatment of the North Korea situation. I won't pretend to know more about the region than Jaime, as he lived over their for an extended period of time. Nevertheless, I think his analysis of the situation ignores a basic truth: We are good. They are evil. Call me simplistic if you want, but I challenge anybody to show that I am wrong. Let me offer up some evidence suggesting that I am correct in my assessment:

In the far north of North Korea, in remote locations not far from the borders with China and Russia, a gulag not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century holds some 200,000 men, women and children accused of political crimes. A month-long investigation by NBC News, including interviews with former prisoners, guards and U.S. and South Korean officials, revealed the horrifying conditions these people must endure — conditions that shock even those North Koreans accustomed to the near-famine conditions of Kim Jong Il’s realm.

At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, some 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say results in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year.

Entire families, including grandchildren, are incarcerated for even the most bland political statements.

Forced abortions are carried out on pregnant women so that another generation of political dissidents will be “eradicated.”

Inmates are used as human guinea pigs for testing biological and chemical agents, according to both former inmates and U.S. officials.

I agree with Jaime that this situation is very delicate and will eventually require direct engagement with the North Koreans. I disagree, however, in his assertion that doing so now would improve the situation. He argues that we must do so in order to build trust. My question is this: Why do we want to build trust? The North Koreans have proven time and time again that they are anything but trustworthy. Take, for example, the 1994 agreement engineered by former President Carter and the Clinton adminstration. In that agreement, we agreed to provide the North Koreans with large amount of humanitarian aid in exchange for them halting development of nuclear weapons technology. We lived up to our end of the bargain; we gave them the aid. It turns out, however, that during entire time that we were giving them billions in foreign aid, the North Korean government continued to secretly develop nuclear weapons. Now they have them, and are using them to threaten the rest of the region.

Basically, I think we need to play hardball here. Yes, the North Koreans are rattling a pretty loud sabre, but I think that fundamentally, even with the nuclear weapons they possess, they are a toothless tiger. Their belicosity stems from their realization that their country is starving and soon will implode. I say we step back, let them become more and more desparate, and eventually, they'll realize that it is a lot more fun to be friends with America than enemies.

2003-03-11T17:53:00.000-05:00

More on Estrada

I agree with Phil that politically it may be desirable just to let the Estrada nomination [or lack of] play out until the D’s feel the heat from their delay. However, it started me thinking about the debate. I noticed the Senate was thinking about the debate as well. The senate debate was divided on party lines but the issue is larger and more interesting than just party politics.

Advise and Consent:

“There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice of the president.” (Federalist No. 66).

Is the current system of requiring 60 votes for cloture to quell a filibuster permissible? Is it consistent with the constitution that 41 votes can beat 59 and hold up a presidential nominee? Is that democratic? Is it all just politics anyway?

The Constitution gives the President of the United States the role to nominate candidates to the judiciary. The chief executive should not have absolute power to appoint members of the judicial branch but his power is appropriately checked by the legislature. To keep the independence of the judiciary and curb the power of the executive the Senate has the role to advise and consent on all nominees. Is advise and consent satisfied if 41 senators could stop the nomination? The constitution specifies that:

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herin otherwise provided for….” (Art. II sec. 2).

Requiring 60 votes to get even a vote on a senator harms the delicate balance of the “advice and consent” role. Effectively requiring a supermajority on judicial nominees strengthens the Senate’s power over a simple majority. Critics of the current nominees who support the fillibuster argue that before 1917 there was no Senate rule for cloture and before 1959 the rule of cloture only applied to ordinary legislation, not judicial nominees. However, the long tradition of allowing votes on judicial nominees seems to weaken this argument. Further, the practice before a 60 vote cloture rule would effectively give each senator a veto over a judicial nominee. This may be beneficial for ordinary legislation as ordinary legislation must be initiated by the House or Senate (Art. I sec. 7) but a filibuster for judicial nominees ties up more than the purse. Filibusters hold up the judiciary and the president’s power to nominate.

Is it really “advice and consent” if 99 Senators support the nominee but yet the nominee cannot be confirmed? Further, the text and structure of the constitution indicate against such a super majority of even 60 votes. The constitution specifically contemplates in the same section a two-thirds vote for ratifying treaties. Further in other sections of the constitution a super majority for amending the constitution is specifically stated. If the advise and consent role was to require a super majority it could have been delineated by the same framers that outlined the super majority for Treaties and Amending the constitution. The absence of such requirement seems to suggest that a regular majority is sufficient for “advice and consent.”

I like the filibuster generally but I am concerned with the tactic in the area of “advise and consent” responsibilities. The Constitution gives the Legislative branch the power to initiate legislation. However, the president was given the power to nominate judges. The Senate in a sense is given the veto for judges but not the power to nominate. The interplay between the executive and the legislative branch helps to ensure an independent judiciary. However, allowing a small minority to veto a judge will in effect flip the power of nomination from the president to those few senators. Under the old rule of no possibility of cloture one Senator could have vetoed (though it seems clear the informal policy was to vote and not filibuster nominees) the nominee until his favored nominee was sent to the Senate. Today, the problem is not so acute but still a small group holds more power over who is nominated than I think intended. The president who is elected by the entire country [ok a majority of electors from the states] is best suited to nominate a judge. The Senate is to advise and consent-- yes or no. Let's vote.

I would like to hear what others think about this take on the non-vote.

2003-03-07T14:11:00.000-05:00

Bush Administration's N. Korea Policy - Not Quite Right

Here are some excerpts from a Wednesday, March 5 article in the WSJ by David Cloud and Jay Solomon:

"North Korea regards the steps it has taken to revive its nuclear program as the logical reaction to an American decision to break a deal in which it promised to give aid and pledged never to attack... In Washingon's eyes, North Korea's nuclear cheating is the very reason diplomacy and aid promsies have fallen apart... The U.S. doesn't appear to have grasped how meancing its rhetoric, and someitmes its lack of attention, have seemed to the North... North Korea experts say they believe that Pyongyang has been actively seeking to develop diplomatic and economic ties with the U.S. since 1990."

I really agree with this reporting and assessment. The crux of the bilateral tension between the U.S. and North Korea is that North Korea feels under seige and the U.S. feels tricked by a renegade nation. Nuclear weapons are heightening the tension. Both sides say they do not want to attack the other, but both sides believe that the other nation is an aggressor. Both nations feel dragged into increasingly hostile positions by the other. Trust? None.

There are steps the U.S. can take to improve the situation, and the Bush administration is declining to do them. The first step that we can do is open direct dialogue with the North Koreans. This is the only way to beginning building trust. Although the Clinton administration's relationship with North Korea wasn't perfect, it was a lot better than what we are doing now. At least we were communicating with North Korea then. I have never understood what there is to gain from breaking off dialogue with an entire nation. North Korea wants to develop diplomatic and economic ties.

Second: just negotiate, stupid. Negotiation alone will not convince Kim Jong Il to quit his enrichment of uranium. Nevertheless, negotiation contains more potential for a good ending than our current, alarming, and rapid escalation of hostilities between North Korea and the U.S.

Negotiation does not mean capitulation. Phil has already requested I respond to the thinking that if we give into North Korea now, we will send a message to every rogue state that developing nuclear weapons (or presumably any weapon of mass destruction) is a method for winning concessions from the big fat Americanos. This line of thinking is based in two misperceptions. First, it assumes that other nations will see us as so scared of countries with weapons of mass destruction that we will pay them to quit it. There is no way other countries are going to assess us in that light after our destruction of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. They better think carefully about trying to push the U.S. around. Second, most rogue states will not be in such delicate positions as North Korea. Are we really going to fight a war on the doorstep of Russia and China? Russia, China, and Japan are all allied with us in our efforts to get North Korea to quit it.

Finally, just a comment about North Korea. North Korea is a hermit nation with a lot to lose in this conflict. They are willing to say, "NO" to the U.S. The Bush administration needs to a better job of decreasing tension with North Korea and reopening dialogue.

2003-03-05T20:45:00.000-05:00

MPRE This Week - Light Blogging

I've got the MPRE on Sat., so I'm studying for that and trying to get out an issue for the journal. Thus, very little blogging.

Nevertheless, a quick thought:

Republicans filing for cloture vote in Estrada nomination: Bad idea. The precedent has now been set, it takes 60 votes to confirm a judicial nominee. When I heard this, I asked myself if Trent Lott were still running things. We caved; we were too risk averse (in some quarters, this is called being a wuss).

Why was this such a bad idea? I think its safe to say that most people side with Republicans on the Estrada nomination. I think it is also safe to say that many Hispanic voters are disgusted with the actions of the Democrats for shooting down two prominent Hispanic nominee (remember Linda Chavez?). The Republicans say that they want to get Democrats on record as voting against Estrada, and thus filing for cloture is the answer. I think that although it might be politically risky, the Republicans should not have filed for cloture, and rather let the debate keep going. We could then accurately point out (assuming a war starts in the coming days) that the Democrats found it more important during a time of war to fillibuster a Hispanic judicial nominee than to tend to our nation's security.

My guess is that the Republicans are afraid that a "shutdown" such as this one would have the same effect as the government shutdown back in 1995-96 (i.e. being blamed on Republicans, and hurting them in the next election). This is not so. The reason the Republicans were blamed was that President Clinton had the bullypulpit of the Presidency from which to blame the Republicans. Obviously, the situation has changed. President Bush now controls that same bullypulpit. Moreover, the conservative/Republican message gets out much more effectively today through talk radio and Fox News than it did then. I think it to be almost certain that the Republicans would crush the Democrats on the issue if they forced a real fillibuster during a time of war.

I could be wrong, though. Co-bloggers, any thoughts?

2003-03-02T15:28:00.000-05:00

Huh?

From the Washington Times:

A 97-year-old Italian woman has received about 900 traffic tickets for fines as much as $132,200 for driving a Ferrari and other cars, and a motorcycle around the historic center of Rome without the necessary permit. The only catch is she has never learned to drive, let alone owned a car.

Wow, this I'd like to see. But alas there's more:

The mystery was solved when Rome police detained three men, one of them a family friend, for fraudulently registering the vehicles in the pensioner's name.

2003-03-02T14:10:00.000-05:00

Eddie from Ohio - Best Live Act?

Went to the historic Warner Theatre (3rd row seats) to catch Eddie from Ohio last night. What a great show! These guys play great music, tell funny jokes, and play nice, long sets.

I can't think of a live act that I'd rather see than these guys. If you haven't heard of them before, it's because they've never signed with a major record label, choosing instead to create their own label. They've sold more than 100,000 records over the past ten years, and they often play before crowds in the thousands.

If you ever have the chance to see them, I wholeheartedly recommend that you get a ticket and catch the show.

2003-02-28T19:22:00.000-05:00

The Ugly (and Crazy) Face of the American Left

From Opinion Journal Best of the Web:

On Tuesday we noted that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are expanding the frontiers of bad taste with an ad campaign that likens chicken farms to Nazi death camps. In a letter to the editor of WorldNetDaily, PETA's Matt Prescott explains his group's position: "Tragically, those who dismiss the abuse of animals on factory farms today sound hauntingly similar to those who dismissed the suffering of Jews because they were 'subhuman.' "

Yeah, that's it -- chicken farmers = Nazi death camp guards. I think you folks at PETA are on to something.

2003-02-28T19:14:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Our Newest Blogger

In the spirit of great co-blogging endeavors (i.e. Volokh), I am pleased to announce that I have my first co-blogger, my good friend Mr. Jaime Raich. Jaime is an extremely intelligent fellow, but he has a problem -- he's a unabashed liberal. But that's OK with me, and it should be OK with everyone else. I envision a sort of point/counterpoint type dynamic between us. Should be fun.

Having Jaime here to criticize what he calls my "right-wing Rush Limbaugh extremism" will force me to sharpen my arguments and undoubtedly will produce a healthy debate of the issues.

Welcome aboard amigo....

2003-02-28T14:20:00.000-05:00

Howdy! I'm in now too.

2003-02-28T09:00:00.000-05:00

Buffy - R.I.P.?

MSNBC is reporting that Sarah Michelle Gellar is leaving Buffy the Vampireb Slayer at the end of this season. While I am sorry to see her go, I'm looking forward to the rest of what has been an excellent final season. According to the article, the show will not replace her with a new Buffy, but might create a spin off with some of the current cast.

I wonder if they'll kill of Buffy's character at the end or not. My guess - yes they will (they could always raise her from the dead again for the motion picture).

In other TV news, a new episode of Boomtown is coming this Sunday at 10:00 on NBC. For those of you who haven't yet seen this show, it is the best new show this year (well maybe second behind Without a Trace). Check it out, you won't regret it.

2003-02-25T23:48:00.000-05:00

Why Is Germany So Adamently Against the War?

This interesting story (subscription required) in today's Wall Street Journal suggests that the destruction inflicted upon German cities such as Dresdan by allied bombers during WWII makes the German people uniquely sensitive to the destruction brought on by bombing. This unique sensitivity may explain 70% opposition to any attack on Iraq, with or without the U.N..

In an article entitled "Long-Repressed Recollections of Allied Bombings Help Fuel Opposition to U.S.-Led Push for War," Chrisotpher Rhoads describes a new movement that is taking hold in Germany that views Germans as, in addition to being the perpetrators of Nazism, victims of the terrible devastation of Allied Bombers.

If you have a subscription to WSJ Online, check it out.

2003-02-25T23:32:00.000-05:00

New Traffic Record - Thanks Again to Joe Millionaire!

Eighty unique visitors today! I know its not that much, but defintely better than the 11 I was averaging three weeks ago.

Most of the traffic was brought by renewed interest in Joe Millionaire resulting from the aftermath show last night.

I must admit, however, that it's a bit disconcerting to see that many of the searches submitted to Google involving Evan and Zora that eventually led to this blog also seem to include the words "boobs" or "fetish" or "nude."

Ain't that America...

2003-02-23T14:31:00.000-05:00

The Uselessness of Symbolic Protests

I got this link from Drudge:

From the Associated Press:

An NCAA Division III college basketball player who turns away from the U.S. flag during the national anthem was jeered by flag-waving students at a road game, even while she was on the bench. Toni Smith, a senior at Manhattanville College, was booed at Mount St. Mary at a game Thursday night. Smith is protesting "that the government's priorities are not on bettering the quality of life for all of its people, but rather on expanding its own power." She has turned away from the flag all season.
. . .

Manhattanville president Richard Berman said he told Smith "what she's doing is courageous and difficult."

Let me add third and fourth adjectives to describe Ms. Smith's actions: stupid and pointless. Stupid because what she claims to be protesting makes her sound like a Reagan Republican. President Reagan always fought against the government expanding its own power. Remember how he said government isn't part of the solution, but rather is part of the problem? Pointless because her protest achieves nothing except to further illustrate the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the far left in America today. Its funny how all of these people who make symbolic protests are unwilling to do something that actually takes effort such as researching and writing an influential policy paper, or starting a letter writing campaign. The problem is that these people lack the initiative and brain power necessary to undertake something that actually will achieve a tangible result.

I walk past the White House about three times a week. Each time I see a group of women dressed in all pink outfit protesting the war in Iraq. Out of politeness I never say anything to them, but I always ask myself a a question: If these women have enough free time to stand around all day in pink doing nothing, why don't they do something productive like work in a soup kitchen or raise money for HIV/AIDS medicine in Africa or even just get a frickin' job? My guess is that it's because that would require actual effort. These woman probably commute in from Montgomery County in their nice SUV's where they live in nice big houses paid for by their hard working husbands. They've spent way too many years sitting around the house watching Oprah and their white liberal guilt has finally gotten the best of them.

2003-02-21T01:23:00.000-05:00

Is the Use of the Verb "Shafted" Proper in Newspaper Article?

I would not have thought so, but check out this article on the University of Michigan affirmative action case before the Supreme Court (thanks to SCOTUSBlog for the pointer).

Hamacher, who says he has been shafted by unfair admissions policies, believes there are hundreds of other students out there like him.

I always thought of the use of the term "getting shafted" as slang. It is an allusion, of course, to . . . well if you don't know, I'm not going to describe it here. It seems to me that using it in a newspaper article is a bit on the crass side. Or maybe not. Maybe "getting shafted" is perfectly acceptable language. Any thoughts?

2003-02-20T20:52:00.000-05:00

She May a Bit Extreme, but She Sure Is Funny

Ann Coulter's latest column, available at Townhall.com is devoted to the prospect of a liberal radio talk network. In it she includes this gem:

Among the "alternatives to Rush" that liberals have tried over the years are: former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker, former California Gov. Jerry Brown, former U.S. Sen. (and Monkey Business skipper) Gary Hart, and former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder.

The crowd attending a "Carol Moseley-Braun for president" rally last week compared favorably to the radio audiences for these guys. To be sure, conservative radio talk show hosts have a built-in audience unavailable to liberals: People driving cars to some sort of job.

If that wasn't enough, she continues:

Liberalism thrives on ignorance. Their media are "Lifetime: TV for Women," NBC's "The West Wing" and 4 billion "Law and Order" episodes in which the perp turns out to be a Christian, white male who recites the Second Amendment before disemboweling a poor minority child.

Now I happen to like "Law and Order" and haven't noticed the bias that Ms. Coulter finds. The recent hiring of former Senator Fred Thompson as the new D.A. actually supports a different conclusion. He plays a conservative (somewhat politically incorrect) District Attorney. Thus far, his character has been portrayed as wise, intelligent and extremely politically savvy.

Nevertheless, Coulter's column makes some interesting observations as to why liberal talk media has thus far failed in the age of cable television, concluding with tidbit:

Liberal persuasion consists of the highbrow sneer from self-satisfied snobs ladled out for people with a 40 IQ. This is not an ideology that can withstand several hours a day of caller scrutiny where their goofball notions can be shot down by any truck driver with a cell phone.

2003-02-19T22:00:00.000-05:00

Please Don't Take Away My Starbucks Card!!

Law.com has an article about a small inventor who claims to have patented the use of prepaid debit cards. It has sued, among others, Starbucks, Home Depot and Walmart for patent infringement. It is being represented by Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, a Chicago IP litigation boutique that (if I'm not mistaken) is known for taking cases on contingency. The Niro firm seems to win a lot of big cases, so I wouldn't be surprised to see this case actually go somewhere.

The patent (6,405,182) is titled "System for dispensing prepaid debit cards through point-of-sale terminals" and claims priority back to at least 1998.

I think this is a case to keep an eye on.

2003-02-19T19:20:00.000-05:00

Web Marketing 101 - Blog About Joe Millionaire, Increase Traffic to Your Blog

My traffic is way up today. Typically I get 8-15 visits per day (I know, it's pathetic). Today, I've already had 27 and its only 7:00 PM. Not a lot, granted, but significantly more than usual. I'd like to think the increased traffic is the result of my Fisking of Senator Byrd's speech from the other day, but somehow I doubt it.

More likely, the traffic is from blogging about Joe Millionaire. I even noticed a hit from "Foxinc.com" (the internal Fox network). They were probably policing their intellectual property rights, checking to see if I had somehow infringed them. I checked, and Google has already spidered the page and I only updated it on Monday. I did not even ask Google to come and get it.

I remember the old days (when I was web programming) when you had to submit your sight to the web site so that it would come and spider it, and even then it would only check for fresh content every month or so. Apparently, Google has brought spidering technology a long way over the past couple years.

In order to test my hypothesis, I am going to place the words "Joe Millionaire" and "Zora" and "Evan Marriot" in this post several more times and see if my traffic stays up.

OK, here we go with shameless search engine manipulation attempt:

Sarah Kozer
Zora
Melissa M
Mojo
Evan Marriot
Joe Millionaire

I'll be sure to let you know how it goes.

2003-02-17T22:27:00.000-05:00

Joe Millionaire - Pure Genius

Dude, that was so entirely cool that I can't even believe it!! Joe chooses the nice girl Zora over the hoochie fetish-movie star Sarah. Zora, upon deciding to stay with Evan (the real name of Joe Millionaire) tells him that she was actually turned off by the money!

After that, Fox surprises both of them by giving them one million dollars to share (this was especially cool because they are both dirt poor).

Brilliant. Everyone I watched the show with felt so good for the new couple.

Think about the ways that Fox was brilliant in its choices with this show:

- It chose Evan Marriott to play the part of Joe Millionaire. Evan was a genuinely nice guy, but not particularly sophisticated. He clearly had a good heart, but at the same time was not so pure that we got annoyed (remember the scene in the woods with Sarah). Most normal people could really identify with Evan, which kept us all watching.

- It found a girl like Zora who was completely normal and sweet. She was nothing like most of the other women on the show who were clearly there for the chance at becoming an instant millionaire. I can't see how they convinced Zora to even come on the show.

- They totally made fun of the shallow bimbos like Melissa M, Sara, and Heidi. That was simply beautiful.

- They cross-promoted the hell out of other Fox shows like the second Michael Jackson interview, the Married by America show that is coming up in March (and boy does that look funny).

- The are doing an Joe Millionaire aftermath show where we get to see how Evan and Zora have done over the past six months.

Rupert Murdoch is a television genius. Think about it. Fox News goes from not existing to the clear number 1 in just five short years. The Fox network challenged the big three with the Simpsons, Married w/ Children, Tracey Ullman when nobody thought it could be done. Now, he takes reality TV to a whole new level.

2003-02-16T23:28:00.000-05:00

OK Raich, Here You Go

My liberal (but conservative waiting to happen) friend Jaime sent me this transcript of Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd's speech made on the Senate floor on February 12, 2003. He told me to blog about it. Apparently, he thought the speech was a powerful indictment of the imminent war to liberate the Iraqi people.

Well, Jaime, you asked for it. What follows is known as a Fisking. For the uninitiated, according to the Volokh Conspiracy a Fisking is:

The term refers to Robert Fisk, a journalist who wrote some rather foolish anti-war stuff, and who in particular wrote a story in which he (1) recounted how he was beaten by some anti-American Afghan refugees, and (2) thought they were morally right for doing so. Hence many pro-war blogs -- most famously, InstaPundit -- often use the term "Fisking" figuratively to mean a thorough and forceful verbal beating of an anti-war, possibly anti-American, commentator who has richly earned this figurative beating through his words. Good Fisking tends to be (or at least aim to be) quite logical, and often quotes the other article in detail, interspersing criticisms with the original article's text.

Let the Fisking begin (original Senate speech in italics, my response in bold).

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.

Especially more so, according to Senator Byrd, if you have to fight side by side with a black person, as Senator Byrd said once: "I vow never to fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Actually, Senator, I'm comtemplating the horrors of some of the missing, unaccounted-for cyanide gas that we know that Iraq produced being released in a subway car that I'm riding.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war.

That's because you Democrats are too busy preventing Hispanics from being confirmed as federal judges. Wow, you guys really are the party that supports minorities!

There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.

I know Senator, it must be very scary for you Democrats to have a GASP conservative minority in your presence. The sheer turmoil that is caused by the realization that a Hispanic can achieve in this country without the help of some program you created must be quite shocking.

Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

Can we really consider the New York Times a newspaper anymore? Also, even if we do consider it a newspaper, are their arguments really substantive?

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain.

Your right, Senator. This is actually a very complex attempt to behead a insane, evil, corrupt man.

No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

Yup. We have finally realized that evil dictators should not be appeased, and that we have a moral obligation to free those who live under them. Recent world history took the view that we could appease dictators, and we got Hitler, Milosovic, and Mugabe to show for it.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.

Oh yeah, because we've always used our power to take over free and peace-loving countries and make them toil under our evil despotic rule. Senator, the only people who are justly scared of this new preemption policy are evil dictators that deny their people basic human rights. I see that as a good thing.

High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq.

Has Iraq taken nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction off the table? I know you are old Senator Byrd, and your memory might not be what it used to be, but recall 1991 and the Gulf War. The only reason that Saddam did not use chemical weapons on our troops then is because we told him that if he did, we'd respond by going nuclear. This is the one thing Hussein has listened to in the past 12 years.

What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?

Oh, I don't know, maybe Saddam Hussein developing a nuclear bomb (which he is close to doing) and dropping it on Israel?

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.

I'd hardly call the French not supporting us a huge crack. They get cheap oil from Iraq right now and fear that a free Iraq would not provide them with the same. NATO is only being fractured by the resistance of 3 out of 16 countries to defend Turkey according to the terms of the treaty. That's 3 out of 16, less than 20 percent.

Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

I'd say its still pretty solid, and if France, Germany, and Belgium want to leave NATO, hasta la vista, baby.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.

Don't you think if we knew where or when these attacks were going to occur, then we'd go ahead and stop them?

Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face.

That's how the military works Senator. And imagine, someone might have to serve side by side with a black person that whole time. Oh the horrors!

Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection.

The new budget increases funds for police and fire protection 1000%.

Other essential services are also short-staffed.

Such as ... ?

The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

Once we get done in Iraq, the oil will flow and the economy and fuel prices will come back down. The longer we wait, the longer it takes.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

This is just too stupid to comment on.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.

Ok, first of all, last time I checked, the surpluses were merely projections. Anyone knows that ten year projections are inherently unrealiable. Didn't we project deficits "as far as the eye can see" in 1993 as well? Once the Republican congressional majority came in and put the brakes on some of Senator Byrd's pork projects the picture quickly turned. Once we win the war on terrorism and can redirect some of those funds to cover other essential services, we'll see surpluses once again.

This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people.

Actually, the states that increased spending by 50% over course of three years put themselves in dire financial condition. Any idiot should have known that that kind of growth of government could not be supported indefinitely.

This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth.

Actually, we were in a recession during that last 6 months of the Clinton administration. We have, thanks in part to the Bush tax cut, been able to climb out of that to some extent, even with the incredible damage that 9/11 did to our economy.

This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.

The Democratic Senate blocked the passage of a Medicare bill last year that the President said he'd sign and that sailed through the Republican house.

This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security.

Senator Byrd led the fight against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He voted against the bill creating the department. A bit hypocritical to criticize someone for inadequately funding something the very creation of which you opposed.

This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

Actually, I agree with him here. Even a blind squirrel ...

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.

Because he's buried so deep in the caves of Tora Bora, we can't get to his body.

In fact, just yesterday we heard from him

or, more likely a sound alike. Why incidently doesn't he ever release any more live videos?

again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill.

Or rather, what's left of his forces.

This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.

And that is bad because?

This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper.

But is hasn't called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as the people that will save everyone's ass after they fuck up and coddle dictators long enough (see Hitler, Milosevic, etc.).

This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence

Oh yeah, I forgot, Bush is stupid. Senator Byrd, haven't we gotten past this crap after two years?

and sensitivity of our leaders,

Yeah, that's what we want, sensitive leaders, not strong moral leaders.

and which will have consequences for years to come.

I hope so. Hopefully that lack of "sesnsitivity" will cause the French to take a hike and go it on their own.

Calling heads of state pygmies,

The truth hurts

labeling whole countries as evil,

the truth hurts

denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant

Once again, the truth hurts

-- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.

We are so insenstive.

We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

Oh yeah, we need the French for their incredicle military acumen.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

How would you suggest securing peace in Afghanistan, Senator Byrd. If you have some way that doesn't include hunting down terrorists and killing them, I'm all ears.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces.

And that is bad why? Those two-faced assholes tell us they are helping while they hide and protect Al Queda in their mountains.

This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future?

Hey KKK Bob, if we wanted to occupy oil lands, we could have done it years ago. Give our great country some credit, we are not in the business of taking over countries (even though we could). We occupied Japan and Germany after WWII for a few years to help them get back on their feet. This will be no different.

To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Someone who understands and appreciates freedom.

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel?

Like Muslims are not already inflamed and inflicting devastating attacks on Israel. Last time I checked, suicide bombers who kill dozens of people are inflicting devasting attacks. Also, don't guys like you hate jews as well as blacks?

Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal?

Only if necessary. But I guarantee you that if Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would not wait to retaliate, he'd use a first strike.

Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals,

They'll be toppled, but not by radicals, but rather by people who appeciate freedom.

bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

On our way to North Korea from Iraq, Iran would be a nice field trip.

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

No Senator, crazy evil Islamists initiated policies on September 11th that "may reap disastrous consequences for years."

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Look. We were incredibly patient after the attack. We waited at least two months before moving into Afghanistan. I remember the American people saying that we should go in and nuke them. Bush was patient and waited for the information to get to him. Once he got it, he acted appropriately.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent.

Good. You guys talk way too much anyway.

On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent.

You know why 50% of the population is under the age of 15? Because Saddam kills so many people when they reach adulthood.

On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

Yeah, because we didn't get one on 9/11.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.

I would submit that 11 years of inspection were the first of many resorts.

I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".

Those children live in a country that has a 13.5% infant mortality rate. They live in a country where they are tortured so that their parents will tell government officials what they know. These children live in a country where their dictatorial leader doesn't hesitate before murdering them with chemical weapons or cutting out their tongues because they dare speak critically of his regime.

This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.

Exactly what result have we achieved? Iraq has yet to produce any of the vast volumes of chemical weapons we know they have. They have yet to produce their nuclear weapons labs.

Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Bob, does a former KKK Grand Wizard really have any moral authority in this world? It's time to retire.

2003-02-02T12:35:00.000-05:00

From the Associated Press:

President Bush has reversed the slide in public support for a possible war with Iraq, with two-thirds, 66 percent, in an ABC-Washington Post poll released Saturday saying they support military action against Iraq.

That's up from 57 percent who felt that way in mid-January in this poll. Significantly, 51 percent said they support military action even if the United Nations is opposed. The number that supported military action over U.N. opposition was at 37 percent in mid-December.

Bush tried to make the case for his aggressive Iraq policy in the State of the Union speech Tuesday. Approval of the president's handling of the Iraq situation was up to 61 percent, compared with 50 percent in an ABC-Post poll released Jan. 20.

Funny, but I checked the New York Times web site, and found no mention of this change in public support. I guess it's only newsworthy when support declines.

2003-01-31T13:09:00.000-05:00

From Instapundit:

JEEZ, a new traffic record. Over 112, 000 pageviews today already. Go figure.

I hope the fact that I can't even get 11.2 pageviews a day doesn't mean that I'm 1000 times less entertaining or 1000 times less intelligent than Professor Reynolds (although I think I might actually be 1000 times less intelligent than the good professor)....

2003-01-27T08:28:00.000-05:00

Anybody Watch What Came on After the Super Bowl?

OK, so as the television junkie that I am, I have been watch Alias since it premiered last season. (Actually, I missed the very first episode, but caught it during reruns.) ABC, in one of its few intelligent programming decisions this year, put a new episode of Alias on after the Super Bowl. What was cool about it was that it tied up several storylines that had been developing since the series' inception, while at the same time introducing some even better craziness and intrigue.

Bottomline - SD6 and the Alliance are destroyed - They were destroyed by the Evil Sloan - Sidney and Michael finally are gettin it on - Sidney's best friend has been murdered and replaced by a look alike spy - and Dixon finally knows the truth (but is not at all happy about it.

My guess, we'll see Alias' ratings increase sharply in the near future.

2003-01-23T17:06:00.000-05:00

Interesting new developments in the gay rights movement reported on by Steve Vogel in the Washington Post:

U.S. Awards Lesbian 9/11 Compensation For Loss of Partner

Peggy Neff said of her partner, she was "my soulmate, my closest confidante and my best friend." (File Photo)

The lesbian partner of a woman killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the Pentagon has been awarded more than $500,000 from a federal fund created to compensate victims of the attack, a decision gay rights advocates hailed yesterday as a significant milestone.

Sheila Hein, 51, a civilian Army employee who worked as a management analyst, died when a hijacked American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon. Hein left behind Peggy Neff, with whom she had a relationship for 18 years and a home in University Park. When rescue workers found Hein's remains, she was wearing a gold band that Neff had given her.

"Words cannot express what I have lost," Neff wrote in an affidavit filed with her federal claim. "She was my entire world and my soulmate, my closest confidante and my best friend."

Unlike gay couples in New York, Neff was not eligible for state aid from Virginia. Virginia law limits the benefits to spouses, parents, grandparents, siblings and children.

I applaud the result reached here. Ms. Neff most certainly deserves these sorts of benefits. It is pretty clear from the limited facts and circumstances in the article that she was Shelia Hein's closest companion and family. This decision does raise a concern, however. The law does not recognize the familial status of this couple. My concern is that if we grant death benefits to those without legally recognized familial status, we are inviting fraudulent claims.

What's a gay couple supposed to do? Well, I think the solution is to recognize gay marriages, or at least provide a civil equivalent so that gay couples can qualify for benefits accorded to husbands and wifes. In other words, I believe the law should recognize the familial status between gay partners. (Of course, if the law is willing to sanction a homosexual relationship in this manner, the same responsibilities that are placed on married couples should be placed on homosexual couples, i.e. community property, needing a dissolution to separate, etc..)

One of the things folks on the "Christian" right always criticize in the gay community is the tendency for promiscuity. I don't know whether these criticisms are valid or not, but I do know that criticizing gay people for their promiscuous lifestyles, while at the same time denying them an excellent mechanism for promoting monagamy (i.e. a legally recognized union), strikes me as somewhat inconsistent. It's almost like telling someone that their ugly and that they should do something about it, while forbidding them from ever purchasing makeup or plastic surgery. OK, I know. That was an idiotic analogy. At least I'll admit it.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that if Virginia had legally recognized the loving, monagamous, long-term relationship between these two woman, we would not have had the trouble in the first place, and there would not have been this dangerous precedent set for future death benefits cases.

2003-01-21T22:55:00.000-05:00

I'd like to hear what Charlie Rangel and John Conyers have to say about this:

Front-line troops disproportionately white, not black Numbers refute long-held belief
By Dave Moniz

and Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The American troops likeliest to fight and die in a war against Iraq are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show -- contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War.

In a little-publicized trend, black recruits have gravitated toward non-combat jobs that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces.

The tilt toward white combat troops is recognized by many senior commanders and a small group of scholars who study the military.

''If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites,'' says Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Illinois.

When Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called recently for the return of a military draft, he evoked images of inequality raised during the early years of the Vietnam War, when black soldiers died at rates much greater than their share of the U.S. population.

Though Rangel is right that blacks and lower-income Americans still serve in disproportionate numbers, that fact misses another significant trend. While blacks are 20% of the military -- compared with 12% of the U.S. population -- they make up a far smaller percentage of troops in combat jobs on the front line.

In a host of high-risk slots -- from Army commandos to Navy and Air Force fighter pilots -- blacks constitute less than 5% of the force, statistics show.

Blacks, especially in the enlisted ranks, tend to be disproportionately drawn to non-combat fields such as unit administration and communications. They are underrepresented in jobs shooting rifles or dropping bombs.

Examples:

* Of the Army's 45,586 enlisted combat infantryman, 10.6% are black.

* Of the Air Force's 12,000 pilots, 245, or about 2%, are black.

* In the Navy, 2.5% of the pilots are black.

Senior Air Force officials say they are troubled by the number of black pilots and plan to do better.

* The Army's enlisted Green Berets are among the least diverse groups in the military. Only 196 of the Army's 4,278 enlisted Green Berets -- fewer than 5% -- are black.

The reasons for the racial divide are unclear, but several theories have emerged, including lingering racism in some quarters of the military and a tendency among black recruits to choose jobs that help them find work in the civilian sector.

Rangel and Conyers, if you'll recall, recently advocated reinstituting the military draft because they claimed that minorities were disproportionately at risk in military actions. This story must present a bit of a dillema for the esteemed Congressmen: On one hand they claim (inaccurately, it turns out) that it is unfair for blacks to be overrepresented in dangerous combat positions. Thus, the news that blacks are in fact underrepresented dangerous combat positions should come as good news to Conyers and Rangel. On the other hand, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them decry the fact that blacks are underrepresented in the dangerous positions of Green Berets and Navy/Air Force pilots.

So which is it, is it unfair for blacks to be overrepresented in dangerous combat positions or is it unfair for blacks to be underrepresented in dangerous combat positions?

My guess is that according to Conyers and Rangel, its both.

2003-01-18T17:02:00.000-05:00

First Primary in DC?

Got this from the NRO Corner via WTOP's web site:

First Democratic Primary Proposed for D.C.
Updated: Friday, Jan. 17, 2003 - 11:47 AM EST.

WASHINGTON - D.C. City Councilman Jack Evans wants to see the city hold the nation's first presidential primary, not its last.
On WTOP's Politics Program, Evans said next week he plans to introduce legislation that would move D.C.'s Democratic presidential primary from May to January.

"We believe it's important because we believe the District represents the Democratic Party more than any other state," Evans said.

"I think the candidates know this a front-ended primary season, and, so the District of Columbia, why not? Why not come here and campaign?" Evans said. "Most of them are here anyway. Actually, in the Democratic Party, three of the major candidates - Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman - live in Georgetown. That's where their permanent homes are. Our population is much more diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire. We represent the Democratic Party."

Evans said he believes the Democratic Party is operating under archaic rules by holding the first presidential primary in New Hampshire.

The Democratic National Committee had no immediate comment on Evans' proposal.

The 2004 primary schedule has yet to be set, although the Iowa caucuses will likely take place on or about Jan. 19 with the New Hampshire primary occurring on or about Jan. 27.

I like this for a couple of reasons. First, maybe the Republican primary would be moved up as well. That way, as one of 4 registered Republicans in the District, I could potentially have a huge voice in determining the winner of the first Republican primary every four years. Second, because the District population is about 75-80% black, Al Sharpton could have a good chance of winning here. Imagine how the shit would hit the fan if Sharpton became a front runner for the nomination by winning the nation's first primary!

2003-01-17T19:07:00.000-05:00

Magnified and Blown Out of Proportion

If you've been following the budding career of high school basketball star LeBron James through his televised games on ESPN2, you are probably amazed at skills and talent displayed by this kid is at the young age of seventeen. He is likely to skip college and go straight to the NBA, and most observers feel that he'll be the first pick in the draft.

Recently, some eyebrows were raised when LeBron was seen driving around town in a brand new $72,000 Hummer SUV. The reason that this seemed a bit strange is that his mother is unemployed and lives in public housing. Nonetheless, she was able to convince lender to give her a loan to buy the car.

Now, I don't think that LeBron or his mother did anything that was particularly wrong here. If some lender were willing to lend me $72,000, I'd take it as well. I'd probably not spend it on a Hummer, but hey, to each his own.

What I do have a problem with, however, it Washington Wizards forward Charles Oakley's comments on the matter.

Forward Charles Oakley said if high school sensation LeBron James were not black, he would not have gotten the attention he did for driving a brand new Hummer.

"Everything about us is magnified," Oakley said. "That's just how it is. It's always magnified and blown out of proportion. There is a different standard for black people. That's how it is when you're black and the microscope is on you."

Oakley said that if James had grown up in a middle-class neighborhood and were white, the big stink over his new car would never have come up. James' mother, with whom he lives, is unemployed.

"Look, a lot of [white] people drive Mercedes to high school and nobody stops them and ask them about their car," Oakley said. "But if a black guy is seen driving something like that, the first thing people say is he's a [drug] dealer. But that's just how society is. Blacks are living in the back of the bus and we might never get to the front of the bus. We are never going to be able to drive the bus like we should. What are you going to do about it? You just have to keep going ahead."

Look Charles you are a hell of a player and I respect you, but this is not about race. If this were a poor white kid, the "big stink over his new car" would most certainly have occurred as well. The relative poverty of Ms. James was the reason that red flags were raised here, not that she was black. Poor white teenagers driving Hummers look just as weird as poor black kids when they drive around in $72,000 cars, at least to me anyway.

Which leads to another point. With the Supreme Court about to take up the Bollinger case (the one about affirmative action at the University of Michigan), I'd like to make a point. As I wrote above, I view poor white kids and poor black the similarly when they drive around in $72,000 cars in poor neighborhoods. Regardless of their race I pretty much ask myself, "How in the $#%@# did that kid get that car?" On the other hand, if I see a kid driving around in a Hummer in a wealthier neighborhood, I pretty much say to myself the same thing, "Daddy's spoiled rich kid." My point is that poor white kids and poor black kids have a lot more in common than poor black kids have in common with rich black kids. They often suffer from the same stereotypes, prejudices, and hardships. Rich black kids on the other hand typically go to good schools. Although they likely have experienced some racial hostility in their life, my guess is that their suffering does not approach burden that poor white children face.

All of this raises the question: Why should wealthy black children receive the benefits of affirmative action over poor white children? The answer: they shouldn't. (Disclaimer: I've benefitted from race-based affirmative action several times in my life due to my Puerto Rican heritage.) Admissions preferences should be color blind in all cases. They should consider economic and social hardship but never skin color. Childhood is never easy if you are poor, regardless of whether you are black, white, yellow, red, green, orange or blue. Academic achievement by children without the advantages of wealth should be given extra weight, regardless of race. This will bring true diversity to the university environment, diversity of life experience and diversity of thought.

Also, while college admissions are still on the front pages, I'd like to see Congress propose a bill making legacy preferences illegal discrimination. I think this probably would fall under their power through the civil rights laws, but I'm not certain. I don't doubt for a minute that universities rely on alumni donations for $$$, but does it make it right to take away a spot from an otherwise deserving candidate so that a rich family continues giving money to a University? That to me betrays the same principles of fairness and justice that are at issue in Bollinger.

2003-01-16T10:56:00.000-05:00

They Should Hire This Guy

I typically hate when Hollywood actors and actresses attempt to influence the political landscape here in our beloved country. Whenever I see one of these shitheads (like Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, etc.) try to tell the unwashed masses how to think, I just write it off as a combination of ignorance, ego and detachment from reality. Alec Baldwin is the postchild for these folks. I also wonder sometimes why they believe that anyone cares what they think, given that they likely (or at least in some cases) have no education beyond high school and have never held a "real" job in their entire life.

That having been said, I have a new found respect for one person who I previously placed in this category: Mike Farrell. Yesterday, he came on the Sean Hannity radio show to debate Sean on the merits of going to Iraq. Although I ultimately disagreed wiith Mr. Farrell, he argued calmly, rationally, and was very impressive. I previously placed him in the shithead Hollywood hack category because he typically associates with shithead Hollywood hacks. Having heard him argue the case against moving in on Iraq, I can honestly say that he was the first anti-war person to present a reasoned argument against the upcoming war based on fact rather than emotion. The Dem's ought to get this guy into politics.

2003-01-16T00:29:00.000-05:00

How Does a Person Somehow Decide that this is the Right Thing to Do?

I've always wondered if evil people knew that they were evil and just said, "Fuck it," or whether they actually thought their actions to be moral and correct.

For example, does Saddam see himself as a virtuous man who is misunderstood, or is he just happy being the monster that he is because he enjoys being evil?

With that in mind, read the following:

Instapundit tipped me off to this:

In the far north of North Korea, in remote locations not far from the borders with China and Russia, a gulag not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century holds some 200,000 men, women and children accused of political crimes. A month-long investigation by NBC News, including interviews with former prisoners, guards and U.S. and South Korean officials, revealed the horrifying conditions these people must endure — conditions that shock even those North Koreans accustomed to the near-famine conditions of Kim Jong Il’s realm.
...
At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, some 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say results in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year.

Entire families, including grandchildren, are incarcerated for even the most bland political statements.

Forced abortions are carried out on pregnant women so that another generation of political dissidents will be “eradicated.”

Inmates are used as human guinea pigs for testing biological and chemical agents, according to both former inmates and U.S. officials.

I say after we get done with Iraq, we stop by North Korea for a visit on our way home. Bastards.

2003-01-11T15:09:00.000-05:00

Why L.A. is cool - Part II

Last night we went out to dinner at some place called Axe (pronounced Ah shay', how sophisticated) in Venice. We had just been seated and I notice everyone turning to the door. Why? Because somebody walked in. No big deal, just a couple of folks coming in to get some dinner as well. I noticed over the next few minutes, though, that every time someone came through the door, everyone in the restaurant turned to check them out. I guess its an L.A. thing.

Each time I turned I wasn't impressed until about 20 minutes after we sat down. The door opens and two dudes from Alias walk in. Mind you it wasn't Jennifer Garner, but it was cool anyway. Oh, and it wasn't Michael Vartan, sorry cld. But, it was the dude who plays Will the reporter/junkie/wannabe spy and the dude who plays Jack Bristow, Sidney's father. They were with a somewhat attractive blond.

About ten minutes later, the dude who plays Sloan (the evil head of SD6, I think his name is Ron Rifkin) comes in as well and stops at their table and says hello and proceeds to sit at a different table.

Anyway, we watch Will, Jack and the blond leave together and are trying to figure out who she is with. The valet brings their car (a BMW), and SHE GETS IN THE BACK SEAT while they get in front! I guess chivalry is dead in Hollywood.

2003-01-10T14:49:00.000-05:00

I'm blogging 1/2 a block from the beach sitting outside on the porch. To think: People actually live like this. I'm jealous.

Anyway, was reading James Lileks (one of the best bloggers out there if you don't already know of him) and came across this gem:
In response to Martin Scorcese criticizing U.S. foreign policy for not "respecting how other people live" he writes the following:

The coming war in Iraq will indeed be disrespectful of how other people live - in particular, the Tikriti mob that has shoved the head of the nation in the toilet for ten years and buggered its fundament with a splintery plunger.

Boy, I wish I could write like that.

UPDATE:

One other passage that is simply brilliant:

As a student of history, I am impressed by how our military - which has the ability to annihilate cities and nations - has spent billions to develop weapons that destroy a single building. Surely this says as much about us as our crass and extroverted culture; what other nation with our abilities would take such care? Presented with enemies who build weapons factories next to kindergartens, we invent missiles that take the former and spare the latter. This may not mean we are right, but it surely means we are are bound by a notion of decency our opposites lack.

Amen. You should go read it yourself.

2003-01-09T17:06:00.000-05:00

I got this from the NRO Corner:

http://www.nice-tits.org/

Check it out, its not what you think.

2003-01-09T16:51:00.000-05:00

I'm heading out to L.A. tonight to see my friends Beej and Leisle. They live basically 1/2 of a block from Venice Beach. Not a bad life.

Not that anyone will miss me, but I probably won't blog this weekend (not that I've been blogging much anyway over the past few weeks).

2003-01-09T16:48:00.000-05:00

Are These People Even Human?
From the Washington Post today:

A federal jury convicted Kevin Gray and Rodney Moore today of killing a total of 21 people over a nine-year period and then continued deliberations on even more murder charges as one of the city's most sprawling criminal trials moved closer to an end.

Gray, 31, and Moore, 37, charged with running a drug and murder-for-hire gang so violent that investigators dubbed it "Murder Inc.," now face the possibility of capital punishment or life in prison without parole. Although D.C. law does not provide for the death penalty, federal law makes it an option. Gray and Moore could face it after being convicted of carrying out killings as part of a "continuing criminal enterprise."

I don't know. I have severe reservations about how the death penalty is administered in this country, but can anybody really make a case for not putting these guys to death?

2003-01-02T14:55:00.000-05:00

My brother (a rabidly anti-trial lawyer surgeon) will love hearing about this:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- Four West Virginia hospitals cut staff hours and transferred more patients Thursday because of a surgeons' walkout to protest malpractice costs.

State officials planned to announce an emergency program Thursday afternoon to ensure medical service to patients in the state's northern panhandle.

More than two dozen orthopedic, general and heart surgeons in the area began 30-day leaves of absence Wednesday or planned to begin leaves in the next few days to protest medical malpractice costs.

I think this is generally a good thing. As a future lawyer in a family of four medical doctors (well, actually three, with one about to graduate), I hear a lot about this issue. While it is sad to see it come to this (by "this" I mean potentially putting patients at risk), it is probably the only way to get politicians to hear these complaints over the noise made by large contributions from the plaintiff's bar.

My brother has been predicting these kinds of walkouts for a few years now (one of the few things he has correctly predicted, just kidding Steve). If this "leave of absence" is successful, I won't be surprised to see many more similar walkouts around the country. Malpractice insurance has become so expensive in many jurisdictions that it is no longer economically feasible for doctors to practice in them.

I know that Las Vegas recently had to shut down the only emergency room within the city limits due to malpractice costs. I also read somewhere that doctors in Mississippi have been leaving the state in droves because of the huge judgments levied against them by jurors in medical malpractice cases.

I know that doctors do make mistakes, and sometimes the consequences of these mistakes are tragic. The problem is, however, that an entire industry has been created by plaintiff's attorneys that encourages patients to view the health care game as a lottery of sorts.

2003-01-01T01:34:00.000-05:00

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

2002-12-27T20:58:00.000-05:00

I read the following in an article in USA Today about other Republicans that have found themselves in hot water for "racially insensitive" remarks following the Trent Lott controversy:

In Albany, N.Y., state Senate GOP leader Joe Bruno was forced last week to defend as a "poor choice of words" his use of a lynching metaphor.

Bruno urged critics of Lott to "cut him some slack" after the Mississippi senator apologized but still had not stepped down as GOP leader. "What else do you want to do? You want to hang him up from an oak tree?"

At about the same time, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said on CNN about the Lott controversy: "I think we should not lynch him."

In both remarks, Bruno and Shelby appeared to equate the attacks on Lott with the brutal murders of more than 3,000 blacks by white mobs from 1882 to 1968.

Trying to quell a firestorm that quickly flared, a contrite Bruno said a day later, "I used a metaphor that was admittedly a poor choice of words and inappropriate given the increased tensions generated by Sen. Lott's comments."

Some critics called for Bruno's resignation from his leadership post, but the uproar seems to have subsided. Shelby was the target of some initial criticism but little more.

One thing that bothered me was that these critics of Senator Shelby and State Senator Bruno appear to have very selective indignation.

Doesn't anybody remember these same civil rights leaders who presumably have called for the Senator's resignation making constant references to the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party?" I do. Specifically, during a speech last year at the NAACP national convention in New Orleans, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said that President George W Bush has "selected [political) nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

Isn't equating the beliefs of conservative Republicans to the practices of a group that tortures women for showing a little skin, doesn't allow women to learn to read, and sees it as its Allah-given duty and privilege to murder those who do not share their wacked-out view of Islam, a little beyond the pale as well?

Based on the writings and musings of several prominent Democrats over the past year or so, I guess not.

Some specifics:

In a September 15, 2002 op-ed in the Commercial Appeal Memphis, Susan Adler Thorp writes in reference to the black Democratic mayor of Memphis giving support to Republican Lamar Alexander's candidacy for the U.S. Senate:

Although some local Democrats may be unhappy with Herenton's participation, believing it gives Alexander credibility in the predominantly Democratic black community, some local Republicans also are disgruntled about Herenton's public support of Alexander - particularly those who come from the Taliban wing of the Republican
Party.

"A lot of people in the party violently disagree with it, because many people who live out in the county just don't like Herenton," said Conrad, a member of the local GOP steering committee.

Notice how Ms. Thorp equates country people who don't like a city mayor to the Taliban. She implies that the only reason they don't like him is that he is black. Sure seems like she is just as guilty of using "code" to inflame racial tensions as anyone on the right.

Notice also how Mr. Bond in one sentence (1) likens Republicans to the Taliban; (2) calls conservatives wretched; and (3) portrayed Bush cabinet officials as "nearly canine" (granted, he only portrayed the devotion as canine, but the message was clear).

In a June 21, 2002 editorial praising the recent Supreme Court decision that stated that executing the mentally retarded violated the Eighth Amendment, the Morning Star of Wilmington, NC the editorial writers averred that Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist comprise "the court's Taliban wing." This sort of rhetoric even after 9/11! I did not hear the any outcry from the left for equating inerpretations of our consitution with the murder of innocent women for showing their ankles.

On January 22 of this year, the New York Times ran a column entitled: "Good riddance to three from the Senate's Taliban wing" by columnist Bill Keller (op-ed, Jan. 22) about the impending retirements of Senators Thurmond, Graham, and Helms. I can understand how a liberal may disagree strongly with the views of these men. But again, isn't equating Senate voting records with murder innocent women a bit unfair. Evidently, nobody on the left thought so as we did not hear even a whimper of protest.

I could go on, but I guess my point is that the things that are "racially insensitive" when said by Republicans are part of the everyday discourse of the left. While I agree that Senator Bruno and Senator Shelby's comments were probably inappropriate considering the circumstances (Shelby's less so, since the term "lynching" is commonly used metaphorically in American political discourse), I could point out example after example of people on the left using language and metaphors that are far more inappropriate.

Kind of makes it hard to take the critics seriously.

2002-12-20T07:58:00.000-05:00

GOC Will Love This One

Responding to Sen. Trent Lott's recent comments, Rep. Cass Ballenger told a newspaper he has had "segregationist feelings" himself after conflicts with a black colleague.

Ballenger, a North Carolina Republican, said former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., so provoked him that "I must I admit I had segregationist feelings." "If I had to listen to her, I probably would have developed a little bit of a segregationist feeling," Ballenger told The Charlotte Observer in Friday's editions. "But I think everybody can look at my life and what I've done and say that's not true. I mean, she was such a bitch."

2002-12-18T23:41:00.000-05:00

Extra, Extra Read All About It: Conservative Woman Is Published on NYT Op-Ed Page!

From the Volokh Conspiracy via Andrew Sullivan:

GREAT OP-ED BY ABIGAIL THERNSTROM in the New York Times today, on Lott but also on much more.

My question: Would the NYT ever publish Abigail Thernstrom if she were criticizing someone other than a Republican?

2002-12-17T23:45:00.000-05:00

When will I post my thoughts on Trent Lott? How can I call myself a Blogger and not post something?

Not yet (still have one final to take), but believe me I have an opinion, and I think that it might be a little different than most everything else that has been written about the situation.

2002-12-17T23:14:00.000-05:00

Buffy Rules

I just caught the tonight's episode of Buffy (on at 8:00 PM Tuesdays, UPN). Wow! This season is just awesome! I've always said that the second season of Buffy back in 1998 was one of the finest seasons of television ever (incidentely, I'd place 24 from last year in the top 5 as well). Before you start ridiculing me, keep in mind that no less of an authority than Entertainment Weekly named Buffy the best television show that year.

Season 2, for those of you who are familiar, is the one in which Buffy sent Angel into the depths of Hell by killing him in order to close the Hellmouth. This season so far has the makings of actually surpassing the second season. I quit watching Buffy last year after two less than mediocre seasons of poor storylines and almost no character development. This year I am back. If you are a disgruntled Buffy fan, I recommend you forgive and forget. This season is too good to miss out on.

2002-12-14T15:29:00.000-05:00

OK, just a quick post since I have two exams on Monday.

I just glanced over Bob Novak's column from today where he tells us:

Communications technicians at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the only unionized employees of the Democratic Party, have been laid off indefinitely.

This is just precious on any number of levels, but due to the shortness of time available I will highlight only one:

The Democrats claim to support unions. To show their support, they:

(1) Only allow one group of organized workers to work for their party.
(2) When times get tough, they lay these guys off before cutting anyone else.

Wow. The unions must feel lucky to have guys like these in their corner.

2002-12-08T13:17:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the serious lack of posting. I'm in the middle of final exams, which means that I'm trying to learn a semester's worth of law in about two weeks.

2002-11-26T18:26:00.000-05:00

The Clinton Legacy

My Corporations professor was commenting on a case where a litigant contended that when it said that it had "no present intention to purchase company A" it was not technically lying because it didn't intend to purchase the company at that moment, but rather intended to purchase it in the future. In suggesting that the litigant's position was not convincing, my Professor said that its preferred interpretation was just too "Clintonian."

Much to my surprise, the class laughed.

2002-11-24T12:01:00.000-05:00

Has anyone thought about looking for Usama bin Laden (UBL) at the next IMF protest?

London's Observer newspaper published the full text of a "Call to Arms" recently circulated on the Internet that was allegedly written by bin Laden.

Here are some excepts:

You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.

Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

If I'm not mistaken, UBL has basically described the platform of the IMF protest folks. FBI, you might want to be on the lookout for a tall man with 1 arm hooked up to a dialysis machine wandering around at the next IMF protest.

2002-11-24T10:51:00.000-05:00

I was pointed to an article in the Washington Times about how the Republicans would be pushing judicial confirmations through after they take control of the Senate in January.

It quotes Ralph Neas, of the People for the American Way (a liberal activist group) as saying:

Mr. Neas said a filibuster of a judicial nominee is "certainly not unprecedented." He pointed to the successful 1968 filibuster of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be the high court's chief justice and a number of attempted filibusters against lower court nominees. Mr. Neas said what is unprecedented is that, by the end of 2004, all circuit courts could be controlled by conservative Republican nominees, which could be "devastating" to abortion rights, the environment and other issues.

Hey Ralph, did it by chance occur to you that when the country keeps voting Republican candiates into office, presumably it's because the voters agree with the judicial nominees set forth by those Republican office holders? The reason that by the end of 2004 all circuit courts could be controlled by conservative Republican nominees is because (a) more people (53% to 47%) agree with Republicans over Democrats, which results in (b) Republicans being elected President (5 out of 8 times since 1972), and since (c) the President appoints judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, and (d) the Senate is controlled by Republicans (see point (a)), it very clearly follows that (e) at some point there will be more judges that agree with Republicans than Democracts.

This is what the far left fails to see. America has rejected your failed policies and ideas.

2002-11-23T11:36:00.000-05:00

Thoughts on the Roger Ailes/NYT tussle.

I've just spent a few minutes reading the Wall Street Journal editorial about the Roger Ailes flap. Something occurred to me when I finished. The Democrats, or rather the American liberal establishment is so desparate right now that their actions border on pathetic. If you step back and look at the Democrat's response to the elections, it almost becomes funny.

1. The New York Times and CNN report that Fox News president Roger Ailes sent a note to President Bush in the days subsequent to 9/11. This, according to CNN and the NYT, conclusively proves that Fox News is full of conserviative bias.

2. Now you have Tom Dasche accusing Rush Limbaugh of inciting death threats against him and his family.

The WSJ and Ann Coulter correctly point out that the New York Times never made a stink out of liberal journalists giving advice to the President or otherwise behaving politically. In fact, the WSJ notes that the former Editor-in-Chief of the NYT considered himself a "presidential adviser" to Kennedy.

Here's the funny part. The left has finally realized that their deathgrip on the message that reaches the American public through the mainstream media is losing its effect. And they don't like it. We've heard Democrats talk about how they "didn't get their message out this election" as one of the reasons for the big loss. I see it differently. This election marks the first time in a very long time that the Republicans were on even ground in terms of getting their message out through the free media. Unlike 1996-2000, Fox News is now the undisputed champion of cable news. More people get their cable news from Fox News than anywhere else (I sound like a commercial, don't I). Thus, the message they are receiving is not dripping with liberal bias as it used to.

In the past, most Americans watched Rather, Jennings, Brockaw or CNN. The stories that were presented on the network newscasts typically were beneficial to the Democrats' message. Rarely would stories receive coverage if they fully fleshed out and were supportive of the Republican message. For example, you'd never get a story on NBC Nightly news about how a legally registered concealed weapon was used defensively by a woman, saving her from being raped or murdered (as happened in Pittsburgh recently, but was reported only on Fox News and in the Washington Times). But Tom, Peter and Dan would surely be happy to tell you the story about how the NRA blocked the passage of some gun control law that might have saved a life somewhere.

This election was different. Americans tuned into Rush, Sean Hannity, and other sources to get the conservative viewpoint. They also watched Fox News to get both sides of the story. (By the way, when did it become conserviative bias to present both sides of a story. I mean, rarely do I see a story on Fox News that doesn't at least get a quotation from a liberal point of view. I see stories on CNN, however, all the time that quote only liberals and do not even mention the conservative point of view. I wish I could give some tangible evidence that shows that, but I'm too lazy to write down when I see it.)

The Democrats and liberals have realized that the American public is fed up with the liberal bias of establishment news outlets like the NYT and CNN. Americans are going elsewhere to get the whole story. Thus, it's time to fight back. Tom Daschle is attacking the talk radio. The NYT and CNN are attacking non-liberal news outlet on television. The libs have decided that they need to discredit the competition. Pretty soon, they'll decide that they need to attack the Blogospere. Such a feeble response is almost comical.

It's funny, the folks at CNN and the NYT are probably sitting around congratulating themselves for "exposing" the conservative bias. The tone of these stories has been "gotcha! We also knew you were biased, and now we have proof!" They don't realize that folks like Fox News, Andrew Sullivan, Ira Stoll, James Taranto and countless other bloggers have already pointed out hundreds if not thousands of instances of their own liberal bias.

I doubt NYT readership is down very much, even though their liberal bias has been demonstrated time and time again. Why on earth would they think that pointing out a single incident would draw viewers away from Fox?

2002-11-23T10:25:00.000-05:00

I composed a brilliant post last night on the Eddie Dean article in the Washington City Paper that presented the sniper prosecutor Paul Ebert as a "Proven Killer" and sniper John Muhammad as an "Alleged Killer".

I finished the post (which was somewhat lengthy) and clicked on the "Post & Publish" button. Something happened, and the post did not take, and I lost it. So, I'll try to rethink it later today and repost it. In the meantime, have you read the Ann Coulter column this week? It's hilarious.

I'm one of those people that thinks that Ann's opinions are sometimes a little over the top, but still, you've gotta respect her strength in the face of vitriolic hatred from the American left. That having been said, I rarely take offense to anything she writes because the "offensive" parts are typically said either for shock effect or are simply biting sarcasm. But anyway, let's get back to the article:

The title: Great Gray Lady in spat with saloon hussy. That's a good start.

Although my description does not do it justice, the crux of the piece is about how the New York Times has made a big deal out of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes sending a note to President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 suggesting that he kick some terrorist ass. The Times it seems believes that this constitutes conclusive evidence that Fox News is biased.

My favorite line: I assume it's superfluous to mention that there is nothing illegal about Ailes giving advice to the president – though admittedly, I have not consulted the "living Constitution" in the past 24 hours to see if a new penumbra specifically about Fox News has sprouted. But the Times was a monument of self-righteous indignation because hard news men are supposed to stay neutral between America and terrorism.

Anyway, go read it, you'll enjoy...

2002-11-21T13:25:00.000-05:00

Want to give a shout out to the Dope.

2002-11-19T19:24:00.000-05:00

From Best of the Web:

In Long Hill, a ban on tag was part of a code of conduct signed by pupils at one of the Morris County district's elementary schools this year. Instead, a modified version of the game is played indoors with plenty of supervision.

"The idea of loosely running around and chasing each other is not safe," Long Hill Superintendent Arthur DiBenedetto told The Star-Ledger of Newark for Monday's editions.

OK, so I hate to be crude, but we are now officially becoming a nation of total pussies.

UPDATE: Yeah, yeah, kind of a kneejerk reaction to the article. But, having thought about it a little more, I have one question: Can you think of a better example of why tort reform is necessary? The only reason that these policies exist is because of plaintiffs' attorneys that are willing to sue a school because little Johnny fell down and hurt himself.

Also, another thing. Who was the genius that decided that elementary students should be signing a "Code of Conduct?" Could such document even be binding? They do not even have the legal capacity to contract at their age.

2002-11-19T00:23:00.000-05:00

Got this from DesignFlea.

Have you checked out MyWay.com, Google's attempt to take portal market share away from Yahoo!? Basically, it's Yahoo without annoying Banner ads.

I'm not sure how they plan on making this thing succeed financially (remember, you can't make it up in volume).

It rules. And, another other cool thing, plenty of normal usernames and passwords are still available.

2002-11-18T21:33:00.000-05:00

Segway scooters on sale to public

If you've got $5,000 burning a hole in your pocket and you're looking for a fancy way to get to work, Amazon.com has a Segway for you.
On Monday, the high-tech scooter was made available for sale to the public through Amazon.com's Web store. Previously, the scooter has been tested primarily by government agencies and companies interested in increasing worker productivity.

Customers can put in an order today--but for no more than two--for a "first-come, first-served" delivery starting next March.

I can pretty much tell you right now where a sizable chunk of my summer stipend is going.

2002-11-17T14:23:00.000-05:00

I've noticed over recent days the attempt by Al Gore to make a political comeback of sorts. He endorsed the single-payer health care system in a recent speech, and has come out swinging against every aspect of the Bush agenda.

One thing I've noticed some of the "human interest" stories written about him is the assertion that it he was one Supreme Court vote from the presidency.

For example, in the last edition of Time:

That wasn't an option, in Gore's view, what with Bush promising at every campaign stop to restore honor and dignity to the White House. Gore concedes he might have been more adept at pointing out the difference between "a single personal mistake on the part of the President and one of the greatest records of success that any Administration had ever compiled." But had the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the other way, Gore says ruefully, some of his critics might be saying, "You threaded the needle pretty skillfully on that."

Also, in an interesting piece in the Sunday Washington Post Magazine says, "A gavel stroke away from being the world's most powerful human, he becomes someone's suburban neighbor instead. What is that like? Al Gore wasn't telling...until now."

My question: What is all of this nonsense about being one judge's vote away from the presidency? Last time I checked, he was actually 524 or so (Floridian) votes away. Each media recount conducted subsequent to the election has confirmed that even if the recount had continued, Gore would have lost.

Is this some sort of quiet campaign to add a sense of entitlement or legitimacy to a future Gore run?

I report, you decide (actually, I've alrady decided).

2002-11-15T02:13:00.000-05:00

OK, so I just caught up some TIVO watching.

Buffy rules. This season is so much better than the last two that it is almost as if it's an entirely new show. Thanks Joss Whedon. I'm not sure if its better than seasons 2 and 3, but it is damn good.

Oh, and Firefly is pretty good too.

2002-11-14T08:24:00.000-05:00

Compare:

Rep. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, said yesterday he will not seek a recount in his U.S. Senate race against Democratic incumbent Tim Johnson, who won by 524 votes.
The margin, set in the official state canvass Tuesday, was well within the 0.25 percent margin that entitles the loser to a recount. However, Mr. Thune told reporters it was in the best interest of the state for him to accept the results.
Mr. Thune said last week he would not call for a recount unless there was evidence of major irregularities or the official vote changed significantly from the unofficial tally, which had given Mr. Johnson a 527-vote edge.
He said yesterday he believes there were some irregularities, but that resolution of them would not change the outcome, the Associated Press reports.
Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine said it was nearly impossible that a recount would change the result. Three counties had slight discrepancies, but they amounted to fewer than 100 votes, she said.

With:

Some folks in Alabama are growing tired of the standoff between Democratic Gov. Donald Siegelman and Republican Rep. Bob Riley.
The official tally shows Mr. Riley leading by 3,115 votes out of 1.3 million cast, but Mr. Siegelman is demanding a statewide recount and complaining about the accuracy of the optical scanners used to read ballots. Since Election Day, each man has acted as if he is Alabama's next governor.
Mr. Riley took the lead on election night when Baldwin County officials reduced Mr. Siegelman's total from the early, unofficial returns by nearly 7,000 votes, saying a computer glitch had overstated his numbers — a point supported by an Associated Press analysis of the vote-total numbers from Baldwin County.
The Birmingham News, Alabama's largest newspaper, wants a quick resolution.
"If the governor believes he was shorted votes in Baldwin County, he should pursue a court order to unseal the ballots there and get a machine recount. Otherwise, Siegelman should start practicing his concession speech," the newspaper said in an editorial.

2002-11-11T11:47:00.000-05:00

My theory on a significant factor in the election victory for the Republicans: New Jersey.

The bs that the Dems pulled with getting Lautenberg on the ballot highlighted to Republicans and Independents across the country just what kind of people the Democratic leadership are: Win at any cost; Sell our souls for a Senate seat.

Their strategy may have worked in NJ, but I believe that watch them get away with it motivated so many outside of New Jersey to vote against the donkeys that the manuever cost the Dems far more than it helped.

Then again, maybe not.

2002-11-09T16:15:00.000-05:00

Ok, I've been gone a couple of days. Had Moot Court competition this weekend, so I was busy preparing for oral argument.

Anyway, here is why I voted for Tony Williams rather than his Republican opponent Carol Schwartz.

Carol Schwartz is a Republican who ran for mayor against Tony Williams. I voted against her and will never vote for her as long as I live in DC. Last year, she pushed a law through the DC Council that exempts Council Members (and only DC Council members) from having to pay parking ticket fines in DC. Mayor Williams did not support the effort, but it passed into law anyway.

If you've been to DC with a car, or lived in DC with a car, you probably understand why I'm so pissed. This city derives so much revenue from parking tickets that it is almost sickening. The rules are draconian, and enforced in the most heavy-handed manner imaginable. At least 4 times since I've moved back to DC (two years ago), I've found tickets on my car that were completly unjustified. My guess is that there is a quota that each ticket writer must meet, and they figure that most people won't bother fighting a $20.00 ticket anyway. They're correct. It is a total pain in the ass to do so. The burden is on you to "prove" your innocence. They require photographic evidence and the like.

To top it all of, in addition to exempting themselves from paying the parking tickets, they have tripled the size of the the parking ticket writing force in the next two budget years. So, in addition to exempting themselves from the onerous law that they make the rest of us live under, they go ahead and make the laws even more difficult.

So, that she is a Republican does not matter to me. I will never vote for this abusive woman as long as I live in DC.

2002-11-06T13:42:00.000-05:00

BTW, I voted for my first Democrat yesterday: Mayor Tony Williams.

I'll tell you why a little later.

2002-11-06T12:13:00.000-05:00

It looks like S.D. actually went to Johnson. I'm not surprised. Late last night Fox News quoted Republican sources as saying that since the uncounted votes were in the western part of the state, Thune was definitely in. I checked the South Dakota web site for a county-by-county breakdown, however, and found that the remaining counties appeared to be heavily Democratic. The last country that came in was Shannon, and it went 92% to Johnson. Thus, the 500+ vote margin of apparent victory for Johnson.

My guess, its a reservation county. My next guess: Fraud allegations, a recount (which is automatic according to AP).

2002-11-06T02:54:00.000-05:00

Now I'm looking forward to see if my lawsuit predictions hold up.

2002-11-06T02:53:00.000-05:00

Well, I wasn't too far off. Let's see how I did:

1. New Hampshire (Incorrect) - I guessed wrong on NH. Probably should have recognized that Smith voters would return to the fold.
2. Arkansas (Correct) - Overestimated Hutchinson. Wouldn't you know it, now Arkansas gives a shit about extra-marital relations.
3. Iowa (Correct) - I think I was pretty close on this one.
4. South Dakota (Don't know yet) - Still waiting, but I think I'll end up being right on...
5. Georgia (Correct) - Can I call an upset, or can I call an upset?
6. Minnesota (Don't know yet) - I think I'll end up being correct here as well...
7. Missouri (Correct) - I thought Talent would win by a couple more, but who's complaining?
8. Texas (Correct) - Overestimated Kirk, but I think Perry had some coattails.
9. New Jersey (Correct) - In NJ, cheaters do in fact prosper.
10. North Carolina (Correct) - Go Liddy, go Liddy go! I was hoping she'd thank the fine folks over at Pfizer in her acceptance speech.
11. South Carolina (Correct) - I saw Alex Sanders on a Meet the Press debate. What a jackass. He did not give a single specific answer to any question. I figured South Carolinians would eventually see through his good ol' boy schtick.
12. Tennessee (Correct) - Lamar!

4 out of 4 on governors races (I would have gotten Largent in OK wrong, though.) Also, I did not see Sonny Perdue winning.

So, to sum up: I picked 15 out of 16 correct. Hey CNN, you need a replacement for that Mark Shields dope?

2002-11-04T23:35:00.000-05:00

Hello World [again].

Well, I think I'm going to start blogging on a semi-regular basis. I'll start with my election predictions:

U.S. House of Representatives: Republican - 228; Democrat - 205; Independent - 2.

United States Senate: Republican - 51; Democrat - 48; Independent - 1. (This is post Jan. 3 swear-in.)

Local House Race: Connie Morella (R) 50.9%; Chris Van Hollen (D) 48.9%.

Key Senate Races:

1. New Hampshire: Shaheen (D) 49.7%; Sununu (R) 47.2% (1.5% Smith write-ins).
2. Arkansas: Prior (D) 51.2%; Hutchinson (R) 48.3%.
3. Iowa: Harkin (D) 54.6%; Ganske (R) 45.1%.
4. South Dakota: Thune (R) 50.1%; Johnson (D) 49.5% (will be challenged in court by Dems).
5. Georgia: Chambliss (R) 50.2%; Cleland (D) 48.6% (so will this one).
6. Minnesota: Coleman (R) 54.6%; Mondale (D) 44.5% (this one too probably).
7. Missouri: Talent (R) 51.2%; Carnahan (D) 47.7%.
8. Texas: Cornyn (R) 52.3%; Kirk (D) 47.5%.
9. New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) 54.1%; Forrester (R) 45.3%.
10. North Carolina: Dole (R) 52.0%; Bowles (D) 47.7%.
11. South Carolina: Graham (R) 54.8%; Sanders (D) 44.6%.
12.Tennessee: Alexander (R) 51.7%; Clement (D) 48.0%.

Key Governors Races:

California: Davis (D) 46%; Simon (R) 45%; None of the above 9%.
Texas: Perry (R) 54%; Sanchez (D) 45%.
New York: Pataki (RINO) 51.5%; Golisano (I) 24%; McCall (D) 23.9% (I know, wishful thinking.)
Florida: Bush (R) 54.4%; McBride (D) 45.3% (prediction: If within 2%, Dems will sue.)

Any questions?

2002-08-23T20:41:00.000-04:00

Hello World.