Graduated

On to the bar.

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is Too Funny

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?

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?

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.

Welcome Aboard Justin E.!

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

Welcome aboard, Justin.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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....

Howdy! I'm in now too.

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.