Saturday, June 28, 2003OK, So I was wrong
Sitting around a clinic all day has worn me out a lot more than I expected. This is the first time I'v busted the computer out since I've been here. I was hoping I'd be able to leave this weekend, but it looks like I'll be heremost of next week.
Sunday, June 22, 2003In case you care
As many of you know, I've suffered for severe headaches of indeterminate cause for nearly a year. In an effort to find some sort of treatment, I'll be spending the next two weeks at the Mayo clinic in Scottsdale.'
I don't expect blogging to be affected too much as I anticipate having lots of free time. However, if I drop off the map for a while, that will be while.
Just might be on the wrong track
I was reading Mark Steyn's newest column today. It starts out:
When I finished reading, I found two links for "Related Advertising Links". The first was for the official John Kerry website. My first thought was, "Yeah, it's related to the article, but not in a good way.
The other link was for justpolitics.biz which is selling, I kid you not, "I miss Clinton" buttons. Now this might be a good primary strategy, but if any of the Democratic candidates think running as Clinton II is a good general election strategy in a post 9/11 world, I suspect they have seriously misjudged the electorate.
For those of you using Blogger, you may find a problem with your Sunday archives. Your posts from Sunday may not be archiving correctly. If that is the case, try clicking on the "publishing" tab and then clicking "republish entire site." It worked for me anyway.
Fight the power
When you're up a 3 in the morning you can see on TV
Now this is ironic
With absolutely no sense of irony, as far as I can tell, Fidel Castro's son is lecturing America on freedom and self-determination.
Saturday, June 21, 2003Now this could be interesting
India is considering deploying troops to Iraq.
This could be really good news. It's becoming obvious that more troops are needed in Iraq. Our people seem to have underestimated how badly screwed up Iraq was. It's beginning to look like the post-war situation is much worse than anticipated. As far as I can tell, Iraqi society was held together with fear and bailing wire. Now both are gone and the whole thing disintegrated overnight.
There are some signs that the Iraqis are starting to rebuild government from the bottom up. (Link via Instapundit.) Even so, it's beginning to look like we simply need more troops in the field to keep the peace.
Not only that, but some of our troops are combat weary. (And their families are getting restless too.) It's hard to keep people at combat stress levels indefinitely, especially in what is supposed to be peace time. A lot of our guys need rest. If it's handled properly, 17,000 Indian troops could go a long way towards providing relief.
The key phrase there is if it's handled right. If it's not, it could be a political and military disaster. Will it be handled right? I don't feel qualified to answer that question.
Update: Kofi Annan doesn't want India to deploy troops. Of course, he didn't want us to deploy troops either.
Note: I've made some spelling corrections.
Ever wanted to know how to get your protest on TV
I'm speechless. Heh.
A good idea
Patrick Ruffini thinks that the internet will be increasingly important in politics. He's soliciting new ideas on how to make that happen.
By the way, my spell checker wanted me to replace "Ruffini" with "ruffian". Heh.
I laid down for another nap today. I had another one of those incredibly vivid dreams. This time I was at a restaurant. I had just been served the largest bowl of Ice Cream I have ever seen. It looked magnificent. I had just picked up my spoon to take the first bite and ... I woke up.
I'll second that.
Mike Tyson was arrested. Again. The reason this is considered news is what exactly?
I have a dream
Well, technically, it would be more correct to say I had a dream.
I took a nap yesterday and had an incredibly vivid dream. You know; the kind that seem so real that when you wake up you have trouble remembering if it was a dream or real life. Yeah, that kind of dream.
Anyway, in my dream my boss and I were on a business trip to Washington (D.C., that is). Why I don't know. There's no reason for me to be going on a business trip to Washington. Anyway, we had to stop at another city for a couple of days on the way. I can't remember which city or why we had to stop.
Anyway, through a bizarre set of circumstances, I met a girl. She was incredibly gorgeous and we spent the whole day running around the city doing incredibly fun things and talking a lot. In short, a really incredible all-day-long date. That evening she said she had to go. She leaned over and kissed me and started to walk away.
I said, "Wait, I don't have any way to reach you."
She turned around and answered, "My number is ..."
And then I woke up.
As I said, it was an incredibly vivid dream. When I woke up, I was really confused. Not to mention upset at not having got the phone number. It took me a second to realize what had happened.
I'm not sure if I felt better or worse when I realized it was all just a dream. Certainly if it had been real, I'd have been very angry at myself for some how not getting the number.
Oh well. Life goes on.
Sounds good to me
More proof that I'm right
People, it's a children's book! Get a grip!
Stephen Green is right
It looks like Krauthammer went around the bend. Maybe too many car fumes?
Friday, June 20, 2003Brilliant!
Sometimes Scott Ott really out does himself.
Isn't that something?
Can you say over reaction?
I knew you could.
This Harry Potter mania is officially out of hand.
I can't wait to hear the caterwalling
One of the things we've gained from the invasion of Iraq is that people now know how far we are willing to go to protect our interests. Now that they know, most of them probably won't make us do it. However, to take advantage of this situation, we have to let people know we are willing to do it again. Hence:
This is exactly what American officials should be saying; we don't want to, but we will if we have to.
Of course to some people, this talk sounds mean and boorish. If we acted as some would have us, we'd "Declare Peace." That is, we'd promise every one else we'd never attack them.
At which point they'd decide they could do whatever they wanted. They'd continue to take what they wanted from us until we either cease to exist, or finally give up and go to war.
I'm not sure if TR was right about speaking softly, but he was certainly right about the big stick.
Bringing me down to earth
You know, every time Tony Blair's foreign policy starts making me feel good, I end up reading things like this. It cures me of any illusions I might be harboring about him.
Talk about chutzpah!
The district court has dismissed Norma McCorvey's request to reopen Roe:
I really have no way to judge the legal merits of her claim, but I just couldn't let one part of this story pass:
You can describe abortion activists a lot of ways, but it takes real gall to frame their position as believing, "the government should not be involved." Excuse me! She's the one who took this thing to the Supreme Court! Once that happened, it was inevitable that the government would be involved from here on out.
I guess in strange sense I can see her point, but still, come on!
Different name, same game
Since the Soviet Union fell. we've moved on to other threats. America has a short attention span, so we tend to forget what's not constantly thrust in front of us by the media. That's why it's was so interesting to read William F. Buckley's article about the state of Russian vs. U.S. spying.
Thursday, June 19, 2003This is troubling
Chris Regan has a post about troubling trends in Christian churches in regards to Harry Potter. It seems many churches are melding Potter and the Gospel.
Separation of Powers
A good question
Martin Roth is looking for information about Iranian Christians. He's got a list of some of the resources he's already found.
Seeing both sides
Christopher Johnson points out a story about how many Congressmen are attempting to pass legislation which would restrict the ability of the district and appellate courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Johnson also comments on those who are trying to argue that such a move would, itself, be unconstitutional.
I agree that Congress has the constitutional authority to pass this law. To me, the question is rather, "Is this a good idea?" The answer, I believe, is "No!" While Congress certainly has the ability to pass such a law, thereby forcing all issues regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge to be heard by the Supreme Court, it seems a bad precedent. The current lower court system has been long established and served us quite well. If Congress begins to selectively rip power from the lower courts every time the courts yield an answer they don't like, the system could become horribly mangled over time.
To me this is a case that proves," Just because you have the right, that doesn't mean it is right.
If you've got to ask the question
... you probably really know the answer.
Orrin Kerr posts an ethical conundrum he's having. The gist of the matter is that the cashier at a store refused to charge him for all of his merchandise.
I have no idea why Kerr specifically chose to post this question, but I don't personally find it puzzling at all. He clearly knows what he thinks he ought to do. He says, "contacting the manager would make [him] feel better,' which seems a clear indication that he thinks he ought to do so.
The only reason he suggests he shouldn't is that for such a trifling dollar amount, it hardly seems worthwhile. However, the act of posting his puzzle online in what appears to be a request for input has probably already taken more time than it would take to call the store and speak to the manager.
So why doesn't he just do so? I have no idea in this particular case what Kerr's motivations are; but in my experience, when people ask an ethical question and, while asking, tell you what they think they ought to do, they're really hoping that someone else will tell them they don't have to do what they know they ought to do. (Sorry about that last sentence, but I couldn't think of less cumbersome way to phrase it.)
Update - I've decided that I may have not made it clear enough that I wasn't making any type of specific statement about Kerr's motivations. I was just trying to make a general observation.
In any event, I emailed Orrin and I thought I'd post his reply:
And he's right. Most people probably wouldn't have given a second thought. I think that's rather sad, but true nonetheless.
This is getting out of hand
Maybe it's just me, but requiring securities dealers to save their employees' IMs for 3 years seems over the top.
What sex are the angels?
Who cares? People are trying to kill us!
Walid Phares points out that our Congressmen are arguing about the wrong things.
Wednesday, June 18, 2003Riddle me this Batman
... What was this dude doing in the field in the first place?
I tried to rant about this, but I guess I'm too tired. Insert your own comments here.
Che, and hippies, and smelly guys, Oh My!
The Lone Dissenter has a post beyond description. Just read and laugh.
I really got a kick out of this part of John Hawkin's review of Bruce Almighty:
He's got a point. In one of the big love scenes in Star Wars Episode II, the editors lifted the actors out of entirely different takes and placed them together on the screen. Surely somebody could have gotten rid of a boom mic.
Christopher Johnson wants to know if "mainline" Christian groups like the National Council of Churches and the Episcopal church will apologize for having helped spread Iraqi propaganda that is now provably false.
Unfortunately, the answer is probably no.
Just saw this on Drudge:
Unless "peacekeeping" is defined as "smashing Hamas" there's no justification for sending U.S. troops to Israel. And if someone gets the bright idea of sending them as unarmed peacekeepers, I'm going to be seriously pissed.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003Orrin Hatch has lost his mind!
I was just flabbergasted when I saw this:
Look, I understand that online copyright violation is a big problem. Especially so because, for some reason, normally law abiding people have no problem downloading music and movies for which they have not paid. I fully agree with the Senator that this is without excuse.
However, the Senator's suggestion is also without excuse. He seems to completely ignore the concept of due process here. In a free society, people should not be denied their right to property without trial. (That principle also calls into question some of the methods used in the war on drugs, but that's a separate issue.) He's also ignoring minor little details like the fact that many of the people who might engage in this behavior live in other countries, which puts them outside of Congress's jurisdiction. Not to mention the fact that there are actually legitimate reasons to download copyrighted material. You cannot tell from a remote location whether any of those exceptions might apply. Not to mention the fact that a lot of these illegal downloads are being done by minors using computers that aren't theirs.
All in all, this is a seriously bad idea.
I'll second that
Jeff Brokaw has posted a well deserved tribute to David Robinson. (And it has nothing to do with the NBA playoffs.)
Yeah, that too
Yes Bene, the toonies were a little difficult too.
One thing I forgot to mention: When an American has dinner with four Canadians, it is definitely possible to suffer from "Eh" overload.
I must have missed that part of the Constitution
Tom Daschle has be come the latest Democratic Senator to insist that the President avoid "divisiveness" by pre-screening any Supreme Court nominees with them.
Funny, the way I read Article II, Section 2 the President has sole authority to appoint nominees. The Senate votes them up or down, but they don't get to pre-screen.
The other thing that bothers me is that the Democrats seem to basically be saying, "Don't make us fight you!" If their real concern was not having a big fight, that could be solved easily. Just don't fight him. But "divisiveness" isn't what they're really worried about. Getting Supreme Court justice's who actually read the Constitution, now that's what bothers them.
I must admit to being confused
I personally think Mel Gibson's insistence on making his film about the death of Christ entirely in Aramaic and Latin with no subtitles to be a little misguided. Regardless, I find some of the reactions to the film a little odd.
For instance, this story has Gibson responding to charges of anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism in the film. I find that rather odd because I have yet to see any evidence that any of the people criticizing the content of the film have actually seen it.
Gibson has clearly struck some kind of nerve with people, but I still can't figure out what it is.
Well, I'm not sure what to make of this
'Roe' Seeks to Overturn Historic Abortion Ruling
This could certainly make things interesting.
Update - Eugene Volokh says he
Update - Eugene Volokh says hedoesn't think it will make any difference, legally speaking.
This means WAR!
I'm sure he left a few things out, but Juan Gato reminds us of some of the things the North Koreans are mad about. It seems about right.
Monday, June 16, 2003Don't believe the lies
That's Ben Domenech's advice to graduates listening to graduation speeches. I'd quote some of it, but it really needs to be read in its entirety.
Which is why we have an army ...
... was my first thought upon seeing this article.
Somehow, I doubt that's the response they were going for. Anyway, any nascent sympathy I might have for those polled was crushed by this paragraph:
Yeah, I don't have a lot of respect for people who can read about a political prison for children and still believe that the U.S. was wrong to put an end to these atrocities.
[Post updated to correct grammar.]
Second verse, same as the first
Haven't we sung this song before?
What are the chances that the mad mullahs will be any more cooperative than Saddam?
What is "Black" anyway?
Jack Rich has an interesting post about race relations in Brazil. It's well worth the read.
Seems to work
While I was gone, they finally installed the new BloggerPro interface. So far, it seems to work better than the old one.
Ok, I'm back from Winnipeg. Actually, I've been back sense Thursday night, but I've been alternating between horrible headaches and going to a wedding. I'm not feeling al that great at the moment either, but I'm going to try to get back to the posting groove.
I had a great time in Winnipeg and got to spend some a lot of time with a friend of mine, so my trip would have to be categorized as a success. I'd never been to Canada, so I was particularly struck by some of the differences, most of them small.
Normal blogging will return just as soon as I figure out exactly what normal is.
Friday, June 06, 2003
Just so you know, I'll be leaving town this afternoon and the country tomorrow. I'll be in Winnipeg until the 12th. Posting will probably be light and sporadic at best.
OK, This Is Over the Top
What would any self-respecting person, regardless of guilt or innocence, do if the were very publicly accused of committing a crime? What was that? Proclaim their innocence?
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Only when Martha Stewart does it, prosecutors call it a crime. They're accusing her of trying to manipulate the market by proclaiming her innocence.
Excuse me? Look, I haven't paid much attention to the whole Martha Stewart mess and I neither know, nor care whether or not she's guilty. Nevertheless, let me say that this is absurd. Yes, theoretically, when the CEO is accused of a crime and then proclaims, "I'm innocent!" the stock may recover some of its lost value, but that's only a tangential thing. Notice also that I said recover value. The stock will have already taken a hit when said CEO is accused of the crime in the first place. Should the people who brought the charges in the first place be accused of market manipulation? What about the prosecutors who indicted her? Their actions surely affected the stock in her company as well.
I'm going to stop now before I'm tempted to use stronger language.
Thursday, June 05, 2003
I haven't even read this story, but the headline is a gas.
The UN has weapons? Weapons that talk? Wow!
Mark Byron thinks that Condaleeza Rice would have much better chances running for President than Hillary would. I don't know about that, but it's an interesting thought.
In Star Trek IV, the Klingon Ambassador to the Federation, while demanding the Federation extradite Captain Kirk, proclaimed, "There can be no peace as long as Kirk lives." In fact, he was wrong. In Star Trek VI, the Federation and the Klingon Empire signed a peace treaty. Not only was Kirk still alive, he was instrumental in the process.
Such will not be the case with Yasser Arafat. WordNetDaily is reporting that Arafat was furious to be left out of the latest summit. Meanwhile, numerous outlets are reporting that Arafat is proclaiming that nothing substantive happened at the summit. It is my belief that Arafat will never allow any peace that does not include the destruction of Israel. He will actively sabotage any other plan.
There can be no peace as long as Arafat lives. It may seem harsh, but there it is.
In light of the recent behavior of the "government" in Myanmar, Senators McConnell and Feinstein want to ban all imports from that country. I'm really not sure offhand if this is a good idea. However, some of the specifics seem a little off to me:
One of my pet peeves is when Congress delegates legislative power to the Executive branch. I believe it is irresponsible and it also blurs the line between those branches of government, thus damaging the separation of powers doctrine. All these provisions that allow the President to waive any part of the law that he wants to seem suspiciously lazy to me. Rather than just drafting a good law in the first place, they want to give the President the authority to clean up the mess they've made.
While I'm on the subject, there was also this gem:
Does "all available resources" include the 101st Airborne? Just asking.
I think that at this point it is far too soon to draw any conclusions about WMDs in Iraq. Nevertheless, I think Josh Claybourn makes some important points. I think he overstates the case, but the issue is certainly not without merit.
I do want to highlight this comment:
You've got to be careful what you say. Lest we forget, Ann Coulter actually wrote a column advocating attacking France in December of 2001. (And considering Coulter's belligerence, I'm not entirely certain she was kidding.)
More seriously, while I see Josh's point, I am gradually coming to the conclusion that fighting wars to overthrow tyrants. As I've explained elsewhere, I'm gradually coming to the conclusion, although I'm not there yet, that America has the responsibility to use it's might to improve the plight of those in other countries. In the movie First Knight, Sean Connery as King Arthur says, "Where is it written, 'Beyond Camelot lie lesser men. Let them die.'" America may be as close as the real world comes to Camelot; should we really refrain from using that position to better the lives of those who live without freedom under tyrannical regimes? Should we really treat lines drawn on maps as insuperable barriers to doing the right thing? I think not.
Josh asks why not do in Syria, Lebanon, etc. what we did in Iraq. While wars with China and North Korea would be extremely dangerous and could end up doing more harm than good, hence requiring a great deal of caution. I'm not sure I would have any moral or political problems doing exactly what Josh asks in, what I assume, was jest. (Well, OK, not France.)
I wouldn't want you too Josh.
David Frum has a great post about the major problem when it comes to Middle East peace.
Dick Morris says that Hillary is almost certainly being less then truthful when she denies knowing that Bill was lying to her.
Here's the best farewell to Raines pun I've seen.
End Soccer Now!
... or something like that.
I've got to ditto Martin Devon's take on the Sosa affair.
Mark Steyn has a great article about politics in Jordan and Iraq. It's all good, but I think this part is important:
Read it all.
It looks like China is using SARS as an excuse to persecute the Falun Gong. Not like the need and excuse; persecuting people is one of the things the Chinese governments do best.
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
David Carr thinks Tony Blair has some serious PR problems. You've got to love this line though:
Jack Rich has reposted his thoughts on the "Roadmap". Since I didn't catch it the first time, I'm linking it now. It really is excellent.
Perhaps Chris Regan is overreaching in this post (mostly) about Al Franken. I don't know personally; it's just so odd.
Calling All Cars
Jason Steffens wants to know if anyone can help him track down information about the United Way and whether or not any local chapters support abortion.
Orrin Judd says recent actions by the Tories in the British House of Commons are disgraceful. He's right.
That would do it.
Meanwhile, Terence Jeffrey reminds us that we have already found to mobile bio-weapons labs.
David Limbaugh, quite rightly, points out that the burden was never on the U.S. to prove Saddam had WMDs, but on Saddam to prove he'd disposed of them. This was something that Saddam repeatedly failed to do. Not only did he not produce the demanded evidence, but he continued to act guilty. Which is to say that he repeatedly lied, obfuscated, and otherwise distorted the truth. It would be quite accurate to say that the war was entirely accurate to say that Saddam's failure to abide by Resolution 1441 was all the justification for war that was needed.
However, we cannot dismiss the fact that the U.S. and British governments did more than say that Saddam hadn't satisfied 1441. They said that they were certain he in fact had WMDs. If this was not the truth, then we would certainly have a major credibility issue. If they lied, then critics would be quite right to bring this issue up. However, I have not heard any of these people produce any credible evidence that either government lied. Instead, they are mostly arguing that the failure to, as yet, produce incontrovertible evidence that Iraq had WMDs proves conclusively that both governments were in fact lying.
Unfortunately for them, that logic just doesn't track. The critics appear to be overextending themselves to get in on a feeding frenzy. (Said frenzy is, much to their dismay, not developing as fast as they would like.) They may well regret this in the end.
Of course, time alone will tell the tale.
I got a Google hit from someone looking for "Dominique de Villepin Fan Sites". Someone was seriously disappointed.
Sheesh, the malaise is really setting in. I was looking at Google News and say at least 5 stupid stories. I couldn't be bothered to read any of them, much less analyze, dissect, or gripe about them. Maybe it's the headache and maybe it's just that I don't care at the moment.
One thing that I do want to comment on is a thought that occurred to me yesterday. Bush and Blair's critics are really going strong. They insist that the people were lied to; they claim not only that Iraq had no WMDs, but that Bush and Blair knew this in advance and lied about it. Some of them seem to be absolutely salivating.
This got me thinking; this whole thing actually looks familiar. Many times during his presidency, Bush's opponents have started circling like sharks ready to tear into him. Then one day, suddenly he yanks out the shark repellant and they're left wondering what happened, again. The reason I bring this up, is that a few days ago, Tony Blair said he had "absolutely no doubt" that evidence of WMDs would be found. That's a pretty stunning level of confidence, especially when you combine it with his statement that he welcomes an investigation by Parliament.
Now it's true that this could all just be bluster, or perhaps he just doesn't think he'll get caught. However, I doubt this. There is another explanation that the critics don't seem to have thought of; perhaps Bush and Blair know something that their critics don't know. Perhaps they've already found some pretty convincing evidence that hasn't been released yet.
Now, if this is true, there's several possible explanations for why they might be waiting to release it. Perhaps they are simply trying to verify the evidence and prevent more of what happened early during the war; a string of early announcements that they appeared to have found weapons dumps, only to discover later that they only had a false positive from initial tests. Perhaps what they've found is going to take time to secure and they've decided it will be easier to set up security if nobody knows what's going on. It could also be that they've found enough evidence to prove themselves right and they're just making sure that their political opponents set out enough rope to hang themselves.
Now if that last one is true, it's arguable whether this isn't rather cynical and not really appropriate under the circumstances. It would, however, be good politics.
I have no idea whether any of this is true, but it's certainly possible. Blair's extremely high level of confidence in recent remarks makes it seem, if not a probability, at least an extremely high possibility. Of course, time will tell, but I think it's something worth thinking about.
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Sorry about the lack of posting. I spent most of the day in bed with a horrible headache. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
Monday, June 02, 2003
David Frum, in defense of Fareed Zakaria, makes some great points about the difference between democracy and freedom.
Forbes is carrying a Reuters piece on the "anti-globalization" protests. Unsurprisingly, it's mostly a puff piece. For instance, we're told that all the damage is done by, "a violent anarchist fringe that piggybacks on the peacefully protesting majority." They may not all be doing damage and they may not all be anarchists, but they are all "fringe" as far as I'm concerned.
None of that is why I bring this story up. The story closes with this quote:
That's the thing that really gets me. We have all these people routinely protesting against "globalization". But what on earth is "globalization"? It really is very abstract. What exactly are these people against? This has been going on for a few years now, and other than the idea that some cultures may be "contaminated" by other cultures I really don't know what these people are upset about. I don't get it. I just don't get it at all.
Jack Rich has a very thoughtful piece about politics in America. Specifically, he looks at all the different axes of political confrontation in our country today.
David Adnesnik has some interesting comments about how things are going in Iraq.
Kathleen Parker has some thoughts on Iraq's WMDs:
Personally, I never had any preconceived notions about how long it would take to find Saddam's weapons. I've got to admit that I'm a little bit surprised by how little evidence has been presented to us lately, but I'm not terribly worried by it. At least not in the, "Oh no, we were wrong. What have we done!" way. I believed Hussein needed to be taken out for a variety of reasons. What does worry me is Parker's last point; if we can't find them, does that mean they were given to someone else? If so, what are the chances of that someone else using them?
Sunday, June 01, 2003
I just saw John Kerry on C-Span. I desperately hope he doesn't win the Democratic Party nomination. I don't think I could stand listening to that man. He just seems so condescending it makes me ill. Just thought I'd share.
Christopher Johnson says he's learned that America does not have a love affair with cars; it has a stalker.
Okay, I found something. Here's an AP report talking about how several senators are urging President Bush to stay "engaged" (whatever that means) in the Middle East. They are merely repeating received wisdom; that it is the United States President's absolute responsibility to bring peace to the Middle East.
Why should this be? Why is it our responsibility to bring peace to this area? For that matter, why is it our responsibility to bring peace to any area that doesn't directly impact our national security?
Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to help work for peace worldwide. I'm certainly not arguing for isolationism. I just want to know why so many people worldwide simply assume that it's our responsibility to fix all the world's problems?
That brings me to my next question; why do so many of those same people, once we do try to fix things in other parts of the world; then accuse of hegemonism and cultural imperialism?