a distinct and disturbing pattern of behavior...

A reader sends:

Unfortunately (or perhaps a blessing) the NYT op-ed pages are now by subscription only, so there is no easy way to link. But get a load of this claim they make for the Federal indictment. [link]

Supporters of Mr. Libby, known as Scooter, have attempted to describe the Wilson case as, at worse, a matter of casual gossip by Washington insiders about the wife of a man in the news. But the indictment does not describe a situation in which people accidentally outed someone they did not know was a covert officer. It describes a distinct and disturbing pattern of behavior among very high-ranking officials, including Mr. Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney, who knew that they were dealing with a covert officer and used their access to classified information in a public relations campaign over the rapidly disintegrating justifications for war with Iraq.

This is totally false. Here is the Fitzgerald quote:

Q: Did Libby know whether Valerie Wilson's identity was covert?
A: ...We have not made any allegation that Libby knowingly/intentionally outed a covert agent.

Actually, we do have a "a distinct and disturbing pattern of behavior among very high-ranking officials." But they are officials at the CIA and the major newsmedia, who collaborate closely in leaking and publishing classified information in order to undercut the elected government of the US. Or in Wilson's case, leaking lies that were the exact opposite of classified info! I bet this Times story never got around to mentioning that we now know that Wilson was a total liar, and that we know from the 9/11 Report that he reported to the CIA that Iraq probably did try to buy Uranium from Niger. The exact opposite of what Wilson wrote in his famous NYT Op-Ed, which is a large part of the "Bush lied" lie.

The CIA and the NYT are on the other side, in the war we are in. The are engaged in a campaign of disinformation and leaks of classified information, to undercut and sabotage our country in time of war. The word for that is treason..

If we lead, then others will follow...

In another WoT update, (from a few weeks back, which I missed) TM Lutas links to this StrategyPage report:

October 7, 2005: Arab troops are joining in the war on terror. Aside from conducting operations on their own soil (essentially “regime protection” missions), there are indications that some Arab countries have done more than just verbally support U.S., NATO, and Coalition forces. Apparently small contingents of special operations (commandoes) personnel (usually platoons or companies of 50 –150 troops) from a number of Arab states, have seen action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and perhaps elsewhere. In addition, a number of Arab countries have contributed troops and technical personnel to support the training of Iraqi military and security forces, and some have even opened their own military training camps to Iraqi personnel.

These activities benefit the countries involved in a number of ways. For one thing, they cement ties with the US and the emergent governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the commitments provide valuable training and experience for their own armed forces, which may prove useful for domestic internal security purposes.

News about these activities is not being widely disseminated, mainly because public opinion in many Arab countries is still pro-terrorist.

You could kind of look at this as "insider trading." People in the know are picking up shares in COALITION and selling PRO-TERROR, the global reactionary conglomerate that owns al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the fake anti-war movement...

Godspeed...

I just made a teensy little donation to Bill Rogio, and would strongly urge you to do the same...

Reading his blog, The Fourth Rail, has been the only way to see the fight in Iraq as a whole picture, and not just occasional unconnected scraps of information. The so-called major news media have failed utterly to do this. (It's easy to see why. The big picture shows their side is losing. Just noting where al Qa'im and Qusaybah [or Husaybah] are on the map clearly indicates that the situation for the NYT Coalition is dire.) He has been performing a major public service.

Now Bill has an opportunity to go to Iraq himself, as a reporter. And that takes a lot of dough. But it's the chance of a lifetime, and I only wish it were me going. I'll go there vicariously through him...

"Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark..."

Just in case you thought I was "over the top" when I suggested that Left was "going to party" when the Iraq death toll reached 2,000, you should check out all the candid photos taken by Zombie and houston.indymedia. Such smiles.

And Michelle Malkin has the goods on an NYT 2,000-deaths story, including a quote from the last letter of a Marine corporal. He sounds like another poor grunt who is sad to have to die meaninglessly in bushhitler's Mekong Delta.....except the NYT cut out the rest of the paragraph, which reads:

I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

The NYT is on the other side.

And check out this, from Israpundit. The NYT did something that's almost unheard of--they criticized a Palestinian!!. But someone behind the Kremlin walls quickly deleted the item...

They are on the other side.

Kindred spirits...

One of the positive things about the Miers mess is discovering a few kindred souls in Bloggistan. Mike's America writes:

...Many of us, who do represent the broader base of the Republican Party and the broader conservative movement (you know, the voters you need to WIN an election) would be justified in taking our marbles home and letting the right whiners of the Barabas wing carry the battle this time. But that's not likely to happen since the real base understands it's mature obligation and loyalty to Party, President and nation transcends narrow sectarian interests...

Loyalty to the Republican Party is very important. As William Rusher said, it is the bottle that holds the conservative wine. Neither the bottle nor the wine is much use without the other. I always think, at times like this, of Teddy Roosevelt and Cabot Lodge sticking with the party when all their Progressive reforming friends were jumping ship rather than campaign for Blaine. In the long run they were the ones who could make reforms, and the others have been forgotten.

Effective alternaives do NOT exist...

Wretchard writes, in a post on the prodigious corruption that resulted from the Iraq sanctions regime:

...The fundamental argument against international military action is the supposition that effective alternatives exist to contain rogue states and tyrants. But what if it does not? The Volcker Report essentially describes the history of the decade-long diplomatic battle to proscribe the movements of Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War. It is an account of the unmitigated defeat of the "international community" at the hands of Saddam; not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender. And although the surrender had already taken place, the world was told categorically by the capitulators themselves that they were fighting and winning the good fight against the forces of lawlessness. The problem with September 11 was not that it happened, but that it happened where it could not be ignored; this fact was the virtual third aircraft that crashed into Manhattan that day, striking somewhere in the vicinity of Turtle Bay...

It is possible the most important long-term result of the War on Terror will be the discrediting of the "International Community," the UN, and "International Law." (There are, of course, real international laws which we have voluntarily entered into by vote of the Senate. I'm referring here to the sort that grow in the dark like mushrooms upon beds of leftish manure, and then are simply "declared" to exist whenever another string is needed to tie down the American Gulliver.)

The key point of the Bush Doctrine is that sovereignty rests on democratic legitimacy. The obvious application is to tyrants who seize control of a country, support terrorist attacks, and then say, "Nyah nyah, can't touch me. Treaty of Westphalia, ha ha ha." (And then all the lefty loons pretending to be "peace activists" echo: "Nyah nyah nyah, can't touch our guy Saddam. He's in the safe-box.") BUT, the same objection could be made to the "International Community." And will be.

Orient pearl fit for a queen, Will I give thy love to win...

THE RIVER GOD

I am this fountain's god. Below.
My waters to a river grow,
and 'twixt two banks with osiers set,
That only prosper in the wet.
Through the meadows do they glide,
Wheeling still on every side,
Sometimes winding round about,
To find the evenest channel out.
and if thou wilt go with me
Leaving mortal company,
In the cool streams shalt thou lie,
Free from harm as well as I:
I will give thee for thy food
No fish that useth in the mud;
But trout and pike, that love to swim
Where the gravel from the brim
Through the pure streams may be seen:
Orient pearl fit for a queen
Will I give thy love to win,
And a shell to keep them in;
Not a fish in all my brook,
That shall disobey thy look,
But when thou wilt come sliding by,
And from thy white hand take a fly
And to make thee understand
How I can my waves command,
They shall bubble whilst I sing,
Sweeter than the silver string.
Do not fear to put thy feet
Naked in the river sweet;
Think not leech, nor newt, or toad,
will bite thy foot when thou hast trod;
Nor let the water rising high
As thou wad'st in, make thee cry
And sob; but ever live with me,
And not a wave shall trouble thee
--John Fletcher

Too bad...

Charlene and I are very sorry that Harriet Miers has had to withdraw. We both think she would have made a fine justice. But she's a good soldier, and the controversy was hurting the party. Hugh Hewitt writes:

I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.

She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies.

amen. It occurs to me that if the President nominated my wife for the Federal bench, the same objections of a lack of a paper-trail would be made about her. And I would say. "I know her. She's going to be great!" But no one would believe me. "Cronyism" you know. ...So I guess now only judges and professors can be nominated to the Supreme Court...

No act of appeasement would change their plans of murder...

PowerLine suggests we not be "distracted by the minutiae of the day," (which have been getting me in a tizzy lately) and focus on the big issue...for which this great speech by the President to the Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' Group is good medicine...a small piece...

...No acts of ours involves the rage of killers. And no concessions, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans of murder. On the contrary; they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory...

...Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It's not justified. With every random bombing and every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves. In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny to liberation, to national elections, to the ratification of a constitution -- in the space of two and a half years.

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. That would be a pleasant world -- but it isn't the world in which we live. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory -- and we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory...

And here's another thing I found just now, at a moment when I was feeling disgusted with The President for his revoking of his suspension of Davis-Bacon in the Katrina area, this, by Soxblog:

...This line brought me back to an essay I had written on Neville Chamberlain a little over a year ago. I observed that no one really remembers whether Chamberlain had magnificent economic policies, whether he treated women and minorities in an enlightened manner, or even whether he had a lot of good photo-ops when natural disasters struck the U.K.

No, all history remembers about Chamberlain is that he booted the big one. He didn’t realize the danger that Hitler posed, or was unwilling to confront that danger in a forceful manner. As a consequence, tens of millions perished...

"He booted the big one." Exactly. I've read a ton of history books. And diving into history is like putting some fractal image under magnification. You move closer, and the seemingly solid object is seen to be divided into many smaller objects. And if you magnify one of those spots, you see that it in turn is made of many smaller ones...and on and on.

But that doesn't mean that the big picture doesn't exist! And that it is not important, though it can seem impossible to discern when you are down among all the little bits.

They stand on Freedom's Wall...and they do NOT want to be USED for propaganda...

Instapundit quoted from this piece, by J.D. Johannes, so you've probably already seen it, but it's worth noting again...

...Numbers 2,000, 1,999 and 1,997 also strapped up every day to stand on a wall many in America are willing let crumble. And to those who would let that wall crumble, they are just numbers.

They are not men of action and conviction, to the anti-war faction, they are merely numbers of sufficient quotient to send a press releases and hold press events.

I asked Marines all across Al Anbar province two questions:
1. If something goes bad and you die here. What would you think of people who used your death to protest the war.
2. After being here, and knowing what you know, would you still join the Marines/volunteer for this deployment?

The answers were invariably the same.

They did not want their death to be used as a prop and they would make the same decision all over again. These young Lance Corporals and Non-Commissioned Officers volunteered to join the Marines, many with the intent of coming to Iraq. And while few would say they like war, they all recognize the necessity of it.

The Marines and soldiers who fight in Iraq are not numbers, but the media and certain groups are treating them as if they were. Number 2,000 was a national treasure, just as number 1,435 was and number 2,038 will be. For what is the value of a man who will fight a war for others who despise him?

But for those who are willing to take action, there would be no wall at all hold back evil and those men and women on the wall deserve more than a number.

Hey, fake pacifists, how about a vigil for these guys in the coffins in the picture? There's a nice round number: 8,000. Thats 8,000 Kurds from the 1983 massacre of the Kurdish tribe of Mullah Mustafa Barzan. (A tiny part of the total of Kurds killed by Saddam.)

So when do they get a candle-light vigil? Ha ha, silly of me, the answer, of course, is never. There's no anti-Bush propaganda coins to be made off of Kurds, so they get no notice.

The practitioner's view...

More of the vrai from Hugh:

...Over at Powerline, the various posts and points of view on the nomination are an excellent example of how practioners are approaching the debate, which like the posts at Hedgehog and Beldar, are markedly different from those of pure pundits who have not sat first chair through lengthy trials, argued complicated motions on short notice, fenced through endless depositions or negotiated a huge partnership through an annual points redistribution...

I've seen a lot of this stuff, as a spectator to the career of Mrs Random Jottings. So, just like Hugh, I find the views of those bloggers who are practitioners much more compelling. That someone who has been managing partner in a big firm could be considered in any way a second-rater is pure lunacy...

...The modern, large law firm is such a very different beast than it was when the last big firm partner joined the court --a date and name for which I can't even figure out. The appreciation for the skills set that a senior partner and indeed a managing partner brings to the table is very impressive and also very obscure outside of the world of American Lawyer. One reason I believe Miers will do well in the hearings is this background, where daily she had to guide ego-driven, powerful and talented lawyers to a common goal....

Exactly. And being White House Staff Secretary is in much the same league. If you know anything about that job, you know that success (and, even better, quiet success) is a big deal.

...I have been waiting to see if some disgruntled former partner was going to launch a salvo at Miers, but have not yet found such an item, which is very surprising given the opportunities for imagined grievances in large firms...

Yes! Or even absurdly small firms. That's the elephant that hasn't, so far, barked in the night.

(By the way, if you need some savvy legal advice, drop me an e-mail, and I may be able to get you a blogospheric discount, at least for an initial consultation, with the Random Jottings House Counsel...)

I kept clicking on Hugh, knowing something was coming...

Hugh Hewitt has a great post up on Miers. I was going to quote stuff, but really, one ought to just read it. But I will quote this sentence, which can stand on its own:

...I do not believe that reliability in decision-making is a sound basis for selection of a nominee for the same reason I don’t believe in close questioning of nominees on specific issues likely to come before the SCOTUS: The rule of law depends on the legitimate belief that the justices and judges are not indifferent to argument....

That should be obvious, and that it has to be said at all is a measure of the terrible harm done to our system by the activist judges who have invented various laws that Democrats could not get past the voters.

"Are not indifferent to argument..." That's what we want from a judge. My good wife puts motions before judges all the time, and I have never once in more than 20 years heard her express a hope for a judge who was predisposed in favor of her case. But smart judges who can grasp her arguments and rule fairly--those she prizes above rubies. (Metaphorically speaking, I mean; real rubies might have unpredictable effects on her levelheadedness...

Practical advice for Cindy....

Cindy what's-her-name is going to "tie" herself to the White House. The Madison Freedom Fighter writes;

...Here is some practical advice for Cindy Sheehan and her supporters to stifle terrorist attacks against US troops in Iraq and save lives:

Why don't you chain themselves to the Syrian Embassy and demand that they stop insurgents from crossing into Iraq? Syrian insurgents are crossing the boarder daily with little resistance from the Syrian government. If they would stop these criminals from illegally crossing into Iraq, hundreds of soldiers may still be alive today. Demand a meeting with Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the US and tell him to crack down on illegal boarder crossings.

Why don't you chain themselves to the Iranian Embassy (technically the Interests Section of Iran, as this country does not have an official embassy in the US) and demand that they stop giving weapons to terrorists in Southern Iraq? There are clear links between Iran and technologically advanced explosives that are being used to terrorize Iraqi civilians and American Soldiers alike. You can set up a meeting and demand they stop killing US Soldiers by providing advanced shape explosive charges to terrorists...

When you read something like that, you see how utterly fraudulent the so-called "anti-war" movement is. They would never in a million years protest against Syria or Iran and their sponsorship of terrorists. And they don't want to save (American) lives; they've got all those plans in place for the big happy 2,000 day...

Right wing bloggers tear off own heads, throw them across room

(The title is a joke; if you are in with the in-crowd you will get it...UPDATE: I've been asked to explain the joke. The title is Andrea's, see here. She's the best writer around, but would never stoop to mud-slinging and controversy)

NZ Bear is polling bloggers on the Miers nomination...He writes:

...I will implement some code this weekend to search for the phrases above, and generate a running list of bloggers for, against, and neutral on the nomination. This will be much more interesting than a standard online poll, as it will ensure "one-blog-one-vote", and avoid the usual ballot-stuffing silliness of online surveys...

So, I'll put in my phrase: I support the Miers nomination. (results here.)

Some reasons: (and I may add more later)

1. She has Executive Branch experience helping fight the War on Terror. Our courts are fronts in the War. Outfits like the ACLU are fighting on the other side, using the courts to hinder our war fighting. Ivory-tower legal-scholar types might fall for their clever clap-trap; Harriet Miers won't.
2. She has experience defending businesses. She will have little sympathy for the myriad attacks they endure.
3. She has practical experience as a lawyer. The sort of people George Will favors have probably never filed a lawsuit, or defended against one. There should be at least one chief who has actually been an Injun, and taken some scalps...
4. I believe in favoritism. An effective leader, like Bush, will accumulate a following of talented people and keep promoting them. That's good. (And labeling that "cronyism" is an egregious misuse of the English language!)
5. Miers is in sync with the President. I think a lot of the conservative criticism is actually criticism of Bush, not Miers. But I am mostly in agreement with him, so I have no problem with a loyalist nominee.
6. It's the President's job to choose which battles to fight. He only has the political capital to fight a limited number of them. A lot of the criticism is really about wanting a big fight right now over judges. "I'll hold your coat while you go fight" is what they are saying. Phooey.
7. The troops who will actually fight are 55 GOP Senators. That David Frum or Jonah G are feeling pugnacious is irrelevant; it is the combativeness of the 55 that matters. If the general doesn't feel his troops are ready for a fight, he may know something!
8. She's a regular gal. I'm pretty sure she's far more in tune with ordinary Americans, and especially ordinary Republicans, than the whippersnappers at National Review. She IS an ordinary American, which is worth a lot of points to me. (Most people who vote conservative/Republican have never heard of National Review, and wouldn't like it if they encountered it.) I'm with the Beoetians here, and not the clever-Johnny Athenians...

UPDATE: Don't miss Grenfull Hunt's answer to George Will's column. And also Big Lizard's. I think the phrase "tears off own head, throws across room" was just made for Mr Will's column...

Time for a whing-ding....

Apparently the leftizoids are planning to PARTY when American deaths in Iraq hit 2,000.

This is filthy in so many ways one is almost at a loss...

But number one, this is a big fat message to the terrorists begging them to kill Americans. And promising them propaganda support as a reward. And since we know that the arhabi are waging a media war, and do things like time attacks to get on the US news broadcasts, we can say that the American Friends Service Committee has just purchased the guaranteed deaths of some of our our soldiers. The next time you see some smoldering wreckage in Baghdad, remember that it was instigated by "pacifists."

And of course the only reason these frauds get to play at being fake-pacifist fake-leftist anti-Americans is that they are protected by the might of the US military. If they were ever grabbed by terrorists and were about to have their heads sawed off, they would sing a different tune. Like, "Why isn't George Bush protecting us? Where's the Marines?"

You only find "pacifists" in parts of the world where they are protected by tough men wielding deadly force. And when the hippie vegetarian Goddess-worshiper hears the chainsaw-murderer sawing into her house late at night, you can bet she calls the police, and feels damn glad when they show up with shotguns in hand. (And are willing to risk their lives to protect her even after they see the "Free Mumia" poster.)

It's hard, having my state represented by a moron...

David Gelernter writes some good words:

...We often hear from Democrats that President Bush's policy in Iraq makes no sense. But how can it make sense to the Barbara Boxers of Congress if they can't understand the explanation?

Rice was defending the administration's conduct of the war when Boxer objected. The administration, Boxer noted (correctly), has changed focus on Iraq. We went to war mainly on account of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism, she said. But WMD turned out to be a hoax on the whole world, and nowadays we are told that our Iraq mission is gigantic. We plan for a freed Iraq to inspire and stabilize the entire Middle East and to promote democracy everywhere. What kind of bait-and-switch is the administration playing with the American people?

Rice answered that this is the way the world works. For example, we did not go into World War II to build a democratic Germany…. Here Boxer interrupted. World War II, she told Rice curtly, has nothing to do with Iraq. Boxer had lost relatives in the Holocaust. No one had to tell her about World War II.

But Rice's analogy was exactly right. And by the way, using the Holocaust as a bat to beat political enemies over the head is demeaning to Jews and to human dignity. Having lost relatives in the Holocaust does not, in any case, confer expertise in U.S. history.

Democracies rarely declare war to improve the world, as Rice could have explained had she had the chance. They fight to protect themselves, sometimes to fulfill treaty obligations. But once a war is underway, free peoples tend to think things over deeply. Casualties concentrate the mind. We refuse to let our soldiers die for too little. America at war has lifted its sights again and again from danger, self-interest and self-defense to a larger, nobler goal. Same story, war after war. Iraq fits perfectly....

That's a good point about the Holocaust. Especially, it should not even be mentioned by cold-hearted people who think that projects to liberate people from genocide and concentration camps should be put on the back-burner indefinitely.

Actually, I myself feel pretty confident that among the goals of the war was always to start the transformation of the Middle East, at least to some. To neocons, and to people like me, who all along have responded to those who snivel that we might "destabilize the region" by answering "YES! That's the plan!" WMD's in the hands of killers were always a valid reason for war (and still are, and even a bluff should be met with instant forceful attack) but they were also an excuse to bring around the cold-hearted fearful creatures who couldn't even dream of making the world a better place.

But the "larger, nobler goal" has come to the fore, as it has so often in our history. And only those with shriveled souls can't feel its appeal...

I read the papers, I know all that's happening...

Daniel McKivergan posts:

The speech delivered yesterday by Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, got a lot of press attention. But while all these reports highlighted the negative remarks he made about the Bush White House, they didn't mention Wilkerson's other seemingly newsworthy comments...

Well you see, there's the news what's fit to print, and the news what's not.

News has a purpose. Have you ever encountered the bios or memoirs of journalists, and--I don't mean old-timers, you understand, but Baby-Boom or later--and they say why they went to journalism school? They always say that they went to journalism school--old timers didn't even go to J school, they just went out and started reporting things--they always say that they wanted to make the world a better place!

And to do that, you can't report all the news. Some of it is bad, harmful. The little people don't understand that, and it's important to spare them information that might cause bad thoughts. It's such a problem, that the same sort of people who drink tap water and drive Fords can also vote. The harm they do is enormous; just look around at what a mess the world has become since 1980.

But journalists can make a difference. They can edit the world, so it becomes comprehensible, a coherent narrative, pruned of extraneous misinformation and...well, look at me, I'm just rambling on and on. You folks don't need this, you are part of the intelligentsia. You can just click on the link and see what it was obviously necessary to edit out of the news reports...

(Thanks to GOPinion)

good news

It looks like Roche is going to license other drug companies to produce Tamiflu.

Sounds like a smart move. If demand keeps going up, they will make a lot of money from the licensing fees. And, should the worst-case scenario occur, they won't spend the next 50 years being known as the company whose selfishness killed millions of people...

(Thanks to PowerLineNews)

In trial every day...

Beldar has a great post, with fascinating anecdotes, on the question of trial experience in the Miers nomination...

...Thus, I can tell you this with great confidence, even without knowing whether Ms. Miers would or would not meet my highly subjective standards for being a "real trial lawyer": JPod's [John Podhoretz's] assumption — "If Miers has spent her career helping people and corporations avoid courtrooms, that doesn't suggest she has any judicial legal skills whatsoever" — is badly wrong. His insistence that settled cases are "beside the point" means that he's never understood how litigation actually works, and that's why all those "billions" of lawyers are emailing him! It's the sort of thing that only someone very inexperienced in the American civil justice system could say....

...The only way that lawyers who handle litigation can "help people and corporations avoid courtrooms" is by being fully prepared to go into courtrooms, and projecting to the other side their readiness and capability to do so...

This is something I can confirm. As you know, Mrs Random Jottings is a lawer. She's a skilled litigator, and takes cases to trial...and wins. However the great majority of her cases never get to trial; they are settled out-of-court.

But I can tell you, since I'm often her sounding-board, that actually she tries all of them! Every move is made with an eye on an eventual trial, and on how the other side is going to think about their chances in that trial. And as the pre-trial maneuverings go on, sometimes for years, the amount each party is willing to settle for keeps changing. If a witness looks good in deposition, or if a motion to exclude some morsel of evidence wins, then everyones calculations change...

#194: Who does he think is spending all the money?

KRUGMAN TRUTH SQUAD

In The Big Squeeze (10/20/05) Paul Krugman faces economic reality with his usual left-wing partisan edge. Also, as usual, he can’t quite get his square left-wing peg to fit the circle of facts. The issue he discusses in this column is globalization; it’s impact on US labor and what, if anything, should be done about what he sees as the erosion of America’s working middle class. His basic sentiments are as put this way:

“There was a time when the American economy offered lots of good jobs - jobs that didn't make workers rich but did give them middle-class incomes. The best of these good jobs were at America's great manufacturing companies, especially in the auto industry”.

And the basic problem is stated this way:

“But it has been a generation since most American workers could count on sharing in the nation's economic growth. America is a much richer country than it was 30 years ago, but since the early 1970's the hourly wage of the typical worker has barely kept up with inflation”.

The sentiment is head-in-the-sand drivel and Krugman’s statement of the basic problem is incorrect. The US economy is not stagnant; it’s dynamic and innovating. And contrary to popular belief the US is not losing it’s manufacturing base. The US share of manufacturing output (on a value added basis) remains the highest in the world and is not in decline. What has declined is manufacturing employment–we’re making more stuff with fewer workers.

Earth to Krugman: This is called progress, aka higher productivity

And the way American labor will adjust to this progress in the same manner it always has–since the invention of the lathe. Skills will be upgraded and the jobs shed by manufacturing will be shifted into higher value added enterprises. It’s happening as we speak.

Krugman would have us believe that since the 1970s inflation-adjusted National Income has tripled but the “typical” worker is no better off than 30 years ago. This is nonsense. Has he never been to a booming mall, or crowded car dealership, or waited for a table in a popular restaurant? Who does he think is spending all the money? Maybe he thinks the typical worker is a migrant farm worker or checkout clerk at Best Buy. But wait. There’s actual evidence. Here are two charts from the web site of Krugman’s buddy, Brad DeLong. The top chart shows the share of domestic income going for wages and salaries excluding employer contributions to pensions and health care; the lower chart includes these contributions. Either way, Krugman is wrong. Even a 6 percent smaller share (top chart) of a pie that’s tripled since the 70s represents substantial progress.

So, having conjured up a problem that does not exist and a labor market adjustment that is routinely resolving itself, how does Krugman get out of this pickle? Incredibly, he concludes by telling us that “denial is not an option” and that “something must be done.” What a guy!

[The Truth Squad is a group of economists who have long marveled at the writings of Paul Krugman. The Squad Reports are synopses of their discussions. ]

Step in the right direction...

This is a very good step. The Great Lesson of the Twentieth Century (well, actually, there were several lessons, but this one is not unimportant) is that "defined-benefit" plans of all sorts are time-bombs waiting to explode...

New York Times. WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The Bush administration approved a sweeping Medicaid plan for Florida on Wednesday that limits spending for many of the 2.2 million beneficiaries there and gives private health plans new freedom to limit benefits.

The Florida program, likely to be a model for many other states, shifts from the traditional Medicaid "defined benefit" plan to a "defined contribution" plan, under which the state sets a ceiling on spending for each recipient....

...Under the waiver, Florida will establish "a maximum per year benefit limit" for each recipient and fundamentally change its role. The state will largely be a buyer rather than a manager of health care.

In an interview, Alan M. Levine, secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, estimated that no more than 5 percent of Medicaid recipients would hit their annual limits. At that point, Mr. Levine said, "the health plan will still be responsible for providing services to the consumer, but the state's reimbursement would be limited to that amount."

Asked whether the beneficiary would be responsible for paying costs beyond the limit, he said: "That can happen today. There are arbitrary limits and caps embedded in the state Medicaid program, limits on home health services, doctors' visits, prescription drugs."

For each beneficiary, Florida will pay a monthly premium to a private plan. Insurance plans will be allowed to limit "the amount, duration and scope" of services in ways that current law does not permit....(Thanks to Orrin)

I mentioned here that I judge the Bush Administration on somewhat different criteria than many conservatives... "But the metric I'm watching is the Ownership Society (and the war of course)..." This article is an example of what I'm looking for. It's a big step in the right direction. There's a lot of choice involved, and opportunities for people to take personal responsibility. And it gets government out of the business of micro-managing health care...

...The Florida program includes these features, approved Wednesday by the federal government:

¶If a recipient does not choose a private plan, the person will be automatically enrolled in one that the state selects.

¶Medicaid recipients can "opt out" of Medicaid altogether and receive subsidies to help pay the employee's share of the premium for employer-sponsored health insurance. Those beneficiaries will have to pay co-payments and deductibles like other employees in the same plan, even if the charges exceed normal Medicaid limits.

¶The state will deposit money into individual accounts for recipients who enroll in programs to help lose weight, stop smoking and lead healthier lives.

¶Florida and the federal government will establish a pool of money providing up to $1 billion a year to help hospitals and other health care providers who treat large numbers of uninsured people.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Leavitt, Christina Pearson, said the decision on the Florida plan was not influenced by the fact that Governor Bush is the president's brother. Federal officials are prepared to approve similar innovative solutions from other states, Ms. Pearson said.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 50 million low-income people. The states and federal government jointly finance it.

"We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves"

"America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life." ---President Bush's West Point Speech

Our friend Andrew commented on my post Men of Munich:

If guilt-by-doing-nothing-to-stop-it (call it Burkean guilt) is a new standard you wish to employ, we must blame the Conservatives and the Republican party for Milosevic’s tyrannical reign. Let’s not forget that Humanitarian intervention was a hallmark of the Clinton years, and has not been one of the Bush years...

In point of fact the “Bush Doctrine” you mention has nothing at all to do with humanitarianism, it’s one of preemptive warfare. We can debate the rightness or wrongness of that doctrine and that principle, but let us never forget what it is. The Bush Doctrine is one which explicitly puts American interests first, and any humanitarian considerations are merely incidental...

As for "guilt-by-doing-nothing-to-stop-it," I said that the whole world is complicit--in lots of things. The normal habit throughout history has been to ignore problems "elsewhere." And the modern trend has been, gradually and painfully, to start getting involved in various ways in helping others. This movement is not the preserve of any one faction, and you can point to good and bad in both parties. (However, there are no Republicans who would, if they could push a magic button, put Milosovic back in power. And there are a ton of lefties who seemingly WOULD undo the campaign to liberate Iraq if they could.)

BUT, far from having nothing to do with humanitarianism, the Bush Doctrine is the second-most important humanitarian project of our times, because it links the privileges of sovereignty with democratic legitimacy. And democracy is the best guarantor of human rights, and the best way to lift people out of the stagnant swamps that require humanitarian aid. The Bush Doctrine in effect says that the days when the world will tolerate tyranny are numbered. And that, in the long run will have far more humanitarian effect than a trillion food parcels dropped from helicopters.
And putting America's interests first is the third-most important humanitarian project we can support. Why? Because America's strength is the greatest hope for world freedom and prosperity, and because even our "selfish" interventions in the world are almost invariably accompanied by humanitarian and freedom-promoting efforts of a size and efficacy no other nation or group can match. And because we are the best teachers of democracy and capitalism (as witness the dismal results of putting the UN and Europeans in charge of democracy in the former Yugoslavia) and our people teach by example and encouragement even when their mission is not explicitly for that purpose. And because our selfish interests are in fact exactly the things that the world needs. Peace, profits, increasing trade, increasing freedom, scientific progress--all are things that help America and also help everybody else.

And the fourth-most important component of effective humanitarianism today is [sorry Dems, but I'll have some compliments for you at the end of this essay] keeping Republicans in power in Washington. That is because the Republican Party has become the main home of idealists and dreamers who hope to transform the world for the better. One Republican faction you've heard about are the "neocons," who are passionate Wilsonians, and press always for the spreading of democracy. But even more important are the "theocons," whose idealism is religious-based--they are especially important because they are in charge. Bush and Rice are in this group. And the "Hamiltonians" who press for increased trade and the interests of business will probably do the most good of all. The Dem's increasing hostility to free-trade should by itself disqualify them from office.

In recent decades Republicans have been much more effective at promoting democracy and freedom. For instance the Reagan and Bush1 administrations were stunningly successful, not just in the humanitarian triumph (in the long run) of bringing down the Soviet Union, but also in supporting the cause of democracy in Latin America and the Philippines, which went from regions characterized by dictators to areas where dictators are rare. (I bet Andrew doesn't hear any of that in his classes.) and while Mr Clinton deserves credit for intervention in Yugoslavia, his achievements are dwarfed by the liberation of 50 million people from tyrannies far worse then Milosovic's, and by the stunning recent elections we have seen. And by the many peaceful pro-democracy revolutions we are now seeing around the globe.

You are probably wondering why I started with second-most important, and forgot to list the most important humanitarian project of our times. Fuzzy-headed of me. The most important item is capitalism, because all the other good things come on the heels of prosperity. It's only when people reach a certain level of personal prosperity that they even start to think of helping others, and sharing some of their own with the needy. And more importantly, even better than humanitarian help is having people become secure enough that they don't even need help. Which is becoming true now for much of the world, with the world's percentage of non-poor growing steadily. Many places that used to feature famines now worry because their people are earning too much, and low-wage jobs are fleeing elsewhere! India is now a place that gives foreign aid to other countries! Astonishing, and it's the result of their beginning to dump socialist economics in favor of free enterprise, capitalism. While the prodigious amounts of "aid" India used to receive probably made its poverty worse, by propping-up failed socialist policies.

By the way, if we zoom our historical viewer out a bit, to see all of the 20th Century, then perhaps the key contribution to humanitariansm to be seen was accomplished by DEMOCRATS! This was the invention of nuclear weapons. The result was the immediate end of global wars, and also of all wars between Great Powers. The resultant spread of peace to much of the globe is the basis of the prosperity we now hope to extend to other places. And the unfortunate Cold War had the very positive side-effect of forcing the US to become the Global Cop, which sheltered the growth of Globalization and widespread capitalism. Actually, we are probably now at the end of wars between nation states. The conflicts that still happen are all within countries, and pretty much only within failed nations.

Men of Munich...

Gsood point from the Belmont Club...

...There may be valid technical criticisms of Saddam's coming trial. But attitudes toward the trial are colored by the extent to which parties feel themselves philosophically in the dock with him. Some in the direct sense, as his accomplices; others as his hirelings; still others implicated indirectly as the Men of Munich were, the enablers of evil by omission. For too many Saddam's trial must never be the day of judgment....

The whole world is somewhat complicit...and the incredible thing is that there are plenty of sick and twisted appeasers who wish Saddam were still in power, who would retroactively stop the liberation campaign if they could go back in time and do so. And would fight to prevent the liberation of the even more cruelly-treated people of North Korea. That they rely partly on the old "Treaty of Westphalia" arguments, saying we have no business interfering with a "soverign nation," highlights what a vast advance in human history the Bush Doctrine is. Thank you God for this President!

And, scary thought, if a handful of Supreme Court justices had not stopped the hijacking of the election process in Florida, Al Gore would have been President in 2001, and Saddam's brutal minions would still be torturing and murdering tens-of-thousands of people every year, and the mass graves of hundreds-of-thousands would still lie undisturbed beneath the sands. Liberalism = death.

But hey, we would surely have taken a strong symbolic stand against Global Warming! That's much more important than the sufferings of a few distant foreigners. they are probably polluters anyway, and Gaia would want them snuffed.

Jack-boots in Ottawa...

Mr Peparium, on listening to classical music from nearby Canada...

..."Due to labor difficulties, the CBC is not broadcasting it's usual programming..."

In other words, they were just playing a loop of music to fill up the ether. And then I realized that I had never enjoyed the CBC so much.

After all, because of "labor disputes" I was being spared the finicky, over-precise commentaries on new recordings of rare piano suites by guys with names like Vladimir Gryquipschtick. I was being spared news breaks that managed to sound anti-American in a detched, holier-than-thou way, even when they were just reporting the weather over Labrador. And that girl who had the Alternative Music show later at night, who I once heard growl into the microphone something about "Playing music that the government doesn't want you to hear" was nowhere to be heard. Odd, that, considering that it was the government that was paying her salary. Odder still trying to think of Ottowa as the epicenter of some jack-booted regime that supresses Alternative Music. They're much more likely to supress Motherhood and Christmas...

Charlene listens to KDFC a lot, and says they are always strictly neutral. Which, here in the SF Bay Area, is GREAT!

That bit about the Alternative Music girl is funny, and a good example of how the Left has become a cargo cult, re-enacting empty rituals. I wonder if that labor dispute featured denunciations of capitalism and "the bosses"...

Catchphrase du Jour...

I sure get bored with the way journalists have to reduce every "type" of story to a formula.

At the moment I'm peeved at the many Avian Flu stories that use the "is it time to panic?" phrase. Like this one: As the deadly bird flu makes its appearance in Europe, should we stay calm or start panicking?

I suppose they are just being cute, but obviously panicking is stupid, whatever the danger...

Chemical Ali might do well as a prof

This article in Asia Times, by a Professor Mark Levine on the new Iraq constitution is a good example of why, whenever you hear the words "Professor of Middle Eastern Studies," you should reach for your revolver...
Update: John Byrnes has more on this guy here

...But viewed from the perspective of the Middle East's recent history, particularly the failed negotiating strategies behind the collapse of the Oslo peace process...

The only relevance of Oslo here is that appeasing terrorists is suicidal stupidity...and if that's not exactly what he wants, I'll eat my hat.

...Saturday's referendum will likely neither end the insurgency nor bring the country closer to significant democratic development.

It IS significant democratic development, which is why this guy doesn't like it. And no one has ever claimed that it will magically end the Ba'athist terror attacks...But I'm guessing this is the "beginning of the end" for his Sunni fantasies.

The original draft of the constitution did set important benchmarks for democracy and personal freedom for Iraqis. It even concludes with a statement on environmental protection that Americans should envy...

Don't EVER let lefties write a constitution. A constitution is the framework of government, within which legislators can make laws. It is the job of legislatures to write environmental laws. To put such things in a constitution is an attempt to avoid democracy, EU style. Bad move by Iraq, but probably something they can work around.

But these advances are overshadowed by what the constitution left out. Specifically, there are no references to three issues that are of primary concern to most Arab, and especially Sunni Iraqis: a prohibition on the long-term presence of foreign - read American - troops in the country; ...

Probably should read "of primary concern to most Professors of Middle Eastern Studies." But really, why should this item be in a constitution? If the government of Iraq tells foreign forces to leave, they will leave. (And if they won't leave, a line in the constitution won't make them go.) But maybe Iraq will decide it wants a few Americans to stick around. It didn't hurt Germany.

...a firm statement emphasizing Iraqi control of production and distribution of the country's oil resources;

Why? Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. Wicked oil companies, versus virtuous government-controlled oil. Totally stupid. Actually, control of oil by government is probably the biggest danger to Iraqi democracy. Any government with oil resources doesn't need to pay attention to those tiresome tax-payers and voters. It's no accident that oil states are so often corrupt and dictatorial. (And one hears that some of that corruption includes baksheesh to certain "professors.")

...and a commitment to rebuilding the social infrastructure that was devastated by the invasion and subsequent wholesale privatization of the country's economy under US auspices.

Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed by neglect under Saddam, as anybody paying attention knows. But to lefty profs, Saddam's Iraq was a socialist paradise where the trains ran on time. All the problems are the fault of America. Plus even more dreadful, of "privatization." (Of which there has actually been little.) But again, what does this have to do with a constitution? If Iraq flourishes, infrastructure will be rebuilt. If not, then not. Nobody will say, "Sorry, can't fill potholes--it's not in the Constitution."
However, I wonder if his reference to "social infrastructure" means something I'm not aware of? Could it be some leftsh code-word? Like "social justice," which seems to mean something very different from justice?

For most every Arab Iraqi the withdrawal of all American and other foreign troops is the sine qua non for ending the insurgency.

Bullshit. The "insurgency" is an attempt to restore Ba'athist/Sunni tyranny. Withdrawal of foreign troops would be the signal for the terrorists to go for the kill.

That the constitutional negotiators couldn't include any prohibition of foreign troops, or deal straightforwardly with the other two core issues, demonstrates the continuing and largely deleterious power of the US in the country's internal affairs.

Nah, it means they know how to write a constitution...And that "internal affairs" bit--I'd be willing to bet money he thought Saddam's internal affairs should not be infected with the "deleterious power of the US" either.

Grit, bravery, restraint...

You may have already seen this quote, but GOPVixen just nails it...

...The liberals are upset today. They discovered once again the Iraqi people agree with Bush: That their freedom is worth fighting and dying for. And they proved it by risking death to make a statement. They proved it by creating a remarkable Constitution in ten months -- when it took us years.

The Iraqi people are our allies in the War on Terror. And judging by their grit, restraint in the face of violence for a bigger cause, and bravery, we are lucky to have them.

Sorry, liberals, no Civil War here. Move on. Nothing to see. Maybe elsewhere you can propagandize on behalf of mass murderers to hurt the Bush administration, but not in Iraq. Not in Iraq....

The Iraqi people agree with Bush. And they DISAGREE with liberals, who in a thousand-and-one ways tell us that freedom is NOT worth fighting and dying for. Liberalism is the path to death, to laying down and dying rather than believing in a future worth fighting for.

Liberals and also "realists." I think of the people who keep repeating like a mantra that we should have kept the old Iraqi army in existence. But that army was a corrupt dysfunctional Ba'athist institution. To say that is another way of saying that the hard dangerous job of building freedom and democracy is not worth doing. (It's a mark of their intellectual bankruptcy that they never bother to try to refute the arguments against keeping the old army, but just act as if their position were already agreed upon. Something that will be harder to do as it becomes apparent that the new army is becoming something admirable. Also, the old army had many proud and honorable members even though it was broken as an institution. Where are they? In the new army, many of them, As those who read RJ have heard.)

Latest madness..

Dafydd writes on the latest craziness in the crazy "indictment" of Tom DeLay:

...I wanted to link to an article about this latest Keystone Kops escapade, but amazingly enough, at this point, I cannot find a single article about this absurdity -- not even on FoxNews.com. Since they actually had video of the incident as it unfolded and discussion with the attorneys right after they came out of the courthouse, I would find it hard to believe it never occurred; but in the mad world of the MSM, even being caught on videotape doesn't mean something really exists: it only exists when one of the media news managers decides it exists. Perhaps I hallucinated the entire thing.

Here we have a story that even the MSM agrees is important: the indictment of the second most powerful man in the House of Representatives. And five years after Ronnie Earle began hounding DeLay, three years after the alleged crime of "money laundering" occurred, at least a year after the D.A.'s office began investigating this particular transaction, and eleven days after obtaining the new, improved indictment from the third grand jury to investigate, we discover that the District Attorney's office doesn't even have the critical piece of evidence that underpins their entire case.

But evidently, that's just not news.

Sad to say, except for those of you who watched Brit Hume last night, "you read it here first."

What makes me grit my teeth is that, to millions of people, it will be a "fact" that Republicans are corrupt, with the phony political indictment of the House Majority Leader as leading "evidence" of rottenness. A lie our vile "press" is happy to spread.

Io triumphe, io triumphe; stronger than the scumbags...

Two good quotes for a historic event...

...The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
      --President George W Bush, Speech at the UN, September 12, 2002 (Thanks to OJ)

And this e-mail from a Marine, posted by Hugh Hewitt...

The fact that there wasn’t a major mass casualty of voters, SBVIED in polling centers or assassinations conducted that the foaming mouth reporters could get in the middle of just reinforces how far the Iraqi forces have come and how they are getting stronger than the scumbags. Reporter’s countrywide saturated the area days prior to the elections to hopefully catch the US forces failing. Well to damn bad it didn’t happen so pound sand! You be the judge on just how much coverage there is of the actual elections on the news tomorrow. My bet is that there won’t be much beside some BS doubters or what if this or what if that negative crap on. I know that if there were an unsuccessful election, it would have been nothing but “Breaking News” shots about how we failed. It’s a good day to be an American, stand tall America we helped a country get on its feet today. Semper Fi-Capt B

"It's a good day to be an American." Yes.

Educational progress...

The appeasers want to stop the WoT, and certain hawks want to go faster, complaining that Bush has betrayed us because Syria and other terror-supporting countries weren't flattened two years ago...Group one is guilty of suicidal folly, and group two is displaying immaturity...Fortunately, neither is running the circus. Syria's turn is coming.

NYT: ....But other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as American efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, the operations have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design.

Some current and former officials add that the United States military is considering plans to conduct special operations inside Syria, using small covert teams for cross-border intelligence gathering.

>The broadening military effort along the border has intensified as the Iraqi constitutional referendum scheduled for Saturday approaches, and as frustration mounts in the Bush administration and among senior American commanders over their inability to prevent foreign radical Islamists from engaging in suicide bombings and other deadly terrorist acts inside Iraq....

It's called incrementalism. Slow and steady progress. It's what grownups do.

Times of London....THE Bush Administration has offered Syria’s beleaguered President a “Gaddafi deal” to end his regime’s isolation if Damascus agrees to a long list of painful concessions.

According to senior American and Arab officials, an offer has been relayed to President Assad that could enable him to avoid the looming threat of international sanctions against his country....(links thanks to Orrin)

I'm guessing that the pressure on Syria will soon include enthusiastic incursions by Iraqi units. That will be very cool. And will be a pay-off for the long slow process of educating Iraq, and holding things together while they learn to hate terrorists. Some people claim there was some better "plan," that would have produced a trouble-free occupation of Iraq if only the incompetent Bush Administration had followed it. I think that's malarky, and the Ba'athist terror campaign was going to happen no matter what. (For one thing, they were going to get encouragement from our vile press and lefties no matter what America did.) And I've spent a lifetime hearing every ill blamed by somebody on America. It's a habit with a lot of people.

But the pace of events is deliberately slow, because Iraqi democracy is intended to be an educational experience for the Arab world, and education takes time and patience. I predict that Iraqi poll workers will be helping out with Syrian elections in the not too distant future. But of course they need to get a few elections under their belts first.

It will take time for Iraqis to realize they are allied with the forces of freedom, in a worldwide war against terrorism/leftism. But things like this will drive the lesson home....

Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Alan D. Monyelle / U.S. Navy / Agence France-Presse / Getty Images
Army Capt. Daniel Hall comforts an Iraqi boy after a suicide car bomb attack in Tal Afar, Iraq, on Tuesday.Army Times 10/14/05

Election a test for the critics...

Looks like the Iraq election is going well, with only a few scattered terrorist attacks. Which is good evidence that the Iraqi forces are becoming truly effective. As is the fact that US commanders only asked for an extra 2,000 American troops, as opposed to 12,000 last January.

Let me guess; we won't be seeing a lot of headlines that read IRAQ ELECTION TRIUMPH!

OpinionJournal:...The other big danger is that U.S. media and political pessimism will further erode American public support for the war. The attitude among some can only be described as defeatist. When General Casey and other Defense officials testified recently before the Senate Armed Services Committee, their measured reports were drowned out by criticism and gloom.

In response to one such riff from Senator Hillary Clinton, General Casey put it this way: "Your comments on the insurgency, on the levels of violence, I recognize that that is what it appears, but that is what the terrorists and insurgents are trying to convey. They're trying to convey that they are winning, and they're doing it by murdering innocent Iraqis. . . .

"And it's a tough situation. But that's what a terror campaign is all about. And this is about political will. And as I said in my opening statement, they are attacking ours and the will of the Iraqi people. They're not winning in Iraq, and they will only win here if we lose our will."...

Senaotor Clinton is on the other side. It is easy to find evidence of strong progress if you WANT to. Democrats don't want to.

This election, if it is the triumph that it is starting to look like, will be a good test of those who oppose the Iraq Campaign but claim they are patriotic Americans who "support the troops" and just want to save us from an un-winnable quagmire. If they are telling the truth, then they should be happy that things are going well. The "criticism and gloom" people, like Clinton, should be happy. The "pacifists" should be happy that (so far) there isn't much violence...

And if they are, as some of us skeptics suggest, actually on the side of the terrorists, then we will get sullen silence, or, if pressed, grudging admission of success followed by changing the subject, or focusing on some particular problem--there are always problems--as if it is the real story, and as if the stunning fact of an Arab country voting for a democratic constitution is no big deal...

We'll see, won't we...

Atef Hassan/Reuters. From slideshow at this NYT article

I liked this picture because of the glowing light, and because it's refreshing to see walls in Iraq that don't need a coat of paint. And also because I just remembered a line from a great British WWII memoir, by someone who had to fight around where this picture was taken: "The Persian Gulf is the a--hole of the world, and Basra is sixty miles up it." If there is hope for Basra, there is hope for all of us...

(And yes, I am perfectly aware of the problems they are having in Basra. But democracy is a process, not an event. Iraqi democracy will be ugly and flawed, by our standards, for a long time.)

Word note...

It's a minor matter, but I just don't see it. Taranto today criticizes Matthew Scully's defense of Miers, specifically this:

...If four years observing the woman is any guide, the answer is she was probably doing something useful...

Taranto writes:

...First of all, there's something odd and disrespectful about Scully's references to Miers, who is a serious professional even if she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, as "the woman." It's not quite as bad as "that woman," but it rankles nonetheless...

I think it's crazy. If I wrote something like: "If four years observing the man is any guide, he's honest," would that be disrespectful? I don't see how. So why can't one mention a woman that way?

I think Taranto's also wrong in his cronyism point; it looks to me like Scully is not saying that Bolton's nomination was cronyism, but that Bill Kristol was exhibiting a kind of "cronyism" when he wanted his personal friend Bolton defended to the utmost, but now sneers at the President for nominating a friend.

Debunking...

In case you are tempted to believe the AP story which implies that the President's video conference with soldiers in Iraq was phony, Jason van Steenwyk, who is both a journalist and a soldier, pours scorn on it in a knowledgeable way. (Thanks to InstaPundit)

"but zero from Democrats"

Major E, returned from Iraq, e-mails PowerLine, including the reaction to his offer to give talks on what he's seen....

....What has struck me the most is how starved people are to know what is really going on over there. So many are quite grateful to hear a different perspective than the one that bombards them daily. Having watched the biased reporting since the beginning of the conflict, I was not surprised to discover that people want a more balanced perspective, even if the intensity is stronger than I expected.

What has been surprising, though, and a bit disappointing, is that there has been a distinct split between the interest level of partisan political groups. I contacted county leadership for both Democrats and Republicans, along with non-partisan church and civic groups, and have received numerous requests from churches, non-partisan groups, and Republican organizations -- but zero from Democrats, despite following up with them several times....

They are being smart. If any lefties are reading this, you don't want to know! Trust me Comrade, you don't want to know the truth. It will spoil your breakfast latte, finding out that you have built your hopes and politics on a heap of lies. And it will take the glow off the next anti-war vigil, knowing that the people who actually know what''s going on consider you to be dupes and fools and "useful idiots."

Wretchard once wrote a splendid post, which I should find and quote. It was about how the Left used to have a disciplined and ruthless core of communists, and all the liberal fellow-travellers, hippies, pacifists, vegetarians and conspiracy-theorists were at the periphery, and were exploited as "useful fools." (And were oh-so-dead once the Revolution happened.) But now the core is gone, and the drooling screwballs ARE the Left.

And, bitter irony, the Western Left is now the "useful idiots," exploited by Islamists who despise every "progressive" cause there is.

Unbelievable.

The appeasers are toast...

MARKET UPDATE: STOCKS FALL IN ANTICIPATION

The Iraqi election is day-after-tomorrow, and it doesn't look good for anti-democracy pro-terrorist investors, folks. Shares of NYT, alZark, HoDean, Sddm, Peaceniki, Progresso, and alKay are plunging on the Random Jottings Exchange, as panicked investors try to save a few pennies on the dollar.

Trading has been halted in Qogmar, PulOwt, and GenCapit.

Najaf residents get copies of the draft charter up for a vote on Saturday.
Photo Credit: By Ali Abu Shish -- Reuters
Related Article: Iraq's Shiite Hub Awaits Its Day, page A01

Remember...

Thanks to Michelle, for reminding us that this is the anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole. I hope, I devoutly hope, that as the good guys hunt and kill arhabi around the globe, they are collecting some scalps for the men who died on the Cole.

USS Cole on a Norwegian recovery ship. [link]

The Cole was named for Sergeant Darrell Samuel Cole, USMC. He enlisted on August 21, 1941, and was trained as a bugler. When war came, he repeatedly requested a combat assignment, but was refused because there was a shortage of buglers. But when the fighting started, he would jump in anyway -- he fought at Guadalcanal, Roi-Namur (Kwajalein), Saipan, and Iwo Jima, where he was killed, earning the Medal of Honor.

Tip: Don't wear your Magen David to the peace march...

Nick Cohen, in the New Statesman...

...Be careful, I said. Saddam Hussein's Iraq has spewed out predatory armies and corpses for decades. If you're going to advocate a policy that would keep a fascist dictator in power, you should at least talk to his victims, whose number included socialists, communists and liberals - good people, rather like you.

Next day I looked at my e-mails. There were rather a lot of them. The first was a fan letter from Ann Leslie, the Daily Mail's chief foreign correspondent, who had seen the barbarism of Ba'athism close up. Her cheery note ended with a warning: “You’re not going to believe the anti-Semitism that is about to hit you.” “Don’t be silly, Ann,” I replied. “There’s no racism on the left.” I worked my way through the rest of the e-mails. I couldn’t believe the anti-Semitism that hit me.

I learned it was one thing being called “Cohen” if you went along with liberal orthodoxy, quite another when you pointed out liberal betrayals. Your argument could not be debated on its merits. There had to be a malign motive. You had to support Ariel Sharon. You had to be in the pay of “international” media moguls or neoconservatives. You had to have bad blood. You had to be a Jew.

My first reaction was so ignoble I blush when I think of it. I typed out a reply that read, “but there hasn’t been a Jewish member of my family for 100 years”. I sounded like a German begging a Gestapo officer to see the mistake in the paperwork. Mercifully, I hit the “delete” button before sending....

One sees these "wake up" articles by liberals fairly often. "Mugged by reality," eh Nick? Will he change? Will he rummage his beliefs, and scrutinize the fact that he's allied with Saddam, and find something rotten in Denmark? Will he go back to first principles?

My guess, no. To stay a liberal this long, you have to be very good at ignoring or papering-over ugly realities. Most of the people who are capable of change already did so. They are called neocons.

Unto the Fourth Generation..

Marc Danziger, the Armed Liberal, who I think highly of, critiques his fellow Dems for always discussing policies, without expressing the principles behind them. He writes:

....Talk first about principles. Create a manifesto. Something vaguely like this:

First and foremost, the American principles of liberty, equality, freedom as have really not been enjoyed as well in any other place or time.

In the context of those principles, and not in lieu of them - there are other principles that defend the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich, the few against the many.

Those principles ought to be foremost. They should be coherent, clear, and compelling. Those are - in my belief - the "liberal manifesto."
Then talk about how they get devolved into policy, and how - in dialog with supporters and opponents, in the messy, chaotic wonderful process that was created for us by our Founders, and which we intend to keep up and hand down to our children, we intend to create policies that meet those principles.

Let the policies emerge. Let leaders emerge who understand the principles, and can guide the creation of understandable, useful, workable policies.....

He's got a good question to chew on, but, as one who thinks often about conservative principles, I don't think his are useful answers. Things like "defend the weak against the strong" are too general to yield any policies. We conservatives think we are defending the few or the weak when we defend, say, the Boy Scouts against the cynical attacks of leftists wishing to destroy traditional values under the cloak of gay rights. Or when we defend gun owners against confiscatory governments hostile to individual strength and confidence.

His principles are too vague, but more importantly, they aren't basic principles. There are other principles underlying them. For instance, "defend the poor against the rich" begs the question of whether Mr Danziger believes that the rich are oppressing the poor? Does he believe that their interests are opposed? Does he believe the rich stole their wealth from the poor? Does he believe that wealth should be "shared?" Does he believe it is less wrong for a poor person to steal from a rich one than vice versa? Would he like the poor to become rich? Does he believe this whole matter is within the purview of government? If so, to what extent?

If your "principle" can be used by either party, then it's not basic, nor useful. We conservatives think we are defending the poor against the rich when we wish to give poor people school choice, to free them from the tyranny of bloated bureaucracies failed schools and corrupt teacher's unions.

I think he needs to dig a bit deeper. And I think the idea that policies should flow from principles, while true, is a bit misleading. Above all, a principle should tell you how to understand what's going on around you. The world has changed drastically since I was young, but my conservative principles are a guide to make sense of of things that might be bewildering. For instance, the Rights of Englishmen are near the roots of my philosophy, and would give me guidance if England sank beneath the sea (which, spiritually, it seems to be doing) and I were exiled to Mars. And, as I've blogged, I think many liberals are flapping about crazily, because they can't handle change, without the compass that principles give you.

Marc says something else that's interesting:

...Personally, I'm interested in some "4th Generation" social policies; ones that veer away from command and control, and from heavy-handed intrusion into people's lives - and still meet the principles I set out; they help the weak, the poor, the few. What would a welfare program run along Special Forces lines look like?....

That's intriguing. So what might such a program look like? The Special Forces push authority down to small units and individuals. They demand initiative and responsibility. They encourage experimentation and rule-breaking.

So who are the individuals here? The Poor! (I guess one could imagine a "4th Generation welfare program" that kept the poor dependent and out-of-the-loop, but that's too crazy for me to get my head around.) We will have to expect them to take a lot of responsibility in achieving the mission. And to do that we have to break their "old army" ways of waiting passively to be told what to do. Perhaps welfare might be for a limited time, so all will know that they will have to soon take care of themselves.

Also, the Special Forces value morale and character and spirit more than big guns. The spiritual condition of our troops will be paramount. Philosophies which consider individuals expendable in the interests of society must be avoided in favor of those that value every person. Wasn't there one that says that men are made in the image of God? Something like that? Sounds good for our purposes.

And what are the small units? First, I'd say, is the family. The cohesion and viability of the family should be of prime importance, and the trends and ideas that tend to break it apart should be resisted to the utmost. The family might be equivalent to the squad, with churches and community groups the equivalent of platoons. We should probably take resources from the big bureaucracies, and give them to the platoons and companies, with a lot of freedom to chose how to best use them....

Well golly gee, whack me with an ugly-stick and call me Newt! Haven't we heard this sort of cackle somewhere before? Marc, you may just be heading off on a path you don't anticipate...

Hell Hole of the Third World...

I wonder if any of the fraudulent bozos who wept fraudulent tears over abu Ghraib, and wrote 10,000 news stories about it, give any attention to this?

.....Describing them as "dungeons", he said: "It is incredible that people are imprisoned in such conditions, without ventilation and without natural light. I have never seen a worse prison." Mr Gil-Robles, 60, an academic lawyer and Spain's former national ombudsman, spent 16 days in France last month inspecting prisons, detention centres and mental hospitals.

In a meeting last week with Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister, he said he was astonished that such "squalid and inhumane conditions" should exist at the Palais de Justice, the vast complex that houses the supreme court of appeal and criminal courts.

The palais is situated on the beautiful L'île de la Cité, a few hundred yards from Notre Dame cathedral. But in its "dépôt", human rights organisations have uncovered evidence of prisoners, mainly illegal immigrants, going without food, drink and lavatory paper as they huddle together for warmth. There have been numerous violent attacks and cases of detainees mutilating themselves and smearing their blood on the walls.

"You are drowned in the middle of all of those excluded from society and also the mad and the ill," said 55-year-old Farouk, a former prisoner....[link]

Of course not. Only America and Israel are bad guys. And this isn't the first time I've read of brutal conditions for prisoners in France. Truth is, if you are arrested as a terror suspect, you should BEG to be sent to Gitmo, and not turned over to some Third World country like France. Or BEG to be sent to abu Ghraib (as it now is, not as it was under Saddam, of course).

Ooops, I forgot. There is that little matter of hundreds of prisoners having been killed or maimed at abu Ghraib. But those killings are OK! There's nothing wrong with them, because they are done by the "Freedom Fighters" (who have attacked the prison frequently with mortars and rockets). And if you are naive and think there's something wrong with this slaughter, just ask your neighborhood "pacifist" or "anti-war" activist. They will set you straight.

Cracker Barrel Philosophers

I have, as you know, done a number of posts on the risk of Avian Flu. And now, belatedly, it's getting serious attention from government and the press.

And one of the reactions I'm now noticing is from the type of people you might call "cracker-barrel philosophers," who are slapping their knees and saying, "Yew can't believe them big-gummint types. They're always tryin' to skeer us, 'cause there's a lot of money in to be made in this."

First of all, this isn't a "government" scare. It's been forced on government by people in science and Public Health who have been screaming about it for several years, and getting precious little attention from government.

And because a source has been wrong in the past doesn't mean they are always wrong. Stopped clock, and all that. (Even Democrats criticizing Bush are bound to be right sometimes, even though they have disgraced and discredited themselves with lies and by blaming him promiscuously for every ill and happenstance, and gloating when things go wrong.)

And in the case of disaster warnings, it's the nature of the things that there will be many false alarms. Same with warnings of terrorist attacks. In fact the people who issue such warnings soon become gun-shy, because they know they will be criticized and mocked if the problem doesn't happen, and people will ignore the next warning.

Secundus, it's good if people are making a lot of money off of Flu preparations. We used to have many more providers of vaccines, but most gave up the business, tired of lawsuits and low profits. (If you find yourself in a Flu pandemic, and want someone to lynch, consider stringing up the vile animals of the "Plaintiffs' Bar," or maybe their patron saint, Ralph Nader.) What we ought to be doing is offering a sort of "X-Prize" of a billion dollars to whoever finds a fast way to produce vaccines. Instead, if there IS a vaccine available during a pandemic, I have no doubt we will hear loud calls to restrict the obscene profits of the wicked drug companies, who are getting rich while the poor suffer. [Example #378 of how "Liberalism" kills.]

Tertius, The "philosophers" like to say things like,"I'll just wash my hands and drink orange juice and eat healthy, and I'll be OK." Even if this saves you from flu (unlikely) it's not enough, because many of the preparations we should all be making, for any possible disaster, involve being ready for interruption of food or water supplies, or electric power. And the person who doesn't prepare, far from being a strong individualist, might end up like those wretched Katrina folks, part of a hapless rabble waiting for the National Guard convoys...which may not come. Waiting for government to save them. They remind me of the staunch individualists who resist those obtrusive government regulations about wearing motorcycle helmets. Which would be fine, except that one knows that when they end up paralyzed, they will be complaining that government doesn't do enough to take care of the handicapped.

Confirmation: For.

Paul Deignan is collecting blogger positions on the Harriet Miers nomination.

I've blogged about the nomination here here here here and here. I think she should be confirmed, and strongly suspect that us conservatives will end up liking her a lot.

Pretty funny...

John Podhoretz writes in The Corner:

BONO AND SANTORUM [John Podhoretz]
Watch as the heads of the editors of Kurt Loder, Rolling Stone, the Utne Reader, Spin, Vibe and the Hollywood geniuses at the Huffington Post simultaneously explode like in Scanners once they hear the news that rock god Bono is raising money for "man on dog" critic Santorum. Oh, the expression of humorless outrage from Andrew Sullivan, culminating in a demand that Bono withdraw from the concert, condemn torture and put money in his tip jar!

If Andrew is outraged, I'm for it, whatever it is...

Update: Apparently this is a hoax...

Sanity returning?

Jay Nordlinger writes:

....I must tell you, however, that I am rather calmed down now. A little optimistic. Maybe Miers’ll be all right. Maybe our initial reactions are overblown. And maybe some of the most thunderous conservative commentary has been a little insulting — to Bush and to Miers. Wrongly insulting.

I was very much comforted by a talk I had with a federal-judge friend. I thought he would be mortified, as so many of us have been. And I was shocked to find that he was delighted with the choice — and thought the general conservative criticism was bunk.

Since sociology — the awful matter of class — has played a role in the Miers brouhaha, I might give you this judge’s credentials: He went to the very fanciest schools in the country (starting with prep school). He was a partner at just about the fanciest firm in the country. And he was a federal judge pretty early. In other words, he is at the top of the elite heap.

And he thinks Miers is superbly qualified — loves her background, loves what she has done. Loves what he thinks he knows about her character, and her work habits. Thinks she would be terrific on the Court. “The Supreme Court is packed with former Court of Appeals judges,” he said. “We don’t need any more. And, you know? They’re not necessarily all that impressive, trust me.” He went on to describe one of the judges presumed to have been on the president’s short list as “frightening”: frightening as in, not too swift....

Fear can be useful...

A doctor argues in the LAT that getting people frightened over the threat of Avian Flu is a bad idea. [Thanks to Betsy Newmark] I think he doesn't have a grasp of how to match danger against probability...and of course that's always a tricky problem, because there are many low-probability high-danger scenarios in life, most of which will not happen. Dr Siegal writes:

...Fear is a warning system intended to alert us to impending danger. The bird flu, though a potential large-scale danger, is not impending.

This is very misleading. It's like taking the high likelihood that a big quake will hit San Francisco in the next 50 years and saying: "an earthquake is not impending." It's not something we can say is or is not "impending" (at our present state of knowledge)--it could happen tomorrow or not at all

The facts are these: The current H5N1 avian influenza virus has not mutated into a form that can easily infect humans, and the 60 people in the world who have died of this bird flu have done so not because this bug is on the road to mutation but because millions of birds throughout Asia have been infected, and the more birds that have it, the more likely that an occasional human bird handler will be infected.

The actual mutation feared is something that could take less than a minute. There isn't any such thing as "being on the road to mutation." This is similar to the mistake of flipping a coin and getting "heads" ten times in a row, and then thinking your next flip just has to be "tails." Each flip of the coin has the same probability, no matter what happened in the past.

Most human influenzas begin as bird flus, but many bird flus never change to a form that can harm us. Though flu pandemics occur on the average of three times per century, and we are clearly overdue (the last was in 1968), there is absolutely no indication that the transformation to mass human killer is about to happen. The threat is theoretical. Unfortunately, the attention it has received makes it feel like something terrible is inevitable.

EVERY threat that hasn't yet happened is "theoretical." It's silly to imply that this makes the threat less. And again, the mutation isn't something that "gives an indication that it is about to happen."

Why the overreaction? For one thing, direct comparisons to the Spanish flu of 1918, a scourge that killed more than 50 million people worldwide, has alarmed the public unnecessarily. In fact, there are many scenarios in which the current bird flu won't mutate into a form as deadly as the 1918 virus.

Of course there are. But the number of scenarios doesn't change or help us gauge the probability of any one scenario.

And even if we accept the Spanish flu scenario, health conditions in 1918 were far worse in most of the world than they are now. Many people lived in squalor; 17 million influenza deaths occurred in India, versus about half a million deaths in the U.S. There were no flu vaccinations, no antiviral drugs, and containment by isolating infected individuals wasn't effective, largely because of poor information and poor compliance.

Many people still live in squalor, and population density is now much greater. Flu vaccine won't be available for at least 6 months after the new virus appears, and there are questions about the efficacy of anti-viral drugs. Containment is unlikely to work, because Flu is more infectious than almost any disease.

Today's media reach could be a useful tool to aid compliance. Of course, the concern that air travel can spread viral infections faster may be valid, but infected migratory birds were sufficient in 1918.

Siegal has an anti-fear ax to grind, (he's pushing his book on the subject) and here he's talking nonsense. There is NO QUESTION that air travel can spread flu faster, and the 1918 flu was a Human Flu (of Avian origin) and spread from human to human.

Unfortunately, public health alarms are sounded too often and too soon. SARS was broadcast as a new global killer to which we had zero immunity, and yet it petered out long before it killed a single person in the United States.

That SARS petered out has no relevance to the POTENTIAL danger it posed. A Flu might fizzle out, or mutate into a less dangerous form. Or might not. That doesn't change its POTENTIAL danger, which is what we need to deal with. Siegal is basicaly saying that, because we didn't have an earthquake this year, the likelihood of an earthquake has decreased. That's idiocy. And the fear of SARS galvanized the efforts to contain it, and possible saved us from disaster.

SARS was something to be taken seriously, but the real lessons of SARS, smallpox, West Nile virus, anthrax and mad cow disease weren't learned by our leaders — that potential health threats are more effectively examined in the laboratory than at a news conference.

Bullshit. The political impetus that puts money in the laboratory stems from the scary news conference. And in many flu scenarios the laboratory work is irrelevant, and the preparations that ordinary people should make are vital. And will be stimulated by fear.

With bird flu, scientists have been working on the structure of the viruses in an attempt to protect us. Studies published in the journals Nature and Science over the last six years have given scientists a road map with which to track the current bird flu and alert