So, Guy Walks Up to the Bar, and Scalia Says...

The New York Times reports on cutting edge legal research:

Justice Antonin Scalia's wit is widely admired, and now it has been quantified. He is, a new study concludes, 19 times as funny as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Don't take this as proof that conservatives are funnier than liberals though--apparently Clarence Thomas never makes anybody laugh at all.

Idaho votes for pedro

As New Sisyphus says, "Representative democracy...is vastly superior...to any other system". The evidence? Idaho votes for Pedro.

winning the war on terror

Baseball Crank has a good post regarding the best strategy to accomplish true victory in the war on terror. Here's why he (and I) believe Iraq is an important part of the war on terror:

Essentially, the idea is that, by removing Saddam Hussein's terror-sponsoring tyranny and clearing the path for the first-ever free representative democracy in the Arab world, we have forced Al Qaeda and others sharing its basic ideology to fight us at a time and in a place of our choosing; both sides now recognize that the victor in Iraq will be in an immeasurably stronger position, both strategically and on the propaganda front, to pursue its goals throughout the region. Of course, Iraq was, aside from the other reasons for war, well-suited to this role for many reasons: the population was bone-tired of tyranny, the Kurdish north had developed institutions of self-government, the Shi-ite majority would not be receptive to foreign Sunni fanatics, and the terrain is more favorable to U.S. military technological advantages than, say, mountainous Afghanistan.

None of this is to say that the insurgency has been a good thing, but rather that the situation was one in which we could deal a blow to the enemy whether they fought or not. It is the recognition of that challenge that has compelled them to fight.

Anyway, part of the battle in Iraq has been essentially a war of attrition: we've been killing the enemy in large numbers and draining their financial and operational resources, while they have sought to find the magic number of U.S. casualties that will cause us to buckle and turn tail.

Whether or not this is a good strategy depends in part on the calculus of attrition--can we consume the enemy's resources faster than they can regenerate them? Baseball Crank (and I) are optimistic that we can win this war of attrition by expanding the battlefield:

Obviously, one of the major questions about this kind of war is to what extent the manpower and resources of the global enemy are finite, as opposed to being expanded by conflict.

I suspect that there is, in fact, some element of truth to the idea that the Iraq War "created" more terrorists...in the sense that conflict always enables extremists to rally more people to their banners. It's impossible to quantify that effect, though, and the bottom line is that this brand of extremist comes from the pool of those who are already strongly sympathetic to the jihadists. I have to believe that there remain real limits to how much manpower and financial and operational resources the jihadis can call upon.

That's where the concept of expanding the battlefield comes into play. At present, U.S. forces are operating in two theaters where the enemy needs to put resources into fighting us - Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the lessons both of the Cold War and the two World Wars, however, is that America's deep vein of untapped financial, technological and manpower resources gives us a major strategic advantage in war once we can open enough different fronts to force the enemy to become overextended. This is particularly true when we can call upon the assistance of allies, at least to the extent of assisting us within their homelands and home regions.

[I]f we can encourage peaceful (or violent) movements towards democracy in multiple other states at once, we can compel the enemy to divert scarce resources away from Iraq to try to prevent democratic norms - which are anathema to the jihadists - from taking root across the region. The National Strategy identifies the opportunities:

[C]hange is coming to the region, with Syrian occupation ended and democracy emerging in Lebanon, and free elections and new leadership in the Palestinian Territories. From Kuwait to Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, there are stirrings of political pluralism, often for the first time in generations.

While none of this is new, the commentary on these stirrings of democracy have tended to focus on two aspects: (1) the idea that our ideals are being vindicated and (2) the idea that we are progressing towards long-term regional goals. But that overlooks the strategic advantage of pressing for more democracy, more liberty, and, yes, more destabilization of existing regimes now and all at once: the more places on the map we can turn into vital interests that the enemy needs to address by dispatching terrorists, money and other operational resources to battle against the forces of democratization and liberty, the more it helps us win everywhere. Regardless of how we go about it, that's the effect we need to be thinking about in the context of expanding the battlefield.

Of course, there are those that would say it's madness to try to destabilize the region further when we're clearly losing in Iraq. I question their interpretation of the evidence--it looks to me like it is Al Qaeda that is on the verge of defeat.

excellent financial advice

I don't always follow this financial advice, though I'm getting closer. The advice I most need to take to heart:

1) Pay yourself first. What does that mean? It means you divert money into savings automatically, before the money hits your bank account. You divert an automatic percentage of your salary into your 401(k), and you set up your direct deposit so that money is automatically put into a special savings account unconnected to your ordinary checking and savings, that serves as your rainy day fund. The rainy day fund should hold at least six months, and preferably a year's, worth of expenses. Retirement savings should 15-20% of your income.

Yes, I said 20%.

"20%!!!!!" I hear you screech. "I can't afford it!" Well, then you'd better start developing a taste for cat food. Home equity is going to be a bad way to save for retirement in a country with a stagnating population, as the US will have when I get around to retiring. And Social Security benefits may be slashed, means tested, or otherwise legislated out of your pockets. If you're putting 3% of your salary into your 401(k) every year and hoping that will cover you you're in big trouble.

The reason you pay yourself first is that for most people, budgeting just doesn't work. Most people simply don't have the discipline. The answer is to keep the money out of your bank account. If you don't see it, you won't spend it.

and

6) Saving is more important than lattes People who say they can't afford to save can surprisingly often afford Starbucks, new cars, and alchohol. These are not things you need in the same way that you need to be able to eat if you get sick and can't work.

The easiest things to cut out are food. You *can* cook at home, no matter how tired you are; breaded chicken breasts and steamed vegetables take ten to fifteen minutes to prepare from scratch. Cutting out restaurant meals and buying your own lunch are the single easiest way to save money. Oh, I know, it's not as pleasurable to pull a turkey sandwich out of a plastic bag as it is to go down to the deli and get exactly what you want this minute. But the markup on those sandwiches is generally between 400-800%, and a daily starbucks will cost you over $1000 a year. As a side bonus, the more you have to cook it yourself, the less you'll be tempted to overindulge in goodies. And if you want to hang out with friends, I can generally prepare a very nice dinner for four for less than it would cost me to pay for my own meal at a New York City restaurant. And no waiter badgering you to free up the table.

the death penalty

I'm a firm believer in the idea that the death penalty is a good and proper component of our judicial system. I'm also a firm believer in the idea that any system designed and implemented by humans will sometimes break down. Glenn Reynolds points to this case as an example of our judicial system breaking down badly.

Unless these stories materially misrepresent the facts of the case, it seems obvious that the state of Mississippi is planning to execute an innocent man--not just an innocent man, but a man who was himself the victim of illegal police behavior. That any jury could even convict on the basis of these facts is difficult to fathom; that they would invoke the death penalty is downright disgraceful. It should go without saying that the death penalty is such an extraordinary punishment that it should be invoked only with extraordinary caution. Apparently this jury disagreed.

Fortunately, our system of justice does not move swiftly, so there should be plenty of time for an appeal or a pardon to resolve the situation. With sufficient attention paid to this case, the governor probably won't waste much time before issuing a pardon.

The question I'm asking myself is this: if the system doesn't correct its mistake by preventing this execution, should I withdraw my support for capital punishment? My gut feeling is that this case doesn't change the moral calculus--mistakes were always going to be part of the system, so knowing that one mistake has occurred shouldn't change the over-riding fact that death is the only appropriate punishment for some crimes. On the other hand, I may be more open to persuasion than I have been in the past. I'd much prefer that the system make this a moot question by overturning the conviction immediately.

we have met the enemy and he is us

Coke has plans for a new drink:

Coca-Cola Co., the world's No. 1 soft drink company, on Wednesday said it will launch a coffee-infused soft drink called Coca-Cola Blak in various markets around the world in 2006.

The new drink, a combination of Coca-Cola Classic and coffee extracts, will be first launched in France in January before being rolled out in the United States and other markets during 2006.

Maybe I'm not their target customer, since I'm not a coffee drinker in general... but do they really expect this to sell?

(Via The Volokh Conspiracy)

we are not worthy

Some people have a knack for art. Others have the kind of rare skill that can fill a gallery with masterpieces. But only one generation in a hundred is blessed to have its very own Michelangelo.

(via Vodkapundit)

good jobs and bad jobs

Megan McCardle quotes Scott Adams:

Yet another "third highest ranking al-Qaida leader" has been killed, this time by a rocket attack from an unmanned drone. There are a lot of jobs that I wouldn't want, and "third highest ranking al-Qaida leader" is right at the top. But I can tell you for sure that if I ever got that job, the first thing I'd do is narc out one of the top two guys so I could move up a notch. Apparently one of the perks of being in the top two is having a really, really good hiding place. The number 3 through 10 leadership guys are pretty much scurrying between mud huts and looking at the sky a lot.

. . .

Maybe it's just a "guy thing" but the idea of blowing up a mud hut by remote controlled drone sounds like the most fun thing I can think of. And if the number 3 al-Qaida leader happens to be inside, that's a bonus. It certainly makes your story sound less nerdy afterwards.

I find it interesting that the guy with the best job in the world gets to blow up the guy with the worst job in the world. That's really rubbing it in. But I guess it's not so different from a CEO downsizing the auditing department. It's one of those recurring themes in life.

When a cartoonist is cracking jokes about the death rate for terrorist leaders, something must be going right in the War on Terror.

experts--what are they good for?

Via Marginal Revolution I discovered this pair of posts by Daniel Drezner regarding experts and the value of their predictions. Here's the bottom-line: experts are often worse than non-experts when it comes to predicting future events within their area of expertise. This effect increases as the fame of the forecaster increases and is worse among specialists and thinkers who have a single all-encompassing theory or idea that informs their views than among generalists and those who don't look at the world through any single dominant philosphical framework.

defending defenders of freedom

I just had a conversation (actually, a debate) with an opponent of our military involvement in Iraq. He was trying to start an argument with an artist who was displaying a pro-war drawing of an American soldier. The artist wanted no part of the argument so I, being the argumentative sort, volunteered. This guy couldn't understand how any right-thinking person could support the war and support our troops because our treatment of captured terrorists is obviously immoral--apparently terrorists should be awarded prisoner of war status in keeping with the Geneva Convention and Jose Padilla and his ilk are victims of gross mistreatment. I should have asked how beheadings fit into the Geneva protocols, but I was too busy defending the strategic importance of winning in Iraq. If you want to be accused of "the worst kind of cultural imperialism", just try suggesting that Middle Eastern culture and governmental institutions are seriously broken and need to be fixed.

It stuns me to see the most ardent leftists defending the "right" of those in the Middle East to be ruled by totalitarian dictators, brutal theocrats and (at best) relatively enlightened despots. We are so blessed to live in this magnificent country where we are free to think, speak and do as we please, but those who do the most to take advantage of that freedom both pretend it doesn't exist here while opposing our government's efforts to spread that same freedom to a part of the world that desperately needs it. I could go on and on, but it's easier to tell you to take a look at this post. Our nation's cause is just and it's worth defending.

way to go, Joe

Here's hoping that Joe Lieberman is the next Democratic presidential nominee. Hillary's stance on terrorism in general and Iraq in particular has been decent, but Senator Lieberman has been one of the most vocal supporters of Bush on these issues over the last four years. While so many others have played politics with the war, Joe has always played it straight.

illegal aliens in college

A friend is thinking about illegal aliens and higher education:

I'm working with a group of my fellow students on drafting a bill to be introduced in the Missouri legislature next year that will forbid state colleges or universities from admitting aliens illegally present in the US. I am not exactly sure where I even stand on this issue, but that really has nothing to do with anything. And is has nothing to do with in state or out of state tuition; the issue is ADMISSION to college. My part of the project is to write a policy paper that will be useful to the legislator who is sponsoring the bill. So I have to discuss policy reasons
that support the bill, as well as those in opposition (with responses). Do any of you have any good policy reasons either for or against such a law? Pointing me in the direction of any authority that supports your reasoning will also be greatly appreciated.

At the risk of writing a research paper instead of a blog post, here are my thoughts:

• Purpose of the bill
  The reason to enact such a law isn't clearly stated. There are two implied reasons:
  1. Illegal immigrants are a problem and we would be better off if they had no incentive to stay in Missouri.
  2. Each illegal immigrant who is enrolled in a state funded school imposes a marginal cost on the state which is higher than the marginal benefits obtained by educating that immigrant.
  Other possible reasons are pretty nonsensical:
  1. Presumably we aren't trying to protect immigrants from the harm caused by state funded schools.
  2. Presumably the presence of an illegal alien in the classroom is unlikely to significantly disrupt the educational process for natives.
  3. Presumably we aren't proposing to keep non-natives out of our schools because of a racist/nationalistic desire to avoid rubbing elbows with non-Americans.
  4. Presumably we aren't proposing this bill simply for the sake of getting a grade in school.
• Analysis of Outcomes
  To understand the consequences of enacting this bill we would need to know several things:
  
  1. What is the impact (positive or negative) of illegal immigration on our society?
  2. What is the impact (positive or negative) of educating illegal aliens?
  3. What proportion of illegal aliens seek education in state funded universities and colleges?
  4. What impact will this bill have on the decision making process of illegal aliens who are contemplating a move to Missouri?
  I can't answer any of those questions with confidence, but I've got some guesses:
  1. Does illegal immigration harm America?
     • Many say that illegal immigrants are a major source of crime (above and beyond the inherent criminality of their presence in America, that is). Is illegal immigration in Missouri a significant source of crime? I suspect not, but don't have any evidence.
     • Many say that illegal aliens are major consumers of public assistance and therefore constitute a burden on American taxpayers. This seems to be true. Or not.
     • Many immigration opponents argue that immigrants harm our economy by reducing wage rates and taking jobs from natives. Others disagree: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4 and example 5.
     • Some are afraid to see our society and culture over-run by foreigners. I tend to agree with those who see immigration in general as a good thing.
  2. Does education of illegal aliens have any positive or negative effects on our society? I'm not going to spend any time researching this--as a society we seem to have concluded that education of natives is a good thing. Presumably, the same benefits that accrue from educating a native would also accrue from educating an illegal alien. I'm not the only one thinking this, but I hardly regard that link as conclusive.
  3. Do many illegal aliens seek higher education in Missouri? I seriously doubt it.
  4. Would this bill change the incentives for illegal aliens to settle in Missouri? Possibly, but not to any significant degree. The illegal aliens who presumably cause the most harm and provide the least benefit to society (criminals, welfare recipient and the unskilled) would probably be the least likely to seek higher education. Denying access to higher education to these people will not alter their decision making process.
• Conclusions:
  1. If the purpose of the bill is to limit illegal immigration to Missouri because that immigration is harmful, I suspect that this bill
     1. will not benefit Missouri all that much because the harms of illegal immigration are overstated,
     2. will close off one mechanism (education) by which the most costly of illegal aliens can be turned into more productive illegal aliens, and
     3. will ultimately prove ineffective in limiting illegal immigration because few illegal aliens seek higher education.
  2. If the point of the bill is to limit the direct costs associated with educating illegal aliens at state institutions, I don't think anybody can tell how great the problem is. There probably aren't that many illegal aliens in our schools, but we also need to know what the marginal cost to the state is for educating these people. Whether they pay in-state or out-of-state tuition would be a significant factor in determining this cost. We also would need to know how much benefit to society we can obtain by educating our illegal alien population. I assume that there would be some benefit (economic, cultural or otherwise), but I don't know how to quantify that benefit to compare it to the costs associated with such education.
  3. I REALLY need to get a life.

UPDATE:
There are a lot of good links here and here. Neither set of links is directly applicable to the question of whether to educate our illegals, but they do provide a lot of good background thoughts from a lot of very smart people.

Hollywood, meet Jane Austen. Miss Austen, meet Hollywood.

I saw the latest adaptation of Pride and Prejudice tonight.

Two hours and seven minutes can't contain the whole of Austen's novel, so I was prepared to see some significant changes to the plot. Fortunately, the plot doesn't suffer--it's the dialogue and character development that bear the brunt of the damage. Some of the best lines from Austen's novel were mangled or eliminated, often to be replaced by standard Hollywood tripe. Austen's cast of characters includes several who are caricatures of specific personality traits, but this screenplay muddles the distinctions between the characters I want to like and those that I expect to loathe. Lizzy, for example, ends up looking a bit like her mother (she claims not to be marrying for money, but her conversion at Pemberly is apparently brought on by the sight of expensive statuary). The dynamic between Mr. and Mrs. Bennett is... I'm not sure what the screenwriter is going for, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Austen is going for. Wickham's role could be adequately played by a cardboard cutout.

I was prepared to forgive all of this until I heard Darcy say "you have bewitched me, body and soul". Almost everything after that line was pure Hollywood fluff. The final five minutes left me rolling my eyes in annoyance.

Given the limitations of a two hour movie format, compromises had to be made. I'm not sure that those compromises were handled as well as they could have been, but it could have been worse. On the other hand, why settle for a two hour movie? Bottom line: Buy this, it's better.

crows do not sell drugs

Heh.

better late than early

Pejman Yousefzadeh's post about Bush's exit strategy for Iraq worries me. The gist of his commentary is that we can't afford to leave Iraq too early:

Make no mistake: If American troops withdraw before the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take care of themselves, we will lose Iraq to complete barbarism. And if that happens, the Administration will have won itself no friends--either among those demanding withdrawal from the very beginning or among those demanding that we stick it out until the job is done. Worst of all, American security interests, prestige and credibility will suffer a monumental setback.

The significant decision isn't "do we withdraw from Iraq", but "when and how quickly do we withdraw from Iraq"? Afterall, Iraq has to stand on its own eventually. If the invasion of Iraq was intended to result in fundamental cultural changes throughout the Middle East, we won't achieve those benefits until Iraq becomes the prototype for stable and self-sufficient democracy in the region We can force democracy on Iraq, but only by letting them stand on their own two feet can the world know that this new democracy is stable, self-sufficient and worthy of emulation.

I'd very much like to know why the Administration is talking about large-scale withdrawals over the next two years. We've been making progress both militarily and politically against the terrorists (even if the press won't acknowlege it), so it's entirely possible that the Administration feels that Iraqis are capable of managing a larger role in their own defense. It's also possible that Bush is losing his nerve and is preparing to throw Iraq to the wolves. We risk more by pulling out too soon than by staying in too long, but I've got just enough faith left in this Administration to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

parenting in public

As James Lileks said, "I salute the owner of this place. He may be a tad too dictatorial, but it is his joint, and he seems to be peeving the right people."

I like kids and I like playing with kids. I recognize that kids aren't naturally quiet and well behaved, but that's all the more reason that they should be taught. Parents who refuse to parent in public are pernicious.

Alliteration is also pernicious, but it's my blog, so deal with it.

feminism and rape

Megan McArdle's post about feminism and rape is a must-read:

In my ideal world, men would not be tempted to commit rape. Sexual encounters would be handled with negotiation, not with one partner's insistence on getting what he wants at the expense of another. Men would respect the desires of women to control what happens to their bodies, whether they've known each other for ten minutes or ten years.

And in my ideal world, the fear of rape could not be used as a justification for slut-shaming.

Let's rephrase that bolded part a little bit: "In my ideal world, people would not be tempted to take things from other people that those other people do not freely choose to give them." I endorse that statement wholeheartedly. But that doesn't mean I leave the door unlocked.

There is a strain of feminism that encourages women to behave as if we have arrived in some feminist utopia where rape is impossible. This stems from a very admirable desire to put the responsibility for rape on the men, not the women, and is an understandable backlash to rape trials that used to investigate whether the woman was "asking for it".

Nonetheless, it's stupid. Not only are we not in this utopia, we are never, ever going to be in that utopia. Even if we achieved a marvelously gender-blind society, there would still be some people who want to have sex with people who do not want to have sex with them. Indeed, the variety of human sexual fantasy being what it is, there will be some people who are almost exclusively interested in that sort of activity.

That means women are going to have to take action to protect themselves. If you don't want to stop engaging in risky behaviour, then vote libertarian and buy yourself a gun. But don't just stick your head in the sand and claim that it's all society's fault, so you're not going to do anything until society takes care of the problem.

Feminists (and liberals in general) would be wise to stop confusing the ideal world for the real world. I've heard too many date rape stories in the press that could have been easily avoided if the victims had understood that parties featuring hormone-driven men, alcohol and an absence of sober friends are a really bad idea. This doesn't excuse the perpatrators--any man that would take advantage of a woman in those circumstances fully deserves to be locked up until he needs Viagra to pose a threat.

the problem with conspiracy theories

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are sometimes wrong. For instance, my theory that France was behind the yellowcake forgeries.

It appears that my conspiracy theories are bogus:

The FBI has determined that financial gain, not an effort to influence U.S. policy, was behind the forged documents that the Bush administration used to bolster its prewar claim that Iraq sought uranium ore in Niger.

The FBI had refused comment on the matter until Italian news sources reported this week that FBI Director Robert Mueller sent the Italian government a letter in July with the results of the bureau's two-year investigation.

The investigation "confirmed the documents to be fraudulent and concluded they were more likely part of a criminal scheme for financial gain," FBI spokesman John Miller said Friday, describing the contents of the letter.

Miller did not say what led the FBI to its conclusion or identify the perpetrators of the hoax.

So, France wasn't behind the fraudulent documents. My bad.

Q.E.D. (part 2)

Panera Bread serves a very good Spinach Artichoke Baked Souffle. Panera Bread serves a very good Hot Chocolate. Both of these statements are true until one attempts to prove both at the same time. Consuming both the souffle and the chocolate in a single sitting reveals that these statements are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

It's probably because of quantum.

Stare Decisis

David Bernstein says that:

conservative judicial originalism is currently in a state of crisis, precisely because of Justice Scalia's "fainthearted" originalism. If Justice Scalia, originalism's supposed great champion, is unwilling to overturn or even go out of his way to distinguish as anti-originalist opinion as Wickard v. Filburn (holding that growing grain on one's own land for consumption on one's own farm can be regulated under Congress' power to regulate "interstate commerce"), then what is left of originalism?

I expect that Scalia's problem is that to be a true originalist, many New Deal precedents would have to go out the window, and this is neither politically, nor, in many instances, practically feasible. But to be a sincere originalist, one has to grapple with how to resolve this quandry, not simply refuse to apply originalist reasoning out of "faintheartedness."

What should happen when original meaning and stare decisis are mutually exclusive? My instinct is to say that the approach of Bernstein, Randy Barnett and Justice Thomas is correct--stare decisis should hold less weight than original meaning. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a majority on the Supreme Court to agree with me, though...

Scalito

Judge Samuel Alito appears to be the second coming of Harriet Miers... except for the fact that he is a man, he has 15 years of experience serving in the federal judiciary, he has a solid record as an originalist, he has no prior relationship with Bush and liberals already know they hate him. So, basically, he's not at all like Miers. At least, that seems to be the buzz around the blogosphere. I don't think I had ever heard Alito's name before this nomination so I can speak with absolutely no authority regarding his history or his qualifications. For more info, take a look at Pejman's overview or at SCOTUSblog's roundup of blogosphere reactions.

My initial reaction: Alito seems more obviously qualified than Miers but may be less confirmable because he actually has a paper-trail for liberals to attack. I only hope that the debate is a broad discussion of the role of the judiciary in our federal system of government instead of a narrow argument about Alito's views on Roe v. Wade. Given that the mainstream media has a fixation on abortion, I'm pessimistic that my wish will be granted.

oh, the tangled webs we weave

There's much more to the Valerie Plame story than who is getting indicted (at this point, it appears that Libby wins the prize). Lost in the noise about the Plame investigation is this news about the source of the forged yellowcake documents.

If you have no clue what I'm talking about, go take a gander at this summary. Here's the short version:

The term yellowcake forgery refers to falsified documents which appeared to depict an attempt by Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger, in defiance of United Nations sanctions.

The reference in U.S. President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (in which he made a case for war with Iraq) Of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa was thought by many to be a reference to these documents. Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents, and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war. Days later, in a column by Robert Novak, the covert identity of Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame was exposed. The ensuing Plame affair" (aka. "CIA leak scandal") is an ongoing political scandal and criminal investigation into the source of the leak which "outed" Plame.

This whole mess got started when the CIA set out to confirm the reliability of these documents which claimed Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger. We have long known that they were forgeries, but who forged them?

From Austin Bay, the answer to that question is the big news that nobody in the media is paying attention to--from the Daily Telegraph:

The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up” Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

Why would France want to stop the war? Maybe because Saddam was such a nice guy. Or perhaps their motivation was a bit more crass:

More than 4,500 companies took part in the United Nations oil-for-food program and more than half of them paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein, according to the independent committee investigating the program.

The country with the most companies involved in the program was Russia, followed by France, the committee says in a report to be released Thursday.

The findings are in the committee's fifth and final report, a document of more than 500 pages that will detail how outside companies from more than 60 countries were able to evade United Nations controls and make money for themselves as well as for the Hussein government.

Was France just trying to protect their own business interests in Iraq?

UPDATE:
It appears that my conspiracy theories are bogus:

The FBI has determined that financial gain, not an effort to influence U.S. policy, was behind the forged documents that the Bush administration used to bolster its prewar claim that Iraq sought uranium ore in Niger.

The FBI had refused comment on the matter until Italian news sources reported this week that FBI Director Robert Mueller sent the Italian government a letter in July with the results of the bureau's two-year investigation.

The investigation "confirmed the documents to be fraudulent and concluded they were more likely part of a criminal scheme for financial gain," FBI spokesman John Miller said Friday, describing the contents of the letter.

Miller did not say what led the FBI to its conclusion or identify the perpetrators of the hoax.

So, France wasn't behind the fraudulent documents. My bad.

so long, and thanks for all the fish

Miers has thrown in the towel and withdrawn her name from consideration as a Supreme Court justice. Some random thoughts:

• Good for her--the hearings were going to be ugly for the GOP.
• I wonder if Bush is still determined to nominate a woman? If so, the list may be short.
• Having survived the Miers experiment, it will be funny if Bush nominates Alberto Gonzales.
• Kind of like it would be funny to survive a bout with cancer, then get run over by a truck.
• On second thought, that's not very funny.

I like scalia

Antonin Scalia is so smart and so fun to read. I followed Volokh's link to this book review by Scalia and was not disappointed. One of my favorite lines:

Smith confuses, it seems to me, the question whether words convey a concept from one intelligent mind to another (communication) with the question whether words produce a concept in the person who reads or hears them (meaning). The bridegroom who says “I do,” intending by that expression to mean “I do not,” has not succeeded in communicating his intent; but what he has said unquestionably means that he consents to marriage.

This is one reason that I dislike the phrase "original intent". I don't so much care what the drafters of a law thought they were saying, but I do care what the understood meaning of the law was at the time of its drafting.

the real world

The real world has imposed some limitations on my blogging. No, not that real world, but this real world. Regularly scheduled blogging will resume at some point.

Q.E.D. (part 1)

Onion rings in the abstract are more delectable than onion rings in the mouth.

debating originalism in constitutional interpretation

Here's the kind of debate that I really wanted to see coming as a result of Bush's Supreme Court nominations: Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett discuss constitutional interpretation. Unfortunately, we get debates about cronyism, religious views, gender and the need for judicial experience. Read the whole thing. Then read Restoring The Lost Constitution, by Barnett.

train wreck

The Miers nomination has certainly turned into a political train wreck for the GOP. Erick Erickson has posted the latest rumors about the causes of the fiasco:

I was going to write a juicy piece with lots of good quotes from White House sources, but in the past twenty-four hours I've gotten calls, emails, and instant messages requesting that I please not quote anyone. What's going on?

Here's the story I was going to write: I was going to write about the flurry of White House conservative staffers contacting me to vent. Slowly, but surely, momentum among the conservative staffers shifted from tight lipped Bushies to angry activists and then abruptly stopped. A couple worked under Miers and said they loved her, but could not fathom that she would be considered for the post, given that no one really knows where she stands except potentially on affirmative action and that would be bad for the conservative position.

What all the callers wanted to say, but then decided they should not say, or at least not be quoted saying, was that Andy Card really and truly was the person pushing Miers. The general theme was that Tim Flanigan had moved on in 2002, Gonzales had moved to Justice taking well trained staff with him, and Miers was left to fill a definite void with some lesser experienced staff.

Those who mentioned Roberts praised Miers handling of Roberts and commented that Miers went to bat for Roberts right out of the gate with a game plan in place, but no one was there to do the same for Miers. An independent source tells me that Miers begged for more time, but the White House demanded that Monday be the day. Interestingly, there is a credible rumor out there that the White House insisted on Monday because the intended nominee to be announced backed out over the weekend. Yes, it is a very credible rumor.

Part of the Miers pick seems to be a confused process and a rush job, which adds credibility to the rumor of a last minute back out. But, the White House conservatives and outside parties all indicate that they were ignored. They were heard but not listened to. Several who talked to RedState insist that warning flags were given to Andrew Card and others, but that those warning were ignored and Card pushed the issue all the way to the President's desk.

One outside source who has a good ear to the ground tells me that the White House most likely has nothing else to offer in Miers' favor, but will just recycle previous sound bites. This same source bolsters what a White House staffer tells me, in that the vetting process was so poorly done that much of what is now coming out about Miers was unknown before her nomination.

The remaining questions are whether Republican Senators will force the White House to withdraw the Miers nomination and, if so, will the replacement be less favorable to conservatives.

How much of this is accurate? Beats me. I would very much like to know two things: 1) what process did the White House follow to evaluate Miers as a potential nominee and 2) was Miers a last-minute replacement pick after another candidate declined the nomination?

If Miers wasn't evaluated in the same manner as the other nominees or if the evaluation process was cut short to meet an artificial deadline, Bush either needs to get some better advisers or he needs to start listening to them--this kind of sloppiness isn't acceptable. Another possibility is that Miers was well vetted and Bush knew how intense the opposition to Miers would be, but didn't care. He may be stubborn, but this would a kind of transcendent stubborness that passes into the realms of foolishness. Either way, Bush looks really bad as a result of this.

On the other hand, maybe this is just much ado about nothing, and Miers will turn out to be excellent.

we have found a witch. may we burn her?

Why is America so litigious these days? Jane Galt says it's because we're rich. It's an answer I wouldn't have considered, but perhaps she's right:

So why are lawsuits increasing? I'd plump for several factors: an increasing number of lawyers; the rise of class action lawsuits in the 1970's, which provided large trial firms war chests to elect legislators friendly to their cause; people using an increasing number of products whose innards are mysterious to them; better communications, which make it easier for people to realize they have an actionable case, and easier for lawyers to collect clients; a cultural shift which has convinced parents that if their baby drowns in a bucket, the bucket manufacturer is somehow at fault for failing to warn them that this could happen.

But the single biggest factor, I'd claim, is that we're getting richer. That means that we drive more miles and consume more goods, which of course increases the chances of one of our toys somehow going wrong. It also gives us more income out of which to pay for lawyers, and makes more companies a more attractive target for lawsuits. If lawsuits are the price we pay for getting richer, that's a bargain I'll take.

I still say we should burn the lawyers. Er... the witches.

real character

I wonder how many people really remember what happened in Tiananmen Square, Beijing back in 1989? The brutal manner in which the Chinese government dealt with its critics makes a mockery of the idea that China is a "People's Republic". The bilious lefties in this country who love to scream about the crimes of Chimpy McBushitler don't have any idea what it really means to "speak truth to power".

Oxblog reminded me of this example of true courage. After seeing soldiers, policemen, armored personnel carriers (APCs) and tanks massacre his fellow protesters, one man stepped in front of a column of tanks, stared them down and brought them to a halt. We don't know the identity of the man that stopped the tanks, nor do we know his fate. One thing I do know--I want to display the same kind of courage the next time I have to choose between confronting evil or stepping aside to protect my own interests.

term limits for the supreme court

Peggy Noonan is suggesting that we impose term limits on our Supreme Court justices:

Supreme Court justices are more powerful than ever while who and what they are is more mysterious than ever. We have a two part problem. The first is that no one knows what they think until they're there. The other is that they're there forever.

I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I'd give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, and then be released back into the community. This would involve amending the Constitution. Why not? We'd amend it to ban flag-burning, even though a fool burning a flag can't possibly harm our country. But a Kelo decision and a court unrebuked for it can really tear the fabric of a nation.

I understand the desire to reign in a Court that sometimes makes unpopular decisions. I think it's a misguided desire, but it's nonetheless understandable. What I don't understand is the assertion that limiting justices to a single term of fixed length would somehow motivate the justices to clean up their act. What new incentives would term limits provide to justices? Under the current system, a justice will lose her position when she's dead, regardless of her performance on the bench. Under Noonan's proposed system, a justice will lose her proposed position when her term expires, regardless of her performance on the bench. This changes the justice's incentives not one whit. Am I missing something?

a house divided

Ed Morrissey on the possibility of a Republican revolt against Miers:

Bush might wind up having to rely on Democrats to save Miers on the basis of being the friendliest candidate that they're likely to see. Even John Thune, who just got to keep his air force base, expressed his dismay with Miers' selection, although he issued a caveat against an intraparty war he sees coming.

Thune, of course, hits the nail on the head. It's a war we can't afford at this time, which is one of the reasons why I have decided not to oppose Miers' confirmation.

I disagree. Better to stand on principle and suffer through the fight than prove to the world that the GOP is only interested in temporary political advantage.

Iraq and the war on terror

CNN has already begun spinning the theme of Bush's speech tomorrow:

Bush has tried repeatedly to link Iraq to the anti-terror campaign launched after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

Though the 9/11 commission found no operational relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq before the 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, critics say the insurgency against U.S. troops that followed Saddam's overthrow has drawn terrorists into Iraq to fight Americans.

Once again we find the popular press suggesting that the presence of terrorists in Iraq now is really just a response to Bush's aggression and that our invasion of Iraq served no real purpose in battling terror.

Critics of the war in Iraq ought to reconsider the strategic options we faced after 9/11 and try to understand how the invasion of Iraq fits into that menu of strategic choices. To illustrate the basic strategies we had available to us, let's consider the current operations that are ongoing inside of Iraq. The fight against the insurgency can be broken up into three distinct prongs:

1. Defensive Operations - The goal of defensive operations is simple--to protect our troops and the innocent populace from attack. Whether it's a roadblock checkpoint on a highway leading into Baghdad or a guard stationed on an oil terminal, our defensive operations seek to identify and defeat whatever attacks our enemies choose to launch. The problem with these defensive operations is twofold. First, we simply can not be strong everywhere. Secondly, defensive operations allow the enemy to choose the time and place of battle. Every defensive posture has a weakness that the enemy can exploit and our enemies are smart enough to attack our most vulnerable positions.


2. Offensive Operations - The goal of offensive operations is equally simple--to seek out and destroy the enemy on our terms. At the small end we are using intelligence from interrogations to identify and capture key terrorist leaders in targeted police raids. At the big end we are sending thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops to systematically drive terrorists out of their strongholds such as Falluja. In either case, we seek to take the terrorists out of action before they can strike.


3. Social/Political Operations - We can effectively win both defensive and offensive battles for years to come, but these successes will be for naught if the country of Iraq never matures socially and politically. Consequently, the most important task we face is the building up of a government and a society that is committed to peace and cooperation, both internally and externally. The drafting of a new constitution, the completion of successful elections, the growth of a thriving economy and the prevention of racial or religious civil war are all key components of our social/political operations. If these are successful, the terrorists can never win. If these fail, we're in for a long and painful ride.

Similarly, in the global war on terror we had several strategic options available to us after 9/11:

1. Defensive Operations - Clearly, we had to take steps to shore up transportation security and immigration policy. But defensive action will always have the same flaws, allowing the enemy time to pick away at our weak points and avoid our strongest defenses. We took these steps, but they were not enough.


2. Offensive Operations - Again, we had to aggressively pursue Bin Laden and his organization and we did so by striking at his home base in Afghanistan. His organization suffered massive casualties as a result, but the terrain and the presence of a supportive Islamist populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan made it highly unlikely that we would ever be able to get them all (not to mention the probablility that Iran has offered shelter to much of al Qaeda's leadership).
   
3. Social/Political Operations - In the same way that we can't win the war in Iraq if we don't prompt significant changes in that country's societal institutions, I believe we will never win the war on terror if we can't force large-scale cultural changes throughout the Middle East. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, even our closest allies in the region were unelected monarchs who had to balance their pro-Western inclinations against the fear of populations that were culturally and religiously hostile to the West. With politicians, state run media and preachers all proclaiming the evils of the West (how else to explain the fact that little Israel could thrive economically in comparison to her Arab and Muslim neighbors?), terrorism seems to be a natural by-product of these broken societies. Only by altering that social landscape could we hope to eliminate the threat of terrorism in the long run.

So how does Iraq fit into the war on terror? By smashing Saddam's corrupt government and building a stable liberal democracy in the heart of the Middle East, we began a process that can change the entire social landscape of the region. Libya has given up WMD programs, Syria has backed out of Lebanon, Kuwaiti women are voting and nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are at least giving lip service to the idea of allowing real elections in the future. The Middle East is changing in ways that we couldn't have dared to hope for immediately after 9/11. The invasion of Iraq isn't just part of the war on terror--it may well be the most critical part of that war.

the military in times of crisis

Tyler Cowen writes here about a trial balloon floated recently by President Bush: perhaps the military should have a stronger role in dealing with large-scale disasters. From the New York Times:

President Bush said today that he was working to prepare the United States for a possibly deadly outbreak of avian flu. He said he had weighed whether to quarantine parts of the country and also whether to employ the military for the difficult task of enforcing such a quarantine.

"It's one thing to shut down your airplanes, it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu," he said. Doing so, Mr. Bush said, might even involve using "a military that's able to plan and move."

The president had already raised, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the delicate question of giving the military a larger role in responding to domestic disasters. His comment today appeared to presage a concerted push to change laws that limit military activities in domestic affairs.

The initial media coverage of Katrina painted a uniformly negative picture of FEMA, provoking responses that showed serious breakdowns in leadership at the state and local level. The only institution that came out of Katrina with its reputation enhanced was the American military. Bush may be able to score some political points by pushing some responsibility for disaster recovery management onto the military, but I believe this is a bad idea for three reasons:

1. Practically speaking, our military's primary role is to defend our interests from external military threats. Our military is engaged in a global war against terror, deeply committed to nation building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, poised to deal with rogue states in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran and committed to the defense of allies who are threatened by the potential belligerence of nations like China and North Korea--we are already stretching our military resources thin. We still maintain the capacity to stretch further and fight another war, but we are increasingly running up against smaller margins for error. Why push our military into a role that is only marginally connected to its primary purpose and is likely to further deplete its capacity to respond to external threats?


2. Not only would such a decision have an effect on our military, it would also have an impact on those state and local officials who are best situated to understand the unique risks and requirements facing their communities. If the military is tasked with taking control during times of crisis, local governments will have reduced incentives to plan for disasters and will allocate resources towards projects with more immediate political payback. Overall quality of disaster preparation could easily be lower if local officials begin to assume that the military alone is capable of handling crisis situations.


3. Philosphically speaking, this proposal takes us one more step down the road away from a truly federalist system. Our founding fathers were deeply concerned about the potential for abuse by a domineering central government and implemented a system which strictly limited the powers of the national government. Ever since, these limits have been eroding, with the Civil War being only the bloodiest instance in which our Federal government has wrested power from the states. In light of this steady accrual of power, it may seem a small thing to remove the restrictions that exist on our military as it operates within our own borders. However, the fact that we enjoy a military that does not get involved in domestic affairs is probably one of the key differences between our history of political stability and the political instability seen in so many other countries. Assuming 100 years of prominent domestic involvement by our military, could we have gotten through the 2000 election stalemate without the military getting involved? Perhaps, even probably, we would have resolved the situation in much the same manner that we did. But why risk it? Why build up a culture in our military that supports the idea that military leaders should step in to resolve problems that our political leaders have lost control of?

Could the response to Katrina have been more prompt and effective at all levels of government? Perhaps, but I don't think that we should jump at the military as a quick fix for what went wrong.

Anyway, so what went wrong with FEMA's response? Not nearly as much as you might think. Much of the media slammed FEMA for not having troops into New Orleans immediately to begin rescue operations, but those criticisms over look the fact that the logistics that are involved in this scale of operation are staggering.

a poke in the eye

GWB has nominated Harriet Miers to fill O'Conner's seat on the Supreme Court. Her bio seems to reveal that she's very bright and very hard working. Unfortunately, all of that work has been as a private sector or government lawyer, with absolutely no judicial history. Consequently, it's impossible to tell what kind of philophical approach she will apply to Constitutional interpretation. In addition to her non-existant paper trail, she has donated money to Al Gore and the DNC during past election cycles. Perhaps she was simply acting in the best interest of her law firm, covering all the bases with her contributions. Perhaps her personal political inclinations aren't consistently conservative. As of right now, we're left with little more than GWB's personal recommendation to go on. I'd like something a little bit more substancial before I support her nomination to the Court.

I wasn't terribly pleased by the selection of Roberts, because I doubt that he is a committed originalist in interpretting the Constitution. He seemed to be more in the mold of a Rehnquist than a Thomas or a Scalia. On the other hand, he did at least seem to be consistently conservative in his political outlook. Miers doesn't yet get this benefit of the doubt since we know neither her approach to constitutional interpretation nor her general political inclinations. I think she's more likely to turn into another O'Conner. If that turns out ot be the case, GWB has thrown away two chances to improve the Supreme Court, and two chances to give the country an opportunity to seriously debate the principles of Constitutional interpretation.

Miers may be better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but not by much.

UPDATE: After implying that Bush is making a mistake here, it's only fair to provide a link to someone who has evidence to the contrary:

• Part 1
  
• Part 2
  
• Part 3
  
• Part 4
  
• Part 5
  

There are two senarios in which this nomination may be a very good move for Bush:

1. Miers has agreed to be a sacrificial lamb--she bears the brunt of attacks by liberal Democrats, her nomination is withdrawn, and a more conservative/better credentialed nominee faces less of a fight because of favorable comparisons to Miers.
   
2. Miers is every bit the conservative originalist that I want to see on the Court, but Democrats think they're going to get another Souter so they let her through without much of a fight.
   

Option 1 seems rather nonsensical. Option 2 seems too good to be true. We'll see, I guess.

a snapshot of me

Here's where I'll be coming from on this blog: I'm a Christian and a conservative Republican, but according to this personality test I'm socially liberal and economically conservative--a "Capitalist". I definitely have libertarian tendancies, so that's a fair description of me. While I'm a Christian and my personal views on a host of social issues are indistinguishable from those expressed by the so-called Religious Right, I think they've got their ends and means reversed. They seem to believe that the way to fix society is to first fix the government. That's getting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.

raison d’être

I'll be posting on U.S. domestic politics, foreign policy, law, economics, literature and life. Or nothing. We shall see.