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.