von

NukeWatch: Russia

by

Russia, scarcely able to secure its existing nuclear arsenal, is continuing its move to acquire new nuclear weapons.  Employing his brand of inimitable Cold War crypto-speak, Putin offered the following details: "I am sure that in the near future weapons will appear… which other nuclear powers do not and will not possess,” he said. Comforting.  … Read more

A Brief Digression

by

I write not to disagree with the substance of this post by Edward regarding the growth of religiously-inspired textbook rewrites.  Indeed, I’m no fan of folks who conflate their personal religious views with science.  But I do take exception to the implication that such folks, however foolish or ill-intentioned, are the moral equivalent of the … Read more

Andrew Sullivan Does Not Understand the Value of a Dollar

by

Andrew Sullivan writes: And I oppose punitive or "progressive" taxation, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of personal success. If we’re all taxed at the same proportionate rate, the successful still pay far more into the public coffers than the unsuccessful. They’re just not penalized even further by a higher rate. If … Read more

It took y’all long enough

by

Sebastian Holsclaw, permanent ObWi guest poster, has now become a permant ObWi permant poster.  Hurray!  The ObWi Five becomes the ObWi Six:  Edward Underscore, Katherine, Hilzoy, Sebastian, Slartibartfast, and yours truly, Von. What adventures will we have?  What crimes will we solve?  (More to the point, which will we commit?)  Will Hilzoy finally stop with … Read more

The first thing you have to do is admit that you have a problem, Part II

by

It’s not entirely unexpected, I suppose.  My suggestion that Democrats should moderate their views generated a bit of heat from the readership (including this thoughtful response by our own Hilzoy) — most of it from Democrats, and most of it against me.  However perilous, though, I’m gonna continue the fight because I think I’m right:  Democrats need to turn to the right in order to have a chance in the next election.  Here’s why:

1.  "Turn to the right" is often taken to mean a turn to the right on social issues — a problem compounded by the visibility of the gay marriage issue this time around.  But social issues are only a part of it (and not the largest part).

(cont.)

Read more

The first thing you have to do is admit that you have a problem

by

Lotsa folks seem to think this missive applies mostly to the Bush administration; if y’all want to keep your "reality-based" hats on after the election, though, you’ll see that it applies equally (if not moreso) to the Democrats.

This, it seems to me, would go a long way to admittin’ the mistake and startin’ the correctin’ process.  He’s the guy who gets it.  What’s "it"?  Well:  Republicans win when they run to the right.  Democrats win when they run to the right.  See a pattern? 

Update:  Our loyal commenteers are politely, but persistently, telling me to shove it.  The general objection (but by no means the only objection) is that if Democrats become Republican-lite, Republicans will become Republican-heavy.   I don’t think that should be much of a concern, however.

First, if you stop by RedState, you’ll see that Republicans are already well on their way to heavy-dom.  They want to purge Specter.  Chafee can go to Hell.  They’re calling Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a RINO.  (Perhaps they’re unaware that, until January 2004, Lugar voted with President Bush 100 percent of the time.)  The swing to the hard right has already begun, and it’s starting to get really uncomfortable for Republican-sympathancs such as myself.

Second, always keep in mind that most of the country is not hard-right.  It’s center-right — and that includes most RedStates.  Case in point:  Tom Coburn couldn’t win a schoolboard seat in most Indiana counties, and this is a state that the networks called for Bush while the polls were still open.  The right kind of Democrat — a moderate — does quite well here,* and even better elsewhere in the Midwest (like, say, Ohio.  And Missouri.  And Iowa.  Et al.).

A Democrat will not sweep the Old South or the Rocky mountain states in our lifetime, just as a Republican won’t sweep the Northeast or California.  The Midwest (of which, bizarrely, Florida seems a part) is the battleground.  For better or worse, the battleground leans right.  Until Democrats figure that out, they’ll have trouble.

Finally, I’m sympathetic to the notion that this may considered "selling the party’s soul."  (Not too sympathetic, though, since I’m not a member of the party and thus not overly enamoured with the soul in question.)  I don’t think it need be taken that far.  Semantics and procedure are your friends here.  You support "civil unions" that are "legislated," not "gay marriages" dictated by "activist judges."  You want to keep abortion "safe, legal, and rare" — and you’re prepared to legislate as much.  (Really, must you fight for an unfettered right to late-term abortions?)  These are simple, swallowable changes that will attract the swing voter — and start swinging elections your way.

But, then, what kind of advice did you expect from ObWi’s putative "centrist"?

Read more

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! STOP SUING MY CLIENTS FOR RACKETEERING

by

It’s really really starting to interfere with my blogging — what, with all the investigations to do and motions to file. Anyway, I can assure you that my clients are totally, completely, and sincerely innocent. And, if you did happen to be inadvertently defrauded by an international conspiracy of multinationals, you probably deserved it. C’mon, … Read more

Big Doings

by

With the (temporary, I hope) departure of Moe Lane, founding father and good guy extraordinaire, we ObWi’ers find ourselves a bit out of whack. Y’see, the whole purpose of ObWi is to have a balance of political viewpoints. With Moe’s leaving, our esteemed lefty colleagues (Katherine, Hilzoy, and Edward Underscore) don’t merely outsmart Sebastian and … Read more

Now that Bush has won …

by

It would be nice of him to explain “The Bush Doctrine.” Yes, yes, I know: “The Bush Doctrine” means that the U.S. reserves the right to take pre-emptive action against emerging threats. Duly noted. The problem is that this is also a trait of the “realist” doctrine, any one of the “neoconservative” doctrines currently circulating, … Read more

Shocker!

by

Hindrocket of Powerline, a lawyer who defends against class action cases (among other things), dislikes Judge Dlott — Clinton appointee and, even more vile, wife to Stan Chesley, a plaintiffs’ attorney who “made untold millions through class action lawsuits.” Nevermind that I’m sympathetic to Hindrocket in the global sense — I did some class action … Read more

Osama Wants You to Vote for Kerry

by

Constant-reader Blue wonders why we haven’t posted on Osama bin Laden’s purported threat to each U.S. state that supports Bush. (Via Joe Lindgren at Volokh.) Here’s what bin Laden supposed said (translation via Memri): “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa’ida. Your security is in your own hands, and … Read more

Endorsement

by

Bob Hayes of Let’s Try Freedom has a long post on the election that’s worth quoting at length (but, please, be sure to read the whole thing). Our country is predicated on the idea that we don’t need to have civil wars and hyper-partisan destructive political conflict, because we provide a mechanism for the people … Read more

Realism, and the Reality-based Community

by

I fashion myself a foreign policy realist — the words of Snowcroft, Lugar, and Biden are most resonant in my ears. My support for the Iraq War was accordingly cautious, my trust in our infallibility nonexistant, and my hopes for a quickie democracy in Iraq close to nil. When WMD were not found in Iraq, … Read more

Anatomy of a Spin

by

Ahh. I see. When first reports regarding the missing 377 tons of high-grade explosives turn out to be, well, possibly lacking in nuance — i.e., false, or at least incomplete — then the 377 tons of high-grade explosives in fact never were the story at all. (Per Sullivan.) Well, then. Moving on. In fact, no … Read more

The problem with …

by

… good writers is that they sometimes feel that they don’t have to make an argument. They just have to make their sentences pretty enough and the world will swoon. Such it is with Lileks, who is a great writer. His blasts Andrew Sullivan for Sullivan’s endorsement of Kerry, and it reads like a shotgun … Read more

Let me add ….

by

… that Gentle Sebastian* is far too kind to Matthew Yglesias. You don’t want to see the end-driven world that Matt seems to prefer (ruled by Godwin’s law in at bottom, it turns out). The means matter — and more to the point, perhaps, process matters. Indeed, it’s not too wild to say that democracy … Read more

One liners, Election Round-Robbin’ Style

by

Now, it seems, is as good a time to get our cards on the table. Not to waver, Cuomo-style. (Or “Hamlet-style” for the Romeo+Juliet under-25 set.) Not to analyze. Not to add, subtract, account, or discourse. Not, especially, to caveat or bemoan or argue. But simply to state, pith-like, our choices.

Here’re mine:

President: John Kerry, Democrat. I prefer the idiot restrained by a Republican Congress over the incompetent enabled by a Republican Congress; and, yes, I may have to get drunk before I can cast my vote.

As for the provinces (and having successfully made the transition from Chicago and Indiana*):

Governor: Mitch Daniels (with 527’s apparently on the brain, I initially typed “McConnell”. Aaargh.) Republican. Over a dozen years of Democrats in the Governor’s mansion, and all Indiana has to show for it are discarded jobs, determined scandals, and a dirty campaign from a guy who should know better (Kernan, the Democratic nominee). Time for a change.

Senator: Evan Bayh, Democrat. A social moderate, fiscal conservative, and foreign policy hawk. My kind of Democrat: the kind who would’ve been a Republican in Chicago.

Congressperson: The libertarian — either the one who’s running as a Libertarian, or the former one who’s running as a Republican. But let’s face it: The race is a lock for Julia Carson (D-Indianapolis), despite her heart troubles. (Indeed, it’s such a lock that I’m considering running as a liberal Republican the next time ’round . . . .)

State Representative: In a race between a guy named Mort Large and another named David Orentlicher, I may pencil in a vote for a “Large Orentlicher.” Failing that, I’m tempted to vote for Orentlicher, the incumbant and Democrat, if only because Orentlicher seems a decent enough chap and Large hasn’t yet given me a reason to change my mind.

So, have at it. This is your “it’s a free country” open thread.

Read more

Yawn

by

OmiGod, Kerry exaggerated! (Coverage at RedState and Powerline. Curiously, RedState’s coverage somewhat contradicts the Washinton Times’ coverage.) Put me among those who go, well, yawn. Look, most rational folks have factored in the fact (so to speak) that Kerry exaggerates. (Cynical bastards that we are, we suspect most politicians do.) We’ve also factored in that … Read more

I’m not sure if I’d be touting all that, fellas.

by

Professor Reynolds has noted a couple times (including today) that the 12 to 17 set seems to prefer Bush to Kerry. I’ll freely admit that the young can have a kind of accidental wisdom — heck, I went for Reagan (twice)* and Bush Sr. (once) when I was a child and teenager, and I would’ve made the same choices again today at thirty.

I’m not sure, however, that “teenagers for Bush” is quite so effective a slogan this time around. Indeed, isn’t the ur-criticism of Bush that he’s executed his policies the way a teenager would? Long on hope and intent, short on skill and sobriety?

Frankly, I think “teenagers for Bush” literally “proves too much.”

UPDATE: The-always-calm-and-reserved Professor Leiter one-ups (or is it downs?) Reynolds! It turns out that, although kids 12-17 prefer Bush, kids 2-11 apparently prefer Kerry. So our choice is between the moody teenager who just wants to goof off and (maybe) blow something up, and the little kid who wants his ice cream and T.V. and a horsey NOW NOW NOW NOW!

Finally, everything is clear to me. I’m going to go get a drink. Wake me November 3rd (or whenever the Supreme Court issues its decision.)

(Via Professor Bainbridge.)

Read more

Escarpments and Entanglements

by

I don’t know if an 8% slide is “falling precipitously,” as Matt Yglesias claims, but I, for one, like my corporations to serve their shareholders — by, e.g., making money for them. I’m a radical capitalist, I know. So I’m not particularly happy that Sinclair, in which I own stock through one of my mutual … Read more

This doesn’t seem right

by

Professor Reynolds‘ Wall Street Journal article on the strange case of Vanessa Leggett — a freelance journalist who was jailed for refusing to turn over certain notes to the U.S. Justice Department — seems to contain a minor legal inaccuracy. The article reads in relevant part:

Contrary to frequent assertions from professional journalists, there is no special First Amendment protection for members of the press. Such protections, to the extent they exist at all, exist only as a matter of statutory or regulatory grace. Under the First Amendment, everyone enjoys the same protection as “professional journalists.” Ms. Leggett probably had First Amendment grounds for refusing to turn over all of her notes, but not for refusing to testify to a grand jury, and not for refusing to make her notes available for copying (rather than seizure). Her refusal to testify may make her a heroine to journalists, but it does not make her a First Amendment heroine.

Now, (1) this isn’t my area and (2) I think Professor Reynolds is mostly right. But he is also a bit wrong, if I recall correctly.

The relevant case — Branzburg v. Hayes, et al. — had four votes for Reynolds’ “no protection whatsoever” viewpoint, and four for the “at least some protection” approach (including one, by Justice Douglas, for the “I like my constitutional protections the way I like my condoms: total protection” approach.)

The fifth, deciding vote for “no protection” was cast by Justice Powell in a concurrence. This concurrence is crucial, and it’s not nearly as absolute as the plurality opinion for “no protection.” To the contrary, it seems to suggest that there are certain limited First Amendment protections for newsgathering. When Powell’s concurrence is added to the four “at least some protection” votes, it arguably creates a majority for the viewpoint that there are at least some narrow First Amendment protections for newsgathering.

The concurrence reads in whole (it’s short):

Read more

Things I owe, and things I don’t

by

Among endless piles of motions, jury instructions, and related flotsam, a few items occur to me. In no particular order: 1. I scored last night’s debate as a narrow win for Kerry. So far, then, I have a “Kerry Blowout”; a “Cheney Snatches Defeat From the Jaws of Victory (by his misstatements)”; a “Bush Narrow … Read more

Just Asking

by

Put aside the ballooning deficit. Why, exactly, is it a bad thing for a tax cut to “[Give] Business More and More,” as the New York Times so “neutrally” put it? Who creates the jobs? Who does the research? Who builds the buildings? Who pays the pensions? What is in your retirement fund? We need … Read more

Derrida, Part Deux

by

Edward has penned a great note regarding Derrida, who passed away over last Friday, but I can’t let his death pass without comment from me. Frankly, I found Derrida to be a too-clever pain in the ass (a seven-point-five, for those using the Wittgenstein scale), but he was a fun pain in the ass — in a mind-frag kinda way. And, some of the problems that Derrida skirted around (Derrida, seemingly on principle, never really got around to “addressing” them) actually have some modicum of relevance in the real world.

How? Well, consider patent law.

Read more

Not great news.

by

96,000 new jobs in September — less than the 148,000 economists had expected. The unemployment rate is steady at 5.4%. Since conventional wisdom holds that nearly 150,000 new jobs must be created to keep up with new entries to the labor market, this suggests that a significant number of workers have given up looking for … Read more

The Abu Ghraib RICO Case: Part III.

by

This is the third installment of “what’s shakin’ in the Abu Ghraib RICO lawsuit.” Prior installments are here and here; prior posts on the subject are here and here.

In this installment: More torture allegations! Greedy plaintiffs’ attorneys! The decline and fall of the automatic spell check function! Fun with the hearsay rule! More on the “the government was involved so it must be OK” defense! And much, much more!

For those just joining us, a public interest group filed a class-action RICO lawsuit on behalf of about a thousand Abu Ghraib detainees, claiming that several civilian contractors and their employees conspired to torture, maim, sexually abuse, and otherwise mistreat prisoners. The allegations are disturbing, but the evidentiary support for them is a bit thin. Moreover, even if the allegations are proven, it’s not at all clear to me that the corporate defendants — the deep pockets in the case — should be held responsible.

So, with all caveats firmly in place, we join our story . . . .

Read more

A Modest Proposal

by

Malkinfan makes a modest proposal regarding Michelle Malkin‘s Japanese internment claims: Somebody in one of the comments below used the term “African-American,” well, like Michelle [Malkin] has shown [In Defense of Internment], that term is wrong. It’s like how she points out that so-called “Japanese-Americans” even though they were born here and were supposedly “citizens,” … Read more

Anatomy of a Spinning Top

by

My opinion of the Cheney-Edwards debate, three seconds after it concluded: No knockout, no TKO, but Cheney won on points.

My opinion of the Cheney-Edwards debate today: No knockout, no TKO, but Cheney won on points.

My opinion of who’s winning the aftermath of the Cheney-Edwards debate: Edwards, clearly — and Cheney’s heading to a TKO.

Why?

Because, in the course of the debate, Cheney created too much grist for the Democratic mill. He made errors. His put-downs of Edwards, brilliant in the moment, became phantoms when put into factual context. And, worst for a Vice-President who’s been accused of having a strange and distant relationship with the truth: He lied. Mostly about small stuff, sure. But he lied. Repeatedly. As if he didn’t know any other way of operating.

My opinion of Cheney actually increased after the debate, and it’s still higher than it was pre-debate. I still think he won. I’m beginning to understand, however, why no Republican should be happy with his performance Tuesday night.

Bush needs to win big on Friday. And he needs to win in a way that doesn’t lose him the post-debate spin.

UPDATE: Citizen Smash and I seem to agree on this one: Cheney’s otherwise strong performance on Tuesday night was marred by his factual lapses. (I don’t think Smash is prepared to use the “lie” word, but I really don’t think you can escape the conclusion that at least Cheney’s dig on Edwards’ attendence record was a lie. See my comment, below, for why I’m prepared to go beyond “misstatement,” “embellishment,” or “misleading statement” on this one.) Smash also points out Edwards’ errors, including a pretty big one regarding military pay.

Read more

Another note

by

This reader e-mail to TPM gets the litigation tactics right; not sure about debate crossover, however. Shorter TPM: If you’re so fortunate to catch someone in a lie, and you know you can prove it’s a lie without help from the witness, leave it be. Otherwise, you run the risk that the witness will try … Read more

The Abu Ghraib RICO lawsuit: The Defense

by

(Part II of a series.) What do you say to a claim that you engaged in an international, illegal enterprise to torture, beat, rape, and murder Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison? (See these prior posts regarding the RICO and other claims against the Abu Ghraib civilian contractors.) Well, if you’re The Titan Corporation, … Read more

______ the Model

by

At some point, usually when it’s done, the models are damned and the thing becomes the thing that it is. Until that time, though, Kieran of Crooked Timber is on the right track: The U.S.’s day-to-day problems in Iraq may end up resembling Northern Ireland rather than Vietnam: car bombings, political assassinations, a general effort … Read more