von

Alea Iacta Est

by

Donald Rumsfeld on Fox News Sunday: … the implication of the question was that we don’t have enough [troops] to win against the insurgency. We’re not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to … Read more

The Short Happy Life of Samson Agonistes

by

We are, of course, all familiar with Mr. Rove’s recent remarks regarding "liberals":*  Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Now, for myself, I’d generally chalk this up to cheap partisan hackery — red meat for the red meat brigade.  A … Read more

The Funeral Oration

by

Whether out of pretentiousness, or familiarity, or simply because of the shame that comes from reading and re-reading of a War in Iraq that neither we nor our government seems prepared to win — whether for some or all of those things, I find myself reading again Pericles’s Funeral Oration.*  And noting, dutifully, mark-by-mark, the myriad ways that we latter-day Hellenes do not live up to it.  (We scarcely even try.)

Yet, masochistic and unlearnt, I read it yet again.

. . . . Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors’, but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.

And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; our homes are beautiful and elegant; and the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish sorrow. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own.

…. Our city is thrown open to the world, though and we never expel a foreigner and prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the perils which they face. ….

If then we prefer to meet danger with a light heart but without laborious training, and with a courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law, are we not greatly the better for it? Since we do not anticipate the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave as those who never allow themselves to rest; thus our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we are lovers of the beautiful in our tastes and our strength lies, in our opinion, not in deliberation and discussion, but that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection. ….

This is your pretentious open thread.

Read more

Rabid, and Foaming at the Mouth

by

Scott Johnson, echoing his PowerLine co-bloggers, faults Senator Durbin’s recent remarks comparing some of the U.S.’s interrogation methods with the methods of the Soviets and Nazis.  According to Johnson, Durbin’s remarks were nothing more than "rabid foaming at the mouth," deployed "in lieu of reasoned criticism." 

Johnson is wrong. Durbin’s remarks cannot be dismissed with a wave and a few proverbs from the Big Book of Stunning Overreach and Bizarre Metaphors (e.g., Durbin is "al-Qaeda’s most popular senator," better fit to "reconstitute the Democratic Party as a branch of the Peoples Temple than to hold high office" or "lead a doomsday cult devoted to drinking poison Kool-Aid").  Nor are they comparable to the moral idiocy recently on display at Amnesty International.  Indeed, it’s telling that Johnson does not quote Durbin’s actual remarks in the course of his criticism; yet, they bear reading, for placed against Johnson’s screed, they show the lie in Johnson’s thinking.  Here is what Durbin said (HT: TalkLeft; emphasis mine):

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here — I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report: On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold…. On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Durbin’s complete remarks are here (pdf).

If there is rabid foaming in the above, it is by the FBI agent who wrote the report that Durbin quotes on the Senate floor.  If there is a dearth of reasoning in the above, it’s because Johnson believes that chaining someone hand and foot in a fetal position, denying them food and water, and letting them piss and shit on themselves over the course of 18-24 hours doesn’t evoke the tactics of the Nazis and Soviets.  If Johnson believes this whole thing to be a lie, or a put-on, or if Johnson thinks the tactics described to be legitimate, then let him stand up and say so.

There’s a difference — and it’s not a small one — between calling U.S. soldiers Nazis or stating that Gitmo is the "gulag of our times" and pointing out that some of the interrogation tactics used at Gitmo could be confused with interrogation methods used by the Nazis or in the Soviet Union.  The former is dishonest and smacks of a partisan myopia; the latter, sad to say, is simply telling it like it is. 

Read more

If a tree falls in a forest ….

by

Somehow, John Cole slipped off our bloglists, which I’ll correct as soon as I finish this post.  It’s particularly distressing because John has been blogging up a storm recently, and his last post on the military’s failure to meet it’s recruitment goals is a must read.  Bottom line:  the latest recruitment figures look terrible.  Fortunately, … Read more

The Patent Reform Act of 2005

by

[A few updates below.]

Congressman Lamar Smith of (R-Texas) has just introduced the Patent Reform Act of 2005.  It is the most significant change to the U.S. patent laws since the 1952 Patent Act, and it will have a major impact on how patents are examined, issued, and enforced.  Because patent law is a very much inside-baseball game, however, I fear that a lot of the nuances in the debate will be lost on the general public.  My goal on this blog is to de-mystify the debate as much as possible, and to give our readership my best view on what patent reform means in a practical sense.

Here are the broad outlines of the proposed reform: 

  • Grant patent rights based on a "first-to-file" rule, rather than the current "first-to-invent" rule.
    • What it means:  The U.S. is, at present, the only (?*) nation in the world to award patents to the first person to "invent" a patent’s claimed invention, rather than the first person to file a patent application. 
    • Why there’s a move to change:  The U.S.’s first to invent rule is enormously complex, generates substantial litigation and complexity, and is out of step with the rest of the world.  Determining who is the first to invent a particular matter is extraordinarily difficult, and the applicable rules are Byzantine even by the standards of patent law. A first-to-file rule — based on what application gets to the Patent Office first — is simpler, cleaner, and much more efficient.  Moreover, a first-to-file rule will be accompanied by a change in the definition of "prior art," in order to protect an inventor who is beaten to the Patent Office.  [UPDATE:  On reflection, that last sentence is a misleading oversimplification.  A change to the "first to file" rule will indeed require a change in the definition of "prior art," but the safe harbor that I describe also requires a change in the concept of "intervening rights" (whether or not expressed in such term).]
    • Who are the winners?  The system, the Courts, the Patent Office — a first-to-file is much cheaper, easier, and simpler.  The fast (read:  the folks who have the money to patent early and often). Multinationals:  No more bizarre US-only rules.
    • Who are the losers?  The little guy, who doesn’t have the resources to file a lot of patent applications. 
    • What’s likely to surprise you?  The debate is going to be contentious, and it probably won’t break down along party lines:  Pro-business Democrats and Republicans (full disclosure:  this includes me) will be on one side of the aisle; Democrats and Republicans who favor the little guy will be on the other.  The last time this change was debated (in 1999), it caused Phyllis Schafly to lose her few remaining senses.  (How else to describe a screed that begins "All the bad deals made by the late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, unfortunately, did not die with him in his tragic plane crash"?).  Oh, and the first-to-file rule might be unConstitutional.

    What else?  Read on below the fold.

    • Read more

    The Things We Throw Away

    by

    Anne Applebaum remembers what Amnesty International used to be, and laments what it has become:  I don’t know when Amnesty ceased to be politically neutral or at what point its leaders’ views morphed into ordinary anti-Americanism. But surely Amnesty’s recent misuse of the word "gulag" marks some kind of turning point. In the past few … Read more

    A Break From Your Regularly Scheduled Blogging

    by

    In part to remind myself that most of the blather over the judicial nomination wars is just that — blather — I’ve been re-reading Roger K. Newman‘s remarkable biography of Justice Hugo Black.  Justice Black, as some may know, nearly had his 1937 nomination to the Supreme Court derailed by rumors that he had been a member of the KKK (rumors that were, in fact, true). 

    But the story of how a former Klansman became one of the great Supreme Court Justices of all time is old hat.  What strikes my fancy today is a gem hidden in the book’s footnotes regarding the Roosevelt administration’s apparent obliviousness to (then, Senator) Black’s past in the Klan.  (The more things change ….)  As the dirt on Black came out, a reporter expressed shock to Joe Kennedy that Black had not informed FDR tha the had been a Klansman (p. 251): 

    Kennedy’s reply (cleaned up for publication) was "If Marlene Dietrich asked you to make love to her, would you tell her you weren’t much good at making love?"

    (Another gem:  Right after Justice Black was confirmed, a reporter remarked to Mrs. Black about a large family gathering that the Black’s had held over the holidays.  "Yes.  Quite a gathering of the clan," she said before realizing.)

    Read more

    Bolton: Remixed, Revised, Reassessed

    by

    Readers of this blog know that, after some wavering, I came out against John Bolton as UN Ambassador.  Specifically: An effective UN Ambassador must be believed.  He or she must not only be an honest broker, but must also be perceived as an honest broker.  An ambassador must enjoy the cut-and-thurst of reasoned debate and … Read more

    A Bleg

    by

    Would someone please point me to the reasoning, if any, behind Hugh Hewitt’s increasingly hysterical pronouncements of Constitutional doom in the wake of the fourteen-Senator deal on the filibuster? Please keep in mind that the undersigned: 1.  Generally approves of Bush’s nominees. 2.  Has questioned the Constitutionality of the filibuster in the past. 3.  But, … Read more

    CAFTA Blog: Addition to Von’s Blogroll

    by

    Doverspa of RedState points to a comprehensive blog supporting the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).  To get it out on the table, free trade is one of the few policies that almost always has my unqualified support.  Since I haven’t seen any legitimate reason to withold such support from CAFTA, support it I do.  … Read more

    In Sadding Around

    by

    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania today; it’s quite a bit better than I remember it (or maybe it’s just gotten better).  The Federal Courthouse is decidedly unimpressive, but the old brick and narrow alleys have a certain charm.  And the commons before the Statehouse is verdant and encompassing — even under a threat of stormclouds.  So what if … Read more

    Entirely Redundant, I am.

    by

    Daniel Drezner states, far better than I did, the odd sense that many of us are ____ on Flushgate (choose one, and only one, cliche’ to fill in the MadLib):  failing to see the forest for the trees; confusing the horse for the hay*; seeing the stars but not the sky**; and generally missing the boat.  Drezner writes:

    Let me put this more bluntly: assume that the Newsweek goof was of the maximal variety — i.e., despite Gitmo prisoner claims, it turns out that no Qu’ran was ever flushed down any toilet. Should it nevertheless be considered a major foreign policy problem that this report triggered significant protests in Afghanistan, a populace with good reasons to support the United States? In today’s New York Times, David Brooks is right to point out the blogosphere’s misplaced foci, and suggests that "radical clerics in Afghanistan" used the story to trigger outrage. What bothers me is that it was too damn easy for the clerics to whip up anti-American sentiment.

    I leave it to my readers: am I overly concerned about this?

    It would behoove us all — particularly those of us who believe in an engaged U.S. foreign policy — to be just as concerned as Drezner.  Success in the war on terror requires that we win the battle of ideas.  The fact that a single mistaken sentence in a newsmagazine blurb can derail our foreign policy efforts to such an extent that it requires repeated rebukes from the President and his senior staff — well, let’s just say that it’s not a good thing.

    As for the penalty that should be applied to Newsweek:  the most balanced decision I’ve read thus far comes from Jane Galt.  Go read the whole thing.

    UPDATE:  And also read our own Charles Bird, if you haven’t already; it’s an insightful and provokative piece.

    Read more

    Freedom, and its limitations

    by

    Pejman Yousefzadeh, writing in RedState, delivers a well-put rant targeting Messrs. Drum‘s and Sullivan‘s argument that (per Drum):

    the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers [regarding the Koran-flushing story in Newsweek] is their continuing jihad against the liberal media. All else is subordinate.

    This is an idiotic statement — and it does not become less idiotic merely because it’s being made by my "favorite liberal blogger."  As Pejman puts it:

    I probably shouldn’t even bother to write this because life is short, but it appears to be important to point out to Andrew Sullivan and his snide and newfound fan that in all likelihood, the reason "conservative bloggers" are upset and angry about the Newsweek screwup is that it cost lives in the Middle East and it could have cost a lot more lives as well. In addition–and this is a somewhat important point, so please pay attention Political Animals and New Republic senior editors–it harmed our country’s prestige and standing on the basis of a story that was entirely false. It is the kind of story that can fan rather vicious flames, and if you want to fan flames, you damn well better make sure that you have your facts right. If you do, feel free to publish the story. If you don’t and you publish the story anyway and people die as a result and your country ends up suffering diplomatically . . . well . . . it ain’t a good day at the office, now is it?

    …. And here’s a news flash: I have this belief–call me naïve, but I hope that you would be wrong in doing so–that bloggers on the other side of the ideological and partisan divide have the exact same wish. That’s difficult to do, of course, when a prime blogger on the other side of the ideological and partisan divide decides to put forth his own little spin hinting at dark and malevolent plans on the part of "conservative bloggers." Maybe, just maybe, we might actually have some noble and upstanding motives in expressing our concerns.

    Pejman is, frankly, spot on.  But there’s an important point that both sides in this "debate" seem to be losing sight of.  A poorly-sourced sentence in a paragraph-sized blurb in an American newsmagazine did not, in and by itself, cause this explosion of violence.  It was the match, to be sure.  But the powder was already present, prepared, and primed.   

    The real story — missed among the partisan bickering — is the fact that there was so much powder lying around that a relatively small mistake could ignite it.  Indeed, what the jihadist explosions demonstrate more than anything is that we are not even close to winning in the war in Afghanistan (and let’s not even begin with our putative allies, the alternatively fascist and jihadist Pakistanis).  One small slip (and it was small, despite the hype) is all that’s needed to set the bomb off — and maybe set us and our allies back on our heels.

    Blast Newsweek, sure.  Blast Messrs. Drum and Sullivan for their conspiracy theories, absolutely.  But don’t overstate the case, and don’t take your eye off the ball.  Newsweek didn’t kill anyone; the folks in Afghanistan and Pakistan did.  All Newsweek is guilty of is making the kind of mistake that can occur only where there is a free press and free society.  In fact, such mistakes will inevitably occur where people are free.  The central aim of a republic is not, contrary to popular belief, message control — and that remains true even while we are at war.   

    And that, from a certain way of thinking, is a good thing.

    Read more

    On the mystery of Chet

    by

    Alamedia asks:

    I have here a special, economics-type query which I direct to Brad DeLong, among others. Here’s the thing: I have known many investment bankers in my day. Hell, I’m related to plenty of investment bankers, even if only by marriage. Many of these men are stand-up guys, fun to be with, always up for smoking a few bowls and playing golf. Others are asshole blowhards. Mmm, more of the latter, probably. All of them, however, have the same basic character type, which I will call "Chet". Chet is a hail-fellow-well-met sort, …. Chet is tall, probably tan, and has big white teeth like a mouthful of chiclets. If Chet does not play golf, it is only because he has ascended into the super-Chetosphere and plays polo. Chet is a member of country clubs, and has a thin wife, and two adorable kids, etc. etc. … Finally, Chet has an incredibly high opinion of himself. He is confident to the point of arrogance, but friendly, outgoing. There is one thing Chet is not, ever, in my experience, and that is particularly bright. Really. Not an intellectual powerhouse, is where I’m going with this. Not, in all likelihood, able to perform complex mathematical operations. Given that this is so, I have a few questions.

    Alamedia then goes on to ask a series of questions, each of which essentially boils down to, "why is an idiot like Chet so successful?" 

    Brad DeLong responds by stating (if I may paraphrase) that the reason why an idiot like Chet makes so much money is because Chet really isn’t an idiot.  And that’s true, so far as it goes.  Yet, though I fully endorse DeLong’s answer, there’s a little bit more to it.  Speaking as one who swims among the Chets — heck, who may even be a self-hating, closeted Chet — there are four further reasons that explain Chetdom.

    If you have a drum, you may wish to begin rolling it now.

    Read more

    “The answer to wingnuttery is not equal and opposite wingnuttery.”

    by

    Kevin Drum reminds me (yet again) why he’s my favorite liberal of the blogosphere:  "The answer to wingnuttery is not equal and opposite wingnuttery."

    UPDATE:  And Tacitus reminds me (yet again) why he’s one of my favorite conservative bloggers:

    I could at this point go on a tear about how Saudi Arabia really is our primary enemy in the region, with Pakistan being tied with Iran for second place, but it’s a familiar enough warblog theme that has the virtue of being entirely correct, and the vice of being utterly futile.

    Hmm; I must be in good mood this morning, with all this handing out of praise left and right.  Don’t worry; it’ll pass.

    UPDATE 2:  I should clarify that the title of "favorite liberal of the blogosphere" may, by law, only be bestowed only on non-ObWi bloggers.  That is, Hilzoy, Ed, et al. are ineligible — otherwise, the competition wouldn’t be fair!

    Read more

    Imaginary War, Part II.

    by

    Well, that didn’t take long. The McCain-Kennedy "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" (discussed in this post) has come under attack from Michelle Malkin’s "Immigration Blog."  Chris Kelly’s headline: KENNEDY AND MCCAIN INTRODUCE MASSIVE ILLEGAL ALIEN AMNESTY PLAN Writing without an apparent sense of irony, Chris adds: Kennedy specifically denies that this is an "amnesty", … Read more

    Imaginary War

    by

    Senators McCain and Kennedy (among others) have introduced a landmark bill to overhaul U.S. immigration policy.

    The bill, the 2005 Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, would allow illegal immigrants who pay fines and fees of at least $2,000, take English and civics courses, and undergo medical and background checks, to apply for green cards and eventually citizenship.

    The bill would establish a new type of work visa, the H-5A, which would allow low-skilled foreign workers who have lined up jobs in the United States to come for three years. The visa could be renewed once for an additional three years. Illegal workers now in the United States would apply for H-5B visas that would be valid for six years. After the visa terms expire, immigrants could either return home or apply for permanent residence, and ultimately, citizenship.

    This "is not amnesty; this is earned adjustment," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who co-sponsored the bill along with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

    This is a key bill, which goes a long way to both improving security along the border and correcting the insanity of current immigration law.  It can be improved on the margins but, on the whole, McCain-Kennedy deserves your support.

    It will be attacked as an amnesty program. It’s not.  The bill establishes a strict regimen that an illegal immigrant must follow to come into compliance with the law, including security background checks as a condition of continued residency.

    It will be attacked as unfair to American workers.  It’s not.  The bill levels the playing field, requires companies to put illegal workers "on the books," and imposes stiff penalties on companies and workers that continue to operate outside the system.

    It will be attacked as a threat to U.S. security.  It’s not.  The bill sets up screening programs and security checks stronger than anything currently on the books; strengthens the border; coordinates data collection on immigrant workers, so that fewer individuals can "slip through the cracks"; and frees up resources to catch the bad guys.

    _______________________

    Yes, you can expect the other side of the debate to say all these things, and more.  What you will not hear, however, are practical solutions.  Rather, the other side’s solutions — when they make the mistake of offering them — will be to promise ever increasing expenditures on an unwinnable war against immigration.  They will talk about taller fences and more agents.  They will allude to new regulations on business.  They will mention mass deportations and the need for thousands more armed folks patrolling the border.

    In an economy that depends upon immigrant labor (and this one has, for a long time), such attacks are not merely against migrant laborers.  They are also against the American businesses who employ them, and who are currently trapped in a system that makes it illegal to hire the workers they need and virtually impossible to tell who is legal and who is not.  Moreover, those against real immigration reform (like that proposed in McCain-Kennedy) will expect the American taxpayer to foot the bill for ever larger and more useless fences, as well as new agents and bureaucrats who will spend their time (and your money) tracking down and deporting tax-paying employees of our largest and most essential businesses.  These new agents and bureaucrats, needless to say, will not have much time to chase Al Queda.

    Further details regarding the bill are below the fold (via RedState and California Yankee).

    UPDATE:  Additional information in The New York Sun.

    Read more

    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    by

    Yglesias, on "bankruptcy":

    Every time the President gives a speech claiming the system is heading for bankruptcy, I’d like to see news services report, "Speaking today in Canton, Ohio, the President repeated his misleading claim that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy. In fact, even after Social Security’s trust fund is exhausted (projected by the Social Security administration to happen in 2041, and by the Congressional Budget Office to happen in 2052) tax revenues will suffice to pay seventy percent of scheduled benefits."

    Let’s put an end to this canard of the "do nothing" troupe, which has been peddled by folks who should know better for long enough.  Bush is absolutely right to say that Social Security is headed toward "bankruptcy"; it’s Yglesias who’s misusing the term.  Bankruptcy is not defined by the total absence of income or assets, as Yglesias (and others) implicitly assume when they make this argument.  Folks who go bankrupt always have some income or assets — and, sometimes, they have substantial income and assets.  The whole point of bankruptcy, after all, is to keep people from being ruined by their debts and to let them keep a couple things (their house, maybe their car) so they don’t end up destitute or on the streets.

    Rather, folks go bankrupt because their debts exceed their income or assets, and there is no way for them to repay those debts in light of their current income or assets.  That pretty much describes a system that’s taking in "revenues [that only] suffice to pay seventy percent of" its liabilities.  In ordinary parlance, such a system is (or soon will be) "bankrupt."*  (Ahem.)

    But, buck up Young Yglesias.  You’re ahead on points in the "Roosevelt is a traitor" v. "Bush is a traitor" debate.

    UPDATE:  It looks like Jane Galt is thinking along the same lines (and she’s correct that "insolvent" is the better term, tho’ "bankrupt" is fine for informal purposes).  Great minds? 

    Read more

    Wouldn’t it be nice ….

    by

    by von

    … if President Bush nominated Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit (aka "The Easy Rider," aka the "#1 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary," aka "the high-flying conservative of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals") to the Supreme Court?  Smart, sincere, intellectually honest, decidedly non-theocratic — obviously, pretty much everyone would have some sort of beef with him.  Which would be a kinda cool thing.

    By the bye, I agree with Professor InstaPundit:  if Democrats really wanted to mess things up, they’d start floating names of conservative jurists who they’d pinky swear to down like Maker’s Mark at Delilah’s on punk rock Monday.  Folks with unimpeachable credentials and a moderate/independent streak.  Kozinski would have to be at the top of that list; so would Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit (though he’s getting a little long in the tooth).

    Indeed, if I may offer some unsolicited (and perhaps unwelcome) advice:  take a lesson from Ali.  When you’re fighting Big George Foreman, the correct response is rope-a-dope.

    UPDATE:  Rilkefan and Bernard Yomtov argue — not unpersuasively — that I’m full of crap.  As Yomtov states (emphasis mine):

    I suspect that also, and that [a] sub rosa list [of acceptable conservative canidates] has been provided to Bush sotto voce. I also think, in contrast to von, that Bush is more likely to name someone from the list if it is not publicized. If it were public he would be seen as caving in to the Democrats. This way he can make a show of moderation, if he wants to, without looking weak.

    Read more

    Too Cute

    by

    David Brooks says he has a scoop:

    Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

    But there was another part of the offer that hasn’t been publicized. I’ve been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush’s pick, he’d come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush’s nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

    We’ll assume that Brooks’ report is accurate (there’s no reason not to.  Brooks (and Kevin Drum, who pointed me to this story) argue that Frist should’ve taken the deal:

    … Frist should have grabbed Reid’s offer. He should have done it, first, because while the air is thick with confident predictions about what will happen if the nuclear trigger is pulled, nobody really knows. There is a very good chance that as the battle escalates, passions will surge, the tattered fabric of professionalism will dissolve, and public revulsion for both parties will explode.

    ….

    Second, Frist should have grabbed this offer because it’s time for senators to re-establish the principle that they, not the outside interest groups, run the Senate. Right now, most senators want to avoid a meltdown. It’s the outside interest groups that are goading them into the fight.

    Of course the groups want a fight. The activists get up every morning hoping to change the judiciary, dreaming of total victory. Of course they’re willing to sacrifice everything else for that cause. But senators are supposed to know that serving the interest groups is not the same as serving the people: it is serving a passionate but unrepresentative minority of the people. At some point, leaders are supposed to stand up to maximalists, even the ones they mostly agree with.

    Finally, it’s time to rediscover the art of the backroom deal. … In this model, leaders of the two parties would get together – yes, often in secret – and make reasonable bargains. …

    Drum, focusing on Brooks’ second point, adds:

    I don’t often agree with Brooks these days, but I think he’s on target here. This is not a symmetrical situation — conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones — but it’s still a good thought for both sides. Making every fight into a game of nuclear chicken isn’t the right way to run a country.

    I agree with Brooks quite a bit more frequently than Drum, and I generally agree with Brooks here.  But I think Drum is deluding himself if he thinks that "conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones"; both are pretty damn off.  What conservative activists have (and liberal activists lack) is a majority of sympathetic representatives in the current Congress.

    A couple further thoughts, however:

    First, the timing of this "leak" is suspicious — and undoubtably strategic.  The Democrats must recognize that they lost the momentum on the issue with they rejected Frist’s deal, and they’re trying to get it back. 

    Second, it seems clear that Frist couldn’t take a "secret" deal on judges for the same reason that Reid wanted the deal to be "secret":  If knowledge of the deal remained secret,* it’d look like Frist was outmaneuvered by the Democrats (again). Frist’s base would blow up.  (Indeed, there have already been calls to dump Frist as majority leader.)

    By making public Reid’s "secret" proposal, however, the groundwork might be laid for a real deal that ends this so-called "crisis."  A public deal that guarantees an up-or-down vote on Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee is a deal worth taking.  Frist should risk trusting Reid — not only because it could lead to progress on judges, but because that’s what statesmen do.  If Reid reneges, there will be plenty of time for revenge.   

    UPDATE:  Don Singleton, commenting on Reid’s offer, seems to relish the possibility of a showdown on Judges.  I think he doesn’t realize how fundamentally risky such a showdown is for both sides.  You just cannot predict the electorate’s behavior on an issue like this, and the views of each party’s "hard core" are likely to be out of step with the views of the center.  Singleton shouldn’t be so sure that this debate will play out in (on this issue, "our"**) side’s favor.  (See the Schiavo mess, for starters.)

    Again, this battle is really for the Supreme Court — not for ten judges.  A deal that gets an up or down vote on Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is a deal that’s worth taking.  If Reid can bring his side to the table on this deal even after it’s public, Frist should take it.  Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Read more

    Three Little Birds (2005 Mix)

    by

    Joseph Britt, writing in The Belgravia Dispatch, puts his finger on the reasons for my vague sense of unease regarding President Bush’s recent meeting with the Saudi Crown Prince: Just in case this hasn’t occurred to anyone else I thought I’d point out that the idea of a President of the United States having to … Read more

    Bolton (yes, again)

    by

    by von I’d like a blunt, tough-talking scamp for UN Ambassador as much as the next guy; yet, as I’ve written several times, whatever John Bolton has in bluster, he lacks in sorely-needed credibility.  And credibility is what counts in Ambassadorships.  (Franky, I couldn’t care less when or if Bolton may or may not have … Read more

    I don’t play “what ifs?” (Except, I do)

    by

    Syria states that it is withdrawing its troops from Lebanon.  Whether Syria is making a complete withdrawal from Lebanon (as the Syrian government implies) or a partial withdrawal (as I suspect) really doesn’t matter; this is big news.  I can’t help but think that hope is coming, at long last, to the Levant. Would it … Read more

    Kinda interesting

    by

    From Boing Boing: The last few minutes of this video from a biology class at Berkeley is of professor explaining the terrifying consequences that will soon befall the student that stole his laptop. Hell, I’m 500 miles away from Berkeley and I’m scared after watching this. (Forward to 48:50. It’s a RealPlayer file, unfortunately, so … Read more

    The CT Is In the House

    by

    Ordinarily, I’d let Sebastian or Ed break this news — since it has the potential to affect them directly — but I can’t help myself: HARTFORD, Conn. — The state Senate on Wednesday gave final legislative approval to a bill that would make Connecticut the second state to recognize same-sex civil unions, and the first … Read more

    Missing the Bolton

    by

    Amidst my various requests that Mr. Bolton fall on his sword, I think it’s worth pointing out that opposing John Bolton’s nomination to U.N. Ambassador does not mean that you’ve thrown in with the French perfidistas or think the oil-for-food scandal is a-OK.  Nor does it mean that you’re categorically opposed to tough-talking scamps putting the blunt end of their business to the U.N.  (And no one’s disputing that the U.N. is one messed up mofo, Mr. Simon.)  Indeed, yours truly would very much like a U.N. Ambassador who can not only discern the difference between sh_t and shinola, but who has the intestinal fortitude to occasionally alert others to it. 

    Rather, the relevant question is whether this man, John Bolton, is the right person for the job of U.N. Ambassador.  It’s become very clear to me that the answer is "no." 

    Pass for a moment that some people think he’s a grade-A asshole; as Macallan has pointed out in comments to my original post, the real shock would be to find universal praise for Bolton.  You don’t rise to the top without making a few enemies — although it is rarer to make enemies willing to testify against you under oath.  The real issue is Bolton’s apparent disregard for accurate intelligence, and the resulting effect on our national credibility.  Post-Iraq, it is simply not acceptable for the U.S.’s Ambassador to the U.N. to be among those alleged to be willing to "change" the facts to suit their wants.*

    This concern is not put to rest by saying that other criticisms of Bolton’s management style are unsubstantiated, or reiterating the oft–reiterated theory that because certain Senators are asses, every ass gets a free pass.  Indeed, these kinds of elliptical, off-point arguments only highlight the fact that no one seems to be defending John Bolton on the merits of the charge that he attempted to misportray or misuse intelligence.

    Whatever the truth to the allegations against Bolton (and there are now at least five people who have contradicted Bolton’s sworn testimony on the intelligence "shaping" incident, adding perjury to the list of claims against him), it is clear that Bolton no longer has the credibility that he needs to be our U.N. Ambassador.  Indeed, we — and by this I mean both Republicans and Democrats — need to keep in mind that, whatever the merits of the Iraq war, our national credibility took a terrible hit when we promised that WMDs existed in Iraq, but failed to find them.  The nation needs a U.N. Ambassador who can begin to repair the damage.  Bolton isn’t it. 

    Yes, it would be good to have a U.N.-critic as our U.N. Ambassador; if ever a place needed criticism, the U.N. is it.  But being a critic of the U.N. is not, by itself, a sufficient qualification for the job of U.N. Ambassador.  One must also be a credible representative of the U.S., who can not only put forward our national case, but whose factual assertions will also be believed by the rest of the body.

    All this may be profoundly unfair to Bolton.  But, at base, this isn’t about what is fair or unfair to Bolton.  This is about doing what’s right for the nation. Once again, I respectfully ask that Mr. Bolton step down from his nomination, and instead seek to serve his country in another way.

    UPDATE:  Macallan points to this defense of Bolton at the National Review, which suggests that Bolton was upset with Mr. Westerman for a different reason:

    But Bolton aide Fred Fleitz has testified that the analyst in question, Christian Westerman, wasn’t straight with Bolton or his staff — giving Bolton plenty of reason to be upset.

    I’ve done a quick pass through both Mr. Fleitz’s and Mr. Westerman’s public testimony (available as a PDF here). 

    Mr. Fleitz does allege that Mr. Westerman lied to Bolton and went behind his back during the intelligence clearance process, and that this alone was the cause of Mr. Bolton’s dispute with Mr. Westerman.  But, from the staff’s questioning of Fleitz, it appears that — at a minimum — Messrs. Bolton’s and Fleitz’s impressions of how the clearance procedure should work is not necessarily the same as how it does work.  Indeed, it appears that Mr. Bolton attempted to clear his speech in a very unusual way.  With the caveat that I’m a layperson in matters such as these, and assuming that the flap was (at least in part) over Mr. Westerman’s clearance procedure, my reading is that Mr. Bolton was at least partially responsible for any miscommunication. 

    Mr. Westerman’s testimony contradicts Mr. Fleitz’s testimony on this point, and backs up the original story, i.e., that Mr. Bolton improperly attempted to influence his intelligence analysis.  Mr. Ford’s testimony also partially contradicts Mr. Fleitz’s testimony on this point.  Moreover, Mr. Fleitz himself appears to partially contradict Mr. Bolton’s sworn testimony that he never suggested that Mr. Westerman should be removed from his position.  (There’s some grey area in this, however; it may simply be a difference in word choice.)

    By the bye, Fleitz comes across as extremely loyal to Mr. Bolton; see, for instance, the fencing that occurred at about pages 76 adn 77 of the transcript over whether Mr. Bolton raised his voice in a meeting with Mr. Westerman.  Credit his testimony accordingly.

    On balance:  I think that the Mr. Fleitz’s testimony is helpful to Mr. Bolton against the most serious charge, but I wouldn’t go nearly so far as the National Review in suggesting that it exonerates Mr. Bolton.  Even taking Mr. Fleitz’s testimony as the gospel (and, I note again, Mr. Fleitz’s testimony is partially controverted by the testimony of others), it at most spreads the blame around, and suggests that Mr. Bolton was not completely candid with the Committee.

    Read more

    The Things We Do For Love

    by

    The vote on John Bolton’s nomination to UN Ambassador, a nomination that I’ve gradually come to oppose, has been postponed in light of louder rumblings from centrist Republicans: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday unexpectedly postponed a vote on the nomination of John Bolton to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations … Read more

    On Blackjack

    by

    I took a short trip to Las Vegas at the end of last week.  It was a over-needed vacation, and thus a moderate disappointment.  You know what I’m talking about.  You’re so desperate to get away, to have a moment to sleep in and drink too much (or, if you already drink too drink much, to feel less guilty about it), that you pour your hopes and dreams and all that good stuff into the idea of a vacation, but which the vacation itself can never match.

    The somewhat-highlight of the trip was Zumanity, which was considerably less shocking than it wanted to be.  Or maybe exactly as shocking as it wanted to be.  It’s so hard in these days of diminished expectations and quickie transgressions to tell when someone is trying to be shocking (and failing) or trying only to seem shocking, so as not to actually shock.*

    In the balance of my time** — which is to say a whole lot of it — I played blackjack.  Alone as often as not, because the group we traveled with were primarily Crapheads and my wife got distracted early in the trip by a Monopoly gambling game (it was tremendously fun in her defense).

    I like blackjack, because the "right" way to play requires the memorization and consistent application of a set of impossibly complex rules (and exceptions to those rules).  Always hit a soft 17; hit a 12 if the dealer shows a 2-4, and maybe against a 5 (but not a 6); split almost any pair if the dealer shows a 5 or 6 (but never split 10s), etc.  You know the drill — or, you now know enough that you don’t want to know the drill. 

    They’re comforting, those rules.  They provide a semblance of control — but only a bare semblance, because I’m never sure if I remembered the rule right  (what do I do with a pair of sixes against an ace, again?).  A game that allows you to enjoy the guilt of failing to live up to its standards:  It’s American, just like baseball and apply pie.

    (I lost, not a lot, but enough.)

    So, I’m back:  A little refreshed, a little poorer, and a little sunburned.  And this is your vacation open thread.  Tell us where you’re going next (or just been); give us a recommendation or two.  But tell us, most of all, where you want to go.

    Read more

    John Cole Hates The Baby Jesus

    by

    John Cole is on a roll: This is so patently offensive that I don’t have adequate words to describe how truly wrong this is: As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a … Read more

    On Bolton

    by

    by von Driving to work today, I was pretty comfortable with John Bolton’s nomination to the UN.   I had reservations, of course, but I also had rejoinders to my reservations. A pit-pat, tit-tat, back and forth in the brain.  (Far more eloquently expressed by our own Charles Bird’s post on the coming battles over Bolton.)  … Read more

    Kinda Sorta Open Thread: Filibusters

    by

    Would one of our readers from the Democratic side of the aisle please explain to me the principled, Constitutional basis for filibustering judicial nominees?  Not the political basis. I get that, all things equal, lefties want lefty judges and righties want righty judges.  Not the "hey, some of these nominees are kinda crazy" — I … Read more

    Please, no, it’s not interesting

    by

    by von It only took a brief aside, and it all comes flooding back. Professor Bainbridge, whose BMW M3 was the victim of a random stabbing, remarks-in-passing: I’m also getting zinged by USAA’s cheapskate policy terms. Because my M3 is over two years old, the policy provides for replacement parts of "like kind and quality" … Read more

    Let me get this straight.

    by

    by von

    The Washington Post got the infamous Schiavo memo kinda wrong (and then corrected itself), but PowerLine got the Schiavo memo completely wrong (and hasn’t corrected itself).  So, obviously, the Washington Post is run by a bunch of partisan idiots.  And, just as obviously, PowerLine was the victim of the Nefarious Harkin, the mad Senator who runs Iowa from his secret underground lair.  Thankfully, Hindrocket is on the case.  He’ll get to the bottom of whatever speculative evildoing Harkin probably had to have done. 

    Sigh.  This is the "blog of the year," folks.

    And don’t forget:  Carter’s a traitor!  (Whoops, he’s not!  Hey, at least Hindrocket "mov[ed] this [nonexistent] story forward.")

    Hilzoy already commented on this, but I can’t resist.  Let this also serve notice that you don’t have to be a Democrat to think that PowerLine (and Hindrocket in particular) is being phenomenally two-faced about this story. 

    UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin, of all people, has a very evenhanded story on Schiavo-memo-maybe-gate. 

    Hmm.  This is weird.  Normally, as a card carrying member of both the Vast-Call-Me-Crazy-But-Locking-People-Up-Based-On-Their-Ethnicity-Is-Kinda-Wrong-Conspiracy ("VCMCBLPUBOTEIKWC") and the Vast-But-Nonexistent-WSJ/Economist-Open-Borders-Conspiracy ("VBNWEOBC"), I tend to oppose Ms. Malkin on principle.  Maybe it’s something I ate.

    Read more

    Ashtray Monument

    by

    For all the endless cigarettes, cups of coffee, wrenching blog posts, and television talking heads taken in and tossed aside in the past few weeks, here is the true lesson of the Schiavo case: In the three decades since the Karen Ann Quinlan case, there have been only a few big legal battles over the … Read more