The End of the Ring

A great review of Return of the King - don't read if you haven't seen the movie, but otherwise I'd recommend it. The only piece of my judgement it doesn't include is that I think the only thing that qualifies RotK for an oscar nomination is the story, which isn't enough to justify one. I feel that all three of these movies are great depictions of Tolkein's masterpieces, but without his story RotK would be merely a blockbuster of little value, in the ranks of, say, a Will Smith movie.

Candidates Criticize Bush on Beef Safety (washingtonpost.com): "Former Vermont governor Howard Dean said in Ames, Iowa, on Sunday that the discovery 'raises serious concerns about the ability of this administration to protect the safety of our nation's food supply and the health of our rural economies that depend on agriculture exports.' "

Oh come on. How much could Bush possibly have had to do with an animal that was born in April 1997 - while Bush was the governor of Texas? I'm not sure how to correct it, but there has developped in this country a tendency to blame everything on the President, and I don't like it. Bush (or any President) deserves only a tiny percentage of the credit he gets, and even less of the blame. It's silly to think that W could have done anything to prevent one cow from getting BSE, particularly when that cow is from Canada anyway.

OpinionJournal - Dorothy Rabinowitz's Media Log

Anyone else think this reads like an NPR piece?

CNN.com - Landers may resolve riddles of Mars life, water - Dec. 22, 2003: "Early Christmas morning, a small armada of exploratory spacecraft will reach the red planet"

This brings to mind the Simpsons episode where Homer accidentally changes the channel to a space launch just as the batteries fall out of the remote, and Bart has to dive across the room to pull the plug on the TV so that they don't have to watch "another boring space launch." According to dictionary.com, the primary definition of the word "armada" is "A fleet of warships." I think CNN is definitely going for this, particularly because on their homepage they link to this article with the tag-line "Armada of spacecraft approaching Mars."
Can we admit to ourselves already that, whatever ramifications it might have for the future, finding bacteria on another planet is really just boring as hell? It would be way cooler if we were actually sending a fleet of warships to mars... or, better yet, to Nuke the Moon.

For any who are interested, I can get you a Republicans for Dean button or bumper sticker.
I have a button on my bag, right next to a "No Left Turn" button and one that says "Republicans Kick Ass"
I just think, as Tom DeLay said on Meet the Press yesterday morning, we as Republicans can't ask for much more than a Dean nomination.

First this: Youths more conservative than their elders on issues involving religion and abortion, new UC Berkeley survey reveals

Now this: Teen Drug Use Falls, Federal Study Shows (washingtonpost.com)

Go us!

Bush Says Libya Will Allow Arms Inspections: "President Bush announced today that Libya, which for decades has been estranged from the United States, had agreed to forsake weapons of mass destruction and to allow weapons inspectors from international organizations into the country.
Mr. Bush, in a stunning late-afternoon appearance, said Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi had notified diplomats from both the United States and Britain of its decision. Libya has been talking with the United States and Britain quietly for some nine months, the president said."

Hmm. They announced this to the United States and Britain... not France and Germany? Not the UN? Maybe they've realized that we're serious about bringing stability to the Middle East by whatever means necessary?

Matt: Just thought I'd mention CNN's coverage of this story over the course of the day. Whereas most of the major outlets have been fairly positive about all this, CNN's website started out with "Libya to dismantle WMD program" then shifted to "Gadhafi's Son Says WMD Decision Not Related to Iraq Invasion" then to "Libya WMD Decision Criticized By Terror Victims" and now to "Anger of Pan Am 103 Bomb Victims". Does anyone else see a trend here? Hmmm... Why would anyone want to try and spin this as a less than positive story? What media bias?

CNN.com - Clark: Bush lacks will to find bin Laden - Dec. 17, 2003: "'If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time,' Clark said at a news conference in Concord, New Hampshire, where he was campaigning for votes in the nation's first primary, January 27. "

Yes, Mr. Clark, but if you'd had complete control over NATO forces in Kosovo, you also would have started a war with the Russians. So, maybe we shouldn't play the "I would have" game.

OpinionJournal - Extra: "I would not have chosen Afghanistan and Iraq to start with; Syria, Iran, Sudan and Libya were much more culpable and militarily more important to neutralize as sponsors of terror. (They say that Libya and Sudan have changed their tune lately, but I have my doubts.)
But once we chose Afghanistan and Iraq, once we began a serious campaign, we must continue the war until we achieve our objective, which is to remove all the governments that sponsor terror, or convince the remaining sponsors of terror to absolutely, thoroughly, and completely reverse their policy and actively seek out and destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders. Anything less, and all our effort--all those American lives--were wasted. "

Somebody linked to this Orson Scott Card column before OpinionJournal picked it up, but I felt the need to do so again. He really makes some incredible points here. You've got to respect the man's politics--even if he is a Dem.

CNN.com - Keiko buried in secret ceremony - Dec. 15, 2003

The whale, who was the start of the movie Free Willy, died of pneumonia while they were trying to reintroduce him to the wild. In other words, trying to free Free Willy killed him.

Yahoo! Top Stories - Women With Big Boobs Are Smarter: "The study of 1,200 women conducted by Chicago sociologists comes in the wake of a recently released report stating that blonde rocket scientists outnumber brunettes.
'Although I hate to admit it, we found that women with big busts average 10 IQ points higher than less well-endowed women,' reveals lead researcher Dr. Yvonne Rossdale, herself a meager 32A.
'The myth that women with voluptuous figures are not smart should now be shelved, along with the misconception that all blondes are dumb.' "

I'll bet they got government funding for this study, too...

OpinionJournal - Wonder Land

Henninger makes a really interesting comparison between the Dems and the Mafia of the Godfather movies.

New York Post Online Edition: news: "A stunning new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state.
Bush gets 57 percent to Dean's 30 percent among registered voters in the American Research Group poll."

Bush only won by 51% to 34% against a "Democratic Party nominee." I haven't been able to find the rest of the details on this poll as yet, but I'd like to see if these are the only three questions asked, how big their sample and range of error were.

UPDATE: Best of the Web picked up this information from me... that makes 5.

OpinionJournal - Peggy Noonan

Let's all take a moment to celebrate: Peggy Noonan's column has returned as a weekly treat.

From today's Political Diary:"Wesley Clark, after a few cloddish attempts to tap his previously tested applause lines, gave a crunchy disquisition on Iraq. Finally we were able to draw a bead on him: He's not the shiny, warrior-scholar-superman his fans paint him to be. He's a technocrat -- a good, proficient technocrat, though one who needs a strong boss over him, his history indicates."

Interesting. He's a technocrat who needs a strong boss above him. Anyone else see a Dean-Clark ticket emerging?

WSJ.com - The March of Folly: "Justice Antonin Scalia dryly noted, for instance, that over the past four years the Court had disapproved of speech restrictions on virtual kiddy porn, tobacco advertising, illegally intercepted communications and sexually explicit cable programming, yet couldn't summon the nerve to allow citizens to criticize their own government."

It seems to me, after Lawrence v. Texas and this case, Scalia's dissents are quite logical. (In his Lawrence dissent, he said that the decision would lead to a flood of suits for gay marriage--it did.)I hear a lot from my liberal friends at school about how Scalia is the devil, and since I've never really followed the court closely before this year, I couldn't refute them. Now I'm beginning to see a pattern which I think I can use. Once again, I think here he hits the nail on the head: the current Court is more concerned with the rights of pornographers than with those of citizens and political organizations. I could probably have understood if the money restrictions weren't considered to abridge "speech," though I would have disagreed, but even after reading this 298 page decision I still don't think I'll understand how what we say about candidates and incumbents in the weeks before an election are not speech.
The Dems are right: even as we're giving freedoms to Iraq, we're taking them from ourselves--only it's not the Patriot Act we need to fear, it's Campaign Finance Reform.

Is there any way that we can edit the code on this site so that when you click a link it opens a new window instead of moving in the same window?

OpinionJournal - Panic and the Patriot Act

Great column defending the Patriot Act.

OK, the new blue is freaking me out. That is really bright. Why did we abandon the old blue?

Bartley Gets the Medal of Freedom

Short press-release regarding W's decision to grant Robert L. Bartley the "Predsidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civil honor."
I think all contributors to this blog can support that decision, and I offer my own congratulations to Mr. Bartley.

CNN.com - Boy punished for talking about gay mom - Dec. 1, 2003 (via IMAO)

Oh come on now! A student asked him about his parents, he said he has two mom's because his birth mom is gay. And he got punished for it. That's ridiculous.

OpinionJournal - The Western Front: "It's not enough to have a president who sees the world in moral terms and isn't fooling around with an intern in the Oval Office. "

This article focuses primarily on religious conservatives leaving Bush if he waffles on defining marriage, and operates from the assumption that fiscal conservatives have already deserted him. The fear expressed is that both groups may stay home in November. This puts me in quite a connundrum, as in many ways I belong to both groups. Does that mean I'm supposed to not vote?

FOXNews.com - Business - Heinz Earnings Fall After Spin-Off, Sales Strong: "Ketchup maker H.J. Heinz Co. (HNZ) Tuesday said quarterly earnings fell nearly 10 percent..."

Kerry really is doing his part to keep the economy down for the Democratic nominees--first adding three staffers to the unemployment roles, now his wife's company is coming in with low earnings. Good for him.

FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Yemen Arrests Mastermind of Attacks on USS Cole: "One of the top Al Qaeda members in Yemen was captured by security forces Tuesday, the Interior Ministry said, calling him a suspected mastermind of the homicide bombings of the USS Cole and a French oil tanker off the country's coast."

A)Who's distracted, and
2)I say that we prosecute him for attacking the USS Cole, give him the death penalty, and then set him free as a reward for attacking the French oil tanker--after all, that was merely a method of freedom-fighting.

(Obviously this is a joke--we really ought to torture the guy to find out what he knows about the rest of al Quaeda. And, since he was arrested by the Yemenis and not us, that just might happen.)

WSJ.com - Tax Reform to Die For: "We do not need sophisticated economics, however, to teach us that the death tax is bad. The fundamental lesson of Adam Smith, rooted in common sense, and confirmed in the laboratories of history, is that an economic system must align with ordinary moral principles to allow society to flourish. The death tax at its most basic level does not. It falls, when it falls, on the wrong people -- even for those who seek to tax the rich, on the wrong rich people. The death tax comes to the industrious, the thrifty, and the altruistic. It spares the unproductive, the spendthrift, and the selfish. There is nothing wrong, and a good deal right, with working hard and saving well and, at the end of the day, should fortune so smile, with passing on wealth to the next generation. There is ample time under a properly designed tax system to tax the heirs when and as they spend. Our current tax system taxes people when they work, when they save, when they marry, when they give, and when they die. These are wrong choices, all. We should tax people when and only when they spend. And then we can repeal the death tax, once and for all, for the simple reason that dead men don't spend. (And nor, of course, do dead women.)"

Very well said. Sorry it's subscriber only, but it's only another three sentences beyond what I copied above (now I'm going to get sued), and I thought it was worth reading.

Jeopardy
You should all watch jeopardy tonight (check local listings) and tomorrow night, as I will almost definitely be on. Look for when they show the family of the kid from Middlebury -- I'm sitting right next to them.

I'm sitting here, at 7:20 AM Eastern, listening to Prime Minister Tony Blair give a joint press conference with President George W. Bush from London, specifically in reaction to the dual-attacks in Istanbul that occured last night. I am consistenly amazed by these men. It is a lucky twist of fate that two such honorable, respectable, moral, and unyielding men should lead the English-speaking world in this time of seemingly perpetual crisis. Both speak emphatically against the terrorist threat, while at the same time both are visibly shaken by the horrific tragedies that continue to shake the planet.

Mr. Bush opened his remarks by speaking to how grateful he is to be standing next to a friend. It intrigues me that when Mr. Blair came to power, the American and British Press both commented on the similarities between him and former President Clinton, and how likely they were to become fast friends. Indeed Blair and Clinton seemed to show a strong connection, as they shared very similar political ideologies. The union of Misters Blair and Bush, however seems to me to be much stronger. They obviously disagree strongly on issues such as the steel tariffs, and despite Blair's conservatism, he is the leader of the Labour party, and effectively a Liberal. Their connection, therefore, is not politically based, but on something deeper. These are two men of integrity who do see a clear line between right and wrong, good and evil, who truly believe that there is no place on this planet for the evil that Al Quaeda and other fanatical terrorists represent.

That being said, Bush will never be the orator that Blair is. The former handles himself much better in fielding questions than he once did, but he speaks for too long, runs on, and begins to muddle his thoughts. He has his burst of clarity, to be sure (today: "These are Al Quaeda killers killing Muslims. And they've got to be stopped.") but Blair easily puts him to shame (today: fielded a question roughly asking "doesn't your treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay belie your statements that you're fighting for freedom and tolerance worldwide" by saying, quite clearly, that the very fact that we are concerned with this shows you that we are explicitly concerned with these matters).
But, then again, reporter: "What do you say to the fact that so many people fear and even hate you?" Bush: "I'd say freedom is wonderful."

Ok, I'll stop now. I will post some great sound bites I catch from this press conference at http://elmivy.blogspot.com if you'd like to read more.

WSJ.com - Credit Where It's Due: "South Africa has taken a major step in the battle against HIV and AIDS, one that may help the world defeat the pandemic once and for all.
Yesterday's decision by the South African cabinet to approve a plan for the nationwide treatment of people living with HIV and AIDS is a milestone for a country that has one of the highest rates of HIV infection. Under the terms of the new treatment program, developed by the health ministry with the support of my foundation, up to 1.4 million South Africans should be receiving medicines which will extend their lives by years.."

I need someone to explain to me how antiretroviral medicines (ARVs) help prevent the spread of AIDS on the continent. To my recollection, and according to this quote, ARVs prevent the spread of HIV in an individual. I don't see, however, how that prevents the spread through a population. This is good work, and the people of Africa definitely deserve access to the same drugs we have here, but the drugs available stateside are not the reason that infection rates are dropping--that's thanks to sexual education and STD prevention. Increased life expectancies after infection don't help "defeat the pandemic," to my way of thinking.

WSJ.com - Conservatives Should Vote 'Yes' on Medicare: "Now President Bush, Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Leader Bill Frist, working with Chairmen Bill Thomas and Chuck Grassley and Democrat Senators Max Baucus and John Breaux, have produced a Medicare bill that provides a drug benefit for seniors, choices for the baby boomers, and the opportunity for a major shift toward health savings accounts for all Americans.
Obstructionist conservatives can always find reasons to vote no, but that path leads right back into the minority and it would be a minority status they would deserve."

Sorry that's it's subscribers only, but if you can pick up a copy of the wsj today, I think it'd be worth it to read Newt's piece. I was surprised to see his name on a column encouraging conservatives to vote in favor of the medicare bill, but he makes a very compelling argument.

BLOGGER - Knowledge Base: "Pull a Tony Pierce
Another good way to dupe your mom - include a disclaimer on your blog. Prescient blogger Tony Pierce claims 'nothing in here is true.' Feel free to write your own disclaimer and include it as a permanent part of your blog's sidebar. Just tell your Mom that your blog is an experiment in fiction and she need not worry. If you choose this technique, be careful not to blur your own understanding of the difference between fiction and reality. That could lead to even bigger problems. Placing a disclaimer in your blog's sidebar is much the same as editing your link list (common on most Blogger templates.)"

This is from Blogger's official response to the Onion article James talked about last week. I should email them and tell them that this one doesn't work.

Case Closed: "OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "

HA! I've said all along to friends of mine, even though the government repeatedly said there was no evidence that Saddam was connected to Al Quaeda, just to terrorism in general, that I believed there was. Now I feel completely vindicated. Forget WMD (which everyone thought he had), forget the miserable ways his country suffered under Saddam (which they did), now we know that there's proof Saddam was connected not just to terrorism (duh) but also to Al Quaeda specifically.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article: "The alternative offered by the American left of turning things over to the U.N. is simply a global version of the State Department's 1787 illusion. The Baathist remnants aren't killing GIs because they prefer a 'multilateral' transition to democracy. They want to return to power to tyrannize other Iraqis. They are hardly making distinctions now between Americans or Italians, or for that matter Iraqis who are helping us."

An interesting piece, raises several points I haven't considered.

U.S. Troops Kill Seven Suspected Iraqi Insurgents (washingtonpost.com)

I think this marks a real shift in coverage of the Iraqi war. This headline states the number of Iraqi's killed, and only in the third paragraph does it mention 2 American soldiers were killed in a seperate incident, as opposed to previously, when all we would have gotten would have been the number of dead Americans.

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today: "'Despite the fact that the Senate has confirmed 168 of his nominees, the right wing is hopping mad that we've blocked just 4 of the most hard-core ideologues,' says an e-mail we received yesterday from the Angry Left outfit MoveOn.org.
Well, how about this: We'll stop calling the Democrats obstructionists when these guys stop complaining about Iraq. President Bush has invaded only two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were ruled by ideologues even harder-core than Priscilla Owen. That means there are 189 countries Bush hasn't invaded. He should get to invade at least two or three more before anyone calls him an imperialist or war monger."

Priceless.

Howard Dean for President, Dean for President Bears Candidate Collectible

You've GOT to be kidding me.

PETA: The Meatrix

My favorite is the line "12 Million pounds of excrement." Yeah, without which your organic farms wouldn't have any fertilizer, you muckadoos.

Never Love a Stranger: "And in 2008, as Jeb Bush and Condi Rice fight out their G.O.P. primaries, Hillary will be tanned, rested and ready."

God willing.

Fortune.com - Costco, The Only Company Wal-Mart Fears

Can't we all just get along? I don't want my two favorite stores a fussin' and a feudin'!

Matrix fan site .com - Screensavers

Even if you were as disappointed by the second two movies as I was, these are pretty cool...

Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush (washingtonpost.com): "Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated 'soft money' contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization."

Oh yes, perfect. "Filling a gap." He's a freedom fighter, trying to equalize the playing field after the McCain-Feingold law canted it towards the Republicans. That must be what's going on.

FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Girl Scouts in Alaska Trap, Skin Beavers: "Let other Girl Scouts make bird feeders out of Clorox bottles and glue together little birch-bark canoes -- Troop 34 in Alaska is learning to trap and skin beavers."

Awesome! Even the Girl Scouts of America are against PETA.

FT.com / World

All of Al Gore's hard work inventing the internet might be for nought, as the UN tries to steal it from the US. Those jerks. Man how I hate those blue-helmeted jerks.

OpinionJournal - The Western Front: "Virtually every attack on American soldiers has drawn a response from coalition forces. The world is seeing that now--after the downing of three American helicopters, including a Black Hawk--with the strikes by F-16s with precision guided 500-pound bombs. Iraq hasn't been the scene of such massive American firepower since April. The enemy is being made to pay a hefty price for each and every attack."

I do and I don't agree with Mr. Miniter. To some extent, I have been wondering why we never hear about what's done after each of these attacks to prevent the next one. At the same time, however, look at Israel's retaliatory attacks on the Palestinians. Despite the fact that every one of these is in response to a specific palestinian attack, the Israeli's are portrayed as murderers every time. Perhaps the Press is more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Iraqi's opposed to the occupation, but by how much? Are we willing to push them to cover these strikes at the risk that they might be held as over-the-top?

Re: My agreeing with the Reverend Sharpton
From today's Political Journal (subs only):Oops, on Friday his campaign issued a "clarification," saying Mr. Sharpton had actually meant to say Senate Democrats should "do everything within their means to prevent" the Brown appointment. The statement added that the sensible and accomplished California judge "poses a serious threat to the progress we have made in civil rights."

Looks like I didn't agree with him on something after all. Whew! What a relief! I was beginning to think that the eclipse and all of these sunstorms on top of my agreeing with Sharpton signaled the end of the Earth.

OpinionJournal - Who Is George Soros?

Just noticed that this is appearing opposite Dean's piece in the WSJ today, and makes my below point much more effectively. Kudos to the Opinion Journal board for taking this advantage to stick it to Dean by juxtaposing some reality next to Dean's vacuous rhetoric.

I also just decided to start my own campaign to raise money for W, and you can all help. We're all non-super-wealthy Republicans (or so it seems). So my idea is for us to start getting everyone we know to sign onto Bush's donation site, here and make a $50 donation. The effects of this will be two-fold: it will increase his donor numbers and decrease the average contribution size. If I can create a serious mobilization of less-wealthy Bush supporters to get behind this effort, then maybe Bush can hold up a stat in the general election that says "I have as many small-money contributors as Dr. Dean, and my average donation is only higher because I also have more donors over-all." Wouldn't that be a feather in his cap?

WSJ.com - We the People (Who Write Small Checks): "declining the matching funds means walking away from almost $19 million in January"

Sorry, subscribers only, but this is Howard Dean's attempt to explain his decision to opt out of federal matching funds. I have to say, this sentence in particular is BS. He may be "walking away" from a guaranteed 19 million, and taking a bit of a risk that he'll receive enough in private donations to overcome that 19. But he will overcome it, and that's the entire point. Maybe he did put it to a vote with his supporters, but just the same, this is not some altruistic gesture on his part--it's what he has to do to stay competitive. And, as many have rightly pointed out, his constant reference to W is more proof that every time the left (i.e. John McCain) comes up with a new way to "purify" (sorry James, I know you hate scare quotes) financing of elections, they just add a measure to protect incumbency. Why don't they just do what they want to do, stop dancing around the issue, and pass a measure that says Republicans can't contribute to campaigns?

FOXNews.com - Third Judge Issues Abortion Law Injunction: "U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton (search) of San Francisco ruled the law appears unconstitutional because it provides no exemptions for a woman's health. The basis for her ruling mirrors the reasons cited by the other judges."

I don't get it. This is directly from the text of the law itself:
"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." (page 16, lines 8-13)

Since James has posted the last 17, I thought I'd step up and prove that others among us are still alive, with an excerpt from today's Political Journal:
"I don't agree with her politics. I don't agree with some of her background. But she should get an up-or-down vote. We've got to stop this monolith in black America because it impedes the freedom of expression for all of us" -- Rev. Al Sharpton, criticizing a Democratic U.S. Senate filibuster against the appointment of Janice Brown, a conservative black judge from the California Supreme Court, to the Federal appellate bench.

Who would have thought I'd ever agree with Al Sharpton on anything??

From today's Political Journal (sorry, subscriber email only):
"Comedian Dennis Miller's high-profile involvement in the California recall election -- he performed political spin duties on TV on behalf of Arnold Schwarzenegger after the only debate involving all the candidates -- was apparently just a warm-up act for his own political talk show.

CNBC announced yesterday that the edgy comic will host his own five-nights-a week talk show starting in January. It will be taped in Burbank.

Mr. Miller was briefly touted as a possible GOP candidate against Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer next year, but he has apparently decided to bench those ambitions. It's just as well. He would have had to curb his over-the-edge humor on the campaign trail."

This is legitimately disappointing to me. I think he could have had a sincere shot, and at the very least, made the election interesting for non-Californians. Oh well.

Ananova - Downing Street 'mystified' by Bill Clinton claim

How did we miss this?? There are two explanations: Clinton lies easier than he tells the truth, or, Blair forgot that this had happened to him before. Which do you think is more likely?

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Books That Have Had The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

I got this link through Jake's new favorite site which I think might also be my new favorite site. But this list is certainly interesting...

True Believers, Please Rise: "The main critique is that it is ridiculously expensive to lease planes, rather than buy them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will appreciate that the deal also involves the use of 'special purpose entities,' the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their glory days."

Brooks gives a serious critique of this whole process. James, do you have any insight that might help me understand if this is true or not?

James --

I don't know the specifics of the deal, but I certainly can speak to leasing in general. By and large, Brooks is correct that leasing would be more expensive than buying the aircraft. So, why would anyone in their right mind lease an aircraft? There are several reasons. One, which is probably irrelevant in this case, is concern over residual value risk. Some companies might be worried that they'll be stuck with a worthless plane that they can't sell, so they lease it, and at the end, it's the leasing company's problem to deal with. The other reason is availability of funds. Remember, a 767 can cost upwards of $100 million. Chances are, an airline or cargo carrier doesn't have that kind of cash on its balance sheet and would need to borrow in order to fund a fleet of new 767s. A lease is essentially the loan of equipment instead of money. Because the lessor still owns the plane, and could always take it back if the lessee defaults, the lessor might not need to charge as much interest in order to make the risk of lending profitable. Therefore, it might be less costly for an airline to lease an aircraft instead of borrowing the money to purchase it. But, the government works a little differently. For all intents and purposes, no one borrows more cheaply than the US Government. The rates on US bonds are often used as a baseline interest rate or a "risk-free rate". Boeing had to borrow (probably in the form of corporate bonds) in order to pay to build the planes. You can safely bet that the rate used to calculate the Air Force's lease payments was higher than the Boeing bond rate (otherwise the leases wouldn't be profitable), which in turn is higher than US Treasury rates. Brooks, the GAO, the CBO, and the OMB are probably right, this looks like a bum deal for the tax payers.

yaledailynews.com - Universal health care is not a viable option: "It is essential, however, not to let emotion cloud logic."

Written by a good friend of mine, and worth a close read.

Presidential Debate
John Kerry, in reference to Boykin's comments: "When Boykin talks about 'The Almighty' he gets the White House all confused: Bush thinks he's talking about Cheney, Cheney thinks he's talking about Halliburton, Ashcroft thinks he's talking about him."

HAS THE POLITICAL DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY REALLY SUNK THIS LOW? I'm appalled that John Kerry could actually feel comfortable saying that in a policy debate. Oh, and by the way, this was in response to a question about American troop strength around the country.

National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com): "For some reason or another, a series of enormously important issues — the future of the Middle East, the credibility of the United States as both a strong and a moral power, the war against the Islamic fundamentalists, the future of the U.N. and NATO, our own politics here at home — now hinge on America's efforts at creating a democracy out of chaos in Iraq. That is why so many politicians — in the U.N., the EU, Germany, France, the corrupt Middle East governments, and a host of others — are so strident in their criticism, so terrified that in a postmodern world the United States can still recognize evil, express moral outrage, and then sacrifice money and lives to eliminate something like Saddam Hussein and leave things far better after the fire and smoke clear. People, much less states, are not supposed to do that anymore in a world where good is a relative construct, force is a thing of the past, and the easy life is too precious to be even momentarily interrupted. We may expect that, a year from now, the last desperate card in the hands of the anti-Americanists will be not that Iraq is democratic, but that it is democratic solely through the agency of the United States — a fate worse than remaining indigenously murderous and totalitarian."

Whether you agree or not, you must admit it's a good point.

Talking Presidents: Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure (via Andrew Sullivan)

This is unbelievable. Jake, I know you're gonna get one ASAP.

Did I Violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban? - A doctor ponders a new era of prosecution By Warren M. Hern: "Then I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive, since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact. With the next pass of the forceps, I grasped the placenta, and it came out in one piece. Within a few seconds, I had completed my routine exploration of the uterus and sharp curettage. The blood loss would just fill a tablespoon."

I'm sorry, but this column did the opposite of persuade me that partial-birth abortion should remain legal. The fact of the matter is, I'm not worried about whether or not the woman described here came out ok or not. The image of a doctor crushing the skull of a fetus with forceps is a barbaric one, and solidified in my mind an opinion on which I had previously been anything but decided.

ajc.com | North Fulton | Student expelled over diary

This was blogged on Best of the Web today. Roswell High School is a Bakers Dozen tour stop on every spring tour. Our musical director from two years ago attended Roswell High, as did a current sophomore in the group. I have been to this high school twice. Small world.

OpinionJournal - Xtreme Politics

I'm a little worried about Mr. Henninger, if I'm reading this column correctly. The overall tone here seems to be one of frustration, helplessness, and futility. Did anyone else see it this way?

I need a witty title for a blog that is a spin-off of diet coke for breakfast. Any suggestions?
If you're curious as to why, I'm going to build a blog in a similar vein with my friends at yale, and I'd like it to make reference to diet coke.
It's currently hosted here with the stupid name of "Something Witty For Breakfast" until I (or you) come up with something better.

CNN.com - Size matters for animals that change sex - Oct. 22, 2003

I can't believe some editor okayed that headline...

Full Disclosure on Leaks: "The most serious kind of leak is the unauthorized disclosure of national security information. Robert Novak's revelation that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was a C.I.A. 'operative' falls into this category. Mr. Novak's source, by revealing the wife's name without approval from the C.I.A., has potentially compromised national security."

I'm lost. Why did the NYT publish this today? This story is weeks old and floundering. This piece doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said in every newspaper across this country at least 10 times. Am I missing something?

OpinionJournal - OpinionJournal's Political Diary: "The former Vermont governor now has the clearest path to the Democratic nomination of any candidate. If he wins in Iowa, he knocks out Dick Gephardt. If he wins in New Hampshire, he knocks out John Kerry. By then he'd likely be unstoppable, notwithstanding the inevitable Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark or John Edwards claim to be the 'stop-Dean' candidate. The only way to stop Dean is to defeat him early, which is why we've seen Messrs. Gephardt and Kerry pounding away at him on perceived weak spots, like Medicare and trade, from the left."

Granted, I haven't been conscious for many presidential primary seasons, but does Dean winning Iowa and New Hampshire really knock out Gephardt and Kerry, respectively?
Also, the 'stop-_____' character, to my thinking, never seems to be an effective candidate. Positioning yourself like that automatically says "he's more liked than I am, but we've got to stop him anyway." It's like assuming you'll get a C on a test and trying to do better instead of shooting for the A from the start.

Iran to Suspend Uranium Enrichment, Permit U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Program (washingtonpost.com)
Bush Says Pact With N. Korea Possible (washingtonpost.com)

Wow. The Bush team is really messing up foreign relations. Iran has promised to stop its Uranium enrichment, and North Korea is willing to take steps to halt its program in exchange for the US promising not to attack them. What could have created the fear that we might attack? Certainly not the case where we attacked another country (Iraq, was it?) for the same reason. No, it must have been Bill Clinton's promise of food and cash for them to stop--which they flaunted and ignored before demanding more appeasement. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ms. Albright, before you shout more criticism in French, from France.

GOP Sees Gephardt as Toughest Rival for Bush (washingtonpost.com): "In interviews with nearly two dozen Republican strategists, lawmakers and state chairmen across the country, including several close to the White House, Gephardt was portrayed by a majority as the Democratic candidate best prepared and positioned to defeat President Bush in a head-to-head matchup next year. The reasons, they said: Gephardt consistently supported the Iraq war, enjoys unrivaled support among union leaders and hails from the Midwest, where many Republicans believe the presidential election will be decided. They also cited his health care plan, experience and discipline as key factors. "

I've been thinking this for a while, and I'm glad to hear it laid out so plainly. Were he to win the Democratic nomination, Gephardt might have the highest chance of beating Bush. We'll obviously have to wait for Iowa, New Hampshire, and the rest of the primaries, but at the moment I don't think he's poised to overtake Dean or Kerry. (I think Clark is a passing fad who will never win the nomination.) But, were he to come out on top, I think Bush will have his hands more full than he would with any other contender.

WSJ.com - France's NATO Gambit (sorry, subscribers only): "NATO is the ultimate coalition of the willing. An alliance of democracies, it can only exist if its members agree to remain united. That's why the French effort to create an independent European defense organization, with a separate headquarters, needs to be understood as an attempt to undermine the only official institution that binds the West."

As much as I hate this idea, thanks to France, I'm becoming increasingly isolationist. My instinct when I read this paragraph was to say "Fine, screw you. See how well your organisation works when we stop providing any of your defense, and running to your pet causes in Africa. Create your own organisation, we'll withdraw from NATO and form a new group with the Italy, Spain, Britain, and the Eastern European Block that wants to join us. Oh, and that missile shield we're building that we were going to include Europe under? If we see a missile heading for France or Germany, we wish you the best of luck."

I realize that this is a very immature view, and we do need foreign relations, but we have to draw the line somewhere. We have done, and continue to do so much for the stability of the world, and France, and to a lesser extent Germany, continue to ignore that fact. The entire purpose of the Bush Doctrine is to keep the world safe from a threat before it becomes imminent. Up to this point, France has been a minor annoyance, but if Chirac continues to behave the way he has been, he could threaten the future of the planet. Maybe one more "unilateral" action is in order?

The Volokh Conspiracy: "Can North Korea blackmail us? Assume that the North Koreans want nuclear weapons to blackmail the United States, and not just for deterrence. They offer to sell us a nuclear weapon for $100 billion, or, if we decline to buy, to sell it to al Qaeda for $1 million. Would we buy?"

This is an interesting and terrifying possibility. To put this in perspective, you might also like to read this, from today's OpinionJournal:The Terror Ahead: A nuclear attack? Be very afraid.

WSJ.com - The Democrats Can Win on Taxes

To be fair, I don't read a lot of Democratic strategy, because I don't want them to do well; I'm much more focused on Republican strategy. However, I have to complement this piece on its clearness of vision. Unfortunately, I find it extremely unlikely that any of the current candidates will adopt it - it's too straighforward.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Pity us. Gina and I have to deal with these people on a daily basis. Can't you just picture him reading this in Larchmont Lock-Jaw?

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Can anyone say Osiris?

OpinionJournal - Featured Article: "Then came the shock of this summer's heat wave, which claimed about 14,000 lives. Much of the blame for those deaths, mostly involving the elderly, fell on the 35-hour law, which depleted hospital and nursing home staffs. "

But I thought it was global warming....

yaledailynews.com - BDs face zoning investigation

Hopefully nothing will come of this...

OpinionJournal - Wonder Land: "If this is true, Arnold Schwarzenegger upended two other longstanding shibboleths--media bias and the 'litmus test.' "

This is the second time in as many days that I've seen the word "shibboleth" used in a political column. Is this really that well known a term, or did we all just see it on the West Wing a few years ago?

Jake -- The article also had this juicy quote about Arnold:

There's one last, large intangible that Arnold has slipped into the political waters: He's cool.

Like it or not, the force field of celebrity is part of the cultural physics of our era, and it looks as if the first party to get totally wired-in to a mega-celebrity is, incredibly, the GOP. Something weirdly attractive was coming off the Schwarzenegger camp's victory stage on TV round about midnight Tuesday--Arnold, Maria Shriver (a get-out-of-jail-free card for many centrist Democrats feeling trapped in an inhospitable party), Jay Leno's funny introduction, Rob Lowe nearby, Eunice and Sargent Shriver, the extended Shriver clan, and a sea of young, attractive faces. Liberal pundits will mock this scene unmercifully, but in terms of mass-market politics it was as hip as any politician could ever hope for. Arnold, with all that media reach and the aura of living wholly inside the country's popular culture, may be changing ideas of who can live comfortably on election day among the Republicans.

One of my big complaints about being conservative was always that I am surrounded by a pop culture which by and large embraces liberalism. Most producers of cultural consumption are liberals. So what's someone who likes pop culture to do? Arnold is great because he changes the image of a conservative from an uninteresting old, white guy to something so much cooler.

Big Turnout as Californians Vote on Recall (washingtonpost.com): "Davis, casting his own vote in West Hollywood, Davis told the Associated Press, 'I feel absolutely terrific. I have always trusted the voters of California and I know they're going to do the right thing today.' "

Does that mean that, if he's recalled, he'll think it was the right thing?

OpinionJournal - OpinionJournal's Political Diary: "Gesturing to the pumped-up crowed, a dazed reporter for a major newspaper said in puzzlement: 'There's a complete disconnect between what's going on here and the campaign we're reading about in the newspapers.' We'll find out tonight how true that is."

It seems that this is true of most arenas in the press these days. Honestly, I'm really worried about the sway the press has in shaping public opinion, especially since it's so easy for them to only pick up the sensationalist stories.

WSJ.com - To Lead, the U.S. Must Persuade Others to Follow
WSJ.com - The WMD Evidence
Opinionjournal.com - To Rally the Nation

Add these three, along with the William Kristol column that Jake blogged below, as evidence of the Bush administrations primary failing. James and I have discussed this at length, and we've both come to the conclusion (correct me if I'm improperly speaking for you here) that our biggest complaint about the Bush White House is that they are always back-peddling, always defending a decision after the fact. It is too easy these days for the Left to poison the public with claims about Bush's lies, because the White House constantly does nothing to discount them. They should be pounding the podium about the Kay report -- it proves that Saddam was evading 1441, and gives the justification for war. They simply are not controlling debate as is necessary to maintain control of the reigns of government. Maybe what Kristol says is correct, and could solve the problem. Either way, something needs to be done.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines: "Deadline Set for Leak Papers
White House workers told to turn in all relevant documents in by Tuesday."

Read that sentence, from the front page of washingtonpost.com closely. This is a very commonly read newspaper. Do they not have anyone that knows how to check grammar?

WSJ.com - The Rich Recession: "It is this progressivity that makes the federal government so hugely dependent on top earners for revenue. In the period 1997-to-2000, the last years of the Clinton bubble, adjusted gross income for the top 1% went up every year and so did its share of all income taxes paid. When times are really good, in other words, tax revenue from the rich tends to increase faster than the economy. When times are bad, however, federal revenue falls faster than overall growth does. This helps to explain the wide budget swings in the past decade from deficit to surplus and back to deficit."

An interesting explanation that I'd never considered before. It helps the liberal rhetoric to say that Bush drove us from surplus to defecit, and it's always surprised me that that would be possible. This seems to explain some of that broad swing.

WSJ.com - Who's Vulnerable? (sorry, subscribers only)

Barnes lays out a good case for why Bush isn't nearly as vulnerable as the press seems to think. The key here is to recognize that it's easy to get excited into thinking that, since the Democrats have been campaigning now for almost 6 months, they're beating him. But the election itself is 13 months away, and he has not yet begun to respond to the Dems' criticisms of him. As the situation in Iraq continues to improve, as the economy continues to show signs of recovery and jobs begin increasing again, his approval will go back up. As Barnes says, "President Bush has until mid-2004 for the public to sense the improved trajectory of the economy. That's plenty of time." Everyone is overly excited, and Bush has more than enough time to earn reelection.

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today: "That Must Be Some Bed!
Bob Graham on George W. Bush, from last night's debate: 'He is literally in bed with pharmaceutical companies.'"

Taranto pays attention: if you scroll down to the the thanks at the bottom of the page, you'll see that it was I who caught this absurdity during the debate.

OpinionJournal - The Grove and Academe

Gina pointed to this very recently. An interesting perspective on the same issue.

New Sun chip may unseat the circuit board | CNET News.com: "Sun has not decided whether to license the technology to other manufacturers or reserve it exclusively for Sun's own systems, Mitchell said. Analysts, though, say they believe that the company is moving toward a more liberal technology licensing policy."

This has me really excited, especially since I own Sun stock. But I've got to say, if we've learned anything from Apple, it's: Don't Try to Keep Your Technology To Yourself!! Honestly, how they could even say that they want to keep this technology to themselves is absurd. This is the type of thing that they could make boatloads of money on in licensing fees if they get all of the kinks worked out.

James-- Licensing can mean two things. With Apple and MSFT, it meant whether they should sell their OS to people who made hardware. In manufacturing it typically means that you've come up with some new technology and you will sell the knowledge about how to make it to someone else. My advice to Sun would be to protect their technology by not selling the right to make it, but "license" it in terms of selling the chips to anyone who wants to put them on a motherboard.

OpinionJournal - The Western Front: "What Gen. Clark is left with is an impossible argument: that he somehow found a better way to defeat al Qaeda in the skies over Kosovo, than Mr. Bush has in defeating first the Taliban and then Saddam Hussein."

This whole column is a great read, concluding with the above-quoted idea. For about a week now, I've been talking to my Democratic friends at yale, many of whom jumped very quickly on the Clark bandwagon. I have basically been saying that I don't think Clark can win the Democratic nomination, and that even if he does, he won't be able to beat Bush. I'm not 100% sure of that, and I can't defend it - it's just a gut feeling. This article, though, does a really good job of showing the potential pitfalls.

Taranto has also done a few good things on BOTW, including pointing out Clark's untenable views on gays in the military, the war in Iraq, and the fact that he thinks he voted for Reagan and Nixon. My instinct tells me he can't pull it off, but it'll certainly be interesting to see.

WSJ.com - Wonder Land: "Shortly after the war was over, a high official from France's Parliament visited our offices hoping to let bygones be bygones. He said we were all joined in the war on terror and that our countries' long-term interests coincided. He was visiting American editorial boards and going to Washington to see key Members of Congress in the belief that if he could convince these influential people -- the U.S. networking equivalent of les grandes écoles -- Franco-American relations would revive."

I can't help but constantly feel like the French just simply don't understand our country. They think that by having Woody Allen on TV ads American tourists will suddenly return to France, forgiving how they stabbed us in the back. They think that sending a diplomat to our editorial boards and congressmen will change public sentiment. How about they try just a little not screwing us instead?

James-- I have a much more simple complaint. Voicemail, they need to setup their voicemail accounts. "Ring, Ring, Ring.... Ring*5.... Ring, Bonjour avec qui est-ce que vous voulez parler?"; "umm Hi, I'm trying to reach [business contact]."; "Oh pardon monsieur, she must not be in today";"Well may I have her voicemail please";"Oh pardon monsieur, she must not have activated it." Somehow, I had no confidence in leaving a message with a receptionist that didn't seem to know the woman I was calling.

WSJ.com - Blacklisting Hamas (Outside France)

Sorry that it's a subscriber only site, but I think it's very good news that the European Union (minus France) agreed to block the "political" arms of Hamas. This should greatly hamper their ability to raise money in European circles, and hopefully limit their terrorist efforts throughout the Middle East.

The Problem With the French ... (washingtonpost.com)

This is worth reading to the end, despite its length. Though it reaches no real conclusion, it is a great in-depth analysis of French anti-American sentiments, as well as how they fulfill our stereotypes concerning them.

CNN.com - Johnny Depp: U.S. is like a stupid puppy - Sep. 3, 2003

Honestly, why are we supposed to care?

OpinionJournal - Column by Wolfowitz

I really, really like this guy, and I feel extraordinarily comfortable with him and Rummy at the top of the Pentagon ladder. But why can't we get a guy like this into Sec State? This idea was sparked by something that James pointed out to me a while ago -- the State Department is full of career diplomats, who think that diplomasy is an end unto itself. I had hoped that Powell would offer a different perspective to the organisation, but in too many ways he seems to have just fallen in with the crowd. What would be so wrong with someone like Wolfowitz, who understands the fact that there are other goals then simply "playing nice with the other children"?

Yale Strike - FOXNews.com: "Some workers and students had started a picket line Tuesday in front of the school's investment office and yelled slogans such as 'What do we want? Decent pensions! When do we want it? Now!'"

I go to the best school in the world. Just to let you all know, this is the chant they chose, and below is the pension offer made to them, as summarized in an open letter to the Yale Community from Yale President Richard Levin:

Unlike faculty whose contributory pension accounts fluctuate with the stock market, unionized staff members have a "defined benefit" pension plan, wholly funded by the University. This assures them a guaranteed annual pension that is linked to their highest salary in the five years prior to retirement. All staff members also receive Social Security, because Yale and each individual make contributions every pay period. After Yale's increased offer last week, an employee retiring with 30 years of service at age 65 or older will have after-tax retirement income, from the defined benefit plan and Social Security, between 83% and 93% of his or her final after-tax salary.

Altogether, Yale's offer represents a 16% to 20% increase in the multiplier used to calculate the defined benefit pension. When combined with the salary increases we have offered, this means that an employee retiring the day after new contracts take effect would receive a Yale pension that is 23% to 31% larger than it would have been the day before new contracts take effect.

In addition, Yale is offering to keep in place the supplemental voluntary retirement program that it introduced in 1996. In this plan, the University matches the contributions of individuals dollar-for-dollar up to 4% of salary. Employees participating in this plan for thirty years could expect, conservatively, to see an additional after-tax retirement income equal to 15% of final after-tax salary from Yale's contributions alone.

That sounds like a pretty sweet deal, and I think significantly better than just about any other union labor gets.

In God I Trust - OpinionJournal Featured Article

Worth reading all the way through. I hadn't really followed the arguments in this case, but as Moore sets his out, I can't see how the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court justified ruling against the monument.

Jake -- Having also not read the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, I can't really speculate on what they said. However, I will say that I agree with the outcome. The decision to enshire religion, particularly as a monument in the courthouse or any other public area, is a decision to be made by the public and their representative the legislature.

This guy accuses the Alabama Supreme Court of being activist. Well if there is somone who is being activist in this situation it is him. He was the one who took matters into his own hands by setting up a monument that is clearly not accepted by a large portion of the public.

On a side note, isn't Attorney General Bill Pryor the guy who is being held up in the Senate for being to far right. I seem to remember them questioning his willingness to uphold the law. Now he is the one getting rid of the monument.

James -- I don't particularly care whether there is a monument to the 10 commandments in a court house in Alabama. First, I don't believe that having such a monument enshrines religion. There are monuments all over this country, on public land, with which people disagree. There are monuments to fallen Confederate soldiers. That doesn't mean that the federal government approves of the confederacy. At the same time, if the people of a state dislike a monument strongly enough, then they should be able to voice that objection through their legislature and have it removed. But, not being "accepted by a large portion of the public" does not make it wrong, or mean it should be taken down. That's political correctness gone awry. Furthermore, I would be wary of a judge's ability to divine what the public "wants". "Congress shall make no law..." How was that violated? From where did the federal judge take the authority to tell the Alabama State courts what they could and couldn't display? Our Constitution does not say that there may be no religion in Government. It says that the government can not establish an official religion, and may not prevent others from practicing their own. How was that violated here? Did they sit each person down in front of the monument and make them swear an oath to it? I don't know if a particular judge exercised judicial activism, but judicial activism in general has gotten us to a point where "separation of church and state" is not examined for what it really means Constitutionally. People hear the phrase and think that all religion must be banished from Government. If that's what people truly want, then take "In God We Trust" off the money, but let the Congress decide that, not a Judge.

Matt -- As always, its not that simple. Now I'm not a judge, but his opening thesis: "the issue in this case is: 'Can the state acknowledge God?'" doesn't seem to be quite right. The State can, and does... frequently, acknowledge God. Now the validity of this is debatable, but its generally considered acceptable practice to "call upon God's favor" when making decisions, etc. While there have been challenges to this, its generally protected as freedom of speech. Now the instances where God is "officially" enshrined in our codec are acctually rather minimal, and usually secular or otherwise non-specific to Christianity. Most often these are in the form of "oaths" and usually optional (again, a free speech thing), or preambles of state constitutions: none of which call for any specific action. The most signifcant of the remainder are "one nation under God" and "In God We Trust" both by-products of McCarthyism which are being reconsidered in the courts. So by and large the "acknowledgement of God" has well established legal and ethical boundries in Government. As for federal jurisdiction, that acctually comes from the 14th amendment's due process provision (yeah I know, its the most debatable provision in the Constitution, but that's another issue).

So now we come to the issue of the 10 comandment monument itself. Generally, most religion related works of art are acceptable on public lands only when there is something of a historic or deep cultural value to enshrining (I'm sorry James, but 2 1/2 ton monument placed in a rotunda is about as "enshrined" as you can get... I know what you meant, but still...) the artwork. The cultural value of the 10 commandments isn't at issue, but the cultural value of the monument is at issue, and its value is pretty low.

But fact that this was a courthouse presents the biggest ethical (if not legal) snag. We must be honest with ourselves, to what purpose is a brand new two and a half ton, it is a dangerous precedent. I'm as against political correctness as just about anyone, but this whole snafu was a bad idea from the start.

James -- I repeat, I don't really care whether the 10 commandment monument is at the Alabama Supreme Court House. I have a hard time getting worked up about it. If the people of Alabama don't want it, then they should voice their opinion, and if that's strong enough, it should go. But, that doesn't seem to have happened; it seems that a few people have litigated it out. I may be wrong but my understanding is that this thing has been there for several years. If people were really angered by it, they could have mounted enough political pressure to get rid of it long ago. Should it have been put there in the first place? Probably not, the Judge probably knew that he was picking an unwinable fight, but the guy WAS elevated to the Chief Justice position after having been part of a controversy of having the 10 commandments displayed in his court room as a lower court judge. It should have been obvious that he would pull a stunt like this, but he was promoted with out sufficient objections to prevent his appointment.

As for the legality. I don't think the "due process" provision has much bearing. No one is being deprived of "equal protection under the law". No one was prosecuted for being an infidel or for breaking any of the commandments. They're simply being displayed, albeit in an obnoxious and ostentacious way. In terms of the first amendment, the freedom of religion part can be broken into to sections. First, Congress did not establish a religion. For that matter, Chief Justice Moore did not establish a religion. People make a giant leap and assume that because he put up this monolith (or decalith?) that he is making Christianity part of his court rulings. Well, I hate to break it to those people, but in that our legal system borrows heavily from Judeo-Christian ethics, it's already in his rulings. Furthermore, in that he's a Christian, it's probably in his rulings. Now, if his Christianity is causing his rulings to contradict the law or go further than the law allows, there's a problem and grounds for appeal. But again, the monument has nothing to do with that. In the second section, it says that Congress may not abridge the right for someone to exercise his or her own religion. Neither Congress nor Judge Moore has done this either. Just because the monument is there doesn't mean that a Hindu must pretend not to be a Hindu in court. If the Hindu wants to pray according to his religion in court, the 10 commandment monument doesn't stop that either. The Hindu may object to the fact that the monument tells everyone who can see it to worship no other God, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says that he has a right to be comfortable. Now, that brings me back to Matt's final point. He's right, it wasn't a good idea. There's no good reason to put up the monument and offend people like my Hypothetical Hindu. But, that doesn't mean that a Federal court has the power or the right to stop him. Moore wanted a fight, he got one, and and no matter what he was going to lose big, but it should have been the people of Alabama that defeated him. The Federal court engaged in judicial activism; Judge Moore engaged in Judicial ridiculousness.

Finally, the only reason that I think this issue is at all important is it's implication in OTHER debates. The monument's going to be taken down. While I think the result's probably a positive step, I didn't like the process that achieved it. My main concern is in the school vouchers debate, which I do think is important. Although the Supreme court pretty resoundingly said that vouchers can go to religious schools, I can envision people trying to extend that debate, which I believe, for many of the reasons I listed above, is bogus.

WSJ.com - Arnie's Money Man: "The would-be tax terminator has chosen as his chief economics adviser a tax perpetuator -- Warren Buffett."

Yeah, when I heard he'd selected Buffett, I first thought "Jimmy Buffett?" Then I was corrected that, no, it was in fact Warren. In some ways, I think Jimmy might be a better choice. Sure Warren has made some great financial decisions in his life, but what happened to the Arnold that was going to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? If he's still socially liberal, then we might have a genuine liberal running on the Republican ticket, or just as bad, a moderate.

WSJ.com - My Tall Thin Greek Candidate

You've got to read this if you haven't already. I'm sorry, it's subscription only, but if you want the text, let me know and I'll send it to you. This is absolutely scathing, and hilarious.

CNN.com - Hiroshima mayor hits out at U.S. - Aug. 6, 2003: "Tadatoshi Akiba said Washington's apparent worship of 'nuclear weapons as God' was threatening world peace."

It could just be me, but if we hadn't dropped the bombs the first time, he might be forced to worship an emperor 'as God,' and it seems to me that the last time around that caused quite a threat to world peace...

Matt -- I know its a little off topic, but they still do have an emperor... same family line for 2500 years! And as always, they are fanatically supportive of him. Anyway, what they were really "worshiping" at the time was the military... who like every other "power" in Japanese history gained such position by positioning themselves near the emperor who has had historically varied amounts of power depending on who his friends were.

Saddam Bodyguard's Brother Caught

Come on now, have we really gotten this desperate?

Persuaders or Partisans (washingtonpost.com):
"A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages are to take on a Democratic administration."

I love the way the media tries to portray itself as non-liberal. Honestly, this study seems to say that. 'Oh, look, conservative editorial pages are more partisan.' But that's not the point. The point is, when you read a news article in the WSJ, or another paper with a conservative editorial staff, you get news. When you read a news article in Reuters, the AP, NY Times, or other liberal "news" services, you get slant. Reporters are, by in large, liberal, and the media reflects this concentration. The fact that a study like this one even occured proves that they can't dispute that fact.

WSJ.com - Clear Ideas Versus Foggy Bottom

Sounds like maybe we don't need Rummy at Foggy Bottom - the Pentagon has found a way to control a lot of international policy by acting intelligently and getting the President's ear. So, all we need is someone as SecState who will work with this group instead of against them.

Traficant for President? - FOXNews.com:
"James A. Traficant, a former Ohio congressman in prison for bribery and racketeering charges, has given his approval to supporters to form a presidential exploratory committee."

I'm sorry, it doesn't get any better than that. I hope he runs, because that will make for one funny campaign. Beam me up, Mr. Speaker, I'm on the Traficant bandwagon...

Hyped Horse
Has Seabiscuit been overtouted as a '30s hero?

Sounds to me like they're beating a dead horse...

WSJ.com - Global View
It is appropriate for Mr. Bush to respond to these cries for help. Defending or restoring human rights where possible is an appropriate project for the U.S. at this stage of world history. Would-be tyrants should be on notice that the ineffective U.N. chiding and coaxing is now replaced with effective power. The only nation that can be trusted to supply that power is the U.S., a strong democracy with no imperial ambitions.

But the U.S. can't be expected to act alone, expending its blood and treasure on behalf of a more humane world order. Other mature democracies must be asked to help. And it should be organized in a systematic, logical way.

It could just be me, but wasn't the UN founded for exactly that purpose? That systematic, logical body seems incapable of pretty much anything worthwhile, so what makes anyone think that a new organization created by the US will do any better?
Freeing the Iraqi people is a nice side-effect of deposing Saddam, but now that the war is over, people are trying to transform it into the justification. In reality, Saddam was a threat to us, and we removed him for our own protection. Why we were criticized as trying to be "the world's police" before going into Iraq elludes me - it wasn't for the good of the world, or the Iraqis, it was for our own good. Now that there's an actual situation that would involve our acting as the world's police, the rest of the world is all for it. I just don't get it.

Jake -- Let's all welcome our new blogger Brian to the site. By the way, "blood and treasure"? Avast ye maties, here comes the US. Arrgh.

James -- The UN wasn't formed to depose tyrants. I think was formed to try to prevent war through a central clearing house of diplomacy and discussion. The problem is that tyrants, dictators, and megalomaniacs will discuss and diplome while secretly mobilizing armies or putting their citizens through big paper shredders. If the UN were truly set up to take on tyrants, they'd have a more potent military force then their full-time peacekeepers at their disposal.

As for human rights being the justification for the war, I believe it was probably a sufficient reason to take out Saddam all along. Does that mean that we should go around the world deposing dictators? Absolutely not. That would stretch us thin and would likely make the world more dangerous, not less. So, when choosing tyrannies of which we would like to dispose ourselves, there is nothing wrong with using National Security interests as one criteria for the decision. Human rights can be the justification, even if preemptive self-defense is the reason.