Your Word

2003-09-07T22:00:00.000-07:00

A President worthy of Reagan's legacy?

A few weeks ago when the GAO announced its findings that a sustained presence in Iraq would cost several more billion dollars, I remember thinking to myself that the war was over and the terrorists and the pan-Arabists had won. No way would Congress support the status quo in Iraq -- not, anyway, to the tune of 10 Billion or more dollars and another year of military committment. Absent a renewed and overwhelming committment, the likes of which have not been seen since Reagan's SDI program, all the terrorists had to do was wait until Congress decided it had spent enough money.

In what is becoming an annual tradition, President Bush has unleased another September Stunner: announcing a military spending package of $87 Billion to fight terror. This is exactly the type of spending we need right now. The message sent by Bush is that we will spend whatever it takes, and last however long it takes until terrorism is stopped. The message is clear. Now it's just a matter of time before the terrorists and the pan-Arabists who support them decide that they can't last forever; that their days are numbered.

Such was the calculation that the Soviets made in the late 80s. But there is one striking difference between the Soviet theat and the one posed by terror: it cost the Arabists a lot less to provoke an overwhelming reaction by America than it cost the Soviets. While I applaud Bush's proposal, I have to ask the question: are we going to react like this everytime we're faced with an asymmetric threat?

The answer lies in our past. Specifically in our failure to address what we knew all along was a problem. How did we let Arafat come back to the peace table when we knew that he was the one who had invented terrorism in the first place? Why did we walk away from Saddam in 1991 and again throughout the years of Clinton? How, when we had the sniper's sights on Bin Laden, did we fail to pull the trigger?

In short, The New World Order under Bush and Clinton gave America an excuse to ignore its leadership role while allowing the menace to grow. Ignoring terrorism has cost America at least $150 Billion in direct government expenditures and untold trillions in macroeconomic impacts to our economy. Money alone cannot defeat terror. More than anything else, it is a symbol of our leadership and our resolve -- two characteristics that had we displayed more of in the 12 years prior to President Bush, we might not even be in this situation today.

2003-09-07T19:24:00.000-07:00

A President worthy of Reagan's legacy?

2003-09-07T19:22:00.000-07:00

A President worthy of Reagan's legacy?

2003-09-07T19:20:00.000-07:00

A President worthy of Reagan's legacy?

2003-08-30T11:33:00.000-07:00

The link between the Intellectual and the Liberal

"I have already explained to you that what is out of the common is usually a guide rather than a hindrance. In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically."

"Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you what the result would be. They can put those events together in their minds, and argue from them that something will come to pass. There are few people, however, who, if told them a result, would be able to evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backward, or analytically." [Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Scarlet, pt.2, ch.7]

It occurs to me after reading Jeff Jarvis today that the reason the left has always been an characterized as "intellectual" movement is that relatively smart people, regardless of their discipline, all have one thing in common: the ability to keep the complex underpinnings of an argument straight (regardless of whether or not the argument makes logical sense or is in fact true). Complex arguments that rely on plausibility rather than truth are a type of argument that I would call "the conspirator's tale."

The conspirator's tale is otherwise known as "the cover story." It's the "I could not have killed so-and-so, because I was with X, who has also testified that he was with Y at the time and we were all enjoying ice cream sundies after attending church services." Cover stories are the conspirators attempt to alter reality (for they in fact did commit the crime) such that the listener can adjust all the other contextual clues in such a way that supports the conspirator's tale.

As we all know, most criminals fail in their attempts to present a successful conspirators tale. This is why, for the left to survive, its most prominent advocates must be intellectuals. They are the only ones capable of fabricating a sustained, complex effort to suspend reality; while simultaneously assisting the listener of the tale into arranging all the contextual clues that support the tale into a plausible yarn.

"Liberals" as we know of these people today (who are not "liberals" in the classic sense of the word) have their roots in the social revolutionary movements in Europe in the mid-to-late 19th Century. This is the same movement that drew it's inspiration, motivation and techniques from guys like Marx. The Communist Manifesto itself, is the original and most powerful conspirator's tale ever told. [side note: I was a history major in college. When I was a sophomore in college, I was taught the lessons of the Communist Manifesto. By the time I was a senior, I had learned that it was a fruadulent and unintellectual tretise. Had I gone onto graduate school, I was told, I would learn how to ignore it's failings and apply Marx's methodology to understanding history.]

The people who are so-called "liberals" today employ 150 years of the lessons learned that their ancestors in the socialist and communist revolutionary movements gave them. Their cause is rooted in the belief that Man is ultimately in control and that nothing, not even science and scientific "law" can prohibit them from ultimate control of Man's environment. Some liberals even go so far as to reject scientific theories that refute their beliefs by stating, "that science is just what the scientific method has caused us to conclude, but in the future, we'll have something better than the scientific method, and at that time, I will be right." In it's most extreme form, neither God nor other men can control the liberal from his ultimate desire: to control the world around him, to be all powerful, to not have to submit to any authority.

Gosh these guys are full of ego aren't they? Ever wonder why ego always follows the intellectual label? Well I guess it must be if your position is such that all reality is trumped by how you say things must be. Gosh, perhaps this explains why liberals ultimately make great tyrants. Is it clicking now for you, my reader?

Liberals are intellectuals because they must be in order to lie so convincingly in order to obtain popular legitimacy. Liberals are egotists because their theories ultimately trump what we can naturally observe. Liberals are tyrants because the only truth is the one that they themselves have fabricated.

2003-08-17T10:24:00.000-07:00

Why natural monopolies exist in the US

It occurs to me as I'm reading this post that the reason we have so-called "natural monopolies" in the US is due supremely to the state-centric economists of the early 20th Century who believed that monopolies were the only way to achieve stable commodity pricing.

Protecting people from the market was the chief reason monopolies were created; not, as we're so often led to believe, providing temporary safe-haven for capital intensive industries to mature. Furthermore, in perpetrating this fraud of a "natural monopoly" on the American people, our central-planners went so far as to label the concept "natural" as in "good." A heavily regulated monopoly, the theory goes, is removed of it's capitalistic evilness and thereby becomes something that is natural and good. Make no mistake, the love affair with all things "natural" is nothing new to Socialists and other left-leaning types -- just look at the enviromentalist movement, the anti-genetically modified food movement, the "organic" food movement, etc.

But the message to consumers, particularly in the telecommunications industry where natural monopolies existed for 100 years and indeed still exist, the message coming from the monopolistic incumbents is not pricing stability but "we need to be protected so that we can continue to invest in the public good." But by being protected, we know from the incumbents' track record that they will not invest. They will protect the lowest-common denominator because their is no incentive to invest. The technology that makes broadband possible for example has been around much longer than 1996 when the telecom act suddenly lifted the inability for incumbents to make a return on investment. As a result, almost overnight, most of the nation had broadband.

Unfortunately, the 1996 legislation made it nearly impossible for competition to survive since it discouraged competitive investment in new networks by regulating the price of the incumbents' networks below that of the incumbents' cost. Why build when you can buy? So the new competitors decided to buy and in doing so, sealed their own fate because those same regulations that provided an incentive to buy were masked in arcane and bureaucratic rules that favored the incumbents. And now that investment in competitors has slowed again and the incumbents have weathered the storm, guess what the incumbents want? That's right, more protection from competition.

And why does the FCC allow this? Simple, the only reason it exists is to perpetuate the myth of a "natural monopoly" -- a heavily regulated massive entity that provides jobs and stability to consumers. But as we've seen in the last few days with the widespread power outage in the Northest, "natural monopolies" are not good for consumers. Isn't it time we once and for all do away with the unelected quasi-legislators in our government that comprise the last vestiges of the central-planning nightmare that even the former Soviet Union itself has discarded?

2003-06-30T20:11:00.000-07:00

reports of social security's demise are greatly exaggerated...

Whoa...check this out batman: a Berkeley economists forecasts what the Democrats conveniently forget to mention in their doom and gloom predictions: that as America ages, and more people retire, they'll cash out more of their assests which result in a $12 TRILLION windfall in retirement taxes between now and 2040. Whoa! That's like our entire economy or something...

2003-06-29T10:24:00.000-07:00

What Palestine needs now

As Abbas an other Palestinian leaders work with all of the various factions to build unity (there's a novel concept), it occurs to me that what Palestine needs now is a constitutional convention and statehood. No more stages, no more if you do this, we'll do that.

Just recognize their current borders and call 'em a state. Do it proactively. They just wake up one morning and they're a state. Just like that. At that point, they have a few options. They can declare war on Israel and try to get more. Or, they can protect and invest in what they have.

If I were Abbas and had just been handed a new state, I'd start a constitutional convention. Bring in the factions not to decide what to do about Israel, but what to do about Palestine. As long as Israel pledged not to interfere militarily, I wouldn't ask to raise a military. Maybe I'd bring the UN or the US in to help with security. And I'd get about to making laws.

The first thing I'd concentrate on would be preserving property rights of which Palestinian's have none even in their own territory. I'd follow the Japanese model whereby villages determined who owned what and reported their findings to regional councils who represented the people in a legislative assembly. The second thing I'd do would be to establish a currency. And after that, I'd reform the police and the judicial system with a formal codification of law. (gosh, this sounds like a democracy!)

Would Abbas do all of this if he were granted a country tomorrow? I don't know. I'd say it's a 50/50 shot at best. However, one thing I'm sure of, if they had their own state, they would have something to lose which is more than they have today.

2003-06-29T10:11:00.000-07:00

the new blogger sucks. Why did they have to change the interface? There's absolutely no purpose in the redesign. It just looks different. And works differently too. Instead of a resizable publishing window, it's now a tiny fixed entry form. This leads me to believe that the person(s) working on the redesign aren't bloggers themselves. Have they never written a long rant? Obviously not.

This is bad. Bad for me. Bad for Blogger. What stupidity.

2003-06-23T17:56:00.000-07:00

A bad, bad, bad idea

Glen Reynolds writes today that he thinks the Iraq Oil Trust idea is a good idea -- and is glad that it's gaining popularity. So....let's see, we're going to give the newly minted Iraqi government control over the wealth of the people of Iraq? Hrmm, to see how good this idea actually is, why don't you just ask yourself this question: would you trust our own federal government to manage the proceeds of 90% of our own wealth?

I'm assuming you answered no. If you did, then why would you think it would make sense for the fledgling Iraqi government to do the exact same thing for its people? Is it any wonder that proponents of the idea point to Norway, the most socialist country on the planet, as the successful example?

Sigh. Glen, I'm surprised. You should know better.

2003-06-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

Save the Earth: Drive an SUV

Lost in the irrational bleatings of the leftist enviroscare litany of SUV hatred is the small fact that scooters, like the lefty-loved Vespa, are capable of many times more harmful emissions that even the largest and least efficient SUV's. Fans of scooters and motorcycles cite fabulous mileage of 50-70 miles to the gallon. Yet, those same bikes on average pump out 20 TIMES the hydrocarbon emissions of the average light truck and SUV.

In fact, Europe, the lefty panacea of scooters and mass transit, actually has worse smog and air pollution problems than the US, despite smaller vehicles, higher gas taxes and more options for mass transit. And in Asia? Well the EPA chalks up Asia's emissions crisis to none other than the two-wheeled, two stroke leftist-love machine: the scooter:

U.S. sales of Vespas in 2000 amounted to about 4800. The largest scooter markets today are in South Asia and Europe, where millions are sold annually. In Taiwan alone almost 800,000 motorcycles were sold domestically. More than one third of these were powered by 2-stroke engines.

The simple fact is that if environmentalists really cared about the environment, they'd do more to increase the availability of low emissions cars, trucks and SUVs in Europe and Asia. Doing so would mean ending the ludicrously high gas taxes and mass transit policies that make owning a clean burning car or truck too expensive today.

Related Articles:

Improving Urban Air Quality in South Asia by Reducing Emissions from Two-Stroke Engine Vehicles - WorldBank

2003-05-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

More bad news for the NY Times

Instapundit writes that Rick Bragg has been suspended from the NY Times -- prompting him [Instapundit] to state that the cynic in him thinks this is Howell Raines trying to cast doubt on charges of race discrimination by letting a white guy go.

Another reader chimes in, stating,

Howell might be the last one out the door.

Call me crazy, but I'm wondering why Howell wasn't the first one out the door.

2003-05-20T16:50:00.000-07:00

The worst kind of Republican

Megan McArdle has an article on TechCentralStation about New York City's failure to control spending and maintain the tax base. She cites a loss of nearly 25,000 jobs as brand name corporate tenants have fled Manhattan due to rising taxes and an unfavorable regulatory environment. Even before the downturn, Manhattan was teetering on losing these tenants as neighboring states attempted to lure high profile corporations with one-sided deals rich with tax credits.

But there is a way to put New York City back on the path to prosperity: deregulation. One estimate has it that property taxes could increase by as much as $180 Million a year by simply getting rid of rent control. I'm sure there are other similar measures that can be enacted to further reduce the transactional costs of living and working in the city. The ironic thing is that in a deregulated environment, the city coffers become richer and stay richer over a longer period of time. What's not to like?

So why isn't this happening? After all, NYC has a Republican mayor. The reason is simple: there are two types of Republicans: those with a Puritanical control freak personality and those with a logical, pro-business slant. The Republican Party is constantly being hijacked by the former -- and Mayor Bloomberg is the perfect example. Instead of making life easier, he's spending his time chasing down smokers, trying to ban cars, aleinating the 'burbs; and for what? So that he drives everyone with a personality out of the city leaving only those that agree with him? If Bloomberg has but one fight to fight, why isn't he fighting with a true conservative platform to reform government istead of simply making life difficult for everyone?

But Bloomberg isn't the only one. David Horowitz, writes today that certain Republicans are threatening President Bush to stay away from the Human Rights Campaign, a group that promotes legal protection for homosexuals. I read things like this and think to myself, "My God, are we living in the stone age?" What business is it of Republicans to decide the correct sexual orientation of other people? Nevermind that 30% of homosexuals voted for Bush in 2000. In those numbers, I'd almost suggest that the homosexual vote is more valuable than the moral majority vote.

And yet, I read these numbers like 30% and I think to myself, "Why?" Why did we Republicans even deserve their vote? After all, not one single Republican in the House or Senate voted for a single bill in the past Congress that would have been beneficial to homosexuals. It's a wonderful thing that homosexuals are so mature as a group that 30% of them would vote for Bush when nothing has been done for them by the Republican Party.

Same thing with anti-Semitism and racism against Blacks. Why does the Republican Party alienate those who would support it were it not for the Puritan Poltergeist that obscures all that is good about being conservative? This isn't about votes, its about getting the hell out of other people's business and letting them get on with the lives that they've chosen to lead.

It's one thing for everyone to hate us because being conservative means a market-based solution to most problems. If that were the case, I wouldn't be writing this. In an ideal conservative world, if Bloomberg had to lose an election for his ideals, he would go down because he deregulated New York City, not because he turned it into a police state. Let's hope he and others like him have a change in heart and mind before its too late.

2003-05-17T15:13:00.000-07:00

Al Qaeda will exist until the Middle East resoundly accepts reform

US counterterrorism officials are reporting that Al Qaeda appears to have revived -- reestablishing bases and recruiting new members. Will they ever quit? My thought is no, they will not quit until the people of the Middle East embrace reform. Over the past 50 years, reform has taken a back seat to the underlying goal: a unified pan-Arab/Muslim state. Al-Qaeda exists because of the dream of unity amongst Arab Muslims.

What can replace this misguided and destructive dream? Land reform. Mao Tse-tung. Ho Chi Min. Abraham Lincoln. Each defeated their enemies by efficiently increasing the ability to title land. Of course, it wasn't just that. But in each instance of civil war, each leader was able to implement and codify law such that it enabled citizens to claim and protect what is theirs. While Mao and Ho Chi Min implemented a collective land reform system that is obviously different from the private land reform enacted by Lincoln, the effect is the same: their enemies were defeated because the populace had more economic opportunity under the land reform regime.

Would Arabs still seek a pan-Arab state if they could claim and protect the land that is theirs? I once talked to a Saudi national who said that land ownership in Saudi Arabia was an exercise in futility. You could spend years investing and improving your home and lands. Then one day, a prince or someone who had done a favor for a royal would come along and claim it as theirs with no recourse. So the result of this system is that no one works to improve anything. And we wonder why the Saudi per person GDP has declined fourfold in the past ten years.

A pan-Arab state is a dream largely because the current states are completely ineffective protectors of the public trust. Change this -- make the governments of the Middle East protectors of the people and Al-Qaeda will cease to exist. Until then, the world is not safe from terrorism.

2003-05-16T19:48:00.000-07:00

What's next for the Palestinian Authority?

Saeb Ekrat has been the Palestinian's chief peace negotiator since the formation of the Palestinian Authority. Apparently the new prime minister cut him out of one too many negotiations so he handed in his resignation today.

I frankly am not sure what to think about this. On the one hand, Ekrat is a very compelling guy. He is highly educated, not a thug, has many friends on the Israeli side of the table, etc. I also believe he sincerely grieves at the loss of Israeli innocents at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers. On the other hand, I still cannot determine what his exact role was in influencing Yasser Arafat to leave the table at Camp David, nor can I determine whether or not Ekrat has had any influence on Arafat's historical distrust and hatred for all things Likud.

All that being said, I cannot tell you if this is a good thing yet. Generally I'm suspicious of all things Palestinian, but in general I kind of liked Ekrat and the things he had to say. I think the verdict is still out on Abu Mazen, but it seems that he is openly doing battle with Arafat -- perhaps simply for control or perhaps for good...I'm not sure. In any case, I'm hopeful that simply by bringing in new blood in place of Ekrat, we'll at least have a chance at some change in the Palestinian position.

As it stands currently, it is totally untenable. They want 100% right of return to a land that truly is not theirs. And even if it were, it is not the same land, nor is it the same economy, so what rights do they have? I've seen Ehud Barak speak on this issue and I can't imagine there will ever be a compromise.

The problem here is not the PA, but the Hizzbollah, Hamas and Fatah, who have staked their very legitimacy on promises of full rights of return as well as the destruction of Israel itself. In fact, one might say that their terrorist actions are a way of demonstrating their resolve to the Palestinian people that they will make good on those promises.

What I'm hopeful for is an incremental peace whereby Mazen is able to carve out some room to operate so that he may take on the terrorist organizations directly -- something that Arafat, a terrorist himself, could not bring himself to do; either because he was too weak, or more probably, that it was too tempting to keep them around. In any case, once the terrorist organizations are gone, the obstacles to peace, mainly in the form of the right of return, will be significantly reduced.

In this light, the fall of Saddam is very good -- Saddam was a massive supporter of Arafat. Indeed, in addition to the immense monetary support to Arafat, Saddam served as a kindred spirit to Arafat; motivating Arafat to stay the course against Israel even when it became illogical to do so. The remaining forces, mainly Hizbollah and Hamas are Iranian and Syrian supported. My personal opinion is that each of these groups, Hamas most likely first, will experience a severe shortage of monetary, diplomatic and logistical aid from their sponsor countries in the not so distant future.

In the end, where does Saeb fit in? The answer may be that it doesn't matter -- that he was only relevant under Arafat. It is unfortunate because he was on of the few faces in the Palestinian Authority that demonstrated some semblance of hope that the PA wasn't all thugs.

2003-05-16T11:46:00.000-07:00

NBC's odd editorial position

Daniel Pipes will appear on MSNBC tonight to refute charges leveled at him by Lebanese journalist Raghida Dergham on NBC's Today Show that he hates Muslims and Arabs. Yet, from reading the excerpt of the Today Show transcript, one has to wonder if Pipes should be directing his rebutal at Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw for not challenging Dergham's comments.

Excerpt:

DERGHAM: We read recently that President Bush wants to nominate Daniel Pipes for a position in terms—one particular position that is meant to be really for more peaceful resolution, for more debate. Now Daniel Pipes is known clearly for his dislike and hate, actually, for Arabs, for Muslims. By appointing such a person, the president would be sending the wrong message to the region. Just li—let—let this administration take a good look at all the options and what sort of message is going out there. Details, important details.

COURIC: The devil may be in the details. And thank you so much for your perspective. Appreciate it. …

That’s all true, by the way, and when President Bush said last year that Sharon is a man of peace, that ricocheted throughout the entire Middle Eastern area because of the modern forms of communication.

2003-05-14T11:29:00.000-07:00

A Middle East Peace Dividend?

The Washington Post today suggests that America's success in Iraq is translating into goodwill by Arab states who were previously opposed to the war in Iraq. As evidence, they cite an Arab News comment that,

"There is much in U.S. policy to condemn; there are many aspects of Western society that offend — and where necessary, Arab governments condemn. But anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism for their own sake are crude, ignorant and destructive. They create hate. They must end. Otherwise there will be more barbarities."

So are we witnessing a new era of goodwill on the Arab street? I'd like to think so, but the skeptic in me says that the sentiment is only pro-American in that it is anti-Saudi Arabia. The Arab street smells blood now that America has announced that it will leave Saudi Arabia.

2003-05-08T23:30:00.000-07:00

The Ultimate Smart Bomb: American Commerce

From the BBC,

US President George W Bush will on Friday call for a free trade area across the Middle East within a decade, officials said.

2003-05-06T01:13:00.000-07:00

What constitutes a financial crisis?

The House is considering legislation that will allow companies to cut their pension obligations by reducing the age in which they can discontinue benefits? Is this just hyped-up over-reaction on the part of Congress or something real that should be addressed?

I think this is interesting because just last week on "Wall Street Week" I heard Judy Schubb (Director of Pension Policy for the Association for Financial Professionals) say there is no crisis:

Excerpt:

SCHUB: There is no crisis. There certainly are some issues of concern. But pension promises are long-term promises, and they're funded over the long term. The analogy I like to make is, it's how many people could pay off their mortgage tomorrow? Does that mean they're in trouble? Not necessarily. Now there certainly are some industries where pension funding is a big issue.

GIBBS: But there are a lot of companies, in fact we've got some that their pension liability is bigger than the value of the entire company.

SCHUB: And frankly some of those companies, their pension assets are bigger than the (companies' market caps) -- those are very big plans. They have a lot of assets.

You can see a big number. They owe $3 billion or they're "underfunded." And it's a lot a question of how we measure that. But they're underfunded by billions of dollars. And then you ask the next question, and how much assets do they have? They've got $30, $40, $50 billion dollars in assets.

This is certainly a serious issue, but we are facing what somebody said earlier is a perfect storm. We have the lowest interest rates in anyone's memory, and that affects the way in which pension plans measure their underfunding. We have a bear market going on for the third year, which is not a happy thought, and we have a relatively weak economy. Those things have combined to put pension plans in a certain position.

Yet, Wall Street Week's feature story this week is the pension crisis.

What's funny about this "crisis" is that just a few years ago, these pension funds were overfunded and corporations were able to inflate earnings as a result. Now...uh oh...the stock market is down and all of a sudden there's a pension fund crisis. Instead of Congress making a new law that will be irrelevant in when the stock market recovers, shouldn't they just be patient?

2003-05-05T23:21:00.000-07:00

Random reading list update

Want to know how Blockbuster always has the video you want in stock?

Want to know how thermodynamics can help explain economic theories?

Want to know the best way to reconstruct Iraq?

2003-05-04T22:58:00.000-07:00

Electoral Math

If one were to simply examine the backgrounds and interests of each of the Democratic presidential candidates, one might be able to make a simple guess as to the strategy of each candidate. For instance, Carol Mosley Braun, the Christian Science Monitor suggests is only in it to reshape the Black Caucus away from Sharpton. Edwards, one might add, is only in it to threaten the southern vote. Bob Graham is there to counter Edwards. Dean, to counter Kerry. Kerry to counter Lieberman...and Kucinich to counter Cleveland.

Who is countering Gephardt? Lieberman of course. Lieberman and Gephardt are the only two players who can't be identified as a strong special interest front or as a regional player. As such, I think the decision is going to come down to these two, with the rest lining up as Vice Presidential candidates.

It is interesting though. I mean, without Dean acting the agent provocatuer, Kerry might be in the running too. Try is he might to ascend to the national stage, I think the temptation to blast Dean will be too much for Kerry. As a result, he's likely to say something stupid. Begs the question: Is Dean a Lieberman plant? I guess it's not too far out of the realm -- after all Lieberman directly benefitted from Vermont Senator Jim "I want to be with the next president of the United States" Jeffords when Jeffords switched to independent resulting in Lieberman gaining a committee chairmanship. Perhaps there's a Lieberman-Dean-Jeffords cabal at work to bring down Kerry?

Likewise, is Bob Graham a Gephardt agent to counter John Edwards? Edwards might get his neighbors in South Carolina to vote for him, but Graham has a better chance at taking Florida which is much more important. If Gephardt hasn't already reached out to Graham, it's likely that he'll do so while at the same time stringing Edwards along just in case Graham fizzles.

So we have:

- Mosley Braun working against Sharpton to protect Jesse.
- Dean working against Kerry to protect Liberman.
- Graham working against Edwards to protect Gephardt
- Kucinich...who knows what he's doing?

At the end of the day, Liberman gets the traditional "New York Democrat" (ie, the rich liberal), Gephardt gets the south and the middle states (ie, the union liberal). Edwards goes bye-bye unless Graham screws up. Kucinich bails after Iowa. Kerry hangs around to try to work a deal with Lieberman, but Dean beat him to the punch, so Kerry calls it quits. The Mosley Bruan and Sharpton side show will pull a disappearing act not long after Kucinich. That leaves Lieberman/Dean and Gephardt/Graham as the two most likely possibilities for the Democratic convention.

I personally think Gephardt/Graham will come out the winner and will run a race very similar to the Dole/Kemp race. Bush will win handily and probably will take Florida again much to the chagrin of the Democrats.

2003-05-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

"...and the best part about it is, if they catch us, we can get a tax refund..."

Enron, HealthSouth, MCI and Qwest are "seeking to recoup federal taxes they overpaid based on profits they inflated, a Senate aide confirmed Friday," MSNBC reports.

At least the investors of HealthSouth are smart -- they've filed a lawsuit claiming any proceeds from the IRS should go directly in their pockets. No word if the executives of HealthSouth are on the list of claimants.

2003-05-01T13:40:00.000-07:00

What is the price of an MP3?

David Pogue writes in his NY Times column today about the new Apple iTunes service. On first glance, a $1 a song sounded good to him. However, upon further investigation, he found that "Eminem's 'Paul (Skit),' running time 10 seconds, costs 99 cents — and so does the 1970's progressive-rock epic 'Close To The Edge,' which is over 18 minutes long!"

Furthermore, the price of an MP3 on iTunes had nothing to do with its popularity. Even at 10 seconds, I'm sure Eminem's 10 second skit is probably more popular than "Close to the Edge." Pogue agrees, writing, "Furthermore, what ever happened to supply and demand? Shouldn't the hottest, most desirable music command the highest prices, and forgotten oldies be listed in a digital bargain bin? After all, nobody minds paying more for new movies at Blockbuster, and less for classics from yesteryear."

Indeed, what ever happened to supply and demand?

2003-05-01T12:23:00.000-07:00

Kerry employs Clinton tactics

When the truth isn't good enough, lie. That's the first rule of Clintonian politics and it appears that John Kerry is a disciple. Recently, he's been touting that his first speech on the US Senate floor was on the topic of Roe V. Wade. It was not. Rather, his first speech was on the topic of the MX missile and Kerry's opposition to Reagan's plan to build 21 of them. Kerry claims he was mislead by a former staffer.

I have a question. Just as many other important firsts in life, wouldn't one remember the time, place and topic of one's first speech on the floor of the US Senate?

But that's besides the point, the irony here, of course, is that virtually the only campaign point that Democrats have been able to make against George W. that will scare moderate Democrats is this: left to his own devices, W will eventually turn Moral Majority on the country and by his own fiat strike down Roe V. Wade. It's a completely irrational fear -- made so by the fact that a 7 to 9 majority of Supreme Court justices are conservative Republican nominees already. If they wanted it gone, it'd be gone already.

Nonetheless, in this day and age, what with the success in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the emphasis on Homeland Security, saying that your first speech indirectly opposed Homeland Defense by opposing the construction of the MX missile doesn't carry a whole lot of popular sentiment. On the other hand, saying that your first speech was against Roe V. Wade engenders alleigience by the voters who most count: the suburban moderate two-income household who strangely will probably never need an abortion but so staunchly and irrationally rank the importance of having one right up there with the ability to breathe.

2003-04-30T15:30:00.000-07:00

Ari the wall.

Proof that Ari Fleischer is the master of press communications. Try as they might, they [the press] just can't get anything past him. He's like the Patrick Roy of the White House. He is a wall. He is the man.

From today's White House press briefing:

fair or not, there has been somewhat of a perception up until this point that the President wasn't really committed to this.

the biggest holdup was the fact that Yasser Arafat was still in charge

But make no mistake, the fact that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power does remove one source of instability that paid for suicide homicide bombers to cross into Israel and take innocent lives.

Go Ari! Go Ari! Go! Go!

2003-04-29T16:46:00.000-07:00

Stock options and the tech worker

Kenneth Schroeder, writing for Investor's Business Daily, argues that if companies are required to expense stock options, then fewer options will be issued to the common tech worker. He writes,

stock options are vital to attract and retain a talented and motivated work force

stock options in high technology extend deep within a company's organization

it's not unusual for all employees within a high-tech company to receive some form of options

To bolster his argument that fewer workers will receive options as a result of including the expense on a company's income statement, Schroeder makes the following claims,

1. Rather than clarifying the bottom line, expensing options could actually distort it.

2. Stock options are already accounted for in the earnings per share numbers.

3. By forcing them to also be expensed on the bottom line, companies that today are posting solid, bankable profits could suddenly look as though they are losing money.

Schroeder suggests that expensing options will lead to a flight of business overseas and concludes that, "whether you are a shareholder, a board member or part of the executive staff, that just doesn't make sense."

Wait a minute. According to Donald Luskin and Reuven Brenner, "The inescapable fact is that when an option is exercised, the company issues stock at a below-market price. That's an expense, as surely as if the company had issued stock at the full market price and turned around and paid the difference to the option-holder in cash."

As I see things, commentators like Schroeder believe that companies should give their workers handouts and not be charged for the expense in doing so. What he and others like him fail to realize is that this position creates Marxists out of employees not Capitalists. And therein lies the real question: why should companies redistribute equity to employees at a lower cost than they would otherwise sell the stock to an investor on the open market?

The answer is that companies shouldn't be in the business of granting options in the first place. Depending on the method used to estimate the cost, a company could impact earnings anywhere from a 10% negative impact to more than 100%. With such wide variability in predicting future outcomes, the answer to this problem is not to ignore the expense, as Schroeder would suggest. Instead, options should be bought and sold in a marketplace where the price of an option is set by the market, not granted by fiat in support of corporate policies designed to match employee performance with company performance (which are based on the false assumption that employees will act like owners if they are given equity).

Options are a liability to the shareholder. If companies are to report expenses related to options, they should balance future costs against owner's equity as a long term liability, with cash expenses related to options appearing on the income statement in the period in which they occur. Since employees could also be shareholders, why would they want anything different?

Schroeder's position is a fairness argument: ie, if expensing options results in only executives receiving options, then options shouldn't be expensed. This is nonsense. It is time for shareholders to demand that employees pay the same amount for ownership and take the same amount of risk as shareholders did to obtain equity. In a capitalist marketplace, the true test of fairness occurs when shareholders are treated as equally as workers.

2003-04-29T15:30:00.000-07:00

Regime change in Saudi Arabia?

Word comes today that the US is officially withdrawing from Saudi Arabia. In an interview with Time Magazine, Time's Middle East bureau chief Scott MacLeod remarks that,

concerned about the message this sends about the strength of their regime.

I tend to agree that this move is not altogether good for the Saudis. In fact, it reminds me of what happened when Israel left Lebanon: Arafat declared victory. Only a lunatic would agree that Arafat had defeated Israel, but his declaration emboldened a renewed terrorist effort on the part of the Palestinians. I think that this move will likewise embolden the enemies of the Saudi regime.

Osama bin Laden may be reduced operationly, but if there is any spin left in his machine, he'll no doubt declare the American withdrawl as a retreat of the infidels who were defeated by his forces. The question then remains, what new twist in the War on Terror will be the result? Will Osama turn his rhetoric against the Saudi regime resulting in a toppling of the current government? Or will he stay focused on attacking US interests?

The Saudi's are promising reform as a result of the American move. This sounds to me like Tsar Nicholas's ill-timed reforms that allowed a weak constitutional monarchy to be uprooted by Lenin. In other words, reforms were "too little, and too late" to stop regime change. Sensing this, our move may be calculated to allow this process to unwind.

Whatever our motivations, I'm glad we're out of Saudi Arabia. In hindsight, It only took a year and a half to reconcile our relationship with the country that gave us Osama and so many of the 9/11 hijackers. Interestingly enough, while the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan fell to an American presence, it will be the lack of our military might that ultimately leads to the downfall of the Saudi regime. It is fitting then, that for a relationship that was once honorable yet filled with many contradictions, that we leave the fate of the Saudi government to the inevitable.

2003-04-28T11:52:00.000-07:00

Bye, bye 2004

Perhaps Bush's undoing in 2004 will not be of his own making, but the bizarre self-destructive comments by members of his party. First there was Lott. Then there was Santorum. Now there's Orin Hatch, who most recently said, "I'm not here to justify polygamy. All I can say is, I know people in Hildale who are polygamists who are very fine people. You come and show me of evidence of children being abused there and I'll get involved."

2003-04-26T22:50:00.000-07:00

France Briefed Iraq on US War Plans

According to the Sunday Times,

"FRANCE gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with US officials..[based on files] found in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry."

2003-04-26T22:45:00.000-07:00

Proof: Al-Qaeda and Iraq worked together

The Telegraph is reporting on a document found in the rubble of Baghdad that is the first sign of the secret relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq,

"The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad."

2003-04-25T23:01:00.000-07:00

Ahh, the old days...

Do your fingers still involuntarily type "sync" at the command line, regardless of whether or not its a unix command line? If so then go check out this book:

(From Boing, Boing), the Unix Haters Handbook.

2003-04-25T21:10:00.000-07:00

Here's at least two pilots who are apparently comfortable with airline security...that is until they got caught.

USA Today reports that "Southwest Airlines has fired two pilots for allegedly turning their cockpit into a clothing-optional playpen...The pilot and co-pilot — both men — were dismissed for allegedly taking off all or most of their clothes in the cockpit of their aircraft."

The story prompted a writer at the Motley Fool to make this comment: "The pilots are appealing their termination, claiming they removed their clothing after spilling coffee on themselves...Sounds legit to us. In fact, after someone spilled coffee in the Fool HQ kitchen, our entire editorial staff worked without pants today."

Of course, I can only imagine how badly the dinner party discussions will go for these guys. Or the discussion with mom? the wife? the kids? ewww...so painful. How does one explain away flying in the nude? I mean seriously, what if terrorists had tried to hijack the plane?

2003-04-25T20:48:00.000-07:00

Tom Brokaw interviews George W. Bush

In reaction to Tom Brokaw's question on the role religion plays in President Bush's decision-making, he had this to say:

I don’t bring God into my life to be a political person; I ask God for strength and guidance

Pretty impressive stuff -- as is the rest of the interview (which you can read here).

2003-04-25T20:18:00.000-07:00

Ahh, the irony

A lot has been made of the similarities of the anti-war protestors of today to the anti-nuclear protestors of the Eighties. Has anyone pointed out the irony that the same people who opposed the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Eighties are the same people who favor proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction today?

Just an observeration....

2003-04-25T20:14:00.000-07:00

Long Time Gone

I haven't written for the past few days because I've been traveling. Here's my take on the most recent issues:

Tariq Aziz

He ain't no dummie. He knows that the more Iraqi officials that are captured, the less chance he's going to have to cut a deal. Designating him the eight of spades was a stroke of genius since it communicated pretty clearly that since he didn't rank very high his ability to leverage a deal was also diminished. I personally think he knows a lot about the last days, the whereabouts of Saddam, and WMD. Let's hope he's tuned up his vocal chords.

George Galloway

The funny thing about George Galloway is that none of his behavior is new. He's flown PLO flags over government buildings for 20 years now. He's married to Arafat's neice. He's made numerous trips to Iraq to visit Saddam. And now the money. The lesson to be learned here is that people are usually what they seem to be. You don't get to hobknob with Saddam and then deny that you're sympathetic to terrorism and tyranny. British voters should have been smarter.

Shiites in Iraq

A lot of hay has been made about this supposed uprising in Karbala (note to idiot reporters, it's pronounced "Car-BAH-la" not "Kerr-be-ler"). Several commentators have suggested that because Shiites make up the majority population in Iraq and they've seen signs saying "Down with Bush" and "Up with Islam" that Iraq will be the next Islamic state.

Ok first of all, the "uprisings" were a religious pilgrimage that hasn't happened in 30 years. Were these people a little over the top? Wouldn't you be if you got to exercise your religious rights for the first time in 30 years? Hey, as far as I'm concerned these guys were as much on a bender as they were protesting America.

Secondly, you see all those signs with black backgrounds and white scroll text letters? Those aren't signs you just fabricate days after the bombing starts. These are premade flags that you import from Iran via the SCIRI (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq). These guys are basically Iranian and despite their self-flagelation, they're eternal optimists that Iraqis want Iran's brand of tyranny and communism. Far from it.

But what are you going to do if you're a moderate Iraqi Shiite? Kick 'em out of Karbala? No. After all, Iraq is now a free place with free people and freedom of expression, so even the crazies get a say. The point is, give the process time. Democracy will happen. Revolutionary Islam or whatever you want to call it won't have the legs to stand in a national election.

The real litmus test is to look at the number of parties who are already setting up political campaign headquarters around Iraq in anticipation of elections. As far as I'm concerned this should have been the real headline of the week, not the media fabricated Shiite Islamic Revolution.

2003-04-22T05:31:00.000-07:00

MSNBC implements Sharia Law

Not to be outdone by its bizarre editorial position -- in which editors at MSNBC are seemingly hopeful that Iraq will convert to Sharia Law -- management at MSNBC have reportedly taken steps to implement Sharia Law itself. According to senior management at the network, "we took this step to show solidarity with our Revolutionary Islamic brothers in Iraq; to give them encouragement in their struggle to oust all Democratic reform." Officials at MSNBC refused comment, but one staffer said that he was looking forward to a certain female anchor getting "beat down" by a mob for not covering her head. Other reports say that the decision has provoked intense discussions amongst management as they try to determine if their mere existence is itself a violation of the new Sharia rule.

In other news, Phil Donahue is reported to be joining a cabal of anchors including Connie Chung and Peter Arnett to start their own rival network which will focus primarily on feature stories and interviews with non-democratic opposition forces in the region. Eason Jordan is reportedly considering the CEO position. Outsiders have suggested that a French network of businessmen and politicians will be funding the new network; currently dubbed SSMN or Screaming Surrender Monkey News.

2003-04-20T00:43:00.000-07:00

Clifford May: "Five things grown-ups should no longer believe in: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Tinker Bell, the United Nations and the international community."

I know I'm late to the game writing about France and Russia's blackmail attempt to continue the sanctions against Iraq until the US returns to the Security Council. But what strikes me as odd is their willingness to flat-out admit through their actions that they really don't care about the Iraqi people. Sanctions certainly won't hurt the US. So exactly how will continued sanctions punish anyone except the Iraqis?

Related Articles:

United Nations a potential casualty of latest war - Miami Herald

2003-04-18T18:19:00.000-07:00

Too bad for him that he doesn't own a white Ford Bronco

The UPI reports that police have issued an arrest warrant for Scott Peterson for the deaths of his wife and child.

2003-04-18T12:21:00.000-07:00

Piestewa Peak

Arizona officially renamed its Squaw Peak to Piestewa Peak today in honor of Lori Piestewa, the first female American Indian soldier to be killed in combat. I think this is a great thing. It's about time we honored Native Americans who serve their country. Indeed, given their enormous contributions, one has to wonder why it took this long to find a suitable replacement for the offensive Squaw Peak naming in the first place. Didn't anyone think of perhaps Ira Hayes? Nonetheless, I think Piestewa Peak is a honorable way to remember a solider and a mother of two.

2003-04-17T16:03:00.000-07:00

Is Bush about to be ambushed on gun control?

Instapundit reports that gun advocates are getting heated about a recent suggestion by the Bush Administration that the President may extend the Clnton ban on assault rifles.

At the same time, The Wall Street Journal writes, "In a federal courtroom in Brooklyn, the NAACP is arguing that Glock, Smith & Wesson and several dozen other gun makers are to blame for urban violence. Poor schools, broken homes and drugs apparently get a pass from the civil rights group."

Gee, sounds to me like Bush may be angering one group while emboldening another. Of course, the way to solve this problem is simple: extend the assault rifle ban while pushing for tort reform. It's just as stupid to allow anyone to hold public companies hostage for the acts of others as it is to allow bullet sprayers in the streets.

2003-04-16T15:01:00.000-07:00

Finally something I can confirm on the Rave Act

A reader emails today with links to the Conference Report in question as well as related discussion in the April 11th Congressional Record

Here's what apparently was voted on last Thursday (but still has, of this writing, not been published as the final record of the bill):

Sec. 608. Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act:

Section 608 of the conference report is a new section that is related to the purpose of this Act. This section, known as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, helps to protect children by amending the Controlled Substances Act to expand the `crack house' statute.

This expansion makes it clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property, or allows another person to use their property, for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs will be held accountable. This section raise the penalties for people who traffic in a substance often marketed to children at clubs; and authorizing funds for drug prevention activities. It also creates a civil penalty for violating 21 U.S.C. Sec. 856.

In addition, the language directs the Sentencing Commission to consider increasing the sentencing guidelines for offenses involving gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), a Schedule I substance often used to facilitate sexual assault. Under current law, an offender would have to have 13 gallons (equivalent to 100,000 doses) of GHB to qualify for a five year penalty. Because large-scale GHB dealers generally distribute gallon quantities of the drug, they generally are not prosecuted at the federal level because the penalties are too low. In order to prevent the abuse of club drugs and other illicit substances, the bill also authorizes $5.9 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state and authorizes such sums as may be necessary for the Drug Enforcement Administration to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about the dangers associated with club drugs.

Now that I can finally read what was included, I have to say I'm not as angry about this bill as Glenn Reynolds is. Yes, I can see where this could be used to target organizers of Raves -- but lets face it, who is going to these things who is not using drugs?

Furthermore, how many times have I seen a meth lab raid on the local news where they find at least one kid if not a baby in the house? After all, isn't the Protect Act about protecting kids? Sounds to me like its a pretty good idea to do something for the unfortunate kids whose parents endanger their lives by turning their house into a Superfund site.

Oh, but god forbid that might stop some asshole from excercising his "right" to get fucked up. As far as I'm concerned, we shoud let the Act stand. Let the Supreme Court sort out the offenders from the innocent. At least now it'll be the drug-making parents who get thrown out with the bath water, not the babies.

2003-04-16T00:23:00.000-07:00

2003-04-15T23:45:00.000-07:00

Taxation

From Jay Solo, I found an interesting peice by Business Pundit on taxation. In short, he endorses an idea by Rachel Lucas, who suggests that we should be granted more choice in how our actual tax dollars are used. Similar to how we can designate a certain amount to public campaign financing (which I typically don't do because the money traditionally falls into the hands of Democrats), Lucas suggests that we should be able to tick off a certain amount towards bounties for Research and Development (as an example).

He writes, "Directing funds in this way - to motivate a breakthrough - would work much better than the trickle-down bureaucracy we now have in research. The point is, you get what you reward for. Checking off boxes on a fuzzy tax form can reward research breakthroughs."

This is an interesting point and clearly one that is seductive. Nonetheless, I can't say I support it. For starters, I'm still being taxed the same amount that I was before. Who is to say that I wouldn't contribute $3 or $4 to scientific research in the private sector if I didn't have to spend it on taxes? In fact, whose to say I wouldn't spend 1000X or even 10,000X that amount each year on critical R&D in the form of investing in the stock of the companies doing the research?

It's fun to think about how we could solve all of our problems with creative taxation. But for me, the best tax policy is one that puts more dollars in the hands of those with real risk and responsibility: we, the people.

Think about that next April 15th.

2003-04-15T23:24:00.000-07:00

Rave Act Revisited

A few days ago I questioned an assertion by Glenn Reynolds who stated that the so-called Rave Act had passed Congress last Thursday. The politics of the issue aside, I simply questioned whether or not this had actually happened (primarily because I couldn't find any language in the bill to support the assertion). After painfully exhaustive readings of the Congressional Record, the latest version of the bill and the Senate's Conference Report, I still cannot say beyond a doubt that the pubic record reflects Reynold's assertion.

A call to Senator Biden's office resulted in a brief conversation in which his secretary affirmed the measure did pass last Thursday. So here's my questions:

1. Why can not anything be found whatsoever on the Congress.gov website regarding the passing of the measure?
2. Why hasn't the mainstream press covered the story?

This is simply bizzare in my book. I have Glenn saying it happened. I have the people he has linked to saying it happened (although they all seem to quote a single source: the Drug Policy Alliance. I have Biden saying it happened. Senator Leahy warns against the wisdom of it but doesn't say it passed. The Judiciary committee press release doesn't mention it at all.

So what happened? Are we witnessing some arcane procedure? Did something fall through the cracks? Why can't I verify any of this officially?

Perhaps I've just come to expect too much from our online government resources....who knows?

I could care less about the content of the bill. I just want to find it. If anyone has a clue as to what I'm missing, definitely email me. I'm interested for no other reason than the fact that it's a pet peeve of mine when sources are not sufficiently documented. When I can't fact check, I go nuts.

2003-04-13T15:55:00.000-07:00

A Preemption Dividend?

The Straights-Times is reporting today that North Korea and Iran are considering changing their foreign policy positions with respect to their relationships with the United States.

A spokesman for North Korea said, "'If the US is ready to make a bold switch-over in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, the DPRK will not stick to any particular dialogue format." Meanwhile, "[Former Iranian President] Mr Rafsanjani was quoted by the official Islamic Republic News Agency as saying that the question of restoring ties with the US could be resolved through a referendum or by sending the question to the powerful advisory body he heads...the mention of a referendum represents a marked shift by Mr Rafsanjani, who has openly sided with hardliners since stepping down as president in 1997."

Clearly, we're not out of the woods yet, but whodathunkit? George W. Bush, that's who. Thank God that Florida voters did the right thing in 2000.

2003-04-13T15:17:00.000-07:00

Does Instapundit Fact-Check?

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds stated as fact that the "wretched RAVE act" passed and emphatically wrote, "As I've said repeatedly, the legislation is a disgrace, and everyone associated with it should apologize and resign in disgrace." (Glenn also links to this brief article on reason.com)

Oh really? Did this act pass? After about ten minutes of fact checking, I couldn't find anything to support Glenn, save for a handful of links that quote the same source: The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). For those of you who don't know, the DPA is a group that believes that rampant drug use should be right up there with freedom of speech. But let's stay away from the politics of the issue for a second: my beef is that I think the DPA is smoking something riteous with its claim that the Rave Act actually passed. Are they just in need of a late night munchies run to curb their rampant paranoia or did this thing somehow pass?

Back to the politics for a second: According to the DPA, what the "Rave Act" does is hold venue owners liable for the bad habits of its patrons. If customers do a line of coke in the bathroom of a bar, the bar owner goes to jail. Pretty nasty stuff. Clearly no one is going to support a law like this -- it's ludicrous on general principle. But even more sinister, says the DPA, is that Joe Biden wasn't satisfied with merely writing a bill that wouldn't pass, so he alledgedly stuffed the language of the bill into Senate Bill 151, aka the Amber Alert Act, which passed House and Senate this past Thursday. Or did he?

One thing is for sure, Senate bill 151 passed and was sent to the President to sign. But did it have Biden's Rave Act embedded in the text?

One of the sites that Reynolds links to is Reason Online. They in turn quote the Drug Reform Coordination Network (which in turn links to the DPA). Additionally, Reason Online provides a presumed link to text of the bill. But is it? No. Its a dead link. (Here is the link they provided: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c1086jLiTy::) -- Obviously if you click on it, you go into la-la land. It took me two seconds to type "S.151" on the Congress's web page -- why didn't they use that link?

The next link that Glenn provides is to Blogcritics.org, self described as a "sinister cabal of superior bloggers," one of which at least apparently can't tie his shoes much less get the facts straight. "Superior" -- heh -- what dumbasses. So anyway, these guys introduce the issue by writing, "Late on Thursday (April 10, 2003) the Senate and House passed the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (formerly known as the RAVE Act) as an attachment to the child abduction-related Amber Alert Bill...they [the DPA] are very concerned, you should be too." And then the writer simply goes on to quote verbatim the text straight off of the DPA's website -- and then encourages readers to send an email to John Ashcroft (why not send an email to the President, he's the one who has to sign the bill, not Ashcroft).

So far, by linking to two bogus accounts of the bill and its contents, Glenn is swinging hard on an 0 and 2 count -- and he hasn't even gone to check the bill himself (how hard is this to do?). Fortunately for Glenn, he doesn't include a third link. Why? Perhaps because that's all the story there is. That's it.

Ok, so in fairness, I went to news.google.com and did a search on this so-called, "Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act." I found two results: the first is from IndyMedia and is an verbatim quote of the DPA's statement found on their website (and blogcritics.org) which is attributed to one "another enemy combatant" (okay, there's a legitimate news source). The second article is by the Miami Herald in which they write of a huge rave organized by (guess who) the DPA in Miami to drive awareness of these evil legislators.

So what about this bill? What does S.151 actually say?

Well here is the real link. Here's what I find fascinating: the word "drug" appears only once in the entire document and in context there is no way shape or form the statement in which the word is used could be interpreted as holding venue owners liable for the actions of their drug-using customers. The word "rave" isn't even in the document.

So far all I can determine is that the DPA is smoking way too much weed and apparently is determined to drum up party-goers to its raves by fabricating constitutional emergencies. Glenn also wrote that he took the day off...apparently so.

2003-04-11T08:18:00.000-07:00

CNN should not get a free pass for its record in Iraq

UPDATE: Proof that this issue transcends the politics of left and right, even the boys and girls over at the Democratic Underground are appalled.

On today's editorial page of the New York Times is this horrifying admission: CNN knew of many crimes against humanity in Iraq and made a decision not to report it so they could preserve their relationship with Saddam Huessein and continue to get the scoop.

Excerpts:

CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again...Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan.

One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein.

An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences."

CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil...The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

One might be fooled into reading this essay in the New York Times as a heinous account of Saddam's evil ways. I read it differently: I see a news organization so wrapped up in getting the exclusive that it bottles up the truth for 12 years. As far as I'm concerned this Eason Jordan and his employer played God in their version of the "free press." They are dishonest and immoral and I'll never patronize any of CNN's stations again. Completely disgusting -- And even more so that he thinks he's the victim and the New York Times apparently agrees with him.

Eason, CNN's chief news executive, writes that these stories haunt him and they should. What infuriates me is CNN's twisted view of morality. They had a moral obligation not to bury the news but to report it. If they weren't willing to report the news because lives were in danger, they should have left Iraq in protest. They claimed to be protecting lives, but their failure to report doesn't seem to have protected anyone. Simply disgusting.

2003-04-10T12:10:00.000-07:00

What is an odious debt?

Asymmetric Information writes today that "there is a problem with the [Odious Debts] doctrine, which is that there is currently no body or set of criteria charged with deciding whether debts are odious." This is a similar sentiment to the one expressed by Lynne Kiesling recently (my reaction here).

Like a bankruptcy restructuring, the new Iraqi government needs to lay out the business case for how it will be profitable once it emerges from restructuring. For me, the path to a definition is simple: Iraq and its liberating allies should decide what is odious based on whether or not the new Iraqi government will use what was purchased under existing debt. In this case, how will it use the existing infrastructure that was purchased by the existing debt. If what was purchased with debt is either no longer has a usable life or will not be used by the new Iraqi government, it is odious.

As a safeguard, Iraq's liberating allies have a stake in what is odious as well. Military expenditures and WMD especially are odious on general principal. Barring special expections, it is for the Iraqis to determine what they need from the previous regime. If they decide they need use of a palace as a parlimentary building, they should be willing to pay the debt owed on the construction of that building.

In short, once the new government has determined what it needs -- the remaining debt associated with the needs should be restructured and the debt it doesn't need should be eliminated.

2003-04-10T11:25:00.000-07:00

The end of Pan-Arab Nationalism?

Sometimes all it takes to achieve clarity of an issue is a simple thing. Yesterday, that moment of clarity arrived for me on why Arabs are simultaneously against Saddam and against America. As I was listening to an NPR interview with Craig Nelson in Baghdad, I heard Nelson say the most interesting thing: that is [reflecting on the demise of Saddam's regime], the moment of the day came for him when he saw a man sitting outside the Palestinian Hotel who was sitting and crying. Nelson asked him what was wrong and the Iraqi man said, "[He was sad that] it had to come to this...that he was embarrased and sad...that a western power had to intervene."

Such a simple statement, and yet it is at the heart of what is wrong in the Arab world today. In a sense, the man was communicating a loss of the ideal of Arab unity. Put simply, western-influenced democracy means the end of Iraq's participation in the Pan-Arab Nationalist movement. Pan-Arabism has been at once a seductive ideal and a deconstructive evil. It has been an eluvsive and counterproductive goal that has seen many forms from Nassar's Arab Leaque to the Revolutionary Islamic state in Iran. In fact, Saddam's Ba'athist philosophy once had been seen as the grand unifer of an arab-majority middle eastern state -- a replacement for the previously failed visions to unify Arabs.

We often downplay the similarities between pan-Arab nationalism, Ba'athism (Iraqism) and Militant Islamism, but according to Paul Berman, political and cultural critic and author of "A Tale of Two Utopias: The Political Journey of the Generation of 1968", the movements are aligned by visions of a similar ends (albiet with dramatically different means):

"My argument is that Islamism and a certain kind of pan-Arabism in the Arab and Muslim worlds are really further branches of the same impulse...[from the point of view of the Islamicits], Islam is the victim of this conspiracy, which is also aided by false or hypocritical Muslims, who pretend to be Muslims but are actually the friends of Islam's enemies. From an Islamist point of view, then, the most heinous conspiracy of all is the one led by the Muslim hypocrites to annihilate Islam from within. These people are, above all, the Muslim liberals who want to establish a liberal society, which means separation of church and state."

Berman's comments highlight how Islamism differs in its view of the conspriracy but Pan-Arabism is no less constrained by its own suspicion of hypocrisy and betrayal. In fact, only a few days ago, the Pacific News Service published this account of Arab reaction to the question of whether or not America's presence in Iraq would reinvigorate Arab nationalism:

"Yet what do all these Arab countries have in common? Their governments are allies of the United States and actively participate in war against Iraq....Hypocrisy is not new in Arab politics....In the same week that the war on Iraq began, it was announced that the Bush administration planned to provide Egypt with $2.3 billion in aid to help it weather the economic shock of the war. A similar pattern was visible in Jordan. King Abdullah responded to mounting domestic pressure by calling the U.S.-led war on Iraq an "invasion" and describing Iraqi civilians killed in the war as "martyrs." But when Jordan became the first Arab government to expel Iraqi diplomats, Washington responded the same day by rescheduling $177 million of Jordan's debt to the United States."

Getting back to the crying Iraqi man at the Palestinian Hotel -- what is happening throughout the Middle East is a rise in the sentiment that western-injected hypocrisy is here to stay and that Pan-Arabism without a Ba'athist Iraqi regime cannot be achieved despite the hopes of certain individuals in denial. In a sense, this dream is what has kept a tyranny in place and an entire population complacent for so many years -- Saddam was the means to achieving regional Arab unity. But just as Iraqis have flogged themselves under the torturous hand of Saddam for generations for a dream that failed to materialize, Arabs all over the region have similarly subjected themselves to tyranny.

It is for this reason that Militant Islam exists -- itself a rejection of the means of Pan-Arabism but not the end: Militant Islamicists reject the notion that a people must suffer under the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East but embrace the ideal of Arab unity as a subset of Muslim unity.

Democracy in Iraq is seen as a repudiation of the ideal of Arab unity. And for the crying Iraqi man, it is a realization that the end of this ideal has come about as a result of Western action that has him depressed. He knows that the dream will never be realized, but it is embarrasing to have the carpet yanked from under him. And yet, the carpet had to be pulled -- the myth, the desire, the illusory ideal of Pan-Arabism whether as a nationalist or religious movement has been the single most destructive force in the Middle East over the past century.

After the Persian Gulf War, similar depressed emotions existed throughout the Middle East and ultimately gave rise to the stateless, Militant Islamic-dominated terrorist vision of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. It is but their mere existence that has given power to religious forces within Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq to become more fundamental: Saddam built masive mosques and added Islamic phrases to many state symbols including the Iraqi national flag. Saudi Arabia embraced stricter interpretations of Sharia Law. Weak regimes throughout Africa such as Nigeria and Sudan embraced Sharia Law.

The question amongst Arabs after the Persian Gulf War, Marten Kramer writes in 1993 was:

"Are we Arabs one big lie?" This line ends a poem of anguish written in the midst of the latest Gulf crisis by Nizar Qabbani, the most widely read contemporary Arab poet and critic. Too much had gone wrong to sustain exclamation points of awakening and defiance; they were replaced by a question mark of doubt. Once half of Europe and a Superpower had admitted to living a lie for most of this century, the Arabs could not suppress their own doubt any longer. Their god had also failed, spectacularly so. It had been called Arabism, or Arab nationalism, or pan-Arabism, and by the time Qabbani posed his question, it had been in full retreat for a generation...At present, many Arabs have suspended their belief in the Arab nation, and now openly doubt whether there is a collective Arab mission. Those recently swept up by Islamic activism prefer to think of themselves first and foremost as Muslims, and do so without apology. At times, their lexicon has turned "the Arabs" into a derogatory label, implying wastefulness, incompetence, and subservience. Other Arabs plainly prefer to be known as Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Moroccans — citizens of over twenty independent states, each with its own flag and own interests.

The answer to the question was clearly, if we are not Arabs, then we must be Muslims. Yet, for Hilal Khashan, unity, whether it is a Muslim or Arab unity is misguided and non-productive,

"Today, the Arabs face the arduous task of having to reconcile themselves to the loss of a unitary Islamic state. They must accept and learn the new rules of international relations, and reform their societies accordingly. This is part of the ebb and flow of historical cycles. After all, in medieval times, Arabs and Muslims played a major role in Eurasian politics and excelled in culture and civilization; a grudging Europe, duly recognizing its inferiority, altered its value system and broadened its cultural and civilizational horizons. European self-examination, growing out of an awareness of its weaknesses, led to the breakthroughs that made the West the political, civilizational, and economic hub of the world."

As we move forward in Iraq, we must realize that there will be many moments of depression, sadness and anger as the Iraqi people realize that they are forever being torn from the dream of a united Middle East. We must realize that we are suspect for no other reason than the notion that the failure of Pan-Arab Nationalism is the fault of conspiracy and hypocrisy rather than tyranny. Therefore, let us give the Iraqi's space and time to realize their destiny is not with other Arabs but within Iraq itself. At the same time, America should quietly, but forcefully drive the process of helping the Iraqis rebuild. This is precisely why an appeasing UN should not be the driving force in rebuilding Iraq -- it will simply grease the squeaky wheel of Arab unity.

I believe that democracy in Iraq can be a tremendously positive force in the region. Pan-Arab nationalism has failed to unify. Militant Islamicism has failed to unify. Terrorist Anti-Americanism has failed to unify. By turning within, Iraqis can now focus not on another failure of unification but on what is achievable -- a successful, democratic Iraq -- and hopefully be a guiding force for the rest of the Arab world to also seek for themselves from within.

2003-04-09T08:25:00.000-07:00

Liberation

2003-04-08T11:47:00.000-07:00

"...and he's got the most amazing gallery of black-and-whites that I've ever seen"

California governer Grey Davis appointed Mike Dayton, former Condit-adisor to a new role as a special advisor to the California Department of Homeland Security Director, George Vinson. The Sacremento Bee writes, "You may remember him as the congressional aide who drove his boss to a trash can in Virginia in 2001 to toss out a watch case as police investigated the disappearance of former intern Chandra Levy, with whom the married California congressman had reportedly been involved."

Also according to the Bee, a spokesman for the governer said the appointment was because, ""He [Dayton] knows how to get money, and that's what we need."

Related Articles:

The Buzz: Governor finds a role for ex-Condit staffer - Sacremento Bee

2003-04-07T15:59:00.000-07:00

More on Odious Debts

Lynne Kiesling reacts today to the Harvard analysis entitled "Odious Debts" written by Michael Kremer and Seema Jayachandran which suggests that the citizens of a country ruled by a tyrant shouldn't be accountable for the debts of a tyrant. As I wrote here and here earlier: the way to handle Baghdad's debts is twofold: First set up a governing structure similar to how one would manage a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (judiciary, advocates, creditors, other stakeholders, etc). Secondly, realize up front that dictators can't write checks. Period.

Lynne takes a more cautious approach, suggesting that "the effect on capital markets and on incentives/moral hazard/adverse selection types of issues is something we should definitely analyze carefully." As I mentioned earlier (see above link), Frederick D. Barton and Bathsheba N. Crocker, Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, have already done this and they recommended a strategy along the lines of the "Odious Debts" authors.

The potential effects will be disastrous for anyone who has invested in the regime of Saddam Huessein. And why shouldn't this be the case? Of course, Lynne does raise a question regarding private property -- certainly business as usual has always been that its your business if you want to invest in the whims of a dictator. No more.

I think it is reasonable for Iraq is to payback debts owed for legitimate purposes, such as infrastructure (schools, streets, hospitals, etc) and items allowed under UN sanctions. However, there's no way they should be held accountable for Saddam's personal spending spree to prop up himself and his cronies. The rest should get written down to a nominal amount -- just as it would in a bankruptcy. I'm sure Lynne doesn't worry about the private property rights of creditors who lose out in Chapter 11.

Lynne further writes, "There's a dynamic that open to lots of political and diplomatic manipulation."

Of course, and this is precisely why the UN should not be allowed to take part in the process. Again, if this is handled like a bankruptcy proceeding, then it's the stakeholders who control the process and no one else. Why should the UN, which has no creditor stake in Iraq have anything to do with how its debt is restructured? (In fairness, Lynne didn't mention anything about the UN, I just thought this was a good time to mention that it would be a bad idea to let them control the process.)

Finally, "And if you are considering becoming a creditor of a government, you will have to factor in the nonzero probability that your debt will be deemed odious, so you are going to demand a higher interest rate from them. Hey, wait, that's probably a good thing ..."

Now she's getting it. And its not just a higher interest rate that will be demanded by creditors it will be: Reform your government or NO MONEY!

What pundits on all sides have to recognize is that the primary reason why democracies haven't worked in many of these nations is due to the concept of the "Rentier State" -- that is, a condition of the state in which foreign aid dominates the economy. When a government becomes a "rentier state" it ceases to be beholden to its citizens but to foreign interests. Therefore, if the state is not willing to spread the goodwill of foreign interests on behalf of its citizens, then it must be the foreign interests who demand such action on behalf of the debtor country's citizens.

For creditors who know they are dealing with rentier states and who don't insist on reform means they buy into the concept of an enlightened despot. We know throughout history that the presence of an enlightened despot is a dream of extremist revolutionaries who don't want to subject their notion of the ideal to the whims of an uninformed mass. This notion is totally against what we stand for in capitalist societies so why should it be an accepted condition for expectation of a return on an investment? In short, it shouldn't.

The case in Iraq should set the groundwork by which all creditors take note: there is no interest rate high enough that will ensure anything but a negative return when dealing with dictators. However, as Lynne Kiesling suggests, simply declaring all debt as odious won't work. The citizens of Iraq will still be left with a sizeable amount of debt. Should it be the 30 to 60 to 1 ratio of debt to exports ratio that it is today? Absolutely not. Should it be in the 2-3:1 ratio as is the case with the average heavily indebted country today? Perhaps that is reasonable.

What is for certain, however, is that creditors who have loaned Saddam money in the full knowledge of his acts against humanity should not in any way be able to come out whole. And finally, for democracy to succeed in Iraq, it must be put on a path towards leaving its rentier state status. Until foreign aid ceases to dominate its economy, it will never fully be capable of a sustainable democracy.

2003-04-07T03:37:00.000-07:00

Suspicions about WMD turn out to be true

Yesterday morning I reported on a imprompeu discussion broadcast over ABC News with one of their correspondants in Iraq. The reporter, Don Dahler, had been with troops who were suffering heat stroke symptoms that were characteristically similar to exposure chemical weapons. Unfortunately, beyond the initial report, nothing else was forthcoming -- that is until now.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

US soldiers evacuated an Iraqi military compound early today after tests by a mobile laboratory detected the presence of sarin, a powerful nerve agent. The testing came after more than a dozen soldiers from the Army's 101st Airborne Division who guarded the military compound on Saturday night came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to very low levels of nerve agent, including vomiting, dizziness and skin blotches. The soldiers, along with a Knight Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman and two Iraqi prisoners of war, were sent for chemical weapons decontamination and hosed down with water and bleach.

Looks like the Command Post has more on this.

Related Articles:

Sarin test sparks evacuation of compound - Sydney Morning Herald

2003-04-06T06:24:00.000-07:00

A Big Bold Move

Time Magazine discusses the current conflict between State and Defense in its article, "Clash of the Administration Titans."

As I've written several times it would be a mistake to insert career State diplomats such as Barbara Bodine. Additionally, I think bringing the UN in would be a catastrophic mistake. What is needed for the US to continue to build coalitions of the willing to implement change in Iraq.

As the Time article examines, the rift between State and Defense is falling along the lines of: State favoring deep bureaucratic involvement of the UN and Defense favoring a lightweight combination of Iraqi leadership and a coalition of the willing:

Looking for reinforcements, Powell was in Europe last week, feeling out allies to see if they might lend a hand with the postwar mess. British Prime Minister Tony Blair favors using the U.N. to help with humanitarian and reconstruction projects, partly as a way to bring the U.S. and Europe together again after the damaging breach at the Security Council last month. When Blair and Bush meet early this week in Belfast, Blair will echo Powell's line and push the President to seek international help. But the hard-liners are adamantly opposed, saying the U.N. will only make things more expensive and complicated. Besides, they say, if you weren't with us on the takeoff, you don't deserve to be there for the landing.

But the most important debate of all is one that is only being hinted at. The fight about postwar Iraq is also a fight about whether and where Bush will again deploy troops to root out terrorism and transplant democracy. Military officials report that using force against Syria or Iran once Iraq is stabilized is a "live issue" in Bushland. That idea gives the State Department and allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt rolling heart attacks. "The camps are dividing on the question of will we push for a vision of a new democratic Middle East, or will we listen to the lobbying of some of the countries in the region," says Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "State wants to keep as many people on our side as possible, but the Defense Department is saying, 'Look, this is about a big, bold vision, and we're willing to push it forward.'"

It's very disappointing to see that Powell, who has often been burned by UN members, is still looking to find a middle ground that involves the UN. As the situation stands now, I favor Rumsfeld's approach.

2003-04-06T05:40:00.000-07:00

Chemical Weapons found in Iraq

ABC News is reporting via a sat phone call with Don Dahler (embed near Najaf) that several coalition soliders showed signs of what at first appeared to be heat stroke but now may be an illness related to an exposure to chemical weapons. Experts are on the scene of a warehouse and VX gas is suspected. Additionally an Iraqi conscript is reported to have confessed to filling grenades and RPG warheads with an unknown substance.

This apparently is breaking news and was not mentioned in this morning's CENTCOM briefing which just concluded about 40 minutes ago. I'll provide a link to the story as soon as it is published.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, I've not found any additional information about this incident. Perhaps it is yet another case of a reporter's Fog of War. In any case, I contacted ABC to determine the status of the story (dead, on-going, or filed). I'll post more as I learn it.

2003-04-05T18:50:00.000-08:00

Post War Legitimacy

From a New York Times article on post-Saddam opinions today:

"ONE move that would be welcome, at least by the Iraqis and some Arab leaders, is if the United States opened the books on how the oil revenues are used, regional experts said."

I totally agree with this -- why wouldn't we want an open book on how Iraq's oil money is spent to rebuild their infrastructure?

Here's what I would do:

Form a committee of willing states (ie, "the coalition) each with a delegate participant to form an auditing committee.

Hire an external accounting firm to provide regularly audited reports of expenditures.

Essentially, the best way to manage Iraq in the interim post-Saddam period is the same way a public company should be managed during a bankruptcy. Acknowledge the creditors, build alliances of the stakeholders, restructure the debt, take all actions with total transparency and quickly restore the country to normalcy.

And on top of this you leave a legacy that is not suspect to suspicion and is a perfect blueprint to hand off to a democratically elected government.

2003-04-04T16:55:00.000-08:00

Historical proxies for predicting the outcome of the Battle of Baghdad.

Prior to the start of the Liberation of Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon wrote that the American invasion in Panama to oust Noriega should be a relatively good proxy for determining the amount of battle casualties in the upcoming battle for Baghdad. (My reaction to O'Hanlon's model is here).

Today, Tom Holsinger at StrategyPage (hat tip: Winds of Change) writes that another proxy for determining casualties might be Russia's 1995 attack on Grozny of America's seige of Manila in 1945. While O'Hanlon's estimate focused on the number of coalition casualties, Holsinger's estimate predicts that Al-Qaeda elements, Ba'athist hardliners, Special Republican Guard members and whatever miscellaneous thugs remain in Baghdad could potentially inflict thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties in an effort to block advancing coaliton troops.

Holsinger's writes that "won't see an Iraqi theory of urban warfare, or anything like the horrendous urban battles fought between the World War Two Nazis and Soviets." UPI's analysis of the plan for the Battle of Baghdad back's Holsinger by asserting that most of the Special and regular units of the Republican Guard have been pushed out of the main path of the assault; rendering them ineffective. There still are threats, such as chemical weapons inside the red zone. Additionally, the UPI remarks that,

The Iraqi Army is also steadily moving forces toward the battle. Units from the Nebuchadnezzar Motorized Division have already been encountered in the fighting around Karbala. In addition, the lack of a serious coalition armored threat in the north has allowed the Iraqis to move two heavy divisions southward. The Republican Guard's Adnan Mechanized Division has been spotted in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Also, there are reportedly a significant number of 1960s-vintage T-62 tanks around Baghdad. The Republican Guard only uses the more modern T-72. This is therefore a strong indication that the Regular Army's 3rd Armored Division, which had left its positions in the north last week, has been folded into the Republican Guard's defenses to make good the Guard's losses to aerial attack.

Reports coming out of Baghdad seem to also confirm Holsinger's suggestion that although "there just aren't enough suicidal Islamic idiots in Baghdad," that Islamic terrorists will ultimately "murder thousands of Iraqi civilians when they get desperate." To be sure, the Washington Post is reporting that "Iraqi Information Minister Iraqi Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf appeared on Iraqi television declaring that the airport would be "the graveyard" of the U.S.-led forces and warned, "We will carry out something that is untraditional against them, not conventional."

Holsinger also points out that as Saddam's regime breaks down, terrorists may seize chemical weapons stores and slaughter Iraqi civilians. He predicts that the US may have no choice but to lay seige to the city. I tend to disagree with this last assertion, if only to suggest that laying seige is highly inefficient use of firepower. One thing is certain however: this is no Panama.

2003-04-04T16:18:00.000-08:00

Saddam's Children Soldiers

Geitner Simmons writes at The Volokh Conspiracy today about Saddam's 8,000 member force of child soldiers. A must read.

Needless to say, forcing children under the age of 15 into armed conflict is a war crime.

Related Articles:

Convention on Children's Rights - UN

2003-04-03T22:52:00.000-08:00

Support for War

According to an ABC News / Washington Post poll released recently, 73% of Americans support the war. Interestingly, this number hasn't changed much through out the campaign. The results are surprising given that there is a popular conception that our nation if not against war is at least divided down the middle:
Support for War With Iraq
Date	Support	Oppose
3/9/03	59%	35%
3/17/03	71%	27%
3/20/03	72%	26%
3/23/03	72%	26%
3/27/03	73%	24%
The CNN/USA Today's poll confirms the numbers from the ABC/Washington Post poll. Additionally they asked the respondants whether or not they had a clear idea of what this war was about. The results show two things: 1) This is not another Vietnam and 2) this war is polling better than the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and 3) Democratic presidential hopefuls, especially Howard "No War" Dean and John "Regime Change" Kerry, are extremely out of touch with mainstream America.
Clearly Understand?
	Yes	No	No Opinion
3/29 -3/30 [War with Iraq]	81%	18%	1%
11/01 [War on Terrorism]	89%	10%	1%
12/90 [Persian Gulf War]	74%	24%	2%
5/67 [Vietnam War]	49%	48%	3%
11/42 [WWII]	73%	27%	0%

On the topic of polls, The New York Times reports on a poll of Palestinians regarding their opinion the most admired governments. Since 1996, Israel consistently polls in the 80% range. But the surprises don't stop, The Times writes,

Now, it is dead last, under 20 percent.

Oddly enough, my sources suggest rumors of a Palestinian Authority meltdown within its security forces. With democracy in Iraq imminent, is Palestine due for its own regime change from within?

2003-04-03T10:43:00.000-08:00

Iraq's War Debt

The New Times reports today on a Center for Strategic and international Studies analysis that assesses Iraq's post-war debts at $383 Billion. Of this figure, some $172B is related to unsettled claims during the Gulf War. At the current number, Iraq's Debt-to-Export ratio is somewhere in the range of 30:1 to 60:1 (depending on your estimate of oil revenues which constitute 99% of Iraq's export revenues). This is ten to twenty times higher than the average of 3:1 for highly indebted countries.

The authors call for debt restructuring but a Harvard study goes even further by suggesting that a country's citizens shouldn't be held accountable for the debts incurred by an illegitimate regime. I agree with this suggestion. What could more severely damage the despotic regimes still remaining in this world if everyone knew up front that tyrants can't write checks? Period.

If we can cast a fatal blow to the despots in the world for a mere $383 Billion, what's not to like?

Related Articles:

What Will Be the Model for Peace in Postwar Iraq - NY Times
A Wiser Peace: An Action Strategy for a Post-Conflict Iraq - Frederick D. Barton and Bathsheba N. Crocker, Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington
Odious Debt - Michael Kremer and Seema Jayachandran

2003-04-02T23:26:00.000-08:00

The Al-Jazeera Paradox

Today the Iraqi government suspended two Al-Jazeera correspondants from reporting in Baghdad. Apparently one of the correspondants tried to interview an Iraqi official without an Information Minister "minder" present.

Also notable, the Iraqis called Al-Jazeera, "too pro-American."

This latest action is strange -- considering Al-Jazeera's unethical role in televising Iraqi propoganda including American POWs -- yet not surprising. As the Iraqi regime crumbles, they should be increasingly afraid of any news outlet not under their control, even one that is anti-American.

Al-Jazeera represents what I see as a larger paradox in the Middle East: a desire for democracy and free press and a hatred of American/western values. Al-Jazeera reporters like their viewers are torn between what they see as two evils: that of America and that of oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

From my perspective, this attitude is akin to George Washington telling the French he didn't need their help and then adding a nice little obscenity about where they could stick their warships to top things off. What all of the people in the Middle East need to realize is that they need a little help from their friends and we're here to help.

We are not, as some have suggested, 19th Century British Imperialists. I'm not looking for ticker tape parades to be held in Baghdad upon our arrival, but how about at least some productive cooperation? Hopefully Al-Jazeera and their viewers can now realize that they has no friends in Baghdad or anywhere else that is opposed to the United States. God forbid Al-Jazeera might ever become too Pro-American.

Related Articles:

Arab TV Curtails Coverage After Move by Iraq - The New York Times

2003-04-02T17:23:00.000-08:00

A spoonful of sugar

Asymmetrical Information today ponders the motivations of various anti-war groups that have expressed support for the troops:

"If you think this is the kind of horribly wrong thing that most anti-war protesters, to judge from the signs, do, why on earth would you declare your support for the people carrying it out?"

I believe the Left is anti-war/pro-military for two reasons:

1. It was a successful tactic used by the peace movement during the Vietnam War.

2. For the anti-war left, "Peace" is not an ends but a means. Therefore, they've chosen to side with the group that is the object of establishment exploitation: the soldiers.

It's a tactic otherwise known as a spoonful of sugar. While it may make the timid feel better about being anti-war, what they're swallowing is no less amoral.

2003-04-02T12:06:00.000-08:00

More twisting of war cost numbers

In what is proving to be a Aesop's fable gone mad, we have yet another interpretation of the war costs number from the study conducted by Murphy, Topel and Stevens. This time the interpretation comes from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), a conservative policy group.

In case you don't remember, we've gone from Asymmetrical Information's interpretation (here and here; both of which led this reader to conclude that the author is taking ambiguous position in her judgement of "pro-war" or "pro-containment) to Daniel Drezner's epiphany that perhaps he should have considered "pro-containment" after reading the study.

Now we have the NCPA's take on the study in which they proudly proclaim, "the war in Iraq could end up being an economic blessing for the Iraqi people, according to a new study by three University of Chicago professors."

Furthermore, the NCPA writes, "the University of Chicago study estimates that more Iraqi civilians would die if the prewar situation had remained in place."

They [the Chicago economists] estimate that at least 200,000 Iraqis would have died on top of the 500,000 that have already died at the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Moreover, they [the Chicago economists] estimate that maintaining the prewar policy of "containment" would have cost the United States some $380 billion -- far more than the war is likely to require.

The NCPA concludes by stating, "[the paper] suggests that the war is a win-win situation for both the United States and Iraq. We will pay less out of pocket and the
Iraqi people will suffer fewer deaths and less privation at the hands of Saddam Hussein."

Well there you have it folks. I guess it doesn't matter what your bias is, whether its pro-war, pro-containment or pro-Chicago School of Business, you can basically take your pick (or maybe add your own conclusion if it doesn't fit into one of the three) and you'll have the numbers to back you up.

2003-04-02T03:16:00.000-08:00

Horse Hockey

Today, The New York Times ran an article on the subject of Lt. General William S. Wallace's remarks that the invasion of Iraq was not going according to plan and that Rumsfeld had not allocated enough troops. For his part, Rumsfeld stood by Tommy Frank's war plan and denounced such statements as harmful to morale. For my part, I think the morale problem comes not in undermining the mission but in undermining the professionalism that we require of career soldiers. That being said, I'm not terribly worried about Wallace's abilities but I do think the timing of his remarks could have been better.

As Col. Gary Anderson (Marine Corps, Retired) said tonight on PBS's News Hour, "If you don't believe in what your country is doing then you ought to put your stars or you eagle on the line [in the planning stages before you go to war]." I whole heartedly agree and I have more analysis below -- but first, some excerpts from the New York Times article:

Here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared Mr. Rumsfeld to Robert S. McNamara, an architect of the Vietnam War who failed to grasp the political and military realities of Vietnam.

One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. "He wanted to fight this war on the cheap," the colonel said. "He got what he wanted."

The angry remarks from the battlefield opened with comments made last Thursday — and widely publicized Friday — by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander, who said the military faced the likelihood of a longer war than many strategists had anticipated.

The first is why, in an era when American military dominance comes in both the quality of its technology and of its troops, the defense secretary prefers emphasizing long-range precision weapons to putting boots on the ground.

Some members of General Wallace's staff have expressed concerns for the professional future of their boss.

In reaction to the Time's assertion that Rumsfeld is another McNamara, I think they are going a bit too far. Recently, Ehsan Ahrari, Ph.D., and Professor of National Security & Strategy at the Joint Forces Staff College in Virginia wrote an analysis for the Navy's Center for Contemporary Conflict in which he compared the Bush Administration's strategy with the lessons learned in Elliot A. Cohen's book, "Supreme Command."

Mr. Ahrari agreed with Cohen's conclusion that the first and foremost lesson for civilian leadership is that great civilian commanders such as Abraham Lincoln, Georges Clemenceau, Winston Churchill, and David Ben Gurion have one thing in common, "they immersed themselves in the conduct of war; they mastered their military briefs as thoroughly as they did their civilian ones; and they demanded and expected from their military subordinates a candor as bruising as it was necessary."

Ahrari draws a clear distinction between productive immersion and micromanagement by examining the failure of the Johnson Administration (in which McNamara served as Secretary of Defense), "The author [Cohen] faults the civilian leadership for failing to ask hard questions to military leaders about the basic direction of the war, about its related "strategic choices;" and the military brass for remaining equally unclear about how to attain victory."

I think Rumsfeld's actions as Secretary of Defense have been to provoke the military leadership into rethinking the hard questions. Sure the Crusader cancellation may have ruffled some feathers, but by and large, Rumsfeld is doing what the military leadership have failed to do over the past decade: reconcile foreign policy with military preparedness.

Coincedentally, Elliot A. Cohen appeared on PBS's Newshour tonight (opposite of the aforementioned Colonel Anderson and another retired commander, Colonel W. Patrick Lang). When asked about whether or not downline commanders should raise objections during the planning stage (as Col. Anderson said, and as Col. Lang suggested was political suicide), Cohen (himself a retired Captian) said, "Ultimately its about character and its about honor...If you cannot trust the honor and character of your subordinates, the system has a large problem." I totally agree, but is Wallace's outburst a dilution of character and honor -- sure it was poorly timed, but are our military ranks suffering from a deficit of professionalism?

There's another angle to this story and that involves General William Wallace himself. Earlier today I wrote, "What we don't know [about the progress of the war] is if there was a pause built into the battle plan. What we don't know is if there's a two-star in the field who is proceeding more cautiously than Tommy Franks wants him to do." At the time I was making referrence to an event that occured in the Persian Gulf War in which Schwartzkopf complained that his V Corps commander wasn't chasing down the Republican Guard fast enough. I didn't mention it in the earlier article, but commander in question, Lt. Gen Fred Franks (ret), also wanted Schwartzkopf to give him more troops including Schwartzkopf's reserve division before accelerating his assualt on the Republican Guard.

Today such conservatism is almost laughable given how effectively we defeated the Republican Guard -- at least those who weren't quick enough to escape our slow attack. Although I hadn't made the connection at the time, isn't it interesting that the person making the remarks about the war plan today is in the same position as Lt. Gen Fred Franks was in the Persian Gulf War: none other than the commander of V Corps.

I'm not writing to suggest the William S. Wallace or Fred Franks are bad guys for being Generals who want to win quickly and decisively with overwhelming firepower. These guys are good guys. There's no question they're professionals and that they are putting themselves and their soldiers on the line. Believe it or not I respect Frank's decision to move slower than Schwartzkopf wanted him to do. Franks saw the battlefield differently as does Wallace today.

What is needed (and this is why I write this article) is an understanding that even in battle a fully functioning military has discussions about where and how fast to proceed next. It also happens that some of these discussions can become heated and unfortunately public. Was what Wallace said constitute an unwise use of judgement. Absolutely. Dissent has a place and a time.

As for Wallace's comments themselves, well he certainly can't be thinking that just because a particular scenario wasn't wargamed that he can't be held responsible. He signed off on the plan. And as he himself has commented in official Army training documentation, the commander's job is to envision all of the scenarios and to prepare his downline staff for each contingency. So I don't buy it now when he's out in the field bitching about insufficient wargaming. Tough shit, that's why you're the general.

In conclusion, I urge those of you reading this to put some sanity behind the press accounts sorrounding this issue. Yes, Wallace should have voiced his objections prior to engaging the enemy. At the same time, let's show Wallace some respect. He is commanding a Corps and he is a professional. I think his soldiers are kicking ass and I agree with Rumsfeld that the plan is sound. Lesson learned. Move on.

2003-04-02T01:57:00.000-08:00

Bad Habits in Blogging

Maybe I'm just jealous that USS Matt Johnson isn't quoted by the Opinion Journal's Best of the Web on a regular basis. Nonetheless, I can't help but question why Steven Den Beste's, "USS Clueless," gets the attention that it does. Is it just my ADD or am I the only person on the planet who doesn't have the patience to decipher what Den Beste is writing?

Here's an example. In this article, Den Beste writes about how he thinks our Special Forces are similar to WWII submariners (presumably because no one seems them marching in liberation parades). Yet we don't learn this until the 14th paragraph!

Hello, Steven Den Beste -- this is Mrs. Thesis Paragraph on the phone, I have Mr. Topic Sentence holding for you, he wants to know why you keep ignoring him.

2003-04-01T16:19:00.000-08:00

The Hornet's Nest

According to the Political Wire, Jimmy Carter is writing a novel that will be published this fall. The book apparently will be entitled "The Hornet's Nest." The subject of Carter's novel will be the Revolutionary War as fought in the south.

Remembering my own elementary school history lessons, "The Hornet's Nest" was the emblem of the North Carolina state flag in 1775. The emblem lives on as an insignia of the North Carolina National Guard.

Even though this is a work of fiction, one hopes he'll at least set part of the novel in the Great North State. On the other hand, if the works of his fellow liberal Georgians are an indication, the work will be nothing more than a half-assed racist attempt to show how Southerners weren't all bigoted, slave-owning descendents of the devil, but merely poor patriotic farmers.

The truth is that most of the South did live in poverty and most of the South wasn't populated by Slave-owners. The truth is also that it didn't take a whole lot then or now to turn a bunch of poor, non-slave owners into a mob of slobbering racists. So why try to cover it up with apologetic revisionism? Apparently because guys like Ted Turner and Jimmy Carter have obtained their notions of self-worth not from their internationalist deeds but from their history as "true Southerners."

Of course I'm not being fair to Carter -- I haven't read his book. But I will when it comes out, and we'll see how well I was able to predict its message.

2003-04-01T14:52:00.000-08:00

Silkworm missile hits Kuwaiti shopping mall -- are the Iranian's behind this?

According to officials, a missile that is suspected to be a "silkworm," hit a Kuwaiti shopping mall. The Silkworm is a Chinese-made anti-ship missile that have been most notoriously used by the Iranians. One has to wonder, was the silkworm intended to hit a ship but missed? Were Iranian-backed Hizbollah terrorists involved in the incident?

This could be nothing more than a random event, but my guess is that there are extreme elements of the Hizbollah that would like nothing more than for the US to blame Iran for the bombing -- which would provoke the US into escalating the war into Iran.

With so relatively few coalition troops on the ground in the Middle East, escalation is key for those who want to defeat the coalition. A US attack on Iran would most surely ignite the Shia population in Iraq resulting in a very dangerous if not unwinnable situation for coalition troops.

If it were me running things and I found out who fired the missile, I'd privately round up the suspects and send them to Tehran with a message that they shouldn't let such dishonor come to themselves. The Iranian response most surely would be a swift sword to the necks of the terrorists.

Related Articles:

'Silkworm' Suspected in Kuwaiti Blast

2003-04-01T14:23:00.000-08:00

The books about the Liberation of Iraq should be very interesting

In the Persian Gulf War, what the public saw and what actually happened on the ground didn't always synch. Placing "embeds," reporters in the field, was supposed to help mitigate the differences in reporting and fact. Nonetheless, I suspect that we don't know all that much more today than we did then; particularly with regards to internal military disputes.

For instance, the public thought that our amored divisions rapidly overtook the Iraqis. This turned out to be true only in instances where we actually engaged the Iraqis. After the war we learned from Schwartzkopf that he was very critical of Fred Franks, commander of V Corps, and Frank's unwillingness to speed up his troops to engage the fleeing Iraqis. In fact, if one listens to Schwartzkopf, one might get the impression that he blames Franks for the coalition's inability to do more damage to the Republican Guard. I've read Frank's version of the events and in the end, he probably did what was right.

Flash forward to today. For the past week, we've been told by the press that our fighting force in Iraq is stalled; hasn't enough troops; has overextended supply lines and so forth and so on. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld has maintained that everything is going according to plan. What we don't know is if there was a pause built into the battle plan. What we don't know is if there's a two-star in the field who is proceeding more cautiously than Tommy Franks wants him to do. What we don't know, and can't possibly know is how badly the Republican Guard has been pounded by the Air Force.

What we do know is that in one fell swoop, late last night East Coast time, our guys put the pedal to the metal and are now on the outskirts of Baghdad, inside the red line. So much for what the press knows.

Related Articles:

Analysis: Republican Guard's last stand - UPI

2003-04-01T14:06:00.000-08:00

Ixnay on Barbaray Bodineay?

According to WindsofChange.net, which cites a Washington Post article describing a rift between State and Defense, it's possible that Barbara Bodine may have been yanked from her post-Saddam Iraq assignment as Administrator of Baghdad.

My reading of the Washington Post article is that this outcome may be likely. The article contains the following,

"Garner had asked the State Department for a list of names, and the eight selected officials went through security and other training in preparation for departure for Kuwait last week. At the last minute, however, they were told to "stand down" until further notice."

Garner is Barbara Bodine's new boss if her appointment goes through -- although the Washington Post article below doesn't specifically mention Bodine's name, there's a chance she's one of the "eight selected officials" who were told to stand down. Keep your fingers crossed and thanks to all of you who emailed the President at my request (maybe our words and the thousands of others who independently took similar actions are being heard).

Related Articles:

Pentagon, State Spar On Team to Run Iraq - Washington Post

2003-03-31T23:21:00.000-08:00

An entire blog on Formula 1?

Steve MacLaughlin has decided to blog the entire Formula 1 season - start to finish. Last season he was a writer for Racing News Online, so I'm sure Steve's insights will be of value to the beginner Formula 1 enthusiast as well as the long time fan. (I started watching way back when Keke Rosberg and Alain Prost were teamates at McClaren).

Not one to leave well enough alone, here are my all time top 5 favorite F1 drivers:

1. Alain Prost - The Professor. The man is a model of fierce patience. If you ever saw Prost, you'd know what I mean.
2. Ayrton Senna - I thought Ayrton was a jerk. I rooted for Prost whenever the two raced. Nonetheless, if Prost was the Professor, then Senna was The Great One.
3. Jackie Stewart - I bought Stewart's Guide to Performance Driving before I was old enough to drive. I still think about his lessons whenver I hit an apex.
4. Juan Pablo Montoya - Montoya is exactly what Formula 1 needs today. Given time and patience, he'll shatter Schumaker's records.
5. Michael Schumacher - You simply can't ignore Michael. He may be driving the best car ever built and against the worst competition ever assembled, but no one wins 5 championships in Formula 1 without being one of the top drivers of all time.

2003-03-31T19:55:00.000-08:00

THIS IS NOT MY TEMPLATE

Looks like blogger has been hacked or is having serious technical issues. Hopefully we'll return to normal shortly.

UPDATE:

I've uploaded a new template and blogger is reverting to the template of another blogger. I'll be a blogger subscriber for about as long as it takes me to rebuild Moveable Type on another server. Ciao.

UPDATE:

Domain name indecision is keeping me from moving. More to follow as soon as I can think of a decent name that's not already taken.

2003-03-31T19:51:00.000-08:00

Is the war exposing cracks in the blogosphere?

Glenn Reynolds writes today,

but you're pretty sure you aren't getting the whole story, or even a very representative slice."

Is this the same guy who wrote this?

Or this:

Blogosphere will provide an increasing share of the analysis and criticism.

2003-03-31T19:24:00.000-08:00

Come and listen' to a story about a man named Chirac...something, something, something and rhymes with Iraq

By way of Samizdata:

The former president of Elf Aquitaine testified Monday that the French oil giant paid about $5 million to French political parties during his leadership — including to President Jacques Chirac's former party.

Loik Le Floch-Prigent said nearly all the money went to Chirac's former party until then-President Francois Mitterrand, a Socialist, demanded the cash be spread to both sides of the political spectrum. Chirac, a conservative, succeeded Mitterrand as president in 1995.

Gawrsh, I bet the Democrats would just love to get in on a gravy train like this. Oops, sorry...your boys in Congress voted for McCain-Feingold.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...HA!

2003-03-31T19:19:00.000-08:00

Oh Ye of short memories

Arnold Kling today cites a study by several economists who have shown that certain investors were able to beat the market consistently. Oddly enough, the study covers the period of 1990 through 1996.

One has to question whether or not the authors of the study have ever heard of Long Term Capital Management. Seems to me LTCM's approach to beating the market also rested on a limited historical dataset -- and we see where that got them.

2003-03-31T19:11:00.000-08:00

I'm gettin' old

Doc Searls remarks on his website that the Cluetrain site is now four years old. You know I remember fiercly debating this book with other fellow geeks way back when. At the time I was neck deep in the world of SIP and Softswitches and thought e-commerce was so passe. Wow...four years since then. Sheesh.

On a related note my girlfriend asked me the other day how many days I thought I could go without internet access. I thought on it and I realized, it's been since 1995 that I've been more than 48 hours off the net. Maybe ol' Doc was right after all....

2003-03-31T16:22:00.000-08:00

What will Microsoft do now?

Meigs Field has been the default airport on Microsoft's flight simulator since version 1 -- I know because I've been using it since I was like 10.

Word comes today that Meigs is apparently no more. Mayor Daley and his crew of henchmen under cover of the police last night demolished the runway with no warning -- in fact, several private planes are now apparently stranded with no way to fly out.

According to the Chicago Sun Times,

"Daley long has wanted the airfield converted into a park, in line with Daniel Burnham’s long-ago vision.

The mayor said a handshake deal he made with former Gov. George Ryan to keep the airport open for 25 years was dependent on action in Congress to secure O’Hare Airport expansion. Because that failed, the deal was off, the mayor said.

The move stunned Meigs backers, who believed the Ryan-Daley agreement was still in effect.

“There’s no logic,” said Steve Whitney of Friends of Meigs Field. “They dug Xs into the runway all the way down.”

Related Articles:

Meigs now a no-fly zone - Chicago Sun-Times

2003-03-31T15:05:00.000-08:00

Play Ball!

A must read for anyone who loves the game.

Exerpt from the article linked below:

Tim Russert, an NBC News vice president and host of "Meet the Press," was a top aide to Moynihan in the late 1970s and early '80s. He remembers accompanying Moynihan to a local Sunday news show in New York City and warning him against commenting on a local race in which two prominent Democrats were battling each other. Russert also told the senator the news show was to precede the sixth game of the World Series.

Russert said it was clear Moynihan didn't know what was going on with the baseball championship. "If the (New York) Yankees win today, it's over," Russert informed the senator.

"Sure enough, they ask him about the race and he says, `There's only one race in New York today and that's the Yankees. And, if the Yankees don't do it today, Mike Torrez will do it Tuesday,"' Russert recalled. "I fell out of my chair."

"We walk outside. I said, `How did you know about Mike Torrez?"' the former Moynihan aide remembered. "He said, `I didn't know who it was. I was sitting in the makeup chair and this little kid with a Yankee hat and a ball and glove comes in ... I said, `Hey, tiger, the Yanks going to win today?' He said, `If they don't win today, Torrez will do it Tuesday.' If you can't trust a 10-year-old with a Yankee hat, you can't trust anybody."'

"That's him," Russert said. "Not particularly aware of all the nuances of the World Series _ who was in it, what game _ but this uncanny ability to know who to trust about any particular subject."

Related Articles:

Marc Humbert: Memories of Moynihan - AP, via Newsday

2003-03-31T08:35:00.000-08:00

An American Peace

Jay Bookman, of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution writes that "It [a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century] recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP...In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor."

Proof that the Bush Administration is moving beyond the "two simultaneous regional war" budgeting strategy. Nonetheless, the increased spending as a percentage of GDP still doesn't come close to Reagan's peak of 6.1% in 1987.

Related Articles:

The president's real goal in Iraq - Atlanta Journal Constitution

2003-03-31T08:07:00.000-08:00

Digitalglobe releases satellite footage of Baghdad

Check it out here. Several shots are .6 meter resolution or roughly 2 feet. Not good enough to catch the wayward nudist (not to say there would be any in Baghdad anyway or that you'd want to see them if there were any) -- but good enough to see the effects of bombing as well as the burning oil trenches.

2003-03-30T17:05:00.000-08:00

Iraq slaughters American POWS

The New York Times is reporting on a possible scenario in which the bodies of four American soldiers found buried were the remains of American POWs shown on Iraqi TV last week.

And one wonders why the Middle East can never get out from under the tyranny of retribution. If atrocities like these can cause quite a few Americans to think that maybe we should just nuke the Middle East, then imagine what would happen if nuclear weapons were available in countries that still allow vigilante-style retribution? Like Iran. Like Iraq. Like Syria. Like Egypt. Like Saudi Arabia. Like Palestine. Need I continue?

Related Articles:

U.S. Finds Buried Bodies of 4 G.I.'s - NY Times

2003-03-30T16:41:00.000-08:00

Journalists in Baghdad can no longer report freely

Several bloggers have noted today that Peter Arnett was seen claiming that his reports have been helping the Iraqis win public sentiment.

Well it's no wonder. According to the Agonist, since the Iraqi Information Ministry has been so heavily bombed, the Iraqis have moved in with the journalists in their hotel.

Can anyone say, "Peter probably had a gun to his head?"

2003-03-30T16:33:00.000-08:00

More evidence of a staged bombing in Baghdad

Winds of Change reports today of reports that dispute the Iraqi claim that American bombs fell in two crowded marketplaces last week,

The folks at No Such Agency apparently have a picture of the spot the bombing occurred, and there's one really telling piece of evidence. Or rather, there isn't. There's no crater in the ground...The crater left by bombs of that size are usually at least ten feet deep and twenty or thirty feet across. In the Baghdad bombings, there are no craters.

As I reported earlier, don't be surprised when it turns out there is a either a Palestinian or Al-Qaeda terrorist link to these bombings.

2003-03-30T16:24:00.000-08:00

Liberal compassion lives...barely

Isn't it strange how some liberal's hearts seem to bleed only when a dictator's repression is threatened? Eugene Volokh reports on a noted liberal who whose heart bleeds for the Iraqi civilians.

Excerpts:

"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

2003-03-30T16:04:00.000-08:00

Palestinians rejoice -- Iraqis regret

More evidence of the brutally inhuman cult of Arafat's suicide culture arrived this past week as Palestinian's rejoiced at the capture and publicly display of American POWs. Said one policeman, ""Everyone here was happy to see pictures of American soldiers in Iraqi custody...This is a big day for the Iraqi people and all the Arabs and Muslims." A group of Palestinian schoolchildren chanted, "Oh beloved Saddam, bomb, bomb Tel Aviv...Oh Saddam, we love you, why don't you annihilate all the Jews."

Yet, according to the Arab News (by way of Samizdata), even "Iraqis who chanted pro-Saddam slogans told him privately that they only did so out of fear of the massacre that would follow if Saddam's rule were to return to their area."

If I were a betting man, I'd predict that the Palestinians will soon be issuing death threats on the Arab News correspondant who reported the story.

Related Articles:

Palestinians rejoice at reports of Iraqi resistance - Israel Insider

2003-03-30T15:34:00.000-08:00

The Cost of War

Last week, Asymmetrical Information blasted James Galbraith and Eric Alterman for fabricating very high estimates of the cost of war. I correctly pointed out to AI (after asking Galbriath himself where he got his number) that their numbers weren't fabricated (entirely) just misused. In fact, the number they were citing, $2 Trillion, came from William Nordhaus, a Yale professor of economics. I knew this because I happen to be a sponge for this type of information -- not to mention Nordhaus has been all over the place the past two months touting his $2 Trillion number (how could anyone miss it?).

Since I presumed that AI might have an editorial slant favoring Chicago GSB studies (half of their writers attended the school), I pointed out that Nordhaus had previously authored studies that were in alignment with several Chicago economists, namely Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel. I asked AI, would they still disagree with Nordhaus if one of their own (ie, Murphy or Topel) came out with a similar statement (which they have) regarding the costs of war?

AI responded with their take on the Murphy, Topel [and Davis] paper by stating, "There are some very good things about the essay...[but] the former [doesn't contain a discussion in the Chicago paper of the macro-economic effects, which] makes it hard to compare the numbers, although I have a feeling that they have excluded it because the impact is impossible to quantify given current uncertainties, and likely to be trivial in the long run. So there's the answer: Chicago: 1, Yale: 0 -- macroeconomic effects don't count.

That being said, my main criticism of AI is that Nordhaus's paper clearly laid out a case against war by arguing that the cost of the war could potentially come close to $2 Trillion. AI, in their dismissal of Nordhaus seems to be suggesting that his case doesn't justify containment because Nordhaus "pads" the number with macroeconomic effects. Yet, the Murphy and Topel paper also favors containment over war and AI agrees with it. Are we left to conclude that AI is against the war?

According to Daniel Drezner, the Chicago economists clearly spell out the case against war. Drezner exerpts the Chicago paper to illustrate his point:

"[W]ar and forcible regime change raise Iraqi welfare by 50 percent compared to containment – an enormous gain. At first, it may seem surprising that war can lead to a huge improvement in human welfare. But, in fact, this conclusion is hard to escape so long as regime change even partly undoes the collapse in living standards under Saddam."

Therefore, what can readers of AI conclude? Has AI communicated their position on the war or have they neatly sidestepped the issue altogether?

2003-03-30T15:02:00.000-08:00

dot.com theoretical blather

It's posts like these that remind my of why I can't stand to read Doc Searls and his acolytes. There's nothing wrong with envisioning the future, just be specific when you do it -- otherwise the rest of us can't tell why we should give a shit.

2003-03-30T14:46:00.000-08:00

What the developing world did to real property it is doing to intellectual property

Lessig writes on the Mexican government's new copyright laws that extend protection to life plus 100 years. He points out the irony to such laws stating, "will be easier for Mexicans to consume Hollywood content over the next 150 years than it will be for Mexicans to cultivate and preserve their own culture."

I can't help but point out the amazing similarities between intellectual property barriers and barriers to private property ownership. It's simply amazing how developing countries overregulate their citizens to the pont of not only denying their rights to private property ownership but also preventing citizens from preserving their own culture.

Nonetheless, I should point out that the Mexican government merely seems to be following the example set by our own -- Congress recently extended copyright protection to life plus 70 for individuals and life plus 95 years for corporations.

Interestingly, Lessig has a solution, one that was recently endorsed by Steve Forbes, "Borrowing a page from patent law, wherein holders have to pay a fee every few years to keep their patents current, Lessig would apply that principle to copyrights: After a certain number of years, copyright holders would have to pay a nominal amount of money to maintain protection. If the holder didn't pay the charge for, say, three years, the work would go into the public domain."

Related Articles:

Fact and Comment - Steve Forbes

2003-03-30T14:13:00.000-08:00

The Stinky French are also racists

Proof that Hitler merely beat the French to the Holocaust, massive French protests were colored by chants of, ""Vive Chirac! Stop the Jews!"

Related Articles:

France Sends Mixed Signals — and a Clear Message - The NY Times

2003-03-29T22:05:00.000-08:00

Delusions of grandeur

Michael Moore probably dreams at night of being Woodword and/or Bernstein and perhaps even Deep Throat too -- an omniscient super-seluth hot on the case of conspiracy. He can dream all he wants, but the closest that Moore is going to get to making his dream a reality is through fabricating events and calling it documentary.

Mr. Moore is calling his latest documentary, about the supposed links between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, Fahrenheit 911. The Guardian Unlimited (UK), drooling with anticipation, says, "The choice of Moore's new subject - the relationship between the arms industry, the Bush administration and the war on terrorism - could hardly be better timed."

Whatever.

Related Articles:

Oscar winner targets Bush and bin Laden - Guardian Unlimited

2003-03-29T21:27:00.000-08:00

Race and Student Selection

The NY Times today took a break in reporting its "we're losing the war -- we told you this was a bad idea" propaganda. Instead it used Saturday's op-ed to run a full-court press against the Bush Administration's stance on college entrance requirements. (I guess the Times feels like one more punch and they can take a TKO on a standing 8 count). The result of the Time's commentary selection is one that paints convservatives as neo-racists.

Rather than "Fisking" each commentator, what follows is a brief excerpt of each writer's opinion with my remarks following at the bottom.

Glenn C. Loury writes that colorblindness is a superficial characterisitc of affirmative action and in of itself an ineffective method for ensuring diversity:

No understanding of the American social order that ignores racial categories is possible, because these socially constructed categories are embedded in the consciousness of all of us...That is, racial diversity at the most selective institutions is required to demonstrate the genuinely democratic character of the process through which we, in effect, choose our elites.

Stanley Rothman argues that diversity is not an indicator of performance. Achieving diversity, he argues, may be a noble cause but shouldn't be a delimeter in the selection process. Unfortunately, Rothman's argument fails to satisfy this reader and more importantly comes across as a "Big Whitie" argument from the Jim Crow days:

somewhat less educational satisfaction and worse race relations among students

Lawrence H. Summers and Lawrence H. Tribe argue that academic freedom depends on a University's right to select students based on criteria that it deems important:

This debate, then, is over means, not ends. And if the Supreme Court — which has elsewhere honored the values of competition, experimentation and heterogeneity — respects the institutional competence and academic freedom of colleges and universities, it will give them leeway in choosing how best to obtain the educational benefits of a diverse student body.

Benjamin Forest makes the leap that the "Texas plan" which guarantee's access to the state schools for the top 10% of graduates would result in segregation in public schools:

African-Americans made up just under 12 percent of those who graduated from high school in Texas in 1998. Yet they were just over 6 percent of graduating students in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Similarly, Hispanic students were nearly 30 percent of graduates, but less than 22 percent of top 10 percent of students. Whites and Asians have higher representation among the top students...Whatever the ultimate cause of these differences, in practice it means that only highly segregated high schools will have a significant number of minority students among their top 10 percent.

In response to these positions, first let me state up front that I attended a university where nearly a quarter of all students were African-American (I believe the national average is about half that amount). Second, let me state that I don't have a problem with Affirmative Action in the least bit. I think Bush's position on this issue is misguided -- if not because his argument is weak, then for picking a case (U. Mich) where the white student didn't deserve admission in the first place.

Yet, I'm left feeling a bit angered at the commentary by those who favor using race in the selection process. What ties the pro-race commentators together is a notion that universities will always make the right choice and will always have the right policies. Put simply, what these commentators want will result in reduced diversity. If selection policies could include race, what is to stop Harvard if it decides to reduce the number of African Americans it accepts?

It is very troubling that efforts to achieve equality based on merit have been diluted by pro-race advocates. Standardized testing initially was designed to promote students regardless of color. When standardized testing didn't eliminate white students quickly enough, pro-race advocates deemed standardized testing as racist. The result is that what matters to pro-race advocates isn't merit but the color of one's skin.

Ironically, these same commentators would most likely be offended if Augusta National chose to stop accepting African-American applicants -- and they probably oppose Augusta National's stance on allowing women to be members. So why is it ok to be in favor of institutional choice for one thing if not for another?

I think we still need Affirmative Action. I think we need to ensure that minorities are not shut out of opportunities merely because the gates close after a certain percentage of population threshold is reached. But to suggest that race should be the primary factor in student selection not only does a disservice to society but also to the students who have chosen to excel above their peers.

Update: Not to be outdone by its guest columnists, the New York Times runs its own story-cum-commentary entitled, "Can the Justices Buck What the Establishment Backs?" Oh no, there's no editorial bias here at all, oh nooooo.

Related Articles:

Admissions (and Denials) of Responsibility - Glenn C. Loury, in the New York Times
Is Diversity Overrated? - Stanley Rothman, in the New York Times
Race Is Never Neutral - Lawrence H. Summers and Lawrence H. Tribe , in the New York Times
A Policy That Depends on Segregation - Benjamin Forest, in the New York Times

2003-03-29T20:22:00.000-08:00

Freedom Fries gone too far

Don't pay much attention to the furor caused by Darrel Issa, a Republican in Congress from California. He wants Congress to mandate that post-Saddam Iraq will use Qualcomm's CDMA wireless standard over the more widely used GSM. I think Issa is doing what he has to do by supporting Qualcomm (who is a major employer in Issa's district). Beyond that, I think Issa's bill is stupid for several reasons:

1) GSM is used by American companies already.
2) GSM is more widely deployed globally than CDMA, including Iraq's neighbors.
3) Post-Saddam Iraq should not be reconstructionist boondoggle for American companies.

The post-Saddam Iraq should have a government that is free to choose how the marketplace for goods and services should look. Frankly I would hope that they would privatise as much infrastructure as possible. Deciding which cell phone standard to use demonstrates petty thinking on the part of Mr. Issa. He would do well to support fair-market reforms instead.

Related Articles:

Iraq war sparks wireless row - The BBC

2003-03-28T17:56:00.000-08:00

"Thinking is, like, passe, and so is meaning what you say."

From Glenn Reynolds, "Kind of sad, isn't it, when a guy who goes by the handle "dipnut" is able to think and talk rings around a Columbia professor?

Go here to see what Glenn is talking about:

And here to see the original story that sparked "dipnut's" reaction.

2003-03-28T17:18:00.000-08:00

Killing in the name of...

Iraqi propogandists have taken journalists today to another Baghdad marketplace were according to the Iraqis, American bombs were dropped. For our part, we've indicated that these areas were not targets and more specifically, not even located near targets. Additionally, our military has suggested that perhaps the damage was caused by an errant Iraqi missile or anti-aircraft gun fire.

According to an ABC News (AUS) account:

Arabic language television stations Al Jazeera and Al Aribiya have shown pictures of bodies in a morgue, including children, which it says are victims of the raid....The images of the latest deaths are likely to enflame anti-US sentiment that is already high in the capital.

I have another possibility: Perhaps the bombings were the result of none other than Palestinian suicide-bombers. We have evidence that Syria is letting Palestinian "martyrs" into Iraq. Why is it outside the realm of possibility that a few of those who are entering are blowing themselves up as way of increasing the civilian casualty count?

Maybe what the average Iraqi needs is a hard hittin' dose of Rage...

Update: some readers may not be familiar with my reference to "Rage." They are a band that strangely is anti-war. You'd think given their lyrics that they would be against the regime of Saddam Huessein, but I guess in the end, they're just as misguided as most musicians and actors. Nonetheless, I thought their song "Killing in the Name," was an appropriate reference. Largely because of my own interpretation of their lyrics, I felt that the writers of the song were saying that people who are used to justify another's cause should be outraged. I think the people of Iraq should be outraged that Saddam Huessein wants to use them to justify his cause. If it turns out that my hunch is correct, that Palestinian suicide bombers are bombing the citizens of Iraq to further their own cause, then the people of Iraq should be outraged. My reference to the band is not an endorsemnt of the band's politics or views. I was merely drawing a connection between the lyrics of a song that is popular in the West to the plight of the Iraqi civilians a the mercilous hands of Saddam Huessein and potentially even Palestinian terrorists.

Related Articles:

Dozens killed at Baghdad market: Iraqi doctors - ABC News Online (AUS)

2003-03-28T15:44:00.000-08:00

The Peace Dividend

In 1989, the last year of "business as usual" for the Soviet Union, the Soviet foreign aid budget was $45 Billion. Ours was $15 Billion (private aid from the US is many hundreds of billions more). Of this $45 Billion that the Soviet Union spent per year, a significant amount was spent on light arms (basically Ak-47s) to prop up non-democratic regimes around the world - particularly in Africa, South America and the Middle East.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, a massive gap was left in the kind of foreign aid no one wants to talk about: no-questions-asked cash and arms to two-bit dictators. The Soviet Union spent $15 Billion that year alone on its Afghan regime. Where did we see massive amounts of genocide through the 1990s and today? Why none other than the same countries that most depended on the Soviet's type of aid to maintain their repression.

In hindsight, it may be seen as a mistep for the US not to have filled that gap -- but with the "peace dividend" being sliced and diced by Congress in the mid-1990s, there was no way anyone was going to triple the foreign aid budget in order to bail out tyranny. Furthermore, if we had tripled foreign aid, we're not exactly talking about the kind of countries that would have wanted conditional aid and most certainly not the kind who would have wanted more butter than guns.

The absence of Soviet foreign aid, combined with increased globalization has made life difficult for some -- but for who exactly? The farmer or the warrior?

2003-03-28T15:35:00.000-08:00

The Ghosts of Vietnam

Today, James Taranto writes in the OpinionJournal's Best of the Web stating,

"In the dreams of the anti-American left, every war is Vietnam. That conflict was their greatest--indeed, their only--triumph of the 20th century. A divided America lost its will to fight, and the people of South Vietnam lost their chance at freedom. Some folks positively lust for American defeat--Newsday reports Nicholas De Genova, a Columbia University anthropologist, told a campus "teach-in" that "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus"--while others reflexively reach for the Vietnam analogy every time America goes to war."

One often overlooked facet of the Vietnam War is that we militarily we defeated the Viet Cong (not the other way around). The 1968 Tet Offensive, largely seen through the eyes of the western press as a disaster for the US military was in actuality a complete and crushing rout of the Viet Cong. After the Tet Offensive, Nixon's Vietnamization strategy (designed to remove American forces from ground combat) is what often gets synthesized into the popular notion of "failure" along with the historically out-of-sequence tv shots of a Huey lifting Americans off the embassy in Saigon.

That being said I can't sit here with a straight face and say that Vietnam was a success for America -- it wasn't. Nonetheless, what I find ironic about the anti-war movement today is that because of its success in creating the notion of an unjust war in Vietnam, the anti-war movement is emboldened not by morality but by a sense of destiny that the "establishment" can be defeated. "Peace," is merely but a means for the anti-war movement to destroy authority. For me, this characteristic makes the anti-war movement nothing but the saddest form of human existence imaginable.

2003-03-28T05:54:00.000-08:00

Crash and Burn

At the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting, Howard Dean addressed his fellow party members. Among the gems in his speech was this tidbit:

White folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too.

If Dean lasts much past the South Carolina primary, I think it'll be evidence that the Democrats are about as relevant as the UN. We're talking landslide Republican victories across the board.

Related Articles

Address to Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting - Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

2003-03-28T05:45:00.000-08:00

Dole speaks out

Former Presidential candidate, Bob Dole writes about his Iraq "scorecard" in today's Wall Street Journal.

Here are some of the excerpts:

France (F-). F is for France. The U.N. can never be relevant unless the Security Council is restructured. France's presence is an anachronism. It should be removed, and Germany and Japan added.

Germany (Gentleman's C). Through their experience of World War II, the Germans have earned the right to oppose war. Unlike the French, they can say with authority, "We don't want another war." When Chancellor Schroeder echoes that view, he taps into something real. Germany leads Europe. Its economic reach is global, and it is a vital ally. It wasn't with us in Iraq, but probably will be the next time.

I frankly don't buy the notion that the Security Council can be restructured with different participants. Restructuring assumes that the Security Council itself isn't an anachronism. I most especially don't buy that Germany and Japan should be on the Security Council. The Security Council has too much power today. Its role should be scaled down to coordinating consensus among member states not issuing proclaimations for war.

On a lighter note, here's what Dole had to say about Hollywood and the anti-war movement:

And the Hollywood celebrity critics can work on their high school GEDs.

Hollywood should fear a man with nothing to lose.

Related Articles:

My Score Card - Bob Dole, writing in the Wall Street Journal

2003-03-27T11:26:00.000-08:00

Sensationalism at its worst

Yesterday evening the press was hot about an Iraqi regime report that the US had bombed a marketplace in Baghdad. According to some reports, the bombing was either the result of the US military taking undue risks or simply US military incompetence. The Iraqi regime for its part claimed that the Americans dropped cluster bombs on civilians -- a charge that was repeated by the Western press as if the Iraqi regime were a credible source of information.

What is absent from these accounts is the following image of the bombed area versus the targeted area presented by the vice Director of Operations, General McChrystal:

Accompanying this image were McChrystal's remarks:

nor were any bombs or missiles dropped or fired in the district outlined in blue on this image

The yellow circle in the center for reference contains the presidential palace.

Gives you a feel where we are.

Related Articles:

DoD News Briefing - ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. McChrystal - Department of Defense

2003-03-26T22:52:00.000-08:00

The French: Simultaneously limp-wristed and strong-armed?

Glenn Reynolds cites an article this evening that provides evidence of French strong-arm tactics with Turkey that resulted in the Turks not allowing US troops open a northern front in Iraq.

Back in February I wrote that French pressures on Turkey would probably trump American pressures becuse the Turks fear the French more than they fear the US. The reason is historical: the French have never hesitated to twist Turkey's arm to further French policies whereas the US has always played the role of good cop as shown in the following excerpts from my article. The irony of course is that Chirac is painting America as the big bad bully, when historically it is the French who have been the one's to use strong arm tactics.

Excerpts:

In addition to land contributions, I believe the Turks are worried about the loss of trading partners in Europe, the loss of it's EU application status and critical foreign and emergency aid that it receives from EU member states.

Consider this, in 1980, the Turks had a military led revolt that resulted in a temporary suspension of democracy for three years. Europe responded by canceling "the 4th Financing Protocol" otherwise known as Turkey's aid package from Europe. Additionally, Turkey came very close to being voted out of the Council of Europe altogether.

Also relevant for today's events was the US reaction to the military takeover: we expressed confidence in the military leaders and their promises to restore democracy as quickly as it could, but we did not halt aid to Turkey. In today's light, given the split between America and France and Germany, which is more likely to happen: 1. EU turns its back on Turkey, 2. US fails to ante up to Turk demands for more money.

2003-03-25T14:00:00.000-08:00

BBC At-a-glance

Tuesday, 25 March

2103:Iraqi state television broadcasts halt for 15 minutes, before returning on air with weaker signal, indicating back-up systems are being used, BBC correspondent in Baghdad says.

2100:Two UK soldiers killed in friendly fire incident near Iraqi town of Basra. Two more said to be seriously injured.

2020: Renewed bombardment of Baghdad reported by correspondents in the Iraqi capital.

1946: Iraq's main Shia Muslim opposition group, the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, says it can confirm a popular rebellion among the Shia population of Basra. Saddam Hussein's regime is dominated by members of the Sunni Muslim faith.

1944: Emergency meeting of United Nations Security Council to discuss the war in Iraq will be held on Wednesday, the council's current president, Mamady Traore of Guinea, announces.

1930: Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahaf denies any uprising against the authorities in Basra, in a statement to al-Jazeera television.

1834: US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the military campaign could grow more dangerous.

1718: UK military officials say there appears to be some kind of uprising in Basra. A British journalist stationed with troops near the southern city says there are reports of Iraqi soldiers shooting at civilians protesting against Saddam Hussein's regime.

1630: The BBC's Andrew North in Nasiriya says he found Iraqi weapons, uniforms and chemical protection suits in a hospital in Nasiriya. US marines who took control of the complex said they had also come under fire from soldiers at the hospital.

1558: Military officials say a US F-16 fighter jet shot at a Patriot missile defence battery near Najaf in central Iraq in a "friendly fire" incident; no injuries are reported.

1533: US President George W Bush confirms he has asked Congress for $74.7bn in extra funds to pay for the war.

1513: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal says the kingdom has proposed a peace plan to end the conflict in Iraq, but has not yet had a response from the US.

1508: UK International Development Secretary Clare Short tells BBC World Service that a further £30m ($47.2m) is being allocated for humanitarian aid in Iraq.

1433: General Renuart says "terrorist-like" cells are responsible for the resistance in Basra.

1414: Major-General Victor Renuart of US Central Command says US forces are "on track" despite the bad weather. He says 1,400 air sorties against the Iraqi Republican Guard are scheduled for Tuesday.

1352: Kuwait announces that an Iraqi missile has been shot down in its airspace.

1351: The US Fifth Fleet in the Gulf raises its alert level amid fears of suicide attacks from Iraqis using speedboats.

1339: A light but steady stream of Iraqi defectors continues to arrive in the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq, reports the BBC's John Simpson from the region.

1320: About 500 Iraqis have been killed in the last two days by US forces in the south of Iraq, according to Command Sergeant-Major Kenneth Preston, who oversees the US 3rd Infantry Division.

1319: US General Myers says sandstorms will delay advance to Baghdad.

1255: Bombing continues during afternoon on southern outskirts of Baghdad, as blinding sandstorm whips across the city, the BBC's Paul Wood reports.

1240: US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Richard Myers tells American television that he believes the toughest fighting in the war with Iraq is still ahead.

1235: Iraqi television broadcasts a message, allegedly from Saddam Hussein, to tribal chiefs urging them to "escalate and enhance" their fighting against the "aggressors".

1215: UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says "huge amount" achieved in Iraq but the campaign will take time and perseverance amid Iraqi resistance. He pledges that "this time" the West will not let the Iraqi people down.

1125: Bodies of at least 30 Iraqis seen along the road from key town of Nasiriya.

1055: US and British attacks have killed 16 Iraqis and wounded 95 over the past 24 hours, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf says.

1050: The Information Minister says Iraqi forces killed what he called "scores of invaders" in marshes near Nasiriya but he gives no precise numbers; such figures have not been confirmed by US or British sources.

1050: Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahaf denies that Russia has given Iraq military equipment.

1010: Brigadier Jim Dutton of the British Royal Marines says the southern port of Umm Qasr is now "safe and open"; hopes the first aid ship will arrive in 48 hours.

1000: Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan criticises Arab countries which supply the United States and Britain with oil.

0845: Iraqi officials say they have delivered food and medicine supplies for six months across the country, but accuse the US and UK of preventing supplies paid for under the oil-for-food programme from reaching Iraq.

0825: A convoy of US Marines crosses the Euphrates river at Nasiriya to advance north, after meeting stiff Iraqi resistance.

0740: A British soldier from the 1st Battalion The Black Watch has been killed in action in an operation near al-Zubayr in southern Iraq, UK military officials say.

0730: South Korean parliament postpones until next month a vote on sending non-combat troops to Iraq.

0635: British military commanders say status of Basra has changed and the city is now a military objective in order to get humanitarian aid through.

0620: Substantial numbers of US forces are now passing through Nasiriya, the BBC's Andrew North reports, although the area is still not totally secure.

0550: The first British soldier killed in action in Iraq is named by the Ministry of Defence as Sergeant Steven Mark Roberts of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment.

0525: A sandstorm blows in over US troops advancing on Baghdad, reducing visibility and hampering operations.

0505: Reuters correspondent in Baghdad reports distant explosions to the south of the city, as coalition forces move towards the capital.

0455: British Royal Marines move into positions along the Iraqi border with Iran.

0342: American TV networks claim intelligence sources tell them that troops around Baghdad could be authorised to use chemical weapons if other means of defence appear to be failing, reports the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.

0335: The BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs reports that the ground attack on Baghdad has yet to begin and that troops may be delayed a few days as bad weather, including sandstorms, closes in.

0230: American Secretary of State Colin Powell describes the progress of US-led forces in Iraq as rather remarkable and says the US campaign will be successfully finished in the not-too-distant future.

0053: Pentagon identifies the two Apache helicopter pilots captured by Iraq and shown on TV.

0031: British support for the war in Iraq increases to 54% of the population, according to an ICM survey for The Guardian newspaper carried out in the days since hostilities started. Thirty percent of those polled were opposed to the war.

0005: President George W Bush is expected to ask Congress for almost $75bn (£47bn) to pay for the war in Iraq, and will formally propose a supplementary budget in a speech later on Tuesday.