Thanks to Captain Ed for pointing out Fouad Ajami’s article in OpinionJournal (log in with BugMeNot). It’s a remarkable account of his four weeks in the Middle East, and of the sea change in American foreign policy that has brought hope to Arabs longing for freedom:

The weight of American power, historically on the side of the dominant order, now drives this new quest among the Arabs. For decades, the intellectual classes in the Arab world bemoaned the indifference of American power to the cause of their liberty. Now a conservative American president had come bearing the gift of Wilsonian redemption. …

Americans may not have cared for those rulers, but we judged them as better than the alternative. We feared the "Shia bogeyman" in Iraq and the Islamists in Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia; we bought the legend that Syria’s dominion in Lebanon kept the lid on anarchy. We feared tinkering with the Saudi realm; it was terra incognita to us, and the House of Saud seemed a surer bet than the "wrath and virtue" of the zealots. Even Yasser Arafat, a retailer of terror, made it into our good graces as a man who would tame the furies of the masked men of Hamas. That bargain with authoritarianism did not work, and begot us the terrors of 9/11.

… Mr. Bush may not be given to excessive philosophical sophistication, but his break with "the soft bigotry of low expectations" in the Arab-Islamic world has found eager converts among Muslims and Arabs keen to repair their world, to wean it from a culture of scapegoating and self-pity. Pick up the Arabic papers today: They are curiously, and suddenly, readable. They describe the objective world; they give voice to recognition that the world has bypassed the Arabs. The doors have been thrown wide open, and the truth of that world laid bare. Grant Mr. Bush his due: The revolutionary message he brought forth was the simple belief that there was no Arab and Muslim "exceptionalism" to the appeal of liberty. For a people mired in historical pessimism, the message of this outsider was a powerful antidote to the culture of tyranny. …

Read the whole thing.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Jeff Goldstein pointed with bewilderment to a post by guest blogger iraqwarwrong at the Unpopulist. Here’s a taste:

That’s right.  The Iraq War?  Remember that (Or did u forget already / So busy with stocks 401-k trading/ New orleans jazz festivals/ sailing yachts, ect).  We invaded a SOVEREIGN ARAB COUNTRY based on a pack of smoke and ribbons foisted on us by the mendacy of a handful of nameless unaccountability Neocon’s. 

Do you know.  Do you care?  WEll you better because I’m here to tell you.  The Iraq War was wrong and thats all there is to it But this is pretty obvious if u just LOOK at the situation objectively(it takes a real stubborn to hold out still).   Don’t like it TOUGH I’m just the messenger(here).  (Mroe post’s to come later hopefuly)

The comments at both places are full of speculation about whether this is clever parody or real. I poked around The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog (TIWWWB) a bit. At first, I thought it was real, not parody. Then I saw the post, "Fighting Manacheinism run amuck," and now I’ve changed my mind (emphasis added):

… Manacheinism. It led to the wrong Iraq war. Since it is wrong, it must be resisted. But how? Well, us, for straters. The Iraq war was wrong, and so wrong, and wrong again, and this cries out for dissent and resistance and blowback. We know it and you know it.

So here’s what I’m trying to say (bear, with me). A wrong war like during the Iraq war was cannot just be sitted idly by by. People who know it’s wrong have to speak out against hte people who know it’s right, and vise verca, so that people can CLEARLY see who’s wrong and right. There’s no middle ground here (because of Iraq war wrong) and to say that there might be, just reduces our chances of reducing the wrong. We can’t let that happen. The wrong is too important not to be right. In this case

This is why one of the first most important things to do is to seperate people into good and bad based on whether they think the Iraq war was wrong. This is the ONLY way to fight the wrong results of Bush’s Manacheinism.

There’s no middle ground. We have to see who’s right and who’s wrong, and separate good from bad in order to fight Manicheanism! How can this not be parody?

It has to be parody. He’s an Adorable Little Rodent in the TTLB Ecosystem, and I’m a mere Flippery Fish. If TIWWWB isn’t parody, then that’s just too humiliating to bear.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

The New York Times examined class, economic mobility, and the American dream in a series entitled "Class in America." Someone — I forget who — remarked that it was so lengthy that people who worked for a living couldn’t read it. I certainly haven’t; I can’t even be bothered to come up with a link for it. The theme seemed to be that this isn’t really the land of opportunity and there is no American dream. Gee, who would have guessed — the NY Times concluding that the American capitalist economy is unfair, oppressive, and eeevil.

Alan Reynolds, in Wednesday’s featured article for OpinionJournal (log in with BugMeNot), not only corrects the record regarding research on changes in mobility ("…has not changed, or might have moved imperceptibly in either direction…"), but restates some truths that ought to evoke a "Well, duh!" reaction, but for some reason continue to be met with surprise and skepticism (emphasis added):

… Median income for households with two full-time earners was $85,517 in 2003 compared with $15,661 for households in which nobody worked. Median income for households with one worker who worked full-time all year was $60,852, compared with $28,704 for those who worked part-time for 26 weeks or less.

Experienced supervisors earn twice as much as young trainees. Median income for households headed by someone age 45 to 54 was $60,242 in 2003, compared with $27,053 for those younger than 24. When we define people as poor or rich at any moment in time, we are often describing the same people at earlier and later stages of life. Lifetime income is a moving picture, not a snapshot.

Well, duh! Your work becomes more valuable as you become more experienced and acquire more responsibility.

Those with four or more years of college earn three times as much as high school dropouts. Median income for college grads was $68,728 in 2003, compared with $22,718 for those without a high school diploma.

Well, duh! If you know more, you earn more. If you don’t know much, you don’t earn much.

There are two workers per household in the top fifth of income distribution, but fewer than one in the bottom fifth, which relies heavily on transfer payments that generally keep pace with inflation. Yet by definition, rising real wages mean incomes of two-earner families rise more rapidly than inflation. … The gap between two-earner families in the top fifth and no-earner families in the bottom must grow wider when salaries rise in real terms.

Well, duh! You benefit from increased productivity only to the extend that you produce something.

All this stuff seems self-evident to me. It’s nice that there’s empirical data, but in its absence, I’d argue that the "Well, duh!" statements above are true out of logical necessity. It would require a perverse universe for them not to be true. (Or a draconian government imposing perverse rules on a rational universe; see Communism, history of.)

Yet, the entire world view of liberalism/leftism is based on ignoring or denying every one of these truths and insisting that success goes to "the winners in life’s lottery" or to those who’ve been unfairly given some advantage or privilege. And they call themselves the reality-based community?

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

The Denver Post reported this morning that Sen. Ken Salazar was offering a deal on judicial nominees:

Salazar publicly floated a compromise plan offering "up-or- down votes" for all seven of Bush’s controversial appeals- court nominees in exchange for a guarantee that Democrats keep the right to filibuster other nominees until early 2007.

During his Senate campaign, Salazar promised to support "an up-or-down vote" for every nominee. He’s since tried to weasel his way out of that pledge — it was misunderstood, taken out of context, I don’t recall the wording of the question, etc.

But Salazar didn’t make the promise just once in a Rocky Mountain News interview. That pledge was one of the centerpieces of his effort to portray himself as a moderate within the Colorado "mainstream," and not a liberal. He repeated it at many campaign stops and elaborated upon it thusly (per Judicial Confirmation Blog, emphasis added): 

"One of the most disgracefully partisan spectacles of President Bush’s first term was the way Senate Democrats obstructed the appointment of his judicial nominees with filibusters."

So now, Salazar is offering to keep the unconditional promise he made, but only if his conditions are met. If they aren’t, he says he’ll behave in a disgracefully partisan manner.

Radio news at lunchtime was reporting that the negotiations have collapsed. If you’re a Colorado resident, contact Sen. Salazar’s office today. Tell them that you agree with his assessment during the campaign that these filibusters are disgracefully partisan. Tell them you demand that the Senator keep his word. Contact information, courtesy of TheOrator.com:

Sen. Ken Salazar (D)
40A Dirksen Senate Office Building
(202) 224-5852; 228-5036
Denver: (303) 455-7600
Web Site

If you’re outside of Colorado, it won’t hurt to contact Salazar, but your own senators are a better bet. See TheOrator.com for their contact info.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

I just discovered Carl Frank’s May 17 post at No Oil for Pacifists entitled "The Framers Had Nukes" (and since he quotes himself, I guess I missed an important earlier post as well). I’m impressed. I think he’s destroyed the argument that the Constitution is silent on the supermajority issue:

 Article II, Section 2, clause 2 contains three sub-clauses; only the first two are relevant to the Constitutionality of the filibuster in the context of judicial confirmation. For convenience, I’ve added bullets and one intervening return, but the words and punctuation are unaltered:

• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
  
• and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for . . .

The two sub-clauses are broadly similar; together with the omitted language, they’re the "advice and consent" clause. Nonetheless, there are two key differences. First, they prescribe the process for different events: the first when ratifying a treaty; the second for Presidential appointments. Unsurprisingly, the two sub-clauses are called "treaty" and "appointments" respectively. I’ll return to the second difference presently.

The treaty and appointments sub-clauses are grammatically severable: a semi-colon functions as a period separating related but independent thoughts. This is further reinforced by the unnecessary repetition of the subject ("he") of the second sub-clause. Though related, the sub-clauses stand on their own–independently, in other words.

Viewed in that light, the second variation is unmistakable: Senate advice and consent for a treaty requires 2/3rds or more of the vote for approval; advice and consent on appointments contains no such provision. It is impossible to imagine this omission an oversight–though the Founders were brilliant, the Constitution went through several drafts. Under "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," [the mention of one thing excludes others] the changed wording is a deliberate signal that nothing more than a simple majority governs appointments.

Carl goes on to argue that advice and consent votes differ from votes on legislation:

The Senate isn’t Constitutionally obliged to vote on any legislation–making endless debate kooky, but Constitutional. Here, by contrast, the Constitution demands a vote. A majority vote. Debate isn’t a vote. Where a vote is required, a Senate rule can’t lawfully burden the process in a manner different from the standard codified in the Constitution. The carefully crafted balance between legislative and executive power in the "advice and consent" clause trumps any rule–and any indirect evasion of the Senate’s Constitutional responsibilities.

There’s more. Read the whole thing.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Ernie the Attorney recently posted one of the better examples of stupid email disclaimers:

This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify XXX, Inc. immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of this message including all attachments. Also, please DISREGARD this mail if you received it WITHOUT this disclaimer since that would mean it was not legitimately sent from the XXX mail server. Thank you.

His preceding two posts (here and here) on boilerplate are interesting, too. I like this:

Boilerplate language is to a lawyer as a sidearm is to a gunslinger.  The origins of the term ‘boilerplate’ are interesting but irrelvant here.  The thing you need to understand, in case you were carried away by aliens and haven’t been on Earth in the past 100 years, is that boilerplate language is intended to bore you and intimidate you at the same time.

(HT: Overlawyered)

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

You may have heard about the Supreme Court ruling (PDF of opinion) striking down state laws restricting interstate shipments of wine. You may not have heard that this small blow for economic liberty is yet another in a long line of such victories for the Institute for Justice.

IJ, described by George Will as a "merry band of libertarian litigators," is one of my favorite non-profit organizations. Go read about the wonderful work they’ve done on behalf of minority entrepreneurs and small businesses, victims of eminent domain abuse, and parents fighting for school choice. Then, please join me in supporting them.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Cassandra of Villainous Company continues to offer thoughtful guest commentary at Blackfive. In "War and Remembrance," she provides much to think about:

Increasingly, we see ourselves as divorced from history, our debt to past generations forgotten.  And without the perspective that history provides, without the idea that there are eternal values worth fighting for, worth preserving, we are tyrannized by trivia: the weekly casualty report, the roll-call of combat dead, the annual budget report.  Looked at in isolation, these things loom artificially large.  Unlike our ancestors, we stand alone.  No parade of heroes from bygone ages hardens our resolve and straightens our shoulders with remembered pride.  We do not even know our own heroes.

Once again, RTWT.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

On Thursday, Ed Viesturs reached the 26,545-foot summit of Annapurna in Nepal. He thus became the first American to climb all fourteen 8000-meter peaks. The expedition has a Web page at MSN, and there are some stunning photos, along with audio and video clips. Of the summit push, it says:

The team climbed just over 4,000 feet from their camp at 22,500 feet to the 26,545-foot summit in about 11 hours. They made their way through a steep crevasse- and sérac-ridden section for the first third the climb. Then the five climbers took a long, arcing path up a steep, snowy face to reach the bottom of a rock face leading to the summit.

The climbers reached the summit together at 2 p.m. under clear sunlit skies. In our conversation Ed relayed his partner Veikka’s incredible strength and endurance. "Veikka kicked trail for the last half of the day and I couldn’t catch up with [him]," Ed said. "The Italians are phenomenal," he added. Indeed, tagging a summit like Annapurna, called by some the most dangerous 8,000-meter peak, takes a team effort.

For those of you unfamiliar with Himalayan expeditions, ascending 4000 feet in one day is pretty remarkable. It’s almost Reinhold Messner-like.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

I understand that some blogs — the ones with lots of readers — have a problem with spam in their comments. To such a degree that some have given up and disabled comments.

At this point, I have trouble relating. I’m not exactly overwhelmed with comments (thanks, VB, for your contributions). Or readers, for that matter, although I’m thrilled to see that I’ve climbed from Slimy Mollusc to Flippery Fish in the TTLB Ecosystem (watch out, you Crawly Amphibians, I’m coming through!).

But, if by any chance, you’re a reader who has a blog with a spam problem, you might want to look into the solution offered by David Schneider-Joseph, WebHashcash. Here’s his explanation:

Astute visitors to my blog may have noticed for the past month a subtle little doodad on the comment submission form. That’s WebHashcash functioning. While it’s running, your CPU is maxed out, and when it’s done (after a couple seconds), it will have generated an invisible "stamp" which it attached to your message, proving that your computer invested effort in generating the stamp. It is computationally infeasible to fake such a stamp — its presence proves an investment in CPU time.

The basic idea is that spammers only spam because it’s so cheap to do so. The value of a spam posting to a spammer is far below the value of a legitimate posting to its author. Thus, it’s possible to set a "postage" that’s well below the value of legitimate postings, but above the value of spam. You therefore destroy the economics of spamming by requiring a negligible but real expenditure for each message.

WebHashcash strikes me as remarkably clever and elegant. The installation instructions look coherent and complete; it’s not trivial, but it’s not rocket science. It does depend on Java/Javascript, but Schneider-Joseph addresses that in the comments:

On my blog, if a WebHashcash stamp is not submitted for whatever reason (usually because the user’s browser does not have Java support), the comment goes into a moderation queue, and is displayed once approved by a moderator. In this way, a minimum amount of inconvenience is created for users without Java, but the vast majority of users who have it can post instantly.

If you implement it that way, I don’t see how even the Lynx Luddites can object. Or, just screw them and accept comments only from people who recognize that this is a new century. 😉

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Here’s an interesting technology story I almost missed. Motorola has produced a prototype flat panel display by growing carbon nanotubes (1/10,000th the thickness of a human hair) on a glass substrate:

"With over 15 years experience and 160 patents in carbon nanotube technology and flat panel displays, we have developed a technology that could enable the next generation of large-size flat-panel displays to deliver an extraordinary visual experience at a fraction of current prices," said Jim O’Connor, vice president of Motorola technology incubation and commercialization.

He said a 40-inch screen will cost less than $400. This compares with 40-inch liquid-crystal plasma screens costing $2,500 and up today.

The reporter is a little confused regarding LCDs and plasmas, but O’Connor’s point gets through. And it’s great news. Except for those of us who’ve already spent $2500 and up. [sigh] 

[HT: EconoPundit]

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Denver recently re-enacted its idiotic ban on pit bulls, and GeekWithA.45 sees an interesting parallel to guns in a post entitled "Registration Doesn’t Lead To Confiscation. Sure. Yeah. Right." He quotes from Bill Johnson’s column in the Rocky Mountain News (which is highly critical of Denver and worth a read), and then makes two observations (emphasis added):

What this article doesn’t mention, of course, is exactly how the police know where to go round up dogs of a given breed.

I’ll betcha the usual dollar that it’s dog licences.

That, and "anonymous informants":

Quote:
————–
"There ain’t no dogs in the basement!" she yells as the uniformed man and woman, responding to an informant’s report of a pit bull, interrogate her. Outside, squad cars filled with police officers wait to see if they are needed.
————-

So, here we have the animal control officers, backed up by men with guns, operating on a tip, and apparently without a warrant.

The only thing we need to complete the scene is a refrain from the Nuremberg chorus.

Oh, wait! Here it is!
————–
"I’m just doing my job," the woman officer later laments.
————–

There are parallels between the irrational fear of a specific breed of dog and the irrational fear of a specific kind of self-defense tool, so I’m sympathetic to these dog owners and their pets (even though I’m firmly a cat person). But I must note that my firearms aren’t likely to escape from my property and tear up the neighbors’ yards or frighten their children and pets. But then, they’ve been properly trained.

On a different issue, Bill Johnson’s column touches gingerly on something I’ve thought of:

And then he raises an issue I had not contemplated, and which I do not lend much credence to. But I will give him his say because it matches what has happened the last two days in the city:

"There appears a racial end of this," Bill Suro says.

"Look at the dogs that have been impounded, and the surnames of their owners. . . . They aren’t killing dogs from Cherry Creek. They pick on the easiest people to pick on, the ones who give up easiest," he said, adding that he has forwarded this claim to the American Civil Liberties Union.

I’ve seen several TV news stories on this, which included video of maybe 6 or 8 pit bull confiscations in total. Every single one was from a Hispanic or black owner. And where the video made it possible to judge the homes, they seemed to be, shall we say, rather modest.

Now, pit bulls may be significantly more popular among low-income minorities — I don’t know. But every single one? Are there no white, middle class pit bull owners in Denver? Or were they spared the media ride-alongs and surprise visits for some reason?

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Here’s a first: a NY Time story (log in with BugMeNot) about arch-villain/lobbyist/influence-peddler Jack Abramoff that doesn’t mention Tom DeLay in the first paragraph:

WASHINGTON, May 12 – A federal grand jury has subpoenaed the files of a former executive director of the Democratic National Committee and another Democratic political consultant in a criminal investigation of Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist at the center of corruption and influence-peddling inquiries by the Justice Department and Congress, the consultants say.

In fact, DeLay only comes up in paragraph 7:

The subpoena to Mr. Lunde and Mr. Burger is a reminder that Mr. Abramoff – although best known for his ties to powerful Republicans, especially the House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas – also sought help from Democrats on behalf of his lobbying clients. 

It’s a reminder I’m surprised got past the editor. It’s a reminder that’s only necessary because the Times and its MSM cohorts have done their best to play up the "ties to powerful Republicans" and ignore or play down all the evidence of comparable relationships with Democrats — thus ensuring that Abramoff is "best known" for the former.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

It’s probably one of the world’s most common superstitions. But why? This page will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about Friday the 13th. Except how to pronounce paraskevidekatriaphobia. Good luck with that.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed