Great Books Meme of the Week

I have actually seen this in several places, but seeing it on Damien's site (see post below) reminded me that I wanted to get in on the band wagon. Of this list of 101 Great Books, the ones in bold are those which I have actually read:

Beowulf
Achebe, Chinua - Things Fall Apart
Agee, James - A Death in the Family
Austen, Jane - Pride and Prejudice
Baldwin, James - Go Tell It on the Mountain
Beckett, Samuel - Waiting for Godot
Bellow, Saul - The Adventures of Augie March
Bronte, Charlotte - Jane Eyre
Bronte, Emily - Wuthering Heights
Camus, Albert - The Stranger
Cather, Willa - Death Comes for the Archbishop
Chaucer, Geoffrey - The Canterbury Tales (Some, not all)
Chekhov, Anton - The Cherry Orchard
Chopin, Kate - The Awakening
Conrad, Joseph - Heart of Darkness
Cooper, James Fenimore - The Last of the Mohicans
Crane, Stephen - The Red Badge of Courage
Dante - Inferno (But you have to read parts II & III for it to count)
Cervantes, Miguel - Don Quixote
Defoe, Daniel - Robinson Crusoe
Dickens, Charles - A Tale of Two Cities
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor - Crime and Punishment
Douglass, Frederick - Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
Dreiser, Theodore - An American Tragedy
Dumas, Alexandre - The Three Musketeers (17th Century Tom Clancy)
Eliot, George - The Mill on the Floss
Ellison, Ralph - Invisible Man
Emerson, Ralph Waldo - Selected Essays
Faulkner, William - As I Lay Dying
Faulkner, William - The Sound and the Fury
Fielding, Henry - Tom Jones
Fitzgerald, F. Scott - The Great Gatsby
Flaubert, Gustave - Madame Bovary
Ford, Ford Madox - The Good Soldier
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang - Faust
Golding, William - Lord of the Flies
Hardy, Thomas - Tess of the d'Urbervilles
Hawthorne, Nathaniel - The Scarlet Letter
Heller, Joseph - Catch 22 (Couldn't actually gag through it, but I started)
Hemingway, Ernest - A Farewell to Arms
Homer - The Iliad
Homer - The Odyssey
Hugo, Victor - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hurston, Zora Neale - Their Eyes Were Watching God
Huxley, Aldous - Brave New World
Ibsen, Henrik - A Doll's House
James, Henry - The Portrait of a Lady
James, Henry - The Turn of the Screw
Joyce, James - A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
Kafka, Franz - The Metamorphosis
Kingston, Maxine Hong - The Woman Warrior
Lee, Harper - To Kill a Mockingbird
Lewis, Sinclair - Babbitt
London, Jack - The Call of the Wild
Mann, Thomas - The Magic Mountain
Marquez, Gabriel Garcia - One Hundred Years of Solitude
Melville, Herman - Bartleby the Scrivener
Melville, Herman - Moby Dick
Miller, Arthur - The Crucible
Morrison, Toni - Beloved
O'Connor, Flannery - A Good Man is Hard to Find
O'Neill, Eugene - Long Day's Journey into Night
Orwell, George - Animal Farm
Pasternak, Boris - Doctor Zhivago
Plath, Sylvia - The Bell Jar
Poe, Edgar Allan - Selected Tales
Proust, Marcel - Swann's Way
Pynchon, Thomas - The Crying of Lot 49
Remarque, Erich Maria - All Quiet on the Western Front
Rostand, Edmond - Cyrano de Bergerac
Roth, Henry - Call It Sleep
Salinger, J.D. - The Catcher in the Rye
Shakespeare, William - Hamlet
Shakespeare, William - Macbeth
Shakespeare, William - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Shakespeare, William - Romeo and Juliet
Shaw, George Bernard - Pygmalion
Shelley, Mary - Frankenstein
Silko, Leslie Marmon - Ceremony
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander - One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Sophocles - Antigone
Sophocles - Oedipus Rex
Steinbeck, John - The Grapes of Wrath
Stevenson, Robert Louis - Treasure Island
Stowe, Harriet Beecher - Uncle Tom's Cabin
Swift, Jonathan - Gulliver's Travels
Thackeray, William - Vanity Fair
Thoreau, Henry David - Walden (Another partial read)
Tolstoy, Leo - War and Peace
Turgenev, Ivan - Fathers and Sons
Twain, Mark - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Voltaire - Candide
Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. - Slaughterhouse-Five
Walker, Alice - The Color Purple
Wharton, Edith - The House of Mirth
Welty, Eudora - Collected Stories
Whitman, Walt - Leaves of Grass
Wilde, Oscar - The Picture of Dorian Gray
Williams, Tennessee - The Glass Menagerie
Woolf, Virginia - To the Lighthouse
Wright, Richard - Native Son

Toronto Star "Journalist" Slams Bloggers

Antonia Zerbisias has waked the ire of Glenn Reynolds by claiming (amid a stream of other incoherences) that "the warblog drums are growing silent". The title of her piece in the Toronto Star is "Insult-happy Web guns fall quiet", which illustrates her own illiteracy in addition to a poor grasp of the facts. Things "fall silent" or "grow quiet", not the other way around. [Correction: Evidently the headline was written by her editor, not Zerbisias herself.] But I digress...

She ends her piece with a quote from blogger Marc Weisblott:

"There seems to be warblogger fatigue setting in," says popcult blogeratus Marc Weisblott (http://www.radioweisblogg.blogspot.com) who has been tracking the phenomenon. "I think this Iraq debacle is exasperating all of 'em.

"And when your whole schtick is rage against (the New York Times') Maureen Dowd or (the Globe and Mail's) Heather Mallick ... or, uh, you, that's only going to carry one so far."

Not that I want to be picky or anything, but how exactly did he come to that conclusion? As a quick trip to the blogs she conveniently links will indicate, the bloggers in question all posted specific reasons for their slowdown in posting which had nothing to do with her fantasy of disenchantment with the war effort.

Why do I care what a second-rate Canadian "journalist" has to say? Well, I don't really, I just wanted to point out the reason that two new blogs have been added to my blogroll: Kathy Shaidle's ReLapsed Catholic, and Damien Penny's Daimnation, neither of which I would have heard of if not for Zerbisias' screed.

UPDATE: I have changed the links to point to the responses to Zerbisias, rather than to the blogs themselves. Seems only fair.

UPDATE: Zerbisias responds via email:

Just for the Record?
It's a headline, not a ''title'' -- and columnists don't write them. Editors do.
Thought you should know since you claim to promote literacy.
Carry on.

Corrections made to my text as noted.

Thoughts on Income Tax Withholding

Since Friday is payday for a large percentage of Americans, Tom Crowe's post titled Income Confiscation Day will probably hit home with a lot of us.

I heard that the Coors brewing company, when it was headed up by the founder, would pay all of its employees in cash. On payday everyone would line up at one window where the cashier would hand the employee their entire gross pay. Then each employee would step down to the next window where that cashier would take back the amount that employee owed the government in income taxes.

Incidentally, though he gets the general point correct, this wasn't exactly what Coors did. This tactic was used by other employers, and was surpressed as noted by the IRS, but what Coors did was give employees their gross pay for two months then take the full three months worth of withholding in the third month. Same point, different approach.

NOTE: Here and here are two sites that document this, as well as making other useful comments about problems with the withholding scheme. Both worth reading in full. (Search for the word Coors to find the discussion of the story noted above.)

Indeed

INDC posts a classic "interview" with the InstaPundit. Read The Whole Thing.

Namibia Going the Way of Zimbabwe

The BBC reports that the Namibian government has issued "requests" for white farmers to sell their land to the state.

The notices sent to a small number of farms on Wednesday said: "You are cordially invited to make an offer to sell the property to the state and to enter into further negotiations in that regard. In the light of the seriousness of the matter, I shall appreciate it if you would react within 14 days."
[...]
Almost half of Namibia's land, including the best arable plots, are owned by about 4,000 mostly white farmers.

The government has been trying to redistribute land to black people to undo the legacy of the colonial era.

Since independence in 1990, the government has purchased 118 farms in a willing-buyer, willing-seller programme.

But Mr Nujoma has said the government will begin expropriating some white farms.

Sanctions Against Syria

This via email from GOPUSA:

President George W. Bush issued an executive order this week which imposes sanctions on the nation of Syria. The president says that Syria's support for terrorism poses a "threat to U.S. national security."

"On December 12, 2003, I signed into law the [Syria Accountability Act] in order to strengthen the ability of the United States to effectively confront the threat to U.S. national security posed by Syria's support for terrorism, its military presence in Lebanon, its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its actions to undermine U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq," Bush said.

The executive order signed by President Bush on Tuesday imposes sanctions on Syria pursuant to the SAA. According to a statement issued by the White House, implementation of sanctions comes after "many months of diplomatic efforts to convince the Syrian government to change its unacceptable behavior."

About damn time...

Darfur: Muslims Killing Muslims

Pastorius sent the following story via email. He asks "If it's true, why is it being ignored by our media even more than they are already ignoring the murdering of Sudanese Christians?"

Before leaving the village, the attackers, driving over 3,000 stolen animals before them, tore up Korans found in the mosque and set the building on fire.

Barely a week later, the horsemen returned with soldiers from the regular Sudanese Army and in a four-day rampage killed 80 more people, including women and children. "The soldiers stayed on the edge of the village," said a 37-year-old man. "But they saw everything."

In the village of Sandikoro, soldiers and horsemen tore up Korans and defecated on them before burning the mosque, with its imam inside. In Kondoli, they killed another imam, Abrahim Durra, as well as a second imam and the muezzin.

Jane at Armies of Liberation also links to this article (originally on Lebanon's Daily Star).

My initial reaction was that I think the reason they are doing it is probably summed up by this line, "Theirs is not the shrill, extremist Islam of the fundamentalist generals who seized power in Sudan in 1989, but a quiet, tolerant Islam that has characterized Sudan for most of its recent history and that still characterizes most of its citizens - Arab or African." Like all fascists, Islamofascists are just as angry at unenthusiastic members of their own group as at outside enemies. The point is control and supremacy and any sort of oposing view is dangerous. I am not sure why the media has failed to notice this. It seems that it would be safer for them to condemn Sudan if it is targeting its fellow muslims because that wouldn't allow people to get the idea that Christians deserve fair treatment.

A search for "Darfur Muslim" on CNN.com produces the following lone story:

In Darfur, unlike in the broader Sudanese civil war, the conflict is not religious but ethnic: Sudan's Muslim government, made up mostly of Arabs, is accused of backing Arab militias there, who, according to many observers, are trying to push black Muslim tribes out.

A similar search on Reuters produced no results.

The Economist has the following on its subscription site:

Confusingly, Sudan is the scene of two separate but related civil wars. One, between north and south, has been flaring up and down for half a century. The other, in Darfur, started only in February last year. The older war pits an Islamist government in the north against southerners who are mostly pagan or Christian. Darfur's conflict is Muslim against Muslim. In any event, the prime source of Sudan's horrors is political. Since independence in 1956, Sudan has been ruled by a small and undemocratic elite of mostly Arab Muslims. In the hope of crushing the long-standing rebellion by infidel southerners, they have routinely bombed villages, encouraged their militiamen to enslave southerners and deliberately fostered famine. Perhaps 2m people, mostly civilians, have died.

Abu Ghraib and Pornography II

It didn't take long for my prediction to come true:

I have actually thinking about this connection since the pictures first came out. There are many porn/fetish sites on the internet that would love to have acquired these photos before they became public domain. I am sure there are already sites trying to peddle "previously unrevealed" photos, whether legitimate or fake.

Looks like the Boston Globe fell for just such a scam:

Boston residents got more than they bargained for this morning when their copy of the Globe came complete with graphic photographic images depicting U.S. troops gang-raping Iraqi women.

Problem is the photos are fake. They were taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists, as first reported by WND a week ago.

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

Like I Have Time for This

Uggh! While I was composing the post below, Randy Barnett was adding more fuel to the fire. I still have not fulfilled my promise, made weeks ago, to give a full description of my dissatisfaction with conservative arguments in favor of the Federal Marriage amendment. But Professor Barnett has issued a challenge that is just too enticing to pass up:

I also pose the following challenge to those who favor state endorsement of religion at the state level: if you are willing to modify your commitment to the entire Constitution when parts of it get in your way--in order to reach, e.g., private homosexual conduct--can you offer a principled reason why I could not use your interpretive method to evade the original meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to effectuate a separation of church and state that conflicts with the original meaning of both?

I should start out by saying that I am not sure if I qualify for the target audience. I do favor state-level endorsement of Christianity to a limited degree, but I am not willing to modify my commitment to the entire Constitution to achieve it, and I have no particular axe to grind with respect to homosexuality. However, I do disagree with Barnett that Lawrence v. Texas was rightly decided and I think I can offer an argument that does justice to both his jurisprudential concerns and my principles.

The first issue to be raised is with Barnett's suggestion that

...a commitment to formalism based on original meaning requires one to accept results with which one passionately disapproves--such as depriving legislatures of the power to criminalize homosexual sex in private, i.e. not in public places where even heterosexual "fornication" can be prohibited

But such a commitment does not require any such deprivation. This is not the place to go into a full discussion of Lawrence but it is worthwhile to briefly examine the four basic assertions on which was based the decision to overturn the precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick.

a. The right to a homosexual "relationship" is more far-reaching than merely the right to engage in certain sexual conduct and entails a liberty to "enter upon relationships in the confines of their own homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons".

b. The historical grounds for prohibiting sodomy have not been limited to same-sex relations until recently.

c. Legislative and judicial changes since Bowers v Hardwick was decided as well as developments in other countries, have called the principles of Bowers into question.

d. Moral disapproval is not sufficient for a governing majority to prohibit behavior.

Points b and c might be relevant if society changes its opinions in this regard (and there is some evidence that it is happening) but societal changes should be enacted by legislatures not courts and, in any event, do not affect fundamental rights. Since rights are based in human nature itself, if it is asserted that a given behavior is a right, presumably it always was and so its status is independent of historical opinions. In fact, positive legislation is often enacted specifically to prevent societal changes from affecting these fundamental rights.

Point d, on the other hand, is precisely what the court was engaged to decide, and so cannot serve as a ground of that decision. It is a direct contradiction of the 10th amendment. The Constitution does not prohibit the states from legislating based on moral disapproval so, unless a violation of some other provision (such as the prohibition on religious tests, for instance) can be shown, the power to do so must be presumed to be reserved to the states. The 9th Amendment indicates that there are non-enumerated rights which are retained by the people, but this simply prohibits the legislature from overriding rights that are understood to exist. It does not empower the court to create new rights that were never previously acknowledged.

This leaves us with point a. It is important to note that this case was decided under a Due Process rubric rather than an Equal Protection one. Due process should refer, not to the content of the behavior, but to the means by which the behavior comes to be prosecuted. But what in the above argument distinguishes the private practice of homosexual conduct from, say, a private practice of smoking marijuana? The only difference that I can discern would be an unstated assumption that homosexual behavior attaches to one's person in a way that other behavior does not. This would seem to be hinted at in the phrase "dignity as persons" in Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority. This would then presumably require a more extensive process than the normal police authorities entailed by search warrants. This is the theory of jurisprudence known as "substantive due process".

But no such concept is given in the Constitution, so one might disagree in principle with the Court while still upholding the commitment that Prof. Burnett desires. Furthermore, if one believes, as I do, that the concept of substantive due process assumed in this decision, along with a string of cases such as Griswold, Casey and Roe, collectively indicate a pattern of usurpation on the part of the Court, one can reasonably consider methods of reigning in such decisions without necessarily becoming a revolutionary.

I admit that so far judicial conservatives have done more complaining than actual productive thinking, but I think there is a good argument to be made for limiting without abolishing the power of judicial review. There are two ways this could be done. The first would be to provide a legislative check, similar to overriding the presidential veto. I have discussed this below with regard to Rep. Lewis' proposed legislation, although I think he would have been better advised to make it a proposed amendment. This has the benefit of being simple, but the danger of descending into mob rule that both Barnett and I have cautioned against.

The second, harder, way would be to specify more precisely the bases on which the courts may interpret the Constitution. For instance, a full description of the "original meaning" principle might be added as an amendment or perhaps a restriction that no court could construe based on "emanations and penumbral" but must restrict itself to actual the actual text. To be sure, such a proposal would have to be very carefully worded, and I do not know of many people currently alive that I would trust to do it. But Barnett's thorough and principled discussion of the first amendment in the post above gives me hope that there are still people who can think clearly about such issues. And I think the exercise might be valuable in that it would at least clarify what judicial conservatives think they mean when they decry judicial activism.

This discussion has somewhat widened beyond my original intent so let me summarize my answer to Barnett for clarity's sake. I believe it is perfectly reasonable for the state to prohibit private conduct which a majority has traditionally believed to be immoral provided that it does not violate other constitutional principles in doing so (e.g. punishment is not cruel or unusual, laws not applied ex post facto, etc.) and that procedural due process is followed. This applies to such activities as homosexuality, abortion and marijuana use that I would not indulge in, but also to such activities as non-procreative sex that I might. But it does not apply to such constitutionally protected activities as religious worship, political speech, etc. Also, it does not apply to traditionally held rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution, such as the right to educate one's children.

I think this is a sufficiently robust view that it can stand up to whatever criticism Prof. Barnett may be inclined to throw at it. But I confess that sleep deprivation may have falsely induced me to believe that what I have written has been expressed coherently, so I reserve the right to clarify any assertions he finds particularly laughable.

Bainbridge's Podiatric Friendly Fire

Steven Bainbridge shoots himself (and other pro-life, judicial conservatives) in the foot in a classic case of not understanding the basis of his own position. Furthermore, (as I will discuss more fully below) he adopts the very principle of judicial activism that he is criticizing.

First, a little background. This is a recent entry in a debate that has been going on between Bainbridge and Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy. I may have missed some posts, but here is a general overview of the correspondence: Bainbridge, Barnett, Bainbridge, Barnett, Bainbridge, Barnett, Bainbridge, Barnett, Barnett. To summarize all of this, Bainbridge began by arguing that judicial activism is contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, but his argument has shifted to the assertion that the immoral results of that activism would have been deplored by the original authors. Furthermore, although the issue of democratic majoritarianism has been a theme throughout Bainbridge's discourse, it has shifted from being a corrective to putatively illegitimate court activity to serving as a legitimate alternative to the current constitutional order in its own right.

I agree with the substance of Bainbridge's agenda, which broadly speaking is an attempt to hold the line on traditional moral values. But in conflating the jurisprudential argument with the moral one, and compounding this by advocating majoritarianism as an end in itself he has ceased to argue from a conservative position and has begun to advocate revolution.

One of the chief foundations of the conservative philosophy (whether judicial, political or social) is that order is a primary good and that change to an established order, however morally necessary, should only be effected gradually and with deliberation. In the judicial sphere, this principle is called stare decisis and indicates that the any proposed revision of existing law or precedent must meet the burden of both necessity and prudence. This ensures that those living under the law can know in advance what is expected of them and will have adequate time to adjust if those expectations change. This principle is admirably reflected in the US Constitution and in much of its judicial interpretation throughout the history of the Republic. It is against this principle, the sudden change of expectations through judicial fiat, that the practice of judicial activism offends.

But Bainbridge's criticism seems to have moved from the lack of checks on judicial activism, such as:

The founders were very big on checks and balances, but in our time we have ceded a wide range of issues to nine unelected old men and women who decide issues of national import with confidence that they are immune from being held accountable for their decisions.

to an outright claim of legislative superiority in his most recent posts:

The dispute remains - who decides? A judge who agrees with Barnett that a fetus is not a person can effectively take the issue [off] the table, at the very least until turnover on the court produces a majority prepared to reverse that decision. (And, as Casey demonstrated, even the more conservative members of the legal elites cannot be trusted to do the right thing in this area). When a legislature decides to allow abortion, we can try voting them out of office immediately. In a democracy, there is always a risk that immoral laws will be made. I simply prefer to take my chances on legislators who can be held to account through the electoral process than on unelected judges subject to no meaningful checks and balances.

Now it may be that this position has merit, but it is dangerous not to recognize that it is a radical departure from the earlier point. Curtailing judicial activism is an eminently conservative endeavor, but replacing it with unmitigated democracy is not.

As I suggested earlier, there is an even more dangerous theme in Prof. Bainbridge's recent discussion: the silent adoption of the very utopian vision that has inspired most of the egregious examples of judicial activism.

Any legal theory that would validate the murder of over 40 million innocent unborn children raises serious moral concerns, because it likely constitutes material cooperation with evil.

Again, I do not disagree with the content of Bainbridge's analysis. Roe does indeed raise serious moral concerns. But moral judgment does not, in itself, provide sufficient reason for overturning established law because it begs the question "whose moral judgment?" In a society of nearly 300 million potential judges, the presumption of legitimacy must rest with established legal procedures, however repugnant some of the results may be. If it cannot be shown that a given decision is based on illegal processes (and I think both Lawrence and Roe are vulnerable to this criticism) then attempting to trump the legal procedures with moral arguments essentially invites a counter activism that can only lead to chaos. And chaos, as Hobbes and Kirk have both shown, favors not justice but the rule of the jungle.

It would have been far better for Prof. Bainbridge to have stuck to his original argument. For one thing, he could have avoided Barnett's rejoinder that

HIS theory of the Constitution in general, and of the 14th Amendment in particular, would allow abortion--which he considers evil and murder--to continue unchecked so long as a mere majority of the legislature so vote. Indeed, the pro-life forces repeatedly say that they this is an issue properly to be left to the states.

The argument that Roe and Lawrence are a break with both interpretive precedent and actual positive law, and therefore beyond the legal capacity of judicial review, is one that can be readily made. This casts the Supreme Court in the innovative role and lays the groundwork for calls to reign it in. But an appeal to democratic majoritarianism does not merely check the activism of the supreme court, but replaces it with a new activism and invites a descent into civil war carried on by other means. And, as we learned a century and a half ago, those means do not long remain other...

UPDATE: Joel at Calblog makes a good case for one approach I think could work for overturning Roe. Since he also uses the phrase "shot in the foot", I thought it was worth linking, even though he doesn't address the jurisprudential issue discussed above.

The Next Evolution of the Dunk Tank

No Comment.

From the Ministry of Obvious Headlines

Newsmax reports: Economic Growth in U.S. Outpaces Socialistic Europe.

Yeah... And?

Religious Land Use Victory

Also in JWR, a court victory for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA):

It should be self-evident. Unless you are on a plane or a boat, religious expression involves some kind of land use. Unfortunately, far too many municipalities are ignoring this fact when applying their zoning laws and religious liberty suffers. In response, the courts have put teeth into the RLUIPA, a young civil rights law designed to restore full religious freedom to the land use context.

This development is necessary as local zoning officials have time and again trampled on the rights of sincere religious believers, and for a variety of reasons. Many municipalities shut the door on houses of worship to prevent real or imagined tax-base erosion. Others listen too closely to the NIMBY fears of activist neighbors who, oddly enough, think houses of worship make bad neighbors. And finally, as hard experience has shown, cities and townships at times use zoning laws as a cover for outright religious bigotry.

As a result, religious expression has slowly been banished and ghettoized; sometimes through supposedly "general" laws, sometimes through impenetrable red tape or impossible conditions, and sometimes by arbitrarily denying permits to the "wrong type" of church or religion. Houses of worship are routinely banished to the far corners of municipalities by being categorized as "inconsistent with the character" of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural zones in turn (are there any places left?).

Not to be outdone, some municipalities actually amend their zoning laws in direct response to permit applications by religious groups. These religious gerrymanders leave congregations with literally no place to go. Recognizing these threats to religious liberty, the United States Congress unanimously passed RLUIPA in 2000. RLUIPA is robust. It prevents municipalities from discriminating against or "substantially burdening" sincere religious exercise without a compelling reason and, with the help of the courts, is providing a potent counterweight to the discretionary power of local zoning officials.

Jacoby on Education

Jeff Jacoby's article in Jewish World Review highlights an issue that is in danger of being overlooked in all the furor over the war on terror.

Of the roughly 50 million children enrolled in American grade schools, all but about 5 million attend government-run public schools. Of those 5 million, approximately 800,000 attend secular private schools. That leaves just 4.2 million who attend the nation's religious schools — only one American child in 12.

That isn't much, particularly for a country in which more than 60 percent of adults say that religion is very important in their lives. The United States is by far the most religious of the world's industrial democracies. Yet the vast majority of American parents would no more think of sending their children to a parochial school than they would of sending them to an orphanage.

Two Americans who aim to change that attitude are T.C. Pinckney, a retired Air Force brigadier general, and Houston attorney Bruce Shortt. Lay leaders in the Baptist church, they have drafted a resolution — which they hope to bring before the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis next month — urging the denomination's 16 million members to take their children out of public schools and either homeschool them or send them to parochial schools. Their argument is straightforward: Christian parents owe their children a Christian education, not the relentlessly secular and often anti-religious instruction provided in public schools.

Frightening as the prospect of being blown up or gassed while going about our daily lives may be, the true threat to American society is not terrorism but our increasing cultural and spiritual illiteracy. We cannot hope to establish peace in the Middle East if our own value system is based on nothing more enduring than a secularized live-and-let-live tolerance and a gee-whiz fascination with technology and material prosperity. Teaching unbelievers to turn away from the easy dead-end path of revenge and walk the hard road of love and self-sacrifice will require that we ourselves understand that road and are prepared to walk it.

This is a challenge for generations and we must begin with our own all but bankrupt education system. Opposing gay marriage can wait and we cannot allow ourselves to get so caught up in the election cycle that we lose sight of the long-term goal. All of our current social problems are bound up with, if not directly caused by, the growing ignorance of and lack of interest in the robust truths of Christianity.

In the past two and a half years, I have heard no better prescription for winning the war on terror than that uttered in a moment of fury by the lovely but volatile Ann Coulter: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Our government has made a good start on the first point, and has had some success with the second. But the third point cannot be achieved by force of arms or by government activity of any kind. If Islamic culture is to be Christianized, it must be done by persuasion and example. And both are impossible without an educated and attractive Christian culture.

Saddam to be Handed Over to Iraq

This brief note from the AP (via Drudge):

The head of Iraq's war-crimes tribunal said Tuesday that the United States has pledged to hand over Saddam Hussein and about 100 other suspects to Iraqi authorities before July 1, when Iraq assumed sovereignty from its U.S. occupation.

Salem Chalabi told reporters that trials would begin early next year, and that judges would receive "files" on the suspects at the end of this year.

Chalabi is in Kuwait to collect evidence against the suspects.

I am not too thrilled with Chalabi's involvement in this story, but handing over Saddam and other war criminals should be a good symbolic vindication of American involvement in Iraq. This show of good faith on our part, along with the prosecution of those responsible for the Abu Ghraib abuse, may help to ease tensions at least among those who are open to being convinced.

Draft Conspiracy Theory

Much as I hate to disagree with the redoubtable Glenn Reynolds, I think there is an aspect of the draft controversy that he is ignoring:
Quoting James Dunnigan

Talk of reviving the military draft, to supply enough troops for the war on terror, is just that, talk. More accurately, it's clueless and opportunistic politicians fishing for headlines. But the draft "controversy" has become a popular media story in the last few months, even though the military says it has more volunteers than it needs and is even laying off people.

Glenn comments:

And note that there seem to be a lot of "clueless and opportunistic politicians fishing for headlines" these days. It's as if they don't know there's a war on. Or don't care.

I would venture to suggest a third choice to the "don't get it or don't care" alternative. Many people on the left are aware that the opposition to the Vietnam war evaporated at precisely the point that the draft was eliminated. Is it possible that many people who oppose the present war are hoping that reinstating the draft will energize the anti-war movement? That was, after all, a factor in the original proposal:

"One way to avoid a lot more wars to come is institute the draft," Mr. Hollings [author of Senate Bill 89] said. "You will find that this country will sober up, and its leadership, too."

Now, I am not big on conspiracy theories and it makes me feel a little dirty to always be imputing the worst motives to my oponents on the left. But it is difficult not to be suspicious of a group that takes every opportunity to make political capital out of every minor setback or misstep in the war on terror.

Abu Ghraib and Pornography

The Belmont Club links to an article by Donna Hughes in National Review that brings up the connection between the Prisoner Abuse photos and pornography:

The images from Abu Ghraib are trophy pictures. The sadistic MPs are shown posing, smiling, and gloating over their victims and what they have made them do. Similarly, I found numerous offers on the Internet from pimps for men to bring cameras and video recorders with them to make trophy images and videos of their sexual use of women and girls.

Why are we shocked by these images from Abu Ghraib, but when the victims are women (or gay men) the images are called pornography or "adult entertainment"? Why can we easily see the violations of human beings in one set of images, but miss it in others? What if the Iraqi men had been forced to smile, could we be convinced that there was a newly formed "publishing and film production" company in Baghdad instead of sexual abuse and humiliation being perpetrated?

I have actually thinking about this connection since the pictures first came out. There are many porn/fetish sites on the internet that would love to have acquired these photos before they became public domain. I am sure there are already sites trying to peddle "previously unrevealed" photos, whether legitimate or fake. And even pictures that don't specifically deal with sexual humiliation and abuse are often obtained from less than willing subjects. There is a kind of trophism even in "softcore" pornography.

The horror we feel at the exposure of US misbehavior is partly from a sense of betrayal (as noted in the Belmont Club post) and partly from sympathy with the victims of this outrage. But I think this reaction highlights the naivete of people who wink at even consensual sexual misconduct. Once we have cordoned off sexual behavior as existing in a private area, unsusceptible to public censure, it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish "freedom as long as no one is hurt" from "freedom to do what ever feels good".

I realize that I am making a sort of slippery slope argument here, which has fallen out of favor in recent years. But why do you suppose the perpetrators have claimed in their defense that there were insufficient guidlines in place? Could it be because standards have fallen so far that there is now no agreed upon presumption of moral behavior? No doubt I am overreacting, but the partisan glee with which some people have tried to make use of this scandal makes me doubt whether our culture currently agrees upon any fundamental truth.

Liars, Damn Liars and Journalists

Timothy Maier's article at FrontPage Magazine points out that Journalists rank just below auto mechanics in terms of ethics acording to a recent poll:

For two decades polls increasingly have indicated public dismay at the spin and fantasies of the press. In fact, a recent Gallup Poll says Americans rate the trustworthiness of journalists at about the level of politicians and as only slightly more credible than used-car salesmen. The poll suggests that only 21 percent of Americans believe journalists have high ethical standards, ranking them below auto mechanics but tied with members of Congress. More precisely, the poll notes that only one in four people believe what they read in the newspapers. Chicago Tribune Editor Charles M. Madigan may have put it best when he offered this advice: "If you are a journalist, you should probably just assume that you come across as a liar."

A 2004 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of Columbia University's storied Graduate School of Journalism, underscores Madigan's observation. "Since 1985, believability of the daily newspaper has fallen by a quarter, from 80 percent in 1985 to 59 percent in 2002," notes the study, which includes data gathered by the Pew Research Center to form its conclusions. The study also points out that there has been a rapid decline in newspaper readership since the 1980s, with slightly more than half of Americans (54 percent) reading a newspaper during the week.

"The three television network news divisions and local news also saw significant drops from 1985, when they were all above 80 percent for believability," the study reveals. A 1999 survey conducted for the American Society of Newspaper Editors also points out that about 53 percent of the public view the press as out of touch with mainstream America, while 78 percent think journalists pay more attention to the interests of their editors than their readers.

My favorite part of the piece is about two-thirds of the way down:

"For me, I think it's editorial leadership," says Adam Penenberg, the former Forbes Digital Tool reporter who helped expose Glass. Author of Tragic Indifference: One Man's Battle With the Auto Industry Over the Dangers of SUVS, he says that even "when I worked at Forbes, no one ever gave me a piece of paper to sign about ethics." Penenberg believes an ethics guideline on the dos and don'ts - such as not altering quotes, avoiding use of anonymous sources, not holding positions that could be considered a conflict of interest for a reporter, and not owning or purchasing stock before or after writing about a company - would clear up a lot of gray areas between reporters and editors. Creating an ethics standard of the sort that Fortune 500 companies require of their employees would "put the fear of God" into reporters, he says.

Uh huh. These people are adults, right? Souldn't they already know this stuff without an editor having to spell it out for them? Maybe if they already had a little "fear of God", it might make a difference.

Did the Fallujah Gambit Work?

The Christian Science Monitor reports that civility has returned to Fallujah:

The eyes of Abbas Aswad shine, as a US Marine lawyer counts out 16 crisp $50 bills, and places them in his hands. The money is compensation to the Mukhtar village, to fix several fragile water lines broken hours earlier by marines, as they set up positions at the nearby Fallujah railway station.
As this Iraqi front line quiets down - there hasn't been any shooting in Fallujah in days - the payout is part of a concerted American strategy to shift away from war, and to resume the campaign to win hearts and minds. Indeed, perceptions that Iraq is a nation spiraling out of US control began to change this week. Thursday, the US ratcheted up pressure on radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, by seizing the governor's office from his fighters in Najaf. Moderate Shiites and tribal leaders have put forward plans to persuade Mr. Sadr to turn himself in.

[...]

Compensation is not the only means US forces use to connect with Iraqis. An older Iraqi woman living in a trailer hovel adjacent to the rail station says she was beaten by insurgents several weeks ago - accused of being a collaborator - and kicked in the stomach.

US servicemen evacuated Farha Abed Saad for medical treatment after dark, when her pain became unbearable. "Thank God, you have come here to Iraq and make us free," said Ms. Saad, kissing a soldier's hands. "When I see you, I see my own sons! Thank you, thank you."

Like many conservatives -- and, I think the majority of soldiers with boots on the ground -- I was disappointed at the withdrawal from Fallujah on what seemed the eve of victory. As I posted below, this situation was incredibly confusing and I could only hope that we handled it correctly. Well, the above article seems to suggest that, at least for the short term, the results are positive. I am willing to give the coalition the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, having let the insurgents escape can set a bad precedent and may come back to haunt the fledgling democracy in Iraq over the long term. But ultimately the US needs to turn over control to the Iraqi government so that we can turn our attention elsewhere in the Warr on Terror. I am still not fully comfortable with the situation in Iraq, but we must remember that sometimes there are no easy choices. It seems that the situation is coming back into some semblance of control, which is probably the best we can hope for at this point.

Captian's Quarters Caption Contest

Captain Ed is hosting a contest to caption a picture of John Kerry riding his infamous color-coordinated bike. Personally, I won't be participating because this is actually one of Kerry's less goofy pictures. For once he looks almost human -- more like Gomer Pyle than Lurch from the Addams family.

But the real treat will be that there will be a mystery guest judge. Really? I'm jiggered! I wonder who she could be...

(Actually, as you may have guessed, I think I know who it is. But I have no intention of spoiling the surprise.)

UPDATE: Yep. The mystery guest is Whiskey. She actually told me in an email Thursday, so it wasn't any kind of clever deduction on my part. Welcome back to the blogosphere!

All About Oil

Looks like Irael has struck it, this time. Two billion barrels or about a 2-year supply.

Was This an Apology?

The AP reports:

President Bush apologized Thursday for the abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, saying the scenes of mistreatment had made Americans "sick to our stomachs."

A day after he stopped short of apologizing, Bush told Jordan's King Abdullah II: "I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families.

"I told him I was as equally sorry that people seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America," Bush said, standing in the Rose Garden alongside Abdullah.

This is a good start, but any apology needs to be made to the Iraqi's themselves, preferably in Iraq. And that last sentence makes the word "sorry" sound equivocal. More like an expression of regret than an actual apology.

Still, the message seems to have had a positive effect on King Abdullah.

For his part, the king said, "We're all horrified by the images" of torture and abuse.

He said he was confident that American investigations would find the guilty parties. The abuse by some soldiers "doesn't reflect the morals and values" of the United States, Abdullah said.

If other Arab leaders take their cue from the King of Jordan, this may have a largely salutary effect. But that seems a mighty big "if".

In saying he was sorry and promising to bring those responsible to justice, this statement seems to meet at least some of the suggestions made by Andrew Sullivan yesterday.

He should show true responsibility and remorse, which I have no doubt he feels. I can think of no better way than to go to Abu Ghraib itself, to witness the place where these abuses occurred and swear that the culprits will be punished and that it will not happen again. It would be a huge gesture.

Counting the Unchurched

WorldNetDaily reports on a study which indicates that the number of people who have not gone to church within the last six months has increased dramatically over the previous 13 years:

Despite a 15 percent rise in the U.S. population, a new survey shows the number of Americans who don't go to church has nearly doubled in the past 13 years, rising from 39 million to 75 million.

More disturbing to me is the following statistic:

On a surprising note, while about half of the churched population has accepted Jesus as their savior, one of every six unchurched adults (17 percent) has done so as well.

Interestingly, says the report, if the minority of unchurched adults who are born again were connected to a church, the resulting increase would be nearly 13 million new people – more than have joined the nation's churches in the past decade combined.

Is it possible that half of the people who go to church don't believe that Jesus is their savior? And 13 million who do believe don't go to church? This reinforces in my mind the perception that American Christianity has become dangerously secularized.

CUANAS makes a similar observation, but in the context of multi-culturalism:

The only people who will remember their history in such a society are religious people, primarily Jews and Muslims, with a few of the more educated Christians thrown into the mix. Religious people will remember their history because they share a collective myth by which to measure themselves in the world. Of course, the power of the myth is made even stronger when it is in written down and it's dispensation is ritualized, as it is with Judaism and Islam.

(Side note: Christianity's myth is, of course, written down. However, Christianity suffers from the problem that it's only alive and growing branch, the Evangelical branch, is not formally ritualized in it's dispensation of the tradition.)

Blogging for Freedom in Sudan

Jane at Armies of Liberation has issued a call to support the anti-slavery movement. From her blogroll:

Join the blogsphere uprising in support of the Sudanese victims of kidnapping, slavery, torture. Nearly a million civilians have been driven from their homes as monsoon season approaches. Both aid and monitors have been blocked. Thousands of children seperated from their parents lay dying in the desert tonight.

I have had a link to iAbolish since the advent of this site, but I hereby add Anti-Slavery.org and Sudan.net to the list. As well as Armies of Liberation, of course.

I found Jane's site via here comments on the baldilocks post I linked to below. She links to a particular letter crusade by iAbolish that allows you to send a pre-written letter to US and international leaders. (I get these via email, so it never occured to me that they could be linked to externally.) If you have not done so yet, please check out that link.

Letter from US Soldier Condemns Iraqi Prison Abuse

Via Amy Ridenour:

Everyone is so angry. I mean, angry! It is as if those soldiers hurt us more than the enemies here in Iraq have. I don't think that if that RPG last week had hit and killed us in my hummwv, there would have been any of the damage done to our cause here that those soldiers have done. I remember when I worked for the University of Minnesota Police Department that when one police officer acted wrong and was captured on camera, anywhere in the U.S., it was as if all police everywhere were made the bad guys, blamed and hurt. Now I'm feeling that here.

[...]

As you know, we have done raids and captured some of the top terrorists in Baghdad over the past months. My sister has some dramatic pictures of at least one raid. In all of those, we handled the enemy w/ respect. Our big bosses always pressed us on the Geneva Convention rules before raids, and we have taken many classes on ROEs (rules of engagement) and on the proper treatment of prisoners. There are rosters w/ all our names on them for these classes because dealing w/ prisoners is major concern of our leadership.

My battalion has caught car bombers, weapons' smugglers, and those laying IEDs to kill us. We've even captured in raids those who fired mortars at our base on Baghdad Island. And EVERY TIME, we treated them w/ respect and took care to give them full medical treatment, food and clothing.

Bras and Medals

Taking a cue from Hindrocket, I wandered over to Gabrielle Reilly's page. Far be it from me to feign surprise that a pretty woman is also smart, but... well, she is pretty smart. And therefore, of course, conservative. Just to prove that I really did read the articles, here is an excerpt from her take on Kerry's MedalGate:

I hate all the media sensationalism about this issue, but I have to say the lack of integrity in throwing someone else’s medals REALLY bothers me. I know if I ever went to a women’s movement protest (which I wouldn’t, because I’m proud of being a woman), I absolutely, in good conscience, could not burn someone else’s Limited Edition, Victoria’s Secret bras. In good faith I could only burn my own bra or not burn a bra at all. At any age, or any era, I know in my heart of hearts that someone else’s Limited Edition Victoria’s Secret bra should be respected with great reverence. It would be a grave character flaw to disrespect that as Senator John Kerry disrespectfully threw someone else's medals.

Whiskey Tango Uniform

Evidently, JAG Wire has left the blogosphere. I don't have any further information except that I emailed Whiskey last week enquiring about possible problems and she hasn't gotten back to me. Hope this is a temporary problem.

I have removed JagWire from the blogroll. Will put it back if the site comes back online, or if I find out where she has moved.

UPDATE: It occurs to me, on reflection, that the title of this post could have an ungentlemanly connotation if interpreted literally. Obviously, that was not any part of my intention. It should have said "JAG Wire Tango Uniform", but that is not nearly as clever. If you do not know what I am talking about, you should read more Tom Clancy novels.

UPDATE: Captain's Quarters has a bit more information on the mysterious disappearance:

I've received e-mail regarding the sudden disappearance of JAG Wire, a fresh new blog by Whiskey, an active-duty officer serving overseas for her country. I can tell you that Whiskey herself is just fine and that she will soon be back to blogging, although under different circumstances, probably in a week or so. I will post an announcement as soon as she's okayed it.

Cagey on Fallujah

I have not had much to say regarding the military handling of the situation in Fallujah except indirectly in my comments last week about re-baathification. The fact is I have no idea what to think of all this and would rather let more knowledgeable people hash it out. I have been quietly hoping that the Belmont Club was right and Andrew Sullivan was wrong. (In fairness, I should point out that Sullivan is probably hoping the same thing.) The one issue that seemed right about the US's handling of the situation was getting the Iraqi's actively involved, which I prescribed back when the fighting started. But even that seemed to be mishandled by putting an evidently unreconstructed Baathist in charge.

Well, at least we corrected that little goof, and today Instapundit has a roundup of what seems to be overall good news. Money quote:

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tom Maguire notes that the U.S. move to appoint a former Ba'athist in Fallujah is what brought the Shi'ites into line. Are we that smart? he asks. . . . ("All we were saying was, give peace a chance. And it looks like giving one of Saddam's henchmen a chance to deliver the peace was enough to bring these folks back to the table.") My goodness, I hope so.

I have nothing further to say, and I am saying it.

UPDATE: Well maybe one more thing. In researching this post, I discovered that Glenn had linked to my comments on the prisoner scandal in an update here. Does that guy ever sleep? Thanks, Glenn.

Ignoring Sudan (Again)

Another local paper asks "Are the media missing yet another genocide?" This time it is the Houston Chronicle.

The international media don't send reporters to cover genocides, it seems. They cover genocide anniversaries.

We've just finished a spate of front-page stories, television docu-histories and somber panel discussions on "Why the Media Missed the Story" in Rwanda, pegged to the 10th anniversary of one of the most shocking tragedies of last century, or any century. More than 500,000 people were killed in a small African country in only 100 days, and the world turned away.

But even as the ink was drying on the latest round of mea culpas, another colossal disaster in Africa was already going unreported.

Nearly a million people have been displaced from their homes in western Sudan; many have fled into neighboring Chad. They say militias working with the Sudanese government have been attacking villages, ransacking and torching homes, killing and raping civilians. These armed forces are supposedly cracking down on rebel groups based in the Darfur region, but in fact they are targeting the population.

I commend Carroll Bogert for attempting to bring this issue to the table, but she is by no means the first to note the resounding silence it has received. In its October 16, 1999 issue, World Magazine had this to say about international recognition of the crisis:

Trouble in independent Sudan began in 1983, when the government amended the country's constitution in favor of Islamic law. This meant the ruling Arab north could attempt to enforce the Muslim Sharia code on the entire country. Civil war has ensued, with southern insurgents, known as the Sudan People's Liberation Army, fighting the north to a stalemate, in spite of the government's superior military might and air power. The war is one of attrition, however, and observers say it has become one of the ugliest-and most ignored-this century. More than 1.9 million civilians have died, and 4 million have been displaced or carried off into slavery. Sudan's forces have also specifically targeted Christian sites, bombing churches, Christian hospitals, and those involved in church relief efforts.

Despite the tragic numbers, few countries have taken a stand against the Sudanese government, and it retains full credentials in the United Nations. Activists in the United States saw how quickly attention was mobilized on Kosovo, a conflict of actually smaller proportions, and have since increased their decibels. "Sudan is absolutely the worst humanitarian situation in the entire world," said Roger Winter, executive director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, during airstrikes against Kosovo and the subsequent refugee crisis.

Sadly, and reinforcing Ms. Bogert's point, World is one of the few voices in the media that has consistently been speaking up about Sudan. And with a circulation of about 135,000 they are a fraction of that enjoyed by Time and Newsweek, and not quite as large as National Review.

UPDATE: And it gets worse... (Via Instapundit)

UPDATE: Pastorius at CUANAS links to a related article from the Boston Globe. He also has several related posts about the growing Jihad in Africa, including a link to my post below regarding Nigeria.

Colin Powell not up for another 4 Years?

An article by Wil S. Hylton in GQ purports to show that Colin Powell is tired of working within the Bush administration and will not be continuing as Secratary of State, should Bush be reelected. NewsMax also covers the story here.

Both articles don't amount to much more than second-hand rumors, especially since Mr. Powell's only comment on the issue (from the GQ article) is, "I never speculate on that." This occurs about 3/4 of the way into the article and is not followed up with any other, even indirect, comments by the Secretary. The article concludes with the following exchange with Powell's Chief of Staff, Larry Wilkerson:

The more I spoke with Wilkerson, the more I understood why Powell's staff had gone to such lengths to set up my interview with him, reminding me that anything Wilkerson said was the same as hearing it from Powell. But if Wilkerson was going to be Powell's voice, if he was going to say the things that Powell wouldn't or couldn't, there was one question I still needed him to answer. Before I left, I wanted a sense of Powell's plans for the future. I was wary of how to phrase the question, though. It seemed safe to assume that Wilkerson had not been dispatched to announce the end of Powell's career in this article, at this particular moment, and if I asked him outright whether or not Powell was planning to quit, I could put him on the spot. He might wind up saying, as Powell did, "I never speculate on that" or "He hasn't announced a decision." So I phrased the question differently.

"Being inside the building," I said, "is there as much expectation that this will be the end of Powell's tenure as there is outside the building?"

Eight long seconds of silence.

"Um," Wilkerson said, "I've known him for fifteen years...."

I nodded.

"My considered opinion is that he is..." His voice trailed off. "He's tired. Mentally and physically. And if the president were to ask him to stay on—if the president is reelected and the president were to ask him to stay on, he might for a transitional period, but I don't think he'd want to do another four years."

Wilkerson fell silent again.

"He seems tired," he said.

The majority of the GQ piece is devoted to attacks on the Bush administration for its alleged orchestration of a "show of solidarity [... that] must rank among the greatest pieces of performance art in the last half century." Hylton plays up the tension between State Department and Department of Defense. To be fair, Hylton makes some good points about the history of this tension and National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice's refusal to acknowledge it. But he utterly fails to document his suggestion that this issue is causing Powell to rethink his future plans.

One interesting point, not related to Powell's status, is the following observation about the role of US diplomacy in world affairs:

He started with a long, wandering meditation on chicken exports to Russia and slid from there into a glowing assessment of America's role in the world, saying, "We're trusted not to want anybody's land, not to want to exercise dominion over any other peoples," and then without pause dived into a story about "this little stupid island that I had to deal with about a year and a half ago, off the coast of Morocco, which is as big as two soccer fields. Nobody lives on it. And for some reason, the Moroccans went aboard and claimed dominion over the island—not even an island, it's a rock. It's 200 yards off the Moroccan coast. It belongs to Spain."

"Why would they want it?" I asked.

Powell winked. "Because it belonged to Spain, and it's 200 yards off the Moroccan coast. And they've been arguing about it for a couple hundred years. Next thing we knew, it was an international crisis. The European Union immediately said, 'Spain is right,' and the Organization of Islamic Conference—the fifty or so Muslim nations in the world—said, 'No, Morocco's right.' So there you have it. Well, what are you going to do? Take it to the U.N.? No. What are we going to do?" He paused for effect. "Call the U.S. secretary of state on a Thursday night. [Emphasis mine]

Later, Dr. Rice concurs (with apparently more nefarious motives, according to Hylton's editorializing):

"There is no issue that people honestly believe is not an American problem, and I would say 90 percent of those end up on Colin's desk. And so he will find himself resolving small issues, border issues between small countries that most of us can barely find on a map."

This suggests to me that the notion of an Imperial America is something of a de-facto reality in international circles. But the interesting thing is that it is not the US that is demanding this role, but the international community that is expecting it.

UPDATE: Perhaps this is what Powell is so "tired" about?

Freedom Fighters in Nigeria?

First a question: what do you call a group of people who take up arms to prevent another group from imposing its value system? Freedom Fighters? OK, now read this article. This is a breaking story, so not many have covered it, but so far I have not seen the double-F word being applied to these people. Note also, this paragraph:

Although the motive was unclear, the attack came a week after Hausas launched an attack on the Tarok village of Kawo, burning churches and inflicting an unknown number of casualties.

What exactly is unclear about the motive? Could it be that this is part of a larger reaction to the imposition of Sharia, or muslim law, in Nigeria? A related story from the Guardian seems to suggest that this is the case:

New sharia regulations give the state authorities the power to demolish any "illegal structures", which Christians fear will be used to tear down their churches. They also call for businesses to close five times a day for Muslim prayers.

My prediction: these Christians who are trying to defend themselves from the imposition of a hostile religion, will not be seen as freedom fighters, if they get any attention in the press at all. Look at how long it has taken the situation in Sudan to make the news, and even now it is not considered a major story. But these African countries are the first line of defense against a militant Islam that would like to take over the entire continent.

Counter-Reforming Education

I have never been a big fan of the President's educational policies for several reasons. The first is that I see no reason why the President, or any other officer of the Federal government, has any business even having an educational policy. If government is going to be involved in education, it should be at the lowest level of government possible which currently means state, county or local government. Early in his first year, Mr. Bush failed to stay the course on his early promises to incorporate even a minimal amount of "choice" into his educational policy, dropping the semi-voucher approach from his first major bill.

But beyond this (admittedly controversial) issue, the actual details of the policy have some serious problems. The emphasis on standardized national tests, the focus on school performance vs. student preparedness, and the all-too-predictable solution of throwing more money at the problem, whether to hire more teachers, reduce class sizes or extend the reach of Big Ed into the pre-school years through funding of "Head Start" and similar programs, all tend to promote the false analysis that education is a product and content does not matter.

One of the few features that the Bush policy got right was its support for academic standards as opposed to vocational skills. Given the above criticism, it seems that this minor success was a largely accidental result of reaction against the leftist agenda rather than a principled position. Certainly little attempt was made to articulate the philosophical grounding for such a preference. But sometimes it is enough to see that the other position is wrong, even if you don't fully understand why you position is right. An empirical approach to problem solving has been a hallmark of conservative thought from at least the time of Burke, and it has saved us from many of the disastrous ideas foisted on the world by the more rationalistic left. One of the problems with such an approach, however, is that it leaves us vulnerable to being blind-sided by attacks that we have not anticipated because we do not understand their source.

A case in point is this article from CNN. The author doesn't get to the point until the third paragraph:

One of the richest scholarships in North America for high school students isn't for physics or calculus, but for starting a dead sedan.

The National Automotive Technology Competition sponsored by auto makers and tool companies earlier this month offered $3 million in prizes. It's one of the ways industries encourage vocational education at a time when states and the nation are emphasizing math, languages and sciences.

As academic standards rise, some fear a decline in the vocational education that for decades has produced the nation's entry-level craftsmen.

The dichotomy between academic standards and vocational education is a very dangerous one. On the surface it merely appeals to the American preference for the practical over the theoretical. But historically this appeal, when applied to education, has had devastating effects.

The problem is an improper definition of education. The roots of the word come from Latin "to lead out", i.e. to bring the student from a state of bondage to ignorance out to the full freedom of human life. This is where the term "liberal education" comes from: the education that makes a man truly free. It was originally restricted to the ruling classes, to equip the young ruler with the tools for making wise decisions and for leading a good life. In a democratic republic, where every man is king, this ideal of liberty has been extended to all citizens in intention if not always in reality.

But vocational education reverses this principle. Instead of making a man fit to rule, it makes him only fit to perform a particular job; in a word, to be a slave, however highly paid. To be sure there is room within a liberal education for teaching skills that are valuable in the market place, but such skills should not be taught at the expense of the liberal arts. That this is in fact the proposal at hand is evidenced in the following paragraphs:

Preliminary studies suggest fewer students are majoring in vocational education as states and the federal No Child Left Behind Act demand better performance in core academic subjects, said James Stone III, director of the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education at the University of Minnesota.

"What I worry about is how we are turning a lot of kids off," Stone said. "The impact is if you tell a principal or a school district or a state, `Your funding is contingent on how many students show up every day and pass a test,' that's what you pay attention to."

He said the center is studying how to better integrate core lessons in math, science and languages into vocational education. New York, Massachusetts and Michigan are leading such efforts, he said.

Vocational education students increasingly have to pass college prep math, science and language standardized tests required for all students, plus standardized tests in their vocations.

There are a few red herrings tossed in here, such as the canards about attendance and teaching to the test, but note that the concern is that vocational students are being "turned off". The underlying assumption is that these students are not capable of being taught the more difficult skills that will make them qualified to lead. The alternative, of course, is that they will be given the skills that will make them productive laborers. If we can make them enjoy their subservient lot, so much the better.

"In a very odd juxtaposition of education policy, we are now requiring an even higher standard for graduation for youngsters who go to a vocational school," said Steven Sanders, chairman of the New York Assembly's Education Committee. "I am told by people in vocational technical schools that it is really discouraging youngsters from attending these schools and in some cases, that means students drop out."

This is more subtle. If it is indeed true that vocational students are being held to higher standards than the college-bound students, that is indeed a problem. But the remedy is to raise the standards for the college-bound students. But I do not believe that this is the case.

Now it is certainly possible to incorporate into a liberal education skills that are useful in the market place. But "studying how to better integrate core lessons in math, science and languages into vocational education" is exactly backward. The purpose of the mathematical, scientific and especially language studies is to train the student to think abstractly and logically. In other words, to think beyond the present circumstances and to address more universal concerns. Even more to the point is the unasked question, how would history or political philosophy be so integrated? And yet these are the very subjects necessary to resist the demagoguery of which this article is such a striking example.

Smoking Gun? Iraqi Chemical Weapons in Jordan

Powerline scoops the story:

Under the direction of Abu Musab al Zarqawi -- a terrorist chemical-weapons expert who began operating in Iraq well before the U.S. invasion of that country -- al Qaeda planned to launch its first weapons-of-mass-destruction attack last month in Jordan. The U.S. Embassy in Amman was one of the planned targets of the attack.
A televised confession by the terrorist allegedly responsible for carrying out the operation included information that closely tracks the testimony about Zarqawi and his operations in Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003.

Pictures Show Americans Abusing Prisoners

I would really like to believe that this story is false, but it seems to have credibility at pretty high levels.

CNN:

In the face of international outrage, President Bush said Friday that he was disgusted by photographs that apparently show American soldiers abusing detainees at a prison outside Baghdad.

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said. "Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America."

[...]

CNN has not verified the authenticity of the images.

[...]

The U.S. military said six U.S. soldiers have been charged with abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib, which was infamous under Saddam Hussein's reign.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan described the acts at the prison as "despicable."

"We cannot tolerate it, and the military is taking strong action against those responsible," McClellan said.

He said the president had known about the images for a while but declined to offer further details.

When asked about a potential worldwide backlash over the pictures, McClellan said, "It does not represent what we stand for, and I think the military has made it very clear that they are going to pursue -- to the fullest extent of the law -- these individuals."

NY Times:

[...]

The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said that he hoped that the forthrightness of the American government and the Pentagon in dealing with the abuse would mitigate the damage.

"We're very sorry this happened to these people, and we'll do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't happen again," Mr. Boucher said at a news briefing.

BBC:

A US military investigation has recommended disciplinary action against several of its officers for the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US troops.
Brigadier General Janice Karpinski is among seven officers being investigated following claims that soldiers under their command mistreated detainees.

The officers have already been suspended from duty.

A US TV channel showed pictures of US soldiers humiliating naked hooded prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.

It appears that the US is treating this appropriately by putting a stop to the abuse and investigating those responsible. These people, if guilty, must be publicly seen to be punished. The evidence that we are not on the same level of Saddam and his torture state must be clearly shown. Of course, the damage has been done and much of the Arab world will still see this as evidence of American corruption, no matter what we do to rectify the situation. But that does not release us from the responsibility of making the case.

As to these "soldiers" I hope they receive the maximum penalty that can be imposed. My heart tells me that what they have done is tantamount to treason, in that they have certainly given aid to our enemies, in the form of propaganda fodder, during a time of war. However, I know that this does not meet the legal definition of the word and would not like to see American justice compromised by vindictiveness, however emotionally satisfying. At minimum they will be expelled from the armed forces, which is good, but would probably not have the same salutary effect as it would if these people truly valued the uniform they wear.

More here, here, here, here and here.

Also, Little Green Footballs links to a Yahoo story without comment.

UPDATE: Instapundit now has commentary as well as more links:

Of course, it's not the same as Saddam's torture -- which was a matter of top-down policy, not the result of assholes who deserve jail or execution, and will probably get one or both. As with other reported misbehavior, it should be dealt with very, very harshly. But those who would -- as Senator Kerry did after Vietnam -- make such behavior emblematic of our effort, instead of recognizing it as an abandonment of our principles -- are mere opportunists.

UPDATE: Citizen Smash also has some fine comments:

THE UGLY TRUTH of warfare is that there are no “knights in shining armor” who will always fight for Good. Evil lurks deep in the hearts of all men, and it doesn’t care what flag you wear on your sleeve. We are most vulnerable when we suffer under the burden of tremendous stress – but the ultimate responsibility to resist Evil lies with every individual.

Our soldiers sometimes do horrible things. Disgusting things. Cruel things.

When they do, we must not hide from the truth. Those repsonsible must be identified, prosecuted, and punished appropriately. There must be a public accounting for these crimes.

Because we are a civilized society, we must never give in to the temptation to brush aside such atrocities as “the way things are in war.” For if we fail in this responsibility, we will ultimately become no better than those we are fighting.

And that would be the greatest tragedy of all.

If you read his comments section, take a look at Mark's post at 12:11 PM:

The last story, regarding Lt Col Sassman, is the direct result of an Iraqi blogger at http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/. Click on his January archives for the whole story.

It's terrible that the soldiers did this and it's clear to me that they WILL be punished.

I'm glad, however, to see a good result of American skepticism. How likely would it be that a story published by one man on a blog would result in a full military investigation in other countries? In most countries (especially in that part of the world), it would have been ignored. Here, though it took a while, Americans chose to investigate and will follow it through.

Very well said.

Britain and the EU

The headline of this piece in the London Times reads: "Britain could be forced out of the EU, warns Chirac". Scary?

But the actual issue is that, if the Brits do not ratify the constitution, under current rules no other nation could either. France is essentially proposing (along with Germany and Belgium) that different rules be adopted that would force member nations to sign or leave the European Union. But in this case, Britain would not be "forced" out they would be opting out.

Not that it is any of my business of course, but I think the future of Britain lies with the common law Anglosphere rather than rationalistic post-enlightenment Europe.

Roundup: Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act

I evidently missed some pretty important commentary on this issue way back when I first posted it. Mea Culpa. I am particularly frustrated that I managed to overlook Eugene Volokh's commentary as he was one of the people that I emailed on the subject and searched his site daily looking for a response.

Let me try to catch up with my thoughts and then this will be my last post on the issue until something new breaks. My sense is that this will probably be killed in committee, but we'll see.

Eugene Volokh gives a very fair analysis in his post on 4/17.

First, he comments on the likely outcome of this proposal:

"I'm pretty sure that this is unconstitutional, under current legal doctrine. Of course, if Congress enacts this and then stares down the Supreme Court when the Court strikes it down -- for instance, if a majority of the public will be on its side -- perhaps Congress will win, and current doctrine will thus be changed. I doubt, though, that this will ever be enacted, or that the people will side with Congress rather than the Court here (setting aside whether they should)."

I tend to agree and made similar comments here.

But I want to ask a different question: Let's say that this does indeed get enacted and validated -- for instance, assume for the sake of argument that it's implemented as a constitutional amendment. How does Congress expect even obedient judges to abide by its "revers[als]"?

Assume that the Court strikes down an abortion ban, based on some legal argument and legal precedents that the Justices would find persuasive (e.g., the right to privacy, and Casey). Congress reverses the judgment. The judgment will thus no longer be effective; the parties to the case would be free of it. But then someone else files a similar though not identical challenge to the same law.

Presumably the Justices would still find persuasive the same argument and precedents they found persuasive in the first case. True, the first decision was reversed -- but the arguments underlying it and the precedents supporting it still remain. The right of privacy, as defined by Casey, still leads the Court to think that the abortion ban is inconsistent with that precedent. Why should the Court do anything but strike the law down, at least so long as there's any conceivable distinction between this case and the preceding one [...]? After all, the Congressional veto didn't purport to wipe off the books the preexisting precedents; it only reversed one particular Supreme Court judgment. So the Congressional veto might not be terribly effective -- again, even if the Justices really do want to obey the veto process.

This doesn't really trouble me that much. Even in cases where the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of a given law, such repeated challenges on slightly different grounds would be possible. So the net effect of the Congressional veto would be to uphold the law against a particular challenge. That is all we can reasonably ask of a federal statute or even a constitutional amendment. Anything stronger would essentially eliminate judicial review which I agree would be undesirable.

But the other side of this is that any further challenge would have to wend its way through the court system from the beginning. This would be a sharp contrast with the current state of jurisprudence where a law so struck down is considered by all lower courts to be invalidated. Of course, those lower courts need not take the decision of Congress as precedent (as Dr. Volokh argues in the remainder of his piece) but neither would they be bound to ignore it. This would, at the very least, keep the issue alive in public debate. I think that this is what Dr. Volokh suggests when he calls the law "procedurally troublesome" but is it really any more troublesome than the current state of acrimonious debate over Roe V. Wade or the Religious Liberties Restoration Act?

Professor Bainbridge adds some further thoughts:

I think taking the bill at face value misses the point, however. Or, at least, it misses what my point would be in offering such a bill: namely, to send courts a signal. As a Congressman, I would support such a bill, even if I knew it would never be used. Why? To tell the courts that we've had it with courts using the Constitution to enact the personal policy preferences. To tell them we've had it with courts thinking that they are some sort of super-legislature with power to set social policy on everything from economics to sexuality. And to remind them that in a democracy, it is the will of the people - not of nine unelected old men and women - that is the ultimate authority.

This is very much in the spirit of my support of the bill. Of course, "sending the courts a message" is not a particularly strong use of the legislature and can be achieved by other means just as easily. And they could just as easily ignore it. But I would look at this as a minimum positive outcome if the bill were in fact to pass.

However, in the long run, I think that the courts will only be persuaded to abandon their legislative usurpation if they perceive that such tactics do not lead to professional advancement. In other words, the Congress and the President will have to simply make "strict construction" or something similar a litmus test for all judicial appointments. And that, in turn, can only be achieved by a campaign of education, argument and political pressure by conservative thinkers who are concerned by the issue. As on so many other subjects, if we fail to make our case, we cannot complain that our opponents have won the field.

(NOTE: Several others have commented on this issue as well: Amanda Butler, Dahlia Lithwick, Stephen Hargrove, and TM Lutas. All of these are worth reading but do not really add much of substance to the debate. I include them here as a sort of albatross in penance for having missed this entire discussion while I was actively looking for it. Perhaps Google is not a sufficiently responsive search tool for investigating the blogosphere. Something to bear in mind...)

Ratting on Ritter

Hmm. We always knew there was something suspicious about Scott "I-See-Nothink" Ritter's change of heart with regard to Iraq. It now appears that the $400,000 that he received from Shakir Khafaji may have been part of UNSCAM (aka the "Oil-For-Food" scandal). This doesn't really help to explain anything, (we already knew about the money, and Ritter was starting to go soft on Saddam even before he received it, according to the Slate article linked above), but it does add confirmation to the theory that the money was in some sense intended as hush money. My sense is we haven't heard the last of this particular story.

(Via Mudville)

Is Chivalry Making a Comeback?

Loredana Vuoto of the Washington Times has an intriguing article on the subject. There are so many good bits that I am having a hard time selecting quotes. Here are a few:

Mr. Miner [author of The Compleat Gentleman: The Modern Man's Guide to Chivalry] says fathers are partly to blame for the decline of chivalry. Fathers "make clear what the virtues of a gentleman are by example," he says.

"If you yourself don't aspire to be a gentleman, you certainly won't instill that aspiration in your sons," Mr. Miner says. "It is always easier to take the easy way. That is why, both past and present, you don't have many men aspiring to be chivalrous."

I tend to agree. Of course there are exceptions, my own father being one, but in general I sense that men no longer particularly aspire to a sense of honor or duty.

Charlotte Hays, senior editor at the Independent Women's Forum, blames "this haglike feminism that has developed" for destroying chivalry by denying differences between men and women.

In order to recover gentlemanly ideals, she says, society must "reject what is generally called feminism -- the kind that wants to send women into combat ... and recognize that men and women are basically different, and that it is historically the role of the male species to put the lady first."

Feminists disagree.

"The decline in manners is not just about men, says feminist author Naomi Wolf, co-founder of the Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership.

"Young men and young women are not taught to be kind to elderly people, to give up their seat to a pregnant woman, to be as good as their word," she said. "I don't see this as feminism causing this decline. I see it as a set of social factors which are degrading the values of young men and young women."

Ms. Wolf cites such influences as pornography, MTV, reality-TV shows and the fact that "the left insists that education be secular."

This is so remarkable I am speechless! Read that last sentence again, and remember that this is Naomi Wolf speaking.

"Some men take the claims of feminism in order to reject the idea that men ought to show deference to women. But to a compleat gentleman, none of that matters," he says.

Chivalry and courtly love were really "a kind of proto-feminist idea that was a force for civilizing men," says Mr. Miner, saying that medieval women taught men the virtues of civility. "Just as it was in the Middle Ages, so it is now, that men must learn the most important things of all from women."

Mr. Moore agrees: "If men know they have to prove themselves and that they have to marry the women they have sex with, men will have to become marriageable and manly, rather than just cool and funny," he says.

Again, amen! One of my pet peeves is conservative whining about the dominance of the left and the resulting decay of values. All of it is true, of course, but the unstated premise of that complaint is that conservatives are helpless in the face of confrontation. But this is merely leftist victimhood in borrowed robes!

We have better arguments, better values and the weight of all of history on our side. If we had quitted ourselves like men a few generations ago the left would have never gotten a foothold. Even now it is not too late.

(Via David Mills at Touchstone)

Anti-Re-Baathificationism

Joel Mowbray, in Front Page Magazine makes several troubling assertions regarding Bremer's loosening of Iraq's de-baathification policy. After accusing the New York Times of indulging in "shameless spin" on behalf of the Bush administration (surely a first?), he makes the following startling assertion:

"For starters, there are no actual teachers who were impacted by de-Baathification. In the broader field of education, lots of people were ousted from government positions--but they were largely administrators, principals, and chancellors.

To the extent people were ousted whose jobs were as teachers, they were only fired if they were top Baath Party leaders. Consider the treatment given to some 'teachers' under Saddam. Those who actively supported the regime made up to seven or eight times as much as real teachers--meaning the primary source or their income was not teaching, but loyalty. Loyalty to the Butcher of Baghdad.

The unfunny punch line to the 'teachers' joke is that thousands of teachers who did not actively report to Saddam on students and fellow teachers and who were newly re-hired last year will now lose their jobs to make room for Baathist thugs, according to former Defense Department official Michael Rubin, who was in Iraq until recently."

If true, this is a very serious charge. But what evidence do we have that this is actually the case? Mowbray offers no source for his claims and they directly contradict the Coalition's official explicit statement:

"But many Iraqis have complained that the de-Ba'athification procedures have been applied at times unevenly and sometimes unfairly, particularly in the education sector, where the requirement for teachers and professors to join the Ba'ath Party was strongly enforced. Many teachers were Ba'athists in name only, and the result was that many of these teachers were dismissed from their jobs when the de-Ba'athification policy was implemented."

Furthermore, in today's briefing [make that yesterday's briefing, it's later than I realized -- JoC] this issue is revisited, along with a new policy for restoring people unjustly fired by Saddam for political reasons:

"The ministry estimates that there are now approximately 20,000 teachers who were fired by Saddam's regime, as I said, including the rejection -- and for political reasons, including the rejection of Ba'athist ideology. They were often forced to teach Ba'athist ideology and if they did not they were fired. In many cases, however, they were fired not because of what they did themselves but in retribution for actions allegedly taken by members of their family. And we are working with the Ministry of Education right now on a way to address those.

You know in Ambassador Bremer's address to the nation last week he talked about what we are doing to reinstate jobs for teachers who were Ba'athist in name only but were not participants in the crimes of the regime, and ways in which we could reintegrate them not only into their employment but back into Iraqi society. The same applies with the same diligence and discipline focused on those teachers who were unjustly dismissed under the former regime, who were not only not participants in the crimes, but were also not even Ba'athist in name only; they had no connection to Ba'athist ideology, and in many cases that's why they were released, or because they were tied to family members targeted for retribution by the former regime."

So it appears that the question of party loyalty is being looked at rather carefully,and both of Mowbray's concerns have been specifically addressed. Of course, this is the theory and the practice may be different. But without actual incidents to support his case, this is mere hand-wringing, not actual criticism.

But Mowbray goes on:

"Once it's the Iraqi people and not the US or the UN calling the shots, former Baathists are not likely to get favorable treatment.

Nor should they. Of the two million former Baath Party members, only 15,000 - 20,000 of them were purged by Bremer's order last spring. So the people who were members only to get a job were left unscathed."

Now this is a point worth noting. If the Coalition is still planning to turn power over to the Iraqis at the end of June, it does seem odd that this re-baathification could not wait another two months.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Mowbray and usually find myself agreeing with him. I am willing to be convinced that my initial sense that the change in policy is for the better was mistaken. But so far, I have nothing but suspicion and speculation to go on. Until further evidence against Ambassador Bremer's policy is forthcoming, count me as a non-anti-re-baathificationist.

Mad Maxine

Rep. Maxine Waters (D - CA) has a strange lament at the pro-abortion rally in DC: “I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.”

Um, Congresswoman? I know things are tough for the hard-core left these days, but lamenting your own existence is not very productive. If you want a useful way to reduce your life expectancy, try volunteering to clear land mines in Sudan. Or, maybe, take up smoking (which would at least be good for the economy.)

(Via InstaPundit)

Uh, Guys? This Isn't Helping Your Image...

There are so many things wrong with this story that I don't know where to start.

"Two gay lovers took off most of their clothes, climbed up a tree in New York's Central Park and spent four hours engaging in sex acts and yelling abuse at police and firefighters.

[...]

The couple, described by officials as a 32-year-old transsexual with female breasts wearing a purple thong and a 17-year-old boy in white boxer shorts, were admitted to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

At one point during the standoff in the larch tree -- an evergreen with pine-like needles -- the 32-year-old rejected a police officer's offer of a can of soda.

"This is a Coke. I wanted vanilla Diet Pepsi," he was quoted as saying in newspaper reports."

I just wonder what kind of abuse they were yelling at the police. If I were a conspiracy-minded type, I would suspect that this was a stunt by the Evil Religious Right to discredit gays. But I don't think even they would go to the extreme of growing breats...

BBC Goofs in Korea Photo

According to the Korea Times a photo released by the BBC, purporting to be a satelite image of the explosion in Ryongchon North Korea, was actually a photo of a bomb dropped in Iraq.

I could not locate either the original photo or any mention of a correction at the BBC site.

Did Churchill Support a "Palestinian Homeland"?

The Big Trunk at Powerline posts a long article answering this accusation from an email correspondent. The short answer:

"The citation of Winston Churchill in support of the crotchets of "Flabergasted" is amazing, though I suppose that the lack of any factual support linking Churchill to his crotchets should make it less so. He seems to be confused by modern Arab propaganda regarding a "Palestinian homeland," not realizing that the "Palestinian homeland" Churchill supported was a "Palestinian homeland" for the Jewish people."

But read the whole thing...

One of Life's Little Coincidences

The Counting Crows (inferior) version of "Big Yellow Taxi" was playing in the supermarket a few days ago and I have been humming it ever since. I have always liked the original Joni Mitchell version, but the following verse irritates me:

Hey farmer farmer
Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Now every conservative knows that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which was almost single-handedly responsible for the world wide ban on (the Nobel Prize winning) DDT, was based on sloppy research and outright falsification. Furthermore, malaria, bubonic plague and other diseases that are virtually eliminated in the West, due to largely to DDT, have been on the rise for years in Africa, killing literally millions. Thinking about all this, I came across Juan Non-Volokh's piece over at the Conspiracy. (That's the coincidence mentioned in the title.)

So, I have been trying to come up with some scientifically accurate replacement lyrics that still keep to the enviro-left spirit of the piece. My poetic skill kind of suck, but this might do for a start:

Hey farmer farmer
Put that DDT away
It may stop the plague, but
There's too many Africans anyway
Hey!

Further suggestions are welcome.

UPDATE: Reuters reports that the UN has a $4 million plan to use "Atomic Technology" to fight the malaria mosquito. But the title is more sexy than the actual plan, which is just a variation on the old tactic of using sterile males to thin out the mosquito population. I wonder how the costs would compare to simply spraying them with DDT?

UPDATE: In addition to the FrontPage article cited above, Pastorius sends an interview (also from FrontPage) with Dr. Paul Dreisen, who details a more general accusation against the enviro-left. Teaser:

"Radical greens are masters at devising exaggerated, imaginary and bogus eco-catastrophes – then imposing policies that give them unprecedented power, deprive other people of their freedoms and opportunities, impoverish entire nations, and cause not just impoverishment, but incalculable misery, disease and death. Of course, they claim their actions are motivated by concern for people, animals and the planet. However, the ecological benefits are often minimal to non-existent, the human toll is profound, and the absence of real compassion, ethics or social responsibility is glaring."

Read the whole article.

Cyprus Votes Not to Reunify

The Wahington Times reports that the referenda intended to establish a federal dual-state on the island of Cyprus have been defeated.

Since 1974 when Turkey invaded the island, Cyprus has been divided into a northern Turkish region and a southern Greek region. Recently the UN and EU have been promoting a double referendum to reunify the country as a precondition of its entry into the EU. Failing to pass either referendum would mean only the Greek region would be recognized by the EU.

Features of the proposed "solution" included:

1. The right of return of some Greek Cypriots to the homes in the north which they fled during the invasion.
2. A reduction of the area under Turkish control.
3. A reduction of the number of foreign troops (both Turkish and Greek).

No provision was made for the evacuation of Turkish settlers (those who came to the island after the 1974 invasion) from the northern region.

If the details of this plan sound vaguely familiar, they should. They are very similar to previous Israeli policies with regard to the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. The main differences are that the Greek Cypriots are not engaged in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against the occupying Turks and there have been no serious demands for the Turks' unilateral withdrawal from their occupied territories. Oh, and the Turks invaded the island in 1974 to prevent talks of Cyprus unifying with Greece, while the Israelis invaded the West Bank and Gaza in retaliation for an act of war by a coalition of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

Since the proposed reunification would essentially validate the Turkish invasion, the Cypriots are right to reject it.

Ahmad the Irresponsible

Reacting to Paul Bremer's address yesterday, Ahmad Chalabi claimed that allowing former members of the Baath party to return to their positions was "like allowing Nazis into the German government immediately after World War II". In one respect, he is quite correct: the Baath ideology is identical to Nazism, except that the favored race is Arab rather than "Aryan". In fact, according to this article by David Brooks, Baathism's founder Michel Aflaq was influenced by precisely the same philosophers who inspired Hitler:

"He won a scholarship to study philosophy at the Sorbonne sometime between 1928 and 1930 (biographies differ), and there he studied Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Mazzini, and a range of German nationalists and proto-Nazis. Aflaq became active in Arab student politics with his countryman Salah Bitar, a Sunni Muslim. Together, they were thrilled by the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, but they also came to admire the organizational structure Lenin had created within the Russian Communist party."

Brooks identifies several other similarities between Baathism and Nazism including:

1. A Nietzschean/Hegelian idea of a transcendent historical destiny.
2. A Darwinian notion of racial superiority.
3. A focus on inevitable future glory, rather than present practicality.
4. A sense of grievance over present humiliation.

So the parallel Chalabi makes is probably sounder than he knows. However, his objections to Bremer's policy go beyond the reasonable caution that ought to greet any such proposal and border on hysteria. Further, his comments distort the actual proposal and irresponsibly raise the specter of governmental collapse.

Before we deal with Chalabi's demagoguery, however, let us look at how the Allies actually treated the Nazis after the Nuremburg trials. According to the German Culture web site:

"The Allies did not seek merely to punish the leadership of the National Socialist regime, but to purge all elements of national socialism from public life. One phase of the denazification process dealt with lower-level personnel connected with the Nazi regime. Their pasts were reviewed to determine if the parts they had played in the regime were sufficiently grievous to warrant their exclusion from roles in a new Germany's politics or government. Germans with experience in government and not involved in the Nazi regime were needed to cooperate with occupation authorities in the administration of the zones."

So, in a sense, Chalabi is right again; the current policy is very similar to that practiced by the Allies after WWII. But if that is the case, his analogy breaks down when he predicts the collapse of the Iraqi government and possible Civil War. After all, such things did not happen in post-war Germany. The key to understanding his hysteria is found in his characterization of Bremer's comments. According to the Reuters article:

"Chalabi said U.S. Governor Paul Bremer discussed with the council on Thursday how to reinstate junior public workers, such as teachers, who were nominally Baath members, but did not mention Baathists taking part in a new government."

This clearly implies that the new policy will in fact be in allowing Baathists into positions of authority, contrary to the prior agreement. However, Bremer said no such thing. I could not find a transcript of Bremer's address, but here is a summary on the US Department of Defense web site by Senior Advisor, Dan Senor. (There is also a video feed on a sidebar of the Reuters article.) Senor clearly states that there has been no change with regard to

"There is no room in the new Iraq for Ba'athist ideology or for Ba'athist criminals. Banning the party and removing from public life those who used it to commit crimes was necessary when we and the Governing Council implemented this policy earlier, and it continues to be necessary.

As many of you know, Ambassador Bremer signed the de-Ba'athification order in May. It was the first order he signed. To this day, that policy is the single most popular policy we've heard about in Iraq, in the thousands of conversations we've had from Iraqis. That was the case back in May. It remains the case today."

Senor goes on to discuss the problem of educators being unnecessarily excluded from their former jobs. As he makes clear, the new policy simply expedites the process of reviewing the appeals that were already procedurally in place. He makes similar remarks with regard to allowing former Iraqi military officers to resume their commissions:

"They would have to also come from the ranks of the former army, and that would entail bringing some senior-level officers back into the new army, again, subject to a very strict vetting process and subject to ensuring that they did not have blood on their hands. That was our policy 10 months ago. That continues to be our policy."

Unfortunately, it appears that Chalabi's hysteria has already done its damage. The article goes on to quote Adnan al-Assadi: "It will help security deteriorate further, disappoint Iraqis who have trusted the coalition to manage the political process and lead to civil war."

Even worse, Naseer al-Chaderji raises objections that the new policy was specifically designed to address:

"Naseer al-Chaderji said there were former Baathists who had joined the party without believing in its ideology, but such people would have to be chosen by Iraqis who best know their record if they were to serve in the new government.

[...]

"The United States have turned Iraq into a guinea pig without giving Iraqis a say," Chaderji said."

To quote a final time from the statement of Mr. Senor:

"The decisions made by local de-Ba'athification appeals committees at the Ministry of Education will be effective immediately. That is what Ambassador Bremer announced in the speech today. This will allow thousands of teachers to return to work."

Sadly, these inaccurate views are now being expressed by other Iraqis and by international commentators. One further danger that I foresee is that this change in policy will be misunderstood as a concession to the recent uprising, which they explicitly were not.

Car Bombing Arrests in Basra

Looks like they got some of the terrorists responsible for the car bombings in Basra, Wednesday:

"Police arrested five Iraqis on Friday believed linked to al-Qaida and suspected in this week's suicide bombings in Basra, and the men led police to a stash of 20 tons of explosives, a police intelligence chief said.

[...]

The five confessed to working with a Syrian connected to al-Qaida who travels between Iraq and neighboring Kuwait, he said. They said they had prepared a total eight car bombs for use in Wednesday's attacks."

In related news, the Saudis have killed five more terrorists, four of whom were wanted from the November Riyadh bombing:

"They were numbers seven, 15, 20 and 12, respectively, on the list of 26 most-wanted published in December following suicide bombings which killed 52 people at residential compounds in Riyadh in May and November 2003.

The identity of the fifth militant was still being investigated.

[...]

The latest shootout followed Wednesday's car bomb which killed at least five people and wounded 145 others and drew renewed pledges from authorities to crush terrorism."

You See One Flag-draped Casket You've Seen 'Em All

From a NASA Press Releease:

"Many news organizations across the country are mistakenly identifying the flag-draped caskets of the Space Shuttle Columbia's crew as those of war casualties from Iraq.

Editors are being asked to confirm that the images used in news reports are in fact those of American casualties and not those of the NASA astronauts who were killed Feb.1, 2003, in the Columbia tragedy.

An initial review of the images featured on the Internet site www.thememoryhole.org shows that more than 18 rows of images from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware are actually photographs of honors rendered to Columbia's seven astronauts.

News organizations across the world have been publishing and distributing images featured on the web site."

(Via InstaPundit)

Things I Found While Looking for Something Else

I was trying to figure out how to use the Trackback feature from within Blogger (hint: there isn't one) when I came across this promising entry at the Movable Type Beginner's Guide to TrackBack

"Wizbang Stand Alone Trackback Pinger
Excerpt: I have finally created a stand alone trackback pinger. Why, you may wonder, is this of any interest? Well there is the small matter of all the other bloggers out there who do not use Moveable Type blogs. Bloggger users..."

1. Following the link brought me to this amusing error message.

2. I got distracted from my quest of de-newbification by these ... interesting ... posts.

3. Finally found what I was looking for here.

I'll tell you in a moment whether I can get the thing to work...

UPDATE: Nifty! Worked like a charm. Thanks a million to WizBang (who should now be on the blogroll).

And Speaking of Easing...

"The US says it is easing economic sanctions on Libya, following Colonel Gaddafi's decision to stop trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

[...]

Libya still remains on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism."

Breaking news at the BBC.

Still not good, but better.

Correcting De-Baathification

However, the article Whiskey does link to is interesting in it's own right:

"The top U.S. administrator [L. Paul Bremer] in Iraq announced Friday an easing of a ban on public sector jobs for members of Saddam Hussein's disbanded party, allowing thousands of former Baathists to return to positions in the military and Iraqi schools and universities."

This looks like good news. As I pointed out below not everyone who serves an evil regime is responsible for the evil.

UPDATE: This via email. Chalabi implies that this policy is "akin to putting back Nazis in charge of Germany". I don't think I agree, but I will have to do some more research. My understanding is that the policy only affects low-level Baathists who committed no crimes and still excludes them from posts of authority. More later.

Size versus Skill

Jagwire makes an obvious point that seems to be overlooked by many debating US troop strength in Iraq: "If you aren't going to let the Marines kill people and break things, it doesn't matter how many you bring over."

UPDATE: She links to a Yahoo article to illustrate her point, but I think it is the wrong article. This one seems more appropriate.

Volokh on Bush's Articulateness

Eugene Volokh takes Jacob Weisberg to task for tacitly suggesting that a comment from President Bush was inarticulate:

"My job is to, like, think beyond the immediate."

After a lengthy case study of some of Weisberg's similarly coloquial comments, Volokh concludes:

"Now I'm not trying to claim that Weisberg is generally inarticulate. His "you know"s, like some people's "like"s, are commonplace in people's conversations. Our oral comments are full of this sort of filler, and of grammar and usage errors of various sorts. Nearly anyone who has read a transcript of his own comments can tell you that.

But given that articulate, thoughtful people like Weisberg say these sorts of things, where's the humor, the aptness, or anything else in finding instances of Bush doing the same?"

As someone who often has similar problems with non-editable locutions, I'd like to add a hearty a-a-amen.

Besides, maybe Bush was just trying to appeal to California voters...

To Ratify or Not To Ratify...

apparently isn't the question. Melanie Phillips has a pair of posts (yesterday and today) questioning whether Tony Blair is serious about submitting the EU constitution in a referendum to the British people:

"Why has Tony Blair now decided to have a referendum on the EU constitution when there is overwhelming public opposition to the constitution? Because he intends to ignore the result! When he said 'the people will have their say', he omitted to add 'and a fat lot of good that will do them because I will take no notice'. In Prime Minister's questions, he hinted that if the people said no in the referendum -- why, he'd just hold it again until they said yes!"

More here from the BBC.

UPDATE: Oops. I meant here for Blair's "pledge" that he would not hold multiple referenda.

UPDATE: Oh, and I got this via email from Pastorius

I Coulda Beena Millionaire

The army is evidently testing a Liquid Body Armor that is supple and flexible during normal wear, but hardens on sudden impact.

Does anyone remember the "Stretch Armstrong" toy from Kenner in the 70s? It had the similar property of being able to stretch up to 4 times its normal size. If you squeezed it slowly it would deform like silly putty, but I found (by painful experiment) that if you punched it, it was solid as a rock. I remember thinking at the time that you might be able to use that fact to make a kind of armor but, being a kid, I didn't pursue the idea.

Well, it looks like someone else did. Neato!

(I got this from somewhere in the churning cauldron of Free Republic.)

Another Entry in the Dime's Worth of Difference Faction

All through the 2000 election we heard the refrain that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. I generally heard it from conservatives who were thinking of voting Libertarian, but the Naderites were saying similar things. Well, it looks like the DWOD meme is gearing up for a new presidential election season: but at least this one has a bit of documentation.

(Food Chain: here -> here -> here -> then here).

UPDATE: Heh. My spell checker didn't recognize "Naderites" and suggested "moderates" instead. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa.

Nuking Pyongyang?

Pastorius over at CUANAS fisks an article by Jonathan Ariel. The relevant paragraph is this:

"The fact that North Korea may have a few primitive nuclear bombs is no reason to treat Kim any differently from Milosevic. Pyongyang is a restricted city, populated only be [sic] the leadership and the Communist party faithful. Nuking the entire city, if that is the only way to rid the world of an unspeakable abomination, would be more than justified. The willing accomplices and profiteers of Kim’s crimes are as guilty as he is, and since there are no innocents in the city, there is no problem. Such an act would also send the ultimate lesson civilization has to send if it is to survive, namely that genocide is unacceptable, and he who lives for it by virtue of the bomb, shall die by the bomb."

I share Pastorius' dismay at the logic of this statement. While I am not generally more opposed to a nuclear strike than any other necessary act of war, Ariel has failed to make the case that what he proposes could actually be necessary. Let us be clear: he is proposing a preemptive nuclear strike in order to decapitate the North Korean leadership. His moral case seems to be based on the sentence, "Pyongyang is a restricted city, populated only be [sic] the leadership and the Communist party faithful." If this were literally true, then I would have no objection. If the city were indeed entirely populated by "the willing accomplices and profiteers of Kim’s crimes", then they have indeed forfeited the status of civilians and have become legitimate military targets.

But can such a situation ever be the case? Are there no waitresses or bus-boys in the city? No gas station attendants or housekeepers? No prostitutes? I am willing to take Mr. Ariel's word that all such people would be vetted for party loyalty; that is a well known characteristic of dictatorships. But also characteristic is the fact that many people are forced to claim loyalty in order to survive. Our experience with ex-Baathists in Iraq is a good illustration of this principle. It is all very well to laud those martyrs who are willing stand up to an evil regime, but to condemn those who are too weak to do so as willing collaborators is beyond the pale.

It may very well be that a nuclear conflict with North Korea will become justifiable, but the burden of such a decision is far heavier than Mr. Ariel seems willing to acknowledge.

UPDATE: Oops, can't link directly to the article. The title is "Jonathan Ariel and The People at Maariv International - Whoever They Are - Ought to Be Ashamed Of Themselves" dated 04/21/04 at 1:01 pm.

Chivalry Watch: Lakshmi Pandit Gives Up Miss India Crown

One of the goals of this blog is "the restoration of the heroic and the chivalrous" but I haven't had much to say about that subject so far. Of course, there are many worthy examples in the military, but this story caught my attention because she actually mentions the word chivalry in the interview. Unfortunately the interview could use a little editing, many of the questions are rather repetitive (and more than a little ungentlemanly, to my mind) but here are the highlights. The background is that Lakshmi Pandit was named Miss India a few weeks ago, but got into trouble when it was revealed that she had claimed to be married in order to rent an apartment. Evidently landlords are unwilling to rent to single women, especially in show business. Rather than endure public scandal, she voluntarily relinquished her crown, a courageous move in my book. This is evidently the first public interview she has given since that time.

On Chivalry:

"The question was from one of the most renowned designer-choreographers of the country, Hemant Trivedi. He asked me, when a man opens a door for a woman or pulls a chair for her, is it because he sees it as equality or is it because of male chauvinism. I thought for a second and I realised it is neither equality nor chauvinism. And that's what my answer was. I said it's chivalry and chivalry isn't dead even today. I felt that I am proud of all the men on this planet who have kept chivalry alive up to today and that's what I got complimented for."

On the Scandal:

"The next morning I had to clarify to the Times that whatever I said to the landlady was only because I needed the house at that time. And I could not find a house in Mumbai. My ramp career was taking off to the skies and I was becoming a very busy model. I had to find a house for myself. Wherever I went in Mumbai, they wouldn't give the house to a girl who's single and especially if she's in the show business. They just don't. "

On Being Scared:

"Yes, I was. It would scare any young woman. I was scared a lot, I didn't want it at all. I had won the crown and I wanted to be the role model that I had dreamt of being. This controversy did add a black mark and I didn't want it. I was scared."

On Getting Over It:

"I don't want to think about it. I had my moment of glory. That's mine forever. That nobody can take away from me. I had the crown for a day. I am happy about it. I got a lot of public support. Even now I get a lot of public support. People send me emails. They call me up to say you deserved the crown and you got it. But what happened just happened. It's bad times. Just forget it."

I'm not generally one to pay much attention to beauty pageants but I think this young woman deserves credit for doing the right thing, doing it quickly and not trying to capitalize on her victimhood. Oh, and did I mention, she's a doctor?

Amish Request to Stay in U.S. Denied

The Guardian reports on this story:

"An Amish Canadian fighting a federal law that requires photo identification for people entering the United States cannot stay in the country while his case is heard, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Daniel Zehr, a member of the Old Order Amish, claims the law infringes on his religious freedom because his sect takes literally the Bible's prohibition of graven images.

[...]

Zehr, 29, of Ontario, came to the United States in 2001 after marrying an American Amish woman. He was later denied permanent residency because he and his wife refused to submit their photographs.

[...]

Zehr's attorneys contend fingerprints are a better way to confirm identity than photographs, but U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said photos are crucial to Department of Homeland Security officials who do background checks of anyone seeking alien status or citizenship.

'They can't go out and show people a fingerprint and say, "Do you recognize this fingerprint? What can you tell me about this person?"' Buchanan said."

This seems like a good example of the need for wisdom in jurisprudence. On the one hand, this man clearly has no legal right to reside in the US and therefore cannot be properly said to have had his religious rights violated. The decision to adhere to his religious beliefs over the laws of the land is the right decision but having made such a decision, he must abide by the consequences, which seem to include not becoming a resident of this country.

On the other hand, the guy is Amish for crying out loud. Are we afraid that he might ram his buggy into the World Trade Center? He doesn't seem to be harming anyone by his refusal to be photographed and is probably a good, hardworking member of the community. What state purpose is served by his expulsion, other than adherence to a foolish consistency and an even more foolish egalitarianism?

Stupid White Man Makes Film for the French

"The amply proportioned producer is in the process of editing his latest fable called “Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature When Freedom Burns.” Moore plans to debut the film, his first flick since the Oscar-winning fabrication “Bowling for Columbine,” at the Cannes Film Festival." Via NewsMax

Not much more to say really.

Republican Senator Wants to Bring Back the Draft

Evidently Sen. Chuck Hagel is talking about reinstituting the draft in order to increase troop strength in Iraq and "spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata".

Whiskey at JagWire comments:

'So let me get this straight . . . we are going to stop offering incentives to volunteer and instead draft spoiled rich kids just to make sure all “classes” are represented? It’s like some kind of twisted affirmative action program. And why does any of this matter when so many so-called “upper class” gentlemen (Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, I could go on . . . ) dodged the draft anyway?'

(I like this gal! Her blog has hereby been added to the blogroll.)

Senator Hagel further argues that compelling all Americans to military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face." What exactly do you mean "we", Senator? And do "we" really want a bunch of rich kids and war protestors covering the backs of the men and women who really want to serve their country? Seems like we've been there before and discovered it didn't work.

UPDATE: Happily the good senator doesn't seem to be on the verge of proposing any legislation, so I will count this as merely election year posturing. Stupid posturing, but still... Maybe he is looking to retire soon?

UPDATE: I thought this was too far-fetched to take seriously, but evidently the Black Helicopter Crowd thinks it is all-but-inevitable:

"While most of us are preoccupied with the latest tales of mayhem and destruction emanating from Iraq, the Bush administration is quietly paving the way for the re-imposition of the ultimate form of slavery: a military draft to provide additional fodder for the so-called War on Terror."

Hmm. Now I'm sure this is too far-fetched to take seriously. Can you say negative directional indicator?

Non-Volokh Responds

I have been emaling various bloggers and other media personalities about Rep. Lewis' proposed legislation, trying to get some discussion going. So far, only Juan Non-Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy has responded via email (and no one has posted any mention on their blogs). Here is the correspondence:

JNoV: What would be the basis for Congress' purported authority to enact such legislation?

JoC: Rep. Lewis seems to see it as a test of Marbury v Madison as indicated in the referenced article. He could conceivably argue that, since judicial review is not included in "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party", Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction by Article III, Section 2. Whether allowing a 2/3 override falls under the rubric of "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" is a tricky argument and not one I would like to bet on succeeding. But it at least would be a better use of this section than the Jurisdiction Stripping approach which Eugene Volokh argued against in this post: http://volokh.com/2004_02_22_volokh_archive.html#107773464096084512

But I think the subtext of your question is to imply that this would be on better footing if it were a proposed amendment. If so, I agree, and I think our time and political capital would be better spent pushing for such an amendment than for the FMA, for reasons noted in my blog.

JNoV: Hmmm. Jurisdiction stripping would seem to be an "exception" to jurisdiction. That's a relatively easy case to make. (See, e.g. Ex parte McCardle; but see Ex parte Yerger.) Butoverturjning a decision? That is not only a challenge to Marbury and the very concept of judicial review -- which the founders clearly intended -- but is hardly an "exception" or even a "regulation" of jurisdiction. It's a substantive command. I don't buy it.

Fair enough. This probably means that any such restriction would require an ammendment, which I more or less suspected from the begining. But surely such an issue is worth discussing since we are currently in the midst of a heated debate on a much weaker ammendment.

NOTE: The link above to the Ex Parte McCardle decision was supplied by me, not Mr. Non-Volokh (or is it Dr. Non-Volokh?). I couldn't find a similarly succinct link for Ex Parte Yerger, in which the Supreme Court held that the repeal of jurisdiction granted by Congress did not affect previously held jurisdiction. I suppose US v Klein would also be relevent.

It is intriguing to speculate, however, on what would happen if the proposed legislation should be passed. When challenged in the Supreme Court (as it inevitably would be), it seems likely that the Court would rule against it. But such a ruling could be seen as evidence of a Court unwilling to support the concept of checks and balances. After all, an Executive branch veto is subject to override under the same conditions as in the proposed legislation. Couldn't the Court's very refusal energize an ammendment campaign?

UPDATE: I evidently missed the post at the Volokh Conspiracy. My comments are here.

Gun Demagoguery at the New York Post

The New York Post "reports" that an illegal cache of AK-47s was seized in Italy from a Turkish ship bound for New York. Along with such meaningless scare terms as "terrorist-grade rifles" and "combat-style weapons" and an apparent confusion of the word "cartridge" for "magazine", the article ends with the following three sentences:

"The assault weapons are a favorite with terrorists: Osama bin Laden sported one in the now-infamous footage of him taken after 9/11.

AK-47s also have been the weapon of choice for some infamous military-minded wackos, such as the teens who shot up Columbine HS in Littleton, Colo., in 1999.

The United States has banned such military-style semiautomatic weapons since 1994. The law preventing them from being manufactured, imported or sold here expires in September."

The first of these is literally true but misleadingly irrelevant. The AK-47 is a Soviet-era firearm that is compact, reliable and inexpensive. As such it is popular throughout the world for legitimate governments as well as terrorists. For the same reasons it is popular with the few gun collectors who are able to obtain them legally.

The second sentence is blatantly incorrect. Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris were armed with a semi-automatic pistol, a 9mm carbine rifle and two shotguns. Neither of them had an AK-47, nor would they have been able to afford them since the national "assault weapons" ban. In fact such weapons have rarely been used in such mass-killings, since they are rather difficult to conceal. They are certainly not the "weapons of choice" for such massacres.

Finally, the obvious threat implied in the last sentence is that these evil weapons will soon be hitting the streets of New York and the rest of America, so you better watch out! Please.

The sad thing is that this isn't even a particularly left-leaning paper.

"Tits" is Off the List!

Stuart Benjamin of the Volokh Conspiracy reports that the house has passed new legislation that, among other things, codifies Eight Profane Words. The Unholy Eight are identical with George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" except that "tits" has been replaced by two versions of "ass hole" (with and without the space). The ironic thing is that this new push for decency seems to have been inspired by Ms. Janet Jackson baring her ... *ahem* ... well, you know...

Curiously, since "piss" is still on the list, that evidently means that the King James Bible cannot be safely quoted on the air, at least as far as some of the historical books are concerned:
"So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." (1 Samuel 25:22; see also 1 Sam 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8)

And "goddammit" isn't mentioned so I guess that is still OK?

More on Congressional Override

I noted Friday that Rep. Ron Lewis has introduced legislation to allow a super majority in Congress to override a Supreme Court finding that a particular law is unconstitutional. So far I have found little commentary on this in either the press or the blogosphere. How Appealing notes without comment that an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal calls this a very bad idea. But the article in question does not so much argue as merely assert that this would be unconstitutional and a violation of the principle of checks and balances. The latter is by no means a foregone conclusion, however, since it is at least equally arguable that the current policy of the Court is producing legislation by judicial fiat, upon which there is currently no effective check. And the requirement of a 2/3 super majority is certainly considered a balance in the case of overriding a presidential veto, so I don't see that applying the same principle to the Court would be necessarily unbalcing.

But is this legislation unconstitutional? The doctrine of judicial review was first established by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803). "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule ... This is the very essence of judicial duty." In this decision he was echoing the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."

The difficulty is that this doctrine is not explicitely stated in the Constitution itself. Furthermore, the charge is that the Courts have overstepped their authority in finding law in the "emanations and penumbra" of the Constitution, not in its actual words. Hamilton deals dismissively with this problem in the same article:

"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body."

But if the Courts cannot be trusted to accurately interperet the Constitution, does it not follow from Hamilton's own argument, that this duty must devolve back to the people, through their elected representatives?

Rep. Lewis is basing his argument on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

The proposed legislation HR3920 would be limited to those cases involving judicial review so they would not fall within the original jurisdiction of the Court.

In his response to a critical article in the Kentucky Standard, Rep. Lewis makes the following interesting appeal:

"Members of Congress have, through the years, attempted to use this clause to strip the Court of its jurisdiction over certain issues. I don't seek to relieve the Court of any jurisdiction. I aim only to add a check on the Court when it interjects itself in the legislative process. The confirmation process is a flawed, impotent legislative check on the judicial branch. Politics permeate the process with justices too often hiding their ideological leanings until after they have been seated at the bench. Impeachment would also be improper because to attempt to unseat justices purely because of unpopular decisions would be tantamount to a witch hunt."

Marines find Cache of Weapons in Fallujah

Nice work.

"Without firing a shot or shedding any blood, Marines struck a huge blow to the insurgency on Monday when they uncovered a sizeable cache of heavy weapons in a roughneck neighborhood in northwest Fallujah.

[...]a room full of rocket-propelled grenades, rockets and a complete 120 mm mortar tube and base plate.

One room led to several more rooms where Marines from Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment found explosives, a huge military locker with bomb-making materials, bags of grenades and machine guns."

Zahar in the Crosshairs?

Evidently, despite the low profile Hamas is trying to keep with the selection of their new leader, "Israeli and Palestinian sources" have identified Mamoud al-Zahar as the likely successor to Yassin and Rantisi. According to the New York Post

'Zahar, 59, was already on Israel's death list for what the foreign ministry calls "perpetrating a large number of terrorist attacks."'
[...]
'Zahar has written several books including a novel, "Nowhere Under the Sun," which argues that Israel has no right to exist. It is described as Hamas' answer to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's book "A Place Under the Sun."'

Sounds like a target even if he isn't the number one guy.

UPDATE: The Washington Times notes that the assassination of the previous two leaders has created a crisis in Hamas:
"Top Palestinian militants acknowledge that the militant organization Hamas is hard-pressed to follow through on its threats to wreak havoc inside Israel in response to the successive killings of its two top leaders."
Tsk, tsk.

Racist Roots of Gun Control

An interesting post on Instapundit points out some explicite racism in applying Florida's gun control laws from 1893. I have hear similar charges about the more recent gun control movement begun in the early 70s under Richar Nixon which was aimed at the Black Panthers. Couldn't lay my hand on the article, but here is a more recent example, which I got through NRA-ILA:

'Second Amendment experts say current gun control laws are preventing law-abiding African Americans from acting in self-defense against the illegally armed criminals that infest their inner-city neighborhoods. "Racism still is a big part of gun control," said Kenn Blanchard, a former federal law enforcement officer and author of Black Man With A Gun, A Responsible Gun Ownership Manual For African Americans. "Anywhere that there are no concealed-carry`s, there`s also a predominant black population," he said.'