ON THE WTC SITE PROPOSAL

Not like anybody cares what I think (hmm ... I sense a possible lesson for the blogosphere here) but I think I kind of prefer the design selected over the THINK latticework towers. Not that you can tell that it's any better from this picture, though. Which brings me to my point. I've seen a 3-D version of it on TV that looks quite a bit better. Come on WTC people, let's see some more pictures!

But I always preferred the Franck Lohsen McCrery Liberty Square proposal. Some day I'll find out why it never got off the page.

HAS MICKEY KAUS JUST TAKEN A POSITION ON THE WAR?

It'd be about time, and it's a damn sight more substantial than Gary Hart's pseudo-non-anouncement last night. Of course, I don't agree with his belief. Moreover, it reinforces my belief that Kaus -- who rarely shows his ideological hand these days -- is more neoliberal-ish than neoconservative-ish, although folks at The American Prospect might disagree.

(Kausfiles is sans-permalinks, so just look for Don't Rush Me V.)

THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE RUNNING FRANCE

From an AP news item that should have appeared weeks and weeks ago:

French PM Claude Goasguen: "A veto is unimaginable. We are not going to break the United Nations and Europe just to save a tyrant."
French PM Pierre Lellouche, on a possible French veto: "We are not going to shoot [the Americans] in the back."

Both men come from the "Atlanticist" wing of Jacques Chirac's own UMP party. I can only hope they have a future in French politics. Maybe a UN Security Council smackdown will be the necessary jolt to move these guys up.

From an editorial in this morning's Tulsa World:

Where is Geraldo Rivera when we need him? If he had been as close to Saddam Hussein as Dan Rather was, Geraldo would have leapt over the table and throttled Saddam. Dan could have been the hero. He could've taken one for the team. Instead, he sipped coffee.

I'd like to second that.

THREE MINUTES AGO ON CROSSFIRE...

Gary Hart said he is "announcing" his "re-entry into public life." Is he really getting in? We'll see. As Drudge would say --

DEVELOPING HOT...

Don't forget, there's only a finite number of Taliban believers out there.

And they just caught a few more.

Bob Graham just wants to be somebody's VP, I think.

He's just too late to get the nomination. There are too many candidates. (Gary Hart, a Bill Walton who thinks his feet are good enough for one last game, has the same problem.) If the legitimate candidates have already started to sign up staff and consultants in Iowa, and if John Kerry is already being called the frontrunner, how can Graham possibly think he can catch up at this point? He may get some good press, but his chances of going the distance are nil. I'm guessing he's just lobbying for VP.

The same could possibly be true of Wesley Clark, or even Joe Biden, but Armed Prophet will believe it when they file papers.

Like Bill Richardson, he's not from the Northeast or Midwest. But the clincher, perhaps more important to the Democrats' psychology: He can carry Florida.

On the Fox News Channel chyron (the words below the picture, above the crawl -- usually segment titles or a speaker's identification) at 5:38-5:42 PM EST, Thursday 27 February, 2003:

U-N CONFIRMS IRAQ AGREES
"IN PRINCIPLE" TO DESTROY MISSILES

Ha!

THREE FOR THREE?

As part of Armed Prophet's never-ending quest to unearth every last pro-war article by identified left-liberals, here is the third example is as many days.

Caleb Carr is the son of Beat hanger-on Lucien Carr and an author of both fiction and non-fiction. I read his historical-fiction novel The Alienist a few years back, which was a pretty good Silence of the Lambs-in-1890s New York. (Police chief Teddy Roosevelt puts in a few appearances.) His most recent novel, a futuristic thriller called Killing Time, however, struck me as technophobic, as does this Time chat transcript, which shows him to possess a pessimism more at home on the reactionary left, rather than the progressive right. (How's that for an adjective switch?)

Yet Carr's more serious career has been as a military historian, and based on what he's written (see this NYT op-ed from the summer of 2001), he's not delusionary. Just wary. It might be a stretch to identify him as a leftist in the same vein as Richard Cohen or John Judis, but (as the aforelinked NYT piece shows) he is no Bush cheerleader.

Here is an early paragraph from Carr's lengthy, but interesting article New York Observer:

"I was recently asked by a group of left-leaning intellectuals, academics and artists to lend funds and a signature to a group advertisement in The New York Times—"a very simple statement" of opposition to "the war against Iraq." (Exactly which war against Iraq they meant—the one carried on for eight years by the Clinton administration or the one being planned by President Bush’s advisers—the ad’s organizers did not specify; but more of such irritating distinctions later.) When I inquired if, in fact, it was not the job of scholars and artists, in a complex situation already overburdened by "very simple statements," to offer more nuanced interpretations, I was met by a very polite stone wall: The effect of the message would only be diluted, said the organizers, by qualifications."

The subject of Carr's essay is the methods to be used in the firghting to come, and what the consequences will be. Not whether we should fight, but how we should fight. It's very interesting. Unlike Carr, I am pretty sure the war will be fought carefully, with smart bombs rather than daisy cutters, careful to destroy military installations but not civilian power plants.

"Are our leaders preparing for Afghanistan II, or Desert Storm II? The signs are various and not definitively indicative (as indeed they should not be, at this point, to outsiders)."

Last week there was a groundswell of concern, coming from both liberal and conservative outlets -- including TNR's Peter Beinart, as noted here -- about whether the administration's plan for Iraq was a benign dictator or a free democracy. Witness then the speeches by Paul Wolfowitz and President Bush, this weekend and last night respectively, assuring the world that their commitment to Iraqi freedom is honest. Well, as Carr admits, they cannot do exactly the same thing regarding the war's methods, but if they can find a way to make a similar assurance without tipping their hand, I bet they will.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE'S STATE, MAN

Fox News' Neil Cavuto had several governors on his show yesterday afternoon to discuss the massive financial problems in the states. If you haven't been paying attention, at least 47 of the 50 states are in the red this year, will be next, and so on for the foreseeable future. One of them was diplomatic heavyweight Gov. Bill Richardson (D), easily the most prominent governor of New Mexico in a long time. (Although, ex-Gov. Gary Johnson (R) did a lot of good for the marijuana-legalization movement.)

CAVUTO: Governor Richardson, let me ask you. You've just gotten this big job now. And you're inheriting some problems, little which you've created. Do you raise taxes in this environment? Do you cut spending? Do you do both? What?

RICHARDSON: Well, Neil, in New Mexico we're in a good fiscal situation. I think we're one of two states that doesn't have a deficit. ... And so we had some tax cuts two weeks ago.

Ha! State-level tax cuts in this economy are about as rare as a Saddam interview. (Sounds like laissez-faire Johnson wasn't a bad steward of NM's economy.)

Still, you had to be there for his grin and self-assured chuckle, though. I give Richardson fourteen months before he jumps ship to balance a Northeastern senator's White House ticket. And even if not, he'll at least be asked. If he does well with this governorship, his best days in elective office could well be ahead of him.

I WAS YOUR NEIGHBOR

Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood goes hand in hand with Sesame Street (and The Electric Company and The Dukes of Hazzard) as one of my earliest television memories. From the journey through the miniature neighborhood, to Fred Rogers himself coming through the front door, headed for the sweater closet, from one song to the next, with stops along the way at the fish tank and a visit from Mr. McFeely's Speedy Delivery, with the trolley to the Land of Make Believe, featuring King Friday XIII and Daniel Striped Tiger... I haven't seen an episode in a decade at least, but I could list great moments from that show all morning.

Rest in peace, Fred Rogers, dead of cancer at 74.

STILL WAITING ON TURKEY

The Turkish parliament votes later today. I must admit to knowing very little about the tenor of Turkey's parliamentary system. From what I hear, many are wary of war against Iraq as the majority of the population, like Blair's Britain, is opposed. Also, the last war with Iraq resulted in a net negative effect on Turkey's economy, though I would think Iraq post-Saddam would be more prosperous than Iraq post-Kuwait. Plus, we're giving them billions. Regardless, now that Turkey's government appears to have joined the Coalition of the Persuaded (if not Willing, exactly), it's expected they'll vote to pass it. If they don't, we could be looking at the Mother of All Headaches.

However, this is a good sign, quoted from the BBC article linked above:

"The Turkish Foreign Ministry has urged Turkish nationals to leave Iraq "as soon as possible". The closure of Ankara's embassy in Baghdad has also been announced. The transportation of goods from Turkey to Iraq was halted on Wednesday and oil tankers within Iraq were told to return to Turkey."

It sounded a lot more dramatic when Geraldo Rivera announced it on Fox News yesterday afternoon, than how it reads at BBC News online, but there's really no surprise in that.

BLAIR IS SAFE -- FOR NOW

By a vote of 393-199, the British House of Commons voted in support of Tony Blair's commitment to oust Saddam Hussein (if necessary, of course) and simultaneously defeated a resolution declaring that "the case for war" has not been made. It wasn't close, but as predicted, Blair's support came primarily from the opposition Conservatives, while his many of his own Labour MPs voted against. It's not an overwhelming mandate -- and it isn't likely to sway the public -- but he's got what he needs for the moment.

MAIS NATURELLEMENT

Best line from this Washington Post article, quoting Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schoeder on the Franco-German position on Iraq:

"Germany's position is exactly the same," said Schroeder, who left most of the talking to Chirac.

Germany has no foreign policy to speak of. Perhaps Schroeder's successor -- who can't be too far off now -- will find one. Meanwhile, France is only too happy to supply one. Here's Chirac:

"There is no deadline. Only the inspectors themselves can say when such a deadline is set and how."

These two have no interest in settling this anytime soon, if ever. If global security was left to the Axis of Weasels, it wouldn't be long before Iraq comprised all of South Asia and Northern Africa.

SNOWING AGAIN

I noticed the first few flakes falling -- four in a row! triple alliteration score! -- on me as I marched to the Metro this morning (I've still got it!), and now it's a regular blizzard in the Washington, DC area. Snow predicted for all of today and tomorrow. Perhaps this time I'll make it home before I become snowbound.

FRANCE'S BID TO BE THE 'UNCOLA' -- AND TOM FRIEDMAN'S BID TO STAY ABOVE THE FRAY

Leave it to Tom Friedman to get credit for saying things conservatives say all the time:

"There is only one group of Arabs for whom Europeans have consistently spoken out in favor of their liberation — and that is those Arabs living under Israeli occupation, the Palestinians. Those Arabs who have been living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or other Arab dictators are of no concern to President Jacques Chirac of France and his fellow travelers. ... The truth is, France is not interested in promoting égalité, fraternité and liberté in the Middle East. It is primarily interested today in managing American power. It is primarily interested in positioning France to become the world's next great "Uncola," the leader of the alternative coalition to American power."

Why does Friedman get this credit? For giving both sides its due. To take the above selection as representative of the whole column, (which is about our Arab friends' reluctance to embrace democracy, even as despotism is seen as increasingly untenable, and certainly worth five minutes of your time), would be a mistake. Friedman gets both sides good:

"In fairness, though, before now the U.S. has never shown much interest in Arab democracy either. It treated the Arab states like big, dumb gas stations, and all the U.S. cared about was that they kept their pumps open and their prices low. Otherwise they could do whatever they wanted to their own people at home or out back."

Fair enough, yes. And a good line, that "big, dumb gas stations" remark. Nobody, it seems, can ever quite claim Friedman for their own side. He builds enough caveats into his columns so as to remind you that his mind is not entirely made up; another writer might be accused of straddling the issues or refusing to say what he or she thinks, but Friedman pulls it off.

But how? Is it because he's a really good writer? Is it because he's really, really smart? Well ... I haven't made up my mind yet.

THREE MAKES A TREND

Hell, it's already a trend. I'm just pointing out a few instances of my own:

Yesterday I wrote about the Washington Post's Richard Cohen, who asked of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, "How did this fool get on 'Meet the Press'?" It was refreshing to see such a straightforward, suffer-no-fools argument from a liberal columnist. Well, today marks two in a row.

John Judis, usually an excruciatingly liberal writer, writes about why the US will wage war in The American Prospect, a magazine frequently excruciating to read. Surprisingly, he immediately eschews the Kucinichian "oil" arguments and the Dowdian "like-father-like-son" arguments and offers his account, "based on interviews with administration officials, press reports and, where necessary, speculation," about why the administration has decided upon this war at this time.

In fact, he ignores MoDo outright, and dispenses with Kucinich in the second paragraph:

"In mid-January, the German weekly Der Spiegel ran a cover story titled, "Blood for Oil." But anyone familiar with positions taken by American oil companies knows that this is implausible. In the late 1990s, oil companies lobbied to remove sanctions on Iraq. And most oil executives are extremely wary about the Bush policies toward Iraq, which they fear will destabilize the region."

The answer he gives is not surprising -- it's pretty damned close to the opinion I've held since this all got under way, and strikingly similar to arguments put forth by the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly and the editors of National Review. What is surprising is that Judis gets it so right.

"Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were not concerned about enriching American oil companies, but they were worried that if Iraq acquired nuclear weapons, Hussein could achieve dominance over a region vital to world economic stability. Quipped one State Department official in explaining their reasoning, 'If the Gulf produced kumquats, would we be doing this? I have my doubts.'"

True enough. What separates this war from Clinton's ever-so-frequent military excursions is that Saddam is a danger to the world, far more so than Slobo could ever have hoped. And:

"The September 11 attacks, combined with the subsequent anthrax episodes, created a national trauma -- a feeling of powerlessness in the face of the unknown. Bush and his administration were certainly not exempt. ... Bush stated his own recurring nightmare in his State of the Union address: 'Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.' This scenario, seemingly far-fetched to many Europeans, was not just for public consumption but rather reflected fears in the White House about another September 11.

"Bush? Sincere? How could John Judis, always a good liberal, say such a thing?! But in all seriousness, Judis' audience at the Prospect -- and to some extent at The New Republic, for which he also writes -- includes a great many Bush skeptics. Perhaps Judis can convince a few that Bush isn't just hyping the threat of Saddam to settle family business or divide the Democrats.

Judis also explains one thing I've wondered about myself: Why doesn't Bush mention regime change anymore? Judis puts it like this:

"Powell and his allies ... provoked a debate within the administration that was finally resolved (with pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and congressional Democrats) when Bush agreed to seek a UN resolution that would focus on disarming Hussein rather than overthrowing him. From that point on, the administration no longer spoke of regime change as its objective."

Without going back to look at transcripts and news stories from the end of last year, I'd say the timing sounds about right to me.

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF MORBID CURIOSITY

Boston-area sales of Great White are up since their appearance at The Station. On the other hand, Michael Jackson's album sales haven't got much of a boost in the US. But I guess everybody already owns Thriller, not everybody has a copy of Once Bitten.

R.I.P.

Eddie Dodson -- who set the record for the most banks robbed at six on Nov. 29, 1983, who partied with the stars while robbing banks "in volume" to support his drug habit -- has died in Los Angeles at 54. The AP's brief obit is here.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY...

...this: Let's say the UN does sign on to a US-led military attack to remove Saddam Hussein. Many liberals in the US and Europe are afraid that a war without UN sanction will result in more terrorist attacks on the United States. Do the anti-"unilateralist" opiners believe that Al Qaeda would then stand by and decide against responding with further attacks?

This is absurd, isn't it? The followers of UBL don't like the UN any more than they do the US. So why would they refrain from attacking just because the UN gave the war its blessing? Those who speak in such tones, like Dennis Kucinich and Nelson Mandela, are either unable to muster realistic defenses against arguments for war, or are deliberately putting up desperate, contradictory excuses not to act decisively.

Anybody care to disagree?

LIAR LIAR

Loyal readers -- there are a few of you -- will remember that I summarized the gripping "Meet The Press" debate between Pentagon adviser Richard Perle and OH Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Sunday afternoon. But how did I miss the fact that Perle directly called Kucinich a liar? I don't know; I guess there was just too much going on. But Richard Cohen (who may or may not be that Richard Cohen) made it the subject of his Washington Post column this morning.

Amidst Kucinich's loopy tirade against the war, he apparently -- I tuned him out in places -- claimed,

"since no other case has been made to go to war against Iraq . . . oil represents the strongest incentive."

[Eyes rolling.] I missed that, but I also missed the response.

Perle: "There was ... the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it."

Cohen:

"'Liar' is a word rarely used in Washington. ... So it was particularly shocking, not to mention refreshing, to hear [Perle] call [Kucinich] a liar to his face."

To quote the Professor: Heh.

Cohen also:

"If you don't impose a deadline for the war, then the case for it was even made by the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1441, endorsed, as it happens, by France. I don't think France, not to mention Syria, would have voted to secure Iraq's oil for America's energy companies."

Good point. But Cohen isn't finished just yet. At the DNC meeting in DC this weekend (I would have attended, but I guess they, um, forgot to send my press pass) former VT Gov. Howard Dean decried Bush's "unilateral" war on Iraq. Here's Cohen, making a point many conservatives (myself included) wouldn't expect a liberal like Cohen to make:

"If Dean was referring to the original congressional resolution, then maybe he's technically correct. But if the verb "is" means what it usually does, then he is just plain wrong. Britain supports the United States. That makes it bilateral. And Spain would make it trilateral, and Italy and Poland and the Netherlands and the Czech Republic make it multilateral."

Liberals might sniff when Jay Nordlinger says it, but (presumably) not Cohen. Good piece.

ATTENTION, BRITISH CITIZENS -- ER, THAT IS -- SUBJECTS!

I understand that for many of you (particularly those of you hanging around Hyde Park waving your BUSH = HITLER signs) PM Tony Blair may not command the moral high ground, which he would need to persuade you that a war in Iraq could be the right thing to do. But what about The Economist? Unless you're a Commie-loving hard-left Chomskyite or a Flat Earth isolationist reactionary, chances are you'll agree that the elusive editors and anonymous authors of your homegrown news magazine are pretty stout of head. Yes? No? The 20 February editorial, "Why War Would Be Justified," deserves your attention.

The Economist writes that

"the difference between Britain and America, on one side, and France, Russia and China, on the other, is not about that demand or the ultimate objective but about how much time Iraq should be given to comply with it. In most western countries, opinion polls show clearly that a majority would accept a war if it were authorised by the UN. ... This makes these marches very different from those in the 1960s and early 1970s against the Vietnam war, when many protesters felt strong sympathy with the North Vietnamese and their leader, Ho Chi Minh."

We're all on the same side here, right? Unless you're an inveterate America-hater or Saddam-lover, then it's not about the end goal, but about process, right?

"If you agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat, as his Arab and Iranian neighbours do, then the choice between peace and war must begin with consideration of containment. ... After 12 years, what has containment achieved? The inspectors found biological, chemical and nuclear programmes, but mainly when pointed to them by defectors. Meanwhile, this sort of peace has been extremely deadly: thousands of bombs have been dropped amid the policing of the 'no-fly' zones and to prevent Mr Hussein from rebuilding his military facilities. The economic sanctions have been deadlier still."

No kidding. While it is true that there are many regimes around the world with illiberal human rights records, we cannot in the short term hope to change all of those countries. But here we have a chance to end one such regime. Yet liberals and leftists have retreated to containment as an alternative to war. Of course, Saddam is only contained because a massive armed force is building on his borders. You must know that. Furthermore, such a long-term deployment is untenable. It would keep the world's focus on this one region, meanwhile North Korea would keep pushing the line further and further back, until another war becomes inevitable. Best to wrap up Saddam quickly and get on with the world, no?

"Mr Hussein still needs to be contained or disarmed. The question is how. The normal diplomatic tools—sanctions, persuasion, pressure, UN resolutions—have all been tried, during 12 deadly but failed years. The sanctions need to go, urgently. But what to use in their place? Mr Hussein could be surrounded, to prevent him attacking others. But neighbouring countries are hardly keen on that, and it would only make him even more determined to develop weapons sufficiently powerful to be able to intimidate such a force. His country could be more or less occupied by a large UN security force ... But when that was tried in Bosnia the force soon became hostages; and if the force were really large enough, he would surely resist it.

We have tried other things, haven't we? 12 years and 17 resolutions later and the situation has only worsened and you still want to keep slamming your head against the same wall?

"Or he could be threatened with attack if he refuses to comply with Resolution 1441, according to deadlines set by the Security Council. ... To The Economist it still looks the least bad of the limited range of available options; better, by far, than sticking to the failed and deadly policies of the past 12 years ... in the end, the reality remains: if Mr Hussein refuses to disarm, it would be right to go to war. Saddamned, perhaps, if you do; but Saddamned, also, if you don't.

One can doubt whether or not President Bush is sincere when he asserts reluctance to use military force. I disagree, but that is immaterial -- whether or not Bush is apprehensive about the looming Battle of Iraq, there are others who are but nevertheless know it is the only sensible option. Colin Powell is one, and the editors of The Economist are more. Think about it. The worst that will happen is that you end up on the right side of history.

But we're all trying to give you another chance.

MEDIA ETHICS 204 -- DON'T BUY A NIGHTCLUB, AND MOST DEFINITELY DON'T BUY A NIGHTCLUB, USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF NIGHTCLUB SAFETY ON THE NIGHT IT BURNS DOWN

In the recent, deadly Providence, RI nightclub incident, it's been noted in passing that The Station owner John Derderian was a television reporter, in Boston until recently, and now in Providence. The camera that recorded the heart-stopping footage of the fire beginning was there at the bequest of Derderian himself. For the families it's about their loved ones, for the city officials this is about safety codes, but for reporters, this is about journalistic ethics. And Derderian failed.

From a column by The Boston Herald's Peter Gelzinis:

"Derderian knew there'd be no problem getting a camera into The Station to shoot some B-roll of a crowded bar. After all, how many other owners of darkened clubs would welcome a TV camera looking to contrast the interior of their joints with a scene of mass death in Chicago? No one's that stupid -- or is it arrogant? ... Still, I wonder if the news director ever looked at Derderian and said something like: 'Geez, Jeff, I sure as hell hope your joint is squeaky clean.'"

THE UGLY SOUTH DOES STILL EXIST

But I am pretty sure the moron quoted below represents a tiny, diminishing minority.

Growing up on the West Coast of the United States, one can easily forget the kinds of attitudes that still exist in other parts of the country. Browsing through the Greenville News this morning, I found that Greenville, SC is one. Granted, it is merely a letter-to-the editor that I found, so it was either written by a crackpot or by committee for submission by a crackpot. But it's stupid nonetheless. Here it is:

Argument based on Jefferson's false idea

Predictably enough, The Greenville News has scraped up some liberal-left Ph.D.s willing to add some momentum to its current push for a King holiday. ... Professing concern for Greenville's reputation, these supposedly learned gentlemen argue that County Council should let itself be guided to a "morally correct decision" by the false and anti-Christian Jeffersonian idea, found in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal." But Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian. His false religion would lead him to adopt certain dangerously false views about individual rights and freedom.

You sir, are an idiot. First of all, this gives me the opportunity to mention a point made by Robert Kaplan in his latest book, Warrior Politics: those who say the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values only get it half-right. The United States certainly did draw upon that morality, but not that morality alone. A nation that took "turn the other cheek" all the way to its logical conclusion would not provide for the "common defense" of its people. The Founders' worldview was also influenced by the pagan ethics of Greco-Roman societies -- after all, the Bible doesn't have much to say about democracy, does it?

But Jefferson's errors were corrected by South Carolina's own John C. Calhoun, a Christian who was also, by the way, America's greatest statesman and political thinker.

The greatest? Well, I suppose everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I'd put Calhoun pretty low on the list. To begin with, unlike that bastard deist Jefferson, he never wrote a critical word about the institution of slavery. Both men held slaves, but only one was troubled by it. Jefferson never wrote anything with the title "Slavery as a Positive Good." Calhoun cannot say the same -- he actually read it to the full United States Senate.

Extending from that, Calhoun is one of the men most responsible for corrupting the notion of states' rights, with his concept of "nullification." I am very much a proponent of federalism, and where possible, I prefer matters like education, health care and the abortion question be devolved to the states. But using the original notion of state governments' supremacy to the federal government to defend slavery blackens by association the idea of having states make their own decisions. States do have rights, but they do not have the right to deprive their own people of their rights. (Barring due process, etc., etc., etc.)

In his famous "Speech on the Oregon Bill" (June 1848), Calhoun presents a systematic critique of the idea that "all men are created equal." He explains how not a word of the expression is actually true. All men are not created equal because, first of all, all men are not created. In sharp contrast to Jefferson's deistic belief, a Christian Calhoun espouses the biblical view that only two people, Adam and Eve, were created. Nor is it true that all people are equal. Woman was divinely decreed subordinate to man, and children subordinate to their parents.

So an error, no matter how deeply entrenched or often repeated, is still an error.

Winston McCuen
Greenville

I just had to highlight the whole explanation. It's too ridiculous to be actually commented upon, but I will highlight it to emphasize disbelief. Now, I will energetically debate somebody who wants to argue that the government should treat people as if they were unequal, but I don't have enough time waste it refuting half-assed assertions that the Constitution should only apply to Adam and Eve.

Next.

...OR NOT?

The Philippines now say US forces will not be involved in active battle against Abu Sayyaf. I'm confused. Where's Bill Gertz when you need him?

WACO REMEMBERS, BUT WISHES WE DIDN'T

It was almost 10 years ago that the FBI surrounded the Mount Carmel compound of the Branch Davidians and their leader, a failed guitarist named Vernon Howell who had renamed himself David Koresh. The siege lasted from February 28 to April 19, 1993. And of course, once that near-month anniversary is finished, we have a couple more to remember as well.

Waco Tribune-Herald editor Carlos Sanchez is having to defend his newspaper's upcoming retrospective against angry residents and uncomfortable city leaders. I'm not surprised that Waco, TX is still bitter about the reason for its place in the history books; I'm sure Littleton, CO, is too.

Sanchez: "Like it or not, this event has indelibly been linked to Waco. It's a bitter taste, especially when many people now note that President Bush's ranch is nearly as close to Waco as Mount Carmel, yet the world associates his ranch with Crawford and Mount Carmel with Waco."

BUY THE DAMN COOKIES ALREADY!

Seriously, do you want news stories like this one on your conscience?

BEST. SHOW. EVER.

I was saying this about five years ago, back when the show was still putting up the consistent quality that cemented its place as the best narrative television program of all time. At the time it was a little controversial to say so. Seinfeld was still on the air and with ratings far better than The Simpsons. But by the time the New York Times finally got around to identifying The Simpsons as the best ever, a few years ago, it seemed well on its way to being conventional wisdom. There was even some outcry when TV Guide dropped the ball by failing to put it any higher than #8. (Seinfeld was #1). But by the time the Omaha World-Herald is writing editorials to trump The Simpsons as television's greatest show, it's beyond conventional wisdom -- it's passé.

The World-Herald site is password protected, so here it is in full:

Mmmmmm, Simpsons . . .

By World's Editorial Writers

2/24/2003

If "Ozzie and Harriet" defined the fantasy family of the 1950s then "The Simpsons" are the prototypical dysfunctional gang of the 1990s and beyond.

Last week, the 14-year-old animated Fox Network show aired its 300th episode -- quite a feat for any TV show. It already had set the record for longest-running animated show in 1997 when it lumbered past "The Flintstones." Now it is setting its sights to surpass "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" as the longest-running TV comedy in any format.

It deserves the record. It is the best-written show on television. That, of course, is not saying much. But "The Simpsons" writing goes far beyond most of the cookie-cutter sitcom writing. It almost single-handedly brought back the art of satire to television. It also -- and you can view this as a good or bad thing -- established Fox as a legitimate network.

During the course of its run it has garnered 18 Emmy awards, 38 Emmy nominations and a Golden Globe nomination. In 1999 it was named by Time magazine the "best show in the history of television."

Over the years the show shifted its focus from Bart -- the perennial third-grader -- to the bumbling but loveable Homer.

Along the way it has introduced us to an unforgettable cast of characters, each with his or her own foibles. Ned Flanders (and his now late wife), Moe, Barney, Krusty, Chief Wiggums and Montgomery Burns and his sycophant Smithers -- among others.

The heart of the show, however, belongs to the Simpson family -- Homer, Bart, Marge, Lisa, Maggie and Grandpa.

Quite simply, no other show in TV history has been so consistently funny. Few shows have shown the courage to confront social, political and societal problems as have "The Simpsons."

So, here's to 300 episodes and counting. If they'll keeping writing, we'll keep laughing.

D'oh!

MAYBE EVERYBODY SHOULD JUST STEER CLEAR OF COLOMBIA FOR AWHILE

If the recent spate of bomb blasts at social clubs and city-street rebel shootouts haven't been enough, maybe this story about the abduction of three Americans, the second or third time in the past month that the FARC has taken Americans hostage, will finally drive the point home. President Bush has dispatched 150 US soldiers to Colombia to assist in efforts to free those in captivity.

The FARC is accusing the Americans of being CIA agents, and though I'm usually not inclined to agree with jungle-dwelling Marxist killers, they may well be right. Hence the initial quiet about the matter and now the small contingent of US troops involved. That and they were on a government plane over disputed territory in Colombia.

P.S. On Friday I speculated that some might compare US involvement in the Philippines' domestic rebel situation to Vietnam. Well, it appears that the Colombian government has already beaten them to the reference.

ENJOY COCA

I can picture the steam coming out of Barry McCaffrey's ears when he reads this article. (It's funny how John Walters has had McCaffrey's old job for a few years now, but McCaffrey is still 'Head' Enemy No. 1.)

Bolivia may legalize coca, for purely domestic political reasons. Just one more reason why the United States should be looking at demand-side, rather than supply-side solutions.

P.S. Please allow me to note, this is the only circumstance in which I could be described as a demand-sider.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ANTI-CHOICE TERRORISTS?!?!?!

Every so often in the course of debate about foreign terrorist groups operating in the United States, somebody from the far left is guaranteed to screech about the white Christian doctor-killing patriarchal extremist assholes, who certainly do exist. But they don't exist in any great numbers; there is one on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted, and even he is only mentioned by these people as a diversion. He exists in their mind only to change the subject from the more present threat of Muslim Arab extremists, whose rage their ideology cannot adequately explained.

Next time you hear one of them shriek about what's being done about those crazies, well, here is your answer. The white Christian doctor-killing patriarchal extremist assholes are being captured, too.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO...?

Yeah, what did happen to Dr. Jack Kevorkian? He went to jail, of course, but after that ... that was that. What happened?

Jack Lessenberry, a columnist for the Toledo Blade, provides the answer.

Frequent readers will know (and occasional readers may guess) that I am from Oregon, which is the only state in the union to have legal assisted suicide. As a libertarian, I supported its passage and would have voted for it, had I been of age. More recently though, I have found arguments about the negative effects of economic factors to be persuasive. As with abortion, I guess I am still "pro-choice" at the time of this writing. But Kevorkian clearly crossed the line from assisted suicide to euthanasia with the killing of Thomas Youk that put him behind bars.

My thinking on the matter has not settled for good, but one thing I can say about "Dr. Death" -- he should be where he is.

ABC News' Political Unit released the latest installment of their Invisible Primary this past week...

...and I was recounting for a roommate who had landed where. Here's how they fared:

1. Kerry
2. Edwards
3. Lieberman
4. Gephardt
5. Dean
6. Sharpton

Guess which one I forgot the first time? And that's too bad, really. I like the guy. I wouldn't vote for him in the generals, but I like him. And I feel sorry for him, too.

I probably disagree with him on most issues -- labor, taxes, the economy overall -- but he's had the balls to stand firm on his support for the war, even in Iowa, whose Democrats are doves among doves. He won the caucus in '88 and so is expected to do so again. It's an unfortunate predicament for him: the expectations game has his fortunes tied to that state, but there is no guarantee the state is his. If he keeps telling the truth about his pro-war views, an Iowa win could be tough. A successful war would probably vindicate him. I hope it does.

Another but unlike most of the other candidates, I haven't seen him shamelessly straddle any controversial issues for awhile. Yes, he did the same abortion flip-flop as Al Gore (and now Kucinich), but that was 15 years ago, and unlike Gore -- or any of the other candidates in this year's field -- you can still tell that abortion is an issue that troubles him.

He even has called George W. Bush a "good man" -- as he did again, minutes after the Perle/Kucinich match on Meet The Press this morning. He's counting on the economy to be enough. Will it? There's no telling yet.

Meanwhile, of the four legitimate frontrunners, a little rain cloud still hangs over the Gephardt camp. Jay Carney of Time thinks Gephardt could still win the nomination. I'm not persuaded, but if there's an argument to be made for him, this is it. And I mean that: This is it.

PERLE VS. KUCINICH

For all those who missed the Tim Russert-moderated face-off between Pentagon adviser Richard Perle and newly-minted presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Meet The Press this morning, have no fear: I was taking notes.

Kucinich started off giving the same flat anti-war line he recited (tediously) at the DNC winter meeting yesterday. The words "inspections" and "containment" were combined in different ways with reassuring phrases like "can work" and "continue on the path." Several times he reiterated a line most US politicians stopped using the day of Colin Powell's UN presentation: "This administration has not made a credible case for war." Kucinich definitely seemed skittish, repeating "inspections" and "containment" as if that made the case stronger.
     Most interesting point:War in Iraq will "make this country a focal point of terrorist attacks." Ah. As opposed to right now, then.

Then came Perle's turn. Anybody who has seen Perle speak knows he is not an orator on the level of Martin Luther King, or even Al Sharpton. He does not possess the same kind of natural charisma, but he can nevertheless marshal his words to make his case clearly and calmly. Perle certainly disagrees with the "inspections are working" line. Saddam Hussein has had four years to hide his weapons, and even Hans Blix has said the inspectors are only there to "verify" disarmament, not to "scour" the country.
     Most interesting point: "The right thing for Hans Blix to have done when Saddam handed over a false declaration was to say, 'There’s no role for the inspectors because we are here to verify his claims to having removed the weapons and he has not explained when or how or where he removed those weapons.'” You know, I had never thought of that.

With the opening round over, Russert started in on the harder questions. First, Kucinich: "Blix has said the Iraqis must destroy [the Al-Samoud] missiles. If they do not destroy those missiles that have an illegal range, is that worth going to war over?"
     Kucinich, avoiding the question: "I think we have to take every step to make sure that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. And that’s what the inspections are about. And I think that it’s important for the United Nations to assert its authority..." [It goes on like this for awhile.]
     Russert: "But the U.N. weapons inspector has said to Iraq you must destroy the Al-Samoud missiles ... If the Iraqis refuse to do that, would you then use military force in order to make sure they did it?"
     Kucinich spends about a minute avoiding the topic before blowing the TV audience away with: "I do not support war."

In that hundred words or so, he implicitly admits that Iraq is a "nation that stands outside the world community [and] it has to conform to the requirements of security for the world." But then he says: "However, to automatically say that that means that you launch into a war, that doesn’t follow." ?!?! So what do you do, Mr. Kucinich? Anything different? Ever? Only one conclusion can be drawn: The man is not serious.     And Perle gets it exactly right when he says: "Congressman Kucinich is in danger of becoming rather like the United Nations. ... He doesn’t want serious consequences. He wants to wish and hope that somehow this will all end well if we do nothing, if we continue to be paralyzed."

Later on, Russert pressed Perle on apprehending Saddam: "And you’re convinced we will find Saddam Hussein?"
     Perle: "Well, I don’t know whether we’ll find Saddam, but if Saddam is separated from his police state, he’s of no consequence."

Interesting. Had Osama bin Laden been definitively killed or even captured, this question would probably not have come up. Nor would Perle be hedging his bets. I do think a Ceausescu-style punishment certainly should be considered "of consequence," but I agree that as unappealing as not apprehending Saddam would be, he's basically right. It's what happens to Iraq that matters, and I hope we can do the right thing.

In the last few minutes of the segment, Russert chatted up Kucinich about his presidential candidacy (oh yeah, that). Here are Kucinich's last words: "Anyone who wants to be president of the United States has to be a healer, not a divider." What the--?!

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis. We knew you were a long shot, but must you be this amature? If you're going to borrow your opponent's slogan, you must do two things: 1) Turn it around on itself, and 2) Make it catchy. Come on, a "healer, not a divider?" Next time you could at least show up with a phrase borrowed from a street protest. It would certainly be better than what you've got right now.

Compact discs are doomed! Doomed!! Dooooomed!!!

The Gray Lady reports this morning that CD sales declined 9% between '01 and '02; understandably, record companies are looking for ways to stanch the financial hemorrhage.

Experiments to resuscitate this ailing product are growing. In January, Bon Jovi created a compact disc, with eight previously unreleased songs, exclusively for Target stores. Priced at $6.99, it was intended to help bolster sales of other Bon Jovi albums, including the newest, "Bounce."

Best Buy, the No. 1 electronics chain in the country, is selling prepaid cards good for 10 downloads that allow consumers to create compilations to play either on discs or on computers. And last year, the Interscope recording label gave a DVD to the first million buyers of "The Eminem Show" as an incentive to buy the CD.

Yawn. Bon Jovi outtakes? Free DVDs to promote CDs? Memo to the suits: You're avoiding the problem.

Best Buy comes closer to getting it -- online delivery, a pro-choice (take that, Kate Michelman!) mix-and-match approach, and free samples to get you started. But the selection is limited (hey, no Ween!), and I don't know if $.99 per song is going to fly. It's possible, but it's also too soon to tell. Here's to trial and error!

HO HUM

Mike Tyson refrained from eating, Tonya Harding took a beating and the "purest sport" keeps on ... keeping.

Jay Nordlinger of National Review may have an unfortunate name...

...but I wouldn't mind if I had his job arrangement. Nordlinger writes his Impromptus column -- which he accurately describes as "breezy" -- for NRO seemly as frequently or infrequently as he pleases. He just goes on at length about whatever interests him: Europe, Israel, opera, language, Jimmy Carter, whatever.

From the latest:

You have seen, no doubt, that Yasser Arafat has bowed to the demand to appoint a prime minister, spreading power from himself. Do you know who did that? George Bush and Ariel Sharon, that's who. Not that they'll ever get any credit.

I'm sure he's right about the first part. But I'm also afraid that he's correct about the last part as well.

POLLOCK JOKES

Remember those? I sure do. They were a staple of my joke-telling youth; better than blonde jokes, more durable than Iraqi jokes. Why the Poles Pollocks? Beats me. For all I know today, I could have been telling anecdotes about Jackson Pollock's drunken behavior.

If I recall correctly, the Pollocks (sometimes Polacks) of jokes past had nothing to do with the real-life Poles of Poland. How could they? I didn't know any. And it was of no consequence.

Reading this NYT article on US-Poland relations, I find myself thinking it rather unlikely that Pollock jokes will make a return anytime soon. And to the extent that they exist at all, they will likely recede from popular usage as other, oh, I don't know, more Belgian countries become more suitable targets.

P.S. This seems to confirm my belief.

CLIVE CROOK IS ONE GOOFY LOOKING GUY

And smart, too. His most recent National Journal column (which may require a password, I'm not sure) is another good one. (His NJ columnist pic is goofier; that's the only one I could find.

A quote:

Britain is usually inclined to take America's side ... Do not be misled by the anti-American, pro-European BBC. Britain's public broadcaster is run by statist Europhiles who regard Bush as a bumbling fool and see popular suspicion of the European Union as barbarian. The BBC is a "public service," and therefore unrepresentative of the public.

Ha! Good one. His column is about the apparent paradox of Tony Blair's eloquent arguments in favor of military force in Iraq compared to his countrymen's opposition. Here in the US, Blair is loved by liberals for being Clinton without the ethical problems and respected by conservatives for standing with the US on the war. But Crook reminds us that Britons do see him as Clintonian and unethical -- even dishonest. Most recently, the discovery of the plagiarism marring Blair's Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation document, released by Blair in conjunction with Colin Powell's UN address, hurt his standing on Iraq in a way that did not resonate in the US.) It's domestic issues and problems within his administration that preclude him from persuading the British public. They don't trust him on other issues, so why should they trust him on this?

Crook:

Blair will most likely keep his promise [and support a war in Iraq]. I suppose that makes him a good friend of America. He would have been a much better friend if he had done what was once quite possible but may be no longer -- namely, align British opinion, as well as its limited military resources, behind a just cause.

Blair needs a UN resolution -- British polls show most people there would support military action if the UN signed off -- but if we can't get it, he could lose his job. And much as I've supported Blair for his rightmindedness on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, it will be his own fault if he does.

DUCTING RESPONSIBILITY

Gallup reports:

Have Any Duct Tape In Your House Right Now? When Did You Get It?

Have duct tape; bought it after gov't raised terrorist level     2%
Have duct tape; but had it before gov't raised terrorist level 57%
Do not have duct tape in house right now                         40%

Perhaps just two percent of the population is all it takes to clear the nation's shelves of duct tape. Or perhaps a few somebodies aren't fessing up...

SPEAKING OF TNR...

Wow! I just got ahold of the new TNR issue -- which has the below-mentioned TRB piece. You can't see it online yet, but I'm looking at it now. It appears that I've tossed all the old TNRs that I had around here, so for the moment I'll just note a few changes.

The flag on the cover -- THE NEW REPUBLIC -- is written out in blocky sans serif typeface -- quite a departure from the old look. It doesn't look like a magazine that's 89 years old, that's for sure. Inside the magazine, it's not quite as different. The layout is still heavy with text and sparsely illustrated with original artwork. It isn't like they've doubled their white space or jazzed the thing up with full- or half-page photographs. No sidebars either. It's still the same mag.

But. But! The typeface... The colors. The borders! It looks just like Rolling Stone, but with less skin. This is tolerable, but a little unnerving at the same time. I also don't think the blocky, Arial Bold-esque typeface on the cover entirely jibes with the Palatino-esque serif headers and bylines inside.

Then again, I was never really a big fan of TNR's old logo. (Nor do I long for what it looked like in the 1980s.) I much preferred -- and still prefer -- the website's cartoony upward-slanting logo. Nevertheless, it's still an improvement. And before long, I'll get used to it.

PETER BEINART ON HAWKISH LIBERALISM

The always-intriguing but not-always-right Peter Beinart's TRB column (wrested away from Andrew Sullivan, for those who remember) in the March 3 is about the perils of "hawkish liberalism." Those like Christopher Hitchens and Beinart's own New Republic magazine support the war because they see the chance for a free, self-governed Iraq. Liberals can be hawks when they believe war can be used to protect human rights and achieve "liberal" goals. Witness the Democrats' support for Clinton's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Beinart is afraid that if Bush does not help the Iraqis build a democracy -- but installs a benign dictator instead -- hawkish liberalism will be in big trouble. I share his worry a bit, too. It seems to me more likely than Beinart that Bush will support democratization efforts, but I am concerned that a year or so from now it won't get the attention it should. But I'm also concerned because I like having hawkish liberals around. I may disagree with Beinart on domestic policy, but on foreign policy we're sympatico.

That said, this is an interesting passage:

The collapse of hawkish liberalism might actually diminish anti-Americanism abroad since, absent their liberal allies, Rumsfeld and Cheney would be less likely to drape their actions in the moralistic talk Europeans find so grating. After all, no one protests Russia's intervention in Chechnya on the streets of Paris and Rome.

Is that why the Europeans don't protest Russia? I guess that could have something to do with it, but I suggest it has more to do with America's overall world influence rather than Russia's lack of moralizing.

In any case, I think Beinart is wrong to assume that Bush et al. only speak in moral terms because of "hawkish liberalism." That or I think he is wrong to predict its total collapse. Collapse within the Democratic party, perhaps. But I do believe that -- so long as foreign policy remains as important as it's been since 9/11 -- many hawkish liberals would finally do what they should have a long time ago: become Republicans.

WHO IS "CARL McCOLL"?

I've never heard of a "Carl McColl," but the Associated Press' Will Lester seems to think he ran for governor of New York in 2002.

The great Henry Ford's...

...closes this weekend. If you're in the Portland metro area, I implore you to go, one last time (or one first time), and drink a White Russian for me. Meantime, The Big O ran this nice eulogy a few days ago.

I suppose it's only a matter of minutes now...

...until somebody starts predicting that US involvement in the Philippines' Abu Sayyaf crackdown is the next Vietnam.

Last year, nearly 1,300 U.S. advisers and support personnel participated in what was billed as a six-month training mission to bolster the counterterrorism capabilities of Philippine forces. That effort, which focused on the island of Basilan and concluded as scheduled on July 31, was credited with killing or capturing some Abu Sayyaf members, but it also ended up scattering scores of rebels to other islands.

This time, Pentagon officials are describing the mission not as a training exercise but a combat operation with no pre-set termination date. Although Philippine forces will have the lead, they will be accompanied in the field by American troops that will remain under U.S. command and be at some risk, defense officials said.

"The intent is for U.S. troops to actively participate," a Pentagon spokesman said. "At this point, we're going into it saying the mission will go on until both sides agree it is finished."

This does seem to violate the Powell Doctrine in the worst way, but then I don't think you can fight terrorists like you fight dictators. I'll be watching this one with some trepidation. Let's hope this is more Panama and less Somalia.

The next book I read...

...will be Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. The essential point is that America's militarily strength and European weakness is a chosen path that each have been on since the end of WWII. Americans are more willing to vanquish threats a half-world away, while Europeans are more willing to accept certain threats. Americans will use guns; Europeans will use treaties. If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

I have not read the book, so I do not know what are his ultimate conclusions. However, Kagan is popular with neo-cons -- enough to put it at 26 on Amazon's Sales Rank (first on the second page, but a depressing 21 slots behind Stupid White Men and four Atkins diet books) -- and so I rather doubt he ultimately sides with the European plan.

But I know who does! And their magazine ran this incredibly condescending interview with him last weekend. I find it amazing that Kagan managed not to throttle (or hang up on) the interviewer; I might not have had the restraint.

GLOBALIZATION HAS A REVERSE GEARSHIFT?

The anti-globos sure might hope so, but I don't and neither does the Washington Post's Bob Samuelson, who is afraid it might. Why? It's happened before.

But history suggests caution. Globalization also flourished in the 19th century -- and then faltered. Railroads and steamships, submarine telegraph cables (the first in 1851, under the English Channel) and the Suez Canal (1869) all encouraged a huge expansion of trade, global investment and migration. ... Even before World War I, a backlash against imports among farmers and industrial workers inspired higher tariffs. World War I and the Great Depression (1929-1939) were fatal. Trade and global investment declined. Protectionism rose. By 1950, trade (as a share of global GDP) was lower than in 1870.

Two things to remember: Wars often bring with them major shifts in global relations. Economic isolationism is not itself obsolete. Five years ago I might have ignored a column saying this. (Although, if it was a Samuelson piece, I wouldn't have rejected it out of hand). Then again, the world looked different back then.

I haven't heard too much about this since it happened...

...but the I told u I was hardcore kid (not to be confused with the Dell Dude) might some day be cited as the internet's Kitty Genovese.

OKAY, I GET IT!

You're patriotic already, fine! I don't care! You're still wrong!

WHAT'S BIGGER THAN A TOM RIDGE PRESS CONFERENCE?

And what's bigger than a Tom Ridge press conference plus Dick Gephardt's official declaration of candidacy? A dog trapped on an ice floe on the Passaic River in New Jersey, that's what.

CNN and Fox News cameras first discovered the poor Rottweiler about an hour ago, but like most midday TV news blater, stayed with it only briefly. A little while later, they put Dick Gephardt's conference on the screen -- even more briefly. Ratings straggler MSNBC might have as well, but I wasn't paying attention. (Not everybody can watch several different televisions at one time, but I guess I'm just lucky.)

Tom Ridge then got up to speak from Washington, and all three cable news nets -- including ratings straggler MSNBC -- fixed upon him standing in front of the URL for Ready.gov, a new Homeland Security website with ideas beyond "buy duct tape." better than duct tape) on the wall behind him.

Unfortunately for Ridge, a rescue attempt was simultaneously under way on the Passaic. All three channels went to split-screen, with Ridge occupying about 1/3 of the space alloted to the dog and its human rescuers. The dog wasn't terribly thrilled about its new company, and every time the boat drew closer, the dog hopped back a few feet. And then, they got ahold of the dog, albeit tentatively. Tug-of-war!

Fox was the first to dump Ridge and devote the entirety of their coverage to the dramatic events. CNN followed quickly. And MSNBC, as usual, followed.

As I finish typing this post, MSNBC has the exclusive footage of a Llano, California aqueduct rescue. Serious. Let's hear it for daytime cable news!

UPDATE! It's 7:38AM the next day, Thursday, and the CBS morning show has the dog on the air! It turns out that the pup is a 3-year-old Rottweiler mix, named by NJ officials Sparky. Word is Sparky will be on Good Morning America later today. God bless America.

WASHINGTON IS STILL FROZEN OVER

But the storm has passed. All Federal offices are closed tomorrow, but Armed Prophet likely will have to work anyway, and so I'm packing up, heading out and trekking back up to Dupont through "two feet of crystallized H2O, mixed with trace amounts of industrial pollutants and toxic chemicals" to prepare for the short week. Blogging to resume sometime tomorrow.

Plus: Coming later this week!

• A summary of last week's What was Gary Hart trying to Say? boomlet! (Hello, Volokh Conspiracy and Virginia Postrel readers!)
  
• A review of last month's Funniest Celebrity in Washington Contest!
  
• Considerations regarding the about-to-get-underway drive to recall Gray Davis!
  
• What did they say about Bill Clinton, before he was famous!
  
• A brief history of Coalitions of the Willing^TM!
  

Stay tuned...

MONDAY MORNING ECON NOTES

Still trapped in Foggy Bottom. The snow continues. Meanwhile, I thought this was interesting:

It's unlikely that a budget deficit in any one year will constrain spending, for the same reason that, say, having a wedding doesn't mean that most people stop going out to dinner or downgrade their car. The availability of credit in the 20th century has improved the ability of people to smooth their consumption over their lifespan, so when they have a temporary downturn, they borrow and spend, while when they have a temporary increase, they save a lot of it to spread the consumption over their lives (which is why temporary tax cuts such as the Democrats are proposing don't work very well as stimulus. IF you believe in stimulus.)

Via Megan McArdle.

WHO COULD YOU TAKE IN A FIGHT?

I've been pretty disappointed in The Onion for awhile now, for reasons I will try to explain in a forthcoming post. But in the meantime, this week's AV Club feature is the most inspired thing on the site.

The Onion: Who could you take in a fight?

Conan O'Brien: Let's see, who could I take in a fight? Definitely Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Have you seen her? Her upper body is very frail. I think I could take her if she was sleepy and I had a two-by-four. She'd go down quickly.

P.S. I only just noticed that should be "Whom could you take in a fight?" Isn't that right? I should know this. Where's my Strunk & White? Ack! Definite cabin fever along the Potomac. Dammit, Bill Safire would know.

BUSH WHO?

Every few weeks, Fox News/Opinon Dynamics calls up and annoys several thousand Americans who don't have five minutes to spend on the phone with a stranger before locating 900 registered voters who do. These 900 people tell Washington how big George W. Bush's unfavorable rating is this week, Howard Dean that 2/3 of America still doesn't know who he is, and all the Dems that Sen. HRC (D-NY) would crush them in a primary if she ran. The data is analyzed and overanalyzed by national pundits paid and unpaid, at publications read and unread. Between the newspapers and the weekend news shows and the blogosphere, little is left unsaid.

But I found one thing I doubt you'll hear about anywhere else. On the must-ask Bush question, "favorable, unfavorable, can't say, or never heard?" most people will have a strong yes-or-no already prepared, but some dawdle and can't say. And every once in a blue moon (or Iraq invasion)...

Dec. 17-18:



Favorable: 68%

Unfavorable: 25%

Can't say: 7%

Never heard: --

Fine. Normal. And now more recently:

Jan. 14-15:



Favorable: 64%

Unfavorable: 27%

Can't say: 8%

Never heard: 1%

Boy, things really are looking bad for Bush. This is the first time that Bush's "Never heard" number has rated above a "--" since 9/11.

By my calculation (I am sure somebody will tell me if my math is incorrect) during the middle of January, out of 900 registered voters, nine people did not know who their president was. Generalizing from the approximate 130 million registered voters reported in the 2000 census -- and fudging a little for the 3% margin of error -- this means that something like 1.3 million registered voters cannot name their president.

It's early afternoon and the Blizzard of '03^TM is status quo

At least an inch per hour since early morning. All of the local stations are doing weather all day long. The roads are empty. 17 degrees in the 20037 area code; Tony Snow says it's 5 degrees at the Fox News studio. Nothing but snow until sometime Monday afternoon, before which some 24 inches will have fallen inside the Beltway.

Newschannel 8 TV graphics report the following: "200 plows and trucks on the street by noon," but offers no details about whether that's noon today already past, or noon on Monday. (Not very informative; CNN Headline News is just as informative whether the mute is on or off.) Each local network affilate's news broadcasts have dedicated a portion of the screen to naming, one by one, any event or service that may have happened today. They could just save the trouble and put EVERYTHING IS CANCELLED on the crawl.

And this isn't like a snow storm hitting New York or the Twin Cities: those cities know what to do about snow. Washington, DC has no idea whatsoever. Portland, OR is like this too, but it has an excuse: Portland rarely gets major snowstorms. When it does, it takes the week off and plays tackle with a Nerf football in the street. This being Washington, people are impelled to go out and do things anyway, which they really can't. The freeways are white. The few brave SUV drivers on I-270 in MD look like sledders going up and down, back and forth. And they're on their way to buy duct tape.

P.S. If Arianna Huffington and Lawrence Bender had their way, the Washington metro area would have no traffic today: Just about the only vehicles on the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway are Cherokees, Yukons and possibly Canyoneros.

DC IN GRIP OF "THUNDERSNOW"!

...Accumulation rates of 1 to 1.5 inches per hour will continue. Some areas could experience thundersnow where accumulation rates could briefly reach 2 inches per hour. Temperatures will hold in the mid teens with northeast winds of 10 to 20 mph. Blowing and drifting of snow is occurring. Roads are snow covered and driving conditions are reported as treacherous.

How's that for Drudge-style hysteria? I don't even know what thundersnow is.

Armed Prophet is snowed in down here in Foggy Bottom.

Where is the mayor?

Armed Prophet thinks it's an easy thing to complain about, but let's give the guy a break. What's Tony gonna do? Head down to Pennsylvania and 13th with a snow shovel? Apparently the great Barry also took off during snowstorms, which begs the question: What did the mayor know and when did he know it?

Perhaps a query to the mayor's office is in order. But not until Tuesday. [Note to self: Perhaps the Shadow Senators could be of help?]

Meanwhile, Armed Prophet has food, internet access, television and a great view of the Potomac. Digging out not yet on the agenda.

If Only Two Things Happened In Washington Today...

I.

WINTER STORM WARNING THROUGH NOON MONDAY
Moderate To Heavy Snowfall Will Develop Around Dawn Sunday And Continue Into Sunday Evening. 5 To 10 Inches Of Additional Snow Is Expected During This Time. Sunday Night Through Monday Morning A Mix Of Snow And Sleet Is Expected. Additional Accumulations Are Likely. - Urgent - Winter Weather Message National Weather Service Baltimore MD/Washington DC 545 PM EST Sat Feb 15 2003

II.

U.S. TO PROPOSE FINAL TESTS TO PROVE SADDAM RESISTS DISARMING... Seeking better proof that Iraq continues to defy U.N. weapons inspectors, the Bush administration plans a set of final specific tests over the next two weeks of Saddam Hussein's willingness to disarm, the NYT is reporting in Sunday Page Ones... MORE...

From Weatherbug and Drudge Report, respectively.

P.S. No snow as of 1:45 a.m.

P.P.S. It's 2:45 and now it's a cold, heavy "wintry mix." Could be ugly by morning. (But! Two days until work again. Worst storm in seven years? Let's wait for early Tuesday.)

VOTE POWELL IN '08!

Did I just write and code that? Maybe it's the whiskey typing. Or maybe it's just this "godawful propaganda" from Yahoo.

(P.S. Vote Cheney VP in '08!)

UPDATE: From the same article:

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said the resolution unanimously approved in November that threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" if it did not disarm "cannot be used as a pretext to launch war against Iraq."

Well, what did they think they were signing?

["To Be Sure...": Of course, this is Syria. But for the moment, notice how close they are to France and Germany.]

AN IDEA FOR MY FELLOW REPUBLICANS
(All else lean in real close and hear a "secret.")

Depending on whether you spend time talking politics with a lefty friend or Democrat co-worker -- I do -- you may sometimes hear someone throw out that largely discarded (truly occasional) question, most likely benignly indended: "Do you think 9/11 would have happened if Gore was elected?" I do. (Get that, not think that. I'm not Ron Paul.)

When asked, I'm often given to rolling my eyes sharply, biting my lower lip, or just blurting out: "What?!" (Nobody except maybe Media Whores Online seriously kicks that absurd rumination around anymore.) And immediately after, I usually impress upon them that UBL wouldn't have considered Al Gore an ally in his mission of turning the whole world into a pious Wahhabi-Sunni caliphate. And that the hijackings were planned way in advance of that "travesty of justice" in Florida, November 2000.

Which is an obvious point, and should be made at some point. But I don't think that's the best initial response.

Next time, I'm doing something different. Instead of immediately responding with what I think, I'm going to pose a question instead, I will ask them first, if they think so -- few will, but it doesn't much matter -- and then return again with the question: "Explain to me a scenario in which Gore is President and 9/11 wouldn't have happened."

One who believes this is either a Democrat so partisan they're blinded by hatred of "the Bushies" that you may even suspect them of being a GOPer doing voluntary COINTELPRO. (Ha! Maybe I'll do that with my Monday off!) But it's most likely that you won't get much of a coherent response, and this be the case whether they're a true-"blue" Dem, a squishy independent or just Chomsky-quoting leftage. The Dem and lefty just haven't thought it out that much. As for the respondent who claims to have read all of Das Kapital, now that's sad comedy.

Or so I theorize. If you have a conversation like this, let me know. (Non-Republicans, if you want to take the no-9/11-if-Gore-won challenge, let me know.)

WHAT IS POWELL, AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR?

The New York Times' Patrick Tyler and Janet Elder write this morning:

The public supports a war to remove Saddam Hussein. But Americans are split over whether the Bush administration and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell have made a convincing case for going to war right now, even though much of the public is inclined to believe that Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected in terrorism.

[The emphasis is clearly mine. The NYT neither italicizes nor boldfaces its news copy, I don't have to tell you.]

Now, I'm probably splitting hairs here, but isn't Colin Powell actually a part of the Bush administration? Powell has indeed differed with other administration officials on some matters, but is this reason enough to set him apart? Merely because Powell has shown more ambivalence about attacking Iraq than, say, Richard Perle? If they had wanted to make this distinction, shouldn't he have written "the Bush administration, including Colin Powell..."?

Much ado about nothing, perhaps. But it's another example of the media (by way of the NYT) not considering Powell to be a member of the Bush team.

LIBERTÉ?

The French have passed a bill making it a crime to "insult" the French flag and "illegal to boo" their national anthem, 'La Marseillaise.' Apparently this all stems from an incident at that all-pervasive, all-shaping influence on the Eurropean continent, the World Cup. The Guardian reports:

"The move to defend France's Republican symbols comes may have been triggered by the actions of Algerian fans who jeered the Marseillaise before a France-Algeria soccer match in Paris in 2001. ... The France-Algeria incident, which largely involved French youths of Algerian origin, infuriated President Jacques Chirac, who was shown on national television stalking out of the VIP box. He refused to return until the catcalling had stopped, delaying the start of the match by a nearly half an hour."

The only thing that surprises me is that this wasn't already written into French law. An oversight, I guess. After all, they're too busy keeping American words out of French newspapers (It doesn't work, though. Much to the dismay of the French Academy, they're pretty much stuck with Franglais like le hamburger, le week-end, le strip-tease, les chewing gum, les blac jeans and la cover-girl. Let's all take a moment now and feel sorry for the French language.)

But that isn't all. The AP reports: "The law makes 'passive solicitation' by prostitutes -- a vaguely defined term based on 'their dress or their attitude' -- punishable by two months in prison and a fine of about $4,000."

And people think the United States is prude? Well, meet France's answer to John Ashcroft: the domestically popular Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who cooked up all these freedom-loving restrictions. Ever irresolute, the French government claims that it may not actually keep all of these laws. To wit, Sarkozy reassured the press: "If, in a year, it seems that the desired results have not been achieved, we will have to dispose of all vanity and immediately modify what we need to.''

We'll see about that. Despite the supposed national respect for freedom and liberty, the French government gets away with personal violations and search-and-seizures that goes beyond even the much-criticized Patriot Act. Next time the French criticize our national values, let's recall this latest development, and (from the safety of our own soil, just to be careful) reply with the appropriate phrase: vous êtes des hypocrites.

THE MAGINOT LINE OF TODAY

I'm going spontaneous on this one, so cut me some slack if I don't explain every point or I drop a word or two. But if I'm wildly off the mark, tell me why you think so.

The Maginot Line. Remember that? It was supposed to be France's allmighty fortress against the German menace across the Rhine. Post WWI, the French built it up to prevent the Germans from ever coming back over and getting too comfortable; they'd been burned once and this time built a series of lockboxes across their eastern border to ward off the Allemands. It worked pretty well, until the Nazis decided to just go through Belgium.

A similar thing is going on with the UN, the US and the war. Follow me here.

Since the Second World War Two (as Grandpa Simpson calls it), France has built up its defenses in another way: diplomatically. It has worked pretty well; they were assured of protection by the United States throughout the Cold War.

(Meanwhile, they were free to play their two-bit colonial games, even throwing up its hands and letting the US try to fix one that went really, really bad. Their "rogue" development of nuclear missles was even tolerated. But I digress.)

Now the French are facing a much different kind of defeat: instead of being militarily vanquished and overrun by invaders ... their financial and diplomatic interests (in Iraq) are being vanquished by the United States and what is looking more and more like a distinctive New Europe.

And of course, the French have been able to punch above their weight for the last sixty years, precisely because of their political skill; the French (and of course, the Germans) have been instrumental in shaping the European Union, not to mention the United Nations.

Instead of going around the Maginot Line, the United States is going around the United Nations. Once again the French have put up defenses, but once again they've miscalculated. Both times, they expected certain neighbors -- the Belgians last time, perhaps Britain or (depending) the Russians and Chinese this time). And the costs might -- emphasis on might -- be huge.

If nothing else it has to be a terrible ego blow. Losing this battle could convince them to dig their heels in deeper. It won't just be the US -- it could be Poland and Turkey and Britain. Certainly Israel, as if they could be even less friendly to them. Maybe even the new Iraq.

Even if they hop sides at this point, the damage is done. American anti-French sentiment has never been higher in my short quarter-century, and it would take a complete "regime change" for the French government and United States government to patch things up. If the countries of Eastern Europe (again, Poland and Turkey key among them) move markedly closer to the United States, France will feel more isolated and return the cold shoulder to them.

If relations between the New Europe and France remain bitter following the war (and here Germany must also be included), we may well be looking at a major re-alignment in the northern hemisphere. We might anyway. And I think this would be a good thing: it's about time that the shape of alliances conformed to better represent today's political map.)

As the Maginot Line became a metaphor for geopolitical blunders, so might the French dependence on, er, multilateral agreements. Not immediately, not in the first months or next couple of years necessarily, but in the next decade or so. If the French do lose influence among their international partners, this will be the shark they jumped.

Caveat: If the Blix makes a forceful enough case for action this Friday, if Russia and China come around with the perennially fence-sitting French, then all of the above may be moot. But if the Bush's coalition of the willing end up having to do it without the UN's consent, then France is in a whole new world of hurt.

Note to self: I think I'm onto something. All stream-of-consciousness right now. Remains to be fact- and grammar-checked. May contain sentence fragments. But I like the Maginot Line analogy. I think it's illustrative. Maybe I'll do something with this. I guess I'll have a better idea on Friday.

UPDATE -- Reading this, I like the analogy even better.

CHEESE-EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS

First, let me be the first (that I know of) to note, with some regret, that this phase has now jumped the shark. I remember it from The Simpsons, but these days it cannot be mentioned without a nod to National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg. (And I mean large! Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

It was funny when Groundskeeper Willie said it, and it was funny back when Goldberg's G-File itself was a little-remarked-upon, off-the-cuff conservative humor column at the then-fledgling NRO. Since that time, Goldberg has married, landed a steady gig with CNN, and NRO itself has gone through a couple of face lifts.

Nowadays, hardly anyone can mention "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" without giving a tip of the hat to Goldberg. This is fair, as he's done more to popularize the term than anyone -- but once the term itself has escaped the small community that knows exactly what it means without it needing to be explained, that's it. It's over. Kaput.

Some would say the same of Goldberg's NRO feature. After The Simpsons, the second-most-cited reference point was either Animal House or Star Trek. He did mention Ghostbusters last week, but even that seemed like an afterthought. Most often, the only thing differentiating the G-File from Goldberg's syndicated column is the length. [Memo to Goldberg: You don't have a goatee anymore.]

Of course -- as is the case with many of my posts -- that is not really what I intended to write about. What got me thinking about cheese-eating surrender monkeys was an online-only article by Robert Lane Greene of The Economist's Economist.com, moonlighting for The New Republic. TNR's front page teaser promises: "Why Jonah Goldberg's France-bashing misses the point." Sounds like a good read. And now that I've knocked Goldberg around, I suppose it's only fair that I defend him on this one, and make a few points about why Greene is missing the point.

Greene begins by mentioning the aforementioned four-word substitute for "French" (of course), before making a handful of arguments about why Goldberg's "french-bashing" is missing the point. (Look Greene, I was reading Goldberg back when he really did bash the French, and it's a damn shame that he doesn't anymore. But I digress.) Greene begins his argument: "The latest attacks on France make two core accusations. The first is that the French hate America so much they fill their froggy heads with nothing but thoughts of how to stymie us."

All right. I don't know that "hate" is exactly the right word, but I think I understand where he's going with this.

Greene: "The French often seek to limit American power, sometimes in seemingly pointless and irrational ways. But it's not so much because they can't stand America's muscular capitalism, military might, and can-do attitude. It's because they love France. How else to explain the fact that the French were anti-British, anti-German, and anti-Spanish ... long before they became anti-American."

Okay. Greene is right; it isn't just the United States that France has antagonized; it's the rest of Europe. I like that he includes the part about "pointless and irrational." Maybe we actually are on the same page here.

Greene: "Like the rest of us, the French realize France is not the global power it was 300--or for that matter 100--years ago. They see another country contending for the title of champion of liberty and democracy. And, realizing the strength of the competition, they do what anyone else would do in the same situation: They play their trump cards--among them a veto at the Security Council and a nuclear arsenal--to wield disproportionate influence on the world stage. They don't do this out of a desire to humiliate or frustrate the United States, but out of a desire to prove that France still matters. The worst fate the French can imagine is to be ignored."

Ooookay. That's some refutation there, Mr. Greene. One thing I'm not getting: an argument that France does matter. And I'm glad to see that one adjective in there: "disproportionate."

Greene: "The other typical anti-French criticism is that France only looks out for itself: In Iraq, it only seeks to protect its oil contracts. In Ivory Coast, where France is desperate to broker a peace agreement among the nation's warring factions ... Fighting for its national interest? Maximizing its own influence? Who do these surrender-monkeys think they are? What Gaul!"

The French signed oil contracts with a tyrant, and they haven't a clue what the Ivory Coast wants. Any actions they take in those regions will benefit the French, but won't do much for the people of Iraq or the Ivory Coast. The same cannot be said of the United States' interest in Iraq. It's true that our first goal with that region is to protect Americans -- but by toppling Saddam Hussein, a nation will be freed. French interests and American interests are not morally equivalent (to bring back that old standby).

Greene: "What many Americans (and non-French Europeans, especially the British) can't stand is not that France tries to hem in the United States, or even that France makes a habit of standing up for itself. It's that France is so irritatingly good at it."

Maybe. But maybe we wouldn't be so angry if what the French wanted wasn't so irritatingly incongruent with the interests of everybody else. If the French could tell which way the wind blows and just deal with it, rather than disagree with everyone all of the time, then maybe nobody would mind it if they had it their way. Alas, the French are determined to spite everyone, all of the time.

Greene concludes by affirming, as many have, that the French will ultimately back the war: "Once the French make sure their voice is duly heard at the United Nations, and are reassured that France still matters, you just may hear a heartfelt "Vive la résolution" at Turtle Bay."

Once again: maybe. You haven't given me a good argument. You're missing the point because ... you're avoiding the point. Perhaps TNR is to blame for giving the article an inapt teaser -- the article says nothing in particular about Jonah Goldberg's use of "C-ESM," but neither does it do what it sets out to do: Provide a rationale for the way France acts. Rather, it acknowledges their annoying behavior, points out that everyone acts in their own self-interest (duh) and then wraps up by concluding that they don't really mean it.

Perhaps I'm the one missing the point. I trust that if I am, somebody will send me an email to explain how.

Al Sharpton must be pulling his finely-coiffed hair out...

...because it really looks like ex-Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) is actually going to run for president. And the only one who might get hurt is the Reverend himself.

Of course, she won't be alone among the late entries. Florida Senator Bob Graham (D) is almost definitely in at this point, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) is a solid maybe, but they aren't as likely to challenge Sharpton's base as is Moseley-Braun. Certainly not Graham, who is to the right of everybody but Joe Lieberman on the war, and not even Kucinich, who pretty much has The Nation's endorsement wrapped up, should he jump in. (Ex-Senator Gary Hart and ex-NATO SAC Wesley "Speedo" Clark are maybes, but neither should pull many votes away from him.)

It would be kind to Sharpton to call him a controversialist; he wouldn't have had much of a career if he couldn't put the fastest-talking spin on the ever-lucrative vocation of anti-white race-baiting (Tawana Brawley, anyone?). His powerful machine in Harlem made it possible for him to play kingmaker in the 2001 NYC mayoral primary; he withheld the votes he controlled from Democrat Mark Green, virtually giving the prize to Republican-of-convenience Mike "A+" Bloomberg. Sharpton's run is designed solely to capture delegates based on African-American turnout in states like South Carolina; why he even bothers going to Iowa is anybody's guess.

To describe Moseley-Braun as "ethically-challenged" is putting it mildly. She's been ensnared in scandals involving everything from charges of splitting an inheritance with her siblings (that should have paid her mother's Medicaid bills), to mishandling campaign finances (spending much of it on herself), to voicing solidarity with the late Nigerian dictator Gen. Sani Abacha. (Abacha is best known these days for the con artists, purporting to represent his family, who want to put his millions in your bank account.) In September of '98, two months away from defeat by the wealthy (wealthy, wealthy) GOPer Peter Fitzgerald, she cried racism at a George Will column that dared to predict her defeat -- and was roundly criticized by the media for it. A real winner, Ms. Moseley-Braun.

Then again, it's entirely possible that she will fail to catch fire. Moseley-Braun only won in '92 by keeping her head down and letting her opponents destroy each other; for all Sharpton's faults, he is undeniably charismatic in a way that she is not. Furthermore, if she's under the delusion that she can compete with the likes of John Kerry and Dick Gephardt in Iowa (where she's headed in just a few days), then Sharpton could maintain his claim to be the sole black-oriented presidential candidate. Democrats should welcome her into the race, if only because her presence can only serve to derail whatever momentum Sharpton might have. Only he can be discouraged by her candidacy (and perhaps Republicans (i.e. me) who've been watching the whole thing with gleeful schadenfreude).

If there's a lesson to be drawn from all this, it's that the black vote in America -- largely unavailable to Republicans and taken for granted by Democrats -- is untapped, and nobody knows sure just what to do with it. Former Al Gore strategist Donna Brazile (no stranger to race-baiting herself, come to think of it) tried to take advantage of it when she floated the "favorite son" idea late last year, but it didn't catch fire. The City Council of Washington, DC tried to draw attention to the matter with its proposal to hold the first presidential primary, but it too, languishes. I still maintain that African-Americans should realize the benefits of embracing the Republican Party, but that seems about as far off as a Moseley-Braun administration in the White House.

So I eagerly anticipate her appearance at the DNC's winter meeting next week. Maybe there we'll get a better idea of what she's got in mind.