Gondor News Update (Hat tip from Paul (UK))
The original link may be slow as it has many comments. Therefore I've posted the entire update.

MINAS TIRITH (Gondor News Network) - Thousands of peace activists took to the streets of Minas Tirith and other cities of Middle Earth today to protest what they termed a rush to war with Mordor. "We need more time for diplomacy," said a key member of the Middle-Earth Security Council, Saruman the White. "I am not convinced by the evidence presented by my esteemed colleague, Gandalf the Grey, or that the Dark Lord Sauron presents an imminent danger to the peoples of the West."

Many of the people protesting war in Mordor agreed with Saruman's remarks. "Sauron says he’s destroyed his Rings of Mass Destruction (RMD) and that’s good enough for me," said one fellow carrying a sign that said "Elrond is a Balrog." Another demonstrator urged, "Give the RMD inspectors more time. There’s no reason to rush to any judgment just because Mount Doom is belching lava, the Dark Tower is rebuilt, and Osgiliath has been decimated." A third protester piped up, "I haven’t heard a single bit of convincing evidence connecting the Nazgul with Sauron. I think they destroyed Osgiliath on their own initiative without any support from Sauron. Besides, it's understandable they’re angry with Gondor. We haven’t done nearly as much for the Orcs and Goblins and Easterlings as the Nazgul and Sauron have. It’s understandable they throw their support to them. It’s our own fault really."

As the protesters continued their march through the city, they chanted, "No blood for Mount Doom," voicing a common sentiment that the leaders of the Western peoples are really seeking to get their hands on the powerful Mount Doom, where the One Ring of Power was allegedly forged.

Gandalf the Grey was unavailable for comment. A spokesman said he was in an undisclosed underground location, which sources have revealed is codenamed: Moria.

Somehow, I think JRR Tolkien would approve.

Update: I found a German professor with his own theory.

Fraud in Advertising
In general, one would not be shocked to discover that an advertiser has stretched the truth a bit. Indeed, most people I know place advertising executives into the same category as politicians, journalists, used-car salesmen, lawyers, and tax collectors - hardly a bunch that invokes trust. But one usually expect there to be a grain of truth behind the ads. Not this time.

Bermuda has been using pictures of Hawaiian beaches to lure tourists to Bermuda. That’s like Ford using pictures of a great Chevy Truck to get people to the Ford dealership. Wonder if the news will be a boost for Hawaii? "Even the folks in Bermuda wish they had our beaches."

No Guts, No Service
A Dane who supports the liberation of the Iraqi people refuses to serve French and Germans.

On Friday, Mr Bjerre put two home-made pictograms on the restaurant door with a bar across each one. One features the silhouette of a man sporting the colours of the German flag, the second those of the French flag.

"The French are cowards and they are banned for life, and as long as the Germans behave disloyally towards the USA, I can't be bothered to make food for them," he said.

Denmark is one of the many European countries that disagrees with France, Belgium, and German. Mr. Bjerre’s countrymen certainly approve of Mr. Bjerre. Bjerre reported record sales for the first weekend of his new policy.

Real Life Happens
Real life is keeping me very busy, so it will be Friday or Monday before I resume blogging. Have a great weekend!

Estrada Update – more rope for the Democrats
Some people never learn. The Democrats continue to pick stupid fights with President Bush and squander political capital that they will need later. Marcelo Rodridguez of The Black World Today comments:

No one is denying Estrada's qualifications. The American Bar Association and the Hispanic National Bar Association support his nomination. Many see him as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Nothing in Estrada's public record indicates that he is an unflinching ideologue of the right, a Spanish-speaking Clarence Thomas, as some Democrats have said, referring to the last Supreme Court justice appointed by George Bush Sr. Yet the Democrats have opposed his appointment with much more zeal than that of the much more extreme John Ashcroft as attorney general -- and they controlled the Senate at the time.

Now, as the minority party, Democrats are pulling all-nighters to block Estrada. It's a double standard that is bound to be seen, justifiably or not, as racially motivated -- as if a white, male, ultra-conservative is somehow more acceptable to the Democrats than a marginally conservative minority.

Rodridguez is correct, no one is seriously questioning Estrada’s qualifications - even the liberal ABA endorsed him. I tracked down Estrada's resume along with some other interesting information at the US Department of Justice. According to Reuters, an organization called the Latino Coalition will be “airing spots on Monday in Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and in the Washington area that urge listeners to call their senators in support” of Estrada. These ads will run on Spanish-language stations. I’m sure the Democratic Senators in these states do not wish to sacrifice their next election to help Senate Minority Leader Daschle. Within the Hispanic Community, President Bush is adding to the pressure according to Fox News.

"They're blocking the vote on this good man for purely political reasons," Bush told supporters in a White House event where he alternately spoke Spanish to bring Hispanic backers to their feet.

"I will stand by this man's side until he is sworn in!" Bush said.

Democrats are feeling the pressure and probably resent Senator Daschle for making this an issue. The Washington Times announced that a fourth Democrat, Senator Bill Nelson (Florida) broke ranks yesterday to support Estrada. Senator Miller (D-Georgia) was especially candid in his comments.

Mr. Nelson joins Democratic Sens. John B. Breaux of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Zell Miller of Georgia, who already have said they will support Mr. Estrada and vote with Republicans if they try to invoke cloture, a procedural move that requires 60 votes to limit debate and force a final vote.

Mr. Miller said his party's opposition to Mr. Estrada is "all political" and can be attributed to pressure from outside interest groups.

”The groups run everything around here," the conservative Democrat said Monday.

Thanks for the honesty Zell. To bad you have decided not to run again next time. Of course, that may be why Miller is being so frank – what can Daschle do to someone who is retiring from politics? Nothing.

Senator Graham, Florida's other Senator (Democrat), has not made any decisions yet about Estrada. He is currently recovering from heart surgery and probably hopes the issue is resolved before he goes back to the Senate. However, Graham says he will be entering the 2004 presidential race and certainly doesn’t want to irritate the Hispanic vote. If the issue is still in doubt when he returns, I suspect he’ll support Estrada.

I’m not sure how long this will drag out. I believe President Bush is willing to let this nomination process hang over the Democrats as long as possible. As the 2000 election showed, every vote may count in 2004. The Democratic Party obstructionist policies may come back to haunt them.

The Jacksonian Code
For those trying to understand why many Americans support the forceful liberation of Iraq, you may want to read The Jacksonian Tradition. Den Beste of the USS Clueless considers himself almost a Jacksonian and has referred to this article many times now. Today I noticed that Dean has discovered it and others seem interested in it. The article is rather long and is probably only of interest to those who follow politics. If you are not one of those, let me summarize it for you.

The principles of the Jacksonian code are self-reliance, equality, individualism, financial esprit, and courage. Self-reliance includes giving honor and respect to others and this courtesy is expected in return. Equality is taken very literally – “No one has a right to tell the self-reliant Jacksonian what to say, do or think. Any infringement on equality will be met with defiance and resistance.” Individualism is defined as “everyone must find his or her way: each individual must choose a faith, or no faith, and code of conduct based on conscience and reason.” Financial esprit is summed up as “While the Jacksonian believes in hard work, he or she also believes that credit is a right and that money, especially borrowed money, is less a sacred trust than a means for self-discovery and expression.. Credit is seen less as an obligation than as an opportunity. Jacksonians have always supported loose monetary policy and looser bankruptcy laws.” Courage is obvious, but goes hand-in-hand with the Jacksonian love of weapons and willingness to protect his country. Jacksonians play fair with honorable opponents and unfair with dishonorable opponents.

I know many Jacksonians, although most of them are not aware of the label. Despite admiring many of the qualities listed above, I would not consider myself a Jacksonian. I do not think dishonorable conduct by an opponent justifies dishonorable conduct by our side. To be clear, I have no problems with my government eliminating terrorists without warning. I have a major problem with any policy of deliberating targeting civilians and think the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction is unethical and obscene. I also disagree with the Jacksonian view on credit. One should borrow only in cases of emergency or for an investment (a house, an education, etc.). And credit is a serious obligation, treating it otherwise is foolish.

However, whether one admires Jacksonians or not, there are many of them in the States. They are yet another reason why the US will never allow their sovereignty to be placed under the UN. Jacksonians don’t care if other countries go their own way or join us – they can respect either decision. However any country or organization that tries to actively stop Jacksonians from doing what they believe is right (such as liberating Iraq) had best be respectful or they will be treated with scorn and ignored. This is what is currently happening to France in US public opinion.

Imagine that you are an Iraqi officer. You have been careful not to show too much initiative as your brighter – but less wise – peers have a habit of disappearing in case they would someday plot to eliminate Saddam Hussein. Rumors of invasion are rampant, but you also hear that the French and Germans are doing everything in their power to protect Saddam’s reign.

After another anxious day at work, the pressure continues to build. Saddam’s secret police have done another sweep of “untrustworthy” citizens and another co-worker vanishes. The workday finally ends and you head toward home on foot. After fifteen minutes you are almost home. Then your cellphone – one of your few luxuries – rings.

You answer the phone wondering if the attack has finally started. To your amazement, the voice on the other end starts listing many of Saddam’s atrocities. You look around, you could get killed for just listening to this. No one seems to be paying any attention to you. You keep walking home, trying to look causal. The voice identifies itself as an American and advises you not to resist when the war comes. The American says Saddam’s days of tyranny are numbered, but only those who fight for Saddam will be harmed. He then wishes you well and hopes you choose wisely when the time comes. You hear a click and the voice is gone. What do you do?

A far fetched scenario? Not really. See this article. No wonder anti-Americanism is growing – Tyrants around the world are wondering if they are next.

The Next Space Race? (hat tip to Transterrestrial Musings)
The Boston Globe had a nice piece about China’s space program including what it might mean for revitalizing the US space program. Our politicians don’t seem to fund our program unless the face an external challenge. Perhaps the first Chinese in space will motivate the US to put some resources into space just as Sputnik did. The Chinese have been working on their space program for years, without much to show for it. However, this time they have actually moved their schedule forward. Instead of putting a person in orbit in 2005, they now say they will do it this year.

Good for them.

A Time for War
In January I predicted that the war to liberate Iraq would begin by Washington’s birthday unless Saddam fled Iraq or was deposed. Obviously, I was wrong. Despite the unilateralist rhetoric from the “Let’s give sanctions and inspections 12 more years” camp, I have been pleasantly surprised by how much President Bush has considered international opinion.

Since January, his administration (along with bloggers and the free press) has changed the Western perspective from this being perceived as another US/UK issue denounced by most of Europe to this being largely a Franco/German/Belgium defense of Saddam vs. most of Europe and the US. Today a draft resolution was submitted to the UN Security Council by the UK and the US. This resolution would be the 18th UN resolution about the problem of Saddam. The draft builds upon Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam 60 days (which have long passed) to disarm or face serious consequences. The new resolution would state Iraq did not cooperate and would now receive serious consequences. France, Russia, and Germany also pressed forward a rival resolution asking for more inspectors and time.

On March 1, the next inspector report will be given to the UN. I don’t expect it to change the minds of anyone involved. However, I do expect a final vote to take place soon that may determine the future of the UN. As Bush and Blair have repeatedly stated, in accordance with Resolution 1441, they will remove Saddam by force if he does not comply. If the UN votes against an additional resolution, the war will still take place. But the UN will be shown to be even more ineffective than is commonly believed. I have no prediction on what France will do if the UN votes again in favor of “severe consequences.” Will they use their veto? Or will they go with the consensus since they can’t change the real outcome anyway?

George Bush and Tony Blair have gathered a coalition of the willing. They have ample proof that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1441. The combined militaries of the coalition are now in position, or mostly in position. The only part that is still going slowly is obtaining permission from Turkey to use their country for a two-pronged attack. Their government has mostly approved this and a final vote in their Parliament is expected tomorrow. I now predict that the war will start by the third week of March.

A friend of mine in California wrote this analogy. Drew is a gifted writer and should probably write his own blog. However, he has resisted my previous suggestions in this regard. So, with his permission, I have decided to occasionally post some of his writings at Solport.

Sam gets on a city bus. People from all over town are on the bus. After a few stops a family gets on: Saddam, the father, his wife, Mrs. Iraq, and their three small sons, Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

Saddam isn’t a nice man. He takes out a club and beats Mrs. Saddam, Sunni and Shia until they are bloody. No one on the bus does a thing. Eventually Saddam even kills little Kurd. And he keeps on beating the others. Sam looks around and no one on the bus is doing anything, but Sam decides that enough is enough. He goes up to Saddam and says “Stop. Stop absolutely. Don’t do that or I will use whatever force it takes to stop you from killing Mrs Iraq, Sunni and Shia like you just killed little Kurd.”

Show me the rest

German Justice, Part 2 – and Thoughts on the American Penal System
Alex (Germany) wrote in response to my first post on German Justice. He had some interesting comments about German law and shared his perception of US law.

Our understanding of ethical punishments is quite different from the one in the US. A sentence exceeding the normal lifespan of a human would only cause shaking heads in Germany. Not only is a death sentence unthinkable (I recognize that lately there have been some stirrings in the US, too), but it is common thinking over here, that imprisoning somebody for the rest of his life is not acceptable.

In my response to you, I’ll try to clearly distinguish between US history, US common opinion, and my opinion. Historically, the US didn’t use to give punishments greater than the expected lifespan of the guilty either. A century ago, a sentence of 200 years would have caused Americans to shake their heads too. At that time, if the crime was a capital crime the killer was simply executed. There were a few life sentences given to some criminals, but the sentence was “life” in these cases, it wasn’t 200 years or so.

About 40 years ago, many well-intentioned folk tried to reform our justice system. Many of these folks became entrenched as activist judges and developed new practices regarding holding criminals. This resulted in more and more time off for “good behavior.” Hardened criminals were serving shorter and shorter periods of their sentences before being released on parole. Many of these criminals then committed new crimes while on parole. Finally many citizens had had enough and the politicians acted. Since federal judges are hired for life, they had no realistic way to remove the activist judges from their positions. So the politicians encouraged prosecutors to ask for consecutive sentences that sounded ridiculous. For example, a serial rapist who had ravaged 20 women might get a sentence of a 100 years, ensuring he would serve at least 30 years behind bars before being eligible for parole. Some state politicians also passed other laws for crimes in their state (like minimum sentences for certain crimes and life sentences if you commit three crimes).

In my opinion, the politicians solved the wrong problem and created a new one. The problem was mostly caused by activist judges. Instead of reforming our judicial system by legislating easier ways to remove judges (or even using the few methods we have), they reduced the amount of power judges had over criminal cases. Not only did this not completely resolve the original problem (as activist judges still cause problems), it tied the hands of judges in cases where society would have been improved by showing mercy to the guilty.

Many people in the US (including myself) have concerns about the death penalty. For the most part, this is not because of any objections to the death penalty, but because of concerns about how it is applied. There have been several public cases recently where some innocent people ended up wrongfully convicted and placed on death row. Americans are shocked and outraged by this and want our judical system fixed. One of the tenets of American justice – as declared by our founders – is that it is better for multiple guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be jailed. However, in every single representative study of the American people that I have seen, the overwhelming majority of Americans support the death penalty when there is no doubt to the criminal’s guilt.

Not even persons who are found guilty of murder of first degree. The only exception are people, who suffer under psychic abnormalities so great that they'll pose a permanent threat to society (the real perverts, repetitive child abusers, those kinds of people). Those are sentenced to jail for limited amount of time and are then taken into 'preventive detention'. Once they have reached this stage, they can be released any time by the medic responsible for their therapy.

As any system, this does not always work, but all in all we are quite comfortable with it. Harsh punishments don't cause the crime rate to drop in our experience. At least in theory we try to reintegrate everybody into society.
Regarding the events of 9/11 - our penal code was not prepared to deal with that. A truly lifelong sentence may have made sense for this kind of crime, in the light of the overwhelming desire to take some kind of revenge. But revenge is a principle that has no place in our penal system.

Revenge shouldn’t have a place in any judicial system. The reasons for harsher penalties in the US are due to different perspectives on justice, punishment, and deterrence, not a desire for revenge. For example, all of the major religions practiced in the States (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) teach that people should leave vengeance to God and earthly punishment to the State. They further teach that the State should execute those who commit murder. And this perspective is not just held by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Most of the atheists that I have met also share this belief (the part about the State executing those who commit murder). Note: In parts of Jewish and Muslim history, the family (tribes) were the State – in those cases, the family sometimes had the obligation to punish wrongdoing. However, I don’t know any modern day Jews who believe that applies today since we live under non-family government.

So far, the court has ruled out the maximum that it could. We'll have to see, whether it stays at that or the upcoming appeal can reduce the punishment. His defendants seem to quite optimistic about their chances. Due to the secretive nature of al qaeda, evidence for his contribution in 9/11 seems to be indeed scarce.

Best wishes

Axel

Thank you for sharing. I appreciate you making the time to write. I’ll also share my opinions about punishment and deterrence, but my opinions are not the opinions of the majority of Americans. When I’ve discussed them with my politically knowledgably friends, I find myself called a radical by my conservative friends and a conservative by my liberal friends. Hence, yet another reason I consider myself an independent.

In general, I consider most extended prison sentences a waste of resources. Prisons are a waste of human life – people sitting in prisons, usually not doing much other than trying to avoid unpleasantness and exchanging criminal expertise with each other. A few criminals take advantage of the educational options open to them, but the majority show no interest in this. Prisons are a waste of human life in that many other people are employed to do nothing other than guard, feed, clothe, and otherwise provide services to the criminals. Prisons are a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent elsewhere or given back to the those who earned it by reducing taxes.

My liberal friends wince when I say I support the death penalty. They argue that the death penalty is no longer a deterrence against murder and some research supports this claim. However, the deterrence issue is a red herring. Less than 200 people are executed in the US per year. However, there are over 20,000 homicides per year. With odds like that, would you expect the death penalty to be much of a deterrence? The amazing thing is some research still supports the deterrence idea. What do you think the research would show if all convicted murderers were executed? If there is no question that a person is guilty of murder, I support their execution. Execute them and make their organs available to those who can use them. They took the lives of innocents, let their death also give life.

I also support the castration of all convicted rapists. If there is no question about the guilt of the rapist, castrate them and let them go. If implemented nationwide, I would bet my house that the number of rapes in this country would show a dramatic reduction.

My conservative friend wince when I say I would not jail people for most of their crimes. There are many other punishments that would help society and also deter crime. Depending upon the crime, I would support sentencing people to community service, imposing major fines (e.g. 20% of the criminals income for the next 4 years), confiscating goods, etc. This way the criminal repays society for his actions, but also stays in society. As it is now, society pays many times (first for the crime, then by the lost of the criminal’s taxes, then by paying for the criminal’s imprisonment, then by expensive rehabilitation efforts that usually fail on those embittered after being in prison for many years).

In some respects my penal philosophy could be considered libertarian. However, most the libertarians I know promote legalizing everything exception violations to property rights (note: they consider rape and murder to be violations of property rights since the victim owned their body). However, Libertarians usually want to jail these criminals.

The Importance of Perspective
The Wild Monk has an interesting post that shows what a difference a world-view can make.

The hard left, always on hair-trigger alert for American malfeasance, sees Bush's willingness to brashly rewrite the rules as proof that he is a reckless cowboy. He is placing the existing world at risk because he's too ignorant - or malevolent - to understand that blame for Saddam rests with American policy and that military action will only make things worse. Ever mindful of the Arab street and the North Korean psychopaths, they panic that his uncouth American posturing will simply fan the flames of anti-American hatred.

On the right, Bush is morphing into the new Reagan: determined to do what is right to protect American interests regardless of the nattering of impotent [French, Belgium, and German] Europeans or the prevailing leftist wisdom declared in the New York Times. The right sees a man who isn't afraid to tell things as they are - to hell with the Arab street and their fundamentalist poison - and who isn't afraid to force murderous Islamic thugs to back down even on pain of death. In this view we have been plunged into a new world order regardless of our wishes or desires. To pretend otherwise is to abdicate the responsibility given to us by history and by the heritage of liberal democracy. In this view, the only wise path is to engage this new world order on its own terms: to take war to the enemy and to act decisively to protect the nation and the wider civilization. We must act now, says the right, before the enemy strengthens or our own resolve weakens.

But, in adopting either ideal, each of us would do well to avoid descending into kataleptsis: the hateful smear, the sneering derision, and the collection of little hatreds, snubs and indignities like pennies in a penny-jar that we hope to redeem for a larger and more satisfying payback some day. That path may provide victory in battle in the short run but it will surely bring about an even greater loss to the cause of international peace and democracy in the long run.

I found this to be quite an interesting post. Other than disagreeing with his lumping the diverse countries of Europe into one category, I think the Wild Monk has done a great job in capturing the mindset of both the American Left and Right. His admonishment to treat even our political opponents with respect is wise if we hope for relations to improve. This is true for both domestic and foreign politics. Of course taken to an extreme, that would mean no more French jokes. As long as Chirac is in power, I’ll practice another adage as well – moderation in all things.

update: The Wild Monk agreed with me - he has revised his post. Instead of lumping all European nations together, the post now says "old" Europe.

German Justice
On Wednesday, the Hamburg state court convicted el Motassadeq of 3,066 counts of accessory-to-murder and sentenced him to 15 years in jail. Assuming no time off for parole or good behavior, this works out to be just under 1.8 days for every accessory to murder charge.

Many papers have stated this was the maximum sentence that could have been imposed by law for these charges. I do not understand this. I understand that German law gives a maximum sentence of 15 years for those guilty of accessory-to-murder. However, each count is a different charge. Why couldn’t the court have sentenced him to 15 years for each count or approximately 50,000 years in prison to ensure he spent the rest of his life behind bars? If any of my German readers have comments on this, please let me know.

Update: Paul (USA) emails that:

IIRC under German law you can't be convicted more than once for the same crime. The crime was "accessory to 3066 murders" that's one crime. There were not 3066 seperate murders, there was one set of actions that ended up killing 3066 people. One action = one crime.

It's like someone robbing your house. They get arrested for robbery one time, not once for each item they steal. ( actually, they probably get away with it ;) )

If Paul is correct, that explains a lot. Of course, there were also a few other charges, but this would make such a light sentence a bit more understandable. I'd promote changing the law for future situations, but I'm not going to criticize any nation for following their own laws in this matter. That is completely within their right as a sovereign nation. And given their law, they gave him a harsh sentence.

Further Update: Axel (Germany) emailed me and confirmed Paul's understanding. He also had some interesting comments that I'll share in a new posting.

The German People Deserve Better, Part VI (hat tip Kolibri)
Angela Merkel, the chairman of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, is yet another reason I am optimistic German-American relations will improve once Schröder is no longer in power. Merkel wrote a column in the Washington Post.

The most important lesson of German politics -- never again should Germany go it alone -- is swept aside with seeming ease by a German federal government that has done precisely this, for the sake of electoral tactics. The Eastern European candidate countries for membership in the European Union are attacked by the French government simply because they have declared their commitment to the transatlantic partnership between Europe and the United States.

But there is a more positive side as well. An agreement was reached at the emergency EU summit on Monday: On the basis of U.N. Resolution 1441, participants decided on a coordinated attitude to be adopted by the Europeans in the Iraq conflict. The agreement, which was long overdue, has forced the German federal government to make its first change of course in its policy toward Iraq. As the German parliamentary opposition, we welcome this change and expect the German government's behavior on the U.N. Security Council to be in accord with the EU decision, although we also have reason to doubt it will be.

I wish I could vote for this person. Not only does Merkel see the flaws in the current German government position, Merkel understands how to deal with dictators.

… the history of Germany and Europe in the 20th century in particular certainly teaches us this: that while military force cannot be the normal continuation of politics by other means, it must never be ruled out, or even merely questioned -- as has been done by the German federal government -- as the ultimate means of dealing with dictators. Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely.

Merkel is also optimistic about continuing a friendship with America

For the party that I lead, our close partnership and friendship with the United States is just as much a fundamental element of Germany's national purpose as European integration.

Merkel obviously doesn’t speak for all of Germany anymore than I speak for all of America. But Merkel could quite possibly become the next German president. I hope so.

May Schröder’s reign be short-lived.

Splitting the White Vote
Slate tackles this pressing issue:

reporters had a different subject on their minds. "John Kerry is already in the race and is raising a lot of issues about the Democratic Party's record" on matters important to white voters, one journalist told Gephardt. "What are you going to be bringing to the race that he hasn't already been pointing out in terms of that issue?"

Gephardt called the question silly, but his inquisitors kept going. "Where do you think your base is going to come from?" asked one. "Will it be men? Will it be the white community?" Another chimed in, "I'm having a little trouble understanding why you believe that this political dynamic between you and Kerry is a silly question. … You're going to be vying for some of the same constituency, are you not?"

Slate makes it clear that this is a parody and these events never occurred. They used it to make a point:

The presidential contender who endured the racial grilling at the Press Club was Carol Moseley-Braun, the former Democratic senator from Illinois. The questions she was asked are reprinted verbatim above, except that they were about blacks and women, not whites and men, and her presumed rival was the Rev. Al Sharpton. Most whites have trouble seeing why questions like these are shallow and offensive. Once the colors are reversed, the coarseness is easier for us to recognize.

For a change, Slate makes a very good point. However, I don’t believe “most whites have trouble seeing why questions like these are shallow and offensive.” Rather, most liberal journalists have a problem in this area. It is part of what some call the "bigotry of soft expectations." Hopefully this will help open their eyes.

Operation Kuwaiti Field Chicken (KFC) (hat tip WSJ)
According to the European edition of Time:

U.S. marines and soldiers will drive into battle across the dusty plains of Iraq with caged chickens atop their Hum-Vees.

The chickens, which were otherwise destined for Kuwaiti dinner tables, will work in the same way as canaries in coal mines used to. Small traces of poisonous gases or chemical agent will kill the birds and warn troops to put on their gas masks. "A sky full of oil can mask some chemicals," says Warrant Officer Jeff French, a nuclear, biological and chemical officer for a marine battalion in Kuwait. "Using chickens may sound basic but it's still one of the best ways we have of detecting chemical agent."

Chickens were also used in this manner in the first Gulf War. Despite the obvious need for such tactics, I wonder how long it will take PETA to protest.

Response to Ben

I received an email today from Ben Cohen.  It is obviously a form letter as I do not know him.  I know of him, but I do not know him.  And he obviously does not know me or he wouldn't have sent me this email.

Hi, I'm Ben Cohen, Co-Founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. You may only think of me as that smiling face on the side of a pint of ice cream, but today I am writing about something far more serious. Like millions of Americans, I am worried that our government is rushing us off to a war in Iraq that we don't need to fight. That is why I created a way for everyone in America to send free faxes to the President and their Representatives in Congress urging them to support the United Nations Inspectors and not a rush to war.

It's fast, free, and easy. Just go to this link and fill out a short form. We'll find your Representatives, add your name and address to a pre-written fax (so they know it's from someone in their district), and send it off for free.

United Nations inspectors have returned to Iraq to hunt down and destroy weapons of mass destruction. This is a triumph for the UN, the rule of law - even for President Bush who pushed so hard for this. So why does he seem hell-bent on making sure that no matter what happens it will lead to war?

Please go to this web site to send the President and your Representatives in Congress a fax urging them to help the UN Inspectors win this conflict without war. And then forward this email to all your friends asking them to send their free faxes.

Dear Ben,

I can understand why the people you are trying to reach may need your help to identify their representatives. But if they cannot even identify their representatives, why do you trust their judgment on international decisions? Perhaps you hope these people may also believe you when you talk about a "rush to war." Iraq has defying the UN for 12 years now, and a response in 2003 is a rush?

As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has stated, it is already too late to "rush" to war.

• "Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered,' The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998


• "Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998


• "Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998


• "The Rush to War"--headline, The Nation, Aug. 7, 2002


• "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell . . . and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein--not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war."--New York Times, Aug. 16, 2002


• "Christian Leaders Urge U.S. to 'Stop Rush to War' With Iraq"--headline, United Methodist Church press release, Aug. 30, 2002


• "A Reckless Rush to War"--headline, editorial, The American Prospect, Sept. 25, 2002


• "We have not been told why . . . we must rush to war rather than pursuing other options."--Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Sept. 30, 2002


• "We are rushing into war without fully discussing why."--Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), Oct. 3, 2002


• "The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 18, 2002


• "Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003

Why do you think the Iraqi people should continue to suffer? Don't you realize they are brutally beaten and tortured? The Globe and Mail does. I do. While you enjoy your millions, that you earned while our military men were protecting our safety, Saddam was poisoning his people. I'm glad you did well in our protected environment, but don't Iraqis deserve to be safe too? Don't you realize that Resolution 1441 gave Saddam 60 days to comply and he has not?

Thank you for your letter, but the price of complicity in keeping Saddam in power is higher than I want to pay.  I have copied my respresentatives to remind them of my position.  Thank you for motivating me to write them yet again.

Sincerely

Admiral Quixote

A Day for Common Ground
Another friend emailed me a dated link to a liberal UK paper. If you are not familiar with the Daily Mirror, it has been described as “a notoriously left-wing daily that is normally not supportive of the Colonials across the Atlantic.” This post was written on September 11, 2002 by Tony Parsons. He’s not in full agreement with the US, but he understands what is at stake.

The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.

However he believes America has acted calmly in response to the September 11 attacks and he is thankful for our restraint.

The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.

Since it is an older article, I won’t quote much from it. But it is a useful reminder as to why we are trying to make the world a safer place.

Another Reason to Homeschool
I was pleased to receive this link from a very far-left friend of mine. In times of strong disagreement about how to make the world a safer place, I am grateful that we can still find common ground on other issues. The post is a lengthy post about why many smart people (“nerds”) are miserable in American public high schools. It is a very candid look at the experience of a nerd and his thoughts on the matter. A few highlights:

Bullying was only part of the problem. Another problem, and possibly an even worse one, was that we never had anything real to work on. Humans like to work; in most of the world, your work is your identity. And all the work we did was pointless, or seemed so to us at the time. At best it was practice for real work we might do far in the future, so far that we didn't even know at the time what we were practicing for. More often it was just an arbitrary series of hoops to jump through, words without content designed mainly for testability. (The three main causes of the French and Indian War were... Test: List the three main causes of the French and Indian War.)

The worst stretch was junior high school, when kid culture was new and harsh, and the specialization that would later gradually separate the smarter kids had barely begun. Nearly everyone I've talked to agrees: the nadir is somewhere between eleven and fourteen.

Why is the real world more hospitable to nerds? It might seem that the answer is simply that it's populated by adults, who are too mature to pick on one another. But I don't think this is true… I think the important thing about the real world is not that it's populated by adults, but that it's very large, and the things you do have real effects… When the things you do have real effects, it's no longer enough just to be pleasing. It starts to be important to get the right answers, and that's where nerds show to advantage. Bill Gates will of course come to mind. Though notoriously lacking in social skills, he gets the right answers, at least as measured in revenue.

Adults can't avoid seeing that teenage kids are tormented. So why don't they do something about it? Because they blame it on puberty. The reason kids are so unhappy, adults tell themselves, is that monstrous new chemicals, hormones, are now coursing through their bloodstream and messing up everything. There's nothing wrong with the system; it's just inevitable that kids will be miserable at that age.

This idea is so pervasive that even the kids believe it, which probably doesn't help. Someone who thinks his feet naturally hurt is not going to stop to consider the possibility that he is wearing the wrong size shoes. I'm suspicious of this theory that thirteen year old kids are intrinsically messed up. If it's physiological, it should be universal. Are Mongol nomads all nihilists at thirteen? I've read a lot of history, and I don't think I've seen a single reference to this supposedly universal fact before the twentieth century. Teenage apprentices in the Renaissance seem to have been cheerful and eager. They got in fights and played tricks on one another of course (Michelangelo had his nose broken by a bully), but they weren't crazy.

The mediocrity of American public schools has worse consequences than just making kids unhappy for six years. It breeds a rebelliousness that actively drives kids away from the things they're supposed to be learning.

If life seems awful to kids, it's neither because hormones are turning you all into monsters (as your parents believe), nor because life actually is awful (as you believe). It's because the adults, who no longer have any economic use for you, have abandoned you to spend years cooped up together with nothing real to do. Any society of that type is awful to live in. Occam's razor says you don't have to look any further to explain why teenage kids are unhappy.

If you are interested in education, I encourage you to read the entire post. I think he is right and the public educational system in America isn’t just broken, the entire design is defective. I do not yet know what I’ll be doing with my children. However my wife and I will either home-school our children or send them to a small private school.

Presidential Elections
I see more and more Democrats lining up to run for President in 2004. However that race already bores me. I’ll pay attention to it much later, but the result of the November 2004 election is largely outside of the control of the Democrats. It primarily depends upon two things – 1) how the war on terrorism is going and 2) how the economy is doing. The only question of immediate concern is how many Democratic contenders will make it to the end of 2003. Since they all seem to strongly favor every type of abortion, I really don't care which one makes it. If only the Democratic party was big enough for pro-life candidates.

I am far more interested in the 2008 election. My left-leaning friends keep telling me they expect to vote for the first US female president as they expect Hillary Clinton to run and win. It surprises them when I say I may also vote for the first female US president in 2008. If National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice runs, I would seriously consider voting for her. She’s bright, competent, and experienced. My reservations are that I don’t know where she stands on many issues – she has been very careful to keep her opinions to herself as she correctly sees her role is to enable President Bush to implement his policy. There will be time enough to drive her own policy if she runs for office and wins.

Clinton vs. Rice in 2008. Now that would be an interesting race.

Estrada Update (Hat tip to Reductio Ad Absurdum)
Byron York looks beyond the filibuster bluster and give the White House credit for providing a subtle method for proceeding to a vote.

The White House responded [to the objections of the Democrats] the next day with a 15-page, single-spaced letter from counsel Alberto Gonzales. Most news reports characterized it as a refusal of Daschle and Leahy's request — which it was — but missed the letter's between-the-lines suggestions for compromise.

On the issue of questions for Estrada, Gonzales noted that Daschle and Leahy cited just one inquiry that Estrada did not answer -- a question about his judicial role models. Gonzales wrote that Estrada in fact discussed that very issue in response to a written question from Sen. Richard Durbin (Ill.). “ Beyond this one query, your letter does not pose any additional questions to [Estrada],” Gonzales said. “Additionally, neither of you has posed any written questions to Mr. Estrada in the more than three months since his all-day committee hearing.”

In that sentence is what appears to be a White House message to Democrats: You can ask more questions. There’s nothing in Gonzales’s letter to suggest that Estrada would not answer them.

On the second issue, the White House is standing firm against giving the internal Justice Department papers to the Senate. But Gonzales went out of his way to point out that some high-level Democrats have already seen the documents. The papers were, after all, written by Estrada during his time in the Clinton Justice Department. “It also is important to recognize that [Clinton] political appointees have read virtually all of the memoranda in question,” Gonzales wrote, “namely, the Democrat Solicitors General Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, and Seth Waxman.”

Gonzales also points out that none of those former officials have objected to Estrada's nomination. That’s another unspoken suggestion to Democrats: If you want to know more about the memos, ask the Democrats who have seen them. Days, Dellinger, and Waxman would most likely cite the same confidentiality concerns that led them to join other former Solicitors General in declaring release of the memos to be a bad idea, but they might be able say there was nothing in the papers that they found disturbing.

If York is correct, then the Bush administration is carefully and quietly working on moderate Democrats. Once several more of them join the Democrats who are publicly supporting Estrada, a vote will be called and Estrada will be confirmed. But keep the pressure on – if you are a US citizen, contact your Senators and ask them to help bring the Estrada nomination to the floor for a vote.

Ebola and Bats
According to National Geographic, bats may be the natural reservoir for Ebola. That is, bats might be the carriers for one of the most contagious diseases known to man. The disease requires a host besides primates to survive since it quickly kills 50 to 90 percent of its victims through massive internal bleeding. So far, there is no cure.

The article doesn’t speculate on next steps, but if bats were confirmed to be a natural reservoir for Ebola (and were the only such reservoir), it would be possible to eliminate the disease. Ideally a bat vaccination could be developed or even a strain of bats that wouldn’t carry it. Time will tell.

The Accordions of War, Part III
Good old Chirac – he has done more to help promote the cause to remove Saddam from power than any other person. While the countries that were formerly under Soviet control already understood the importance of removing Saddam, Chirac telling them to shut up has made them even more vocal about their positions.

Hospodarske Noviny of the Czech Republic The French president is without doubt walking on thin ice when he tries to base European foreign policy on the principle of anti-Americanism. His theory does not even have the support of the majority of EU member states.

Neatkariga Rita Avize of Latvia All right, Monsieur Chirac. Perhaps we are poor. Perhaps we were not raised properly. We do not know about fine wine and the various directions of avant-garde art. But we do not repay those who have helped us and who continue to help us with ingratitude.

Diena, also of Latvia Perhaps there are some in Paris who want to be the patriarch of Europe's "family", letting others in the family "knock on the door" humbly. By denying the right of others to hold indepen