OTHER THAN THAT HOW DID THE DEMOCRATS ENJOY AUGUST?:

Bush poll surprise: Internal numbers show Wisc.,Mich., Pa. tilt to President (Bob Cusack, 8/31/04, The Hill)

Internal Bush-Cheney campaign polling shows that the president is beating Sen. John Kerry in three states that Al Gore carried in 2000, campaign staff members told GOP operatives this week.

And John Thune has pulled ahead of Tom Daschle with 50%.

If you were betting today would you give Mr. Kerry more than: DC, HI, CA, IL, MD, ME, NY, & MA? (note that five of those 8 have Republican governors, making them quite winnable in a true landslide)

---

One gets the feeling that Sportsmen for Kerry/Edwards aren't.

---

PASS THE TORCH, CABANA BOY:

Sources: Democratic leaders urge Kerry campaign changes: Campaign refutes reports of shake-up (CNN, 8/31/04)

Democratic leaders, increasingly concerned that John Kerry's presidential campaign is adrift, are urging the presidential nominee to make changes in his staff before Labor Day, according to some party sources.

If not, said one party strategist, "it could be too late." Sources say major changes could come at the campaign's highest level.

Given the Torricelli precedent, they could mean the candidate himself.

---

NIHILISM FOR FUN AND PROFIT

Bjork's war (Aaron Wherry, National Post, August 31st, 2004)

A relative latecomer for a 9/11-inspired artistic statement, Medulla comes long after Bruce Springsteen, Steve Earle, Toby Keith, Madonna and all the other usual and unusual suspects have picked through the rubble for any bit of scrap they might fashion into a three-and-a-half-minute expression of defiance. As such, there should be little left for Bjork to say; little more she could possibly do that hasn't been done. But, of course, the Idea persists.

In Bjork's case, this means restraint -- at least of the sort that might force her to find new freedom -- and so Medulla is an album crafted (almost) entirely from the human voice, though it sounds nothing like what you might expect from such a premise (see Ono, Yoko). Not just a departure from her instrumentally copious last album, 2001's Vespertine, Medulla is meant as a departure from, well, everything.

"Something in me wanted to leave out civilization," she told the Independent, "to rewind to before it all happened and work out, 'Where is the human soul? What if we do without civilization and religion and patriotism, without the stuff that has gone wrong?' "

More pointedly she told The Telegraph: "This album was supposed to be a response to 9/11 and all this rubbish ... I wanted to show those gentlemen that there are still insects crawling, people jumping in swimming pools, building houses, having children, making songs and having abstract thought processes or whatever. That's at least 98% of what humans are doing out there."

Yes, but that other 2% of what they are doing is the kicker, isn’t it? Time was the debate was between conservatives who thought civilization was hard-won and easily lost and old-fashioned liberals who saw it as a mighty oak that could withstand constant pruning and grafting. Today, more and more, we confront those who view it as a blight to be extinguished.

---

THE MAN IN THE RING:

Being There: What does 9/11 tell us about Bush? Nothing. (William Saletan, Aug. 31, 2004, Slate)

For the past month, a group of veterans funded by a Bush campaign contributor and advised by a Bush campaign lawyer has attacked the story of John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam. They have argued, contrary to all known contemporaneous records, that Kerry was too brutal in a counterattack that earned him the Silver Star, and that he survived only mines, not bullets, when he rescued a fellow serviceman from a river. President Bush, who joined the National Guard as a young man to avoid Vietnam, has been challenged to denounce the group's charges. He has refused.

Now the Republican National Convention is showcasing Bush's own heroic moment. As John McCain put it last night: "I knew my confidence was well placed when I watched him stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center with his arm around a hero of September 11 and, in our moment of mourning and anger, strengthen our unity and our resolve by promising to right this terrible wrong and to stand up and fight for the values we hold dear."

Pardon me for asking, but where exactly is the heroism in this story? Where, indeed, is the heroism in anything Bush has done before 9/11 or since?

Set aside for a moment the likelihood that flying a Guard jet was more dangerous than working a swift boat when Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry chose their forms of national service during the Vietnam War. Consider this instead:
Assassinations and Attempts in U.S. Since 1865
* Roosevelt, Franklin D. (president-elect of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Feb. 15, 1933, in Miami.

* Truman, Harry S. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Nov. 1, 1950, in Washington, DC, as 2 Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to shoot their way into Blair House.

* Kennedy, John F. (president of U.S.): Shot Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald; died same day. Injured was Gov. John B. Connally of Texas. Oswald was shot and killed two days later by Jack Ruby.

* Ford, Gerald R. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination attempt Sept. 5, 1975, in Sacramento, Calif., by Lynette Alice (Squeaky) Fromme, who pointed but did not fire .45-caliber pistol. Escaped assassination attempt in San Francisco, Calif., Sept. 22, 1975, by Sara Jane Moore, who fired one shot from a .38-caliber pistol that was deflected.

* Reagan, Ronald (president of U.S.): Shot in left lung in Washington by John W. Hinckley, Jr., on March 30, 1981; three others also wounded.
Add in the plot to kill George H. W. Bush and the nuts who crashed a plane into the White House and sprayed shots at it while Bill Clinton was in office and you've got one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Indeed, the President was probably the target of the 4th jet on 9-11. Mr. Saletan's point is unbelievably stupid even for Slate.

---

IS THE SENATOR AWARE INDIA EXISTS?:

India's US trade gamble (Arun Bhattacharjee, 8/31/04, Asia Times)

Following a series of unpublicized negotiations with the US Department of Commerce, the Treasury Department, Department of State and the Pentagon, India feels the time has come for a comprehensive bilateral treaty with the US in the service sector.

This development comes as Delhi announced its new long-term foreign trade policy late on Tuesday. This will replace the country's half a century old exports-imports policy, which has a tenure of only one year and deals with excise and taxes without any long-term trade strategy. The new policy contains far-reaching measures for large employment-generating export sectors like agriculture, textiles and handicrafts, all part of efforts to capture 2% of global trade by pushing up annual exports to US$300 billion by 2009. At present, India contributes a mere 0.8% to global trade.

Aimed at achieving over 16% annual trade growth on the back of 25% growth in the first quarter, the policy contains a slew of measures to boost India's special economic zones, 27 of which have already been approved for operation.

Given India's lofty goals, it makes strategic sense for New Delhi to sign a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the US, regarded as the most preferred trading destination for Indian industry and outsourcing companies by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). At stake is $1.5 billion in outsourcing business and $5 billion in textiles and other trading, beyond January next.

That is not all.

If nothing else, Mr. Kerry's apparent belief that France is a more important ally than India and his opposition to free trade should disqualify him from the presidency in the 21st Century.

---

SELF-REFERENCE ALERT:

Our daughter, who started kindergarten yesterday, just asked her brother, a 2nd-grader, if he'd said his prayers to the Egyptians in school today. Thinking as little as we do of the public schools, we naturally feared that her teacher was inducting her into the cult of Isis or something.

Turns out it was just the Pledge of Allegiance.

---

WHERE ARE THE HARD HATS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?:

Police brace for day of disobedience after ugly turn in protests that left detective injured (MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN, 8/31/04, Associated Press)

Police are bracing for more confrontations with protesters after a violent march to Madison Square Garden in which a plainclothes detective was pushed from his scooter and pummeled by a protester, witnesses and authorities said.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly called it "a blatant, vicious attack" on detective William Sample, who was briefly knocked unconscious Monday and was hospitalized with head injuries that were not life-threatening. His assailant was being sought by police.

"People started tugging at his bike and pushing him around," said Rob Raney, a 22-year-old Ohio college student. "Finally they just pushed him off his bike."

Hundreds of police in riot gear and on horses swept in to disperse the crowd, shouting, "Move!" Less than a dozen arrests were made as protesters yelled back, "Whose streets? Our streets!"

Police were preparing for further unrest Tuesday as protesters promised to demonstrate wherever delegates and Republican Party heavyweights were celebrating and sightseeing.

Real and engaging people, eh? To our eternal shame as a nation we gave in to such street thuggery the last time John Kerry was a national figure--in the early 70's--we'll not do so again.

---

NEVER HEADED:

Investors Bet for Bush Over Kerry (Reuters, 8/30/04)

Opinion polls show support for President Bush and his Democratic rival as almost dead even, but as the Republican convention began on Monday investors trading presidential futures did not believe the race would be nearly so close.

Trading in the Iowa Electronic Markets showed Bush pulling ahead of his rival, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, with a 54.8 percent probability of victory, compared to a 45.4 percent for Kerry.

The Iowa presidential futures contracts, which were launched by professors at the University of Iowa to study the forecasting power of markets, have had an average 1.37 percent margin of error in predicting the winner of the popular vote, a better record than most opinion polls. [...]

The Kerry contracts had a similar rally before the Democratic convention in Boston in July. At that time, the Bush contract showed a 50 percent probability of victory to Kerry's 49 percent. But since then, Bush has regained the lead.

Traders have placed similar bets at another online exchange, Intrade, which shows Bush at just under 58 percent to Kerry's roughly 43 percent. The Bush contract traded as low as 49 percent this summer.

Rallying to a point where you're still losing seems dissimilar to rallying to the point where you're near a landslide, but why quibble.

---

LONG ENDED BADLY THOUGH:

Go On, Snicker -- Bush May Well Laugh Last (Chris Bray, August 31, 2004, LA Times)

Ignoring U.S. political history, Bush's most virulent opponents are engaged in a staggeringly obtuse cultural offensive that defines most of the country outside their circle. Attacking his instances of inelegant speech, people who loudly and publicly criticize Bush attack the inelegant. Anyone who has spent some time around the humanities division will recall the comfortable claim that most highly educated people live on the political left. Granting that self-aggrandizing and highly debatable point for the sake of argument, we might stop to note that only one American in four graduates from college — from any college, all grade-point averages included. That's a pretty narrow path to political success, folks. Most people can smell contempt.

So rant on, and take note of every stupid-sounding thing that the president says. But remember what the horrified New York Times Book Review had to say about Huey Long, the wildly successful governor and senator from Louisiana, when he published his autobiography in 1933: "There is hardly a law of English usage or a rule of English grammar that its author does not break somewhere." And remember one other thing: 1934 was a very good year for Sen. Huey "Kingfish" Long, as he polished his platform, "Every man a king," for a presidential run.

---

IS THERE ROOM FOR YOUR DOG, ASTRO?:

Flying cars nearly ready for take-off (DUNCAN FORGAN, 8/31/04, The Scotsman)

WE ALREADY have amphibious cars that can take us over land and sea and jet packs that allow us to take off like a spaceman.

Now some of the world’s leading engineers are trying to advance the technology of travel further by developing cars that can fly.

The new vehicles are seen as becoming necessary, with motorways growing more clogged, and commuters prepared to travel further.

California-based company Moller International has built a prototype of its Skycar. The streamlined vehicle - think sports car meets the hovercraft Luke Skywalker drove in Star Wars - is designed to make vertical take-offs, fly around 700 miles and drive short distances.

Jack Allison, who retired as a vice-president at Moller but still works there, said Skycars were expected to start at about $1 million and require pilot’s training.

It’s not clear when they’ll be available, but Mr Allison says more than 100 people have put down a $5,000 deposit.

Major corporations are trying to take the concept on to the mass maket.

MORE:
A Flying Leap for CarsM (Olga Kharif, 8/25/04, Business Week)

---

NOW WHAT DO WE DO?:

Leaders of Russia, France, Germany Hold Talks on Iraq (VOA News, 31 Aug 2004)

It's like chimps discussing the Calculus.

---

THE HIGH COST OF VANSITTARTISM (via Uncle Bill):

The unspecial relationship: Britain's Entrapment by the French: The Triple Anniversary of 2004 (Professor Christie Davies, Bruges Group)

2004 is a year of three sad anniversaries in the unhappy relationship between Britain and France. Ninety years ago in August 1914 Britain was dragged into a war between France and Germany for which France was largely to blame. It was that French war that fatally undermined British power and thus Britain's ability and willingness to withstand the Nazi and Soviet threats that were the very consequence of the war that France began. [...]

"Why ", some readers may ask "are you telling us all these unpleasant truths about the wretched French?" Even those who do not doubt the facts may feel that to deploy these arguments in a modern context will only exacerbate our already difficult and adversary relationship with them. Why then does their argument not apply to the Germans? German political leaders are rightly annoyed at the way history is taught in British schools, what has been termed the Hitlerisation of British history teaching. In Britain German history is taught badly and tendentiously to seventeen year olds who have no knowledge of the German language by concentrating on the twelve quite atypical disaster years of National Socialism, 1933-1945. I have taught such students after they had entered the university where I have been appalled at their lack of analytical skills and their inability to think their way outside the interpretations that they had been fed. Those who designed the school syllabuses should be ashamed of themselves; they went for cheap popularity not true learning and have unfairly villainised an entire people by concentrating on a tiny segment of its history. It verges on Vansittartism. The idea that is put in their heads is one that in its extreme version was propounded by Sir Robert Vansittart in his pamphlet Black Record. German history becomes a tale of almost continuous brutal aggression from Arminius' (Hermann) ambush of Varus' legions in the Teutoburgerwald through to the Teutonic knights and the Prussian army, to blood and iron under Bismarck, to the Schlieffen plan, to the shooting of francs-tireurs and Edith Cavelle in Belgium, to the " unfair" waging of war by U-boats and Zeppelins. Everything that doesn't fit is left out and the aggressive episodes in the history of Germany's neighbours are not mentioned, particularly those that have involved repeated invasions and devastation of Germany. In this way all German history has evolved inevitably towards the Third Reich. In a world where everyone else was becoming benign and democratic, Germany was an "exception" and somehow this is the fault of certain inherent aspects of the German character that constitutes the very essence of the German people. If it were said about anyone else it would be immediately denounced as racist nonsense but it is still open season on the Hun. Vansittartism is alive and well.

National Socialism should be studied as sociology not as history. It is part of a wider set of vicious phenomena that are not limited to Germany - a continent wide anti-Semitism that was to be found from Paris to Odessa, the rise of stratification by militant parties which later became Continental Europe's deadly export to China, Cambodia and Iraq, the worship of force and collectivism as an antidote to Anglo-American "materialism". None of these things are peculiar to Germany. That they triumphed together in a singularly horrible form under National Socialism is due to defeat , reparations, the rise of Communism and the failure of the American economy in 1929 rather than anything specifically German. It could not have happened in Britain because we are not part of that Continental world but it could easily have happened in France if that country had been defeated early on in World War I, crushed with reparations and forced to cede core French-speaking areas of France to Germany along with Morrocco and bits of central Africa. There would soon have arisen a National Socialist French workers party with a screaming anti-semitic fanatic to lead it. All the elements to build a Nazi party in France had long been present.

In particular, we should not forget the anti-Semitism of the condemners of Dreyfus, Action Française and the Croix de Feu (the party Mitterand's first joined) which found in its final expression in the rounding up of Jews for deportation by the Milice. During the second world war, after the French defeat, Marshal Pétain, the legitimate ruler of France, placed in his high office by a free vote of the French parliament and an overwhelming majority of those votes would sit and glumly contemplate the ruin of France. After much thought he would say "C'est les Juifs" to a former President of the Senate from Martinique who would reply "Oui c'est les Juifs". At the end of the war when Charles Maurras the anti-Semitic leader of Action Française was expelled from the Academie Française he commented " Dreyfus has won". Fanatical anti-Semitism was not a German monopoly. [...]

The moral of the story is that neither in 1904 nor in 1914 should we have shown or have any sympathy with France's fear of being dominated by Germany , nor should we have any in 2004. A Europe dominated by Hitler would have been horrendous but a Kaiserly Europe would have been better than a war in which over a million British and Imperial troops were killed. What would it have mattered if the Germans had come to dominate the Balkans and run Baghdad for the Turks? As countries like Germany grow in wealth and power they have to be accommodated much as Britain chose to cultivate the growing United States after the Civil War and settle grievances on American terms. For Britain to ally itself with a nation on the way out like France was inane. It was also undemocratic. The conversations and implicit agreements between the British and French General Staffs after the Entente Cordiale were kept secret from the British people because of their traditional distrust and dislike of the French. Edward VII's direct discussions with the French were unconstitutional and his Francophilia was probably based on nothing more than his gratitude to a nation that had invented devices to raise and lower that corpulent king or his two female partners during innovative forms of sexual congress on a specially designed chair. How much better it would have been for the world if Edward VII had been gay! He could have taken his holidays with Krupp in Capri and established a rapport with Wilhelm through the camarilla led by Prince Philip zu Eulenberg, a shrewd, far-sighted and restraining influence on his Kaiser . Better Gomorrah than Armentières.

In recent decades we have gone on making the same mistake. It is taken for granted that the French still have a legitimate interest in reining Germany in, in tying Germany ever tighter in a European Union lest it become too powerful. Many in France opposed and were fearful of German reunification precisely because it recreated a populous and powerful nation in the heart of Europe that will once again overshadow France. Yet why should a democratic and peaceful Germany not dominate Europe and not impose its commercial and agricultural interests on France. It should be Britain's policy to encourage such a development, much as we should have done in 1904-14. It would be better for Britain than the present unnatural Franco-German alliance in which the French, once again struggling to maintain the delusion of their own importance, exercise an influence out of all proportion to their real power. If Germany were to gain her rightful position at the heart of Europe, the French would soon discover the necessity for treating the Americans with a suitable degree of deference or even fawning. It is time for Britain slowly to disentangle itself from Europe and leave the French to their fate and the Germans to their inheritance.

Except that the Germans can't even run their own country never mind dominate the continent. Britain though would be well rid of both the French and the Germans.

N.B.--Was anyone else hoping and anticipating that Rudy Giuliani would declare war on Germany last night?

---

AT LEAST NOT ONE OF US:

Liberals don't recognize one of their own in White House (JOHN O'SULLIVAN, August 31, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times)

When the vast anti-Bush and anti-Republican demonstration rolled over Manhattan on Sunday, did the demonstrators realize that they were shaking their fists at the president who has single-handedly revived big government? Well, perhaps not single-handedly -- President Bush has had assistance from Republicans and Democrats in raising domestic discretionary federal spending by a whopping 8.2 percent in the last two years.

But Bush can take special credit for out-of-control federal spending because the president is given the constitutional power of the veto in order to keep congressional spending under control. Bush has not used that veto once in four years. In addition, he has largely abandoned the GOP's rhetorical attachment to limited government -- saying on one occasion that when someone was hurting, the government should step in to do something about it. So much for that grand old piece of conservative skepticism about government programs: "Don't just do something -- stand there."

The best measure of Mr. Bush's radicalism is that he's hated by both the Left and the traditional Right. This is entirely appropriate since the synthesis he's bringing about--the Ownership Society--will render both wings of the spectrum obsolete--as witness what Tony Blair has done to both the anti-union Labour Party and whatever the Tories have decided to call themselves.

---

BLUE DOGS AFRAID OF RED MEAT:

Immoderate Night (New Dem, Daily, 8/31/04)

One of the few mysteries of the Republican National Convention has been resolved. Many observers wondered if the high billing of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani last night would represent another effort to depict the GOP as a moderate, inclusive party. Instead, these speakers lent their moderate credentials to the proposition that nothing matters in this election other than the duty of a grateful nation to re-elect George W. Bush to thank him for his leadership in the war on terrorism. If elections are indeed, as the saying goes, about the future rather than the past, Republicans are not off to a very good start.

Other than their remarkable lack of forward-looking perspective, there were three striking things about these speeches:

First, neither McCain nor Giuliani mentioned domestic issues even once. That's amazing. For all the talk about the message discipline of the Democratic Convention, and the disproportionate attention paid to John Kerry's Vietnam service, there were no speeches in Boston that failed to mention domestic as well as international issues.

Second, both speeches were very, very aggressive on Iraq. They depicted Bush not as a chief executive making a tough call for better or for worse (which is often how the president himself describes his decision to invade Iraq), but as a deeply principled, and even visionary warrior for freedom. Giuliani was especially stark on this point, shoehorning the Iraq war with the Afghanistan operation as part of the immediate reaction to 9/11. Nobody said a word about the administration's management of the occupation of Iraq, which has not exactly been Churchillian.

And third, both speeches departed from the 2000 template by offering Republican delegates some immediate red meat. McCain avoided any attacks on Democrats, but took a shot at lefty filmmaker Michael Moore, who was conveniently visible in a press skybox. This sideshow reinforced the GOP's efforts to depict anti-Bush, and largely anti-war demonstrators in New York as the face of the Democratic Party.

Pity the poor DLC--they still haven't figured out that Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy , Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry are the face of the Democratic Party, not Sam Nunn or Joe Lieberman.

---

DANGIT, DIDN'T WE BURN THEM ALL?:

The text of John Kerry's 1971 book The New Soldier -- now going for a cool $699 on Amazon -- is currently available on the Internet.

The introduction and the epilogue are really the only things that matter, as the middle of the book is stuffed with ravings from many people who claimed to have fought in Vietnam but probably served kitchen duty--as B.G. Burkett and others have attested. Of these, the introduction contains a snippet from Kerry's testimony before the Senate and the short epilogue showcases Kerry's inability to support his country when it matters, and even when it doesn't.

As the American people are unabashedly patriotic, the public posting of this book only adds to the potential for another magnificent creaming of the senator's war record and his many subsequent trips to the waffle house. Picture an ad putting the following two quotes side-by-side -- the first a passage from Kerry's book, the second a line from his presidential nomination acceptance speech:

* We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim.

and

* I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty.

As usual, if you want to make a liberal politician look ridiculous, use his words and not your own.

---

YOU CAN MEND IT, BUT CAN'T END IT:

Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror (ELISABETH BUMILLER, Aug. 30, 2004, NY Times)

President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail.

In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. "I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror," he said.

At a prime-time news conference in the East Room of the White House on April 13, Mr. Bush said: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can."

It was unclear if Mr. Bush had meant to make the remark to Mr. Lauer, or if he misspoke. But White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle.

You obviously can't end terrorism--it's been around for hundreds--if not thousands--of years and is a useful tactic for folks who can't take on their enemies on the battlefield.

Nor can you wipe out Islamicism any more than winning the Civil War and WWII brought an end to white supremacist ideology and neo-Nazism. You can render it nugatory though, as those other pathologies are today. That will require the radical transformation of the Middle East towards liberal democratic protestant capitalism. There won't be a V-I Day we can celebrate, where Islamicism officially surrenders, but it will be obvious to everyone that those militants who remain represent only a very marginal part of otherwise healthy and decent societies.

Perhaps this is an appropriate measure: we'll have won when they get to the point where when they have an Oklahoma City Bombing of their own--and they will--their populaces hold such an action to be unacceptable and insist that their elected leaders hound the perpetrators and their fellow travelers the same way we did.

MORE:
Bush reverses course, says we'll win terror war (Associated Press, August 31, 2004 )

As Bush continued a pre-convention journey through one closely contested state after another, aides scrambled to clarify the president's remark and contain the story. And in Tuesday's speech before the American Legion, with popular Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona by his side, Bush himself sought to hit back.

``In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table,'' Bush said. ``But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.''

Bush also defended his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Though no weapons of mass destruction have been found, he said Saddam had the capability to make them.

``Knowing what I know today I would have taken the same action,'' he said. ``America and the world are safer with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell.''

Bush's war on terror remark was the latest in a string of recent comments in which the president seemed to backpedal previous certainties.

In a flurry of interviews timed to coincide with this week's convention, Bush acknowledged a ``miscalculation'' about what the United States would encounter in postwar Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and said the ``catastrophic success'' of a swift military victory there helped produce the still-potent insurgency.

"reverses course"? How about "clarifies"?

---

BOY, THESE GUYS AREN'T EVEN PRETENDING ANYMORE:

Scaled-Up Darkness: Could a single dark matter particle be light-years wide? (George Musser, 8/30/04, Scientific American)

In 1996 Discover magazine ran an April Fools' story about giant particles called "bigons" that could be responsible for all sorts of inexplicable phenomena. Now, in a case of life imitating art, some physicists are proposing that the universe's mysterious dark matter consists of great big particles, light-years or more across. Amid the jostling of these titanic particles, ordinary matter ekes out its existence like shrews scurrying about the feet of the dinosaurs.

This idea arose to explain a puzzling fact about dark matter: although it clumps on the vastest scales, creating bodies such as galaxy clusters, it seems to resist clumping on smaller scales. Astronomers see far fewer small galaxies and subgalactic gas clouds than a simple extrapolation from clusters would imply. Accordingly, many have suggested that the particles that make up dark matter interact with one another like molecules in a gas, generating a pressure that counterbalances the force of gravity.

The big-particle hypothesis takes another approach. Instead of adding a new property to the dark particles, it exploits the inherent tendency of any quantum particle to resist confinement. If you squeeze one, you reduce the uncertainty of its position but increase the uncertainty of its momentum. In effect, squeezing increases the particle's velocity, generating a pressure that counteracts the force you apply. Quantum claustrophobia becomes important over distances comparable to the particle's equivalent wavelength. Fighting gravitational clumping would take a wavelength of a few dozen light-years.

That would be a case of art imitating art.

---

LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN THROW THE FIRST MEDAL (via Tom Morin):

Born-again vs. perfect (Marvin Olasky, August 26, 2004, Townhall)

John Kerry graduated from Yale in 1966. George Bush graduated in 1968. I graduated from said institution in 1971. With the Kerry campaign in full panic mode about the swift boat charges, maybe I can provide some perspective on the environment that has led to the current confusion. [...]

Neither Kerry nor Bush nor I wanted to fight in Vietnam, and we all did what we could in our situations: Naval Reserves (Kerry), Texas Air National Guard (Bush), draft lottery No. 278 (me), which meant immunity from having to serve. In his circumstances, Kerry's choice was smart: Navy or Coast Guard folks were much less likely to see combat service than their counterparts in the Army or Air Force, and the safest Navy spot may have been that of a Naval Reserve officer. [...]

My point, having lived through the 1960s-1970s confusion, is that the era was not one of uncommon resolution, at least not of the patriotic variety. I relished my high draft lottery number. George W. Bush played it smart like John Kerry and found a soft gig. He and I took different rotten paths -- he drank heavily, I became a communist -- but both of us could say the same thing: "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."

The other thing both of us can and do say is that we did not save ourselves: God alone saves sinners (and I can surely add, of whom I was the worst). Being born again, we don't have to justify ourselves. Being saved, we don't have to be saviors.

John Kerry, once-born, has no such spiritual support, nor do most of his top admirers in the heavily secularized Democratic Party. It would be great if he could say: "I was young and vainglorious and often self-absorbed. I exaggerated and lied at times, and since then have thought it necessary not to disavow the fantasies I wove. But I do deserve credit for being there and serving my country in a mixed-up era in which I at times was also mixed-up."

Kerry can't say that because he evidently does not believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The belief in the perfectibility of human beings is at the core of the Left's politics and is the source of their disastrous belief that the State can be used to hammer us lumps of clay into idealized shapes (see the kibbutz story below). That is, of course, antithetical to the Founding principles of our nation.

More surprising though than the dissent from those principles would be a belief that you yourself are unflawed. The Senator's inability to admit error even as he flip-flops leaves him open to such an interpretation. He's going to have to apologize for at least his Senate testimony if not his opposition to Vietnam entirely if he's going to get out from under the storyline, but he's left it until far too late in his career to do so--the middle of a presidential campaign--and may be incapable of it even now.

---

GEORGE III:

He's young, good looking, and Hispanic - could he be the next George Bush in the White House? (Dan Glaister, August 31, 2004, The Guardian)

The polished young man speaking on Univision, the biggest Spanish-language TV channel in the US, might have been a movie star. Or perhaps, with his fluent Spanish and handsome features, a sports star.

Or he might be the next member of the Bush dynasty to take to the political stage and become possibly, just possibly, the first Hispanic president of the US.

Meet George P Bush, 28, nephew to W, grandson of H, son of Jeb.

"George P Bush is a tremendous asset to the family," said Dario Moreno, director of Florida International University's Metropolitan Centre. "He's obviously Hispanic, he's an attractive young man, he's articulate and he's a Bush. That's a powerful combination. It raises the dynastic possibility, and it could be a hoot if the first Hispanic president of the US is a Bush." [...]

George P first emerged as a political asset in the 2000 presidential campaign, when he gave a well-received speech at the Republican national convention and appeared in Spanish-language TV commercials for his uncle's campaign. He also became a minor celebrity, making his way on to a list of the nation's 100 most eligible bachelors.

He studied law at the University of Texas at Austin, where he met his wife, Amanda, whom he married earlier this month at a ceremony attended by the entire Bush family. Earlier this year he left his position as an assistant to a Dallas judge and spent the summer as an intern with two leading south Florida law firms.

"That strengthens the family's political base in Miami," said Mr Moreno. "And it lays the groundwork for an eventual entry into politics. It seems clear to me that he's being groomed."

One of the most noticable atmospheric differences between New York and Boston is that the buzz at the Republican Convention surrounds peoples' bright political futures and the battle of heavyweights that is shaping up for the '08 nomination. The only Democrat who anyone seems to think has any kind of future is Hillary Clinton. They ended up with their awful nominee thisb time because they have no bench strength and they don't appear to be developing a next generation of leaders. That's one of the catastrophic effects of being in the permanent minority, as the GOP discovered from 1932 to 2000.

---

NO MORE FREE LUNCH?:

Israel's kibbutzim swap socialist ideals for personal profit in struggle to survive (Chris McGreal, August 31, 2004, The Guardian)

For the older residents of this kibbutz, the break with the ideal came the day that some pay packets were fatter than others. And being asked to pay for lunch.

But they realised the tide had turned irrevocably with the hiring of Koby Lamm. Not only was he paid the market rate for running the sprawling agricultural and manufacturing kibbutz near the Sea of Galilee, but he was an outsider. A manager. Not a socialist.

"This is a big, big revolutionary change," said Aryeh Wolfin, who moved to Kibbutz Kfar Hanasi from London in 1958. "The kibbutz as it was is dead. The egalitarian socialist society belongs to the past. Forget about it. This is the future of the kibbutz.

"Some people still yearn for the days of the old kibbutz. Some people who haven't adapted have a bitter taste. But I think we've saved the kibbutz."

The kibbutz has iconic status in Israel, and shaped the world's view of the Jewish state over the decades when it was popularly seen as struggling for social justice as well as its survival.

But the weight of an ageing population, young people more interested in personal enrichment than equality, and modern economic realities, have largely killed the guiding philosophy of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs".

In the past 20 years the population of Israel's 270 kibbutzim has fallen by about a quarter to 116,000. Three times as many people are leaving as joining.

Most of those who go are young, leaving behind a population with an average age approaching 55 years. As a result, most of the communities can no longer afford the cradle-to-grave support for their members, with potentially tragic results for many older people who put in a lifetime of work in the belief that they would spend a secure retirement in the bosom of the kibbutz.

Few own property, and if their kibbutz collapses - as several have - they face destitution.

Europe's future writ small.

---

MAY AS WELL BURN IT, IT'S SO CHEAP:

Crude Oil Drops as Threats to Supply From Iraq, Russia Diminish (Bloomberg, 8/31/04)

Crude oil futures fell close to a one-month low on expectations a cease-fire in southern Iraq will reduce the sabotage of oil pipelines and supplies from Russia will increase.

Attacks on pipelines to southern Iraqi export terminals have decreased, allowing for near-normal exports of 1.75 million barrels a day today, according to two local shipping agents. Russia, which alternates with Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer, will boost output 6.9 percent this year to 450 million tons, President Vladimir Putin said.

"Iraq's sustained exports and Putin's positive declarations are calming the market,'' said Renzo Mejia, a broker at Sucden (U.K.) Ltd. in London. "The market is looking for any security improvements to lower the risk premium'' in prices, which had exceeded $10 a barrel, he said.

Crude oil for October delivery tumbled as much as 56 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $41.72 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange and was trading at $41.90 at 1:44 p.m. London time. It has dropped 16 percent from its Aug. 20 intraday record of $49.40. In London, October Brent crude fell as much as 3.1 percent to a one-month low of $39.40.

---

JUST THE DETAIL WORK LEFT:

Selling The Ownership Society: Bush & Co. are pitching self-sufficiency, urging voters to take control of health-care and Social Security decisions (Lee Walczak, Richard S. Dunham, and Mike McNamee, with Howard Gleckman and Rich Miller, in Washington, 9/06/04, Business Week)

In New York, the President will take the wraps off a second-term domestic agenda built around the idea of an "Ownership Society" in which Americans would be empowered to save and invest more, playing a larger role in managing their own health care and retirement finances. By promising to fight for private accounts in Social Security and a simpler and more investor-friendly tax code, Bush will return to the big reform themes that served him well in his 2000 campaign. Given his track record for bold and surprising strokes, he may also use his convention speech to hint at an even more ambitious second-term reform agenda that would tilt the tax balance further away from investment and toward consumption.

While hardly original, Bush's Ownership Society approach is worlds away from the expanded government safety net that Kerry proposes to help strapped workers. The Democrat is making inroads with swing voters by promoting near-universal health coverage, tuition aid, and tax credits for new jobs.

Whatever else it does, Bush's throwing down the gauntlet will open one of the more striking debates of the campaign. That's because there's a philosophical gulf between liberals' evocations of social equity and the comfort of a government helping hand vs. conservatives' paeans to individualism and entrepreneurship. As he barnstorms the country, Bush promotes the virtues of ownership with near-religious fervor, seizing upon one economic number in particular that shines from a so-so record: the torrid pace of home buying. "If you own something, you have a vital stake in the future," the President said in St. Paul, Minn., on Aug. 18.

What's under the ownership umbrella? There's a renewed call, to be voiced in Bush's convention speech, for an aggressive trade-promotion agenda and for private Social Security accounts. The President also will talk up a health system built on individual -- rather than employer-provided -- insurance.

Bush is saving his biggest ownership flourish for last, however. All year his economists have debated whether the White House can commit to broad reform of the tax code as a second-term goal. Bush has now signed on and will promote the ideas of "pro-growth" reform in his address without dwelling too much on specifics. Says former Council of Economic Advisers Chairman R. Glenn Hubbard, a key architect of Bush's first-term tax cuts: "The President is a problem-solver. He's keenly interested in fixing the tax code's complexity and anti-savings bias."

In New York, Bush is expected to embrace a major tax initiative, vowing action on three fronts: He will fight to make existing tax cuts permanent; push for new individual retirement accounts that protect family savings from taxes; and direct the Treasury Dept. to outline changes that make the revenue code "fairer and simpler." That will trigger a foot-stomping celebration on the floor of Madison Square Garden, since GOP partisans equate those words with "lower and less onerous" rates.

But what is Bush's ultimate goal? The steps the President is taking to trim marginal rates and exempt bigger and bigger chunks of investment income are marching the tax code toward a long-time dream of mainstream GOP reformers -- retaining the core of the basic income tax while gradually easing the tax bite on savings and investment. Bush must tread cautiously, however, to quell voters' fears that he aims to throw out the existing tax code and replace it with a pure flat tax or national sales levy. To calm those worries, he will insist that any changes keep both the home mortgage deduction and the write-off for charitable giving.

Taken together, the Ownership Society themes resonate broadly, White House officials contend. The slogan returns Bush to the "reformer with results" rhetoric of his 2000 campaign. It permits the Texan to cast himself as a modernizer running against a Big Government liberal, as individual investing and exploding homeownership transform society. It fires up the GOP base with appeals for low taxes and property rights. And by turning the Social Security debate into a discussion of investor returns, Bush may lure young voters who have abandoned him. "The idea is to control your affairs through ownership, starting with homeownership and running to health care and retirement," says Dan Bartlett, White House communications director. "The question is: Do I trust myself more, or the government more?" [...]

Thus, in the election, two strains of the American character will collide: risk-taking and pioneering vs. a government safety net protecting citizens from the excesses of capitalism. "Americans are optimistic and aspire to ownership," says Darrell West, a Brown University political scientist: "But pushing the Ownership Society is still risky, because it plays to future aspirations without addressing people's current economic problems."

Over the long term, the ownership concept holds both power and promise given that it reflects profound changes in the way Americans live. George Bush's problem, though, is that he has a messy short term to traverse.

As Mayor Giuliani said last night, our great leaders--Churchill and Reagan--have had a unique ability to see past the troublesome moment to the promise that the future holds and their vision has always been rooted in the triumph of freedom. One of the ways in which Providence seems to have been at work on 9-11 is that President Bush started the war with Islamicism seeing that we were destined to win it and to transform the Middle East. His confidence--like Reagan's that we would leave the Evil Empire on the ash heap of history--by itself changed the political dynamics within the Islamic world. The question was no longer would the nations of the Arab world reform but how fast and whether from within or without.

Similarly, Mr. Bush's vision of the transformation that democratic society can achieve by following the Third Way--bringing free market principles to the concept of the social safety net--is so compelling that the terms of the conversation have already been drastically altered. In stories like this the argument of the Democrats is not that the Ownership Society can't or shouldn't be done or that it won't work but that this is not the optimal moment for what they're forced concede is a good and powerful idea.

When the reactionaries are reduced to arguing only the pace of reform the revolutionaries have already won.

---

RIDICULE AS A POLITICAL WEAPON:

Delegates mock Kerry with 'purple heart' bandages: Democrats: GOP 'mocking our troops' (CNN, August 31, 2004)

Delegates to the Republican National Convention found a new way to take a jab at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service record: by sporting adhesive bandages with small purple hearts on them.

Morton Blackwell, a prominent Virginia delegate, has been handing out the heart-covered bandages to delegates, who've worn them on their chins, cheeks, the backs of their hands and other places.

If you were a Democrat mightn't you think it wise to just shut up about the mockability of your candidate?

---

TOO BAD HE FILED BEFORE THE CONVENTION STARTED:

A convention village of GOP fantasies (Thomas Oliphant, August 31, 2004, Boston Globe)

The problem at the outset here is that the Potemkin village clashes with the surprisingly real and engaging one in the streets. Anything that jars political conventions' calculations or clashes with the party line is to be celebrated, but the surprise through the weekend and first day was that "the other convention" overshadowed the real one.

Grigori Potemkin's acolytes plopped Dick Cheney down on Ellis Island, with the Twin Towers-missing Manhattan skyline perfectly framed for TV in the background. About 100 "people" and a marching band were transported to cheer as he declared that President Bush was strong and tough. Local icon Rudy Giuliani, completing his makeover from leader to cashing-in mascot, lent his presence.

Across the harbor, hundreds of thousands of people marched up Seventh Avenue to Madison Square Garden and stole the show. No speeches, no big shot Democrats in the wings or even in the march, just people. The country does not agree with the views of most of them about getting out of Iraq, but the real political impact was a combination of immense size and genuineness of commitment as a contrast to what is turning into a demeaning, ritualistic, borderline cynical embrace of 9/11.

New York City became the convention venue while the Bush White House was in the grip of its Mission Accomplished delusion, the result of what Bush now actually claims was a mess created by the "catastrophic success" of the Iraq invasion. The consensus here is that the real New York City -- with fewer police and firefighters than before the attacks, with gigantic fiscal and economic problems traceable to Bush administration policies, and an informed view of the wasteful diversion from fighting terror that Iraq has proved to be -- would not be the Republicans' choice today.

The problem is not that John Kerry is likely to carry it by as much as a 5-1 margin. The problem is that New York doesn't fit Bush's Potemkin Village view; in fact, it mocks it.

John Kerry might cringe, but during Sunday's march I walked part of the way with a delightful group of a hundred or so repentant Naderites, striding behind a banner that was a tad rough but at least honest: Kerry Sucks Less.

Mr. Oliphant's surprisingly real protestors are, of course, fresh off their victory in stopping the march to war for oil.

---

THE FRONT-RUNNER:

Watching Romney's suitcase: Governor spent most of August out of Bay State (Scott S. Greenberger and Elise Castelli, August 31, 2004, Boston Globe)

Governor Mitt Romney has had a busy August, but he hasn't spent much of it conducting state business: As of tonight, after his second evening at the Republican National Convention in New York City, Romney will have spent just seven of the month's 22 working days at the State House.

Romney began the month with a trip to Salt Lake City to promote his book, chronicling his revival of the 2002 Winter Games, and then he did similar events in New York and Washington. A week later, he jetted to Athens to receive an award for his Salt Lake City achievements. The governor spent the next eight weekdays in New Hampshire, vacationing with his family on Lake Winnipesaukee. And yesterday he campaigned with President Bush in Nashua, N.H., before heading back to New York for the convention.

The travels of a governor widely thought to have aspirations for higher office are grist for Democrats, who have accused Romney of being disengaged from his Massachusetts job and increasingly focused on a possible nationwide run. A party spokeswoman yesterday articulated the case.

''Whether you're a Democrat or Republican or independent, it's quite obvious to everyone that Romney's focus has shifted from performing the work of the people here in Massachusetts to serving his own special interest," said Democratic Party spokeswoman Jane Lane. ''Obviously, his focus right now is on raising his national profile and his political future, rather than the job at hand."

---

IT'S THE PARTY REAGAN CREATED NOT THE ONE HE INHERITED:

Freed Radicals: WOULD REAGAN RECOGNIZE THE GOP? (John B. Judis, 08.29.04, New Republic)

"The party of George W. Bush is very much the party of Ronald Reagan," declared Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican Party, in September 2003. It's a contention that one speaker after another will echo at the Republican National Convention. But they will be largely wrong. While there is continuity between the Reagan and Bush GOPs--as evidenced by Bush's tax cuts, for example--the outward similarities conceal a deeper truth: Bush's Republican Party is far more conservative than Reagan's ever was. [...]

Reagan's GOP brought together Sun Belt conservatives, such as Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who were hostile to labor unions and the New Deal but who also opposed government interference in citizens' lives; Deep South conservatives, such as Strom Thurmond, who had turned Republican when the Democrats backed racial desegregation; a large group of moderates or "Old Guard" Republicans, such as Kansas Senator Robert Dole, who supported the New Deal but worried about budget deficits and welfare and who, unlike the Deep South Republicans, still identified themselves as members of the party of Lincoln; and a few Northeastern liberals, such as Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz.

This diversity was reflected in Reagan's administration, but his White House was actually dominated by moderates. These included Vice President George H.W. Bush, who had criticized Reagan's "voodoo economics"; White House Chief of Staff James Baker, who had run Gerald Ford's and Bush's primary campaigns against Reagan; and others like Treasury Secretary Donald Regan and Secretary of State George Shultz. The most extreme Cabinet officials, such as Interior Secretary James Watt, a fundamentalist who wanted to hand over the wilderness to energy and timber interests, were forced to resign. Republicans in Congress were even more centrist. They were led by Dole, who advocated a tax increase in 1982 to keep the deficit under control; Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, who was reviled by conservatives for his support of the Panama Canal treaty; and Illinois Representative Robert Michel, whom The Washington Post described as an advocate of "consensus-oriented, non-ideological politics."

Today's Congress, by contrast, is dominated by hard-line conservatives. Texas Representative Tom DeLay, now the majority leader, has virtually run the House of Representatives since Newt Gingrich resigned six years ago. DeLay, Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blount all boast 90-plus percent ratings on the American Conservative Union and Christian Coalition scorecards, as do all seven of the GOP's elected Senate leaders, from Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell to Chief Deputy Majority Whip Bob Bennett and Policy Committee Chairman Jon Kyl.

Bush's administration reflects this conservative predominance. The most influential members are White House political adviser Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John Ashcroft. The administration's most notable moderate, Secretary of State Colin Powell, has been marginalized, and will be conspicuously absent from this year's convention (see Notebook, page 10). Its two other well-known moderates, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman, have resigned.

If you told Mr. Reagan his legacy would be a party where the White House insiders didn't conspire to get the president to raise taxes just because of a little deficit spending he'd be overjoyed.

---

WE WILL NOW HEAR MR. STALIN’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE IMPROPERLY SEIZED EVIDENCE ON THE KATYN FOREST

The Milosevic trial is doing its job (Bogdan Ivanisevic, International Herald Tribune, August 30th, 2004)

Expect some fireworks Tuesday when Slobodan Milosevic takes up his own defense at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Over the last few years, as the prosecution presented evidence that the former Serbian strongman orchestrated Europe's worst crimes of the late 20th century, he used every opportunity not only to challenge the facts but to tell the Serbian audience back home that they were all victims of an international conspiracy. Now this grandstanding will take center stage.

Critics contend the process is a failure that is harming the cause of justice for the Balkan wars, rather than helping it. But although the trial is complex and difficult, it is progressing normally by almost every criterion that makes a criminal trial fair and efficient.

And that is precisely the problem.

---

OH, SHUT UP!

Bright outlook for drizzle (Roger Highfield, The Telegraph, August 31st, 2004)

Drizzle, long associated with dull days and the lowering of human spirits, is something to be celebrated, an American scientist says.

Dr Robert McGraw has developed a theory that it falls most readily when the atmosphere is unpolluted.

Research by his team at the United States department of energy's Brookhaven laboratory could lead to more accurate weather forecasts.

Hell is a drizzly place populated by millions of scientists all boasting non-stop about the results of their research and the benefits they promise to bring.

---

WHERE CAN SENATOR KERRY GET A COUPLE OF THOSE?:

Giuliani Plays Role of Backer With Relish (MICHAEL SLACKMAN, 8/31/04, NY Times)

Rudolph W. Giuliani's spirited address last night at Madison Square Garden followed weeks of marathon campaigning for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. From personal appearances on the campaign trail to television spots and radio and newspaper interviews, Mr. Giuliani seemed to be everywhere aiding the re-election effort, a role that is tailor-made for the former mayor.

The speech was a high point for Mr. Giuliani as he repeatedly brought the crowd to its feet, trying to take the moral high ground, invoking the memories of Sept. 11, while also throwing the crowd political red meat, attacking the Democratic nominee John Kerry.

"Maybe this explains John Edwards's need for two Americas - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing," Mr. Giuliani said at one point, drawing a huge roar from the crowd.

It was the return of the combative, in-your-face mayor whom New Yorkers had come to know well, and whom the nation may be hearing more from.

The last few weeks have been the highest public profile Mr. Giuliani has had since he left City Hall. His role as cheerleader-in-chief has fueled speculation that Mr. Giuliani hopes to emerge as the party's strongest presidential hopeful in 2008. Polls show that Mr. Giuliani has tremendous support among the party faithful and among voters nationwide, though he says it is too soon to begin thinking about 2008.

"I may run for office again, but I will wait until after this election to see what makes sense, what works, what do I want," Mr. Giuliani said in an interview before the speech.

The recognition of Mr. Giuliani and Mr. McCain that their path to the White House requires their being seen to help re-elect George W. Bush provides the President with a couple poiwerful weapons.

---

RANDOM CONVENTION THOUGHTS--PLEASE ADD YOURS:

* It took this first night of the GOP convention to drive home how oddly silent the Democrats were about 9-11--the singular moment in our recent history.

* The 9-11 effect is aided greatly by the NYC locale, obviously, for which the GOP has Terry MacAuliffe to thank.

* Speaking of whom, his complaints over the delegates who are wearing band-aids with purple hearts on them only calls attention to a funny shot at Senator Kerry that would have been ignored otherwise.

* As Senator McCain was speaking you couldn't help thinking how inadequate he--or Al Gore--would have been to the task of summoning the nation after 9-11. Of our recent presidents--and near misses--only Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been up to such an oratorical occasion. To his credit though, Mr. McCain's closing paragraphs were stirring.

* These were the GOP's moderates.

---

LET 'ER RIP:

Procession of Speakers Invoke Bush's Leadership After 9/11 (ADAM NAGOURNEY, 8/31/04, NY Times)

The Republican Party opened its convention yesterday with a searing evocation of the Sept. 11 attacks that leveled the World Trade Center three years ago, as former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York asserted that Senator John Kerry did not have the fortitude to lead the nation through a war on terror.

A procession of speakers - including a former New York City police commissioner, the current mayor of New York and a former terrorism prosecutor - invoked Mr. Bush's leadership after Sept. 11, 2001, using the city where the attacks took their greatest toll as a platform to recount the event that the president's aides view as the linchpin to his re-election. [...]

"The contrasts are dramatic," Mr. Giuliani continued. "They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combating terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York. John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combating terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course."

Mr. Giuliani spoke at the end of a day in which the party adopted without dissent a platform that sets up a sharp contrast with the Democrats, particularly in its strong worded opposition to same-sex unions and legalized abortion.

The remarks by Mr. Giuliani on the opening night of the Republican convention in New York left no doubt that this gathering would strike a notably different tenor than did the Democratic gathering in Boston, where Mr. Kerry instructed fellow Democrats to refrain from excessive attacks on Mr. Bush.

By contrast, Republicans have increasingly argued that the best hope for Mr. Bush's re-election was to use these four days in New York to tear down Mr. Kerry, given that voters know so much and have set opinions about their president.

Mr. Giuliani's speech was especially good and blessedly overlong and understructured. One devastating bit was the way he turned the entirety of John Edwards political being--his inane two Americas metaphor--into an anti-Kerry joke. It's quite amusing that after a Democratic convention where the speakers were terrified of seeming critical of the President the GOP is quite joyfully ripping into Senator Kerry.

MORE:
Here;'s the quote, which continues the bold strategy of reducing the Democratic ticket to objects of ridicule:

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas — one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.

---

BUFFOON IN THE BALCONY:

Michael Moore draws boos at Republican convention (AP, August 30, 2004)

Already a box office sensation, filmmaker Michael Moore got another loud reception Monday at the Republican convention. This time, it was boos.

When Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told the delegates about "a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace," they knew he was referring to the maker of "Fahrenheit 9-11." The film, which savages Bush's Iraq policy, has set a box office record for documentaries, grossing $115 million so far.

McCain's comments prompted prolonged booing and chants of "Four more years." Many of the delegates faced Moore, who was seated in the press seats at Madison Square Garden because he is writing a column this week for USA Today.

Republicans looked like they were having an awful lot more fun than the Democrats did in Boston. However, any accusation that they were exploiting 9-11 would have to be blunted by the crowd shots which showed them all weeping.

---

LOOSEN THE TINFOIL, FELLAS:

The Pressure-Cooker Theory (Charles Krauthammer, August 27, 2004, Washington Post)

Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, "How can I lose to this idiot?"

Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same -- with similar body language -- ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.

Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic. The Democrats' current disdain for George Bush reminds me of another chess master, Efim Bogoljubov, who once said, "When I am White, I win because I am White" -- White moves first and therefore has a distinct advantage -- "when I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov." John Kerry is a man of similar vanity -- intellectual and moral -- and that spirit thoroughly permeates the Democratic Party.

Democrats feel a mixture of horror and contempt for the huddled masses -- so bovine, so benighted, so besotted with talk radio -- who made a king of an empty-headed movie star (Reagan, long before Arnold) and inexplicably want the Republicans' current nitwit leader to have a second term.

The Democrats have become Bobby Fischer.

---

GOING AFTER CACCIATO:

Kerry Loses Edge On Issues Of Security (Richard Morin and Christopher Muste, August 31, 2004, Washington Post)

The new poll found that a slight majority of registered voters -- 53 percent -- say Bush is more qualified than Kerry to be commander in chief, while 43 percent say they prefer the Democratic nominee. At the end of the Democratic convention, Kerry enjoyed an eight-point advantage over Bush on that question. Taken together, the results of the poll suggest that Bush's recent gains have come from eroding perceptions of Kerry and not as a consequence of improved views of Bush's performance as president. [...]

A total of 1,207 randomly selected adults was interviewed Aug. 26-29, including 945 registered voters and 775 likely voters. The margin of sampling error for the subsample of likely voters is plus or minus three percentage points; it is slightly smaller for all voters.

Bush's job approval rating stands at 50 percent, where it has largely been for the past six months. Fewer than half of all voters -- 45 percent -- approve of the job Bush is doing on the economy, unchanged from recent Post-ABC News polls. Fewer than half also approve of the way he is dealing with the situation in Iraq, also unchanged.

---

BRING OUT YOUR DEAD:

U.S. Rep. Schrock drops re-election bid over ''allegations'' (The Virginian-Pilot, August 30, 2004)

U.S. Rep. Ed Schrock abruptly withdrew from his re-election race this afternoon, citing unspecified allegations.

Over the past two weeks, a Washington-based Web site has spread claims that Schrock was gay, despite having voted against gay-rights issues such as marriage.

"In recent weeks, allegations have surfaced that have called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia's Second Congressional Distict," Shrock said in a press release.

Schrock, who would have been seeking his third term, did not elaborate on the nature of the allegations.

"After much thought and prayer, I have come to the realization that these allegations will not allow my campaign to focus on the real issues facing our nation and region," the statement said. "Therefore, as of today, I am stepping aside and will no longer be the Republican nominee for Congress in Virginia's Second Congressional District. [...]

The allegations emerged two weeks ago, on Aug. 19, when a Web site called blogACTIVE.com posted claims that Schrock was gay, and accused Schrock of being a hypocrite for opposing gay rights issues.

The Web site – a one-man operation out of Washington that focuses on gay issues – has a history of “outing” gay members of Congress.

The site did not offer any proof of its allegation that Schrock was gay.

---

ALLWAI 1, FRANCE 0:

France rejects Iraqi PM's declaration as "unacceptable" (Xinhuanet, 2004-08-31)

Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's declaration, which came after the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq and accused France's position towards terrorism, was "unacceptable," the French Foreign Ministry said Monday.

"This declaration seems in fact to have cast doubt on France's determination in the fight against terrorism ... France is leading untiringly a resolute action against this scourge and it is always bringing its support and contribution to all the initiatives of the international community in this field," said Cecile Pozzo di Borgo, spokeswoman of the French Foreign Ministry. [...]

Allawi declared earlier Monday that the kidnapping of two French journalists showed that there was "no possible neutrality" in Iraq and that those who do not fight at the government level can not escape terrorism.

"None of the civilized countries can escape," he said, noting "there is no possible neutrality, as shows the kidnapping of the French journalists." "The French deluded themselves if they would hope to stay outside," he added.

Exquisite.

---

SUBTLE AS A TRAIN WRECK:

Democratic strategists say Bush has made 'unmistakable' gains in August (Will Lester, August 30, 2004, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

President Bush has gained ground on Democrat John Kerry in the month of August because of "relatively small but unmistakable" shifts in the political environment, Democratic strategists said in a memo released Monday.

The polling memo by Democracy Corps, a group led by pollster Stan Greenberg and strategist James Carville, said the subtle gains by Bush have knotted the race again after Kerry had a slight advantage after the Democratic National Convention in late July.

The task before Mr. Bush at his convention is pretty modest--he needs to bump his approval ratings up about 3% to the 55% range, which positions him for a landslide victory (over 10%).

---

JUST PLAYING HARD TO GET:

Undecided Voters Speak Out (Zogby.com)

On the eve of the Republican National Convention, President George W. Bush is favored by twenty-five points over Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (35%-10%) among undecided likely voters when Libertarian, Constitution and Green Party presidential candidates are factored into the 2004 presidential race, according to a new Zogby/Williams Identity poll.

Their undecided status would seem to be nothing more than an affectation.

---

THE NATURAL 60% MAJORITY:

Poll: Ohioans Support Amendment (10TV, 8/30/04)

Sixty-two percent of Ohioans responding to a poll by The Columbus Dispatch support a proposed state constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Supporters say the proposed amendment reinforces the state's Defense of Marriage Act that took effect earlier this year. The act denies some state benefits to unmarried employees' partners.

Twenty-six percent of respondents were opposed to the proposed amendment, according to the poll published Monday.

Voters in Missouri passed a similar gay marriage ban earlier this month with 71 percent in favor, and several other states will consider the issue in the general election. [...]

The Dispatch Poll used the same language approved earlier this month by the Ohio Ballot Board. The mail survey of 3,176 randomly selected Ohio voters was conducted Aug. 18 through Aug. 27. It has a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points.

Support for the gay marriage amendment is divided among backers of President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.

Among Bush supporters, the proposal is ahead 84 percent to 9 percent. The measure is opposed 43 to 40 by those behind Kerry.

The proposal was supported by voters in all regions of Ohio - especially in the southeast - and from all demographic groups except Jewish respondents and those who said they have no religion.

The fact that every wedge issue works in Republicans favor by such a wide margin is why Karl Rove thinks you can win just by carrying the conservative base.

---

NO FDR:

Shades of '44: It's time for the president to rally his "natural majority." (FRED BARNES, August 30, 2004, Wall Street Journal)

The Republican convention that opens in New York today will be unusual. Its chief purpose is the re-election of President Bush--nothing out of the ordinary about that. But it won't remind anyone of the 1972 or 1984 Republican conventions that propelled President Nixon and President Reagan, respectively, to second terms. The Nixon convention was devoted largely to demonizing his Democratic opponent, George McGovern. The message at Reagan's convention was stay the course and good as things are, they'll get even better if Reagan is re-elected.

Amazingly enough, the 2004 convention aims to achieve what the 1944 Democratic convention did. At the time, President Franklin Roosevelt was a commander in chief whose popularity had been worn down by nine years of economic downturn and three of world war. He was politically vulnerable. But he rallied the natural Democratic majority in the country with a convention speech vigorously defending his war record and presenting an attractive vision of a new term. He won going away, 54% to 46%.

George Bush would like to do the same. His political adviser, Karl Rove, an admirer of FDR's 1944 speech, believes there's a natural Republican majority waiting to be gathered together. An appealing convention with a strong message climaxed by an engaging speech by Mr. Bush could set the stage for his re-election this fall--and more. The creation of a stable Republican majority is a potential side-effect.

Mr. Roosevelt's decision to run for re-election despite his ill health, and with no consideration given to the quality of his successor, was the most irresponsible action of any president in U.S. history--some other comparison would be preferable.

---

OUR NEXT EFFORT ON BEHALF OF THE SHI'A:

U.S. mulls U.N. action on Lebanon (KRISHNADEV CALAMUR, Aug. 30, 2004, UPI)

The United States and France are discussing a U.N. resolution that would support Lebanon's sovereignty, following a Syrian-backed Lebanese Cabinet decision to endorse a draft bill that would allow President Emile Lahoud to stay in power for three years after his six-year term ends in November.

"We are discussing with the French a possible resolution at the Security Council that would stand up for Lebanon's right to decide its own fate," a senior State Department officials told reporters on condition he not be identified.

The Lebanese Parliament is expected next month to debate a draft constitutional amendment that would give Lahoud a three-year extension to his six-year term. The draft bill was endorsed by the Cabinet Saturday, after being pressured by Syria.

Although most Lebanese -- across a wide variety of political groups oppose an amendment -- Syria, the main power broker in Lebanon, supports the move. There are some 16,000 Syrian troops in the country and most political decisions need Damascus' assent.

The presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon is a bone of contention between Washington and Damascus.

"It is our view, and I think the view of many in Lebanon, that it's about time, 15 years after the Taif Accords, to live up to the spirit of those accords and have all foreign forces removed from Lebanon," U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Monday.

So given French support, the Democrats must approve of defending Lebanon's sovereignty from Syrian interference, right?

---

NEVER AGAIN:

Police Confirm Pipe Bomb Blast at Stem-Cell Lab (Reuters, 8/27/04)

An explosion that blew out a number of windows at a Boston-area laboratory specializing in stem-cell research was caused by a pipe bomb, local police said on Friday.

No one was wounded in Thursday's early morning blast at Watertown, Massachusetts-based Amaranth Bio, which says on its Web site its technology is focused on organ regeneration and that it is working on cures for diabetes and liver disorders.

---

IS THERE ANYWHERE REGIME CHANGE ISN'T WORKING?:

Palestinians take back the night in Ramallah: With new upscale restaurants, bars, and theater, the West Bank city is undergoing a cultural revival. (Joshua Mitnick, 8/31/04, CS Monitor)

Just a few minutes drive from Yasser Arafat's half-destroyed headquarters, Usama Khalaf's version of upscale Ramallah dining is taking off.

His restaurant called Darna occupies a grand renovated stone villa with high-ceilinged archways and a second-floor patio that draws scores of young Palestinians. It serves large dishes of innovative Middle Eastern fare, but, more importantly, offers fragments of normalcy, which has become so elusive during the past four years.

The $800,000 spent by the restaurateur to open Darna - where waiters sport snappy bow ties and tuxedo vests - represents more than a shrewd bid to attract the city's bourgeois; it signals a revival of the cultural scene that made Ramallah a cosmopolitan capital for Palestinians.

In recent months new eateries have opened and the city's offerings have expanded despite Israel checkpoints and military raids. For Khalaf, opening Darna was simultaneously the fulfillment of a life's dream and an act of political defiance.

"I had an obligation to my hometown," Khalaf says. "When they saw someone investing despite the closures and incursions, it gave people the willingness to stay."

---

GERMAN SENTIMENTALITY?:

Schroeder’s ‘stunts’ wear thin (Melanie Haape, 8/29/04, Sunday Herald)

[I]n the heat of ongoing street protests against upcoming Hartz IV changes to Germany’s unemployment and social security laws , Schroeder is appealing to German sentimentality to halt his plummeting popularity.

Faced with mass demonstrations against cuts to social security benefits and his lowest popularity rating in his six-year term, he has recently opted to adopt a three-year-old Russian orphan girl, Victoria.

The latest Forsa Institute survey shows that fewer than one in three Germans would vote for the Social Democratic party right now, and the reformed communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) is gaining ground because of widespread rejection, especially in the former East Germany, of his reform policies.

Gosh, the Euros loved it when his stunt was anti-Americanism.

---

IT'S A PAKISTANI PROBLEM NOW:

Hunt for militants steps up as Pakistan takes on al-Qaeda: Arrest of 10 and search for four others linked to suicide-bomb plot highlights scale of anti-terror fight. (Paul Anderson, 8/29/04, Sunday Herald)

Pakistan’s crackdown started in mid-July with the arrest of computer expert Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan. This led to the arrest of a Tanzanian al-Qaeda figure, ranked number eight in the network, accused of masterminding the bombings of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1988.

Hayat explained: “Two years ago, al-Qaeda and its affiliates sought refuge in the urban centres of Pakistan. We carried out major operations against some of the topmost figures of al-Qaeda: Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. When the terrorists found the urban centres were no longer safe, they relocated to the western borders close to Afghanistan.

“As a result of the operations carried out by the military there in the past eight months, they were again flushed out and some again sought refuge back in the cities. And they know now that they have no options left available to them. They are on the run and we will catch them.”

Musharraf has claimed that as a result of the latest security push, 90% of all militants have been caught. However, anti-terrorism experts estimate there are at least two dozen new outfits on Pakistan’s militant scene which didn’t exist two years ago, when there were a spate of attacks against Americans, French, Christian and minority Shia targets. Dozens of people were killed by known Sunni extremist organisations. Several Sunnis were also targeted by Shia extremists. Since then, sources in the police say, the scene has changed completely, testifying to the talent which militants have for adapting under pressure.

“Jundallah, for example, didn’t exist 18 months ago. It came on the scene only after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested 18 months ago,” added Hayat.

Jundallah, or Army of God, carried out several attacks against police and paramilitary rangers in Karachi this year. In June, it attempted to assassinate the commander of the army’s Karachi corps. Most of Jundallah’s members, including its founder, Attaur Rehman, have since been rounded up.

Pakistani security forces are worried that Jundallah attracts support for jihad, or holy war, from middle-class and well-educated professionals opposed to the US and its allies, rather than the rural poor. Attaur Rehman himself is a former maths student from an affluent district of Karachi. Several of his followers were senior medical professionals and members of the Pakistan Islamic Medical Association.

“They haven’t the capacity to attack the United States abroad,” said Hayat. “So they go for the next best option: Pakistan’s leaders.”

The War on Terror would seem to be working out just about ideally.

---

THE POST SIDES WITH THE REACTIONARIES:

The Republican Convention (Washington Post, August 30, 2004)

In looking back to four years ago, we are struck by the ways in which the Bush presidency has been different from the way it was originally sold to the country. Mr. Bush promoted himself to voters in the 2000 campaign as a bipartisan uniter, not a divider, but in office he has too often embraced a my-way-or-the-highway style of governing that has served to polarize voters.

Didn't the Democrats give away the game on this one in Ron Brownstein's piece?:

Even some Democrats agree that in the 2000 campaign's final stages, Bush scored points against Gore by hammering at that same argument, declaring, "He trusts the government, I trust the people."

Democrats acknowledge that the themes of choice, ownership and individual control that Bush is expected to stress could have long-term appeal in a society where more Americans own homes and businesses and participate in the stock market. But Democrats also believe the president will have difficulty selling his agenda when so many Americans are feeling insecure about their jobs, the costs of healthcare and the security of their pensions following drops in stock prices and corporate scandals.

"There may be a moment for [Bush's] argument, but not after three years of decline," said Democratic strategist Stanley B. Greenberg, Gore's pollster in 2000.

If they agree that the Third Way is the way to go but have worked to stop it then who is being divisive?

---

IF JUDGE BORK ISN'T LEARNED HAND JUDGE POSNER IS (via Robert Schwartz):

The 9/11 Report: A Dissent: a review of THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (RICHARD A. POSNER, 8/29/04, NY Times Book Review)

Combining an investigation of the attacks with proposals for preventing future attacks is the same mistake as combining intelligence with policy. The way a problem is described is bound to influence the choice of how to solve it. The commission's contention that our intelligence structure is unsound predisposed it to blame the structure for the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, whether it did or not. And pressure for unanimity encourages just the kind of herd thinking now being blamed for that other recent intelligence failure -- the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

At least the commission was consistent. It believes in centralizing intelligence, and people who prefer centralized, pyramidal governance structures to diversity and competition deprecate dissent. But insistence on unanimity, like central planning, deprives decision makers of a full range of alternatives. For all one knows, the price of unanimity was adopting recommendations that were the second choice of many of the commission's members or were consequences of horse trading. The premium placed on unanimity undermines the commission's conclusion that everybody in sight was to blame for the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Given its political composition (and it is evident from the questioning of witnesses by the members that they had not forgotten which political party they belong to), the commission could not have achieved unanimity without apportioning equal blame to the Clinton and Bush administrations, whatever the members actually believe.

The tale of how we were surprised by the 9/11 attacks is a product of hindsight; it could not be otherwise. And with the aid of hindsight it is easy to identify missed opportunities (though fewer than had been suspected) to have prevented the attacks, and tempting to leap from that observation to the conclusion that the failure to prevent them was the result not of bad luck, the enemy's skill and ingenuity or the difficulty of defending against suicide attacks or protecting an almost infinite array of potential targets, but of systemic failures in the nation's intelligence and security apparatus that can be corrected by changing the apparatus.

That is the leap the commission makes, and it is not sustained by the report's narrative. The narrative points to something different, banal and deeply disturbing: that it is almost impossible to take effective action to prevent something that hasn't occurred previously. Once the 9/11 attacks did occur, measures were taken that have reduced the likelihood of a recurrence. But before the attacks, it was psychologically and politically impossible to take those measures. The government knew that Al Qaeda had attacked United States facilities and would do so again. But the idea that it would do so by infiltrating operatives into this country to learn to fly commercial aircraft and then crash such aircraft into buildings was so grotesque that anyone who had proposed that we take costly measures to prevent such an event would have been considered a candidate for commitment. No terrorist had hijacked an American commercial aircraft anywhere in the world since 1986. Just months before the 9/11 attacks the director of the Defense Department's Defense Threat Reduction Agency wrote: ''We have, in fact, solved a terrorist problem in the last 25 years. We have solved it so successfully that we have forgotten about it; and that is a treat. The problem was aircraft hijacking and bombing. We solved the problem. . . . The system is not perfect, but it is good enough. . . . We have pretty much nailed this thing.'' In such a climate of thought, efforts to beef up airline security not only would have seemed gratuitous but would have been greatly resented because of the cost and the increased airport congestion.

The problem isn't just that people find it extraordinarily difficult to take novel risks seriously; it is also that there is no way the government can survey the entire range of possible disasters and act to prevent each and every one of them. As the commission observes, ''Historically, decisive security action took place only after a disaster had occurred or a specific plot had been discovered.'' It has always been thus, and probably always will be.

It's too bad he's unconfirmable because Judge Posner possesses one of the great legal minds of our time.

---

IF IRAN TAKES THE DEAL DOES SENATOR EDWARDS GET 33%?:

Edwards Says Kerry Plans to Confront Iran on Weapons (Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright, August 30, 2004, Washington Post)

A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in an interview yesterday.

Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a "great bargain," it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative. He said that, if elected, Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal. "If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Edwards said.

It's not clear why Iran can't keep its nuclear power plants now if it doesn't pursue weapons, but the follow-up question for Kerry/Edwards is pretty straightforward and dispositive of the Iraq war argument: If the Iranians refuse the offer and France and Germany say that's fine by them, would President Kerry accept this European diktat or act unilaterally to prevent Iran from developing a potential nuclear capability?

---

HIS STRONGEST TIME:

Kerry lead fades in two battleground states: Bush numbers are promising among likely voters in Pa., Wis. (Susan Page, 8/30/04, USA TODAY)

President Bush has eroded John Kerry's lead in two big battleground states that voted Democratic four years ago, complicating the Massachusetts senator's electoral landscape.

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls show Bush narrowly ahead in Wisconsin and the candidates even in Pennsylvania, a state that is crucial to Democratic hopes of winning in November.

As the Republican convention opens today, the president's prospects seem to be brightening in some states that could determine the outcome Nov. 2.

“This is historically a challenger's strongest time,” before the incumbent's convention, says Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager. “For John Kerry to have not gained ground and perhaps even be losing ground has to be very troubling to their campaign.”

Just because his candidacy is imploding doesn't mean this isn't John Kerry at his strongest.

---

WHO CHOSE THE BATTLEFIELD? (via Monty):

Sentient Non-Idiots For Kerry: Repubs pick a fight about Vietnam while Bush ruins America right now? Is the nation drunk? (Mark Morford, August 27, 2004, SF Chronicle)

And isn't it funny how at least 13 members of Congress have actually requested that the United Nations monitor this year's U.S. presidential election, just because, just in case, just to ensure there's no voter rolling and election rigging and chad hanging and outright shameless Florida reaming like last time?

And isn't it even more funny how, when firebrand U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, from Florida, brought the issue up on the floor of Congress, she was actually shouted down by the Republicans, scolded that she was out of order and told her comments should be stricken from the record?

And they all screamed and stomped and huffed and puffed and said no way should there be any oversight of this year's election, even though there is indeed a gross pile of mounting evidence that there's nothing stopping BushCo from simply stealing the election all over again. Isn't that funny?

It's enough to make you laugh 'til you gag. And choke. And move to Canada.

They always make the threat but they never move, except to dodge the draft.

Let us agree for the moment though--for the sake of argument and obviously not on the basis of any evidence extant--that Mr. Kerry is not completely incompetent when it comes to politics: don't you think that if the state of affairs in America "right now" favored him he'd be talking about it instead of about leading us all up the river like he led his swift boat?

---

IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABORTION, AS WHO'S BEING ABORTED

Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says (CNSNews.com, 8/30/04)

A Reuters news service editor sent an e-mail to a pro-life group last week, criticizing the group's stance on abortion as well as its support of the Bush administration. The angry email has prompted the pro-life group to question the editor's journalistic integrity. . . .

Eastham's email read as follows: "What's your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?"

That a Reuter's editor is pro-choice would not be surprising. That he is so adamantly pro-abortion -- as a law enforcement issue, no less -- is as surprising as it is distasteful.

---

STOP DIGGING:

It Takes Real Courage... (Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com)

Dear Mr. Bush,

I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.

Differences? Mr. Moore has been so helpful to the Bush campaign one suspects he's really a rovebot.

---

DEMOCRACY OUTBREAK:

Muqtada al-Sadr orders nationwide ceasefire (Aljazeera, August 30, 2004)

Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a nationwide ceasefire and announced his armed movement will enter the political arena, one of his aides said in Baghdad.

"The commander of the Sadr movement, leader Muqtada al-Sadr, announced today in Najaf the end of all fighting [throughout] Iraq and the integration of his movement in the political process," Shaikh Naim al-Qaabi said on Monday.

Al-Sadr has in recent weeks spearheaded the largest resistance to US occupation and Iraqi government forces since the fall of Saddam Hussein last year.

"This decision shows that the al-Sadr movement wants peace and participation in the country's political process, and within the next two days the al-Sadr movement will explain its political vision on this participation," the official told reporters.

And so they become the Sinn Fein of Mesopotamia.

---

SUCKER PLAY:

Oil Slips Below $43 a Barrel (Reuters, 8/30/04)

U.S. oil prices fell below $43 on Monday on continued profit-taking as producer-group OPEC eyed increases in the coming months in its tight spare capacity, countering worries over stumbling Iraqi oil exports.

U.S. light crude fell 58 cents to $42.60 a barrel, nearly $7 below a record hit earlier this month as hedge funds unwound their speculative long positions.

What exactly do these hedge funds hedge against since they seem to get markets wrong so often?

---

THUS PASSES THE FILIBUSTER (via John Resnick):

DEM DASCHLE SEEKS BUSH BOOST; AD FEATURES 'HUG' (Drudge Report, 8/30/04)

How bad has it gotten for Democrats at summer's end: A paid TV advertisement from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, President Bush's top congressional foe, features the South Dakotan hugging and embracing President Bush!

While Democrat party officials of all stripes decend on New York City to blast the president, Daschle has quietly purchased air time in his home state for the minute-long campaign commerical -- a commerical insiders have dubbed: "Bush Hug."

Daschle faces a tough campaign against South Dakota Republican challanger John Thune.

"This is delightful!" laughed one republican official in New York on Monday morning. "Senator Daschle now concedes supporting the president can score him votes in the fall!"

So when the President flies in and says he needs John Thune in the Senate, what's left for Mr. Daschle to say in response?

---

NO ONE NOTICES A RESTRUCTURED BASEMENT IF YOUR LAWN IS A BIT MESSY:

For Federal Workers, Bush a 'Mixed Blessing' (Stephen Barr, August 29, 2004, Washington Post)

As Republicans gather in New York to nominate Bush for a second term, his appointees are engaged in one of the largest governmental restructuring efforts seen in the past 20 years. Planning is underway to overhaul pay and personnel rules in two large departments -- Defense and Homeland Security -- and it appears likely that the CIA, FBI and other parts of the intelligence community also will undergo substantial reorganizations.

Administration officials hope to launch the Defense and Homeland Security workforce changes next year and put the government on a path to more rigorous, performance-based pay systems.

Gaining the power to restructure the civil service without being bound by antiquated regulations was the main reason the Administration accepted the Homeland Security bill and they'll surely get the same powers under the new Intelligence reform. It's these sub rosa actions that are the President's least noticed conservative legacy.

---

STRONG GROWTH WITH NO INFLATION = 50:

Consumer Spending Rebounds Sharply (Reuters, August 30, 2004)

U.S. consumer spending rebounded sharply July, government data showed on Monday, erasing the disappointment of June and bolstering hopes that the U.S. economy has recovered from its recent soft spot.

Personal spending rose 0.8 percent, more than making up for a revised 0.2 percent fall in June, the Commerce Department said. The improvement in consumption was actually even larger since June's spending had been initially reported as a 0.7 percent decline.

But personal income advanced at a more modest pace than expected, posting a 0.1 percent rise compared with a 0.2 percent gain the previous month. July's advance was the weakest reading since November 2002. [...]

In striking evidence that U.S. inflation is well under control, both the price index for consumer purchases and core prices, one of the Federal Reserve's favorite measures of inflation, were unchanged last month.

---

TO THE VICTOR:

Northeast Loses in Reshuffling of Housing Aid (DAVID W. CHEN, 8/30/04, NY Times)

The Bush administration is replacing the nation's three-decade-old financing system for public housing with a new formula that will redistribute billions of dollars, chiefly from New York and other big, urban areas in the Northeast and Midwest to small, rural places in the South.

The plans represent one of the most far-reaching changes in housing policy in decades, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development is still working out many of the details. But already, housing authorities in the Northeast, including New York City, Baltimore and upstate New York, are talking about the need to lay off security guards, close day care programs or charge tenants for snow removal, air-conditioning and other services. Agencies in the South and the West, meanwhile, say they may finally be able to pay for their public housing maintenance needs.

Set to take effect in 2006, the new formula stems from the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 that was sponsored by former Representative Rick A. Lazio, Republican of Long Island, and signed by President Clinton. It mandated a new way of calculating the federal government's $3.6 billion annual budget for day-to-day housing operations, such as labor, maintenance, insurance and utilities.

The existing formula, which dates to 1975, essentially allows established agencies to receive lump-sum payments to run public housing projects with minimal documentation. The new formula for calculating federal subsidies is based on the actual expenses incurred by a housing agency, and it is twinned with a new carrot-and-stick philosophy requiring all agencies to meet new performance standards.

Smaller housing authorities, especially in the South, have long complained that the old formula favors older housing authorities by paying them more than their actual expenses, while ignoring the growing costs of new agencies. A study by Harvard University last summer echoed those concerns, and recommended that the subsidy be reformulated to reflect housing costs better.

In theory, at least, many agencies and housing groups welcome the overhaul as a fairer formula. But the reality of slicing up the subsidy pie has provoked visceral reactions among winning and losing housing authorities similar to those in voter redistricting: it all depends on whether they get more or less than they did before.

About four-fifths of the nation's 3,100 or so public housing agencies are expected to gain money over the next two years, according to preliminary HUD data analyzed by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. Dallas is scheduled to receive an extra $7.6 million, or a 70 percent increase. Hundreds of small agencies in the South, led by Texas and Florida, are poised to gain at least 50 percent.

The shift from Blue areas to Red is conspicuous, no?

---

REMEMBER THE AUDIENCE?:

Reaching out or caving in?: New shows spur charges that PBS is trying to appease conservative critics in Congress (Mark Jurkowitz, August 30, 2004, Boston Globe)

Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot are more than just new PBS hosts. They are central figures in an ideological war. "I've been accused of being an instrument in some conspiracy," says Carlson, one of CNN's "Crossfire" conservatives, who anchors a new public-affairs show on PBS.

"I don't want to be anybody's tool for balancing something," adds Gigot, the editor of The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative editorial page, whose PBS show debuts next month.

Public television -- home of Big Bird, "Frontline," and Jim Lehrer -- has traditionally been a lightning rod for conservative complaints about liberal bias. But these days it is the left that is unhappy with the programming mix and fretting about a right-wing conspiracy.

The evidence, they say, is in a series of ominous lineup changes. In are conservatives such as Tucker and Gigot and possibly cultural commentator Michael Medved. Out is liberal icon Bill Moyers, who is retiring from "Now With Bill Moyers" after the election, although the program will continue in a shorter format.

"I definitely think that PBS is trying to appease conservative critics in Congress," says Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, who calls PBS president Pat Mitchell "the captain of the noncommercial Titanic. Instead of throwing people overboard, she's grabbing conservatives on board." [...]

Michael Pack, a former independent filmmaker who is now the CPB's senior vice president for television programming, is considered a conservative in public TV circles. Asked how he feels about being in the middle of an ideological storm over PBS, Pack says, "If you're going to make public-affairs shows, that's what happens. I think we as a system have shied away from controversy."

Pack makes no bones about what he sees as the need to shake up the menu. "One thing I feel strongly is public television needs to bring in new people, new life," he says.

What they're caving in to is popular taste, which has grown more conservative. There's a funny bit in the film The Mighty Wind where the PBS programmer talks about how bringing in any viewers who aren't baby boomers--the folks who've turned the network into an unending cycle of self-help shows and reunion concerts--whould be fantastic.

---

ENJOY IT WHILE IT LASTS--TYPICALLY 70 YEARS:

Strategist focuses on president's devotees (Anne E. Kornblut, August 30, 2004, Boston Globe)

Despite an expected showcasing of the ''softer side" of the Republican Party at the convention in New York this week -- an attempt to win undecided and moderate voters to the GOP cause -- the heart of the strategy is to drive up the turnout of hard-core believers.

Bush spends a striking amount of time in Republican-leaning areas of swing states, seeking to ratchet up enthusiasm. His campaign has run advertising on cable networks tailored to such Republican-friendly viewers as golfers and fishermen. To Rove, an obsessive number cruncher, it all boils down to a simple empirical fact: There are more potential Republicans out there in battleground states than undecided moderates. Get the Republicans to show up on Election Day and the race is won.

But the approach breaks from conventional wisdom, and it is, by all accounts, a gamble -- one that could cement Rove's reputation as a political legend and shift the paradigm of future elections if it succeeds, as it apparently did in the congressional midterm elections in 2002, or offer an embarrassing indictment of Rove's master plan if it fails. [...]

Ralph Reed, a conservative strategist and a Bush campaign adviser, would not characterize Rove's approach as divisive, but did agree that the Bush campaign has shed the conventional wisdom that reveres moderate swing voters.

''I think not only Karl would say, but a lot of people would say, that the number of true independent and swing voters is actually very small," Reed said. ''Over time, as we get more precise in the polling and in identifying them, there is a consensus emerging that the swing vote is not what it was 20 years ago -- and may not have been as large as we once thought it was."

Rove and other Bush campaign advisers vehemently deny that the divided electorate is their doing.

''American politics over the last decade has become increasingly polarized by party," Rove said in an interview with the Globe. ''You don't want to read too much into that, but you don't want to read too little into the fact that the pool of true independents has been shrinking. And even more than that, if you step back, the two parties are now at parity, which is not the way it has been through most of our adulthood."

In other words, Rove said, there are now as many Republicans as Democrats, liberating the GOP from the need to pick off sizable chunks from the opposition.

Asked whether it is now mathematically possible to win a presidential race without any swing voters, Rove did not skip a beat. ''Yes," he replied.

''But I think that's a very risky strategy," he quickly added. ''You have to be persuading people who are for you, as well as driving up turnout."

Rove describes his focus as ferreting out ''suspected Republicans" -- people who live in predominantly Republican areas and are predisposed to vote for the president, but are either unregistered or unmotivated to go to the polls. These, Rove argues, are the voters who are most capable of tipping the balance in a narrowly divided race, comprising an arguably more potent bloc than the meager few who have not yet made up their minds.

To that end, Bush often visits Republican-leaning pockets of battleground states, traveling to places he won by comfortable margins -- such as the western panhandle of Florida or York, Pa. -- rather than devote himself exclusively to evenly divided counties, or venture into hostile territory, as Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, often does. Over the weekend, traveling in Ohio, Bush visited Miami County (which he won in 2000, 61 percent to 36 percent), Allen County (which he won 65 percent to 32 percent), and Wood County (which he won 53 percent to 44 percent).

Democrats revel in the Rove strategy, frequently arguing that if Bush is tending to his conservative base, he must be worried about defections.

But there is no evidence to suggest that trend, and Rove scoffs at critics who would misread the Republican strategy in that way.

''Karl does not believe there's a true 'middle,' " one Bush adviser said. ''Everyone is a 'leaner,' and the leaners are affected by the actions of the base, much like an earthquake. If the base is excited, the closer you are to the epicenter, you're going to have a pretty strong shock."

Which certainly seems to be supported by this--Battleground Poll August 2004 - The Growing Conservative Majority (Bruce Walker, August 29, 2004, Mens News Daily)--and suggests the possibility that an FDR type transformation has already taken place in the electorate, which would usher in several decades of GOP dominance.

MORE (via Kevin Whited):
Republicans working to reinforce conservative base (Dave Montgomery, 8/30/04, Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram)

U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess of Flower Mound describes constituents in his staunchly Republican district as hard-working Americans who "believe in their God and believe in their country."

Those conservative North Texas voters overwhelmingly support President George W. Bush, says the freshmen Republican congressmen, but there are fragments of discontent. Some are angered by the president's immigration policies. Others worry about the direction of the war in Iraq, or that Bush hasn't done enough to limit federal spending.

The mood in the 26th district -- which includes Denton County and part of Tarrant County -- is reflective of national sentiments among conservative Republicans as President Bush prepares to receive his party's nomination for a second term at the Republican National Convention this week in New York.

From the outset of his presidency, Bush has worked diligently to shore up his party's conservative base, particularly among evangelical Christians who make up an estimated fourth of the electorate. Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, has estimated that 4 million social conservatives sat out the 2000 election, and much of the Republican strategy has consequently been aimed at drawing them into the fold for 2004.

While Bush is coasting toward re-nomination on a wave of partisan euphoria that characterizes national political conventions, he nevertheless faces a bit of restiveness from the right.

This is the kind of misreporting you get if the journalist doesn't understand what Rove is up to.

---

HAVE YOU THANKED THE GIPPER TODAY?:

Caterpillar labor situation shows union's predicament: experts (JAN DENNIS, August 30, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times)

Twice in eight months, Caterpillar Inc. workers have crushed take-it-or-leave-it contract offers, then headed back to production lines instead of setting up picket lines.

With just one fleeting whiff of a strike so far, the on-the-job standoff is rare for Peoria-based Caterpillar and the United Auto Workers, who have agreed to only two contracts without a work stoppage in more than a half-century of bargaining.

Labor experts say the deadlock is rooted in a power shift that has given management the upper hand over the last quarter-century, as U.S. union membership waned and the 1981 firing of federal air traffic controllers emboldened companies to counter strikes with replacement workers.

Caterpillar is among just a handful of major companies that have flexed the newfound bargaining muscle, they say, foiling two strikes in the 1990s by using patchwork crews to maintain production and profits.

''The fact that talks have gone on this long is vivid evidence that union leaders understand their weakened position. Twenty-five years ago, the union would have gone on strike immediately,'' said Peter Feuille, head of the University of Illinois' Institute for Industrial and Labor Relations.

Folks generally understand the credit that the Fed (Paul Volcker) deserves for defeating inflation but don't give Ronald Reagan (and Margaret Thatcher) credit for their crushing of trade unionism. Where's inflation pressure going to come from when employees can't command ever higher salaries and, thanks to free trade, companies can't raise prices?

---

THE BENEFITS OF REGIME CHANGE:

Despite poverty, violence, Haiti limping back: Haiti shows some improvements six months after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was ousted, but political tensions and sporadic violence continue in the Western Hemisphere's poorest country. (MICHAEL A.W. OTTEY, 8/29/04, Miami Herald)

Six months after the ouster of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, schools and businesses are open, some electricity is back, streets are cleaner, and millions in foreign aid is starting to trickle in.

Yet persistent political tensions, armed gangs, kidnappings, violent crime and sporadic pro-Aristide protests threaten to hurl this impoverished country back into chaos.

The carnage and destruction of the armed revolt that forced Aristide into exile on Feb. 29 laid low what was already the hemisphere's poorest nation. About 300 people were killed, and damage was estimated at up to $300 million.

Today, there are signs of a resurgence.

Is there anywhere regime change isn't working out better than expected?

---

DEBT DEPENDENT:

hina's economic evolution: Private sector hit hardest in efforts to slow overheated economy (PETER S. GOODMAN, 8/30/04, Washington Post)

Only a few months ago, the privately owned Jiangsu Tieben steel plant seemed an archetype of China's emerging entrepreneurialism, the brainchild of a small-town construction worker turned industrialist. Now it is an abandoned void, its half-finished smokestacks standing idle under the summer glare as weeds creep across the grounds and a security guard dozes on a bench in front of locked gates.

Founder Dai Guofang sits in jail facing charges that he violated financial and land-use regulations. Local government officials who secured land for the project have been rebuked by the central government for ignoring land-use regulations, and a Bank of China official has been fired for helping finance the venture.

In the evolving world of Chinese capitalism, officials from Premier Wen Jiabao down have pledged to open the way to a new crop of entrepreneurs, encouraging them to create jobs and expand the economy even as many of the old state-owned companies disintegrate, deprived of the connections to government officials and finance that have sustained them for decades.

But the shutdown of Tieben, along with the slowing of other private projects around the country, has called into question just how far China is willing to go in allowing private capital to compete with state-run enterprises, and how far its central bureaucrats are willing to step back from their traditional role of picking who succeeds economically.

As the government tries to cool an overheated economy, it is tightening credit and cracking down on the sort of corrupt financial and land trading that has been an everyday part of doing business during China's period of swift growth. But the burden of these new policies appears to be falling disproportionately on private entrepreneurs.

One of the ways in which the U.S. debt confuses people is that they think the Chinese are carrying us when in fact we're carrying them. There are no safe places to put your money in China.

---

RED ORANGE:

Poll: Bush seizes momentum in state (LESLEY CLARK, 8/30/04, Miami Herald)

The Herald/St. Petersburg Times survey suggests new challenges for the Democrat, who had been leading the president before many voters knew who he was.

Now, a month after the Democratic National Convention, Bush has taken the momentum from Kerry in the largest of the presidential battleground states, pulling 48 percent of registered voters surveyed, compared with 46 percent for Kerry. In a similar poll in March, just after his string of primary victories, Kerry held a five-percentage-point lead over Bush. [...]

The Florida poll suggests that after months of lagging popularity, Bush is getting a boost from voters impressed with his leadership, with nearly six in 10 voters calling him a ''strong leader.'' He made gains among independent voters -- who in March were far more likely to back Kerry -- and among women.

Is any Red State in play?

MORE:
Bush Leads Kerry in 3 Key States (Ronald Brownstein and Kathleen Hennessey, August 26, 2004, LA Times)

President Bush has moved past Sen. John F. Kerry in three of the most hotly contested Midwestern battleground states despite continued doubts about the country's direction and the president's policies, new Los Angeles Times polls have found.

According to the surveys, Bush has opened leads within the margin of error in Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri — states at the top of both campaigns' priority lists.

In Missouri, Bush leads among registered voters 46% to 44%; in Wisconsin, he leads 48% to 44%; and in Ohio, the president holds a 49% to 44% advantage, the surveys found.

Ohio is nearly out of the margin of error now and some polls show the President ahead in PA.

---

ON TO '08:

Tryout Time: The 2008 presidential campaign gets under way in New York. (John H. Fund, August 30, 2004, Jewish World Review)

Party conventions no longer determine presidential nominees, but they still serve two major purposes: pep rallies for the party's themes and a chance for political reporters to have a giant reunion. There's another item of business at this year's GOP conclave. Like actors on Broadway, a raft of candidates are quietly auditioning for the 2008 nomination, when the fight for the GOP nomination is guaranteed to be wide open.

The editors of National Review have gone so far as to schedule time for one-on-one interviews with potential 2008 candidates. None of them would openly acknowledge they are running, but when they heard who had already accepted, they quickly made known their availability. Here is a quick field guide to the possible 2008 GOP field, arranged in alphabetical order:

The vice president--whoever replaces Cheney--will obviously have a big advantage and John McCain--if he's not the replacement--will be a favorite because he's run, he remains popular outside the Party and he won NH. But Mitt Romney will be the other guy to watch for the same reason that the Democratic race this time was simply a choice between Dean and Kerry: politicians from neighboring states win the NH primary.

---

WARNING--GLARING SELF-REFERENCE VIOLATION:

Election Forecasts: A Numbers Game (Charlie Cook, August 29, 2004)

The vast majority of political scientists and economists who forecast elections based on computer models will be presenting their papers at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association this week in Chicago, and they are projecting a Bush victory over Sen. John Kerry -- in a landslide, some say. Other analysts, myself included, think Bush faces an uphill
struggle.

The boldest prediction is from Yale University economist Ray Fair, the dean of the election-forecasting academicians whose model projects that Bush will get a whopping 57.48 percent of the major-party (combined Democratic and Republican, no independent) vote. Fair's model is based entirely on economics -- the real gross domestic product growth rate and inflation -- and it carries, he says, a standard error rate of 2.4 percent in either direction. In his July 31 "Note to the Media" on his Web site, Fair cautions that a change in economic data could affect his forecast but that "no realistic economic values can bring the predicted
vote share to even about 53 percent."

Another bullish Bush prognosticator is political scientist Helmut Norpoth of the State University of New York (Stony Brook), who gives 20-1 odds that Bush will be re-elected. His model shows a Republican two-party-vote victory of 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent. Norpoth's model focuses on how well the nominees performed in their respective party's primaries, on long-term partisan trends, and on how long the incumbent's party has held the presidency.

Slightly more conservative is a model developed by Oxford University's Christopher Wlezien and Columbia University's Robert S. Erikson that projects a 52.8 percent Bush share of the two-party vote. They say that Bush has slightly better than a two-out-of-three chance of re-election.

The Wlezien/Erikson model relies upon the index of leading economic indicators, as well as on Gallup job approval ratings and trial heat data.

A model developed by the University of Iowa's Michael Lewis-Beck and Hunter College's Charles Tien shows a two-party-vote edge for Bush of just 51 percent to 49 percent. They say that "the narrow difference makes the race too close to call." The "Jobs Model," as the authors call it, focuses on job creation and presidential job approval.

At Emory University, Alan Abramowitz's "Time for a Change" model uses three variables: the incumbent's job approval in June, the change in real GDP during the first two quarters of the election year, and the amount of time -- whether one term or longer -- the incumbent party has held the White House. While Abramowitz's model projects a Bush win of 53.7 percent of the two-major-party vote, he is doubtful about whether it will work this time; he concludes that "it seems unlikely that [Bush] will receive anything close to 53.7 percent."

I had a psychology professor in college who had served on a bunch of committees with my grandfather, who'd been on the Board of Trustees for twenty years. Taking attendance on the first day of class he stopped at my name and mentioned what a great man the elder Orrin had been. When we went to his office at the end of the semester, several classmates stood dumbfounded as he announced that his first gradescale had given me a C+ but he "knew what I expected" so I redid the scale to give me a B-. Now, to begin with, a C+ would have raised my GPA and been perfectly satisfactory, even undeserved, but in the second place, Charlie Cook seems to be forecasting this race by using the same "what I expected" theory. It seems less likely to work in a presidential election than in college.

---

BUT ENOUGH FROM THE SWIFT BOAT VETS, LET'S HEAR FROM THE ANTI-WAR VETS:

I watched Kerry throw his war decorations (Thomas Oliphant, April 27, 2004, Boston Globe)

ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry.

As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.

There couldn't have been all that many decorations in his hand -- six or seven -- because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn. I recall him getting stopped by one or two wounded vets in wheelchairs, clearly worried that they wouldn't be able to get their stuff over the looming fence, who gave him a few more decorations. Kerry says he doesn't remember this.

It is true that Kerry was one of the veterans group's "leaders," but in this eclectic, aggressively individualistic collection of people who had been through a pointless war, there were no privileges of rank. Kerry was in the middle of a line of perhaps 1,000 guys -- only a third or even less of the total who had assembled on the Washington Mall that astonishing week.

At the spot where the men were symbolically letting go of their participation in the war, the authorities had erected a wood and wire fence that prevented them from getting close to the front of the US Capitol, and Kerry paused for several seconds. We had been talking for days -- about the war, politics, the veterans' demonstration -- but I could tell Kerry was upset to the point of anguish, and I decided to leave him be; his head was down as he approached the fence quietly.

In a voice I doubt I would have heard had I not been so close to him, Kerry said, as I recall vividly, "There is no violent reason for this; I'm doing this for peace and justice and to try to help this country wake up once and for all."

With that, he didn't really throw his handful toward the statue of John Marshall, America's first chief justice.

The Kerry I Know: So he's not Mr. Charisma. But he has courage, judgment, and intellect. Imagine that! (Thomas Oliphant, 08.01.04, American Prospect)

What Kerry did in the spring of 1971 still amazes me. The power and eloquence of his statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gets most of the attention because the film survives, but what amazed me more was the quiet leadership he and a few pals showed in guiding perhaps 2,000 veterans -- many severely wounded, angry, bitter, and passionate -- for a week that stunned the country with its nonviolent effectiveness.

At the time, Kerry told me that he assumed his actions had precluded a political career, a sentiment experience had taught me to share.

They were right, these actions do preclude a national political career.

---

WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?:

In Speech, Bush to Stress 'Ownership': President will seek to draw distinctions with Kerry on healthcare and retirement, aides say. (Ronald Brownstein, August 30, 2004, LA Times)

President Bush plans to stress themes of "ownership" and government reform in his acceptance speech Thursday, positioning himself to reprise one of his most effective arguments against Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 campaign.

Without offering many specifics, Bush is likely to pledge to restructure Social Security, the tax code and the healthcare system with the common goal of shifting more control and ownership away from government toward individuals, according to sources familiar with the speech's preparation.

"The big label will be reform — Social Security reform, reform of our institutions of government, reform of healthcare, and the concept of ownership," said one senior GOP strategist who asked not to be named.

Bush strategists believe this agenda will allow them to frame the campaign's domestic debates as a choice between the president's push to empower individuals and proposals by Sen. John F. Kerry that they will portray as a return to big government.

Even some Democrats agree that in the 2000 campaign's final stages, Bush scored points against Gore by hammering at that same argument, declaring, "He trusts the government, I trust the people."

Democrats acknowledge that the themes of choice, ownership and individual control that Bush is expected to stress could have long-term appeal in a society where more Americans own homes and businesses and participate in the stock market. But Democrats also believe the president will have difficulty selling his agenda when so many Americans are feeling insecure about their jobs, the costs of healthcare and the security of their pensions following drops in stock prices and corporate scandals.

"There may be a moment for [Bush's] argument, but not after three years of decline," said Democratic strategist Stanley B. Greenberg, Gore's pollster in 2000.

That's the difference between the President, who's a revolutionary, and his reactionary opponents--even they have to concede the virtues of the Third Way, but they never think the time is right; he always does.

---

BUT THE 4% MAKE ALL THE NOISE:

Close, but Bush will win (Marc Erikson, 8/30/04, Asia Times)

In Las Vegas you can bet on most anything - but not on US elections. It's a federal law. British bookmakers, who are not under such restrictions, offer odds of 5/6 for both Kerry and Bush. Most recent US polls project a statistical dead heat. It is nonetheless likely that Bush will eke out a victory on November 2. Americans' basic attitudes on the major issues, the likely course of events over the coming two months, and key economic-demographic factors favor the Republican. [...]

We've left some important economic/demographic indicators for last. They may prove the most important. Contrary to Kerry's contention in his convention speech that the US middle class is shrinking and its income declining, US Internal Revenue Service (the federal tax collector) statistics show that the number of tax returns in the $75,000-$100,000 bracket increased by 8% between 2000 and 2002 while the number of returns in the above-$200,000 categories dropped by anywhere from 10-50%. Incomes of those earning $100,000 or less advanced marginally, while incomes of the big earners above $100,000 declined substantially.

Overall, some 75% of Americans now consider themselves middle-class, 4% are upper-class, and the remainder working- or lower-class. The upper and working/lower classes in 2000 voted overwhelmingly Democratic and are now pro-Kerry. Al Gore, the Democratic candidate in that election, got fully 56% of the upper-class vote. And as the middle class has expanded, it has moved into the suburbs. In 2000, 50% of voters were suburbanites; this year it will be nearly 52% - and upward mobility out to the suburbs from the inner cities generally favors Republicans.

Upper-upper-class members, whether George Soros, Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs, have made no secret of their political preferences. On Wall Street, contrary to popular perception, Bush's support is soft. The rich don't much care about entrepreneurship, wealth creation and new-home ownership. They've got it. They worry about wealth preservation (and hence don't like deficits that drive down bond prices). The middle class does worry about fiscal and regulatory measures designed to create wealth and ownership. It's their principal preoccupation. Bush's "ownership society" will favor them and they'll favor it.

And then, of course, there's the Hollywood-Nashville divide. Nashville's country crooners like Bush; Hollywood's stars hate Bush and will vote Kerry by default. California and New York are solidly in Kerry's camp. But Gore in 2000 lost Tennessee, his own state. Tennessee again will be the better predictor this year.

It's great fun watching foreigners throw in the towel.

---

TELEVISE THE NEXT "SURVIVOR" FROM THERE:

Dingo superpack on Fraser Island (The Age, August 30, 2004)

Dingoes have formed a superpack on the same south-east Queensland island where a young boy was mauled to death three years ago, a dingo expert said today.

University of Queensland researcher Nick Baker said the dingoes of Fraser Island appeared to have developed a tolerance for each other which was uncharacteristic of their breed.

He said dingoes traditionally lived and hunted in small territorial packs which would defend their food and territory to the death against invasion, especially from other packs.

"But here the whole island is like one big pack, with the smaller groups working together," Mr Baker told AAP.

---

CHEAPER SNAKE OIL:

Canadian sites look overseas for drug supply: To combat shortages, online pharmacies used by U.S. consumers are seeking new sources. Safety could be an issue. (Daniel Costello, August 30, 2004, LA Times)

Millions of Americans now buy drugs from Canadian-based Internet pharmacies in an effort to save money. So far, the quantity and quality of the drugs has seemed relatively assured.

But during the last year, U.S. customers using Canadian websites have faced increasing difficulty getting top-selling medications such as Celebrex to treat arthritis and the antidepressant Effexor. That's because several of the world's biggest pharmaceutical makers are restricting supply to online Canadian pharmacies that ship to the U.S., leading to delays of several weeks for many customers. In severe cases, some sites have stopped accepting new clients looking for the hardest-to-get medications.

Faced with the growing shortages, Canadian Internet pharmacies are looking abroad themselves and increasingly selling U.S. consumers drugs that originate through pharmacies in England, Fiji, Israel and Chile. Depending on the country, that is raising concerns that U.S. consumers — many of them senior citizens — are getting medications from countries with less-stringent safety regulations than those in North America.

"It's a potentially scary situation" that a significant number of Canada-to-U.S. prescriptions could soon originate from other countries, says Marv Shepherd, a pharmacy professor at the University of Texas, Austin, and an expert in the field of cross-border prescription sales. It's particularly worrisome if Canadian companies "start to partner up with some of the more shaky countries," he says.

On the bright side, the whole outrsourcing of our pharmaceutical purchases that the Left is pushing could both collapse other countries socialized systems and make the quality of medications so iffy that folks will be less likely to use them.

---

GOOD ADVICE, JUST NOT FOR JOHN KERRY:

How to Beat Bush: The former campaign manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000 offers four critical tips to the Kerry-Edwards campaign (Donna Brazile, Aug. 29, 2004,
Newsweek)

It’s hard to travel across the country these days without seeing an old familiar bumper sticker: “Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.” Perhaps the slogan rang true for many progressive voters in this highly partisan, highly charged and highly polarized electorate. But, if the bumper-sticker crowd believes it refers to George W. Bush, they are sorely mistaken.

Sen. John Kerry can win this election by understanding that he is running against a shrewd, clever and an extremely intelligent opponent who was trained in political combat by the late GOP strategist Lee Atwater. [...]

[T]o defeat George W. Bush, Team Kerry-Edwards must do four things well (and avoid any strategic mistakes we made in 2000 that would place him on the defense) for the rest of the electoral season. [...]

Message Matters

During the final months of the 2000 presidential campaign, we struggled to create a strong, compelling message on how Gore could stand up and fight for ordinary people and build on the Clinton-Gore record of prosperity. [...]

Minimize Mistakes

In an election this close, the candidate who wins may be the one who makes the fewest mistakes. [...]

Debates

Don't approach these crucial presidential debates like they are a Harvard-Yale Society debate. This will serve as Kerry’s chance to show voters who he is as a person. [...]

The bottom line is Kerry should feel, look and act like a winner.

She's telling this--message, mistake-free, personality, winner-like-- to a guy whose only message is now mired in the banks of the Mekong, who has run the worst campaign in modern presidential politics, who is considered--even by allies--to be personally unlikable, and who's never won a tough race?

---

GIVEN WHAT THEY'VE THROWN AT HIM, WHAT COULD BE UNFAIR?:

"Good Will Come Out Of This": The First Lady talks to TIME about gay-marriage, stem-cell research and dealing with the criticism of her husband (MATTHEW COOPER, Aug. 29, 2004, TIME)

She has been called the perfect wife for her devotion to George w. Bush and the Comforter in Chief for her calming demeanor after 9/11. But it would be a mistake to think of Laura Bush as a latter-day Mamie Eisenhower, who once said, "Ike runs the country; I turn the pork chops." The First Lady has views of her own, and just before jetting off to Florida with the President last week, she sat down in her East Wing office to speak with TIME's Matthew Cooper about a wide range of topics, including gay marriage, stem-cell research and how she deals with criticism of her husband. [...]

TIME

Critics throw out so many charges against the President. Is there any one that you found the most unfair?

BUSH

I think they're all very unfair. [Laughter.] I really do.

TIME

Do you think these swift-boat ads are unfair to John Kerry?

BUSH

Do I think they're unfair? Not really. There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband.

The Democrats basically accused her husband of helping drag James Byrd to death last time and the charges since 9-11 have only gotten more scurrilous--why would she think questioning John Kerry is unfair?

---

HERE'S HOW THEY SPEND SEPTEMBER:

War over war crimes: A new ad takes Kerry to task over what he said in 1971, but the truth is complicated (Dan Gilgoff, 9/06/04, US News)

Until a few weeks ago, John Brenner, department commander for Pennsylvania's Veterans of Foreign Wars, was leaning toward George W. Bush. Then he caught wind of a TV ad launched by an anti-John Kerry group accusing the Democratic candidate of lying to get medals in the Vietnam War. "I don't want to see them question anybody's record," says Brenner, 61, a Vietnam vet. "Especially if they got a Purple Heart and . . . shrapnel in their leg." But last week, Brenner saw a second ad from the anti-Kerry outfit--Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--which blasted Kerry for telling a Senate committee in 1971 that U.S. forces had committed atrocities in Vietnam. This time, Brenner's anger turned to Kerry and other antiwar protesters, who, he says, prolonged Vietnam and made it "hard on troops that were still over there."

By late last week, Kerry was scrambling to rebut the first ad, producing vets to corroborate his version of events. But the second ad could prove more troublesome since it shows Kerry more broadly raising questions about the actions of all Vietnam vets. Its use of Kerry's own words casts his testimony in black and white; in reality, it was anything but.

The second ad--which, like the first spot, ran in just three states but was replayed in the national media--features testimonials from former prisoners of war set against footage of Kerry before the Senate committee, relating tales of U.S. soldiers who "cut off limbs . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." The testimony "hurt me more than any physical wounds," says one POW in the ad. The Kerry camp and some independent observers say the commercial misrepresents Kerry's '71 testimony by implying that he accused all U.S. troops of committing war crimes.

It's hard to see any way the Senator can defuse the testimony, but arguing that he didn't mean what he said will be a disaster. In order to make the argument they have to call further attention to the testimony and those candidacy-killing attacks on America and his fellow soldiers.

---

BIGGER FISH TO FRY:

So, Why is this man laughing?: Karl Rove just may hold the key to George Bush's re-election bid (Kenneth T. Walsh, 9/06/04, US News)

Mostly, though, Rove's raison d'être these days is to quietly build the best grass-roots organization ever. His goal is to name a Bush coordinator in 29,000 crucial precincts in 17 key target states, and the campaign is 95 percent of the way there right now. Similarly, Rove says the campaign has now recruited 980,000 of the 1 million pro-Bush volunteers it hoped to have signed up by Election Day.

Yet Rove's influence is not purely political; he also has a hefty policy portfolio. White House Chief of Staff Andy Card says Rove "doesn't play very much in foreign policy" but has a pivotal role on domestic affairs, pushing a conservative agenda that includes cutting taxes, encouraging charities to do more social work, opposing abortion, and reforming education by promoting accountability for teachers and schools.

The question asked increasingly in Washington is whether, by encouraging Bush's already strong conservative convictions, Rove exerts too much influence. Argues John Podesta, a Democratic activist and former White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton: "He may go down as making the worst political move in history by taking the post-9/11 period and trying to lurch the country to the right not just on war with Iraq but on energy, on economics." If Rove and Bush had tried to unite conservatives and liberals on a common agenda after 9/11, Podesta says, "it would have produced Republican dominance . . . for a generation."

Mr. Podesta is thinking small, like a Clintonite. The GOP is guaranteed dominance--Mr. Bush wants to continue the revolution.

---

DOING 60:

Battleground Poll August 2004 - The Growing Conservative Majority (Bruce Walker, August 29, 2004, Mens News Daily)

The rock solid statistic in the latest Battleground Poll, the number that actually means something, the salient political fact that I have been raising in articles for the last several years, is found in the "housekeeping" section of the questionnaire: Question D3 on Page 11 of the sixteen page questionnaire.

It bears repeating: "When thinking about politics, do you consider yourself to be..." and then it lists six options for responders, which are "Very conservative," "Somewhat conservative," "Moderate," "Somewhat liberal," "Very Liberal," and "Unsure/Refused."

Precise recitation of these options is important because Leftists typically respond to polls which show that America is conservative by saying something like "Oh, no - it is really moderate, not conservative" or "Most people do not really have an ideological position."

That is completely false. This Battleground Poll, like the five before it over the last four years, have given Americans the easy option of calling themselves a "moderate" or of simply saying that the "don't know" or "refused to answer."

Those Americans who call themselves conservative in this latest Battleground Poll constitute exactly sixty percent of the American public. The rest - all of the rest, including "moderates" and "unsure" and "refused to answer" and every shade of "liberal" - constituted exactly forty percent of the American public.

If Bill Kristol is right about McCain replacing Cheney this week, the GOP ticket will get to 60%.

---

DOUBLE OR NOTHING:

Something tells me Bush holds all the aces (Mark Steyn, 29/08/2004, Daily Telegraph)

At the beginning of the year, Thomas Lifson, who was at Harvard Business School with George W Bush, made an interesting observation about the President. He notes that young George "was a very avid and skillful poker player" when he was a Business Administration student and that "one of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W Bush's political career".

Indeed one does. In the months following Mr Lifson's observation, the President sat back, as John Kerry's consultants, the Iowa caucus voters, the Democratic Party at large, and the media convinced themselves that the one card that trumps Bush's leadership in the war on terror was Kerry's four months in Vietnam, and bet everything on it. They have just lost that hand. [...]

The Bush-haters are right about him: he is a radical President, just not in the cartoon manner they believe. So it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about tax reform and Social Security - two areas where he's got big ambitions. The rest of the week will be a soft-focus infomercial just like the Democratic Convention, but the Republican speakers - Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain and dissident Democrat Senator Zell Miller - make a much stronger line-up than the old lions on display in Boston - Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hill, effective speakers all but strictly for the true believers. Rudy, Arnie and co have far more cross-party appeal. [...]

So the most likely outcome this November is an increased Republican majority in the House, a couple of extra Senate seats, and a second term for Bush. I might be wrong. Anything is possible. But the reluctance of the British press to admit the possibility that Bush isn't a loser suggests that they too have over-invested in John Kerry's very weak hand.

One of the things that Democrats and pundits--with the exception of a few wise souls like Mr. Steyn--just don't seem to get is that the President enjoys raising the stakes at exactly those moments when they think they've caught him bluffing. And when they accept he tends to crush them. After the stolen election he was supposed to mark time untril Al Gore could be awarded his rightful crown, but instead he rammed through his tax cuts. After Jim Jeffords jumped the President was supposed to be permanently, but he just went ahead and passed NCLB and Fast Track Trade Authority and the like anyway. After 9-11 he was supposed to not do anything partisan lest it change the color of the global mood ring, but he went to war in Iraq anyway. Presidents are supposed to lose seats in the congressional midterm but the President staked his reputation on them and won seats. Economy doing badly? He'd have to repeal tax cuts, right? Wrong, he went for more and got them. Iraq going unsmoothly, better apologize to the U.N. and hide behind it, right? Wrong, he invited them in only to use them like rented mules. Senator Kerry served in Vietnam while the President was "only" in the Guard--better avoid that issue right? And so on, and so forth, seemingly ad infinitum.

MORE:

A lifetime of risk-taking shapes Bush's leadership (Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 29, 2004, Boston Globe)

When George W. Bush accepted the presidential nomination four years ago, he laced his speech with extraordinary clues about his governing style. ''I do not need to take your pulse before I know my own mind," Bush told Americans. Mocking criticism that his platform was filled with ''risky schemes," Bush told the story of a patriot who ignored warnings that he would lose his property if he signed the Declaration of Independence, saying, ''Damn the consequences, give me the pen."

In retrospect, the Texan left no doubt: He intended his presidency to be built on a foundation of bold and broad risks.

Now, as Bush again prepares to accept his party's presidential nomination, his candidacy is based on at least two major ventures fraught with risk -- the war in Iraq and massive tax cuts -- as well as on his reliance on risk as a style of governing. A former oilman who bet and sometimes lost tens of thousands of dollars on dreams of gushers, Bush has taken that wildcatting style into the White House, determined to show that, unlike his father, George H.W. Bush, he has the ''vision thing" and is unafraid of the consequences.

''He is a big risk taker," Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said. ''If you look at the way he ran his oil business, this is a guy who was skating on the edge. I think it goes to a deep personality characteristic."

Conrad, who opposed the Iraq war resolution, is no fan of Bush's approach and laments being one of many Democrats who feel shut out by the White House. But Bush's admirers see it another way: A president must be sure of himself and take risks in order to be a leader, and must trust those he is advising in order to lead well. Caution in a time of terrorism would be a weak way to run the White House, his defenders say.

Indeed, one of Bush's campaign refrains is that his policies don't create wealth but create an environment for risk-takers to be rewarded -- and he has followed that philosophy himself in pursuing the war, tax cuts, and a governing style that has alienated many Democrats and some foreign leaders.

''He is not afraid of risk and he is confident obviously in what he believes, and it has kind of shaped his political career," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. ''It is that whole mentality that was very much shaped by his West Texas upbringing and in business; being in the oil business you have this frontier attitude about taking risk and entrepreneurship."

So, to the surprise of some observers, Bush has become the country's ultimate entrepreneur, gambling his political future and that of millions of Americans on the biggest stage of all. [...]

The Sept. 11 attacks transformed Bush from being a peace president who had time to leisurely examine stem cell research, to being a war president whose top concern is to defend America.

''Whatever you may think of the wisdom of his policies, you cannot deny that he has been bold and aggressive in pursuing them," said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas government professor who has long followed Bush's career. ''Bush the elder was cautious, pragmatic, not a real risk taker. Bush the younger seems willing to take the bit in his teeth.

''In his [2000] acceptance speech, he said, 'They have not led, we will.' By God, he has," Buchanan said.

---

I THINK THEY GOT YOUR NUMBER:

Laura Branigan (Daily Telegraph, 30/08/2004)

Laura Branigan, who died on Thursday aged 47, will be best remembered for her classic 1983 pop-disco anthem Gloria.

By rights the song should not have been a hit. It was a reworking of an up-tempo Italian chart-topper of 1979, sung by Umberto Tozzi, which had been given decidedly obscure, somewhat paranoid English lyrics by Branigan: "Are the voices in your head calling Gloria?" Moreover, disco's moment had very much come and gone.

Yet Gloria was redeemed by Branigan's powerful delivery, and it found an audience in clubgoers who were hungry for high-energy (or, in the parlance of the day, Hi-NRG) tunes. The song had that happy knack of lodging unbidden in the brain, and soon there were few teenagers who could not hum it. At the end of December 1982, it reached No 2 in the American charts, remaining in the Hot 100 for a further eight months. In Britain, it peaked at No 6 at the start of 1983.

---

DECLARING THE FREE-FIRE ZONE:

McCain Says Kerry's Anti-War Protests Open for Debate (Bloomberg, 8/29/04)

Republican U.S. Senator John McCain said Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam are an appropriate subject for political debate.

McCain, 68, of Arizona, said on the CBS News program ``Face the Nation,'' that he disagreed with Kerry throwing his ribbons from his medals on the steps of the U.S. Capitol when he returned from the war.

"Every American is entitled to protest,'' McCain said. ``Whether he did that appropriately'' is a legitimate subject for debate, he said.

Who'll be the first Democrat to call Senator McCain a "partisan hack."

---

WISHY-WASHY ISN'T WINNABLE:

Crucial voters group unhappy with both major party candidates (STEVEN THOMMA, August 28, 2004, Detroit FREE PRESS)

There are only about 2.6 million of them, but they could hold the future of the nation in their hands.

They are undecided voters juggling whether they'll opt for George W. Bush or John Kerry. If this year's election is as close as expected, they are likely to decide it. [...]

In perhaps a bad sign for Bush, more of the undecideds voted for him in 2000 than for Democrat Al Gore, indicating that Bush hasn't persuaded them to stay with him after nearly four years in office. In 2000, 58.7 percent who had been undecided voted for Bush and 24.7 percent for Gore.

That means this election may go down to the wire and render an excruciatingly close decision, just like in 2000, that reflects a deeply divided country with a shrinking political center between two polarized parties.

Those conclusions emerge from an unusually detailed mid-August look at persuadable voters -- those undecided or those who are leaning one way or the other but are open to changing their minds -- by the Zogby/Williams Identity Poll. The Free Press and Knight Ridder Newspapers obtained exclusive access to the findings on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Polled were 501 people who said they were likely to vote but were undecided or persuadable. Of them, 54.7 percent are men, 60.2 percent are married and 79.5 percent are white. Just 12.9 percent are NASCAR fans.

They tend to be more educated than most voters; 63.6 percent have a college degree and 29.5 percent have at least some college education.

They reject party labels; 46.1 percent call themselves moderate, 20.3 percent conservative and 9.7 percent liberal or progressive.

More favor abortion bans than abortion choice, 43.5 to 36.8 percent; more are pro-gun than for gun control, 49.8 to 32.4 percent; 19 percent favor gay marriage, 36 percent favor civil unions and 38 percent favor a ban.

[B]ush still has strengths with this group.

A slight 51.4 percent majority has a favorable opinion of him, while 47.7 percent are unfavorable. Two-thirds said they like Bush as a person; only 14.8 percent don't.

Asked to name Bush's most significant accomplishment, 45.7 percent said his leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; 20.2 percent said the war in Iraq.

Kerry also has openings -- and challenges.

His most formidable obstacle is that more than half -- 51.6 percent -- said they don't like him.

There was a sidebar accompanying this story in the local paper which made it even more apparent that these guys are conservative Republicans in all but name. The idea that John Kerry can carry the group seems lunatic, especially given that the President's favorable rating with them remains over 50% and they like him quite a bit while they dislike the Senator.

---

IRANAMOKAGAIN (continued):

Iran-Contra II?: Fresh scrutiny on a rogue Pentagon operation. (Joshua Micah Marshall, Laura Rozen, and Paul Glastris, September 2004, Washington Monthly)

On Friday evening, CBS News reported that the FBI is investigating a suspected mole in the Department of Defense who allegedly passed to Israel, via a pro-Israeli lobbying organization, classified American intelligence about Iran. The focus of the investigation, according to U.S. government officials, is Larry Franklin, a veteran Defense Intelligence Agency Iran analyst now working in the office of the Pentagon's number three civilian official, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.

The investigation of Franklin is now shining a bright light on a shadowy struggle within the Bush administration over the direction of U.S. policy toward Iran. In particular, the FBI is looking with renewed interest at an unauthorized back-channel between Iranian dissidents and advisers in Feith's office, which more-senior administration officials first tried in vain to shut down and then later attempted to cover up.

Franklin, along with another colleague from Feith's office, a polyglot Middle East expert named Harold Rhode, were the two officials involved in the back-channel, which involved on-going meetings and contacts with Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar and other Iranian exiles, dissidents and government officials. Ghorbanifar is a storied figure who played a key role in embroiling the Reagan administration in the Iran-Contra affair. The meetings were both a conduit for intelligence about Iran and Iraq and part of a bitter administration power-struggle pitting officials at DoD who have been pushing for a hard-line policy of "regime change" in Iran, against other officials at the State Department and the CIA who have been counseling a more cautious approach.

If the Administration isn't working with dissidents on regime change in Iran and North Korea the President should be investigated.

---

THE RADICALS ARE ALL ON THE RIGHT:

A New Money Machine for the U.S.: The old ways can't keep up. We need a value-added tax to meet revenue demands. (Bruce Bartlett, August 29, 2004, LA Times)

The United States needs to adopt a value-added tax. [...]

The tax was originally adopted as part of European integration in order to avoid double taxation by national sales taxes. Its key feature is refundability at the border. This requires tax authorities to know exactly how much tax is embedded in the prices of all exports. The VAT provided that paper trail. In its classic form, the tax is paid at each stage of production and distribution, with a credit for taxes paid at earlier stages. Because producers and retailers need to show that they paid the tax to be credited for the taxes included in the prices of the goods they purchased, the system is largely self-enforcing. And the invoice trail allows governments to refund the entire tax on exports at the border.

From the point of view of consumers, a value-added tax is embedded in prices, which tends to make it less transparent than the state and local sales taxes Americans pay. And because a VAT falls only on consumption, it doesn't burden saving or investment. This makes it a highly efficient tax in the sense it discourages less economic output — what economists call the "deadweight" cost of taxation — than income taxes of similar magnitude.

The lack of transparency and the low economic cost of a value-added tax make it possible for this tax to raise substantial revenues relatively easily, both politically and economically. The average VAT in Europe is 20%, and European governments raise about one-third of their total revenue from consumption taxes, including excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco and other items. The U.S. raises about half that, including sales taxes at the state and local levels.

This suggests there is substantial room for raising broad-based consumption taxes in the U.S. without overburdening the economy. A very broad value-added tax levied on virtually all personal consumption could raise about half a percent of GDP in revenue for each 1% tax rate. But this sort of value-added tax is highly unlikely, though it would be best to treat all consumption equally. In practice, it is unlikely that more than 30% of GDP would be taxed, meaning that a 10% VAT would raise revenues equal to 3% of GDP — about $350 billion this year. We could raise twice that at a rate no higher than now exists in most European countries.

The great bugaboo of a value-added tax is its regressive feature — taking more from the poor than the rich. In the short run that's true, because the lower one's income, the higher one's consumption is as a share of income. Over a lifetime, however, consumption is roughly proportional to income, so a VAT would also be proportional — taking about the same from rich and poor alike in percentage terms.

It's kind of amusing to watch the Right debate what kind of fundamental tax reform it should undertake next year while Senator Kerry's only proposal is tax hikes under the old system.

---

IS ANY RED STATE IN PLAY?:

Voting With One Hand on Bible in Oklahoma: Voters in the GOP stronghold say they identify with President Bush over moral issues. (Maria L. La Ganga, August 29, 2004, LA Times)

They crowded into a cavernous auditorium in this hard luck city for their marching orders, more than 2,000 soldiers in what was described as the fight for "the most important issue facing Western civilization in our time": the preservation of marriage "as a holy covenant between God, a man and a woman."

Pray, they were told. Vote in November. Write your senator; here's the address. Men were advised to do the dishes at home, and women to hug their husbands, whether they wanted to or not. Equal parts religious revival, campaign event and counseling session, the greater Tulsa "pro-marriage rally" last week ) was living proof that a key way to influence the ballots of many Oklahomans is through their Bibles — not their billfolds.

The state has lost nearly 20% of its manufacturing jobs during the Bush administration, and has lagged the nation in recovery. Tulsa and its surrounding communities, for example, have lost about 24,000 jobs as three major industries — oil and gas, telecommunications, and aerospace — took hits.

In many areas, that would be a blueprint for change, a sign that the incumbent should be shoved out of the Oval Office. But not in Oklahoma, one of the reddest of the red states — the designation for places where support for President Bush is especially strong.

Voters here tend to view boom-and-bust cycles as outside of the presidential purview. And in state polls, Bush's lead hovers near 20 percentage points.

Democrats were daydreaming last year about OK being in play, after the Steve Largent implosion, and as late as this Summer about winning the Senate seat. Dream on.

---

WHEN EVEN JOE BIDEN CAN FIGURE IT OUT...:

Iraq's Premier Receives High Marks From U.S.: Allawi 'is the perfect leader ... at the moment,' one former official says, echoing the sentiments of others. (Tyler Marshall, August 29, 2004, LA Times)

In his first two months as head of the American-backed interim Iraqi government, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has produced something rare for U.S. policymakers dealing with the turmoil in Iraq: a pleasant surprise.

In his first 60 days, they say, Allawi has stamped his authority over the fledgling interim government he leads, focused almost exclusively on the crucial issue of security and, in the process, emerged as a credible Iraqi political figure visibly trying to establish a semblance of law and order.

"He's smart, he's tough, he's resolved," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who frequently has challenged the administration's postwar strategy. "In light of the capacity he possesses, he's done a remarkable job."

So much for the war as an issue.

---

THE SHADOW IS CAST BACKWARD:

In His Father's Shadow, a Son Charts His Course (Robin Abcarian, August 29, 2004, LA Times)

Yale and military service, the Texas oil business and politics: George W. Bush has traveled a route similar to that of his accomplished father, sometimes seeming diminished by his father's long shadow. Even when he became president, the son's lack of foreign policy experience was shrugged off by many who thought his father's expertise and former aides would guide him.

But this week, as he accepts the Republican nomination for a second term, President Bush is clearly more than his father's son. The man who will stand before the nation on Thursday is a product of his father's example, his high expectations and expansive advantages, but he is also someone who has bristled at them enough to establish his own style: openly religious, politically combative and aggressive in his approach to foreign policy and tax cuts.

The path Bush has chosen also has put him in one more competition with his formidable father. If he wins in November, he will have surpassed the career of the first President Bush, who was defeated after a single term.

If he loses, Bush will end up repeating his father's fate as a one-term president in part because he worked so hard in the White House to cut a different path.

Every paper in the country is probably running some variation on this nonsense this week, but it's completely thoughtless. Imagine a political science or history textbook fifty years from now and, regardless of whether the son wins a second term, which Bush is likely to get more paragraphs? The elder Mr. Bush is a footnote to history. The younger has already played a significant historical role--both at home and abroad--and has a chance to be a truly pivotal figure in the spread of freedom in America--via the Ownership Society--and in the Islamic world--via war and Reformation.

---

MORE WOLF (via Robert Duquette):

The Great American Savings Grab (Stephen Roach, 8/27/04, Morgan Stanley)

Never before has the world’s leading economy been saddled with such a severe shortfall of saving. Ironically, America has not had to pay a price for its extraordinary profligacy -- at least not yet. The US has borrowed freely from abroad and converted asset-based saving into newfound purchasing power. In my view, this cannot continue. There’s nothing sustainable about the growth dynamic of an increasingly saving-short US economy.

The numbers speak for themselves. Driven by a veritable collapse in personal saving, in conjunction with a dramatic deterioration in the federal government’s budget position, America’s gross national saving rate -- the combined saving of households, businesses, and the government sector -- fell to an all-time low of 12.8% of GNP in early 2003. Nor has it recovered much since, rebounding to only 13.8% in early 2004. Stripping out the depreciation of worn-out capital in order to get a cleaner read on the domestic saving available to fund net growth in productive capacity, America’s net national saving rate plunged to a record low of just 0.4% in early 2003. While there has since been a modest rebound to 2.0% in early 2004, there can be no mistaking the sharp break from historical trends; by comparison, the US net national saving rate averaged 5.3% in the 1980s and 1990s and 9.6% in the 1960s and 1970s.

In a world where saving must always equal investment, America’s saving shortfall has profound implications.

Or, at least, it would if there were one. It's helpful when you look at a situation that common sense tells you can not exist to assume you aren't seeing the whole picture. Here's what Mr. Richter has missed:
Household Wealth Rebounds (Spotlight on Financial Services, February 2004)

A year ago in this column we wrote that “uncertainty is the enemy of growth,” and so it apparently was. The looming conflict with Iraq was depressing expectations, holding down stock prices, and discouraging business investment. Otherwise, fundamentals for a strong recovery were in place. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan predicted in February 2003, a speedy resolution of the uncertainty associated with military action would remove those impediments to growth. This forecast proved to be right on the money.

We know that overall growth surged in the second half of 2003. Now we see from newly released Federal Reserve data that American household wealth has rebounded almost to the historic high that it reached when the stock market peaked early in 2000. A rebound in equity prices that began in March 2003, coupled with rising home prices, propelled U.S. household net worth to $42.1 trillion by the end of the third quarter of 2003. Given that stock prices rose an additional 12% in the fourth quarter, household net worth probably reached $43 trillion by the end of 2003, not far below the record of $43.6 trillion reached in the first quarter of 2000. Net worth has jumped $3.5 trillion since the cyclical low reached in September 2002, with 43% of the increase attributed to rising value of stocks and mutual fund holdings, 8% due to rising home equity, and the remainder due to larger holdings of bank deposits, pensions and other financial assets. Household net worth is defined as the value of all household assets (stocks, mutual funds, pension savings, deposits, ownership of small businesses) minus liabilities (mortgages and other consumer debt).

In essence, what's happening is this: we're borrowing money from foreigners at 2% (or whatever) so we can invest our money at 6%. You have to be blinded by ideology to see that as a bad deal.

---

TRUE COMPASSION ESCHEWS MORALITY? (via Tom Morin):

Je ne regrette rien: After a tumultuous first term, George Bush has much to be proud of—and much to reconsider (The Economist, Aug 26th 2004)

Radicalism can be good—but Mr Bush's brand has turned a compassionate conservative into a contradictory one. What is conservative about allowing government to grow faster than under Mr Clinton? What is humble about announcing that you are trying to introduce democracy to the Middle East? Where is the compassion in his support for a federal ban on gay marriage, the limitations on stem-cell research or his other moves to accommodate the zealots of the Christian right?

In a race where Mr Kerry now seems to be the narrow favourite, the president is going to Madison Square Garden promising, in large part, more of the same. Yes, there will be an attempt to reach out to independent voters: moderates such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani have been given prominent speaking slots. But Mr Bush is undaunted. His message is that America should stick with a man who faced hard choices and took the right decisions. Il ne regrette rien.

For this newspaper, that verdict looks mostly right for Mr Bush's foreign policy. The charge that he set off in a needlessly unilateralist direction on taking office is vastly overdone; he sought allies throughout; and in many ways his forthright style was a breath of fresh air after the muddle and evasions of the Clinton era. Yes, he dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol in a tactless way; but that was a bad treaty which America was never going to accept in any case (the Senate voted against it by a margin of 95-0). Mr Bush upset many people by ripping apart the outdated anti-ballistic-missile defence treaty with Russia—then baffled his critics by getting both Russia and (more hesitantly) China to go along with him.

But it was the thunderbolt of September 11th that counted most. Those atrocities set the course for the remainder of his presidency. Since then, we continue to think that Mr Bush has got the big foreign-policy decisions right. He understood the nature of the war that had been declared against America and the western world. He made it clear that it is not a war between civilisations, let alone religions; but he has also served notice to Arab regimes of the need to change. He rightly decided to destroy al-Qaeda's home in Afghanistan—and, yes, on the evidence that presented itself at the time, he rightly decided to invade Iraq.

Are they really asking what is compassionate about deficit spending in a national emergency, democratizing oppressed nations, and Christianity?

---

RED INK AND HIGH TIDES, FOREVER:

Rethinking red ink (Sophie Roell, August 29, 2004, Boston Globe)

IN LATE 2002, on the eve of the Bush administration's second round of massive tax cuts, Dick Cheney shocked deficit-wary Paul O'Neill, then the treasury secretary, by declaring that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Since Cheney's comment came to light earlier this year in Ron Suskind's book "The Price of Loyalty," administration officials have been vigorously back-pedalling, reassuring voters that deficits do matter - and that those projected for the next decade aren't nearly as large as some predict.

While Cheney's quip is unlikely to be repeated at this week's Republican National Convention in New York, some economists and political scientists say that the vice president may have had more of a point than he realized. Today, the view that large deficits are a "fiscal cancer that will erode any recovery and threaten the prospect of lasting prosperity" (as John Kerry said of the Bush deficits earlier this year) has become conventional wisdom in both parties. But deficits, some scholars argue, are not always a bad thing. In fact, they have often played an important role in advancing and solidifying democracy - and today may be a long-term political boon to the right.

In his recent book A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy, the Oxford-based historian James Macdonald argues that debt and liberty have been powerfully intertwined since the 18th century.

Indeed, every student of British history knows that the development of a national debt in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 played an important part in bringing political stability to the country. And on these shores, Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury, argued against Thomas Jefferson and others that a debt could be a "national blessing" and "a powerful cement" to the nation. "A national debt attaches many citizens to the government who by their numbers, wealth and influence, contribute more perhaps to its preservation than a body of soldiers," he wrote.

Macdonald argues that debt has also played a critical role in the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism. Thanks to their more trusting relationship with the creditors - their own citizens - democracies can borrow vast sums of money extremely cheaply and so gain an advantage in war over more despotic regimes. In 1815, for example, when England defeated Napoleon, England's debt-to-GNP ratio stood at 300 percent - far above the 65 percent that precipitated the fall of the French monarchy in 1789.

America's current national debt of $7.34 trillion, or around 60 percent of GDP, Macdonald writes, falls far short of the debt incurred by Britain between 1760 and 1860, which never fell below 100 percent of GDP. "Simplistic notions that national power and national debt are mutually incompatible are disproved by this single historical fact," he concludes.

It's certainly possible to make a coherent argument that we should try to lower our debt--if for no other than moral reasons--but it's impossible to make a sensible argument that we should have no debt and pretty hard to make one that the current level of debt, or any level we're likely to arrive at over the next few decades, matters much to our standing as the global hyperpower. Indeed, if you track the level of debt for Great Britain and America it seems to peak at those moments when our respective military/geopolitical powers have peaked, suggesting that the former may be at least an effect and possibly a cause of the latter.

MORE:

---

I’D LIKE MY PUNITIVE DAMAGES SUPERSIZED

Cheeseburger bills attempt to take lawsuits off the menu (Globe and Mail, August 29th, 2004)

Bills to protect restaurants and food companies against lawsuits by people who claim the meals or snacks made them fat are moving ahead in the states like hamburgers passed out a drive-thru window.

Measures known as "cheeseburger bills" bar people from seeking damages in court from food companies for weight gain and associated medical conditions, including heart disease and diabetes.[...]

So far this year, a dozen states have enacted laws against such suits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.[...]

Class-action lawyers will find ways around the state laws, and big fast-food companies could be their targets, predicts John Banzhaf, professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Banzhaf, who favours the suits, said companies could be vulnerable for failing to tell customers how much fat is in their food.

"Is it a shoo-in? No," said Mr. Banzhaf, who helped mastermind suits against the tobacco industry. "But if we pick our plaintiffs carefully, the guy who eats there every day, we can make our cases stick."

I’m suing Mom for all those pancake and syrup breakfasts she made me eat and for her triple layer chocolate fudge cake. Dammit, she knew what was in them but all I ever heard was "Eat, eat..."

Mmm... chocolate fudge.

---

IGNORED? THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED BEFORE THEY WERE SUGGESTED:

Now for the hard part: America needs a global strategy to fight not only Al Qaeda but the radical ideology it represents. Has anyone in the Bush and Kerry campaigns read Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report? (Walter Russell Mead, August 29, 2004, Boston Globe)

IN ALL THE BROUHAHA over the recommendations for intelligence reform contained in the 9/11 Commission Report, the commission's most important and sweeping recommendations - those on foreign policy - have been largely ignored.

Those recommendations, which appear in Chapter 12 of the report, entitled "What To Do? A Global Strategy," go far beyond reforming the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community. They lay out a plan for fighting and winning the war on terror. Who is the enemy? What do they want? And how can we win? These are the questions the commission tries to answer in Chapter 12.

"Our enemy," the commission notes, "is twofold: al Qaeda, a stateless network of terrorists that struck us on 9/11; and a radical ideological movement in the Islamic world. . .." In short, says the commission, "the United States has to help defeat an ideology, not just a group of people. . .. How can the United States and its friends help moderate Muslims combat the extremist ideas?"

These are the issues the presidential election needs to be about - but so far neither presidential campaign seems to want to put them front and center. Senator Kerry, who says he has accepted "all" of the report's recommendations, hasn't said whether the recommendations in Chapter 12 - which amount to the first systematic attempt by a bipartisan group to develop a new grand strategy for a new kind of war - are included in that blanket endorsement. President Bush, for his part, has said surprisingly little about how he will prosecute the war on terror if he wins a second term.

Vote near, Saudis push to modernize (Charles A. Radin, August 29, 2004, Boston Globe)

Even as Saudi Arabia struggles internally with violent extremists and externally with its image as the country that produced most of the attackers of Sept. 11, 2001, the desert kingdom's rulers are moving on multiple fronts to modernize and moderate their nation.

Partial local elections are scheduled, starting in October, for the first time in the kingdom's history.

A series of highly publicized national dialogues is opening public discussion on religious and social topics, ranging from the sensitive to the previously taboo.

Women are increasingly outspoken in asserting their rights to participate in society, both economically and politically.

And the rigid religious hierarchy that a few years ago was sending morality police into the streets to enforce an extremely strict version of Islam is seeing its powers erode.

None of this means irrevocable change has occurred toward moderation or liberalism in Saudi Arabia, the world's most austere Muslim nation. Critics say that the pace is far too slow and that change is coming not because it is seen as good for the average citizen but because since Sept. 11, the United States is demanding it.

It's hard to criticize Mr. Mead for not reading the Globe, but you'd think its editors might have noted that their front page piece on Saudi reform directly contradicts their lead Ideas piece. The Bush administration has: dispatched two Middle Eastern tyrannies; forced a change in the behavior of Libya's regime; driven such a wedge between Yassir Arafat and his own prime ministers that he is now thought of by even the Palestinians as superfluous; negotiated a Free Trade agreement with Morocco; established radio and television outlets in the region; formulated a Middle Eastern democracy initiative; forced crackdowns on Islamicists in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; etc.; etc.; etc.

Chapter 12 adds nothing to that mix. He's right about Senator Kerry though.

---

THAT WOULD BE HIS PLATFORM, KEVIN:

What you won't hear: GOP hopes images can beat reality (Kevin Phillips, August 29, 2004, Boston Globe)

Here are some key issues to note, either in their image-making intentions or in their all-but-certain omission.

* Terrorism and homeland security: No one should expect the convention to let disillusioning facts and the results of 2003-2004 investigations get in the way of attempts to cast George W. Bush as a reincarnation of Superman and the Lone Ranger, dedicated to the fight against evildoers like Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Whether it will be politic to mention the not-yet-apprehended Osama bin Laden, though, is one of the few unpredictables. [...]

* War with Iraq: No US war policy has been more thoroughly bungled since James Madison let the British burn Washington during the War of 1812. [...]

* The uncertain economic future: It's unclear which flaw in administration economic policy is the most dangerous -- weak job creation, feckless global oil strategy, or the ballooning US trade and current account deficits.

Under the circumstances, economic boasting is unlikely to be a hallmark of this week's speeches, save for the obligatory salutes to tax cuts and the inevitable cliches about how focused George W. Bush is on small business and the jobs it creates. If current trends continue, though, he is about to finish the autumn of 2004 as the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net four-year loss of jobs. If the TV pundits are interested, even George Bush Senior did somewhat better.

* The influence of the religious right: Don't look for the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons to be in the spotlight at this convention. Back in the 1980s, the religious right didn't trust Bush Sr., and at the 1992 convention in Houston, he had to pander -- letting Pat Buchanan make a prime-time speech and then jetting up to Dallas for a presidential meeting with preachers and televangelists.

Anyone want to bet that the President himself won't mention the war on al-Qaeda and the noticeable lack of domestic terrorism since 9-11; the victory in Iraq and the handover of sovereignty; the growing economy; and the Culture of Life?

---

THESE GUYS WOULD CONVICT CHURCHILL IF THEY COULD

Court ruling tightens net on Pinochet (The Australian, August 29th, 2004)

Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is a step closer to being tried for atrocities committed under his 1973-1990 regime after a court stripped him of immunity from prosecution.

The 9-8 vote by the Supreme Court opens a new legal front against the 88-year-old general, who is also facing accusations of corruption over revelations he holds millions of dollars in secret US bank accounts.

The decision upholds a May 28 ruling by the Santiago Appeals Court to scrap Pinochet's immunity in a human rights case involving Operation Condor -- the massive crackdown by 1970s military dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia.

Although Pinochet has never been charged in connection with Operation Condor, government spokesman Francisco Vidal signalled the ruling cleared the way for a possible investigation. At least 3000 Chileans were murdered or disappeared under the Pinochet regime.

The ruling was the latest of dozens of human rights abuse cases working their way through the courts accusing Pinochet of using the secret police and military to kidnap, torture and murder left-wing opponents of his dictatorship.

Give the left credit. Over the past two generations, it has succeeded in converting almost every effort to thwart or destroy Marxist (or Ba’athist) regimes from political to legal dramas. It knows it can't sell its discredited political and economic nonsense to anyone anymore, but it can capture the sympathies of millions with heart-rending tales of the torture of the innocents.

Here is a man who checked an attempted communist coup by a well-organized left with the result that Chile, instead of wallowing in Cuba-like misery, is now the most peaceful and prosperous nation in South America. This counts for naught when the international lawyers and human rights activists sharpen their swords. Indeed, it seems to fuel their zeal.

---

ANOTHER REASON TO GIVE THANKS FOR RONALD REAGAN

Secret US plot to steal Moscow's Olympic flame (Chris Hastings, The Telegraph, August 29th, 2004)

Britain and America tried to bolster support for an international boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics by proposing a rival event in the West African state of Ivory Coast, according to newly declassified documents.

The papers, from the United States State Department, show that American diplomats lobbied the former French colony about holding "Olympic-type events" on its soil.

President Jimmy Carter, who called for a boycott of the 1980 games in protest at Russia's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, believed that a sporting competition in Africa would solve two problems.

He hoped that it would encourage developing countries that were not aligned to either superpower to join the boycott of the Moscow games and offer Western athletes - who were largely sceptical of a ban - the chance to compete in an alternative event.

A memo from the US State Department to the American embassy in Ivory Coast dated February 1980 said: "Action requested: At your discretion, embassy should seek earliest opportunity to approach the government of Ivory Coast at high level to review results of February 12 meeting in Washington.

"You might also broach subject of getting Ivory Coast to serve as a site for some Olympic-type sporting events in late 1980. Request embassy report on its approach to government of the Ivory Coast by immediate cable, as department wishes to call in Ivorian ambassador for parallel discussions with department's Olympic boycott co-ordinator."[...]

The documents do not address the issue of what sort of games could be staged in a country where the primary exports were cocoa, coffee, and mangoes, or how they would compare with the Moscow Olympics, which were held in July and August 1980 and which cost an unprecedented £100 million.

---

HO HUM

Russians Find Explosives on 2nd Plane (Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, August 29th, 2004)

Investigators found traces of explosives on the second of two passenger airliners that crashed simultaneously in Russia, security officials announced Saturday, confirming that they consider the twin air disasters to be terrorist acts.

Facing a menacing turn in Russia's fight against terrorism and eager to calm travelers, the officials announced that they would increase security at the country's airports. The new measures included having Interior Ministry officers screen passengers, starting immediately, and installing sensors able to detect the presence of explosives.[...]

Investigators have reportedly focused attention on two passengers - both women, apparently from Chechnya - who bought tickets for the flights shortly before departure. Izvestia reported that one of the women, who registered for Flight 1303 as Amanta Nagayeva, 27, was born in the Chechen village of Kirov-Urt.

The newspaper quoted the village's administrator, Dogman Akhmadova, as saying that one of Ms. Nagayeva's three brothers had been seized by Russian forces three or four years ago and never seen again.

It is now five days since Russia’s worst airline terrorist incident. There appears to have been no statement from Putin or other leaders, no national call to arms and no marshaling of any public resolve to confront and destroy those responsible. Imagine this happening in the States with the only response from Washington being a promise to beef up airport security.

The left likes to argue that defter, more respectful diplomacy would bring more of the world on board in the war on terror. This misplaced argument assumes the horror, anger and resolve Americans felt ethically and spiritually in the wake of 9/11 would be shared by other countries if it happened to them. It wouldn’t. The Russians, Chinese and even the French see terrorism as an inevitable fact of political life to be managed and checked strategically rather than an abomination to be eradicated.

The American “zero tolerance” attitude is basically shared only by those in the Anglosphere, and by no means all of them. Most of the rest of the world will fight terrorism if they perceive it to be in their short term material national interests, and they wrongly assume Americans do the same. If ducking or quitting rather than fighting seems safer for the moment, they will duck or quit.

On the other hand, when they do move, they don’t get sidetracked by Abu Ghraib type scandals or let their courts give the terrorists a helping hand.

---

NOBLESSE OBLIGE

Interesting Times: It's not about Israel (Saul Singer, Jerusalem Post, August 26th, 2004)

After nine speeches in four cities on both coasts on my "vacation," I've got a better idea of how American Jews are torn by the coming election. Most are not so torn on how to vote - they'll vote Kerry. But there is a chink in their "anybody but Bush" armor: Bush is better for Israel.

Even anti-Bush Jews accept this. Kerry can wax lyrical about his trip to Masada, his "perfect" pro-Israel voting record, his Jewish brother, and his Bush-clone position paper, but no one can really imagine him stiffing Yasser Arafat and embracing Ariel Sharon the way Bush has.

Yet here's the riff I kept hearing between the lines: I know the "pro-Israel" vote is for Bush but I am so repulsed by him on so many other issues that I can't do it.

I understand this way of thinking, but consider a subtle modification. The dividing line in the American Jewish mind is in the wrong place. It should not be Israel on one side of the scale and everything else on the other. The real choice is between foreign policy, as it impacts on America and Israel, and domestic policy, in all its facets.

For the sake of argument, I'm prepared to accept that regarding economic, tax, and social policy Bush is, in American Jewish eyes, akin to Attila the Hun. Not living in America, who am I tell someone who is appalled at what the president is doing to their country, not to be concerned?

But as a citizen of the world, not just of America and Israel, I feel a right to say this: This is not about Israel, but where America is going on a global scale. As strange as it may sound, I don't want American Jews to vote on Israel, but on their own security and who they prefer for the de facto leader of this planet.

Which is why non-Americans who go ballistic when anyone interferes in their elections hold such vocal views about yours. Take it as a compliment.

---

THEY’RE OFF!

Howard: election to be about trust (Sydney Morning Herald, August 29th, 2004)

The Prime Minister, John Howard, announced an October 9 election date today saying the six-week campaign would be one fought on the issue of trust.

Announcing the election date at a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Mr Howard said it would be a decision for voters about who they trusted most to look after Australia and its economic future.

Right now the two leaders seem to be feinting with bromides about trust and the future, but this could be interesting and very close. Voting is compulsory in Australia and they have a preferred ballot (sometimes called an instant runoff) where voters rank their preferences. Early polls show Labor with a slight lead.

---

NOT BLUE IS ENOUGH:

GOP to Show a New Face to Minorities: More delegates will be black and Latino, but Bush's record may be a hindrance. (Johanna Neuman, August 29, 2004, LA Times)

A record 16% of the 5,000 delegates will be members of minority groups, and 44% will be women — a 70% increase in the diversity of delegates from 2000 and the most varied crowd of delegates in GOP history. Republican leaders call it a "milestone achievement in our party's connection with American minorities."

Republican leaders also plan to portray President Bush as a man who has advanced the interests of minorities by deeds, not words — highlighting his faith-based initiatives to help the disadvantaged, his No Child Left Behind education policy, the acceleration of minority homeownership on his watch and his support for historically black and Latino colleges.

They will also point to the diversity of his top advisors, among them Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson.

"Our government has a very diverse face, a diverse presence," said Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Far from conceding the minority vote to Democrats — in 2000, Al Gore won 90% of the black vote and 67% of the Latino vote — the GOP will promote all of Bush's policies as beneficial to minorities, Holt said, including the war on terrorism, tax cuts and healthcare reform.

"It's not just political rhetoric," he said. "President Bush has led by example."

It would be nice to get more black voters but all that's really necessary is that they not have motivation to turn out to vote against you. Why would any black voter make a special effort to vote against Mr. Bush and for Mr. Kerry?

---

LET SLEEPING REASON LIE:

The Sleep of Reason: a review of Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (Thomas Nagel, The New Republic)

Although Sokal and Bricmont focus on the abuse and misrepresentation of science by a dozen French intellectuals, and the cognitive relativism of postmodern theory, it broaches a much larger topic -- the uneasy place of science and the understanding of scientific rationality in contemporary culture.

The technological consequences of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology permeate our lives, and everyone who has been around for a few decades has witnessed the most spectacular developments. That alone would give science enormous prestige; but it also reinforces the purely intellectual aura of science as a domain of understanding that takes us far beyond common sense, by methods that are often far more reliable than common sense. The problem is that it is not easy for those without scientific training to acquire a decent grasp of this kind of understanding, as opposed to an awareness of its consequences and an ability to parrot some of its terminology. One can be infatuated with the idea of theory without understanding what a theory is.

To have a theory, it is not enough to throw around a set of abstract terms or to classify things under different labels. A theory, whether it is true or false, has to include some general principles by which fresh consequences can be inferred from particular facts -- consequences not already implied by the initial description of those facts. The most familiar theories embody causal principles that enable us to infer from present observation what will happen or what has happened, but there are other kinds of theories -- mathematical, linguistic, or ethical theories, for example -- that describe noncausal systematic relations. A successful theory increases one's cognitive power over its domain, one's power to understand why the particular facts are as they are, and to discover new facts by inference from others that one can observe directly. Most important of all, it provides an understanding of the unifying reality that underlies observed diversity.

You don't have to understand quantum mechanics to appreciate the nature of science. Anyone who has taken introductory chemistry and is familiar with the periodic table of the elements has some idea of how powerful a theory can be -- what an extraordinary wealth of specific consequences can be derived from a limited number of precise but general principles. And understanding classical chemistry requires only a basic spatial imagination and simple mathematics, nothing counterintuitive. But it should be clear that not everything in the world is governed by general principles sufficiently precise and substantive to be embodied in a theory. Theories in the social sciences are possible which depend on principles, even if they are only probabilistic, that apply to large numbers of people; but to employ theoretical-sounding jargon in talking about literature or art has about as much effect as putting on a lab coat, and in most cases the same is true for history.

Unfortunately, the lack of familiarity with real scientific theories sometimes results in imitation of their outward forms together with denigration of their claim to provide a specially powerful source of objective knowledge about the world. This defensive iconoclasm has received crucial support from a radical position in the history and philosophy of science, whose authority is regularly invoked by writers outside those fields: the epistemological relativism or even anarchism found in the writings of Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

As Sokal and Bricmont explain, Kuhn and Feyerabend were writing in the context of an ongoing dispute over the relation of scientific theories to empirical evidence. The logical positivists tried to interpret scientific propositions so that they would be entailed by the evidence of experience. Karl Popper denied that this was possible, but held that scientific propositions, if they were to have empirical content, had to be such that at least their falsehood could be entailed by the evidence of experience. Yet neither of these direct logical relations appears to hold, because the evidentiary relation pro or con between any experience and any theoretical claim always involves auxiliary hypotheses -- things apart from the proposition and the evidence themselves that are being assumed true or false. There is nothing wrong with relying on many assumptions in the ordinary case, but it is always logically possible that some of them may be false, and sometimes that conclusion is forced on us with regard to an assumption that had seemed obvious. When that happens with a truly fundamental aspect of our world view, we speak of a scientific revolution.

So far, none of this implies that scientific reasoning is not objective, or that it cannot yield knowledge of reality. All it means is that a scientific inference from evidence to the truth or falsity of any proposition involves in some degree our whole system of beliefs and experience; and that the method is not logical deduction alone, but a weighing of which elements of the system it is most reasonable to retain and which to abandon when an inconsistency among them appears. In normal inquiry, this is usually easy to determine; but at the cutting edge it is often difficult, and a clear answer may have to await the experimental production of further evidence, or the construction of new theoretical hypotheses.

This means that most of our beliefs at any time must in some degree be regarded as provisional, since they may be replaced when a different balance of reasons is generated by new experience or theoretical ingenuity. It also means that an eternal set of rules of scientific method cannot be laid down in advance. But it does not mean that it cannot be true that a certain theory is the most reasonable to accept given the evidence available at a particular time, and it does not mean that the theory cannot be objectively true, however provisionally we may hold it. Truth is not the same as certainty, or universal acceptance.

Another point sometimes made against the claim of scientific objectivity is that experience is always "theory-laden," as if that meant that any experience which seemed to contradict a theory could be reinterpreted in terms of it, so that nothing could ever rationally require us to accept or reject a theory. [...]

As Sokal and Bricmont point out, the denial of objective truth on the ground that all systems of belief are determined by social forces is self-refuting if we take it seriously, since it appeals to a sociological or historical claim which would not establish the conclusion unless it were objectively correct. Moreover, it promotes one discipline, such as sociology or history, over the others whose objectivity it purports to debunk, such as physics and mathematics. Given that many propositions in the latter fields are much better established than the theories of social determination by which their objectivity is being challenged, this is like using a ouija board to decide whether your car needs new brake linings.

Relativism is kept alive by a simple fallacy, repeated again and again: the idea that if something is a form of discourse, the only standard it can answer to is conformity to the practices of a linguistic community, and that any evaluation of its content or its justification must somehow be reduced to that. This is to ignore the differences between types of discourse, which can be understood only by studying them from inside. There are certainly domains, such as etiquette or spelling, where what is correct is completely determined by the practices of a particular community. Yet empirical knowledge, including science, is not like this. Where agreement exists, it is produced by evidence and reasoning, and not vice versa. The constantly evolving practices of those engaged in scientific research aim beyond themselves at a correct account of the world, and are not logically guaranteed to achieve it. Their recognition of their own fallibility shows that the resulting claims have objective content.

There are few authors who it's more fun to watch try and extract themselves from the traps they accidentally laid than Mr. Nagel. Take just the last paragraph, which includes the following assertions: (1) that objectivity exists because there are domains we can get outside of; (2) that agreement in science only follows evidence and reasoning, never precedes; (3) that scientists uniquely aim at a "correct account" of the world and search for it beyond themselves; and (4) that so long as you acknowledge you are fallible you are therefore being objective. Relativism may indeed be nothing more than a fallacy repeated again and again, but can you really overcome that fallacy by simply asserting a countervailing fallacy of objectivity over and over again?

The problem, as always, is that folks like Mr. Nagel refuse--to their credit--to follow where a genuine skepticism would lead them, The Gay Science: Book V: We Fearless Ones (Friedrich Nietzsche)

How we, too, are still pious. In science convictions have no rights of citizenship, as one says with good reason: only when they decide to descend to the modesty of hypotheses, of a provisional experimental point of view, of a regulative fiction, they may be granted admission and even a certain value in the realm of knowledge—though always with the restriction that they remain under police supervision, under the police of mistrust.— But does this not mean, if you consider it more precisely, that a conviction may obtain admission to science only when it ceases to be a conviction? Would it not be the first step in the discipline of the scientific spirit that one would not permit oneself any more convictions? ... Probably this is so: only we still have to ask, to make it possible for this discipline to begin, must there not be some prior conviction, even one that is so commanding and unconditional that it sacrifices all other convictions to itself? We see that science also rests on a faith, there simply is no science "without presuppositions." The question whether truth is needed must not only have been affirmed in advance, but affirmed to such a degree that the principle, the faith, the conviction finds expression: "Nothing is needed more than truth, and in relation to it everything else has only second-rate value."— This unconditional will to truth: what is it? Is it the will not to allow oneself to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth could be interpreted in the latter way, too: if only the special case "I do not want to deceive myself" is subsumed under the generalization "I do not want to deceive." But why not deceive? But why not allow oneself to be deceived?— Note that the reasons for the former principle belong to an altogether different realm from those for the second: one does not want to allow oneself to be deceived because one assumes that it is harmful, dangerous, calamitous to be deceived,—in this sense, science would be a long-range prudence, a caution, a utility, but one could object in all fairness: how? is wanting not to allow oneself to be deceived really less harmful, less dangerous, less calamitous: what do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditionally mistrustful or of the unconditionally trusting? But if both should be required, much trust and much mistrust: from where would science then be permitted to take its unconditional faith or conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than any other thing, including every other conviction. Precisely this conviction could never have come into being if both truth and untruth constantly proved to be useful: which is the case. Thus—the faith in science, which after all exists undeniably, cannot owe its origin to such a calculus of utility; it must have originated in spite of the fact that the disutility and dangerousness of "the will to truth," of "truth at any price" is proved to it constantly. "At any price": oh how well we understand these words once we have offered and slaughtered one faith after another on this altar!— Consequently, "will to truth" does not mean "I will not allow myself to be deceived" but—there is no alternative—"I will not deceive, not even myself":—and with that we stand on moral ground. [...]

[I]t is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless ones and anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine ... But what if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?

Or, as Karl Jaspers summarized: "once godlessness becomes a reality, the interest in truth will finally cease." Fortunately, hardly anyone--besides the occasional syphilitic German--is willing to contemplate such a reality.

---

FROM RESPECTABLE TO SECULAR (via Mike Daley):

The death of religion & the fall of respectable Britain (Christie Davies, Summer 2004, New Criterion)

There has, then, been a series of linked changes in Britain, that I have termed the rise and fall of respectable Britain. In the late-nineteenth century, crime rates fell dramatically, as did drug and alcohol abuse, and illegitimacy became less common. All these indexes of deviance were fairly steady between World War I and 1955. After 1955 they all rose massively to create a U-curve of deviance, over the period from 1847 to 1997. Behind it lies the rise and fall of British respectability, of which the rise and fall of the Sunday Schools is both an index and a cause. In the late nineteenth century, the Sunday Schools grew rapidly in numbers and influence to a peak in the decade 1901-1911. After the First World War they declined slowly, and after a brief revival in the early 1950s, they collapsed totally in the last half of the twentieth century. The two patterns fit together very well indeed.

The story outlined above may well have many echoes in the American
experience-but, given the greater religiosity of the United States, it might
have to be told in a very different way. I leave that to American observers
and historians to decide.

There is, however, another story to be told, and one that contrasts a
totally secular Britain with a much more religiously diverse United States,
substantial sections of which are intensely Christian. The only comparable
region in the United Kingdom is the province of Northern Ireland, where both
Protestants and Roman Catholics have retained an intense attachment to their
religion.

This second story relates not to the daily behavior of the people but to a
political phenomenon. The politics of homosexuality, abortion, and capital
punishment have taken a very different form in Britain: there has been no
American-style culture war, but rather an overwhelming and unchallengeable
victory for the forces of secular liberalism. [...]

Only in Northern Ireland has there been any strong opposition to this trend;
indeed, hostility to homosexuality is one of the few issues on which the
Protestants and Catholics of the Province agree. The laws of both Northern
Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland (the old pre-1967 English law),
however, have been struck down by the European Court of Human Rights, a
secular institution of a secular Europe. In both parts of Ireland there was
strong support for the laws against homosexual conduct on religious grounds,
but Europe is an overwhelmingly secular continent and the Irish lost out.
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland constitute an odd anomaly that
in religious terms resembles the United States rather than Europe.

Ireland also remains one of the few countries in Europe where there is
significant opposition to abortion being easily available. In Britain there
is in effect abortion on demand, and women from both the province of
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland travel there to obtain
abortions. Attempts to prevent such travel by blocking the dissemination in
Ireland of information about clinics in other countries, by the government
and courts of the Republic of Ireland (where the ban on abortion is built
into the very constitution of the Republic), have been struck down by the
European Court of Human Rights. [...]

By a curious convention adhered to by the main British political parties, capital punishment is not used as an electoral issue. Also, although a majority of the people are in favor of capital punishment, murder is a rare crime even in the violent and increasingly violent Britain of the twenty-first century, and capital punishment is not a sufficiently important question for the majority-who would like to see it restored-to disturb the established convention that has kept it out of politics.

The Labour and Liberal politicians are strongly united against capital
punishment on ideological grounds, and the Conservative politicians are
divided and uncertain. If the Conservatives had campaigned strongly in favor
of capital punishment in the last half of the twentieth century it would
have gained them votes but split their party. The Conservatives did,
however, refuse to sign Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights, which outlawed capital punishment permanently and completely on the
grounds that it was a matter for the British parliament to decide. In 1998,
the Labour government, which had come to power in 1997, did sign Protocol 6.
It was a further step by which Britain was absorbed into the shared secular
liberal ideology of Europe that sets that continent apart from a more
vigorous and more religious United States.

It seems an unlikely coincidence that Ireland combines one of the few thriving economies in Europe with a higher level of religiosity than the rest.

---

LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS...ERR...I MEAN YOUR SPRING WATER

Asian farmers sucking continent dry, scientists say (New Zealand Herald, August 26th, 2004)

Asian farmers drilling millions of pump-operated wells in an ever-deeper search for water are threatening to suck the continent's underground reserves dry, a science magazine warned on Wednesday.

"This little-heralded crisis is repeating itself across Asia and could cause widespread famine in the decades to come," London-based New Scientist said in a report on scientists' findings at a recent water conference in Sweden.

The worst affected country is India.

There, small farmers have abandoned traditional shallow wells where bullocks draw water in leather buckets to drill 21 million tube wells hundreds of metres below the surface using technology adapted from the oil industry, the magazine said.

Another million wells a year are coming into operation in India to irrigate rice, sugar cane and alfalfa round-the-clock.

While the US$600 ($939) pumps have brought short-term prosperity to many and helped make India a major rice exporter in less than a generation, future implications are dire, New Scientist said.

"So much water is being drawn from underground reserves that they, and the pumps they feed, are running dry, turning fields that have been fecund for generations

Tushaar Shah, head of the International Water Management Institute's groundwater station in Gujarat, said there was no control over the expansion of pumps and wells.

"When the balloon bursts, untold anarchy will be the lot of rural India," he said at the annual Stockholm Water Symposium.

Water supply and management is a far more serious long term environmental issue than the hocus-pocus about global warming and ozone holes (remember them?). The market and a not-so-expensive international effort to supply clean drinking water will provide the answers, but conservatives will largely ignore the question until long after it has been captured by Club of Rome-like think tanks and UN sub-committees calling for rigid state economic planning, huge wealth transfers and drastic cutbacks of water consumption in Idaho.

In the meantime, isn’t this article a perfect statement of the modern progressive’s image of the old Yellow Peril? A hundred years ago they were out to ravish our women. Today, they are sucking out Earth’s precious bodily fluids before our very eyes!!!

---

SAY A PRAYER FOR CHARLOTTE

Parents in fight to keep their baby alive (Stewart Payne, The Telegraph, August 28th, 2004)

The parents of a premature baby were yesterday preparing to challenge doctors who have said they will not resuscitate their child when it develops life-threatening breathing difficulties.

The hospital trust has supported the stance taken by its medical experts and said it will seek a court ruling if the parents insist on 10-month-old Charlotte Wyatt being resuscitated in an intensive care unit. Darren and Debbie Wyatt said they would challenge the trust if the matter goes to court.

Charlotte was born three months premature at St Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, weighing just one pound and measuring only five inches.

She has never left hospital, has stopped breathing three times due to serious heart and lung problems, and doctors say she would not survive in the long term because her lungs are so severely damaged.

When, as anticipated, she requires a ventilator again, the hospital has told the Wyatts it is prepared to keep her alive long enough for them to attend at her bedside, but insists it would be "against the child's interests" artificially to resuscitate her.

Her parents spoke of their dismay at the hospital's decision and described their daughter, who is now 18 inches long and weighs 10lbs, as a "fighter" who should be given every chance of life.[...]

Dr Joanna Walker, clinical director of paediatrics at St Mary's Hospital, said: "When a child has a life limiting condition we work cooperatively with the parents and family always to act in the child's best interests."

Doctors can decide to withhold treatment if they believe they are acting in the patient's best interests and have discussed the decision with the patient or relatives.

After all, everybody knows how frequently death is in a child's best interests.

---

REMARKABLE WHAT A LITTLE PATIENCE GETS YOU:

End to Najaf fighting leaves something for all (JIM KRANE, 8/28/04, Chicago Sun-Times)

If the agreement brokered Thursday by al-Sistani holds, Allawi could be the biggest winner.

The government not only gains sovereignty over Najaf, it stands to receive a boost in legitimacy among Iraqi Shiites for working with al-Sistani, the most senior Shiite cleric in Iraq and one of the most respected people in the country.

It was a shrewd move by Allawi, who introduced the idea that al-Sistani and the Iraqi government were working toward a common objective, said a Bush administration official in Washington.

But the resolution also points to the power of al-Sistani, who -- even ailing after heart treatment in London -- could resolve a crisis that government negotiators and troops could not.

The outcome for the U.S. military was less impressive. But it's hard to see how the Americans could have ended the Najaf standoff on a better note.

The only potential losers are al-Sadr and the rest who proved afraid of martyrdom.

---

KEYES 13, OBAMA 0:

Dems' bid to keep Keyes off ballot fails (STEVE PATTERSON, August 28, 2004, Chicago Sun Times)

Just when you thought the U.S. Senate race in Illinois couldn't get any stranger, Democrats showed they have a few more tricks up their sleeve.

With Republicans turning their attention to New York for their national convention, Democrats on the Illinois Board of Elections raised legal questions Friday that threatened to keep Alan Keyes off the ballot as the GOP nominee.

But after a four-hour standoff at the Thompson Center, it took just a three-minute phone call from a top Republican attorney to settle the matter -- at least for now -- and put Keyes on the fall ballot.

Keyes' camp immediately blamed supporters of Democrat Barack Obama for orchestrating the ambush, though Obama's aides insisted they were "blindsided" by the move and called it "outrageously stupid." Polls show Obama way ahead of Keyes.

Mr. Obama looks less and less ready for primetime.

---

WITH OR AGAINST?:

Howard ire over Bush rift report (BBC, 8/28/04)

Tory leader Michael Howard has hit out at White House aides after he was told he would never meet President Bush.

The Sun reported senior aide Karl Rove told Mr Howard in February: "You can forget about meeting the president full stop. Don't bother coming."

The officials were reportedly furious at the Conservative leader's call for Tony Blair to resign over the Iraq war.

Mr. Bush meets regularly with Britain's conservative leader: Tony Blair.

---

REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE

Honda marks 25 years of manufacturing in United States (John Porretto, National Post, August 28th, 2004)

A quarter century ago, Honda Motor Co. would have been on few lists of companies poised to alter the American automotive industry.

Recognized more for motorcycles than for cars, Honda was Japan's fifth-largest automaker at the time, relatively small and unheralded in a market dominated by Toyota Motor Corp. and Nissan Motor Co.

Facing an uncertain future, founder Soichiro Honda decided in the late 1970s to invest heavily in manufacturing facilities in the United States, looking to join German-automaker Volkswagen as the only foreign transplants building vehicles on American soil.

Honda's venture was considered risky - even a make-or-break proposition - given its size and standing, but the company never wavered. The resulting operations in central Ohio were the start of a revolution that would far surpass VW's endeavor, which ended in 1988, and change the landscape of American carmaking.

Industry observers say Honda's flexible and efficient manufacturing systems - which were followed in the United States by Nissan and Toyota - caused America's Big Three automakers to take notice and helped foster quality improvements industrywide.

One of the most irrational sights in modern politics is to see the left rally around the plaintive whines of inefficient businesses trying to avoid foreign competition by pulling patriotic heartstrings. This happens frequently in Canada, where artists, academics and left-wing politicians rally to the cause of protecting struggling companies which are suddenly transformed from greedy exploiters to guardians of the distinct national heritage. Fortunately for the welfare of Canadians, they rarely succeed.

But they do succeed in Europe and Japan, which are both inclined to identify the ownership of businesses with the national interest and make foreign access to markets and enterprise ownership difficult. The United States is the only large and powerful country which largely abjures this damaging line of thinking, one reason it ranks first along with a group of smallish, exporting countries in prosperity and competitiveness.

---

OH YEAH! WELL, YOU GIRLS ARE DUMB!

US public sector learning lessons from single-sex private schools (Alex Massie, The Scotsman, August 28th, 2004)

Kristielle Pedraza has chosen books over boys - she’s so busy with the former she has no time for the latter. Boys are for losers. Winners read books.

The 13-year-old is adamant that she will not miss the boys while she attends the Irma Rangel Young Women’s Leadership School, Dallas’ first all-girl public school and one of a growing number of such schools nationally.

"Usually it’s the guys that distract the whole class. They’re usually the class clowns," says Kristielle, who began the new school year last week. "With no guys in the school, I can know we will really get busy without much distraction."

She is not alone in thinking that. At least 11 more single-sex, publicly funded schools will open this autumn in six states - Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina and Oregon.

Advocates maintain that separating the sexes can improve learning by easing the peer pressure that can lead to misbehaviour as well as low self-esteem among girls.

"John Kerry, George W. Bush, his father and Al Gore all went to all-boys schools. We don’t think that’s a coincidence," argues Dr Leonard Sax, a Maryland physician and psychologist who has founded a nonprofit group that advocates single-sex public education.

"We think single-sex education really empowers girls and boys from very diverse backgrounds to achieve."

Not everyone agrees. Indeed, some women’s groups and the American Civil Liberties Union say segregation of any kind is wrong.

"We think segregation has historically always resulted in second-class citizens," says Terry O’Neill, a National Organisation for Women vice president.

Dr. Sax might be a tad more careful with the role models he trumpets, but anyone who has taught or worked with children in their middle-school years knows full well that boys and girls generally are very different in aptitude, interests and emotional make-up. They respond to completely different kinds of discipline and encouragement. They have little to gain and much to lose from each other’s constant presence, and the smart ones don't even like each other much. Ideological progressives and feminists can try to force silly parallels with civil rights all they want, but at least the black leadership isn’t embarrassed by Afro-Americans calling publically for a return to Jim Crow.

---

IGNORANCE IS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE

Sexed-up reports, pressure on the UN ... here we go again (Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, August 27th, 2004)

There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in going to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say Iran has violated its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and take the matter to the security council for a decision on sanctions or other stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move to the UN.[...]

The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's stance. Unlike with the Bush campaign against Saddam Hussein, Britain is siding this time with France and Germany. It is part of a "troika" which promotes constructive engagement rather than confrontation with Iran. Their dialogue ran into a sticky phase this summer with allegations of bad faith on both sides, but the three European states are willing to keep it going.

They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order make them want no repetition in Iraq's more populous and larger neighbour. Even "limited" air-strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would unify the country and harden hostility to the west throughout the Middle East, especially if Washington subcontracted the attacks to the Israeli air force.

Most Iraqi resistance to the Americans is based on nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different. People of all political persuasions in Tehran support their country's right to have nuclear power, and probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is not the most intelligent way to persuade them otherwise.

The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this spring's unfair elections, as well as the certainty that President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal with than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven years. Many are non-clerical veterans of the Iran-Iraq war who are influenced by nationalism and economic imperatives more than the revolutionary Islamic ideology of the Khomeini generation. They want better relations with the west.

Here is the voice of the left in all its mendacious fantasy. Nowhere in this article does Mr. Steele question that Iran is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Such a prospect is presumably far less worrisome than trigger-happy Americans swaggering around the globe pushing around freedom-loving peoples concerned with global warming and human rights. Although the anti-regime liberals have been crushed, he sees a quiet cabal of “pragmatic conservatives” ready to hold the mullahs back and save the day provided nobody wounds their pride by daring to put pressure on Iran about anything. Presumably, that is why the British were so clever a few months ago in allowing their sailors to be captured and publically humiliated without protest. It is called constructive engagement.

This article might have been lifted verbatim from the 1930's with only the names changed to protect the guilty.

---

REASON ENOUGH TO BURN THEM:

Witchcraft blamed as man grows genital organ on face (Japhet Dube, 24 Aug 2004, Newzimbabwe.com)

IN a bizarre incident, a Bulawayo man allegedly developed a female genital organ on the right side of his face stretching up to the chest in what is suspected to be a case of witchcraft.

---

REGRETS, I'VE HAD A FEW:

Playing Catch-Up With Sheffield (JACK CURRY, 8/26/04, NY Times)

The now familiar-looking 11-year-old with slits for eyes, a space between his two front teeth and the beginning of a mischievous grin announced himself to a national audience during the introductions for the 1980 Little League World Series.

"Gary Sheffield. Catcher."

Yes, that is the Yankees' Gary Sheffield as an 11-year-old staring into the television camera to give his name and what now seems like an odd position for him to be playing on the team from Tampa, Fla. Gary Sheffield, a catcher?

When Sheffield finished his introduction, he turned to the right and smiled at two teammates, flashing the kind of smile that he said expressed how cool it felt to be 11, to be playing for a world championship and to be doing it on ABC's "Wide World of Sports."

"I was even hitting third," said Sheffield, laughing over his little-boy voice and mannerisms.

Sheffield watched a videotape of the game - played 24 years ago - for the first time last week in a Minneapolis hotel. The normally subdued Sheffield was excited to see the tape, but during the 75-minute session, his emotions veered from being happy about some sweet memories and permanent friendships to being disappointed about some lost chances that day and unfulfilled potential in subsequent years.

Even nearly 25 years later, Sheffield still wonders how his Belmont Heights team lost to Taiwan, 4-3.

---

WITH APOLOGIES TO DUANE:

Dare to eat a peach: ... or plum or nectarine; a luscious crop awaits (Los Angeles Times)

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?

I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach ...

From The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot

This year's luscious crop of peaches, nectarines and plums would bowl over Eliot's timid protagonist. Thanks to hot weather early in the season, California stone fruit is sweeter than usual.

What's more, new, late-ripening varieties mean you'll have until early October to indulge. Peach pie? Why not? Cobblers and crisps? Of course.

It doesn't get any better than Prufrock and peach cobbler.

---

WHOPPER? IT'S A WHALER:

Kerry's Cambodia Whopper (Joshua Muravchik, August 24, 2004, Washington Post)

[O]ne issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia. [...]

The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

Holiday in Cambodia: The "Christmas Eve" attack on Kerry is cheap and almost certainly wrong. (Fred Kaplan, Aug. 23, 2004, Slate)

[S]ome anti-Kerry veterans are saying he was never in Cambodia. John O'Neill, who has been dogging Kerry more than 30 years, told Matt Drudge that the senator's Christmas-in-Cambodia stories "are complete lies." As evidence, he cites Kerry's own wartime diary, as quoted in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. That book—according to Drudge's account of it—places Kerry in Sa Dec, 50 miles away from Cambodia, on Christmas Eve, and seemingly at peace. "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head," Kerry wrote in his diary that night, "and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real."

That passage is on Page 219 of Brinkley's book. But O'Neill, Drudge, and the other sneerers choose to ignore the 10 preceding pages—the opening pages of a chapter called "Death in the Delta." On Christmas Eve 1968, Brinkley writes, Kerry and his crew:

headed their Swift north by the Cho Chien River to its junction with the My Tho only miles from the Cambodian border. … Kerry began reading up on Cambodia's history in a book he had borrowed from the floating barracks in An Thoi. … He even read about a 1959 Pentagon study titled "Psychological Observations: Cambodia," which … state[d] that Cambodians "cannot be counted on to act in any positive way for the benefit of U.S. aims and policies." [Italics added.]

Brinkley also quotes from Kerry's diary: "It was early morning, not yet light. Ours was the only movement on the river, patrolling near the Cambodian line." [Italics added.] Brinkley continues: "At a bend just as they were approaching the Cambodian border, two [U.S. river-patrol boats] met the Swift." Then, again from Kerry's diary: "Suddenly, there is an explosion and a mortar lands on the bank near all three boats." The next few pages detail a ferocious firefight, one part of which involved (as his diary noted) "the ridiculous waste of being shot at by your own allies."

Only a few hours later, in the evening, did Kerry's boat reach the stationing area of Sa Dec. "The night for once is comforting," Kerry wrote in his diary, "and you take a Coke and some peanut butter and jelly and go up on the roof of the cabin with your tape recorder and sit for a while, quietly watching flares float silently through the sky and flashes announce disquieting intent somewhere in the distance." It is in this context that Kerry then wrote, in a letter to home, about "visions of sugarplums" and thinking of "snow and roast chestnuts."

So let's review the situation. On Christmas Eve 1968, Kerry's Swift boat and at least two river-patrol boats were doing something unusual (Kerry wrote that he'd never been so far in-country) at least in the vicinity of the border—"near the Cambodian line," as he put it in his diary. And Kerry had with him a book that described a Pentagon study on psychological operations against Cambodia.

Looking back at the journals I kept as a kid, I see I read The War of the Worlds on Christmas Eve 1968--doesn't mean the Martians attacked.

---

WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE GEORGE SOROS'S MONEY OR A GOOD ISSUE?:

Swift boat ad joins classics -- little expense, big impact (Michael Doyle, August 25, 2004, Sacramento Bee)

Call it what you will, the ad that launched the current attacks on John Kerry's Vietnam record has proved incredibly cost-effective.

In a textbook example of how small-time buys can bring big returns, an ad originally purchased for a few battleground states has taken over the nationwide presidential campaign. If nothing else, that makes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth effort a case study in political technique and journalistic practice.

"They've gotten substantially more free (media) time than paid time," Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, noted in an interview Tuesday.

This places the swift boat ad in classic company, including the Republicans' 1988 Willie Horton ad and the Democrats' 1964 "Daisy" ad. Both were frighteningly vivid. The 1988 ad showed the mug shot of a convicted murderer and rapist; the 1964 ad showed a young girl threatened by nuclear annihilation. Both ads ran only once, both drew considerable criticism and both enjoyed a long political afterlife.

And both targeted candidates who ended up losing badly.

---

KNOWING WHEN TO WALK AWAY:

Hooked on winning: Sharon knows it's time to cash in his chips and claim the prize of Greater Israel, but his party wants to gamble on (Jonathan Freedland, August 25, 2004, The Guardian)

Sharon is on a winning streak: each spin brings more chips to his pile. He calmly stacks up his winnings, calculating the odds. His partner is not so cool: she's getting excited. Finally, Sharon decides he has hit his peak; the heap of chips before him is not going to get any bigger. He wants to cash in his winnings.

"You can't leave now!" insists his companion, firmly pushing him back into his seat. "We're winning. Let's keep playing! Who knows? We might take the lot!" Sharon is determined to quit while he's ahead; his Likud partner won't let him.

OK, so the bit about Sharon looking slim in his tux is a bit fanciful - but that, in essence, is the situation currently playing out in Israeli politics. Ariel Sharon has spent the best part of four decades gambling for the prize that is Greater Israel: a Jewish state in roomier, more spacious borders than those that confined it until 1967. Bit by bit his pile of chips - in the form of the network of settlements that dot the West Bank and Gaza - has got larger.

About a year ago he calculated that it was time to visit the cashier and realise his gains. Sure, he would have to leave behind the last prize on the table - the Gaza Strip - but, in return, he would be able to keep choice cuts of the West Bank. Not Greatest Israel, perhaps, but Greater Israel most definitely. What's more, he would do so with the explicit backing of the US president, defying all those who insisted that any gains Israel made after 1967 would eventually have to be handed back.

Sharon reached his assessment by looking around the table. He concluded that his Palestinian rival was weaker than ever before. Ostracised internationally, faulted for failing both to improve security and to reform the way the Palestinian Authority does business, Yasser Arafat now faces an internal revolt. Last month it came on the streets of Gaza, with anti-Arafat riots; yesterday it took the form of a vote of no-confidence, slated for a meeting of the Palestine Legislative Council. Hobbled by long-standing accusations of corruption, the only peace process Arafat is engaged in right now is between himself and the disaffected within his own ranks.

The Israeli prime minister also noticed a change in the demeanour of the dealer at the table. For years the US sought to be an honest broker, insisting it showed no favour to either of the competing players. But since George W Bush took up the job, that neutrality has been shelved. Washington won't so much as meet the Palestinian leader; meanwhile the White House's Middle East coordinator takes his summer holidays in Israel. With an election looming, and a Bush campaign determined to peel off at least some of the 80% of Jews who traditionally vote Democrat, Sharon gambled that this was the year when Washington would not dare refuse him.

Taken together, these amount to the most conducive circumstances advocates of Greater Israel are ever likely to enjoy. Wait around and the weather could change, Sharon reasons, bringing either a renewed Palestinian leadership or a John Kerry presidency - either of which could revive the old demand that Israel give up most of the territories it gained in 1967.

Interesting that even the Guardian recognizes a Kerry election as being bad for Israel.

---

GIMME RIGHTS, SPARE ME DUTIES:

Founders' Quote Daily (8/26/04)

It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated
seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
--John Adams

---

INFINITE IGNORANCE:

The Role Of Particle Physics In A New Universe (SPX, Aug 26, 2004)

A string of recent discoveries in astronomy has left scientists with an unsettling realization: The stuff we know and understand makes up less than 5 percent of the universe. The rest has to be yet-unknown forms of "dark matter" and "dark energy."

At a time of momentous changes in our basic understanding of the universe, a new document outlines the essential role of particle physics in deciphering the laws of nature that govern dark matter, dark energy and more.

Hey, did you hear about that stupid tribe of Indians that can't count? If only they were as wise as we.

---

THE KITCHEN SINK CABINET:

Kerry’s Scariest Choice (Joan Swirsky, Aug. 24, 2004, NewsMax)

After less than a year of campaigning, John Kerry has already given the American public a chilling preview of the misguided choices he would make in the unlikely event he is elected president.

Kerry hired leftist Joseph Wilson – proven liar – as a foreign-policy advisor, only to dismiss the Pinocchio-like former ambassador after the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously discredited his claims that there were no attempts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger and that his wife had no role in getting the CIA to send him to Niger.

Kerry hired leftist Sandy Berger – self-admitted pilferer – as another of his foreign-policy advisors, only to dismiss him after the former national security advisor under Clinton was caught appropriating secret documents from the National Archives.

Kerry hired leftist Dr. Susan E. Rice to replace Berger. A former NSA advisor to Berger, former secretary of state for African affairs under Clinton, and former advisor to Howard Dean, Rice’s stellar credentials included playing a central role in the former administration's appeasement of Osama Bin Laden and in the decision to refuse an offer from the Sudan to hand him over in 1996-1997 – before his murderous henchmen bombed the U.S. embassies in Africa. An advocate of fighting terror through “law enforcement” and “neighborhood watches,” Rice now whispers in Kerry’s ear on matters of international terrorism.

Kerry hired former Dean advisor and Marxist-embracing, anti-Catholic Mara Vanderslice as his so-called religious outreach advisor, fully aware that among her hateful activities was spitting on the Eucharist at a protest at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, only to dismiss her when the Catholic League waged a successful protest.

Kerry than hired Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, who was again slammed by Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, for being one of 32 members of the clergy to file a court brief on behalf of the atheist who challenged the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, whereupon Peterson resigned after only two weeks.

These are but a few examples of Kerry’s impaired judgment about whom and which philosophies are good for the United States of America.

It gets worse.

Thank goodness for Providence.

---

AND WE'RE GIVING THEM FINE SINGLE MALT TO KEEP THEM OFF AFTERSHAVE

Winnipeg makes crack smoking safer (Oliver Moore, Globe and Mail, August 26th, 2004)

Social workers in Winnipeg have begun handing out ““high-quality”” crack pipes and instructions to addicts on the city's streets, part of a harm-reduction strategy put in place by local health officials.

The program is modelled on one in Toronto and comes decades after Winnipeg began giving injection-drug users clean needles in return for dirty ones.

Although fully approved, the program was launched with no public notice and has only this week become widely known, said Dr. Margaret Fast, a medical officer of health who works for the city.[...]

Dr. Fast said that the program was launched because patrolling social workers with an outfit called Street Connections had noticed that some injection-drug users were switching to crack and that others were using the cocaine derivative in addition to their habitual drug. With that shift came a new slate of health concerns.

Using makeshift or poorly-made crack pipes can cause oral cuts or burns. If shared, these pipes can also help spread blood-borne diseases, particularly if the group includes drug users who also sell sex. The transmission of both hepatitis and HIV is a concern in such a situation, Dr. Fast said, describing the grim scenario of a pipe passing from mouth to mouth, repeatedly coming into contact with bleeding lips and cracked gums.

Winnipeg's new harm reduction strategy –– dubbed the ‘‘safer crack use kit' –– is designed to minimize these dangers. It is intended for use by a single person only and includes a good-quality glass pipe less likely to injure users. It also includes metal screens, alcohol swabs (for those users who do end up sharing), pipe cleaners, matches, lip balm, at least one condom and information about where addicts can get help. It also includes instructions on how to use the kit.

Given that notions of right and wrong have largely been replaced by concepts of healthy and unhealthy, that addiction is now always defined as a disease and that most of the beneficiaries are undoubtedly aboriginals (and therefore not really accountable for their actions), does this policy not make perfect sense?

---

LIVING IN A CAVE SAVES ON ROOM SERVICE

Terrorism on the cheap (Globe and Mail, August 27th, 2004)

The Al-Qaeda terror network spent less than $50,000 (U.S.) on each of its major attacks except the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings, and one of its hallmarks is using readily available items such as cell phones and knives as weapons, a UN report says.

The report released Thursday by a new team monitoring the implementation of UN sanctions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban detailed just how little it cost to mount terror operations.

For example, the report said the March attacks in Madrid, in which nearly 10 simultaneous bombs exploded on four commuter trains, used mining explosives and cell phones as detonators and cost about $10,000 to carry out. The blasts killed 191 people, Spain's worst terror attack.

Only the sophisticated attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, using four hijacked aircraft “required significant funding of over six figures,” the report said. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks, the vast majority in the collapse of the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center.

The report said UN sanctions have only had “a limited impact,” primarily because the UN Security Council has reacted to events “while al-Qaeda has shown great flexibility and adaptability in staying ahead of them.”

When have UN sanctions ever had more than a limited or ambiguous impact? The idea that Islamicism can be defeated through sanctions is as laughable as the 1930's belief that sanctions would bring Japan to heel. Time and again comfortable Westerners grossly underestimate the privations fanatics are willing to suffer and that fanatical regimes are prepared to impose on their people.

Sanctions exist to give weak nations an illusion of influence and an excuse for inaction, and to provide progressives the world over with a justification for opposing more direct American actions against terrorism and rogue states. Sadly, this leaves ordinary folks in the political center torn between alternatives they have been led to believe are equally effective. Betrayed by so many politicians and intellectuals who know better, is it any wonder so many of them are drawn to what appears to be the easier course?

---

ARE SUPPLY SIDERS EVER WRONG?:

Md. Budget Surplus Surpasses Forecasts (John Wagner, August 27, 2004, Washington Post)

Maryland finished its budget year with a $309.7 million surplus as tax collections came in well above projections, state officials announced yesterday, reflecting a trend that has boosted revenue in Virginia and the District, as well.

Turns out you can grow your way out of deficits...

---

WEEKEND RENTALS:

Dial M for Murderer: Fritz Lang's M is a must-see movie (SHANNON SUTLIEF, 8/26/04, Dallas Observer)

[Fritz] Lang--known best for his 1927 silent sci-fi classic Metropolis--is honored with Friday and Saturday midnight screenings of M, a first and best in many categories, including movies with sound, crime dramas, film noir and serial-killer profiles. M slowly and deliberately unveils the identity of a child murderer using seemingly innocent scenes and intimating at the violence off-screen through the bleak, empty scenes used. It takes a turn when both the police department and the criminal underground (whose "businesses" are hurt during the increased police attention) begin the manhunt, using different tactics.

Besides being a required film, M is one of those rare pieces of cinema that force the viewers to notice the filmmaking.

Scarlet Street and The Big Heat are both terrific too, but a real treat has just come out on DVD, a serial he did that's set in India and features tigers, snake gods, and statuary out of Russ Meyers--it's being marketed as Fritz Lang's Indian Epic.

---

THE JEAN VALJEAN QUESTION (via Jeff Guinn):

Daytime TV Gets Judgmental (Harry Stein, Spring 2004, City Journal)

Forget Janet Jackson’s notorious Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction”; forget the soul-deadening sexuality constantly displayed on MTV; Exhibit A in the argument that television is a purveyor of rotten values remains the longtime champ: The Jerry Springer Show. Only, here’s the weird thing: in its current incarnation, Springer’s latter-day freak show also provides evidence of a growing resurgence in this country of higher standards of decency and morality. It’s a trend nowhere more evident than on daytime television. [...]

Generally speaking, [...] daytime reality television gets more recognizably real as the day goes along. Considerably more reputable than Springer (for however much that’s worth) is the show that follows him in the New York market: Maury. For while Maury Povich, husband of newscaster Connie Chung and son of legendary Washington Post sportswriter Shirley Povich, also presides over an exploitation fest—airing shows, for instance, on mothers accused of seducing their daughters’ boyfriends—he is clearly far more willing to cast the proceedings as socially beneficial and even morally instructive.

Trading largely in messy interpersonal relations, Maury likes to present himself as a seeker of truth. Among his staples: using a lie detector to determine if one party in a relationship, usually the guy, is guilty as accused of cheating (he usually is). But Povich’s real specialty, the gimmick around which almost every other broadcast revolves, is the paternity test. The formula never varies. A woman, usually very young and very often black or Hispanic, comes onstage and declares, either angrily or tearfully, that she knows a given man fathered her child. After a couple of minutes of this drama, the accused male walks out—often, depending on how he’s just been characterized, to audience jeers—and just as vigorously denies that he is the father. The denial routinely involves the guy pointing toward a large picture of the kid in question, which is displayed at the back of the set, and emphasizing how dramatically the child’s features differ from his own. He’ll often cast aspersions on the mother’s character, too, peppering them with variations of the words “slut” and “whore.”

At this point, Maury says something along the lines of, “Well, let’s find out.” Ripping open a large manila envelope, he withdraws a sheet of paper and solemnly pronounces, “When it comes to two-year-old Jadiem, Corey, you are the father,” or, just as often, “When it comes to ten-month-old Treasure, Earnell, you are not the father.”

If the woman finds herself vindicated, she is apt to leap to her feet, exultant, and berate the man. One mother I saw spun around, thrust her backside to the camera and, pointing, screamed at the newly established dad, “Kiss my ass!” When the man is victorious, he is likely to strut, or throw up his hands in triumph like an athlete, while the woman, bursting into tears, runs backstage, Maury trailing—and both followed by a cameraman who records the host consoling her.

This human drama makes, I’m embarrassed to admit, for riveting television. But there is also enough sociology at play to leave one feeling only slightly unclean. For what we are witnessing here are flesh-and-blood examples of underclass pathology. The supply of accusers and accused seems inexhaustible. On one recent installment, the mother was back for a fifth time, testing two men (the seventh and eighth she’d had tested overall) for paternity of her toddler Mustafa—neither proving a match, as it turned out.

The host’s attitude toward all this dysfunction is somewhat ambivalent. Unfailingly, if the DNA establishes a given man as a child’s father, Maury forthrightly asks the guy if he now intends to become part of the child’s life. The typical response: “Yeah, I’m a man, I’ll step up to the plate.” Or: “I’m a man, I take care of my business.”

Nor, at least occasionally, does Povich try to hide his distress over what is unfolding before his cameras. “Sophia, let me ask you a question, because a lot of people are wondering this,” he said gently to one young woman before the results were in. “You say you got pregnant with him [once before], and had a miscarriage, and you say he laughed at you. So why would you sleep with him again?” Of course, she could offer no plausible answer. “You’ve got two children together,” he said to another couple, screaming profanities at each other after the show had established the man’s paternity. “Don’t you want them to grow up in a home where their mother and father respect each other? Don’t you want that?” The thought seemed not to have pierced the consciousness of either.

Yet from Maury there is never any real condemnation. Though the show pays lip service to the resurgent traditionalist virtue of accepting personal responsibility, the host often still seems to embrace the doctrine, so fashionable among post-sixties elites, that no sin is greater than passing judgment. The show typically ends not just without any expression of commonsense outrage—“You’ve had six kids by five different women? What is WRONG with you?!”—but also without any attention paid to the obvious, larger issue: the utter moral chaos of the world these guests inhabit. (The same moral schizophrenia appears in the commercials between segments. Nearly half the ads are pitches for job training—in air-conditioning or automotive repair, say, or hairdressing or secretarial work. The rest seem to be for sleazy ambulance-chasing law firms: “If you’ve been injured in an accident, tell the insurance company you mean business!”)

The one word almost never heard on Maury is “marriage”—the practice of which offers the best hope of refuge for these desperate women and their fatherless children. Of course, this neglect of marriage, too, is of a piece with contemporary elite attitudes, which not only tend to portray matrimony as confining but, with celebrity unwed mothers like Calista Flockhart in mind, often celebrate single motherhood as a valid alternative life-style—as if the decision of an unmarried Hollywood starlet to have a child is remotely akin to that of a 17-year-old girl in the South Bronx.

Even as I was monitoring the Povich show, the New York Times ran a hostile lead editorial on the Bush administration’s $1.5 billion initiative in support of marriage. “The whole idea of encouraging poor people to get married and stay married through classes and counseling sessions,” the Times complained, “ignores the main reason that stable wedlock is rare in inner cities: the epidemics of joblessness and incarceration that have stripped those communities of what social scientists call ‘marriageable’ men.”

The Times editorial board might well take a few mornings off to watch Maury. Many of the men who appear on Povich’s stage for paternity tests are neither jobless nor criminally inclined. More than a few, in fact, are bright and charming. As one explained himself, moments before being nailed as the father (possessed of all the breezy confidence of billionaire producer Steven Bing before a DNA test established him as the father of Elizabeth Hurley’s child): “Any time I wanted a booty call, I’d call her. . . . She’s the neighborhood ‘ho.’ ” And, he added for good measure, “The baby does not look like me at all.”

But if Povich tends to avoid passing judgment, daytime television from late morning into the afternoon now offers an array of other personalities whose job is to judge: the TV judges ruling on real cases in their courtroom sets.

In recent years, these judge shows have proliferated at an astonishing rate. In the New York market alone there are now seven on view every weekday—five ruled over by bona fide ex-jurists gone showbiz (the other two “judges” are lawyers). These shows provide yet another snapshot of latter-day American culture and mores—and not an especially pretty one, since it reveals a culture in considerable ethical disarray. Though this ethical breakdown is not exactly news, these shows powerfully demonstrate the degree to which moral laxity can wreak havoc in individual lives. Here we find parents ready to explain away even the most egregiously antisocial behavior by their children; motorists who believe the requirements of registration and insurance need not apply to them; legions of people who readily justify having trashed others’ property; and many, many jerks who borrow money from friends and lovers and later blithely insist that the loans were gifts.

At the same time, the collective success of such shows signals something more encouraging: the public’s yearning for real accountability and rigorously enforced standards. For though the TV judges vary a good deal in personal style, in the end what they share is of vastly greater importance: each is an unapologetic advocate of old-fashioned, no-excuses, responsible behavior. Indeed, in their judicial robes, dispensing commonsense justice between commercial breaks, they are probably the closest many Americans come to having authority figures in their lives. And though the shows are entertaining, each judge clearly takes his or her educative role extremely seriously.

The ascending level of moral judgementalism over the course of the day almost certainly corresponds to the gender difference of the viewership as it gets later. A famous poll asks folks whether they'd enforce the law strictly against a man who stole bread to feed his family and women were far more reluctant to do so than men.

---

BRAVE NEW WORLD

Fair Play’s Farewell (Radio Netherlands, August, 27th, 2004)

The Olympics in Greece has seen the usual wave of doping stories, athletes have been stripped of medals, others have disputed test results and some have avoided tests altogether.

But the current chaos may be a golden age of fair play in comparison to what will be on offer by the Beijing Games of 2008.

Advances in gene therapy designed to help the ill and elderly are being eagerly eyed by top athletes. For them an extra fraction of a percent in performance can make the difference between glorious victory and the prospect of being an obscure also-ran.

Professor Lee Sweeney, Chairman of the Department of Physiology at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, has demonstrated in lab rats that gene therapy alone can make muscles 15 percent bigger and stronger.

Once the genetically enhanced rats trained, this improvement shot up to 30 percent.

If this isn't enough of an attraction to a top sports star then add in the fact that gene therapy may be totally undetectable in tests. Here you have a performance enhancer no-one need ever know about.

It's hard to know who to blame more--the training rats or the ill and elderly.

---

EVEN THE GERMANS MAKE MORE SENSE THAN THE DEMOCRATS:

A Strategic Divorce?: America pulls more of its troops out of Europe (CHARLES P. WALLACE, Aug. 22, 2004, TIME Europe)

When George W. Bush announced a major recall of around 70,000 U.S. troops from Europe and Asia, he kicked off an argument in the U.S. — but the reaction in Europe was muted. Challenger John Kerry said the plan shortchanges U.S. allies and the war on terrorism: "This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time," he said in a speech to veterans. But in Germany, where the cuts will hurt the most, they were portrayed as an overdue change in mission that will mostly be felt in the small towns where the soldiers are based; one trade union forecast the loss of 7,500 German jobs.

"This is a serious loss for those regions," says Defense Minister Peter Struck. There was little criticism of the change in U.S. strategy. "Let's face it, the cold war is over," says Jean-Vincent Brisset, a military expert at France's Institute for International and Strategic Relations. "The U.S. forces came to save Europe, but their presence today doesn't fit with current doctrine."

---

FOOD FOR THE BOOMER SOUL

Bishop aims to woo worshippers back with sweet talk (Jonathan Petre, The Telegraph, August 27th, 2004)

A bishop who warned that the Church of England was facing extinction is to launch a campaign to lure 50-somethings back to the pews with bars of chocolate and their favourite hymns.

The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, is attempting to swell attendance figures at harvest festival services next month by distributing thousands of credit card-style invitations and "goody" bags of free gifts, including chocolate.

The initiative, which is being sponsored by a Christian businessman, is largely aimed at over-50s who have drifted away from worship rather than the under-20s, the age group Church leaders normally seem most anxious to attract.

The "Back to Church Sunday" scheme has been inspired by glitzy PR launches and marketing campaigns that give away gift bags to promote their products. [...]

Canon Roger Hill, the rector of St Ann's church, Manchester, said he was very enthusiastic about the scheme. "We come across dozens of people who say they have slipped out of the habit of going to church and want to come back. We have found that personal invitations are a very effective way to achieve this. The bar of chocolate just brings an extra element of pleasure."

All well and good, but a nasty rumour has it the Catholics will be offering air miles and the Unitarians, Viagra.

Nonetheless, you can't stop progress.

---

DON'T HATE IT, OWN IT:

Why I Hate Social Security (Robert Brokamp, August 19, 2004, Motley Fool)

Dang, he did it again. Just take a look at that. I work all week, slaving over a hot keyboard, and Uncle Sam has taken 6.2% of my paycheck to fund someone else's Social Security check. The Motley Fool, as my employer, had to kick in an additional 6.2%. My wife, who's just starting her own business, will have to pay the entire 12.4% of her income.

In case you didn't know it, most of those taxes taken out of Americans' paychecks don't go to a piggy bank. They go to today's beneficiaries. Sure, some of it goes into the so-called trust funds, but the Social Security Administration says they'll be depleted right after I retire.

Have you ever thought about what you could do with that 12.4% of your income? As for me and my wife, we'd use our 12.4% to fund a mighty big nest egg, and we'd make sure it would last as long as our retirement.

OK, so those taxes aren't just for retirement. We also get life and disability insurance (sorta). If you die and leave behind a family, your kids will receive monthly checks, as might your spouse. And if you become disabled, you and your dependents will get a monthly check.

Clearly, the folks in the government don't trust that you can buy your own insurance and invest for your own retirement. So they do it for you. Which is why I hate Social Security. [...]

According to the Census Bureau, the average household earned approximately $50,000 in 2002 (the most recent numbers available). Including an employer's contributions, such a household adds $6,200 a year to Social Security. Would that household be better off having that money, buying its own insurance, and investing the rest?

To answer that question, first ask yourself this: If Social Security were eliminated and every family's after-tax income instantly jumped several grand, would families rush out to their neighborhood Allstate (NYSE: ALL) agent -- or would they rush out to their neighborhood-sized Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT)? What do you think most of us would say: "I'm going to max out my 401(k)!" or "I'm going to Disney (NYSE: DIS) World!"

Double-dang. Maybe Uncle Sam is right.

That's why the solution is to gore the ox of both sides of the political spectrum: privatize the accounts but require people to contribute to them and give them a fairly limited range of choices of what to do with the money they invest.

---

NO PLAN TO WIN THE PEACE

Testimony of John F. Kerry on Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia (United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C. 4/22/71)

Senator Aiken: I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October 1st, and be completely out of there-air, sea, land- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?

Mr. Kerry: Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face his question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-

Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vienamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic combing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capacity. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.

Senator Aiken: I might say I asked those questions several years ago, rather ineffectively. But what I would like to know now is if we, as we complete our withdrawal and, say, get down to 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or even 50,000 troops there, would there be any effort on the part of the South Vietnamese government of the South Vietnamese army, in your opinion, to impede their withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No; I don't think so, Senator.

Senator Aiken: I don't see why North Vietnam should object.

Mr. Kerry: I don't for the simple reason, I used to talk with officers about their- we asked them, and one officer took great pleasure in playing with me in the sense that he would say, "Well, you know you American, you come over here for 1 year and you can afford, you know, you go to Hong Kong for R. & R. and if you are a good boy you get another R. & R. or something you know. You can afford to charge bunkers, but I have to try and be here for 30 years and stay alive." And I think that that really is the governing principle by which those people are now living and have been allowed to live because of our mistake. So that when we in fact state, let us say, that we will have a cease-fire or have a coalition government, most of the 2 million men you often hear quoted under arms, most of whom are regional popular reconnaissance forces, which is to say militia, and a very poor militia at that, will simply lay down their arms, if they haven't done so already, and not fight. And I think you will find they will respond to whatever government evolves which answer their needs, and those needs quite simply are to be fed, to bury their dead in plots where their ancestors lived, to be allowed to extend their culture, to try and exist as human beings. And I think that is what will happen.

I can cite many, many instances, sir, as in combat when these men refused to fight with us, when they shot with their guns over tin this area like this and their heads turned facing the other way. When we were taken under fire we Americans, supposedly fighting with them, and pinned down in a ditch, and I was in the Navy and this was pretty unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused. I don't believe they want to fight, sir.

Senator Aiken: Do you think we are under obligation to furnish them with extensive economic assistance?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir. I think we have a very definite obligation to make extensive reparations to the people of Indochina.

Senator Aiken: I think that is all. [Emphasis added]

NORTH VIETNAM TAKES CONTROL (THIRD INDOCHINA WAR) (Timeline from the 1st Battalion 50th Infantry Association Website)

30 Apr 75   Saigon surrenders.

Apr-Aug 75   Per UC Berkeley demographer, Jacqueline Desbarats' article "Repression in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Executions and Population Relocation," research show an extremely strong probability that at least 65,000 Vietnamese perished as victims of political executions in the eight years after Saigon fell. Desbarats and associate Karl Jackson only counted executions eyewitnessed by refugees in the USA and France to project the rate of killings for the population remaining in Vietnam, and so discarded about two-thirds of the political death reports received, so their figures are likely very conservative. Their death count did not include victims of starvation, disease, exhaustion, suicide or "accident" (injuries sustained in clearing minefields, for example). Nor did they count Vietnamese who inexplicably "disappeared."

2 Jun 75   Official Communist Party newspaper "Saigon Gai Phong" declares that the Southerners must pay their "blood debt" to the revolution.

1975-1985   Within Viet Nam, postwar economic and social problems were severe, and reconstruction proceeded slowly. Efforts to collectivize agriculture and nationalize business aroused hostility in the south. Disappointing harvests and the absorption of resources by the military further retarded Viet Nam's recovery.

1975-1985   A massive exodus from Vietnam began with the change in government; eventually, 2 million people tried to escape. Many braved typhoon-lashed seas only to languish for years in detention camps throughout Southeast Asia. Hong Kong took in many Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s and 1980s. By the mid-1980s, Asia and the rest of the world was suffering from what was dubbed "compassion fatigue" and Hong Kong started trying to force Vietnamese to repatriate, efforts that produced regular riots in the camps.

1976   The first Vietnamese "boat people" come ashore on the northern beaches of Australia after travelling 4,800 km in leaky fishing boats. Over the next decade, tens of thousands of Vietnamese will flee Vietnam as boat people.

1976   South Vietnam and North Vietnam are united in a new Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. . . .

1978   Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong declared that a million people who had "collaborated with the enemy" (about 7% of the South Vietnamese population) had been returned to civilian life from reeducation camps and jail.

---

SPOT THE OXYMORON

Anarchists hot for mayhem: Police on guard vs. violent tactics (Patrice O'Shaughnessy, Daily News, 8/25/04)

Fifty of the country's leading anarchists are expected to be in the city for the Republican National Convention, and a handful of them are hard-core extremists with histories of violent and disruptive tactics, according to police intelligence sources.

---

THE CARTER STAMP OF APPROVAL, AVAILABLE TO DICTATORS EVERYWHERE:

The Carter-Chavez Connection (Steven F. Hayward, August 26, 2004, FrontPageMagazine.com)

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal online edition, Jimmy Carter attempts to respond to critics of his role in legitimizing the recent Venezuelan referendum on the loathsome Hugo Chavez regime. The nub of the problem is this: While exit polls conducted by the very reliable American firm of Penn, Schoen, and Berland showed Chavez losing by a large margin (59 – 41), the official results put Chavez free and clear by a vote of 58 to 41 percent.

How could the exit polls be nearly 40 points off? The short answer is, they weren’t. Chavez, whose anti-democratic, pro-Castro sympathies are openly proclaimed (he tried to block the constitutionally-mandated referendum for months), stole the election. [...]

Carter has a long history of coddling dictators and blessing their elections, and among his complex motivations is his determination to override American foreign policy when it suits him. In the famous 1990 election in Nicaragua, Carter, along with most of the liberal Democratic establishment in Washington, openly hungered for a Sandinista victory as a way of discrediting the Reagan-Bush support for the Contras. Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega had visited Carter in the U.S. and called him “a good friend,” and Carter consistently downplayed or excused reports of Sandinista pre-election thuggery and voter intimidation. When the early vote count showed the Sandinistas losing by a landslide, the Sandinista junta ordered a news blackout and appeared on the brink of canceling the election. Although Carter pressured the Sandinistas to relent, he also told opposition candidate Violetta Chamorro not to claim victory until Ortega had conceded defeat—potentially disastrous advice if Ortega had ignored Carter and nullified the election. Carter returned to the U.S. bitterly disappointed that his Sandinista pals had been turned out. (Among other ridiculous things Carter said about Nicaragua under Communist rule was that there was “as much free enterprise, private ownership, as exists in Great Britain.”)

There is speculation that Carter blessed Chavez’s stolen election to prevent further violence, but it should also be kept in mind that Carter also enjoys seeing the interests of the United States, especially when defined by Republican presidents, humiliated. Chavez’s anti-Americanism will now intensify, thanks in part to the worst ex-President in American history, who has never been content to let his four years of ruinous rule be his last public deed.

Why couldn't the rabbit have won the fight?

---

THE MESSAGE GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR

A third Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is up here.

---

A HIGH LOW:

Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003 (Joel Havemann, August 26, 2004, LA Times)

Median income remained essentially unchanged last year at $43,318 per household, the Census Bureau reported today, but 1.3 million more people lived under the poverty line.

The poverty rate rose another four-tenths of a percentage point to 12.5% — one out of every eight Americans — and the number of people without health insurance grew by 1.4 million to 45 million, propelled by a decline in the number of people with private health insurance.

The unchanged level of median income suggests, barely two months before President Bush faces reelection, that the middle class is holding its own.

Helpful when one of these reports comes out to recall that the U.S. poverty level (for a family of four) is set so high that it equals the per capita GDP of Portugal.

---

THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN:

Football isn't exactly a font of great literature, but one of the exceptions is Friday Night Lights, the film version of which is coming out soon. You can see the trailer here.

---

PUNISH THE BODY AND THE HEAD FOLLOWS (via Robert Schwartz):

Media-Ready Crib Sheet: Twenty questions for John Kerry. (Peter Kirsanow, 8/26/04, National Review)

Senator Kerry has been pretty successfully avoiding the media, but sometime between now and November 2 he'll have to sit down for a far-ranging interview on a program other than The Daily Show on Comedy Central. Thus far, most Kerry interviews have been less-than-penetrating (one recent poll even indicates that nearly a third of the electorate knows very little about John Kerry) and certainly not hostile (in comparison, see, among other things, President Bush's press conference of last spring). Bill Clinton was subjected to far-greater scrutiny by this time in the 1992 election cycle. Kerry's legendary policy flip-flops as well as his campaign's shifting stories related to the current controversy compel questioning at least as tough as that directed at Kerry's critics.

Here are only a few of the questions Kerry hasn't adequately addressed. They don't even have anything to do with swift boats. There are no "gotcha" questions. They're posed in a respectful manner. In fact, many are softballs. After all, few interviewers would wish to alienate Kerry and foreclose the possibility of follow-up interviews. With that in mind, here goes:

1. The Bush campaign maintains that you spent 20 years in the Senate with no signature legislative achievements. What do you consider to be the five most important pieces of legislation that you've authored?

It just gets uglier from there and each question is a reminder of how badly the Democratic Party blundered by having uncontested primaries. Whatever else you may think of George W. Bush, so far in his political careeer he's knocked off a popular incumbent governor, a popular war hero in the GOP primaries in '00, and a popular incumbent vice president in a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity. That is an unrivalled track record of success and, for all the gallons of ink that have been spilled about his stupidity, indicates he's a pretty formidable candidate. John Kerry built his career in a yellow dog Democrat state and had the presidential nomination handed to him by a party that was terrified of Howard Dean's passionate advocacy of its core principles. Mr. Kerry's only serious rival, John Edwards, ran as if there were a category for "Mr. Congeniality." Now a battle-tested (political battle anyway) Mr. Bush squares off against the anointed Senator Kerry and it should be no surprise that the fight is lopsided. These unanswered questions suggest that the following rounds will be even bloodier. If there a ref he'd be thinking about when to stop the fight.

---

REASON IS A MUG'S GAME:

IRRATIONAL MARKET BUBBLES: Are They "Post-Modern"? (Elliott Wave International's
Robert Folsom, Editor of Market Watch, August 25, 2004, Financial Sense Online)

Newsweek magazine recently ran an article with the headline "Mind Reading," and the subhead, "The new science of decision making. It's not as rational as you think."

The piece rehashes a bit of year-old news about an experiment conducted by economists at Princeton University, known as the Ultimatum Game. The game has two players and goes like this:

"Subject A gets 10 dollar bills. He can choose to give any number of them to subject B, who can accept or reject the offer. If she accepts, they split the money as A proposed; if she rejects A's offer, both get nothing.... A makes the most money by offering one dollar to B, keeping nine for himself, and B should accept it, because one dollar is better than none."

The rational choice is to accept the dollar, yet the outcome was consistently irrational:

"People playing B who receive only one or two dollars overwhelmingly reject the offer. Economists have no better explanation than simple spite over feeling shortchanged. This becomes clear when people play the same game against a computer. They tend to accept whatever they're offered, because why feel insulted by a machine?"

As I said, this story was in the news more than a year ago. The only new twist in Newsweek had to do with a scanning gizmo that apparently spots which region of the brain produces the irrational choice. Yet what got me was Newsweek's claim that this research will "help understand some of the most vexing problems in postmodern society," such as "irrational market bubbles." Now, I'm a big fan of science 'n'all. I really am. But ... we're supposed to believe that market bubbles are "postmodern"? HEL-LO!! Calling all search engines! Tulip Mania? South Sea Bubble? The panics of 1837, 1857, 1873? And wasn't there a little episode in 1929?

Another question: Were market bubbles in the good old days something besides "irrational"?

The answer to the "irrational choice" paradox is so obvious that it would take a PHD in Economics to miss it. The game is not about choosing to receive a benefit, but about the valuation of relative self worth between two people. It is a social transaction, not a monetary transaction. Player A, in his choice of how much to offer player B, is making a statement about how he views his own social worth in comparison to B, with the expectation that B views the comparison similarly. Any offer to B that is less than $5 is a statement of social superiority, or dominance. An offer above $5 is a statement of social inferiority. Likewise, B's acceptance of an offer below $5 is an admission of inferiority, while a rejection of an offer of $5 is a statement of superiority. The "socially" rational offer by A is $5.

In a larger sense, market decisions are mainly a statement about beliefs which may or may not indicate statements of self worth, but which often are. Refusing to liquidate a losing position is often based on a belief that "I deserve to get my money back", not on the rational assessment of the likelihood of recovering it. Worldviews and expectations bias our ability to rationally calculate probabilities based on the available information, which often is contradictory. Bulls stay bullish in the face of bearish news, and Bears stay bearish in the face of bullish news. The human psyche requires a narrative, but market randomness offers none.

---

KEYES 13, OBAMA 1 (via mc):

Keyes on 'right side of the issues,' Ditka says (ART GOLAB AND SCOTT FORNEK, 8/26/04, Chicago Sun-Times)

"Da Coach" met "Da Candidate" Wednesday night, and he treated Alan Keyes to a meal at his Gold Coast steakhouse while they talked about politics and their families.

Former Bears coach Mike Ditka, who himself had turned down the chance to run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican, used the occasion to put his seal of approval on Keyes, who moved here from Maryland to take on Democrat Barack Obama after Jack Ryan dropped out of the race.

"I support him because he's a conservative and on the right side of issues I already believe in," Ditka said of Keyes as he left his namesake restaurant, trademark cigar clenched between his teeth. "We're very close philosophically about what we believe, about politics and issues."

How'd you like to try and get a word in edgewise when those two start talking?

---

DAWN OVER MARBLEHEAD

KERRY CHALLENGES BUSH TO WEEKLY DEBATES (ABC News, The Note, 8/25/04)

In Anoka, MN, John Kerry challenged President Bush to weekly debates on the issues.

BUSH CAMP REAX: "There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself. This election presents a clear choice to the American people between a President who is moving America forward and a Senator who has taken every side of almost every issue and has the most out of the mainstream record in the U.S. Senate," said BC'04 spokesman Steve Schmidt.

Is the Kerry Campaign being run by people whose only qualification is that they once read a book about a presidential campaign? This is the traditional loser's ploy, so I guess they felt they had an obligation to go through with it. Two things, though. First, do they realize that they're announcing that they've taken over the loser's role in the campaign? Second, have any of these people ever met John Kerry? Let's say that the Bush Campaign loses it's mind and agrees to weekly debates. Short of lightening striking, letting people see John Kerry side-by-side with President Bush week after week after week would be their worst possible tactic. They must start paying attention to Mickey Kaus: keep John Kerry away from the cameras and maybe they can avoid a blowout.

---

IF ONLY HE'D USE HIS GENIUS FOR GOOD

Bush to Urge Court to End Independent Political Ads (Update1) (Bloomberg, 8/26/04)

President George W. Bush plans to seek a court order to force the U.S. Federal Election Commission to stop all political advertising by independent groups, said spokesman Scott McClellan.

Bush asked Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, to help end advertising by political organizations known as 527 groups, named for the section of the Internal Revenue Service code that grants them tax-exempt status. McCain told the New York Times he disapproves of ads attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, one of the 527 groups.

In one move, the Bush campaign puts John Kerry, the establishment media and John McCain in an impossible situation. This is politically brilliant and yet terrible. We here at BrothersJudd give the President lots of room to stray from the conservative path, either because of the realities of mainstream politics or to achieve some greater goal. This time, though, he strays too far. We can't even say, as we did (wrongly) when it came to CFR, that filing suit is just for show, because the courts will never go for it. Who knows what the courts will do? If only some basic rules were written done somewhere so everyone could refer to them when they have questions like this.

More (Via The Note):

McCAIN REAX: "I enthusiastically applaud President Bush's commitment to ensuring that 527s operate under the same funding rules that apply to federal candidates and parties. I look forward to working with the President, both in the courts and through legislation, to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate 527s, as they are already required by the law and affirmed by the Supreme Court, to do," said McCain in a statement.

KERRY TO TAKE DOWN McCAIN AD: "We respect John McCain's wishes, and will stop running the ads of him challenging Bush to denounce the attacks on his service. It's long past time that George Bush also take John McCain's advice and do the right thing by putting an end to the smears and lies attacking John Kerry's military service. George Bush needs to say this is wrong, he needs to say it must end," said Kerry spokesperson David Wade.

---

LOOKING TO GOVERNMENT FOR ACCURACY?:

The jobs numbers that you're not hearing about (Timothy Kane and Andrew Grossman, 8/26/04, USA Today)

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently snuck out a telling confession beneath everyone's radar: Its flagship payroll survey is likely undercounting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Most economic observers were too busy fretting over the lackluster gain of 32,000 payroll jobs in July to take notice of the other positive indicators, let alone the quiet little study that acknowledges payrolls have a problem.

The study describes how job-changing can inflate the payroll survey's numbers artificially. When worker turnover is brisk, as in the late 1990s, millions of workers are counted twice when they switch jobs. About 3.9 million people changed employers during a typical month during the 1990s, but only 3.1 million do so now.

Why is job-changing dropping? Maybe stability is preferred since 9/11. Perhaps lower turnover is a reflection of the aging workforce and low participation rate of current teens. Or maybe more workers are becoming self-employed. The reason doesn't matter, but the effect on payrolls does.

For months, the debate has been raging over how to measure jobs. Being that we're in a presidential election year, the issue has been magnified. But why should the average person care? Because only an accurate reading can gauge the country's true economic health and affect everything from interest rates to consumer confidence.

Ironic that businessmen, who generally disdain the government, follow the economic numbers it generates like lemmings off a cliff.

---

BOUGHT BROTHER (via Kevin Whited):

A $136,000 Link: Max Cleland, Bush political appointee. (Rich Lowry, 8/26/04, National Review)

Max Cleland, who made a staged appearance at the Bush ranch Wednesday, was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank in 2003. The same Max Cleland who is spending nearly all of his time attacking President Bush is, amazingly enough, a Bush political appointee.

According to a bank spokesman, Cleland makes $136,000 a year off this very cushy job. A couple of questions come to mind here: If Cleland had any decency, wouldn't he resign? Why would he accept a political appointment from a man he so loathes and thinks represents the very worst in American politics? Max Cleland's extremely partisan activities are being subsidized by the American taxpayer.

But, wait, it gets more sinister. There is now a definitive link between President Bush and the attacks against him. This link is as direct as most of the links that have been highlighted between Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Bush gave a $136,000 job to one of his attackers and a key member of Kerry's "band of brothers." By the logic of most of the press corps, this means George W. Bush must be responsible for the activities of Kerry campaign's band of brothers.

He's certainly acting as if he were a Bush operative--yesterday's little skit was humiliating.

---

IT WAS FINE THE WAY THEY WROTE IT (via mc):

Married? Single? Status affects how women vote (Susan Page, 8/25/04, USA TODAY)

[M]ost married women say they'll vote for President Bush. By nearly 2-to-1, unmarried women say they support John Kerry.

The "marriage gap" — the difference in the vote between married and unmarried women — is an astonishing 38 percentage points, according to aggregated USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Polls. In contrast, the famous "gender gap," the difference in the vote between men and women, is just 11 points. [...]

Why do married and unmarried women tend to see the political world so differently?

For one thing, conservative women are more likely to be married, though of course many liberal women are married, too. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says unmarried women as a group start out as more liberal-leaning than married women. And they are often hard-pressed economically.

Most unmarried women — 54% — have annual household incomes below $30,000, according to the Census; that's twice the percentage of married women with incomes that low. Most married women — 51% — have household incomes of $50,000 and above; that's double the number of single women with income that high.

That makes single women more anxious than their married friends about bread-and-butter issues, less confident of having health coverage and more likely to take an expansive view of what the government can and should do to maintain safety-net programs.

Having children seems to intensify views on both sides. Married women with children are even more Republican that those who don't have children; single women who have children are even more Democratic than those who don't.

Today folks imagine that the main reason for the historic opposition to the aristocracy was nothing more than a matter of class hatred, but a classic definition (from John Adams) reveals that it was based on basic power politics: "By aristocracy, I understand all those men who can command, influence, or procure more than an average of votes...." One of the great defects of the welfare state is that the government itself wields inordinate influence over the votes of those who are dependent on it for their economic security. Combine this with the atomization of families and society in general, which increases the number of dependents and the level of their dependency, and you've a situation where a constitutional regime which originally intended to limit the concentration of power anywhere, but especially in the hands of the central State, has gradually seen the shift of more and more power precisely to that State. The final piece of this puzzle, of course, is that every expansion of the franchise has added more of the very people who are most likely to demand security and be prone to dependency. It's been a campaign of real genius: the statists have managed to create and purchase the loyalty of a vast pool of captive voters who can be counted on to support the State and oppose freedom.

There are a number of ways that conservatives (or originalists, if you will) are trying to combat this state of affairs--chiefly by the creation of an Ownership Society, which makes people dependent on themselves for welfare; and by restoring the primacy of family, civic groups, churches, and the other sinews of civil society. But one means that is too seldom considered is a re-restriction of the franchise, limiting it once again to those who are not likely to be dependent on the State. Barring a surge in gender-selection abortion it's out of the question to repeal the 19th Amendment entirely, but there's no reason the vote shouldn't be limited to those (women and men) who are married.

---

HUH?:

It's Getting a Bit Dodgy: John Kerry has evaded his Senate record, his plans for the war on terror, and a host of other issues. Will he be able to get out of his Vietnam troubles? (Fred Barnes, 08/25/2004, Weekly Standard)

The dodge has worked well for Kerry. At the Democratic convention last month, he didn't bother to defend his Senate positions on defense and foreign policy. In his acceptance speech, he devoted only 73 words to his two decades in the Senate. Instead, he surrounded himself with Vietnam veterans and insisted the best window on his leadership as president was that the men who'd served with him in Vietnam were now backing his presidential campaign. The result: little discussion in the media or the political community of his Senate record at the convention and since then.

That may change as early as next week when Republicans gather for their convention in New York City. No doubt Republican speakers will go after Kerry for favoring cuts in intelligence and Pentagon spending, endorsing the nuclear freeze and deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, opposing the Reagan doctrine of supporting anticommunist guerillas in Nicaragua and elsewhere, and voting against the Iraq war.

Worked well?

---

LOWERING THE BOOM:

The Passing of an Era? (Wilfred McClay, 8/24/04, Democracy Project)

I’m hardly the only one to be struck by the vehement, uncontained rage of media figures like Chris Matthews and Tom Oliphant, and the sweeping, completely unearned condescension of the New York Times and Washington Post, directed at the Swift Boat Vets and their gallant campaign against John Kerry’s candidacy. Why such an angry, petulant---but also, be it noted, completely self-righteous---reaction? Why the shift in tone, the loss of control? It seems to me that, aside from the obvious partisan particulars, there are two larger and interlocking reasons for this, and taken together, they suggest why the struggles now underway may have consequences far beyond their immediate content.

First, it seems we are experiencing one of those moments when history shifts its gears, and the accredited elites cannot seem to grasp what is happening, and cling desperately to the pieces of their fraying reputation. It’s a shift that the army of talented bloggers out there, part of one of the most genuinely populist movements ever to arise in modern American politics, has been announcing for a long time---perhaps a little prematurely and self-interestedly, but what they have been predicting is now clearly upon us. The baby-boomer generation’s journalistic and academic elites sought, and gained, control over the nation’s chief organs of knowledge production, accreditation, and communication, with all the enormous power and influence that has entailed. But now the Gramscian monopoly is crumbling, and they cannot see how they are themselves largely to blame for their own discrediting. [...]

There is a second deeper reason why people like Matthews, Oliphant, et al. are reacting with such uncontained fury and condescension. It’s because the case of Kerry is a proxy for a whole set of assumptions that the boomer elites have made about the world, and managed to install as our conventional wisdom, about the arrogance of American power, the unmitigated evil of Nixon, the goodness and altruism and truthfulness of the antiwar movement (and therefore themselves), and so on. That whole complacent and self-congratulatory narrative---which is, in some sense, encapsulated in Kerry’s famous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee---is being implicitly challenged now. Bush’s foreign policy challenges it, and if it can be shown that Kerry is a comprehensive liar---and in fact the Cambodia lies alone, which have been admitted to, would surely have been enough to end a Republican candidate’s entire career---it calls into question everything about the great boomer narrative. It threatens their sense of world-historical rectitude, their moral amour-propre. Hence the indignant reactions.

Chris Matthews demonstrated an archetypal disconnect last night when he badgered his conservative guests about the Swift Boat ads but then revealed that his sister (sister-in-law?) had written to him and said that her husband, who served in Vietnam, and all his friends from the service just loathe the Senator and have since his Senate testimony.

The country has never forgiven the Boomers their protest years and they still don't get that simple fact.

---

PROTOCOL? THERE'S AN ELECTION TO WIN:

Bush skips GOP protocol, lays down the law (ROBERT NOVAK, 8/26/04, Chicago Sun-Times)

Because there is little difference between the president's and mainstream Republican thinking, however, it is a basically conservative document. Conservatives can take issue with stem-cell research, gay marriage and particularly immigration provisions, but the right is essentially happy with this platform.

But why did drafting this political manifesto resemble the Manhattan Project developing the atomic bomb? The process fits the Bush White House's authoritarian aura that has tempered enthusiasm within the party on the eve of its national convention.

Actually, the big issues -- taxes and abortion -- that formerly generated fervent Republican platform battles have been decided. Past presidential nominees, even incumbents, did not always win those struggles. In 1984 at Dallas, the platform committee beat back the Reagan White House's desire for wiggle room on raising taxes. In 1996 at San Diego, candidate Bob Dole's attempts to fudge on abortion were turned back. George W. Bush faced no such confrontations.

Nevertheless, the Bush White House completely abandoned the old platform process. While Democrats went through a seemingly democratic procedure to create a sham platform skirting contentious issues, Republicans have a real platform that was handed down like the Ten Commandments.

Well, it is based on them.

---

YOU STAY, GIRL!:

Cuban woman ships herself to Miami in a wooden crate (LUISA YANEZ, 8/26/04, Miami Herald)

Workers on the late shift at a DHL warehouse at Miami International Airport were processing cargo from a Nassau-to-Miami flight when they heard a voice coming from a plywood crate.

Apprehensively, they approached and pried open the package.

A young Cuban woman unfolded herself from her cramped position and stepped out into the night air, in good condition.

In a twist on a 40-year-old tradition that usually involves rafts or speedboats, she had entered the United States by stuffing herself, a jug of water and a cellphone into a crate not much bigger than a small filing cabinet and having herself shipped.

The gamble paid off. The woman, still not publicly identified, will be allowed to stay in this country under the wet-foot, dry-foot policy that allows undocumented Cubans who reach U.S. soil to avoid immediate deportation, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Wednesday.

Officials hope the practice doesn't catch on.

Then drop the vile "wet foot" proviso or get rid of Castro.

---

RELATIVITY IN ECLIPSE:

An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity (The Economist, August 25, 2004)

"ASSUME nothing" is a good motto in science. Even the humble pendulum may spring a surprise on you. In 1954 Maurice Allais, a French economist who would go on to win, in 1988, the Nobel prize in his subject, decided to observe and record the movements of a pendulum over a period of 30 days. Coincidentally, one of his observations took place during a solar eclipse. When the moon passed in front of the sun, the pendulum unexpectedly started moving a bit faster than it should have done.

[H]is suggestion would fit in with another odd phenomenon: the fact that
the Pioneer 10 and 11 space-probes, launched by NASA, America's space
agency, in the early 1970s, are receding from the sun slightly more slowly
than they should be.

Sometimes breakthroughs are made by smart people who are not specialists in the required field. They have the advantage of seeing phenomena with fresh eyes, and haven't absorbed the Conventional Wisdom that can often harden to dogma. Peter Frey was an English Professor at Northwestern but helped popularize a time-control technique known as iterative deepening for computer chess. Thomas Gold is an astronomer and geophysicist who made contributions to audiology (and defends an abiogenic theory of the origins of oil). Dr. Allais is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, as the article states.

The Theory of Relativity has to be a strong contender for the most crank-prone theory in the history of science. It is wildly counterintuitive, and the Special Theory portion has just enough mathematics (a gasp square root!) to attract attention. Nonetheless, when people of the caliber of Maurice Allais make a suggestion, it is worthy of a followup.

---

[BO]TOXIC POLITICS:

Pelosi visits LV to support Gallagher: Both Democrats question Kerry's stance on Iraq (PAUL HARASIM, 8/26/04, Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Calling President Bush's invasion of Iraq "a grotesque mistake," Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, said in Las Vegas Wednesday that she can't understand why John Kerry has said he still would have "voted to give the president the authority to go to war" even had he known there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, Bush's original justification for war.

Labeling Bush an "incompetent" who didn't have the judgment, experience or knowledge to risk American lives in Iraq, the House Minority Leader then said she "can't answer" why Kerry continues to support a position that seemingly gives Americans little choice between the presidential candidates when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Asked why Kerry holds that position on Iraq, Pelosi answered "I don't know"...

Who's got the wobbly base?

---

IT'S NOT THE LYING, IT'S THE SEARING:

Shots Hit Kerry's Weak Spot (Max Boot, August 26, 2004, LA Times)

This political punch-up raises a couple of interesting points. First, it once again confirms that, for all the conservative caterwauling about the insidious power of liberal reporters, the establishment media have little ability anymore to control the national agenda. The press would have been happy to parrot Kerry's version of his war story as reported by his authorized chronicler, Douglas Brinkley, in "Tour of Duty." But the iron triangle of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Channel and Regnery Publishing (which released the bestselling book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry") elbowed conflicting claims onto the front pages.

Just as with the Clinton scandals, which were publicized by the same conservative crew, the rhetoric about Kerry's supposed wrongdoing has outpaced any verifiable facts. The story nevertheless has struck a chord with the public, because it plays to existing concerns about Kerry's character.

Once a general impression forms about a candidate — and this is the second point raised by the Vietnam brouhaha — a seemingly trivial event can assume outsized importance. Thus Gerald Ford's reputation as a bumbler was inadvertently confirmed when he tripped on the Air Force One gangway. Likewise, Jimmy Carter's reputation as a wimp when he claimed to have been attacked by what the press happily dubbed a "killer rabbit"; Michael Dukakis' as a soft-on-defense liberal when he posed for a ludicrous photo inside a tank; George H.W. Bush's as an out-of-touch aristocrat when he professed befuddlement at encountering a supermarket scanner; and Al Gore's as an insufferable android when he dominated the first debate with George W. Bush.

Kerry's problem has been the persistent perception that he is a consummate opportunist who is willing to say anything to advance his own career. The New Republic unearthed a classic example when it found letters his office had sent to one of his constituents in 1991: One explained why he favored the Gulf War, the other why he opposed it. The Swift boaters' stories fit his image as a slippery schemer.

Much to Democrats' chagrin, the claim that George W. Bush was AWOL during his National Guard service hasn't caused as much of a stir, perhaps because it doesn't fit his image — Bush is generally seen as too hawkish, not as someone who ducks a fight.

Mr. Boot dismisses the Cambodia story as an inconsequential lie, but it has resonance for a particular reason: like Joe Biden borrowing Neil Kinnock's speech about his own life story but then relating it as if it were personal, it is Mr. Kerry's rhetoric about how the memory was "seared" iinto him and his effort to use the false memory (we'll avoid calling it a lie) for political purposes--and purposes opposed to American interests--that makes the episode so damaging.

---

WE'VE LOTS MORE MONEY, SEND MORE FOLKS:

Study Says Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. $10 Billion a Year; Analysis Is Disputed (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, August 26, 2004, LA Times)

Illegal immigrants cost the federal government more than $10 billion a year, and a program to legalize them would nearly triple the figure, a study released Wednesday said.

The analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes efforts to legalize the estimated 8 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, comes as Republicans are bracing for a fight over immigration at their convention next week in New York.

So bringing in the 12 million ambitious folks who do our scut work only costs us about as much as a bookkeeping error in the federal budget, even when the estimate is coming from a bunch of nativists? And folks wonder why we're the world's only hyperpower.

---

SECOND FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS:

Second Fiddles Attuned to Very Different Scores (Richard Simon, August 26, 2004, LA Times)

The two candidates have this much in common: They play to their strengths. In both cases their strengths correspond to their campaign strategy.

For Cheney, who is highly regarded by the Republican right but anathema to moderates, that translates to audiences that are mostly die-hard Republican. Edwards, more moderate than presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry, is more likely than Cheney to seek out audience members of both parties.

Cheney sometimes plays the traditional role of the vice presidential candidate as attack dog against the opposition so that the presidential candidate can remain above the fray.

Edwards shuns the attack role, finding that it conflicts with his sunny, I'm-for-the-underdog image.

The main difference being that Mr. Cheney doesn't have a political future to protect, while Mr. Edwards--like Jack Kemp, another recent fiasco of a running mate--is trying to maintain his position for '08. Bad enough that Mr. Kerry chose someone who's unprepared to govern the nation, but choosing someone who isn't really interested in helping the ticket win is a colossal misjudgment.

---

THE MULLAH VS. MOOKIE FOR THE MOSQUE:

Spotlight Is Now on Top Cleric: In asking his supporters to flood Najaf, Sistani is staking his influence to effect an end to standoff. (Alissa J. Rubin, August 26, 2004, LA Times)

There is no guarantee that Sistani's call for his followers to flood into the holy city will end the siege at the Imam Ali Mosque. If the move fails, Sistani's prestige could decline. But each time the widely esteemed senior cleric has stepped onto the political stage, he has vastly altered the dynamic, forcing shifts in U.S. policy and deference to his views.

Sistani, 74, arrives this time at a critical moment. The shrine is occupied by Sadr's militiamen, who have kept Sistani and his supporters from entering for months. Sadr's forces are in turn under siege by U.S. and Iraqi troops. The fighting has left scores dead and destroyed parts of the Old City.

Numerous attempts to reach a peace deal have failed. The people of Najaf are exhausted by the fighting. The Iraqi government has vowed to storm the shrine unless Sadr's forces give up. And Shiite Muslim clerics around the world have warned that any direct attack on the holy site could have disastrous consequences.

Sistani faces the challenge of threading his way through these various interests while maintaining a certain distance from all of them. In particular, though he shares the government's aim to expel Sadr's forces from the mosque and tamp down popular support for the anti-American cleric, he does not want to be seen as overly sympathetic to the U.S. and the closely allied and dependent Iraqi forces.

To that end, Sistani has given a simple but direct challenge to both Sadr and the U.S.-backed Iraqi forces: Leave the shrine and the Old City and let Shiite religious authorities, led by him and three other grand ayatollahs in Najaf, take over again.

Whether both sides will accede to Sistani's wishes remains to be seen. But both are well aware that Sistani wields enormous clout, and his followers are nothing if not loyal and legion.

---

FUNNY SORT OF TRUCE:

Kerry's Lost Opportunity: He could have healed the wounds of Vietnam. Instead, he tried to exploit them. (HERMAN JACOBS, August 26, 2004, Wall Street Journal)

Whenever the question of Vietnam percolated to the surface of the nation's collective political consciousness, as it did briefly during Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, the protagonists on either side only became yet more distrustful and disdainful of the other. And so years ago, wearied by their own arguments as much as by the arguments of their antagonists, sensible majorities of both the supporters and the opponents of the Vietnam War yielded to an unwritten domestic truce, composed of two principles:

* Those who participated in the war, with the exception of anyone at or above the rank of general officer, are entitled to public honor for their service.

* Those who actively opposed the war, with the exception of the most extreme Jane Fonda-types, are not to be branded as cowards or traitors to their country.

Depending on one's political bent, one or the other of the two prongs of the domestic truce might be accepted only grudgingly, but it was accepted nonetheless, because most of us had become convinced that the best way to handle any question involving Vietnam was just to "let it alone."

Yes, there would still be occasional flare-ups when the domestic truce would be tested. Until recently, the most notable episodes involved Dan Quayle and Mr. Clinton, who--because they had neither very actively opposed the war nor fought in it--did not seem to be entitled to the truce's honors and amnesties. Those petty skirmishes over Mr. Clinton's ROTC dodge and Mr. Quayle's "alternative" service stirred up some old antagonisms but quickly subsided when the larger public declined to enlist. And so, the truce held.

We were aware that even the Left had been forced to accept that the war was honorable (though to some misguided), but when did the Right ever forgive those who opposed their own nation? It wasn't a truce, the Left lost the argument.

MORE:
Kerry's Testimony (LA Times, August 26, 2004)

It turns out that the attack on John Kerry's war record was just Act 1. Now the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (and, miraculously, all the right-wing media) have turned to Kerry's antiwar record.

"Turns out"? What did they think it was about?

---

AIR CAMPAIGN:

Interviews show Bush tuned in to right-wing radio (Brian C. Mooney, August 26, 2004, Boston Globe)

On the White House website, www.whitehouse.gov, nearly all of the administration radio interviews featured since April are with conservative commentators, hosts at stations in battleground states, or both.

A White House spokesman, Ken Lisaius, flatly denied that political considerations are involved in making administration officials available to radio stations, or any other news media.

"We're not concerned with politics," he said. "It's the Bush-Cheney campaign that's focused on politics."

Moreover, the interviews on the website, which has audio links, are merely a sampler of those of good audio quality or on timely subjects of public interest, he said. In addition, interviews on less-than-conservative National Public Radio (the Globe found at least 10 in recent months in the transcript archives of NPR's website, www.npr.org,) cannot be posted.

"NPR doesn't allow us to use their audio," Lisaius said.

"We try to make members of this administration available in any number of media formats so that people around the country know what their government is doing because this administration has a very solid record of accomplishment," said Lisaius. Those media include radio stations "of all stripes in all parts of the country," he said.

But of 61 interviews featured on the White House website since April in which the interviewer and station or network is identified, 54 were conducted either by conservative commentators or by hosts in markets located in battleground states, a Globe analysis shows.

They include 27 interviews with stations in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and Arkansas -- all among the 20 or so states being contested by both sides with paid advertising.

Another 27 were with conservative hosts; ABC Radio's Sean Hannity had seven interviews on the White House site, and Hennen had five.

Some of the interviewers are not only supportive of Bush but active in the campaign. For instance, Steve Gill of WTN in Nashville, with three interviews on the White House site, spoke at the opening of the Bush-Cheney headquarters in Clarksville, Tenn. Syndicated talk-show host Laura Ingraham served as MC at a Bush campaign rally in St. Paul last week. Another, Premiere Radio Networks talkmaster Glenn Beck, is selling "John Kerry's Waffle House" T-shirts for $14.95 on his website, capitalizing on the Bush campaign's "flip-flopper" assault on the Democrat.

Among other interviews on the White House site are three each by personalities of the Radio America network (self-described as "driven by a commitment to traditional American values, limited government and the free market") and the Salem Radio Network ("the largest network serving religious radio").

If, as the White House contends, the concentration of administration interviews in battleground state stations is mere coincidence, the daily flurry of radio appearances by Bush campaign officials in those same states is not.

"It's part of our effort to do what we call `flood the zone,' " said Bush campaign spokesman Kevin A. Madden. "When you have a campaign designed around `echo politics,' we try to get our message out there every which way possible."

These guys are good.

---

YOU'D THINK APOLOGIES WOULD HAVE BEEN AMPLE:

Jibes at gay governor cost 2 their jobs (AP, Aug. 26, 2004)

The public address announcer for the Atlantic City Surf of the independent Atlantic League was fired and the scoreboard operator resigned after poking fun at Gov. James E. McGreevey's sexual orientation.

Announcer Greg Maiuro dedicated a between-innings rendition of the song "YMCA" to McGreevey during a game on Aug. 17, less than a week after New Jersey's governor announced that he had had an extramarital affair with a man and would resign. The 1970s hit song by the Village People is widely considered a gay anthem.

The following night, scoreboard operator Marco Cerino posted the message "Sponsored by Gov. Jim McGreevey" on the scoreboard when the song was played. Cerino resigned over the incident, the team said.

They're out of their jobs but he isn't out of his?

---

MOVE:

One of the more obvious instances of media bias we've seen in recent years was the way the United States Congress suddenly became the Republican Congress in 1994. You can't change the media though, so you just grin and bear it. But there was just a clip from a Moveon.org ad on MSNBC in which they referred not to the government of the United States but to the "Bush government." Do we even need to say these folks are anti-American when they apparently don't recognize the American government if they aren't running it?

---

IT'S NOT WHETHER THERE'S OIL BUT WHERE THE OIL IS (via Robert Duquette):

Dearth of new wells drilled could keep oil prices high (Carola Hoyos, August 24 2004, Financial Times)

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries this week revealed that its members drilled 6.5 per cent fewer wells in 2003, suggesting that the global supply crunch and high oil prices could last longer than expected, analysts said. The numbers appear to contradict statements by Opec members that they are actively building extra capacity. [...]

Part of the explanation, in particular for Nigeria and Qatar, lies in the fact that companies are drilling fewer but more sophisticated wells. In Iran, Kuwait and Venezuela, investment has been stifled by political disagreements and leaders' eagerness to spend the additional petrodollars on other investments or the enrichment of a powerful minority. But as big consumers such as the US become more desperate for oil, the pressure is growing for countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to open their doors to international oil companies.

Mohammad Hadi Nejad Hosseinian, Iran's deputy oil minister, blamed Opec's lack of investment on weak oil prices. “Most Opec countries have been unable to supply extra oil as a result of inadequate investment during the period when oil prices were weak,” he said, adding: “Iran expects to rely heavily on foreign investments to implement its ambitious plans [to increase oil production by nearly 2m b/d].”

Opec's capacity has remained at about 31.5m b/d since autumn 2000, though demand increased by 6m b/d and prices recovered from the Asian crisis of the late 1990s during that time, the CGES said. During that time almost three-quarters of the increased capacity needed to satisfy the extra demand came from outside Opec.

But ageing fields, a difficult investment climate in Russia and a dearth of discoveries in other parts of the world mean that consumers will not be able to rely on countries outside Opec for additional oil.

Oil Prices Sink Below $44 on Profit - Taking (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/25/04)

Oil prices plummeted below $44 a barrel Wednesday, sinking for the fourth consecutive day, as supply fears receded, gasoline futures plunged and profit-taking took over.

``This is overdue, this is so overdue,'' said Fadel Gheit, an oil industry analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. in New York. ``Oil prices have been extremely inflated.''

Light crude for October delivery settled at $43.47, down $1.74. The price of Nymex-traded oil futures has fallen by 11 percent since last Thursday, when they settled at $48.70 -- the highest Nymex settlement on record.

When adjusted for inflation, oil is more than $13 cheaper than it was leading up to the first Gulf War.

---

I WAS PROMISED EMERGENCE:

Tests of a Smear Campaign (E. J. Dionne Jr., August 24, 2004, Washington Post)

You would have thought that if the issue of who served under fire during the Vietnam War became a big deal at this point in the presidential campaign, it would be a major advantage to John Kerry. [...]

This episode is a great test of how politics work in our country. It is, first, a test of George W. Bush.

Bush claims that his highest priority is uniting the country in the war against terrorism. A president who would be a uniter and not a divider knows that cheap-shot politics can only further rend our nation and weaken his own ability to lead.

At this point we should probably expect folks like Mr. Dionne--who expected the imminent return of liberalism to power in America--to stop making sense for awhile, but this is especially sill. Did anyone who knows anything about politics really think Vietnam was going to be a helpful issue for the Senator? Even better, does Mr. Dionne think that when the President says he wants to unite the country he doesn't mean unite it behind his own leadership?

---

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE IMPEACHED...:

MPs plan to impeach Blair over Iraq war record (David Hencke, August 26, 2004, The Guardian)

MPs are planning to impeach Tony Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq, reviving an ancient practice last used against Lord Palmerston more than 150 years ago.

Eleven MPs led by Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, are to table a motion when parliament returns that will force the prime minister to appear before the Commons to defend his record in the run-up to the war. Nine of the MPs are Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, including the party leaders, Elfyn Llwyd, and Alex Salmond, and two are Conservative frontbenchers, Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator, and Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley.

A number of Labour backbenchers are considering whether to back the motion, though it could mean expulsion from the party. [...]

Under the ancient right, which has never been repealed, it takes only one MP to move a motion and the Speaker has to grant a debate on the impeachment. This means, at the least, Mr Blair will have to face a fresh debate on his personal handling of the war and there will have to be a vote in parliament on whether to institute impeachment proceedings.

...it's got to be better to have it be for liberating a nation than for lying in a sexual harassment suit, eh?

---

THAT OLD PRE-CONVENTION BOUNCE YOU'RE ALWAYS HEARING ABOUT...:

Bush Overtakes Kerry in Latest L.A. Times Poll (Ronald Brownstein, August 25, 2004, LA Times)

President Bush heads into next week's Republican national convention with voters moving slightly in his direction since July amid signs that John F. Kerry has been nicked by attacks on his service in Vietnam, a Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49 percent among registered voters, compared to 46 percent for the Democrat. In a Times Poll just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry held a 2 percentage point advantage over Bush.

That small shift from July was within the poll's margin of error. But it fit with other findings in the Times Poll showing the electorate edging toward Bush over the past month on a broad range of measures, from support for his handling of Iraq to confidence in his leadership and honesty. [...]

The Times Poll, supervised by polling director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,597 adults, including 1,352 registered voters nationwide, from Aug. 21-24. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. [...]

The poll spotlighted another challenge for Kerry. After a Democratic convention that focused much more on Kerry's biography than his agenda, just 58 percent said they knew even a fair amount about the policies he would pursue as president; nearly four in ten said they knew not much or nothing at all.

By comparison, even though Bush has put forward few specifics about his second-term priorities, 70 percent said they had a good idea of the policies he would pursue. Compared with the trend of modest erosion for Kerry in the poll, Bush either slightly gained ground or stabilized his position on several measures.

Bush's overall approval rating, which many analysts consider the best single gauge of his prospects in November, stood at 52 percent, with 47 percent disapproving; the numbers last month were 51 percent to 48 percent.

Still not paring down to likely voters but even that can't save the Senator. If you think he's been acting crazy this week just wait.

---

WHAT THE HECK ARE THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS THERE?

Knowles, Murkowski to face off in November (DAN JOLING, August 25, 2004, Associated Press)

Tony Knowles and Lisa Murkowski say nothing's going to change now that they've posted primary victories.

They figured all along they'd face each other in November for the right to represent Alaska in the U.S. Senate.

"I'm going to work hard, shake hands, talk to Alaskans, listen to Alaskans and continue the message I've heard from so many Alaskans over the past months," Knowles said Tuesday night. With 426 of 439 precincts reporting, he had 34,962 votes, or 95 percent. [...]

Murkowski led former state Senate President Mike Miller 38,653, or 58 percent, to 24,575, or 37 percent, with 426 of 439 precincts reporting. Former U.S. Attorney Wev Shea was in third place with 2,492, or 4 percent.

I know even less about Alaska than about most things, but those vote totals are startling. Even with a serious challenger she still smoked Knowles?

---

BACK AND FORTH LIKE A BADMINTON BIRDIE:

State police shuttled McGreevey to Cipel rendezvous (Newsday, August 25, 2004,)

Gov. James E. McGreevey used state troopers assigned to protect him to escort him to the apartment of the aide with whom he is believed to have carried on an gay extramarital affair, according to a published report.

The Star-Ledger of Newark, citing two sources with knowledge of the visits, reported for Wednesday that drivers from the state police's Executive Protection Unit began shuttling McGreevey to Golan Cipel's apartment soon after McGreevey was elected governor in November 2001. [...]

The law enforcement source told the Star-Ledger that many of the visits took place when McGreevey and Cipel lived in the same neighborhood in Woodbridge, where McGreevey had been mayor. McGreevey moved into Drumthwacket, the governor's mansion in Princeton, about three months after his January 2002 inauguration.

The visits were always after business hours, sometimes at night, and ranged from a few minutes to a few hours, the source told the newspaper. At least once, the source said, McGreevey kept his driver waiting from 11 p.m. until 1 a.m.

The source said McGreevey sometimes would have his security drop him off at Cipel's apartment, then pick him up later. Sometimes, McGreevey dismissed the troopers, telling them he would walk home.

Geez, the Governor even helped him pick out an apartment closeby, you'd think he could have walked all the time.

---

THOSE 527'S SEEMED LIKE SUCH A GREAT IDEA UNTIL THE GOP BOUGHT A FEW:

G.O.P. Group Says It's Ready to Wage Ad War (GLEN JUSTICE, 8/25/04, NY Times)

A day after President Bush called for an end to campaign spending by independent groups, one such Republican organization said on Tuesday that it had raised $35 million to counter Democratic attacks on television and hoped to wage a $125 million advertising campaign through Election Day.

The organization, the Progress for America Voter Fund, is the first Republican group to announce that it had raised a substantial amount of money to compete with Democratic-leaning groups that have collected tens of millions of dollars to attack the Bush-Cheney campaign on television.

Others may be poised to follow.

"We don't disagree with the president's take," the president of the group, Brian McCabe, said. "But we can't unilaterally disarm. There is extensive activity by the liberals, and we still need to counter them and level the playing field."

On Wednesday, the organization will begin commercials in Iowa and Wisconsin that attack Senator John Kerry's record on national security. Mr. McCabe said his group hoped to keep the spots running in the two states through the election and to add states as it raised money.

The President has already moved ahead in IA and WI and ad buys like this are going to leave a rapidly imploding Kerry campaign trying to defend blue states that it badly needed to be able to take for granted. By October the campaign may well have been reduced to a desperate bid by the Democrats to cling to states like CA, NY, IL, and MA.

---

ANY IDIOT CAN MAKE A MOCKUMENTARY:

TO: The National Endowment for the Arts--Film Division

FROM: The Brothers Judd

PROPOSED PROJECT: PTSD-109 [A Bro Judd Joint]

BUDGET: $50,000

(1) PT Cruiser

(10) cases Sam Adams

(1) black Labrador Retriever

(1) DVD movie camera

(5) nights at the Days Inn hotel in Anacostia

(?) Buckets of KFC (+ mashed potatos and biscuits)

(2) pair Ray-Ban sunglasses

SYNOPSIS:

In the spirit of Michael Moore's Roger & Me the filmmakers will prowl the halls of Congress and the Washington news bureaus of the major media desperately seeking any professional politician or political pundit who still thinks that Senator John Kerry's Democratic Convention speech--with set design by Max Fischer--was a good idea.

---

LARGE "D" DEMOCRATS:

Can a Constitution Be Unconstitutional?: The battle for state marriage amendments leads to a power grab in Michigan. (Ted Olsen, 08/24/2004, Christianity Today: Weblog)

No one denies that Citizens for the Protection of Marriage has enough signatures to put a state constitutional amendment on Michigan's November 2 ballot. The organization needed around 317,700 signatures, but got 480,000 of them.

But yesterday, the four-member Michigan Board of State Canvassers deadlocked, thus blocking the amendment from appearing on the ballot.

"Democratic Canvasser Doyle O'Connor said the board should not place an amendment before voters that would be 'patently unlawful' and certain to be struck down by the courts if approved," the Detroit Free Press reports. "O'Connor sided with opponents of the marriage proposal who claim it would nullify existing benefits for unmarried partners offered by universities, local governments and private corporations, in addition to restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. To do so, he said, would violate other constitutional protections and 'could never be enforced. We know the courts would set it aside.'"

Huh. A constitutional amendment would be unlawful? That's odd. I wonder what other constitutional clauses are unlawful. Ooh! Maybe the whole separation of powers thing is illegal! Maybe Article II Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution is illegal! Here's what it says, after explaining how many signatures a petition to amend the constitution requires:

Any amendment proposed by such petition shall be submitted, not less than 120 days after it was filed, to the electors at the next general election. Such proposed amendment, existing provisions of the constitution which would be altered or abrogated thereby, and the question as it shall appear on the ballot shall be published in full as provided by law.

Huh. Nothing in there about the Board of State Canvassers needing to prophesy about what the courts might say.

Say this for the Left: they're going to make the rest of pry power from their cold, dead hands.

---

IT'S A START:

Deadline looms in Sudan crisis: Khartoum agrees to allow more African Union troops and monitors in Darfur. (Danna Harman, 8/26/04, CS Monitor)

Four days from a United Nations deadline to disarm and punish those responsible for killing an estimated 30,000 people during the 18-month crisis in western Sudan, two key questions remain: Has the Sudanese government made sufficient progress to stave off possible UN sanctions? Probably. And, critically, does the UN have the will to follow through with its threats? Probably not.

"Khartoum remains adept at saying and doing just enough to avoid a robust international response; but the fact is they have not satisfactorily fulfilled their obligations within the time period established by the [July 30 UN] resolution," charges John Prendergast, an Africa expert at the International Crisis Group (ICG), based in Washington. "What we need now is direct, concerted pressure - otherwise, the Security Council risks being part of a long cycle of threats that have rarely been followed up meaningfully." [...]

The main area of progress is on the humanitarian front. Back in June, aid groups were waiting months to get visas and travel permits, and supplies were getting blocked by customs. But this month at least six new nongovernmental organizations were given permits to operate in the region, and existing ones added staff and programs. Wednesday, the International Committee of the Red Cross announced plans to launch a major airlift to the region. It said it intends to make six trips into the region, carrying equipment and medical supplies, by Sept. 5.

"Pressure on the government has worked," says Adam Koons, director of Save the Children-USA in Sudan. "As horrible as the situation is, and much effort is still needed, we have averted enormous loss of life."

---

CIRCUS MAXIMUS:

That '70s Show (JAMES TARANTO, August 25, 2004, Best of the Web Today)

"I called the media. . . . I said, 'If I take some crippled veterans down to the White House and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?' 'Oh, yes, we will cover that.' "
--John Kerry, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 22, 1971

"Kerry is sending to Crawford former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a frequent companion of Kerry's on the campaign trail and a fellow Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during the war. Cleland . . . will try to deliver a letter protesting the [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] ads to [President] Bush at his heavily guarded ranch, Kerry aides said."
--Reuters Aug. 25, 2004

Hi. I'm Max, but you can call me "some crippled veteran."

---

UP THE RIVER AND INTO THE HEART OF DARKNESS:

If He Only Had a Heart: John Kerry tanks on The Daily Show. (Dana Stevens, Aug. 25, 2004, Slate)

When my boyfriend and I heard that John Kerry was slated to be the guest on last night's Daily Show, we all but raced to the TiVo to set it on record. (Not that we ever miss The Daily Show anyway, but this would be one worth keeping.) What a "get" for Jon Stewart, the court jester of the 2004 election! And finally Kerry would have the chance to step down from the campaign stump and show people who are desperate for a reason to vote for him what he's really made of: his passion, his conviction, his much-vaunted (at least by his wife) sense of humor. Except, as Jon Stewart has been known to say: Eh, not so much.

From the moment the senator appeared and sat down on the gray sofa where, just last week, Bill Clinton basked in the audience's applause like a cat lapping up cream, Kerry's charisma was less than zero: It was negative. He was a charm vacuum, forced to actually borrow mojo from audience members. He was a dessicated husk, a tin man who really didn't have a heart. His lack of vibrancy, his utter dearth of sex appeal made Al Gore look like Charo.

Every time some Mexican-hating crank on the Right pens a screed for a journal read only by folks who miss Der Sturmer about how George Bush is a tool of the conniving cabal of hook-nosed neocons, people start barking about how he's in trouble with his base. Meanwhile, normal people in what we are informed is now called the MSM (or Main Stream Media) are just burying John Kerry for being a horrendous candidate, but somehow that same frenzy hasn't started yet. When it does it's hard to see how he stops the slide. Even when folks were pretending he had a shot at winning this election they had to acknowledge that no one likes him personally and that Democrats were picking him only because of his "electability." If he's not electable what does he have left? His medals are on the White House lawn and the money belongs to his wife, who doesn't seem too likely to pleased with her cabana boy if he costs her that First Lady gig. Maybe he will keep that Senate seat after all--though Paul Cellucci seems likely to win it from him in a couple years.

---

SMALL SAMPLE, BUT BRUTAL NUMBERS:

BUSH'S SUPPORT INCREASES IN ARIZONA (KAE-TV, 8/24/04)

A new statewide poll of 400 registered voters conducted by KAET-TV/Channel 8 and the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University August 19 - 22, 2004, found that President George Bush has increased his support in Arizona against Senator John Kerry in the last 30 days but the race is still a statistical dead heat. Forty-seven percent said they would vote for Bush, 39 percent were supporting Kerry and 14 percent were undecided. In July, 41 percent of those surveyed were supporting Bush, 42 percent were for Kerry and 17 percent were undecided. In the current poll, when undecided voters were asked who they were "leaning toward" supporting, 53 percent said they will vote for Bush and 47 percent for Kerry.

Among voters with the highest probability of voting,* the race tightened. Forty-five percent were voting for Bush, 42 percent for Kerry and 13 percent were undecided. The race for president in Arizona remains highly polarized. Eighty-six percent of Bush's supporters and 94 percent of Kerry's supporters said they are very firm in their commitment and are unlikely to change their mind between now and November.

The poll suggests that Bush's increasing support is largely coming from registered independents. While 14 percent of the Republicans said they would cross over to vote for Kerry and 14 percent of the Democrats said they would choose Bush, independents were supporting Bush by a two-to-one margin (52 percent to 26 percent). The survey also found that people who regularly attend religious services are much more supportive of Bush than Kerry (61 percent to 29 percent). No "gender gap" was found in this poll.

Fifty-one percent of those interviewed approved of the job Bush is doing as president, 43 percent disapproved and 6 percent had no opinion.

---

WILL THEY STOP THE SLAUGHTER?

Letter to John Kerry (GeorgeWBush.com, 8/25/04)

August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

I know some of you are pessimistic but, really, is this campaign going to lose to that campaign?

MORE (from OJ)
Cleland Tries to Deliver Letter to Bush (The Associated Press, Aug. 25, 2004)

Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland tried to deliver a letter protesting ads challenging John Kerry's Vietnam service to President Bush at his Texas ranch Wednesday, but neither a Secret Service official nor a state trooper would take it. [...]

Encountering a permanent roadblock to Bush's ranch, Cleland left without turning over the letter to anyone. [...]

A Texas state official and Vietnam veteran, Jerry Patterson, said someone from the Bush campaign contacted him Wednesday morning and asked him if he would travel to the ranch, welcome Cleland to Texas and accept the former senator's letter to Bush.

"I tried to accept that letter and he would not give it to me," said Patterson. "He would not face me. He kept rolling away from me. He's quite mobile."

Patterson, who spoke with the president on the phone, said the campaign asked him to give Cleland a letter for Kerry written by the Bush campaign and signed by Patterson and seven other veterans.

"You can't have it both ways," the letter said. "You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up."

Here's the second letter--in cards you'd call it a trump:

August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry

304 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard (search) troops serving in Iraq (search) and Afghanistan (search) today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that's why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities - and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

The pitiful thing--besides wheeling out ole Mad Max for the sympathy vote--is that the thousands of Kerry advisers think stunts like this, which only keep the story alive, are clever.

---

STEAL A MARCH:

So Much for Free Speech (Robert J. Samuelson, August 25, 2004, Washington Post)

The presidential campaign has confirmed that, under the guise of "campaign finance reform," Congress and the Supreme Court have repealed large parts of the First Amendment. They have simply discarded what were once considered constitutional rights of free speech and political association. It is not that these rights have vanished. But they are no longer constitutional guarantees. They're governed by limits and qualifications imposed by Congress, the courts, state legislatures, regulatory agencies -- and lawyers' interpretations of all of the above.

We have entered an era of constitutional censorship. Hardly anyone wants to admit this -- the legalized demolition of the First Amendment would seem shocking -- and so hardly anyone does. The evidence, though, abounds. The latest is the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and parallel anti-Bush ads by Democratic "527" groups such as MoveOn.org. Let's assume (for argument's sake) that everything in these ads is untrue. Still, the United States' political tradition is that voters judge the truthfulness and relevance of campaign arguments. We haven't wanted our political speech filtered.

Now there's another possibility. The government may screen what voters see and hear. The Kerry campaign has asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ban the Swift Boat ads; the Bush campaign similarly wants the FEC to suppress the pro-Democrat 527 groups. We've arrived at this juncture because it's logically impossible both to honor the First Amendment and to regulate campaign finance effectively. We can do one or the other -- but not both. Unfortunately, Congress and the Supreme Court won't admit the choice. The result is the worst of both worlds. We gut the First Amendment and don't effectively regulate campaign finance.

The First Amendment says that Congress "shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government" (that's "political association''). The campaign finance laws, the latest being McCain-Feingold, blatantly violate these prohibitions.

Campaign Cops and Car Ads (George F. Will, August 22, 2004, Washington Post)

Russ Darrow -- "The Right Russ," his bumper stickers say -- is running in the Sept. 14 primary for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat held by Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). Feingold is a saint in the church of campaign finance reform because of the McCain-Feingold legislation enacted in 2002 to solve the supposed problem of "too much money in politics."

In 1965 Darrow founded a business -- Russ Darrow Group Inc. -- that now includes 22 dealerships selling new and used vehicles. It is operated today by Russ Darrow III. It runs broadcast, print and electronic (e-mail and other) advertising using the now valuable brand name "Russ Darrow."

McCain-Feingold's blackout provision says that 30 days before a primary, it is illegal for corporations -- a category that includes thousands of advocacy groups from Planned Parenthood to the National Rifle Association -- to finance any "electioneering communication" via radio or television that "refers to" a congressional candidate and is "targeted to the relevant electorate."

Because of that law, the company felt compelled to ask the Federal Election Commission whether it can continue to advertise when its founder is running for federal office. Common sense says the law was not intended to pertain to, and its language cannot be tortured to extend to, commercial advertising. But Common Cause thinks otherwise.

Clearly, car ads are not "electioneering communications." Hence mentioning Darrow's name as a brand name in a communication with no relevance to any election cannot consti- tute making a reference to a political candidate.

Nevertheless, Jay Heck, director of the Wisconsin operations of Common Cause, the national advocacy organization for enlarged government regulation of political advocacy, says: "Why should [Darrow] have an unfair advantage and be able to pay to have his name out there with corporate money, where his opponents have to use regulated, disclosed money?"

It is breathtaking. It is a measure of how many forms of speech have been made problematic by the campaign reformers' itch to extend government supervision of speech.

It would be a great time for the President to make a major campaign finance reform speech, putting down a marker so that he and the wider Republican majorities in Congress can revisit the law first thing in 2005 and make it consistent with the First Amendment.

---

THE LEOPARD AND ITS SPOTS:

Kerry's Dueling Promises on Economy: Position on Reducing Deficit Conflicts With Campaign Commitments (Jonathan Weisman, August 25, 2004, Washington Post)

Sen. John F. Kerry's pledge to reduce record federal budget deficits is colliding with an obstacle that may be growing higher by the week: his own campaign commitments.

A Washington Post review of Kerry's tax cuts and spending plans, in addition to interviews with campaign staff members and analyses by conservative and liberal experts, suggests that they could worsen the federal budget deficit by nearly as much as President Bush's agenda. If projected savings from unspecified cuts do not materialize, Kerry's pledges could outstrip those of the president, whom the Democrat has repeatedly accused of unprecedented fiscal recklessness.

"I wish Senator Kerry was providing a starker contrast," lamented Leonard E. Burman, a tax policy analyst at the Urban Institute, who was a Treasury Department official in the Clinton administration. "The [Bush] policies with respect to the deficit are insane. They have to be reversed. But it will take presidential leadership to do it."

"You have to begin with the premise that the steps you need to take to reduce deficits are almost diametrically opposed to the steps you need to take to win elections," said Leon E. Panetta, Bill Clinton's first budget director. "You can cut spending and raise taxes or you can cut taxes and raise spending."

Remember how economic conservatives were going to vote for Anybody But Bush because they'd have to be more fiscally responsible and pro-free trade?

---

HOW'D WE GET STUCK WITH THIS CLOWN:

Man Overboard (Richard Blow, 8/25/04, TomPaine.com)

The danger of the anti-Kerry attack is not that it will change many people’s minds about the Democratic candidate. As the Democratic convention showed, and the GOP convention will show, the vast majority of voters already know who they’re casting their ballots for. This polarized election is now about two things: Turning out your voters, and winning the undecideds, who are probably about five to 10 percent of the electorate. Near the end of a tight race, undecideds usually break for the challenger. If the incumbent hasn’t won them over after 46 months in office, he’s not likely to in the 60 days before Election Day. These voters are Kerry’s to lose, and that’s just what he may be doing.

Undecideds are finicky voters. They don’t like political brawls. They vote on the issues, and that’s good for Kerry: If this election is about Iraq, the economy and whether Americans are better off than they were in 2000, he wins. So Kerry has to give five to 10 percent of American voters a positive reason—a bold agenda, a plan for change—to vote for him. On the flip side, he must steer clear of an extended controversy that will alienate the undecideds.

But in his counterattack to the Vietnam question, Kerry has waded right into that controversy. This should have been a fringe issue, as Bush’s National Guard service has always been. (And it won’t work for Kerry to attack Bush on the National Guard question; it’s a vetted issue by now.) Instead, Vietnam has been dominating the headlines for days. People who would never even have known what a Swift boat is are now debating just how much blood John Kerry lost in Vietnam. Bob Dole, who appears to be losing some of his mental clarity but still has enormous credibility, said that Kerry should apologize to Vietnam vets. Ouch. Inevitably, some of the undecided voters will conclude that Kerry deserved his medals. Others won’t. Some will just get turned off, and not vote, which hurts Kerry more than it does Bush.

What's remarkable is that the Kerry campaign has managed to make such a mess in a slow news month when Americans should be debating Paul Hamm’s medal, not John Kerry’s. Misunderstanding the media this badly isn’t easy. Meanwhile, Bush has stayed above the fray, opining that the political ads of all independent groups should be prohibited. Such a ban will never happen—certainly not before November. But calling for it does make Bush sound statesmanlike.

If the economy and the war on terror worked in Mr. Kerry's favor he'd be running on them. Instead, the President is.

---

HIDE AND THEY MIGHT LIKE US BETTER:

Get Mad. Act Out. Re-Elect George Bush.: Protesters risk playing into GOP hands (Rick Perlstein, August 24th, 2004, Village Voice)

One of the most exhilarating moments in Lewis Koch's life came in the summer of 1968. He was a producer for NBC News, based in Chicago, specializing in the anti-war movement—of which he was a sympathizer. Now, at the Democratic National Convention, he was an actor in what he thought was one of its glorious episodes. Cops were beating kids without provocation, and with the footage he was putting on the air, Middle America might finally realize that justice rested more with those protesting the war than those so violently defending it.

"I remember my self-satisfaction," Koch recalls, "and saying to myself, 'Oh, did you do a terrific job!' "

Then came the most traumatic moment in Lewis Koch's life.

"The phones would ring off the hook. People were furious. . . . Nothing I had intended had gone through. Actually what they saw were clear pictures of these young kids rioting. Chaos in their city." Next thing he knew, Richard Nixon had swept to presidential victory on the wings of a commercial proclaiming—above those selfsame pictures—that "the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence."

Now Lew Koch senses déjà vu all over again in the loose talk among protesters of staging similar scenes at next week's Republican convention—talk that by putting the ugliness of the Bush regime on display, protesters thereby might end it. Koch's frustration is overwhelming. "What the protesters are saying is the same thing as the Weathermen: 'Bring the war home.' And you know what happens? You lose the war! They have guns. And they'll have the judges that Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court in the next four years."

It recalls the old philosopher's conundrum: When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If resistance against Bush actually plays into Bush's hands, is it really resistance?

The parallels between Chicago 1968 and New York 2004 are striking.

It is resistance, it's just unpopular. That's the Left's problem and it has been for decades now--they have to hide their message from the citizenry.

---

IN THE BEST CLUB OF ROME TRADITION

Pollutants cause huge rise in brain diseases (Juliette Jowit, The Guardian, August 15th, 2004)

The numbers of sufferers of brain diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and motor neurone disease, have soared across the West in less than 20 years, scientists have discovered.

The alarming rise, which includes figures showing rates of dementia have trebled in men, has been linked to rises in levels of pesticides, industrial effluents, domestic waste, car exhausts and other pollutants, says a report in the journal Public Health.

In the late 1970s, there were around 3,000 deaths a year from these conditions in England and Wales. By the late 1990s, there were 10,000.

'This has really scared me,' said Professor Colin Pritchard of Bournemouth University, one of the report's authors. 'These are nasty diseases: people are getting more of them and they are starting earlier. We have to look at the environment and ask ourselves what we are doing.'

Well, Professor, what we are doing and have been for years is cutting pollution to record low levels, banning vices like smoking, inventing more and more miracle drugs and encouraging everyone from childhood on to work, play and eat with a view to living as long as they possibly can. However, if you want your funding renewed, you are well-advised to blame economic growth and enterprise. Your donors are getting on and would prefer not to confront the unsettling truth.

---

SPENSER SHOULDN'T DEFER TO HAWK:

When to Hold 'Em: The U.S. should detain suspected terrorists—even if it can't make a case against them in court. (Thomas F. Powers, Sep/Oct 2004, Legal Affairs)

A number of prominent legal scholars and government officials, ranging from the liberal constitutional expert Laurence Tribe to the conservative federal judge Michael Chertoff, have begun to give serious consideration to the idea of preventive detention. Even Justice John Paul Stevens, who supports civil libertarian positions, admitted in the Padilla case that "[e]xecutive detention of subversive citizens, like detention of enemy soldiers to keep them off the battlefield, may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction."

What about international law? The point is not that the United States should defy international law. It must not. But under the Geneva Conventions terrorists do not fit into the only two categories provided, POW or war criminal. Preventive detention responsibly addresses the question of what to do with fighters who do not wear uniforms or otherwise distinguish themselves from civilians in combat.

The government's critics explain the Administration's current policy either in terms of some institutional perversity (executive overreach) or by reference to some pathological "authoritarianism." But the failure thus far to devise a comprehensive policy reflects, at least in part, a liberal democratic hesitation in the face of a practice that appears to be fundamentally illiberal. The time has come to face terrorism squarely, and to craft a legal response that reflects our constitutional principles.

EXISTING U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICIES extend some limited procedural rights to detainees. Most notable is the annual status review of every individual detained by the recently created Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants. This, together with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's insistence in Hamdi that all detainees be granted a hearing before a "neutral decisionmaker," and with the aid of legal counsel, provides a starting point.

How we proceed from there should be decided in light of the experience of other countries that have struggled to combat terrorism. If preventive detention is justified in large measure by the scope and intensity of the actual threat of terrorism, then England and Israel both surely qualify. More than 3,000 terrorism deaths are associated with the conflict in Northern Ireland, and more than 1,200 people have been killed by terrorists in Israel in the past decade alone.

Great Britain's indefinite internment policy, formalized in 1973 following the recommendations of a famous report authored by Lord Diplock on the situation in Northern Ireland, was allowed to lapse in 1980. Lord Diplock was reacting to a legally murky use of police power, one he termed "imprisonment at the arbitrary Diktat of the Executive Government." Though his reform proposal, incorporated in the 1973 Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, made preventive detention a matter of administrative, not judicial, oversight, the new policy reasserted civilian control and included due process safeguards. No less a figure than the secretary of state for Northern Ireland made initial detention determinations. Within a period of 28 days, an administrative official would then review each case with the option to extend the detention. Those detained also had a right to be informed of their status hearing in advance, and they were granted the right to an attorney paid for by the government. After September 11, in the 2001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, a limited version of the internment policy, applying only to non-citizens, was reintroduced in Britain.

In 1948 Israel inherited from the British an unofficial detention policy that was formally articulated in the 1979 Administrative Detention Law. Partly in response to provisions of international law, administrative detention is justified, as it is in England, only under a state of emergency—a status Israel has invoked and lived under continuously since 1948. The minister of defense must authorize each case. Detention orders are issued for six months at a time and may be renewed at the end of that period. In Israel the civilian courts provide oversight, first by "confirming" the initial detention order and then by reviewing the status of each detainee every three months, overlapping with the review, every six months, by the minister of defense. Detainees have the right to an attorney, and the right to be present at their confirmation hearing and at all subsequent judicial proceedings.

THE POLICIES OF BRITAIN AND ISRAEL each moved in the same direction: toward greater legal clarity and toward more extensive due process protections. The United States should take advantage of those countries' experiences to find ways to build due process into preventive detention. Current U.S. policy reflects a reactive and piecemeal approach. Designing a preventive detention policy means, in effect, creating a separate legal system that applies only to a small class of persons, a system running parallel to criminal law on the one hand, and to the laws governing POWs and war criminals on the other.

A comprehensive policy must specify standards and procedures in six key areas: 1) preliminary screening and determination of status; 2) a hearing at which detainees may challenge their status; 3) the right of appeal; 4) periodic reconsideration and renewal of status, or release; 5) general legal support, including notification and access to attorneys, evidence, and witnesses; and 6) clear standards of treatment for detainees. Some of this is already in place in Defense Department practices, but it needs to be pulled together, clarified, and made explicit for anyone who wants to know about the country's policy. [...]

In England and Israel, preventive detention has been highly controversial. Though Lord Diplock was essentially a reformer, and though his report on Northern Ireland brought legal clarity and constraint to what he and others perceived to be runaway executive power, his name is often associated with authoritarian excess. Fashioning a preventive detention policy is likely to be a thankless task here as well. The name of the architect of America's preventive detention policy may well become associated with an innovation that will be loved by none and hated by many. But the benefit would be to bring the rule of law to bear even here, where the Bush Administration has made clear that it is only so willing to check its own power.

The glory of republicanism is not that liberty is unlimited but that it is protected from arbitrary and capricious interference. However, the competition between our understandable reluctance to give government too much power and our inevitable demand that government protect us from threats at any cost, tends to force us into precisely the kind of situation where
we do restrain liberty arbitrarily.

As Mr. Powers argues, it would be far better to be honest with ourselves and accept that we are going to take the steps necessary to guard against the threat of terrorism and to craft a careful and consistent set of laws and regulations that apply universally. Measures like preventive detention and torture may be distasteful, but we expect and want them to be utilized on our behalf. It's incumbent upon us as citizens then to set grant permission to and set guidelines for those government officials we wish to do our dirty work.

---

BRIGHT IDEA, EDISON (via Charlie Herzog):

'Sense of hope' on schools (Susan Snyder, Connie Langland and Alletta Emeno, 8/25/04, Philadelphia Inquirer)

In a dramatic improvement, the Philadelphia School District nearly tripled the number of schools that met achievement requirements under the federal No Child Left Behind law, statistics released yesterday show.

The success mirrored statewide improvements.

Of the district's 264 schools, 160 met the mark for making "adequate yearly progress," which is based largely on test scores, graduation and attendance rates. Only 58 were at the standard in the 2003 report. This is the second year that the state has identified schools that need improvement.

In Philadelphia - which was taken over by the state three years ago because of dismal academic performance and financial struggle - education advocates were thrilled.

"I think we've given people a sense of hope that we can turn around an urban school system," said State Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), speaking at a news conference at school district headquarters. [...]

In Philadelphia, improvement was charted in all kinds of district schools - those run by outside managers, such as Edison Schools Inc., charter schools and regular district schools.

"The results show that each partner's unique approach under the district's managed instruction model has contributed to today's success," said James Nevels, chairman of the Philadelphia School Reform Commission.

Of the 45 city schools run by outside managers, 23 met the performance standards, up from seven last year.

Edison Schools Inc., which came to the city under controversy because of its for-profit status, increased from one of its 20 schools making adequate progress to 12.

"The controversy, the complicated entrance to Philadelphia, was, frankly, worth it," Edison spokesman Adam Tucker said.

(The firm, however, did not fare quite as well in the Chester Upland School District, where it manages eight schools. Two made the target, up from one last year.)

Charter schools in Philadelphia also posted strong gains. Twenty of the 43 charters met adequate yearly progress, compared with only four last year, district officials said.

Is Senator Kerry for or against this kind of progress this week?

---

NOT UNTIL WE GET TO HUMBERT'S PEAK...:

Vast New Energy Source Almost Here (SPX, Aug 25, 2004)

Australian scientists predict that a revolutionary new way to harness the power of the sun to extract clean and almost unlimited energy supplies from water will be a reality within seven years.

Using special titanium oxide ceramics that harvest sunlight and split water to produce hydrogen fuel, the researchers say it will then be a simple engineering exercise to make an energy-harvesting device with no moving parts and emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants.

It would be the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant energy source ever developed: the main by-products would be oxygen and water.

"This is potentially huge, with a market the size of all the existing markets for coal, oil and gas combined," says Professor Janusz Nowotny, who with Professor Chris Sorrell is leading a solar hydrogen research project at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Centre for Materials and Energy Conversion.

---

ONCE YOU START SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY...:

Kerry Makes Illegal Phone Call to Swift Boat Veteran (NewsMax, 8/25/04)

Kerry's latest faux pas: calling Vietnam veteran Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant and asking if he knew about that awful group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"I said, 'I am one, John,'" Brant said.

The Massachusetts Democrat failed to note that Brant had appeared at a news conference announcing the group in May.

"There was a moment of hesitation, and he said, `I appreciate your honesty.' He said, `Well, why are you?'"

Brant reminded Kerry of his depiction of veterans as war criminals. "I said, `You know that's not true,'" Brant recalled to the Associated Press. "That's been simmering in me about 35 years."

The New York Post reported today: "Sean McCabe, a spokesman for the 264-member organization, said it plans to send a cease-and-desist letter warning Kerry 'to stop calling our members,' because it's an independent '527' group and it's illegal for campaigns to contact them."

The senator was breaking the law and should have immediately ended the call when Brant said he was a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" reported this morning.

Nothing new for a guy who negotiated with the North Vietnamese illegally.

---

MEANWHILE, FOR THOSE NOT MIRED IN THE MEKONG:

Orders for Durable Goods Make Big Gain: U.S. factories see orders for durable goods rise by 1.7 percent in July (JEANNINE AVERSA, August 25, 2004, Associated Press)

U.S. factories saw orders for costly manufactured goods in July post the biggest gain in four months, an encouraging sign that the economy is emerging from an early summer funk.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that orders for durables goods - big-ticket items expected to last at least three years - rose by 1.7 percent in July from the previous month - lifted by stronger demand for goods including airplanes, machinery and communications equipment.

The increase - the largest since March - followed a 1.1 percent advance in June. The showing in July was stronger than the 1 percent rise that some economists were forecasting.

The latest snapshot of manufacturing activity joins some other recent economic reports suggesting the economy may be picking up a bit of momentum after being stuck in a rut in June.

Asked for its reaction, the Kerry campaign responded that the Senator was in Cambodia on December 28th 1968, not the 25th.

---

KIM JONG-IL LICKS HIS CHOPS:

Would Kerry have won the Cold War? (Terence Jeffrey, August 25, 2004, Townhall)

Reagan's conventional military buildup, European missile deployment and refusal to cave on SDI broke the will of an evil empire.

Now, here's why this is important today: Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry opposed all the key policies Reagan used to win a bloodless victory in the Cold War.

In his first Senate race in 1984, Kerry championed the nuclear freeze. In September 1985, two months before Reagan met Gorbachev in Geneva, when freezeniks held their own Geneva summit, Kerry was their star. "Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., keynote speaker for the Geneva freeze meeting," United Press International reported at the time, "told the activists that 'if it were not for the freeze movement, I am confident that the government of the United States would not be in Geneva today talking with its Soviet counterparts.'"

In August 1986, two months before Reagan met Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Kerry fought to pre-emptively scuttle SDI. After a measure to steeply reduce SDI funding failed in the Senate, Kerry, according to the Associated Press, "called Star Wars 'a cancer' and said 'what we must do is deny this program the funds that would enable this cancer on our nation's defense to grow any further.'"

What about Reagan's buildup of conventional weapons (which still benefits U.S. forces today)? "(C)andidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them -- the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system," the Boston Globe reported.

So the Vietnam portion of the Kerry campaign lasts at least until the GOP convention, then we get a few weeks of him justifying his anti-war activities and Senate testimony, and only then do we get to the point where he has to defend his abysmal record as an elected official. Maybe the Democrats should have had contested primaries after all?

---

BOOMTIME IN HOOVERVILLE:

July fails to chill housing market (JEANNINE AVERSA, 8/25/04, Associated Press)

Sales of previously owned homes declined in July but still posted their third-best sales pace on record -- a sign that the housing market, while slowing a bit, remains in good shape.

The National Association of Realtors reported Tuesday that sales of existing homes fell to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.72 million units, representing a 2.9 percent decrease from June's record-high pace of 6.92 million units. [...]

Even though the drop nationwide in July was steeper than the 2 percent decline some economists were forecasting, the level of sales was still considered buoyant. July's sales were running 8.6 percent higher than the pace for the same month last year.

''We're off the highs, but the levels we are at are very, very healthy,'' said David Lereah, the association's chief economist.

He said he expects sales of previously owned homes to set record highs for all of 2004.

Richard Yamarone, an economist at Argus Research Corp., agreed with that assessment, saying he has no worries about the health of the housing market.

Just because we have a growing economy, rising population and record employment doesn't mean the housing market can stay strong....

---

THEY'RE TEENS, AFTER ALL:

Putting Caps on Teenage Drinking: A nationwide plan to reduce underage drinking is long overdue. ( JIM GOGEK, 8/25/04, NY Times)

Bold government initiatives can be effective. This summer, we're celebrating the 20th anniversary of the minimum drinking age of 21, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. That legislation has saved an estimated 20,000 lives. An adequately financed, nationwide plan to reduce underage drinking, adhering to the National Academy report, would save even more lives. But so far, it looks like underage drinking will only be fought by impoverished advocacy groups, a scattering of state officials and trial lawyers who see the story of tobacco litigation about to repeat itself.

You don't need more money, just take away the driver's license of anyone under 21 who's caught drinking or using drugs and don't let them have it back until they're over 21. You'd be using the same peer pressure that gets them to misbehave in the first place. The humiliation of not being able to drive when all your friends can would be a powerful motivator.

---

PARDONS? THEY DESERVE PARADES:

Panama leader may pardon 4 Castro foes to spite Cuba: Angry over criticism from Havana, Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso said she will consider a pardon for four jailed anti-Castro Cuban exiles. (NANCY SAN MARTIN, 8/25/04, Miami Herald)

Angered by Cuban attacks, Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso Tuesday was considering pardoning four anti-Castro Cuban exiles jailed in Panama -- and ordered the ''immediate'' departure of Havana's ambassador to Panama.

In Miami, leaders of a group of exiles who have supported the four by raising $400,000 for their defense said they were ''elated'' with Moscoso's announcement but denied reports that they had lobbied the Panamanian president for pardons.

The twin actions by Moscoso, whose term expires next Monday, plunged Panama-Cuba relations to a historic low and may leave the incoming government of President-elect Martin Torrijos with a diplomatic mess on its hands. [...]

The four men jailed include three Miami exiles and Luis Posada Carriles, an El Salvador resident labeled by Havana as its most wanted terrorist. They were arrested in 2000 in Panama City after President Fidel Castro, visiting for a heads-of-state summit, alleged at a news conference that the exiles were plotting to kill him.

They were cleared of the murder charges and possession of 33 pounds of explosives but were convicted in April of endangering the public safety and given sentences of up to eight years in prison. Posada and the three Miamians -- Pedro Remón, Guillermo Novo and Gaspar Jiménez -- claimed they were in Panama to help a Cuban general who was to accompany Castro and supposedly had planned to defect.

And people think Sadr has held Najaf for too long?

---

MAKE WAY FOR THE AYATOLLAH:

Sistani's rescue bid (Peyman Pejman, 8/26/04, Asia Times)

In the latest twist, supreme Shi'ite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said that he would return to Iraqi on Wednesday and ask all Iraqis to "march to Najaf in order to rescue the city". Sistani has been receiving medical treatment in London, where he arrived a day after the latest bout of fighting began three weeks ago.

"We want a stop to this bloodshed in the city of Najaf," said an aide to Sistani, Sheikh Ali Smaisem. "We will negotiate with the same delegation from the [Iraqi] National Conference, and we want them to bring a representative from the government." Smaisem was referring to a delegation of eight Iraqi dignitaries who visited Najaf last week and were unable to broker a peaceful end to the crisis.

"His eminence Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani will arrive in beloved Iraq in a few hours and he will return to the holy city of Najaf to rescue it from its ordeal," spokesman Hamed al-Khafaf said in an e-mail sent to The Associated Press in Beirut on Wednesday morning.

This could have no better outcome than to strengthen al-Sistani.

---

KEYES 13, OBAMA 1:

Alan Keyes's Daffy Idea to Repeal the 17th Amendment (Lewis Gould, HNN)

Alan Keyes, the Republican senatorial candidate in Illinois, has now joined Senator Zell Miller of Georgia and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in calling for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, the one that provides for the direct election of United States senators. Senator Miller, who has introduced his own amendment to repeal the Seventeenth, contends that the direct election of senators “was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments.” Once the Senate was the province of members “who thoughtfully make up their own minds, as they did during the Senate’s greatest era of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun.” Now senators, in Miller’s view, “are mere cat’s paws for the special interests.” Miller favors returning the right to elect senators to the state legislatures who had that job until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Keyes agrees since it seems likely that the Illinois electorate is not going to prove receptive to his bid for that state’s open Senate seat. Before this flawed idea gets any traction, it would be well to recall the historical circumstances that led to the adoption of the direct election amendment in the first place.

Why did Americans in the Progressive Era endorse this change in the nation’s fundamental law?

Articles about Mr. Obama are a function of his race, about Mr. Keyes a function of his ideas. Would you rather be the token or the provocateur?

---

BLOW IT UP AND START OVER:

9/11 Panel Leader Has Praise for Plan to Split C.I.A.: Thomas H. Kean called a proposal to break up the C.I.A. and move other intelligence agencies outside the Pentagon a "constructive alternative" to the commission's proposals. (PHILIP SHENON, 8/25/04, NY Times)

The testimony Tuesday from Mr. Kean and the commission's deputy chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, may be useful to Mr. Roberts in pursuing his legislation, which has been fiercely attacked by several influential members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, and has clearly shocked officials at the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

Their comments suggested that Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton were willing to work with Mr. Roberts and his allies in the Senate and House to fashion legislation that would accomplish their common goal, an intelligence overhaul far more sweeping than anything that the Bush administration has suggested it would accept.

In a statement issued late Monday to employees of the C.I.A., the acting director of central intelligence, John E. McLaughlin, described Mr. Roberts's plan as a "step backward" and said, "We are nowhere near the end of this debate." He predicted that there would be no "breakup of the C.I.A. given the agency's vital front-line role in the war on terror."

President's don't often get handed opportunities to radically restructure the bureaucracy--Mr. Bush should seize this one. Centralization is a terrible idea; but you can do a lot of other constructive things--not least getting rid of CIA and tossing the civil service rules--under cover of the Roberts plan.

---

GET THE GIMP:

Democrats Travel to Bush's Ranch Asking Him to Denounce Ads (Bloomberg, 8/25/04)

Former Democratic Senator Max Cleland plans to travel today to President George W. Bush's ranch to demand that he denounce television ads accusing Democratic challenger John Kerry of lying about his war record.

Cleland, 61, who lost both legs and his right arm during the Vietnam War, is to be accompanied on his trip to the Crawford, Texas, ranch, by former U.S. Army Green Beret Jim Rassmann, who credits Kerry with rescuing him from a river in Vietnam.

Boy, Max Cleland has no pride, huh? His official role in the campaign is to be a stage prop.

MORE:
The Sampan incident (Pat Buchanan, August 25, 2004, Townhall)

Steve Gardner will not forget the night as long as he lives. It was mid-January 1969. He was manning the double .50 caliber machine-gun mount in Lt. John Kerry's swift boat. "The PCF 44 boat, engines shut off, lay in ambush near the western mouth of the Cua Lon River," writes John O'Neill in his best-seller "Unfit for Command."

Kerry was in the pilothouse monitoring the radar. But, Gardner claims, Kerry had given his crew no heads-up when, suddenly, a sampan appeared right in front of them. The swift boat lights were thrown onto the sampan. Kerry, however, still had said nothing and was nowhere in sight. Gardner yelled to the sampan to stop. No reaction.

Then, as Gardner and crew thought they saw a man on the sampan holding or reaching for a weapon, they cut loose with the machine guns.

But when the crew boarded the sampan, they found no man on the boat, just a woman clutching a child no more than 2 years old and the shattered body of a boy. The man who had been piloting the sampan was believed to have been blasted into the water.

Here was a tragedy of war. But it is the contention of O'Neill and Gardner that Kerry bears responsibility for the boy's death.

Can't wait for the claim that Pat is a tool of Karl Rove.

---

I KNEW AL GORE, SENATOR . . .

Kerry does "The Daily Show" (Mary Dalrymple, AP, 8/24/04)

As Kerry launched into one of his lengthy monologues about why President Bush avoids talking about issues like the economy, jobs and the environment, the comedian interrupted.

"I'm sorry," Stewart said. "Were you or were you not in Cambodia?"

Stewart and Kerry then lean in and stare each other down over the comedian's desk before Stewart asks about some of the other things Kerry's opponents are saying about him. . . .

Kerry said the debates would be a challenge. "The president has won every debate he's ever had," Kerry said. "He beat Ann Richards. He beat Al Gore. So, he's a good debater."

One of the things that Al Gore was good at (notice how kind I'm being) was self-deprecating humor. It always led one to suspect, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding, that there might actually be a human being somewhere inside. Apparently, John Kerry is no Al Gore.

He's also not much of a politician. He didn't answer the Cambodia question. What the heck is the point of going on a comedy show if you're not going to take the opportunity -- friendly questioner, no follow up, relatively uninformed audience, inherent deniability -- to say anything you want ("It's a little embarrassing, but... actually, we were looking for weapons of mass destruction."). The only thing he does here that even approaches good politics, and it is so basic that having to credit him for it is a little sad, is try to lower debate expectations. Too bad that ship has sailed. If your supporters are calling your opponent a chimp and a moron, how do you tell them that you might not be up to the task of debating him?

*The only joke I came up with was lame, so here's a contest. We are looking for a good Cambodia joke, from John Kerry's POV, making light of the Cambodia controversy (John Kerry's version of Reagan's "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience"). The best joke left in the comments by midnight Wednesday will receive my used copy of James Lilek's book, "Mr. Obvious."

The contest is now closed. The winner will be announced this evening. Thanks to everyone who participated.

And the winner is ... Mike Earl. The actual John Kerry couldn't deliver this line properly, but a competent politician could use a line like this to move the focus back to the President and to what the Democrats have to hope is their ace in the hole. Mike: Send me an email with the address to which you would like the book sent.

---

DID RUSSIA JUST AVOID 9-11?:

Report: Russian Jet Sent Hijack Signal (The Associated Press, Aug. 24, 2004)

The Russian plane that went missing around the time as another jet crashed issued a signal indicating a hijacking or seizure before disappearing from radar, the Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed government source as saying Wednesday.

The signal came at 11:04 p.m. Tuesday from the Tu-154 airliner that went missing in southern Russia's Rostov region, Interfax quoted the source in Russia's "power structures" as saying.

---

HOW LOW IS ITS NATURAL FLOOR?:

Oil Prices Fall for 3rd Day as Fears Ease (JAD MOUAWAD, 8/25/04, NY Times)

Oil prices fell for a third day on Tuesday, retreating from the record highs of near $50 a barrel set last week, as exports from Iraq resumed and traders worried less about supply shortages.

In New York, light low-sulfur crude for October delivery fell 84 cents, to $45.21 a barrel, on Tuesday. On Friday, the last day for trading September contracts, the price briefly hit $49.40 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange before falling to $48.70.

Oil prices remain about a third higher than they were in July, run up by a succession of geopolitical threats to supply - renewed fighting in Iraq, legal squabbling in Russia and political infighting in Venezuela. Most oil-producing countries are pumping all they can, leaving the market little capacity to adjust if a big producer halts exports.

Events in Iraq have dominated trading on the oil markets this month. Prices rose when Iraqi exports were halved, then fell this week on reports that exports had resumed in the north of the country and returned to normal in the south.

"There's a lot of politics in the price, a lot of expectations of the worst," said Mehdi Varzi, senior energy consultant at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in London.

Since the price hikes have been almost entirely psychological it could fall a long way once it starts down.

---

THE LAUGHINGSTOCK:

Campaign Journalists: Has Swift Boat Story Gone on Too Long? (Joe Strupp, August 24, 2004, Editor & Publisher)

As Sen. John Kerry spoke to supporters at a campaign event in New York City's East Village Tuesday afternoon, the swift boat controversy that has enveloped his run for the White House in recent weeks was on the minds of many of the journalists present.

After the speech, when approached by an E&P reporter as he worked the crowd, Kerry declined twice to answer when asked what he thought of press coverage of the swift boat issue. After a third time, the candidate finally said, "I'm talking about the economy, jobs, health care and things that matter to Americans."

Kerry had raised the issue briefly during the speech at Cooper Union, declaring "we have seen a calculated effort to evade the debate. The Bush campaign and its allies have turned to the tactics of fear and smear because they can't talk about jobs, health care, energy independence, and rebuilding our alliances."

Some of the reporters covering Kerry said that the candidate had become less accessible on the campaign plane in recent weeks, with a few speculating that it might be because he did not want to face questions about the swift boat issue. But among them, different views arose over the swift boat story, with some saying it had gone on too long and others believing it was news that had to be covered.

"What I've heard from colleagues is that people feel it probably has had too long a life," said Frank James, a Chicago Tribune reporter. "We wish someone would put a stake in this vampire."

James also said some wondered why Kerry did not take on the issue himself earlier on. "He should have knocked it down early, but the campaign clearly thought it would go away."

A candidate can survive a press corps that doesn't like him personally, but not one that doesn't respect him professionally. The press and fellow Democrats would appear to have begun questioning the Senator's competence.

---

BEDDING DOWN WITH SEATTLE MAN:

A LIGHTER TOUCH OF EVIL (Alexander Zaitchik, NY Press)

TO GRASP HOW much has changed in the last five years, consider this: During the Seattle WTO protests of 1999, one of the protestors' biggest nemeses in the media was a rookie New York Times columnist named Paul Krugman. Krugman's articles attacking the protestors weren't as snide as Tom Friedman's—the mustachioed one penned a piece that week called "Senseless in Seattle," in which he claimed the protestors were just out for a "1960's fix"—but they were close. The Princeton professor had no patience for the anti-corporate-globalization demonstrators who chanted, "This is what democracy looks like," and descended to inventing the Friedman-esque tag "Seattle Man" to describe people who don't know what they were talking about. Activists spat Krugman's name in disgust when they passed around his columns that week.

That was then. It isn't necessary to recount how a free-trade economist emerged as a guiding spirit of this week's RNC protest. It's enough to note that the globalization debate has been sidelined by the radical policies and undemocratic thrust of the current administration, which Krugman has heroically helped bring into crisp focus. Those who cursed Krugman in Seattle five years ago may still disagree with him about steel tariffs and the benevolence of large corporations, but most have put all that aside to join him in the Popular Front this November.

One of these days, when he returns to his senses, Mr. Krugman will feel like Bill Murray's character did in Lost in Translation when he woke up and realized he'd just slept with the lounge singer.

---

"I'LL BRING BACK THE 70s":

Kerry Says 'I Stood Up' Against Vietnam War (Carol Giacomo, 8/24/04, Reuters)

John Kerry on Tuesday firmly defended his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War, saying when the United States was in moral crisis over the conflict in the1970s "I stood up and was counted."

Confronting an issue that has embittered some veterans and helped fuel an election year attack on his military service, the Massachusetts senator said voters "can judge my character" by his Vietnam record.

"Because when the times of moral crisis existed in this country, I wasn't taking care of myself. I was taking care of public policy. I was taking care of things that made a difference to the life of this nation," Kerry told a fund-raiser in this critical battleground state.

"You may not have agreed with me, but I stood up and was counted and that's the kind of president I will be," he added.

"Where's that shark tank?"

---

TOO BAD YOU CAN'T GET A PURPLE HEART FOR WOUNDING YOUR PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRATIONS:

Kerry backs off on medal claim: After WND story on journal discrepancy spokesman says no enemy fire 'possible' (Art Moore, August 24, 2004, WorldNetDaily.com)

After WorldNetDaily's report last week of a discrepancy in John Kerry's personal account of his first Purple Heart, his presidential campaign has backed off on claims that he was wounded from enemy fire.

WND reported that nine days after Kerry claims he was hit by hostile fire in 1968, he wrote in his journal as he set out on a subsequent mission, "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."

The Kerry campaign has not responded to repeated requests from WND for a response, including a call this morning. But yesterday, Fox News host Major Garrett confronted John Hurley, national coordinator of Veterans for John Kerry, asking him on camera if it is possible the first Purple Heart did not result from an incident involving enemy fire.

Hurley replied, "Anything is possible ... ."

---

THE WOUNDS DON'T GET OLD IF THEY'RE LEFT TO FESTER:

Swift Boats And Old Wounds (David S. Broder, August 24, 2004, Washington Post)

I remember precisely when this premonition of perpetual division first struck me. On Aug. 19, 1992, the third night of the Republican National Convention in Houston, Barbara Bush and Marilyn Quayle were the featured speakers. The first lady praised her husband's fine qualities and Mrs. Quayle turned her fire on the Bill Clinton Democrats, who had just finished their convention in New York.

Through almost gritted teeth, Marilyn Quayle declared that those people in Madison Square Garden, who were claiming the mantle of leadership for a new generation, were usurpers. "Dan and I are members of the baby boom generation, too," she said. "We are all shaped by the times in which we live. I came of age in a time of turbulent social change. Some of it was good, such as civil rights; much of it was questionable."

And then she drew the line that has not been erased: "Remember, not everyone joined in the counterculture. Not everyone demonstrated, dropped out, took drugs, joined in the sexual revolution or dodged the draft. Not everyone concluded that American society was so bad that it had to be radically remade by social revolution. . . . The majority of my generation lived by the credo our parents taught us: We believed in God, in hard work and personal discipline, in our nation's essential goodness, and in the opportunity it promised those willing to work for it. . . . Though we knew some changes needed to be made, we did not believe in destroying America to save it."

When she finished, I turned to my Post colleague Dan Balz, a contemporary of the Clintons and the Quayles, and said, "I suddenly have this vision -- that when you guys reach the nursing homes, you're going to be leaning on your walkers and beating each other with your canes, because you still will not have settled the arguments from the Sixties."

Of course John Kerry and his ilk should be forgiven, just as soon as they apologize for trying to destroy the village and ask forgiveness. That the Senator realizes he should not be proud of his anti-war past is amply demonstrated by the fact that he's trying to hide it and run on his war service instead.

---

ZELLULOID HEROES (via AWW):

Democratic mayor backs Bush (JOE GORMAN, 8/24/04, Tribune Chronicle)

YOUNGSTOWN - Mayor George McKelvey announced Monday that he is endorsing President Bush for re-election in November.

The two-term Democratic mayor, who also has served as 3rd-Ward councilman and county auditor, said he will not switch parties, but may speak at the Republican convention later this month in New York if he can work out the logistics of flying there from a family vacation in the Caribbean.

"I have a 24-hour pass,'' McKelvey joked.

The mayor also added that he may have an opportunity to address the convention if he attends.

McKelvey said he usually does not issue an endorsement during a presidential campaign, but he said he decided to come out publicly for Bush because this election is "the most important of my lifetime.'' [...]

McKelvey said that for more than a century, area voters unflinchingly supported Democrats in national elections and have very little to show for it.

"During the campaign, they promise us they will deliver the beef, and after we give them our overwhelming support, not only do they not give us the beef, we don't even get the bun,'' McKelvey said.

McKelvey also said that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Bush's rival for the presidency, has a bad habit of promising everything to voters.

"In my book, when you stand for everything, you stand for nothing,'' McKelvey said.

In other words, Ohio isn't actually in play.

---

NO, SERIOUSLY, WOLF! (via Robert Duquette):

The Funding of America (Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley)

With the United States pushing the envelope on macro imbalances, the funding of its “twin deficits” -- budget and trade -- has taken on great importance in shaping world financial markets. In the end, these deficits matter only if they have consequences for asset prices and/or the real economy. So far, that has not been the case. Courtesy of massive foreign capital inflows into dollar-denominated assets, America has not been penalized for its profligate ways. Can this continue? [...]

Ever-widening current account deficits and ever-falling domestic saving rates are simply not sustainable developments for any economy. All foreign and US officials can do in such a climate is step up their efforts in containing sharp adjustments in asset prices and attempt to buy time. That’s the essence of the strategy that seems to lie behind the dramatic pick-up in foreign official buying of US securities since last fall. Despite the falloff in May and June, TIC data reveal that official purchases accounted for fully 35% of total net foreign purchases of dollar-denominated securities over the September 2003 to June 2004 period; that’s more than double the longer-term norm of 14% and fully four and half times the 7.6% share prevailing, on average, over the 2000-02 period. There can be little doubt as to why foreign policy makers -- especially those in Asia -- have intensified their campaign to support the dollar; lacking in domestic demand and fearful that their external demand support would be eroded by stronger home currencies, they simply can’t afford to face the alternative.

There is a worrisome precedent for this shifting mix of foreign capital inflows from private to official funding. The last time it happened in the context of a US current account problem was in the months leading up to the stock market crash in October 1987. During the pre-crash period, private foreign buying of US securities started to falter as America’s external adjustment put further downward pressure on the dollar. In an effort to stem the decline of the US currency, foreign officials stepped up to fill the void. Over the January to September 1987 period, TIC data reveal that the official share of foreign purchases averaged 47.3% -- nearly four times the 13% share of 1986. This strategy was aimed at offsetting the natural venting function of financial markets that normally comes into play during a current account adjustment. However, as the Crash of 1987 indicates, this approach was ultimately destined to fail. In my view, that’s precisely the risk today -- especially with the US current account deficit (5.1% of GDP in early 2004) well in excess of what it was in the mid-1980s (3.5% at its peak in late 1986). As this earlier episode reveals, official support for currencies of economies that have large current account deficits turned out to be a last-gasp, losing effort. The lesson: For economies in disequilibrium, the venting function of financial markets ultimately cannot be denied. [...]

The bottom line in all this is that the external funding of a saving-short US economy is on exceedingly shaky ground. While foreign demand for dollar-based securities moved back to its recent trend in June, that hardly eases the burden of America’s massive financing imperatives. Meanwhile, with the US trade deficit exploding and the current account gap likely to keep widening, there is nothing stable about America’s dependence on the “kindness of strangers.” The day will inevitably come when foreign investors -- already heavily exposed to dollars -- will reassess risk-adjusted return expectations of US securities. That’s what happened in the fall of 1987, and there are increasingly worrisome signs of a replay of that same ominous chain of events.

These problems are of little concern to the average investor. The same is true of US politicians -- those largely responsible for this sad state of affairs. After all, goes the logic, the world has learned to live with America’s outsize deficits. Why can’t it continue to do so indefinitely? In my view, this is yet another example of the “greater fool theory” that took NASDAQ to 5000 four and a half years ago. All the classic symptoms of a US current-account adjustment are now evident. At the same time, the stewards of globalization -- the IMF, the BIS, the OECD, and even the Federal Reserve -- are now all on the same page in sounding the alarm. It’s high time to take these warnings seriously. The funding of America is an accident waiting to happen.

All of us are old enough to remember the Depression of the late '80s; the wrenching process by which we were forced to balance our trade and our budgets; the difficulties we faced funding our war against the Soviets; the punishment the Republicans took in the '88 election for leading us into disaster; and we still pity those poor investors who were saddled with American stocks and bonds which are today only worth....oops, wait, never mind.

---

"WHO IS THIS DESERTER TO QUESTION MY SERVICE?":

Vietnam Boomerang: John Kerry's "war crimes" libel returns to haunt him. (Wall Street Journal, August 24, 2004)

The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.
--John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record, February 8, 2004.

A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them.

We've tried to avoid the medals-and-ribbons fight ourselves, except to warn Mr. Kerry that he was courting precisely such scrutiny ("Kerry's Medals Strategy," February 9). But now that the Senator is demanding that the Federal Election Commission stifle his opponents' free speech, this one is too rich to ignore.

What did Mr. Kerry expect, anyway? That claiming to be a hero himself while accusing other veterans of "war crimes"--as he did back in 1971 and has refused to take back ever since--would somehow go unanswered? That when he raised the subject of one of America's most contentious modern events, no one would meet him at the barricades? Mr. Kerry brought the whole thing up; why is it Mr. Bush's obligation now to shut it down?

Because Mr. Kerry can't?

---

KEYES 11, OBAMA 1:

The Fight in Illinois: Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama (Phyllis Schlafly, Aug 24, 2004, Human Events)

Alan Keyes has upset the liberal game plan to crown law school lecturer Barack Obama as the new leader of blacks in America. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton like Obama because he imitates their votes, but Americans like Keyes because he is straightforward about issues we care about.

The Keyes-Obama race for the U.S. Senate from Illinois reminds locals of a similar contest in 1950. Then a conservative Republican traveled up and down the Land of Lincoln and toppled one of the most powerful liberals of that time, Senate Majority Leader Scott Lucas.

The victor in that race, Everett McKinley Dirksen, played to the grassroots rather than to the media. His stunning upset showed that the voters were ready to break with New Deal liberalism and join the Republican landslide in 1952.

Everett Dirksen, the greatest orator of his time, won because he articulated public opposition to the follies of the Truman Administration. Dirksen was equally persuasive whether he was negotiating with a small group over an arcane section of legislation or declaiming broad themes without a microphone to a thousand voters on the hillsides of southern Illinois.

Illinois voters have the opportunity this year to hear Alan Keyes