I'M TANNED, RESTED AND READY

Epstein, Sox can't reach new deal: After three years, general manager decides to leave (Ian Browne, MLB.com, 10/31/05)

Theo Epstein, the general manager of the Red Sox for the past three years, has decided to leave the organization instead of accepting a new contract.

"The Boston Red Sox and Theo Epstein today announced that the senior vice president/general manager has declined the club's offer to extend his contract for future years and thus will step down from his post," the club said in a statement. "Epstein will continue, however, to work with the organization for several days to assist in an orderly transition and to prepare further for the upcoming GM meetings and other off-season activities."

Epstein's contract expires at midnight, meaning he will then be free to work with any team in the Major Leagues. There are currently general manager vacancies with the Los Angeles Dodgers, Philadelphia Phillies and Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

I thought Cashman was supposed to leave and Theo was supposed to stay.

---

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A FIGHT THEY CAN LOSE, EVEN IF THE NOMINEE DOESN'T WIN:

A Fight the White House Believes It Can Win (TODD S. PURDUM, 10/31/05, NY Times)

The nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court has given President Bush's conservative backers and liberal opponents just the battle they wanted. And it has given Mr. Bush - battered but not broken by a range of other troubles - a fight that he and the White House believe they can hardly help but win, beginning by changing the subject in Washington. [...]

Just as the left ultimately found it difficult to caricature Judge Roberts, who won 22 Democratic votes on the Senate floor, Judge Alito's supporters inside and outside the White House say his respectful low-key style, son-of-an-immigrant personal story and undisputed credentials will almost certainly make him an acceptable figure to some of the same red-state Democrats who backed Mr. Roberts.

Moreover, the White House and its allies are now squarely united, ready to paint the Democrats as obstructionist and out of step if they try to derail the nomination by extraordinary means. Interest groups on both sides are prepared to spend millions of dollars to make their case.

"We will look to keep Democrats on their heels as they go out to launch some of the more absurd attacks," said a senior White House aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid violating the administration's taboo on disclosing internal political planning. "There's no person that this president would pick who could please some of the extreme elements of their party."

The great thing is that by making Ms miers religion a central part of the discussion over ner nomination they opened the trap for Democrats to make Mr. Alito's religion an issue too, which will be suicidal.

---

FIRE WALL:

The Roberts/Alito Court: How Samuel Alito would push the Court even further right than William Rehnquist. (Mark Tushnet, 10.31.05 , American Prospect)

Worth emphasizing are two cases in which Judge Alito was more conservative than the Supreme Court’s conservatives. In one, he found that the Constitution precluded Congress from requiring state and local governments to provide family medical leave. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, upheld the federal statute. Alito’s defenders are going to say that the case he decided presented a slightly different question from the one presented in Rehnquist’s case. That’s true. But cases are almost always distinguishable, and the tenor of the chief justice’s opinion is quite different from Alito’s holding.

Even more striking, Alito, almost alone among all federal judges, would have held that Congress couldn’t use its power to regulate interstate commerce in a way that would make it a crime for a person to possess a machine gun. He took the Supreme Court’s decisions restricting that power and ran with them past where anyone else had -- or would. Last year’s case involving medical marijuana makes it clear that the Supreme Court doesn’t have nearly as restrictive a view of Congress’ powers -- and, conversely, as expansive a view of the Supreme Court’s powers -- as Judge Alito does. And, in the medical marijuana decision, who wrote an opinion explaining why Congress could prohibit the private possession and use of marijuana? Justice Antonin Scalia.

More conservative than Rehnquist and Scalia, then. A Roberts Court with Samuel Alito would be under consolidated conservative control. What then? If we continue to have unified government under Republican control, not much. The Supreme Court would do some of the jobs that, mostly for reasons of time, Congress can’t get around to. It might invalidate some statutes adopted by state legislatures controlled by Democrats instead of using Congress’ power to preempt those statutes. It might eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, although the political implications of doing so are likely to hurt Republicans (and so a conservative Court might not take that step). Basically, the Roberts Court would collaborate with the Republican political branches to advance the Republicans’ substantive agenda, just as the Warren Court collaborated with the Democratic political branches.

A return to unified Democratic government is so unlikely as not to be worth spending time on. If we get divided government again, the Roberts Court could be free to pursue a strongly conservative substantive agenda, confident that its allies in Congress would have enough power to ensure that the Court’s decisions would stick -- and confident that its opponents would fulminate but not be in a position to mount a full-scale attack on the Court. Or, and I think this is more likely, the Roberts Court would, like the Rehnquist Court, drift gradually to the right, changing constitutional law incrementally while awaiting the return of unified Republican government.

Wait'll Stevens retires.

---

IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, JOIN 'EM:

Labor commits to terror laws (Samantha Maiden Steve Lewis, 01-11-2005, The Australian)

KIM Beazley has tried to lock troubled Labor MPs into voting for the Government's anti-terror legislation despite deep reservations about the reforms on both sides of politics.

A marathon meeting of members of Labor's frontbench yesterday backed the Opposition Leader's decision to support the legislation, possibly sight unseen, because it was in the "national interest". [...]

"We will put up propositions about those safeguards. That's what we will do and I stand ready to recommend to caucus that, in the national interest, we support the bill," Mr Beazley said. "That shows you how serious we are about the need to support the security of our community."

There's an important lesson for Democrats in the way Mr. Beazley is working with John Howard, rather than against, and the fact that the Tories in Britain are about to return to the Third Way they'd abandoned to Tony Blair over a decade ago. There's a governing consensus in the Anglosphere now and George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard are astride it. The best future for our nations lies in the opposition parties joining that consensus.

---

IT'S THE FOURTH TIME HE'S STOLEN THEIR JOY IN EARLY NOVEMBER:

The Left's Cruelest Month: October was supposed to be the month that marked the meltdown of the Bush administration (William Kristol, 10/31/2005, Weekly Standard)

OCTOBER, 2005 will turn out to be the left's cruelest month since . . . well, in a long time. A couple of weeks in, it seemed so promising. October was going to be the month that would mark the meltdown of the loathed Bush presidency. Iraq was failing, gas prices were rising, a weak Supreme Court nominee was under assault, and the White House was under siege from a special prosecutor. What more could a Bush-hater want?

But it was a false dawn for the left. On October 15, the Iraqi people voted for the second time this year, and progress--slow and difficult--gradually became visible on the ground. The economy, it turned out, was chugging along at a 3.8 percent growth rate. Harriet Miers withdrew--and President Bush followed that foul ball with a home run in the impressive person of Judge Samuel Alito. And the special prosecutor produced only one indictment, and one that will lead no further than a trial focused on what Scooter Libby said or didn't say to three journalists.

Even NPR referred to this as the first day of the rest of the Bush Administration.

MORE:
In this economy, the 'R' word means resilient: Despite major blows, the US sees 10 strong quarters of growth. (Mark Trumbull, 11/01/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

The economy hasn't yet escaped cyclical swings entirely. But observers say the levers of finance and the gears of production have become better managed, more flexible, and less volatile. And for all its agility, the economy also benefits from gargantuan scale - with some $12 trillion in annual output.

"The US economy is this massive thing," not easily knocked off track, says Brian Wesbury, an economist at Claymore Securities in the Chicago area. Now in particular, he adds, "This economy has tremendous momentum."

Consider this: Last week's news marks the 10th straight quarter of 3 percent or greater growth in annual GDP. That's the longest such streak since the mid-1980s.

In the intervening years, business cycles seem to be getting smoother. The economy's slide in 2001 was so shallow that it has been almost 15 years since GDP has shrunk for consecutive quarters. And with the exception of 1991, you have to look back to 1982 to find a time when the economy was smaller at the end of the year than it was at the beginning.

It won't hit 3%, obviously, but even '91 will eventually be revised to show growth.

---

BEST HEADLINE OF THE DAY:

Bush To Dems: Boo! (Andrew Cohen, Oct. 31, 2005, CBS News)

[H]e is to the right of the Court's current majority when it comes to abortion rights — he voted for a marital notice provision in an abortion law early in his career as a judge — and his ascension to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat would immediately narrow that majority in practical ways.

If he gets to the Court in time, he might even have a say in the pending abortion rights case this term that will determine whether Congress can ban a certain type of late-term abortion procedure.

Alito also could change the Court's fragile balance when it comes to Establishment Clause cases involving religious symbols on public property. He's already on the record as favoring a weakened wall between church and state.

Moreover, he is on the record as favoring a strong executive branch at the expense of both Congress and the judiciary (and many would argue "civil liberties"), which relates directly to the current administration's stance toward the legal war on terror.

If right-wing interest groups were to offer to their constituents a pin-up poster for "Most Promising Justice," Judge Alito's glamour shot would be a best-seller.

---

SOPORIFIC EXTREMIST:

Why Bush Picked Alito (MIKE ALLEN, 10/31/05, TIME)

With nomination of Harriet Miers, who had little experience with constitutional law, Bush went for advice that he pick someone from outside the "judicial monastery." This time, the President went with one of the high priests. As assistant to the solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, Alito argued 12 cases before the Supremes, and has presented at least two dozen before federal courts of appeal. And while a limited paper trail was one of the Democrats' few quibbles with the record of Judge John Roberts as he was being considered for chief justice, Alito has a four-lane highway of writings: opinions on the Commerce Clause; the First Amendment (free speech, establishment clause and free exercise clause); the Fourth, Eighth and Eleventh amendments; and the Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process and substantive due process). Oh, and then there are his writings on administrative law, criminal law, immigration, the False Claims Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and securities and prison litigation.

The nomination will be seen as a sop to conservatives, but they are thrilled to take it.

Can Dems Say 'Finito' to 'Scalito'? (David Corn, 10/31/05, The Nation)

There is no question that Alito is qualified, in that he has been an assistant solicitor general, a deputy assistant US attorney general, a US attorney and an appeals court judge. He is reputedly intelligent and scholarly. There will be no major disagreement over document releases; there are fifteen years of appeals court decisions for his friends and foes to scrutinize. That leaves the Democrats one avenue of attack: Alito would be bad for America.

The liberal Democratic senators and the progressive groups are already trying to affix a big red "E" to Alito's robe--that's "E" for "Extremist"--and pointing out how conservative he has been on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

---

LUCKILY TVs ARE CHEAP:

Chesney: Losing Zellweger Hurts Like Having TV Stolen (Denver Channel, October 31, 2005)

Kenny Chesney told Life magazine that breaking up with Renee Zellweger was "like opening the door to your house and having someone come in and take your big-screen TV off the wall during the big game, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Likewise, modern televisions don't have knobs to fiddle with.

---

REBALANCING ACT:

The Last Word: Zalmay Khalilzad: 'Our Goal Is Not To Rule Iraq' (Michael Hirsh, 11/07/05, Newsweek)

Could you talk about which Sunni insurgent groups you are hopeful about winning away?

My philosophy is that we need to isolate two groups from the rest. The first is [Abu Musab] Zarqawi and the jihadists, some foreign and some Iraqis. And the second is the Saddamists, those who want Saddamism to come back. As far as the rest are concerned, our effort has been to win them away. I have been very active with Sunni Arabs, reaching out to them.

On the tribal level?

Across the board. Tribes, yes. Nontribal political leaders, yes. Academics, professionals, yes. Some former government officials who were not criminals, yes. You name it.

What particular successes can you point to?

One is we've got some key Sunnis supporting the Constitution. Second, many more are supporting the political process. Now we have some tribes coming forward, like the Albu Mahal, that are saying they will fight against Zarqawi. So what's happening for maybe the first time since the liberation is a real struggle going on in the Sunni community between those who want to participate in the process and those who want a protracted insurgency.

Some observers say your strategy is exactly right—the only problem is that you're at least a year too late in coming in.

Well, I don't want to look back. But it's very important in my view to engage politically. And to communicate our goals. Our goal is not to rule Iraq. Our goal is not to have permanent bases in Iraq. Our goal is not to take over Iraqi oil or other Iraqi patrimony... It's very important that there is a balance between our various instruments—military, political, diplomatic, economic, cultural. If you have a hammer, pretty soon everything looks like a nail. I believe if I could say one thing, we're rebalancing the instruments.

---

KOFI JOINS THE SIDE OF THE ANGELS:

Sharon Praises Stands Against Iran, Syria (MARK LAVIE, 10/31/05, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Sharon said that for the first time in years, "the United Nations is standing against extremist countries like Iran and Syria that threaten the region." The U.N. Security Council demanded Monday that Syria cooperate with an inquiry into the murder of Lebanese ex-premier Rafik Hariri and might take on the issue of the Iranian nuclear program.

Sharon also said that as a result of its pullout from Gaza, Israel is better accepted on the international stage than before.

At this rate George Bush will have succeeded in making the UN a useful institution by the time he leaves office.

---

THAT'S A BIT OVER THE TOP:

Schumer: Samuel Alito Like Rosa Parks (Newsmax, 10/31/05)

[Senator Charles] Schumer said "Alito, like Rosa Parks, can make history simply by virtue of where he sits.”

It's a little early to call him another Rosa Parks.

---

WHY CHAFEE WILL VOTE TO CONFIRM:

MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS ON "DISGUSTING" DEMOCRAT ATTACKS ON JUDGE ALITO (RNC, 10/31/05)

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "[I]'m Sitting Here Holding In My Hands, A Pretty Disgusting Document, This Is Put Out Not For Attribution. But It Comes From The Democrats, They're Circulating It. I Can Say That." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 10/31/05)

* Matthews: "[T]hen There Complaint Sheet Against Judge Alito's Nomination. The First Thing They Nail About This Italian American Is He Failed To Win A Mob Conviction In A Trial 20 Years Ago, Or Something Way Back In '88." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 10/31/05)

* Matthews: "In Other Words, They Nail Him On Not Putting Some Italian Mobsters In Jail From The [Lucchese] Family. Why Would They Bring Up This Ethnically Charged Issue As The First Item They Raise Against Judge Alito?" (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 10/31/05)

* Matthews: "This Is Either A Very Bad Coincidence Or Very Bad Politics. Either Way Its Gonna Hurt Them. This Document: Not Abortion Rights, Not Civil Rights But That He Failed To Nail Some Mobsters In 1988. This Is The Top Of Their List Of What They've Got Against This Guy. Amazingly Bad Politics." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 10/31/05)

Matthews: "[The Democrats Are] Trying Not To Put A Signature On It, But I Just Did." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 10/31/05)

Rhode Island is 63% Catholic.

---

WHAT IF 9-11 IS A COMPLETE ABERRATION, UNCONNECTED TO ANYTHING BEFORE OR AFTER?:

State Of Fear (Elizabeth MacDonald, 10.31.05, Forbes)

Seems like there's plenty to keep a panicky stock market stuck in a frozen solid trading range of 10,000 to 10,500 for another five years.

Rampant fears over oil prices. The ongoing Middle East mess and the war in Iraq. Fears that incoming U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will excitedly hike interest rates too high to show he's a gung-ho, anti-inflation Rambo. Anxieties that hurricanes have jacked up already high gas prices, exacerbating the troubles of a middle class bogged down by mounting costs for education, housing and health care. White House indictments. Possible tax hikes, if the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2006. [...]

[D]avid Malpass, chief economist at Bear Stearns (nyse: BSC - news - people ), says stop with the hand wringing, this rocket of a U.S. economy won't fall into a recession next year, instead, it will see solid gross domestic product growth in the 3.8% to 4.2% range.

He cites low unemployment, his belief that household and corporate sectors are well insulated from Fed rate hikes, and the fact that the Fed is powerful in combating inflation, which he says is caused not by economic growth and not so much by energy prices, but by monetary accommodation and dollar weakness in 2003 and 2004. He also has reams of data showing the economy was strong going into Katrina, Rita and any other hurricane bound to barrel through.

It's understandable that folks would be kind of jumpy in a world in which it seems like you could be blown up any second for no apparent reason, but you could hardly ask for a bettter economy, especially with gasoline prices falling as fast as they are. The problem has seemed to be for several years now that no bit of news can be as spectacularly good as 9-11 was spectacularly awful, so people are still waiting for the other shoe to drop rather than enjoying a social climate that nearly every people in history, including our own, would envy.

MORE:
Consumer Spending Rebounds, Incomes Grow (JEANNINE AVERSA, 10/31/05 AP)

Consumers got back into a buying groove and boosted their spending by a solid 0.5 percent in September. Incomes also grew briskly.

The latest figures, released Monday by the Commerce Department, suggested that the economy is holding up well to the double blows of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The 0.5 percent rise in consumer spending in September came after spending fell by that amount in August, reflecting the hit from Katrina.

Americans' incomes, meanwhile, increased by 1.7 percent in September, the largest gain since December 2004.

Housing Boom Fading, Leading Real Estate Economist Says (Steve Brown, 10/31/05, The Dallas Morning News)

A combination of higher interest rates and years of rising prices could soon take some air out of the hot U.S. housing market.

"The boom is showing some signs of tiring," David Lereah, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors, said Friday. "We are looking at about a 4 percent drop in home sales next year.

"We are projecting a significant drop in the price appreciation pace," Lereah said.

But even though the velocity of the housing market will subside, "we are looking for a soft landing," he told real estate agents from across the country who are meeting in San Francisco.

---

WELCOME TO NOVEMBER:

A Time to Regroup: Bloodied by scandal, setbacks and casualties, Bush is looking for fresh troops and a new battle plan (NANCY GIBBS, MIKE ALLEN, 10/30/05, TIME)

The year's successes--an energy bill, the highway bill, bankruptcy reform, a free-trade agreement--all came before the Category 5 bad news of the fall. But a well-received court nominee could help Bush turn the corner. He will be traveling to South America and Asia before the holidays, which is why the White House road map to recovery starts in earnest in January. "It is fundamentally a question of reconnecting with the American people," says a senior member of the Bush team. "One of the good things about being President of the United States is that even when you're down, you have the ability to control your own destiny through the bully pulpit."

Bush officials are literally going back and reading his campaign speeches. Aides say they have a "back-to-basics" strategy focusing on such traditional Republican issues as spending restraint. As part of the search for a fresh agenda, groups of Bush aides are working on new immigration and tax-reform policies for possible rollout. But immigration is an issue that splits the party's base, and the recommendations of Bush's tax-reform commission, most notably doing away with the mortgage-interest deduction, are universally viewed as a nonstarter. To try to lower energy prices, the White House is considering taking steps--legislative, diplomatic or jawboning. But in a global economy, getting prices down is easier said than done.

As for a shift in the lineup, Card could be named Treasury Secretary by the beginning of the year. Among his possible replacements are White House budget director Joshua Bolten, former Montana Governor Marc Racicot and deputy budget director Clay Johnson III. An adviser says the personnel shifts will be gradual: "They don't want to communicate panic because they're not panicked."

In a global economy prices fall regardless of anbything you do, but pretending you caused the drop is good politics.

---

ARLEN LIKES HIM?:

Specter to be at center of court nominee fight: As Senate Judiciary chairman, the Pennsylvania senator will play a pivotal role in the confirmation of a new justice. (Chris Mondics, 7/03/05, Philadelphia Inquirer)

Specter almost lost the powerful Judiciary Committee chairmanship after his reelection last year, when he suggested that opposition to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion would disqualify a nominee. He came under enormous criticism from the Christian right and only persuaded fellow senators that he should be named chairman by assuring them that he would not apply ideological litmus tests to judicial nominees.

"Obviously, if he came out against any nominee, that would be the kiss of death, given Democratic opposition," said Alan Lichtman, a history professor at American University.

But Specter offered no clues on his leanings Friday shortly after the O'Connor announcement.

At a news conference in Philadelphia, he sharply criticized Bork as "having the most extreme ideology of any nominee ever," while offering praise for federal appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito, also a conservative, who has been mentioned as a possible replacement for O'Connor.

---

THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY ANYMORE (via Kevin Whited):

The Pledge: A pragmatist president attempts to fulfill his promise to appoint non-pragmatic Supreme Court justices. (Paul Mirengoff, 10/31/2005, Weekly Standard)

Much of the president's domestic policy suggests that he is a pragmatist who, though possessing some conservative instincts, tends to put results ahead of conservative principles: Rarely are conservative principles absent from the president's domestic policy, but often they take a back-seat to short-term problem-solving. [...]

This tendency to synthesize a central tenet of liberalism--that the federal government should expand in an effort to solve problems--with certain core conservative values suggests that Bush is a proponent not of liberalism or of conservatism, but of a "third way." This label was often used during the early 1990s to describe the politics of those who supposedly eschewed both the traditional big government dogma of the left and the anti-big government dogma of conservatives. In these discussions, it was typically liberal politicians such as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton who were going the third way. In reality, though, the only synthesis they produced was between their big government dreams and the limits on their ability to achieve them.

BY CONTRAST, Bush seems genuinely to be striving for something new, and many observers (including Daniel Casse, Jonathan Rauch, and George Will) believe he has found it. They have suggested that Bush is a conservative, but of a different kind--a compassionate conservative, a big-government conservative, a strong-government conservative, an activist-conservative, or a demand-side conservative. However it might more appropriately labeled "domestic policy centrism," "pragmatism," or "third wayism," because (a) it's so different from traditional conservatism; and (b) when push comes to shove, Bush's desire to solve the problem at hand tends to take precedence over the desire to uphold conservative principles.

Note that the two "conservative" gripes with President Bush's Third Wayism are that it solves problems, rather than adhering to utopian ideology, and that Bill Clinton (successful two term president) and Tony Blair (most successful British PM since the 19th century) share it. Of course, it's precisely because it works that two other conservative leaders--John Howard (most successful Australian PM ever) and Junichiro Koizumi (most successful Japanese PM ever)--are likewise Third Wayers and it's no coincidence that the bitterest foes of Mr. Blair and Mr. Clinton are/were on the Left while Mr. Koizumi had to beat down a rebellion on his Right. Just because the Third Way works brilliantly doesn't mean anyone will appreciate you for governing according to it--well, except for the voters that is, who obviously love it.

---

DIVIDE AND CONQUER:

Death of Syrian Minister Leaves A Sect Adrift in Time of Strife (Anthony Shadid, 10/31/05, Washington Post)

These are difficult days for Syria's Alawites, and in their sentiments may be hints of the vulnerability of Assad's government as it faces a crisis over the U.N. investigation. In villages like Bihamra, across forbidding mountains that spring from the Mediterranean coast, there is deep anxiety that in a time of strife, Alawites will bear the brunt of vendettas dating to the decades when they provided the leadership of the government, military and feared security services.

That apprehension comes as frustration surges that the very state they are tied to has abandoned them. The military that ended their historic marginalization is neglected and disrespected, some of their villages remain without running water and, many say, the government, despite its Alawite cast, no longer defends them.

"It's like people don't know we live in the country," said Kharfan Khazin Ahmed, a 61-year-old retired government employee from the Alawite village of Qarir. "Every person sitting in the chair of power cares about money, not about the people."
Rise to the Top

Alawites are a small but pivotal community in Syria's tapestry of sect and ethnicity. Syria is predominantly Arab, with a Kurdish minority in the northeast. But among the Arabs are many Muslim sects: Sunni Muslims are the majority, along with minorities of Alawis, Druze and Ismailis, all of whom trace their origins back to Shiite Islam. The Alawites are the largest of those religious minorities, representing probably about 12 percent of Syria's 18 million people. They are centered in the region around Bihamra.

For centuries, Alawites faced withering discrimination, in part over the suspicions generated by their secretive, loosely Shiite religious traditions. Their secluded mountain villages are a relic of that ostracism, and they were some of the poorest, least educated and most rural of Syria's inhabitants. As with other religious minorities in the Middle East, many Alawites turned to the Baath Party, drawn to its pan-Arab, leftist and secular ideology, hoping it might dilute Syria's Sunni dominance and provide a more inclusive notion of identity. To escape grinding poverty, they joined the military, soon filling the ranks of its senior officer corps. In modern Syria, those two institutions -- party and military -- have ruled for 35 years.

Assad is an Alawite, and during the presidency of his father and predecessor, Hafez Assad, the sect emerged from behind the scenes to command the government's most sensitive positions in the military and security services. While the elder Assad was careful to give a Sunni face to portfolios such as the defense and foreign ministries and to forge alliances with other groups, his inner circle was drawn from his own community, often his own Qalbiyya tribe and family. In that sense, he was not only Syria's strongman, but also the leader of his sect, responsible for its fortunes.

"You will remain eternal in our hearts forever," reads a billboard with the elder Assad's portrait at the entrance to Qurdaha, his home town, about a mile along a winding road of ancient, rounded hills from Kanaan's village of Bihamra.

Under the younger Assad, to a remarkable degree, the circle of Alawite dominance has narrowed to his family. Gone are some of the sect's most powerful men -- former intelligence chiefs such as Ali Duba and Mohammed Khouli, for instance. Kanaan, Syria's point man in Lebanon for two decades and later the interior minister, was one of the last and most prominent. A product of the feared Mukhabarat, or Syrian intelligence, his reputation in much of the country was of a fearsome, hard man; in Bihamra, it was of a charitable one.

"He helped everyone in the village," said a doctor who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He was like a father for this entire place. Any help you needed as a citizen, you could go to him. His door was open to both the poor and princes."

The doctor, Kanaan's relative and others sat in the courtyard of his stucco, red-roofed villa on a cool morning. They snacked on bananas and apples, drank coffee and smoked cigarettes, ignoring the dawn-to-dusk fast of the holy month of Ramadan. The Alawite region is one of Syria's most secular, reflecting the imprint of a Baath Party that saw tribe and religion as barriers to modernization. The veil is hardly seen; missing are the most conservative Arab traditions that discourage interaction between men and women.

Bihamra itself shows the legacy of Kanaan's power and influence: He provided money to build the Jaafar Tayar mosque, opened a library with seven computers and built a community center named for his father, Mohammed Ali. While in Lebanon, he visited every month or two. On his return to Damascus in 2002, he visited at least once every two weeks, more often for funerals. As a young man, the story goes, in one of the myths that can overshadow life's excesses, he gave part of his first lieutenant's salary to villagers.

"The difference is that he would help someone and expect nothing in return," his relative said.

"They're going to feel the emptiness," he added.

Two weeks after his body was found, Kanaan's death remains the talk of Damascus. Most often heard is speculation that he faced disgrace on corruption charges and chose suicide instead. But many speculate that he represented one of the few potential rivals to Bashar Assad, giving rise to a slew of conspiracy theories: that he was forced to kill himself or that he was murdered, possibly poisoned. One well-informed Syrian said that the day after Kanaan died, all the coffee cups from his Interior Ministry office were seized to conceal evidence of foul play.

"They committed his suicide," said a Syrian dissident, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The talk in Bihamra, though, is more visceral and perhaps more telling. In the repercussions of Kanaan's death lies a truth about Syria and its government today: The younger Assad is viewed as less ta'ifi , or sectarian. His outlook is ostensibly more modern, possibly reformist; bucking tradition, he took for his wife a Sunni, not an Alawite. But as he struggles to put a more contemporary veneer on his rule, he faces a society still suffering deep cleavages that reflect unresolved questions of identity. The Baath Party offered one answer: The country is Arab. But other identities still compete -- Alawi, Sunni, Christian and so on -- in a zero-sum game of communal survival.

And in that question of survival, villagers say, Alawites lost one of their last, most prominent defenders in Kanaan. In his place, some Alawites say, is a government that cares about the military only to ensure it doesn't rebel; a ruling family most worried about its survival; and a state that promotes not the sect's interest, but networks bound by patronage and power that are growing richer. Even some Alawite intelligence officials are said to be disenchanted over the higher profile of Assad's family at their expense.

If Alawites desert Assad he's a minority of one.

---

UNDESIRABLE FOREIGNERS:

On Patrol in Vt., Minutemen Are the Outsiders: Along the Border, Group Targets Illegal Immigrants (David A. Fahrenthold, 10/31/05, Washington Post)

The Minutemen have now come north, bringing to the woodsy, lightly populated 5,525-mile U.S.-Canada border the same kind of patrols that sprang up to curb illegal immigration from Mexico. Besides the patrols in Vermont, other Minutemen groups have set up watches this month in Washington state and Montana, Minutemen co-founder Chris Simcox said Sunday.

The Minutemen say the patrols here are a natural extension of their movement, which has grown to include chapters in large cities. One of these chapters, in Northern Virginia, has recently announced plans to patrol day-labor sites in Herndon to look for workers who have entered the country illegally.

The United States' northern border, according to the group, bears watching because it also has problems with immigrants being smuggled across, and because it could provide a way for terrorists to infiltrate the country.

"The Canadian border is the forgotten border," Buck said Saturday. "Nobody thinks about it as a problem."

But, as the patrols began this month, many who know the Canadian border well have said they are dubious that the Minutemen will have an impact.

For one thing, there is much less illegal traffic here. Border Patrol statistics show the contrast well: The post covering Vermont has 295 miles of boundary and made about 1,900 arrests last year.

By comparison, the McAllen, Tex., post -- which has about 40 fewer miles of border -- made 134,000 arrests.

"The odds of them seeing anyone are pretty slim," said Deborah Meyers, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington.

The terrain is another problem: Lt. Tom Hanlon of the Vermont State Police said the routes the smugglers use in this area are often snowmobile trails hidden in impenetrable backcountry.

"You get 10 feet off the road and you're in a dense forest. You can't see a thing," Hanlon said. "It's not like Arizona, where you can plop down and see for 50 miles."

Nevertheless, the Minutemen have come to Vermont.

They began scouting out potential sites several weeks ago, poking around this hamlet with a downtown almost directly on the border. It was in Derby Line that they had their first problem with the elusive border. On one scouting expedition, member Bob Casimiro said they became, for a moment, illegal visitors in Canada.

Then came their first official patrol two weekends ago, which was dogged by protesters who assembled downtown and shouted slogans such as "Take your hate out of our state." The Minutemen had to patrol a bike path away from town, and then -- as the Boston Globe reported -- got lost and had to ask a local for directions.

Over the weekend, the Minutemen decided to find a spot and stay put. They set up lawn chairs and looked out across a field at the trees. On Saturday afternoon, after several hours of watching, they had seen nobody and nothing suspicious.

"I think I saw a squirrel coming in. That's it," said Craig Courounis, 40, of Farmingdale, N.Y. He joked that the squirrel probably wouldn't be taking anybody's job while in the States.

It seems likely the squirrel can fill in for most of these guys at work.

---

IT'S SCALIA LITE!:

Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court (Fred Barbash and Peter Baker, October 31, 2005 , Washington Post)

President Bush today will name appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a source close to the White House. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals.[...]

While he has been dubbed "Scalito" by some lawyers for a supposed affinity to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his Italian-American heritage, most observers believe that greatly oversimplifies his record.

Alito is considered far less provocative a figure than Scalia both in personality and judicial temperament. His opinions and dissents tend to be dryly analytical rather than slashing.

In addition, his appeals court record is not uniformly conservative on the sorts of issues that arise in Supreme Court confirmation battles.

In 2004, he ruled in favor of a complaint brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by a boy badly bullied by his classmates who was seeking legal relief but had been rebuffed by a U.S. District Court.

He also authored a majority opinion granting federal court review to an African American who could not get state courts to hear his claim of racial bias on the part of a juror in his trial. The case involved a juror who used racial epithets outside the confines of the jury room.

His record on the appeals court makes Alito less liable to suggestions made about Roberts, with only two years as a judge, that he is somehow a judicial mystery.

Rather, liberals are likely to focus on his opinions and dissents, most notably in the 1991 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In that case, Alito joined joined a Third Circuit panel in upholding most of a Pennsylvania law imposing numerous restrictions on women seeking abortions. The law, among other things, required physicians to advise women of the potential medical dangers of abortion and tell them of the alternatives available. It also imposed a 24 hour waiting period for abortions and barred minors from obtaining abortions without parental consent.

The panel, in that same ruling, struck down a single provision in the law requiring women to notify their husband's before they obtained an abortion. Alito dissented from that part of the decision.

"The Pennsylvania legislature," Alito wrote, "could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constrains, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion."

The case ultimately reached he Supreme Court, which upheld the appeals court decision, disagreed with Alito and also used the case to reaffirm its support for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

Unclean! Unclean!

MORE:
Parties Set Stage for Showdown on Court Choice (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 10/31/05, NY Times)

With the announcement of a new Supreme Court nominee expected as early as Monday, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, warned President Bush on Sunday not to pick one of the candidates said to be on the president's short list, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"I think it would create a lot of problems," Mr. Reid said on "Late Edition" on CNN.

KENNEDY STATEMENT ON NOMINATION OF JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO TO SUPREME COURT (Ted Kennedy, 10/31/05)

Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not on strength.

After insisting that Harriet Miers shouldn't even get a hearing because she couldn't prove she was extreme enough, the far right has now forced the President to choose a nominee that they think has views as extreme as their own.

There are many serious questions about whether Judge Alito is a mainstream nominee fit to fill the seat of Justice O'Connor.

Ted's just tryinmg to repay the many kindnesses W has shown him by getting the Scalito pick in good with the Right.
Catholics move to the center of the bench (TIM UNSWORTH, January 24, 2003, National Catholic Reporter)

[T]here may be four, maybe five Catholics on the court by next spring -- an extraordinary shift. The new justice -- or two -- would join Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Samuel Alito's conservative views earned him nickname 'Scalito' (DONNA CASSATA, 10/31/05, Associated Press

Samuel A. Alito has been a strong conservative jurist on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court with a reputation for being among the nation's most liberal.

Dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite," a play not only on his name but his opinions, Alito, 55, brings a hefty legal resume that belies his age.

The Front-Runners on Roe: What Bush's shortlist thinks about abortion. (Emily Bazelon, July 5, 2005, Slate)

The hard-liners:

John Roberts

In 1991, as deputy solicitor general for President George H.W. Bush, John Roberts (now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) co-wrote the administration's brief in Rust v. Sullivan. Roberts' position, which was adopted by the Supreme Court, barred doctors and clinics receiving federal funds from discussing the possibility of abortion with their patients or referring them to family-planning clinics that do the procedure. The brief said on behalf of the administration, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Roberts could try to distance himself from this stance by arguing that he was merely stating his client's position, but the stark language in the brief could be hard to disown.

Michael McConnell

In 1996, when he was a law professor, Michael McConnell (now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit) signed a statement supporting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. "Abortion kills 1.5 million innocent human beings in America every year," the statement read. "We believe that the abortion license is a critical factor in America's virtue deficit."

Emilio Garza

In 1992 and 1997, Judge Emilio Garza (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit) struck down two Louisiana statutes for restricting abortion more tightly than Roe and Casey allow. But in each case, Garza wrote a concurrence stating his disagreement with those Supreme Court decisions. "I would allow the people of the State of Louisiana to decide this issue for themselves," he wrote in the 1992 case. In 1997, he called Roe and Casey "inimical to the Constitution."

Edith Jones

In 2004, Judge Edith Jones (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit) agreed with a decision to reject a suit brought by Norma McCorvey, the original plaintiff in Roe, to reverse the Supreme Court's 1973 decision. (McCorvey had undergone a change of heart in the meantime and become a pro-life activist.) In a concurrence, Jones agreed that the 5th Circuit had no choice but to dismiss McCorvey's suit as moot. But that result was "ironic," Jones said, given evidence McCorvey presented about the "long-term emotional damage" suffered by women who have abortions and about the early stages at which "a baby develops sensitivity to external stimuli and to pain." Jones concluded, "[T]he perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter."

The regulators:

Samuel Alito

In 1991, Judge Samuel Alito (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit) dissented from the lower-court decision—affirmed by the Supreme Court in Casey—that struck down a Pennsylvania law that would have required women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito read the Supreme Court's earlier decisions as holding that an abortion regulation did not pose an undue burden unless it banned abortion, gave another person a veto over a woman's choice, or had the "practical effect of imposing severe limitations." A law that had a "heavy impact on a few women" should be upheld, Alito said.

Michael Luttig

In 1998, Michael Luttig (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit) granted a stay that had the effect of allowing a Virginia ban against partial-birth abortion to go into effect. After the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's parallel law in Stenberg v. Carhart, Luttig reversed his earlier decision and lifted the stay, which had the effect of throwing out the Virginia restrictions. At that point, he explained that at the time of his initial decision to let the Virginia ban stand, he understood Casey to be "a decision of super-stare decisis"—meaning super respect for precedent—"with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose." But he also believed that the court would uphold the partial-birth abortion bans, or at least defer to Virginia's interpretation limiting the reach of its statute.

Not even a hard-liner?
The Supreme Court Shortlist: The views of the likely candidates. (Emily Bazelon and David Newman, July 1, 2005, Slate)

Samuel Alito

Age: 55
Graduated from: Yale Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Leonard Garth.
He used to be: deputy assistant attorney general under Reagan, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (appointed 1990).

His confirmation battle: Alito has the Scalia-esque nickname "Little Nino" and the Italian background to match it. As the author of a widely noted dissent urging his court to uphold restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court then struck down, in a decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, Alito could be especially filibuster-prone. Like Scalia, he frequently makes his mark in dissent.

Separation of Church and State
For a unanimous panel, upheld a lower-court order requiring a school district to allow a Bible-study group to set up an information table at an elementary-school back-to-school night. Reasoned that by preventing the group from displaying its literature, the district was discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. (Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Township School District, 2004)

For a unanimous panel, denied standing to a group seeking to take down a municipal holiday display that included a menorah and a crèche. Alito said that the group couldn't challenge the display as taxpayers because the items were donated rather than bought by the town. (ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall, 2001)

Dissented from a ruling by the 3rd Circuit as a whole that an elementary school did not violate the First Amendment rights of a kindergartener by taking down (and then putting back up) a Thanksgiving poster he'd made that said the thing he was most thankful for was Jesus. The majority decided to throw out the case on a technicality; Alito protested that the child's claim should go forward. (C.H. v. Oliva, 2000)

Criminal Law
Allowed a federal probation office in Delaware to condition the release of a man who had pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography on his willingness to submit to random polygraph tests about whether he'd had impermissible contact with children. (United States v. Warren, 2003)

Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who'd each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Granted the habeas claim of an African-American defendant who sought to introduce evidence that a juror made a racist remark after the jury reached its verdict. (Williams v. Price, 2003)

Abortion
Dissented from a decision holding that Pennsylvania could not require women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito argued that because the law only required the husbands to have notice and did not give them a veto over their wives' decisions, it did not pose an "undue burden" for women. This approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991)

Agreed that an immigration judge was within his discretion to find not credible an application for asylum based on China's forced-abortion policy. (Xue-Jie Chen v. Ashcroft, 2004)

One can't help noticing that his most noted opinions are either dissents or for unanimous majorities, suggesting some considerable degree of lightweightedness. Heavyweights write the narrowly divided majority opinions.

---

THE NEW EASTERN ESTABLISHMENT

Bush's judicial test (Robert Novak, Oct 31, 2005, Townhall)

Bush's blunder on Miers reflects his genuine disdain for Washington and the national government, still intense after nearly five years in office. That is basically why he reaches back to longtime friends and associates (cronies, say his critics) whom he trusts. Having been told that the conservative Republican base would not accept his friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the court, Bush tried to sneak through Gonzales's successor as White House counsel.

What the President underestimated is the degree to which an Inside-the-Beltway Right has been institutionalized and can command media attention generally and controls a growing segment of that media.

---

THANKS, OSAMA:

Bombers fail to derail talks as leaders seal border peace deal (Catherine Philp, 10/31/05, Times of London)

INDIA reached an unprecedented agreement with Pakistan to open their heavily militarised border in Kashmir yesterday just hours after a deadly series of bombs rocked the Indian capital in an apparent attempt to derail the peace process between the rival nations.

The move came in clear defiance of the attackers, who most analysts believe were attempting to scupper warming relations between the countries in the aftermath of the earthquake that struck Kashmir two weeks ago.

And so Spain retains the "distinction" of being the only place where bombing helped the Islamicists.

---

400 YEARS BEHIND THE TIMES SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT:

Home front (Philip Johnston, 31/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

This Saturday marks the 400th anniversary of one of the most notorious acts of treason in British history. A group of Catholic conspirators, among them a Yorkshireman, Guy Fawkes, tried to blow up parliament.
JAS cartoon

It is a crime that has resonated down the centuries. Nobody then doubted - and few have since - that the 1605 Gunpowder Plot amounted to treason, nor that the penalty would be as inevitable as it was gruesome - lengthy torture, followed by grisly execution. Yet Fawkes would not have considered himself a traitor. He put his religion before his country. During the final few years of Elizabeth's reign he even enlisted in the Spanish army to fight for the cause.

Once more, the cry of "treason" is being levelled against British citizens who put their religion before their country. Another Yorkshireman, Mohamed Sidique Khan, one of the London suicide bombers, left a video in which he accused western governments of ''continuously perpetuating injustice against my people all over the world... Until we feel security, you will be our targets. We are at war, and I am a soldier.''

Fawkes would have understood those sentiments; and there are other parallels between what was happening in 1605 and today. [...]

Although most November 5 bonfires burn Guy Fawkes in effigy, for centuries it was more likely to be the Pope, as it still is in some parts of the country. Yet the vast majority of Catholics under James I were loyal to their king and country and paid an unjustifiably heavy price for the actions of the plotters. As we remember once more the Fifth of November, let us also not forget what a frightened and intolerant society we once were and how far we have come in the intervening 400 years.

And now there's a Catholic PM.

---

THE ARAB PHASE OF THE END OF HISTORY:

It may be exported, but at least it‘s democracy (Khaled Fouad Allam, 10/31/05. Chiesa)

Today, whether one likes it or not, that world is changing, because the war in Iraq inaugurated what has been called “the American moment,” and it has brought to light the absence of any European political project on the great questions that are found across those societies.

Of course, this is the case of an “imperial democratization,” which is weighed down by some obvious errors: the unmaking of the structure of Iraqi society through the total dismantling of the old apparatus of the state connected to the Ba’ath party; a communitarian perception of the nation, according to which the “building policy” has begun from the presupposition of a society divided along ethnic and confessional lines.

But on second glance, these are errors that Europe probably would have incurred as well.

They are errors that Europe made in Iraq in 1921, with the British repression of the Shiite rebellion, because even back then the Shiites were already claiming rights to political participation. French and British colonialism always backed the Sunnis, because they had been the country’s élite for centuries, although they constituted a minority. And Arab nationalism perpetuated the situation.

But now all of that is gone, or is dying off, definitively. And it must be understood that the reversal underway will produce a large-scale effect in the Middle East and in the Arab world in general.

The pressure exerted on Syria by the United States has already obtained the abandoning of the Syrian protectorate over Lebanon. And this must not be separated from what has happened in Iraq. Both events are the product of a new phase of history, the slow decomposition of political authoritarianism in the Middle East. [...]

While American “imperial democracy” has brusquely inaugurated a new era for the peoples of the Middle East, the left must foster an authentic way of looking at the civil societies of the Arab world, keeping in mind that these are not the same as the countries of Eastern Europe. Lebanon is not Ukraine, and the Arab world, oppressed by authoritarian dictatorships and regimes for over fifty years – and before then by the colonial regimes – has not had its Solzhenitsyn, it has not had its Gulag Archipelago, it has not been able to denounce to the world the barbarities it has suffered.

Of course, in the Arab world there was no system of concentration camps like in the Soviet Union. But many have personally paid the price of denouncing the absence of liberty. It must also be emphasized that Europe has rarely listened to the dissenting voices from that world, the voices crying out about the lack of freedom.

Of course, the question of the legitimacy of an act of war is being posed, and will always be posed. But that question does not freeze history; history continues forward. History is something too serious for one to be able to resolve it through a debate in which the favorable and contrary voices are balanced. The request by Hariri’s son to have the assassins of the former Lebanese prime minister judged by an international tribunal is a manifestation of a history that is changing. And even though Saddam Hussein’s trial is controversial, it will have a strongly cathartic effect on the collective Arab imagination. It will mean the restitution to the Iraqi people of their own history. For this reason, I maintain that it is important that the trial be conducted in Arabic.

Taking all this into consideration leads to the conclusion that democracy is not a luxury for some privileged peoples, and that the geopolitics of the Middle East is definitively leaving behind its configuration in the zones of influence that ensnared it during the twentieth century.

Sure, it'd be nice if Europe were more helpful in the process, but it ultimately doesn't matter much.

---

IT'S A START:

Budget bill would boost green cards (Stephen Dinan, October 31, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

The Senate's budget package includes provisions that would make available hundreds of thousands of green cards for new permanent legal immigrants, in what is shaping up as the next congressional fight over immigration.

The bill's measures would "recapture" 90,000 unused employment-based immigration visas and would exempt family members from counting toward the cap, which is set at 140,000 per year.

Based on past trends, exempting family members would mean an additional 150,000 permanent legal immigrants annually. About 1 million people become legal immigrants each year.

The change is part of the deficit-reducing budget reconciliation bill, which is on the Senate floor today and includes billions of dollars in cuts in Medicaid and other social spending and allows for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

An economy that depends on illegal immigrants doesn't make much sense, so finding ways to legalize them does.

---

SINOPHOBIC IS GOOD, BUT NOT ENOUGH:

Japan reshuffle hints at next PM (BBC, 10/31/05)

Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has named leading conservative Shinzo Abe as chief government spokesman in a cabinet reshuffle.

The appointment means Mr Abe is well placed to succeed Mr Koizumi if he steps down as party leader next September, which he has pledged to do.

The important foreign affairs portfolio has been given to another conservative, former Home Affairs Minister Taro Aso. [...]

A grandson of former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, he is best known for taking a tough line on North Korea over its abductions of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 80s.

Mr Abe has also supported Mr Koizumi's visits to the controversial Yasukuni war shrine, seen by China and South Korea as a symbol of Japan's World War II militarism.

New Foreign Minister Taro Aso, 65, has also visited the shrine, and his appointment is unlikely to please China.

But will they continue Mr. Koizumi's Third Way reforms?

---

SUPREME COURT CONTEST III:

Officials: Bush set to name nominee: Miers helps finalize choice to replace her as Supreme Court pick (CNN, 10/31/05)

President Bush is expected Monday to name his nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court, senior administration officials told CNN Sunday.

Pick quick.

Brother Whited informs that the Dallas Morning News says she's withdrawn her nomination, demonstrating why W trusted her in the first place.

Miers withdraws as high court nominee (AP, October 27, 2005)

Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front -- the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.

Miers notified Bush of her decision at 8:30 p.m., according to a senior White House official who said the president will move quickly to find a new nominee.

In her letter dated Thursday, Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."

Now it gets interesting. He can't really reward his enemies, so his choices are constrained. Judge McConnell would be a similarly Evangelical pick and opposition to him would reveal the whole squabble to be exclusively religious. Alberto Gonzales would be a thumb in their eye and hard to oppose because Latino. Mel Martinez is the most easily confirmable Hispanic. But then he's back to not giving Laura Bush a female justice...

Start guessing...we've got more books....

---

SO MANY PEOPLE, SO LITTLE TIME:

CRISIS OF FAITH IN THE MUSLIM WORLD: PART 1: Statistical evidence (Spengler, 11/01/05, Asia Times)

Radical Islam should be interpreted as a cry of despair in the face of the ineluctable decline of Islamic society. Read carefully, the leading Islamists say precisely this. At the close of the 19th century the Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe, and its former territories today comprise the incurables ward of geopolitics. From this vantage point, America's attempt to foist its own form of democracy on the Islamic world seems delusional.

As I have reported before, the demographic position of the Islamic world has set a catastrophe in motion. It is hard enough for rich nations to care for a growing elderly population, but impossible for poor nations to do so. Iran, along with most of the Muslim world, faces a population bust that will raise the proportion of dependent elderly in the population to 28% in 2050, from just 7% today.

If America faces discomfort, and Europe faces crisis, Muslim countries face breakdown. America now has a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of US$40,000 and a diversified economy. Iran has a per capita GDP of just $7,000 and depends on oil exports for the state subsidies that keep its population fed and clothed - and Iran will no longer be able to export oil after 2020, according to some estimates.

America can ameliorate the impact of an aging population by raising productivity (so that fewer workers produce more GDP), attracting more skilled immigrants (and increasing its tax base), and, in the worst of all cases, tightening its belt. American life will not come to an end if more people drive compact cars instead of SUVs, or go camping for vacation instead of to Disney World. But the Islamic world is so poor that any reduction in living standards from present levels will cause social breakdown.

In 2002, the United Nations' Arab Development Report offered a widely-quoted summation of the misery of the present position of the Arab World, noting:

# The average growth rate of per capita income during the preceding 20 years in the Arab world was only one-half of 1% per annum, worse than anywhere but sub-Saharan Africa

# One in five Arabs lives on less than $2 per day

# Fifteen percent of the Arab workforce is unemployed, and this number could double by 2010

# Only 1% of the population has a personal computer, and only half of 1% use the Internet

# Half of Arab women cannot read.

Negotiating the demographic decline of the 21st century will be treacherous for countries that have proven their capacity to innovate and grow. For the Islamic world, it will be impossible. That is the root cause of Islamic radicalism, and there is nothing that the West can do to change it. [...]

America's fertility rate - the average number of children per woman - has stabilized at just around the replacement level. That is why America's elderly dependency ratio will stabilize around 2030. But the fertility rate of the Muslim world is falling much faster.

To the contrary, there's much that the West (well, really the Anglosphere) can do and is doing. The most important thing is hastening the End of History--forcing the Islamic world to reform along liberal democratic lines, adopting democracy, capitalism, and protestantism--which amounts to a Reformation of Islam itself. This will not only make Islamic societies healthier but will, in the process, refurbish Islam, demonstrating that it can be the basis for those thriving 21st-century societies, is indeed a necessary basis.

At the same time, the dying nations of Europe, whose secular rationalist faith can not provide such a basis, will serve as a safety valve drawing off the excess unemployed in the Islamic world. The success or failure of these European states and of the massive waves of migrants they'll be taking in will depend on a recognition that they must be assimilated into the culture that had made Europe successful until the early 20th Century and that Islam can be integrated into that earlier Judeo-Christian model.

None of this will be easy nor is it certain to work. Even in a best case scenario it requires tremendous upheaval in both the Islamic world and in Europe and a free flow of ideas and peoples that will hardly be welcomed by everyone. But, as Spengler points out, the alternative is abysmal.

---

LABOUR VS. LABOR:

Nurses launch legal fight to halt health contracts plan (John Carvel, October 31, 2005, Guardian)

Leaders of the nursing profession will launch legal action against the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, today to try to make her rethink plans to "privatise" local health services.

The Royal College of Nursing will apply for judicial review of the decision to contract out district nursing, chiropody, family planning and other community health services provided outside hospitals. The college fears that 250,000 health workers' jobs are at risk from a policy that would reduce the NHS to "little more than a logo", organising services provided by other organisations.

And the Left hates logos.

---

LIKE THE ODESSA STAIRCASE SCENE IN BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN:

U.N. Is Expected to Pass Measure Pressuring Syria (WARREN HOGE and STEVEN R. WEISMAN, 10/31/05, NY Times)

Diplomats from the resolution's three co-sponsors, Britain, France and the United States, said they expected passage on Monday and did not foresee a veto from either China or Russia, the two countries most reluctant to punish Syria.

The resolution threatens Syria with economic penalties if it does not give full cooperation to the United Nations investigation that has identified high-ranking security officials as suspects in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri.

The measure also orders Syria to take into custody and make available to the investigators people they suspect of involvement in the killing.

That provision in particular could pose a problem for Mr. Assad, a relatively inexperienced leader perceived as weak and vulnerable in the power politics of the Middle East. Among the suspects are his brother, Maher Assad, and his brother-in- law, Asef Shawkat, the chief of military intelligence, who is considered the most powerful man in the country aside from the president.

---

COME MONDAY IT'LL BE ALRIGHT:

Rock bottom (Michael Barone, Oct 31, 2005, Townhall)

George W. Bush's administration has come through what many have been saying would be its worst week, and it has turned out to be -- well, if not one of the best, then one that is far more encouraging than most of the mainstream media expected.

Four events, or non-events, have put the administration in a position to make progress and advance the standing of the president and his party in public policy and in the public opinion polls.

Folks figured out rather quickly that October has ended pretty well, all things considered.

MORE:
U.S. Is Ceding More Control to the Iraqis: The military quickens the pace of transferring quiet areas to security forces, whose improving capabilities are key to America's exit plans. (Solomon Moore, October 29, 2005, LA Times)

Seeking to lower the visibility of U.S. troops and grant more authority to Iraqi government forces, the American military has now ceded control of 27 of the nation's 109 bases, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

Thousands of U.S. troops have been redeployed in recent months from bases in Najaf, Karbala, Tikrit and other cities, and Iraqis are now in charge of patrol areas that include four districts of Baghdad and the town of Taiji, northeast of the capital.

On Friday, American officials announced that the next major military installation expected to be transferred to Iraqi control was former President Saddam Hussein's palace complex in Tikrit. The site has been renamed Forward Operating Base Danger and currently houses more than 6,000 U.S. troops.

Iraqi and U.S. officials said they had quickened the pace of such security transfers in recent weeks and planned to formalize what had been an ad hoc, piecemeal approach.

"We've already handed over nine different areas north of Baghdad as part of a national plan," said Robert Holby, a State Department official assigned to Tikrit. "We want to put an Iraqi face on things. Everybody thinks that if we move away from the cities, this will make the violence go down."

---

NOR DID THEY HAVE ANY WMD:

Doubts Cast on Vietnam Incident, but Secret Study Stays Classified (SCOTT SHANE, 10/31/05, NY Times)

The National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that during the Tonkin Gulf episode, which helped precipitate the Vietnam War, N.S.A. officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence to cover up their mistakes, two people familiar with the historian's work say.

The historian's conclusion is the first serious accusation that communications intercepted by the N.S.A., the secretive eavesdropping and code-breaking agency, were falsified so that they made it look as if North Vietnam had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964, two days after a previous clash. President Lyndon B. Johnson cited the supposed attack to persuade Congress to authorize broad military action in Vietnam, but most historians have concluded in recent years that there was no second attack.

---

PEACE IS THEIR ENEMY:

Three Blasts in New Delhi Kill at Least 55: Pakistan Strongly Condemns Attacks (Muneeza Naqvi, 10/30/05, The Washington Post)

Analysts told news agencies that the blasts were possibly linked to groups opposed to the peace process between India and its chief rival, Pakistan.

"It is very likely that the attacks were conducted by a terrorist group opposed to the peace process between India and Pakistan," Rohan Gunaratna, the head of research into terrorism at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore, told Agence-France Presse.

Immediately after the attacks, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry issued an unusually strong condemnation. "The attack in a crowded market place is a criminal act of terrorism," the ministry said in a statement.

Didn't work in Palestine.

---

THEY'VE GOT US RIGHT WHERE WE WANT THEM:

Small US units lure Taliban into losing battles (Scott Baldauf, 10/31/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

It's mid- morning on June 21, and Lt. Timothy Jon O'Neal's platoon has just been dropped onto a dusty field north of a mud-walled village of Chalbar. Their mission: to check out reports that a local Afghan Army commander has defected to the Taliban and burned the district headquarters, and is prepared to fight.

Within minutes, it becomes clear that the reports are true, and the platoon is in trouble. The radio crackles with Taliban fighters barking orders to surround the Americans. Gunfire comes from the hilltops. Lieutenant O'Neal's men are easy targets. The Taliban have the high ground.

This has been the most violent year here since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. The US Army is moving in smaller numbers to lure the Taliban out of hiding for fights they cannot win. The result: More than 1,200 enemy deaths this year, including high-level commanders. But it is also a strategy with profound risks, and one that may be difficult to sustain in Zabul Province - a region so unstable that commanders call it the "Fallujah of Afghanistan" - as current troops return home, their replacements as yet undecided.

Through interviews with soldiers of Chosen Company, of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the Monitor has reconstructed two recent battles that illustrate how this strategy works, and how it may have weakened the Taliban movement's effectiveness as a military force - for now.

See NATO taking over this duty?

---

SILLY SEASON:

SCOTUS (Washington Prowler, October 30, 2005, American Spectator)

According to sources in both the White House and Senate leadership, the President is poised to nominate Federal Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito on Monday morning. [...]

According to White House sources, if Alito does beat out Luttig it will be based on the White House quest for what they are calling "consistency." Those who have evaluated the potential nominees believe Alito is more likely to remain a consistent, conservative judge on the Supreme Court bench than Luttig, who some inside the White House believe would have the potential to "grow" on the bench. As one White House staffer told us earlier in the weekend, "We're not talking about much of a difference. The President could go either way."

Such hair-splitting can hardly make one proud to be a conservative, but if he nominates Luttig he's Rousseau without the abandoned children.

MORE:
So, Do You Believe in 'Superprecedent'? (JEFFREY ROSEN, 10/30/05, NY Times)

[S]ocial conservatives face a problem: a new theory of "superprecedents" that is gaining currency on the right as well as the left.

The term superprecedents first surfaced at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts, when Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked him whether he agreed that certain cases like Roe had become superprecedents or "super-duper" precedents - that is, that they were so deeply embedded in the fabric of law they should be especially hard to overturn. [...]

But the idea of superprecedents is more powerful than a simple affirmation of stare decisis. An origin of the idea was a 2000 opinion written by J. Michael Luttig, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, who regularly appears on short lists for the Supreme Court.

Striking down a Virginia ban on a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion, Judge Luttig wrote, "I understand the Supreme Court to have intended its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey," the case that reaffirmed Roe in 1992, "to be a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy."

Before the Roberts confirmation hearings, Mr. Specter talked informally to several law professors, including this writer, who mentioned the theory of super-stare decisis, noting that Judge Luttig thought it was important that Roe had been repeatedly reaffirmed by different Supreme Courts, composed of justices appointed by presidents from different parties and confirmed by Senates controlled at times by Democrats and Republicans.

And Mr. Specter adopted this theory.

Arlen Luttig?

---

NOW THAT'S AN INITIATIVE WORTH SUPPORTING:

Democracy's evil twin: You want to bring California government back to its senses? Get rid of the initiatives. (Jules Tygiel, October 30, 2005, LA Times)

IF GOV. ARNOLD Schwarzenegger really wants to "blow up the boxes" in Sacramento, he should sponsor one two-line initiative:

"There shall be no further initiatives.

"All previous initiatives may be modified by a majority vote of the Legislature."

When asked after the Constitutional Convention in 1787 what kind of government the new American nation had adopted, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." In a republic, there is no monarch. More important, representatives elected by the people enact laws on their behalf. [...]

Frustrated by the railroads' and corporations' control of legislative bodies and political parties, agrarian reformers proposed a variation on the republican form of government in the late 19th century — direct democracy. When elected officials ignored the will of the people, they contended, the people should be able to propose their own laws, reject or revise existing ones and remove public officials. The initiative, referendum and recall would be the instruments of the popular will.

The agrarians failed to achieve their goals, but the Progressives picked up their cause in the early 20th century.

Democracy is too much with us.

---

14:59...:

Our 27 months of hell (Joseph C. Wilson IV, October 29, 2005, LA Times)

AFTER THE two-year smear campaign orchestrated by senior officials in the Bush White House against my wife and me, it is tempting to feel vindicated by Friday's indictment of the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Between us, Valerie and I have served the United States for nearly 43 years. I was President George H.W. Bush's acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the Persian Gulf War, and I served as ambassador to two African nations for him and President Clinton. Valerie worked undercover for the CIA in several overseas assignments and in areas related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

But on July 14, 2003, our lives were irrevocably changed. That was the day columnist Robert Novak identified Valerie as an operative, divulging a secret that had been known only to me, her parents and her brother.

Correction: You changed it yourself on July 6, 2003, the day you and your wife decided to make public your CIA mission, if not earlier, Fall Of A Vulcan:
How a very smart and very loyal aide to Dick Cheney got indicted for allegedly lying about his role in defending the war (MICHAEL DUFFY, 10/30/05, TIME)

For anyone who has been trying to follow the bewildering saga of Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Joseph Wilson and his wife CIA officer Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald's indictment is a helpful road map. [...]

Fitzgerald's theory of the case can be broken into three parts: The hunt for the whistle-blower The story begins with a mystery man who was dissing the Bush team from somewhere within the government. In May 2003, shortly after New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof first wrote about a secret CIA mission to Africa by an unnamed U.S. ambassador to assess suggestions by Cheney's office that Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger, Libby asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman to go digging for more information on the mission. It was not an idle inquiry: the 2002 trip, taken by a former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson, had turned up no evidence that Iraq sought the uranium ore for its nuclear weapons program, as Cheney's office had suggested. And although Wilson reported his findings to the CIA, the claim about the African yellowcake kept popping up in Administration speeches in the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq. At Libby's behest, Grossman ordered the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (inr) to look into the CIA mission to Africa.

Over the next few weeks, Libby got progress reports from the inr, and Grossman eventually informed Libby that it was Wilson who took the trip, that his wife worked at the CIA and that she may have played a role in sending Wilson on the trip. Fitzgerald's indictment alleges that Libby heard similar reports about Wilson and his wife from a senior CIA official and, on June 12, from Cheney, who by then knew that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division.

To hard-liners like Libby, who believed that the CIA opposed the war in Iraq and had been quietly undercutting the President for months, it appeared that the CIA was turning on Cheney too. "Scooter thought the CIA was trying to screw us," says a former colleague of Libby's.

And almost on cue, the hard-liners' dark fears were realized: within a week, a June 19 online article by the New Republic quoted an unnamed U.S. envoy, who was clearly Wilson, alleging that the Administration knew the yellowcake story "was a flat-out lie" but had used it in the prewar claims anyway. Not long after, Fitzgerald alleges, Libby spoke with his deputy about the article, and the two aides discussed whether information about Wilson's trip might be shared with the press. Libby demurred, saying such a move would cause "complications at the CIA," but added that he "could not discuss the matter on a nonsecure phone."

Just a few days later, on June 23, Libby met at the Old Executive Office Building with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who wrote a series of highly controversial, and now largely discredited, stories about Iraq's prewar arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

It was in that session that Libby groused about "selective leaking" at the CIA and first disclosed that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

Two weeks later, on July 6, Wilson went public, writing an Op-Ed column in the New York Times, retelling the story of his fruitless trip to Niger and hinting that the Bush team didn't really want to know if the prewar intelligence was accurate or not.

---

A RANT WITH AN R.S.V.P.:

Fanning flames of hatred fuels a diplomatic meltdown (Trevor Royle, 10/30/05, Sunday Herald)

What can done with Iran? The question has been troubling the minds of Western diplomats for the past three years. Ever since President George W Bush and his “coalition of the willing” decided to attack Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein the next issue has always been its unruly neighbour to the east. Should the policy be conciliatory or threatening? Last week it became depressingly clear that the threat of harsher measures was suddenly back on the agenda.

Following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ill-advised comments about destroying Israel, Prime Minister Tony Blair is actively advocating a more aggressive line towards Iran. In place of containment and partnership in comes a more pro-active stance which does not rule out the use of force. After weeks of frustration over Iran’s refusal to heed international guidelines on the development of its nuclear industry and amid suspicions that Iraqi insurgents are receiving support and weapons from Iran’s Republican Guards, Britain has decided to take a much tougher line.

“It was a foolish remark for any leader to make about another country, but in the Middle East it’s doubly explosive,” said a senior British diplomat. “Fortunately his outburst hasn’t met with much enthusiasm in the region other than an embarrassed diplomatic silence, but even so, Ahmadinejad may have gone too far on this occasion. He’s also pushed us into a position where many countries will be reconsidering their policy towards Iran.”

The response may not be what the Iranian president was expecting...

Maybe he reads the Western media and thought that the Axis of Good would be deterred by the rather minimal casualties in Iraq?

---

THAT'S ONE WAY TO CONVINCE THE WIFE TO STOP BUYING THIS JUNK (via David Hill, The Bronx):

American Girl's gifts to agency lead school to scrap show: Backing of lesbianism, abortion sets off storm (TOM HEINEN, Oct. 29, 2005, Mikwaukee Journal Sentinel)

A Catholic school in Waukesha County is the first non-profit group in the nation to cancel a coveted American Girl Fashion Show amid concerns that the Wisconsin-based doll company behind the show gives money to a national girls organization that presents abortion, contraception and a lesbian sexual orientation as acceptable.
Advertisement

News of the decision by parent volunteers and the pastor at St. Luke School in Brookfield is being reported in bulletins at Masses this weekend.

"It seemed like a match made in heaven; a motivated Catholic school and an all-American icon," Father Frank Malloy, the pastor, says in his printed explanation. "We seemed poised to raise enough funds for a new playground and a remake of the school library."

But, he concludes, "As for us, it's a bargain we'll just have to pass up. The cost is too high. Our integrity isn't for sale."

---

IT'S 2005, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP CAN BE A THREESOME:

If you want to succeed, follow us Down Under (Lynton Crosby, 29/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

For so long simply seen as an adventure playground for gap year students or a breeding ground for sportsmen, Australia has now graduated into the world of big players.

Proof? Well, I won't rely on the fact that Australian troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan. I won't brag about our free trade agreements with the US, New Zealand, Thailand and Singapore. Nor even our progress on negotiating a free trade agreement with China - already a market for many Australian products. [...]

The Australian economy is now in the 15th year of the longest economic expansion in 50 years - perhaps, according to John Howard, the Prime Minister, "the longest since the gold rushes of the 19th century". Today this continent, much of it desert, ranks 53rd in terms of world population, but is the world's 13th largest economy; eighth in the world in income per head from 18th two decades ago. [...]

John Howard (and to be fair, in some areas such as currency deregulation, his predecessor Bob Hawke) practised what he preached: the foundation of a nation's success is economic growth, and that growth is rooted in economic stability, free trade and rewarding hard work and investment.

The experiences of the three great states of the Anglosphere suggest that the Third Way works brilliantly.

---

WHY ISLAMICISM DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE END OF HISTORY:

Iran’s President says “2 or 3 hangings” could end market woes (Iran Focus, Oct. 30, 2005)

Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the latest cabinet meeting in the Iranian capital that “if we were permitted to hang two or three persons, the problems with the stock exchange would be solved for ever”, according to a Tehran-based newspaper.

Ahmadinejad was addressing a cabinet meeting held to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation at the Tehran Stock Exchange, the daily Ruznet reported on Sunday. [...]

Iran’s ultra-Islamist President first sent jitters through the country’s markets when he said on the eve of the presidential elections in June that “stock exchange activities are a kind of gambling and we are against them”. Gambling is banned in Islam.

Nervous investors have been transferring their capital to other countries, and Dubai has benefited palpably from the flight of capital from Iran. The Tehran Stock Exchange has lost 20 percent of its value in the past four months.

“At the moment there are no buyers in this market, only sellers”, the newspaper Ruznet wrote. “Economists believe the situation is becoming more difficult to handle day by day”.

Because you can't structure a functioning economy along Islamicist lines it can pose no meaningful threat to liberal democracy. It is self-destructive.

---

KURDISTAN FOR THE KURDS:

Kurds Reclaiming Prized Territory In Northern Iraq: Repatriation by Political Parties Alters Demographics and Sparks Violence (Steve Fainaru, October 30, 2005, Washington Post)

KIRKUK, Iraq -- Providing money, building materials and even schematic drawings, Kurdish political parties have repatriated thousands of Kurds into this tense northern oil city and its surrounding villages, operating outside the framework of Iraq's newly ratified constitution and sparking sporadic violence between Kurdish settlers and the Arabs who are a minority here, according to U.S. military officials and Iraqi political leaders.

The rapidly expanding settlements, composed of two-bedroom concrete houses whose dimensions are prescribed by the Kurdish parties, are effectively re-engineering the demography of northern Iraq, enabling the Kurds to add what ultimately may be hundreds of thousands of voters ahead of a planned 2007 referendum on the status of Kirkuk. The Kurds hope to make the city and its vast oil reserves part of an autonomous Kurdistan.

Kurdish political leaders said the repatriations are designed to correct the policies of ousted President Saddam Hussein, who replaced thousands of Kurds in the region with Arabs from the south. [...]

Kirkuk, a city of almost 1 million, is home to a combustible mix of multiple ethnicities, a contentious past and enormous potential wealth. Kirkuk's precise demographic makeup is a source of dispute, but Kurds are believed to represent 35 to 40 percent of the population. The remainder is composed primarily of Arabs, ethnic Turkmens and a small percentage of Assyrian Christians.

The Kurds, saying they have a historical claim, hope to anchor Kirkuk to Kurdistan, their semiautonomous region. Kirkuk holds strategic as well as symbolic value: The ocean of oil beneath its surface could be used to drive the economy of an independent Kurdistan, the ultimate goal for many Kurds.

"Kirkuk is part of Kurdistan as Washington D.C. is part of the United States," said Rizgar Ali, president of the Kirkuk provincial council and a top official in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two main Kurdish political parties. The other is the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

With the Kurds firmly in control of the provincial government, Kirkuk already shows signs of a remarkable transition. The names of many streets, buildings, schools and villages have been changed from Arabic to Kurdish. Thousands of Kurds who flooded into Kirkuk after Hussein's fall are still living in a soccer stadium, a city jail and vacant lots. The landscape is replete with ubiquitous gray concrete blocks of the new Kurdish settlements.

Best to do the inevitable quickly, rather than drag it out.

---

FROM THE “IT’S A GREAT COUNTRY” FILES

Pope John Paul II’s car fetches $690,000 (MSN, October 30th, 2005)

A light blue 1975 Ford Escort GL once owned by Pope John Paul II sold for $690,000 Saturday to a Houston multimillionaire who said he plans to put it in a museum he wants to build in his hometown.

“To me, it’’s a piece of history,” said John O’Quinn, 62, a Baptist who said he has a collection of about 600 vehicles. “What a great human being Pope John Paul was.”

Built 30 years ago at a Ford plant in Cologne, Germany, the car sold Saturday in what auctioneer Dean Kruse said was original papal condition —— no hubcaps, no air conditioning, no radio, but with several nicks and dents.

“The car will never be driven,” said O’Quinn, who said that at least temporarily it will be warehoused with his other cars. “But hopefully, in my life, I’ll be able to go back and touch this car and feel the pope’s spirit.”

O’Quinn, a personal injury lawyer who made a fortune in a multibillion dollar Texas tobacco settlement, outbid least seven other would-be buyers.[...]

The seller, Jim Rich, 41, of Sugar Grove, Ill., became emotional about giving up the car to pay bankruptcy debts to his father.

“I’ve been smothered by greed and courts,” he said.

Rich bought the car for $102,000 at an auction in 1996, and said he promised the pope when he received the keys at the Vatican that he would display the vehicle proudly at his Chicago West restaurant and never part with it.

Standing with holes in his shoes and holding a buttonless blue blazer together at the front with his left hand, he pulled a food stamp card from his wallet and said he been using it for about nine months to buy groceries.

“The pope would think this is something I should do under extraordinary circumstances,” he said.

Immensity Itself would tremble at trying to resolve the theological implications of this one.

---

THE IRAQI SOLUTION:

MAPping the Future: Is the Philippines dying? (Corazon PB. Claudio, October 31, 2005, Philippine Daily Inquirer

"THE REPUBLIC OF THE Philippines is dying. A grand but failed experiment, its American political facade masks a historic Hispanic reality--where wealth and political power in a former colony remains concentrated in the hands of a few families... Today, even if they wanted to, they cannot prevent a complete political 'melt-down,' one provoked in large part by their own failures and successes. The Philippines, like the equally fictive former Soviet Union, will soon disintegrate." (Joseph E. Fallon, author of Deconstructing America: Immigration, Nationality and Statehood.)

That is an excerpt from the opening paragraph of Fallon's foreword in the book of David C. Martinez, "A Country of Our Own, Partitioning the Philippines" (California: Bisayas Book, 2004). [...]

The Philippines, according to Martinez, is not a nation but a fabricated state, artificially united, centrally controlled and ruled by a few hundred powerful families who own or control about half of the country's wealth.

His recommended cure: partition the Philippines into five regions: Luzon, Cordillera, the Visayas, Mindanao, and Bangsamoro.

By doing so, he submits, we could return to our "original sense of culture and community" and become "nations again both in character and in form, nations free to retrieve our plural pasts, recapture our communal identities, and redeem our original values."

Some readers of the book, especially those quoted or referred to in ways that hurt them, will not agree with Martinez's analysis and recommendation. But perhaps, most readers will agree with former Education Secretary Bro. Andrew Gonzales that the book is "immensely stimulating."

Like Indonesia, it makes little sens to try and administer an archipelago so centrally--devolution into smaller polities is inevitable and good.

---

RECOMMENDATIONS?:

Anybody read any really good, door-stop-size novels lately? The kind of big and readable book appropriate for a trip.

---

TOO IMMATURE TO LEAD (via mc):

Miers, the Rebellion's Latest Casualty: Why the Right Never Surrenders, Or Declares Victory (Kevin Merida, October 30, 2005, Washington Post)

"I think for a lot of conservatives, our mind-set is we're not Republicans," [Al Regnery] explained. "We're swimming upstream, we're holding the party accountable, we're on the outside. Our job is always swimming upstream."

It is useful psychology for conservative activists, this idea of the permanent, beleaguered underdog. Ambitions are never quite fulfilled. Justice is never quite done. An aggrieved state of mind is a fertile state of mind. It is the kind of thinking whose roots were planted more than 50 years ago. In Goldwater's case, he owed his 1952 election as an Arizona senator to Ike. And yet when his frustration with Eisenhower's spending peaked, he turned on his friend, calling Ike's administration a "dime-store New Deal."

Democrats certainly have their noisy scrums -- the left is either angry at the center for acting like Republicans or the center is blaming the left for election debacles. But the Republican right seems to have a special, disciplined vigilance when it comes to internal warfare. Where else can you find the ironic spectacle of a House speaker being shown the guillotine by the very crew of conservative revolutionaries he created? That was Newt Gingrich's fate in 1998, forced to resign after leading Republicans to the first House majority in four decades.

After reneging on his read-my-lips pledge of "no new taxes," then-President George H.W. Bush found himself hissed and hounded by conservatives and ultimately undermined as he went on to lose his 1992 reelection bid. Even the beloved Ronald Reagan got smacked from time to time by his brethren on the right. An all-star lineup of conservatives went after him over his dealings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his support of a treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, went so far as to call the Gipper a "useful idiot for Soviet propaganda." Three decades later, phoning in from the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, Phillips said: "My loyalty is not to any political personality or any political party."

The problem of conservative ideologues is psychic--you can't both govern a democracy and be ideologically pure. It's funny, the far Right objects to George Bush as a Jacobin, but it is they who behave like fanatical true believers rather than free men.

---

AND IT'S NOT EVEN IN PRINT (via Tom Corcoran):

Green Gray Areas: Books that question the conventional wisdom on the environment. (MICHAEL CRICHTON, October 29, 2005, Opinion Journal)

3. Man and the Natural World by Keith Thomas (Oxford, 1984).

Don't be put off by the academic title of Keith Thomas's "Man in the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800." The book's a delight. Mr. Thomas's account is both detailed and charming as he guides the reader from the Tudor view, that nature was made for man to exploit, through the later sense that nature was to be worshipped and cherished (such that trees became pets and aristocrats gave names to their great estate trees and said good-night to them each evening). Still later came the Romantic preference for untouched nature and rough settings, a rarified taste that required "a long course of aesthetic education." At every turn, Mr. Thomas emphasizes the contradictions between belief and behavior.

---

HOW OLD WOULD CYRUS BE THIS YEAR? (via Mike Daley):

Eurocrats to splash out millions on 50-day golden jubilee party (Justin Stares, 29/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

How many Eurocrats does it take to organise a party? Preparations have just begun for the European Union's golden jubilee celebrations: 50 days and nights of back-to-back festivities.:

On March 25, 2007, the Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the EU, will be half a century old. Brussels believes that this is such a key event that planning began last week, 17 months in advance.

The EU, together with the local Brussels government, envisages a massive programme of concerts, carnivals and firework displays.

Roy Mottahedeh explains, in Mantle of the Prophet, the importance of the Shah's decision to celebrate 2500 years of Persian Empire in 1971 and how the opulence of the celebration combined with the disregard for the organic realities of daily life in Iran, chiefly the fact that it is Islamic, to demonstrate just how distant his regime was from the people, no matter how well intended his rule. This celebration sounds like it could do the same thing.

---

AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER? (via Robert Schwartz):

The Realist Who Got It Wrong (Charles Krauthammer, October 30, 2005, Washington Post)

In the Oct. 31 New Yorker [Brent Scowcroft] came out strongly against the war and the neocon sorcerers who magically foisted it upon what must have been a hypnotized president and vice president.

Of course, Scowcroft's opposition to toppling Saddam Hussein is neither surprising nor new. Indeed, we are now seeing its third iteration. He had two cracks at Hussein in 1991 and urged his President Bush to pass them both up -- first, after Hussein's defeat in the Persian Gulf War, when the road to Baghdad was open, and then, days later, during a massive U.S.-encouraged uprising of Kurds and Shiites, when America stood by and allowed Hussein to massacre his opponents by the tens of thousands. One of the reasons for Iraqi wariness during the U.S. liberation 12 years later was the memory of our past betrayal and suspicions about our current intentions in light of that betrayal.

This cold bloodedness is a trademark of this nation's most doctrinaire foreign policy "realist." Realism is the billiard ball theory of foreign policy: The only thing that counts is how countries interact, not what's happening inside. You care not a whit about who is running a country. Whether it is Mother Teresa or the Assad family gangsters in Syria, you care only about their external actions, not how they treat their own people.

Realists prize stability above all, and there is nothing more stable than a ruthlessly efficient dictatorship. Which is why Scowcroft is the man who six months after Tiananmen Square toasted those who ordered the massacre; who, as the world celebrates the Beirut Spring that evicted the Syrian occupation from Lebanon, sees not liberation but possible instability; who can barely conceal a preference for Syria's stabilizing iron rule.

Even today Scowcroft says, "I didn't think that calling the Soviet Union the 'evil empire' got anybody anywhere." Tell that to Natan Sharansky and other Soviet dissidents for whom that declaration of moral -- beyond geopolitical -- purpose was electrifying and helped galvanize the movements that ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.

The preference for stability at the expense of our fellow men is antithetical to the American ethos.

---

YOU DON'T OCCUPY LIBERATED ALLIES:

Occupational Hazards: a review of The Assassins Gate by George Packer (FAREED ZAKARIA, 10/30/05, NY Times Book Review)

Packer begins his absorbing account with the ideas that led the United States to war. A few neoconservatives, most prominently Paul Wolfowitz, had long believed that ousting Saddam Hussein would pave the way for a grand reordering of the Middle East, pushing it away from tyranny and anti-Americanism and toward modernity and democracy. Others, including Douglas Feith, explained that eliminating Hussein would be particularly good for Israel's security. But the broadest reason to intervene in Iraq was that it was a bold use of American power that mixed force with idealism. Many neoconservatives were Reaganites who believed in an assertive, even aggressive, American posture in the world. For them the 1990's - under Bush père and Clinton alike - had been years of retreat. "They were supremely confident," Packer writes, "all they needed was a mission."

But they wouldn't have had one without 9/11. As one of the neoconservatives Packer interviewed correctly points out, "September 11 is the turning point. Not anything else." After 9/11, Bush - and many Americans, including many liberals - were searching for a use of the nation's power that mixed force with idealism and promised to reorder the Middle East. In Iraq they found it.

Packer collects his articles from The New Yorker but goes well beyond them. His book lacks a tight thesis or structure and as a result meanders at times, petering out in its final sections. But this is more than made up for by the sheer integrity and intelligence of its reporting, from Washington, New York, London and, of course, Iraq. Packer provides page after page of vivid description of the haphazard, poorly planned and almost criminally executed occupation of Iraq. In reading him we see the staggering gap between abstract ideas and concrete reality.

Hard as it is to believe, the Bush administration took on the largest foreign policy project in a generation with little planning or forethought. It occupied a foreign country of 25 million people in the heart of the Middle East pretty much on the fly. Packer, who was in favor of the war, reserves judgment and commentary in most of the book but finally cannot contain himself: "Swaddled in abstract ideas . . . indifferent to accountability," those in positions of highest responsibility for Iraq "turned a difficult undertaking into a needlessly deadly one," he writes. "When things went wrong, they found other people to blame."

Packer recounts the prewar discussions in the State Department's "Future of Iraq Project," which produced an enormous document outlining the political challenges in governing Iraq. He describes Drew Erdmann's memo, written for Colin Powell, analyzing previous postwar reconstructions in the 20th century. Erdmann's conclusion was that success depended on two factors, establishing security and having international support. These internal documents were mirrored by several important think-tank studies that all made similar points, specifically on the need for large-scale forces to maintain security. One would think that this Hobbesian message - that order is the first requisite of civilization - would appeal to conservatives. In fact all of this careful planning and thinking was ignored or dismissed.

Part of the problem was the brutal and debilitating struggle between the State Department and the Defense Department, producing an utterly dysfunctional policy process. The secretary of the Army, Thomas White, who was fired after the invasion, explained to Packer that with the Defense Department "the first issue was, we've got to control this thing - so everyone else was suspect." The State Department was regarded as the enemy, so what chance was there of working with other countries? The larger problem was that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (and probably Dick Cheney) doggedly believed nation-building was a bad idea, the Clinton administration has done too much of it, and the American military should stop doing it. Rumsfeld explained this view in a couple of speeches and op-ed articles that were short on facts and long on polemics. But how to square this outlook with invading Iraq? Assume away the need for nation-building. Again, White explains: "We had the mind-set that this would be a relatively straightforward, manageable task, because this would be a war of liberation, and therefore reconstruction would be short-lived." Rumsfeld's spokesman, Larry Di Rita, went to Kuwait in April 2003 and told the American officials waiting there that the State Department had messed up Bosnia and Kosovo and that the Bush administration intended to hand over power to Iraqis and leave within three months.

That the main idea has worked out brilliantly is demonstrated from the polling places for the Iraqi constitution to Libya to Palestine to Lebanon to Syria to Pakistan, to the UN and so on and so forth. The one failure came in the form of mounting an Occupation rather than turning power over to an interim government acceptable to Ayatollah Sistani ASAP.

MORE:
'The Right War?' and 'A Matter of Principle': Everybody Is a Realist Now (JAMES TRAUB, 10/30/05, NY Times Book Review)

A decade ago, the question of humanitarian intervention, above all in Bosnia, split both left and right into antiwar "realists" and prowar moralists, or "Wilsonians." What is clear from these two volumes is that 9/11 fused the two arguments into one, for enemies embodying a totalitarian and obscurantist culture had reached out to deal us a terrible blow. This Islamofascist culture was as dangerous to us as to its domestic victims. President Bush, who entered office as a realist vowing to put "interests" ahead of "values," became the chief exponent of a revived Wilsonianism. "We support . . . democracy in the Middle East," he said, "because it is a founding principle, and because it is in our interest."

Debate on the war is now, in effect, organized around this view - whether it is valid, whether it can be applied to Iraq, whether the Bush administration has hopelessly botched the execution. "Democracy promotion" has cleaved opinion on both sides, as humanitarian intervention did before. On the right, the "paleos" dismiss the project as a dangerous pipe dream - a form of "democratic imperialism," in Patrick Buchanan's phrase. [....]

The debate inside the left is of course a very different one, but also involves an absolutism that will not take account of individual cases. The absolutism, in this case, is an abhorrence of American power - an abhorrence greatly magnified by hatred for George W. Bush and all his works. The journalist Ian Buruma, though not a supporter of the war, has accused the fashionable left of practicing a form of moral racism, in which the brutalities of the West provoke outrage but the far greater crimes of third-world monsters like Saddam Hussein are passed over in silence. A magisterial nonchalance marches under the banner of moral superiority. Apropos the novelist Julian Barnes's comment that the war wasn't worth the loss of a single life, Norman Geras, a British political theorist, mordantly observes, "Not one, eh? So much for the victims of the rape rooms and the industrial shredders." But of course to admit otherwise would be to credit the Americans, and even the Bush administration, with moral insight and the capacity for good. How much more satisfying to revel in the administration's richly deserved comeuppance!

"A Matter of Principle" will be sobering reading to many American liberals, especially those who took comfort in the near-universal European opposition to the war. Among the most powerful essays in the volume are those by French or German scholars taking their own countrymen to task. With the threat of the cold war over, writes Richard Herzinger, an editor of Die Zeit, the old cry of "Never again!" had lost its meaning of never again submission in favor of never again war - as if force itself were the great peril, and thus America, the most forceful nation, the chief enemy of peace. This is what Robert Kagan means when he describes the Kantian paradise Europeans have sought to take refuge in. They, no less than the Americans, and perhaps more, fit 9/11 into the world as they already understood it, and as they wished it to be.

Do we truly know what is required in order to defend democratic principles in the face of attack from those who consider themselves divinely inspired? (I am referring, of course, to Islamic fundamentalists, not the Bush administration.) "A Matter of Principle" includes a backbone-stiffening contribution from Adam Michnik, a political philosopher, a founder of Solidarity in Poland and an authentic hero of the democratic left. Asked whether it isn't "paradoxical" to advocate violence as a means to advance human rights, Michnik snaps, "I can't remember any text of mine where I said one should fight Hitler without violence; I'm not an idiot. . . . In the state of Saddam, the opposition could find a place only in cemeteries."

---

THEY ALREADY OVERSHOT:

The King of the Wonks comes to his throne: nothing can go wrong. Can it? (Niall Ferguson, 29/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

This is not the first era in modern history when monetary policy has been entrusted to unelected technocrats. In the 1920s, the world's principal central banks were run by a group of wise men, some of whom made no secret of their impatience with democratic institutions. Montagu Norman at the Bank of England, Hjalmar Schacht at the German Reichsbank, and Benjamin Strong at the Federal Reserve managed the international monetary system in a state of blissful independence from political constraints.

Yet what happened? Disastrous blunders (admittedly after Strong's death and Schacht's resignation) turned a US recession into the global Great Depression. As one economy after another fell off a cliff, central bankers almost without exception urged that interest rates be raised rather than lowered. Only a handful of wonks - John Maynard Keynes among them - understood that the gold standard was a "barbarous relic" and that floating currencies were the only way to counter deflation. Alas, Keynes was a geek at the time. As a rule, he only wonked in wartime.

Happily, Ben Bernanke is an expert on the subject of what went wrong in the Great Depression, having co-written at least two learned articles on the subject. Back in 2002 he argued that the Fed should be prepared to do everything in its power to prevent a recurrence of deflation - if necessary dropping banknotes out of helicopters to encourage people to spend.

Deflation now seems less of a threat than a recurrence of inflation, with US consumer prices rising last month at an alarming annual rate of 4.7 per cent.

In fact, Mr. Bernanke takes over a deflationary economy. Is there anything you think will cost more a couple months from now than it does today? Thankfully, no one is likelt to understand deflation and the fact that interest rates are too high than Mr. Bernanke.

MORE:
Betting on Ben: The likely new chairman of America’s Federal Reserve Board is a first-rate academic. Will he be a similarly good central banker? (The Economist, 10/27/05)

For all the superficial differences, the bearded academic has much in common with the owlish Washington insider he will probably succeed. Both believe in an activist Fed; both focus on the link between the pace of aggregate demand and inflation; and both prefer shifts in interest rates to be gradual and well-signalled.

Neither man believes the central bank should be in the business of puncturing asset-price bubbles. Mr Bernanke, if anything, is more committed to this view than Mr Greenspan. At the height of the stockmarket bubble in 1999, he co-authored an influential paper with Mark Gertler of New York University which argued that central banks should focus on asset prices only insofar as they are likely to influence consumer prices. Targeting asset prices directly, his paper claimed, would create more, not less, instability. This suggests that a Bernanke Fed might be even less inclined to fret about soaring house prices than Mr Greenspan, who has only recently worried aloud about them.

Mr Bernanke will be more than just a safe pair of hands. He comes to the job with a series of big ideas about monetary policy and scant fear of stating them. At the Fed, he quickly earned a reputation as its resident intellectual, attracting attention with unconventional ideas on how to beat deflation, the benefits of inflation targeting and the idea of a global saving glut.

This willingness to question conventional wisdom is also Greenspanesque. The maestro, after all, heralded America’s 1990s productivity boom long before anyone else. The difference is that Mr Greenspan couched his big ideas in caveats and conspicuous vagueness, while Mr Bernanke speaks in plain English.

That has advantages. Everyone knows that Mr Bernanke, unlike Mr Greenspan, is a long-standing supporter of the idea that the Fed should set a public target for inflation against which it can be held accountable, as many central banks do. He has written a book and endless papers advocating the practice.

Mr Bernanke will doubtless nudge the Fed towards inflation-targeting. But the change is likely to be evolutionary rather than radical. The central bank has already moved in his direction. It has become more transparent, releasing minutes of Fed meetings speedily as well as publishing two-year economic forecasts. While there is no explicit inflation target, the Fed’s “comfort zone”—of core inflation between 1% and 2%—comes pretty close to one. Equally, Mr Bernanke has become less dogmatic, and he is unlikely to go on an inflation-targeting crusade.

His initial task will be to prove his inflation-fighting credentials and shake off a lingering reputation for dovishness. Soon after Mr Bernanke went to the Fed in 2002, America saw a brief deflationary scare as the economy remained sluggish while core inflation kept falling. More than any other central banker, he made clear that the Fed had “non-traditional” tools to forestall deflation, such as buying long-term bonds or, metaphorically, throwing money from helicopters. The idea of “Helicopter Ben” stuck with traders, and with it the notion that he might be just a little softer on inflation than his predecessor.

Another big Bernanke idea that is widely misinterpreted is his contention that America’s current-account deficit is caused by a global saving glut rather than by profligacy at home. His thesis was more subtle than the sound-bite suggests, but he is now seen by some as a bit nonchalant about the scale and cause of America’s external imbalances. If the dollar were to crash on his watch, that reputation would not help to calm markets.

Core inflation is running at .3%

---

THE CASE AGAINST THE WAR WAS BUILT ON LIES:

Galloway hit by US criminal investigation (EDDIE BARNES, 10/30/05, Scotland on Sunday)

GEORGE Galloway is under criminal investigation over allegations that he lied to the US Senate about his role in the Saddam Hussein oil-for-food bribery scandal, American prosecutors have disclosed.

The controversial MP now faces the full weight of the US justice system. Scotland on Sunday can reveal that Galloway has been referred to the US Department of Justice, two federal prosecutors and to the district attorney in Manhattan, New York, over claims that he has committed perjury.

How many jars of Pruno would you trade for a cellmate named Gorgeous?

---

ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE OF LIFE

Last Chance to See... Penguins? (Thinking for Food, October 19th, 2005)

Depressing news from the Antarctic... ocean temperatures are rising much faster than expected, with potentially devastating effects on the marine wildlife.[...]

This doesn't really surprise me.... the arctic and antarctic regions of this planet have been seeing some of the strongest effects of global warming, with average air temperatures rising and glaciers showing signficant melt. It only makes sense that the warming would affect the ocean water itself. Unfortunately, these effects are not going to limit themselves to just the polar extremes.... its tempting for some to think that we are just going to lose a few obscure animals in a place that no one ever visits, so who is going to care? However, the Antarctic and Arctic oceans are important food resources for birds and mammals (particularly whales) that migrate there to feed before returning to more temperate water. Extinctions at the extremes of the globe will have effects that reach far into our own familiar territory.

The worst part is that there isn't much we can do about it now... we've passed a point of no return in global warming. Not much to do now but enjoy the worlds largest experiment in organismal adaptability.

Good advice.

---

IT'S BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE STRENGTHS THAT WE'RE LIBERATING THE BELIEVERS (via Robert Schwartz):

Prince Charles to plead Islam's cause to Bush (Andrew Alderson, 29/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.

The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths. [...]

Prince Charles has done more than any other member of the Royal Family in history to understand Islam. He said in 1994 that when he became Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he would rather be "defender of faiths" than "defender of the faith".

Pity the poor Anglicans, with a crypto-Catholic PM and and a crypto-Muslim king-in-waiting.

---

CRANK UP THE VCR:

Kidnapped (Masterpiece Theatre,
Airing Sundays, October 30 + November 5, 2005 on PBS)

The boy at the center of this swashbuckling adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped, an epic tale of triumph over adversity, is fifteen-year-old Davie Balfour.

In an effort to claim his inheritance -- the House of Shaws, a great landed estate -- Davie finds himself trapped on a ship and headed for slavery in the New World. But thanks to the intervention of a swashbuckling highlander, Alan Breck, Davie eludes his captors and joins Breck on a wild flight through the Scottish highlands, pursued by notoriously ruthless English bounty hunters.

On a quest for justice, through perilous encounters with friend and foe, Davie gradually learns about the difference between right and wrong. But there are still difficult moral decisions to be made, right up until the story's final, enthralling chapter...

Iain Glen (Kingdom of Heaven, Wives & Daughters) stars as the legendary Scottish rebel Alan Breck, with James Anthony Pearson as Davie Balfour. Also appearing are Adrian Dunbar (The Crying Game) as Davie's loathsome Uncle Ebenezer and Kirstin Coulter Smith as Catriona, a crack-shot Highland lass who wins Davie's heart.

First published in 1886, Kidnapped -- a gripping adventure story full of drama, poignancy, heroism and danger -- surpasses even Treasure Island as a sophisticated literary work masquerading as a ripping yarn for young readers.

'Kidnapped' likable matinee fare (Matthew Gilbert, October 29, 2005, Boston Globe)

PBS's ''Masterpiece Theatre" usually delivers adaptations that don't involve a lot of chasing through forests and crossing of swords. If there's any heavy breathing in the franchise's hollow mansions, it's probably the result of villainous words or eye-poppingly tight corsets. The action sequences, such as they are, generally require only teacups, spoons, and silver tongs.

''Kidnapped," a two-parter premiering tomorrow at 9 p.m. on Ch. 2, is based on Robert Louis Stevenson's adventure yarn set in 1751, after England's occupation of Scotland. It's not your typical ''Masterpiece Theatre," but then neither was last week's spin on Sherlock Holmes starring Rupert Everett. It's the PBS version of a youth-market grab, a jaunty buddy movie whose heroic pair aren't quite models for teeth-whitening products. ''Kidnapped" has a lot of good energy and likable acting; but it might be more appropriate as a family matinee rather than as a Sunday-night feature. It has rainy Sunday afternoon written all over it.

Nice snear.

---

WHAT COLOR IS THE SKY IN HER WORLD? (via BlueStater3):

The White House Criminal Conspiracy (Elizabeth de la Vega, The Nation)

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52% of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50% said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him. The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

So what do citizens do? First, they must insist that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence complete Phase II of its investigation, which was to be an analysis of whether the administration manipulated or misrepresented prewar intelligence. The focus of Phase II was to determine whether the administration misrepresented the information it received about Iraq from intelligence agencies. Second, we need to convince Congress to demand that the Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the administration's deceptions about the war, using the same mechanism that led to the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame. (As it happens, Congressman Jerrold Nadler and others have recently written to Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. pointing out that the Plame leak is just the "tip of the iceberg" and asking that Fitzgerald's authority be expanded to include an investigation into whether the White House conspired to mislead the country into war.)

Third, we can no longer shrink from the prospect of impeachment. Impeachment would require, as John Bonifaz, constitutional attorney, author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush and co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, has explained, that the House pass a "resolution of inquiry or impeachment calling on the Judiciary Committee to launch an investigation into whether grounds exist for the House to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush." If the committee found such grounds, it would draft articles of impeachment and submit them to the full House for a vote. If those articles passed, the President would be tried by the Senate. Resolutions of inquiry, such as already have been introduced by Representatives Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich demanding that the Administration produce key information about its decision-making, could also lead to impeachment.

These three actions can be called for simultaneously. Obviously we face a GOP-dominated House and Senate...

She goes on to argue this nonsense with an apparently straight face.

One wonders if she's ever read the resolution that authorized the use of force and that Congress passed in October 2002, well before most of the events in the conspiracy that she alleges was designed to obtain the authorization:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [...]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

The supposed continued presence of WMD in Iraq was an element but only an element of our elected representatives' decision to authorize the resumption of the 1991 war, the cease fire terms of which Saddam was violating eight ways from Sunday, including the specific WMD provisions.

---

WHEN EVEN JOHN BOLTON GETS TO BE SUBTLE....

Iran’s zealot in chief does Bush a favour (Tony Allen-Mills, New York and Ramita Navai, Tehran, 10/30/05, The Sunday Times of London)

THE situation was tailor-made for an undiplomatic outburst by John Bolton, the blunt-spoken US ambassador to the United Nations. Iran’s new president had just called for the destruction of Israel and Bolton has rarely minced his words when assailing the enemies of America and its allies.

Yet the ambassador last week restricted himself to a brief declaration of comparatively modest dismay and conspicuously failed to support Israel’s call for Iran to be expelled from the UN.

Behind the scenes US officials could barely contain their glee. For once President George W Bush’s administration did not need to unleash its rhetorical artillery against the ayatollahs of Iran — the rest of the world, led by Tony Blair, was doing it for them.

...you've just had a pretty good week.

---

BECAUSE AFTER SPENDING THAT MUCH ON A HUNTING TRIP THERE BETTER BE A HIDE ON THE WALL:

Prosecutor, White House at Odds Over Libby: White House Portrays Libby, Accused of Lying in Leak Probe, As Dedicated Worker With Bad Memory (LARRY MARGASAK, 10/29/05, The Associated Press)

Fitzgerald's probe initially sought to determine whether anyone in the administration violated the law by knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert CIA employee.

"You didn't have that, so why did you charge him?" Schertler suggested Libby's defense would assert.

Fitzgerald spent 22 months on the investigation at a cost of more than $1 million. In the end, Libby was charged with five felonies alleging obstruction of justice, perjury to a grand jury and making false statements to FBI agents. If convicted, he could face a maximum of 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines. [...]

The indictment alleges Libby had information from at least seven government officials, including the vice president, about Plame and her CIA status. Libby said he heard it first from reporters. The indictment said Libby spread the information to the media.

Fitzgerald summed up the charges:

"At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterward, under oath and repeatedly."

Mr. Fitzgerald is well within his rights to prosecute a guy who lied so frequently during the investigation, but from the defensive tone of that press conference yesterday you have to figure that in a case of lesser profile he'd not have charged anyone and the charges here seem calculated to get a quick and minimal plea so the whole matter just goes away along with Mr. Libby.

MORE:
It May Be Wrong, but Is It Perjury?: For Prosecutors, That Is Often the Challenge (ADAM LIPTAK, 10/30/05, NY Times)

[T]he special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has amassed a wealth of details about what Mr. Libby knew and when he knew it. Mr. Fitzgerald described those details in the indictment at a news conference on Friday, and he clearly believes they are sufficient to overcome the busy-executive defense.

"The way perjury is usually proven - unless you have a tape on which the defendant says, 'Ha, ha, ha, I lied' - is by circumstance," Mr. Hoffinger said. The details Mr. Fitzgerald has alleged, Mr. Hoffinger said, "are the circumstances from which you can infer that Libby was lying and knew that he was lying."

According to the indictment, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson, whose employment at the Central Intelligence Agency was classified information, from several government officials and classified documents in May and June 2003. He also discussed her identity with other officials in that same period, the indictment says. Yet he told a grand jury investigating the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity that he learned about her from Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.

Mr. Fitzgerald's mandate, according to the letter appointing him special counsel in the case in December 2003, was to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a C.I.A employee's identity." But the indictment does not charge that Mr. Libby violated any law concerning classified information in discussing Ms. Wilson with three reporters in June and July 2003.

Fall Of A Vulcan:
How a very smart and very loyal aide to Dick Cheney got indicted for allegedly lying about his role in defending the war (MICHAEL DUFFY, 10/30/05, TIME)

For anyone who has been trying to follow the bewildering saga of Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Joseph Wilson and his wife CIA officer Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald's indictment is a helpful road map. [...]

Fitzgerald's theory of the case can be broken into three parts: The hunt for the whistle-blower The story begins with a mystery man who was dissing the Bush team from somewhere within the government. In May 2003, shortly after New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof first wrote about a secret CIA mission to Africa by an unnamed U.S. ambassador to assess suggestions by Cheney's office that Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger, Libby asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman to go digging for more information on the mission. It was not an idle inquiry: the 2002 trip, taken by a former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson, had turned up no evidence that Iraq sought the uranium ore for its nuclear weapons program, as Cheney's office had suggested. And although Wilson reported his findings to the CIA, the claim about the African yellowcake kept popping up in Administration speeches in the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq. At Libby's behest, Grossman ordered the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (inr) to look into the CIA mission to Africa.

Over the next few weeks, Libby got progress reports from the inr, and Grossman eventually informed Libby that it was Wilson who took the trip, that his wife worked at the CIA and that she may have played a role in sending Wilson on the trip. Fitzgerald's indictment alleges that Libby heard similar reports about Wilson and his wife from a senior CIA official and, on June 12, from Cheney, who by then knew that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division.

To hard-liners like Libby, who believed that the CIA opposed the war in Iraq and had been quietly undercutting the President for months, it appeared that the CIA was turning on Cheney too. "Scooter thought the CIA was trying to screw us," says a former colleague of Libby's.

And almost on cue, the hard-liners' dark fears were realized: within a week, a June 19 online article by the New Republic quoted an unnamed U.S. envoy, who was clearly Wilson, alleging that the Administration knew the yellowcake story "was a flat-out lie" but had used it in the prewar claims anyway. Not long after, Fitzgerald alleges, Libby spoke with his deputy about the article, and the two aides discussed whether information about Wilson's trip might be shared with the press. Libby demurred, saying such a move would cause "complications at the CIA," but added that he "could not discuss the matter on a nonsecure phone."

Just a few days later, on June 23, Libby met at the Old Executive Office Building with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who wrote a series of highly controversial, and now largely discredited, stories about Iraq's prewar arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

It was in that session that Libby groused about "selective leaking" at the CIA and first disclosed that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

Two weeks later, on July 6, Wilson went public, writing an Op-Ed column in the New York Times, retelling the story of his fruitless trip to Niger and hinting that the Bush team didn't really want to know if the prewar intelligence was accurate or not. It was a serious charge and, to the Bush team, an open declaration of war. The next day, Libby told then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and added that that was a fact not widely known—dropping, perhaps, an invitation to Fleischer to leak it to a friendly reporter. The next day, Libby met again with Judith Miller, and they talked again of Wilson and his wife. Libby strengthened his earlier hunch about Plame's employment at the CIA, and this time, the two discussed how their conversations would be attributed in print. Libby, who once worked for the Congress, wanted to be identified as a "former Hill staffer" to mask the source of the information. (Miller, as things turned out, wrote nothing about Wilson or Plame.) Two days later, Libby heard from Rove (identified in the indictment only as "Official A") that syndicated columnist Robert Novak was planning to write about Wilson and his wife.

---

THANKS, KOFI:

UN turns screw on Syria over assassination riddle (Marie Colvin and Hugh Macleod, 10/30/05, The Sunday Times of London)

The story's well worth reading, but you really want to pause for a moment and marvel at that headline.

---

GOOD ENOUGH FOR IDS, GOOD ENOUGH FOR US:

Right-wingers back Cameron for leader (Melissa Kite, 29/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

A powerful group of Right-wingers is set to throw its weight behind David Cameron in the Tory leadership campaign.

Members of the Cornerstone Group, including allies of the former party leader Iain Duncan Smith will announce in the coming days that they believe Mr Cameron is the best choice to take the party forward.

The 25-strong group previously backed Liam Fox, who was knocked out of the race on October 20, and the decision of many to switch allegiance to Mr Cameron is a surprise because he has so far drawn most of his support from the party's Centre, Left and modernising wings. [...]

Mr Cameron has been courting Right-wing MPs for weeks. John Hayes, the MP for South Holland and the Deepings and a leading member of Cornerstone, said: "After the departure of Liam Fox from the race we needed a period of reflection. We will be making an announcement within the next week or so."

Another member of the group explained: "Cameron has made a big impression on key figures on the Right. He is much more socially Conservative than people think.

"You should not assume Cameron is instinctively close to people like Portillo. The modernisers think they are telling him what to do, but they are overplaying their hand.

"We think he will carry forward the agenda of compassionate Conservatism articulated by IDS."

A Tory Party that returned to the Third Way could help Blair and Brown get some big time reforms through.

---

WHY WOULD YOU FLAUNT WEAKNESS?:

Syria accuses US of launching lethal raids over its borders (Harry de Quetteville, 29/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Syria has accused the United States of launching lethal military raids into its territory from Iraq, escalating the diplomatic crisis between the two countries as the Bush administration seeks to step up pressure on President Bashar Assad's regime.

Major General Amid Suleiman, a Syrian officer, said that American cross-border attacks into Syria had killed at least two border guards, wounded several more and prompted an official complaint to the American embassy in Damascus. [...]

The charge follows leaks in Washington that the US has already engaged in military raids into Syria and is contemplating launching special forces operations on Syrian soil to eliminate insurgent networks before they reach Iraq.

"No one in the administration has any problem with acting tough on Syria; it is the one thing they all agree on," said Edward Walker, a former US ambassador to Egypt and Israel, who is now head of the Middle East Institute think-tank. "I've heard there have been some cross-border activities, and it certainly makes sense as a warning to Syria that if they don't take care of the problem the US will step up itself."

But he warned that the increased blurring of battle lines between Iraq and Syria could turn a diplomatic stand-off between the two nations, playing out at the UN, into a fully fledged military confrontation. "It could escalate. With Syrian border guards getting shot, it could turn into a major issue."

Ya' think?

---

INTEGRATED AXIS:

U.S. to shift 7,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam (Japan Times, 10/30/05)

Japan and the United States adopted on Saturday a realignment plan for U.S. forces aimed at promoting greater military integration between the two nations and lessening the burden on communities hosting U.S. bases, including a reduction of 7,000 marines in Okinawa.

Among the major pillars of an interim report issued after a ministerial security meeting are plans to strengthen interoperability between the U.S. military and the Self-Defense Forces through a new U.S. Army command in Camp Zama, Kanagawa Prefecture, joint use of bases, sharing information and expanding SDF training exercises in the U.S. [...]

Saturday's "two-plus-two" meeting involved Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura and Defense Agency Director General Yoshinori Ono, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

---

THIRD, BUT NOT LEAST:

'God' to guide deal on fair pay (Phillip Hudson, October 30, 2005, The Age)

The head of the proposed new Fair Pay Commission, Ian Harper, revealed yesterday that he wants to use the post to do "God's will" and will rely on his faith and values to make fair and balanced decisions for low-paid workers.

"I'll be praying for wisdom … praying for courage and praying above all that God's will is being done through this, not mine," the committed Anglican said.

"I'm a Christian. I believe in God and I believe that God's will is important to be done in the world. It means I hold very dear to the values of fairness, justice, honesty, integrity in the process that I'll use to be making a decision with my fellow commissioners." [...]

Professor Harper is one of Australia's top economists, a financial markets expert and director of the Melbourne Business School. He also served as a lay preacher in the Anglican Church and is aligned to the conservative wing of the church.

His decision to speak about his faith comes after he was criticised by some religious and economic leaders for accepting the job. [...]

Values were important in economic policy, he said.

"How can somebody hope to arbitrate on questions as sensitive as the minimum wage without having any framework at all for determining what is morally right?" he said. "I will be seeking to bring my Christian values to the decisions that the commission will have to make."

Professor Harper said he found it "rather strange" that people had highlighted his Anglican faith in discussing his appointment to the government job. Delivering a speech about values and economic policy, he said Christians should champion a strong economy.

"I don't see anything especially just or merciful about low levels of economic growth … about high inflation which destroys the wealth accumulation of honest, hard-working people," he said.

It gets harder and harder to tell which state of the Anglosphere they're talking about.

---

& THE OTHER GETS THE STEVENS SEAT?:

Bush narrows Supreme Court selection to 2, sources say (JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, 10/29/05, Chicago Tribune)

With an announcement expected Sunday or Monday, administration officials have narrowed the focus to Judges Samuel Alito of New Jersey and Michael Luttig of Virginia, sources involved in the process said. Both have sterling legal qualifications and solid conservative credentials, and both would set off an explosive fight with Senate Democrats, who are demanding a more moderate nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Sources close to the process cautioned that Bush still could pick someone else, noting that he had wanted to name a woman to replace O'Connor. He had considered Priscilla Owen of Texas, another federal appeals court judge, before tapping Miers, and she remains a distant possibility, administration sources said.

But sources in the administration and others involved in the process - outside the handful in Bush's tight inner circle who were weighing the selection this weekend at Camp David - said a nominee other than Alito or Luttig would come as a surprise.

"Those are the only two names anyone is aware of," said a source who has been closely involved in the selection process and who asked not to be identified. [...]

By nominating Alito or Luttig, Bush would electrify his supporters who have been in open revolt over the Miers nomination.

"They are widely respected among the bench and bar nationally for being careful jurists, faithful to the Constitution and proponents of judicial restraint," said Wendy Long, chief counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative legal group that did not embrace Miers. "They have so much in common substantively that their differences are more stylistic."

Alito, 55, has been on the Philadelphia-based federal appeals court for 15 years; Luttig, 51, has served on the Richmond-based appeals court for 14 years. Both men worked as lawyers in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Alito was the U.S. attorney in New Jersey before his appeals court nomination; Luttig had worked in a prominent law firm before joining the government.

"In some ways, they're a lot alike. They are both brilliant, and they don't go out of their way to show you that," said John Nagle, a professor and associate dean at Notre Dame Law School who knows both men. "They are really personable guys to be around, but in different ways."

Alito, the son of two public school teachers who grew up in Trenton, N.J., is more reserved and soft-spoken. He often is called "Scalito" because his intellect and Italian heritage draw comparisons to Justice Antonin Scalia. But his personality and self-effacing manner are completely different from those of the boisterous and, at times, bombastic Scalia.

Luttig, who grew up in Tyler, Texas, where his father was a petroleum engineer, is more outgoing, and he still possesses a prominent Texas accent. In some ways, he is more like Scalia, for whom he clerked when Scalia was on the federal appeals court. Like Scalia, his writing style is crisp and clear, and he is willing to confront colleagues head-on when he believes they don't adhere to established law. As a result, he sometimes reaches decisions that cannot be considered conservative.

"As judges, Mike has been more aggressive in his opinion writing and not shied away from expressing things," Nagle said. "Mike has a reputation for being more provocative, but my sense is it's always been a passion for getting the law right."

Justice Alito? Some Say He's a New High Court Favorite (Shannon P. Duffy, 10-31-2005, The Legal Intelligencer)

The short list of potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court suddenly appeared much shorter Friday as 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. quickly emerged as perhaps the most likely second choice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

In the wake of Harriet Miers' withdrawal of her nomination, the New York Times reported Friday that Alito was one of three "finalists" three weeks ago when Miers was chosen. The other, according to the Times, was 4th Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig. Hours later, on the popular law blog, SCOTUSblog.com, attorney Tom Goldstein was predicting that Alito would be picked -- and soon.

If he doesn't pick Luttig he's FDR without the limp.

MORE:
Luttig, Alito contenders as Bush mulls court pick (Caren Bohan, October 29, 2005, Reuters)

Luttig, 51, a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, worked as a clerk for Scalia when Scalia was an appeals court judge.

He helped in the effort to get Thomas and Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- both nominated to the high court by Bush's father -- confirmed by the Senate. Luttig also has worked in the Justice Department and private practice.

Oops, Luttig gave us Souter? If the President doesn't pick Alito he's Karl Marx without the beard.

---

BUTTER UP:

George W. Bush's Not So Terrible Week: The Bush administration's second-term bear market has bottomed out (William Kristol, 11/07/2005, Weekly Standard)

LAST WEEK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S second-term bear market bottomed out. On Monday, Bush nominated as the next Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, who of all the leading candidates will be the central banker least hostile to tax cuts and least likely to direct monetary policy to any end other than combating inflation. At the end of the week, the Commerce Department announced that economic growth in the third quarter had been 3.8 percent, suggesting that, thanks in large part to Bush's supply-side tax cuts, our economy may remain strong enough to overcome the twin hurdles of high energy prices and rising interest rates.

Meanwhile, the political process in Iraq continued in a relatively promising direction, as some Sunni groups seemed increasingly reconciled to pursuing their goals through politics rather than betting on the success of the insurgency. On the military front, the joint U.S.-Iraqi effort to fight an effective counterinsurgency seemed to be making some progress. And the prospects for less troublemaking by Syria seemed to improve as well, with the Assad regime thrown back on its heels by a U.N. report implicating it in the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister.

On Thursday, Harriet Miers withdrew her candidacy for the Supreme Court, producing a massive sigh of relief from Bush supporters and conservatives throughout the nation. Now the president has the chance to pick a strong nominee and to rally his supporters for a winning fight on his or her behalf.

And then, of course, on Friday, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year investigation came to an underwhelming conclusion with the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby--not for any underlying crime but for impeding the investigation through perjury and false statements.

Bill Kristol, like his father before him, is the only neocon who's as smart as they all think they are. He knows he needs to claw his way back into W's good graces.

---

HUMBUG PEAKING:

Thermodynamics and Money (Peter Huber, 10.31.05, Forbes)

In his day M. King Hubbert was a great geologist who spent his life studying the planet's deposits of oil and gas. But as he got older, he simply lost it. His "peak oil" theory--which many people are citing these days--is a case study in junk economics.

Hubbert was born in 1903. By 1949 he had concluded that the fossil-fuel era was going to end, and quite soon. Global production would peak around 2000, he predicted, and would decline inexorably thereafter. By 1980 the aging Hubbert was certain that the impending crisis "was unique to both human and geologic history.… You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered." Indeed we would soon be forced to abandon our entire "monetary culture," replacing it with an accounting tied to "matter-energy" constraints. An editor of Geophysics magazine summarized Hubbert's views in 1983: "The science of matter-energy and the historic system of finance are incompatible."

Today this same nonsense is often dressed up with numbers in an analysis that's dubbed "energy return on energy invested" (Eroei). According to this theory it can never make sense to burn two units of energy in order to extract one unit of energy. The Eroei crowd concedes, for example, that the world has centuries' worth of junk oil in shale and tar sands--but they can also prove it's irrelevant. It takes more energy to cook this kind of oil out of the dirt, they argue, than you end up with in the recovered oil. And a negative Eroei can only mean energy bankruptcy. The more such energy investments we make, the faster things will grind to a halt.

Eroei calculations now litter the energy policy debate. Time and again they're wheeled out to explain why one form of energy just can't win--tar sands, shale, corn, wood, wind, you name it. Even quite serious journals--Science, for example--have published pieces along these lines. Energy-based books of account have just got to show a profit. In the real world, however, investors don't care a fig whether they earn positive Eroei. What they care about is dollar return on dollar invested. And the two aren't the same--nowhere close--because different forms of energy command wildly different prices. Invest ten units of 10-cent energy to capture one unit of $10 energy and you lose energy but gain dollars, and Wall Street will fund you from here to Alberta.

Who knew there were even still folks who believe in thermodynamics?

---

THE RECOGNITIONS:

Pakistan team to visit 'Israel' (AFP, 10/29/05)

A 200-member delegation of Pakistani officials and businessmen is to visit Israel in early November, in a bid to bring closer the two countries which have no diplomatic relations, Israeli military radio said.Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom are to receive the Pakistani delegation of retired generals, religious leaders, politicians and business people, radio said, though there was no official confirmation.Relations between the second most populous Muslim country and the Jewish state were hostile for decades, but began to warm up after Israel offered aid to Pakistan following this month's devastating earthquake.

Pakistan accepted Israel's offer, in a sign that the sole Muslim nuclear power was cautiously warming to better ties with Israel.

Such is the world Natan Sharansky and Ariel Sharon have made.

---

PRESUMABLY, "PRIVILEGE IS GOOD AND Y'ALL ARE HERE ON SUFFERANCE," WOULD NOT BE AN ACCEPTABLE ANSWER? (via Ed Driscoll):

WSU Education Department studying 'litmus test' (E. Kirsten Peters, October 20, 2005, Associated Press)

Washington State University is reviewing its policies on evaluating the character of students in the teacher training program after a student alleged the College of Education was biased against conservatives.

Provost Robert Bates said Tuesday the matter is under review within the college, which is under fire for evaluating students in a way that makes personal political beliefs grounds for failure.

At issue is an evaluation form that asks if a student exhibits an understanding of the complexities of race, power, gender, class, sexual orientation and privilege in American society.

Even if I'd taken all my courses in the Orrin Judd Classroom at Colgate I'd never have passed one given this standard.

---

SHOCK AND AWE:

Now even the Palestinians condemn Iran leader's rant against Israel (JAMES KIRKUP AND MIKE THEODOULOU, 10/29/05, The Scotsman)

Yesterday, the Palestinian Authority, fearful of jeopardising Western support, disavowed Iran's position. "Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," said Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian peace negotiator.

And even China, which ordinarily stays out of international disputes, expressed its "unease" about Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks.

Russia, which has backed Iran's nuclear programme, has also been critical. In Moscow the Iranian Embassy tried to soften the impact of Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks, saying he "did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict".

Potentially even more significantly, there are indications from within Iran that the president may have over-reached himself.

Ultimate power in Iran rests with Mohammed Khamenei, the unelected supreme leader and heir to Ayatollah Khomeni. Mr Khamenei already has placed curbs on his president's power after Mr Ahmadinejad - a former major of Tehran with no previous diplomatic experience - was seen to have mishandled the nuclear issue and strengthened US calls for UN action.

Such is the world that George Bush and Tony Blair have made.

---

OUR SENSE OF SUPERIORITY IS BETTER THAN YOUR SENSE OF SUPERIORITY

We like us, they like us (Randy Boswell, Ottawa Citizen, October 28th, 2005)

A new global index measuring how the "national brand" of various countries is seen at home and abroad puts Canada high in others' estimation, and at the very top of the world in our own minds.

According to a survey of 10,000 consumers from around the world, conducted for the latest Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index, a joint U.S.-British market research initiative, Canada's system of governance is the envy of most nations.

And in a blush-making result on the question of pure likability of each country's citizens, Canadians and Australians are the run-away favourites for the international congeniality award. They absolutely love Canadians in Germany, Poland and France -- even more than they love themselves.[...]

The survey also assessed, for the first time, the self-image of each nation. The U.S. and Canada were found to be the undisputed world "champions of self-esteem."

Americans were the only respondents to put their own country first in every category -- in "stark contrast," the authors note, to opinions expressed about the U.S. brand in many other countries.

"Canadians were only slightly less modest," said Mr. Anholt.

Wanna step outside?

---

NO, WAIT, KOFI'S THE LAPDOG:

UN raps Iran's anti-Israel rant (BBC, 10/29/05)

The UN Security Council has issued a statement condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

It follows similar criticism by several countries and a rare rebuke from United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The reality-based community has to be pretty disturbed that the net effect of the US and Britain going to war without the UN is that now Kofi Annan has them out in front of us on regime change in Syria and smacking down Iran.

---

BRING US THE HEAD OF CARLOS BELTRAN:

Ramirez again asks Sox for trade (Chris Snow, October 29, 2005, Boston Globe)

Gene Mato, one of Manny Ramirez's representatives, communicated to Red Sox owner John W. Henry yesterday that Ramirez wants to be traded, and will not report to spring training if his wish to be dealt is not met, according to a team source.

The Mets can afford him and they lust after him.

---

WHAT? NO FROG-MARCH?:

The Case Against Scooter Libby (NY Times, October 29, 2005)

The five-count indictment handed up yesterday against Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, may seem anticlimactic...

The Grey Lady doesn't like chicken salad.

---

LET’S ALL GO TO THE ZOO ZOO ZOO

You can be a beast, but I'm human (Raymond Tallis, The Times, October 29th, 2005)

There are three main secular currents of anti-humanism that need skewering: biological reductionism; the marginalisation of consciousness; and postmodernist fantasies based upon the fallacies of “informationism”. Let’s start with biological reductionism, the belief that we are essentially animals — our apparently profound differences from other beasts are based on flattering self-deception. The increasing acceptance of these ideas stems from overestimation of what On The Origin of Species tells us about human nature. Scientific Darwinism has been transformed into an unscientific Darwinitis, according to which we are born hard-wired into the biosphere, and pretty well everything about us can be explained in terms of the survival of the genome — the reproduction of the means of reproduction. But we are quite different from other species, if only because, as the philosopher Schelling pointed out, it is in us that, “Nature opens its eyes . . . and notices that it exists.” We are the only species that quarrels over its own nature and has written about the origin of species.

The plausibility of biologism has been enhanced by a grotesque exaggeration of the extent to which we understand our nervous systems and the relationship between the nervous system and ordinary human consciousness. For the record, satisfactory neural explanations of human consciousness elude us. My research for the past 20 or more years has been in neuroscience, and it seems to me that, in terms of the metaphysical understanding of the relationship between neurology and selfhood, we are no farther on from Hippocrates, who noticed that when people banged their heads they behaved a bit oddly and that decapitation was associated with a fall in IQ (in most cases, anyway). We know that a normally functioning brain is a necessary condition of consciousness but it is not a sufficient condition, and we have no idea what fills the gap between the necessary and sufficient.

Once we set aside a misreading of Darwin and the glamour of hyped-up neuroscience, biological reductionism loses its credibility and we can see what is in front of our eyes: that we who lead our lives are not at all like beasts who merely live them.

Ironically, the dominant strands of anti-humanism have been fostered within the humanities departments of universities. Many ideas have been embraced because they seem scientific. That they come with a complex jargon, are often opaque and frequently counter-intuitive, is very gratifying for academics. Over the past 40 or more years, souped-up Freudianism and souped-up Marxism, structuralism and post-structuralism — to mention some of the longer-lasting trends — have had a huge influence on what is taught, published and avowed in academic arguments.

One feature that these ideas have in common is a marginalisation of the conscious human agent, and a corresponding claim that we are in the grip of forces that, unless we go to university, will be hidden from us. The psychological unconscious of Freud (and Lacan), the historical unconscious of Marx (and Althusser) and the semiotic unconscious of everyone else on the curriculum are upheld by assertion rather than fact. Generations of students have been persuaded by the confidence of their teachers that they are tossed around by intra-psychic forces arising out of the failure of their animal instincts to come to terms with the demands of civilisation. Or that the ideas that ruled in them were the ideas of the ruling class, and those ideas were in turn determined by the material conditions created by evolving technologies and the imperative to reproduce the means of production. Or that the self was merely a set of nodes in a system of linguistic and non-linguistic signs, so that far from speaking language, language spoke in them. They were soluble fish in a sea of discourse, whose dominant forms — and what passed for objective truth — were determined by power.

Two minutes’ intelligent discussion — not available in many humanities departments for several decades — would have been sufficient to dispose of these assertions. In the end, they have started to die of boredom and in-fighting. Their stupefying influence, however, has not yet gone away.

The disconnect between the theories of Darwin, Freud and Marx and the reality of what we experience in our everyday lives is a source of much modern humour, misguided politics and even emotional illness. Darwinism, which seems so sensible and compelling when describing animals (the smaller and dumber the better) bounces back and forth between the ridiculous and the banal when trying to explain humans. We are all Freudians now in the ready confidence with which we attribute the behaviour of others entirely to objective psychological forces we reject out of hand as adequate explanations for our own behaviour. Similarly with Marxism and its derivatives, we are led almost automatically to rote socio-economic explanations for people from faraway lands who fly airplanes into skyscrapers without pausing to ponder why we don’t view such as an appropriate response to our own financial and social stresses.

What makes these three theories such tenacious adversaries is that they are not “wrong” in any objective sense–they all offer nuggets of insight into the human condition. Their destructiveness lies in their pretensions to comprehensiveness and their relentless, dogmatic exclusion of subjective experience and human consciousness. Reality is in the lab, not the street, and we are all mice in one huge maze. It is this tenaciously-held faith that supports the livelihoods of millions and leads modern academia to be so extreme and strident in its rejection of religious influence or even inquiry. Ones hope Professor Tallis is right that the battle against human consciousness and free will is being lost, but the war is far from over.

---

THEY CAN HAVE THE NEOCON:

Mr. Fitzgerald would seem to pretty much lay to rest the notion that Ms Plame was covert in this section of his press conference:

QUESTION: You said earlier in your statement here that Mr. Libby was the first person to leak this information outside of the government. Now, first of all, that implies that there might have been other people inside the government who made such leaks.

Secondly, in paragraph 21, the one about "Official A," you imply that Novak might have heard this information about the woman, Mrs. Wilson, from another source. But you don't actually say that.

What can you tell us about the existence that you know of or don't know of or whatever of other leakers? Are there definitely other leakers? Is "Official A" a leaker or just a facilitator? Are you continuing to investigate other possible leakers?

FITZGERALD: I'm afraid I'm going to have to find a polite way of repeating my answer to Mr. Isikoff's question, which is to simply say I can't go beyond the four corners of the indictment. And I'll probably just say -- I'll repeat it so I don't misstep and give you anything more than I should.

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.

Were the outing itself a crime then Official A who likewise outed her according Fitzgerald's own facts would have been indicted.

Meanwhile, he here reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticism being aimed at him:

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, the Republicans previewed some talking points in anticipation of your indictment and they said that if you didn't indict on the underlying crimes and you indicted on things exactly like you did indict -- false statements, perjury, obstruction -- these were, quote/unquote, "technicalities," and that it really was over reaching and excessive.

And since, when and if they make those claims, now that you have indicted, you won't respond, I want to give you an opportunity now to respond to that allegation which they may make. It seems like that's the road they're going down.

FITZGERALD: [...] That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.

FITZGERALD: And I'd say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.

When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.

In Philadelphia, where Jack works, they prosecute false statements and obstruction of justice.

When I got to Chicago, I knew the people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases.

FITZGERALD: And we do it all the time. And if a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something where they go into a grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time.

Any notion that anyone might have that there's a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.

Note that even he apparently thinks there ought to be an underlying crime before the truck driver is indicted for lying about it.

Mr. Libby appears to have just gotten himself in trouble by lying about a set of facts that hadn't opened him to any legal liability in the first place, though he may not have known that at the time he was leaking, Libby defence: I don't recall (News24, 29/10/2005)

The case against Libby: He testified that he learned from NBC correspondent Tim Russert the identity of a covert CIA officer who is the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert says they never discussed it.

The facts, prosecutor Fitzgerald said, are that the month before the conversation with Russert, Libby learned about the CIA status of Valerie Plame from Cheney, from a senior CIA officer and from an undersecretary of state.

But Libby told the FBI and the grand jury that he informed reporters Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times information about Wilson's wife that he had got from other reporters - information that Libby said he did not know to be true. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Wilson had a wife.

But Fitzgerald said that rather than being at the end of a chain of phone calls from reporters, Libby "was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards."

The indictment points to interesting behaviour by Libby that changed once Wilson went public with his criticism of the current Bush administration. The former ambassador accused the administration of twisting pre-war intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Early on, the indictment said, Libby became concerned about an article in The New Republic magazine that referred to Wilson, though not by name, as having gone to Africa for the CIA to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The unnamed ambassador was quoted as saying the "Niger story was a flat-out lie."

The indictment said Libby told his deputy there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing information about the trip and that Libby could not discuss the matter on a nonsecure telephone line."

After Wilson criticised the Bush administration on NBC's Meet the Press, Libby had lunch with then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and advised him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known, the indictment said.

It said Libby proceeded to spread it more aggressively than he had previously.

No matter how you slice it, his behavior once the investigation started was spectacularly stupid and regardless of whether he's ever convicted of a crime or pleads guilty to one, it's hard to feel sorry for a guy who looks to have been lying so systematically to law enforcement.

---

THEY WANT ANOTHER SCALIA & YOU'VE GOT ONE:

Bush pulls plug on Miers (Jan Crawford Greenburg, October 28, 2005, Chicago Tribune)

A senior administration official said that after concluding Wednesday that Miers must withdraw, the White House focused on judges who were in the running to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor before President Bush chose Miers, his longtime adviser and current White House counsel.

The group includes Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen and Karen Williams, the official said. All four judges had been interviewed by Bush or top administration officials and indicated they would accept the nomination if asked.

Appellate Judges Cited as Focus of New Search: Supreme Court Candidates on Short List Were Vetted This Summer, Sources Say (Jo Becker and Amy Goldstein, October 29, 2005, Washington Post)

The administration has backed away from any insistence that the nominee be a woman or a minority. Rather, it is focused on potential nominees who have previously won Senate confirmation, whose intellectual qualifications would be unquestioned and who have paper trails that make clear their conservative credentials, said one source who is close to the nomination process.

Those candidates, according to the sources, include several federal appellate judges, among them: Samuel A. Alito Jr., J. Michael Luttig, Michael W. McConnell, Emilio M. Garza, Priscilla R. Owen and Edith H. Jones. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the discussions.

---

THERE ARE TEN BIASES (via David Hill, The Bronx):

These Courses Are Condemned:
"Christian Morality in American Literature" is biased. "Feminine Perspectives in Literature" is not. (NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY, October 28, 2005, Opinion Journal)

Most California high-school students who apply to the university submit their grades as a part of their application. But the university must deem their high-school classwork to be sufficiently demanding for the grades to mean anything. And lately the university's officials have looked upon the classes in California's Christian schools with suspicion--even as they wave through lighter-than-air classes from public schools. [...]

A year ago, Calvary Chapel sent a description of some of its new courses to UC for review and inquired about a couple of others. Sue Wilbur, the university's director of undergraduate admissions, rejected three of them as insufficiently rigorous.

Calvary officials sat down with Ms. Wilbur and her colleagues to contest the decision--joined by representatives of the Association for Christian Schools International--but the university wouldn't budge. So Calvary took a bold step. Together with the association, it filed a discrimination suit in district court. The university is filing a motion to dismiss the case today. Whatever the outcome, the complaint makes for fascinating reading.

A proposed English class, "Christian Morality in American Literature," included readings from Mark Twain, Stephen Crane and Nathaniel Hawthorne, but it was judged unworthy because, according to the university, it "does not offer a non-biased approach to the subject matter." So what does a nonbiased class look like? The university has deemed acceptable such public-school courses as "Feminine Perspectives in Literature" and "Ethnic Experiences in Literature."

A history course, "Christianity's Influence on America," was rejected by the university because its focus was "too narrow" and because it was "not consistent with the empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community." But even people who don't like Christianity's effect on U.S. history don't find that it has been "narrow." And the curriculum of the course seems broad enough--covering the role of Christianity in the Founding, abolition, the civil-rights movement and the fall of communism. The course seems downright all-encompassing when compared with approved classes at other schools, like "Modern Irish History" and "Armenian History."

It's in no small part because Academia disapproves of the moral bias that Americans distrust intellectuals.

---

GROWTH STRAINS (via Mike Daley):

Christian Republicans (Patrick Hynes, 10/28/2005, American Spectator)

[T]he Republican Party isn't identified with one particular sectarian position. It's just that the Republican Party is a conservative party and the conservative strains of most Christian sects (which also happen to be the growing strains) have abandoned minor sectarian differences and coalesced around shared positions on key cultural issues. The GOP benefited from a majority of Catholic and Protestant votes in 2004, for example.

Danforth believes its relationship with the Religious Right will be bad for the Republican Party in the long run. It's hard to imagine how that can be. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a Republican Party at all without the Religious Right.

Almost 28 million Evangelical Christians voted in 2004. These folks split their votes in favor of President George W. Bush over Sen. John Kerry by a margin of 78% to 22%. That amounts to over 21 million voters. Throw in 6.9 million observant Catholics and nearly 1 million conservative and orthodox Jews and we end up with over 29 million religiously motivated voters that support the Republican Party.

Compare that number to MoveOn.org's 2.5 million Democrats. Or Big Labor's 16.7 million. Or the 11.8 million blacks who routinely vote straight Democrat.

Let's look at it another way. If the United States had a European-style parliamentary government, the Religious Right would be the "natural party of government," perennially winning a plurality of seats and serving as a mainstay in successive coalition governments. The Religious Right is the largest single voting block in American politics and whether John Danforth likes it or not, it is a predominantly Republican voting block. Consider: Being born-again is a greater predictor of a Republican vote than owning a gun, being white, being a man, or being a millionaire.

Orthodox Jews likewise vote disproportionately Republican. You can't take the moral teachings of any monotheism seriously and then vote Democrat.

---

MY PARTY WENT TO WAR OVER VALERIE PLAME AND ALL I GOT WAS A SCOOTER:

Sam Smith over at Progressive Review is a man of reliably silly Leftwing politics but never less than honest. His take on the way the Yellowcake matter petered out is the best you'll find on that side of the aisle, PLAME AFFAIR FLAMES (Sam Smith, 10/2805, Progressive Review):

[A barely visible White House official is indicted for lying and obstruction in a case involving the exposure of a barely invisible CIA official. Not quite the 22 indictments predicted by one TV analyst nor the political boon predicted by Democrats. Do we now get a grand jury investigation into who leaked all the leaks about the leak?]

DAVID STOUT, NY TIMES - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick
Cheney's chief of staff and one of the most powerful figures in the
Bush administration, was formally accused today of lying and
obstruction of justice during an inquiry into the unmasking of a
covert C.I.A. officer. A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Libby on one
count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and two of making false
statements in the course of an investigation that raised questions
about the administration's rationale for going to war against Iraq,
how it treats critics and political opponents and whether high White
House officials shaded the truth. The charges are felonies.
Obstruction of justice carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in
prison, while perjury and making false statements 5 years. Each of the
five counts can also be punished with a $250,000 fine. Perjury is
lying under oath, to a jury or other investigative body, while making
false statements consists of lying to investigators while not under oath.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28cnd-leak.html

[Worse, that false statements business rings a bell . . . . Oh yes, here it is]

CNN OCT 18 2000 - Independent Counsel Robert Ray's final report on the
White House travel office case found first lady Hillary Rodham
Clinton's testimony in the matter was "factually false," but concluded
there were no grounds to prosecute her. The special prosecutor
determined the first lady did play a role in the 1993 dismissal of the
travel office's staff, contrary to her testimony in the matter. But
Ray said he would not prosecute Clinton for those false statements
because "the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt" that she knew her statements were false or understood that they
may have prompted the firings. . . The final report concludes that
"despite that falsity, no prosecution of Mrs. Clinton is warranted."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/18/travel.office/

---

A WORTHY EXPERIMENT (via Governor Breck):

Writer's Almanac (NPR, 10/28/05)

It was on this day in 1919 that Congress overrode President Woodrow Wilson's veto and passed the Volstead Act, which provided for enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors in the United States. Ours isn't the only nation to attempt a ban. Various forms of alcohol prohibition have been attempted since ancient times by the Aztecs, ancient China, feudal Japan, the Polynesian Islands, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Canada, and India.

The movement to ban alcohol in this country began as a religious movement, and it was also a movement dominated by women. At the time, it was still difficult for women to make a living on their own, and many women had seen their lives ruined when their husbands squandered the family income on booze. It was the liquor industry that put up such a long fight against women getting the right to vote, because they were terrified that women voters would usher in restrictions on the sale of alcohol.

It's commonly believed that Prohibition was a huge failure; that no one stopped drinking and the law's only effect was to give a boost to organized crime. That was true in big cities, but in rural America, prohibition was quite effective. Both cirrhosis death rates and admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholism fell by more than fifty percent. Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct also went way down. And while organized crime may have gotten a boost, homicide rates were the same during the 1920s as they were in the previous two decades.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has likewise been one of the most successful citizen movements of the past thirty years -- both in terms of legislation won and positive effects on society -- because we remain a Puritan Nation. But wholesale prohibition was a mistake because alcohol serves a useful purpose as a social lubricant, is deeply ingrained in the culture and our traditions, and has real health benefits when consumed in moderation.

---

TELL THE HALLIBURTON EXECS TO GET THEIR CARPETBAGS READY:

Blue-state blue about path of USA, some Vermonters want out (David Gram, October 28, 2005, AP)

A car parked outside the Statehouse bore a bumper sticker saying, "Regime change begins at home."

Inside, about 100 Vermonters gathered in the House chamber for the Vermont Independence Convention -- devoted to Vermont creating a regime of its own.

If participants have their way, the state whose former governor was laughed out of the 2004 presidential race after the infamous Iowa scream is going to take what some call its wackiness and others call its sanity in a crazy world and go home.

Home to the 14 years in the late 18th century when Vermont was neither a British colony nor one of the original 13 states but was an independent republic.

Texas gets more notice as a Lone Star State, but Vermont shares with it the distinction of having gone it alone for a while. Friday's event was steeped in that history, and an urge to try it again.

Reconquering and reconstructing it would be fun anyway.

---

TURNING TRICKS TO TREATS:

This wasn't an October that the president would have sought, but it ends up going as well as he could possibly have hoped on the 4 issues that had hurt him most:

(1) Iraq: with folks talking about the constitution failing, it not only passed but by such huge margins that even the MSM has begun to figure out that this is just about a Sunni minority who want to keep their own version of Afrikaaner South Africa. Meanwhile, the UN dropped Syrian regime change in his lap and the new Iranian president has cleared the way for virtually any response the Administration chooses, while Tony Blair has taken the lead.

(2) Harriet Miers: it's at least conceivable, if unlikely, that Ms Miers wouldn't have gotten 50 votes in the Senate, while the President was stuck fighting his own party over the nomination. Instead, she manfully withdrew and by naming Samuel Alito on Monday he reunites the party--regardless of Mr. Alito's quality as a candidate, the mere fact that he's known as Scalito makes it mandatory for the Right to embrace him--and puts Democrats in the position of opposing a Catholic nominee.

(3) Red Ink: with Katrina raising hackles over deficit spending the Congress has at least rhetorically embraced some spending restraint while the Hurricane relief turns out not to be as expensive as first thought and the deficit for '05 comes in at a rather low 2.6% of GDP.

(4) The Yellowcake Kerfuffle: with folk talking of Dick Cheney being replaced, the prosecutor ends up finding no underlying crime and bringing just one token indictment that begs to be pled out as one count of lying to a grand jury, which means no jail time for the functionary who was charged.

Given how things might have gone, rather than Camp David resembling Dr. No's island this weekend, they'll be serving chicken salad sandwiches.

MORE:
At Milestone in Inquiry, Rove, and the G.O.P., Breathe a Bit Easier (ANNE E. KORNBLUT, 10/29/05, NY Times)

After months of uncertainty and four grand jury appearances, Karl Rove escaped the worst possible outcome on Friday, and a collective sigh of relief swept the Bush administration and the Republican Party.

Mr. Rove remained under a legal cloud: not indicted, but still at the center of the unfinished business in the C.I.A. leak case. He was absent from public view for most of the day, and conspicuously avoided giving any appearance that he had begun to celebrate.

But several friends and colleagues said he had resumed his role as the ubiquitous adviser who has guided George W. Bush's political career since before Mr. Bush's days as Texas governor. Even as the administration somberly accepted the resignation of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, a pall that had fallen over Mr. Rove's section of the West Wing seemed to lift. And Mr. Rove, who just two weeks earlier had seemed in grave danger of being charged with a crime, took comfort in having survived this important point in the case.

"The whole thing has been no fun, and debilitating, but not indicted is not indicted," said Ed Rogers, a Republican consultant and lobbyist. "It's binary: being indicted is real bad, and not being indicted is real good."

---

WHICH MEANS REAGAN WAS TWICE AS BAD AS BUSH? (via John Thacker)

US budget deficit shrinks in 2005 (BBC, 10/18/05)

The US budget deficit shrank to $319bn (£180bn) last year as better economic conditions boosted tax revenues. [...]

The 2005 fiscal year deficit amounted to 2.6% of GDP, below the 3.6% recorded in 2004 and the post World War Two high of 6% in 1983.

No wonder all the Reaganauts are coming out against W, he really does make them look awful even before you consider their tax hikes.

---

IT WASN'T ALL MICHAEL BROWN'S FAULT?

Memo: Louisiana governor slowed body removal (Associated Press, 10/28/05)

Bodies of people killed by Hurricane Katrina went uncollected for more than a week in the New Orleans area as the federal government waited for Louisiana's governor to decide what to do with them, according to memos released today by a Republican-led House committee.

The 38 pages of e-mail between FEMA representatives and Pentagon officials contradict the contention by Louisiana's Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, two weeks after Katrina hit on Aug. 29, that the federal government was moving too slowly to recover the bodies.

They also underscore ongoing political tensions between the Republican Bush administration and Democratic state and local officials over the botched response to Katrina, which killed more than 1,000 people in Louisiana.

Katrina, and not Michael Brown, killed more than 1,000 people? Shocking!

---

THE MAESTRO LEAVES JUST IN TIME?:

GDP muscles through: Economy brushes off storms and expands by 3.8 percent in 3Q, beating estimates. (Reuters, October 28, 2005)

The U.S. economy shook off headwinds from hurricanes Katrina and Rita to grow at a faster-than-expected 3.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, a Commerce Department report showed Friday. [...]

Despite surging prices at the gasoline pumps, the report showed that so-called core inflation, which exempts food and energy from its calculation, declined in the third quarter. A price gauge favored by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan -- personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy -- increased at a 1.3 percent annual rate compared with 1.7 percent in the second quarter. That marks the mildest rate of core price rises since the second quarter of 2003.

Fed policy-makers have pushed U.S. short-term interest rates up 11 times since mid-2004 to keep a rein on prices. Its policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee is scheduled to meet again on Tuesday and is once again widely expected to nudge rates up a quarter percentage point.

Businesses reduced inventories for a second straight quarter. Stocks of unsold goods dropped at a $16.6-billion annual rate in the third quarter after declining at a $1.7-billion rate in the second quarter.

The third-quarter inventory drop was the largest since the fourth quarter of 2001 -- after the attacks in New York and on the Pentagon -- when they fell at an $86.7-billion rate, a department official said. It also marked the first back-to-back quarterly drops in stocks of unsold goods since the third and fourth quarters of 2001.

So not only is there strong growth despite the storms but no inflation despite oil prices and such low inventory that it'll have to be filled. It's not a moment too soon, and likely a bit late, to replace a Fed chairman stuck in the 70s with one who understands the 30s.

---

DODGED THAT ONE:

CBS News is reporting the Scooter Libby has been indicted but that Karl Rove won't be, which would render what little remains of this story a political nullity.

Top Cheney Aide To Be Indicted (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2005)

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, will be indicted Friday in the CIA leak investigation for making false statements to a grand jury, CBS News has learned.

However, presidential confidant Karl Rove will likely escape charges for the time being.

Top Cheney Aide Indicted (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2005)

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted Friday on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges in the CIA leak investigation.

Cheney Adviser Indicted in CIA Leak Probe: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Charged With Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Making False Statements (William Branigin, Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig, October 28, 2005, Washington Post )

A federal grand jury today indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, after a two-year investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity but spared -- at least for now --President Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove.

Libby was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The indictment charged that he gave misleading information to the grand jury, allegedly lying about information he discussed with three news reporters. It alleged that he committed perjury before the grand jury in March 2004 and that he also lied to FBI agents investigating the case. [...]

Libby essentially was charged with lying to protect his boss, the vice president. He testified that he learned of the identity of the CIA agent in question, Valerie Plame, from reporters. But evidence emerged indicating that he actually learned Plame's name and her role in the CIA from Cheney. The evidence reportedly includes notes Libby took in a June 12, 2003, meeting with Cheney.

Protect his boss from what?

---

IT'S NOT ABOUT THEIR ECONOMY:

Change your ways, or no WTO, US warns Vietnam (Aaron Glantz and Ngoc Nguyen, 10/29/05, Asia Times)

Vietnam's attempts to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been blocked by what the country's negotiators say are unacceptable new demands by Washington that the socialist country change the way its economy works - more than it already has. [...]

For the past 15 years, Vietnam has been changing the way it does business, though perhaps not to the extent Washington would like to see it.

It has embraced market economy, attracted factory jobs from overseas, and towering new buildings have sprung up in the capital and in Ho Chi Minh City. In 2002, foreign investors poured more than US$1.2 billion into Vietnam, and the country seems all set to enter the world's official club of capitalist nations.

Yet, the administration of US President George W Bush has been pressuring Vietnam to eliminate subsidies and state-owned enterprises. Talks with negotiators from Washington have broken down over what Vietnam maintains are "new conditions" introduced in recent rounds of talks. [...]

In April, Oxfam released a report entitled "Do as I Say, Not as I Do: The Unfair Terms for Vietnam's Entry to the WTO", which noted that Vietnam is being forced to cut tariffs and subsidies twice as much as neighbors such as Thailand, the Philippines and Nepal. Those countries are already members of the world body.

"For any country, joining the WTO is like jumping into a fast-moving river in the dark without a paddle," said Steve Price-Thomas, Oxfam's spokesman in Hanoi. "It's hard to know for sure what will happen but the important thing is if you jump into a fast-moving river at night you want to make sure you've got a life belt, a flashlight, know which way you're headed, that there's no rocks, etc. So we hope that Vietnam is ready and prepared for life in the club of the WTO."

Want to be treated like a democratic ally? Become one.

---

NAWHAT? NAWHO?:

Japan, US closer in step (Hisane Masaki, 10/29/05, Asia Times)

Japan and the United States on Saturday will sign an historic mutual-security agreement that, among other provisions, will allow for the first time an American nuclear-powered navy vessel to be based in a Japanese port.

The deal, which will be signed in Washington during a meeting of the two countries' defense and foreign ministers, will also include a strategy for overall realignment of US forces in Japan.

Earlier in the week, Tokyo and Washington struck a deal on the long-running dispute over the relocation of a key American air station in the southern Japanese island state of Okinawa, removing the biggest obstacle to the realignment agreement.

About to make the normal pedantic comment about the new Axis of Good being more important than NATO, the thought occurred: When's the last time you even heard NATO mentioned?

The central alliance of the 20th Century is now an afterthought.

---

ONLY THE FIFTH MONARCH CAN BRING A JUST STABILITY:

The Myth of Stability (Clifford D. May, Oct 28, 2005, Townhall)

In just a few days, I'm to debate at the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College, Dublin.

Trinity was founded in 1592. The Philosophical Society – better known as the “Phil” -- is of more recent vintage: It traces its lineage back to the 17th century.

Those who have preceded me at this forum include Alexis de Tocqueville and Bertrand Russell. Then again, in recent years the smarmy fanatic George Galloway, the Holocaust denier David Irving and the porn star Ron Jeremy also have been guests.

The resolution I'll be debating: “This house believes that George W. Bush is a danger to world stability.” The members of the Phil presumably came to me because they could find no one in Europe willing to publicly dispute this widely accepted notion.

And, upon reflection, I'm not sure I will either. Perhaps President Bush does endanger stability. But is “stability” really the goal that free peoples should pursue?

He could hardly improve upon this terrific essay by Ralph Peters, which also appears in our forthcoming book.

---

EVEN CANADA WANTS IN THIS TIME?:

Arrest torturers, Syria told (ANDREW MILLS AND MICHELLE SHEPHARD, 10/28/05, Toronto Star)

The Syrian ambassador was hauled on the carpet in Ottawa yesterday after an independent report backed up claims by Maher Arar and three other Canadians that they had been tortured in Syrian jails.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew slipped out of the weekly cabinet meeting early yesterday to issue an angry demand to Syrian Ambassador Jamil Sakr that Syria investigate the allegations. [...]

By demanding Syria investigate, Ottawa is acknowledging for the first time that the claims of torture made by the four men have merit.

Pettigrew's swift and blunt reaction was evidence of the federal government sensitivity to criticisms over its failures in the Arar case, particularly its failure to recognize the Ottawa engineer was being tortured in Syria and to get him returned home to Canada sooner than he was.

As well, Canada has faced international criticism over its policy of detaining without charge non-citizens it is trying to deport as security risks to countries known to engage in torture.The allegations of torture come as Syria is under attack from the world community following a United Nation's report that implicates top Syrian officials in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

when a regime change looks easy they all come out of the woodwork...

---

AND BY CONSERVATIVE WE MEAN EVIL:

Iraq's main Shiite parties agree to run together as electoral bloc (Edward Wong, OCTOBER 28, 2005, The New York Times)

The country's main Shiite religious parties agreed Thursday to run together as a coalition in the upcoming elections, virtually ensuring that the parties will remain a formidable force in the new government.

The move also means that the vote will largely take place along ethnic and sectarian lines, as it did in last January's elections for a transitional Parliament.

For much of the last week, the Shiite parties had been squabbling, and secular politicians, including Ayad Allawi, the American-backed former prime minister, had been hoping the alliance would fracture.

Such a break could result in more votes for the moderates. One prominent politician, Ahmad Chalabi, a deputy prime minister and onetime Pentagon darling, is almost certain to leave the Shiite alliance, but his departure would not cost the alliance many votes since he has considerably less popular support than the main religious groups.

Parties intending to take part in the elections must present a list of candidates to the Iraqi electoral commission by Friday.

The agreement by the Shiite parties, which ran together in the January elections with the blessing of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most revered Shiite cleric, came a day after three conservative Arab groups announced they would run together.

Now, it is apparent that the election will be most hotly contested along the religious versus secular divide, and the Sunni versus Shiite split: The largest vote-getters among Arabs will be the major Sunni or Shiite religious blocs on either extreme, or the large secular bloc in the middle being cobbled together by Allawi, a tough-talking former Baath Party official and operative for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Wow! That didn't take long. So the Shi'ite, who have been put in power by a conservative American administration precisely because their theology is likely to provide a basis for an American-style republic aren't the conservatives? The Ba'athist insurgents, who are supported by the Left in the West and oppose democracy, are?

---

ANTITHESIS FIRST:

Polish leaders side with hardline eurosceptics (Andrew Rettman, 10/27/05, EUOBSERVER)

Events in Poland have taken a dramatic turn, with the Law and Justice party voting together with hard-line eurosceptics in parliament, endangering the chances of a coalition government and provoking a sharp fall in the zloty.

"A populist-nationalist coalition is forming, the goal of which is to change the treaties agreed with the European Union", Civic Platform leader Donald Tusk told Gazeta Wyborcza in the heat of Thursday (26 October) night. [...]

Law and Justice party chief Jaroslaw Kaczynski ruled out the possibility of a coalition with Self-Defence and the League of Polish Families however, saying "In this parliament the only possibilities are a coalition with Civic Platform or a minority government". [...]

Meanwhile, the markets gave their own commentary, with the zloty falling steeply against the euro and investors selling Polish shares on the Warsaw stock exchange.

"The market reaction is due to the uncertain political direction of the new government and how relations will develop with the EU and Russia", Credit Suisse analyst Sven Schubert told EUobserver.

Law and Justice is "less market friendly" he added, pushing to delay euro entry and boost welfare spending, while slowing privatisation.

It would probably be wiser to use Civic Platform to drive an economic reaction to seventy years of socialism, before settling down to a Third Way model. But spiking the EU justifies a lot.

MORE:
In Poland, changing alliances (Judy Dempsey, 10/28/05, International Herald Tribune)

The League of Polish Families, a nationalist, conservative and Roman Catholic party led by Roman Giertych, and Self-Defense, another Catholic party led by Andrzej Lepper, both supported Kaczynski during last Sunday's second and final presidential round, and they quickly moved to take advantage of the political vacuum. They said they could support a minority government whose skeptical policies toward Europe and its strong Catholic roots are shared by these two parties.

The League of Polish Families, which won 34 parliamentary seats, and Self-Defense, which won 56 seats, have been consistently opposed to the European Union, even though farmers who form the backbone of Lepper's party have gained financially since Poland joined the EU in May, 2004.

It had been widely expected that the Law and Justice Party and Civic Platform - the two largest conservative parties in the Sejm - would find enough common ground to form a government. But after Sunday's election, the mood between the camps soured when Law and Justice decided not to support Civil Platform's candidate for speaker of the Sejm and also insisted that the larger party control the powerful Justice and Interior Ministries.

Both Kaczynski and his twin brother Jaroslaw, who leads the Law and Justice Party, promised during the parliamentary and presidential election campaigns to stamp out corruption and also rid the bureaucracy and administration of former Communists. They claimed previous governments had not carried out a thorough overhaul of the public sector, either on the national or local levels. Control of the Justice and Interior Ministries would give them a freer hand to pursue that program.

Civic Platform was offered the Treasury, as well as the Finance, Economy and Infrastructure Ministries - which are powerful positions and appear to be plum assignments.

"They seem beautiful," Pawlowski said, "but we don't want to find ourselves in a situation that we have to cover their promises."

Law and Justice promised to increase pensions and family welfare payments, in addition to building three million new homes and spending more on health services. It said some of the expenditure would be financed from sharp cuts in the state administration.

---

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

This is a fight the Designers have to lose (Mary Wakefield, The Spectator, October 29th, 2005)

For nearly a month now, the teachers and parents of pupils at Dover high school have been in court arguing whether it's proper to teach children that Darwinism is deficient and put the case for a creator, or "Intelligent Designer" of the universe. Yes, say the teachers: Darwin's theory is full of holes, the children should be told. The parents say No. For them, the idea of an Intelligent Designer is tantamount to creationism and they're suing the school for violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Dover is a very small place. I've been there: one drug store, a bar and a meeting room with frosted glass windows for the Loyal Order of the Moose, but what happens there will affect the whole of America. It's a landmark case, the first legal test of the increasingly popular Intelligent Design or ID movement.

If the teachers lose, the ID lobby will fade away. If they win, it will mean a walk-on part for God in science classes nationwide. And although I'm all for God and church-going children, in the Dover case, I'm rooting for Darwin because a victory for Intelligent Design will, I'm quite sure, be disastrous for everybody, Christians and atheists alike. [...]

And here's why it seems to me that if the ID proponents win in Dover, they will at the same time shoot themselves in the foot. If you've squeezed your Intelligent Designer into the gap in the fossil record, what happens when the scientists close the gap?

Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University has just given evidence in court on behalf of the Dover parents. "Those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided will always be disappointed," he said. Professor Miller is a Christian, but he sees that far from defending God against the secular Darwinists, the supporters of Intelligent Design are more likely to disprove Him altogether.

Good point. I mean, what if the Darwinists ever come up with proof that speciation actually happened?

---

AMERICA’S OTHER NATIONAL SPORT

Negligence found in '93 bombing (Anemona Hartocollis, The New York Times, October, 28th, 2005)

A Manhattan jury has found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to be negligent in safeguarding the World Trade Center before the first terror attack on the twin towers, the 1993 bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000.

The six-member jury in State Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously found that the Port Authority had not maintained the center's underground parking garage "in a reasonably safe condition" and that the failure was "a substantial factor" in allowing the bombing to occur. The finding could prove costly for the agency.

It was in the public parking area below the trade center that Islamic terrorists detonated a truck packed with explosives on Feb. 26, 1993. The bombing foreshadowed the attacks that brought down the towers and killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

Some days it is hard to bury the fear that, if Rome declined from moral and economic lassitude and Britain from imperial overstretch, America’s decline will be spawned in an orgy of immobilizing self-blame.

---

THE OTHER GANG IS ELECTED:

Why the Right Was Wrong (HUGH HEWITT, 10/28/05, NY Times)

The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork.

Not all critics of Ms. Miers from the right used these tactics, and those who did not will be able to continue on with the project of restoring sanity to the process that went haywire with Judge Bork's rejection in 1987. Conservatives are also fortunate that no Republican senator called for Ms. Miers's withdrawal.

But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.

The next nominee - even one who is a superb scholar and sitting judge who recently underwent Senate confirmation like Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, or a long-serving superstar like Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit - will face an instant and savage assault. After all, it "worked" with Ms. Miers. A claim of "special circumstances" justifying a filibuster will also be forthcoming.

It'll be fun to listen to these guys argue that a filibuster is beyond the Pale after they just engaged in one themselves and they aren't even constitutional officers.

---

THANKFULLY, TONY BLAIR IS ON DUTY:

Naval heroes (and bishops) have lost their place in our history (Ferdinand Mount, 28/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Who better to celebrate the immortal memory of Horatio Nelson than Richard Chartres? The Bishop of London's resonant baritone would shiver the timbers of any quarterdeck. And his forthright eloquence still makes some of us wish that it was he who had been translated to Canterbury.

So when Dr Chartres discovered that his daughter's GCSE history syllabus concentrated on Twiggy and the Vietnam war, and had no space for Nelson (or any event more ancient than the Wall Street Crash), I was not surprised that he blistered the beams of St Paul's Cathedral.

"There has never been a generation better informed about 'now' with so little sense of how we came to be here," he thundered at the Trafalgar bicentenary service last Sunday. "Every child in this country ought to have the opportunity of meeting Lord Nelson and considering his legacy." [...]

Yet, oddly enough, I am not too downhearted. What may ultimately prove more significant than the unsatisfactory detail is that at last a Labour government is pointing in the right direction - away from political control over schools and towards greater independence.

Blair doggedly denies it, but his independent state schools do build on the model of the Tory grant-maintained schools that he so recklessly abolished. So with all their limitations, the new schools deserve a welcome that is better than tepid.

Except that Tories don't understand Mr. Blair any better than conservatives understand Mr. Bush.

---

SEEMS UNFAIR...TO HAW-HAW:

Ex-minister likens MP to Lord Haw-Haw (Andrew Sparrow, 28/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Denis MacShane, the former Foreign Office minister, said the claims were so serious that they should be investigated by a joint committee of the Commons and the US Congress.

Speaking on the floor of the Commons, Mr MacShane said he could not comment on the allegations that were published by the Senate sub-committee on Monday.

He said Mr Galloway "employs very expensive libel lawyers to stop any press investigation into his role as Lord Haw-Haw for one of the worst tyrants in the world's history, responsible for killing more Muslims than anybody else in the history of that religion.

"Still, we do need a joint Congress and Commons committee of inquiry to settle the truth once and for all.

"Because if any of the allegations of financial receipt are true, it is not just the honourable member's reputation that is at stake. It's the reputation of this House, if it does not deal with it."

Mr Galloway was not in the Commons to hear himself compared to Lord Haw-Haw, the nickname given to the infamous Nazi propagandist and convicted traitor William Joyce who was hanged in 1946.

Was Joyce really in it for the money?

---

DON'T YOU HATE WHEN NATIONS ACT UNILATERALLY IN THEIR PERCEIVED SELF-INTEREST? (via Luciferous):

Chirac threatens to veto world trade deal (Sophie Louet and William Schomberg, 10/27/05, Reuters)

French President Jacques Chirac warned Europe's leaders on Thursday he would torpedo a global trade deal if EU negotiators made further sacrifices in farm protection measures to keep the talks alive.

A day before Brussels tries to revive negotiations by putting a revised farm offer to key trading nations, Chirac told EU leaders Paris was prepared to exercise its veto right to block the required unanimous European approval of any agreement.

Chirac told a news conference he had made clear at a summit that France reserved the right not to approve any agreement that went beyond a 2003 reform of Europe's agricultural spending.

"It's out of the question for us to take any further step," he said. "It's a red line of what would be acceptable for us."

Why not just drop France from the deal and let them subsidize the whole world's truffle consumption, or whatever they grow there?

---

REMIND US AGAIN WHO'S WHOSE LAP DOG:

Blair hints at military action after Iran's 'disgraceful' taunt to Israel (Philip Webster, 10/28/05, Times of London)

TONY BLAIR served warning last night that the West might have to take military action against Iran after worldwide condemnation of its President’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. [...]

“If they carry on like this the question people will be asking us is — when are you going to do something about Iran? Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons?”

It was the first time Mr Blair had even hinted at military action and his words are likely to alarm Labour MPs.

"Why should I always have to play the good cop?"

---

MAYBE THE RIGHT CAN RUN PAT TOOMEY AGAINST HIM (via Luciferous):

Santorum eyes GOP anti-poverty effort (Amy Fagan, October 26, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

[S]enate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, wants to highlight his party's approach to fighting poverty by offering four Republican amendments to the labor and health and human services spending bill the Senate is considering this week. [...]

His proposed amendments call for funding to promote marriage and teach fathers to be more responsible -- two pieces of the stalled Republican welfare-reform bill -- as well as funding to provide technical help to small charities, and to determine through a commission which federal social programs could be restructured as vouchers. The proposals call for about $411 million in grant money and represent pieces of the 12-point anti-poverty agenda introduced by Senate Republican leaders last spring.

Mr. Santorum also will try to attach a $7 billion charitable-giving proposal to a separate piece of legislation next week. The long-stalled charity bill would create a series of tax incentives to encourage individuals and companies to give to faith-based and secular social service charities.

Tut, tut, you can't be a conservative icon if you're going to be so nakedly Third Way.

---

ACCOUNTING SCANDALS:

From Baghdad to Beirut, Arab Leaders Being Held to Account (Michael Rubin, October 27, 2005, The Forward)

Long home to farfetched conspiracy theories and a political culture of victimization, the Arab world is now being swept by a new emphasis on accountability. While commentators and pundits debate the merits, drawbacks and sincerity of the Bush administration's drive for democracy, events across the Middle East suggest that the relationship between rulers and the governed has been significantly transformed.

The shift was evident on October 19, when former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven high-ranking lieutenants shuffled into a Baghdad court room to face charges that they ordered a massacre of 143 Iraqi civilians following a 1982 assassination attempt against the Iraqi leader. The proceedings were broadcast in Iraq on television channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, and Arabic newspapers throughout the region splashed photos of the Iraqi dictator sitting submissively in the dock across their front pages. [...]

A willingness to hold leaders to account, such as we are now witnessing in Iraq, is becoming increasingly more common in the Arab world. Against the backdrop of Saddam's trial, U.N. special investigator Detlev Mehlis submitted the findings of his inquiry into the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. [...]

[A]cross the region Arabs appear to welcome it. Indeed, it was the groundswell of Lebanese--and Saudi--revulsion at Hariri's assassination that spurred the U.N. Security Council to create a special investigatory commission.

The Lebanese Cabinet endorsed Mehlis's findings even though he also implicated the top four security chiefs of pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud. Lebanon's parliament, just a year ago little more than a Syrian rubber stamp, moved to hold Lahoud to account. "The president must resign," prominent parliamentarian Butros Harb declared. "There is a big gulf between MPs and Lahoud." It remains unclear how far Lebanon's Cedar Revolution will go, but there is no doubt that Lebanese and Syrian officials now realize their actions are not without consequence.

And the wave of accountability is spreading. Yasser Arafat's death last year sparked renewed Palestinian attention to Palestinian Authority corruption. The new administration allowed Issam Abu Issa, the former chairman of the Palestine International Bank who exposed how Arafat siphoned off millions in aid money, to return from exile in Qatar.

This past April, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ordered the P.A.'s prosecutor-general to investigate a former top Arafat aide and three senior Finance Ministry officials on embezzlement charges. While such corruption was commonplace within the P.A. throughout the Arafat era, the public mood had changed. The Palestinian public is no longer willing to stomach the worst excesses of its leadership.

Across the Middle East, Arab regimes are coming to realize that they no longer can act with impunity against their own citizens. The Syrian and Libyan governments may, for example, control state media, but plights of dissidents such as Aktham Naisse and Fathi el-Jahmi spread on the Internet and on satellite television.

It wasn't supposed to be this easy.

---

NPR EXPLAINED:

It's not on-line yet, but on The World today they did a nice little story about Bill Gates and his foundation's work to overcome malaria in Africa, with guest Michael Specter, who's just done a New Yorker profile on him. But then at the end of the story the host asked a question that was so tooth-rottingly cloying it seemed intentionally designed to drive listeners mad : We know that this is a problem that interests him, but what evidence have you seen that Bill Gates personally feels the human tragedy of all this and is affected by it?

One is forced to conclude that NPR is part of an NTSB study to see how hard a human has to bang his head on the steering column of a car in order to make the airbag deploy.

---

MOLOTOV AND RIBBENTROP DON'T STAY MARRIED:

Al Sadr Militia in Deadly Clash With Sunnis (AP, October 27, 2005)

Shiite militiamen loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (search) clashed Thursday with Sunni militants in fighting that killed at least 15 people, and three American soldiers died in separate attacks the day before, officials said.

The competition is fierce, but the stupidest thing the pundits have said about Iraq has to be that Sadr could join forces with the Sunni.

---

THE SUPREMO WILL HAVE TO DELIVER THIS SMACKDOWN HIMSELF TOO:

Iran's policy unchanged toward Israel - officials (Parisa Hafezi, 10/27/05, Reuters)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" does not signal the start of a more aggressive stance toward Israel by Tehran, officials and analysts said on Thursday.

"Iran's policy toward Israel will remain unchanged. We do not want more confrontation with the West," a senior government official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the conference "The World without Zionism" in Tehran October 26, 2005. Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" does not signal the start of a more aggressive stance toward Israel by Tehran, officials and analysts said on Thursday. (REUTERS/Isna)
"What Ahmadinejad said is his wish, but it does not mean Iran will take practical steps to destroy Israel."

---

WHO DOES HE THINK HAS BEEN WRITING BUDGETS?:

Rebuilding: President Bush can move forward by being bold and uniting both congressional Republicans and his political base. (Fred Barnes, 10/27/2005, Weekly Standard)

THE WITHDRAWAL of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is the first step on the road to political recovery for President Bush. It gives him the opportunity to select a well-known judicial conservative for the Court vacancy, rally conservatives who opposed or were skeptical of Miers, and rebuild his political base.

Winning confirmation won't be easy. Democrats already have their story down: Bush capitulated to the far right in jettisoning Miers and his new nominee will be a right-wing extremist. My guess is Democrats will stick to this narrative no matter whom the president chooses from the roster of a dozen or more conservatives with strong credentials and deep experience in constitutional law. [...]

Once a new nominee is confirmed, the next steps for Bush are fairly obvious. Some of them are set in place. The first is to champion spending cuts beyond the $35 billion he proposed to slash from his 2006 budget. The second is to hold down spending on the Katrina recovery. The good news is that Katrina funds previously appropriated are being used up at a slower pace than expected.

Then there's immigration, an issue on which the president and his base are at odds. Yet a compromise wouldn't be impossible, if Bush agreed to tougher security on the southern border with double or triple the number of border guards and conservatives agreed to lighten up on illegal immigrants already living in the United States. By avoiding harsh treatment of Mexican immigrants here, Republicans could avert a backlash from Hispanic-Americans, a voting bloc of growing importance.

The idea that the Right is serious about coming up with budget cuts or would come up with the money for genuine border security is just delusional.

Were he Bill Clinton, there's a perfect opportunity here for the President to triangulate, go over the Right's head, and adopt the Democrats extremist narrative. That strategy would simply call for appointing Alberto Gonzales and then letting the Right dig its own grave. He seems unlikely though to opt for mere personal popularity at the expense of the party he's trying to make a permanent majority despite itself.

MORE:
Reid on Miers Withdrawal (October 27, 2005)

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on Harriet Miers’ withdrawal of her nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

“The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.

“I had recommended that the President consider nominating Ms. Miers because I was impressed with her record of achievement as the managing partner of a major Texas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. But these credentials are not good enough for the right wing: they want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.

“In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.”

---

TAKE IT OUT ON THE REGIME, NOT THE PEOPLE:

Sacrificing the Baath to Rescue Syria (Hazem Saghieh, 10/27/05, Al-Hayat)

The Baathists have driven Syria to a place where the only possible salvation is by sacrificing the Baath, even gradually, to rescue Syria. Sacrificing the Baath party means establishing a limit to the policies of military and security tyranny against the Syrian people. Regarding the "tutelage" in Lebanon, crowned by the assassination of PM Hariri, it is the "logical" conclusion of the internal structure that generates crisis, stemming from the difference between the possible and the declared, and export them abroad with the same generosity of their birth.

The comparison between that "State" - which Mehlis' report highlighted, though by hints, some of its operational ways - and its slacken imperial tendencies, suffices to reveal the deep cause of the current Syrian disaster and the nature of the ideological- military regime as an ongoing crises-producing regime.

Today, the truth has become clear, leaving no place to manipulate reality. The sacrifice of the Baath has become synonym to rescuing Syria. However, giving an account of such a reality worsens the problem more than it solves it: it is true that the recent "Damascus declaration" offered a positive promise and reflected the maturity of the Syrian opposition, somewhat limiting the historical pessimism. Nevertheless, it is a beginning, just a beginning, on the path of sacrificing the Baath. The biggest impediment on that path - if not its pitfalls - is the response of the Syrian civil community with its various regions, sects and communities; especially that the regime, as indicated by all its experiences, will not draw back one step to loosen its rock-hard grip. However, one thing can be confirmed: what some Syrian opposition members and Lebanese politicians previously hoped for; it is that the Syrian people will be spared any punishment. Such an option, whether western or international, lacks justice, as much as it is useless: it would complete the Baathist task of torturing its people and would prolong twice the path of rescue, multiplying the possibilities of chaos, which everybody fears.

Given that estimates put Iraqi dead at just 30,000 since we began the process of regime change as opposed to the 500,000 children alone we killed via the sanctions that enriched Ba'athists, it seems impossible to make a moral case for latter instead of the former.

---

DON'T FRENCHMEN QUALIFY ANYWAY?:

Angry Van de Velde wants to play in women's British Open (Norman Dabell, 10/27/05, Reuters)

Jean Van de Velde, famous for losing a British Open, says he wants to play in the women's equivalent at Royal Birkdale next year.

The Frenchman, who let slip the 1999 championship at Carnoustie by running up a triple-bogey seven at the 72nd hole, is unhappy at the Royal and Ancient Golf Club's (R & A) recent decision to allow women to qualify for the British Open.

"It's crazy that women should be allowed to try to qualify for our Open when men cannot do it for their Open," Van de Velde told reporters after struggling to a seven-over-par 78 in the first round of the Volvo Masters on Thursday.

"I intend to make a stance. What kind of discrimination is this?"

---

SIXTY YEARS OF "OCCUPATION" AND COUNTING:

2,000 Dead, in Context (VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, 10/27/05, NY Times)

The battle for Okinawa was an abject bloodbath that took more than 50,000 American casualties, yet that campaign officially ended less than six weeks before Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender.

More important that the casualty context would be to consider what the taking of Okinawa achieved. Though a nation of only about a million people, we didn't turn back its sovereignty for almost thirty years and still maintain forces there. What's remarkable about Iraq isn't just that there have been nearly no casualties but that we're standing it up so quickly.

---

KOFI'S SECOND CHANCE:

Opportunity Knocks In Syria's Unraveling (Jim Hoagland, October 27, 2005, Washington Post)

Bashar seems to have learned or inherited little from his austere, shrewd father. Chirac was ready to take the son under his wing when Assad came to power in 2000. But that avuncular sentiment quickly turned to disappointment as the new government in Damascus floundered. Annan also was reportedly taken aback by the Syrian's inexperience and opacity.

Larger principles are involved for Chirac -- who is intent on upholding Lebanon's sovereignty and historical ties to France -- and for Annan, who has offered unprecedented support by a secretary general for the investigation and incrimination of the leaders of a U.N. member state. Annan's appointee, investigator Detlev Mehlis, seems to have pulled no punches in his report to Annan.

There are heartening echoes in this of the principled stance Annan took six years ago by telling the General Assembly that nations could no longer hide behind sovereignty to torture, kill and otherwise abuse their citizens.

The principle being vindicated, and the new standard of sovereignty, is: liberal democratic legitimacy.

---

TAX CONSUMPTION (via Tom Corcoran):

Hillary Clinton Proposes Massive Energy Tax (News Max, 10/26/05)

Speaking to a group of alternative energy investors in Washington, D.C., [Hillary] Clinton proposed to sock oil companies with $20 billion in new fees that would be used to fund research on clean energy - driving up costs for oil producers that they would inevitably pass along to consumers.

The top Democrat said her goal is to get "oil companies that have experienced these amazing profits either to reinvest them in our energy future to reduce our dependence on oil or to contribute to a strategic energy fund that will provide incentives for companies and consumers who want to be part of an energy solution."

Mrs. Clinton insisted that her $20 billion fee plan was "not about new energy taxes on consumers" - but she declined to say how oil companies would absorb the additional costs without charging consumers.

The point of hiking gas taxes is to change consumer behavior, not punish business.

---

THERE IS NO FEDERAL IN FBI:

Keep the faith, and they will come (Joyce Howard Price, October 27, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

When municipal, state and federal governments faltered in their early response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of churches and synagogues stepped up to help.

Nearly two months after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, religious groups have pledged that feeding, clothing and sheltering survivors of the storm will continue for as long as necessary. Cleaning up and rebuilding has just begun.

"We've provided more than $11 million worth of in-kind labor since the hurricanes," says Joe Conway, spokesman for Southern Baptist Disaster Relief, an agency of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention. "In terms of rebuilding, we'll probably be here for several years."

About 7,000 Baptists from congregations in 41 states have provided relief. The Southern Baptists -- the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination -- have not stopped cooking since Katrina hit. By Tuesday, they had cooked and served more than 9.3 million hot meals, beating their record of 2.5 million meals served after Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida in 1992, Mr. Conway says.

"We did the majority of the cooking for the Salvation Army, and probably the Red Cross as well, and for ourselves," he says.

Says Jeffrey Jellets, territorial disaster services coordinator for the Salvation Army: "The Southern Baptists cook the meals. We load them into containers and put them on mobile feeding units and go into New Orleans and other hard-hit areas and distribute them." [...]

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour hailed the relief efforts by churches in his state. "Churches really filled a huge service by providing the essentials to evacuees, such as food, water, shelters, and showers," Mr. Barbour said. "The state of Mississippi, as well as its citizens, appreciate the kindness and generosity of the churches that helped out during the Katrina disaster."

Pressed by Republicans in Congress and by the Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced on Sept. 26 it will reimburse churches and other religious groups that have provided food, shelter and supplies to hurricane victims.

FEMA officials say this would be the first time the government has made large payments to religious organizations for assisting in the aftermath of a domestic natural disaster. Groups would be eligible for compensation only if they ran emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in states that have declared emergencies.

Several civil-liberty advocacy groups, including the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union, say this violates the boundary between church and state.

It was strange after the storm to hear the Left argue that the failures of the federal government demonstrated that we should rely on it more.

MORE:
Gov. Bush Criticizes State's Storm Effort: He Says Florida, Not FEMA, Is to Blame (Associated Press, October 27, 2005)

Gov. Jeb Bush (R) took the blame Wednesday for frustrating delays at centers distributing supplies to victims of Hurricane Wilma, saying criticism of the Federal Emergency Management Agency was misdirected.

"Don't blame FEMA. This is our responsibility," Bush said at a news conference in Tallahassee with federal Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who oversees the agency. [...]

Myriad problems affected supply deliveries, local and state officials said. Cell phone service was down or spotty, complicating communications between government officials and truck drivers. Some drivers got lost on their way to distribution points and had to be brought there by police escort.

Local governments prematurely announced distribution sites and times, causing crowds to gather hours before any supplies arrived. In many cases, there simply was not enough ice, water and meals ready-to-eat to go around, or it took far too long to get the supplies to the proper places, officials said.

"We did not perform to where we want to be," Bush said.

Bush added, however, that people seeking relief should have done more to prepare for the storm.

"People had ample time to prepare. It isn't that hard to get 72 hours' worth of food and water," said Bush, repeating the advice that officials had given days before Wilma hit.

---

BRITISH MUSLIMS HAVE FIGURED IT OUT, IF NOT AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES:

Cameron's war talk fails to woo Muslims (Brendan Carlin, 27/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

The Tory leadership favourite, David Cameron, was accused yesterday of offering Muslim voters no more than Tony Blair after he defended the invasion of Iraq.

Mr Cameron faced fierce questioning from Muslim community leaders in Leeds after refusing to back down on his support for the war.

One of them accused Mr Cameron, 39, of mirroring Mr Blair's own "modern Labour - half a Conservative" approach and giving Muslim voters no real alternative.

Amen.

---

AN END TO REALISM?:

Spy Agencies Told to 'Bolster the Growth of Democracy' (DOUGLAS JEHL, 10/27/05, NY Times)

A new strategy document issued Wednesday by the Bush administration ranks efforts to "bolster the growth of democracy" among the three top missions for American intelligence agencies.

John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, said the rankings were intended to align the work of intelligence agencies with the administration's broader national security goals. The top two "mission objectives" are efforts to counter terrorism and weapons proliferation. [...]

Among other things, the strategy says that "collectors, analysts and operators" within the 15 American intelligence agencies should seek to "forge relationships with new and incipient democracies" in order to help "strengthen the rule of law and ward off threats to representative government." The strategy, published on www.dni.gov, is unclassified, and the officials said it was not intended to apply in any way to any covert action that might be undertaken by the United States.

You'd have to fire everyone in the intelligence and diplomatic services get the institutions to reverse courses like this--which is exactly what they should do.

---

STRIP THEM OF THEIR SEATS:

U.N. to Detail Kickbacks Paid for Iraq's Oil (WARREN HOGE, 10/27/05, NY Times)

More than 4,500 companies took part in the United Nations oil-for-food program and more than half of them paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein, according to the independent committee investigating the program.

The country with the most companies involved in the program was Russia, followed by France, the committee says in a report to be released Thursday. The inquiry was led by Paul A. Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. [...]

Mr. Hussein received $1.8 billion in illicit income from surcharges and kickbacks on the sales of oil and humanitarian goods during 1996-2003, when the program ran, the committee concluded in its last report in September.

Earlier Volcker committee reports summarizing the year and a half of inquiries have examined the activities of the United Nations, finding the institution's management inept and corrupt, and providing evidence that the program's former director, Benon V. Sevan, received kickbacks himself. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The $64 billion program was set up by the Security Council to help ease the effects of United Nations sanctions on the 27 million Iraqis by supplying food and medicines in exchange for letting the Hussein government export oil.

The investigators said Thursday's report would detail how Mr. Hussein first steered the program to gain political advantage with political allies and countries in a position to ease the United Nations sanctions. Both Russia and France are veto-bearing members of the Security Council.

"Then it got corrupted with a capital C when Saddam figured out how to make money off of it by putting on the surcharges and kickbacks," one investigator said.

At first, he said, companies balked at paying the extra fees, and the oil sales slowed. At that point, "less orthodox companies" came forward and accepted the terms, opening the way for the program's full scale exploitation and allowing legitimate companies to buy oil from illegitimate ones.

Another investigator noted that in the years immediately preceding the program, smuggling of Iraqi oil in much larger amounts had been going on for years to the benefit of the economies of American allies, including Jordan and Turkey. In his last report, Mr. Volcker said this smuggling amounted to $10.99 billion.

This investigator suggested that this had a compromising effect on the Security Council's willingness to step in and stop the practice. "Three years, four years already, letting the oil flow into Jordan and Turkey, so now you're going to be very strict about this smaller volume of oil?" he asked. "Unlikely."

---

SETTING THE PINCERS:

Kabul praises Taleban extradition (BBC, 10/27/05)

Afghanistan has welcomed Pakistan's first extradition of Taleban suspects since the fall of the hardline Islamist regime in 2001.

Islamabad sent back 14 suspects to Kabul on Wednesday, including the organisation's leading media spokesman, Abdul Latif Hakimi.

Kabul said it hoped the move would signal a new era of co-operation.

---

BLOWN AWAY:

Cuba Accepts U.S. Aid Offer for First Time (ANNE GEARAN, 10/27/05, AP )

Cuba has unexpectedly agreed to a quiet U.S. offer of emergency aid following Hurricane Wilma, and three Americans will travel to Cuba to assess needs there, the State Department said Thursday.

Washington has routinely offered humanitarian relief for hurricanes and other disasters in Cuba, and Cuban leader Fidel Castro himself has routinely turned the offers down. After Hurricane Dennis pummeled the island in July, Castro expressed gratitude for Washington's offer of $50,000 in aid but rejected it.

"This was the first time they have accepted an offer of assistance," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, at least based on the "collective memory" of diplomats at the department.

---

GUESSED WRONG:

Iran on course for a showdown (Safa Haeri, 10/28/05, Asia Times)

Ahmadinejad's outburst...signifies deep rifts within the country between his administration and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his small clique that ultimately controls the levers of power. [...]

"The danger of such a radical statesman [Ahmadinejad] is that by knotting religious beliefs with the nuclear issue, it makes for an explosive issue that will explode in the face of all Iranians," an Iranian analyst told Asia Times Online, adding that Ahmadinejad's statement would certainly strengthen the international consensus against Iran.

"It is exactly for this reason that Khamenei, realizing his mistake in promoting Ahmadinejad, placed the pragmatic and experienced Hashemi Rafsanjani above him in order to repair the damage the new, inexperienced but zealot Muslim might cause to the regime," the analyst said.

The analyst was referring to the recent decision by Khamenei to transfer some of his immense and unlimited power to the Assembly of Discerning the Interests of the State (ADIS, or Expediency Council), which is headed by Rafsanjani.

According to a new regulation, the ADIS will have the power to supervise the regime's macro-policies and long-term plans and projects, a power that had belonged to the Supreme Leader. This means that all the theocratic regime's three powers - legislative, judicial and executive - must submit their planning and policies to the 32-member, leader-controlled ADIS for approval before implementation.

Until this change, ADIS's main role was to mediate between the Council of the Guardians (CG) and the majlis, or parliament, as the 12-member, leader-controlled CG is in charge of both vetting all candidates in all elections and making sure that laws passed by the majlis are in conformity with Sharia law.

The increased powers given to ADIS were interpreted as a clear warning to Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards who provided him with millions of votes, against trying to wrest any powers from the clerical establishment.

The warning appears to have fallen on deaf ears...

Mr. Khamenei is hardly the first Supreme Leader to completely misunderstand how hard it would be to meld authoritarianism and democracy. He's been off his game since the Reformists boycott sunk Moin.

---

IF THEY'RE SERIOUS ABOUT GROWTH WHY NOT PERMANENTLY SET IT AT 0% (via Tom Corcoran):

E.U. panel pushes for corporate tax (MarketWatch, Oct. 27, 2005)

The European Union's executive branch has proposed a common corporate tax code for all 25 member nations, according to a media report Thursday.

The proposal from the European Commission, the E.U.'s executive branch, has drawn opposition from the United Kingdom, Ireland and some other E.U. governments, The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition.

The proposal, which must be approved by all 25 member governments, would establish common criteria for taxation but not set rates, according to The Journal.

The Journal said the commission is planning to lobby hard for the next four years for measures that will create the basis for a common European tax policy, including lowering taxes on research and development, computerizing customs controls, allowing financial-services companies to reclaim value-added tax and setting bloc-wide criteria for taxing cars.

"The proposed measures will not limit fair competition in setting tax rates," The Journal quoted E.U. Taxation and Customs Commissioner Laszlo Kovacs as saying. "They will create a level playing field."

---

LIKE A NORWEGIAN WOULD:

What we can learn from Norwegians (Daniel Hannan, 27/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Today, Norway's king will take his leave of Britain's queen. Both are monarchs, but only one is sovereign. The word "sovereignty" is often used nowadays as a loose synonym for power, but it has an exact meaning. In Norway, the 1814 constitution vests supreme authority in the Crown. In Britain, the 1972 European Communities Act shares sovereignty with the EU, which now accounts - depending on how you measure it - for between 50 and 80 per cent of our laws.

Sovereignty evidently suits the Norwegians. They are the richest people in Europe, with a GDP per head of £31,200, as against an EU average of £12,600. According to the UN, which measures infant mortality, literacy rates and so on, they are the healthiest and happiest people in the world.

We are forever being told that Britain is too small to survive on its own: a post-imperial state, a speck of land on Europe's fringe, blah blah. This is bilge, of course: we are the world's fourth largest economy and fourth military power. But it is instructive to consider the situation of a country that really is small, and really is on Europe's fringe.

There are four-and-a-half million Norwegians, clinging to an icy strip of tundra on the uttermost edge of the continent. Yet, on every measure, they are outperforming their continental neighbours. At a time when France and Germany are struggling to comply with the Stability Pact, Norway is running an annual surplus of seven per cent. Its unemployment is less than half the EU's. Its real interest rates are comfortably below those in the euro-zone. Its inflation is low, its trade booming, its stock exchange soaring.

A people two generations away from subsistence farming have become Europe's new elite. Like blue-eyed sheiks, they buy vast houses in Chelsea which lie empty between their occasional visits to London (Norwegians, in the main, being tremendous Anglophiles).

How have they done it? Much of the answer has to do with the deal they struck with Brussels. Norway is a member, not of the EU, but of its penumbra, the European Free Trade Association (Efta). It participates fully in the so-called Four Freedoms of the European single market-free movement, that is, of goods, services, people and capital. But it is outside the Common Agricultural Policy; it controls its own territorial resources, including energy and fisheries; it decides its own human rights questions; it determines who may settle on its territory; it can negotiate free trade accords with third countries, and it makes only a token contribution to the EU budget.

Trade everything freely but your own sovereignty.

MORE:
In Norway, EU pros and cons (the cons still win) (Ivar Ekman, 10/27/05, International Herald Tribune)

Jens Stoltenberg, the recently installed leftist prime minister of Norway, believes that his country should join the European Union. So do some of his rivals on the right. Even the often euroskeptical populists today say they are neutral.

So why is this increasingly wealthy North European nation remaining outside the fold at a time of broadening European integration? [...]

At present, 54 percent of Norwegians oppose membership, according to a poll published Monday in the newspaper Aftenposten. Their opinion, analysts say, is intimately linked to the broad feeling here that oil-rich, high-growth Norway does not need an economically stumbling European club.

Projections show gross domestic product in Norway growing almost 4 percent this year, up slightly from 3.5 percent in 2004, compared with about 1 percent in the euro zone in both years.

Even the European Commission's ambassador to Norway, Gerhard Sabathil, admitted last year that such figures posed a problem. "There are no economic arguments for Norway to join the EU," Sabathil said in an interview with Aftenposten.

"But," he added - and this is where those working for Norwegian membership get most of their ammunition - "there are arguments for Norway to become a member in order to have its voice heard on a European level."

Today, Norway is part of the European Economic Area, a solution that gives the country and its companies access to the EU's internal market. For most Norwegian businesses - the fishing industry is a clear and vocal exception - this arrangement is a necessity, with close to 80 percent of Norwegian exports going to the EU.

The flip side is that Norwegians have to abide by almost every piece of internal-market legislation while having no vote on these laws. In Norway, this has become known as the "fax democracy," since Brussels simply faxes new directives for the Norwegians to follow.

"Because we're not part of the decision-making process, we can't take care of Norway's interests in a good way," said Svein Roald Hansen, chairman of the European Movement in Norway, the main organization working for Norwegian membership. "We're left to lobbying other countries to make our views have influence."

But the lack-of-influence argument has not been enough to inspire a wider Norwegian debate on Europe. Instead, most politicians avoid the EU question.

Norway's voters have twice rejected EU membership in referendums - in 1972 and in 1994 - and most pro-European politicians fear that a third loss would kill the matter for the foreseeable future. "It would probably be received as if we had closed the door emphatically," Stoltenberg said.

---

CHINAS ARE A DIME A DOZEN:

Indonesia steers toward recovery (Donald Greenlees, 10/26/05, International Herald Tribune)

In the 1970s, Indonesia gained the distinction of being the first country in Asia where Japanese carmakers set up full assembly plants as a launching pad for cheap exports.

The factories still bustle with workers, but the numbers have thinned in recent years amid tougher competition from elsewhere in the region. Nowadays most of these factories serve Indonesia's own appetite for about half a million cars a year.

Yet even though many manufacturers, foreign and domestic, have eschewed Indonesia in recent years, blaming regulatory problems, poor law enforcement and rising wage bills, one is making a bet on the country.

Squeezed between the big names in automaking in a drab strip of metal sheds and low-rise office blocks, 1,000 employees of Indonesian-owned Inkoasku are busy supplying steel and alloy wheel hubs to major manufacturers.

The company is also exporting wheels to carmakers in Asia and Europe and has confirmed its commitment to stay in Indonesia by building a factory in West Java.

"In terms of quality we are better than India and China," said Inkoasku's chief executive, Hadi Kasim, explaining his faith in domestic manufacturing. "China can sell more cheaply, but the quality is not as good."

---

"BUT WE'VE HAD FIFTY YEARS OF PEACE"

Ceding Idealism to the GOP (Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 10/25/05)

About six months after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, George H.W. Bush's national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, went to Beijing and met with China's "paramount leader," Deng Xiaoping. Scowcroft said he communicated the president's unhappiness over the massacre, to which Deng essentially said, Mind your own business. "And I said, 'You're right. It is none of our business,' " Scowcroft tells Jeffrey Goldberg in the current New Yorker. This raises an obvious question: How many have to die before it is our business?

That question is at the heart of the dilemma now facing American foreign policy. Scowcroft is a famous realist. Not for him any grand, noble causes. He is parsimonious with American lives and treasure, and he vocally opposed George W. Bush's intention to go to war in Iraq. He found out this was a different Bush with a different foreign policy. The younger Bush's was infused with moralism.

CIA Leak Linked to Dispute Over Iraq Policy (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 10/25/05)

Scowcroft, in his interview, discussed an argument over Iraq he had two years ago with Condoleezza Rice, then-national security adviser and current secretary of state. "She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. The article stated that with a "barely perceptible note of satisfaction," Scowcroft added: "But we've had fifty years of peace."

Mr. Scowcroft can't really believe he's winning anybody over to his brand of foreign policy, can he?

---

THIS COMING OUT MAY NOT PLEASE THE WNBA CROWD

Comets' Swoopes Opens Up About Being Gay (Associated Press, 10/26/05)

Houston Comets forward Sheryl Swoopes is opening up about being a homosexual, telling a magazine that she's "tired of having to hide my feelings about the person I care about."

Swoopes, honored last month as the WNBA's Most Valuable Player, told ESPN The Magazine for a story on newsstands Wednesday that she didn't always know she was gay and fears that coming out could jeopardize her status as a role model.

"Do I think I was born this way? No," Swoopes said. "And that's probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are."

Swoopes, who was married and has an 8-year-old son, said that being with a man was what she wanted at the time. But her 1999 divorce "wasn't because I'm gay," she said.

If she wasn't "born this way," then doesn't that make her lifestyle a choice?

That can't be entirely satisfying to the folks who make up a large segment of the attendance at WNBA games.

---

PREPARE TO BE "STUNNED":

Iranian president: Recognizing Israel means defeat of the Islamic world (Associated Press, October 26, 2005)

Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesdays during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August.

This is for domestic consumption as he tries to fend off Ayatollah Khamenei. Soon the Ayatollah will rebuke him publicly, provoking a spate of stories professing it a "stunning" turn of events.

---

WAY TO KILL OFF PURIM:

Rome bans goldfish bowls (Reuters, October 26, 2005)

ROME has banned goldfish bowls, which animal rights activists said are cruel, and has made regular dog walking mandatory, the city council said.

Under a new by-law, round fish bowls were banned along with fish and other creatures being given away for fairground prizes.

The moves came after a national law was passed to allow jail sentences for people who abandon cats or dogs.

"It's good to do whatever we can for our animals who in exchange for a little love fill our existence with their attention," said Monica Cirinna, the councillor behind the by-law.

"The civilisation of a city can also be measured by this," she told Rome's Il Messaggero newspaper.

A people with no children and no future is a sad sight. But funny as sin.

---

RIGHT AND TRUE (via Mike Daley):

President Addresses Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' Luncheon (George W. Bush, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.)

In four years since September the 11th, the evil that reached our shores has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul and Madrid and Beslan and Taba, Netanya, Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they were in the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet, while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology -- a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it is called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and also against Muslims who do not share their radical vision, whom they regard as heretics.

Many militants are part of a -- global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like the attacks of September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia and the Philippines and Pakistan and Chechnya and Kashmir and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world. And we know the vision of the radicals because they've stated it openly -- in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and on websites.

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and we stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate -- and I quote -- their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run.

Earlier this month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a man named Zawahiri, a letter he wrote to his chief deputy in Iraq, the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to Vietnam as a model for al Qaeda. He writes: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam, and how they ran and left their agents, is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks of American troops in Beirut in 1983, Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again -- only this time, on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Secondly, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They've achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. Zawahiri writes that the terrorists, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of Americans from Iraq." He goes on to say, "The jihad requires several incremental goals -- expel the Americans from Iraq; establish the Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq; extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."

With the greater economic and military and political power they seek, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation.

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race, or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history -- from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot -- consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply. (Applause.)

Defeating the militant network is difficult because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustrations of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques, as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They've been sheltered by authoritarian regimes -- allies of convenience like Syria and Iran -- that share the goal of hurting America and modern Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West, on America, and on the Jews.

The radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories, and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Somalia, and Kosovo and Kuwait and Iraq; with seldom a world about -- word about the generous assistance to Muslims recovering from natural disasters in places like Indonesia and Pakistan.

Some have argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. (Applause.)

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 150 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.

No acts of ours involves the rage of killers. And no concessions, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans of murder. On the contrary; they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims -- and I quote -- "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride. (Laughter.)

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many, many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain because I believe you're an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just enemies of America or enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and enemies of humanity. (Applause.)

We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before -- in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields. Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination; they wish to make everyone powerless, except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let us be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs. It's cowardice that cuts the throat of a bound captive. It is cowardice that targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people; it is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. It is courage in the cause of freedom that will once again destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)

And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. [...]

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants of future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is difficult, and it's a long-term project; yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger -- in our own generation and in the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.

America is making this stand in practical ways. We are encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women -- beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)

And as we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is the killing of all humanity -- is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity.

After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the UAE declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat the al Qaeda in their own country. These brave citizens know the stakes: the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and we are proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we've joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle -- between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.

We don't know the course of -- our own struggle will take, or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know that the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. We do know the strength and character that our troops and military families bring to the fight. And we do know that the cause of freedom will once again prevail. (Applause.)

These are historic times. It's a vital time for our nation and the world. And I want to thank you for your courage and thank you for your sacrifice. May God bless your loved ones. May God bless you, and may God continue to bless our country.

---

THE MAGINOT LINE WILL SAVE US!:

French inch toward social reform: A majority say France's safety nets are broken, but they're divided on a solution. Last in a three-part series. (Peter Ford, 10/27/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

After more than two decades of jobless rates hovering stubbornly around 10 percent, France's chronic unemployment crisis "is the one big problem with the French social model," says John Martin, a senior official with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "If a social model should deliver a satisfactory labor market," says Mr. Martin, as European leaders gather outside London for talks about how to adjust their economies and social benefits, "this one has failed dismally for the best part of three decades."

Indeed, 68 percent of the French public said last month that their social safety net was broken. But they are divided over what to do about it.

Many are angry at what they see as hectoring from European Union leaders who have been urging big European nations such as France and Germany to apply free-market remedies (also known as the Anglo-Saxon model) to their flagging economies. And the French rejection last May of a putative European constitution - seen as paving the way for a more competitive, less comfortable Europe - was due in part to a reluctance to relax protective regulations and trim the welfare state. [...]

President Jacques Chirac, adept at feeling the national pulse, lashed out earlier this year at US-style unregulated capitalism as "the communism of our new century."
Stalled by lack of consensus

"The French won't change just because they are told that change is inevitable," says Marjorie Jouen, an analyst with the Paris based pro-European think tank Notre Europe.

They'll change because it is inevitable. Of course, by refusing to get ahead of the curve they're just making the change far uglier when it comes.

---

NO WONDER THEY POLLED 20%:

A new Sunni strategy in Iraq: After failing to defeat Iraq's charter, Sunni Arab parties merge - with an anti-US agenda. (Jill Carroll, 10/27/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

The engine that drives Iraq's insurgency, this country's politically marginalized Sunni Arab minority, is getting ready for a fight - but this time it's at the ballot box.

Energized by the adoption of a new constitution, which passed over Sunni objections, key Sunni political parties said this week that they are forming a coalition to ensure they have a voice in Iraq's new parliament, to be elected in December.

This vigorous new effort to participate is a complete reversal from the Sunni position last year that voters should boycott polls to select the transitional national assembly. But if the coalition has decided to join in a process it once rejected, it is also beginning to articulate a Sunni political agenda that is Islamist, vehemently anti-American, opposed to foreign troops, and discreetly pro-insurgency.

Even as incompetent as they've been, this is mind-bogglingly stupid. We're leaving whether they want us to or not and when we do, blithely ignoring them the whole time, what do they have left? just their support for the guys who are killing the Shi'ites who we're leaving in charge?

MORE:
The New Sunni Jihad: 'A Time for Politics': Tour With Iraqi Reveals Tactic Change (Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, 10/27/05, The Washington Post)

For Abu Theeb and many other Iraqi insurgents, this canvassing marked a fundamental shift in strategy, and one that would separate them from foreign-born fighters such as Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian who leads the group al Qaeda in Iraq.

Two years of boycotting the process had only seen Sunnis marginalized while Iraqi's Shiite majority gained power. And Abu Theeb's entry into politics was born partly of necessity; attacks by Shiite militias, operating inside and outside the government security apparatus, were taking an increasing toll on Sunni lives. [...]

This article is based on five days of travel and interviews with Abu Theeb and his associates before and after the referendum. The reporter was allowed such access on the condition that the guerrilla commander's real name and the name of his village would not be disclosed.

It was not possible to confirm directly how many Sunnis share his views on the political process. But Iraqi and U.S. analysts in Baghdad express hope that such a shift in outlook will eventually lead large numbers of radical Sunnis to abandon their weapons permanently and take part in the political process.

For men such as Abu Theeb, who said he shaved his bushy beard, a sign of an Islamic holy fighter, to pass more easily into and out of Baghdad, taking part in politics is a step taken only reluctantly.

"Politics for us is like filthy, dead meat," he said, referring to pork, which is eschewed by observant Muslims. "We are not allowed to eat it, but if you are crossing through a desert and your life depends on it, God says it's okay." Even if politics gets him a result he likes, he said, he'll continue war against the Americans, because he views them as occupiers.

---

OTHER THAN THAT...:

Chimps won’t do a neighbor a favor (World Science, Oct. 26, 2005)

Long ago were the days, it seems, when we humans could consider ourselves truly unique.

With chimps and other animals having been found to exhibit a range of human-like traits—including tool use, culture and some elements of language—it’s gotten harder and harder for scientists and philosophers to say just what sets us apart.

Finally, there may be some news to make us feel special again.

Researchers say they may have found one key trait that clearly separates humans from chimps, and possibly from other species: we’re the only ones that do favors without expecting something in return.

Chimps don’t show this sort of consideration, the researchers found.

Most frustrating for those who believe we're otherwise identical, the chimps refuse to explain their behavior.

---

NOT EVEN A D-DAY:

2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark ( JAMES DAO, October 26, 2005, NY Times)

Just 403,398 to go and it'll be a "Good War."

---

WHAT DID HE KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?:

Circumcision: Cutting the HIV Rate?
Breakthrough: Scientists say circumcision can help curb the spread of HIV (Newsweek, Oct. 31, 2005)

A landmark study with major implications for the global AIDS epidemic, published this week by French and South African researchers, seems to confirm what scientists have long suspected: that circumcision cuts the risk of HIV infection dramatically, by as much as 60 percent. If similar studies now underway in Kenya and Uganda corroborate the results, circumcision could become a powerful weapon—with condom use and other measures—in the fight against AIDS.

This just in, if you follow all God's commands you cut the spread to none.

---

SIZE MATTERS:

A Shrinking New Orleans: Mayor Says Infrastructure Can't Support Previous Population (Ceci Connolly and Manuel Roig-Franzia, October 26, 2005, Washington Post)

Mayor C. Ray Nagin, who has vowed to resurrect his crippled city, conceded Tuesday that New Orleans will shrink to nearly half its pre-hurricane population and will have to make do with one-third of its previous budget.

With as many as 250,000 homes uninhabitable and some neighborhoods still lacking basic services, Nagin estimated the city's shattered infrastructure could support 250,000 to 300,000 residents over the next year, compared with the half a million people who lived here before Hurricane Katrina struck Aug. 29.

"That's every available space," he said in an interview in New Orleans City Hall, where signs warn visitors to avoid contaminated basements and workers are replacing blown out windows. Nagin said his staff is scouring lists of blighted properties that could be renovated for temporary housing, as well as scouting for vacant lots, parks and supermarket parking lots to place thousands of trailers.

Perhaps they should be doing the opposite and seeking to tear down more properties in order to develop a smaller-scaled and more community-based city.

---

WHAT WAS DON REGAN FEEDING THESE GUYS?:

Condi Rice And Syrian
Regime Change (Paul Craig Roberts, 26 October, 2005, ICH)

Someone should tell Condi Rice that the gig is up. With the Bush administration dissolving in illegalities committed by key officials in their attempts to protect the lies that they used to justify the US invasion of Iraq, the secretary of state is trying to ramp up war against Syria.

Grasping a UN report that uses unreliable witnesses to implicate Syria in the assassination of a former Lebanese government official, Condi Rice told the BBC on October 23 that Syria's crime cannot be "left lying on the table. This really has to be dealt with."

This is amazing for many reasons. Here is the person in charge of US diplomacy acting as if she is the secretary of war unsheathing military force. Whoever heard of an American diplomat wanting to start a war because a former Middle Eastern government official was assassinated?

Mr. Roberts is another of those former Reaganauts who's been driven over the edge by George W. Bush. At the point where you're apologizing for Assad and demanding that Syria not be democratized you've estranged yourself pretty badly from the Gipper's legacy.

---

SUFFER NOT:

Historians and Scholars Produce New Picture of Witches and Witch Hunts, but Questions Remain (PETER STEINFELS, 10/22/05, NY Times)

In a search for historical roots and moral legitimacy, some feminists and many adherents of neopagan or goddess-centered religious movements like Wicca have elaborated a founding mythology in which witches and witch hunts have a central role. Witches, they claim, were folk healers, spiritual guides and the underground survivors of a pre-Christian matriarchal cult. By the hundreds of thousands, even the millions, they were the victims of a ruthless campaign that church authorities waged throughout the Middle Ages and early modern centuries to stamp out this rival, pagan religion.

Robin Briggs, an Oxford historian, is only one of many contemporary scholars rejecting this account. What unites most "common assumptions" about witches, witchcraft and witch hunts, Mr. Briggs writes in "Witches & Neighbors: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft" (Viking Penguin, 1996), is "one very marked feature," namely "that they are hopelessly wrong."

Over the last two decades or so, he and other historians, along with scholars in anthropology and psychology, have produced quite a different picture, although one leaving many questions unanswered.

Were the Middle Ages the prime period of burning witches, and church authorities the prime persecutors? That is an impression inherited from 19th-century Romantic and nationalist writers like the German folklorist Jacob Grimm and the French historian Jules Michelet.

Filtering dubious sources, including in Michelet's case some that had actually been forged, through their political agendas, they portrayed witches as personifications of popular resistance to political and religious authorities.

The antisocial always deserve persecution.

---

GEORGE W. BLAIR:

Blair's faith under scrutiny (Jonathan Walker, Oct 21 2005, icBirmingham)

Tony Blair's religious beliefs were under scrutiny again yesterday after a Labour backbencher accused him of giving faith groups " disproportionate influence" in Government.

Birmingham MP Lynne Jones (Lab Selly Oak) said it was "undemocratic" for religious beliefs to affect policy.

She demanded the abolition of a little-known working group, set up by Mr Blair to give religions a say in every Government department, whose members include Redditch MP Jacqui Smith (Lab). [...]

Mr Blair's personal religious beliefs have come under the spotlight in a way that was previously unknown in modern British politics.

Last month another Labour colleague, Midland MP Ken Purchase (Lab Wolverhampton North East), claimed Mr Blair had allowed his faith to influence education policy.

---

BROSJUDDBLOG NW CONTINGENT:

Orrin's map project above prompted an e-mail that went out to several of you Northwest types (and you KNOW who you are). If you're from the Northwest and DID NOT get an e-mail from me, please read the rest....

Please excuse this brief, assumptive intrusion. Hopefully you won't dismiss it as Spam.

You're getting this e-mail because you are (apparently) geographically collocated in the greater NW area and have commented or contributed in some way to the BrothersJudd Blog. Tim Goddard (another BrosJudd regular) and I started a conversation a bit too late in the Mariner's 2005 season to pull off what we've now decided should happen in 2006: a BrosJudd NW Contingent meet up @ Safeco Field for a ballgame.

So, I'm writing to:

1) Assure you we won't ever try to sell you Vi*gra, a low-rate mortgage or in any other way use/rent/sell/swap/lease-option your e-mail address.
2) Confirm this is actually your e-mail (we were guessing on some)
3) Find out if you have any interest in our ongoing efforts to settle on a game date. (i.e. if you'd like to "Opt In" to periodic e-mail communication on the details)

Of course, this idea may be a stretch - but we think it's feasible. So, we're looking to find out who might be adventurous enough to join us.

Thanks in advance for your response either way.

Best regards,
John Resnick

P.S. I'm good for a round of horribly-overpriced beers for whoever ultimately makes it to the game.

The following folks were supposed to get the message but we don't have a valid e-mail for you. (And the suspense is killing us.)

Raoul Ortega:
Flanman (Olympia, WA):
Patrick H (Seattle, WA):

So, you three above and any other Northwester who wants in, send me an e-mail: jresnick -- the at sign -- gorge.net.

---

PLEASE DON'T EAT THE BABIES:

The Great Stem Sell and Other Mistakes: What Americans really think about science: astonishing new polling data (Nigel M. de S. Cameron, 10/26/2005, Christianity Today)

If you read the mainstream press, you would be forgiven for believing that America is besotted with science, that only half-crazed, pro-life "extremists" have any doubts about the miracle cures that will spring any moment from embryonic stem-cell research, and that "therapeutic cloning" is the technology of the future.

According to a new opinion poll conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), you would be very wrong. [...]

For example, how many Americans believe that embryonic stem-cell research "holds the greatest promise for discovering new treatments for disease, compared to other types of stem cell research?" 90 percent? 70 percent? 40 percent? 25 percent? All wrong. The answer is an almost unbelievable 14 percent. So what do the rest think?

Well, the stress that many of us have been placing on adult stem cells, which have already proven to have great therapeutic potential, seems not to have gotten through. Those who think the "greatest promise" lies here number only 7 percent. Far more have concluded that the "greatest promise" lies with "other sources, such an umbilical cord blood"—37 percent. This is a strange result, and it may indicate a conviction that "stem cell research" is the answer among people put off by destroying embryos but not familiar enough with the debate to know what an adult stem cell is (it's a very strange term). [...]

When it comes to cloning, the results are even stronger—and surprising. Cloning an embryo, of course, can yield embryonic stem cells (if the embryo is destroyed). This is what is meant by "therapeutic cloning," a dishonest term for cloning for research. A cloned embryo could also be implanted (like an in vitro embryo) and lead to a newborn child. The bioscience advocates have been trying their best to have us think of these two in quite separate categories: "therapeutic" versus "reproductive" cloning. Indeed, they try and avoid the word "cloning" altogether, and speak of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (the technical term for cloning) "to get stem cells."

Once again, the American public has not been taken in. According to the poll, 81 percent oppose cloning as such. [...]

By the way, the poll also asked people about evolution and intelligent design. Just for the record, only 15 percent believed that only evolution should be taught in public schools, while 73 percent thought that either intelligent design, creationism, or a combination of them and evolution should be offered.

It is widely assumed that Americans are uncritically "pro-science" and that possessing the most powerful technology in the world makes it hard for us to ask hard questions about where science is taking us—and what its values are. Yet, partly as a result of the aggressive pro-cloning, pro-stem-cell research, and pro-evolution views of so many scientists and their organizations, the poll reveals deep-seated ambivalence on the part of many people.

While 85 percent believe that developments in science have helped to make society better (I wonder why that was not 100 percent; how can anyone disagree?), as many as 56 percent (versus 37 percent) agree that "scientific research doesn't pay enough attention to the moral values of society," and 52 percent (versus 41 percent) actually agree with the statement that "scientific research has created as many problems for society as solutions." These numbers should set alarm bells ringing in the science establishment—which is ultimately entirely dependent on two factors: public funding through the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other federal bodies; and the market for biotechnology and other products. Both of these depend on the support of the people, and well over half of them are now very skeptical of science.

The group that the numbers should scare most is Democrats, who have to a large degree staked their political future on opposition to religious values and an embrace of science and secularism. John Kerry, for example, tried making his unlimited willingness to exploit embryonic stem cells an issue in '04 and all it did was convince people that Democrats have a moral tin ear.

---

CAN'T SAY HE DIDN'T TELL YOU SO:

Bush Has Been a Moderate All Along (Ruben Navarrette Jr., 10/26/05, RCP)

About a year ago, I wrote a column in which I described Bush as a moderate, and a lot of Democrats wrote back and suggested it was a joke. Now there aren't many Republicans who are laughing.

Bush is the same person he has been since he ran for Texas governor in 1994. What you see is what you get. He doesn't spend a lot of time reinventing or repackaging himself. In fact, he prides himself on not changing his ways. What was it that he promised Republican senators about Miers? That she won't change. You see, for Bush, that's high praise.

Speaking of Miers, her nomination is the big reason that Bush is taking fire from the right. But it isn't the only reason. Many hard-line conservatives have never felt confident that Bush was one of them. Because of his positions on a host of issues -- from increasing government spending to making diversity a priority in Cabinet appointments to promising amnesty to illegal immigrants to increasing funding for public housing to urging that the Supreme Court preserve the ability of the University of Michigan to take the race of applicants into account even while opposing quotas and outright racial preferences -- many Republicans have long been suspicious of the man they have chosen to lead them. [...]

While governor of Texas, he shooed away folks who were proposing a ballot initiative -- modeled after California's Proposition 187 -- that would have denied benefits to illegal immigrants. He displayed a detectable lack of enthusiasm for school vouchers. He avoided making an issue out of abortion. And he declared that bilingual education programs that worked were worth keeping. He also partnered with Democrats in the Texas Legislature, and shared credit for legislative victories with members of the opposing party.

Now conservatives worry that Bush isn't a real conservative, or at least someone who is driven by conservative principles.

Nah, you think?

And all he's done is win consecutive presidential elections and expand GOP congressional majorities while revolutionizing the federal government and the Middle East.

---

WHY NH IS RED WITH A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR AND VT BLUE WITH A REPUBLICAN (SELF-REFERENCE ALERT):

Lynch Says Private Sector Key for Housing (Mark Davis, 10/26/05, Valley News)

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said yesterday he prefers encouraging the private sector and town governments to support affordable housing projects, instead of offering developers an array of state tax breaks and other incentives that were recently proposed by his counterpart in Vermont.

“Communities have to understand that affordable housing is good for (them),” Lynch said in response to a question after a speech to a meeting of the Lebanon and Hanover chambers of commerce. “Too many communities out there believe it's other communities' responsibility to solve, and it’s not.”

In a brief interview afterward, Lynch pointed to initiatives of Citizens Bank, on whose board he used to serve, as a model of how companies can help with affordable housing. In 2004, the bank said it would provide $200 million in low-interest loans to nonprofit housing developers in New England to boost the region's affordable housing stock.

Lynch said he wasn't completely adverse to tax breaks, but “I think the Citizens Bank model would be best,” he said.

Lynch's comments come 10 days after Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas declared creating more affordable housing the centerpiece of his 2006 legislative agenda. Douglas proposed giving tax breaks to developers who build units for less than $200,000 and to companies that help their workers buy homes, and offering state-owned land for affordable developments.

I've only ever voted for a Democrat once--and I was working for him--but unless the GOP comes up with a fabulous nominee I could see voting to re-elect Governor Lynch.

---

SAFE FROM WHAT? (via obc):

11 members of Cuban choir defect in Toronto (CTV.ca News, 10/26/05)

Eleven members of Cuba's national choir have defected in Toronto.

The internationally acclaimed 40-member Coro Nacional de Cuba arrived in Canada last week.

The choir has its roots in an army choir founded in 1959 by Ernesto (Che) Guevara. They sing classical, folkloric and popular Cuban music.

The defectors reportedly dodged security officers and jumped into waiting cars after concerts in Toronto on Sunday and Monday.

"I'm told they're at a safe house in Toronto, with some help from a local church group," promoter Robert Missen told The Globe and Mail.

How can you give political asylum to people from a country with which you have such good relations?

---

THE DE-EUROPEANIZATION OF EUROPE:

EU population up due to immigration (Lisbeth Kirk, 10/26/05, EU Observer)

The EU’s population increased last year by 2.3 million (0.5%) to a total of 457.2 million - but the increase was mainly due to the immigration of 1.9 million people.

Only 400,000 came from a natural increase while six countries - Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Poland - saw their populations shrink.

Published on Tuesday (25 October) by Eurostat, the EU's Statistical Office, the new figures also showed that the average fertility rate - child per woman – went up slightly in 2004.

It increased from 1.48 in 2003 to 1.50 in 2004, but no EU country reached the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman.

The highest fertility rates were found in Ireland (1.99), followed by France (1.90), Finland (1.80) and Denmark (1.78).

The lowest fertility rates were found in Slovenia (1.22), followed by the Czech Republic and Poland (both 1.23), Latvia (1.24) and Slovakia (1.25).

In other parts of the world fertility rates are higher. The US recorded birth rates of (2.07), Turkey (2.20) and India (2.85).

The most important task facing Lech Kaczynski is to get that number up over two. We're dubious that it's possible.

---

UNCHECKED DEMAND:

Mass. home prices fall in September: Decline is the first monthly drop since February as sales slow (Kimberly Blanton, October 26, 2005, Boston Globe)

The median price of a single-family house dropped for the first time in seven months as the pace of home sales weakened across Massachusetts in September, according to the monthly market report yesterday from the Massachusetts Association of Realtors.

The median selling price for a single-family house was $360,000 in September, down 4 percent from $375,000 in August. That was the first monthly price drop since February, though prices were still higher than they were a year ago. The number of single-family home sales that closed in September was 4,464, roughly equal to year-ago sales.

In the state's growing condominium market, the median sale price also declined, by 6.1 percent, to $270,000 in September from $287,500 in August. But strong sales continued: Buyers purchased 22 percent more condos than a year ago, a much stronger year-over-year increase than in recent months. Year-over-year comparisons of home sales are more valid than month-to-month numbers, real estate analysts say, because sales volume is highly dependent on weather and other seasonal factors.

A fall in housing prices comes at a time when real estate agents, especially in the suburbs, are increasingly reporting that clients who are reluctant to reduce their asking prices are not able to sell their homes in a softening market in which the number of houses on the market has spiked.

Same or higher sales. Slightly lower high price. That's not what bursting bubbles look like.

---

COUNT THE VOTE, PAL:

The Sunni option (Ehsan Ahrari, 10/26/05, Asia Times)

The draft constitution of Iraq has been approved by 78% of voters nationwide. As expected, the Sunni Arabs were unable to defeat it by getting at least two-thirds of the voters in three provinces to vote against it. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq reported that about 63% of Iraq's 15.5 million registered voters cast ballots.

Sunnis are not only viewing this reality as a permanent loss of power, but also as a way to partition their country into three parts. What are they to do now? They will do whatever a losing side does in an Arab polity that does not know how political battles are won or lost in a democracy. They will bide their time and attempt to sabotage the system, unless they are assured that the new Iraq is not just a euphemism for a permanent loss of their power.

If we accept for a moment the Left's assertion that every Shi'ite and Kurd voted for the constitution and every Sunni against then we arrive at a rough census count of 20% of the population of Iraq being Sunni. When you're the 20% party in a democracy your loss of power is permanent. We're about one election away from the Sunni realizing that federalism serves them best, because it would at least give them vcontrol over the regions where they do predominate.

---

DOES JEFFERSON TRUMP HAMILTON IN THE END?:

Exurbanites Occupy an Unsettled Place in Va. Politics: New Enclaves Lean GOP, but Residents Seem Isolated From State, Local Government (Stephanie McCrummen, October 25, 2005, Washington Post)

Jamie and Stephan Lechner liked their house in Germantown well enough, but in recent years, they said, the neighborhood began to change in ways that made them feel less comfortable. There were some discipline problems in the school where Jamie taught. There was a shooting in a low-income area not too far from where they lived and other, smaller signs that made them think things were headed downward.

And so, with their twin boys near school age, the Lechners did what they figured anyone of means would: They packed up and moved to a place billed as a retreat from all that: Dominion Valley, a new, gated, golf course community of $700,000 homes on the rural edges of Northern Virginia, a place where the singular issue of traffic dominates and where the last memorable conflict was whether jeans would be allowed in the country club.

"We had conflict," said Jamie Lechner, referring to her old Germantown neighborhood. "And we wanted to move away from that. . . . That's why we're here -- to be sheltered."

As another election season beats on in Virginia, most political analysts agree that fast-growing exurban areas such as western Prince William County will remain a boon to the Republican Party. But the ultimate effect of new, private, often homogenous enclaves remains uncertain, because they have yet to define how their everyday interests play into state politics.

In recent Virginia elections, 15 to 17 percent of the vote has come from cities, 20 to 23 percent from rural areas and 58 to 62 percent from the suburbs, said Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Of the suburban vote, he estimates, at least 25 percent has come from new communities in the outermost suburbs, as opposed to denser areas such as Fairfax County or eastern Prince William.

And yet behind the landscaped gates of Dominion Valley, where lines were two and three hours long in the last presidential election, voters said that few local issues besides traffic and sprawl rise to the level of requiring a political solution. Many said they would vote in the Nov. 8 elections more out of civic duty than passion, using long-held party affiliations as a guide.

"We never discuss politics," said Nina Kraemer, who was hosting a scrapbooking get-together at Dominion Valley's sports complex the other night. "I don't know, I guess something would have to spawn a conversation for one to occur. We talk about traffic -- we talk about that to the nth degree. We're afraid to go to the Target because we might not get back to the bus stop on time" to meet the children after school.

In the last presidential election, George W. Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the United States largely by appealing to social values through such issues as same-sex marriage. In the governor's race, Republican Jerry W. Kilgore is following a similar course with his death penalty ads, while both he and his Democratic opponent, Timothy M. Kaine, have made traffic a central theme.

So far, though, neither candidate's message seems to have penetrated very far into the consciousness of Dominion Valley voters, who struggle to recall what either man stands for and, sometimes, even to name either man. [...]

The Lechners were of a similar mind. They liked the diversity of their Germantown neighborhood, they said, but they did not want to subject their children to what they perceived as racial conflicts and other problems they associated with nearby government-subsidized housing.

In moving, they traded an area that was about half-Democrat, half-Republican for one that is mostly Republican, as they are. They left an area that was about 59 percent white for one where at least 83 percent of their neighbors look like them. And they left an area where residents are dealing with issues of cultural and economic diversity for one where such problems, for now at least, are abstractions.

"At a certain point, you want your kids to grow up in Mayberry," Jamie Lechner said. "And this is as close to Mayberry as we can get."

In his book, "Democracy in Suburbia," University of Chicago political science professor Eric Oliver asserts that, in general, the absence of conflict in suburban areas tends to go hand in hand with diminished participation -- not necessarily in elections, but in other parts of civic life, such as volunteering. "It turns citizens into consumers, basically," he said in an interview. ". . . They disconnect and disassociate themselves from the greater community in which they reside."

Furthermore, he said, a dynamic emerges that pits one region against another for resources. "If you have a city," he said, "you have different groups of people contesting for public resources, so there are class divisions in what people want from government. . . . When the community is homogenous, those core issues go by the wayside."

Sabato said homogeneity may simply mean that citizens' interests are represented more clearly and forcefully, as is evident in the emphasis on transportation in the current election.

"Delegates and senators and members of county boards know pretty clearly what their individual districts want them to do," he said. "These are automatic votes: Are you pro-growth or anti-growth? They know what to do because there isn't as much internal conflict."

The problem, he added, is when the balance of power tips too far one way, and other interests are eclipsed.

"As exurbs become more powerful, more populated, more legislatively represented, there is the danger that the hidden concerns of the central cities and older suburbs will be ignored," he said. "We do tend to leave our problems behind, always searching for that new frontier that doesn't have any. Of course, there is no such thing."

In Dominion Valley, residents say they are very much aware that their community hardly reflects the problems of society.

"This is not a bubble," said Lisa LaBelle, who moved to the development three years ago from Massachusetts. The evidence, she said, is in all the charitable work that residents of Dominion Valley do. There is a drop box in the sports pavilion for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, she said. People opened their wallets to help the family of a boy who had cancer. She recently helped raise $10,000 for breast cancer research.

"There is a lot of giving of ourselves, in terms of time or money, to the community," she said. "I think people are always going to be touched, no matter where they live."

When it comes to politics, though, LaBelle, who runs a real estate investment business with her husband, thinks more strictly in terms of her immediate interests as a small-business owner, which she thinks are more affected by national politics.

"I think we're driven because of having a small business," she said. "So I think in terms of taxes and how policies are affecting small businesses."

Here's an inchoate thought--please add yours or links to folks who've talked about in more systematic fashion: might it be that massive government was a necessary cost of urbanization, that in population agglomerations where so few people will be able to know or trust one another but where social interactions still have to be as safe as possible, we require government to fill the gaps? The politicization of everything would then just be an inevitable function of all our efforts to control this artificial skein. The process of deurbanization though returns people to smaller communities where social cohesion is easier and can be provided by the efforts of individuals, associations, churches, etc. , and thus government can be shrunk and politics diminished. What we may be seeing, first in the move outwards to suburbia in the 50s/60s and now in the move to exurbia or micropolitan areas is a 21st century version of Jeffersonianism in which republican values are found to thrive once people are not concentrated in cities. The policy implications are enormous, beginning with Republicans needing to bite the bullet and try to make the black inner city underclass into suburban home owners.

MORE:
Conservative New Urbanism (Paul M. Weyrich, September 19, 2005, Accuracy in Media)

Many conservatives dislike cities, for reasons I understand and sympathize with. Sin and the city is an old, old story; you can find it in the Confessions of Blessed Augustine. But cities are also the birthplace and necessary home for high culture. Without living cities, we will not have symphony orchestras and great music, classic theater, art museums, serious public libraries or any of the other venues high culture requires. Nor will we have the good used bookstores, artistic and literary cafes, salons or other informal but important places where ideas can be exchanged and culture can grow. No, the Internet is not a substitute; there can be no full replacement for people talking face-to-face.

Just as the next conservatism needs to make the culture its centerpiece, it needs to include high culture. Conservatism ought not be indifferent to whether future generations get to see Shakespeare's plays, hear Mozart's music or see Dürer's engravings. And if conservatives want that to happen, we need cities. God knows we dare not entrust culture to the universities.

That brings us to the problem we face: America's cities are in bad shape, most of them anyway. First the upper class, then the middle class, then anyone who could afford to moved out (busing, which wrecked the public schools, played a central role in the exodus). Cities cannot live if no one but the underclass lives in them. Nor can they survive if we continue to export our industries, to the point where cities offer no manufacturing or business jobs.

Over the past several decades, a movement has arisen to restore our cities and even to build new urban communities, towns, as an alternative to suburbs. It is called "new urbanism." As a conservative, I think new urbanism needs to be part of the next conservatism. But I also think we need a conservative new urbanism, which differs from much of what now goes under the new urbanist label.

---

ONLY THE NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO PROTECT CONSERVATIVES WHO DON'T THINK THEY'RE THIRD WAYERS:

Private firms poised to run state schools after reform: Christian groups in talks to take over from local education authorities (Matthew Taylor, October 26, 2005, The Guardian)

Private education companies and Christian groups are lining up to enter the education market created by yesterday's pivotal reforms of the state school system.

A company which runs 60 low-cost independent schools, GEMS, said it was discussing the creation of a charitable arm allowing it to enter the "new state schools' market". The Christian group the United Learning Trust, which is already the biggest single sponsor of schools in the academy programme, also confirmed it was in talks with one local authority about eight or nine state schools.

The moves follow publication of the education white paper unveiling plans to turn all primary and secondary schools into "self governing independent state schools". Every school will be encouraged to acquire a trust, made up of business charities, faith groups, universities or parent and community organisations. The trusts will be able to appoint the governing body, own their own assets, set their own admissions policies as well as control teachers' pay and conditions.

Yesterday Sir Ewan Harper, chief executive of the United Learning Trust, said: "There is every indication we will be setting up a number of these trusts around our academy schools." John Bridger, of GEMS schools, said the organisation had "a lot to contribute" to the new system.

The paper also outlined more powers for parents: they will get the right to demand new schools, the closure of struggling ones and the sacking of headteachers. Proposals set out by the education secretary, Ruth Kelly, will also see local authorities becoming parents' champions rather than education providers.

Advisers will be provided to help poorer parents choose and pupils will get subsidised buses.

The reforms were criticised by teachers' leaders last night.

The reforms dearest to the hearts of putative First Way conservatives in America are closest to the hearts of openly Third Way Brits--the only difference is honesty and self-awareness.

---

MAYBE THE EU CAN LEARN SOMETHING FROM THEM:

Iraqis back democracy by four to one (GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN, 10/26/05, The Scotsman)

IRAQIS have voted overwhelmingly to back a new constitution for their country, paving the way for national polls in December, election officials announced yesterday.

Nearly 79 per cent of the 9.8 million voters supported the constitution, the Independent Election Commission announced after a 10-day audit following allegations of fraud. [...]

George Bush, the US president, welcomed the vote: "The Iraqis are making inspiring progress toward building a democracy.

"By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress, from tyranny to liberation to national elections to the ratification of a constitution in the space of two-and-a- half years."

Funny that the Left considers it a quagmire because it's taking "so long."

---

DON'T SEE THE PYRAMIDS ALONG THE NILE:

Egypt unveils no-peeking zone (Mariam Fam, October 26, 2005, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Iman Moustafa loves the sea, but she always knew her bikini didn't conform with the rules of Islam, so each time she took a dip she would cover up quickly and pray on the beach. The guilt spoiled the fun.

"I felt as if I were fooling God," said Miss Moustafa, 25.

The solution? La Femme.

La Femme is one of three women-only beaches at this elite Mediterranean resort, offering beachgoers a priceless commodity: guiltless fun. Here the veiled, conservative and shy can strip down to skimpy bikinis safe from intruding male eyes.

The beaches, about 60 miles west of Alexandria, are part of a growing business that caters to the new class of religious Egyptians who are hip, rich and young. These secluded strips of sand are an attempt to reconcile liberal and conservative, worldly and heavenly, fun and piety.

How about a separate beach for the guys who insist on wearing Speedos?

---

STEAK HABIT:

Scare fare: A Halloween menu from Dracula's homeland (Marty Meitus, October 26, 2005, Rocky Mountain News)

For those who would like an authentic touch of Dracula's homeland at a Halloween party, consider preparing some of the dishes of Romania. Although Romania has never been known as a culinary hotbed, the cuisine is coming of age, much as Ireland's did, as chefs reinterpret the basics. [...]

According to the Romanian National Tourist Office (www.romaniatourism.com) in New York City, these ingredients include sour cream, eggs and tarragon, and favorite foods include tart soups, hearty stews, mititei (small skinless grilled sausages), lamb, beef and poultry dishes, carp and herring, tuica (a plum brandy), breads, polenta and clatite, a dessert crepe. The region also produces some well-respected wines.

Bram Stoker, whose famous Dracula started it all, is thought to have based his character on a real-life "dracula." Vlad III, a prince of Wallachia (a Romanian province), inherited the dracula appellation from his father, Vlad II. Vlad the elder was a former governor of Transylvania and the member of a secret organization called the Order of the Dragon. In Romanian, drac means "dragon," and Vlad II became known as Vlad Dracul. The name also can mean "devil," and many nobles associated dragons with the devil.

Vlad the Younger, or Vlad Dracula, a variation meaning "son of the Devil," also was known as Vlad Tepes, or Vlad the Impaler, because he had a nasty habit of impaling his enemies (and anyone else who crossed him) on stakes. [...]

Fleica (Grilled Steak With Garlic)

Makes 4 to 6 servings

3 or 4 garlic cloves, peeled

Juice of 2 lemons

1/2 teaspoon salt

Freshly ground black pepper to taste

1 (2- to 3-pound) flank steak or 4 sirloin (New York) strip or rib-eye steaks or an equivalent amount of skirt steak

3 tablespoons butter, melted

1/4 cup chopped fresh parsley leaves

• If you have a mortar and pestle, pound the garlic with the lemon juice and salt until a paste is formed.

• Otherwise, mince the garlic finely and stir it with the salt into the lemon juice.

• Use the back of a wooden spoon to smash the garlic as much as you can.

• Press the pepper into the steak and then spread the garlic mixture evenly on both sides. Let the steak marinate for an hour at room temperature.

• Meanwhile, start a charcoal or gas grill or preheat the broiler; the fire should be moderately hot and the rack about 4 inches from the heat source.

• When ready to cook, brush the melted butter onto the steak and then place on the grill.

• Continue to baste with any remaining butter while the steak is cooking, about 4 minutes per side for medium-rare.

• Garnish with the parsley and serve.

---

JUST START WITH PEANUT BUTTER AND IT'S TOUGH TO GO WRONG:

Intermediate Eater: A sweet slice of onion any day (JOHN OWEN, 10/26/05, Seattle POST-INTELLIGENCER

Many years ago, when Emmett Watson and I occupied adjoining desks at this newspaper, we discovered that we shared a passion for Walla Walla onions. And we bemoaned the fact that their season ended about the same time football season began.

And then a friend told Watson how he could extend the shelf life of Walla Wallas. It involved obtaining some old but washed pantyhose. You hung one from a basement clothesline, plopped a large onion into the hose, shoved it down to the toe, tied a knot above it, and then repeated the process.

A month or so later I asked if the experiment was a success.

"Well, I guess you could say it was," Emmett confided. "But I got some strange looks from the furnace repairman." [...]

Sweet onions are terrific raw, on hamburgers. I think they also are terrific on peanut butter and dill pickle sandwiches, but Alice the Artist declares this a symptom of senility. You also could use sweet onions in German kuchen or French onion soup.

Peanut butter recipes stick with you (J.M. HIRSCH, 10/26/05, AP)

If I didn't really love peanut butter, I'd question whether we need two new cookbooks dedicated to the ingredient. Two cookbooks that have nearly identical covers, at that.

But it is peanut butter, after all. And while my own master recipe is no more complicated than eating it by the spoonful, I'm always open to consider new ways to work it into my cooking.

The slimmer of the volumes (though few of these recipes are anything close to slimming) is Lee Zalben's The Peanut Butter & Co. Cookbook, which is drawn from his so-named sandwich shop in New York.

The second is Bruce Weinstein and Mark Scarbrough's latest entry in their "ultimate" cookbook series (thus far covering everything from potatoes to brownies), The Ultimate Peanut Butter Book.

Both cover similar ground.

Zalben's book is deliciously illustrated with lush photography. I was particularly won over by the peanut butter and jelly French toast, though peanut butter granola was a close second.

But what really grabbed me was the grilled cheese with peanut butter.

"The idea of a grilled cheese and peanut butter sandwich may not seem very appealing at first," Zalben writes. "But go to almost any vending machine . . . and you'll find little packets of orange, cheese-flavoured sandwich crackers filled with peanut butter and who doesn't love those?"

Weinstein and Scarbrough take a somewhat more serious (and seriously good) approach.

---

DOES ANYBODY EDIT THE WAPO?

Sunnis Failed to Defeat Iraq Constitution (John Ward Anderson, Washington Post, 10/26/05)

The constitutional referendum was approved by 78 percent of voters, with 21 percent -- mostly Sunni Arabs -- rejecting it, according to tallies announced by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq. The results confirmed widely reported preliminary estimates showing that the referendum had passed.

In Anbar province, 96 percent voted against the referendum, and 81 percent rejected it in Salahuddin. But in the key swing province of Nineveh, 56 percent voted against the constitution -- about 10 percent short of the number necessary to kill it.

About 63 percent of Iraq's 15.5 million registered voters cast ballots, the commission reported.

The results underscored the deep divisions along ethnic and sectarian lines in Iraqi society -- a condition that has fueled a violent Sunni-led insurgency against the government and U.S. occupation forces.

Shiite Arabs, who account for about 60 percent of Iraq's population, overwhelmingly favored passage of the constitution, which formalizes the country as a parliamentary democracy with Islam as the source of its laws. Kurds, who make up about 20 percent of the population, also strongly embraced the charter, which grants far-reaching autonomy to their region in northern Iraq.

But leading figures among Sunni Arabs, who make up about 20 percent of the population, were split over the constitution.

So, 63 percent of registered voters participated in the election, 78 percent of those voters approved of the constitution, Shiites and Kurds supported the constitution overwhelmingly, and there was division among "leading figures among Sunni Arabs" (who account for 20% of the population) who nonetheless turned out heavily to vote -- and the writer concludes there are deep ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraqi society?

That doesn't seem like the most accurate characterization.

---

BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME HITS FORMER POWELL STAFFER

The White House cabal (Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Los Angeles Times, 10/25/05)

IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

When I first discussed this group in a speech last week at the New America Foundation in Washington, my comments caused a significant stir because I had been chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell between 2002 and 2005.

But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.

Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and "guardians of the turf."

[snip]

The administration's performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell's damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it. And he did — everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary's constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war. It wasn't enough, of course, but it helped.

Colin Powell's bureaucrat/staffer is frothing so badly that it apparently escapes him that he's called President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld secretive and little-known and compared them to a dictatorship, while at the same time indicating a preference for policy made less transparently by career bureaucrats who never have to face a voter. Far from being a "secret cabal," the President and Vice-President do head the executive branch thanks to the voters, and do enjoy the constitutional power of setting foreign policy. As for the highest-profile Secretary of Defense in generations, it's odd for anybody to refer to him as a little-known policymaker.

---

THE ANTI-STEINBRENNER (via Jim in Chicago):

NFL Mourns Death of New York Giants Owner (DAVE GOLDBERG, 10/25/05, AP)

Every NFL fan owes a huge debt to Wellington Mara, who died Tuesday at 89. So does every owner, executive and player.

Mara, who joined the New York Giants as a ballboy the day his father purchased the team 80 years ago and became co-owner as a teenager, was the face of the franchise for more than a half century.

But he also was the patriarch of the NFL, a man who was willing for more than 40 years to split the millions in television revenues he could have made in the nation's largest market with the Green Bays and Pittsburghs of the league.

It put the NFL at the top of America's sports hierarchy.

"He shaped nearly every rule and philosophy we have in our league today," said Ernie Accorsi, the Giants general manager. "Most of all, he was the moral conscience of the National Football League. He now joins the pantheon of incredible men who made this league what it has become." [...]

Mara became a Giants' ballboy at age 9 on Oct. 18, 1925 after his father, Timothy J. Mara, bought the team. He stayed fully involved in New York's operation for almost 80 years, except for the three years he served in the Navy during World War II. Until he became ill last spring, he attended most practices and every game.

In 1930, at 14, his father made him co-owner with older brother Jack.

He ran the club until several years ago, when his son John took over day-to-day operations. But from 1979 on, while the team was run by general managers George Young and Accorsi, Mara had final say on football decisions. He was the one who decided to fire Jim Fassel after the 2003 season and replace him with Tom Coughlin.

Coughlin remembered Mara as an owner who stayed away from the coaches — except when he was needed.

"I'll never forget when I was here as an assistant in 1988," he said. "We lost the last game of the year to the
New York Jets and didn't go into the playoffs. The next day he was in the coaches' meeting room, and he went from coach to coach, shaking everybody's hand. In 1989 we were in the playoffs and the next year we won the Super Bowl. We never saw him at that time. He didn't have to be there. He was there when he was needed. He always said and did the right thing." [...]

He would greet players after every game — win or lose — flashing a shy smile at stars and scrubs alike.

"My wife said it best when we talked about Mr. Mara," said Simms, the quarterback on the Giants Super Bowl teams and now a television analyst. "She said, 'There are so few icons left.' That's what Mr. Mara was. He was from an era where there were certain men who handled themselves differently than everybody else. I don't know if you can be that person anymore in this day and age. I don't know if society would let you be like him."

Pity society.

---

THOSE WHO DENY OUR STUPIDITY AREN'T ULTIMATELY CONSERVATIVES (via Timothy Goddard):

Blessed Paul Wellstone (Daniel E. Ritchie, October-December 2005, American Enterprise)

A few months after the Republicans regained power in the Senate, a Wellstone supporter took me out for coffee. How could an intelligent Christian who cares about the poor, she wanted to know, be a conservative? The Wellstone death had hit her harder than expected. She genuinely wanted to understand how a nice guy like me could be associated with, well, them.

The difference is simple, I told her. Liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid. Wellstone’s paean to his own achievements, The Conscience of a Liberal (2001), is a breathless account of one initiative after another, wrapped in cursory policy analyses of health care, welfare reform, education, the minimum wage, and other issues. He solves the problem of universal health care in three pages by limiting annual medical costs to 5 percent of income, promising “cost containment,” and eliminating “excessive profit” in the system. Wellstone admits to only one possible mistake in his first ten years as a senator: he voted to preserve heterosexual marriage.

Conservatives, I told her, don’t trust their own intelligence in the way that Wellstone trusted his. We doubt that any individuals, regardless of their compassion or intelligence, can amass the knowledge required to make wise choices for society regarding health care or the minimum wage, let alone marriage. The prices established by billions of choices made by millions of consumers, I said, reflect more knowledge than Senator Wellstone could possibly amass. Similarly, we think that traditions, with their subtle mix of flexibility and stability, established over centuries by billions of ordinary people, embody more knowledge about marriage than does the American Psychological Association.

Our ultimate disagreement, I told her, was over the nature of knowledge. Conservatives recognize its limits; liberals celebrate its power. Liberals trust extraordinary people like Paul Wellstone to solve social problems.

And the neocons think the Court requires people of extraordinary intellect.

---

YOU'RE THE ONLY GIRL IN TOWN:

Egalitarian Finland most competitive, too: Despite hefty government spending on social benefits, Finland tops global economies. Second in a three-part series. (Peter Ford, 10/26/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

Today, this small Nordic nation boasts a thriving hi-tech economy ranked the most competitive in the world, the best educated citizenry of all the industrialized countries, and a welfare state that has created one of the globe's most egalitarian societies.

Envious policymakers from far and wide are beating a path to Helsinki to learn the secrets of Finland's success.

"We have a saying here," chuckles Stefan Nygård, a university lecturer, as he swings his baby daughter gently, soothing her to sleep. "If you are Finnish, you've won the lottery."

But as the leaders of other European countries desperately seek ways to preserve their expensive systems of social protection in a competitive globalized world, Finland's circumstances and mind-set aren't easily copied. "Finland is an exceptional case Europe," cautions Riisto Erasaari, professor of social policy at Helsinki University. "We are a small homogenous country, heavily state-based, and our social model as a whole is so typically Finnish that it won't travel. But parts of it," - such as the government-funded focus on innovation and education, "are exportable." [...]

Nowhere is this approach clearer than in Finland's schools, which at the end of World War II turned out some of the worst educated young people in the industrialized world, and now graduate the best, according to comparative studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Making sure that every Finnish child, wherever he lived and whatever his background, could get a decent education had a very deliberate goal, says Riita Lampola, head of international relations for the Finnish Board of Education, which oversees schooling.

"As a poor country with a small population, if we wanted to be a modern society and to develop our country, we needed everybody here," she says. "That meant everybody had to be educated."

High level education is the key to what Pekka Himanen, a brilliant young philosopher who advises the Finnish government, calls his country's "virtuous circle."

"When people can fulfill their potential they become innovators," Dr. Himanen argues. "The innovative economy is competitive and makes it possible to finance the welfare state, which is not just a cost, but a sustainable basis for the economy, producing new innovators with social protection."

Other European countries could copy Finland's efforts to improve its education system, Himanen insists, just as they could emulate Finland's heavy investment in research and development (R&D) - currently standing at 3.6 percent of GDP, the highest level in Europe after Sweden.

The tests will come when only about 60% of the population is Scandinavian and/or there are so few younger workers that taxes go even higher.

---

THROWING THE NEOCON ELITES A BONE:

Next Fed chief: smartest ever? (Ron Scherer, 10/26/05,The Christian Science Monitor)

When he wasn't studying economics at MIT, Ben Bernanke, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, might have been cheering on the Red Sox at Fenway Park.

And when he wasn't studying in high school - he scored a 1590 on his SAT - he was All-State saxophonist.

As a child, he honed his analytical mind by playing chess and studying Hebrew at the local synagogue. He was just "an outgoing and well-rounded" kid growing up in the small town of Dillon, S.C., says his brother, Seth, an attorney in Charlotte, N.C.

Easygoing, extremely smart, plain-spoken - these are some of the words being used to describe Mr. Bernanke (ber-NANK-ee) as he prepares to lead an often inscrutable band of monetary policymakers. He has sterling economic credentials, but his ability to speak to Main Street as easily as Wall Street may be the trait that best prepares him for a job in which his every utterance can move global markets. [...]

Economists say Bernanke might have the best academic background of any recent Fed chairman. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard; four years later he finished up his doctorate at MIT. He taught economics at NYU, Stanford, and Princeton.

He is the author of respected textbooks on the Great Depression and inflation. He's written more than 39 weighty articles in "economese," that strange language used by economists. And, he holds titles in enough professional associations, such as Co-editor of Economics Letters, to keep most people busy for a lifetime.

"He may have the best intellectual training and pedigree of anyone who has held that office," says Bob Brusca of Fact And Opinion-Economics, in New York.

---

SAVE A PEW FOR CHRIS HITCHENS (via Ali Choudhury):

The Gospel According to Anne: The queen of the occult has been gone awhile. What's Anne Rice been up to? Getting healthy, finding God—and writing her most daring book yet. (David Gates, 10/31/05, Newsweek)

They've been worried about her. After 25 novels in 25 years, Rice, 64, hasn't published a book since 2003's "Blood Chronicle," the tenth volume of her best-selling vampire series. They may have heard she came close to death last year, when she had surgery for an intestinal blockage, and also back in 1998, when she went into a sudden diabetic coma; that same year she returned to the Roman Catholic Church, which she'd left at 18. They surely knew that Stan Rice, her husband of 41 years, died of a brain tumor in 2002. And though she'd moved out of their longtime home in New Orleans more than a year before Hurricane Katrina, she still has property there—and the deep emotional connection that led her to make the city the setting for such novels as "Interview With the Vampire." What's up with her? "For the last six months," she says, "people have been sending e-mails saying, 'What are you doing next?' And I've told them, 'You may not want what I'm doing next'." We'll know soon. In two weeks, Anne Rice, the chronicler of vampires, witches and—under the pseudonym A. N. Roquelaure—of soft-core S&M encounters, will publish "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt," a novel about the 7-year-old Jesus, narrated by Christ himself. "I promised," she says, "that from now on I would write only for the Lord." It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" announced that he'd been born again.

Meeting the still youthful-looking Rice, you'd never suspect she'd been ill—except that on a warm October afternoon she's chilly enough to have a fire blazing. And if you were expecting Morticia Addams with a strange new light in her eyes, forget it. "We make good coffee," she says, beckoning you to where a silver pot sits on the white tablecloth. "We're from New Orleans." Rice knows "Out of Egypt" and its projected sequels—three, she thinks—could alienate her following; as she writes in the afterword, "I was ready to do violence to my career." But she sees a continuity with her old books, whose compulsive, conscience-stricken evildoers reflect her long spiritual unease. "I mean, I was in despair." In that afterword she calls Christ "the ultimate supernatural hero ... the ultimate immortal of them all."

To render such a hero and his world believable, she immersed herself not only in Scripture, but in first-century histories and New Testament scholarship—some of which she found disturbingly skeptical. "Even Hitler scholarship usually allows Hitler a certain amount of power and mystery." She also watched every Biblical movie she could find, from "The Robe" to "The Passion of the Christ" ("I loved it"). And she dipped into previous novels, from "Quo Vadis" to Norman Mailer's "The Gospel According to the Son" to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins's apocalyptic Left Behind series. ("I was intrigued. But their vision is not my vision.") She can cite scholarly authority for giving her Christ a birth date of 11 B.C., and for making James, his disciple, the son of Joseph by a previous marriage. But she's also taken liberties where they don't explicitly conflict with Scripture.

Heck, it seems almost cliched for someone to find the Light by way of horror.

---

ALL THOSE HELLHOUNDS FOR NOTHIN'?:

Raise a Glass to Adult Stem Cells (Michael Fumento, 10/24/2005, TCS)

I have frequently written on the gulf between the promise of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and the reality of therapy from adult stem cells (ASCs) -- those already in our bodies and umbilical cord blood. ESCs get publicity; ASCs get results. The latest example: ASCs are now rebuilding human livers.

Until now, the only hope for persons with irreversible liver failure from such diseases as cirrhosis, which kills about 27,000 Americans yearly, was transplantation. This requires permanent use of immunosuppressive drugs which can lead to opportunistic infections and cancer. Most importantly, it requires a new liver. About a thousand Americans are now on a waiting list for one and many will die there.

But scientists from London's Imperial College report in The New Scientist that they have repaired patients' own damaged livers by using bone marrow adult stem cells collected from their own blood. Five were injected with a drug that stimulated their marrow to produce extra stem cells that were then injected into a blood vessel leading directly to the liver.

It worked. Both liver function and overall health of three out of five treated patients improved significantly within only two months of treatment. The two patients whose health did not improve were left no worse off.

The researchers said the marrow stem cells appeared to simply home in on damaged portions of the liver and affect repairs, just as ASCs previously have been shown to do with other organs thought unable to repair themselves such as hearts and brains.

Most recently, Korean researchers injected umbilical cord stem cells into the injured part of a paraplegic's spine, allowing her to walk again.

Somebody better tell John Edwards to race to the crossroads and yell: Backsies!

---

THE HUMAN HEART IS HARD TO EXTINGUISH:

Minuteman sent home for aiding immigrant (Louie Gilot, 10/18/05, El Paso Times)

In a strange turn of events, a Minuteman has been dismissed from the volunteer border patrol group for giving a ride, food and water to two undocumented immigrants, officials said.

The incident, which occurred two weeks ago near Hachita, N.M., led the Border Patrol to investigate whether the patroller from the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps was helping or detaining the migrants, both illegal actions. The agency presented its finding to the U.S. Attorney's office in Albuquerque, where officials declined to prosecute the case.

Minuteman officials said the man, a Colorado resident in his 50s, was driving on Highway 81 from one Minuteman encampment to another when he picked up the two migrants, who were hitchhiking.

Gary Cole, the group's operations manager, said the patroller gave the migrants food and water.

He was just discombobulated when it turned out they didn't have horns.

---

CONTRADICTING THE AGE:

You can trust them to sell you a car: a review of Opus Dei by John L Allen (Piers Paul Read, 23/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

What was radical about Escrivá's project was the sanctification of labour. Men such as St Francis of Sales or St Alfonso Ligouri had reminded the laity that they too were called to be saints, but the emphasis was on prayer and liturgical devotions. Escrivá insisted that work itself is a God-given vocation, whether it be as a postman or a merchant banker. You can confidently buy a second-hand car from an Opus Dei dealer: more importantly, writes Allen, the educational institutes it sponsors in Africa "could help shape a generation of African leaders who know what it means to bring their personal integrity into their public roles".

Allen's book debunks the negative propaganda. It was the enthusiasm of Pope John Paul II, not Opus Dei lobbying, that led him to make Opus Dei a "personal prelature" and put St Josemaría Escrivá on the fast track to canonisation. Opus Dei has not infiltrated the structures of power in the Church: there are more Jesuits in the Vatican and the Episcopate. Neither is it rich, "at least not by the standards of other organisations in the Catholic Church". And it doesn't have a preferential option for the well-heeled: "many of its corporate works are aimed at the poor".

Why, then, has Opus Dei received such a bad press? Its ethos is inevitably "a sign of contradiction" in a hedonistic and self-indulgent society. The animosity from within the Church derives from the conflicting views of the role of the Church following Vatican II. At the time, the superior of the Jesuits, Pedro Arrupe, "symbolised the new post-Vatican II ethos, calling his Jesuits to be 'men for others', which in practice sometimes meant joining movements for peace and justice", while "Escrivá walked another path, insisting on the primacy of traditional forms of prayer, devotion, and the sacramental life". Making Opus Dei a "personal prelature" and Escrivá a saint "seemed like a clampdown on the Jesuits - almost as if a torch was being passed". As Allen points out, some of Opus Dei's harshest critics were once Jesuit priests.

Folks who show the rest of us how selfish we are can't be popular--we crucified Christ didn't we?

---

AND DEMOGRAPHICS DOES THE REST:

Bad news for donkeys on religion front (James P. Pinkerton, October 25, 2005, Newsday)

The Republicans have had a bad few weeks. However, the Democrats have had a rough decade. A preacher who visited New York last week provides part of the answer.

Yes, top GOPers in Washington are in deep trouble, even as the White House braces for the negative impact of the 2,000th American fatality in Iraq. So that's one way of assessing the political situation.

But there's another way, which asks, Which party better shares the bedrock values of most Americans? That's a happier question for Republicans.

A new paper by Democratic thinkers William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, "The Politics of Polarization," argues that over the past three decades a "great sorting out" has occurred, leaving conservatives and religious believers mostly in the Republican Party, liberals and seculars mostly in the Democratic Party.

The problem for Democrats is that self-described conservatives outnumber self-described liberals 34-21. Furthermore, Galston and Kamarck - veterans of the Clinton White House - contend many moderates incline toward conservatism on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the public display of religion. A Pew Center poll asked, for example, if it was proper to display the Ten Commandments in a government building; 72 percent of Americans said "proper," 22 percent "improper."

As Galston and Kamarck observe, religion and the social-issue controversies it raises have been "the overriding factor" in the realignment of the parties - or, to put it more bluntly, the shrinkage of the Democratic Party. The authors regret this shrinking but don't see a reversal so long as their party is seen as anti-religious.

Viewed through this most basic lens in American politics today it becomes readily apparent why neocons and libertarians despise the President and Ms Miers so much. It's just not a plausible notion that they'll remain Republicans over the long term nor that most blacks and Hispanics will stay Democrats.

---

THE 70S ARE FINALLY OVER:

Fed nominee a master of `Oops!' (Brett Arends, October 25, 2005, Boston Herald)

Bernanke is thought to take a more relaxed view of inflation than his predecessor. After all, his research at MIT focused on the Great Depression, and the disaster of collapsing prices.

That may be worrying enough for bond investors, who are vulnerable to inflation.

But Bernanke, in his first years as a member of the Fed's board, has also shown he can be a loose cannon.

And in the bond market, loose talk from a Fed governor can cost billions.

In speeches in November 2002 and July 2003, he explicitly raised the spectre of Japanese-style falling prices in the United States.

And he spoke alarmingly of emergency measures the Fed might use to prevent it.

Among them: slashing short-term rates to zero percent, wholesale printing of new dollars, making cheap loans to banks and a huge Fed program to buy up assets across the economy to restore confidence and liquidity.

He'll have to raise rates a couple more times just to prove his anti-inflation bona fides, but then he'll get rates back down to where they should be in a deflationary epoch.

---

AND I HAVE TO WORK, DARNIT!:

THE VERMONT INDEPENDENCE CONVENTION: An Impossible Dream or a Vision of the Future? (Vermont Independence Convention, October 28, 2005, State House
Montpelier, Vermont)

James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, will be the keynote speaker at The Vermont Convention on Independence to be held in the House Chamber of the State House in Montpelier on Friday October 28th. Sponsored by the Second Vermont Republic, the convention, which will begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 5:00 p.m., is open to the public and free of charge.

This historic event will be the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861.

Other speakers will include Professor Frank Bryan, UVM; Kirkpatrick Sale, author of Human Scale, J. Kevin Graffagnino, Executive Director, Vermont Historical Society; Professor Eric Davis, Middlebury College; Shay Totten, editor, Vermont Guardian; Antoine Robitaille, journalist Le Devoir (Quebec City); G. Roderick Lawrence, CEO, Stevenson Kellogg (Canada); (Rev.) Ben T. Matchstick; and General Ethan Allen (aka Jim Hogue). General Allen is expected to travel by horse to the State House.

The objectives of the convention are twofold. First, to raise the level of awareness of Vermonters of the feasibility of independence as a viable alternative to a nation which has lost its moral authority and is unsustainable. Second, to provide an example and a process for other states and nations which may be seriously considering separatism, secession, independence, and similar devolutionary strategies.

The Second Vermont Republic is a peaceful, democratic, grassroots, libertarian populist movement committed to the return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic as it once was between 1777 and 1791.

I'll admit that my adopted home state has more than it's fair share of goofy ideas, but secession always has been number one with a minnie ball. My first roomate in college was a Vermont secession freak. Texas could make a go of independence. Vermont would rapidly turn into a third world country. No, it's not already.

And everyone's favorite misanthropic Malthusian, James Howard Kunstler is the keynote speaker!

---

IT'S A BANANA, NOT A PUMPKIN, REPUBLIC!

Venezuelan Police Squash Pumpkin Threat (Los Angeles Times, 10/25/05)

Venezuelan police scrambled to the headquarters of state petrochemical company Pequiven and the offices of President Hugo Chavez's political party in Caracas after someone left pumpkins bearing protest messages at the sites.

Local media showed heavily armed police and bomb experts surrounding one jack-o'-lantern covered with stickers. Others sprouted cables and wires.

Weeks earlier, paper skeletons with anti-Chavez messages were hung from bridges and lampposts.

Such a creative people deserve far better than Hugo Chavez.

---

ALL FOR FREEDOM AND FOR PLEASURE:

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Decide Who Should Rule The World (John Hawkins, 10/25/05, Right Wing News)

The BBC polled more than 15,000 people worldwide on who they would want to lead a fantasy world government. The results were, particularly for conservatives, quite disturbing with people like Bill Clinton, Noam Chomsky, Kofi Annan, and George Soros making it into the top 11.

So, in order to get a different perspective, Right Wing News decided to poll more than 200 right-of-center bloggers on who they'd want to be part of a team to "Rule The World".

There was one caveat however. Since many conservative bloggers, myself included, vehemently object to the idea of one world government, all bloggers were told they were choosing a team to run every country in the world except their own home country.

Representatives from the following 38 blogs responded...

Aaron's CC, The Anchoress, La Shawn Barber, The Baseball Crank, Betsy's Page, Boi From Troy, BrothersJudd Blog, Cobb, Dodgeblogium, Dummocrats, Eckernet, Cam Edwards, Inside Larry's Head, Isaac Schrödinger, Knowledge Is Power, The LLama Butchers, Multiple Mentality, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, The Nose On Your Face, Patio Pundit, Damian Penny, The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, PoliPundit, PrestoPundit, Professor Bainbridge, Reasoned Audacity, Relapsed Catholic, Right Wing News, Sane Nation, Sister Toldjah, Small Dead Animals, Solomonia, Southern Appeal, Stolen Thunder, Stop The ACLU, This Blog Is Full Of Crap, Toys in the Attic, WILLisms

All bloggers could make anywhere from 1-15 unranked selections and were allowed to select any living person, from anywhere in the world, for their lists.

Without further ado, here are the people right-of-center bloggers would choose to rule the world:

Here were our choices:

George W. Bush

Martin S. Feldstein

Jeb Bush

Tony Blair

Gordon Brown

Iain Duncan Smith

John Howard

Dr. Manmohan Singh

Vaclav Havel

Alvaro Uribe

Jose Pinera (http://www.cato.org/people/pinera.html)

Jose Maria Aznar

Natan Sharansky

Seif al-Islam Qhadafi

Junichiro Koizumi

---

WE NEED ANOTHER EUPHEMISM:

Blair's public service crusade (Patrick Wintour, October 25, 2005, The Guardian)

Tony Blair is using his final years in government to rush through a radical transformation of the role of the state right across the public sector. The aim, clearly evident in today's white paper on education, is that the state should no longer be primarily a direct provider of services, but instead become a regulator and commissioner of services purchased from public, private and voluntary sectors.

Mr Blair sees the white paper as pivotal for the government since it symbolises a model for this reform in which the state does not quite wither away, but recasts itself. Similar, if specifically different, reforms are being implemented through the prison and probation service, housing provision, employment service, health and of course education.

In one shape or other, markets are being introduced into the public sector - "contestability", in the jargon - in which providers compete not necessarily over price, but quality. The hope is that once the system is right, the reform becomes self-perpetuating. Such ideas have long been discussed in New Labour thinktanks, the strategy unit or the office of public service reform, but they are now being acted on the ground. The extraordinary range of the reforms is probably only slowly dawning on traditional Labour MPs.

Some of the leading ideologues of change in government, such as the cabinet office secretary John Hutton, privately recognise they have yet to find the right language to describe the reform. Words such as "market mechanisms", "privatisation", and "choice" merely engender hostility, especially among those who believe reform is best secured through public investment. Mr Blair himself seems less anxious on this point, at least for now. As he admitted to last month's party conference, his one great regret has been his failure to reform further and faster, and he now seems determined to make amends.

The enemies aren't likely to react well if he starts calling it compassionate conservatism either. To reconcile the Right to the American Third Way we came up--thanks to Andrew Moore and ted welter--with the name Uberconservatism (with lightning bolts and umlouts). Now we need a kind of sissified name for the Third Way that will attract the Left. Any ideas?

---

THEN BE LEBANON:

For Syrians, a Siege Mentality Sets In: U.N. Inquiry, Iraq War Feeding Anxiety Among Assad's Backers and Foes (Anthony Shadid, October 25, 2005, Washington Post)

"I came to denounce the investigation," explained 17-year-old Hisham Hassan, holding a portrait of President Bashar Assad.

He paused, furrowing his brow. "Why else?" he asked, turning to his friend, Hisham Shaqairi.

"National unity," his friend said.

"Right, national unity," Hassan answered, nodding.

But amid the chants and smiles, one poster hinted at the deep unease that courses through Damascus these days, as its government faces its greatest crisis since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. "Syria will never be Iraq," it read.

Shaqairi saw the poster and understood the message. "Iraq yesterday is Syria today," he said, turning serious.

In markets suffused with the scent of spices, in homes struggling to make ends meet and in cafes crowded at the end of the daily dawn-to-dusk fast of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the plight of Syria's neighbor casts a long, menacing shadow. It is bolstering the legitimacy of Assad's isolated government, dictating the strategy of its still-feeble opposition and molding opinion toward the United States' hinted aim, the end of 35 years of rule by Assad's Baath Party, many people here say.

"The scenario of Iraq is in the back of the minds of the majority of Syrians," said Yassin Hajj Saleh, a 44-year-old opposition activist. "The regime has greatly benefited from the disastrous situation there. It points its finger: 'Look at Iraq, look at Iraq. Occupation, terrorism, death, daily killings and civil war.' That scenario is terrifying to Syrians."

The mounting crisis, with the U.N. Security Council due on Tuesday to discuss the U.N. investigation into Hariri's killing, has fed anxiety more than anticipation, fear more than hope, creating some of the same sentiments voiced in Iraq in March 2003.

"You are in a car, the driver is crazy, the road is downhill and we have no brakes," Saleh said.

May as well hit the gas pedal and enjoy the ride.

---

PITY ANTARCTICA:

'Emperor of the Garden': The great pumpkin is a superfood that rules (Lisa Ryckman, October 25, 2005, Rocky Mountain News)

Carve them, bake them, smash them on the sidewalk.

Bowl with them. Launch them from a catapult. Grow them from a tiny seed into something the size of an elephant - then turn them into boats.

Pumpkins, also known as Cucurbita maxim, are supremely versatile and likeable produce. The Chinese called them "Emperor of the Garden" and considered them symbols of health and well-being. And they are a true superfood, with nutrients that can do everything from improving night vision to preventing cancer.

Some people -- perfectly nice, seemingly normal kinds of people -- consider pumpkins objects worthy of passion, capable of becoming ever so much more than mere jack-o'-lanterns or desserts or satisfying splats.

That's because pumpkins possess the potential to grow - hugely freakishly enormously large. The current world heavyweight champion, a Pennsylvania pumpkin tipping the scale at 1,469 pounds, was a guest on Martha earlier this month.

"In the late 1980s and early '90s, a lot of giant-pumpkin growers didn't know if the thousand-pound barrier would ever fall," says Bob Matthews, a self-described pumpkin fanatic who created www.pumpkinnook.com."Now we're sitting at 1,469 pounds and growing. Fifteen hundred pounds is a cakewalk."

Speaking of pounds and cake, pumpkin has all the right stuff - low in fat, sodium and cholesterol but chock-full of fiber and vitamins A and C, plus manganese, magnesium and phosphorus.

---

COME NINEVAH:

Iraq Draft Constitution Adopted (CBS/AP, Oct. 25, 2005)

Iraq's landmark constitution was adopted by a majority of voters during the country's Oct. 15 referendum, election officials said Tuesday.

Results released by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq showed that Sunni Arabs, who had sharply opposed the draft document, failed to produce the two-thirds "no" vote they would have needed in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces to defeat it.

The commission, which had been auditing the referendum results for 10 days, said at a news conference in Baghdad that Ninevah province, had produced a "no" vote of only 55 percent. Only two other mostly Sunni Arab provinces — Salahuddin and Anbar — had voted no by two-thirds or more.

The constitution, which many Kurds and majority Shiites strongly support, is considered another major step in the country's democratic transformation, clearing the way for the election of a new Iraqi parliament on Dec. 15. Such steps are considered important in any decision about the future withdrawal of U.S.-led forces from Iraq.

How'd the Left get themselves into a position where good news for democracy in Iraq is bad news for them?

---

ALL MAJORITY PARTIES ARE POPULIST:

GOP to target Big Oil profits (Stephen Dinan, October 25, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

House Republicans, worried about political fallout from the high-profit figures that oil companies are expected to release later this week, will demand that companies pour those profits into refining more oil for the U.S. market in order to lower prices.

At a press conference today, Republicans led by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert will tell the companies to explain why they are making so much money and what they will do to bring down the cost of gasoline.

"Big Oil needs to do its part. Increasing capacity and improving refineries will do much to boost supplies so that consumers do not feel such a big pinch," Mr. Hastert said in prepared remarks obtained last night by The Washington Times.

"These are extraordinary times that call for extraordinary measures. We expect oil companies to do their part to help ease the pain American families are feeling from high energy prices," he said. [...]

Michael McKenna, a Republican strategist who lobbies on energy issues, said oil companies should look at Republicans' new stance "with the maximum amount of nervousness."

"The next stop on this train is legislation," he said. "We could go back and forth over whether that legislation is going to be successful, whether it can pass or not, whether it's constitutional. But if you're an oil company, do you want to spend the next six months talking about a windfall profits tax?"

There's nothing extraordinary about increasing oil consumption taxes.

---

TELL CONDI TO START LOOSENING UP IN THE BULLPEN:

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report (DAVID JOHNSTON, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL, 10/25/05, NY Times)

I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war.

Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Mr. Libby's notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent's identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent's undercover status.

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

What undercover status?

MORE:
Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case (Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, 11/25/05, Washington Post)

[N]obody disputes this: Possessed of a flamboyant style and a love for the camera lens, Wilson helped propel the unmasking of his wife's identity as a CIA operative into a sprawling, two-year legal probe that climaxes this week with the possible indictment of key White House officials.

It seems unfair to blame him when it was she who sent him on a public CIA junket.

It Wasn't Just Miller's Story (Robert Kagan, October 25, 2005, Washington Post)

Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events.

There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. [...]

Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism," a Times editorial insisted, "it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."

Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak." "Mr. [Kofi] Annan's resolve seems in doubt." When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for "a decade-long failure to detect Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war" and for a "tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein." His selection was "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system." The "further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects." Even "[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming."

The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."

This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.

He was doing fine until hje got to the bit about WMD being "the underlying justification" for the war, which was instead justified by the whole series of UN Resolutions ending the first Gulf War that Saddam as not in compliance with, most importantly democratizing Iraq.

---

PINK STEEL TARIFFS? (via John Resnick):

Feminists trip up on man tax (Matthew Campbell, 10/23/05, Sunday Times of London)

SPARE a thought for Swedish feminists whose newly formed party is disintegrating after hardliners presented a manifesto advocating a “man tax”, the abolition of marriage and the creation of “gender-neutral” names.

Sweden already boasts one of the highest levels of female participation in the workplace and some observers questioned the need for a feminist party in a country whose women account for half the seats in parliament.

When it was founded six months ago, polls showed that a quarter of voters would consider supporting Feminist Initiative in elections next year because of rising domestic violence against women and higher salaries for men.

That goodwill seems to have faded after the party’s recent founding congress, however, when radicals such as Tiina Rosenberg, a professor of gender studies, appeared to have secured control of the agenda. The resulting platform included proposals for abolishing marriage and changing the law to let people who undergo sex change operations legally alter their names.

The party called also for the creation of more “gender-neutral” names such as “Robin” or “Norva” that could apply to a boy or a girl. At present parents must choose names from an official list for boys or girls.

---

BLAIR VS. LABOUR:

Funding for schools to be 'fair and equal' (John Clare and George Jones, 25/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Every secondary school is expected to become an independent, self-governing academy within five years, Tony Blair said yesterday.

Parents would be given power to change the curriculum, replace failing heads and start new schools, he promised. Anticipating today's education White Paper - "a pivotal moment in the life of this Government" - he outlined radical plans to "complete the reform" of state education in England that Labour started when it came to power eight years ago.

Councils will be stripped of their responsibility for schools; businesses, churches, City livery companies and wealthy individuals will be allowed to take over schools; independent schools will be encouraged to accept state cash and join the state sector; and there is to be a new emphasis on grouping pupils by ability and offering advanced classes to the brightest.

Mr Blair made clear that he was ready to resist opposition from the Labour Left and the teachers' unions to opening up the system to parent power and ending comprehensive education.

He even has the same enemies as W.

---

SO HERE'S THE QUESTION...:

Galloway's wife 'received £100,000 from Iraqis' (Francis Harris, 25/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

The Palestinian-born wife of George Galloway, the Respect MP, is accused today of receiving $149,980 (about £100,000) derived from the United Nations Iraqi oil-for-food programme.

A report by an investigative committee of the United States Senate says the money was sent to the personal account of Amineh Abu Zayyad in August 2000.

The report, compiled by Republican and Democratic staff, contains detailed information gleaned from Iraqi archives and bank accounts in Britain and Jordan.

The investigators concluded that Mr Galloway knew about the payments and that "through his wife was personally enriched" by them. They say that he "knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath before [a Senate] sub-committee".

...isn't there some sense in which it's better to be Saddam's bought man than to actually believe the nonsense this guy spouts?

---

A WELL-EARNED RETIREMENT (via Robert Schwartz):

What Miers must show (Charles Fried, October 23, 2005, Boston Globe)

OF COURSE, it is not necessary for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers to have attended an elite law school to be qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court: Neither John Marshall Harlan nor his grandfather (famous for his eloquent dissent in the separate-but-equal decision) did, and Robert Jackson, perhaps the most elegant writer in the court's history, attended no law school at all.

And it certainly is not necessary that she previously have served as a judge on a lower court. Many of the great justices were new to the bench, starting with John Marshall, through Charles Evans Hughes, Earl Warren, and William Rehnquist.

What is indispensable is that she be able to think lucidly and deeply about legal questions and express her thoughts in clear, pointed, understandable prose. A justice without those capabilities -- however generally intelligent, decent, and hardworking -- risks being a calamity for the court, the law, and the country.

You have to know a lot less about the Court than Mr. Fried does to think a reliable vote with good clerks won't be considered a more than adequate justice by their partisans.

---

GOTTA KEEP BILL HAPPY:

Hillary’s Chest Gets Bigger As ’08 Gets Closer (Ben Smith, Jessica Bruder, 10/24/2005, NY Observer)

---

THE ONLY REASON TO GO PLAYS AT RFK NOW (via obc):

Americans stay away: Are U.S. tourists making a political statement? (Ezra Levant, 10/24/05, Calgary Sun)

Why is tourism from the U.S. at a 25-year low this summer?

Some have blamed the rise in gasoline prices. But that doesn't make sense. Travelling from city to city within the U.S. is often a longer drive than heading up to Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, all close to the border. More to the point, the sharp drop in tourism was measured in August -- before hurricane Katrina spiked gas prices.

Some have blamed the strengthening Canadian dollar, saying it has eroded Canada's economic attraction to Americans. But that doesn't make sense, either. The Canadian dollar is worth roughly 85 U.S. cents today.

Last October, it was 81 U.S. cents (and it was 84 U.S. cents last November). Is an extra cent or two really the reason we have the lowest tourism from the U.S. in a generation?

If the dollar is the reason, then one would have expected to see this tourism drop last year -- because between October 2003 and October 2004, the Canadian dollar rose from 76 cents to 81 cents -- a bigger jump than in the past year. And in the year before that, the Canadian dollar positively leapt from 63 cents to 76 cents, or 13 cents in just one year.

How can a three- or four-cent rise in the Canadian dollar over the past year be to blame for falling U.S. tourism, if an 18-cent rise in the previous two years didn't flatten tourism?

The obvious answer is that American tourism wasn't hurt by gas prices or currency fluctuations. It was killed by something else that Americans are thinking about when it comes to Canada in the past year.

Gee -- what could that be?

MORE:
Lost in the Woods (LAWRENCE HERMAN and GARY HUFBAUER, 10/25/05, NY Times)

AS Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continues her talks in Ottawa today, she may find that the most acrimonious disagreement between Canada and the United States is not a question of hard power - issues like Afghanistan, Iraq and nuclear nonproliferation - but of softwood. A quarter-century-old dispute over Canadian lumber exports, which Washington claims are unfairly subsidized, has escalated to the point where it now threatens broader relations between the two countries.

If it remains unresolved, the softwood war might also spill over into the December ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, where Washington and Ottawa have long worked together to expand free trade. What kind of example does it set for the rest of the world if the United States and Canada - close neighbors, each other's largest trading partner and crucial allies - cannot resolve their own trade disputes?

American and Canadian lawyers, lobbyists and negotiators have been fighting on and off over Canadian lumber exports to the United States since the 1980's. In 1982, a coalition of 250 American lumber mills claimed that Canadian provinces were subsidizing lumber exports by charging set "stumpage fees" - the price forest companies paid when harvesting standing timber - while American mills were paying open market prices. While the fight over things like stumpage fees is complex enough, it got a sharp twist in 2000 when Congress passed an amendment giving American companies injured by foreign trade the punitive duties imposed by the United States, which in the case of Canadian lumber exports now amount to about $5 billion.

Never mind that the right of the United States to impose such duties is in dispute...

Martin draws a line on guns (SUSAN DELACOURT, 10/25/05, Toronto Star)

Guns are Prime Minister Paul Martin's newest target in what seems to be a deliberate and continuing attempt to take some careful pokes at the United States.

---

HE HAS TO GO BUT WE SHOULDN'T DO IT?:

Make the punishment fit the crime (Leader, October 25, 2005, The Guardian

An unrepresentative regime whose leading figures are drawn from a religious minority, a regime which has ruled, often brutally, with the aid of its armed forces and its pervasive and ruthless intelligence services, and which has been guilty of crimes against its own people and against the people of a neighbouring state. The country to which this description now applies is not Iraq but Syria - or, rather, the description always applied to both of the states where the Ba'ath party's assumption of power turned out in practice to mean government by sect, clan, family, and a president for life. [...]

The regime in Damascus may already have been in a weakened state before Mr Hariri's death, since the young president, possessing neither his father's authority nor his astuteness, was already finding it hard to control the factions within the elite. Continued investigations, depending on how high they go, could weaken it further. The Americans and the Israelis, contrary to some impressions, may not want regime change, preferring a vulnerable Assad who can be persuaded to do what they want on Iraq and Palestine. Yet they could trigger it nevertheless, and the last thing the Middle East needs is another government toppled from the outside.

If the Syrian regime is to change it is Syrians who should change it. The pursuit of those responsible for the killing of Mr Hariri cannot be be allowed to falter, but regime change should not ride on the back of judicial process. The French are already insisting on this, and the Americans and the British, the other two nations who have taken the lead over Syria, would be wise to follow suit.

Obviously it would have been better if the coup plotters had killed Hitler and toppled the Nazis from within, but need we really have waited for other Germans to succeed?

One wonders if the Left is conscious that the effect of their standard of non-intervention would be to encourage dictators to greater repression?

MORE:
U.S. presses Damascus over murder of Hariri (Brian Knowlton, OCTOBER 24, 2005, International Herald Tribune)

Reacting to a UN investigation that linked Syria to the killing of a former Lebanese prime minister, the United States on Monday demanded immediate cooperation from Damascus in the continuing inquiry and began working with other Security Council members on a resolution to raise the pressure on Syria.

French officials - who said they and the Americans were crafting language calling on all countries to cooperate fully with the investigation - said it was too early to seek United Nations sanctions against Syria.

But the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, demanded cooperation now.

"This is 'true confession' time now for the government of Syria," he said in New York. "No more obstruction. No more half-measures. We want substantive cooperation, and we want it immediately."

In Washington, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said, "We want to talk about the way forward with other members of the Security Council."

---

ANTI-ANTI-MIERS:

I just flew in from Italy, and boy is my keyboard tired (Hugh Hewitt, October 24, 2005)

---

ALL WORLD VIEWS ARE RELIGIONS:

When a worldview competes with religion: The foremost philospher of evolution theory knows whereof he writes: a review of THE EVOLUTION-CREATION STRUGGLE By Michael Ruse (CARLIN ROMANO, 10/24/05, Knight Ridder Newspapers)

Unlike many pro-evolution types, however, he agrees with creationists and intelligent-design advocates that evolution often operates as not just a scientific theory about species, but also as a worldview that competes with religion. Any fair history of evolution, Ruse says -- he prefers to call the ideological strain "evolutionism" -- reveals it to be a Trojan horse carrying an ideology of "progress" that can't be deduced from Darwin. [...]

What many laymen don't understand, Ruse says -- particularly secular humanists whose image of science's logical rigor exceeds that of many philosophers of science -- is that Darwin's model did not succeed in making evolution a "professional" science in the 19th century.

As Ruse details in "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," various theorists explained evolutionary change by notions as odd as "jumps" (one might label them "leaps of fate") or the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

In Ruse's tale, Darwin's strictly scientific approach to evolution was hijacked in the 19th century by the Victorian reformer Thomas Henry Huxley, who became known as "Darwin's bulldog."

Huxley, Ruse argues, felt he needed to build a rival "church" to defeat archaic Anglican and Christian beliefs, and put man, not God, at the center of life.

Evolution became his "cornerstone." With the help of philosopher Herbert Spencer, who extended "survival of the fittest" thinking to social theory, Huxley promoted evolutionary thinking as a worldview hostile to sacred religious truths. Ruse cleverly capsulizes this in an analogy: Huxley was to Darwin as Paul was to Jesus.

The upshot in the 20th century, Ruse relates, was a third phase of evolutionary theory, neo-Darwinism, in which scientists brought greater coherence to it by uniting Darwinian selection and Mendelian genetics, but retained Huxley's value-laden commitment to "progress" and hostility to religion. Ruse cites Richard Dawkins as a scientist who fits that mold.

And once you get it down to just the genetics it doesn't serve any of the purposes that Darwinists need it to, though it serves perfectly well as science without any Darwinism.

---

WELL DONE, DO MORE:

Help Africans help themselves in Sudan (Jeremy Barnicle, 10/25/05, CS Monitor)

As a white foreigner visiting a displacement camp here, I was greeted with the chant, "khawaja no kwa." "The foreigners say no," they sang, meaning international intervention helped curb the violence and ease the suffering in Darfur. The song was a gesture of thanks and respect.

The wealthy world fulfilled the first part of its obligation to the people here when it finally started sending emergency aid over a year ago. The second part of that obligation - helping African Union (AU) soldiers provide security for the 2 million people driven from home by the conflict - would consolidate humanitarian gains in Darfur and, as important, serve as a long-term investment in the stability of the entire continent.

In Darfur, the international community - specifically NATO and the United States - has a unique opportunity to help Africans provide security for their own conflict zones. The village raids have largely subsided, and access for aid workers has improved dramatically in Darfur over the past year, but the countryside is now racked with lawlessness and warlordism. Neither the government of Sudan nor the rebel parties seem able to control the violence. [...]

So far, the AU mission in Sudan has surpassed expectations. Displaced women used to be terrified of leaving camps to collect firewood, as armed men would stalk the outskirts of town and prey on them. Now, women can time their trips outside to coincide with AU patrols, which deter assaults. This is a development of which the AU and its backers should be proud.

The problem is that there are currently only about 6,000 AU troops in Darfur, an area the size of Texas. The AU says it plans to ramp that number up to about 12,000 by 2006. That would be too little, too late.

In order to help get Darfurians back home and back on track in safety, the AU would need to hit that 12,000 as soon as possible and be prepared to send at least a few thousand more if necessary. The US and NATO are already providing important logistical and technical support for the AU mission, but standing up this larger force would require a speedy and substantial increase in their financial commitments. The US specifically needs to apply diplomatic pressure to ensure that our allies meet the pledges they have made to the AU.

While helping the people of Darfur has been good in itself, establishing the AU as a serious force in the region is eminently worthwhile.

---

THE ONE THAT'S EXPORTABLE:

Is free-market Britain fair enough for all?: In a three-part series, the Monitor looks at how Britain, France, and Finland are adapting their social benefits models to the information age. (Mark Rice-Oxley, 10/25/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

Some, like the Scandinavian countries with their supergenerous state welfare, may be happy to "keep left." But others, particularly Britain with its center-right traditions, are warning that Europe won't be able to afford such largess and still compete in the global marketplace.

What some Britons have in mind is the kind of painful reform already pioneered in Britain in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher, which cemented the "Anglo-Saxon" model and its emphasis on free markets, private enterprise, and smaller government.

At the time, Thatcherism was heresy to Jeremy Rix, a rebellious teenager with a flair for languages and art. He was so outraged by state cutbacks and miserly welfare that he joined street demonstrations, grew his hair long, and argued about politics with his father.

But now, as a 35-year-old company director with a family, Mr. Rix is far more appreciative of how social reform rejuvenated Britain and bequeathed his generation a country that is more dynamic than most in Europe.

"[Mrs. Thatcher] completely reinvented the UK in my view. We're still living with the legacy of that - free market, flexibility, greater wealth," says Rix, who runs his own market research and intelligence consultancy, Metro Research. [...]

While some conservatives in Europe say a hearty helping of Thatcherism would revive the Continent's flagging economies, most are still suspicious of the Anglo-Saxon model. Its relatively low taxes and stingy welfare payments have proven generally good for jobs and business, but have done little for poverty and equality. One current of European thought, which favors greater regulation and social protection, scoffingly portrays the Anglo-Saxon model as good only for free-market buccaneers. Another, popular in Scandinavia, is generally appalled by the neglect of the underclass.

Aware of Britain's poor record on social justice, Tony Blair has sought since he was elected in 1997 to remold various aspects of the British system to make it more compassionate, though not less dynamic. In this "Anglo-social" model, steadily increasing taxes fund health-service spending; tax revenues are channeled to poor families and to every newborn child; back-to-work programs help the unemployed; and a minimum wage gives greater succor to unskilled workers.

The Anglo-social model is "a hybrid between the dynamism and flexibility of the US and ... the egalitarianism of Norway and Sweden," says Mike Dixon, a researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, which spearheaded debate on the model. Its implementation, says Mr. Dixon, has reduced poverty, particularly child poverty, and halted the rise of inequality. The London-based New Policy Institute notes on its poverty.org.uk website that the number of British families living in poverty has dropped to 12 million from 24 million during Blair's tenure, though the poverty rate was still lower in the early 1980s.

Blair believes the Anglo-social model is one that the rest of Europe can and must imitate. In a speech to the European parliament in June, he warned that Europe was trailing the US in productivity and falling behind India in producing science graduates. He called for his EU partners to spend less money on regulation and job protection and more on investing in ideas of the future: knowledge, skills, education, and science parks.

"This is modern social policy, not regulation and job protection that may save some jobs for a time at the expense of many jobs in the future," he said. "Of course we need a social Europe. But it must be a social Europe that works."

The problem with the Scandanavian model is that it requires a level of ethnic and religious homogeneity that can't realistically be duplicated elsewhere and that they won't be able to maintain as their fertility rates implode.

---

TOO LATE THE LENINIST:

Aleksandr Yakovlev (Daily Telegraph, 19/10/2005)

Aleksandr Yakovlev, who died yesterday aged 81, was a driving force behind Mikhail Gorbachev's policy on glasnost and democratisation, playing a critical role in the formulation and implementation of the new openness in Soviet domestic and foreign affairs.

Yakovlev supervised the demolition of the Stalinist model of economic development and destroyed the last remnants of Stalin's reputation. Although physically damaged by the war, he had an incisive mind which was devoted to introducing democracy to Russia. Even so, he strongly disliked the United States and its society.

Yakovlev was widely travelled, and accompanied Gorbachev to all his summit meetings with President Reagan. His knowledge of the Western world and Western public opinion meant that he knew which Soviet initiatives were necessary to achieve maximum impact.

The rise of Solidarity in Poland from 1980 came as a shock, and the self-confident premisses of developed socialism were abandoned. This permitted Yakovlev to question all the tenets of the ideology except the central one of the leading role of the party. Of particular concern was to establish that a viable alternative to Stalinism had existed in 1929 - a more human, gentler route to socialism.

This was to cut the ground from beneath those who maintained that glasnost and democratisation were undermining the stability of the Soviet state. Yakovlev wanted to demonstrate that the bureaucratic model - with the centrally planned economy at its core - bequeathed by Stalin was a brake on Soviet development and needed to be dismantled.

Aware of the depths of social apathy which existed throughout the country, he knew that the Party would increasingly be ignored if it did not develop a new language of communication. His task was to coin new words and phrases so as to cause people to think anew, and this new vocabulary had to be Leninist in order to outflank opposition. Perestroika, glasnost and demokratizatsiya were only a few examples. Other terms, such as pluralism, were rescued from opprobrium by prefacing them with the epithet "socialist". Parliamentarianism, once dismissed by Lenin as "cretinous", was given a new lease of life when applied to the new Supreme Soviet.

What he and Gorbachev could not grasp was that the rot began with Lenin--the Revolution had been poisonous from the start. As soon as they started to loosen the dissidents made this case and the last prop was gone.

---

EUROBOMBER:

Poland's President-Elect Praises U.S. (VANESSA GERA, 10/24/05, Associated Press)

President-elect Lech Kaczynski promised Monday to visit the United States early in his term, calling Washington an important ally but shedding no further light on whether Poland would extend its troop deployment in Iraq past the planned withdrawal next year.

Kaczynski, the socially conservative mayor of Warsaw who believes in capitalism with a safety net, won Sunday's presidential runoff race with 54 percent of the vote, defeating lawmaker Donald Tusk of the pro-market Civic Platform party.

In a sign of the importance he places on ties with Washington, Kaczynski said he would take up
President Bush's invitation to visit soon after he takes office on Dec. 23. Bush made the invitation in a congratulatory phone call Monday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Kaczynski said. [...]

Kaczynski, who has praised the first year of Poland's membership in the European Union but promised an assertive role within the EU, pledged Monday that his country would hold a referendum before adopting the euro. He said the vote would not take place until the second half of his five-year term "or even towards the end of it."

"Our friends in Europe are not encouraging us to act hastily," Kaczynski said in a briefing with foreign reporters. "There definitely will be a referendum. Getting rid of one's own currency is a very serious limitation of one's own sovereignty."

It would be great for President Bush to do a tour of the Axis of Good.

---

THOSE WHO CAN LEAST AFFORD IT:

Smoking can lessen IQ, thinking ability: study (Charnicia E. Huggins Mon Oct 24,2005, Reuters)

The poorer mental function seen among alcoholics, many of whom also regularly smoke cigarettes, may be partially due to the long-term effects of nicotine, new research suggests.

"People who are also smokers are at a much higher risk," Dr. Jennifer M. Glass, of the University of Michigan's Addiction Research Center, told Reuters Health.

In her study, "cigarette smoking was negatively related to IQ and thinking," she said.

It's not like the folks who still smoke are that bright to start with....

MORE:
Meanwhile, on the more sociable front, Alcohol can act like blood thinner (Anthony J. Brown, MD, Oct 24, 2005, Reuters)

A few drinks of alcohol per week impairs the ability of platelets -- elements in the blood involved in clotting -- to turn on and clump together to form a clot, new research indicates. These findings support previous research and may be the reason why moderate alcohol use has been linked to a decreased risk of heart attack.

---

SHARED CRAVING:

US computer game touches Iran's atomic nerve (Christian Oliver, October 24, 2005, Washington Post)

U.S. special forces dart through Iran's underground nuclear facilities, gunning down any hapless Iranians standing between them and centrifuges that must be blown to bits.

Much to Tehran's relief, this crack team exists only in a new U.S. computer game. But even these animated saboteurs are too close for comfort, downloadable into Iranian living rooms at the click of a mouse.

The cyberspace troopers have sparked bitter press comment in Iran and a petition asking that the game be shelved.

"Americans have a deep craving for an attack against Iran, but they are going to have to settle for this make-believe assault," wrote the Kayhan daily, whose editor is appointed directly by Iran's Supreme Leader.

The problem being that it has likely been downloaded by Iranians themselves more often than the petition has been signed.

---

FROM WHAT THE LEFT TELLS US, WE THOUGHT VENEZUELA WOULD BEAT THE U.S.:

Transparency International
Corruption Perceptions Index 2005 (Tranparency International, 18 October 2005)

---

IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WHETHER YOU FIND THE 60s AND 70s AN ACCEPTABLE PRICE TO PAY (via Kevin Whited):

The Neocon Who Isn’t: Francis Fukuyama has all the "right" credentials. So when he opposed the Iraq War and voted for John Kerry, eyebrows were raised. They’re still rising. (Robert S. Boynton, 10.05.05, American Prospect)

On a Saturday in January 2003, as the Iraq War approached, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment convened a meeting in a nondescript building in Arlington, Virginia, with three dozen of Washington’s top conservative policy intellectuals. Using an information-gathering technique dating back to the Eisenhower administration, the office asked four groups to study the long-term threat the United States faced from international terrorism and to report back to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

One of the groups was led by Francis Fukuyama, a professor at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, the international bestseller that led British political philosopher John Gray to dub Fukuyama “[the] court philosopher of global capitalism.” The relationship between Fukuyama and Wolfowitz went back 35 years, to when Fukuyama was a Cornell undergraduate and Wolfowitz, then a Yale political-science professor, was a board member of the Telluride Association, the elite group house where Fukuyama lived. Fukuyama interned for Wolfowitz while a graduate student in the mid-1970s at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and later followed his mentor to the State Department during the first Reagan administration. When Wolfowitz became dean of the SAIS, he recruited Fukuyama from George Mason.

When Fukuyama received the Pentagon’s call, he immersed himself in subjects -- the politics of the Middle East, Islam, terrorism -- he hadn’t thought about since he’d worked with Dennis Ross on the Palestinian autonomy talks that followed the Camp David accords.

Fukuyama had spent much of the previous summer in Europe promoting Our Posthuman Future, his most recent book at the time, and his encounters with editorial boards throughout the continent left an impression on him. “That was the point at which I started to think about the whole issue of American hegemony,” he says. “Until then I had accepted the neoconservative line, which is, ‘OK, we’re hegemons, but we’re benevolent hegemons.’ But when I was in Europe, the reality of what non-Americans thought hit me more forcefully than it had before. Even the editor of the Financial Times, which is a pretty conservative paper, was absolutely livid about the way the Bush administration was dealing with the U.K. and Europe.”

Fukuyama’s team prepared furiously for three months, and, of the presentations made that January day by the four groups, Fukuyama’s was the only one Wolfowitz attended. This was precisely the time when preparations to invade Iraq were in full swing. The news Fukuyama delivered was most likely not what Wolfowitz wanted to hear.

The group’s recommendations -- which have never been mentioned publicly, much less released -- were a photographic negative of the path the Bush administration followed. The United States, the group advised, should avoid overreacting to the events of September 11, and particularly resist military incursions that would “lead to a world in which the U.S. and its policies remain the chief focus of global concern,” as Fukuyama put it in The Washington Post on the first anniversary of the attacks. The group reasoned that although military action was a necessary component of the American response, it should be of secondary concern to a “hearts and minds” campaign directed at the vast majority of the Islamic world that generally admires America.

It was an analysis that departed from the “clash of civilizations” scenarios that Fukuyama’s friend and former teacher Samuel Huntington predicted some years earlier. In contrast, Fukuyama’s group portrayed the conflict between democratic capitalism and Islamic fundamentalism as so lopsided that Huntington’s formulation overstated the strength of America’s foe. “Neither Arab nationalists nor Islamic fundamentalists, or any other alternatives in that part of the world, present a really serious route to modernization,” he told the London Independent in April 2003.

Given this radical inequality, Fukuyama has argued in subsequent writings (which reflect the ideas that appeared in his group’s report) that the United States should avoid inflammatory rhetoric such as the “war on terror.” In contrast, Fukuyama argued that while Islamic terrorists are dangerous, they don’t resemble anything close to the threat once posed by communism or fascism. [...]

The most divisive aspect of Fukuyama’s argument has been his claim that Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States. It is a theme that he says has been influenced by the French scholars Gilles Kepel (The War for Muslim Minds) and Olivier Roy (The Failure of Political Islam), who argue that political Islam has demonstrated itself to be a failure everywhere it has taken power, and that the Islamic terrorist movement had been largely a failure prior to 9-11. Those attacks, as well as the Iraq War, gave it a new lease on life.

The seeds of these ideas, however, are buried deep in Fukuyama’s own work. In his original 1989 National Interest article, “The End of History?”, he singled out Islam as the only viable theocratic alternative to liberalism and communism, although one he doubted would have “any universal significance.” In the preface to Our Posthuman Future, he dismissed the threat of Islamic radicalism as “a desperate rearguard action that will in time be overwhelmed by the broader tide of modernization.”

Critics have faulted Fukuyama for clinging to his end-of-history thesis, accusing him of systematically underestimating events that challenged it, whether it was Yugoslav nationalism in the ’90s or Islamic radicalism today. “Fukuyama’s an optimist, which blinds him to a lot,” says Paul Berman, the author of Liberalism and Terror. (Reviewing “The End of History” in The New York Review of Books, Alan Ryan dubbed Fukuyama “the conservative’s Dr. Pangloss.” “If what we’ve got is what History with a capital H intends for us,” he wrote, “then we, too, live in the best of all possible worlds.”.

Krauthammer argues that it’s Fukuyama’s secular sensibility that blinds him to the appeal of radical Islam. “It has 1 billion potential adherents, which means that [Osama] bin Laden’s ideology has the potential to appeal to infinitely more people than the Aryan ideas of Nazism ever did,” he told me. “Frank has a stake in denying the obvious nature of the threat, but the fact is that history returned after 9-11 … . There are people running around trying to acquire anthrax with which to wipe out an entire city. If that doesn’t qualify as an existential threat, I don’t know what does.”

Fukuyama replies that these are the kinds of sentiments America should resist. “For the U.S. to treat every Muslim as a potential suicide bomber is precisely what fanatics like bin Laden want,” he says. “Iraq before the U.S. invasion was certainly not an existential threat. It posed an existential threat to Kuwait, Iran, and Israel, but it had no means of threatening the continuity of our regime. Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups aspire to be existential threats to American civilization but do not currently have anything like the capacity to actualize their vision. They are extremely dangerous totalitarians, but post threats primarily to regimes in the Middle East.”

Korb agrees. “The bombing in London was terrible, but it wasn’t like the Blitz,” he says. “Terrorists can make life unpleasant, but bin Laden isn’t going to end up running Great Britain, while Hitler very well might have.”

The difference between Fukuyama and his critics is as much philosophical as empirical. Whereas Krauthammer and Berman emphasize Islamic terrorism’s potential for imminent violence, Fukuyama takes the long view, reasoning that political Islam won’t win the larger ideological war regardless of how much damage it inflicts.

It is, of course, precisely the secular sensibbility of neoconservatism generally that has sent Mr. Krauthammer spinning out of control on the Miers nomination and that makes it rather unlikely that neocons will remain in the Republican Party for any considerable period of time. However, it is Mr. Fukuyama who is right about the appeal of and the threat presented by Islamicism, neither of which is terribly great. The most amusing aspect of the whoile dustup though is that while the intellectual class argues amonst itself about such minutiae, the President has gone about happily using the pretext of Islamicism to break apart the ossified dictatorships of the Islamic world and get them all--almost without exception--moving down the path of democratic reform.

It's interesting that Mr. Fukuyama quite consciously modeled himself after George Kennan, even down to signing his original End of History piece with the pseudonym, X. Over time, Kennan became disenchanted with the results of folk embracing his theory of containment because they opted for an overactive type of containment--fighting wars and propping up rotten regimes and so forth every time a communist bulge appeared in the encirclement. He understood that communism couldn't possibly succeed in the long term and wanted to just passively wait it out. By the time we'd made a hash of Vietnam and were being governed by craven souls like Nixon, Kissinger, Ford and Carter it looked like we might just settle down to exactly that original plan. But along came Ronald Reagan, who found the Cold War intolerable, and by the time he was finished knocking over the china even the Soviet apparatchiks knew it was over.

Mr. Fukuyama partakes of Kennan's wisdom--we could indeed just wait out Islamicism and authoritarianism in the Islamic world--but he got stuck with his own personal Reagan right at jump street. George W. Bush seized 9-11 as a way of avoiding another 50 year war and an excuse for hastening the inevitable End. He's bulling his way through the Middle East: toppling regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq by force and in Palestine and Lebanon by rhetorical force; undermining regimes like Syria's; and radically altering behavior and the pace of reform in places like Libya, Pakistan, etc.. In effect, given the opportunity to replay the Cold War, Mr. Fukuyama would, but George Bush decided not to.

---

THE LATEST CRONY:

Greenspan's heir apparent: As Fed chief, Ben Bernanke would guide fragile economy. (Mark Trumbull, 10/25/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

Mr. Bernanke is now chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. Yet his background also includes a stint as Fed governor and expertise as a monetary economist, traits that will be crucial to convincing global markets that his selection is not based merely on the political preferences of the Bush White House.

The appointment, indeed, comes at a time when the Bush administration is eager to score a political victory and to deflect attention from acrimony within the president's own party over his selection of Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court.

The selection of Bernanke follows a pattern Bush has set in his second term of choosing close associates for high-level appointments. [...]

At the Fed, Bernanke has pushed for the central bank to be more specific in its inflation objectives. Greenspan has opposed setti