« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »

November 30, 2004

More Hometown News

Here are some photos of Ottawa 'locked down' for the anti-Bush protests. Much as I mock them, I do expect them to pick up a little; these pictures capture a protest culture so pathetic as to be almost sympathetic. (But not quite).

Anyway, nice to see the home town - which looks as it always does. That Parliament Hill-Cenotaph-Chateau-Rideau Center strip is the most 'grand' in the city, I think (though the blocks down Elgin from the Cenotaph to the courthouse are similarly sweeping). And that new condo block going up between the Chateau and Chapters, next to Finance, doesn't look hideous - although you'd think they could have done something with all the surrounding neo-gothic architecture.

Posted by David Mader at 03:57 PM | (5) | Back to Main

What If You Threw a Protest and No-One Came?

In honor of the President's visit to Ottawa, the Citizen has a Protest Blog to cover the anticipated anti-Bush demonstrations. Only one problem:

"I just waited to go into work until a bit later," said Joelle Roy as she walked into the office. "Just to not have anything to worry about. But I guess it either already happened or hasn't yet."[...]

So, I guess the big question is: Where are the planned protests, the thousands of angry anti-Bush masses? Still sleeping?

Actually, my question is this: since Bush isn't going to Parliament, what are the protesters doing (in a theoretical sense, as they apparently aren't doing much of anything) on Elgin and Wellington? My understanding is that the President's 'working visit' will take place, uh, substantially further down Sussex.

MORE (15:19 EST): This via Drudge:

A loose coalition of groups opposed to just about everything Bush supports had promised two demonstrations hours before Bush was due to jet into Ottawa Tuesday aboard Air Force One.

The first demonstration -- of Palestinians and sympathisers of the Palestinian cause opposed to Washington's support of Israel -- attracted less than 40 demonstrators.

According to a quick head count by journalists, the protest attracted 39 demonstrators, 42 journalists and television crew members and three police officers.

A second, ostensibly larger, demonstration scheduled for the midst of the evening rush hour -- was called by a group calling itself Students Against Bush.

Nobody turned up.

Oops. I blame Karl Rove. Or, uh, Rod Love.

Posted by David Mader at 01:53 PM | (2) | Back to Main

November 29, 2004

All Quiet On the MaderBlog Front

See, here's the thing: exams start next Tuesday, law firms start accepting resumes this coming Wednesday and classes don't end till Friday. So you could say I'm a little busy. Intermittent blogging to continue as my schedule and sanity permit.

Posted by David Mader at 07:52 PM | (2) | Back to Main

Canadian Anti-Americanism

Adam Daifallah points to this important and insightful article in the Washington Post by an American living in Toronto. Money quote:

Ultimately, Canadian anti-Americanism says more about Canada than it does about the United States. Because some 80 to 90 percent of this country's trade is with the United States, the reality is that Canadians need Americans to sustain their economy and thus the quality of life they value. Such dependence breeds resentment. In "officially multicultural Canada," hostility toward Americans is the last socially acceptable expression of bigotry and xenophobia. It would be impossible to say the things about any other nationality that Canadians routinely say -- both publicly and privately -- about Americans.

Now comes the part where my Canadian friends try to tell me that it's really not that bad. Here's the thing though: it is.

Posted by David Mader at 07:48 PM | (12) | Back to Main

Christmas Lights

Lileks discusses the aesthetics of Christmas lights, and other Christmas decorations. It's a classic of his 'domesticity' genre, and if you like Christmas, as I do, you'll love today's Bleat.

People have started to put Christmas lights up here in Austin. It just doesn't feel right. It's not only the lack of tall, handsome fir trees. It's not only the Southwestern architecture. It's also... how shall I put the intangible into words...

I'm wearing flip-flops today.

You know what I mean? It just doesn't feel right. The result is a city that looks like it's gearing up for a 'Las Vegas night' fundraiser. Well, that's probably what Reno looks like; Austin looks like a city gearing up for a 'Reno night' fundraiser. In other words: kind of kitschy. Don't get me wrong: I love it, and I'm happy to trade my winter boots for my flip-flops. But Christmas it ain't.

Posted by David Mader at 02:31 PM | (6) | Back to Main

Ukraine, Europe and America

My brother forwards me this column by George Jonas in today's National Post. It's behind a subscriber wall, alas, but don't worry - while I'm a big fan of Jonas, this piece is substantially an exercise in column-writing rather than punditry. Most of the article resembles this self-congratulatory piece from the Guardian which heralded the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine as a tremendous success for the European Union. From the Guardian:

Georgia, under its new government, has become a closer partner of the United States. Ukraine under Yushchenko might do the same. But above all, it will be turned towards Europe. These days, the most fervent pro-Europeans are to be found at the edges of Europe, and none more so than westward-looking Ukrainians. It's the European Union they hope one day to join, not the United States of America.

Echoes Jonas:

Moving closer to Europe is what a majority of Ukrainians want. The EU wants it as well -- not surprisingly, as it would gain a nation of 50 million gifted and hard-working souls, with vast agricultural resources in the western half of the country and some industrial potential in the east. With the steroid of Ukraine ingested, the Eurocracy of Brussels would build a few pounds of additional muscle... Even if Mr. Yushchenko's side won and the other side conceded, Ukraine would be essentially Europe's gain. A bigger and better-muscled EU may not be good news for America.

The problem with this analysis, of course, is that it presumes that the vigorously democratic East-Bloc states would readily acquiesce in the statist social-democracy of the Franco-Germanic European Union. One would have to have a remarkably short memory to buy that.

Jonas, of course, does not, though he seems to believe that both his readers and the White House do; he concludes: "The continuing influx of ex-Soviet countries might counterbalance the statism and anti-Americanism of Europe's current rulers." No kidding. Thirty- to fifty-million new Europeans tired of authoritarian government and eager for responsible self rule? Uh, what is 'a very good thing,' Alex?

Posted by David Mader at 01:33 PM | (0) | Back to Main

November 28, 2004

Still More Raich

This article from the Christian Science Monitor gives much more credence to the possibility that the court will in fact stand by its interstate commerce jurisprudence.

Actually, I'm wary of articles like this which frame Raich as a 'crossroads' - and Barnett does no-one any favors by calling it 'a landmark, one way or the other.' If the court is to affirm the Ninth Circuit, it will do so on interstate commerce grounds; but if it reverses, it will be because the federalist members of the court will have qualified their federalism through their deference to big-government drug laws. Framing the decision as an all-or-nothing referendum on federalism serves only to give ammunition to anti-federalists.

Posted by David Mader at 08:36 PM | (0) | Back to Main

November 27, 2004

A Little More on Raich

I should note that the Volokh Conspiracy's Randy Barnett is arguing Raich for the good guys respondents (don't want to show my bias or anything). His co-blogger Jim Lindgren has a good synposis of the case from a realist perspective. Lindgren notes:

It is one of those cases where, if the Court is intellectually honest and actually determines interstate commerce in any way that makes logical sense, Randy's side will win. Yet it would be awfully hard for the Court to strike down federal legislative control over marijuana regulation even where (as here) the marijuana is pretty clearly not in interstate commerce.

My prediction is an 8-1 reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision, with Justice Thomas, God bless his soul, arguing the Barnett brief and calling for the further reversal of the court's interstate commerce jurisprudence. Semi-realistic 'good case' scenario: a 6-3 decision with Rehnquist and O'Connor joining Thomas in calling for a limited interstate commerce clause. Worst-case scenario: a unanimous decision reversing the Ninth Circuit, with Thomas concurring to say that until the court is prepared to re-examine the interstate commerce clause, he feels bound to apply precedent notwithstanding his personal desire for reconsideration.

Posted by David Mader at 11:22 PM | (0) | Back to Main

November 26, 2004

Ashcroft v. Raich

I recently had a discussion about Ashcroft v. Raich, a case before the Supreme Court that will reconcile, one way or another, a California medical marijuana statute and a federal drug statute. Readers interested in the case - which goes to the heart of the federalism debate - may want to have a look at this article from the New York Sun.

[Via How Appealing]

Posted by David Mader at 01:03 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Ukraine: Winning the Media

The Kiev Post reports:

News programs on [TV channel] 1+1 virtually disappeared earlier this week after journalists and editors and the channel went on strike in protest of alleged pressure from management and certain political forces to produce biased media coverage that favored Kuchma and allies.

In a statement issued late on Nov. 25, the news team announced that they would resume with fair coverage that evening.

“We guarantee that all information distributed by our channel will be complete, in accordance with professional standards of journalism,” the statement reads.

At 7:30 pm on Nov. 25, news coverage on TSN resumed, but started with a short statement from the channel’s editorial team. The collective said they would resume news reports but promised they would be objective, explaining that previous editorial policy was not so, due to political pressure.

And Veronica Khokhlova has a moving complementary anecdote:

On Channel 1 (UT-1), the main state channel, 237 journalists are on strike now. Today, during the 11 am newscast with live translation into the Sign Language, the translator, Natalya Dmytruk, did not translate what the host was saying about the election results, but said the following (quote via Ukrainska Pravda):
The results from the Central Election Commission have been falsified. Do not believe them. Our President is Yushchenko. I am very disgusted that I was forced to translate the lies until now. I'm not going to do it anymore. I'm not sure if I'll see you again.

Remarkable.

Posted by David Mader at 12:09 AM | (1) | Back to Main

November 25, 2004

Discovering Impartiality

That's what the Queen's University Human Rights Office appears to be doing through it's decision to allow pro-life students to re-direct funds from the school's Sexual Health Resource Centre, which is pro-choice. I meant to mention this story some time ago, but Adam Daifallah, who both broke the story (I believe) and who is a Queen's alum, is on it:

am totally astounded by this. This is a huge victory for freedom on campus. The only downsides are that the money will go towards funding some other aspect of the student government, and that students who do not want the 85¢ going to the SHRC must go to the SHRC themselves to make the request.

Nevertheless, this could have serious ramifications for the future of mandatory student fees. Well done, Mr. Crawford, and good show, Human Rights Office!

A curmudgeon would question the legitimacy of a college 'human rights office,' and would doubt the value of a favorable decision within such a system. Good thing I'm not a curmudgeon! Not tonight, anyway.

Posted by David Mader at 11:37 PM | (2) | Back to Main

A Day to Give Thanks

As I suggest below, Ukrainians are currently involved in a struggle for freedom that is momentous. And yet the threats to freedom are not all so remote. My readers know how seriously I take the war on terror, and I hope that commitment is kept in mind as I point you towards this important and disturbing article from today's Spectator magazine. Nicky Samengo-Turner describes his encounter with London police and 'police community support officers,' and with the products of Britain's shockingly expansive new anti-terrorism laws. Precisely what freedoms to the British believe they are protecting? I have not studied the Patriot Act closely, but I'm quite certain that it does not nearly approach the intrusiveness and illiberality described in the article.

Me? I spent a wonderful Thanksgiving with a friend's family in Huntsville, Texas; much of the afternoon was spent firing various guns of various calibres. It was my first time shooting. It was a blast. It would be illegal almost anywhere else in the developed west. Tonight, I give thanks for America - and Texas.

Posted by David Mader at 11:24 PM | (6) | Back to Main

Orange Ukraine Watch

Tonight's big news: the Ukrainian Supreme Court has banned publication of the disputed election results pending their review. Tonight's important little news (via the comprehensive Persicope blog):

The special all-Ukrainian congress of deupties of local councils created
All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee of Local Councils.

This body will coordinate local councils in the transitional period "until the inauguration of the legitimage president Victor Yushchenko and formation of new government of Ukraine".

In other words, the representatives of local representative bodies refuse to recognize the authority of a tyrannical central government and instead establish their own national governing structure. Sound familiar? Yea. I thought so too.

Posted by David Mader at 11:19 PM | (0) | Back to Main

147 Times

I agree with Mr. Wells. In fact, I have a review coming - it's late, but it should be a little more detailed than most of what you'd read elsewhere. If it's any good, I might shop it - more likely I'll just dump it on you. But in the meantime: go buy the album. It really is stunning.

Posted by David Mader at 11:17 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Thanksgiving Verse

Ah! on Thanksgiving day, when from East and from West,
From North and from South, come the pilgrim and guest,
When the gray-haired New Englander sees round his board
The old broken links of affection restored,
When the care-wearied man seeks his mother once more,
And the worn matron smiles where the girl smiled before.
What moistens the lip and what brightens the eye?
What calls back the past, like the rich Pumpkin pie?

- John Greenleaf Whittier

Fill every beaker up, my men, pour forth the cheering wine:
There’s life and strength in every drop,—thanksgiving to the vine!

- Albert Gorton Greene

Posted by David Mader at 07:00 AM | (1) | Back to Main

November 24, 2004

Flooding the Zone

Yea, it's been all Ukraine, all the time here at Maderblog. What can I say - studying has limited by blog time, so when I get a chance to glance at the news, I glance first to the Orange Revolution. This doesn't happen everyday. [English-language Ukrainian resources can be found, by the way, here (for rumour as well as news) and here (for more credible news, I gather).]

Posted by David Mader at 07:32 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Russia's Test; or, The New Cold War

UPI asks four Russia hands to assess the Ukrainian situation through the prism of East-West relations. To a person, they agree that Russia is at a precipice. Putin can demonstrate his commitment to democracy by agreeing to a free and fair review of the election; or he can demonstrate his commitment to oligarchy by backing Kuchma and Yanukovych. The latter action would demonstrate to Washington - and Europe - that beyond the War on Terror, Moscow shares few common interests. It would also, some suggest, make Russia more vulnerable to the sort of unrest currently on display in the streets of Kiev.

Posted by David Mader at 07:25 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Strike

Viktor Yushchenko has called for a general protest to increase pressure on the Ukrainian government following the certification of rigged election results by the country's election commission. And the BBC, in an ominous note, reports that "the opposition rallies have lost their carnival atmosphere."

In related news, Canada has joined the United States and other nations in rejecting the declared election results. Speaking in the House of Commons, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said:

Considering the allegations of serious and significant electoral fraud from international and Canadian election observers, the government of Canada cannot accept that the announced results by the central election commission reflect the true, democratic will of the Ukrainian people.

Canada rejects the announced final results.

Hear, hear! It has been a long time since this government made me proud. But this is no time for liberals and conservatives to stand apart. As Colin Powell has declared: "It is time for Ukrainian leaders to decide whether they are on the side of democracy or not." The struggle in the Ukraine is that important.

Posted by David Mader at 04:06 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Ukraine: The Latest

As far as I can tell: the Ukrainian electoral commission has declared Yanukovych the winner of the election - but US Secretary of State Colin Powell has announced that the United States does not accept the result:

"If the Ukrainian government does not act immediately and responsibly there will be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine's hopes for a Euro-Atlantic integration and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud," Powell said.

It looks like we're into the endgame. There had been talk late yesterday of negotiations between the candidates, and this morning the Yushchenko camp expressed an interest in a repeat of the election, under fair standards. But Yanukovych has rejected the possibility of negotiations, and the declaration by the commission pushes the sides closer to open conflict.

The Yushchenko supporters show no signs of dissipating. Can violence be far off? Where the police go, the country goes, I think.

Posted by David Mader at 02:26 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Give Thanks for Immigrants

Rupert Murdoch calls for a more open attitude towards immigrants. For obvious reasons, I agree whole-heartedly.

Posted by David Mader at 12:17 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Late Night Ukraine Roundup

Almost morning there, actually. Check out The Periscope, which is all over the story; one of their commenters is essentially live-blogging from Lviv, translating and passing on news from the radio and Ukrainian news-websites. (See here). Congressman Bob Schaffer is in the Ukraine, and has been sending updates home via his Blackberry - is this world wild or what? - which can be read here and here. And check Neeka's Backlog for intermittent updates from Ukrainian journalist Veronica Khokhlova.

Here are the latest stories from the Telegraph, the Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse.

The Reuters piece is the freshest, and discusses early (Wednesday) morning protests by Yushchenko supporters, but the night's most interesting intelligence comes via the New York Times:

A senior Western diplomat in Kiev, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the political situation, portrayed the Ukrainian leadership as being at an impasse, stung by public and diplomatic reaction, and unsure of how to react to the growing protests.

The diplomat also said he had credible reports that police units, the army and even the S.B.U., Ukraine's successor to the K.G.B., might be unwilling to put down the demonstrators by force. His assessment suggested deep divisions at senior ranks in the Ukrainian government.

"You have a government which in my opinion does not know what to do," the diplomat said.

He also cautioned, however, that one law enforcement agency, the Interior Ministry, might be willing to use force. The diplomat said "two red lines" had been communicated by his country to Mr. Kuchma. First, he said, that the government was to use no violence, and second, that it was to take no step to certify the election.

The Washington Post provides a supplementary quote from the diplomat regarding the government: "They may have been stupid enough to think that obvious, outright fraud would somehow persuade the international community . . . that this was a legitimate election." I presume that the diplomat is an American, based on the source and the language, although (s)he may also be British.

Yesterday's news in brief: Yushchenko supporters continued to rally in the capital, with a group of some thousands breaking off from the larger rally to surround the presidential buildings. They confronted riot police but there was no violence, and Yushchenko supporters tied orange ribbons, symbols of their movement, to police riot shields. Separately, pro-Yushchenko legislators convened at the Ukrainian parliament in an attempt to declare no confidence in the electoral commission, but a boycott by anti-Yushchenko parliamentarians denied quorum. (Later, two members of the electoral commission were said to have resigned and to have urged their former colleagues not to certify the election results.) Attending the parliament meeting, Yushchenko swore the oath of presidential office on a Bible, although the speaker of the legislature refused to recognize the oath as legally binding. There are continued rumors of anti-Yushchenko men being bussed and trained into Kiev, and more disturbing rumors of Russian troops donning Ukrainian army uniforms and entering the capital.

More as it comes.

Posted by David Mader at 12:53 AM | (0) | Back to Main

November 23, 2004

Yushchenko Calls for Police Support

Victor Yushchenko has called for Ukrainian police to join his supporters, as protests against the rigged election enter their second night. The Georgian Rose Revolution was largely accomplished at the point that Georgian police who had been guarding government buildings began to cross pickets to join the revolutionaries. A similar move in the Ukraine would be a major boost to Yushchenko's movement. Supporters have surrounded the Presidential Palace, and continue to congregate in Kiev's main square.

Posted by David Mader at 03:10 PM | (2) | Back to Main

Pajama Party

Dan Rather is, uh, 'stepping down' as anchor of 60 Minutes. The resignation will take effect on March 9, 2005, and is expected to be observed by the three people still watching Sixty Minutes on March 9, 2005.

This is indeed a pajama party as Rather's resignation is a direct result of the fact-checking by the blogosphere during the 'memogate' controversy. This will provoke yet another round of back-patting among bloggers, but it won't be unjustified.

Posted by David Mader at 01:01 PM | (3) | Back to Main

The Cold War, Continued

Also from UPI Hears, news that European countries - led by former East Bloc nations, are snubbing Russia's commemoration of its victory on the Eastern Front in World War Two.

In quiet but decidedly non-diplomatic language, the letter comments: "The victory of the USSR was different from that of democratic Europe, achieved in alliance with the USA, because of the subsequent Soviet domination of entire European countries which effectively became 'captive nations.'"

Hear, hear. Juxtaposed with this story, the item below is almost inomprehensible. Are Brussels bureaucrats that out of touch?

Posted by David Mader at 12:54 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Dying for Brussels

From today's UPI Hears:

British hospitals are bracing for a rush of new electrocution victims after Jan. 1 next year, when a new set of rules is introduced on the color-coding of electric wiring in the home. Hitherto, the common-sense rule has been in Britain that red stands for danger, and so a red wire was live and a black wire was neutral. From Jan. 1, black wire will be live and the neutral wire will be colored blue. The casualties from this exciting change can comfort themselves that they are doing their bit for European unity. The British color codes are being changed on the orders of Brussels in order to harmonize with the EU practice.

That's preposterous.

Posted by David Mader at 12:53 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Morning Ukraine Update

Viktor Yushchenko has declared himself the winner of the Ukrainian presidential election, as pro-Yushchenko parliamentarians meet to discuss further action. Anti-Yushchenko legislators have boycotted the session at Ukraine's parliament. And Neeka has some interesting developments:

The U.S. embassy staff (all except the ambassador) have announced their support for Yushchenko. Other countries' diplomats did the same. The Ukrainian embassy people in D.C. are also on Yushchenko's side - and they're now negotiating with their colleagues posted in other countries, so, hopefully, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be with the people, too.

The news about American embassy staff is a little hard to believe, unless it refers to locally-engaged staff (Ukrainian citizens working for the American embassy); if American diplomatic personnel are declaring their support for Yushchenko, that would be tantamount to an explicit American endorsement. More interesting is the news that the Ukrainian foreign service may be actively supporting Yushchenko. It is my understanding that most of the government backs Yanukovych, who has been prime minister and who is the preferred candidate of the current, autocratic president. The foreign ministry switching sides would be significant.

Posted by David Mader at 11:59 AM | (0) | Back to Main

November 22, 2004

Ukraine Blogging

JK has a list of resources; I particularly recommend Neeka's Backlog. The latest:

Something IS going on there, definitely. A few dozen cars with Yushchenko flags sticking out of their windows passed by honking furiously - from around the Bessarabka market, along Khreshchatyk, just one block before they turned up at Khmelnytskogo. The sound, actually, was so furious that if I were already asleep, I'd think it's an alarm clock and wake up screaming - maybe that's their goal, to wake us all up, to get us to join them. Man, but I'm not ready to go there all by myself - I'm nothing but a helpless girl, in a way - and I don't want to wake my parents up... (And I'm so sleepy... Which is so f****** selfish...)

Underneath our window on Khreshchatyk, I saw a bunch of guys, six or seven, all with orange ribbons and stuff, and they were pushing one of those very very very heavy benches lined up at the alley there. They dragged it away, towards where the barricades are. After they were gone, I suddenly realized that it was the only bench left standing there (there used to be quite a lot, I swear). As I said, those benches are terribly heavy and must be very useful for street riots...

I really hope those rumors/predictions about the police/thugs' attack at 3 am aren't true.

I've been writing this for about ten minutes, and it's sort of quiet right now...

We'll see, we'll hear...

Keep a close eye, folks. There aren't too many ways this could end entirely well.

UPDATE (10:38 EST 11/23/04): Sorry, didn't notice the f-bomb in Neeka's post; because this is a family blog, I've starred it out.

Posted by David Mader at 11:29 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Ukraine and the Cold War

A few days ago my friend Matt commented that he was glad, in light of recent developments, that the Cold War was over. How over is it? The electoral battle in the Ukraine is certainly a struggle between East and West - as those terms were understood in the twentieth century. The current president, Viktor Yanukovich, was heavily and openly backed by the Kremlin, and has promised to make Russian an official language of the country. The challenger, Victor Yushchenko, leans decidedly to the West, and presents a promise of open market reform and pro-business government in contrast to Yanukovich's more authoritarian style.

The Americans, for their part, are talking tough:

Richard Lugar, President Bush's envoy and chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, was uncommonly blunt in his assessment. He said: "It is apparent that a concerted programme of fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or co-operation of governmental authorities."

There's surely more going on here than meets the eye, and US-Russian relations are one area in which I claim absolutely no expertise. But it may come down to simple spheres-of-influence geopolitics, as the US hopes to expand its support among the 'New European' states of the former East Bloc, while Russia scrambles to maintain a grasp on the same states that is slipping.

Posted by David Mader at 09:08 PM | (1) | Back to Main

The Ukraine

Another spot to watch:

Ukraine approached a political stalemate today, as preliminary vote counts of the presidential runoff election indicated that Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich had won the race but international observers described widespread voting abuses and the opposition candidate forcefully refused to accept official results.

With more than 98 percent of ballots counted, the government tally gave Mr. Yanukovich 49.57 percent of the vote to 46.57 percent for Viktor A. Yushchenko, whose supporters turned out by the thousands in Independence Square here, claiming the election had been rigged and vowing to demonstrate until results were released reflecting the will of the people.

J. Kelly Nestruck is on top of the story (see here and here). These are the latest that I've found from the AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN, The Telegraph, The Times, and AFP.

More as the story develops.

Posted by David Mader at 08:19 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Wonkette Speaks

Well, she speaks all the time at her blog, but she's also spoken to some Columbia j-school students in an interview that fans may find interesting.

Posted by David Mader at 07:38 PM | (0) | Back to Main

The Rules of War

My earlier post has provoked some discussion, which I'm glad to see as it suggests I'm not the only one struggling with these issues. I want to clarify and expand upon some of the points I raised earlier.

I think it's entirely meet and proper that American troops operate under a certain behavioral framework on the battlefield. Providing aid for injured enemy soldiers, for instance, is a worthwhile endeavor and something American troops should continue to do - because it's right. I simply question the extent of the moral obligation - and the existence of the legal obligation - to provide such aid.

For such aid is certainly inconsistent with the general aims of war, at least if we hold by the proposition that victory is achieved through the destruction of the enemy's war-making capacity. In fact, to go to the extreme, a no-quarter policy seems far more consistent with total-war aims than a policy of capture. That seems evident, to me, regardless of one's position on a given total conflict.

And yet we naturally recoil from the shooting of neutralized troops. Is this rational? Is it moral? After all, in a total war those troops would quite rationally seek a way to return to the field of battle notwithstanding their neutralization.

Much of it has to do, I think, with the interplay of democracy and war. All but the most ardent pacifists would recognize that there is no democracy on the battlefield. And yet because we are uncomfortable with this exception, we seek to restrain it, and so impose democratic values on the military the moment 'hot' conflict turns a degree 'cooler.' The grey area arises, as we've seen in Fallujah, when 'hot' conflict never really ends. I'm not entirely sure that this application of democratic values to a war-fighting army is sustainable, whether or not it is codified in law.

Posted by David Mader at 06:45 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Fascist Fashion

Hadn't seen this before: Banana Republicans. My favorite item is Dick Cheney's belt.

[Thanks to Dan for the pointer.]

Posted by David Mader at 05:24 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Fallujah - Sites Speaks

The cameraman who captured the shooting of an injured Iraqi fighter in a Fallujah mosque has posted a defense of his actions, addressed to the Marine Corps. He is convinced that the dead man was one of five Iraqis injured in fighting - and treated by Coalition medics - the day before. Of course his conviction on this point makes his declared deference to a military inquiry rather superficial.

Read it yourself and make up your own mind. My problem with the controversy has never been focused on Sites (that's the cameraman) himself, but rather with the queasiness we still have about killing our enemies and our adherence to absurd rules of war. Still, his arrogance regarding the journalistic 'profession' tests one's patience. But again: read for yourself. This is an important primary source from a tremendously important episode in the nation's military history.

MORE: I should note that Sites' account - if accurate - makes quite clear that the Marine in question did make some sort of mistake in the mosque. At the least, he was unaware that the injured Iraqis had been injured and treated the day before. I want to make clear that - whatever my earlier inclinations - I support an inquiry into the matter. My gripe is a broader one, an opposition to the notion that we should give our enemies, rather than our troops, the benefit of the doubt.

UPDATE (16:22 EST): If Sites' account is entirely accurate, this might not matter:

The US military says Marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.

"Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets," a military statement said.

This wouldn't justify an American policy of, say, feigning death, but it might well justify a policy of greater discretion for troops on the ground. Why should American forces support the cost of this deceit, rather than the brothers-in-arms of the deceiters? Seems like a pretty poor allocative shift to me.

BY THE WAY (16:30 EST): Not to be too inflammatory, but had polite society demanded that the Civil War be conducted according to something like the Geneva Conventions, the South would have won. As most of the Continental (and, alas, British) chattering classes hoped that it would. For some reason this column brought that thought to mind. It doesn't mean we shouldn't conduct war according to some self-imposed moral code; but it means, to me, that we mustn't fetishize such restraint.

Posted by David Mader at 04:06 PM | (6) | Back to Main

Fallujah

Read this first-hand account. The Marines have done yet another incredible thing in Fallujah, and its name will, I expect, be engraved on the memorial alongside those of the earlier formative battles in the Corps' history.

Posted by David Mader at 02:54 PM | (0) | Back to Main

The Thing About Rights

My classmates may appreciate this:

Later I was talking with an architect, who described how housing is a right in Europe, unlike America, where there is no such right.

“But it’s a right granted by the state,” I said.

“Yes, of course.”

“So if the state grants it, the state can take it away.”

He was baffled. “Yes, of course, but they wouldn’t.”

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that never happens.

Never. That's the thing about making government pervasive.

Posted by David Mader at 02:20 PM | (0) | Back to Main

What's the Point?

"Starship Troopers without the lectures"? That's like Hamlet without the soliloquies!

Well, ok, maybe not Hamlet. But c'mon.

(If you've only ever seen the terrible movie, do yourself a favor and read the book - which is both a science fiction and a politico-philosophic classic.)

Posted by David Mader at 11:20 AM | (2) | Back to Main

Ivory Coast

Troubling reports out of Cote d'Ivoire this weekend. On Saturday the Western Standard's group blog, the Shotgun, noted some very disturbing video that apparently shows French troops firing on a crown of Ivorian civilians. Follow that link to find the video which, I must warn you from the start, is extraordinarily graphic.

Instapundit picked up the story (see more here), complete with skepticism regarding what the video might show - and not show. Today Reuters and UPI pick up on a BBC report that Ivorian officials have accused French forces of beheading civilians, a charge the French vigorously deny.

The charge of beheading is made interesting by the above-linked video. If beheading is taken to mean decapitation with a knife or blade, as I assume the French understand it, the charge may seem wild. But if beheading is taken to mean simply the removal of the head by force - well, watch the video (and again I urge discretion) and decide whether there's any better term for what you see.

But the basic point, to my mind, is this: the American and Western mainstream media spend the better part of last week wringing their hands over the shooting of an injured Iraqi insurgent fighter, a man who moments before his death had been in arms against Coalition forces, a man whose death would have been entirely unremarkable had it not been immediately preceded by his apparent incapacitation. Now we have rumour of the shooting of unarmed Ivorian civilians by French troops. Just as the Iraqi incident may be defensible, so may the Ivorian incident be defensible. But whereas the Iraqi incident received saturation coverage, there are no American or western media reports to be found addressing the Ivorian incident. Is this because:

A) The offending troops were French, rather than American?; or

B) The victims were African, rather than Iraqi?

Keep in mind: there's no answer to justify silence. Something has happened in Ivory Coast, and in all likelihood it continues to happen. Let's hear about it.

Posted by David Mader at 12:38 AM | (0) | Back to Main

November 21, 2004

U2 on SNL

So apparently U2 rocked out on SNL last night, performing 'Vertigo' and another track of the new album before closing the night with an impromptu concert for the NBC Studios audience. You can see their show-ending performance of their early hit "I Will Follow" here. U2's new album is released this week.

MORE: The album is streamed on U2's website here.

Posted by David Mader at 08:11 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Remedial Research and Writing

My classmates often complain about our Legal Research and Writing course, which involves a review of some pretty basic grammatical and stylistic issues. I happen to like it, but I'm a nerd like that. Anyway, it seems like the folks in the Attorney General's office didn't like Research & Writing either: this is the first sentence of the government's reply brief in a Supreme Court case on medical marijuana:

Respondents manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana involve a fungible commodity that is regularly bought and sold in an interstate market.

Um - wha- what? I'm pretty sure there's a possessive apostrophe missing from the very first word. Even with the change, though, the sentence is awkward. I shouldn't be throwing stones, given the glass house that is this blog, but really.

Posted by David Mader at 02:32 AM | (6) | Back to Main

November 20, 2004

Why I Love UPI

A reporter misses his story because of an interesting run-in with Israeli security, and so - what else? - files an article about it.

Posted by David Mader at 09:42 PM | (3) | Back to Main

Pistons-Pacers Brawl

They call this a fight? Man, basketball sucks. In a real sport the athletes punch one another. Watch the video and you'll see some overpaid primadonnas shove one another a little bit before going into the stands to throw fists at fans. Classy.

The ESPN announcers kept calling the actions of the fans - who peppered the players with drinks and food and whatnot as they left the court - 'disgraceful.' I'm with the fans, here - you leave the court to throw your fists, you've got what's coming to you. In this case, I imagine what's coming is a whole big pile of lawsuits.

Posted by David Mader at 09:04 PM | (3) | Back to Main

November 19, 2004

Oogley

This blog doesn't usually venture into aesthetic criticism, but Instapundit has linked to a picture of the new Jetta, and I have to note my disappointment. The Jetta is, I think, one of the nicest cars on the road - a fine example of the 'rounded corners' style that came to the fore around 2002. (The Audi TT is, to my mind, the epitome of this style.) But the new model seems to take the car the way of the supremely - irredeemably - ugly Toyota Echo. I've never understood the appeal of the snub-nosed hood to car designers - Ford, I believe, incorporated it into a model around the turn of the century, but appears to have thought better of it. The new Jetta, alas, looks like it got halfway through crashing into a wall, and has simply had its ruined front-end refurbished. What a shame.

Posted by David Mader at 06:06 PM | (3) | Back to Main

No More Lords?

Troubling news from Westminster:

The Parliament Act was used last night to force the Hunting Bill on to the Statute Book. The rarely-used Act was invoked by the Speaker to end the deadlock between peers and MPs after a day of drama and confusion.

Michael Martin told MPs that the Act was being applied for only the fourth time since 1949 in order to send the Bill for Royal Assent.

The League Against Cruel Sports, an anti-hunt group, quotes the Act here:

[If] any Public Bill... is passed by the House of Commons [in two successive sessions] (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons vote to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill...

Three issues strike me regarding this Act, the application of which is apparently to be challenged in court. The first is that it gives one house of Parliament a veto over the other. The intent was - superficially, at least - to guaranty Commons supremacy in law. Yet while Commons should be supreme, it should not be unrestrained. Giving the legislature a veto power to overcome the executive is one thing. Giving one branch of the legislature the veto power to overcome the other branch - without also granting the inverse power - is to undermine the bicameral system.

Second, it has long been my firm belief that a quasi-executive officer who possesses the tie-breaking vote in the legislature should always, if called upon to cast that vote, cast it in the negative. In the US this vote is possessed by the Vice President who, as President of the Senate, may break a tie in that house. There are good arguments for allowing the Veep to break a tie in favor of the President's party, but it seems to me that a bill that does not have the support of a majority of the legislature should not become a law. In the British context, it appears that the Speaker of the House of Commons enjoys the discretionary power to invoke the Parliament Act when the two House of Parliament are deadlocked¹ - when, in other words, there is a Parliamentary 'tie.' The Speaker, though a Member of Parliament, sits in lieu of the sovereign, and as such is a quasi-executive officer. Just as I would call on the Vice President to defeat a bill which did not enjoy the support of the Senate, so I would call on the Speaker to defeat a bill that did not enjoy the support of Parliament.

Finally, to the degree that the Parliamentary system blurs the distinction between legislative and executive powers, the attitudes of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, who excercise executive power, may be important. In this case, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet (or a substantial portion thereof) did not support the hunting ban. In invoking the Parliament Act, then, the speaker acted contrary not only to the will of Parliament as an institution but to the desires of the leaders of the government. Again, that may not be important - I suggest above that a split vote should not go the executive's way simply because he is the executive - but in a Parliamentary system, it may be more important.

There's much more to this story - it turns out Lords wanted the Speaker to invoke the Act so that they could challenge it in court, and in fact they refused amendments that would delay implementation of the Ban in order to accelerate the legal process. See the Times' report for an account of the wheeling and dealing - and a reminder, my Canadian friends, of what a Parliament can be.

MORE (17:46 EST): In a leader, the Telegraph condemns the ban and the manner of its enactment, but counsels patience on the part of its opponents.

¹I base this assumption on the Speaker's declaration: "I am satisfied that all the provisions of the Parliament Act have been met."

Posted by David Mader at 05:40 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Europe Goes Dark

Two should-read pieces in this week's edition of the Spectator, one important, one interesting:

Important: European correspondent Anthony Browne discusses the murder of Theo van Gogh and what it means for European democracy. He isn't optimistic.

Van Gogh was a friend of Pim Fortuyn, the populist politician murdered two years ago for offences against Islam. The hate-mongering Left demonised Fortuyn as a far-right racist, but he was no such thing. On the contrary, he was a flamboyant left-wing homosexual sociology professor who firmly opposed racism and had many black followers. But he started campaigning against Muslim immigration and denounced Islam as ‘backwards’ when homosexual teachers were sacked in the Netherlands because Muslim parents didn’t want their children taught by gays. He was outraged that decades of campaigning for gay rights was going backwards, and that everyone was too frightened to speak out...

What angered them all — van Gogh, Hirsi Ali and Fortuyn — is the way the intolerant left-wing hegemony of political correctness was strangling free speech and democracy — not just causing the problems in the first place, but trying to destroy those who discuss them...

Democracy too is under attack, with Belgium’s largest political party, the Vlaams Blok, banned last week. Attracting a quarter of the vote in the Flemish region, the anti-immigration separatist party was disbanded because it fell foul of anti-racism laws; unable to beat it in public debate or at the polls, its left-wing opponents killed it in the supreme court. In western Europe in the 21st century, the Left is getting courts to ban political parties because they are too popular.

It's hard to read the article without seeing storm clouds gathering over Europe once more.

Interesting: Paul Johnson looks at the decline of the intellectuals. This one will be of interest especially to amateur (and professional!) intellectual-historians. Johnson focuses most particularly on the decline of the intellectual left:

Today, I suspect, the intellectuals are impotent because so many of them are no good. In America it is a sign of the times that their leader is [Michael Moore]. The Right attracts at least as many stars as the rest: they write in the New Criterion, the National Review, Commentary and the American Spectator, and don’t call themselves intellectuals at all. By contrast, the anti-Bush stage army are often ill educated and ignorant. I doubt if any of the so-called pundits who have been holding forth about Iraq in the Guardian have ever been there or know anything about the complex peoples and history of the area. They have no intention of going there either; might be dangerous. They don’t mind going to safe, generous America, though. While cursing the US and all its people, they love tripping over to New York to party and collect their royalties. At least those original French intellectuals were prepared to make sacrifices and take risks. Zola went into exile (like Victor Hugo before him) and might well have gone to prison. Today’s anti-Americans risk nothing.

Similar accusations could probably be levelled against the thinkers of the right, but I think as a general proposition it's fair to say that there's more intellectual back-and-forth on the political right in America today than on the left.

I don't agree with everything in each of these articles, but both are thought provoking. If you have the time, give one, or both, a read.

Posted by David Mader at 01:25 AM | (0) | Back to Main

November 18, 2004

They've Started Killing Jews Again

From the Jerusalem Post, via Drudge:

Moshe Yitzhak Na'eh, 24, a Belgian Jew who was shot in the head Wednesday night in Antwerp in what seems to be an anti-Semitic attack, died of his wounds late Thursday afternoon, Belgium's Prosecutor's Office announced.

"We do not exclude any motive, but so far there are no indications that the motive was racist or extremist," said the prosecutor's spokeswoman, Dominique Renyers.

Yea, maybe it was a drug deal gone bad. Or not:

Belgian federal police are investigating the incident, which looks like a hate crime, since Na'eh's money was not stolen and he was not known to be involved in criminal activities.

And get a load of this:

Representatives of the Antwerp police and the Belgian Justice Ministry held a press conference on Thursday to officially address the incident. "They didn't give away any new information," Ceitlin said. "They did, however, call Belgian Jewish leaders prior to the meeting and asked them not to participate in it, so as not to turn the press conference into a 'Jewish happening,' " he said.

The emphasis is mine. Heaven forbid we turn the murder of a Jew, by all appearances because he was a Jew, into a 'Jewish happening.' Although in fairness, Jews are not the only targets: "The shooting death of Na'eh comes on the same day that a Belgian politician of Moroccan origin who has repeatedly criticized Islamic culture came under police protection after being threatened with 'ritual killing.'"

It's a war, folks. And it's heating up.

Posted by David Mader at 06:04 PM | (0) | Back to Main

A Bridge to Nowhere

A column in the Times - the real Times - notes the increasing divergence of America and Europe in the context of the divergence of England and France. It's a theme I've noted before. Money quote: "The desire to create a multipolar balance of power, in which Europe acts as a counter-weight to America is indeed Jacques Chirac’s most explicit diplomatic goal." Indeed.

Posted by David Mader at 05:47 PM | (4) | Back to Main

Technical Issues

In the post below Ryan noted a couple of technical issues he'd noticed. (LATER: 'noted... noticed'? Doesn't sound great, but I can't think of a) anything gramatically wrong or b) a better way to say it.) I really appreciate this kind of thing, as I use the blog in a much different manner than most of my readers. I'd never have noticed, for instance, that commenting from the archive pages was busted. I've fixed the two issues he noted (I think - I'm posting from FireFox, and everything looks ok except the line between the blogposts and the sidebar disappears and reappears depending on resolution and browser size). But if anyone notices anything else, please let me know. Thanks!

Posted by David Mader at 05:25 PM | (3) | Back to Main

About Time

This should have happened a long time ago, but kudos to Paul Martin for making it happen now.

Posted by David Mader at 04:59 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Mr. Fox Goes to Canada

No, not the Mexican president. Rather, the American cable network:

The Fox News Channel will soon be coming to Canadian digital TV.

The CRTC, Canada's broadcast regulator, announced Thursday that the right-wing, all-news channel can be carried by Canadian cable companies on digital.

It's too bad Fox is being relegated to digital, although I think that has to do with a spat between Canadian cable companies and FoxNews itself, which is refusing to consent to simulcasting.

Anyway, it's about time. [Via the Shotgun]

Posted by David Mader at 01:01 PM | (5) | Back to Main

Nifty

I was just e-mailed a web-survey conducted by some Texas students regarding news and the presidential election. Unless the survey was tailored to the respondent, it was really substantially about blogs. After determining where respondents got most of their news, and how they perceived the bias and accuracy of various sources, it asked a series of questions about blog use and the election. It wasn't quite prepared for a news-junkie and veteran blogger like me, but it was, I think, a sign of the times. Interesting.

UPDATE (18:19 EST): I'm told that the survey was, in fact, tailored to respondents, asking a different series of questions according to the news-medium preferred. That's really cool.

Posted by David Mader at 12:34 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Parrish

Look, I know it was a joke. But that's not how it's playing down here. Folks here don't know that 22 Minutes is a political satire show; they don't know that Parrish was sending herself up. All they see is a Canadian MP stomping on a doll of George W Bush. Just keep that in mind. One friend said to me, when I explained: "I was just shocked that an elected official would act like that." Keep that in mind.

And by the way, it doesn't seem like that much of a joke, does it? I mean, 22 Minutes gets politicians to make fun of themselves by allowing them to go over the top in their charicatures. But this doesn't seem too far out of line for Parrish.

Posted by David Mader at 12:18 PM | (7) | Back to Main

UPI

The story below - about Barghouti - comes from the UPI. A couple of years back the UPI made its content freely available on its own website, and it quickly became my favorite news service. It featured more (explicitly recognized) reporter analysis than other services, and that analysis always had more of a 'what I've seen on the ground, in the bars and in the back-halls of power' flavor - in contrast to the 'what I learned in J-school or the New York Times' flavor of AP and Reuters analysis.

Anyway, it turns out the Washington Times provides a UPI clearinghouse, which I've added to the blogroll. If you're a news junkie like me, be sure to check out the 'UPI Hears' feature - a collection of news briefs, not quite stories, which you're almost guaranteed not to hear elsewhere.

Posted by David Mader at 11:53 AM | (0) | Back to Main

The Absentee Candidate

UPI has a great analysis on the prospects of Marwan Barghouti becoming the next Palestinian president. Barghouti is popular in the West Bank and Gaza and, unusually, enjoys a fair degree of popularity among many Israeli officials, who see him as a man they can 'do business with.' Just one problem: Barghouti is serving five life sentences for murder. He's in jail.

Oddly - or not so oddly, given your perspective on the conflict - Barghouti's incarceration gives him a substantial political base among 'the inmates,' the thousands of Palestinian terrorists currently serving jailtime in Israeli prisons. Between Barghouti's domestic popularity and his relative popularity among Israeli officials, speculation has increased that Sharon could press for Barghouti's pardon and release. Not likely, but not entirely impossible.

Posted by David Mader at 11:34 AM | (0) | Back to Main

You Know What I Want?

I want an alarm clock that allows you to set distinct times for each day of the week. An alarm clock, that is to say, that you can set on Sunday to go off at one time on Monday, another on Tuesday, a third on Wednesday and so on. A college student's alarm clock, in other words.

I'm not asking for royalties on the idea. Product availability is quite sufficient.

Posted by David Mader at 11:31 AM | (4) | Back to Main

November 17, 2004

Fallujah

I've been busy the past couple of days (not least - though not most - with blog mechanics), and so haven't commented on this story about a Marine who shot a wounded Iraqi insurgent in Fallujah. The basic story is this: the Marines have, on a number of occasions, been tricked by Iraqi fighters who feign injury or surrender in order to draw coalition troops off their guard, and proceed to attack them. When this happened to one squad, the resulting grenade attack killed one soldier and injured another. The next day - or at least soon thereafter - the same squad, including the injured soldier, came across the bodies of a number of Iraqi fighers. The injured solider noticed that one of the Iraqis was not dead. So he shot him.

Because the episode was captured by an embedded NBC cameraman, the story has received a tremendous amount of attention. An investigation is ongoing. Human rights NGOs are calling the shooting a 'war crime' and issuing the predictable denunciations.

Well, Amnesty et al. may be right. Maybe it was a war crime. And if it was, it will illustrate the absurdity of the very notion. Like Andrew Sullivan, I don't exactly condone the marine's conduct - though I think I come awful close. But I certainly don't condemn it. This is war. And our soldiers are doing their damndest to win it, putting their lives on the line every minute against an enemy that adheres to no 'rules of the game,' an enemy that is interested in only one thing: killing them.

For an active Marine's perspective, check out this letter. Key quote: "For those of you who don't know, we Marines, Band of Brothers, Jarheads, Leathernecks, etc., do not fight because we think it is right, or think it is wrong. We are here for the man to our left, and the man to our right. We choose to give our lives so that the man or woman next to us can go home and see their husbands, wives, children, friends and families." In other words, it's not about whether shooting a since-disarmed and semi-debilitated enemy is proper or improper according to some abstract code of conduct. It's about killing or being killed.

I respect that position very much. But I'm not a Marine; I'm an arm-chair general, a pundit, or even - on a good day - a thinker. And I think I can entertain policy justifications for killing our enemies until they're dead. Keep in mind the tremendous risk our Marines and soldiers are taking in going house to house in Fallujah. Keep in mind the terrible toll suffered by the Israelis who went house to house in Jenin. Keep in mind our approaches to Dresden and Hiroshima - approaches I continue to believe were entirely justified. Having surrounded insurgent elements in Fallujah, and having given ample warning, I believe coalition forces would have been justified - whatever that means, in war - in bombing the city into oblivion. But they didn't. Instead, they sent the men of the United States Marine Corps - and of a number of fine Army units - into the heart of the city.

Here's why:

Such is the fear that the heavily armed militants held over Fallujah that many of the residents who emerged from the ruins welcomed the US marines, despite the massive destruction their firepower had inflicted on their city.

A man in his sixties, half-naked and his underwear stained with blood from shrapnel wounds from a US munition, cursed the insurgents as he greeted the advancing marines on Saturday night.

"I wish the Americans had come here the very first day and not waited eight months," he said, trembling. Nearby, a mosque courtyard had been used as a weapons store by the militants.

The USMC did an incredible, valiant, honorable and entirely gratuitous thing in liberating Fallujah. If that liberation involved having one insurgent's trip to hell expedited - well, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep.

Posted by David Mader at 11:17 PM | (1) | Back to Main

More Sub Shenanigans

A couple days ago I noted the announcement that Israel had tracked a NATO-member submarine's trek through Israeli coastal waters. Now there's news that Russian fighers have chased off an American sub-hunter over the Black Sea:

On Nov. 15, a U.S. reconnaissance plane flying near Russia's Black Sea coast turned back after Russia sent a SU-27 fighter to investigate. Col. Aleksandr Drobyshevskii said the U.S. Orion plane, based in Crete, was spotted about 6 miles off the coast... The Orion, a four-engine turboprop, is used as a maritime-surveillance craft to detect submarines.

Something's up, apparently.

Posted by David Mader at 01:29 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Back In Bidness

Okay, the archives are back up - but intra-blog links for the old stuff are going to be broken, I'm afraid. As are old in-bound links. Simple mistake on my part, something I'd anticipated but forgotten to correct for. Anyway, not the end of the world.

There are still some stylesheet issues, apparently, and I'll (hopefully) massage those out of existence. In the meantime, commenting appears to work and we're mostly back in business.

Every time I do this I feel like I lose a little something. And thanks for the suggestion, Ryan - next time around I may well switch publishing systems.

JUST KIDDING: Some of the old archives appear not to be working. Can't figure out why. Can't bring myself to care all that much. You're good through September, and then from May back through last December. Before that, only the first month - July 2003 - is available. What can you do.

UPDATE: They're back! Apparently. Much fanfare, many huzzahs.

Posted by David Mader at 01:18 PM | (1) | Back to Main

November 16, 2004

Test

There's going to be a lot of this sort of thing, I'm afraid.

Posted by David Mader at 09:50 PM | (3) | Back to Main

And We're Back

Took too long, and there are still wrinkles to be sorted out, but we're back. Only one major issue: MT doesn't want to import my old archives. How attached is everybody to them? I still have them, and they'd be nice, but I suppose it's not the end of the world if we start anew...

ARG (20:58 EST): MovableType gets outrageous 'you stupid people' points for renaming all of the elements on their default style sheet. Why, oh why, oh WHY would you do that? So it's going to be a couple days until the blog looks nice again. Oh and comments don't work. Every time I have to deal with the mechanics of MovableType's product I get frustrated. Every. Single. Time. You'd think I'd learn.

OH FORGET IT (21:03 EST): I'm just going to have to rebuild the thing from the ground up. It's going to take a while, and I've wasted far too much time on it already today. Look for a default template tomorrow, and slow tinkering in the days and weeks to come.

Posted by David Mader at 08:37 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Late-Night Israel Round-Up

Not for any particular reason.

• Ahmed Queria, the Palestinian Prime Minister, has called on French medical authorities to release the records relating to the death of Yassir Arafat. It has been suggested - can't remember just where - that Palestinian sources are playing down the 'poisoning' suggestion in return for Israel's silence on the question of AIDS.
  
  
• Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, attending a conference in Cleveland, has suggested that his government may consider coordinating the Gaza withdrawal with the new Palestinian authorities, should those authorities prove capable and willing to crack down on terror.
  
  
• Don't hold your breath though. New PLO chief (and former Palestinian Prime Minister) Mahmoud Abbas has survived an assassination attempt in Gaza. The attack was carried out by gunment said to be associated with the secretary of the Fatah terrorist group in Gaza. Fatah was Arafat's personal militia organization. (Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994). The assassination attempt is seen as the latest altercation in a turf-war among the various Gaza personalities.
  
  
• Finally, Israel has announced that its coastal waters were infiltrated by a submarine belonging to a NATO power last week. Debka suggests that it was an American sub doing recon, but one has to wonder why Israel would go public over an American sub.

Posted by David Mader at 01:04 AM | (0) | Back to Main

November 15, 2004

Chirac - Petty, Vindictive, Off His Tree?

More evidence of the France/America split, from the Times:

In other remarks that will sting the Bush Administration, he again outlined his vision of a “multipolar� world in which a united Europe would be equal with the US, and mocked Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, for his division of Europe into old and new.

M. Chirac said that there would be no division between Britain and France.

“It is like that nice guy in America — what’s his name again? — who spoke about ‘old Europe’. It has no sense. It’s a lack of culture to imagine that. Imagining that there can be division between the British and French vision of Europe is as absurd as imagining that we are building Europe against the United States.�

The emphasis is mine. Jack, Jack, do you even listen to yourself when you talk? Or does it all just flow out of - how do you say - your cul? Or perhaps the Timesman is simply making it up?

You'll excuse my anti-Gallicism, but I've just about had enough. Jacques Chirac is neither an ally nor a friend of the United States. He has worked constantly against American interests, all the while - as he freely admits in the cited article - scheming to achieve his own ends. He is dismissive of American political culture, disdainful of American cultural - and military - achievements, and by all accounts disinclined to attempt any sort of reconciliation with the Bush White House. Notwisthstanding his own convoluted protestations, it is manifestly clear that he fancies himself leader of an anti-American counter-force in world affairs.

Perhaps it's all posturing - an attempt to set himself up as the anti-Bush precisely in order to allow Tony Blair to 'bridge the gap.' I certainly hope so. But I'm not confident. The twentieth century order was shattered on September 11, 2001, and the pieces are still falling down.

[And yes, I had to double-check my French cuss-words. The reference page is hilarious, but reader discretion is advised.]

Posted by David Mader at 11:57 PM | (7) | Back to Main

Thanks, But I'm in No Hurry

Garrison Keiller wants to give me the vote:

If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?

That's ok, Garrison - my guy already won. But thanks for the thought.

Posted by David Mader at 08:54 PM | (0) | Back to Main

In Other News

Colin Powell has resigned. Condi Rice is expected to become Secretary of State. I have nothing original to add to the discussion, but thought I'd mention it in case somebody hadn't heard elsewhere.

Posted by David Mader at 05:12 PM | (3) | Back to Main

So-Cons and the Common Law

A couple days ago, Instapundit - a law professor - mentioned the standard common-law theory of nonfeasance:

At common law -- and still, pretty much, the law generally -- there's no duty to rescue. The classic example, in fact, involves a man walking down the sidewalk and observing a baby drowning in a half-inch of water. Even if the man could rescue the baby with no risk and minimal inconvenience to himself, he's under no duty to take any action at all, and can simply keep walking without facing any penalty beyond moral condemnation.

He went on to discuss nonfeasance in the context of abortion, which brought his post to the attention of the folks at National Review's The Corner. Apparently, they aren't crazy about nonfeasance:

no matter what the law requires, morality absolutely requires you to save the drowning baby. That the law imoses no penalty whatsoever to such morally disgusting behavior is a scandal, but it doesn't make the morality any less clear. If the law doesn't require me to save the baby's life, than the law is "a ass."

That's Jonah Goldberg. And with all due respect to him, I don't want the common law - or statutory law, for that matter - compelling behavior based on morality. Here's how Leon Green, storied Texas Law professor, put it: "In the tort field at least, this power we call law is merely designed to control conduct and not to compel it. We have enough to do to keep our activities within control, without attempting to regulate the directions the latent energies of individuals should take." Yup. There are two kinds of conservatives: those who would use the coercive power of the state to force people to act in certain ways in certain circumstances, and those who are really classical liberals.

You can guess which side I'm on.

Posted by David Mader at 05:08 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Comment Problems

I'm told folks have been running into trouble posting comments, on the basis of content restrictions. I've just experienced this problem myself, which is a very unusual experience - being prevented from posting to your own blog.

I'm not consciously filtering information beyond spam, but it's possible that I've caught up some legitimate terms in my blanket black-listing. I'll look into it.

Posted by David Mader at 04:21 PM | (4) | Back to Main

Privatize It

Instapundit has a long post about negative experiences with government functionaries, specifically immigration officers. He writes: "People worry that we're alienating people with foreign policy, but far more people around the world care about this sort of thing, and they hold a lot more grudges over being shat upon by some functionary than over something they read in the Guardian."

I vaguely recall writing a post about this over the summer, but I can't seem to find it. In any case, I wonder whether we shouldn't simply privatize front-line governmental customer relations. As long as these positions are dominated by public-sector unionized employees, they will have no incentive to provide high-quality service. On the contrary, private employees or, more particularly, their employers will have a tremendous incentive - the potential loss of a contract - to ensure that their employees are friendly and helpful.

The only - or perhaps the strongest - counter-argument is that certain employees - immigration officials, for instance - as administrators of sensitive areas of government policy, must remain under governmental control. Recognizing that such employees - and I'm talking only about front-line workers - have no hand in constructing or, in a broad sense, applying policy, I think this argument loses its force. And while it's true that they apply policy in a particular sense, and so are susceptible to bribery or other nefarious activity, I don't see why governmental security oversight of privately contracted employees would be any harder or less secure than the same oversight of publicly contracted employees - in fact, given public-sector union 'rights,' I imagine such oversight might be less difficult than it presently is.

Posted by David Mader at 02:09 PM | (12) | Back to Main

November 14, 2004

The Urban Archipelago is Sinking

Andrew Sullivan points - disapprovingly, I take it - to the theory that Democrats live on an 'Urban Archipelago'; that, in other words, the Democratic base is centered in cities surrounded by Republican red and that, furthermore, they ought to focus on those urban 'islands' rather than reach out to the red 'sea.'

To be honest, I haven't read the page in full; it lost my attention around "We live on islands of sanity, liberalism, and compassion," or more particularly around "Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland "values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia." There may be something more profound in there, but it seems to be little more than a bitter post-election condemnation of the rest of the country.

What makes it so funny is that the purveyors of this opinion don't seem to have recognized that, in this election at east, the 'Urban Archipelago' shrank - or sank a little, if you will. Volokh spells it out:

BUSH New York City 2000: 398,726 New York City 2004: 544,359 Difference: +145,633

NY Suburbs 2000: 607,224 NY Suburbs 2004: 720,719 Difference: +113,495

GORE/KERRY New York City 2000: 1,703,364 New York City 2004: 1,653,767 Difference: -49,597

NY Suburbs 2000: 865,926 NY Suburbs 2004: 815,412 Difference: -50,514

In other words, in the biggest and bluest of the archipelago's 'islands,' Republicans increased their vote share considerably while Democrats lost ground. Not to toot my own horn too much, but it's a trend I noticed relatively early on election night. Here's what I wrote at 11:05 pm EST, calling Florida for Bush:

With 64% of Miami-Dade reporting - and 87% of Broward - Bush still leads the state by five points. The cities aren't giving Kerry the numbers he needs to overcome the early Bush-friendly numbers.

What was true in Florida was true in Ohio - and New York and California, for that matter. Either the cities didn't come out for Kerry (in the numbers he needed, and in the numbers Gore achieved) or they did come out - and voted for Bush.

"The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities," write the 'Urban Archipelago' folks. Well, good luck with that, fellas. By that calculus, the future is looking pretty red.

Posted by David Mader at 10:18 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Palestinians, French: Arafat Not Poisoned

There's been a rumor floating around since well before his death that Yassir Arafat had been poisoned, presumably by Israel. I've heard the suggestion come from some surprising sets of lips, the owners of which did not seem to consider what was, to me, quite obvious: that the 'poison' suggestion was little more than a slur against Israel and an attempt to make Arafat - who died a sick, broken, failed old man - into a war-martyr slain at the hands of his sworn enemy.

In any case, this Reuters story quotes both the French Health Minister and unnamed 'Palestinian sources' as rejecting the 'poisoning' hypothesis. Says the Frenchman: "Nothing in the medical dossier, it seems, has shown that he was poisoned;" he notes, however, that he has not examined the dossier himself.

The refusal by Palestinian sources to release any medical information is the first best piece of evidence refuting the 'poisioning' hypothesis, of course: if there were any evidence of foul play, it would be in the Palestinian interest to broadcast it worldwide. And yet many folks seem perfectly willing to parrot Hamas talking points with little regard to reason or prudence. We may never know what disease ultimately killed Arafat, but it is overwhelmingly likely that it was simply that: disease. Hopefully remarks such as those by the French Health Minister will put contrary rumors to rest.

Posted by David Mader at 07:27 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Towards a Sixty-Seat Senate?

Mickey Kaus suggests that a number of Senate Democrats, discouraged by the party's failure to return to majority status, may retire in the coming years - opening up a number of seats in red-states. I don't know the Senate well enough to identify these potential red-at-home-blue-in-DC Democrats, although Tom Daschle certainly was one. A sixty-seat majority in the Senate would be tremendous for the Republican Party; the question is, can the GOP coalition last long enough to make that a reality?

Posted by David Mader at 02:23 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Union Gangsters

Via Norman Spector, this outrageous story:

A deeply divided executive at the Public Service Alliance of Canada has agreed to allow union locals to collect fines from members who didn't picket during the brief federal government strike last month...

On top of the fines, members could be suspended from participating in union activities, such as running for an executive position or voting on issues, said PSAC president Nycole Turmel. The suspensions can last for as long as five years.

I've long complained that the closed shop is an affront to democratic principles as it mandates participation in one organization in order to enter the employ of another. My critics - and I won't name them lest they not want to be drawn into this particular debate - have argued variously that a) employers have a right to employ as they wish, and if they wish to negotiate one contract (with a union) rather than many (with individual employees) that's their right; and more importantly b) since all employees 'benefit' from the wage increases, etc, negotiated by the union, it's only proper that those employees pay union dues as required by mandatory membership.

It seems to be that we've gone quite a step beyond that here. It's no longer enough that employees pay union dues; now they are required to participate in union activities including the picket (far and away the most anti-democratic union practice, as it involves the use of force in order to exclude competition and achieve a monopoly on labor in a particular market). If they refuse - they need not cross the line, mind, only refuse to picket - they will be denied the ability to vote on union issues. I have little confidence that their union will allow them to stop paying dues for the duration.

Well, my labor-loving friends?

Posted by David Mader at 01:54 PM | (6) | Back to Main

November 13, 2004

Hooray for the Public Domain

I may be the last guy on the internet to have discovered Bartleby.Com's collection of freely-available literature - all formatted and presented in easy-to-read HTML, complete with many graphics and all notes in a given work.

This is really a treasure of a find, and a terrible site to stumble across a month before exams. So I'm sharing my mistake with you. There's enough poetry there to keep you occupied for years; enough prose to make your mind stutter. Have at it.

Posted by David Mader at 11:38 PM | (1) | Back to Main

November 12, 2004

More on Gonzales and Clemency

This was going to be an update, but I have enough to say that I'm making it a full post.

Slate has a column on Gonzales which cites the Atlantic article and helps to flesh out the argument. According to the Atlantic piece,

A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.

The first sentence suggests that the rap against Gonzales is a procedural one rather than a substantive one: the problem is not that he recommended against clemency, but rather that he did so based on shoddy legal work. If you've read the Atlantic piece, let me know whether this is the thrust of the complaint. At the very least, it seems to be intermingled with a substantive argument that clemency should be presumptively granted, rather than presumptively denied.

But the second sentence - which lists a number of possible grounds for reversal - highlights the balance-of-power problem I discussed below. Presumably, each of the highlighted elements would have been raised before an appellate court (even if only in a motion for appeal) and settled therein. The Atlantic article suggests, first, that the judicial branch's review of each of the highlighted issues was unsatisfactory, and second, that the executive should substitute his own legal analysis of each of the issues for that of the judiciary. Whether or not the first assertion is true in any given case, I'd be very hesitant to approve of the second assertion.

Note, as a final aside, that Bush did not, it seems, enjoy a total clemency power: "As governor, Bush had statutory power to delay executions and the political power to influence the state Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute them entirely, where there was a procedural error, cause for mercy, or a bona fide claim of innocence." If Bush's only true clemency power was a political power to influence the pardon board's decisions, then criticism of him for failing to exercise that 'power' amounts to no more than a political argument on the substantive issue of capital punishment.

MORE (16:12 EST): The Atlantic provides scans of one of the memos here. Again, without reading the article it's hard to know precisely what the argument is. But giving the memo a cursory reading, I wonder if we aren't seeing a well-dressed political attack on capital punishment. No, the memo doesn't discuss in depth the issues - ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence - that might warrant clemency. What it does discuss, at considerable length, is the convict's progress through the judicial system, up to and including a 13-1 denial of clemency by the only authority with the true power to grant it - the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Gonzales concludes the memo:

Due to the fact that Gardner has presented his viable claims in state and federal courts without success, judicial relief is not likely. Since all courts have reviewed Gardner's case, we feel reasonably certain that nothing will be gained by granting a 30-day reprieve.

If the Governor's job was to re-try every capital case, this legal analysis would be insufficient. But that's not the Governor's job; rather, he is given the ability to delay execution in order to ensure that the judicial process has been exhausted. This memo demonstrates - persuasively, in the absence of further information - that, in this case, it had been. What more do Gonzales' critics want?

Posted by David Mader at 03:52 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Clemency

Andrew Sullivan cites this Atlantic Monthly article (subscribers only) to condemn Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales for his memorandums on clemency petitions brought before Bush while he was Governor of Texas.

I haven't read the article (I'm not a subscriber) and I have absolutely no expertise or even basic knowledge of criminal law and capital punishment - so take my comments for what they're worth- but I have some pretty strong feelings on the separation of powers. Executives are often condemned for their refusal to grant clemency in capital cases; the Atlantic, for instance, refers to Gonzales' "three-page memo that sealed [convict] Washington's fate." But it's important to remember that his fate - capital punishment - was made possible by the citizens of the State of Texas who approved the punishment in legislation, and (more importantly) was ordered by the judicial branch of the State of Texas which convicted and sentenced him.

Now I don't know the specifics of the case. But in any case that reaches the clemency stage, the convict has necessarily been a) tried, b) convicted, and c) denied appeal; more likely he's been granted appeal and the trial court verdict has been affirmed. That is the judicial process. And a republican form of government entrusts the judicial process to the judicial branch.

The executive, it's true, does often have an explicit clemency power to overturn a judicial decision. But to do so - as the Atlantic article and, presumably, Sullivan suggest - would be to substitute the legal memorandum of a single, unelected executive-branch official for the reasoned judgment of the judicial branch (including the decision of a jury).

The executive is not a judge; his legal advisor is not a judge; the clemency power is not an opportunity to retry a case. It is a safeguard against judicial tyranny. Where reasonable minds may disagree, where the legislature has acted, where the judicial branch has done justice, the executive should not substitute his own judicial judgment. That's not his job.

Posted by David Mader at 01:18 PM | (1) | Back to Main

8:30 Classes..

... are rough. I know, I know, cry me a river. Anyway, in the place of my usual blather, I give you these:

- A list of dignitaries slated to attend Arafat's funeral. The apparent concensus is that this is a 'foreign-minister' level affair. Kudos to the US and Australia for sending foreign ministry employees instead.

- A story out of the True North that Quebec's Premier Jean Charest is travelling to Mexico together with French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. Expression of Francophonie unity - or expression of unacceptable disunity? You decide.

Posted by David Mader at 12:48 PM | (5) | Back to Main

November 11, 2004

11/11

November 11, Veterans' Day in the United States, is Armistice Day and Remembrance Day in the Commonwealth. David Frum has a fine post that notes the importance of the Great War, which ended on this day eighty-six years ago.

Posted by David Mader at 10:40 AM | (1) | Back to Main

Vanunu Can't Stay Away

From jail, that is:

Heavily armed police commandos stormed a Jerusalem church compound Thursday and arrested nuclear whistle blower Mordechai Vanunu for allegedly revealing classified information, seven months after he completed an 18-year prison sentence for treason, police said.

Guess he liked it on the inside.

Posted by David Mader at 10:36 AM | (1) | Back to Main

Joshua 5:13-14

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come.

Posted by David Mader at 09:37 AM | (0) | Back to Main

We Are the Dead

Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.

Posted by David Mader at 01:33 AM | (0) | Back to Main

November 10, 2004

Arafat is Dead

Ha'aretz, FoxNews and CNN, among others, report that Yassir Arafat is dead. Saeb Erakat made the announcement early Thursday.

Many will eulogize and commemorate Arafat and his life, debating the Palestinian leader's 'legacy.' All that concerns me is that the man spent his entire adult life waging a war against Israel not as a political entity but as a Jewish state. He did not simply blur the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, he obliterated it. In an age that eschews language of confrontation, I have never had any doubt that Yassir Arafat is and has ever been my enemy and the enemy of all who value peaceful coexistence.

The Bible teaches us not to celebrate the death of our enemies, for even they are God's creatures. But I will not mourn his passing. May his name be erased from the annals of history, and may his crimes never be forgotten.

Posted by David Mader at 11:48 PM | (2) | Back to Main

Guilty as Charged

Andrew Sullivan cites a Dutch blogger who sees intolerance all around:

On the one hand side, I meet plenty of people, both Dutch and Muslim, who say they condemn the Van Gogh murder. But. They understand it. On the other hand, I meet a slightly smaller number of people, mainly Dutch and not as many Muslims, who say they don't want to condone the attacks on mosques. But. They understand it. May I offer a heartfelt raised middle finger to both groups?

I'm afraid I fall into the latter group, if only implicitly. See my post here. I came close to posting a condemnation of the attacks on Muslim schools, but stopped myself when it occurred to me that the schools in question might not be elementary schools, but rather the madrassas which stand at the root of the Islamist threat and network. I've had ample opportunity to discover that the schools are, indeed, schools - and yet I haven't spoken out. Now I do: attacks on the innocent are unacceptable. Yes, the moderate Muslim community bears the burden of self-identification and condemnation of radical Muslim elements. But that does not remove the burden on the non-Muslim community to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent. Moreover, when the government demonstrates its willingess to actively combat the Islamist threat - as the Dutch goverment has demonstrated - acts of private vengeance are out of line. I fear Europe stands on a precipice, soon to plunge into a war that will be fought in its very heart and on its very streets. But all must do everything possible to avert that, and certainly we who value freedom should guard against the inevitable excesses that war brings.

Posted by David Mader at 11:30 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Shades of Black and White

All