The Brilliance Of Anti-War Thought

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune notes that anti-war activists protested the Iraq War in front of the Walker Community Library this afternoon, despite a lack of evidence that the library had any overt involvement in the conflict. Nevertheless, the protestors demanded an end to a war that has already ended with the typically deep philosophical thought that goes into these demonstrations:

Demonstrators carried banners, flags and signs that read "War sucks" and "Starve the war" as they used chalk to draw peace symbols and footprints on the sidewalk, listened to passionate speakers and passed out fliers announcing upcoming local anti-war events ... Several motorists honked their horns in approval as they drove by on Hennepin Avenue.

War sucks? How come no one told me that before? Well, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. And you have to love the news that "several people" honked their horns during the 90-minute demonstration. It's Hennepin Avenue -- if several people hadn't honked their horns in 90 minutes, that would be news, folks.

Northern Alliance Radio Network Updates

The Northern Alliance Radio Network logo contest is almost closed now -- we're picking the finalists right now, and shortly will post the five logos we like best. We'd like our readers to cast their vote for the best logo to represent the Northern Alliance. We'll post them up at our radio-show site in the next few days, so keep checking in to get a look at the fantastic graphics that we've received. Quite frankly, we're stunned at the quantity and the quality of the submissions! Big thanks to everyone who participated.

Also, on today's show, we were fortunate enough to have Stephen Hayes, the author of The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. Stephen gave our listeners terrific insight into the breadth of connections into Saddam's involvement with AQ and terrorism in general, which the media used to report as gospel but changed their tune after Bush's election.

My favorite part of our time with Stephen came at the start of the hour when The Big Trunk and Hindrocket introduced themselves, and Stephen noted that Power Line is one of his daily reads. (Hell, isn't it on everyone's daily list?) When I introduced myself prior to asking him my first question, Stephen responded, "Captain Ed? I didn't know you were going to be there! All of my favorite bloggers in one place!"

Everyone needs to go out and buy all of his books, right now.

Where Were You When Reagan Was Shot? When He Changed The World?

Every generation has one or two seminal events that sear into our memories, so much that we can always recall exactly where we were and what we were doing at the moment we heard or saw it. Ronald Reagan's death reminds me of the assassination attempt on March 30, 1981, that almost killed him just as he started his term in office.

A 17-year-old college student at the time, I worked as a clerk for the local Sears store in the Los Cerritos Mall, and decided to come in to work on my day off to work as a floater. Normally I worked in the men's clothing department, but instead the office assigned me to the toy department, a choice assignment for a weekday, since the kids would all be in school and I could spend most of my time watching the televisions in the adjacent department.

When I first walked upstairs, I noticed an unusual crowd of people watching television, including a number of employees. I immediately sensed something wrong, and asked someone I knew what happened. She told me, "Reagan got shot." I looked up at the television to see a replay of the now-famous clip of Reagan, his hand frozen in the air as his easy and cheerful smile disappeared in slow motion. Over and over we watched as James Brady took a bullet in his brain and Tim McCarthy, Reagan's Secret Service agent, took one in the stomach while other agents threw the President into the limousine.

Then we waited for some word on whether he would live or die.

It seemed like an ongoing circus in the days before 24-hour news; we'd switch from one network to another, hoping to get some new information and instead watched the same clip, over and over again. No one bought anything in the TV department that day. Instead, we hoped, prayed, and comforted each other while we all wondered if the shooter was a nutcase or part of an attack on the US by another nation or terrorists, like the PLO. No one knew.

Most of us called our families and friends, having the same conversation over and over again: "Did you hear? Have you seen the video? Has anyone said if he's alive or dead?" You'd ask these questions or get asked them, the same answers would be spoken, and then you'd turn around and have the exact same conversation with someone else. It was all you could do, and in the days before widespread access to CNN and more than a decade before the Internet, those calls were the only action we could take.

Despite his age and his serious wounds, God or Providence or dumb luck (you choose) gave Ronald Reagan another twelve good years of life in order to change the world. I know I will always remember March 30, 1981 in a similar way to 9/11 and the Challenger explosion, but more than those events, I will always remember when Reagan changed the world, helped to free half a continent from the Iron Curtain, and consign the murderous tyranny of communism to the dustbin of history. I am forever thankful that we were granted that extra time with Reagan.

Farewell, Ronald Reagan

Only minutes after our radio show ended, I found out that President Ronald Reagan had passed away after a long struggle with Alzheimer's disease. While not unexpected, the news of his passing stunned me in a way I had not thought possible. For me and millions of other conservatives, Ronald Reagan was our touchstone, even after his debilitating disease struck, and I found myself thinking about all of the ways in which Reagan influenced and molded my own philosophy.

Although Reagan had been the governor of California for two terms, I was too young to remember much about him in that role. I first recall his political impact in 1976, when I was 13, as he ran against the incumbent President, Gerald Ford, in an election Jimmy Carter eventually won. He challenged Ford that year as a representative of the so-called Goldwater wing of the GOP, preaching a strong defense, anti-communism, and reduction of the tax burden as a way to correct the weak economy of the 1970s. While Ford won the nomination, it was Reagan who electrified the race -- and his keynote speech at the convention in 1976 served notice that Reagan would not be fading away.

After the debacle of the Jimmy Carter presidency, Reagan ran again, and his infectious and constant optimism for American possibilities stood in stark contrast to Carter's malaise and his insistence that American exceptionalism was merely mythology. Pundits at the time, and worse yet since, have branded Reagan as a simple man (or a simpleton) who won by huckstering the US into thinking happy thoughts, but optimism was a key component of Ronald Reagan -- and people knew it.

Coupled with a strong belief in individualism and personal liberty, Reagan literally changed the nature of American politics in a single election cycle. The previous three election cycles produced centrist Republicans and leftist Democrats, both of which proposed to enlarge federal intrusion on American life (and succeeded). Reagan brought, or rather reintroduced, a philosophy of limited government and promotion of freedom abroad and added a Theodore Roosevelt-style projection of power that eventually toppled the Soviet colossus. While he contended with a Congress controlled by his opposition and therefore only achieved limited success in shrinking the federal government, the power of his personality carries that philosophy forward to this day.

Just to prove Reagan's impact, all you need to know is that the Environmental Protection Agency and wage and price controls were all proposed by a Republican president in the 1970s. He took a party that had lost its way and returned to basic tenets of freedom and defense, while convincing America that we could handle the hard tasks ahead and eventually succeed. And we did.

Was he perfect? Of course not. Did he make mistakes in office? Certainly -- you'd be hard pressed to find a president who didn't. But at a time in his country's history when leadership instead of management was needed, Reagan delivered. We'll have good presidents yet in my lifetime, perhaps even great presidents ... but I know I will not see his like again.

Goodbye and Godspeed, Mr. President.

OTHERS SAY: Power Line -- "Is there room for one more on Mt. Rushmore?" I certainly hope so.

Jay Reding -- "He left the world a better, stronger, and freer place than he [found] it."

The Commissar has a simple and eloquent memorium.

QandO -- "Ronald Reagan consistently displayed the one trait that put him head and shoulders above any other US politician: leadership."

Just A Girl -- "The legacy of this great man lingers everywhere in the world."

Baldilocks -- "It’s a sad day, but he’s been released from his purgatory of Alzheimer’s disease."

FBI, DoJ Clear Police In Porter Case

The FBI and the Department of Justice have closed the case of alleged police brutality brought by Stephen Porter, a drug dealer and sometime informant of the Minneapolis PD:

Two Minneapolis police officers named in an explosive allegation that a man was sexually assaulted with a toilet plunger handle during a drug raid won't face federal criminal charges, Chief Bill McManus announced Friday.

Stephen Porter said that he was assaulted in a north Minneapolis apartment nearly eight months ago. McManus said the U.S. Justice Department investigation found no evidence of a "prosecutable violation" of federal criminal civil rights laws by officers Jeff Jindra and Todd Babekuhl.

When this case hit the media, it was front-page news, especially since it echoed the notorious Abner Louima case in New York. However, the Stephen Porter case seemed wrong from the start. First off, the alleged abuse took place not in a police station but in a private residence at the time of the arrest, when it would have presented much more risk to the officers of witnesses. Second, as the article itself relates, Porter's own behavior added to the skepticism:

On Oct. 15, Porter, 25, surrounded by community activists and religious leaders, limped into a news conference at The City Inc. and later collapsed. Hours earlier, he had been seen walking at a brisk pace following his release from jail. ...

A month later, Porter was charged with crack cocaine possession after a raid at a duplex in the 1700 block of Emerson Av. N. When he was booked into jail, he accused a different police officer of sexually assaulting him during the Oct. 13 raid, according to a statement from that officer in a document obtained by the Star Tribune.

Even after two investigations at the federal level failed to pan out and with Porter giving something short of an Academy Award-winning performance, local activists still say that the lack of charges derives from the racist society in which we live:

The Rev. Ian Bethel, the spokesman for a group that is working with the Police Department to improve relations with the community, said Friday's news would be a test because "we're not seeing eye to eye in principle regarding this matter."

"The community isn't surprised by this outcome," Bethel said. "You have to look at the history of these investigations. The Department of Justice, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office and the FBI have investigated brutality complaints, and they never get sustained." ...

"I am absolutely disgusted about this process," said the Rev. Randolph Staten, co-chairman of the Coalition of Black Churches. "Sending this case to the FBI is a sham, a cover-up." ...

Community activist Spike Moss, who was among the first to encourage Porter to speak publicly about what happened during a drug raid inside a north Minneapolis apartment on Oct. 13, had little to say. "The Justice Department has never, ever ruled in our favor," Moss said tersely. "Never."

Well, I suppose some people can never be satisfied. The MPD recused themselves from the investigation specifically to ensure that Porter's allegations could get an independent review. The case received two such reviews, from the DoJ and the FBI, which still found no evidence of a crime. I don't know what more Bethel wants, but if he thinks that it's proper to jail people without evidence and a trial, then perhaps he's not the best person with which the MPD could work to build community relationships.

Porter managed to get one last bit of comedy into the case before the two police officers went back to work. Interviewed at prison where he's serving time on more drug-related charges, the addict had this to say:

Porter, who is now serving time in Stillwater prison on a previous drug conviction, stood by his story Friday, saying the investigation was a cover-up of police brutality. "I would never get on TV and lie," he told KSTP-TV.

Um, yeah. Addicts are legendary for their honesty.

Kegger At Dean's, BYOB

The two major political parties have reached an agreement on opening a special legislative bacchanalia session to complete the work they left on the table when time ran out, or when the booze ran out, whichever came first. Governor Tim Pawlenty, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, and House Speaker Steve Sviggum met over some barbecuing brats at the Governor's mansion to reach an agreement on the agenda:

After a two-hour meeting featuring gubernatorially grilled brats and beans on the patio of the governor's residence on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, said he will report by noon Tuesday on whether he can agree to some broad framework that would set the stage for a one- or two-day legislative session, possibly before the end of June.

The Legislature adjourned May 16, leaving unfinished its work on a major bonding bill for state borrowing and budget adjustments that would balance the state's finances in the current biennium and reduce a projected 2006-07 deficit. ... If there is agreement, the bills would be sequenced to keep any discussion about gay marriage off the agenda. If the issue comes up, it is likely that the Senate would adjourn, Johnson said.

So now that they've all decided what they won't discuss, what does that leave? Mostly just a bonding bill, which means pork, and lots of it. Pawlenty could have solved the microscopic ($160M) budget defecit through executive orders. Instead, we'll probably spend a significant portion of that just in reopening the Legislature, paying the salary and per-diems for all 201 members for the two official days, plus travel expenses, and more for those who attend pre-session, agenda-setting meetings. To give you an idea of how much that can rack up, Dean Johnson (DFL), the Senate majority leader, scored $25,000 in per diems and expenses in 2003, for what's supposed to be a part-time job.

And why are we paying these public servants to come back during the summer? Mainly, they couldn't get the job done during the normal legislative session, in part because the end of the last session dissolved into a Lost Weekend of booze and lobbyists:

Late at night, in the closing days of the legislative session, lobbyists, state workers and even some lawmakers gathered in offices at the State Capitol to drink beer, wine and liquor, KMSP-TV reported Wednesday night. The station showed trash cans full of beer, wine and liquor bottles and suggested that at least some the alcohol of might have been provided by lobbyists. Lobbyists are not allowed to give gifts to legislators. ...

The station said it also saw lobbyists, state workers and lawmakers drinking in the office of Senate President James Metzen, DFL-South St. Paul. KMSP said it never saw Metzen drinking, and that he did not respond to requests for comment, but Rep. Scott Wasiluk, DFL-Maplewood, came over to his office while the House was in a late-night session.

"I came to raid your whisky,'' Wasiluk said.

"That's what it's there for,'' Metzen replied.

The station showed Wasiluk back on the House floor for a vote on a health care issue, looking sleepy. It also showed him at another point misunderstanding what was taking place on the floor as he monitored the session on TV from Metzen's office.

Before the citizens of Minnesota are asked to pay for another toga party, Pawlenty and the leadership of both houses of the legislature should apologize for their miserable failure to conclude the state's business on time and pledge an independent investigation into all of the booze provided by lobbyists in the DFL's offices while the Senate was in session. Next, they should agree to accept no compensation -- salary, per diem, or expenses -- for this special session. Only then should we allow them back into the chambers.

Open Thread: John Kerry Says US Military Backs Him

Earlier today, John Kerry told an audience in Minneapolis that he could carry the military vote in November, despite conventional wisdom:

"You'd be amazed at the number of active duty personnel who are coming up at events around the country, greeting me in ropelines or coming to rallies and telling me how important it is for us to stand up and fight for those who are not able to speak out for themselves right now for obvious reasons," Kerry said.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee added: "But the numbers of active duty people quietly coming and saying we need a change, we need to build a modern military, we need to do the things necessary to protect our troops, we need to have all our allies on the ground in Iraq ... that's what this race is about."

I'm not qualified to comment on this (like that's ever stopped me) -- I'm not in the military. However, I have a lot of readers who are either in the military or are veterans. I'd like to hear whether you men and women believe that Kerry has a chance of winning a majority of military votes in November. Tell me why he can or can't, in your estimation. You're the experts -- I turn it over to you! Be as lengthy as you like; the debate is wide open.

UPDATE: CBS says Kerry has his work cut out for him:

In the 2004 campaign, President Bush is touting his record as Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, while decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry has often stood with his "band of brothers" in his ads and appearances. So far, that battle for veterans' votes is going to Bush: the President leads by a wide margin among veterans nationwide, 54% to 40%.

They also poll on the hoary canard of a Kerry-McCain ticket.

Family Night at CQ

Captain's Quarters will probably see light blogging this evening, as we are babysitting the Little Admiral tonight. She's getting pretty good at make-believe stuff; she pulls me down to the floor and makes me pretend I'm going night-night, covering me with a blanket and giving me a doll for company. Then she slaps me on the head and laaaaaughs.

In the meantime, I'll move the Caption Contest to the top and see how many great entries we can get. We had 107 in the last contest overall, and I think we're over 50 already today, including our first-ever Photoshopped entry. Whiskey may return from vacation tonight, but in the meantime check through today's other posts. I'll be reading The Connection by Stephen Hayes in anticipation of our Northern Alliance radio show tomorrow, when we'll interview Mr. Hayes on the connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Think that they don't exist? Guess again.

If you want to check out a newer blog, try out Cody Hatch's Prudent Politics. He has a great post on the Normandy quagmire that's perfect reading for the 60th anniversary of D-Day.

New Iraqi PM Hails US Troops

Far from being hostile to the US or its security, the new Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, has gone on national television to both praise the work of Americans and their allies in Iraq and call for an end to attacks on them:

Iraq's new interim leader has praised the US-led coalition, saying it will guarantee security after the country regains its sovereignty on 30 June. In his first televised address to the nation, Iyad Allawi also urged an end to attacks on coalition forces who, he said, were making sacrifices for Iraq.

Anti-coalition militants brought Iraqis "nothing but evil", he said.

The speech follows an announcement by Iraq's new government endorsing a UN draft on the transfer of power.

It's great to see the new interim Iraqi government take the time to both praise and defend the American forces trying so hard to give them their first real chance at self-government. It would have been easy for Allawi to get on television and disparage the US/UK effort in order to build anti-Western credibility with his nation, and some pundits might even have offered him that advice for his first nationally-televised speech. Instead, Allawi acknowledged the real sacrifice of American, British, Polish, Italian, Japanese, and other troops in Iraq, saying, "Coalition forces too have offered the blood of their sons as a result of terror attacks."

Wouldn't it be nice if some Americans could be as gracious, instead of focusing on a few idiots on a night shift at Abu Ghraib?

A Muslim Calls For Rational Thought In Islam

Captain's Quarters reader Roger Crossland pointed me to an article in today's Arab News by Suraya al-Shehry, a Saudi woman, who argues for intellectual curiosity and openness to individual interpretations of Islam. Because of the decentralized nature of Islam, al-Shehry's essay doesn't equate to Martin Luther's theses nailed to the church door, but it does infer that the Saudi government may be rethinking radical Wahhabi philosophy in light of its targeting by radical Islamists. Regarding the closed-mindedness of current Islamic scholarship, al-Shehry protests:

The Qur’an, in fact, censures those who merely unthinkingly follow others. “And they would say: ‘Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us as to the (right) Path.’”

Reflection in Islam is an essential requirement. Without it the very basis of Islamic thought will begin to crumble. It is that painful reality that is behind our backwardness. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The best of centuries is mine,” and acknowledging the greatness of jurists, scholars and legislators who preceded us does not mean that the knowledge handed down by them is inherently sacred.

In the end they are the words of men who labored within the context of their age and their understanding of it. If changing reality makes it clear that they are inflexible or prove unsuited to new developments then we are not required to abide by them. What we take from their work and what we leave aside may be subject to qiyas (reasoning by analogy) and ijtihad (the effort of one’s own judgment) as required by the interests of the Muslim Ummah.

In a very discreet manner, al-Shehry attacks the common practice amongst Muslims to blindly follow the fatwas of their local clerics without engaging in any critical thinking on their own. Once can imagine how fundamentalist clerics will receive this challenge, especially from a woman. Her argument undermines the spiritual authority of the imams in exactly the same manner as early Protestant thought -- it makes individual interpretation of sacred texts supreme, instead of the interpretations of the authorities. al-Shehry argues for the personal relationship with Allah instead of filtered through the mosque, although she's smart enough not to come out and say it explicitly.

Of course, as Roger pointed out in his e-mail to me, we have no sure way of determining whether this article even appeared in an Arabic-language newspaper or website, but the Saudis can read English. Either al-Shehry is brave to the point of foolishness or the Saudis want to promote moderation in their own self-defense, or at least promote that image abroad. Either would be a welcome development. In the same vein, Roger also points to another of al-Shehry's articles calling for increased and independent polling in order to govern closer to the will of the people, without calling for the elected, representative government that would be anathema to the Saudi royal family:

Here, in order to openly or secretly measure public opinion in our country, conferences are convened and conventions publish their results. If they surprise us or their interests override ours, then we dismiss them or consider them conspiracies. But we should admit that as long as we don’t have institutions that carry out surveys and make realistic plans, and so long as our regimes keep banning research and free expression of opinion, we will never raise the level of political awareness and the danger of brainwashing will remain. That the US is interested in trends in our region is a reality. By contrast, our own governments’ lack of interest in what citizens think, coupled with the efforts of a few plotting to turn public opinion against the current regimes, is dangerous and must change.

The absence in Arab countries of a public opinion database, and the fact that journalists in the region are too often closely associated with the government which directly or indirectly employs them, do little to engender confidence in the surveys and statistics they publish. Decisions are often miles away from what the people want and need. After decades of this, it is no wonder that people here no longer feel that their opinions matter and have become demoralized.

Again, this is heady stuff for any Saudi to publish, the more so because of her gender. She comes just to the edge of calling for the elections that would both explicitly demonstrate the will of the people and put in place the mechanisms with which to convert it to public policy. If Suraya al-Shehry isn't quite the Martin Luther of modern-day Islam, she may well be the counterpart of Sabine Herold in Arabia.

The Jobful Recovery

After much hew and cry regarding the so-called "jobless recovery" -- as if job growth had ever been anything but a lagging indicator in the past -- the economy has created almost a million jobs in the past three months, as 248,000 were added last month and the April estimate was revised sharply upward:

The Labor Department report showed 248,000 new jobs in May, compared with the revised 346,000 increase reported in April. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast the May report would show a 225,000-job gain.

The April job gain was revised up from a previous reading of 288,000 new jobs. The March jobs gain was also revised higher to 353,000 from a previous reading of 337,000 additional jobs. That puts the three-month job increase at 947,000, the best gain since 1.03 million jobs were added during the same three months of 2000.

The job increase was broad-based, with only government employment falling in the period. Manufacturing added 32,000 jobs and construction added 37,000. Retailers added 19,000 jobs.

Here in Minnesota, the unemployment rate has dropped to 4.1%, and feels lower as it has become more difficult to find entry-level workers even at more than twice the miminum-wage rate. Jon at QandO also discusses productivity gains, demonstrating that not only are we expanding, but we're expanding intelligently, and workers aren't getting screwed either:

Hourly compensation increased 5.1 percent during the first quarter of 2004. When the rise in consumer prices is taken into account, real hourly compensation rose 1.4 percent in the first quarter. Unit labor costs in nonfinancial corporations rose 2.7 percent in the first quarter, after falling in eight of the previous nine quarters.

At the national level, assuming that the 248K rate stays fairly constant, we can expect to add 1.2 million jobs by the election for a total of well over 2 million for '04 -- an expectation that the media roundly hooted at when the Bush administration predicted it in January. Now they look positively psychic as compared to the press. However, as Hindrocket notes at Power Line, they won't resist getting any dig in they can:

The Associated Press notes that the jobs report "was good news for President Bush." But the AP wouldn't want anyone to draw the wrong conclusions, so it can't resist adding:

Still, the economy is far from the booming 1990s. Last month, 8.2 million people remained unemployed.

It's always fun when liberals do statistics. Current unemployment rate: 5.6%. Average unemployment rate during the "booming 1990s": 5.76%.

Let's see ... jobs being added, worker compensation rising ... wanna bet that the Kerry campaign won't be saying, "It's the economy, stupid"?

Hosting Matters Has Problems, Woh-Oh

If you had problems accessing the site this morning, you weren't the only ones -- it looks like all of Hosting Matters' sites went down for about a half-hour or so. No word yet on the cause.

Unfortunately, I'm out of time for blogging the rest of the morning, so I will catch up at lunchtime if I get the chance.

AP : Abu Ghraib-ing The Greatest Generation

As D-Day approaches, news media have focused on the macro and micro stories surrounding what remains the largest single military maneuver in history and its impact on geopolitics and the people involved. Most of these stories report on the tremendous losses of the liberating Allies or the pain and degradation of those who lived under the brutal Nazi occupation. The AP, however, feels it necessary to smear the memory of those who served in France's liberation by reporting at length on an upcoming book -- one that hasn't even been released at this time -- that paints American GIs as rapists and worse after most of them have died and can no longer defend themselves. Call it the Abu Ghraib-ing of the Greatest Generation:

President Bush and other leaders gathering on the beaches of Normandy this weekend will celebrate the heroism and ingenuity of June 6, 1944. But some scholars are paying closer attention to what followed as the victors settled in — black market trade, armed robbery, looting and rape.

Only a small minority of GIs were involved, but the subject needs more study, said Robert Lilly, criminology professor at Northern Kentucky University, author of "The GIs' Hidden Face," not yet published in the United States.

"There is a great, ugly underbelly that has not been really explored," he said by telephone.

Hmmm. A "small minority" created a "great, ugly underbelly"? It sounds to me like Lilly wants to give quite another impression. He estimates that during the American "occupation" of France, which is what he calls it, American GIs committed 3,620 rapes between June 1944 and June 1945. He bases this "estimate" on the military records he reviewed, which indicate 139 allegations of rape with 116 convictions. Either he's accusing the US of willfully ignoring rapists in its military ranks or he's assuming something like 30 rapes per rapist. Just on the basis of his numbers, Lilly's "estimate" sounds like something pulled out of a hat.

It certainly seems an interesting bit of timing for the AP to be shilling for Lilly's book, which actually was published in France in May of last year and, as mentioned, has yet to be published in English. Perhaps the AP's choice of French author Elizabeth Coquart as a second source might clear things up:

"There remains a huge recognition toward the liberators; they are still heroes," said Elizabeth Coquart, journalist and author of "La France des GIs" ("France of the GIs"). "But that doesn't mean we can't judge and say, 'yes, some GIs behaved badly.'"

"It's the same as in Iraq," she said. "Any military occupation — whatever it may be — grows intolerable over time." ... Coquart said only a "handful" of GIs, about 1 percent of those stationed here until France set up its own government in 1946, were involved in misbehavior and crime.

In keeping with the AP's historical heft in reporting this piece -- Lilly is a criminologist, not a historian -- Jamey Keaten manages to blow some obvious facts on the liberation of France. First off, the dates are incorrect. Keaton notes that the "occupation" of France was five months old in October 1945, but in fact almost all of France had been liberated well before May 1945. The Winter Offensive had collapsed shortly after Christmas 1944, and that had been fought near the French-German border. Paris had been liberated in August 1944, and a cursory glance at a map would demonstrate that event indicated the freedom of most of the country.

Furthermore, most of the troops that stayed in France during the period immediately after the war did so to secure lines of communication to Germany. German shipping facilities had been bombed into almost total destruction, and what little was left was nowhere near sufficient to sustain either the occupation troops or the Germans who survived the war. Most materiel had to be brought in through Antwerp or through French ports. Far from being idle, Allied troops had a lot of work on their hands, although only the troops in Germany had to deal with armed "insurgencies", and that was for at least two years after the Nazi collapse.

It looks to me like the AP reacted to D-Day anniversary analogies between the war in Iraq and the liberation of Western Europe by trying to show that life under American occupation was almost as egregious as that of Nazi occupation, and that they're happy to smear the entire generation of Western civilization that bled itself almost to death to defeat fascism in order to do it. Their only support is a book by a criminologist who creates estimates in place of historical data and whose book can't get an English-language publisher, and supports it with quotes from a French author better known for her biography of the stage actress Mistinguett. Instead of honoring the courage of the tens of thousands who died to free France, Keaten instead focuses on a handful of criminals to create an impression of a raping, pillaging army of conquest. What a wonderful way to honor the few who still are with us today.

Captain Daniel Eggers, American Hero

Bill at INDC Journal posted about the tragic death of Captain Daniel Eggers this past weekend in Afghanistan. Captain Eggers served in Afghanistan with the Green Berets and died when his HUMVEE ran over a mine. Bill relates Eggers' personal history, interspersed with an NBC report of his death -- because Dan Eggers was a school friend of Bill's:

His uncompromising character pushed him to speak critically of the school he loved in 1997, recalled Craig Belsole, Eggers' best friend at The Citadel.

Eggers was a senior in 1997, during the first school year women were admitted after The Citadel dropped its all-male admissions policy. Eggers and Belsole appeared on "60 Minutes" that year and suggested top school officials covered up incidents of hazing against two female cadets.

Eggers and Belsole said they reported their concerns to an officer at the school but were told to keep quiet or lose their military commissions. School officials said at the time their commissions were threatened earlier for disciplinary problems that had nothing to do with the women.

If Dan reported it, I have no doubt that the allegations were true.

Rest in peace, Captain Eggers, and thank you for your service to our country. Make sure you read all of Bill's touching post.

So How Badly Do We Want To Win?

The London Telegraph reports on Republican efforts to increase their support in the African-American community, and notes that Ed Gillespie has won an endorsement from a well-known celebrity. He's a man who has been in the public eye for decades, known for his glib manner of speaking and his hairstyle.

Oh, yeah, he's been convicted of manslaughter and indicted for fraud, too:

This week found Mr Gillespie, a former lobbyist, on the stage of a Philadelphia jazz club, addressing the city's black business elite. He was flanked on one side by last year's Miss America, Erika Harold, statuesque in a brocade suit.

On the other stood the boxing promoter, Don King, his trademark silver quiff combed a good six inches above his head. Mr King held an American flag in one hand, and wore a Stars and Stripes tie round his neck, set off by a large crown-shaped pendant, set with diamonds and topped with the letters D O N. ...

To Mr King, who once served three and a half years for manslaughter and who has been indicted - though never convicted - on federal charges including tax fraud and racketeering, that pragmatic appeal made sense.

"I'm a Republicrat," he began. "I'm for whoever is going to deliver for our people. Your vote is valuable. Make it something that everybody wants. And then you go out and you bargain with it."

Okay, I know that Don King provides a lot of flavor to any proceeding, which is why he's a popular choice for cameo roles in the movies. I understand that King has influence with people, and Gillespie's embrace of him shows an openness that supposedly eludes Republicans. I find Don King very entertaining and even witty.

However, I don't find Mr. King particularly admirable. I think that Don stands for exploitation and I rather suspect that his fraud indictments were well-earned. As I read this article, I asked myself if Gillespie would be so jolly about being on stage with Dennis Kozlowski or Kenneth Lay, two other prominent Americans indicted for fraud, both of which managed to get through life without a manslaughter conviction. What's next -- a photo op with OJ?

Republicans, without a doubt, need to work hard to show African-Americans that they have a place at the table and that our philosophies promise real hope for success through self-sufficiency, not condescending handouts from a political party that does little else for their communities. What we don't need to do is sell out by claiming to be tough on crime but looking the other way with people like Don King. There are so many other community leaders with real moral grounding with whom we could be working. This only shows me a different kind of bigotry, where we excuse the glib con man as long as he's black and votes the right way. How exactly does that differentiate us from the Democrats?

Kerry Campaign Violated Copyright, Paper Says

The presidential campaign of John Kerry, who earlier this week got flack from the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth over the use of members' images in Kerry commercials, ran into a similar issue today when a Texas newspaper accused the campaign of stealing copyrighted photographs and demanded an apology:

Corpus Christi Caller-Times is asking Democrat John Kerry to apologize for what it says was the unauthorized use in a Kerry campaign commercial of photos copyrighted by the newspaper. Editor Libby Averyt said Thursday that the ad, which is not running in Texas, appeared to use photos from "South Texas Heroes," a book on veterans published by the newspaper.

"No request was made to the Caller-Times for any of the photos," Averyt said. ...

The newspaper's attorney, Jorge C. Rangel, on Thursday asked Kerry in a letter to stop using the ads and to apologize to the soldiers' families as well as to the Caller-Times.

"As a decorated war veteran yourself, I hope you will join us in disavowing the use of the images of our brave soldiers as political props in this election. Their patriotism should not be politicized," Rangel wrote.

Supposedly, the Kerry campaign is staffed by professionals who should understand copyright law. How did they get these photographs, and who authorized their use? Rangel may only want an apology, but I think an explanation is on order. The Volokh Conspiracy noted, correctly in my lay estimation, that the SBVT complaint holds no legal merit. They also believe this is fair use, but this is much more of a gray area than the other example. The Caller-Press certainly believes that the Kerry campaign infringed their copyright.

Now when a handful of 9/11 families and firefighters' union officials complained about the use of Ground Zero imagery in a Bush campaign ad -- which used about 2 seconds of that material -- it got national press. However, now that the Kerry campaign has done the same thing, and worse in that they arguably violated the Caller-Times' copyright, do you suppose this will get much attention from the media? Not bloody likely.

Brits Demand Internet Ban For Pedophiles

The London Guardian reports today on a demand from British telecommunications giant BT for law enforcement to notify ISPs of convictions for sex offenders so that they can be denied internet services:

The courts should bar everyone convicted of sexual offences against children which involve the internet from using the technology, said Nick Truman, head of security at the online arm of British Telecom, BT Openworld.

Mr Truman, a member of the Home Office internet taskforce for child protection, also called on the police to inform ISPs of convictions so that the offender's internet account could be cancelled. ...

The police do have powers to pass on information about registered sex offenders to third parties, such as the head teacher of a local school, but this does not cover commercial organisations such as ISPs.

It sounds like a great idea, and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to try, but I rather doubt it would be effective. First of all, such a ban would prove difficult to ensure, as Internet services can be accessed via all sorts of different technologies, some of which don't require much in the way of identification. Second, such notifications will surely result in a number of identification mistakes. What happens when you cut off service to someone whose name happens to match another on the banned list? How does that person manage to get his access restored? Besides, using commercial services to enforce such a ban sounds iffy at best, especially when all incentives for the business point to delivering service, not denying it.

Even beyond the identification issues, which don't carry as much emotional weight in Britain as it does in the US, why use precious law-enforcement resources on maintaining a no-access-allowed list for thousands of access points? The Home Office understands that investigators should be tracking actual crimes in progress rather than spending its time pushing paper to all of the possible access points. Focusing on access rather than actual oversight of released offenders -- or better yet, keeping them incarcerated -- seems to me to provide a false sense of security.

Sistani Signs Off On New Iraqi Gov't

The Coalition garnered a qualified endorsement from Ayatollah Ali Sistani today, the most influential Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, for the new transitional government. Sistani issued a rare written statement indicating his modest, if unenthusiastic, approval:

Iraq's new interim government Thursday won crucial recognition Thursday from Iraq's most revered cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Iraqi Shiites' supreme religious leader. Sistani, in a written statement issued by his office in the holy city of Najaf, shied away from a formal endorsement of the new government. But he said it could make itself worthy by improving life for Iraqis and by erasing "the consequences" of the U.S. occupation. ...

Sistani's rare comments were considered highly significant. He holds considerable sway among Iraq's majority Shiite population, so much so that he was able to force the United States to significantly modify its timetable for Iraqi self-government earlier this year.

While his words were not enthusiastic, they were far more welcoming than anything he had said about the now-dissolved Iraqi Governing Council.

No one doubts that Sistani disapproves of infidel Americans, Brits, and their allies holding control over Iraq and especially over Najaf and Kufa and the holiest of Shi'a shrines. However, Sistani has managed to separate his distaste for the occupation from the urgent necessity of getting an effective and sovereign Iraqi government in place, because Sistani sees that as the most direct route to get rid of the CPA. At the same time, he needs to establish his primacy over upstarts like Moqtada al-Sadr and maintain his political influence on all sides. So far, Sistani has been nothing short of brilliant at managing all of these efforts.

The CPA deserves credit for keeping Sistani engaged in the process, a feat that had to be extremely difficult to do successfully. We could bemoan the involvement of Islamic mullahs in the 'new Iraq', but anyone who thought that Iraq would become scrupulously secular had to be fooling themselves. During Saddam's long reign of terror, the mosques provided a central focus for resistance, which is the reason Saddam targeted the Shi'a after 1991. After liberation, especially in the aftermath of the invasion, it was only natural that Iraqis look to the mosques again for guidance.

In a bit of good analysis, the CPA identified Sistani as not only a highly-respected mullah but also flexible enough to involve in building a new government. I suspect that the cleric Sadr murdered may have been another; perhaps the CPA finally went after Sadr (far too late) to demonstrate that the Coalition would not allow radicals to assassinate moderates working with them, even if at arm's length like Sistani.

Their work with Sistani may wind up being the single biggest non-combat victory in Iraq. Hopefully we can continue to make the most of this relationship to leverage Sistani's influence in establishing civil order and government by the Iraqis, for Iraqis.

Tenet Exits

CIA Director George Tenet resigned today, according to President George Bush and reported by USA Today (via Instapundit):

George Tenet has resigned as CIA director, President Bush announced Thursday, ending the increasingly stormy tenure of a man under fire for the department's intelligence before the Iraq war.

In a brief appearance before leaving for Europe, Bush told reporters he had met Wednesday night at the White House with Tenet. "He told he me was resigning for personal reasons. I told him I was sorry he was leaving," Bush said.

Tenet will serve until mid-July and will be temporarily replaced by Deputy Director John McLaughlin, Bush said.

Glenn Reynolds says, "It's about time," and it's difficult to argue with that assessment. Whatever the reasons, our intelligence services failed to gather a comprehensive look at the gathering threat of Islamofascism. It would be terribly unfair to lay the blame entirely at Tenet's feet. however. Plenty of politicians eager to gut the CIA for long-held personal motives or simply out of a mistaken belief in the "end of history" share the blame for our substandard intelligence performance. Most of that predated Tenet's tenure as DCI anyway.

However, in the slow reaction and the ready, smooth, and meaningless responses to the various CIA crises that Tenet regularly provided, he demonstrated that he just was not the man to lead our intelligence services in an era that demands accountability and daring, and less of the bureaucratic outlook that characterized Tenet. In the months following 9/11, I found myself looking for an acerbic and no-nonsense approach to winning the war through superior intelligence work, like a James Jesus Angleton or even a Bill Casey, someone who irritates all the right people but gets the job done. In my admittedly pedestrian opinion, Tenet managed to hang around because he shmoozed the right people, not because of any particular effectiveness, and that's no recipe for success under fire. Maybe Al Pacino said it best in The Godfather: "You're not a wartime consigliere."

Up to now he has been incredibly loyal, willing to fall on his sword time and again, and that loyalty has been returned by the current administration. Kathryn Jean Lopez expects that to change now that he's leaving government service:

I can picture it all now. The Tenet press conference with Howard Dean's group and MoveOn were he announces that Bush is a failed leader. The October surprise book where he blames everything wrong with intel on W., Condi & the Pentagon.

Let's hope not. Quite frankly, anything he says only reminds people who was in charge during the worst intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor, and while that may be (somewhat) unfair to Tenet personally, it has to inform everything he says from this point forward.

Addendum: The Washington Post's CIA sources, unnamed but apparently on the record, claim that Tenet really resigned for personal reasons and was not forced out by the Administration -- at least for now.

UPDATE: Michele Catalano has found many other reasons for Tenet's resignation around the blogosphere. I like the one that said Elvis made him do it. (via Instapundit)

This Sounds Depressingly Familiar

When I lived in California, the Democrat-controlled Legislature could never produce a budget on time. The situation got so bad that Californians debated referenda cutting off salaries and per-diem payments to the state Assembly and Senate from the start of the new fiscal year (July 1) until a bugget was passed and signed into law. Their continuing failure to pass budgets brought the state Democratic party much-deserved scorn, inasmuch as they controlled both houses of the Legislature.

Now, however, the shoe resides firmly on the other foot at the federal level, and Republicans not only don't think they can pass a budget on time, they're debating on whether to pass one at all:

They have tried sweet-talk and dire warnings, insults and bluffing tactics. None of it has worked, which is why a growing number of Republicans are beginning to despair about agreeing on a budget plan for next year.

Embarrassing as that would be for the party that controls both houses of Congress, many Republicans are concluding they would be better off with no budget plan than with one that would require them to pay the cost of permanently extending last year's tax cuts. Senate Republican leaders, back from their Memorial Day recess, showed little sign on Wednesday of persuading a small band of rebels within their own party to drop their insistence on "pay as you go" rules.

In this case, Republicans not only have majorities in both houses but also control the executive branch. The problem isn't compromise between the parties, but compromising two very Republican instincts that have become opposing forces: cutting taxes and curbing deficit spending. These motives shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but the natural solution -- cutting spending -- won't fly in an election year.

John McCain leads a small group of Senate Republicans who oppose extending the tax cuts due to the increasing deficit that war spending has created at the federal level, as well as pork-barrel projects unrelated to anything except getting elected. This small group relies on a study done by two liberal think tanks that warn the price of the deficit will be borne by lower-income families. How do I know they're liberal? Listen to how they describe tax cuts:

On Wednesday, two liberal policy research groups released a study estimating that the ultimate cost of the tax cuts would fall overwhelmingly on middle- and lower-income families. According to the study, by the Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than three-quarters of all households would end up net losers if the government actually paid for the tax cuts by either spending cuts or other tax increases.

But the wealthiest one-fifth of families, who are by far the biggest beneficiaries of the tax cuts, would end up big winners. "We should think of tax cuts as loans, not as grants [emph mine -- Ed.], and in particular as loans that are not paid back by the same people who get them," said William G. Gale, a senior economist at the Tax Policy Center.

I don't see tax cuts as either loans or grants -- I see them as not confiscating money that belongs to me in the first place. I'm no tax protestor; I understand that the government needs funds to operate in the manner our elected representatives have chosen. However, I resent the notion that when government allows me to keep some of what I've earned, it somehow equates to a loan, or a grant. Too many people in Washington (and at the state level as well) think this way, which is why we get lectured on being too greedy to pay "our fair share" of taxes on a regular basis by the likes of Howell Raines.

On the other hand, I don't think that the government should be allowed to continually spend more than it takes in, either. I agree with the dissidents on this point, at least narrowly. This argument is the same we Reaganites made in the 1980s, to sime degree futilely, and which finally got picked up by the Clintons after the disastrous 1994 elections. I disagree with the McCain contingent, though, on how to achieve solvency. Total revenues to the federal government are close to post-WWII lows in terms of percentage of GDP, at least according to this survey. In order to balance the budget, then, Congress must decrease the size of government or increase revenues. I favor the former, obviously, but just as clearly some Republicans lack the political will to fight for what used to be a cornerstone of Republican philosophy.

Since it appears we can't get either side to agree totally on which approach to take, I suggest that Republicans put their heads together and agree to do something to get a budget passed. This election will be difficult enough without adding GOP instransigence as another excuse to go Democrat. We can hardly fault Tom Daschle and his gang for obstructionist maneuvering on judicial nominations when the Republicans practice the same techniques on themselves in failing to produce on the most elementary of all Congressional tasks. Skipping it and making excuses won't cut it in November.

Updated for clarification -- I favor decreasing the size of government, and I inadvertently wrote the opposite.

Karpinski Dodges Responsibility

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the commanding officer of the Abu Ghraib unit where American soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners, has decided that the best defense is a good offense and actively courts the media to respond to their allegations and questions. Today's Los Angeles Times has a profile of Karpinski in which the general takes the decidedly un-military position of refusing responsibility for the actions of her unit:

The woman who commanded the Army Reserve's 800th Military Police Brigade and supervised the guards at Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison has become one of the most recognizable and relentlessly pursued players in an erupting international scandal over prisoner abuse.

In part, that's because Karpinski has not followed the route of the traditional commander who stoically accepts responsibility for failure on her watch and quietly retires. Instead, Karpinski has actively cooperated and sometimes sought out the media in a one-woman campaign to defend herself.

She is quoted regularly in major newspapers. She has made herself a ubiquitous figure on the talk show circuit — from ABC's "Good Morning America" to MSNBC's "Hardball" — refusing to be blamed for interrogation practices she insists she never would have allowed and human rights abuses that "sickened" her.

Karpinski, in this article, declines to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the actions of her soldiers. Instead, she claims that since military intelligence "took over" that wing of Abu Ghraib, she had no control over what happened at the prison. She has not been shy about point fingers upwards as well as laterally in an effort to shift blame off of her reserve command. The Times makes quite an effort to assist her along these lines, noting several times that she is primarily a "civilian" with management-consultant experience, and that it is her civilian experience which informs her response to the investigation. The Times doesn't hesitate to play the martyr card, either, noting in its lead paragraph Karpinski's reluctance to dine out publicly for her birthday, and later in the article Karpinski's fear that people will try to harm her or her family.

This article is utter nonsense. Regardless of one's civilian job, once you've been activated in the reserves, you're in the military -- and no one rises to the rank of general in or out of the reserves without knowing how to operate within that culture. That level demands a mix of military and political skills not seen at the junior-officer level, where reservists can do their one weekend a month without being "military", whatever the hell that means.

No, Karpinski knows the military culture well enough to have been spectacularly successful at it prior to Abu Ghraib, but in the performance of her unit, one has to wonder how. In a New York Times article from last week, her unit was exposed as having tremendous discipline problems which went chronically unaddressed or underaddressed. That lack of discipline (on which I posted) directly led to the orgy of sexual and physical abuses photographed and videotaped by the guards themselves, specifically one shift of the Abu Ghraib contingent. Discipline of her unit was unquestionably Karpinski's responsibility:

In the six months leading up to the investigation of prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, three of the seven soldiers now charged with abuse repeatedly committed infractions and disobeyed orders but received only the mildest of punishments.

Their violations of military rules included entering buildings they had been ordered to avoid, continuing improper sexual relations with one another and being aggressive with detainees, according to records obtained by The New York Times. ... Among [Taguba's] concerns were flippant comments in logbooks, lack of standards for uniforms and soldiers who wrote poems and other sayings on their headgear. General Taguba also raised concerns about officers and senior noncommissioned officers who had been disciplined for drinking, taking nude pictures of soldiers without their knowledge and fraternizing with junior soldiers.

Perhaps Karpinski can explain how she, as commanding officer, allowed this breakdown in discipline to occur. She claims she wasn't trained to run a prison, but one should assume that she received training on proper respect for authority. Can she explain, then, why Spec. Charles Graner was allowed to remain on duty after refusing a direct order seven times? After telling his sergeant to "kiss his ass"? Can she explain how Pvt. Lynndie England avoided court-martial for months despite being ordered on several occasions to stop sleeping with men in her unit? Why did an anonymous soldier have to go outside of Karpinski's chain of command to report on the abuses; was it because the soldier knew nothing much would be done under Karpinski's command?

The Times' Faye Fiore emphasizes Karpinski's civilian experience in the general's determination not to stoically remain silent while being blamed for the fiasco. However, as a civilian manager myself, I am held responsible when my employees foul up; it's the nature of hierarchical management structures, and without that, management becomes pointless. In the military, where matters involve life-and-death decisions, senior officers must own their unit's performance. It's obvious that Karpinksi doesn't have the first clue about management or responsibility if she intends on trying to convince people she had nothing to do with the performance of soldiers under her command.

Interestingly, the Army has not told her to remain silent; I suspect that they believe the more of these articles that supposedly appear on her behalf, the easier it will be for the Pentagon to fire her once the investigation is over. Whoever promoted her should be next out the door.

Young Girls: We Don't Need No Exploitation

In a society gone skin-mad, voices of reason seem few and far between. Surprisingly, though, retailers and designers have started to heed calls for more modest choices in clothing aimed at young girls -- from the target market itself:

During a recent shopping trip to Nordstrom, 11-year-old Ella Gunderson became frustrated with all the low-cut hip-huggers and skintight tops. So she wrote to the Seattle-based chain's executives to complain. The industry has been getting the message: A more modest look is in, fashion experts say. ...

The Web sites ModestApparelUSA.com and ModestByDesign.com — where the slogan is "Clothing your father would be proud of" — report that sales have skyrocketed over the past 18 months. Many youngsters are frustrated by the profusion of racy teenage clothing, according to Buzz Marketing, a New Jersey-based firm that compiles feedback from teen advisers.

"There is just sensory overload. Kids are going to say enough already," said Buzz's 24-year-old chief executive, Tina Wells. "The next big trend I see is kids are going to look like monks."

Apart from the sneering condescension from the likes of Tina Wells, this new modesty movement among younger girls sounds like good news to this grandfather of a two-year-old girl. Wells represents the group of women who confuse liberation with exploitation and naturally resent others who know the difference. Ella Gunderson and her peers, who have made their displeasure known at the streetwalker-style outfits that abound these days, somehow have thus far avoided bein brainwashed into believing that women become more free and more respected in direct relation to the amount of skin they show.

Of course, Ella and her friends still have to negotiate the rocky shoals of adolescence, but hopefully her values will remain unchanged. It would be good news indeed if we can raise a generation of young women who refuse to sell themselves short. At the least, pressuring retailers, designers, and magazines to give them a broader range of options demonstrates their savvy at standing up for themselves -- and that's a great start.

UPDATE: Susan Estrich earlier today made the same complaint regarding little-girl fashions, and one can hardly accuse Estrich of being a social conservative -- although this kind of problem may eventually push her in that direction:

In my house, where the former preteen just turned 14, we call it slutwear. Girls wear wifebeater T-shirts with Pornstar logos that my daughter tells me cost a fortune. Their mothers let them out of the house dressed that way? I ask in shock. Presumably, someone buys them these clothes.

The seven men at the Wet Seal board meeting were not the only ones in Orange County addressing the limits of teenage sexuality last week. In a courthouse just a short hop away, defense lawyers were arguing that a teenage girl, who might have been a Wet Seal customer, pretended to be an actress in a kinky sex scene and willingly had sex with three boys (one of them the deputy sheriff's son), who are charged with raping and assaulting the then-16-year-old with a pool cue, a Snapple bottle and a lighted cigarette. According to the defense lawyers, this wasn't an isolated incident. ...

If you don't want to be treated like a slut, don't dress like one, I tell my daughter and her friends. If you don't want to send a message about sex, don't dress your daughter in sexually provocative clothes, I tell other mothers.

QandO's Dale Franks reacts:

Every day, I'm seeing younger and younger girls wearing brief skirts, bare midriffs, sporting belly-button rings, and the whole nine yards.

There is something deeply sick about allowing pre-teen girls to display their bodies while wearing clothes that sport sexual messages. And I've seen these clothes available in the children's' section of clothing stores. We aren't talking about "Juniors" here, but actual 6-10 year old kids.

First, you are a fool to assume that the sexual message it broadcasts for your daughter will not be received by some distinctly nasty people. Second, it teaches your daughter that it's perfectly benign to present herself as a sex object to the general public.

Either way, you're doing your child a gross disservice, and are negligently exposing them to dangers they shouldn't have to face.

There's more, so be sure to read the whole post.

Telegraph: Fallujah Nightmare

The London Telegraph, normally pro-American and somewhat supportive of the war in Iraq, writes a tough article on the result of the Fallujah truce, where it appears that we will eventually need to face an undiminished insurgency in the heart of the Sunni Triangle:

The town is currently a no-go area for US troops, and by extension, any westerner. Despite lucrative rebuilding contracts, none has entered the city since four contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated in March, prompting the American incursion. ... My escort, a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which negotiated the peace deal with the marines, warned me that he would not be able to guarantee my safety if I set foot outside the car.

The reason for such caution was obvious. Brown-shirted members of the Fallujah Brigade, most of them former resistance fighters, manned checkpoints across the city. The few residents who agreed to talk were hastily smuggled into the back of the car. "Welcome to the free republic of Fallujah," said one resident, who would not give his name. "We run this city now and no American will ever enter here again."

While I understand the need to negotiate with Iraqis of all stripes -- after all, they will be there after we've left -- Fallujah still looks like a mistake. As reporter Jack Fairweather notes, the fact that we allowed the insurgents to outlast us will present us with problems in the future, as it already has in the South. We did better at negotiation with the Shi'a clerics trying desperately to protect the two sacred mosques in Najaf and Kufa; even while the fighting still goes on, we still patrol the cities, and no one's under the impression we ran away. Fallujah looks a lot different, and caving in to the Sunnis (or appearing to do so) did nothing for our credentials with the majority Shi'a population.

If the Telegraph article reports the Fallujah situation accurately, we will find ourselves once again having to combat insurgents in that area, only this time they will have the confidence they may have lacked the first time around. They will not be easily beaten. Perhaps we may get lucky and pawn the problem off to Iraqi security forces, but from the state of the city, even Iraqi federals will have a tough time freeing Fallujah from its radical grip.

UPDATE: The Commissar at the Politburo Diktat wants me to buck up a bit here and take the long view, as well as some of CQ's readers. All I can say is that I hope you are all right and I'm incorrect on this point.

MORE OPTIMISM: See Hugh Hewitt's post of an e-mail from the Fallujah contingent of Marines. The e-mail is dated yesterday -- and it sounds a lot better than the Telegraph, although to be fair it refers to surrounding territory and not Fallujah proper. It also indicates that the insurgents are using heroin and other drugs before going into battle ... an interesting and significant bit of decadent behavior.

LA Coliseum? You Have To Be Kidding Me

Mayor James Hahn announced today that he now supports using the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum as the venue to attract a new NFL team to the nation's #2 market. LA has been without any pro football team since the early 1990s, when the Rams left for Saint Louis, leaving La-La land in the lurch. However, Hahn's proposal will likely wind up chasing off the NFL rather than attracting them back, regardless of the TV revenues:

Mayor James Hahn said he now thinks a modified Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum would be the appropriate home for the possible return of an NFL team to the city.

Hahn had previously backed a proposal to build a new stadium, but said the progress the Coliseum has made in preparing environmental impact documents has given it the edge over other possible sites. ...

A $400 million renovation to prepare it for a pro team would reduce the Coliseum's seating capacity from 92,500 to 78,000 seats and add 200 luxury boxes. It also would add new locker rooms and a press box.

I spent most of my first thirty-five years living in the greater LA area, and have been to the Coliseum on a number of occasions. I saw the great Walter "Sweetness" Payton's last NFL game there against the Raiders during their nomadic period, and I've been to a number of other concerts and events staged there as well. The Coliseum consists of hard, steel benches and stone steps, and that's it. Not only that, but the structure itself looks old and tired, and the neighborhood in which it resides is frightening, even in daylight. It's not South Central, but it's close.

The Rams couldn't draw fans there in the 1970s when they fielded some pretty good teams, which is why they bolted for Anaheim. The Raiders drew passably good attendance, but if you ever went to a Raiders game there, you'd understand it was because they actively marketed to the thug demographic (mostly wanna-be thugs). One Pittsburgh fan was beaten nearly to death there for rooting for the Steelers; he spent time in the local ICU. Gang fights and drunken brawls happened with depressing regularity, something notably lacking at Rams games in Anaheim, or even Dodger games in LA, just north of the Colisem in the hills.

In fact, LA screwed Peter O'Malley out of his shot at owning an expansion NFL team and building a new stadium at Chavez Ravine, next to Dodger Stadium. O'Malley needed to get some land with which to expand, but otherwise planned on building the stadium himself with his own money. The city played him along, encouraging him to work with the NFL and draw plans up for the crown jewel such a facility would have become:

In August 1995, [Mayor Richard Riordan] phoned Peter O'Malley and asked the Dodgers owner if he would research building a football facility adjacent to Dodger Stadium. Or as O'Malley later told friends, "I was sitting in my office, minding my own damn business, when the mayor called and told me I could be a big help."

For more than a year, O'Malley and then Dodgers vice president of finance Bob Graziano worked almost exclusively to produce a viable stadium blue-print, largely leaving the day-to-day running of the Dodgers to then executive vice president Fred Claire. ...

At the same time, according to one source, the mayor was privately urging R.D. Hubbard, CEO of Hollywood Park in Inglewood, to put a stadium next to the track while nudging others to develop a plan for South Park. Problem was, the mayor soon realized he needed Ridley-Thomas's support to get the proposed downtown Staples Center approved by the city council. Ridley-Thomas, belatedly recognizing the value of the Coliseum in his own backyard--and with an eye on hizzoner's job--told Riordan he could have his vote if Riordan would back a Coliseum-renovation plan. The mayor agreed. Shortly thereafter, in August 1996, O'Malley received a visitor--Ridley-Thomas.

After wasting 18 months of O'Malley's time and effort, the city instead told the NFL that the Coliseum would have to be the venue for any new team. Since all of what happened with O'Malley and his efforts to land a football team had taken place discreetly, most Angelenos were unaware of this stab in the back. Frustrated, O'Malley decided to sell the Dodgers and walk away from Los Angeles altogether; with his typical class, he walked away silent about the NFL bid. This article doesn't mention his sense of betrayal, but the story found its way into the local media eventually.

I understand the long, glorious history of the Coliseum and why Angelenos want to see the venue brought back to its former heights of fame. But unless Hahn spends that $400 million razing it to the ground and building something completely new in its place, with a phalanx of National Guard troops surrounding it, then they're wasting their time and money. They had a golden opportunity to bring back the NFL with a privately-financed, first-class facility run by one of the most storied families in professional sports. Instead, now as then, they're pitching an old and unattractive facility while promising to spend almost half a billion dollars of public money to fix it.

And you wonder why I moved to Minnesota.

A Memorial Series You Should See

I think all of us in the blogosphere wanted to do something special for the veterans, both living and those who gave the last, full measure, for this Memorial Day. Quite a few posted touching stories, and of course I put the story of Captain Ben Salomon on my site, who died saving dozens of wounded Americans on Saipan.

However, I think one of the best I've seen are at INDC Journal, where Bill went out with his digital camera and got wonderful pictures and stories from the veterans themselves. Bill's post turned out to be so large that he had to break it into two parts. Make sure you read them both. Bill has a personal story to tell in the second part, so make sure you read it all the way through. I dare you to do it without tears.

More Perspective On The Gray Lady

Thanks to reader Bipin Pathak, who read my post from last night discussing the ludicrous Howell Raines article in today's London Guardian, and to which Glenn Reynolds and Neal Boortz kindly linked. Bipin brought a letter from Albert Einstein to my attention which notes that Raines may indeed have followed a long and storied tradition in his stewardship of the New York Times. This letter currently stands for auction at Christie's, but an excerpt is posted on line:

"You see that I have retained my black humor despite Palestine, corrupt American politics and daily reading of the N.Y. Times which doesn't even lie honestly but distorts the truth with malicious intent."

So, as my intrepid reader points out, I keep pretty good company. (Mom will be proud of me!) The more things change, unfortunately, the more they stay the same -- which Einstein's work might also address ...

Caption Contest #12 Winners!

The judges have returned with the winners of the special Global Warming edition of the weekly Captain's Caption Contest! Edward Yee did the honors this week, and did he have his work cut out for him. We received a near-record 107 entries this week from the blogosphere's most creative readership. In fact, Al Gore was so stunned by the response that he had the breath knocked out of him:

Here are the winners:

Captain's Award (Most Original) -- Donald S. Crankshaw:

Fighting to contain a violent yawn at his own words, Al Gore is mistaken for a raving lunatic.

You Have The Conn #1 (Great Minds Think Alike) -- Wacky Hermit:

"wh- wh- heeeeee-- wh- wh- heeeeee..."
"We can see the head! Now push! That's it, push with the contractions!"

You Have The Conn #2 (Where One Man Had Gone Before) -- Scotty:

In a certain epiphany for the ex-vice president, Al Gore finds out why then-President Clinton always stashed an intern or two under the podium. [Also for his other posts regarding bananas and leashes.]

You Have The Conn #3 (Squirrels In Space) -- JBlake:

Naturally territorial squirrels, having seen trailors of disaster movie, once again mistake Algore for a tree full of nuts. Squirrelly Algore reacts, ...naturally.

Report To Sick Bay, Along With Just About Everyone Else -- Paul B:

Ladies and gentleman welcome to the freak show. This is the amazing Alzilla, watch as this stiff as a borad man inserts a lump of coal in is rectum and expells a diamond! Kids don't try this at home.

Thanks to everyone who entered, and congratulations to the winners! Remember, here at CQ, everyone's a winner -- just some of us have higher winning percentages than others. Comments on this post will remain open, as usual, in order for the winners to gloat, the others to disparage Edward Yee's intellect and/or my parentage, and for any other entries submitted just for the sheer enjoyment of amazing your friends and confounding your enemies. Don't forget to check out Edward's blog!

Send me a photograph or an e-mail with a link to a great picture you think should be the subject of our next Caption Contest, and let me know if you'd like to be the guest judge! I'll have another picture for Friday -- so be sure to come back then for the next contest.

Minnesota Makes Sure Drivers Don't Gouge Oil Companies

In this period of rapidly rising gasoline prices, you may feel relieved to hear that the state of Minnesota has focused on the pump prices to make sure that there are no shenanigans going on. However, that feeling might be fleeting when you find out that they're keeping prices up:

With gasoline prices painfully high, it may be surprising for some to learn that state regulators are penalizing retailers for, well, for not charging Minnesota motorists enough for gasoline.

The Commerce Department snagged its first offenders last week under a 2001 law that aims to prevent predatory pricing by requiring gas merchants to charge 8 cents more per gallon than they pay for fuel.

Arkansas-based Murphy Oil was penalized $70,000 for violating the law prohibiting below-cost sales. The company operates 10 service stations in Minnesota on property it leases from retail giant Wal-Mart.

If the oil companies got together and decided to set a bottom limit to pump pricing at eight cents over cost, both the federal and state governments would immediately file charges for price-fixing, and possibly RICO violations at the federal level. We would hear about the evil oil companies keeping their profit margins high at the expense of the poor working stiffs just trying to get to their jobs.

However, if the state does it (especially in Minnesota), it somehow ceases to be bad for consumers. Suddenly, price-fixing protects consumers, even though the mechanism and the result is the same. State officials claim that the law allows small operators to compete with big (evil) oil (evil) corporations (evil) by restraining loss-leader prices that might drive Mom & Pop Petroleum out of business. Minnesota state officials must live in a time warp, though; when I drive across the metro every day, all I see are Super America, Holiday, Phillips/Conoco, BP, and Fina fuel stations, every single one of them outlets of the biggest players in the oil market. Occasionally I see a Mobil or Texaco station, but Mom & Pop seem to have retired and moved to the Caymans.

The most ludicrous part of the story is that the operator receiving the largest fine is Murphy's Oil, which comes a lot closer to the small-company outfit that the law supposedly protects than any of the other companies I just mentioned. Murphy's, however, committed the (evil) sin of winning a contract from (evil) Wal-Mart, known for its competitive pricing. The other repentant was a Kwik-Trip convenience store, another small fry in the business. So Minnesota claims to be protecting the small operator by fining them into insolvency, allowing the largest companies to continue to charge artificially-floated margins and forcing Minnesota consumers to pay more at the pump.

What a great program!

Want To Feel Old?

How's this for a slap in the face?

Jessica McClure, who held the attention of the nation as a toddler when she fell into an abandoned well 17 years ago, is now a high school graduate.

In October 1987, when she was 18 months old, Jessica slipped into an uncovered eight-inch-wide pipe in her aunt's yard. Crews struggled for two and a half days to rescue her, digging a deep parallel shaft and then a 63-inch horizontal tunnel through bedrock to join the two shafts. They finally brought her to the surface in a moment covered on live television.

For those of us old enough to remember, the Baby Jessica story riveted the nation, one of the first moment-to-moment crisis not involving war or an assassination attempt that kept people glued to the 24-hour news sources for constant updates. And it sure doesn't seem like 17 years have gone by, but it has. Jessica fell down the well before the Berlin Wall fell, before the Soviet Union fell, seemingly in another world from today.

Best of luck, Jessica McClure. We'll be taking our Geritol if you need us for anything.

Herseth Wins In South Dakota

In a special election that both parties maintain holds special significance for the November contests, Democrat Stephanie Herseth narrowly held off Republican Larry Diedrich to take over the remainder of Bill Janklow's term in Congress. Herseth's narrow margin, however, means the two will meet again in November:

With 96 percent of precincts reporting, Herseth had 124,647 votes, or 51 percent, to Larry Diedrich's 121,719 votes, or 49 percent. ... Her victory gave the Democrats two straight triumphs this year in special elections waged for GOP-held seats, and coincided with Democratic claims that a national tide is running their way ahead of the fall campaign.

Jay Reding live-blogged the election, which shows you what a dedicated blogger Jay is; would anyone else in the blogosphere live-blog an election in South Dakota? His conclusion:

At the same time, it's a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. Stephanie Herseth may give the Democrats a seat in Congress, but she'll have to give her vote to Bush more often than not. At this point she will not have much of a mandate at all, and she could well face a tough campaign this November. She can't afford to lose that crucial Republican crossover vote that gave her this narrow margin. She can't afford to link herself with the more extremist wing of the Democratic Party - if she does, she's toast.

Moreover, Daschle should be worried. A very moderate Democrat with a very positive image is barely able to squeak by. What chance does a highly-partisan Democrat who has spend millions only to run neck-and-neck with someone who hasn't spend a dime have? The Democrats will be gloating over a Herseth win, but it may be a case of counting one's chickens before they've hatched.

One other item I'll add to Jay's analysis -- Herseth won by being on the same ballot as the Democratic primary. How much effect that had on the outcome is debatable, since Kerry has long since clinched the nomination. I agree with Jay about her latitude in voting along party lines, and I still think Daschle loses in November. Still, I'd rather that Diedrich won than be conducting optimistic analyses this morning.

First Mate Back Home

Just an update for everyone -- the First Mate has returned home, with her blood pressure stabilized for the moment and all symptoms cleared up. Even better, I spoke with the transplant center this afternoon, and while they still need to review all of the records and doctors' notes from this incident, they believe she can stay on schedule for the transplant. They'll make a final determination later this week.

Thank you, thank you, thank you all for your thoughts and prayers this week. They have been more of a blessing than you know. We're both blessed to have the support of such a wonderful group of people on all points of the political spectrum.

Raines Rants, Advises Kerry To Lie Better

Howell Raines writes an editorial in tomorrow's London Guardian expressing serious concerns about John Kerry as a candidate, and in the process exposes the obvious bias he inculcated into the New York Times as editor-in-chief before his ignominious fall from the Jayson Blair affair. Raines' Bush-hatred comes through, loud and clear, even while he argues persuasively that John Kerry hasn't demonstrated any of the requisite skills to beat the incumbent.

First off, though, Raines displays an amazing lack of historical knowledge that explains why the New York Times only discovers homelessness during Republican administrations:

As America's first war-hero candidate since John F Kennedy, he ought to be leading the national discussion on what went wrong in Iraq.

Raines either forgets or never knew that the first President Bush flew fighter missions in World War II, was shot down in the Pacific, and didn't come back to the US afterwards to accuse his fellow soldiers of atrocities. Unfortunately, Raines' silliness doesn't end there, even when his target is ostensibly Kerry:

But for his current series of speeches on national security issues, he rounded up a series of experienced hair-splitters from the Clinton years - Richard C Holbrooke, James Rubin, Sandy Berger - and they produced a script that would have played very well before the Council on Foreign Relations. The speeches were intended to fire up his campaign, toughen his image and to modify - without disowning - his Senate vote for the war. The problem is that speeches that sound right at the Council don't necessarily work for an electorate schooled to respond to simple messages.

Get that? Raines thinks that Americans are just too stupid to understand Kerry. In fact, that becomes the central point of Raines' entire screed -- that the American public elected Bush out of affinity for his cluelessness, and that Kerry needs to put on an act of simplemindedness in order to get elected. In fact, Raines goes so far as to encourage Kerry to lie outright in order to get votes:

[Kerry] must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans - ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour. That means that instead of talking about "fixing" social security, you talk about building a retirement system that makes middle-class voters believe they will be semi-rich someday. As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, "I am not a redistributionist Democrat."

That's actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat.

Does the Gray Lady's performance over the past few years come into clearer view now? No wonder Jayson Blair did so well at the Times. He wrote what Raines wanted to read, regardless of whether what he wrote was true. It's amazing that a representative of the American media can write such a bitter and cynical column. Without a doubt, Raines manages to score some points off of Kerry, the supposed subject of his column, in between insulting George Bush and American voters in turn:

I personally find him easier to talk to than Al Gore, but there's no denying that he's ponderous. And he's pompous in a way that Gore is not. With Gore, you feel that if he could choose, he would have been born poor and cool. Kerry radiates the feeling that he is entitled to his sense of entitlement. Probably that comes from spending too much time with Teddy Kennedy, but it's a problem. The TV camera is an x-ray for picking up attitudinal truths, and Kerry's lantern jaw and Addams Family face somehow reinforce the message that this guy has passed from ponderous to pompous and is so accustomed to privilege that he doesn't have to worry about looking goofy. It's as if Lurch had gone to Choate.

Other than that, Raines spends most of his time at the Guardian rolling out the hoary canards with which he stuffed the New York Times' news and editorial sections. Bush is greedy and stupid. Bush is a draft dodger whose daddy kept him out of Vietnam (although I fail to see Raines reconcile this meme with his and Kerry's support in 1992 and 1996 of Clinton's efforts to avoid the draft). Bush looks like Goofy -- no, I'm not kidding, go read his conclusion. All in all, it's a great imitation of the NYT's editorial page with the politesse surgically removed with a rusty scalpel. Too bad his removal has done little to improve his former soapbox.

Addendum: Just to rebut Raines -- the American public isn't too stupid to understand that every issue has more than one side, nor does it fail to appreciate leaders who consider all options. But what elections recognize is leadership, which means making decisions and sticking with them. Kerry tries to pander to all sides by voting one way and arguing another on almost every issue. The problem that Raines misdiagnoses is that Kerry doesn't seem to stand for anything except whatever will get Kerry elected, which hardly inspires anyone except Mrs. Kerry. Unfortunately, Raines' advice only magnifies his problem.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

UPDATE II: Welcome, Neal Boortz readers! For all of you who may be new to Captain's Quarters, take a look around, and bookmark or blogroll CQ if you like what you see. Enjoy your visit!

UPDATE III: A big welcome to Best of the Web readers, too! [Hope this makes you happy, AST!]

Can We Just Stick To The Debate?

The ever-reliable NewsMax (hah!) ran a story today that my friends on the right just can't resist -- that John Kerry, in the middle of a presidential campaign, with every major media outlet haunting each step, on a day honoring fallen American soldiers, flipped the bird to a protesting veteran:

Democratic senator - and certain presidential nominee - John F. Kerry gave the middle finger to a Vietnam veteran at the Vietnam Memorial Wall on Memorial Day morning, NewsMax.com has learned. ... Just then Kerry - in front of the school children, other visitors and Secret Service agents - brazenly 'flashed the bird' at Sampley and then yelled out to everyone, "Sampley is a felon!"

Look, as anyone who reads my blog knows, I am no fan of the most liberal Massachussetts Senator. I think he's dangerously vacillating, pompous, and narcissistic. But he's no idiot, and the last thing John Kerry is going to do is to provide some enterprising photographer with an opportunity to catch him demonstrating his grasp of French.

Not only do I not believe it based on my knowledge of Kerry's campaign experience, I also disregard it based on the news outlet -- NewsMax is to politics as Weekly World News is to science -- but also on its hysterical, atonal delivery, as well as its source, former Congressman John Leboutillier, a right-wing crank regularly published on NewsMax. Was Leboutillier there? The article leads with him as the source but he never mentions who supposedly reported the rude gesture. It has all the hallmarks of an urban legend. ("He did it in front of kids! We have to protect the children from a Kerry presidency!")

However, according to Technorati and Memeorandum, several bloggers have already linked to this "story", including some I read frequently. Why? For those of us convinced of Kerry's unsuitability for the Presidency, does unsubstantiated NewsMax gossip really add anything to our understanding of John Kerry? All it does is undermine the legitimacy of their arguments opposing Kerry by diluting it with nonsense, an incident that would be so far out of character for the droning and dull Senator that it might actually convince some that he's developed a personality.

At least this story only involves Kerry and Sampley and not innocent victims (except "the children"). In a related twist, Alexandra Polier writes a compelling and sympathetic article in the New Yorker relating to the last breathless and unsubstantiated Kerry rumor. Polier, you may recall, is the young woman who the Sun alleged had an affair with John Kerry after Drudge broke the bimbo eruption without naming the paramour. The media chased her down in Kenya, got quotes from her parents by deception, and in general embarrassed themselves and us.

Bloggers obsessed on this story, including some (again) that I read on a regular basis. After all, the media provided the coverage, and it's no secret that we have a strong symbiotic relationship to the major news outlets. At the time, I wrote this:

I've seen just enough of the details to see that none of this applies to Kerry, and anyone who pursues this as an election strategy will find themselves covered in the muck almost as much as Kerry, including Drudge and any other news sources. It's silly, it's pointless, and it will only serve to generate sympathy for Kerry in the long run. (See Bill Clinton and Gary Hart.) Let's bury this garbage and focus on the issues.

And that was me assuming the story was true. Of course, it turned out to be entirely false, based on nothing except innuendo, circumstance (Polier dated a member of Kerry's campaign team for a brief time), and probably something significantly more malevolent; Polier explores some possible origins of the scandal, most convincingly Chris Lehane. In the end, Kerry wound up the least damaged of all. Polier lost her reputation and her privacy, and like it or not, those of us who dabbled in the schadenfreude of the story lost a piece of our credibility.

Perhaps we all live a little too close to this contest, me included, so that the attraction of such a slam-dunk moment like Kerry flipping a bird at a Vietnam vet in the midst of schoolchildren sounds too good to be too good to be true. In the one alleged gesture, all the tumblers click and we grasp the opportunity to portray the man as we see him; to us, it's true whether it really happened or not. When it's that easy, that's when we should take the most care not to overreach.

Iran: You Caught Us, We're Innocent

Iran reversed itself today and finally admitted that it had imported parts for nuclear centrifuges designed to create weapons-grade fissile material, but still claims that the US falsely accuses it of pursuing a nuclear-weapons program, according to the AP and CNN. The AP covers the Iranian reversal:

In a reversal, Iran has acknowledged importing parts for advanced centrifuges that can be used to enrich uranium, the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said Tuesday in a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press. ...

In an interview with The Associated Press before the report was leaked, U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton accused Tehran of engaging in "denial and deception. ... We are convinced that they are pursuing a clandestine program to acquire nuclear weapons," he said. ...

Iran has rejected the U.S. allegations, saying its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity.

CNN, meanwhile, covers another aspect of the IAEA report that looks pretty damning as well:

The inspectors found that the enrichment level on the centrifuge parts was at 36 percent -- a level typically found only at Russian nuclear reactors.

This means Iran either has been importing nuclear material or has been enriching uranium itself, both of which Tehran has denied, said a Western diplomat who is intricately familiar with the IAEA.

The US remains adamant that Iran has an active, clandestine nuclear-weapons development program. The European nations, notably (surprise) France, want to take a softer line with Iran, preferring to work with the Iranians to nudge them into compliance than risk a showdown. However, even the IAEA, which normally would favor the softer line, says that their patience is running thin with the Iranian government:

The 21-page report said "good progress" is being made toward reaching a conclusion about Iran's nuclear program. It compliments Tehran for its cooperation, but also notes that Iran officials have sometimes not been forthcoming with information and other times sought to delay inspections.

One source close to the IAEA didn't parse words over the delays, saying Iran "continues to dribble out information" and it's "annoying as hell."

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said inspectors are continuing to go into Iran almost constantly. "Inspections will continue until outstanding questions are answered," she said.

If the Iranians had been telling the truth, they would have revealed the existence of the centrifuges and their importation. They make it apparent that they're hiding something, and the IAEA and the various nations involved in squeezing compliance out of the mullahs need to keep digging. The Anglo-American effort to depose Saddam made an impression on the area, and we cannot allow France or other nations to "soften" the approach now.

Make no mistake about it: the Iranian mullahs see themselves as the leader in the fight against Western civilization and would like nothing better than to eventually gain hegemony over the entire area of Asia Minor. Having access to uranium in any case should give everyone pause; they sponsor or control Hezb' Allah and Islamic Jihad, and inspire many other terrorists and their organizations. Even without fission, those groups could use that radioactive material for so-called dirty bombs. However, if the Iranians develop a nuke, the danger would be far greater than that of North Korea's program. North Korea may be paranoid, but Iranians' motivation is profoundly expansionist and fanatical.

The US has to keep the pressure on the Iranian mullahs to disarm, and must also ensure that the Western nations don't go wobbly. We lost the initiative with North Korea in 1994 and wound up with a fait accompli, and now have to tiptoe around Pyongyang to achieve security for our East Asian allies. If Iran goes nuclear, expect to see demands for American withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, with Tel Aviv as the Iranian hostage for this century.

Captain's Caption Contest #12 - Global Warming Edition!

It's Friday, and so it must be time for the next Captain's Caption Contest! In honor of the new Roland Emmerich film, The Day After Tomorrow, Captain's Quarters has adjusted its normal contest material in order to highlight the terrible global warming problem that faces our planet. In an exclusive (yeah, sure), CQ has identified a major source of hot, noxious gas -- and all we need is your description of the image:

It looks like John Kerry can breathe a sigh of relief this week!

The contest stays open until 6 PM CT on Tuesday, June 1, at which time our guest judge will decide which of your entries wins out. Enter as often as you like, no purchase necessary, winner need not be present to win, bribes freely accepted ... you know the drill. Make sure you put your entry into the comments section -- e-mail will be shredded, set on fire, and force-fed to Michael Moore.

Have fun and let the captioning commence!

BUMP 5/29 - Edward Yee will be our guest judge this week, and Edward will have a job ahead -- we've already received 61 entries! Keep 'em coming ...

BUMP 5/30: Great stuff so far! ...

BUMP 5/31: Hey, we're on our way to burying poor Edward in work! Don't forget to drop by his blog and check it out ...

COMMENTS CLOSED: Thanks for all of your great entries! We're calling for the judge now ...

Al Gore Diagnosed

In today's NRO, Dr. Henry Miller diagnoses Gore's major malfunction: Narcissistic Personality Disorder. According to the good doctor, the diagnostic criteria for this malady is "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts."

Among Gore’s symptoms are:

- "a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)." Most dramatically represented by his claim to have invented the internet.

- preoccupation "with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; believes that he or she is 'special' and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)." Constantly portrays himself as the man with all the answers to the worlds problems both political and environmental, enough said.

- "requires excessive admiration." Dr. Allen’s take on this factor? “A politician for virtually his entire adult life — need I say more?”

- "lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others...shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes" which is amply demonstrated by his obnoxious behavior during Senate hearings.

Finally, Dr. Allen finds compelling evidence of Gore’s mental disturbance in his environmental manifesto Earth in the Balance.

“Throughout the book, Gore employed the metaphor that those who believe in technological advances are as sinister, and polluters are as evil, as the perpetrators of the World War II Holocaust. He accused Americans of being dysfunctional because we've developed "an apparent obsession with inauthentic substitutes for direct experience with real life," such as "Astroturf, air conditioning and fluorescent lights.... Walkman and Watchman, entertainment cocoons, frozen food for the microwave oven," and so on. Makes you wonder why he bothered to create the Internet.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Gore and the Democratic Party, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not treatable with medication.

Cautiously Optimistic

Iraq took large steps towards independence and representative government with the formal creation of an interim Iraqi executive and cabinet, which will replace the US-formed Iraqi Governing Council. The IGC, which suffered from its association with the occupation, used its considerable political heft to install its own choices in key positions despite some opposition from both the US and the UN representative Lakhdar Brahimi. The BBC reports that President Bush waxed ebullient about these developments and the people chosen by the Iraqis:

US President Bush has welcomed Iraq's interim government saying it represents a broad cross-section of society and has the "talent" to guide the nation. He said that the first priority for the new leadership will be to pave the way to nationwide elections by January.

Mr Bush insisted the US had played no role in selecting the new cabinet, and instead praised the UN for their input. The cabinet will assume power at once, after a surprise decision by the Governing Council to dissolve itself.

"This is a very hopeful day for the Iraqi people and the American people. It's going to send a clear signal that terrorists can't win," Mr Bush said. "Mr Brahimi has recommended a team that possesses the talent, commitment, the resolve to guide Iraq through the challenges that lie ahead," Mr Bush said, referring to UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who was asked by the Americans to oversee the selection process.

While the media has, over the past few hours, chosen to treat the newfound Iraqi independence as a slap at the US, in fact it demonstrates that the Iraqis can come together to create a substantial structure for a future representative government. The Iraqis chose a Sunni moderate to lead the transition, a Western-educated engineer who wants to see the occupation end but understands the need for American troops to provide security. The new cabinet says that the first priority will be the elimination of the militias that threaten civil governance, and that cannot be addressed without Anglo-American troops until a stable Iraqi security force can be established.

Unlike the media, I tend to agree with the idea that the new government and the dissolution of the IGC indicate a better chance for success for the Iraqis. We're seeing moderates rising to the occasion, working across ethnic and religious barriers; the two Vice-Presidents are a Shi'a and a Kurd. All involved have stated that the new Iraq must be secular, federal, and united, rather than the assumed instinct to split the country along their political lines. Having a Sunni as the executive will allow the moderates in the Sunni Triangle to advance politically and cut the justification for the minor insurgencies that erupted this spring.

Lots of problems will appear before this is all over, and Bush warned that we can expect a further escalation of violence as the radicals get desperate. But one must take the first steps in order to arrive at any destination, and at least Iraq points in the right direction.

Why This Is War And Not Crime

The Justice Department released documentation on the Jose Padilla case, the only US citizen seized outside the battlefield being held as an enemy combatant, showing the scope of the al-Qaeda contacts and plans with which Padilla was involved:

Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member held as a terrorism suspect for two years, sought to blow up hotels and apartment buildings in the United States in addition to planning an attack with a "dirty bomb" radiological device, the government said Tuesday.

The Justice Department, under pressure to explain its indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant," detailed Padilla's alleged al-Qaida training in Afghanistan and contacts with the most senior members of the terrorist network, his travel back into the United States and preparations to rent apartments and set off explosives.

The DoJ shows how Padilla signed an application to join al-Qaeda and worked with known AQ leaders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydeh while training in Afghanistan. The plans for Padilla included renting apartments in multiple high-rises with natural-gas utility service -- as many as 20, if possible -- and use the apartments as huge gas bombs with which to destroy the entire buildings simultaneously. In addition and as reported earlier, Padilla wanted to contruct a nuclear device or, failing that, a dirty bomb, although the DoJ claim that his AQ handlers held out little hope for either and told him to focus on the natural-gas bombings instead.

What the DoJ outlines is not a criminal conspiracy, as some claim; foreign agents trained an American to conduct sabotage missions on our soil. These foreign agents had already conducted massive attacks on civilians on 9/11 and earlier on our embassies, acts of war all. Any American allying with foreign forces for the purpose of attacking the US does not merely commit a crime -- treason -- but becomes part of the war which they wage. And since Padilla came to the US in civilian clothing, intending to commit sabotage and murder, he not only can and should be held as a military asset and not a criminal defendant, he can be summarily executed as a wartime spy after a military tribunal, if so desired.

The DoJ notes that most of their information came from Padilla himself during his long detention as an illegal combatant:

Comey told a news conference that when Padilla stepped off a plane in Chicago in May 2002, he was a highly trained and fully equipped "soldier of our enemy" who had accepted his al-Qaida assignment to kill hundreds of innocent people in apartment buildings.

"We have decided to release this information to help people understand why we are doing what we are doing in the war on terror and to help people understand the nature of the threat we face," he said. He asserted that if Padilla had been handled by the usual criminal justice system, he could have stayed silent and "would likely have ended up a free man."

New York City was on Padilla's target list, as well as Florida and Washington, DC. One wonders how the residents of those areas view the idea of the Islamofascist War being "primarily a law-enforcement problem," and whether they preferred getting this information from Padilla or having to watch Johnny Cochran make his bail.

UPDATE: CNN carries his lawyer's response (not Johnny Cochran, BTW):

But Donna Newman, Padilla's defense attorney, called the information "a one-sided exposé of their version of the events without Mr. Padilla having the right to put forth his version of the events."

"As they concede, he denies all this," she said, referring to a footnote on page six of the seven-page document. ... "There is a dispute. That's what the courts resolve," Newman said. "If Mr. Padilla is as dangerous as they say, why not have a trial?"

In order to hold him as an illegal enemy combatant, they've already had to show probable cause in court. Once that determination was made, then a military tribunal is the only proper course of action. As the Moussaoui case already demonstrated, civil courts do not meet the security needs of wartime determination of enemy combatants regardless of where they were born. Military tribunals have a long, rich history of providing justice while defending American security. I have no problem with Padilla's lawyer working on his behalf to argue for civil-justice jurisdiction, but she's just wrong.

Trouble Brewing In New Jersey For Kerry

The Washington Post's Evelyn Nieves analyzes John Kerry's poor polling in New Jersey, a traditional Democratic bastion of support that Al Gore carried by sixteen points in 2000. Recent polls indicate Kerry's support drifting downwards, to the point where the Quinnipiac poll of 5/10-16 shows Bush within the margin of error in a three-way race. Democratic activists proclaim their confidence in the safety of New Jersey, but as Nieves reports, privately they express concern over the lack of momentum in the Kerry campaign:

Democratic Party officials here and nationally dismissed the poll as a fluke. They pointed to the fundraising records that Kerry is breaking, to the polls that keep looking better for him as they get worse for Bush, and to the attention that Kerry will receive when the news focuses more on the campaign. One poll in New Jersey, they added, will not stand up when the state's residents actually start paying attention to the race. ...

But privately, party Democrats acknowledged that if Kerry has some work to do in capturing the hearts, if not minds, of the base, then he must really hustle to win over the crucial swing voters who will probably decide the election.

One humorous defense of Kerry's position in the Garden State asserted that New Jersey voters weren't energized because they get their TV from New York. If that truly impacted the race, though, one would expect the polling to demonstrate a heavy bias towards Kerry. After all, New York has been fairly reliably Democratic in presidential races. Gore won New York by 25 points in 2000, and Kerry leads there by 19 points now, according to polling in April. Perhaps one could surmise that absent the influence of the New York media, Bush could be leading in New Jersey.

Nieves' article quickly descends into the traditional and completely unrevealing man-on-the-street interviews, where the most colorful quotes make it into the story. Nieves did perform a quick poll at a gym where, she notes, Democrats supported Kerry, Republicans supported Bush, and the five independents broke 3-2 for the incumbent. It's only revealing in one way -- none of the Democrats who spoke for Kerry did so because of any special passion for the Massachussetts Senator:

Eugene Bradley does not swing. At 50, Bradley, an operations manager for Synagro, a waste management company, has been devoted to the Democratic Party for as long as he has voted. ... He would like to like Kerry. He would like to sing his praises. He would like to feel -- something -- about him. "I am not that up on him," Bradley said. "I don't feel a connection with him. He's basically another politician. In my heart of hearts, I think they could have dug up somebody better." ...

George Coates, on the other hand, is torn. "I think Kerry licks his finger and sticks it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing," said Coates, 65, a retired stockbroker from Clifton. He added that although he voted for Bush in 2000, "he's someone who wore out his welcome for me faster than Clinton did. I can't stand listening to him. I can't stand watching him."

Does that mean he has decided on Kerry? "No," he said, with a shudder. "I don't like Kerry, either."

Most pundits expect the election to be a referendum on Bush, most likely focused on our performance in Iraq. What people did not expect is that the Democratic nominee would be such a non-entity in the equation. Democrats seem to embrace the Bush-referendum equation, resulting in the moribund Kerry campaign, as Kerry does best when he keeps his mouth shut. Either Kerry needs to find a way to inspire people with his leadership -- something he's managed to completely avoid during his nineteen years in the Senate -- or hope that Bush self-destructs between now and November. If neither of those conditions come to pass, Kerry will be in real trouble this fall.

The Little Admiral Turns 2

Busy morning today, but I wanted to show you a couple of pictures from the Little Admiral's 2nd birthday party, which unfortunately the First Mate and I had to miss. Thankfully, Sean from Everything I Know Is Wrong took a few snaps for me to enjoy. (Sean and I are related through my son's marriage, and he's a terrific guy with a terrific blog -- check it out.)

I heard that she had been showing everyone a microscopic "owie" on her knee and demanding that everyone kiss it. In the first picture, you'll see the only one who refused, Sean's son Connor, who apparently won't indulge such nonsense! The pictures are in the extended entry. I'll be back to regular blogging a little later on.

Arafat On The Way Out?

Despite the blatherings of Wesley Clark (see below), the days of Yasser Arafat may be numbered, according to a report from the Jerusalem Post (via Drudge). The pan-Arab news source Al-Quds-al-Arabi reports that the Egyptian government has issued an ultimatum to Arafat to reform or face an Israeli response unrestrained by either the US or Egypt itself:

According to a report Monday in the pan-Arab Al-Quds-al-Arabi, Suleiman handed Arafat three demands:

First, to unite all the Palestinian security forces under one command authority, and into three components. These include the police, the Preventative Security Service (equivalent of Israel's General Security Service), and the Palestinian foreign security service (equivalent of Israel's Mossad).

Secondly, give PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei complete authority to conduct negotiations with Israel over Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan.

Thirdly, stand aside and accept a symbolic position and let others lead the Palestinian Authority.

If these demands are not met, the Egyptian-American shield saving Arafat's life may be removed, Al-Quds-al-Arabi reported.

It appears that despite Gen. Clark's analysis that blames the US for Palestinian intractability, the Egyptians labor under no such delusions. Egypt has long played both sides of the conflict, making its peace with Israel and recognizing them diplomatically while shipping arms clandestinely to the Palestinians, sometimes via tunnels in Gaza. However, with Sharon offering to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the US pressuring Hosni Mubarak to do something to justify his $2B per annum, Egypt has finally had enough of Arafat's obstructionism.

Mubarak gave Arafat a deadline of June 15 for compliance, but if al-Quds-al-Arabi has its story straight, Arafat has no intention of agreeing to a strictly symbolic position in a Palestinian state:

The same official met with Arafat in Ramallah, where the PA chairman told him he intends to refuse the Egyptian demands, because their implementation means the end of his de facto leadership and his reduction to a purely symbolic figure, wrote al-Quds al-Arabi.

If that is true, then Egypt's threat to leave Arafat's future "in the hands of Ariel Sharon" will be tested quite soon, even before the Iraqi transfer of sovereignty. We'll circle June 16 on our calendars now.

Wes Clark's Rambling Fantasy

While I regarded Gen. Wesley Clark as a terrible candidate, I had respect for his experience in uniform and his outlook on foreign-policy issues. However, in his essay in The New Republic, Clark endorses a series of proposals more rooted in fantasy than reality and demonstrates his unsuitability for involvement in the war on Islamofascist terror -- in which he would surely play a significant role during a Kerry administration.

Clark argues for a course correction in Iraq without clearly explaining why the current course is a failure, except by pointing at polls that says people think it's failing:

But today, 14 months later, the mission is in shambles, scarred by rising Iraqi popular discontent, continued attacks against U.S. forces, infiltration of foreign fighters, mounting civil strife, and no credible sense of direction.

Despite President George W. Bush's calls for staying the course, American public opinion has clearly turned against the mission. Some have already pronounced it a failure.

This is nonsense. We're dealing with two minor conflicts in Najaf and Kufa that have mostly burned themselves out, and a lousy deal in Fallujah that we should have thought through better. Other than that, the news has been mostly unremarkable for its success, as the soldiers and Marines on the ground have been saying in their letters and blogs. Power has been mostly restored, human-rights groups are flourishing, and the Iraqis can look forward to self-government for the first time ever. Clark hits the panic button far too early. No one said it would be smooth, but we remain in control and the insurgents become more desperate every week. Saying that we're losing Iraq is akin to claiming that California was about to collapse entirely into chaos during the Rodney King riots.

Who knew an American general could get that hysterical?

While our troops should help secure the borders and handle internal threats that are too large for the still-nascent Iraqi forces, they should, as soon as possible, stop policing the country for one simple reason: They're not very good at it. Instead, we need to involve Middle Eastern countries and the larger international community in building a unified Iraq with a representative government that doesn't threaten its neighbors or serve as a magnet for Al Qaeda recruiting and that exerts enough control to ensure domestic stability and promote economic development. ...

n essence, the Bush administration has scared Iran and Syria into believing that, if the United States is successful in its occupation of Iraq, they will be the next targets. To the Iranians and Syrians, the implication is that their survival depends on dragging the U.S. mission in Iraq into failure. Furthermore, America's perceived pro-Israel bias, and its failure to engage seriously in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has fed the poisonous atmosphere fueling Arab anger toward the United States and its efforts in Iraq.

Clark blames the US for the Palestinian's refusal to stop bombing Israeli pizza parlors, a stance that should draw hysterical laughter from everyone except Yasser Arafat. The US has hosted at least two drawn-out conferences between the Irsaelis and the Palestinians, which produced plenty of serious plans and absolutely no desire on the part of the Palestinians to do anything about them. During the Clinton administration, Ehud Barak handed them a state on a silver platter, and they launched the intifada in response.

Memo to Clark: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only reach resolution when the Palestinians decide to accept the existence of Israel. No amount of American pressure not already applied will make them understand this. The nations of the Middle East do not help this problem, they exacerbate it. Iraq clearly was among the leaders, paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers as payment for murder in its multi-threaded support for terrorism. Iran and Syria openly support terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezb' Allah, which aim for the annihilation of Israel. Does Clark seriously believe that they're going to convince the Palestinians to lay down arms, or to turn up the heat?

Similarly, Clark's notion that we should invite the neighboring kleptocracies, thugocracies, and mullahcracies into Iraq and expect the end result to be a representative government is so incredibly naive as to challenge all credulity. In reading this, I had to ask myself if Clark really believes this, or is just flacking for the Democrats. Clark keeps straining the imagination by claiming that we should use our experience in the Balkans to accomplish this, when we have spent most of a decade in the Balkans working with neighboring governments, all of them Western democracies, and still haven't established representative government where it didn't exist before. In Kosovo, we haven't even established whether a separate representative government to be our goal, despite the several years the West has spent there as "peacekeepers".

Whether or not we're failing in Iraq, an assessment that in either case would be premature at this point, Clark's essay clearly shows that Clark is not the man to lead this nation or its foreign policy. Casting blame on the US for the obstinacy of Palestinian anti-Semitism while believing the Iranians and Syrians to be partners in democracy shows a disconnect from reality so severe that I wouldn't have believed it unless I read it for myself.

Addendum: William Safire seems to get more news than Wes Clark. Perhaps the general should read more than Mother Jones for information.

Remembering Our Brave Soldiers

I want to send out my appreciation, admiration, and gratitude for our nation's men and women of the military, active duty and veteran alike. You make it possible for a man to sit down at his computer and talk about how he sees the world, complete with criticism of our nation's leaders, without fear of retribution or imprisonment -- or worse.

While I have never served in the military, my family has served in several conflicts. My father served in combat during the Korean War, and like most men with those experiences, he chooses not to speak of it. When he recalls his service to his country, he tells soldier's stories of grizzled non-coms, young and foolish junior officers, and commanders of either stripe. His oldest brother, who recently passed away, served in World War II in the Seabees, seeing action in the Pacific Theater. Two other brothers served in the Navy during peacetime. On my mother's side, all three uncles served in the military; the two oldest served in Vietnam (Marine Corps and Army), while the youngest spent fourteen years in the Air Force. I have cousins who served in all branches, and now my cousins' children are reaching the age of service. My second cousin Alec, for instance, currently serves his country in the Air Force. My father-in-law flew with the Marine Corps in both WWII and Korea, a fighter pilot who would laugh at his son-in-law's reluctance to fly commercially decades later. (I hate heights.) He passed away on the same day the US suspended combat operations in Gulf War I, saying just before his sudden heart attack that we would wind up back in the same place eventually.

For all of these men, and for the men and women of our proud tradition of service, I give you my thanks. Captain's Quarters wishes to pay tribute to all of you by publishing the story of Captain Ben Salomon, whose courage saved the lives of dozens of wounded Americans by single-handedly holding off a Japanese charge during the battle of Saipan. Captain Salomon received the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroism on July 7, 1944:

Captain Ben L. Salomon was serving at Saipan, in the Marianas Islands on July 7, 1944, as the Surgeon for the 2nd Battalion, 105th Infantry Regiment, 27th Infantry Division. The Regiment’s 1st and 2d Battalions were attacked by an overwhelming force estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 Japanese soldiers. It was one of the largest attacks attempted in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Although both units fought furiously, the enemy soon penetrated the Battalions’ combined perimeter and inflicted overwhelming casualties.

In the first minutes of the attack, approximately 30 wounded soldiers walked, crawled, or were carried into Captain Salomon’s aid station, and the small tent soon filled with wounded men. As the perimeter began to be overrun, it became increasingly difficult for Captain Salomon to work on the wounded. He then saw a Japanese soldier bayoneting one of the wounded soldiers lying near the tent. Firing from a squatting position, Captain Salomon quickly killed the enemy soldier. Then, as he turned his attention back to the wounded, two more Japanese soldiers appeared in the front entrance of the tent. As these enemy soldiers were killed, four more crawled under the tent walls. Rushing them, Captain Salomon kicked the knife out of the hand of one, shot another, and bayoneted a third. Captain Salomon butted the fourth enemy soldier in the stomach and a wounded comrade then shot and killed the enemy soldier.

Realizing the gravity of the situation, Captain Salomon ordered the wounded to make their way as best they could back to the regimental aid station, while he attempted to hold off the enemy until they were clear. Captain Salomon then grabbed a rifle from one of the wounded and rushed out of the tent. After four men were killed while manning a machine gun, Captain Salomon took control of it. When his body was later found, 98 dead enemy soldiers were piled in front of his position. Captain Salomon’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

Check out the Milbloggers today on their Memorial Day tributes. Start with Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette and check out his links to others.

Edited to correct a factual error regarding Captain Salomon in the introduction.

First Mate Update, Again

I intended to do a bit more blogging today, as we planned to attend a party for the Little Admiral, our granddaughter, who turns 2 today. I had my digital camera at the ready for a bit of instantaneous photosharing. Unfortunately, while we were shopping for her presents this morning, the First Mate started feeling oddly and slurring her words. Fortunately, we were right around the corner from a hospital, and I got her in through the Emergency room. It turned out that she had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), which is related to a stroke but causes no permanent damage; it's sort of a blockage that clears itself rather quickly.

We knew that the First Mate ran the risk of a stroke because of the high blood pressure that comes from diabetes and kidney failure. Since we're only nine days away from the scheduled kidney transplant, we had hoped that she would be spared that. Now, with this new development, we're not sure if she'll be able to do the transplant next week or anytime soon. She's in ICU for the night, and they'll run some tests in the morning. She's been fine for several hours but everyone wants to take a close look to be sure we're not looking at something potentially catastrophic.

Keep your fingers crossed -- we'd all appreciate it. I'll be back to blogging sometime late tonight or tomorrow, depending on my mood.

21:51, CDT: I'm back from the hospital. The First Mate is doing pretty well, but they're keeping her in ICU to monitor her blood pressure, which means she'll sleep like a baby -- up every two hours. She's exhausted, and so am I, as you might imagine. I'll post more tomorrow morning after I talk with her.

UPDATE 5/31, 10:55 AM: I spoke to the First Mate this morning and am on my way out to see her right now. I told her about all of the wonderful, supportive comments we've received from all of you and she says: "Tell them thank you so much for your thoughts and prayers. It's so nice of you, and it means a lot to me." She's coming out of the ICU this afternoon, but she'll stay in the hospital at least for a while longer.

Update 3:04 PM: I'm hijacking a computer port in the First Mate's room right now and I'll blog a little while I'm here. (I'm incorrigible.) She's doing well at the moment -- the blood pressure has come down and she's taking a nap. She wanted me to tell everyone again how much she appreciates your comments. So far, we're hearing that the doctors consider this an isolated incident, but they keep using the word 'stroke' instead of TIA. That's a bit worrisome.

Libertarian Nonsense No Threat To Two-Party System ... Again

Jon at QandO points out that the Libertarian Party has nominated its selection for President -- the selection that CBS News breathlessly suggested last week would create a threat on the Republican's right flank. Jon, who regularly blogs on libertarian issues and philosophy, can't wait to not support Michael Bednarik:

I mean, really. It's like the LP is competing with PETA to see who can appear more ridiculous in pursuit of Idealism. 10 out of 10 for standing on principle, but minus a few thousand for doing it in a clown costume.

Why does Jon get so cynical about the Libertarian Party? As Jon suggests, take a look at the approach on issues that their candidate espouses, and try to think how these will go over with either the left or the right of the political spectrum in November:

Children take drugs because criminals actively sell them. Criminals sell drugs because they are astronomically profitable. Drugs are highly profitable only because they are illegal. The Libertarian solution is to decriminalize drugs, which will make drugs extremely cheap, which will remove the profit motivation for selling drugs, which will result in fewer children taking drugs.

While I share some of Bednarik's concern about the war on drugs, especially when you look at incarceration statistics, the claim that people sell drugs to children because the profit margin is astronomical on one hand, while in the next breath claiming that lowering the price will constitute a market barrier to children in the next is nothing short of lunacy. Lowering price barriers opens markets, it doesn't close them, and the people who directly sell to children do so to fund their own habits. Making drugs legal will not change the profit motivation for selling drugs in any case, whether to children or adults. It simply makes the profit motive legal and encourages investment, mass production, economies of scale, and lower prices to consumers. Safer supplies and lower prices will increase consumption. If you want to make this argument for the market approach, at least do it honestly.

The IRS is despised by every American old enough to work for a living. This agency is notorious for confiscating property from citizens without proper due process of law. Michael would eliminate this agency completely, without instituting a flat tax to take its place. Michael would also eliminate the NEED for an income tax by abolishing hundreds of unconstitutional offices and government programs.

Michael needs to explain how he would pay for those functions he does see as Constitutional, such as common defense, the judiciary, interstate commerce, the enforcement of the various Constitutional amendments for equal treatment under the law, and so on. Would he replace the income tax with a federal sales tax? I doubt it, but simply saying, "I'll eliminate the IRS and lots of government agencies" amounts to a fairy tale. Besides, it's interesting to note his devotion to the Constitution when he argues for its abolition:

The purpose of the Constitution is simply to outline a form of government that will put the Zero Agression Principle into practice. When it fails (and some think that it has) we have the right "to alter or abolish it, and to institute NEW government, laying its foundation on such principles (such as Zero Aggression), and organizing its power in such form, (such as the Constitution) as to them, shall seem, most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

On the other hand, in the same interview, he seems hostile to changing the Constitution when it doesn't suit his needs:

The IRS didn't come into existence the day the Constitution was ratified in 1789. The 16th Amendment and the IRS didn't come into our lives until 1913 - over 100 years later.

On monetary policy, the man takes an intellectually defensible position and hammers it into nonsense:

Article 1, Section 8, clause 5 grants CONGRESS the power and responsibility "to coin money, and regulate the value thereof..." It does NOT give Congress the authority to transfer that responsibility to another branch of the government, much less to a private company such as the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has been inflating our money supply ever since 1933, which makes our money worth less than Monopoly money. (I estimate that Parker Brothers prints far less money than the Federal Reserve does!) In order for the United States to survive economically, we need to reestablish a non-inflationary currency based on some commodity, not necessarily gold and silver, though I admit a preference to precious metals. Eliminating the unconstitutional Federal Reserve is a logical and necessary first step.

Agency law has been well established by the courts and Congress. While he may have a point on floating currency, the notion that Monopoly money has more value than an American dollar is utter nonsense, even for rhetorical purposes. Try taking a Monopoly $100 bill and buy yourself dinner. If you think the restaurant owner will suddenly leap with joy because now he can finally put a hotel on Park Place, vote for Bednarik.

If you want to see what a Libertarian Presidency in the hands of Bednarik would look like, check out his plans for his first day in office, as Jon recommends:

I would also issue a valid executive order to the BATF and other pseudo police agencies informing them that any agent who confiscates a weapon of any kind, from someone who is not currently engaged in a murder or robbery, will not only be terminated from their position, but they will also be prosecuted for violating the unalienable rights of the citizens they have sworn to protect. ...

High ranking officials from [the IRS] would be closely monitored as flight risks, pending indictments for fraud in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form and relinquish a significant percentage of their hard earned money to an unconstitutional government that refuses to operate within a budget. ...

I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.

Michael Bednarik for President. Congress would only serve at his pleasure. Welcome the new Oliver Cromwell, whose Puritanism will save democracy! If this loon attracts more than a single percentage point of the vote in November, I'll eat my hat.

Escalation In The Eucharist Wars

The Star Tribune reports today that we have seen an escalation in the battle over the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Now, lay groups have formed to prevent members of other lay groups from participating in Communion:

About 40 men from a recently formed group, Ushers of the Eucharist, collected in the central aisle in the Cathedral of St. Paul during holy communion and asked the Rainbow Sash Alliance not to take part.

They then knelt in the aisle to block those wearing rainbow sashes, which symbolize support of gay Catholics taking communion. Other members of the group created a bottleneck by kneeling in front of the altar.

The Eucharist, which Catholics believe are the body and blood of Jesus Christ, has been at the center of politics in this election cycle. Catholic bishops have opined, on both sides, as to whether pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be allowed to receive the Eucharist. At issue is the nature of Communion itself; Catholic doctrine states that one must be free of mortal sin -- that is, one must have confessed and repented of it -- before receiving the Host. In the case of abortion, as I wrote earlier this month, Catholic teaching has always been clear from the earliest days of the Church (paragraph 2270):

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. ... Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

Note the phrase "formal cooperation", which includes those who actively work to make abortions available. The bishops in the US -- at least some of them -- have finally acted to enforce the Catechism in this regard, imposing the excommunication that the Church's own doctrine demands. While some see this move as overtly political, in truth the reluctance of the bishops to intercede before demonstrated much more of a political calculation, and Catholics know it. Democrats have for decades embraced more of the Church's mission on social justice, and the bishops have long shaded their eyes on abortion in order to gain on other issues. Now, however, they have finally demanded that politicians who identify as Catholics and take Communion repent of their mortal sins as well, as defined by the Church they proclaim.

But -- and I cannot make this argument strongly enough -- excommunication must be declared by the bishops, either de facto or pro forma, and not by the laity. The so-called Ushers of the Eucharist may have pure hearts and good intentions, and unlike them, I will not judge the motives of the opposition. In theory, their stance conforms to the Catechism, at least superficially (paragraph 2357):

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Even though the Rainbow Sash group identifies themselves as gay, they don't necessarily identify themselves as practicing homosexual relations. It may sound like a distinction without a difference, and in practice most often it is. However, the Catechism makes clear that gays and lesbians are not barred from Communion as long as they practice chastity, just like any other unmarried person in the Church. Unlike pro-abortion Catholic politicians, who defy Church doctrine by voting to legalize and expand the practice of abortion, these gay Catholics do not trumpet the precise conditions of mortal sin -- and it is not for the laity to presume their guilt (in regard to Church doctrine) or innocence.

In short, the Ushers of the Eucharist have judged without complete knowledge or even reasonable knowledge the status of the souls of the Rainbow Sash members. Their actions in blocking access to the Eucharist are therefore unacceptable and must be stopped. The bishops need to take appropriate action to ensure that these disruptions during Mass are not repeated. And the laity of the Church needs to recognize that while they have considerable power over the affairs of their parishes and dioceses, excommunication falls outside their authority, and if they insist on enforcing the Catechism they need to also abide by it.

Addendum: Obviously, I'm Catholic, and I write this from a Catholic perspective. However, I'm not willing to say that gay relationships are wrong in an objective or empirical sense. What I have written about "guilt" and "innocence" relates to the Catholic doctrine on the subject. In all other senses, I am a libertarian, and I think that one is answerable to God and not to me. As long as what someone does hurts no one else, I see no need to judge or condemn.

However, I do have one question for those who insist on remaining Catholic despite their contravention of its doctrine: why? Church membership is voluntary, and if their 2,000-year-old doctrine explicitly argues against one's core beliefs, I don't know why a person feels compelled to belong.

A Housekeeping Note

I'm making a small change to Captain's Quarters. I've received feedback especially from dial-up readers that the load time for CQ is pretty darned slow. Up to now, I've kept four days active on the page in order to allow readers to scroll through several posts at a time. However, due to the length of the posts we typically write and the sheer number of posts, I've decided to cut the active days to two. Archives are always accessible through the calendar on the left or through the weekly and monthly archives, using the drop-down boxes.

Hopefully, these changes will work out for everyone. Please feel free to comment on this post or to drop me an e-mail with your feedback on the modification. Thanks!

UPDATE: Still working on it .... and screwing things up, as usual. Bear with us for a little while on this. Right now, I've managed to take us back to the "classic" CQ look.

John Tierney Attempts Spin Control

The New York Times' John Tierney reviews the John Kerry nomination two-step in his political roundup today, noting that the episode has some of the earmarks of a trial balloon. If that's the case, Tierney's piece has all of the indicators of spin control, trying to give the Kerry campaign a boost it doesn't deserve for this debacle:

The news broke on a Friday afternoon, politicians' favorite time for leaking problematic stories they hope will not get noticed by the public over the weekend. At first glance, it looked like a radical idea being put out discreetly to test reaction among the chattering classes — a classic trial balloon. But campaign officials have steadfastly insisted, on and off the record, that the leak was not authorized, and other Democrats say they believe them. As one well-connected Democratic strategist noted, it was hard to believe professionals would have planned this one.

I think that Tierney had it right the first time. The Friday release intended to catch most people on their way out the door, and the relentlessly bogged down Kerry campaign needed to act boldly to demonstrate they really want to win, rather than just stand pat and hope Bush self-destructs by November. No trial-balloon leak is ever acknowledged as "authorized" -- if it was, it would be a press release -- and the fact that other Democrats believe the campaign means little. It's the only campaign Democrats have.

"Instead of pressing the button for a trial balloon, they hit the one for ton of bricks," he said. "The story should never have come out as an idea being considered by the campaign. The idea should have come from the outside. If other Democratic politicians and activists and columnists had started promoting it, there might have been a chance to build support. You want it to look as if Kerry is just responding to popular demand — as if he'd be stupid not to go along with everyone else."

All of which assumes that the Kerry campaign knows what it's doing, when all indications thus far have been the opposite.

Still, Democrats said the episode served some purpose, if inadvertently. By reminding the party faithful of Mr. Bush's August fund-raising advantage, the publicity presumably encouraged them to give more before then — you could call it a way of monetizing the base. And some Democrats were impressed to see the response by Mr. Kerry, who has often been accused of indecisiveness.

"When an unexpected situation comes up, the reaction is an important lesson about the candidate's leadership," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant. "Once this idea got out there way before its time, it was encouraging to see him act quickly and decisively. He avoided death by a thousand paper cuts all summer."

Tierney just becomes fanciful here. Kerry's decisive response, you will recall, was to support the idea of delaying the nomination, not squelching it. In doing so, he reached into history to come up with two, and only two, examples of a delayed nomination: Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman:

"Once again, the Republicans don't know history, and they don't know facts," he said. "The truth is that it used to be that the convention, after nomination, traveled to the home or the state of the nominee to inform them they've been nominated. Woodrow Wilson was at his house in Princeton, N.J.; Harry Truman was in Independence," Mo., he said. "They're trying to make an issue out of something that they're surprised by, because . . . they're very upset someone might have a way of neutralizing their advantage."

As I blogged at the time, now that we've invented television and the internet, having a candidate live a thousand miles from the convention no longer presents a problem like that faced by Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps someone should inform Kerry about the marvelous changes in communication technology we enojy since 1948. On the other hand, someone should also tell the senator from Massachussetts that Boston is where he lives. How is that analogous to Truman's nomination?

The following day, Kerry flip-flopped and abandoned the idea of the delayed acceptamce, saying "Boston is the place where America's freedom began, and it's where I want the journey to the Democratic nomination to be completed. On Thursday, July 29, with great pride, I will accept my party's nomination for president in the city of Boston. From there we will begin our journey to a new America."

In other words, Kerry was for the nomination before he was against it, and afterwards, too. That's decisive? That's leadership? No wonder they need Bill Clinton to start campaigning on their behalf. In comparison to Kerry, Clinton's notorious poll-driven decisionmaking will look positively rash by comparison. I would guess that they will need John Tierney to spin the campaign in the Gray Lady for the next several months, too.

CBS Poll Skewed, Biased Against Bush

Note: This originally was going to be an update on my post from yesterday noting the desperation at the Kerry campaign and their plan to bring in Bill Clinton to boost Kerry on the stump. After being challenged in the comments about polling numbers, I intended on giving a brief explanation ... but you know how 'brief' I can get ...

The recent CBS News poll, published May 24th, showed a dramatic increase in support for John Kerry and an equally significant drop in George Bush's approval ratings. It looked as though John Kerry had finally achieved some traction in the race, using his new advertising campaign to attack Bush at a vulnerable point and building some momentum towards the convention. CBS' poll got massive exposure in the mainstream media and generated a huge amount of buzz in the blogosphere. The poll only has one problem.

It lies.

Just to put the polling in context, take a look at the Rasmussen poll, which shows a continual dead heat between Bush and Kerry, even on a head-to-head basis, using a sample of 3500 likely voters, with the last data reported 5/29. Quinnipiac has Bush ahead by one point in a three-way race, 43-42-6, as of 5/26, using a sample of 1160 registered voters. While you're there, take a look at the trends; Bush's favorability rating has stabilized at 40% over the past two months, while Kerry's has dropped four points and is below Bush's number.

The CBS poll, on the other hand, uses only 1113 registered voters, broken down in an unusual manner: 346 Republicans, 390 Democrats, and 377 independents. Since when are there that many more Democrats than Republicans? The poll then shows its "weighting" (although it doesn't explain what it means), and the numbers get even worse: 330-R, 401-D, 381-I. According to the University of Pennsylvania in 2003, Republicans accounted for 32.5% of the registered electorate, while Democrats accounted for 33.7%. In a sample of 1113 voters, you would then expect to see 361-R, 375-D, 376-I. The result of CBS's sample is to throw off representation for Republicans by 8.6%, while bolstering Democrats by 7% and independents by 1.3%, using CBS' weighting.

The outcome, therefore, should hardly surprise anyone -- overreported Democrats are surely likely to support John Kerry, while the underreported Republicans depres Bush's ratings. It could hardly escape anyone's notice that CBS' result differed dramatically with other polling taken at the same time, using larger samples and better vetting, such as Rasmussen's 3,500 likely voters -- or could it?

Only RealClearPolitics remarked on the CBS sampling problems, noting that it represented a solid trend at the Tiffany Network:

If you go back, as I did this morning, and look at job approval numbers from the same group of pollsters for the first five and a half months of 2004, you can see the consistency of the CBS/NYT bias more clearly.

In every instance except one this year (and a very iffy one at that), CBS/NYT produced the worst job approval number of any of the three polls during a comparative time period.

And then Tom Bevan gives you a handy table demonstrating the phenomenon. All other news sources, however, gave CBS numbers straight, without any mention of its rather anemic sample -- you'd think a broadcast network could afford to poll larger -- its unreliable sample type, and its poor representation of the electorate. The lesson is that in order to analyze the polling numbers, you have to actually do some work and check the samples.