::

 
Don't get caught shoplifting in Brisbane

Here is an interesting story.

Seems a grocer in Brisbane, Australia got the idea to build a gun that fires a million rounds per minute.

So he built what is described as a "handgun."

The Metal Storm handgun employs electronic locking, which can limit firing access and stop unauthorized use. It can even be programmed not to fire within, say, the grounds of a school.

Oh. I forgot. It has a built in grenade launcher.

Its grenade launcher can give the same defensive security as a minefield, but without physically putting any explosives in the area being guarded. Instead, sensors can alert an operator to any intrusion. The operator can then decide whether to use lethal or non-lethal grenades to warn off -- or destroy -- the intruder.

One has to ask - How did this guy come up with this thing? Was there a creepy guy who kept coming into the store who he suspected of stealing Vegemite?

Seriously, though, this thing could change ground warfare.

"Where network-centric warfare is going is moving the principal systems of weapons from the big, heavy, slow stuff to the small, light, fast, inexpensive (weapons), many of (which) -- and here's the important part -- is very smart."

It's this promise of speed and flexibility that has got the American and Australian military to commit $60 million in research and development funding for O'Dwyer's array of weapons.

Adam Sullivan, 19:38 | 0 comments

::

 
Do not call

If you haven't already, you may want to register your home phone # onto the national "do not call" registry. I just did.

Not that I expect the call volume to go down much in my house.

Exempted from the new law are:

• long-distance phone companies
  
• airlines
  
• banks and credit unions
  
• insurance companies
  
• political organizations
  
• charities
  
• surveys
  
• businesses with whom you have an existing relationship
  

Adam Sullivan, 19:15 | 0 comments

::

 
Simon's edge

I think Roger L. Simon has to be the most civil blogger there is.

I could not post this with such measured and deliberate language.

Adam Sullivan, 16:43 | 0 comments

::

 
Is Liberia a Liberation Test?

Many liberals have signed on to the pro-war camp because they see the current war as one pitting liberal western democracy against fascism.

Today, Michael Totten sounds like a hawk in overdrive regarding Liberia. Candidly, I say good for him. (Michael - did you know that linking to FoxNews is a war crime on some blogs? Any trips to Belgium planned?)

Totten, Hitchens and Simon are all examples of people who are from the left who see very clearly what threatens western democracy - the growing power of dictatoral thugs. The war on terror will not have much meaning if we don't fight for the cause of liberation in this shrinking world. Otherwise, we can expect a War on Terror II in the not too distant future, with a new axis of thugs replacing the current axis of evil.

This article from the Telegraph (or "Torygraph", as Apostolou likes to caveat readers) seems to support the notion that US intervention is more likely than not. It ends with this:

Civilians have routinely born the brunt of more than a decade of fighting in Liberia with rival militias killing civilians, raping women and looting property whenever fierce clashes occur.

Liberia was a republic stolen by successive thugs. They are on their 3rd republic with number 2 and 3 both "electing" the thug that deposed the prior one.

This moment in western civilization is about confronting and ridding the world of dictatoral thugs. "So many thugs, so little time" should be the bumper sticker of the presidential limousine.

Adam Sullivan, 16:09 | 0 comments

::

 
It's the road bed, stupid.

I've posted ad-nauseum that, IMO, the effort to split the Palestinians into two distinct groups and destroy one of them while rewarding the other with a state is the real point of the road map.

Oxblogger David Adesnik asked the other day:

All in all, the critical question in the targeted killings debate seems to be "Why now?" Why risk destroying Abbas's credibility if he is the best negotiating partner Israel has had? If there were any hope of destorying Hamas, Fatah and Jihad by purely military means, I might well support it. But for as long as one believes that peace can only be had at the negotiating table, there will be no choice for Israel -- at certain critical points -- but to shoulder the risks associated with self-restraint.

In follow up to David, many have substantively commented that the road map is either dead, close to dead, or born to die.

Yet the road map just refuses to die. There is a determined effort here.

In contempating how to best respond to Steven Den Beste's comments regarding this item (which I will post on Monday), I was reminded of road building, which is one of the many things young officers in the Army Corps of Engineers get to do.

I then realized "It's the road bed, stupid."

Road building serves, in my cluttered mind at least, a perfect analogy to what is going on with Sharon (and now Bush) regarding peace via the road map.

The key to building a good road is not the waering surface ("pavement"), but the road bed. Hasty young engineers often like to see the "blacktop" go down as quickly as possible to get that wonderful sense of accomplishment and utility. Few stick around to see the fissures and potholes that often greet drivers a year later. To survive weather and traffic, the road bed needs to be well graded (eg composed of different "grades" of material, ranging from cobbles to gravel to dirt), uniformly compacted, and free of organic material. This takes time, patience and hard work. It is also boring. It takes a great deal of testing to ensure that everyone is doing his job and not cutting corners (there are plenty of ways to do such - another post) to get to the "blacktop" quickly.

In attacking Hamas and making Abbas' life complex and difficult, Sharon is focusing on the road bed, IMO. He is ensuring that, before being granted the "monopoly on violence" that statehood implies, Abbas is able to control that violence. So Sharon is testing (violently) both Abbas' commitment to not accomodating terrorism while also testing his capacity to control any other doubtful factions. It is the "three party split" that I keep harping on.

Taking the road bed analogy further (perhaps absurdly so), one can assert that prior attempts at peace (namely Oslo) tried to throw down the blacktop too early. The bi-polar nature of Arafat was not dealt with. He was offered effusive inducement to join civilisation with a title, a government, subsidies and a peace prize. But when the 18 wheeler passed in stormy weather, in the form of Sharon visiting the Temple Mount (read the account: fascinating in view of current events), the flimsy road bed buckled, and attempts to repair the potholes proved futile for lack of a stable foundation.

Peacemakers eager to get the "blacktop" down have contributed to this problem, as Andrew Sullivan told us in the summer of 2000 when the Barak-Clinton-Arafat summit ended in failure (I'd link, but his archives do not go back that far - here is a bit from Sen. John McCain offered as a candid substitute). As I recall (and at risk of misrepresenting his words), Sullivan attributed that failure to an eargerness of Clinton to get a deal before his term expired. We can now see that Arafat probably could not have controlled Hamas or Hezbollah anyway (IMO, Arafat would have been executed by them had he done a deal. Live by the assassination, die by the assassination. He may be executed by them still if their franchise on terror is lost soon.) - so that effort was probably doomed from the start.

As long as there is any state tolerance for non-state political violence, there will be no peace. Ever. Even tacit support for terror or vigilantiism sits as a rotting log in the road bed - it will invisibly decompose only to manifest itself shorlty as potholes and fissures. As Judith Weiss made so clear, Abbas must face his Altalena moment. IMO, Likud will have the same issue soon with settlers.

What we now have is a skeptical but determined realist in the person of George W. Bush as road engineer. He has a set of plans and willing road builders. He also has an impatient public wanting to drive that road. Expect the path of the road to change as it is built (do you actually think there can be a perfectly worded "plan" that delivers peace there?) and expect saboteurs to make life tough.

For me, at least, that there is focus on the stability of the road bed, forced by Sharon, is a damned good sign.

Adam Sullivan, 14:40 | 0 comments

::

 
Rice promotes the 3 party split

Here is an NYT piece on Condi Rice asking (quite publicly - as is done when your "allies" see your side, but won't publicly endorse it) the EU to stop legitimizing Hamas.

"The notion that on the one hand Hamas is peaceful but on the other hand it is trying to blow up the peace process is just illogical," Ms. Rice said.

Notice the use of the word "hand" - as in "invisible hand."

Frankly, Sharon has played this situation brilliantly, IMO, and continues to. Notice how even the terrorist in this article calls the coming truce a "trilateral agreement."


Adam Sullivan, 13:18 | 0 comments

::

 
Regulation of Homosexuality

That is what was struck down by SCOTUS today, but some conservatives have a hard time holding true to their views of restrained regulation when it comes to morality.

Andrew Sullivan very calmly dissects Scalia's dissent here.

Andrew was kind, IMO, to not point out the blatantly obvious.

Examine your thoughts on the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Iran and Hamas. Given the opportunity to make law, they certainly regulate morality with zeal. A right of government to make any law to regulate morality makes theocracy wholly legitimate.


Adam Sullivan, 14:59 | 0 comments

::

 
The Korean Story To Be Told

Glenn Reynolds has a good post on the Korean story yet to be told:

I met with Kim Dae Jung some years ago, and I thought he was a well-meaning man though a bit kooky (he explained to me that he had once been saved from murder by Jesus' personal intervention). But I repeat what I've said here before: The dreadful goings-on in North Korea will come out, as will the complicity of many South Korean politicians. And the result will be quite dramatic.

Adam Sullivan, 14:47 | 0 comments

::

 
Idiotarians on the offensive today

In an attempt to demonstrate that the best defense is a good offense, some idiotarians posting on the Yahoo News message boards have come up with a new "offensive" item:

Take this post:

NPR Report This AM.
by: mesilla_frank (33/M/New Mexico) 06/26/03 11:51 am
Msg: 299499 of 299594
4 recommendations

People who are lacking intelligence are more prone to exhibit Alzheimer's later in life.

Lessee, the only NOTABLE person suffering same is Ronnie Raygun, a pitiful Pubbie! I submit that a grade "C" legacy dim bulb of a doofus leader, read: DUMYA, will be the second NOTABLE in a few short years.

Take notice, Pubbies, Clinton IS a Rhodes Scholar!

That sick, elitist assault against those with a horrific disease got 4 recommendations from others who "think" like she does.


Adam Sullivan, 12:57 | 0 comments

::

 
Re: Centrifuges

So the determined anti-war left says that the centrifuges and documentation that the CIA recovered from the garden of a helpful Iraqi scientist proves nothing.

Apostolou summarizes why that is bunk - a clear violation of 1441, and demonstration that Saddam retained means, know how and intent to threaten the world with WMD once the heat of inspections (brought on by coalition determination) was off. Blix will not be able to nuance that, nor demonstrate that his way would have worked.

One must also consider why the US would say that this is not "a smoking gun."

Before an interim authority can be given any power, and certainly before the coalition leaves the region, the weapons and means to produce them must be dug up and removed. Further, de-Baathification must take place. We are confronted with a determined group of thugs who feel their best strategy is to wait us out.

So expectations must be managed in the US and UK so that the public does not feel that it is "time to leave" while the governments are unable to tell us why not without betraying intelligence sources, who are proving to have been correct all along.
Adam Sullivan, 12:14 | 0 comments

::

 
The end of "where are the WMDs"

What will replace those "where are the WMDs" rants now that this discovery has been made?
Adam Sullivan, 18:26 | 0 comments

::

 
Essayons

"Essayons" is the motto of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. It means "Let us try" in French.

I had the great privilege to serve in the Corps (which predates the other "Corps" you hear so much about) as an officer for several years, both on active duty and in the National Guard.

The motto is based in history. A bloody history. When the US was fighting to become a country, it had some help. France provided professional Military Engineers to the US colonials and the US Army Corps of Engineers was born. Not that we did not have military engineers before - the oldest unit in the US Army is the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts National Guard established in 1636.

For those who would dismiss "military engineering" as an oxymoron, please note that the Corps of Engineers prides itself on being the farthest forward - the enemy tends to put up obstacles when you attack them, and then fire at you when those obstacles slow you down. Combat Engineers clear those obstacles - they are at the front of the column. A friend just returned from Iraq who managed helicopter medevac missions during the fighting. He commented to me how many engineers they "processed." I wasn't surprised.

But I digress - what the French did in the Revolution was provide critical support, in the form of advisers, training, some troops, materiel and some naval forces at a critical time. Of course, this was done to piss off the English (a French pre-occupation that survives to this day). Just the same - a debt was created in blood.

The topic comes up in response to a post from the esteemed Steven Den Beste, a clear thinking man whom I admire. When people were renaming French Fries, he was pointing to the emptiness of such symbolism. "that kind of symbolic gesture is useless and pointless"
he reminded us. "it's a cop out; it's a way of salving your own conscience for not really making a sacrifice when one is needed."

I was and am deeply offended by France's actions in the runup to the War in Iraq. It was not their failure to support us that pissed me off. Rather, it was their determined and surreptitious efforts to thwart us. More subtantively was their hypocrisy in citing "War is failure" as they stalled for time to benefit an expansionist megalomaniac dictator who was making war on his own cowering people.

Our challenge as Americans is to resist the temptation to simply say "Fuck off" to France and erase them from our history, but to entice (or rhetorically pummel) them to squarely rejoin western civilization. How we do this I honestly don't know. I worked in France for 2 years and still don't understand them. They are as conservative (as in "resisting change") a people as I know. Koreans (a conservative lot themselves) are more amenable to change, IMO. Unlike us, the French almost universally trust their government. They support their elitist institutions (like ENA) yet deny that elitism exists in their country. They are almost universally sold on the idea that nuclear power is safe when the overwhelming majority of people in the rest of Western Europe disagree.

"C'est pas Catholique!" ("That's not Catholic!") is a normal, smart-assed dismissive from the French that provides insight to their deep conservatism. Catholicism is the dominant religion there, and came to be through the same process of what some would today call "cultural genocide" that established today's French borders.

The predisposition of the French mind to not let go of old ideas is what preserves the post-modernist western apologism that underpins their foreign policy, as well as their suspicion of any hegemon (that isn't French). The Japanese were called "ants" by a senior French official about 10 years ago when it looked like they were going to take over the world.

We have stubborn minds here, too. 9/11 changed a great many of them, yet many still think that the 9/11 massacres were the result of some conspiracy with either the Jews or McDonalds at the helm. Go to indymedia for their rants. Their words serve as their own indictment.

As difficult an obstacle as French conservatism poses, there are dead Frenchmen buried in our oldest battlefields to be considered. Of course there are far more numerous Americans strewn from Normandy to Verdun, but it isn't a numbers game. It is honor and sacrifice. And culture.

At a time when we contemplate diversity, remember that France is a distinct place with its own point of view. I don't want France to turn into an intellectual Southern California mini-mall. And I hope that the Corps does not strip itself of its French heritage (we will all have to purge the word "Engineer" from english to start).

The nation that gave us Voltaire and de Tocqueville and help us win independence needs our help. They took a wrong turn. They need us to help them rejoin the western tradition rather than embrace a nihilist tradition. If our helping them comes in the form of insults and shouting matches, such is wonderful by me. That is how change happens there. When it comes to purging them from our history, however subtly, count me out. France needs to rejoin the west, not be exiled from it. And we must not forget the foundation stones of western thought that they provided. Like managing speech, purging history is a slippery slope.

Let Us Try.


Adam Sullivan, 17:52 | 0 comments

::

 
HAL continues to defy gravity

Markets are ultimately rational, but when they love something the speculation takes over.

Halliburton is trading just 7% off of its 52 week high at double its normal volume, and is climbing as I post this. Some say hope and fear drive markets up and down. Hope seems to be driving things, although misplaced in the case of Halliburton IMO. After all, they have cut earnings expectations down dramatically (theoretically, earnings potential is why you buy a stock), and the recent announcement that they will take on $1 Billion in debt while increasing liability reserves should be punishing this thing. Investors just shrug it off.

Such is the power of the herd.

Update: In response to an email - A "Senior Unsecured Convertible Note" is an IOU (a bond) that the IOU holder can (under certain conditions) turn into common stock. "Senior Unsecured" means that you are next in line to be paid after employees, trade creditors, and secured creditors ("mortgage holders" of sorts - folks who lend money on an asset that Halliburton owns, rather than lending on a promise, which is what an "unsecured" lender does). This could be very useful information to you someday if you buy one of these bonds (they used to be known as "junk bonds").

Convertible bonds are a great deal for both sides when the company is on a tear and the price of the stock climbs quickly, because the bond becomes and interest paying option when the stock price exceeds the convertible strike price. OK - I bore you. But these are the mechanisms that drive capital in this country and thereby the country's economy ("It's the economy, stupid") . They are worth understanding.


Adam Sullivan, 12:49 | 0 comments

::

 
Good Volokh Piece

Eugene Volokh has just published an opinion item in NRO on Sexual Harassment law being extended by the "powerful force" of analogy into private clubs.

Harassment law got started by suppressing workplace sexual extortion, physical abuse, threats, and other misconduct that isn't protected by the First Amendment. But because of its breadth and vagueness, it got stretched to cover more speech, including political speech, social commentary, and art. And then by a process of analogy — a powerful force in a legal system that's based on precedent — the law broadened from workplaces to universities, restaurants, bars, and now private clubs. And the slippage may go still further: Once these sorts of broad restrictions are allowed, they themselves become analogies to be used to suppress still more speech.

In considering application of such law (and the sanctions such entails) it is important for the broad thinking to be mindful of both effects and alternatives. Many voices may soon find themselves sliding down Volokh's "slippery slope" and into the dock. I'd hate to have Hitchens' candor squelched ("those slut Dixie Chicks") because of such, or because of prospective laws like this.

Adam Sullivan, 12:33 | 0 comments

::

 
A profile of Press Secretary Hitchens

He has quite a following these days, which will continue to grow, IMO.

This profile is great and a fun read.

Here is an excerpt that explains why I'd make him a Press Secretary:

His stand-up act abruptly ends as he invites questions from the audience. "Ask me anything you like, I promise the answer will be true," he says, expansively. A woman who was at the US power debate asks why he's now playing the clown.

"The reason I like P.G. Wodehouse and Oscar Wilde is that they teach you to take frivolous things seriously and serious things frivolously," Hitchens replies. "It's all a complete farce, you understand, we're born into a losing struggle. In the meantime, I think, I must show some contempt and defiance and the best means of doing that that I know are irony and obscenity."

Laughter, applause. "Which is why it was a mistake for that man to ask me about those slut Dixie Chicks," he adds.

It also explains why there'd have to be a level set Michael Totten as his peer in the job.

Adam Sullivan, 02:19 | 0 comments

::

 
Geek out with the Electoral College

Being a geek, I really like this online Electoral Calculator (requires Java). Check it out.

As most of you know, states have been re-allocated congressional seats since the 2000 election. Some states gained seats, others lost. That then changes how many electors a given state gets.

So I did a run of the elections that I mentioned in the "sub 50" post yesterday. The result? No changes in outcomes. Even with the changes in electoral concentrations, no races were close enough (not even 2000 - the Bush win actually widened a bit) in electoral terms to alter the electoral outcome.

What I like is that it lets you pull up old races where 3rd party candidates get electoral votes and then run scenarios for the 2004 election.

As I commented yesterday, for the first time in the nation's history we have had 3 minority winners in a row (92 - 2000). People are willing to "waste their votes" (which they are not doing) more and more. I am coming to think (perhaps wishfully) that we in the US may get more diverse party representation as folks become more educated and active voters via the internet. Just as we see people throwing away left-right identity, perhaps we will see people give that "freedom of association" thing a whirl and find power and voice through 3rd party identity and make an Electoral win very difficult without coalition building.

Imagine a centrist "blog" party carrying Ohio, for example, in 2004 and crafting a coalition government prior to the Electoral College vote that December. I'd bargain for Den Beste across the hall from Wolfowitz in Defense(Rummy stays), put Glenn Reynolds in as Attorney General, put Sullivan in at the FDA and make Totten and Hitchens Press Secretaries. Simon could be ambassador to France.

Sullivan wants the blogosphere to liberate Iran - I just want it to run the country. Enough fantasy for one post.

Adam Sullivan, 01:51 | 0 comments

::

 
Automated Karma

Now you too can manage your day, week or month using a computer generated "Karma Index."

A must have for today's "person on the go" with too little time to contemplate the suffering of others resulting from one's own actions or inactions. Let your computer manage your Karma so your burdened conscience doesn't have to!

Adam Sullivan, 01:20 | 0 comments

::

 
Mail from Paul Heise

Earlier in the month I posted a link to a different view of the dollar from my own.

The author of the column I linked to (Dr. Paul Heise) was kind enough to respond with this (he doesn't have a blog yet):

As I said, in trade terms the dollar problem is self-adjusting. A lower valued dollar will lead to increased exports, fewer imports and an increased demand for the dollar that will tend to strengthen it.

The problem is the financial situation which is NOT self-adjusting. That is what the column is about. The value of currency is either in a fairly static situation, responding to the relative change in the efficiency of economies, or it is in a virtuous or vicious cycle where it trying to make up for changes that were not reflected when they should have been. International markets are NOT efficient; they reflect the economic conditions around them only in delayed and obscure way.

People don't want the Bush Administration to be wrong-headed and failing so they are in denial. People are in denial all the time about all sorts of things. That bubble in the stock market - and now in housing - was plain to see. Nobody wanted to see it and they paid the consequences for their attachment to personal comfort.

The problem is not going to be deflation. It is much more likely to be inflation. The Fed and can, must and will flood the economy with money in excess of the growth in the economy. That is the definition of inflation.

The Fed has alot more tools than it is talking about: it can just spew out money at the discount window; lower the stock market margin requirements, lower the reserve requirements, buy huge chunks of the national debt and thereby put cash in the economy. Central bankers are notoriously shifty about the enormous power that they have.

I think Paul is dead on regarding inflation, and he is right to point to the other levers that the Fed has at its disposal for altering the money supply toward an inflationary policy. Should that happen, interest rates will spike and the effective price of housing will spike as well, perhaps popping that bubble (but there is an elasticity issue, IMO. Many sellers will sit and "wait things out" as a general inflationary environment brings the prices into the affordability range).


Adam Sullivan, 00:58 | 0 comments

::

 
The sub-50s - Unpopular Precedence

In explaining his sense of political isolation as a Democrat, Scott Forbes posted this the other day:

"The Republicans have somehow taken a 51% majority in the Senate, a 52% majority in the House, and a 48% majority in the Oval Office, and used those slender margins to shut out the Democrats from any decision-making power. "

I thought I'd take a look at the numbers and see what other presidents have been elected in the last hundred years without popular majority.

The results surprised me. We have a strong precedence of "sub-50" presidents in this country, where a minority of the voters had their candidate win and serve over the majority who chose others.

Some Interesting Facts
In the 20th century, 13 of the 18 presidents could claim they won the confidence of most of the nations voters in at least one election. Excluded from that group are the likes of two termers Bill Clinton and Woodrow Wilson.

Of the 26 elections from 1900 to 2000 inclusive, there are 8 elections where the winner had fewer than 50% of the popular vote. Two were Republican wins. Six were Democrat.

That means over 30% of the presidential terms of that period were served by presidents that had not recieved the majority of votes on election day. That means these presidents held office when most of the voters wanted someone else.

The least popular winner was Woodrow Wilson in 1912, only earning 41.84% of the popular vote. Followed by Clinton in 92 with 43.01, and Nixon in 68 with 43.42%.

Woodrow Wilson shares a special distinction with Bill Clinton - in neither of his wins did he have most of the people voting that day behind him. Coincidentally, each got 49.24% of the popular vote in their second term wins.

Richard Nixon stands alone among all presidents in gaining the majority at re-election after winning as a minority.

JFK and Harry Truman round out the field of the under 50 club for the 20th century carrying 49.72% and 49.55% of the popular vote respectively.

The data are summarized here.

The case of George W. Bush
Of course, we have the case of George W. Bush, who received not only less than 50%, but also fewer votes than one of the other candidates. He failed to even get the plurality. One has to go back into the 1800's to find others who did that. But be aware that in the 1800s, we had 5 different political parties win the White House. Elections in that century (1800 to 1896) had a higher proportion of minority presidents when popular vote was taken after 1824. For example, Lincoln won with 39.82 in 1860. John Q Adams in 1824, with a full 25% fewer votes than the top vote getter, yet won in the House of Reps.

Hayes beat Tilden in 1876 with a significant loss of the popular vote but 1 more electoral vote. Harrison lost the popular vote to Cleveland in 1888, but won decisively in the Electoral College.

Could we be going back to political diversity
I go back into the 1800's for the Bush comparisons to make a point that may be escaping our "left - right" conditioned minds - perhaps we are becoming more diverse and independent in our political views. Perhaps voters are, despite cynically low expectations to the contrary, becoming more educated and more difficult to herd into one of two camps. Perhaps voters are more willing to "waste a vote" for a third party candidate than ever before.

How can I say that?

The last three elections the winner was a minority president. That is unprecedented in our nations' history and may foretell a trend where majority wins may become rare, and the major parties start to lose power as third party candidates trade Electoral College votes for cabinet posts. In each of the last three elections, a third party candidate was able to prevent a popular majority. It makes sense - more choices, less concentration of consumption. We see this in media, we see this in consumer products, why shouldn't we see it in politics, especially with the evolution of the Internet as a decentralized means of spreading information to large audiences.

Getting back to the substance of Scott's post - that coalitions need to be built for broader concensus so fewer people feel alienated. I have posted here why I think that parties in this country, in themselves, represent stable coalitions more than ideological camps. Not since the election of 1988 has one party been broad enough - inclusive enough - to motivate a majority of the electorate in our only national election. To me, that is far more relevant to understanding our political reality than focusing solely on Bush's lack of a popular plurality in 2000.

Can we infer that efforts to broaden a Democrat or Republican coalition now costs voters willing to go to Reform or Green? It is far too early to tell. While it would seem that GWB's popularity is such that he will have little trouble getting a majority in 2004. One must remember, however, that the same was said of his father in 1991.

Adam Sullivan, 02:14 | 0 comments

::

 
The Jordanian Exception

Patrick Belton at OxBlog treats us to this insight for all concerned with the Palestinian situation:

Incidentally, the last point belies one of the unstated cruelties of the Arab world: Arab governments' treatment of their Palestinian refugees. Of the 3.5 million UNRWA-registered refugees in Arab countries, only the 1.5 million in Jordan are granted the basic rights of citizenship of the nation in which they reside. This act of humanity is particularly striking for Jordan, a country which is beset by a simmering question of competing Jordanian and Palestinian identities given the fact that Palestinians have come to constitute 60 percent of the Jordanian population. The 373,000 stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon are not allowed to attend public school, own property, or even improve their housing stock. The Lebanese government is even planning to revoke citizenship rights to Palestinians who were granted Lebanese citizenship in 1994. Marginalization of Palestinian refugees in the Arab world does nothing to diminish radicalism or improve the lot of a people whose human suffering has been great. Arab countries are quite happy to treat them as pawns, to clothe themselves in the symbolic legitimacy of their cause while acting in quite atrocious ways to the actual Palestinians, who often live (as in Lebanon) in refugee camps where they face horrific public health, minimal prospects of education or employment, and are instead maintained in as much of a marginalized status as possible to augment their stateless status and maintain pressure on Israel. If Arab governments were only as good as their people, they might remember with the Palestinians the meaning of the phrase "Ahlan wa Sahlan" - "When you cross our threshold you are one of our family, and you have stepped on even ground."

Certainly peace in the "Middle East" must be addressed as a regional issue, not just Palestinian/Israeli.
Adam Sullivan, 01:55 | 0 comments

::

 
Mascot Declared

The Karmic Inquisition has chosen a mascot.

The Guppy. Read the link, and you will see why.
Adam Sullivan, 01:46 | 0 comments

::

 
Halliburton Selling Debt

Just after warning shareholders that they would be cutting earnings estimates dramatically, Halliburton announced Monday that it would like to borrow some money from investors. About a billion dollars. What for? They don't say. But last time I saw this was with Peregrine Systems, who (as recent indictments aledge) used the funds to acquire other companies in an effort to hide fraudulent bookeeping.

Expect short selling as bond buyers hedge their bets. That too happened at Peregrine, and the bond holders almost got the whole company in bankruptcy court.

Halliburton is off a bit as of late, but it still trades in the 20s. We'll keep watching.
Adam Sullivan, 01:32 | 0 comments

::

 
Kim in pictures

Check out the photoshop activity of Kim Jong Il and his buds at Fark.com. Just do it.
Adam Sullivan, 19:47 | 0 comments

::

 
Den Beste Comments

In reference to this post last Friday, Mr. Steven Den Beste (whose recent illness must have affected his good tase, as evidenced by his visiting this Blog) writes to say that he has been on the record as for gay marriage for several years now.

The reason I bring it up is that his essay is excellent - well constructed and very clear. Well worth a read.

Adam Sullivan, 14:11 | 0 comments

::

 
Syria : Baathist Haven?

Speculation time - Looks like things are heating up on the Iraqi / Syrian frontier.

We have a shooting incident at the Syrian border as an Iraqi convoy, fleeing from American forces, appears to have been assisted with covering fire from Syrian border guards.

Then we have reports of saboteurs working in the same region trying to stem the resumed flow of oil, and thereby its benefits, to the Iraqi people.

No doubt that this will soon be described to you as a quagmire, and no doubt that Assad has grown a new "invisible hand" in an effort to restore Baathist oppression in Iraq. Soon the time will come to cut it off.
Adam Sullivan, 12:35 | 0 comments

::

 
Those damned Belgians

<sarcasm on>
Just when Hans Blix starts to cover his tracks for having suborned false justification for a war crime, the Belgians go and change their claim to universal jurisdiction in such matters.
</sarcasm on>

<sarcasm off>
I was looking forward to Blix's trial.
</sarcasm off>

Adam Sullivan, 12:02 | 0 comments

::

 
As Roger Simon has pointed out, Judith Weiss has compiled a concise and link laden roundup of the "foundations" being built for a Palestinian Authority accountable to its middle class.

She also points to the negative effect that such is having on Hamas' future.

Once again, peace in Palestine and Israel will come from splitting the Palestinian camp into to two, and isolating and destroying the terrorist half.

That "road map" just won't die.
Adam Sullivan, 11:44 | 0 comments

::

 
Mandela blurts again

I used to be a fan of Nelson Mandela. Back when he was a prisoner of apartheid South Africa.

He now serves as living proof that having been wronged does not entitle one to always being right.

Seems that Mr. Mandela still takes issue with the US toppling thugs (though the ANC demanded it do just that for a period of about 30 years). More specifically, here he is quoted by Reuters (who are quick to publish such blurts):

Any organization, any country, any movement that now decides to sideline the United Nations, that country and its leader are a danger to the world," Mandela said in Galway

...


"We cannot allow the world to again degenerate into a place where the will of the powerful dominates over all other considerations," he added. "That will surely prove to be a recipe for growing anarchy in world affairs."

He has a point - but it is aimed in the wrong direction.

You see, he was aiming that comment at the United States. Sad thing (for him) is that the last time the US "sidelined" the UN was in Kosovo. Russia, in deference to its Slavic bretheren in Serbia, had signaled to president Clinton that it would veto any UN intervention there. So rather than have the UN confront such, he chose a path of lesser resistance - NATO (whose forming treaty never envisioned such expeditions, no matter how just).

Regarding Iraq, the US forced the UN to confront its own words and reastablish its legitimacy by dealing in realpolitik. This was done rather than take the bypass route that Clinton had, which demonstrates some faith on the part of the US in the UN. As a result, a dozen or so resolutions were recently enforced (albeit not without acrimony among the permanent members) at the cost of over 200 lives of US and UK servicemen.

But let's consider Mr. Mandela's comments more carefully (as is his due, since he is a Nobel peace laureate).

Any organization, any country, any movement that now decides to sideline the United Nations, that country and its leader are a danger to the world.

Let's see here - Saddam? Hamas? Kim Jong-Il?

That Saddam decided to sideline the UN is undeniable. Utterly. He was therefore dealt with as "a danger to the world." So we are in agreement?

Hamas has rejected outright the "road map" which is UN sponsored. They continue to espouse ethnic cleansing of a plot of land they claim but do not control. They reject any negotiations at this point. They continue the killing. Any words for them?

Kim Jong Il has recently defied IAEA (and thereby UN) will by withdrawing from all nuclear non proliferation treaties and agreements after having been caught cheating. They have built and armed nuclear missiles and threaten to attack their neighbors if the UNSC so much as sanctions them. Is it that his country is poor that his cause is just?

"We cannot allow the world to again degenerate into a place where the will of the powerful dominates over all other considerations," he added. "That will surely prove to be a recipe for growing anarchy in world affairs."

One should note that UN authority over a situation does not prevent "growing anarchy in world affairs." Certainly that was not the case in Rwanda, nor is the case now in Congo. The "anarchy" that Mr. Mandela warns us of seems only to mutate rather than recede when the UN intervenes without the firm, armed resolve of its most powerful members.

Perhaps what is bugging Mr. Mandela is that the "will of the powerful" is starting to coincide with the yearnings of the oppressed. His protests sound more like nostalgia for when the powerful saw interest in stability before liberty. That they now see liberty as the basis for stability should be cause for celebration, not petty consternation.

What is on the horizon for the "will of the powerful", Mr. Mandela? Myanmar, Iran, Syria, Libya, to speculate on too few. All thug regimes, most of whom have exported their thirst for oppression in the form of state sponsored terror.

Maynmar is notable for having imprisoned their charismatic leading dissident, Aung San Suu Kyi, who is herself a Nobel peace laureate. A striking parallel to Mr. Mandela - yet one wonders if she is therefore fated to win liberation of her country, lead it into democracy, and then paradoxically retire to comforting tyrants, thereby short circuiting the liberation of the oppressed?

Like so many left wing quasi-ideologues, Mandela has confused the "liberation vs. oppression" struggle for the moribund "socialist vs. capitalist" and "north vs. south" struggles. It is a good thing that Mr. Mandela said these things to an academic audience. Only there can such nostalgic presentations receive dignifying welcome as they digest warped tautology as if it were original insight.

How would his words go over among North Korean concentration camp victims? Or victims of Saddam's torture? Or in Poland, for that matter? No matter - the self-hatred of western elites will sustain him.

All the while, the oppressed yearn to be free while the "will of the powerful" remains undetered.


Adam Sullivan, 03:08 | 0 comments