The Daily Steve

2003-06-16T08:42:00.000-04:00

THAT'S ALL FOLKS -- The real world has rudely intruded on my blogging time, so this space will be dark for awhile. Thanks for reading.

2003-05-23T05:55:00.000-04:00

HIATUS -- On vacation for awhile.....

2003-05-14T08:28:00.000-04:00

SOME TABOOS ARE WORTHWHILE -- This year's Pentagon budget contains funds to research and develop tactical nuclear weapons. Now, this page is all for strategic nuclear weapons (which deter others from attacking or threatening the U.S.) but tactical nuclear weapons would be used on the battlefield to destroy bunkers or wipe out concentrations of troops or weapons.

Fred Kaplan and Peter Scoblic point out that --

- the mere usage of nuclear weapons, no matter the size or effect, would pretty much destroy any and all non-proliferation efforts and
- the usage of any nuclear weapon would create unacceptable levels of fallout and environmental devastation.

The taboo against the usage of nuclear weapons is a good one, and serves the U.S. long-term interests.

2003-05-09T06:03:00.000-04:00

TEAR DOWN THAT WALL -- One of Europe's most intractable problems, the division of Cyprus, appears to be solving itself. While the two political sides continue to defy the will of the UN, US, and EU, with notable intransigence from the Turkish Cypriot side, the recent opening of the borders seems to demonstrated the intense popular will for reunification. Since the borders were reopened, anywhere from 25% to 40% of the island's inhabitants have visited the other side, in many cases visiting neighborhoods and homes that they had fled years earlier. The common decency and understanding that ordinary individuals have shown to each other as they visit their former 'enemies' is the truly touching part of this history.

2003-05-07T08:31:00.000-04:00

POLAND'S MOMENT -- Rather surprising to see the new plan to see Iraq divided into several security sectors, with Poland overseeing one of them and leading troops from Bulgaria, the Ukraine, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Its not entirely clear how much of this is by Poland's design or by Rumsfeldian machinations. Needless to say, some EU heavyweights (Germany, France) are none too pleased to see EU aspirant Poland asserting such independence, but regardless its a pretty high profile role.

2003-05-07T08:20:00.000-04:00

BILL BENNETT, IDIOT -- Bill Bennett's gambling problems have been well-chronicled-- losses of more than $8m over the past ten years, wiring millions to cover lines of credit, leaving after a night on the slots down $625k. Michael Kinsley pretty effectively (and nastily) lays down the key facts -- you can't be the public face of right-wing virtue for the past few years and do this type of thing. Slate's William Saletan follows up by adding that the typical defense of Bennett's behavior (its his private life, he did not endanger his family), cannot apply to someone like former drug czar and professional moralizer Bennett, who specifically rejects the libertarian argument for most vices.

But what bugs me the most is his choice of games -- slots. Now, its understandable that people enjoy playing the slots from time to time for amusement, but anyone with a rudimentary understanding of probability (and casino economics) has to realise that slots are about the worst bet in the house. Slots are set to have a payout rate of between 85% and 95%, so in effect, if you play for any length of time, you will get back approximately 85 to 95 cents on the dollar. Sure, you might get lucky in the short run, but in the long run (like the losing $8m long run) you will always lose.

Bennett compounds the issue by claiming to have almost broken even in slots. Its almost mathematically impossible. Given the payout rate and the $8m loss, its probable that Mr. Bennett has placed over $50m in bets over the past ten years.

So my advice? Play craps and blackjack. Then mind you own business.

2003-05-01T17:39:00.000-04:00

READY.GOV -- Have you see the odd Ready.gov Homeland Security Graphics? Here's a site that does a direct frame-by-frame parody. And another one that's a little more convenient to read.

2003-04-19T16:24:00.000-04:00

STUPIDITY SQUARED -- Several moderate Republican senators are gumming up the works for President Bush's tax cut proposals (quite properly, we believe). A pro-Bush lobby group is seeking to pressure some of these senators with ad campaigns in their home states. The Club for Growth has, tastelessly, chosen to compare the senators' behavior with that of the French during the Iraq war. In their own words,

''These Franco-Republicans are as dependable as France was in taking down Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein,'' Club for Growth president Stephen Moore said in a statement."

This strategy would make a lot more sense if they were not using it to target Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, who represents a state where almost a quarter of the population self-identifies as French or Franco-American.

2003-04-16T15:04:00.000-04:00

CNN AND ETHICS -- The chief news executive of CNN wrote an op-ed this weekend and all hell broke loose. The gist of the story is that CNN deliberately withheld newsworthy items and allowed the Hussein government to shape CNN's reporting, with the expectation that it would receive greater access. Later in the week, a former CNN reporter piles on (in the not altogether credible Washington Times) about an incident where he was told by senior CNN executives to recite a litany of points dictated by an Iraqi minister (as quid pro quo for an interview with Hussein), then was criticized by CNN's President for his delivery.

Kudos to Franklin Foer of the New Republic, who had this story nailed down months ago and absorbed tons of flak at the time.

The point here is not that CNN is some great evil. Just that journalists have a responsibility to report the truth or at least to inform the public when they can't report that truth. There's always a balance between honesty and access, and in this case it is not clear if CNN got the balance right.

2003-04-16T14:51:00.000-04:00

BAGHDAD BOB -- Muhammed Saed Al-Sahaf, the Iraqi Information Minister, has become the cult figure to spring out of this war. This war is a deadly serious topic, but it was almost impossible not to be amused by his over-the-top rhetoric. His speeches are memorialized here and here.

A nice piece on ESPN.com has the Minister resurfacing to provide color commentary for the Yankees:

"I swear to you by all that is holy that the moon will run crimson with the blood of the Boston infidels before this night is over! Already, the indomitable Yankees lead by seven runs, and the corrupt Red Sox are fleeing the stadium! They have forfeited the game and are returning to their homes to lick their wounds like the pathetic curs they are! Run like the wind, you stooges of western imperialism, and take your odor with you! You should never have stepped foot in our kingdom! Your arrogance has sealed your doom and condemned your children and your children's children to lives of slavery!"

He even has a blog, which has a very entertaining link to a Kim Jong-Il blog.

2003-04-08T14:24:00.000-04:00

JACK SHAFER RULES -- This guy has been a favorite since his days as editor of the Washington City Paper. Two weeks ago, he wrote the primer on the war reporting feeding frenzy, nailing the story cycle:

"Part 1....the press stands slack-jawed at the withering display of U.S. air power and high-technology battle gear...

..Part 2 of the cycle. Victory wasn't as instant as we were led to believe! U.S. forces have "bogged down"! The early blitzkrieg could not be sustained, and U.S. forces are increasingly vulnerable to counterattack. The uprising has failed to gel. You can't win a war from the air; you need lots more troops on the ground.

...Part 3. They discover that Milosevic, Bin Laden, Saddam, et al., are the real geniuses. The enemy commanders are cum laude graduates of the international war college and masters of the art of asymmetrical warfare as practiced in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, and Israel. The enemy is fighting the battle on its terms. Unnamed sources in the Pentagon fret about the previously lauded American tactics....

Part 4 the press informs us with great surprise that Saddam wasn't the only warrior who learned from past battles. Unconventional warfare turns out to be unconventional for a reason: It is a superb form of suicide. Reporters pretend they never doubted the outcome. The United States wins and promptly loses interest in the region."

Shafer follows up this dead-on analysis by remarking on the leading indicator of potential victory -- as soon as the New York Times' R.W. Apple writes a article suggesting a conflict is bogging down -- you can be sure that victory is around the corner. Check the article and the links for more.

2003-04-08T13:43:00.000-04:00

STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM -- The 'dog-bites-man' predictable story of the 1980s from Northern Ireland was IRA terrorists killing civilians. The fact is Protestant paramilitaries/terrorists were far more likely to kill Catholic civilians then Catholic paramilitaries/terrorists were to kill Protestant civilians. No one can deny the politico-criminal and terrorist nature of the IRA, but its a complex story.

Now, we have news of a soon-to-be released report from Sir John Stevens, the London Police Commissioner, on collusion between Protestant paramilitary groups and UK security forces in Northern Ireland. As reported in the FT:

"...the undercover Force Research Unit (FRU), which reported directly to the senior British military commander in the province, colluded systematically with loyalist terrorists in the murder of republican sympathisers. The FRU, formally tasked to save lives, instead gave loyalists all the intelligence they needed for their brutal murder spree. At one point the inquiry interviewed 120 loyalist paramilitaries. It found that 108 of them were agents of the state.

Just as appalling was the subsequent conspiracy among parts of the military establishment to thwart the Stevens inquiry, including, at one point, an arson attack on its headquarters. Sir John has identified more than a dozen former military officers he wants to see sent to jail for a very long time. For reasons beyond comprehension, at least one of these remains in post in one of Britain's overseas embassies."

2003-04-08T09:28:00.000-04:00

DEBATE ON THE WAR -- There has a two-tiered metadebate going on during the war -- 1) should there be protest of the war at all, and 2) should former military officers be critiquing tactics and strategy in realtime/are the neocons right or wrong? The fact that this type of discussion exists at all and that the military/political leadership is being forced to defend their tactics and strategy should be considered a strength and not a weakness. Societies (and armies) that lack this openness are weakened as result. Let's take an timely example, say the armies of Arab countries, by limiting the flow of accurate information and keeping decision-making at the highest levels, they are limited in their ability to react to new developments, coordinate across different groupings, and learn from mistakes, resulting in pretty miserable performance.

2003-03-30T09:20:00.000-05:00

WARGAMES -- The General of the Army's V Corps has taken tons of heat for his now infamous statement -- "The enemy we're fighting against is different from the one we'd wargamed against" . May we remind everyone of this space's 8/22/02 item on the military's $250m wargame exercise (involving the hypothetical invasion of a middle eastern country). As detailed in this Army Times story and in Slate, the commander of the hypothetical opposition used low-tech, guerrilla tactics to inflict heavy losses on US troops. The wargame managers responded by refloating sunken ships, ignoring later orders, and, well, cheating.

2003-03-28T10:43:00.000-05:00

RUMMY'S REACH -- Not great timing to complain about this, but a recent Economist book review delivers some telling facts about the emphasis on military might over diplomacy:

"In Indonesia in 2000, military interests came into direct conflict with the ambassador, Robert Gelbard, when Admiral Dennis Blair, then head of the Pacific Command, took a strategic decision to re-establish military aid programmes that had been cut back by the Clinton administration in response to Indonesia's human-rights abuses. One time-honoured ambassadorial prerogative is to control which officials visit from other agencies. The ambassador, an outspoken critic of Indonesian atrocities in East Timor, feared a Blair visit would undermine the Clinton policy. Admiral Blair's command covered 60% of the world's population. With a permanent liaison office in Washington, colonels working for him at the Pentagon and a staff of up to 1,000 at his Hawaii headquarters, Admiral Blair simply swamped Mr Gelbard, who Ms Priest notes had a small, overworked staff, and was backed by an ineffective State Department bureaucracy. The visit went ahead."

The book, The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America's Military by Dana Priest, covers the growing political power, infrastructure and influence of the five "CinCs" who command America's military around the globe.

This idea of "mission creep" into non-military affairs dovetails with recent announcement that the Pentagon will now build its own intelligence gathering network. We are all for a well-equipped military but these recent expansions smack of bureaucratic empire-building.

2003-03-28T10:27:00.000-05:00

WHAT COUNTRY? -- Police bust into a home on a false report of gunplay and find two people having sex. Do they apologize and exit redfaced? Not if the two people are gay and live in Texas. This very scenario was just argued before the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. Read Slate's wrap-up of the arguments to hear Scalia and Rehnquist absolutely embarass themselves.

SCALIA SIDEBAR -- Nice recent move by our favorite Supreme Court Justice, he banned video and audio recordings of a recent public appearance. He was being honored by the City Club of Cleveland for his commitment to free speech.

2003-03-21T09:08:00.000-05:00

ANOTHER LINK -- Let me offer a link to a very interesting piece from Salon (you can get a free one-day pass) on the war and opposition to the war.

"On balance, though, the left in America and Europe has come down strongly against the war. And in protest marches, antiwar advertising and local arts events, the evidence leaves one to wonder whether this highly visible bloc of the left has weighed these issues -- weighed life by life the repression of the 24 million Iraqis who live in a ruthless police state, not to mention the thousands or tens of thousands who have been imprisoned without trial, tortured, exiled or killed. Instead, it sometimes seems that the left is so averse to war, especially war waged by America, that it is prepared to turn a blind eye to even the most ghastly realities. Perhaps it is because the left no longer sees these realities that its antiwar arguments tend to justify continuation of the status quo.

That, too, is a form of paralysis. But it is emblematic of an evolution in leftist values that has occurred so gradually over a period of decades that the profound nature of the shift is often not noticed. Today, the political counterculture and the antiwar movement in the West often seem to be one and the same. Instead of fighting fascists or other genocidal tyrants as it might have during the Spanish Civil War or World War II or even during the Central American conflicts of the 1980s, the modern left fights war; because the United States is the world's most significant military agent, and because it has so often used military power to support anti-democratic governments, the left understandably fights the United States. Such opposition to war is reflexive, and too often outweighs its outrage on behalf of the oppressed. Its capacity for the kind of muscular empathy that leads to action has atrophied, leaving only the possibility of reaction, of opposition. The antiwar left does not mount massive protests against China, Pakistan or Egypt. Millions do not pour into the streets on behalf of the student-led democracy movement in Iran. And Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are not angrily compared to Hitler -- that treatment is more often reserved for George W. Bush....

In most every argument against the war, whether it is posed between friends over drinks or by the presence of 100,000 people at a wintry demonstration, there comes a crucial moment: "I'm not defending Saddam," the argument goes. "I know Saddam is a ruthless tyrant. I know he has committed terrible human rights abuses. But ..." What follows "but" is often a withering critique of Bush or the United States, Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar, or Silvio Berlusconi. Hidden in this argument is a curious dynamic: The words "ruthless dictator" and "human rights abuses" have been uttered so many times that they are like a dead key on a piano. They have lost their emotion and their power to convey anything close to the reality of ruthless dictatorship and human rights abuses...

On the left, none of these arguments frames the war issue as an issue of freedom (or even relative freedom) vs. totalitarianism. With the exception of the argument in favor of weapons inspections, each is designed to block forceful action against a dictator who has the DNA of Hitler and Stalin. None of the arguments above offers a plan for ending torture, ending suppression, and protecting human rights and civil liberties.

In a moment of moral urgency, the arguments against war instead urge preservation of the status quo. They are, in a word, conservative.

The implicit assumption of the post-Vietnam culture is that pacifism always holds the moral high ground. But in the Iraq conundrum, there is no high ground, no moral purity. If you argue for war, on humanitarian grounds, you are saying: We must risk thousands of casualties not only among soldiers, but among children and civilians, so that Saddam's weapons can be destroyed and his murderous system of repression can be dismantled. If you argue that war is to be avoided because of those potential casualties, then you are arguing that Saddam's system of repression -- the political murders, the torture chambers, the slow death of the soul that comes from living under such tyranny -- must be endured."

2003-03-21T08:59:00.000-05:00

THE MAJESTY OF DEMOCRACY -- Was there not something a touch disquieting about watching the robust, hurly-burly of the UK Parliament's debate on Iraq, in contrast to our own Congress? Let me offer a link to Tony Blair's speech to Parliament for your review, a speech that may go down as one of the greats of our age. It's long but compelling.

2003-03-21T08:54:00.000-05:00

MORE ON IRAQ -- Two smart columnists make similar points this week regarding Iraq and the essential distinctions between George Bush and Tony Blair's worldview. First, Phillip Stevens of the FT (sorry no link, subscription required):

"Mr Blair's starting point is that the attacks on New York and Washington did indeed mark a profound change in the world's strategic geography. Chaos and weapons proliferation have replaced communism as the principal threat to international security. The new enemies are tyrannical regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction and extremist groups for whom indiscriminate terror is an end in itself. Put the two together and, in Mr Blair's words, the danger is indeed "real and present". September 11, he remarked, had changed the psychology of America: "It should have changed the psychology of the world." ... [However, a] bargain must still be struck. Staunch European backing in return for US multilateralism is the only solid foundation for geostrategic security. Mr Blair has grasped something that the hawks in the US administration have never understood. Military power alone will never be enough to guarantee America's security. Without the friendship, respect and support of its allies, it will ever be vulnerable. Likewise, for all its occasional posturing, Europe still needs America's security guarantee....The shredding of international support for America's stance over recent months has represented the biggest foreign policy defeat since the Vietnam war. Worse still, Messrs Cheney and Rumsfeld scarcely care."

Timothy Garton Ash writes that we face a choice between Bush's multilateralism, the "Chiraco" opposition to American power, or the Blairite worldview:

"Tony Blair's idea is that we should re-create a larger version of the Cold War, trans-Atlantic West, in response to the new threats we face. What he calls the "coming together" of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism should frighten us as much as the Red Army used to. Europe and America must stick together to defeat it. Yes, Europeans should worry about US unilateralism, but "the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals". Last September, Europe should have said to the US "with one voice" that it would help Washington confront the dual threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, provided the US went down the UN route and restarted the Middle East peace process between Israel and Palestine."

2003-03-12T11:39:00.000-05:00

IRAQ – This space has refrained from commenting too much on Iraq, but here goes –

First, a quote from Tom Friedman: “Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.”

Next up, a long excerpt from an op-ed in today’s Telegraph that pretty closely tracks my thinking:

“Ideally, I would like the inspectors to be given two or three more months to try to finish their work. I don't doubt that it would squeeze a few more concessions out of Saddam Hussein but, on past form, it would not lead to his full disarmament.

Accordingly, the kind of further delay being suggested yesterday would be justified only if the French and the Russians would give a clear commitment that they would support the Americans in the use of force if Saddam had not fully complied by the end of that period. If that is their position, let us hear it, in unambiguous form, from Messrs Chirac and Putin in the next few days. I doubt we will.

Without such a commitment, Mr Bush will have my support when he sends in his armed forces and drives Saddam Hussein from power. That support will not indicate approval for recent American policy. I believe it has been insensitive and, in some respects, incompetent. But that is the past. The only serious question is where we go from here.

If the Security Council does not approve a new resolution, it will not only be the United States but also the rest of the world that will be faced with a stark choice. The Americans have almost 200,000 troops in the Gulf. They cannot stay there indefinitely. They must either be used or brought home.

If the Americans were to withdraw their forces, leaving Saddam in power and his capability for biological and chemical weapons intact, the world, as well as the United States, would have suffered a dangerous and destabilising defeat.

The authority and credibility of the United States would have been seriously damaged. Washington would be embittered and frustrated. The Bush Administration and future American presidents would be alienated from their European allies.

If I have to choose between Washington and Paris, or Moscow, or Berlin, as the champion that will ensure the growth of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, I will always choose the Americans. I will do so not because they have any moral superiority, nor any more courage or sincerity. I will choose them because only the Americans have the power to deliver.

Our world faces many threats, not just one. Terrorism, nuclear weapons, and biological or chemical armaments are examples, but not an exhaustive list. The Middle East is the most unstable region, but conflict can come from many other states and continents. Only the United States has the military power, the economic strength and the political will to deal with these threats. Neither France, Russia nor anyone else has.

The United Nations should not be at an impasse. The Western world should not be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place. Both Bush and Blair must share some of the blame for where we now find ourselves.

But the harsh reality is that if the Americans were to be rebuffed and humiliated in the next two weeks, the real victors would not be the UN but Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il and similar despots around the world. The moral case might remain ambiguous and uncertain. The political one has become unanswerable."

I think this case is further strengthened by a consideration of the options, as Michael Walzer pointed out previously – a responsible anti-war position is implicitly an endorsement of prolonged containment or 'enhanced containment'.

But containmnet has practical and moral implications. From an op-ed in today’s Washington Post:

“UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month”

Take a look at the raw data provided by the UN here. The gist of it is that, since the Gulf War, infant mortality rates have at least doubled in southern and central Iraq, while the same rates have been cut by 50% in northern Iraq. Why the discrepancy? Northern Iraq is self-governing and receives funds from oil sales conducted under UN auspices (and chooses to spend the money on health care).

So, being anti-war and responsible requires being pro-something. But every ‘something’ has a moral and practical implication.

2003-03-10T20:37:00.000-05:00

BILL SAFIRE, CALL YOUR OFFICE -- The Economist (not exactly a squishy leftwing outfit) sounds a call to arms for civil libertarians of both right and left in its most recent issue. Some quotes as subscription is required:

- "After the hysteria of the McCarthy era in the 1950s, the Supreme Court and Congress together established a clear dividing line: membership in or association with a group designated by the government as hostile was not illegal. Some distinct criminal activity had to be proved.

The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act reversed this, making it a crime to offer such groups any “material” support. The Patriot Act went further. Under its provisions, it would have been a crime to support the African National Congress during Nelson Mandela's imprisonment. Giving money to a Chechen orphanage, or a hospital on the West Bank, could also land someone in trouble if the government puts the group running it on its terrorist list. Patriot Act II would allow the government to maintain a DNA database of anyone suspected of supporting a designated group, even if he is not charged with any crime.

- In the months after the September 11th attacks, some 1,200 immigrants, mostly Muslims, were rounded up by police and immigration officials across the country. Some of these were held for months before seeing a lawyer or being brought before an immigration judge. Most have since been released, some were deported, and only a few were charged with a crime. This practice seems to have continued, though the government has stopped reporting the arrests.

The Department of Justice has also enforced a long-dormant registration requirement on men from 25 countries, all but one of them Arab or Muslim. Of the 32,000 men who have registered so far, 3,000 face deportation—many of them apparently for relatively minor offences. Both the current and proposed Patriot Acts drastically reduce the rights of immigrants, legal as well as illegal. For instance, Patriot I allows the indefinite preventive detention of immigrants on the say-so of the attorney-general, even if they have committed no crime and cannot be legally deported.

- Mr Bush's people are claiming that the government has the right to imprison anyone, citizen or not, perhaps for ever, inside America without having to charge him or her with a crime or do much to demonstrate to a judge that it has reason for its suspicions. Naturally, it says it will use the enemy-combatant designation only in extreme circumstances. And yet it is hard to think of any time when the American government has claimed so much power over its own citizens without reference to Congress.

- The draft Patriot Act II would give officials the power to strip American citizenship from anyone suspected of giving “material support” to a group designated by the government as terrorist, and then allow it to imprison or deport him without trial, as it may already do with visitors or immigrants."

And so on and so on. Rather ironic that the drafter of both Patriot Acts is an immigrant himself.

2003-03-04T09:15:00.000-05:00

WHAT DO IRAQIS THINK? -- Sign up for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting's new Iraqi newsservice or read a blog on life in Baghdad.

2003-02-28T15:18:00.000-05:00

WALSER WEIGHS IN -- Michael Walser, long a favorite of this space, writes a very good piece about the responsibilities of the anti-war movement.

2003-02-28T15:14:00.000-05:00

PAUSE AND REMEMBER -- A well-written remembrance in The Guardian today of the 60th anniversary of the German surrender at Stalingrad -- one of the most important events of the last century. For a variety of reasons (the Cold War, etc.), this battle does not receive the recognition it deserves. To put it in perspective, almost 300,000 Americans gave their lives during the whole of WWII, while a million Soviets died during the Battle of Stalingrad.

2003-02-24T09:43:00.000-05:00

"INCUBATORS OF DEMOCRACY" -- There is little left to say about the tragic fire in Rhode Island. However, the FT has been raising an interesting point that only a European newspaper would think about -- there is no standardized code of building regulations in the United States. Each state chooses from two codes produced by some private associations, then cities and towns can amend as they choose. This space is a great conceptual believer in political power being pushed down to the lowest possible levels, but this seems like a situation where national standards are appropriate.

On a more personal note, the Globe is doing a heartwrenching job of writing short snapshots of the fire victims.

2003-02-20T12:42:00.000-05:00

WAR HUMOR -- Not to make light of a serious situation, but may I recommend some topical respites from wall-to-wall war chatter:

If Hans Blix worked for Microsoft..... and

Neal Pollack's desperately needed polemic against everyone yammering on endlessly.

2003-02-14T11:46:00.000-05:00

EVER CLOSER UNION -- Two major events collided in Europe last week. In a case of horrible timing, the EU's Constitutional Convention released a draft to very, very mixed reviews. The draft called for a common EU foreign policy and defense initiative.

Almost simultaneously, the Euro 8 and the Vilnius 10 released their letters in support of the U.S. activities regarding Iraq, giving France and Germany notice that they do not determine the course of 'European' foreign policy alone. This probably ends the idea of a common EU foreign policy/defense capability for a generation.

2003-02-14T11:04:00.000-05:00

"STRATEGIC DEFICITS" -- The recently released Bush budget brings us back to the late '80s era of 'strategic deficits', meaning a deliberate policy of deficits in order to limit spending growth. By producing this budget along with multiple tax cuts, the Bush administration seems determined to increase deficits as far as the eye can see. Radical left-wing economist Alan Greenspan comments: "there should be little disagreement about the need to reestablish budget discipline".

As currently presented, the Bush budget will result in deficits of $300b in 2004 (the numbers were only calculated out 5 years as opposed to the customary 10 to avoid revealing even higher projected deficits in the later years). This number does not include $1.3t (yes, trillion) in proposed tax cuts over the next ten years, the cost of a potential war (say, in the Mideast...), the $500m it will take to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, and any efforts to fix Medicare and Social Security.

Didn't conservative used to include fiscal conservative too?

2003-02-07T07:31:00.000-05:00

ONCE THERE WAS A COUNTRY..... -- With Iraq and Korea dominating the headlines, the end of Yugoslavia generated little press this week. The constituent republics of the former Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, both approved an EU-negotiated settlement that will dissolve Yugoslavia and create "Serbia and Montenegro", which appears to be a transition to a full break-up.

As a result of this move, Vojislav Kostunica -- the man who deposed Milosevic -- is now out of a job (he was President of Yugoslavia.). Kostunica and his rival, Zoran Djindjic -- the Prime Minister of Serbia, have been locked in brutal feud that threatens to delegitimize the Serbian government. The previous President of Serbia, Milan Milutinovic, has departed for the Hague and two elections to replace him (both won by Kostunica) have been voided (by the Djindic government) because not enough people voted.

2003-02-01T11:27:00.000-05:00

CHIRAC AND SCHROEDER -- It has become fashionable in the past week to lump these two together over the Iraq issue. It is said they represent "Old Europe" or the "Axis of Weasels". This glosses over a key distinction -- Chirac is deploying a skillful strategy to maximize France's international influence (and minimize domestic discontent) while Schroeder is making short-term tactical decisions to prolong his political viability.

Schroeder is incredibly weak right now -- narrowly elected in September, his approval ratings have plummeted, his tax increases are unpopular, economic growth is stagnant and, to top it off, he is in an embarassing legal spat with a British newspaper. A conflict with Iraq is broadly unpopular in Germany, and Schroeder's unequivocal rejection of any German role in the conflict probably was the key margin of victory in the election. However, by taking such a hardline, intractable position early, he has no leverage with the US and won't have any going forward.

On the other hand, Chirac has other concerns -- French oil interests in Iraq, general opposition to the war, and a large, poorly integrated Muslim population. He has presented a more nuanced opposition to the conflict, while still leaving open the possibility of French participation. Armed with the additional leverage of a security council veto, Chirac has positioned himself to extract maximum consideration from the U.S. while preserving a politically savvy 'reluctant warrior' cover for himself domestically.

2003-02-01T11:22:00.000-05:00

LET US NOW SPEAK OF GREAT MEN -- Vaclav Havel, the President of the Czech Republic, steps down shortly and we are all diminished by his departure from public life. His countrymen and women, after many years, appear to have tired of Havel, but they will doubtlessly realize his absence soon. His friend, Timothy Garton Ash, reviews the trajectory of Havel's presidency in an insightful and personal piece. One enduring memory of Havel is his breathtaking address to Congress in 1990. After sitting through the yearly theater of laundry-list, overapplauded State of the Union addresses, it gives one pause to hear the moral clarity and intellectual weight of Havel's words.

2003-01-27T07:28:00.000-05:00

KRAUTHAMMER ON KOREA -- Charles Krauthammer correctly diagnoses the Bush administration's confusion on Korea. They put forth a strategy without any tactical means to back it or react to N. Korea's predictable behavior.

2003-01-27T07:24:00.000-05:00

ENTER AL -- Al Sharpton has jumped into the Democratic presidential primary, generating lots of free publicity and very few supporters. His recent visits to Boston and Manchester were marked by poor attendence.

The crypto-conservatives at The American Prospect (that's a joke) have the essential profile of Reverend Sharpton. They make the important point that Sharpton's rhetoric about 'bringing the Democratic party back to its liberal roots' does not square with reality. Most of Sharpton's forays into politics have involved him playing the spoiler against markedly liberal candidates (Ruth Messinger, Mark Green.....) not conservatives.

With his ability to generate free media, Sharpton could again play the spoiler role in the Democratic primary.

CONT. - The prosecution rests.

2003-01-27T07:18:00.000-05:00

UP NEXT...BOBBY KNIGHT ON IRAQ -- New England's own Bill Belichick gets a Sunday NYTimes Op-Ed of his very own.

2003-01-27T05:39:00.000-05:00

HIATUS?.... - Thinking about it, may have to take the down the site.

2003-01-14T15:10:00.000-05:00

CALL US NAIVE -- The NYTimes (and the Globe) both report on Poland's recent purchase of Lockheed Martin jets. The US Gov't leads Poland into NATO; thereby requiring Poland to upgrade its airforce. Lockheed Martin and the US Gov't put the strong-arm on the Polish gov't to buy American jets. The US Gov't lends Poland $3.8b at below market rates and with an 8 year grace period to pay for the jets. Lockheed Martin (and its suppliers) promise $3b plus of investment into Polish companies. Does this make anyone else uncomfortable?

2003-01-14T15:04:00.000-05:00

LOOKING FOR AN UNCROWDED GETAWAY -- Why not try an untraditional vacation this year?

2003-01-11T09:42:00.000-05:00

2004 PRIMARY WATCH -- It's been an interesting week for the Dems, lots of familiar faces entering the race. More interestingly, retired General Wesley Clark is looking to enter the race. He is obviously credible on national security issues and potentially able to rescue us from the boredom of watching no less than 4 senators duke it out. Further down the credibility scale, Gary Hart continues to send up trial balloons. Apparently some of his 20-something drinking chums from Oxford are trying to talk him into it. From our perspective, his challenge to the press in 1987 to 'come and get him' (paraphrasing here) then recklessly conducting an affair is enough to disqualify him forever.

2003-01-11T09:33:00.000-05:00

CONCERNING -- During the whole Trent Lott brouhaha, did you catch a glimpse of Strom Thurmond at the birthday? Is it not a bit concerning that a voting U.S. Senator seemed so out of it? Turns out that he had lived for the past year at the Walter Reed Medical Center in Maryland and is retiring to a nursing home in S. Carolina, the state he has represented but not visited in the last two years.

2002-12-31T06:40:00.000-05:00

STOP THE MULTILATERALS -- Entering a new zone of complaint about the United States, the North Korean government bemoans the Bush administration's relentlessly multilateral tendencies:

"There is no need for the third party to meddle in the nuclear issue on the peninsula. The issue should be settled between the DPRK (North Korea) and the U.S., the parties responsible for it... If the U.S. persistently tries to internationalize the pending issue between the DPRK and the U.S. in a bid to flee from its responsibility, it will push the situation to an uncontrollable catastrophe"

Credit to Instapundit for picking up the reference.

And for you fans of totalitarian madness, check out the North Korean government's website, here is a taste of their lead article for today:

"The revolutionary people, all the countries and nations of the world should win in the cause of independence against imperialism by firmly struggling against it without the slightest concession and hesitation, says Rodong Sinmun today in a signed article. A concession to imperialists leads to eternal submission to them, which will deprive the nation and the country of their dignity and sovereignty, bringing humiliation, death, subordination and slavery to them, the paper says"

2002-12-20T12:24:00.000-05:00

HIATUS -- Away for the holidays and then back to (real) work. Hope to be back soon. Happy Holidays.

2002-12-20T12:23:00.000-05:00

FIRST ENDORSEMENT -- The NYTimes' Tom Friedman has an interesting column about the Democrats and what they need to do to rebound in 2004. And what candidate fits his bill of particulars? Tony Blair, of course.

2002-12-20T12:19:00.000-05:00

IRAN -- Time does not permit a full workout of the issues here, but presented for your consideration: Popular discontent with the government of Iran seems to be growing. The government looks to be split between 'hard-liners' and 'reformers'. The Bush administration is currently ignoring this split for a variety of reasons. The Iranian government is giving tacit support to a potential invasion of Iraq (that could ignite the Iranian opposition). No articles or facts here, but this story has been at a slow simmer for months and no one is really paying attention.

2002-12-20T12:16:00.000-05:00

WE LOVE YA BOB, BUT.... -- No doubt that Bob Woodward is a icon, and he writes very entertaining books. But, in this review, Eric Alterman diagnoses the 'problem' with his work. In short, it's that people in power usually talk with Woodward because they know they will be rewarded with favorable spin. Woodward uses an omniscient, not directly sourced style, so you can never tell exactly where he learned each fact. So, read the books as entertainment and spin, but don't read them as history.

2002-12-12T16:22:00.000-05:00

A WHOLE LOTT -- The Trent Lott quote has gotten quite enough commentary, but two deserve to be highlighted. First, Joshua Micah Marshall has been all over this from the get-go with lots of supporting primary source documents. Second, Charles Krauthammer, an unexpected source, weighs in with a deeply moving critique of Lott and appreciation of Martin Luther King that should seal anyone's doubt about Lott's fitness for leadership. It is worth reading in its entirety and a large portion is below:

"This is not just the kind of eruption of moronic bias or racial insensitivity that cost baseball executive Al Campanis and sports commentator Jimmy the Greek Snyder their careers. This is something far more important. This is about getting wrong the most important political phenomenon in the past half-century of American history: the civil rights movement. Getting wrong its importance is not an issue of political correctness. It is evidence of a historical blindness that is utterly disqualifying for national office.

To start at the beginning. The civil rights movement brought about the abolition of the American racial caste system. Enfranchising a minority is, in and of itself, a singular achievement. But the civil rights movement rose above sectarianism and insisted on defining itself far more broadly as a vindication of America's very purpose.

Martin Luther King succeeded in taking a liberation movement that could easily have turned irredeemably divisive and deeply anti-American -- note the bitter endemic conflicts engendered by other liberation movements around the world -- and dedicated it instead to a reaffirmation of American principles. The point is not just what King and his followers did for African Americans, but what they did -- by validating America's original promise of freedom and legal equality -- for the rest of America. How can Lott, speaking of "all these problems over all these years," not see this?

Perhaps even more important than the civil rights movement's ends, however, were its means. That was its other great gift to America. The civil rights movement transformed nonviolence from a notion into a norm -- an act of astonishing political creativity whose legacy has been so thoroughly assimilated into contemporary American life that today we hardly appreciate it.

The fact is, however, that the civil rights movement forever set the standard for social transformation in America. We owe to King -- his vision, his courage and his discipline -- the fact that every subsequent social movement from environmental to gay rights to antiwar has almost automatically embraced nonviolence. Political violence has, of course, not been abolished. But the nobility and success of the civil rights movement has delegitimized the very idea of political violence -- giving us a country that now routinely achieves profound social change in an atmosphere of comity and mutual respect rarely seen anywhere else in the world."

2002-12-12T16:13:00.000-05:00

THINKING ABOUT IRAQ -- The New York Times Magazine has an excellent piece on the struggles inside the left and center left over Iraq. The author notes that

"[the anti-war] movement has a serious liability, one that will just about guarantee its impotence: it's controlled by the furthest reaches of the American left. Speakers at the demonstrations voice unnuanced slogans like ''No Sanctions, No Bombing'' and ''No Blood for Oil.'' As for what should be done to keep this mass murderer and his weapons in check, they have nothing to say at all. This is not a constructive liberal antiwar movement.

So let me rephrase the question. Why there is no organized liberal opposition to the war?

The answer to this question involves an interesting history, and it sheds light on the difficulties now confronting American liberals. The history goes back 10 years, when a war broke out in the middle of Europe. This war changed the way many American liberals, particularly liberal intellectuals, saw their country. Bosnia turned these liberals into hawks. People who from Vietnam on had never met an American military involvement they liked were now calling for U.S. air strikes to defend a multiethnic democracy against Serbian ethnic aggression... These writers and academics wanted to use American military power to serve goals like human rights and democracy -- especially when it was clear that nobody else would do it. "

2002-12-12T15:38:00.000-05:00

DOMESTIC DISARRAY -- To put it politely, the Bush administration's domestic policy is in disarray. An article in Esquire magazine quotes former White House Domestic Policy Adviser John Dilulio:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus... What you've got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm."

A current White House official adds:

"Many of us feel it's our duty—our obligation as Americans—to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It's just kids on Big Wheels, who talk politics and know nothing. It's depressing. DPC [Domestic Policy Council] meetings are a farce."

Perhaps this week's exit of Treasury Secretary O'Neill and National Economic Council Chief Lindsay reflect an renewed attention to domestic policy. Certain circumstances around each appointment give pause however.

The Wall Street Journal helpfully points out that the new guy at Treasury, John Snow, is a lot like the old guy at Treasury: "President Bush's new Treasury Secretary is a successful old-line industry CEO who moonlights at the Business Roundtable and worked in the Ford Administration. Wait, didn't Mr. Bush just fire Paul O'Neill?"

Bush's appointee to the National Economic Council, Stephen Friedman, has taken a bit longer to get appointed. Friedman has drawn a great deal of criticism from conservatives for his involvement with the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan, balance-the-budget advocacy group.

2002-12-06T12:17:00.000-05:00

VINDICATION -- Ever feel like SUV drivers are more irresponsible drivers? Here's proof. Some key facts:

- "The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars--8 percent higher in the largest SUVs.

- For every one life saved by driving an SUV, five others will be taken. Government researchers have found that a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda Accord only kills 21.

- When a car is hit from the side by another car, the victim is 6.6 times as likely to die as the aggressor. But if the aggressor is an SUV, the car driver's relative chance of dying rises to 30 to 1, because the hood of an SUV is so high off the ground."

Incidentally, this link was found on the invaluable Arts & Letter Daily website.

2002-12-06T12:12:00.000-05:00

IF A TEAM WINS IN THE FOREST..... -- The Bruins are the best team in Hockey. Joe Thornton is the best player in hockey. No one seems to care, either in the papers or at the FleetCenter, as attendance is declining.

2002-12-06T12:02:00.000-05:00

THE RICH ARE DIFFERENT -- Remember Dennis Kozlowski, disgraced former CEO of Tyco? He has to petition a judge monthly to cover his living 'expenses'. In this month's filing, he asks for, among other things, $100,000 to pay the salaries of his yacht's eight member crew plus money to cover their life insurance. According to my math, that means the average crew member takes home USD 150k apiece per year. The yacht is available for rent, if you're interested.

2002-11-29T08:51:00.000-05:00

THANKSGIVING EVE -- is a great time to bury bad news. So, we get news of the appointment of Henry Kissinger to head the Sept. 11 inquiry. The NYTimes weighs in, very politely:

"[Kissinger's] affinity for power and the commercial interests he has cultivated since leaving government may make him less than the staunchly independent figure that is needed for this critical post. Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed."

They also call for him to sever all ties with Kissinger Associates. That won't happen.

More stridently, David Corn of The Nation states that :

"Asking Henry Kissinger to investigate government malfeasance or nonfeasance is akin to asking Slobodan Milosevic to investigate war crimes. Pretty damn akin, since Kissinger has been accused, with cause, of engaging in war crimes of his own. Moreover, he has been a poster-child for the worst excesses of secret government and secret warfare. Yet George W. Bush has named him to head a supposedly independent commission to investigate the nightmarish attacks of September 11, 2001, a commission intended to tell the public what went wrong on and before that day. This is a sick, black-is-white, war-is-peace joke--a cruel insult to the memory of those killed on 9/11 and a screw-you affront to any American who believes the public deserves a full accounting of government actions or lack thereof."

Christopher Hitchens also throws in his two cents.

CONT: If you had any doubts, Bill Safire dispatches them with this horrifying column. The gist of it being that "Henry" has hidden the truth so many times that he's the perfect guy to find it now. Ugh.

2002-11-27T12:07:00.000-05:00

TWO TAKES ON EUROPE: The Economist diagnoses part of the EU's problem -- its been too successful culturally and is running out of steam as a practical matter:

"A generation is growing up for whom “Europe” often means not peace, but bureaucracy and technocracy. For many of today's young, the old slogans no longer work.... European identity for today's young is a matter of cultural interchange, not political transformation. Young people are now instinctive rather than idealistic Europeans, at ease with the idea of crossing frontiers, working or studying in other European countries, but not preoccupied by any need to “build Europe”. "

That other paragon of Euro-inquiry, espn.com, comes to a blunter conclusion:

"A European Union simulation [referring to a college's mock EU exercise]? Hmmm, they'd have to talk for years, eat fabulous meals, travel in limousines and accomplish nothing other than dissing Turkey.

The European Union is a kind of quasi-official meta-government that seeks out the cost, bureaucracy and ineffectiveness of each member nation's worst ministry, then tries to impose it on all of Europe. The symbol of European Union effectiveness is a giant $600 million complex the organization built in downtown Brussels, which sat for more than a decade ago unoccupied, swathed in enormous sheets of plastic, because there is asbestos in the walls, though there is no evidence that asbestos in walls has ever harmed anyone."

The previous is from Gregg Easterbrook's regular Tuesday Morning Quarterback wrap-up column that covers football and ranges though world affairs, religion, Star Trek, literature, and cheerleaders. Check it out sometime.

2002-11-22T12:10:00.000-05:00

WE GOT YOUR AGENDA RIGHT HERE: For the Democrats, it should be a legitimate middle class tax cut and expanded health care coverage. Robert Reich, one of our least favorite MA gubinatorial candidates, makes a lot of sense arguing that Bush's estate tax cut should be replaced by a cut in payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes will immediately put money into the economy and eliminate a highly regressive tax.

On the health care front, our favorite presidential candidate, Howard Dean, gets some good publicity in today's Globe. He strikes a pragmatic tone and suggests a plan:

"modeled after the system he implemented in Vermont, people under 23 would be covered under the Medicaid program for the poor. Dean said the plan was ''dirt cheap'' yet would cover the majority of the currently uninsured. In exchange, states would be freed from paying their share of Medicaid costs for the aged poor; that cost would be picked up by the federal government. Dean also wants to expand employer-based health care by giving tax incentives to businesses to provide coverage. ''Not one person would have to change their health insurance if they didn't want to. No more `Harry and Louise,''' Dean said, referring to TV ads broadcast to discredit Clinton's health care proposal."

His proposal has several virtues: a) he's done something similar in Vermont, b) it takes a lot of fiscal pressure off of the states, which need all the help they can get, and c) it's an incremental change.

2002-11-22T12:02:00.000-05:00

AFGHANISTAN? -- Remember them? It's an issue that seems lost in the shuffle right now. The Guardian's Polly Toynbee has a heart-wrenching piece that acknowledges that the right thing was done in Afghanistan but cautions that:

"the story growing cold may also mean that the world forgets and walks away bored, looking for the next hot new war. If the west turns its back now and lets the country slide back into tribal warfare and despair, there will be no moral justification for any future great interventions in the name of human rights. History will write this episode down as no more than a brief, self-interested expedition to eliminate al-Qaida training camps, another bunch of outsiders fighting their own battles on Afghan soil. Forget Tony Blair's impassioned vision of a western world committed to spreading freedom across the globe....

Just as the rich world has a duty to feed the starving, open up trade and help development, so we also have a duty to free people from monstrous oppression wherever there is a chance of doing them more good than harm by intervention. So far, here, there is no doubt that good has been done. But the prospect of lasting peace and respect for human rights in this desperate place hangs by a hair. All the old dark fundamentalist forces are waiting for Karzai to fail: only more money and deep commitment over many years offer any hope of keeping them at bay... It is incumbent on all those of us who supported the war to keep the world's brief and fickle attention focused on the task of trying to build a nation from the rubble."

2002-11-15T10:36:00.000-05:00

OTHER THAN THAT... -- The Globe's moronic gossip column had a puff piece earlier in the week about the Manchester, NH minor league hockey team visiting Boston and partying at all the right places. Too bad they neglected to mention about one of the player's brutal assault on a female patron at one of the right places.

2002-11-15T10:24:00.000-05:00

THE DIFFERENCE -- If you don't oppose war on Iraq, do you believe in the same things as Donald Rumsfeld? Heather Hurlbert advances a doctrine of "advanced democracy internationalism" which posits that

"[t]he United States would work when possible through the United Nations but in reality with alliances such as NATO to police minimum standards of international conduct. It would use force if necessary, but only in tandem with diplomacy, and largely, even exclusively, against threats to advanced democracies and the systems of laws and alliances that undergird them (with the hope of extending those laws and alliances to encompass and protect more and more countries)."

She's a former speechwriter from the Clinton White House and has an excellent article in the Washington Monthly that diagnoses the Democrats' credibility problem on national security issues.

2002-11-14T13:25:00.000-05:00

THE AMERICAN PROSPECT?!!? -- of all places come out with a piece offering a measured, sensible liberal interventionist viewpoint on a potential invasion of Iraq. Richard Just argues:

"We now find ourselves about to go to war with Iraq, and most liberals have lined up against such an invasion. Their main argument rests on the thesis that Saddam Hussein can be deterred. This argument is bad for liberalism for three reasons: because its veracity is highly suspect, because it is woefully inadequate as a statement of policy and because it is not, in fact, a "liberal" argument at all."

2002-11-14T13:22:00.000-05:00

TELLING STATISTIC: "For the 11th straight year, no Sox player was named to the AL Gold Glove team."

2002-11-14T13:17:00.000-05:00

ONLY NIXON COULD GO TO CHINA -- And only Bill Safire can protect our privacy. He reports on the Homeland Security Act that is currently bulldozing its way through Congress, which contains a provision that will fund a Defense Department Project to collect:

"[e]very purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen."

For the paranoid among us, check out this organization's logo.

2002-11-14T09:32:00.000-05:00

"REVENUE ENHANCEMENT", MENINO-STYLE -- How do you raise funds without raising taxes or fees? Simple, you put the touch on local businesses. In just one week, Mayor Tom Menino announced two big projects -- the 2004 Democratic Convention and the renovation of the Opera House. The Opera House renovation will cost $31m and be paid for by Clear Channel Communications. The Democratic Convention bid was sealed by the city's ability to raise $20m in private funds even before a commitment was made to hold the convention in Boston. One week, $51m, not a bad job by the Mayor.

2002-11-14T09:21:00.000-05:00

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “It's not about race,” Mr Morrow said. “Blacks, Jews, Asians and Hispanics all fought for the Confederacy." Mr. Morrow is a supporter of Georgia Governor-elect Sonny Perdue who defeated Roy Barnes (who removed the Confederate flag from the Georgia state flag). Many things have been said about the Confederacy but this is the first mention of its inclusive, multicultural nature.

2002-10-29T19:39:00.000-05:00

MOVING TO SWEDEN -- Workers in Sweden are mandated 25 days of vacation per year plus 9 holidays. In addition, the average Swede took 32 days of paid sick leave in 2002, over twice the EU average. Meaning that the average Swede takes off over 13 weeks per year from work.

2002-10-29T19:26:00.000-05:00

THE UNILATERALE -- Given all the ruckus about the U.S.' unilateral actions, let's give equal time to the French. They just steamrolled their way across the EU (and specifically a certain, weakneed German Chancellor) on agricultural reform issues, earning the anger of our guy Tony Blair.

2002-10-29T19:12:00.000-05:00

NOT A CONFIDENCE BUILDER -- The New Republic has an interesting summary of the timing of the blockbuster disclosure about North Korea. The most alarming fact is buried in the final paragraph, where it is noted that:

"Eleven days went by after the Kelly mission before [Bush] was even briefed by his senior advisers on what to do about North Korea"

Geez, a card-carrying member of the 'Axis of Evil' gets the bomb and they wait eleven days to bring it up with the Commander-in-Chief?

2002-10-18T10:29:00.000-04:00

RANT GENERATOR -- A humorous critique of the breathless, rightwing smear lives here. You put in the name of favorite friends and out pops a carefully crafted screed decrying their idiocy.

2002-10-17T11:09:00.000-04:00

MORE LIKE THIS NEEDED -- A constructivist Democratic approach to foreign policy has been notably absent in the Iraq debate. Leon Fuerth, who was not exactly decisive on this issue a few months ago, does an excellent job of pointing out the shortcomings of installing a U.S. military regime to govern Iraq. His view is noteworthy as he was probably in line for National Security Adviser or Secretary of State in a Gore administration.

2002-10-17T11:05:00.000-04:00

THE BIG STORY -- No one seems to care, what with snipers and Iraq, but North Korea (which recently tested a junior version ICBM) has the bomb. It would seem to fit a pattern of greater openness (and an approach to the West?), but US diplomats present for the announcement felt it was an aggressive act. This

2002-10-17T10:59:00.000-04:00

CONTRASTING RESPONSES TO BALI -- Two public figures had two very different responses to the bombing. Interestingly, the liberal Guardian published Clive James' (Australian comedian popular in the UK) remarkably thoughtful essay, while the conservative Telegraph published Germaine Greer's breathtaking piece of self-hatred.

2002-10-15T15:46:00.000-04:00

THE LIBERAL INTERVENTIONIST CASE FOR WAR (OR AT LEAST THE THREAT OF IT) -- Jonathan Chait, in the lastest, invaluable, collector's edition New Republic, makes a coherent and nuanced liberal case for war. We will quote at length:

" The only reason the Security Council is even considering a tough Iraq resolution is Bush's talk of regime change. After all, the United States spent nearly a decade trying exactly what liberals now implore Bush to do--working collaboratively with other members of the Security Council to come up with an Iraq policy that splits the difference between America's (overwhelmingly security-related) interests and Russia's and France's (overwhelmingly economic) interests. The result was a clear failure. France and Russia allowed Iraq to reduce the inspections regime to near-meaninglessness and then, when Iraq would not abide even by that, refused to endorse any consequences whatsoever. If our allies were too solicitous of Iraq to support loophole-ridden inspections backed by the threat of pinprick bombing, why would they support tough inspections backed by the threat of full-scale invasion now?

The only thing that might change their minds is the threat that Bush would attack Iraq without them. Such a prospect would weaken the relevance of their Security Council seats and endanger their economic standing in a post-Saddam Iraq. If forced to choose between tough inspections and nothing, the allies have shown they prefer nothing. If forced to choose between tough inspections and unilateral war, it now looks as though they will choose inspections. Had Bush foresworn unilateral action, as liberals have implored, the prospects for the tough U.N. inspections they now urge would be nonexistent.

So, if Bush is heading in the direction liberals want to go, why do they regard his policy with such hostility? The answer seems to be that they regard their policy as one that will render war a remote, mainly theoretical, possibility. The Common Cause ad pleads that war be only "a last resort" and maintains that Saddam "can be made to respond to diplomatic pressures if these are backed by a credible and sustained military threat." But of course a threat is only credible if you're prepared to follow through on it. And at the moment it would seem to be impossible to design a military threat credible enough to alarm Saddam but not so credible that it alarms Derek Bok. "

2002-10-15T12:19:00.000-04:00

NOBEL BACKLASH -- Both the Christian Science Monitor and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post (neither of whom could be confused with conservatives) lash out at the Nobel Committee for their comments connected with President Carter's Peace Prize. The comments in question are:

"It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken," Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel committee, said. "It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

2002-10-11T16:22:00.000-04:00

KEEP AN EYE ON THIS -- It has not gotten a lot of press, but stay tuned to these disclosures about Harvard's asset management group and Harken Energy, George Bush's old company. No smoking gun, but some very unusual, non-profit maximizing behavior by Harvard.

2002-10-11T16:18:00.000-04:00

2004 INTRIGUE -- Marshall 'Bull Moose' Wittman has left his day job and some are saying that he will be a senior adviser to John McCain's 2004 presidential run. One guy even thinks he should be the Democratic nominee.

2002-10-09T10:23:00.000-04:00

"MY MAN KOFI" -- The New Republic has a damning piece on Kofi Annan. They finger him as a co-author of Saddam Hussein's recent letter accepting the previous, limited inspection regime, which seriously undercut the US' negotiating position. The article details how Annan consistent emphasis on conflict aversion has allowed Saddam (and other villains) to weaken UN initiatives.

2002-10-09T10:19:00.000-04:00

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK: The MA State Dep't of Agriculture has launched an investigation of a convenience store owner suspected of selling milk at too low a price. While they work to root out this threat to the community, the same Dep't also wonders why the retail price of milk at the large (and highly consolidated) supermarket chains has not changed at all when wholesale prices (which are already fixed by the government) are at their lowest level in 11 years.

2002-10-05T06:06:00.000-04:00

HERE WE GO AGAIN? -- The political process, if not the peace process (yet), looks to be breaking down in the north of Ireland. A bad week began with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams denying allegations that he was a commander in the IRA. It ended with a raid on Stormont (that's the parliament equivalent there) that resulted in multiple arrests and evidence that the IRA had a mole who was passing private documents and correspondence to Sinn Fein. It will be a challenge for them to remain in the government.

2002-10-04T10:07:00.000-04:00

TALKING SENSE ON IRAQ -- Read this article by Michael Walzer from the New Republic. His conclusion is slightly more dovish than ours, but the chain of reasoning is almost the same. He sets out a standard to consider the situation in terms of a just war and offers conditions under which an attack is acceptable.

2002-10-04T10:04:00.000-04:00

NOT SO NICE? -- No one is paying attention, but Ireland will vote this month for a second time on whether or not to ratify the cumbersome Nice treaty. Ireland, a country that receives a net USD 1.5b per year from the EU, rejected it once before and is the only country out of 14 not to ratify the treaty. Failure to ratify may delay the enlargement of the EU to eastern and central Europe for several years. This is bad, but giving the undemocratic institution in Brussels a wake-up call may be more useful at this point.

2002-10-04T09:57:00.000-04:00

THE BAGHDAD THREE -- The performance of Reps. McDermott, Bonior, and Thompson in Baghdad this weekend has been roundly criticized. Roll Call has a story today on the fallout -- they are described as 'toxic' by a Democratic operative and Thompson, who was considered for a leadership post, appears to be out of the picture for many years.

2002-10-04T09:46:00.000-04:00

MAKES US UNCOMFORTABLE -- Remember 'Let's Roll'? The Todd M. Beamer Foundation has trademarked the phrase and is now licensing it according to a recent article in Reason magazine (no link currently). That idea makes us a little uncomfortable, but if used appropriately, maybe it could raise some money for a worthy cause. However, their current licensing strategy strikes us as a grotesque parody of the original intent of the phrase. "Let's Roll" was first licensed to Walmart as an employee motivation slogan and shareholder meeting theme. Now, it's been licensed to the Florida State football team as a theme for the season. Must everything be reduced to sleazy marketing and hype?

2002-10-01T09:45:00.000-04:00

FREE TRADE IS A SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUE -- The anti-globalization protesters/ramapaging college students in Washington this week may not have had time to read it, but the IMF and World Bank just released a report on market access, that focused on the cost to the developing world of 'First World' trade barriers. The invaluable Nick Denton summarizes a few key points:

" - Developing countries exporting agricultural goods to the West face tariffs ten times as high as applies to other exports within the West.
- The highest tariffs by the US -- 28% on agricultural products -- are imposed on the poorest of developing countries.
- Among industrial goods, the US imposes the highest tariffs on textiles and clothing, the industry that many developing countries most rely upon.
- Eliminating barriers to merchandise trade would bring at least $100 billion in extra annual income to developing countries -- and even more than that to the West.
- Tariffs and subsidies mean farmers in the West get prices 31% higher than the world market, and support to local producers of sugar, rice, cotton and tobacco is among the highest."

So Western agricultural subsidies help prolong third world poverty and raise prices on consumer goods. Great.

2002-09-27T13:45:00.000-04:00

DOCUMENT OF THE WEEK -- The Sunday Times Magazine profile of Paul Wolfowitz by Bill Keller is the easy winner this week. It starts from the conventional wisdom the Wolfowitz is the uberhawk and the intellectual engine of the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Bush War on Iraq machine. The profile is surprisingly sympathic to Wolfowitz and portrays him as a committed neo-conservative with a heartfelt interest in spreading democratic values (which the New Republic points out may not be the motivation of Realists Rumsfeld and Cheney).

2002-09-27T13:33:00.000-04:00

READING LIST -- What does a deposed authoritarian/nationalist/ethnic cleanser do with his free time? Develop a bizarre fascination with Horatio Hornblower.

Slobodan Milosevic's full reading list includes Wilbur Smith,The Seventh Scroll; Robert Ludlum, The Corsican Story; Ivo Andric, The Bridge on the Drina; Petar Petrovic Njegos, The Mountain Wreath; Joseph Murphy, The Power of Your Subconscious Mind; John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath; C. S. Forester, Captain Hornblower, RN, Lieutenant Hornblower, and Admiral Hornblower.

2002-09-27T13:29:00.000-04:00

BUSY WEEK -- Christopher Hitchens throws down the gauntlet: he ditches his post at The Nation (see last paragraph) and makes the moral case for war on Saddam Hussein.

2002-09-19T10:15:00.000-04:00

MAKING SENSE -- The wise Timothy Garton Ash sorts all the whole Iraq-America-Europe-Antiamericanism mess from the liberal interventionist perspective and ends up making a strong defense of Tony Blair. He concludes that:

"Obsession with America - not just with today's Washington policy but with the America in our heads - can cloud our judgment. So we should first down a stiff shot of the spirit of Orwell to clean our mental passages. Then try saying slowly and clearly, if you are on the left, it may be the right thing, even if America supports it, or, if you are on the right, it may be the wrong thing, even though America supports it ."

2002-09-19T10:12:00.000-04:00

SEE YOU SUNDAY -- Germany goes to the polls on Sunday and so far it is too close to call with Schroeder holding a slight edge. The Telegraph points out what this election campaign has cost Germany already:

"the damage has been done. Trust in Germany as a reliable ally has been shattered... After Mr Schröder's open contempt for UN resolutions on Iraq, there can now be no question of Britain, France and America allowing Germany to become one of the permanent members of the Security Council. The immaturity of the ageing student radicals who now rule Germany will cost their countrymen dear. The price - isolation - will be paid for years to come."

2002-09-16T17:16:00.000-04:00

BUSH'S AMBASSADOR TO BLUE AMERICA -- An insighful piece in Slate points out Tony Blair's role as George Bush's ambassador to liberal Americans:

"Like their European counterparts, American intellectuals and liberals sometimes view Bush as a gun-totin', yee-hawin' Yosemite Sam. They're suspicious of his unilateral instincts, and they're comforted when Blair stands resolutely behind him... As Blair has become increasingly vocal about the need to take pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, even Blair critic Andrew Sullivan has joined the lovefest, calling the prime minister "Bush's translator and facilitator" who "adds rhetorical nuance and diplomatic finesse" to the president's blunt decrees.

But Blair does more than merely rhetorically pretty up Bush's policies to make them palatable to liberals. He's an articulate exponent of the liberal case for war—one that involves nation-building in Afghanistan and, as The Nation's David Corn put it in the Los Angeles Times, "defining the war on terrorism as one component of a wider project … an extensive campaign for global justice." "

2002-09-16T12:24:00.000-04:00

COERCIVE INSPECTIONS -- This idea seems to be the 'flavor of the month' as a compromise on Iraq. The gist of it is that an UN-sponsored inspection team with absolutely unfettered access to all of Iraq would be combined with a multinational military force that would be able to provide security and full access to any sites of interest. An interesting compromise.

2002-09-11T09:11:00.000-04:00

DOGS SLEEPING WITH CATS -- A seismic shift appears to be happening in US relations with continental Europe, as evidence of this, Germany and France seem to swapping places. In the case of Iraq, Germany (and specifically vote-hungry Gerhard Schroeder) is playing the petulant opponent of American goals, while it looks like France will be the reluctant but solid ally.

2002-09-11T09:04:00.000-04:00

THE END GAME? -- Michael Ledeen is a rightwing guy, but he seems very tapped into Iran. He thinks that action against Iraq is part of a domino effect that will eventually bring down Iran's rulers, Syria, and force Saudi Arabia to rethink its behavior.

2002-09-11T09:01:00.000-04:00

OUR GUY TONY -- Its not clear that he is at all popular at home, but we think Tony Blair is about as good as it gets. His eloquent speech yesterday clearly makes the case for action against Iraq.

2002-09-04T09:56:00.000-04:00

TWO EXCELLENT POST-SEPT. 11 POINTS -- The New Republic gets high marks again for their insight.

First, Gregg Easterbrook notes that the US has done nothing to reduce oil consumption despite the fact that, among other things, we buy "$10 billion in crude oil from Saddam Hussein annually, subsidizing his weapons programs, sybaritic lifestyle, and repression of 20 million Iraqis."

Next, Michael Crowley explains that there are 24 sites around the world with underprotected uranium supplies, which could be turned into nuclear weapons with a moderate level of expertise. The US and Russia just removed the uranium from one of these sites, but, incredibly, had to turn to the private sector to get funding for the operation. Crowley asks why are we spending so much on protecting our borders, when we could more cheaply and more effectively remove the raw materials of potential terrorism from circulation.

2002-09-03T10:46:00.000-04:00

SHOULD HAVE KEPT GOING TO CALI -- The NYTimes' Nick Kristof takes our criticism of farm subsidies to the extreme: he declares the entire settlement of the Great Plains to be a failure.

2002-09-03T10:40:00.000-04:00

IRRITATING MOTIVATIONAL POSTERS -- Ever been subjected to those dopey, black-bordered workplace posters, with fortune cookie motivational sayings and pictures on them? Take a look at this company's deadly accurate parody products. Check out the whole gallery.

2002-09-03T10:37:00.000-04:00

THE BUBBLE BURSTS? -- Most of the economic pundits credit the ongoing boom in real estate values (and refinancings), with softening the recession. However, the executives of home-building companies (who we believe are well-positioned to know where the market is headed) just sold off USD 258m worth of shares in the last quarter, the largest net sale of shares in a single quarter in the past six years.

2002-09-03T10:33:00.000-04:00

SEPT. 11 OVERLOAD -- seems to be coming quickly. The New Republic's Leon Weseltier offers this cutting critique:

"I expect also that what will be commemorated on television will be the coverage of the catastrophe as much as the catastrophe itself. Many reporters have an unattractive tendency to believe that an event that they have covered is an event that has happened to them. This is understandable, I suppose: when you are close it is hard to concede that you are far. But this is no time for insiders. The bathos of Aaron Brown and Diane Sawyer and Peter Jennings and Barbara Walters, the moistening eyes and the bitten lips and the plangent sighs, the slumming with the ordinary folk, will be very hard to take. It will be important to recall that these are not representative figures and not figures of spiritual authority. They are tourists in history, and like all tourists they are emotional athletes. Their solemnity is always just around the corner from their self-congratulation. They are paid never to recede before what they do not understand; to have words even when they do not have thoughts; to leave good feelings even, or especially, in the wake of bad tidings. They fear nothing so much as stillness. And so the objective of this commemoration, if it is to honor the dead and to quicken the sorrow, must be to resist the notion that a television audience is a family or a community or a nation, and (if you will pardon the expression) to re-privatize the wound. There is nothing that anybody can say or show on television that will be as crushing as what one may oneself imagine about what it must have been like to perish at the World Trade Center a year ago. Imagination is television's mortal enemy; and mourning is, to a large extent, an activity of the imagination, which presents the absent and resurrects the dead."

2002-08-22T16:39:00.000-04:00

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT -- The Daily Steve counts itself among those in favor of action against Iraq, however this item worries us greatly. The US Military has just conducted a massive, quarter-of-a-billion-dollar wargame simulation that put the USA up against an unamed Middle Eastern country. Unfortunately, the former Marine Corps 3-star General who was hired to act as the commander of our enemy forces was able to sink most of our Persian Gulf fleet before he quit after he was instructed to cheat and let the US win.

2002-08-22T08:36:00.000-04:00

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK -- The Bush Administration is planning to dedicate funds to promote 'embryo adoption', which sounds like a swell idea. Except that, as the article details, conservative anti-abortion rights groups view this as a political opportunity (and a source of funding) to give embryos the same legal rights as human beings.

2002-08-22T08:29:00.000-04:00

SAVE THOSE SACAGAWEA DOLLARS!! -- From out of nowhere, Slate's David Plotz reveals a deepseated disdain for Lewis and Clark, declaring that:

"After the celebration of their safe return, Lewis and Clark quickly sank into obscurity, and for good reason. They failed at their primary mission. Jefferson had dispatched them to find a water route across the continent—the fabled Northwest Passage—but they discovered that water transport from coast to coast was impossible. Jefferson, chagrined, never bragged much about the expedition he had fathered... the expedition also failed in a much more important way. It produced nothing useful. Meriwether Lewis was supposed to distill his notes into a gripping narrative, but he had writer's block and killed himself in 1809 without ever writing a word... Their route was way too far north to be practical. No one could follow it. Other explorers located better, southerly shortcuts across the Continental Divide, and that's where Western settlers went. Lewis and Clark aficionados delight today in the unspoiled scenery along the trail. The reason the trail remains scenic and unspoiled is that it was so useless."

2002-08-20T18:12:00.000-04:00

DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE FROM PETA -- We recall a time when the radical vegan fundamentalism of PETA was very fashionable -- supermodels against fur, etc. But then they took it too far -- mocking Rudy Guliani's prostate cancer, for example,-- and gradually fell off the cultural radar screen. The next wave of activists on these issues is coming and they have a frightening new approach -- rather than directly target their enemies, they target secondary service providers, like banks, insurance companies, and investors who work with their declared enemies. These activists, loosely organized, have been active in England for some time and just recently brought their tactics to the United States. They targeted a mid-level manager at an insurance firm in Boston and terrorized him. They

"threatened to burn down Harper's Commonwealth Avenue apartment building, where he lives with his wife and 2-year-old son....dumped gallons of red paint on his front steps on Father's Day...chanted outside his home at all hours while carrying posters of dead animals...posted ``Wanted for Murder'' posters throughout the city bearing Harper's photo; re-routed his mail and put his personal information on the Internet. They repeatedly mentioned his son by name and passed out fliers in his neighborhood calling him a monster who ``supports torture,'' authorities said."

2002-08-20T17:56:00.000-04:00

DOCUMENT OF THE SUMMER -- The Daily Steve finally got around to reading Robert Kagan's Power and Weakness article, that has been cited all over the place and seems to be the defining document of the differences between the US and Europe. The article itself is way. too. long. but it artfully explains how the US and Europe have grown apart.