Duck Season

Remember the Sharon (wife of Gray) Davis blog? I was reminded of it by the Georgy blog, so I went to take a second look to see whether it is still as entertaining (in a Sports Guy unintentional comedy way) as before. It is.

Here's Georgy on the Sharon Davis blog:

"They're going to ruin 'em," that's what I told the NY Times Michael Falcone about people like Sharon Davis and Arianna Huffington with their non-blog blogs. They'll turn blogging into something else - something contrived, perhaps written by a handler, you know, something uh well, boring. "It's a place where I can say whatever I want, regardless of whether it's on "message," personal, or political." Yup that's what I told him. No one gets to tell me what to say in my blog. Well at least, I won't be responsible for listening to them. Maybe that's just my naive candidacy at work.

But, here we go...the Sac Bee, accoridng to kausfiles, is going to censor Weintraub's blog. I'm wondering if Weintraub can just do a blog breakaway, keeping his column with the bee, and moving his blog over to blogger.com or some other server. Probably not. What's in a blog anyway? And when will it make it into the dictionary? Sometime around when "meetup" makes its way in as a noun.

It's ironic that Georgy brings up the Weintraub affair in the same post that mentions the Sharon Davis blog, perhaps the only blog in human history in need of an editor.

ALSO, Arnold seems to be pulling away in the recall race.

Finally, an issue on which Massachusetts is less liberal than Alabama.

Here's a pretty easy loophole for Wesley to jump through. Wesley's most widely commented upon remarks (according to Blogdex) are those found in a speech he gave to the Pulaski County Republican Party in Little Rock, Arkansas. The date of the speech? May 11, 2001.

Say it with me now: September 11 changed everything. Clark's main schtick as a talking head on CNN was to criticize the administration's foreign policy, an angle he has been consistent with since September 11. (See here, here, or here.)

Dan Drezner blogs about the economic prosperity being felt in Iraq, as well as future economic plans:

Since the collapse of Saddam's regime, police Officer Gailan Wahoudi, 31, has bought a new television, a refrigerator and an air conditioner. ''It is a new freedom I never had before,'' he says.

The buying spree has been helped by the suspension of customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for most goods entering and leaving the country. The U.S.-led coalition's order on June 7 that suspended such charges has made Iraq a virtual free-trade zone at least until the end of the year. The coalition authorities had little choice: Iraq lost its ability to adequately control its borders when Saddam's government collapsed. Immigration and customs controls are only now being restored.

For consumers, the bottom line is lower prices.

UMass Amherst might be loaded with professors who preach about the US being bogged down in Iraq, but at UMass Boston it's the professors who're bogged down!

Telephone shenanigans are a pet peeve of mine. From today's episode of Crossfire:

CARLSON: OK.

Well, on yesterday's program on telemarketing, some of you may have seen it. I jokingly gave out what I said was my home phone number. In fact, it was the main number of the Washington bureau of the Fox News Channel.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I thought it was funny. Fox did not think it was funny.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Apparently, many of our viewers called that number, hoping to speak to me. Instead, they reached a grouchy Fox switchboard operator.

Well, to our viewers, I'm sorry I gave you that bad information, even in jest. Last night, Fox responded by posting on its Web site my unlisted home phone number, the phone number where my wife and four small children often answer the phone, as they did last night, during dinner, when the first of several hundred Fox viewers called to scream obscenities at them into the phone.

Fox had every right to be annoyed by what I did, amusing as I thought it was. They had no right to invade my privacy or to enable their followers to threaten my family.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: And you know what, James?

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: I say this seriously. You have four children. One of your child is in the third grade, the same classroom as my child. And you know what my definition of an operation that would scare the dickens out of little children and a mother living at home and a lot of times you being out of town?

This is a pond scum operation that would do that, that would terrify children, that would put something like that up there for the bunch of nuts that watch that thing to call and harass you.

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: You pulled a joke. If they want to go adult-to-adult, person-to-person, that's fine. You're big enough to take it. They have no right to be scaring the dickens out of children, out of little children, when their daddy's out of town. And they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

CARLSON: OK.

CARVILLE: Ashamed of themselves for doing that.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Well, thank you, James.

Incidentally, we have Roger Ailes' home phone number, but we're not going to give it to you.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: No, I wouldn't do that, because Roger Ailes has a small child. He showed me the picture of it. I think Roger Ailes is a good man.

CARLSON: OK.

CARVILLE: I don't think he was behind this.

"It." Heh.

Although I signed up for the Do-Not-Call list, I'm inclined to agree with Jonathan Adler and others who think it might violate free speech rights.

If the Tenth District and the Supreme Court both rule in favor of the telemarketeers, the only resort for those seeking shelters from endless calls might be the market. One proposal would be a similar do-not-call list administered by the phone companies. Unlike a government run list, a private one would pass constitutional muster. Phone companies already allow their customers to block individual numbers for a fee, so the principle would work for a set of numbers of which the phone companies are aware.

Under this plan, the telemarketeers would be directly competing with consumers. The telemarketeers might offer a phone company a certain rate per customer for the right to call, while individual consumers can block the calls if they are willing to pay the phone companies more than the telemarketeers. My guess is that this would cost comsumers no more than a few dollars a month to block calls.

Bill Buckley has some questions for Wesley Clark:

What changed him from cheerleading Republican in 2001 to front-line critic of the Republican party under the leadership of the same man he praised in 2001? What vision is it that he got? Was there a trance, like overnight? Or more prolonged, like St. Augustine's? Not too prolonged, because he had only two years in which to go from cheering the Republicans to deciding that duty required him to head a national movement to replace them. Undecided voters are entitled to wonder what fresh epiphany he might have in the next two years. Where would this one take him?

Despite the two polls showing Clark with the lead, his first week as a candidate has been a disaster, and this is before the other candidates start attacking him. What's he going to do when Democrats start asking him why he was a Republican until two years ago and he an dismiss them as Republican attack dogs?

From the man who brought you the "one-time French best seller, '9-11: The Big Lie,' claiming that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, and that the attacks were plotted by a faction within the U.S. military" - a set of playing cards dedicated to the 52 most dangerous American officials.

Hei Lun's recent post about Iraq reminded me of something I saw on CNN on Thursday:

JOHN KING, CNN GUEST HOST: There's quite a debate on Capitol Hill about this $87 billion war request. Some Republicans don't like it, Democrats don't like it. The president's going to get his money. But people are looking in the fine print and they're trying to find ways to question the president's priorities and whether he had the planning.

I want you to look at this. In the $20 billion requested for reconstruction money, this is in there. There is in there $9 million to help Iraq developed a ZIP code system, like we have here in the United States. Four million dollars so Iraq can have an area code system for the telephones, when you pick up the phone. There's $150 million for a new children's hospital in Basra.

Hard to disagree with the priority of building a children's hospital, but many in the Congress are saying, wait a minute? Why can't we build a new children's hospital back here or new road or bridge back here, or improve the phone system back here?

Are things like this going to hurt the president? Did the American people go to war to topple Saddam Hussein, to bring the area code and the ZIP code to the people of Iraq?

(Emphasis added)

Michele's comments (see the Hei Lun link), that it is "disheartening to see that people who call themselves humanitarians, people who claim to care about social injustice, would be so full of their anger and righteousness that they would deny the good in giving children of war some toys to play with" are just so God damn true, and now that crap is showing up on CNN!

This argument isn't new, but the hypocracy makes my blood boil. The left has long led the choir in singing the of the excess found in the United States, especially when compared with the absolute poverty found in the third world. But now that it suits their political agenda they're turning their gaze inwards and finding paupers anew here. It's despicable. I'm sure there are plenty schools, roadways, and other civil projects which could use funding and repairs. But haven't we long been told that we need to make due with what we have, or make due with less, in order to benefit others? (Sounds like the anti-green house gas and economic justice arguments to me.)

Out of the kindness of their hearts the European Union, an economic entity with resources comparable to the US, has found $230 million to send to the people of Iraq. Maybe those loving europeans can figure out how to build that second children's hospital on the cheap.

French intolerance against the hijab (and muslims in general) is spreading across the globe. A student in Quebec was expelled from school for wearing her hijab, while in Germany a teacher was removed from her classroom and denied employment for several years (see BBC link) just for wearing her hijab.

Both cases have been overturned by a court, but neither article considers this issue settled in the affirmative for religious freedom at all. Meanwhile the BBC reports that German feminists are outraged at the concept of muslim religous freedom. The feminists see the hijab "as a symbol of women's oppression which has no place in a democratic society - and certainly not in a school."

"If we allow women to wear headscarves in state schools, then the republic and French democracy have made clear their religious tolerance but they have given up on any equality of the sexes in our country," says French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter.

(All links courtesy of C.A.I.R.'s daily press release)

Black suit coat + blue jeans = not a good combo.

Got an e-mail today. John Kerry reports that College Republicans are up to their mean, hateful ways again! At the recent CRNC event in Washington, D.C., Kerry saw vendors peddling t-shirts with slogans like "No Muslims, No Terrorists" and "The Clinton Legacy" with photo of the airliner striking one of the World Trade Towers. (Click here for a copy of Kerry's message, or here if you want to see the legible image that was e-mailed)

Kerry warns that these "divisive slogans and graphic pictures are not to be laughed off as campaign rhetoric - they are racist, anti-gay and violent. I support the First Amendment and I am using my right to free speech to protest these products." You can protest too! Just give Kerry money.

I wonder if Kerry has ever been offended by the whackos to his left, and their "divisive slogans and graphic pictures".

The videogame company Square (now Square Enix) spent a lot of money making the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, a few years ago. The movie, done completely in computer generated images, looked stunning, but it didn't do very well in the box offices. Most of us who have played many of the games in the Final fantasy series agree on why the movie fail: the plot was absolutely horrible. Instead of sticking with the basics of the series: medieval ages, knights, dragons, black mages, chocobos, moogles, and airships, TSW had a forgettable plot set in the future with spirits and Gaia and some other mumbo-jumbo. The videogame community agreed that they would have been better off making something with a plot similar to the one in Final Fantasy VII.

Now Square Enix has announced in the Tokyo Game Show that they are releasing a sequel to the game Final Fantasy VII. The sequel will not be a game, however, but a DVD movie, to be released next year in Japan. Hopefully this movie will turn out better than the last one.

Secrets revealed.

Our oddest Google search of the last few days: link

It's probably going to be very hard to defend myself from the charge of "bleeding heart liberal" on the same day that I add a link to The American Prospect's blog TAPPED to our links list, so instead I think i'll just go get the TV warmed up for today's episode of CROSSFIRE.

By coincidence, the first blog I went to after writing the previous post on left-wing nuts was A Small Victory, and there I saw this. Chief Wiggles, who is blogging while serving in Iraq, asked in one post for his readers to send toys to Iraq for the Iraqi children, and many bloggers linked to this request, including Metafilter. The leftie commenters at Metafilter, however, don't seem to like the idea, and started to complain about about the war, Bush, etc.

I'll let Michele comment for me:

What is it with the left that everything they speak about is in the form of protest? We know everything they are against, but does anyone know what they are for? All of their actions are in the form of a fight against something; an idea, a presidency, a war, a specific person, a treaty. What do they stand for besides brick throwing, spray painting and anti-ism?

It's disheartening to see that people who call themselves humanitarians, people who claim to care about social injustice, would be so full of their anger and righteousness that they would deny the good in giving children of war some toys to play with. Who are they hurting by demeaning and picking apart the Chief's idea? They are hurting the children who, by all appearances, is something the left care greatly about.

***

...we see the core of what the left is about. The Children.

But what children, I do not know. Whose children are they looking out for? What future are they trying to preserve and for what babies and future babies? Surely it can't be the Iraqi children. Even though the left protests this war with a fervor not seen since the Vietnam protests, they still have not shown me that they actually care about the people affected by this war. What do they care about, then? They care about their own sense of self satisfaction. They are protesting a war, therefore they are noble and responsible and they throw words out there in the form of slogans and slurs and hey, isn't that enough?

It seems arrogant and self-centered to me that the lefites cannot put aside their distaste for this war just for one minute, in order to do something For The Children. Sending a soccer ball to a kid in Iraq is not going to give the liberal crowd Right Wing Cooties. They won't be infected with a sudden love for George Bush or the desire to vote Republican. They will just be making a child who has nothing to do with American hegemony - the enemy of the left - smile. Instead, the anti-everything people are giving a giant, collective middle finger to the children and parents of Iraq by saying, we don't really care about you. Your happiness is not as important to us as following our ideals. Perhaps if one of those children was on the front page of a magazine with injuries caused by an errant American missile, the lefties would flock to give the kid toys and candy and even money because he would represent all that is evil about American and war. That's how screwed up their priorities are.

While looking up the link to Jane's Law, I noticed on Yahoo! that their number one search term is "Hilary Duff".

Even though Nick is a bleeding heart liberal and I consider myself a moderate, we seem to make fun of the left much more than the right. Why is that? Is it because that Nick is in the process of getting mugged by reality, and that I claim to be a moderate to make my points seem more disinterested? Or is something else going on here?

Steve at BTD says one is a conservative if one likes to make fun of liberals more than of conservatives:

I am frequently confronted with a person who claims to be neither liberal nor conservative. While I understand the reluctance to take on a label that does not fit, I think the American political class divides itself into two large factions loosely representing "left" and "right." Regardless of the labels you prefer, when push comes to shove, most of us take a side. This is as it should be. As Mason said to Dixon, "You gotta draw the line somewhere." You can't just hang there in the middle like a philosophical scrotum.

I have a handy test for determining whether you're a "liberal" or a "conservative." It's easy. Just answer these questions: between liberals and conservatives, which group annoys you more? Which group do you find it most satisfying to ridicule?

I'm going to have to disagree here. Steve should consider Jane's Law:

The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

Many on the left agree that Bush and his supporters are smug and arrogant, and I'd have to say that many of his detractors are clearly insane. But it's definitely much easier, and much more fun, to make fun of "Bush is Hilter" than "9/11 proves we're right about everything on foreign policy."

This, of course, is not to say there aren't crazies on the right. There are. But at this moment, we don't seem to hear a lot about them. Sure, there was Jerry Falwell's saying that we should blame 9/11 on the abortionists, or Pat Robertson's asking God to turn Hurricane Isabel away. But unlike the left, the crazies on the right don't have much power right now, since those on the mainstream right don't pay attention to them except to say they're wrong. Bush had said that Islam is a religion of peace, rebuking Falwell, and we're not threatening to deport Muslims (unlike France). In contrast, the crazies on the left are fighting, and beating the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, for grass roots party control, and their presidential candidate, Howard Dean, was leading the pack until Wesley Clark jumped in last week. Meanwhile, they're screaming about all Republicans being liars, Republican plans of stealing elections with electronic voting machines (which strangely didn't bother them when the Ninth District Appeals Court delayed an election until electronic voting machines can be used to replace the old machines), Bush putting arsenic back in the water, Bush putting political opponents in prison (using the Patriot Act, of course), genocide in Iraq and Israel, oil, and on and on. Most liberals who don't agree with those points don't make the effort to disagree with those on their left, and those who do get accused of being secret-rightists or for it being a "schtick".

It seems to me that only a few years ago, when Clinton was still president, the crazies on the left weren't so omnipresent, and it was the crazies on the right who are foaming at the mouth about Clinton personally murdering people or giving away nuclear secrets to China. What has changed? Is it that the number of nuts on the left increased while it decreased on the right? Or that I have moved to the right in the interim? I don't think either is the case. Instead, it's probably true of the observation that the presidency tend to moderate the positions (and the supporters) of the party in power. When you have the option of either a) move the country a little closer to your side, or b) scream about the nuts on the other, most people tend to chose a) when given the choice. But the choice is not present for those out of power, so the best they can do is scream. Which doesn't make them any more crazy then their counterparts on the other side, it only make them more loud.

So, no, just because I like to make fun of liberals doesn't make me a conservative.

Greg at Begging to Differ thinks that Maurice Clarett has a good chance of winning his lawsuit against the National Football league. Clarett had sued the NFL for violating antitrust laws because of their rule that players are not eligible to be drafted and play until three years after their high school graduation. Greg quotes Duke law professor Paul Haagen on the legal merits of the case:

Duke law professor Paul Haagen, whose principal academic interests are contracts, legal history and sports law, says Clarett has a strong antitrust case against the NFL. "In the United States, any attempt by competitors to restrain competition in the labor market is regarded by the courts with great suspicion. Unless the restraint falls under a limited number of narrow exceptions, it will be treated as a violation of the antitrust laws."

For the NFL to succeed in this case, "it will need to demonstrate either that its rule falls within the Rule of Reason, and in fact enhances competition, or that it is incorporated by reference in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the league and the Players' Association and thus is protected by the non-statutory labor exemption to the antitrust laws," says Haagen, a faculty member in Duke Law School's Center for Sports Law & Policy. "It will be a difficult argument for the league to sustain."

Greg admits that he knows little about antitrust law, and neither do I, so I'll quote Greg Easterbrook, a.k.a. Tuesday morning Quarterback, for a, um, differing view:

If the NFL starts bringing in teenagers, what will happen is exactly what's happened to pro basketball. Quality of play -- by far the most important aspect of NFL popularity -- will spiral downward. Immature kids will boast and strut for the cameras but refuse to listen to coaches, turning off the paying customers who earn far less than the boasting kids. Experienced veterans who know what they're doing will be thrown overboard for sulking teenagers who end up busts, accelerating the decline in quality of play. Since football requires more cooperation than any sport, and teenagers are by nature uncooperative, fumbles, interceptions and blown plays will increase until every team looks like the Arizona Cardinals. The goose who lays the golden eggs will be tossed into the Crock Pot.

And please don't tell me the league's anti-teenager rule is a conspiracy to stop young African-Americans from becoming rich. If black adolescents are handed huge NFL contracts, veteran players will be waived to free up the funds, and the majority of veteran NFL players are black. (The inevitable release of veteran players is the reason the NFL Players Association opposes allowing teenagers in.) Net monies paid to African-American athletes would remain the same in the early years of a teenagers-allowed system -- though payments would be shifted downward from older players who have learned to be serious about their lives and families, to teenagers who would blow the money. In the latter years of a teenagers-allowed system, net monies paid to black NFL athletes would decline, as the cooking of the golden goose causes the NFL to fall into the same downward spiral the NBA is currently in. Note that the NBA contract top scale, which is earned almost exclusively by African-Americans, has gone down since the league started letting teenagers in.


Also, please don't tell me there is some kind of constitutional right to play professional football at age 19. Many occupations impose age minimums -- you don't run across a lot of 19-year-old police officers or 19-year-old airline pilots. Courts uphold such minimums if they are reasonably related to professional requirements. The reasonable relationship here is that quality of play is the NFL's golden goose, and putting kids on the field will clobber quality. (Emphasis added)

I still think that, if there is no settlement, then the NFL will lose, not because of the merits of the case (about which I know little), but because the NFL has a very bad record as a defendant in lawsuits. The NFL knows this, so there's a chance that the case will be settled. (This is according to two local football reporters on the radio.) One option include holding a special supplemental draft for Clarett. (In a supplemental draft, any team can draft Clarett in a particular round in exchange for the corresponding pick in next year's draft. So if, for example, the Patriots take Clarett in the third round in the supplemental draft, they lose their third round pick next year.) It is unclear on whether the rule would stand after this potential settlement.

Also, Haagen is probably wrong on this:

If the NFL can no longer enforce its eligibility rule, or if it voluntarily agrees to abandon the rule, it is difficult to predict what effect it may have on college football, Haagen says. "Because of the nature of the sport, it is very difficult for younger players, even very skilled younger players, to compete at the NFL level. It is likely that relatively few would in fact be drafted early."

NFL teams have no problems right now with taking players who are not ready to play in their first and second years (see: Koren Robinson, Plaxico Burress). Usually, teams take players who can play right now rather than a project player who might be good in a few years (because the head coach might be fired by then), but they do make exceptions for most quarterbacks and the top level talent, and these will likely be the players who will leave college early if the NFL loses.

What is it about colleges in Massachusetts that cause so much stupidity to be produced?

Randal Robinson links to this column in The Globe and Mail by Paul Lewis, a professor at Boston College. It seems that professor Lewis is really angry at our president (I thought only conservatives get to be angry white men) and wants to become Canadian. Same old story, right? But wait, there's more! Lewis suggests that all the states that voted for Gore in 2000 secede from the United States and form provinces to join Canada:

A map of the state-by-state voting in 2000 suggests the obvious answer. With the anomalous and proud exception of New Mexico, Gore states are contiguous either to Canada or to other Gore states. In the most peaceful and democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into provinces and join Canada.

Uh, if Lincoln had let the South secede, then that would have been peaceful too. But I digress. I'll let the professor tell you the benefits of a Canadian citizenship:

Citizens of the new Canadian provinces would enjoy basic entitlements and benefits unheard of in the U.S., including: universal health care;

Who wouldn't want to wait 80 weeks for tonsils to be taken out?

good and affordable colleges and universities;

I'm glad I chose Boston University over Boston College; apparently BC isn't a good and affordable college.

good mass transit in major cities;

BC:not a good and affordable college, but pays professor Lewis enough so that he never has to ride the excellent Boston subway system.

lower rates of violent crime and pollution;

We all know about those street toughs and smog factories at Chapel Hill.

affordable prescription drugs;

All those times that the professor must have heard about the free-rider problem of supporting progressive causes, he never thought to apply it to drug research.

and enhanced respect for the civil rights of all people, including gays and lesbians.

I guess he's ignoring the majority in the Canadian legislature that opposes gay marriage.

There are many more benefits of becoming Canadian, according to Lewis, but I have to pack and get ready to move to a red-state so I can remain in the country.

(Via Instapundit)

a.k.a. How you can tell that I haven't been studying:

Nancy Cartwright has a sexy voice.

Arnold to California - it's time to terminate taxes:

I have often said that the two people who have most profoundly impacted my thinking on economics are Milton Friedman and Adam Smith. At Christmas I sometimes annoy some of my more liberal Hollywood friends by sending them a gift of Mr. Friedman's classic economic primer, "Free to Choose." What I learned from Messrs. Friedman and Smith is a lesson that every political leader should never forget: that when the heavy fist of government becomes too overbearing and intrusive, it stifles the unlimited wealth creation process of a free people operating under a free enterprise system.

Is this the same Adam Smith that says manual labor greatly undermines the ability of the working class to reason, and is thus in favor of a state run free system of education to all adults? Or is it the same Adam Smith who's in favor of providing free dress shirts to all workers?

Sounds just like current day California to me!

Counterpunch.org has posted the english translation of an "essay originally published in Le Monde newspaper" by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, so let's have a look:

Far be it from us to play down the scale of the task and its complexity, or to maintain the illusion that it's an easy one. But we have one conviction: by continuing on the current path we run the risk of entering a spiral from which there is no exit. Time is short. In the wake of the war, the direct administration of Iraq by coalition forces has aroused, despite sustained efforts, a persistent malaise among the population. This has delayed still further the restoration of essential public services, the rebuilding of infrastructures.

Of course all of these claims are directly disputed by a Gallup poll which reports 67% of Iraqis believe Iraq will be better off in 5 years, 62% believe ousting Saddam has been worth it, "six in 10 said they have a favorable view of the new Iraqi Governing Council" and a full half believe that "the coalition authorities are doing a better job now than two months ago." Not only are Iraqis more than happy that Saddam is good, they have full faith that they're headed down the right path with the right people. Doesn't much sound like malaise to me.

Dominique:

This is all the more important in that the entire region is under threat. We all realize that the problem goes beyond Iraq: it's the stability of the Arab and Muslim world that is at stake. In the Middle East, an exclusively security-oriented approach is only maintaining the cycle of violence and reprisals at the risk of destroying political prospects. This approach--let's be brave enough to say it--is leading nowhere. Far from promoting stability, it is fanning resentment, incomprehension and frustration.

See above.

Dominique:

Iraq is a land of memory. Her attachment to her traditions and her identity have already led her to reject the outside control that some have tried to impose. The result, throughout the last century, was upheavals that profoundly shook the country. From revolution to coup d'etat, the country has been unable to find the peace to which it deeply aspires.

That's the first sensible thing you've said! I'll let Hoshyar Zebari, the Foreign Minister of the Iraqi Governing Council, field this one:

In an interview last week, Ms. Hashemi expressed pride and satisfaction in having represented the Governing Council in delegations to the United Nations Security Council and in private discussions this month in Paris with Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France. She planned to go to New York next week as part of a delegation to try to claim Iraq's seat at the United Nations.

She said in the interview that she had admonished the French not to try to drive a wedge between the United States and the new Iraqi government by offering tempting plans for quick sovereignty.

"Don't think the Iraqis will ever forget what the Americans did in liberating them," she said she told French officials, adding, "we will not allow the Americans to fail."

Dominique: "Let us accelerate the training of an Iraqi national army on the model of what we are doing in Afghanistan."

Of course, no one at Counterpunch.org thinks Afghanistan is working, but let's not let that get in the way of our mutual hatred of US built democracy in Iraq.

Dominique: "It is an unprecedented challenge. It demands that we understand and adapt to the realities on the ground. It also demands that each one of us forget our past quarrels and abandon ideological biases."

Caution: Advice for external use only, benefits not applicable inside of France.

From yesterday's edition of CNN's Inside Politics:

Well, finally, with the baseball playoffs approaching, John Kerry is calling fellow White House hopeful and New Englander Howard Dean -- aghast (ph) -- Yankees fan. Dean, who grew up in New York, said he dumped the Yankee pinstripes in favor of the Boston Red Sox years ago. But the Kerry campaign says Dean's switch is indefensible -- that it's like switching from the Redskins to the Cowboys. However, Dean is showing no remorse.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: [donning a Sox cap at a Boston ralley] Each your heart out, George Steinbrenner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Yeah, that'll turn those polls around for Kerry! Then next week, Kerry can lead the "Howard Sucks!" chant at his rally Larry Izzo style.

Andrew Sullivan rails against Democrats who support Wesley Clark regardless of his positions on issues. I was wrong about Clark's electability, but I stand by this, from August:

What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that of all the Democratic candidates he would have the best chance of beating Bush, and even be favored over George Bush to win the presidency. The consensus among these people seem to be that since Clark was a general, that would erase the Democrat's gap on national security, even though Clark wasn't exactly in favor of going into Iraq.

This attitude underscores the lack of seriousness on the part of some Democrats on national security, and a misunderstanding of how the average American feels about national security. They seem to believe that those who are hesitant to vote for a Democrat for president in the next election because of this issue will vote for Clark simply because he's a general and can tell good war stories. Americans give Bush and the Republicans an edge in this issue not because Bush talks tough and looks good riding shotgun on a jet, but because they believe what Bush is doing is making America safer. One can argue whether Bush's policies do make America safer, but we won't be having that debate any time soon if a non-insignificant portion of the opposition think they can sweep the issue away by nominating a war hero so they can get back to talking about the important issues. Until this faction gets a clue, Americans will continue to perceive Democrats as weak on national security.

Also, on the USA Today/CNN poll I linked to yesterday, Sullivan points out that the poll sample contains a disproportionate number of self-identified Democrats.

Just in from UMass Amherst, an editorial in which every claim is wrong!

Here's my favorite: "And finally there's the way Bush even got the gig as commander-in-chief. The Tenth Amendment states that the Supreme Court is not allowed to vote on the outcome of an election. Yet the Supreme Court did just that; and, in a five to four vote, it allowed Bush to take the stage."

Of course, as far as I understand the Tenth Amendment, it says no such thing. Thankfully, I've yet to find this kind of stunning ignorance anywhere at UMass Boston. There's a chance that this piece may be picked up by our school newspaper, if it does you can be guaranteed I'll submit a reply. I sent in a letter to the editor piece this weekend in response to a fraudulent editorial claim, if it makes the paper on Thursday I'll provide a link.

(Via Eric Lindholm)

Maybe I ought to start an Amazon wishlist....

Via Michael Totten, Jean-François Revel’s French best-seller L’Obsession Anti-Américaine will soon be translated and released in the United States.

When I was in Paris earlier this summer I wandered into a few bookstores just to browse, it never took a long time to find the Anti-American section. While my french is poor (actually it's somewhere between poor and "able to order a glass of water"), you would easily recognize these books by their covers.

I just realized that my least favorite part of clam chowder is the clams.

In the New York Times: "French Minister Threatens to Expel Extremist Muslims". (Via Tom Maguire)

And it's a shame: U.S. Military Denies Report of Saddam Exile Offer.

Less than what we spend on cigarettes and booze as a percentage of GDP according to Larry Lindsey.

(via Viking Pundit)

Dan Drezner predicts the Red Sox to win the World Series.

Poor John Kerry. All his life he had prepared himself for a run at the presidency, and now that he's running, he's getting beaten by some no-name from a neighboring state, and now another candidate is entering the race with a better resume--Kerry's resume, but much better. He's getting out-liberaled by Howard Dean, and volunteering for service in Vietnam isn't so impressive next to Clark's gig as grand commander. Will Kerry save himself the embarrassment of being the third wheel and quit?

Not quite. Kerry is now considering using his wife's money for the campaign, something he had said he would not do. (Link via Eric Lindholm) When you have to use your wife's money, isn't it a sign that your campaign is done?

And in the "too little, too late" category, the same USA Today/CNN poll that shows Kerry trailing Clark by 11 points shows him as the only candidate beating Bush in a potential matchup.

One of the good things about blogs is that one can look in the archives and see the things other people said that were stupid or wrong. But of course the same applies to you if you have a blog.

Here's what I said about Wesley Clark in July about his electability:

His biggest appeal is that he would be the most electable Democrat. Can this get people to vote for him? Clearly he won't persuade any of the Dean Fedayeen, who despite their claims are not supporting an electable candidate. He might draw votes away from Kerry, but only after he has established himself as a viable candidate. For this he would need to get the DLC type votes that now support Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman. This is a crowded field, and though they might have control of the Democratic rank-and-file, they don't exactly command a controlling majority of primary voters. The only thing a Clark candidacy might do is to further split the moderate vote and enhance the chances of Kerry or Dean.

Another way for Clark to get votes would be for him to energize those who normally don't vote. But this is unlikely. His support would come from moderates, and these are the last people who would vote in a primary because they think that one of the candidates is more electable than the others. An undecided moderate won't spend their time voting for Clark in a primary if they haven't already decided that they're voting against Bush. And of course many of these moderates are unregistered and would not be able to vote in the closed primaries. Most of them happen to be in the South (including South Carolina), precisely the states in which Clark would really need to have a strong showing (the link shows the types of primaries in 2000 for Democrats; I don't know whether any of them have changed since then).

The only way Clark could win, it would seem, would be to draw away a significant amount of support from Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and maybe Kerry. This isn't impossible, but it might be tougher for him to win the nomination than to beat Bush in the general election.

Well two new polls have came out since Clark declared, and both show him leading. Newsweek: Clark 14 percent, Howard Dean 12, Joe Lieberman 12, John Kerry 10, Gephardt 8. USA Today/CNN: Clark 22 percent, Howard Dean 13, John Kerry 11, Gephardt 11, Joe Lieberman 10.

So where did this Clark lead come from? Would he have had the same lead if he had entered the race two months ago? If not, what has changed since then? The most important is that Howard Dean has become the clear frontrunner. The emergence of Dean turns out to have been good news for Clark. Without Dean as the frontrunner, Clark would have been just another moderate in a crowded field, but with Dean in the lead, Clark immediately becomes the Anybody-But-Dean candidate. My guess is that in the next month or so a significant number of those who might be inclined to support John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, or Joe Lieberman will now favor Clark, since defeating Dean is more imperative than supporting the candidate whose positions they like the most, and there is a clear candidate for that role.

A second factor is Bush's dropping poll numbers. Approval rating: Newsweek 51%, USA Today/CNN: 50%. When Bush seemed unbeatable in the previous months, many liberals decided that since they were going to lose anyway, they might as well support their favorite candidate. Even though the polls had shown that Dean would lose by a bigger margin that any of the other candidates, that did not matter then. But now that Bush seems beatable, electability becomes much more important to Democrats.

Now the important question becomes: how will Dean get his momentum back? (Okay, my important question is: will Kerry quit before February and deny those of us in Massachusetts the chance to see him get slaughtered in New Hampshire?) It seems inevitable that Clark will siphon off support from the other moderate candidates and increase his lead. He also is taking away much of Dean's positive press. And it won't be as easy for the other candidates to attack Clark as it was against Dean, since Clark, unlike Dean, can't be attacked for being from the far left, and so far Clark has stayed above the fray.

Here's the strategy for a Dean comeback: first, keep leading in fundraising. Recently, Dean had raised much more money than his competitors by a wide margin. If he can keep it going, he'll assure his supporters that he's not going away. Second: wait for Clark to open his mouth. Reports are that Clark doesn't have the characteristics of a good campaigner, and that he's not really interested in domestic issues. Third: hope that the California recall is in October, not March. California has an open primary, so independents and Republicans can vote in the Democratic primary. If the recall is in March, many of those independents and Republicans will decide to vote in the recall, and they are more likely to support Clark than Dean.

All this, of course, is moot if Hillary runs.

MORE on Kerry in the next post.

You're read about it on other blogs:

Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France and Russia and Germany and the UN. Every one of them knew what was going on there, but France and the UN were making millions administering the food for oil program. We cannot, I know, remake the world, nor do I believe we should. We cannot stamp out evil, I know. But this time we were morally right and our economic and strategic interests were involved. I submit that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we should do nothing.

Now go read the whole thing.

Steve Mariucci, head coach of the Detriot Lions, on Randy Moss: "You can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him, huh? Who made that up, Winston Churchill?"

Sounds like Minnesota has a problem with illegal immigrants: Woman attacked by bear in own home.

Via Dave Barry.

Eric Lindholm links to a story which alleges that Saddam is in negotiations to surrender to US Forces.

While I join Eric in hoping this story is true, I've always been lead to believe that the Mirror is a pretty trashy tabloid.

Jack Straw gets it too:

Asked why there had been so much friction between London and Paris over the years, Straw reportedly replied:

"A great many of the difficulties that have faced the relationship go back to the profoundly different experiences that we had in the war, with, quotes, Britain standing alone, and quotes, France capitulating and surrendering to the Germans."

****

"There isn't any question but that a significant part of the way in which the French political diplomatic class defines itself is against America, and this has been a continuing neurosis amongst the French political class for many decades," Straw was quoted as saying.

"I find it odd. I talk to French friends and say, 'Why do you do this?'"

Thomas Friedman understands what makes the French so damn annoying:

What is so amazing to me about the French campaign — "Operation America Must Fail" — is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.

****

But what's most sad is that France is right — America will not be as effective or legitimate in its efforts to rebuild Iraq without French help. Having France working with us in Iraq, rather than against us in the world, would be so beneficial for both nations and for the Arabs' future. Too bad this French government has other priorities.