Saturday, June 14, 2003 :::
Happy Flag Day.
I've been catching up with Mark Steyn on Israel:
According to a poll last month, 98 per cent of people in the Palestinian Authority and 99 per cent in Jordan have a "somewhat or very unfavourable opinion of the United States". I took this personally. I went pretty much all over Jordan and I thought, like Sally Field, they liked me, they really liked me. True, I'm not American. But, whenever I had to show my Canadian passport, the official would peer at the coat of arms and beam, "Ah, American. Welcome, welcome." The one exception was a customs officer who knew what he was dealing with. "Canada?" he said. "You have Sars?"
But other than that, I was assumed to be American and everywhere from the capital to the most broken-down village was treated with frankly excessive deference. And now it turns out 99 per cent of them were faking it: they don't like me, they really don't like me. My first reaction was disappointment. My second was: who cares? They can hate and despise me all they want, as long as they keep it to themselves.
pretty much summing up the spirit of liberty. Steyn also had a piece last weekend on the British on Iraq:
In Kirkuk the other day, they found another mass grave, this time with the bodies of 200 children who had been buried alive. Yawn. Doesn't count. Wake me if they find a toxic warhead among the teeny skulls. The naysayers were wrong on so much - millions of refugees, Vietnam quagmire, Stalingrad, etc - you can't blame them for clinging to the one little straw that hasn't shrivelled up and slipped between their fingers: Come on, Tony, where's the WMD?
Or as [leader of the Opposition] Iain Duncan Smith put it in the House of Commons: "The truth is nobody believes a word you say now." Well, I do. Because what Mr Blair said is not only in line with what American officials told me, it is in line with what Continental officials told me - as recently as two weeks ago, when a big-time Euro paused midway through his harangue about the illegality of the war to assure me that "of course" Saddam had been up to WMD monkey business.
That the Tories oppose Blair on this is a clear example, I think, of an opposition party taking a particular position on an issue solely because it's the opposite of the position that the party in power has taken.
::: posted by Steven at 10:24 PM
(0) comments
If the "roadmap" leads to the extirpation of Hamas, it will have brought us closer to peace, and to the creation of a full Palestinian state west of the Jordan.
::: posted by dWj at 12:45 AM
(0) comments
Friday, June 13, 2003 :::
Cable network TNN has planned to change its name to "Spike TV", but Spike Lee just got an injunction. Writes the judge:
"Contrary to defendants' position, the court is of the opinion that in the age of mass communication, a celebrity can in fact establish a vested right in the use of only their first name or a surname," the judge writes. "There are many celebrities that are so recognized, including Cher, Madonna, Sting and Liza."
[Judge] Tolub's decision compared TNN's possible name change to a network calling a program the "Cronkite News Hour." This ignores the other figures, public and otherwise, with the name "Spike" as well as the word's proactive use as both a noun and a verb. Walter Cronkite is, without too much question, the highest-profile person of that appellation, and his last name is rarely, if ever, used as a verb or as a noun.
I agree with the guy writing this. Some people are known by a single name, to the extent that said name is immediately associated with them. When I hear the word "spike", I don't think of a second-rate movie producer/director, I think of a character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, something a football player does with a ball, and a big nail, in that order.
I suspect most people are less familiar with Buffy than I, but I don't think most will connect "Spike TV" with Spike Lee, and (I don't know whether or not this is legally relevant) I don't think TNN meant them to. If their plan was to run movies where most black characters are jerks and all white characters are idiots, he might have a better case. Link from fark.com.
::: posted by Steven at 5:36 PM
(0) comments
Well, it doesn't seem right that someone who gets fewer votes to replace Davis than that Davis gets for retention could replace him.
::: posted by dWj at 5:33 PM
(0) comments
Arnold Schwarzenegger gave a speech to the Club for Growth the other day, amid speculation that he'll run for Governor of California if the recall gets on the ballot.
The actor mentioned the recall only indirectly in his speech, quipping at one point, "This is really embarrassing. I just forgot our state governor's name, but I know that you will help me recall him."
BTW, Dean, I believe I heard that Davis is not allowed to run to replace himself.
::: posted by Steven at 5:17 PM
(0) comments
Have I read somewhere the possiblity that Hussein knew he had destroyed the WMD but didn't want his people to know that, or is that my own idea? (The other possibilities I know of are that either they still exist, or that his subordinates wanted him to think they were maintaining a WMD program, but found it easier and more lucrative not to do so. If the latter turns out to be true, someone in the CIA needs to figure out to quit making the mistake of relying on internal bureaucratic communication in despotic regimes for our intelligence; not a generation ago we were overestimating the Soviet economy because the people in a position to know found it in their interests to deceive their leadership as well.)
::: posted by dWj at 5:06 PM
(0) comments
Jesse Rosenberg will be at MIT for the summer! Cool!
::: posted by Steven at 4:57 PM
(0) comments
Could Davis be on the ballot as his own replacement? If 60% vote to remove him, and 24% (his approval rating cited in the article) vote for him as the replacement, that could be the plurality if there are enough candidates.
::: posted by dWj at 11:57 AM
(0) comments
You may have heard about the movement to recall the governor of California. It seems they may actually get it on the ballot:
If the recall reaches the ballot -- and that could become clear by next month -- few of the usual rules of elections here would apply. Voters could be asked as early as this fall to decide [Governor] Davis's fate in a special election. On that same ballot, voters then would be asked to choose his replacement. Potential candidates of both parties would need only a small number of signatures to be listed on the special ballot. There would be no primaries to whittle the field of candidates and the winner -- who would take office immediately -- would need only a plurality of votes, not a majority.
Could be fun to watch.
::: posted by Steven at 11:22 AM
(0) comments
Thursday, June 12, 2003 :::
One of the big stories around here over the last few weeks has been the apparent murder of a teenager a few years ago. Molly Bish disappeared in the summer of 2000, from a pond in western Massachusetts, where she was a lifeguard. A few weeks ago, a bathing suit was found. Bish's name came up, and I think most people who aren't new to the area recognized it. A few days later, some human bones were found nearby. And early this week, more bones were found, and the bones were identified as hers.
The news reports always refer to her as "16-year-old lifeguard Molly Bish." Occasionally they mention that she was a good student, or an athlete, or an aunt, but the main descriptor is always "lifeguard". If you'd met her the day before she was abducted, and talked to her about herself, I'm sure the lifeguard gig would have been mentioned. Maybe it would have been how she identified herself -- I don't actually know -- but I would suspect not. But since lifeguarding was what she was doing when she was last seen, that's the snapshot we have of her.
::: posted by Steven at 10:07 PM
(0) comments
Nu-Q-lar Spaghetti:Say 1 lb. ground beef
15 oz. tomato sauce
15 oz. canned tomatoes, or a comparable quantity of fresh tomatoes
Several cloves of garlic
more black pepper than you think
fair amount of cumin
a cameo of oregano
a little basil, if using canned tomatoes
spaghettiBrown the beef; meanwhile, open the tomato sauce, and chop the garlic, storing the chopped garlic in the tomato sauce. (Garlic exposed to air does the same thing apples do. It's my hope that the acids from the tomatoes do the same thing lemon juice does. If they don't, it at least hides the havoc being wreaked on your garlic, so you can sleep better.) One or two cloves should be minced, but the others are chopped more coarsely; these are the vegetables in the sauce, and ought to show up as chunks at the end. After draining the beef, add black peper. No, more than that. More. More. Okay, good. Add the tomato sauce and garlic, and if you've removed heat, reintroduce it, to let the garlic soften a bit. Add the other spices as you become bored. Eventually add the tomatoes. The oregano is there because it's not spaghetti sauce without it, but it's mostly for show; the basil seems to me to restore some sweetness that is lost by tomatoes when they're canned, though I may be deluding myself. Eventually I gauge the amount of liquid and add about as much spaghetti, directly to the sauce, as I think it takes to absorb it. If you wanted more vegetables, jalapeno peppers, added at the same time as the garlic, would not be out of place; vegetables more typical of spaghetti sauce can be added at the same time, though if you're doing this you probably don't get it. A suggested variant you wouldn't have come up with on your own is the addition of sliced green olives shortly before the spaghetti; they provide a much different flavor, and, if there's enough pepper to hurt your tongue, may provide some relief. (If there's not, you didn't add enough pepper.) The really key ingredients are the black pepper, for which the beef serves as a delivery device, the garlic, and the cumin. Ideally the concoction will have a sheen to it, as may your skin for several hours as garlic seeps through your pores. (If you're cooking this on a date, discretion is strongly advised.)I find that this makes one and a half servings or so; after I've eaten what I want I have enough left over for a tupperware-type container that represents a small lunch the next day.
::: posted by dWj at 12:28 PM
(0) comments
David Brinkley has died.
::: posted by dWj at 11:35 AM
(0) comments
The President was in town yesterday to talk about health care, so let's use this as an excuse to offer my idea for life-long health insurance. One of the problems with insurance is that using it makes you a higher risk to need it again; you'd like to be able to insure against the risk that you'll have higher premiums. Of course, completely eliminating the risk of higher premiums raises moral hazard problems to a much greater extent than if you're not forced to renew. What is actually covered in a health plan will be somewhat ambiguous, especially if we try to write a long-term plan that will be overtaken by technology, and disputes leave both sides frustrated and cost a lot of money.So here's what I do: Aetna and I go to Met Life and buy an annuity on my life with Aetna as the beneficiary, receiving a large payment (say $10,000) each month for the rest of my life. Aetna will be willing to pay most of the cost of this, but I'll probably have to chip in, say, $50,000 or more. Here on out, Aetna pays for whatever it wants; they can subsidize prescriptions, specific doctors, certain kinds of food, exercise equipment, meditation classes — whatever they think will increase their payoff by more than it costs. They structure incentives to minimize moral hazard; there are no disputes over coverage because what I've created is results-based, rather than specifying means to get there; I, meanwhile, never have to worry about ending up paying $2000 for medication I can't afford. The most obvious problem, in my opinion, is that long life is not the only goal of health care; if my health deteriorates for some reason or another I may want take the chance of an experimental procedure that may improve the quality of my life but may kill me; this would clearly not be in Aetna's interest as this is structured here. The other most serious problem, in my mind, is that this creates a bilateral monopoly; Aetna may figure that I'll buy prescriptions out of pocket if they don't cover it, so they might as well save their money. Likewise, I may want to demonstrate a greater cavalierness than is optimal, in order to make Aetna think it has to pay those costs. Bigger catastrophes are not covered; if I'm going to be costing $20,000 a month to keep alive for the rest of my life, Aetna's not interested, and while there are reasons for thinking that's a feature, not a bug, it would certainly upset some people. [They may purchase catastrophic insurance on top of this, though, or negotiate a larger annuity or the like.] Those people and more will be put off by the no-recourse feature; Aetna may assess the benefit of something differently from how I do. These latter considerations create considerable legislation risk — in spite of the clarity of the agreement, the idea that Congress would require, after the fact, certain coverage from such health care plans, and that certain courts would enforce it, does not seem to me far-fetched, and the need for the companies to protect themselves from that risk is going to raise the cost of initiating such a plan. If anyone has refinements (or other reflections) to offer, they're more than welcome.
::: posted by dWj at 11:32 AM
(0) comments
Taranto calls to our attention "one of the most delightful letters to the editor we've ever seen (fourth letter):"A letter to US President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair: Many people accused you of waging the war over Iraq mainly because of your own benefits (oil).
However, I (a Burmese girl) strongly believe that the main purpose of this war was to eradicate "the dictator" Saddam Hussein.
If you wish to prove that the Iraq war was just for "the liberation of the Iraqi people" not for "your own benefits," please eliminate the Burmese dictators immediately. We need only one missile. Help us, please.
Thank you very much.
Konmari (exiled Burmese)
BANGKOK Of course, there are geopolitical reasons why we are always reluctant to go to war, especially suddenly, but I was thinking a few days ago that Burma would have a lot fewer logistical "nation-building" challenges for us; there's a clear popular leadership already, and a recent move in the direction of democracy where the other countries we've been dealing with have been completely totalitarian until our involvement.Colin Powell takes up this issue this morning on OpinionJournal, discussing what we are doing and what we may do in the future.
::: posted by dWj at 9:57 AM
(0) comments
Wednesday, June 11, 2003 :::
Opinion journal has an Op-Ed by Donald Regan today, which is more interesting than it would be otherwise in that Regan died on Monday. I wonder how far ahead the Journal has these things.
::: posted by dWj at 3:32 PM
(0) comments
Israel seems to have retaliated with great speed.
::: posted by dWj at 11:44 AM
(0) comments
If suicide bombings in Jerusalem are still news, then there's breaking news right now.
::: posted by dWj at 10:53 AM
(0) comments
I've been a bit quiet lately, and since I'm not studying for my bar exam it seems I should be at least as able to post as Lily Malcolm, who expresses skepticism about a proposal to fight spam by assessing a tax on email, possibly exempting a certain number of emails sent per year. If instead of exempting a fixed number you exempt all email from people and entities who would be allowed to call you with the new "do-not-call list", and raise the "tax" to a level specified by the recipient of the email within a certain range (say $1 to $100), then it looks very much like the "call sometimes" list that I swear I proposed when the do-not-call was legislated, though I can't seem to find the post.Yes, yes, I'll work on my sentence length. It's still better than the freshman paper in which one sentence spent three quarters of a page trying to include the word "Jabberwocky".
::: posted by dWj at 10:52 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 10, 2003 :::
As for hockey, the glass slipper broke last night, with the Mighty Ducks losing game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, 3-0. Still, they made the playoffs more interesting.
::: posted by Steven at 8:33 AM
(0) comments
Cambridge becomes a less diverse, more intolerant, less free place:
Cambridge councilors last night expanded the city's workplace smoking ban to include bars, restaurants attached to bars and private clubs.
Only Toomey and Sullivan voted against it. I had thought Reeves was with us, along with one other whom I can't think of. City Council candidate Laurie Taymor-Berry, who would generally be on the left side of the council were she elected, spoke against the ban. She used the language of diversity and tolerance, which I hoped would play well with the council.
::: posted by Steven at 8:22 AM
(0) comments
Monday, June 09, 2003 :::
In North Korea, Instapundit reports, communism leads to famine leads to cannibalism.
::: posted by Steven at 12:57 PM
(0) comments
There's an interesting judicial scandal in Mississippi. Link from Instapundit.
A web of connections exists between the judges, lawyers, politicians and investigators involved in a Mississippi judicial-corruption probe, raising questions about the fairness and thoroughness of the investigation and about possible conflicts of interest.
...At issue is whether wealthy lawyers paid off loans for judges in exchange for favorable rulings. At stake is Mississippians' trust of the judiciary. The investigation is also a key battle in a nationwide tort-reform movement that often pits Democrats, who rely on trial lawyers for fund raising, against Republicans, who are under pressure from big business to limit jury awards in lawsuits.
::: posted by Steven at 12:51 PM
(0) comments
The Reuters headline reads, "Sen. Clinton Rules Out 2008 Presidential Bid". But here's the quote:
"I don't have any intentions or plans of running," Clinton said, according to a transcript of the ABC interview.
Now, Hillary Clinton and I are very different people, but if I said this, I wouldn't mean it as a commitment. I have no "intentions or plans" to run for the state legislature in 2008, but I haven't ruled it out. I suspect that most of the people who will turn out to be candidates for president in 2008 -- especially on the Democratic side -- are people who aren't currently intending or planning it.
In other words, she didn't say anything, and Reuters tricked me into reading their article by lying in the headline. I'd like to point out this paragraph, too, though:
Her book reveals the former president lied to her about his affair with Lewinsky, a White House intern, for seven months, finally coming clean days before he was to testify to a grand jury.
Considering how careful reporters often are to use words like "alleged", and how much debate there's been over the veracity of her claims, the verb "reveal" seems unusual. Maybe it's just me.
::: posted by Steven at 10:22 AM
(0) comments
|
