Giving W his Due

If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about aids?

Weekly Standard? National Review? A new Ann Coulter Column? Nope Martin Peretz's The Politics of Churlishness in TNR. Subtitled "Giving George W. Bush his due on Democracy."

I don't know if it gets better from there, but it holds the tone throughout:

So the situation is certainly complex. But complexity is not a warrant for despair. The significant fact is that Bush's obsession with the democratization of the region is working. Have Democrats begun to wonder how it came to pass that this noble cause became the work of Republicans? They should wonder if they care to regain power. They should recall that Clinton (and the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter even more so) had absolutely no interest in trying to modify the harsh political character of the Arab world. What they aspired to do was to mollify the dictators--to prefer the furthering of the peace process to the furthering of the conditions that make peace possible. The Democrats were the ones who were always elevating Arafat. He was at the very center of their road map. After he stalked out of a meeting room in Paris during cease-fire talks in late 2000, Albright actually ran in breathless pursuit to lure him back. It was the Democrats who perpetuated Arafat's demonic sway over the Palestinians, and it was the Democrats who sustained him among the other Arabs. And so the cause of Arab democracy was left for the Republicans to pursue. After September 11, the cause became a matter also of U.S. national security.
[...]
It has been heartening, in recent months, to watch some Democratic senators searching for ways out of the politics of churlishness. Some liberals appear to have understood that history is moving swiftly and in a good direction, and that history has no time for their old and mistaken suspicion of American power in the service of American values. One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.

Strong medicine for the Democrats again from TNR. Will they take it or will they hide the pills in the drawer?

South Park

I cannot clear from my mind the term "South Park Republicans." Stephen Stanton credits the term's coinage to Andrew Sullivan, but has written the most comprehensive exegeses on the species in TCS.

His first column asked how the GOP could do so well in elections if only a group of stodgy old rich evangelical white millionaires voted for them:

The answer could very well be the "South Park Republicans." The name stems from the primetime cartoon "South Park" that clearly demonstrates the contrast within the party. The show is widely condemned by some moralists, including members of the Christian right. Yet in spite of its coarse language and base humor, the show persuasively communicates the Republican position on many issues, including hate crime legislation ("a savage hypocrisy"), radical environmentalism, and rampant litigation by ambitious trial lawyers. In one episode, industrious gnomes pick apart myopic anti-corporate rhetoric and teach the main characters about the benefits of capitalism.

South Park Republicans are true Republicans, though they do not look or act like Pat Robertson. They believe in liberty, not conformity. They can enjoy watching The Sopranos even if they are New Jersey Italians. They can appreciate the tight abs of Britney Spears or Brad Pitt without worrying about the nation's decaying moral fiber. They strongly believe in liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. However, they do not live by the edicts of political correctness.

I suspected I fell into this taxonomy, so I started watching the show. I find it humorous but (pardon the pun) one-dimensional. It's funny but it's only funny. Buffy, by comparison, is artful, thought-provoking, dramatic and funny. But South Park is REALLY funny!

Last night's episode really blew me away. It was well crafted. A tight plot with two well-integrated sub plots: Kenny's selection to lead heaven's army based on his performance in a video game, and Kenny's drifting between heaven and earth as other, disinterested parties fought over his feeding tube.

How did they get this out so quickly? I expect even some hard-to-offend South Park folks may be offended. It was irreverent.

But it was good. The Archangel Michael, who swears like Patton at every setback, is an image that has kept me laughing all day.

Last night clears up their politics for me. They are even more libertarian than Stanton allows. They take a great whack at Republicans ("Satan, the forces of heaven have a Keanu Reeves, what shall we do?" "What we always do: we'll use the Republicans!")

What I liked was that they make of Republicans for what they are and for what I make fun of them for. Hollywood movies and network sitcoms ridicule a straw man Republican that I don't recognize, and I'm not sure exists. But the GOP officials in last night's South Park definitely exist.

Am I a South Park Republican? (Well, Terry, labels can be so constricting...) yeah, I guess I am.

Kianna's Law

Instead of a wave of Terri's Laws that will introduce government intrusion into private family decisions, The Wall Street Journal suggests Kianna's Law, for Kianna Karnes, who died at the age of 44 from kidney cancer. She was denied any chance at clinical trials because our beloved FDA has a public to protect.

After her write-up in the Journal, the drug manufacturers and the FDA called to help. But...

But isn't it a national scandal that cancer sufferers should have to be written about in The Wall Street Journal to be offered legal access to emerging therapies once they've run out of other options?

The FDA's oncology division has proven to be essentially incorrigible on this point in recent years, so it's time for Congressional action mandating that the agency use 21st-century science and statistical methods to get these therapies to patients sooner. More specifically, drug approvals could be based on large trials open to all comers and analyzed with so-called Bayesian statistics, as already happens in the FDA's medical device division. (Yes, the agency at least recognizes that studies involving, say, "placebo" defibrillators would be beyond the pale.)

Mrs. Karnes's father John Rowe -- himself a leukemia survivor -- plans intense Congressional lobbying in the coming weeks, and he's had some interest from Congressman Dan Burton's (R., Indiana) office in the possibility of sponsoring a "Kianna's Law." No doubt there will be others willing to sign on.

Terri Schiavo was well served by the law. She got multiple chances for redress, and in the end got what her husband said she wanted. Kianna Karnes received no chances at what she clearly wanted -- to purchase drugs that might save her life.

The US Medical System

That is, the much maligned U.S. Medical system. You'd have to be an idiot to say that it is perfect. It is expensive, swarmingly bureaucratic, and the payment system is broken.

But, as I wrote 18 months ago, when you need it, you have to be glad it's there Any other country in the world, and I would be a widower today. That sounds melodramatic, and it may be, but it is true.

A good friend of mine who was raised in the USA has spent two years in the U.K. He made an insightful comment in casual conversation. He said people in the US would never tolerate the bad health care provided by NHS, but people in Britain would likewise not put up with our broken, hybrid financing system. I think he's dead on.

Yet, today, I am very happy to be here (Chuck Berry knew it) the full court press of ICU care, the professionalism of the nurses, the labor and technology thrown at life -- it's beautiful baby!

HEALTH UPDATE: Three good days in a row for the patient. Thanks for all the prayers (AlexC Attila, Sugarchuck) and kind thoughts (Johngalt and Dagny). They both seem to be working...

I Am Michael Shiavo

Life is weird. This post will be emotional, short and will lack editing. I hope nobody is offended.

Saturday afternoon, my lovely bride of almost 22 years suffered a large stroke. She was fine all morning. At 1:00 we were preparing to leave to see our nephew play drums in the Blue Knights. She said "I don't think I better go, I am not feeling well. Her next sentence slurred and she fell over shortly after. She went to the new Lafayette hospital in an ambulance, and was taken by helicopter to a larger hospital in Boulder.

At 5:30, she had three hours of surgery to fix, as best as they can, a large hemorrhage inside the brain. Saturday, I held little hope for her to survive but Sunday all signs have been very hopeful. She recognized me, held my hand and has been stable all day.

We discuss politics all the time and agree most of the time. I had never seen her so interested in a news story or political issue as she was the Schiavo case. She read all the dispositions and followed all the commentary. She sided staunchly with Michael. I basically agreed but would offer that the other side has pure motives. This would engender one of those spousal-fire looks. She thought the husband should choose and she thought -- in spite of all the conflicts -- that he was making the right choice.

I had a very good talk with her neurosurgeon about her beliefs and I think he read me loud and clear.

Her performance today tells me that there is not a decision in my near future. She is "in there." I quizzed the nurse this morning, and although she is hooked up to every machine in the whole hospital, she is "driving the train," able to respirate and regulate her heartbeat without aid (again, even though she is hooked up).

But I know her wishes and I see her discomfort. One nurse thinks I watch too much TV and that this is not that case at all. And yes, I see the differences but it is hard to watch her endure discomfort after a week of very very clear wishes.

UPDATE: Family, friends, I will offer updates on her health (sans politics) on her blog, tat ergo sum, which I will hijack for her recovery. And holy cow, please accept a blanket thanks for all the kindness and compassion shown to me. It is truly overwhelming.

Crazy Ideas

The freedom and democracy bug continues to spread.

Hundreds of thousands of people chanting "Oppose war, Love Taiwan" joined President Chen Shui-bian Saturday to protest against China's anti-secession law that sanctions the use of force against the island.

Chen's ruling Democratic Progressive Party hopes the protest will draw international attention to the new law and put pressure on China to scrap it.

Organizers said 1 million people joined the show of people power against Beijing's military threat, but Taipei police estimated the crowd at just over 240,000.

"I am here to protest against a barbaric China which looks down upon the Taiwanese people," said 70-year-old businessman Fan Wen-yi, adding he was not affiliated to any political party and had never participated in a protest before. "The anti-secession law, simply put, is a law that authorizes war."

The protestors chanted slogans and waved green flags that read "democracy, peace, protect Taiwan" as they marched toward the presidential office from 10 locations around the capital, symbolizing the 10 clauses of the anti-secession law.

Bill Roggio had a heck of post about China & Taiwan and any potential military confrontations that may arise.
Go read it.

Open the Lockboxes

The most interesting number in the Social Security and Medicare Trustees' Report, claims the WSJ Ed Page, is 2.2 Trillion. That's the surplus amount that will be generated before the ponzi sch--I mean trust account-- starts paying more than it receives.

And what will happen to that surplus cash during these next 10 years? Every dime of it will be spent by politicians on current government. Not a nickel will be saved; nothing will be invested in accounts with anyone's name on it. Instead of building assets, or contributing to an increase in net national saving and thus investment, all of it will finance current government consumption.

The reform debate so far has too often detoured into the cul-de-sac of "transition costs" and IOUs and what's going to happen in 2041 when the Trust Fund itself is empty -- or is it really 2042? Who cares? The far more urgent issue is how to capture today's surplus payroll tax revenue and put it to more productive use. If Social Security reform means anything, it ought to mean recapturing some or all of that money.

Yet politicians on both sides of the debate rarely talk about this. That's probably because over the years both Republicans and Democrats have been complicit in spending this Social Security surplus on their own pet causes. We can understand why Democrats would want to continue this ruse even today, since most of them want to pretend there's an account in a bank somewhere that taxpayers own.

But what's up with Republicans? Some of them may fear that if this secret gets out to enough voters, they'll have to stop using that excess revenue to make the budget deficit look smaller than it is. But if they believe in smaller government, they should consider this $2.2 trillion revelation to be truth-in-advertising that shows just how spendthrift Washington is.

Letting individuals keep and invest this excess payroll tax money, which they've earned, is the nub of the entire Social Security debate. And we suspect it's the only argument that reformers have that will trump the scare tactics and accounting obfuscation of opponents.

I think that the U.S. Capital markets could find more productive uses for that money than our good representatives in Congress. But maybe that's just me...

Libertarians and Conservatives Living together...

Apocalyptic stuff. But Pejman Yousefzadeh at TCS has covered this topic in two columns in two weeks. Today's is Saving the Marriage (Cont.), Last week’s was Saving the Marriage: Conservatism and Libertarianism.

They are germane to this week, because the Terri Schiavo case served up a big helping of internecine strife -- and I think it is germane to this blog, where Conservatives and libertarians and partisan hacks like me play pretty well together. Yousefzadeh makes a point that the blogosphere binds us:

It doesn't have to be this way. Libertarians can work to influence politics and policy in a manner that is both noble and effective. As I noted in my article last week, I have long believed that the Blogosphere can help bring conservatives and libertarians together into a political cyber-coalition. We are seeing more evidence of that with posts like this one which serve to define alternative libertarian pathways, and the often friendly and sympathetic interaction between conservatives and libertarians in the Blogosphere is working to create the very kind of political alliances Harry Browne assures us are impossible to create. Nothing is set in stone and success in this project is not inevitable, but right now, the cooperation between libertarian and conservative bloggers is doing more to get libertarian ideas out into the realm of public discourse than any radio or TV appearance by a losing Libertarian candidate ever could. Just imagine what could happen if this level of cooperation wasn't limited to cyberspace.

There are a few issues that really drive me. Loosing regulations on Medical Research and pharmaceuticals, and making a home for little-l libertarians in the GOP.

I don't want to chase the social conservatives out, because division is the key to a Hillary Administration. But I want to have a table at the picnics to hand out literature and continue to suggest that our alliance is electorally worth it.

Right On!

Tenured CU Professor Ward Churchill should not be fired for saying stupid things, that's his job.

But somebody should look at what an incredible academic lightweight he is. And it looks like they are.

UC Chancellor Phil DiStefano has released the University of Colorado's report on its review of the Ward Churchill situation several days early. The report was originally scheduled for release on Monday, March 28. DiStefano stated that "Because of extensive public interest, I felt it was important to release it as soon after completion as possible." Bottom line: Ward Churchill will not be fired for his 9/11 comments, but will be investigated for issues concerning his research. He will not be investigated on issues concerning his teaching. He will be investigated for issues concerning his Indian ethnicity, because he portrayed that ethnicity as being integral to his scholarly research.

This week's National Review has a cover story of VDH devastating academia. I cannot help but feel we have not heard the last, that Wolfe's book and l-affaire Ward Churchill have got a lot of people rethinking education.

Thank You, TR!

I like TR, and will stand to being corrected if he is not the villain in anti-trust legislation But whoever got the ball rolling deserves disapprobation.

The current crop of deal breakers are myopic to what constitutes competition. It's a fact that DirecTV and Echostar should merge and use their combined assets to take on Comcast. But no! You can't have a single satellite TV provider.

Today Blockbuster is backing out of M&A for fear of sating the trust lawyers. A WSJ news story gives the facts right up top:

Blockbuster Inc. said it won't pursue its $991 million offer to acquire rival video chain Hollywood Entertainment Corp., clearing the way for Hollywood to pursue a previously agreed deal with Movie Gallery Inc.

Blockbuster, Dallas, said it was dropping its unsolicited pursuit of Hollywood because obtaining antitrust approval likely would be difficult. The company said it will promptly return any shares that had been tendered under its offer. Earlier this year, Hollywood accepted an $850 million, or $13.25 a share, offer to merge with Movie Gallery, Dothan, Ala.

Anti-trust? Blockbuster is about to get smooshed like a bug by NetFlix and online content delivery. Why not allow them to bulk up and defend their sector with all available means?

Oh, right, you've got a public to protect...

The Michael Moore Bank Robberies

Detroit is facing a string of bank robberies from a guy they say resembles Michael Moore

The man, who police say earned the nickname because of his resemblance to the filmmaker, is wanted in the armed robbery of a Standard Federal Bank at about 9:20 a.m. on Saturday.

Police said the man entered the bank at 602 Monroe Avenue and implied that he had a weapon. An undetermined amount of cash was taken in the robbery.

The man was last seen walking south from the bank.

He's described as white, in his 40s, 6 feet tall, with a beard and wearing a plaid shirt and a baseball cap.

So it's just another dirty fat white guy? I don't see the resemblance.
Maybe if he was stuffing his face with hot dogs or donuts, THEN we'd be talking.

The Land of Orwell

I really fear for our good friends and brave allies in Britain. Did you see this in Lileks today?

A pubowner posted a sign in his parking yard, that said "porking yard." He was cited with an Asbo, which the headline writers assumed its readers would recognize as an "Anti-Social Behaviour Order." (George! Please pick up line one -- it's urgent!)

In case you haven't recognized the racism yet, the sign is "deeply offensive to Muslims."

“I regularly use the learning centre in Wade Street, which is near to the pub, with my fellow Somali friends.

“Muslims do not eat pork but the sign has a picture of a pig and the words ‘porking yard’.

“My friends and I were angered and upset by the sign and we have welcomed the court ruling ordering the sign to be changed. I definitely think it is provocative and insulting to Muslims.”

Beat manager Adrian Williams, of Avon and Somerset Police, welcomed the Asbo.

He said he had received complaints about the sign from school teachers, community leaders and members of the Somali community.

He said: “We are very pleased that the order has been made following complaints from the community.

“It shows that this kind of behaviour, which is provocative, will not be tolerated.”

Maybe they do need a monarch over there to slap this silly nonsense down...

Ain't Gonna Study War No More

At a recent White House press conference, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller called Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's nominee for president of the World Bank, "a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history."

Larry Elder asks

"One of the most unpopular wars in our history"? Hmmm, sounds like another editorial masquerading as a question. To the history books!

Larry follows with an entertaining exegesis on just how much opposition there has been to other wars in our history, from the Revolution (supported by a third of the populace) to Vietnam ("71 percent called the Vietnam War a mistake, and 58 percent called the war immoral.")

This brings us to the "unpopular" Iraqi War. Bush obtained a resolution from Congress (which passed the House 296 to 133, and the Senate 77 to 23) authorizing the use of force. At the time of America's entry into Iraq in 2003, a CBS/New York Times poll found that 76 percent of Americans approved of the U.S. military action against Iraq.

Even now, the majority of Americans want us to stay the course.

Aside from that, the New York Times reporter pretty much nailed it.

As they say in my country: "Read the whole thing!"

Eeeeew!

GayPatriot has a different concept of "protest babes," than we do around here. To each their own, I suppose...

Get Your Fusion On!

Just got a nice email from the folks at www.fusiongroovin.com/ They are readin' and we are listenin' (great thing, this Internet -- well done, VP Gore!)

Seriously, if you want to hear some vicious instrumental fusion, click on over!

The Campaign Finance Reform Scam

JK mentioned this story earlier, but I haven't seen the following questions asked...

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement."

But don't take my word for it. One of the chief scammers, Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, confesses it all in an astonishing videotape I obtained earlier this week.

The tape — of a conference held at USC's Annenberg School for Communication in March of 2004 — shows Treglia expounding to a gathering of academics, experts and journalists (none of whom, apparently, ever wrote about Treglia's remarks) on just how Pew and other left-wing foundations plotted to create a fake grassroots movement to hoodwink Congress.

"I'm going to tell you a story that I've never told any reporter," Treglia says on the tape. "Now that I'm several months away from Pew and we have campaign-finance reform, I can tell this story."

Here's the story...

"The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington," Treglia says — 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot — that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."

A few questions beg to be asked...

Who were the reporters and from which newspapers and television agencies are they from? This meeting took place a year ago, and as Ryan Sager points out, not a single one reported on it.

Why not?

The answer is simple. News agencies stand the most to gain from campaign finance reform. With limited commercials, limited campaign spending, there is no other source to turn to than the media for the issues, who have an unrestricted license to broadcast as much or as little about candidates and their positions as they desire.
Not to mention the monopoly on the audience that they would hold during the run up to an election.

If these "journalists" are really objective about their profession, why don't we know about this?
How can anyone conclude that the reporters sitting in the audience were part of the story, not part of the reporting?
With their now year long silence, how can we conclude anything but their tacit approval of this fraud?

Who were the academics? Who were the "experts?" Who were these people?

... and why are they in on the plan?

ANWR Boycott

The left, the left, the mad, whacko left. There's little they love more than a boycott. It doesn't matter that they tend to be wildly ineffective, impossible to trace and chock full o' unintended consequences.

I got an email from my buddy (I offered to help her set up her own blog) with "something simple we all can do." That is, follow every drop of oil from ANWR through refining and refuse it at the pump.

Well, no, that would be a lot of work -- so, what you can do is sign an online petition that you will boycott the gas stations affiliated with the companies who are drilling:

If you want to inform BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell that you will boycott their gas stations unless they pledge not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see the text of your message below), just click reply and send. [Boilerplate language on if you are not a member]

Imagine if millions and millions of us, young and old, progressives and conservatives, make it clear to these companies that they stand to lose big-time if they drill for oil in the wildlife refuge. Polls show that most Americans are on our side. Let's walk our talk.

Yeah, you walk the talk, brothers and sisters.

A Jazz Aristocrat

You could live to be 80 years old, as Bobby Short did, and never read a kinder obituary/eulogy. Jazz trumpeter Eric Felten pens a poignant tribute to the cabaret singer in today's Wall Street Journal.

I'll confess to having just the slightest acquaintance with Mr. Short's music, but I will rectify that in the days ahead. I, too, like the standards, the ballads, the cabaret style. It's what I love.

I also liked this paragraph:

Mr. Short was born in 1924 and grew up in Danville, Ill., the penultimate of 10 children. One could say that it was ironic that Mr. Short--a Midwestern kid--became an iconic New Yorker. Ironic, too, that an African-American man would come to embody the sort of glittering, bygone world of high society that, in the 1930s, would hardly have welcomed him. But then again, it isn't really ironic at all. Mr. Short lived an American life that was in perfect harmony with the songs he sang, one in which any man, every man, can be an aristocrat if he just takes the trouble to gain some sophistication.

As my buddy AlexC might say: "F*ck Yeah!"

Turned The Corner

Last night, Larry Kudlow asked Austin Bay if we had now "turned the corner" in Iraq. The Colonel responded that, by his observations in theatre, we had done so long ago.

A little good news today bolsters the case:

Baghdad Residents Kill Three Militants

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shopkeepers and residents on one of Baghdad's main streets pulled out their own guns Tuesday and killed three insurgents when hooded men began shooting at passers-by, giving a rare victory to civilians increasingly frustrated by the violence bleeding Iraq.

The news is great but I hope that the AP reporter (Traci Carl) was not too overwhelmingly optimistic. "a rare victory to civilians increasingly frustrated by the violence bleeding Iraq." Absolutely nothing in story backs up that particular editorial comment in the lede.

NRSC Petition to Support Judicial Nominees

Sign an online petition if you so choose -- I did. Don't be terribly surprised if they ask for money -- I wasn't.

From Iraq

a friend emails this photo:


"Still safer here than at Michael Jackson's"

Buy The Dip!

Holy Cow! This market is skittish! The FOMC raises rates 25 basis points and the Dow loses 95 points? What did they think -- Alan Greenspan was going to hand out Ice Cream sodas?

I have to make an IRA deposit this month and I am thinking I'll buy some Spiders or something. I'd like to buy this dip but I bet it'll rocket back up tomorrow.

Crazy, man, crazy:

Blue chips skidded Tuesday after the Federal Reserve expressed concerns about inflation's impact on the U.S. economy. The Dow industrials bounced briefly after hitting break-even before losing more ground and slipping into the red.

Buy the dip. Tell 'em you heard it on ThreeSources Blog!

Wrong Man for a Column

Peter Beinart says that John Bolton is the Wrong Man for This U.N. Writing in the WaPo today, he seems to imply that Senator Moynihan was the "first neo-con."

In 1975, when anti-Americanism was on the march, Gerald Ford chose a distinctly undiplomatic diplomat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to represent the United States at the United Nations. Unlike his predecessors, who had listened politely while America was defamed, Moynihan denounced the tin-pot dictatorships running wild at the United Nations. And a new movement called neoconservatism -- of which Moynihan was a leading voice -- made its entrance onto the international stage. Six years later, Ronald Reagan gave the U.N. job to another prominent neocon, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and she proved equally blunt.

It took me a moment to shake that unconventional labeling off. The rest of the piece doesn't improve too much. Beinart is a responsible thinker and a very good writer. But this one is a swing-and-a-miss.

Problem is, the history's misleading. Moynihan and Kirkpatrick were effective because their oppositional styles suited the time -- a time when there was little the United States could do at the United Nations other than oppose. Today the United States has an opportunity to lead. And by choosing Bolton, the Bush administration may be squandering it.

Sorry, Pete, we may have a rare chance to lead at the U.N., but it won't occur with another striped-pants get along guy from State. We have just as much to assert to the U.N. as Moynihan did in the 70s or Kirkpatrick in the 80s.

A much more cogent assessment can be found in Amity Shlaes column on TCS:

Multilateralists around the globe ought to be thrilled about these choices. These men are not going to endanger the future of the UN or the World Bank. Those futures are already in danger. Rather, the new candidates may turn out to be the institutions' salvation. For both men are strong enough to bring about change when change is necessary.

The CEO Presidency, Part Deux

"The CEO Presidency" was a popular moniker early in the first term. President Bush, it was said, was bringing his Harvard MBA skills to the Oval Office. His appointments were less political and his work hours were less frenetic than those of his predecessor.

I applauded and confirmed those observations back then, but I am now convinced that they apply better to the second term. For the second term, W has staffed important positions with those who share his vision and have the tenacity to pursue it.

Fred Barnes writes a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today (click away, it's on the free site) looking at the appointments of Wolfowitz, Bolton, and Hughes not as separate events, but as a coalescing of an administration devoted to Sharansky-esque ideals of freedom.

[...]But in jobs he views as critical, especially in foreign affairs, he prefers a known quantity, usually a tough, loyal administration veteran with an agenda. His agenda. Two other Bush nominees, John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. and Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, are also in the agenda category.

Anyone shocked by the nominations of Messrs. Wolfowitz and Bolton doesn't understand the president's approach to multilateral organizations. The conventional idea is that these organizations are wonderful, though perhaps flawed and infused with too much anti-American sentiment. And the chief task of U.S. representatives is to get along amicably, not buck the system and cause problems. This idea is popular in the press, the State Department bureaucracy and diplomatic circles, and with foreign-policy "experts." But not with Mr. Bush.

This man is putting a team together to change the world. I even read (I'll keep looking for a link) that he is "talkin' less Texan now that he don't gotta face re-elecshun..." He is planning, CEO-style for a consequential second term. No wonder his detractors are worried...

Where Are The Dogs?

A quick peek through webstats shows that many viewers come to this site seeking "Dogs For Bush." I did that during the election and have since parked the domain pointing to threesources.

Fear not, the adorable GOPooches can still be seen at: www.threesources.com/dogs

Campaign Finance Reform

"If Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it'd be worthless..."

So confides Sean Treglia, of Pew Charitable Trusts, as part of a stunning admission that eight liberal groups bankrolled and orchestrated the supposed grassroots effort behind McCain-Feingold.

John Fund details the story (Although Chris Muir hit it pretty succinctly in a cartoon).

The efforts of Pew and the other liberal foundations, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute and the Carnegie Corp., were aided by the news media's complicity. The American Prospect, a liberal magazine, put out a special issue on campaign finance reform in 2000 that was paid for by a $132,000 Carnegie grant--a fact the magazine failed to disclose.

National Public Radio openly accepted $1.2 million from liberal foundations to provide such items as "coverage of financial influence in political decision-making." Its campaign finance reporter, Peter Overby, is a former editor of the magazine put out by Common Cause, a major supporter of McCain-Feingold. No one suggests there was direct collusion between NPR and campaign finance lobbies. With the money and personnel available to NPR, there didn't need to be. Sympathetic stories on the need for campaign finance reform flowed naturally.

So, much of the good press was bought. And, one suspects, the rest flowed very naturally as this ill bill would empower media sources over real grass roots organizations.

The real chance to kill this bad law was missed by SCOTUS, when they amazingly failed to shrike it down. Porn is protected, political speech can be legislated. I think the bill might get a good challenge as they try to use it on bloggers but I am not optimistic about reversing this unconstitutional mélange.

One possible, positive outcome would be to have this take the bloom off a McCain '08 run once and for all. I laud his patriotism and marvel at his courage but tire of his CFR sanctimony. I think exposing him as a Pew lapdog should be all the opposition research that a primary opponent would need.

Guess jk is a Liberal...

I am going to break with my friends at the WSJ Ed Page, The Weekly Standard, National Review, and I suspect half of the ThreeSources.com crew.

I support Michael Schiavo's decision to remove the feeding tube from his wife. He may be an execrable man who is looking to cash in the chips of her malpractice award and her parents have certainly made a bold proposition to assume all responsibility for her continued care, but I have to feel that the spouse has a right to speak for one who cannot speak for himself/herself.

The state courts of Florida have taken that view, as have some portion of the 80% in an online Wall Street Journal poll, who have said that it was wrong for Congress to intervene.

William Kristol and Fred Barnes made eloquent and reasonable appeals this weekend on FOXNews's "Fox News Sunday" and "The Beltway Boys." The WSJ Ed Page even lumps me in with the liberals:

We'd have more sympathy for this argument if the same liberals who are complaining about the possibility of the federal courts reviewing Mrs. Schiavo's case felt as strongly about restraining the federal judiciary when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues they don't want to trust to local communities. In any event, these critics betray their lack of understanding of the meaning of federalism. It is not simply about "states' rights." Conservatives support states' rights in areas that are not delegated to the federal government but they also support federal power in areas that are delegated.

Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, "We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context." The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address.

For the record, I do support states' rights in Roe if not Lawrence, and have always held that Federalism is the solution to the homosexual marriage contretemps.

My legal claims coincide with my personal claims. I hope that, mutatis mutandis, my wife would have intervened about 14 years before Mr. Schiavo.

Anti War Protests

Iraq liberation started two years ago Saturday.
And the idiot brigade was out protesting.

Why am I not outraged?

Here's why.

We're All Doomed

I don't want to ruin anybody's Friday but the world is ending.

John Derbyshire (not exactly an "up" guy but certainly very bright) has long predicted that the end of the world may well be caused by physicists creating a black hole with a particle accelerator.

The BBC reports:

The Brown researcher thinks the particles are disappearing into the fireball's core and reappearing as thermal radiation, just as matter is thought to fall into a black hole and come out as "Hawking" radiation.

However, even if the ball of plasma is a black hole, it is not thought to pose a threat. At these energies and distances, gravity is not the dominant force in a black hole.

On second thought, bartender, why don'tcha put that on my tab...

Dual hat-tips: PillageIdiot and Galley Slaves

ANWR, Finally Part II

AlexC's awesome ANWR post/pictoral immediately got me thinking of Jonah Goldberg's cover story for NR in 2001.

The good people at NRO have reposted it as a flashback piece.

In this sense the whole area is really just a Rorschach test for the imagination. There's little doubt that for much of human history most reasonable people would have considered this spot the definition of the word "godforsaken." You need not look back, for evidence, to the ancient pilgrims who died on the frozen tundra. You could simply read an old copy of the Washington Post from 14 years ago: "[T]hat part of the [ANWR] is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life."

Two decades have intervened, and an environmental fatwa has been issued declaring that the word "pristine" is synonymous with "beautiful" or "sacred." Of course, anyone who has seen a mint-condition AMC Gremlin knows that pristineness and aesthetic appeal have only a coincidental relationship. Even ANWR fetishists concede that in the winter, with its complete darkness and 70-below-zero temperatures-not counting wind chill-this is no paradise.

It's a great story and well worth a read.

Publicity Hound

	Whatchya think, kids: How's it look? Do we really want folks knowing what we do around here? I was thinking of placing a blogad on DayByDay. Chris Muir did a cool illustration for the last Berkeley Square CD and never accepted adequate payment. So I thought I could buy some of his ad space and get some publicity for the site.

Day By Day

It breaks my heart that Senator McCain, whom I admire as much as any living American, has dedicated his Senate career to stripping our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects porn dealers -- I can handle that. Yet somehow, it doesn't apply to political speech?

Chris Muir nails it.



But, then, everybody reads DayByDay everyday, right? He came back from his hiatus even stronger, I think. More political. A little harder-edged.

My suspicion is that he has given up on MSM syndication and is following his heart. He seems to be doing well on blog ads. I plan to place one for ThreeSources as a partial payment for his kind work on the cover of my last CD (and drum up interest in our pontifications). It would be great to see this model prevail -- have a talented guy avoid the bias of syndication firms and make it with a direct appeal to the people. Hello long-tail!

Republicans and Asphalt

The WSJ Ed Page wonders what the connection is.

What is it about freshly laid asphalt that causes Republicans to abandon their economic principles? In promoting the bill, Messrs. Hastert and Young described this higher federal spending as an economic boon that will create some "47,500 jobs" for every $1 billion spent. But by that logic, why not spend $1 trillion on highways? They seem to have forgotten that the money has to come from somewhere, which means it will be taken from the more productive private sector in the form of higher taxes now, or down the road (painful pun intended).

Republicans also aren't using their majorities to rework transportation spending to fit their federalist principles. GOP highway bills are just as bad as those Democrats used to pass, with their top-down, feds-know-best direction. States and localities would know better how to spend the money by working with private companies on toll roads and private-public partnerships to ease congestion. But of course that would reduce the political leverage of individual Members doling out the cash.

Republicans are slowly figuring out the damage that these spending binges are doing to their fiscal image, which is why their new budget resolution claims to be tough. But a budget outline means nothing if actual spending continues to increase. It's true that the highway boondoggle is bipartisan, but as the party in charge Republicans will get the blame if all of this spending forces them to raise taxes.

The greatest danger for the inchoate GOP majority is for their legislators to abandon principles. They enjoy demographic momentum, a surfeit of good ideas, and what seems to be some good trends (or lucky breaks if you're on the other side) from history.

Good for the President for trying to keep them in check. We have had some great comments below on the danger of losing the evangelical vote, it would be no better to chase away the fiscal conservatives, most of whom are watching a Republican-controlled Congress very nervously.

UPDATE: Larry Kudlow piles on!

Members of the U.S. Senate are reneging on their promise to cut wasteful and unnecessary federal budget spending. And I'm talking Republicans here.

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia is whittling down the farm subsidy cuts, which are corporate welfare and agriculture welfare queens. Minnesota Senator Norman Coleman is trying to stop more corporate welfare cuts, by preserving community development block grants. Oregon Senator Gordon Smith is preventing Medicaid cuts, which represent wasteful overspending, not real health services. This makes my blood boil.

Supply-side tax cuts have done their job by growing the economy and throwing off 10 percent increases in tax collections. But the Republican Senate is not doing its job to hold back the budget, which is still growing at 7 percent.

You know what? Taxpayer money should be protected, not wasted. Republicans are supposed to be the fiscal conservatives.

Amen brother Larry.

Freedom's Correspondent

In his Weekly Standard online column, Let Us Now Praise Claudia Rosett Hugh Hewitt says:

Bloggers and Internet columnists often find easy marks in the ranks of old media, so they ought to pause and hold up for admiration and emulation those who do the job that a free press was intended to do. Claudia Rosett is as "old media" as they get, and the single best advertisement for what journalism can be when practiced with skill and passion.
Whether or not the Pulitzer committee recognizes Rosett for her incredible contribution to freedom through her superb journalism over the past few years, those who follow the media know she is the standard setter.

It is odd that bloggers love to bite the ankles of the mainstream press, without which, there'd be no credible blogosphere.

Not that they don't deserve it, but cheers to Hewitt for reminding us of one that does it right for the right reasons.

The old Denver Post building had an inscription "O Justice, when expelled from other grounds, make this thy dwelling place." I grew up believing in the high ideals of journalism -- then ended up decrying its activists. But Ms. Rosett is freedom's correspondent. Thanks, Hugh, for the reminder.

Bad Bush Appointment

I go out of my to support this administration, even on some topics about which I am skeptical. But -- holy cow -- NO!

The media is busily distracted by the Wolfowitz World Bank appointment. Though I backed Carly Fiorina, I support that appointment. But nobody noticed the new FCC Chairman to replace Michael Powell was Powell's nemesis, Kevin Martin.

Martin was the FCC answer to Jim Jeffords, a soi-disant GOPer who opposed free market reform and created a de facto Democrat majority (Hey French and Latin in one sentence -- what a pedant!) and precluded real regulatory reform.

Like Senator Specter, the administration rewards its enemies with public support and a lemon poppy seed cake. I'm not sure about the cake, but the appointment is astonishing. The WSJ Ed Page is cautiously going to give him a chance:

The White House is counting on its next chairman to put his considerable political adeptness to use creating working majorities to continue down Mr. Powell's deregulatory path. This is especially important with regard to broadband deployment. We're not sure that the Bush Administration fully appreciates the extent to which high-speed communication networks drive competition, productivity and ultimately GDP. But Mr. Martin is well aware of broadband's potential, and we hope he has learned enough from the past four years to do the right thing.

Well, yeah, and Nancy Pelosi may find her inner-free-marketeer as well, but let's not make her Ways-and-Means Chairman.

This assures the world that the technologically gifted USA will be hard pressed to hang onto its thirteenth place showing in broadband adoption. I'm not sure a President Kerry could have done much worse.

ANWR. Finally.

Finally.
Long time readers will know that I live in the "House that Oil Built" owing to the fact that I've been working at one of Alaska's North Slope oil fields for nearly 6 years.

The Senate today voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The Senate was sharply divided, however, voting 51-to-49 in favor in what is considered a major energy policy win for President Bush.

In approving the measure, the Senate rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget. That move prevented opponents from using a filibuster -- a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

Drilling supporters say the action clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year.

This year's drilling season is already accounted for, they're not going to get rigs anywhere near ANWR this season. However, next November and December the ice roads are made, and the rigs can get going.
Ice roads are one of the most environmentally friendly ways to move around.

Here's a picture of an ice road.
Step 1. Wait 'til it's cold.
Step 2. Pour a lot water on the ground.
Step 3. Drive on it to get where you gotta go.
Step 4. Get done before it melts in the spring.
Step 5. Nothing left behind.

(photographer & location unknown)
The north slope looks like that between October and May.

And in the summer (not the same place as above)

There's a pipeline directly behind me and there's a drilling rig on horizon.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil in the refuge's coastal plain in northeast Alaska.

Proponents say the refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production.

Only one well has been drilled within ANWR. There might be a few dozen people in the country who know how that well produced. Most cited estimates are from USGS geologist's/geophysist's guess work. A million barrels per day is about 50% of today's North Slope production. The Trans Alaska Pipeline is capable of 4 million barrels a day. National consumption is roughly 20 million barrels per day, with half of that being domestically produced. Yes, we need to be more efficient in it's consumption.

Environmentalists, however, have fought opening ANWR to oil development. They say an animal refuge is no place for drilling rigs. And they say drilling will harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Caribou?
Never seen any!


Actually, this herd of caribou trapped me on a peninsula I was on last summer. I was doing some work at our Seawater Treatment Plant, and they decided to walk out there. It took me an hour of stop and go driving in order to get back to camp. You see, caribou have the right of way, and you can't honk. You just gotta wait.
And in the meantime they're relieving themselves all over the road and the tundra. So it's a pleasant drive!

So what happens if an exploration well doesn't hit?
Well, it looks like this.

All in all, radical environmentalist fears are largely unfounded. Yes, accidents do happen, but we're not actively negligent as some would have you believe. The oil producers have spill response teams, they train often; corrosion departments whose entire mandate is watching the pipes; automation systems dedicated solely to leak detection; as well as infrared flights to observe the pipelines. (I do that as a volunteer). There are also millions of dollars spent on environmental compliance issues, including reporting to both the EPA and the state. As part of my job, I maintain some of those reports, in addition to the efforts of the environmental departments.

A timeline for production?
The first year or two will be spent looking for oil. If they find enough to warrant a full scale facility, then there will be more drilling, as well as engineering and environmental studies. Figure on lawsuits too.

It's not an answer for today's oil and gas prices.
But it is an answer to being held hostage by foreign sources of oil. It's also a project with national involvement. People up there are mostly from Alaska, but there are many from the lower 48. A lot of Texans and Oklahomans, but also Washingtonians, Oregonians and Californians. And yes, even a few yanks like me.
We'll need to build the facilities, and drill the wells, and then operate them. Including newly hired and newly trained employees.
And it generates an enormous amount of revenue for both Alaska and the feds.

Top TV Theme Songs

Jonathan Last from Galley Slaves links to this list: top 100 TV Theme Songs. But I cannot condone it. No way.

jk's list:

10. Angel
9. Flintstones
8. Bewitched
7. I Dream of Jeannie
6. The Green Hornet
5, Miami Vice
4. WKRP in Cincinnati
3. Sanford & Son
2. Barney Miller
1. The Rockford Files

Disagree if you want, but you know that I'm right.

Reaction to Ebbers's Conviction

Two great reactions to the guilty verdict, from two of my favorite sources. First, Larry Kudlow tells the jurors to Take A Bow

Free market capitalism must be based on the rule of law. By enforcing the law, the twelve Ebber’s jurors did far more for honest accounting and healthy, functioning markets than thousands of regulatory pages, such as the onerous Sarbanes Oxley. The brave jurors dealt a serious defeat for CEOs who want their subordinates to commit crimes while they maintain plausible deniability. The dumbo defense is finito.

The vast majority of Americans in business are clean and honest entrepreneurs who innovate, build businesses, and create jobs. Business is the backbone of our economy despite the fact that there will always be a few rotten apples. That the Ebber’s jury convicted one of the most rotten apples will strengthen business and improve our free enterprise system. Jurors, take a bow. You deserve it.

Then my pals at the WSJ Ed Page back up my contention that the conviction does more good than Sarbanes-Oxley, then go one better to compare it to NY AG Eliot Spitzer's non-convictions.

But under Mr. Spitzer's business rules, what matters is what he claims is proper behavior now, whether or not it was considered improper in the past. Unlike the prosecutors in the Ebbers case, the Attorney General knows he can get what he wants by hammering a business in the press and undermining its stock price, without ever going before a jury. This practice strikes us as fundamentally unfair, and contrary to the rule of law, but Mr. Spitzer knows we're the only sour note in his media chorus.

Well, guys, the Weekly Standard did a very non-flattering cover story a few weeks ago. And you can count Three Sources Blog on your side as well. Let the tobacco lawyers and ambulance chasers seek settlements. Attorneys General should seek convictions and enforcement of the laws that are on the books.

Pulchritudinous Protesters

AlexC's observation that pro-democracy protests seem to feature the most beautiful women is catching hold with the rest of the blogosphere.

Riding Sun references a political cartoon in a Jordanian newspaper that compares caricatured hotties to their grizzled, bearded opponents. (Follow the link to links galore of freedom babes.)

It's good marketing to capture the West's imagination but it is also especially germane to the MidEast as many of the autocratic regimes also impose religious dress codes that are not terribly flattering to the female form.

I'm even more convinced that we are called on to liberate Beverly Hills (Did you see the cover of "The Economist?"). Expressing one's sexuality is a part of freedom. Which they can now do in The Ukraine.

Hat-tip: Instapundit.

UPDATE: Yeah, I changed the headline from "Freedom, Whiskey, Sexy" Get me a job at the Sun.

Ebbers Goes Down!

I've been called a shill for business (and that's by my Mom!) because I defend corporations from the Jose Bove/Michael Moore/Hollywood crowd. I have had mixed feelings on New York AG Spitzer, I think Martha Stewart got a raw deal.

But I am dancing into the night with this news:

WorldCom's Ebbers Convicted of All Counts

NEW YORK - Bernard Ebbers, who built WorldCom from a humble Mississippi long-distance concern into a telecommunications titan, was convicted Tuesday of engineering the colossal accounting fraud that sank the company.

For business to be defensible, it has to play by the rules; for markets to work their unique magic, the assets must exhibit a high degree of transparency. All these were broken by the firm that James Cramer always calls "WorldCon" and the concept that its CEO didn't know what was up was ludicrous.

Bye Bye Bernie!

A Capitalist Cuba

My XM radio is almost always tuned to Channel 73, "Luna." They play Latin Jazz and some traditional music from Latin nations.

It is commercial free, but they have brief station IDs, all delivered by a young lady with a hot-voice and a trace of an accent. Today I heard "From New York, Miami, Havana, and beyond -- Luna!"

I wondered how many of El Jefe's subjects had Satellite Radio. And got to daydreaming about how prosperous a free Cuba could be today with tourism, joint-ventures, cultural exchange and the like.

Then at work, I encounter this gem from the WSJ Ed Page: WSJ.com - Fidel's Fortune

He didn't make it into the billionaire category, but Fidel Castro nonetheless earned an honorable mention on Forbes magazine's annual list of the World's Richest People out this month. And why not? With a net worth of $550 million, this is one bit of media recognition that El Jefe actually deserves.

According to Forbes, the Cuban leader committed to "socialism or death" has made a killing from a "web of state-owned businesses" -- all of which have no competition in the worker's paradise. Castro's most profitable operations include a convention center, a retail conglomerate and a company called Medicuba that sells pharmaceuticals made on the island, reports the magazine. Not mentioned are Cuba's biggest exports -- seafood, tobacco, sugar and nickel -- which, as El Maximo Lider of the communist regime, Fidel naturally benefits from too.
[...]
Meanwhile, the rest of Cuba is so poor that food is rationed; as of 2003 each person was limited to a pound of chicken a month, according to the Cuba Transition Project at the University of Miami. But at least Cubans aren't being exploited by wealthy capitalists.

Cuba -- the next Iraq? El Cuba Libre!

Root Out the Responsible

Jim Geraghty posts an interesting political speculation. A primary challenge to Joe Lieberman in 2006:

The theory is that Connecticut, a fairly liberal northeastern state, is prime territory for a further-left candidate to get a boost from the Internet-based fundraising from the grassroots. And the Dean-Kos-Boxer axis of the party would love to punish their least favorite Democrat.

Driving Lieberman from office - yeah, that's just what the Democratic party needs.

I guess it's fair. I cheered Toomey's challenge to Specter. But I don't think Democrats had the great love for Specter that the center and right does for Lieberman. Bad politics, kids.

Lebanese Revolution Scarves

Five bucks on eBay Lebanon Independence 05 Collectible Red Scarf (Harriri). There is also a white scarf with red lettering.

Hat-tip: Publius Pundit

Condi & Abortion

A friend asks:

Did Condi just sink her best shot at an '08 run with
the pro choice bit? I’ve felt all along that, as a
party, we are in for a bigger free fall than the dems
if someone like Arnold or Rudy gets the nomination. I
assumed Condi was hard pro life and that she could
keep the religious nuts and that she world pull in
faithful on the dem side too. The rest of the
moderates republicans would go for her for obvious
reasons. Now I think we might actually have another
president Clinton, as Hillary continues to
triangulate.

Hmm, maybe my heart is talking and not my wise political head but I think she's still viable.

I think that she is religious by nature and that will keep the "nuts" in line. I think the GOP is best served by continuing to oppose abortion but you have to keep in mind that a large libertarian wing is up for grabs, and that she could be having her Sister Soljah moment very early in the campaign...

Again, it could be my heart talking. I want a Rice '08 run very badly and her announcement describes my feelings pretty accurately. So, she didn't scare me off. She could come out in favor of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and out-triangulate Senator Clinton.

Pro-lifers, I love to hear: did she scare you off?