I heard a liberal special interest spokesman (pardon me, spokes"person") say that Alito has written that the government "has no business prohibiting ownership of machine guns." I take this to mean the judge disputes the constitutionality of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and/or the more pernicious amendment to it in 1986. If so, that's a big mark in the FOR column.

It's going to take a while to get to know this nominee, who was one of the "one percenters" in the GOPUSA poll (below.) So far, though, so good.

It could just be onomatopoeia, but I take it as a good sign that Instapundit links refer to him as "Scalito."

I give deference to other court followers and that guy in the Oval Office, but have not heard anyhing yet to turn me away from this pick.

Finally. A known quantity. Better yet, passed the Senate twice 100-0.
heh.

"Scalito" doesn't really bother me. But it does someone.
http://drudgereport.com/flash9ia.htm

"The trouble is...?" What are you, a social engineer? Yeah, we sure don't want people to have more choices, or have more freedom, or to LIVE more.

But let's not get sidetracked in these comments. The important revelation here is that Hybrid gasoline-electric cars are tested by the government in such a way that they "f[a]ll short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."

They are not "magicmobiles." They do not defy physics. Energy in is still equal to energy out, no matter how many times you convert it.

Now, IF nearly all of the energy content of gasoline can be losslessly extracted as hydrogen (and that's a very big IF) then hydrogen fuel cell powered electric vehicles could pose the revolution in transportation that JK presupposes. But they'll STILL be running on the demon fluid - gasoline!

Just to keep things interesting around here I am going to side with johngalt against JK and second his questioning your social engineering proclivities. People will just drive more if fuel economy is raised? I gauge how far I am willing to live from my job based on time not the cost of gas. Even at a moderate 20mpg and 60 mph that is only 3 gals/ hour or $9/hr at $3/gal. I am comfortable that my time will always be worth more than the cost of gasoline. This seems analogous to the argument that if you widen roads more people will drive and you will just have traffic again.

Interesting report on fuel economy though. A friend who has a Civic hybrid says she gets 43-46 mpg in a City/Hwy mix. I can readily see how battery charge level and driving style could have a bigger effect on a hybrid than a single fuel vehicle but the 35-50% lower values seem so excessive that I have to wonder about the test parameters. I do wonder about the long term viability of hybrids though, there is a weight, cost, and complexity issue with two power sources. I think the US automakers pinned their hopes on fuel cells and largely figured hybrids as a short term stop gap measure. This may still turn out to be true, even with the current high demand for hybrids only 88,000 were sold in 2004 or 0.52% of the total market according to J.D. Powers.

Johngalt is also right in that there is no substitute for weight in the energy equation. My suggestion to all the politicians now calling for energy legislation is that first stop should be at DOT. They should add a vehicle designation between car and motorcycle and eliminate or limit the safety and emissions regulations for this class of "commuter vehicles". Our average vehicle mileage has been going down and that is attributable to the American desire for "bigness", but increasingly stringent safety and emissions standards play their part in increasing weight and decreasing efficiencies as well. Americans love their boats, their campers and their Home Depot runs but they also increasingly have 3 car garages. Instead of trying to make large do everything high mileage vehicles, make them a small, 3rd vehicle option. In other words, change the vehicle to fit the market instead of the other way around.

The engineers are ganging up on me again, nothing ever changes...

1) Yup, jg, poor choice of words on "the problem is..." I'm not supporting social engineering but I would like less reliance on imported oil. I don't see hybrids getting us there.

2) A clarification, Silence. You may not commute longer distances but you might buy a bigger vehicle (the hybrid may ultimately save the SUV -- take THAT Arianna!), might take a driving vacation, might sign up for a machine-gun club in Bennett after "Scalito" is confirmed, &c. My point is that the conservation clamored for will not reduce demand or consumption.

3) Your suggestion for better tinkering in the market seems okay on the surface but Yeccch! On Planet jk, car companies just make what people want to buy without shoehorning it in to CAFE slots. Let's direct our efforts at getting the gub'mint out of the car biz.

4) An upscale Audi? When did this happen?

1) I know you're far from a social engineer JK, I just need to point it out whenever you sound like one. And here's another: "...less reliance on imported oil." Good grief, you sound like Bill Ford Jr! Nobody is RELIANT on any oil, much less IMPORTED oil. There are plenty of other fuels out there and anyone is free to use them (unless the government gets in your way). The fact of the matter is, the most economical motor fuel is gasoline/diesel oil. As for IMPORTED oil, how is it considered "reliance" when we choose to import it at a lower cost than domestic production? That sounds more like smart shopping to me.

2) Excellent observation JK. Thanks for the clarification: Conservation (in the form of more efficiency) will not reduce demand or consumption.

4) February, 2005.

Silence, I suspect your friend's city/hwy mix is really mostly hwy. The CR "overall" number is a simple average of the city and highway numbers. People often consider their driving habits to be "mixed" city/hwy because they use both kinds of road to get to work. The key is how many times you stop and re-start, and idle. My point was why pay more for the hybrid when it's highway economy number is only 5 mpg better than gas only (vs. the 9 mpg difference advertised) and the city number is 26 vs 21 mpg (compared to the 48 mpg advertised.) Or you could pay even less and get an Insight that gets 66 hwy, 36 city!

As for your suspicion of the test parameters, how do you explain JK's MR2 getting the same city mileage in both the CR and EPA tests? There's clearly a difference in the cars as well as the tests.

I just don't see the logic that conservation will not lower consumption or demand. Are you arguing that if my current SUV gets 25 mpg that instead of trading it in for an equivalent hybrid that gets 40 mpg that I will just buy a bigger hybrid SUV and still get my 25 mpg? If those two vehicles had the same sticker price I might see some effect there, but they don't. People may not budget for gas, but they do budget for car payments. That increase from 25 mpg to 40 mpg would net you around $40 a month which won't take your from a Jeep Liberty to a Grand Cherokee, but it would buy you some leather seats, rockin' stereo, or even a machine gun rack.

My point on the DOT classifications is that once a vehicle has 4 wheels it is a car and has all the regulations therein. This actively discourages lightweight vehicle development.

Not you, Silence, so much as you, aggregate customer. I may not truck with all of John Maynard Keynes beliefs but aggregating supply and demand has its virtues. Conservation would lower prices, which would embolden consumers to disregard gasoline costs.

I'm a small car lover but I did consider a Saturn hybrid SUV (which is not even released yet). That would have put me in a 25mpg SUV instead of the 35mpg conventional car I bought. My wife saved me from myself, she hated it.

Bah! Our sea-level team is at a distinct disadvantage in the mile-high city.
But they Eagles aren't the Iggles of last year. It'll be a game no doubt.

You may recall I have this whole love-hate thing going on with them.

Yup. I just didn't know if you were in love or hate mode this week.

It should be a good game!

It's nearing the end of the 1st quarter, and I'm strongly leaning toward the "hate" category... but it's mostly, "aww! what the f*ck are they doing!??!!?!"

Here's a perfect example of the cause of the love-hate Iggles fan in me.

Fall down 28-0. Hate 'em.
Rally back three scores. Love 'em.
Choke big time. Hate 'em.

Breaks my heart!

When the Eagles cut the Broncos' lead to 28-21, Dagny and I were saying, "Here we go again." We went out to feed the horses (in that same rain you saw on TV) and came back to quite a surprise. And they weren't done yet! That ending was very un-Bronco like. Dagny remarked that the Eagles have the Giants to blame. The Broncos had a chip on their shoulder after last week.

Speaking of the G-men, they were beneficiaries of Broncos efforts in back-to-back weeks, being alone in first place now thanks to the Eagles loss.

Yeah. Only a Bronco fsn gives up all hope when his team is up by two touchdowns...I was going to leave but didn't.

A bari-sax plyer in my last band would start every game with "Let's watch the Broncos snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory!"

Thankfully, when Johngalt and I quit they did not. May have a team here...

Finally... someone says, "Yeah, they made 100 billion, but it cost them 90 billion to do it."

No harm in that.

And how many legislators on either side will be scrambling to the microphones to demand hearings into why oil companies are LOSING $10BN when the cycle reverses?

So let's get this straight: The NY Times and fellow travellers are PLEASED that gasoline prices are high, even suggesting that new taxes be added when they began to soften, but none of that money had better be going to the companies that make gasoline possible. Nosiree, anything but that!

It's time for oil companies to start hearings into why federal government revenues - they should refer to them as "profits" as well - are so astronomically high.

Amen, jg! Let the CEOs abuse the Senators for a change...

The more interesting question to me is if there are no indictments did we waste $22 million? I am especially looking forward to the pundits views on this. Tempting as it is to say yes, you are in effect saying that something should be found. The sticky wicket here is that I am sure Fitzgerald (and others before him) felt pressure to come up with something, something for the $22 million. This begs the question of whether just appointing a special prosecutor pre-judges the case really both against the subjects and the prosecutor themselves. If a failure to bring an indictment is a failure of the investigation and of the special prosecutor themselves then you have biased the outcome from the start.

The special prosecutor is a bad idea but certainly tempting to political opponents.

Judge Starr has been maligned (rightly i some instances) but his tenure brought down a sitting Governor and resulted in many indictments. Fitzgerald seems to be coming up short.

Silence makes a very good point: Does the mere appointment of a special prosecutor NECESSITATE an indictment of some sort?

Senator Schmucky Chumer of NY said on O'Reilly last night that "the only explanation" for why Libby would lie about something that wasn't a crime is that there really was a crime (a conspiracy to damage Plame and Wilson) and he's thrown himself on his sword to protect higher ups.

I'll posit another possible explanation for what, by all accounts, seems a stupid mistake on Scooter's part. Being beltway insiders, the administration realized the axiom that Silence just enlightened us about from the very beginning, and Scooter volunteered to be the fall guy.

It's at least as plausable as Chumer's "there really was a crime" hypothesis.

Just this once, jg, have a little pity on the Senior Senator from New York. Not only is he overshadowed every day by the dadgummed JUNIOR Senator form New York, but he is also feeling the disappointment not unlike “a dagger in his heart.”

The anti-W camp pinned their hopes on the Fitzgerald star and all they get is Scooter. Poor Senator Schumer…

I think this shows that Brown has become a judicial "rock star." When I form a mental image of her confirmation hearings juxtaposed with those of Ms. Miers there's a startling contrast of personality and, dare I say, 'gravitas.'

Let's hope that, just this once, the prez reads the polls.

65 or not, I have to say that I could go for Ted Olsen as well -- and he would be pretty confirmable.

It is a great post even though like you I disagree, but as a hypotheses it is an interesting idea. My take is that people are realizing some pertinent things:

1) It is a long haul to build a democracy and a positive outcome is far from a sure thing.
2) The hurricanes have brought painfully to point that everything costs time, energy, and money and the supplies of all of those are limited. Money spent to rebuild Baghdad is not available to rebuild New Orleans.
3) Actions in Iran and North Korea and our government's discussion of same note that there is still no shortage of brutal tyrants who may possess WMD's and being willing to use them or provide them to those that would.

None of these is an indictment against the war but can lead to misgivings in the ranks. People certainly could have gotten the wrong idea about 1) from statements by our VP or Sec. of Defense and possibly even been convinced that the "domino theory" would take care of 3).

I also agree that the No Blood for Oil slogan has only its catchy chant and ready adaptability to a placard going for it. I would however point out that our foreign policy is tainted by our need for oil, it is not THE issue but factors in to many of the things we do or don't do.

I think you could've stopped after '1' Silence. The war has lost appeal because it has been longer and more difficult than we imagined.

The terrorism that remains in Iraq (it is NOT an insurgency) has certainly surprised me. You can call me naive but I expected flowers in the street, wasn't surprised by continued acts against the Coalition troops, but am gobsmacked that they are killing so many Muslims.

They see how bad democracy would be for their cause, that makes me want to stick it out.

1) The only "sure things" are death and taxes.
2) Was indemnity insurance available to the citizens of Baghdad to rebuild their city in the event it was damaged during a war to overthrow their tyrannical government? No. But even so, they couldn't be as certain that would happen as could New Orlineans that a hurricane would, one day, hit their city.
3)And letting Iraq continue to at least claim doing the same dissuades these other Axis of Evil members, how?

The "domino theory" is having its effect. Notice that the enemies of freedom and capitalism are becoming more and more direct in their rhetoric. They had been pursuing their "diplomatic option" too, and it was a miserable failure. Democracy in "the land of three rivers" was the last straw for them. Their cause is entering its death throes.

I recall several factors outside the control of the Astros that cost them in the first three games, but game four was mismanaged, pure and simple. If you're going to lift your starting pitcher for a pinch hitter with 2 outs and the bases empty, don't send your former superstar who "hasn't had the power since his shoulder surgery" simply to give him a cameo in front of the home town crowd. And for NED's sake, DON'T PULL YOUR STARTER AFTER 7 INNINGS OF 5-HIT SHUTOUT BALL WHEN HE'S CLEARLY IN THE GROOVE, AND FEELING INVINCIBLE! Come on man, what the H E double hockey sticks were you thinkin?!

The Sox were clearly the better team in the series though. Hats off.

Ding, Dong the Church Lady's Dead!

All hail... Janice, Rogers, Brown.

I'm going to defend my pal Silence here. I have not responded because I have been rendered speechless (it's temporary, I promise).

China holds Tibet against her will and threatens the sovereign nation of Taiwan, which it considers part of One China. It is a fear society in Sharansky's view and a huge threat to all of its neighbors.

I am extremely comfortable sanctioning Iran, North Korea and Syria. And I am extremely comfortable engaging with China. And I would be comfortable engaging with Cuba (yet another Fear society). I am not yet comfortable explaining to Silence how I bifurcate...

Damn.

Not to heap salt on a wound, but how also do you explain engagement with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and India? The Saudis may not be aggressive as a state, but it sure seems we have enough evidence they teach Islamic aggression even if the export is not officially state sanctioned. What was the President's line about being with us or against us? India and Pakistan have skirmished along their border for years and Mr. Khan seems to have sold more nuclear technology than all the rest of the world combined.

Exigencies. Pakistan has been an important ally in the War on Terror, Saudi Arabia a good trading partner from the realist days. Now, both of them can be dragged along the human rights road much better by engagement than by shunning them.

I do question India on your list. India is a free society, a budding democracy, and has British legal roots. I see them as a great ally and trading partner -- as you point out, fighting with Pakistan is not ipso facto a vice.

Ah exingencies, they do make for strange bedfellows, all the more reason to have a coherent and consistent overall foreign policy. These are both areas where I feel the Bush Doctrine fails.

The pen was mightier than the sword, and so will the Internet be mightier than the atom bomb. Give people a taste, or show them one through freedom of information of a better life and they will fight hard to get it and keep it. The world has gotten smaller and dictators will find it increasingly difficult to wall their people off from other ideas and ways of life. The example of democracy and capitalism is a shining one and we have the tools to lift it aloft and let it shine across the world.

There you go, Silence. You've just explained JK's bifurcation in two words: "Bush Doctrine."

When the president named names in that now famous address to congress he did not say there were no other oppressive nations in the world. He took the opportunity of a massive and cowardly attack on free men to lay down a new, clear cut, "coherent and consistent overall foreign policy" namely, "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."

China appears to have picked our side. For that, they are rewarded, as is any other nation who likewise accepts, engages, and makes progress toward the American ideals of individual liberty. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appear to belong in this camp too, at least for the time being. They must be carefully monitored.

Cuba is a miniscule non-player in the war on terror. At some point, once the western world finally reaches consensus that the Bush Doctrine is in all of our best long-term interest (and stops denouncing it merely because it was implemented by a Republican) we can afford to give some attention to engaging Cuba. If that development coincides with the death of Castro, so much the better.

I gotta agree with you here again and even with your corrected quote, my apologies for misquoting. Where we might not agree is that I would lump most of the Patriot Act in the same barrel. The original owner of my blog name once said "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." This goes for security from terrorists, drug side effects, and the freedom to make any choice that carries a risk. Our freedoms see assault from all quarters, certainly the liberals and the trend of political correctness, but also the conservatives who would regulate who you may fall in love with and what your children will learn. There is now a "religious correctness" afoot where it seems soon no teacher will dare utter the "E-word" (Evolution).

Don't say e*******n on the blog Silence! You'll get me kicked out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!!

There are *some* conservatives afoot who would limit the liberties you mentioned but I am not one of them. I had a nice argument with Andrew Sullivan once on this topic (maybe it was me who drove him absolutely mad). My claim to both of you is that those people are not in power in my party; they're there but haven’t been represented in any significant legislation.

Conversely, Gov. Dean is the head of the DNC. Democratic leaders talk the same way. My argument with Sullivan literally started the day he compared something Senator Tom Daschle said to a Republican County Clerk from Bernalillo County, NM and came up with your line: "see, they’re both bad..." In short, I claim the GOP has their kooks under much better control than do the Ds. We try to keep them quiet, they elect them to leadership.

Your specific example of The Patriot Act is well taken. Many libertarians on the right are afraid of the Patriot Act as well; it happens that I am not. If you can quote Franklin, I can quote Goldwater "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." The purveyors of the Patriot Act are defending the fundamental liberties of this nation against those who would subvert it to religious rule. Governor Dean's goals are far less ambitious.

The larger points of the Patriot Act are to allow information sharing between government agencies and to update early regulations to modern technology (attaching wiretaps to a person and not a phone number makes sense in a cell-phone world). It's the beta noir the left and far right but I just haven't seen anything in it that I find that oppressive.

You mean they are defending our liberties against those who would subvert it to Islamic religious rule, lots of folks on the right who would be very comfortable with Christian religious rule.

Yeah we did elevate our kook to head kook position, can't really defend that. He is mostly a mouth though, I don't see Harry Reid consulting him on policy issues. All lot of the hard right kooks are outside the party mainstream, but can claim hefty veiwership and book sales so someone is listening. The religious charities legislation and the President's recent remarks about intelligent design do show that that group has some political clout on the national level and I don't think you can ignore their power locally, there is a strong grass roots movement there. I do credit President Bush with keeping them mostly under control though.

The main provisions of the Patriot Act that I don't like are those that limit due process. Actually the domestic material witness rules are equally bothersome. Indeterminate imprisonment without charge just seems fundamentally against our founding principals. I find the enemy combatant designation even more disturbing as it shows just how easily the Bill of Rights can be sidestepped. All of this really plays into a larger issue of the increase in executive branch power, mostly under the guise of war powers. The war on terror is a replacement for the Cold War and has the same capability to keep us in a constant state of war and thus is a constant trump card for claiming increased power and jurisdiction by the federal executive branch.

I still accuse you of conflating a guy who writes a book with a legislative leader. There are book sales and web hits a-plenty on the fringes, but actual *legislation* proposed or passed bolsters my original point that the Democrats are actively pursuing less liberty. The GOP has a sector that would like to legislate Christianity, but these proposal do not make it out of committee.

Bush's remarks on I.D. were a set up. A reporter tried to bushwhack the (Evangelical Christian) President. W didn't bring it up -- because he failed to convulse and vomit bile at the mention of I.D., he is portrayed as a knuckle-draggin' creationist.

I agree that the Executive branch has tried to go too far, categorizing American Citizens as enemy combatants. I know the ACLU will offer a vigorous defense (unless they're Republican enemy combatants...) I'll hope justice is served and remember that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to prosecute the Civil War.

Bastiat says that law must be avoidable to be fair and I find it very easy to avoid being found on the field of battle firing at American troops. McCain-Feingold, conversely, is being used to shut down blogs. A speech code hits where I live.

Plug for a crony

This post has a reference to RealClearPolitics.com. There was another reference to RCP very recently. I add a plug for the site in a Harriet Miers style example of cronyism. I know Tom Bevan. He is a friend of my brother's. They played football together in high school.

That's probably not a good reason to nominate a supreme court justice but it will hold up for recommending a website. Additionally the polling averages are sort of a neat feature.

An important point is that this is happening because of economic engagement. Boycotts or sanctions wouldn't get us this far.

Yup, I question the level of human rights and freedom in China, but we see progress. In Cuba, we have disengaged (though our pusillanimous European pals have not) and the march of freedom has stagnated.

I find myself thinking more and more that you're right on this one JK. If the allure of capitalistic freedom can move the mammoth Chinese society appreciably, imagine the liberating effect it would have on the hellacious house of cards known as the Cuban "worker's paradise!"

How about Syria, North Korea, and Iran? Couldn't the same tactics work there?

Hmmm, let's see... have China or Cuba asassinated the prime minister of a neighboring state? Have they sold nuclear weapon technology or components to terrorists? How about financing the "insurgents" in Iraq, or vowing to anhillate the state of Israel and every Jew? No, I think the peaceful engagement of the states you list would amount to appeasement of unprovoked agression.

You mean recently I assume, and not considering the firing of missiles into the Straits of Japan and threatening the leadership of Taiwan as aggressive? The North Vietnamese didn't completely fund and arm themselves remember. I am talking long term here, I have no illusions that a few Ipods and some Levis are going to change these regimes overnight. My point is that nothing is going to change them overnight and long term economic engagement and trade has a better track record than either sanctions or military intervention.

I seem to remember impeaching Bill Clinton for lying under oath. I don't know where you stood on that, but I thought it was the right thing to do. If Karl lied under oath, then hasta la vista baby.

As I recall the Clinton thing was all about sex. That's what they said on TV...

As Taranto noted, NYTimes reporters sometimes forget or are mistaken while administration officials "LIED!!!!"

If they lie is "I don't recall" and not germane to the original charge, I am not gonna grab for the ax.

As a more serious answer on the Clinton comparison, his lie took away Paula Jones's chance in court in a civil case. Yup, if Rove lied as blatantly and as directly to case, you bet, hasta...

I hope you are right. Reading Krauthammer yesterday, and Jonah Goldberg today, I really hope that this nomination does not proceed.

I don't smell Rove in this plan because I don't see that it will help the next nominee> Michael Luttig would be greeted with "Why not a woman like that nice Harriet Miers?" and Janice Rodgers Brown will be "why not a moderate like that lovely Ms. Miers?"

Score me on the side that says if Mr. Rove were not preparing for grand juries and stocking up on soap-on-a-rope, this debacle might not have gone down.

Maybe you SHOULD have been getting another beer.

What a putz that guy is. People who wear bow ties shouldn't insult other people who aren't physically present to give them a whuppin'. It's cowardly.

JK, why didn't you tell "the bowed one" (and if my name were "Tucker" I'd be inclined to dress that way too) that you don't have to go to the kitchen for beer? You're kegerator is right there next to your La-Z-Boy!

"Beer is proof that God loves us." (Well, NED loves us anyway.)

I don't know if you've seen the show but it runs live at 11pm Eastern, and his voice mail segment DOES feature a lot of folks who appear to have over-imbibed. So it's a running theme and I took it good-naturedly.

To be fair, I was sheepish when I learned that he had done a segment on the election, that I had missed it, and that I had accused wrongly. Folks deserve better treatment around here unless they're commies or hippies or weirdoes or somethin'

Fair enough. Consider my gratuitous pansy-bashing herewith retracted. (Anyone with the patience to share a soundstage with James Carville or Paul Begala deserves a medal in my book.) But I still stand by my defense of the virtues of beer! ;)

Beer makes men feel strong and women look beautiful, what's not to like? Ok, it makes men stupid too, how many of your best college stories start with "We were drinking on night...." As for Tucker Carlson I say anyone under the age of 40 who wears a bow tie is a pretentious nitwit. While I agree that I would not want to be in the same room with Carville or Begala (somehow balanced annoyance doesn't do it for me) if he wants my respect let see him invite Jon Stewart back.

Harumph! Now you're bad-mouthing beer?! You've crossed the line from polite disagreement into hate-speech now, buddy boy. Your criticism is like saying cars are bad because, when driven 100 miles an hour into a brick wall, the occupants invariably die.

Really think beer "makes men stupid?" http://www.beer-lover.com/
Go tell it to Dave Berry, Ben Franklin and Plato, smart guy!

My modest review of 'Serenity' on October 5 didn't go into detail on the philosophy of the movie, but one of the two philosophical themes I mentioned was Mal's embodiment of rational self-interest as a philosophy of life. Then along comes John Coleman to say man's highest motivation is not self-interest, but "love and belief." What gives? Had we both seen the same movie? The answer, of course, is yes. But each of us had much different preconceptions against which we weighed the events of the film. Where Coleman sees sacrifice and belief, I see choice and values.

I agree with Coleman's point that there can be no love without belief in something, but I'm not willing to endorse a belief in just "anything." This is what leads, as Coleman admits, to a force that can be either the greatest good or the greatest evil. A textbook example of the latter is the belief system of islamofascists that somehow inspires them to love... DEATH.

A further example of Coleman's flawed analysis of the Serenity characters' motives is his completely baseless characterization of their loves as "unconditional." This just prior to the aforementioned belief prerequisite. Maybe he meant pseudo-conditional instead. No, the film's heroes loved who and what they loved only because those people and things were of value to them. I'm not talking about commercial value... something to be traded. I'm talking about the "big" values - the priceless ones - life, liberty, happiness and the recognition of those values in other people. This is a highly conditional love.

Then there is the issue of "true belief." As I recall, this was Book's explanation to Mal for why the Operative pursuing River was such a formidable foe. But the point was not that this "true" belief was virtuous, rather that it was dangerous. It enabled him to murder children if necessary to further the goals of his cause. Thus, another islamofascist parallel.

I do believe my counterpart has admirable intentions. He at least acknowledges the existence of good and evil. His problem is that his value system is shaped by altruism (unconditional love) and blind faith (true belief.) That may be what moves him to his personal notion of greatness, but it isn't what drives a man of principle to wager his net worth toward defeating an entire government structure founded upon an immoral ideal.

You always get me thinking, jg, I'll give you that...

Yup, there is a whiff of Altruism (should I call it "the A-word?) in Coleman's review that may not be visible in Mal, but I still don't get your flat rebuke of alt****m in all forms.

[Spoilers ahead, but we've been good on this site, if you ain't seen it yet, I dunno...]

Why does Mal "aim to misbehave" when he does? He risks the near certainty of losing his ship, his crew, and the ignominy of being tortured and eaten by rievers.

At that point, and as I've made the case with our U.S. military heroes, it's exceeded rational self interest, if it's not a-------m, it's certainly some form of doing something to benefit others.

I'm so glad you're engaging me on this on JK. It's too good a subject to let fade into "blognominity."

"Why does Mal 'aim to misbehave' when he does?" An excellent question for which I have the answer. Recall the context: Mal and Serenity had just returned to Book's settlement to seek refuge. On their prior visit Book had told him, "The Alliance can't find us here." Mal attempted to, as Book had, "go away and be left alone." But despite how certain Book was that they were safe, the Alliance's thugs STILL found them and STILL murdered them all. Yes, there was a trace of revenge in Mal's pronouncement but, selfishly, he knew that if he tried to hide himself and his from the Alliance they could never be safe. Or at least, could never live in peace knowing the threat was always there. THIS is what caused Mal to "misbehave" and THIS is why US troops went to Afghanistan and Iraq and...??

Now you may choose to see the actions of these men as altruistic, and some of them may feel that to some extent, they're out there risking their lives "to protect their countrymen back home and around the world." But how many of them would not also say they're pursuing evil and confronting danger now in the hope of destroying it, so they can return home to a life of peace without fear? In the final calculation, the best (and fiercest) soldiers are the ones who love not death and destruction, but life and happiness on earth.

In conclusion, because others benefit from the actions of heroes, both real and fictional, does not make such benefit their motive. The first and highest benefit goes to the hero himself. And as proof that Mal doesn't have an altruistic bone in his body I'll remind you of what happened when the man from the bank tried to climb onto Mal's "mule." Mal told him how to save his OWN life, then kicked him off. Wheedon thought this scene so important he had Zoe question him about it in the next scene. "But you left him there to die," she said. "That ship carries four," he said. "We were full and I'm not about to risk my crew when I don't have to." (Or something like that. I don't have the transcript.) This is one of the things I most loved about this film. The philosophy was not just correct, it was explicit.

By the way, did you know that "Zoe" is Greek for "life?"

John, you're missing the character development of the film.

At the beginning, Mal is certainly self focused, caring only about "me and mine." But it is precisely as he leaves this behind that the film moves forward. When he brings River back to his ship after what she did at the bar (the beginning of all his troubles), was that rational self-interest? When Jayne - the true voice of a Randian, and hardly put in a good light - asks why he did it, Wendon makes a point of focusing the camera on a knowing glance between Mal and Zoe, as if to say that Zoe was right to call him on his earlier selfishness. Mal, it seems, recognizes his mistake and refuses to repeat it. That he is no longer seeking his own interest (at least primarily) is confirmed when he refuses to give River up to the Operative. The rational thing to do would be to drop her like a hot potato.

In short, Mal (and especially Jayne) begins as something of a Randian, but the film as a whole (and the series it is based on) is a pretty clear rejection of that view as insufficient.

Belief (and sacrificial love) is presented as necessary, even if it can be abused. The Operative's belief is certainly condemned, but it is Mal's (and the other's) own belief in something more important than themselves (the Truth?) that leads them to oppose and defeat him. The film raises questions about belief, love, freedom and control, but it doesn't fully answer them. It certainly doesn't offer any defense of rational self-interest. Mal, too, is willing to die for his belief, even if that isn't "plan A."

In fact, without a tacit admission that there is a standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest, the plot (not to mention real life morality) simply would not make sense. Since this affirmation of a fundamental standard of good and evil is itself a belief, self-interest is, at best, a side show to the film's real focus on belief. Thus, John Coleman's review is, I think, substantially correct. Though I suggest it needs a little expansion here: http://cruxmag.typepad.com/situation_critical/2005/10/serenity_revisi.html

I see that I've struck a nerve with my criticism of "true belief." As I compose my response to Ken, Dagny reminds me, "we want him to keep coming back to the site and commenting." While I agree with that, it's often impossible to completely challenge someone's belief system and keep him engaged in rational dialog at the same time. I'll just give it my best, and most diplomatic, effort and let the chips fall...

Earlier I observed that John Coleman saw 'Serenity' as a story of sacrifice and belief rather than choice and values. Ken takes this same worldview even further, describing it as sacrifice and belief TRUMPING choice and values. Citing no more than his interpretation of a "knowing glance" Ken insists that I've misinterpreted Mal's "misbehavior" and that it is, as JK suggested, "certainly some form of doing something to benefit others." But where JK casts this self-sacrificial behavior as "exceeding" rational self-interest, Ken argues that the entire idea of rational self-interest is "insufficient."

To his credit, Ken attempts to explain how it is insufficient: "...without a tacit admission that there is a standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest, the plot (not to mention real life morality) simply would not make sense." But while Ken is fast and sure in his criticism of rational self-interest, he's not so confident in offering the "sufficient" alternative - one that "fully answers" the questions of "belief, love, freedom and control." His best suggestion is "the Truth." In 'Serenity's' example, the truth is, as Samizdata's Paul Marks put it (see 'Serenity Review', 10/10/2005), the Alliance central government "wishes to create a better, more civilized world (or rather worlds) and (...) is prepared to violate the nonagression principle in order to achieve this objective." (Note again, the Islamist parallel.) But Ken didn't refer to the "truth" he said, "the Truth" with a capital T, like "Him" or "God." (We call Him "NED" around here, meaning "non-existent deity.) So in the end Ken takes nothing more from this film than a duel between competing true-beliefs and, not unlike the Christian crusades against the Muslims of their day, the "good guys" win. Why? Because they believe "in something more important than themselves." This could conceivably explain how our heroes defeat the primative, range-of-the-moment Rievers, but not the Operative who gave us numerous lectures about the superior virtue of HIS true belief.

I give Whedon much, much more credit than this. As Book cautioned Mal, "True belief cannot be defeated, it can only be destroyed." This is because "true" belief means "unquestioning" belief - anything that opposes the doctrine of that belief is, by definition, wrong. But how did Joss end the film? [Major spoiler alert!] When Mal had the Operative dead to rights and raised the sword high in a two-handed grip, with every justification to kill in defense of himself and humanity, Mal plunged the Operative not into death, but into bondage before the video of what resulted on Miranda in the name of his own "true belief." The true-believer was forced to watch the horror that waits as the ultimate end of his highest value: A "better, more civilized world" through the suppression of human ambition. But ninety-nine percent of humanity will, when their ambition is removed, refuse to fight - for their neighbor's life, their loved one's life, their own life... or ANYTHING else. (The other one percent? They become Rievers.) This resulted in the Operative abandoning his pursuit of River.

Thus Mal had not destroyed true belief, he defeated it (also giving River liberty instead of "dropping her like a hot potato.") He did this not by the force of some "superior" true belief, but using reason and reality to show the Operative how his belief was wrong. For the Operative to recognize his error and submit to the overwhelming power of reality in contradiction to his belief required one thing: rational thought.

This brings me to what I consider the most pernicious element of Ken's entire entry. Whether by ignorance or hostility, Ken dismisses Ayn Rand's philosophy as nothing but "me first." He insinuates that Rand held no moral values, no "standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest." He presents Jayne as "the true voice of a Randian." But Jayne starts out closer to a Riever than a Randian. Rievers kill for sport and for spoils. Jayne too will sometimes kill for spoils, which distinguishes him from Mal or any other Randian. Rational self-interest justifies killing only in defense and not as a means of personal gain... even if that gain is necessary for survival. Randians draw this distinction because it is rational: If every human were a Randian there would be peace and commerce and progress and life; if every human were an altruistic true-believer there would be war and slavery and taxes and mass-murder.

Zoe and Mal's "knowing glance" implies an inconsistency in Mal's treatment of River versus the stranger at the bank, but Mal had made no mistake. Despite River's actions at the bar she was still a member of his crew, and therefore a part of "me and mine." Mal's uncertainty was not the validity of self-interest, but whether River posed a future danger to the rest of the crew. He dealt with her transgression by laying down the law with her and her brother. In the end keeping her proved to be in his, and the crew's, self-interest.

For more on the the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which she called, "Objectivism" see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Comments closed on this post. Post future commments on the new thread at: http://www.threesources.com/archives/002077.html (Or scroll to November 6 above.)

Yep, lots to disagree about. It all depends on your viewpoint I am afraid. You see factual evidence in the administration version, if perhaps some minor miscommunication. Of the detractors you see predilection and partisan hacks. I see predilection on the Bush administration side in spades from Chalabi to "Curveball". Partisan hacks abound in the Defense Department. Intel was culled and scripted to support the conclusion that had already been made. The "CEO" president who supposedly surrounded himself with the best and the brightest to hash out solutions to the country's problems ended up with an amazing solidarity of thought. This administration has perfected the talking point system with officials trotted out to read scripts. All events are sifted to promote a single message and doubt, questioning, and differing opinions are excluded. The official message is true, all others are tainted with partisanship and ulterior motives. As the pigs said, some are more equal than others.

No. It is not a simple difference of opinion.

I do not claim the administration's case to be accurate, I claim that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's report, signed by Democrat and Republican Senators, is more credible than Joseph Wilson IV's OpEd, which didn't match his interview, which doesn't match his book.

If Mr. Fitzgerald prosecutes Libby or Rove for identifying Plame or somehow contravening national security, then you'll be proven right and I'll apologize. If it's a Martha Stewart "lying about a non-crime,” I'll have to ask why he couldn't find anything in two years.

Maybe I shouldn't call Joe Wilson a hack but I can't help myself. He exhibits most of the features listed in the partisan hack guidebook. And as YOU called ME a partisan hypocrite in your first comment, I'm not feeling gracious enough for a retraction...

Peek at the UPDATE: link if you get a chance, Silence. A liberal says "Hold the schadenfreude..."

And. Who is "Curveball?"

I agree with the Slate article you reference in your update JK. I don't think and didn't say that Plame's name was outed to punish Wilson, just that it came out as part of the smear campaign against him, much of the questioning about how he personally was selected were innuendos against his wife, her contacts, and the CIA in general. In fact the article also states:

That blame game was morphing into a larger public dispute about the administration's claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush officials were in the middle of an argument in which they were largely wrong, and which they lost, but in which they thought they were right and were trying to win.

This to me is the rub, when it becomes more important to be right than to have the truth. In the high stakes that international politics and military intervention exist in we need to have the truth, not someone's version of it crammed down our throats so they don't have to admit that they were wrong.

Where I differ fromt the Slate article is that I don't know that the law in question is so flawed, it bears a very strong resem