The Beat goes On

The Boston Globe ran a story that was picked up and plastered all over the front page of my local paper Saturday morning that screamed 'Defeat!' at me with this headline:

Decisive victory doubtful in Iraq

Military: Diplomacy is only path to peace

Having momentarily fallen under the spell of MSM assessment, I panicked. My mind raced back to stories I instantly recalled from last week about how we've nothing left to win in Iraq and how the Iraqi army is still years away from any sort of effectiveness. Then I took a deep breath, and well...read the story. Some of the highlights:

-Despite significant guerrilla setbacks and optimistic predictions by a host of American commanders earlier this year, the Sunni-backed insurgency remains as strong as ever, forcing U.S. officials and their Iraqi allies to seek a political solution to the bloodshed. Pentagon officials and current members of the military interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

-''We are not going to win the unconditional surrender from the insurgents and have no choice but to somehow bring them into society," said retired Army Col. Paul Hughes, an Iraq war veteran who is now at the government-funded U.S. Institute for Peace. ''To think there will be one climactic military event to end this is foolish. Those who cling to that don't understand."

-''The insurgency is still mounting an effort comparable to where they were a year ago," said Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer and specialist on counterinsurgency operations who directs the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent think tank in Washington. "We do something we think will change things, but a month or two later, casualties and the level of violence are back to where they were," Krepinevich added. So far this year, nearly 1,000 members of Iraq's police and security forces have been killed in attacks, almost as many as the total for the previous year and a half, according to Pentagon figures.

U.S. military officials have documented more disturbing trends. The number of attacks involving suicide bombers, for example, rose from 25 percent in February to more than 50 percent in April, according to estimates provided by Pentagon officials, who asked not to be identified.

Such insights confirm the MSM assessments of where we are in Iraq: if not beaten by the insurgency, we’re close to it and lacking the ability to win a decisive victory. The Unspoken Truth of the piece is clear: we can’t ‘win’ the fight anywhere near the Administration’s vision, so why try? We ought to be leaving.

So what do we have here, really? A summary that includes the usual anonymous suspects and what positions itself as some sort of revelatory conclusion that a successful political process is all we can hope for.

After that began setting in, I recalled a couple of other things. Things that made me realize, this piece is hardly any sort of new revelation. Rather, it is simply more of the same.

First off, the move towards political resolution of the situation began way back on January 30th, when the insurgents offered up no political alternative and were repudiated by the Iraqi citizenry who successfully elected a parliament. The second thing I remembered was this story, also from last week.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani last week took steps to ensure greater inclusion of the Sunni minority in Iraq’s political process: Iraq's president averted a crisis Thursday by promising Sunni Arabs a big say in drafting the constitution - clearing the way for them to join a Shiite-dominated panel now working around the clock in a cavernous, dusty auditorium.

Sunni Arab support is vital to the lawmakers who gather inside the most heavily fortified area of the capital, trying to ignore assassination attempts, death threats and suicide attacks as they wrangle over sensitive charter details and sometimes give way to shouted arguments.

Iraq's 275-seat parliament has until mid-August to adopt a new constitution that hasn't yet been written, must be acceptable to Iraq's voters, and is expected to deal with the tough issues of role of Islam in public life and the type of electoral system Iraq should have. The document will face a nationwide vote two months later. If adopted, it will provide the basis for a new election to be held by December.

In other words, the very thing that military officials in the Globe’s story are advocating and hallmark as the only possible positive-outcome to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Now, if I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to say this is where we’re already going!

Little Baghdad

Anti-terrorism tactics for use in Iraq and Afghanistan are being tested and tried in "Little Baghdad", a facility sitting on the Yuma Proving Grounds in SW Arizona. It's 'real' name is the Joint Experimentation Range Complex.

It's commander, Army Col. Stephen Kreider describes it's purpose as, "...deal with improvised explosive devices and to re-create the atmosphere of the Middle East, both in terms of Iraq and that arena and Afghanistan," Kreider said. "The type of structures and type of road networks are common to those types of environments, so that's what we created here."

On top of that, the DOD is wanting to make the site the National Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency Testing and Training Site, and has already invested $10 million to that end. Colonel Kreider says he expects up to another $25 million before the summer's end.

So how does "Little Baghdad" prepare men and women to deal with the real Baghdad? It's all about IED's: Hundreds of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, are hidden around the mock village and roads.

...

The IEDs are hidden everywhere - in light poles, under bridges and near roads. A three-foot piece of curb on one road was taken out and rebuilt with a bomb inside and then replaced.

"Don't ever think those guys are stupid," Ricky Douglas, a test manager and IED expert, said of the insurgents fighting American troops. "They are very creative."

To date, roughly 1000 service men and women have gone through Little Baghdad's streets and villages with the aim of better navigating the real thing.

Glory Days

Boring stories of Glory Days are apparently on display not far from my crib.

On Saturday, I was walking down Pierrepont Street in Brooklyn Heights and suddenly noticed a beautiful old red brick and terracotta building for the first time. I have probably passed it dozens of times since moving to this neighborhood and for some reason never noticed it. I was ostensibly in a hurry to get someplace, do something, or possibly even avoid doing something urgently. Most likely I displayed Fast-Walker Tunnel Vision Syndrome (FWTVS, for short). FWTVS is a stress-minimizing coping mechanism that you develop over years in New York which allows you to funnel-out all non-essential aspects of the mayhem surrounding you in order that you might accomplish objectves. But on Saturday I noticed this wonderful relic from the 1800s and walked to the front of the building to see what it was. It turned out to be the home of the Brooklyn Historical Society. Unfortunately, it was closed when I passed by on Satuday. But when I came home I looked it up on the Net and learned that there are all sorts of source documents, photos, books and exhibits about the history of Brooklyn. Pretty interesting when you consider that Brooklyn's history spans George Washington's retreat down Fourth Avenue in the Revolutionary War to the impending temporary headquartering of the United Nations from Manhattan while the UN building undergoes renovations.

However, I also learned on the BHS website that they are currently displaying an exhibit celebrating the Trolley Wreck's 1955 World Series Championship (For those uninitiated to my hatred of the LA Dodgers, they were formerly housed in Brooklyn and they were originally called the Trolley Dodgers) . And the exhibit is also home to a previously mentioned World Championship banner. I'm planning on heading back over there next week and will give you a full report (with photos). It seems appropriate that the banner is housed alongside memorabilia from George Washington's time in my fair city.

Glory days indeed.

Downing Street: Apparent Progress Followed by Retrenchment

The Nation's David Corn is another boob who generally gets my dander up, but in writing about the Downing Street Memo he does manage to concede a fundamental truth which is evident to anyone with a brain, namely that the word "fixed" does not necessarily mean fabricated.

But this discussion made me realize that perhaps those Bush critics waving the DSM around as gotcha evidence have placed too much emphasis on the "fixed" sentence. I suppose one could read it to mean that Richard Dearlove (aka C), the head of the British MI6, was telling Blair that the Bushies were "gearing" intelligence and facts toward their desire for war. Or perhaps he was indicating that they were building a case for war with whatever facts and intelligence they could find. All of these possibilities come across as somewhat dodgy. But maybe C did not mean "fixed" as in "rigged."

That this has had to be explicated seems to me rather silly, but it is so often part of the game when it comes to the unhinged Left that I am used to it. However, unsatisfied with the result of such an exercise in elementary logic, Corn goes on to enunciate the new bullseye of the Left's ever-moving Bush Lied Who Died target:

C says he (sic) consultations in Washington indicated Bush wanted war. Yet Bush told the public otherwise. Not news? Only if you think a president misleading Americans about his desire for war is not worthy of attention. All the focus on the "fixed" issue might be a distraction. This memo is evidence--more evidence, I should say--that Bush was committed to war from the start and said whatever needed saying (truth be damned) to sway the citizenry.

So to summarize, the issue is no longer the ruse that Bush fabricated the intelligence on Iraq's WMD (which we already knew), it is that Bush had already made the decision to go to war, despite his statements to the contrary.

*stupified*

Um. Duh. Is David Corn on the vanguard of those Bush opponents who are finally waking up to reality? With some smelling salts can we anticipate an eventual realization that Jimmy Hoffa ain't coming back? I, for one, thought it rather apparent that Bush was ready to go to war in the summer of 2002. In fact, I even thought that many of Bush's opponents were quite clear in making this very point. So I'm rather astonished that we're getting in such a lather about it in 2005.

I don't want to make excuses for the President, but I see no legal or ethical dilemmas posed by these actions. I believe Bush was prepared to use force in Iraq, but was convinced by Colin Powell and Tony Blair to give diplomacy one more shot, in the form of the UN inspectors saga which played out over six months during the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003. Bush, like the rest of us (I thought), knew that Saddam wasn't going to play ball on inspections. But the impeachable offense is now that he told the public that force was the last resort? Does the Commander in Chief now have to be at perpetual disadvantage because he no longer has the latitude to practice strategic diplomacy? Does he now have to lay all of his cards on the table 100% of the time because the hyper-literal David Corns and Michael Moores and Junior Foreign Policy Expert crowd demand it? It seems a rather naiive expectation considering these are the same folks who deliver us elegantly meaty conspiracy theories driven by Internet loonies as fact-based reporting.

Bottom line: I don't believe that Bush was particularly desirous of war for a variety of reasons. The economic and budgetary impacts of going to war in the midst of a recession could not have appealed to him. The specter of thousands of flag-draped coffins (and pre-war, some estimates had casualties at 10,000 or more) returning from the Middle East on the brink of a re-election campaign certainly didn't appeal to the Karl Rove political machine. The risks associated with triggering a wider war or impinging oil flows from the region should Iran or Saudi Arabia or Israel sustain meaningful body blows from Saddam also had to give him reason for concern. Did Bush really want to spend precious political capital on an unpopular war which would obviously sidetrack other international and domestic agenda items just because he wanted to avenge his father's nemesis? For oil? For Halliburton? For Israel? So he could land a plane on an aircraft carrier? Because he gets a kick out of death and destruction and writing letters to grieving mothers?

I think Bush realized that our 9/11 lesson was that irrationality emanating from the Middle East was a significant threat to America and that it would be hard to argue that there was a greater source of irrationality in the region than Saddam. That boil needed to be lanced. Bush was willing to give the UN one final go, but in order for that effort to be credible the potential use of force also had to be credible. And if you're going to make a threat, you had better be prepared to carry it out. Especially when you essentially knew that the UN route was probably destined to fail.

I don't deny that Downing Street is interesting. But it is interesting in documenting the history of decision-making in the run up to the war. Not as the ever-elusive smoking gun that Democrats are always attempting to manufacture. I truly believe that when they start to re-allocate their time to developing an agenda and a genuine voice as opposed to playing 'gotcha' they'll have better traction at the polls.

Gonzo Galloway

Newly-minted celebrity Marxist Member of Parliament George Galloway is making hay while his star is bright. Following in the lucrative footsteps of fellow Bush-bashing, red-herring purveyor, Michael Moore, Mr. Galloway recently appeared on Al Jazeera and demanded that George Bush, Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi and Junichiro Koizumi stand trial as war criminals, blamed what he calls "the globalized capitalist economic system," for the deaths of more people than perished under the jackboot of Adolph Hitler and called Coalition Forces in Iraq "Crusader soldiers."

You can be sure that the Mainstream Media (MSM), which praised Galloway's tough talk to the US Senate a few weeks ago, will not be reporting details of Galloway's insipid, frothing rant on Al Jazeera. This guy has literally punched his own ticket. It's a matter of time. Mark my words.

Macro Trends

Belmont Club does a nice job of linking macro trends in the War on Terror, developments in Europe and the United Nations. This is a subject that has been percolating in my brain since the outcomes of the German election in Nordrhein-Westfal and the French constitutional referendum. I'll expand on this subject in the days to come.

Going too far at Gitmo.

This week's Time Magazine makes it clear that the US has truly gone too far in its handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Apparently, we are forcing the detainees to listen to Christina Aguilera tunes. If this can be proven, I do indeed think we have crossed the line into real torture:

The quizzing now starts at midnight, and when Detainee 063 dozes off, interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music.

The horror.

Frank Rich is a boob.

Perusing today's missive from movie reviewer-turned political analyst, Frank Rich, I was struck by what a witless boob he is. While I've always considered him a hack, I never realized he was this worthless. After all, I reasoned, he's an assistant editor for the New York Times. He must have some redeeming qualities or skills. But I was dead wrong. Check out this astonishing declaration:

The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon's in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge it, any media proprietor like Katharine Graham or editor like Ben Bradlee who might support them and any anonymous source like Deep Throat who might enable them to find what Carl Bernstein calls "the best obtainable version of the truth."

The attacks continue to be so successful that even now, long after many news organizations, including The Times, have been found guilty of failing to puncture the administration's prewar W.M.D. hype, new details on that same story are still being ignored or left uninvestigated. The July 2002 "Downing Street memo," the minutes of a meeting in which Tony Blair and his advisers learned of a White House effort to fix "the intelligence and facts" to justify the war in Iraq, was published by The London Sunday Times on May 1. Yet in the 19 daily Scott McClellan briefings that followed, the memo was the subject of only 2 out of the approximately 940 questions asked by the White House press corps, according to Eric Boehlert of Salon.

Not conviced? Try this one on:

THE journalists who do note the resonances of now with then rarely get to connect those dots on the news media's center stage of television. You are more likely to hear instead of how Watergate inspired too much "gotcha" journalism. That's a rather absurd premise given that no "gotcha" journalist got the goods on the biggest story of our time: the false intimations of incipient mushroom clouds peddled by American officials to sell a war that now threatens to match the unpopularity and marathon length of Vietnam.

I'd actually fisk this lump of unhinged, poorly-written, factually incorrect, wishful partisanhip down to the nub, but anyone who reads the column is perfectly capable of seeing it for what it is. And this is passable analysis from the paper of record? Journalistic standards may be reaching their nadir in this country.

What We Are Dealing With, Part 3

In previous entries I have discussed the proliferation of anti-American sentiments in the religious and political domains of German life. Now we have an entrant from the world of German entertainment.

In a recent episode of Tatort (Scene of the Crime) on TV channel ARD, the American government's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks is the backdrop for the weekly murder mystery. Is it any wonder, then, that many Germans believe this to actually be the case? Moreover, are we surprised that in an atmosphere which lends credence to such urban legends that Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the SPD tap into anti-American sentiment in their political campaigns? And if this is happening in Germany, what do we think is happening in places like...France? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Allies all. Allies in name only?

One need only look at the Pew Reports to see that anti-Americanism is on the rise worldwide. Of course, newspapers and commentators want to tell us that this is the result of indiscriminate bombing in Afghanistan and Iraq or that it is driven by Bush's unilateralism on Kyoto or the International Criminal Court. Certainly, perceptions around those issues aided by uninformed or traductive commentators or pols may play a role. But is any of that as resonant, immediate and tangible as local governments and medias perpetuating the ugliest of conspiracy theories, urban legends and outright lies in order to defuse scrutiny of their own actions? Did President Bush really squander international goodwill after 9/11 or was it only a mirage? Did the US exploit 9/11 to steal Iraqi oil or did global rivals exploit the tragedy to enhance their own relative political positions in the global order? When viewed through this lens, one has to seriously question if the Conventional Wisdom that we are being spoonfed by our Mainstream Media bears any relation to reality whatsoever.

Stay tuned. Part 4 to come this weekend.

Dean, Dean, he's our man!

The blogosphere is abuzz with discussion of DNC Chair Howard Dean's latest game of How-far-into-my-mouth-can-I-shove-my-foot-today. Top Republicans have, of course, paid attention to the remarks as well.

I leave it to others to point out how the comments are not at all based in reality, and I will push the humor. Because I am all about the laughing. To wit, we have RNC chief Ken Mehlman in Pennsylvania yesterday making several stops. To lay the groundwork:

Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman on Thursday night urged Pittsburgh-area Republicans to expand the party's base to help re-elect U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and other GOP candidates in 2006.

Mehlman also used an Allegheny County GOP money-raising event at the Omni William Penn Hotel, Downtown, to accuse Democratic leaders -- including National Chairman Howard Dean -- of using "hateful rhetoric" in comments about Republicans.

Then for the payoff: In another controversial remark, Dean recently characterized Republicans as "pretty much a white, Christian party."

During an earlier event yesterday, Mehlman poked fun at Dean's comment. At a reception for him by the Republican Jewish Coalition, held at the Duquesne Club, Mehlman quipped: "Good afternoon, my fellow white Christians."

"Thank you! I'm here all week!"

Calling all liberal media!

"Where are you!?"

So asks Gary in Chandler.

I can appreciate the short-and-sweet, direct nature of the question. If I thought, like it seems Gary likely does, that a sitting President fabricated a case-for-war (despite the obvious understanding that such would come to light later), I'd be wanting somebody to talk about it too.

My two-cents Gary? They understand that a) this isn't a new assertion and b) that it proves nothing about nothing.

The Limits of Love

There you are at the altar. All dressed up in your tux, schvitzing like a madman. Family friends and random others look on with intense interest. You look longingly into the eyes of your betrothed as the minister asks you to recite your vows. He then calls for your nine-year old nephew to bring the rings forward on the plush red pillow. You reach down and take the piece of bone extracted from your own jaw and gently slip it onto the ring finger of your new bride. As they say in Holland, Veird.

Hit tip: Oxblog

There are worse things than heat

Take this for example. The AP-headline pretty much says it all:

200-pound bear charges into home, attacks dog

Rosie is fine as is her owner, Karla Irving.

My favorite line from the story? Sheriff's deputies let the bear out through a back door. It has not been seen since.

Triple-digit summers aren't the worst thing in the world it seems.

My Dogs are Smarter (Or how later is better than never)

We 'celebrated' Lacy's second birthday on May 23rd. By 'celebrated' I mean treating both to a car ride and a trip to Petco for doggie-treats and a couple of new doggie-toys. To which we got the usual response.

And I'm only now discussing it. Bad doggy-dad!

They're just now finishing the treats we bought and have christened the three-knot rope bone. In all honesty, for a time, we've wondered if she'd make it this far. The only bad thing about it is that it deprives me of one of my best lines!

With an eye on China

This hysteria that the world’s hyper-power must be perfect or is it is no good is in dire contrast to the treatment given to China. Yet Pavlovian anti-Americanism may soon begin to die down as the Chinese increasingly flex their muscles on the global stage and the world learns better their methods of operation.

New Series: Useful Idiots

I know, I know. A new series when I haven't even really paid off the previously promised series'? I'm trying folks. I really am. There's a What We are Dealing With post in post-production and several Spyware posts in the can. Where's the trust?

In any case, here are a couple of video presentations from a former soldier who was deployed to Iraq. He has now turned State's and is playing puppet for the Not In Our Name loons. While I have no new or particularly insightful reasons to question soldier-turned-conscientious objector Aidan Delgado's claims about what he saw in Iraq, Michelle Malkin and others do.

I guess where I come down on it, is that even if Delgado's charges about soldiers breaking Coke bottles over Iraqi civilians' heads, scooping the brains out of detainees' heads and lashing Iraqi children with antennae are 100% accurate, there can be no doubt that this isn't mere reporting of facts on the ground. At best Mr. Delgado is cherry-picking his war stories and telling them incompletely or out of context. We know that bad things happen in all wars. Even during the heroic struggles of World War II, we know that some Americans crossed the line and tortured prisoners, were inhumane to civilians and killed innocents. But it seems to me that Mr. Delgado is spinning his story to justify his own cowardice and confusion. In a rather telling part of one of the videos, Delgado states that it wasn't until he was in Iraq and "saw the faces" that all of the "hell of war" really dawned on him. This son of a diplomat then went on to state that it wasn't until then that he realized that many of the Iraqi prisoners were "poor and uneducated without much choice but to fight, just like us." As if that were the point.

As Socrates suggested, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Even more so when your lack of examination turns you into a useful idiot.

Bad day at the office

"You think things can't get worse but they can."

Anti-rhetoric

A day after the Senate Intelligence Committee votes to extend the Patriot Act, an ABC/Washington Post poll finds evidence that nearly 6 out of every 10 citizens in America support said extension. Well well...

Of course if you listen to the yahoos cries about jackboots and brownshirts, you'd really find this confusing. I'll leave you to your cognitive dissonance.

More signs of impending doom!

News you're sure to see on the front page of your paper tomorrow morning: Iraq's president averted a crisis Thursday by promising Sunni Arabs a big say in drafting the constitution...

I fear for my city

From Bob in Fountain Hills, Arizona:

Robert Robb misses the target twice in his column Wednesday "Amnesty International has forfeited its credibility."

(Read the piece in question, here.)

First, Robb agrees that what President Bush has done at Guantanamo and other sites - ship non-combatants to foreign countries and hold them, sometimes torturing them, without hearings - is illegal and downright un-American. So when Robb tries to dismiss the central point of the Amnesty International report (that the description of Bush's gulag-like behavior was accurate and appropriate) by quibbling over a metaphor, he might as well shoot the horse for having a loose shoe.

Quibbling? Bob is entitled to his outrage over conduct of American personnel vis-a-vis treatment of detainees. I don't share it entirely, but he is welcome to it. What he is not entitled to, nor is AI for that matter, is expanding and changing the definition of 'gulag.'

Bob appears comfortable with AI's attempt at sucking any and all meaning from the term. There is no comparison in size, numbers or scope between what goes on at Guantanamo--even on it's worst day--and what went on in Stalin's gulags. To claim so cheapens the word and what's worse, leaves you eventually no adequate term should the real thing rear it's ugly head some day in the future.

But Robb misses even more when he suggests "they've slipped into aimless Bush bashing." Robb doesn't seem to realize that Bush bashing is never aimless. For all Bush bashers, the president offers a giant, neon-lit Times Square target to aim directly at. We can hardly miss. And Amnesty International did not miss this time.

This, well...speaks for itself. It is one thing to disagree with your political leadership. It is another to operate in a world where no position other than yours is acceptable. The very fact that Bob apparently cannot even allow for the idea that the Administration approaches subjects from a differing view-point than his own speaks volumes. About him.

In her own defense

Governor Napolitano responds to Republican legislative leaders in today's 'My Turn' column at the Republic. It's long on text but short on actual points. By my count, there are only two.

The first is that Republican leadership is 'stuck':

Yet, Republican legislative leadership is stuck. Over the past several weeks, Senate President Ken Bennett and House Speaker Jim Weiers have focused on name-calling and on accusations of broken trust.

The second is a complete evasion of the argument's central point; did the Governor know or did she not, that the agreed-upon bills were changed? The Governor completely side-steps it with her 'defense': Allow me to be clear: If there was a breakdown of trust, it occurred on both sides of the budget negotiation. When I come to an agreement, I expect all of the agreement to be adhered to, not just parts of it.

And while leadership and I may disagree on the details of that final budget discussion, we must agree that we have all been elected to serve the people of Arizona and that we have an obligation to uphold that duty.

She's substituted deflection for reflection. One sentence--in a roughly 500-word piece--addresses the breakdown, and it's a throw-away: If there was a breakdown of trust...!?

Her critics have laid out a fairly good case for their argument that she knew what was coming to her desk and offered no hint that such represented an unacceptable change to the agreement. A case that is not at all refuted by any of the folks who've tried, nor by the Governor herself in today's piece.

Until and unless she can counter the point that her representative George Cunningham signed off on the bills on her behalf during the negotiation process, she is the one who is stuck. Stuck having to address the issue of broken trust. At this point, assuming today's response is any indication, she is not willing to do so.

She is right to want to press on and continue working. I acknowledge that; we don't pay the Governor and the Legislature to sit around and argue. However, when the state's chief executive appears to veto part of a compromise agreement on a whim, legitimate questions of trust come up!

I'm right and I'm going to crow about it!

I've blogged about Phoenix's perceived traffic woes before. To recap, I don't think these people know what they're talking about. But we're not here to discuss my competency or understanding of the issue.

What we are here to discuss is how I'm right! A new insurance-claim study reveals that Phoenix is one of the safest big-cities to drive in: Phoenix drivers are the least likely to suffer an accident compared with drivers in eight other U.S. cities with populations over 1 million, according to a new insurance-claim study.

Phoenix drivers average only one accident every 10 years, the study says.

Based on the numbers they cite you can't really argue it. Despite what my eyes tell me about the way people drive here, it appears to be true. So how does this relate to my disdain at Phoenician's whining about how long it takes them to get to work?

A bit deeper we find this nugget: It's all about density, says traffic expert Allan Williams, a recently retired researcher with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. And despite Phoenix-area drivers' complaints about traffic jams, the Valley is still relatively wide-open when it comes to traffic density, Williams said.

Heh!

Riddle me this

If it's such a horrid right-stealing-constitution-trampling piece of fascistic crap, why are Senate Democrats voting to grant the FBI more authority under the Patriot Act?

Bragging on Family

First thing I do every day on the computer is check email. In that regard I am no different than millions of other people. This morning I received, among the usual assortments of junk mail, a quick note from my uncle. He will, either later this year or very early next-, be published for the 7th time.

The list of accomplishments is long. From his work in the LA Sheriff's office to the creation of the first campus police force at Cal State LA to his 18 years as head of Security for the old Broadway Department Stores to his founding and chairing of the IAPSC. And of course, writing 6 successful titles in the field of Security management and consulting.

Of course, not the least of any of these, is maintaining his 52-year marriage to his 'precious' and raising their 3 children. Of all of them, the latter is far-and-away the biggest!

I wrote about it way-back-when, but I think my favorite thing about my mother's elder brother is his storytelling. I could sit for hours--and sometimes we do at family gatherings--listening to family history, cop stories, Jackass management traits and more.

He is 'semi-retired' these days but such a description belies reality. He and my aunt live near San Diego, and often when we visit my wife's family there we've attempted to visit with them only to learn they're on a cruise or off to the East Coast to attend a conference.

When we were there in December, we were able to arrange a visit and had a wonderful time over breakfast one morning. Before we left their house, my uncle and I spent some time in his office and he pulled out copies of 3 of his books that I knew I did not own. Inside each he inscribed a quick note and signed his name. They sit proudly on the bookshelf at home.

Have at it...

Begging to be torn apart.

"We want freedom!"

"...there are people in Europe and the Middle East who hear Conservative voices from America, AND THEY GET IT."

Stefania, a 23 year old woman living on the isle of Sardinia has much to say about freedom. (Kudos to Nickie Goomba for bringing this to light)

And the winner is...

Don Luskin at NRO unveils the winners of the 2005 (and first-ever) Jayson Awards. I mentioned a week ago how former public editor Daniel Okrent at the NY Times had called out columnist Paul Krugman. That episode prompted Luskin--long a Krugman antagonist--to promote the 2005 Jayson Awards, to "recognize Paul Krugman’s most outrageous statements in six categories."

Enjoy!

Somewhat disconcerting

June 6, 2005

I think that's a fair thing to say when somebody tells you that a local man has been arrested for developing ricin as a weapon.

June 7, 2005

A day later and the story has morphed. Rather than feared as a potential terrorist (foreign or domestic I care not), Casey Cutler is more rightly viewed as a nut:

An FBI affidavit says Cutler had neither motive in mind when he used a Mesa Community College computer to look up instructions for making the substance. Rather, he told police he concocted ricin for self-defense and perhaps to get even with a trio of assailants who beat him up in April. A Mesa police report says Cutler suffered cuts and bumps when attackers kicked him and punched him in the face while stealing his wallet. An affidavit by FBI Special Agent Philip Thorlin says that Cutler put some of the crystallized chemical into a vial he wears on a necklace, planning to use the substance as a weapon in future attacks."

Additionally, he believed if the assaulters took the vials believing them to contain cocaine, and snorted the substance, they would get their 'just desserts,' " the affidavit says.

June 8, 2005
Life is never dull here in America's 5th largest city...

TPMWatch

Dead-horse beating going on over at TPMCafe today. Josh Marshall, who else...

Taking another whack at the Governor

Republican legislative leaders Ken Bennett and Jim Weiers take another whack at Governor Napolitano in their op-ed piece in today's Republic. Most importantly, for the first time they address the question of "English-only."

If you recall, the Governor vetoed select bills that were part of the budget agreement last month. Specifically, the corporate-tuition tax credit was axed. When pressed as to why, Napolitano stated that the bill that finally came to her was not as-promised. Subsequently, the Governor's office also said that a deal had been reached on English-only in Arizona classrooms, and that it had been breached by the legislature by the time she received it for signature. That became the second of the double-barrel attack against the Republican-led state legislature.

The legislators tell a tale very similar to what columnist Robert Robb told us two weeks ago: After the agreement, six drafts were written to satisfy concerns from Cunningham, though he did not object to the standard provision that called for a legislative review of the tax credit after five years. To us, it was a non-issue.

We did, however, change numerous portions of the bill to satisfy the governor's concerns. For instance, the bill would have counted only contributions above $10,000 toward the $5 million cap. She asked that we change that language to ensure all donations counted toward the cap. We acquiesced.

Cunningham agreed that we made the changes needed to ensure the bill was palatable to the governor, signing his "OK" to the final version of the amendment. The governor now says that Cunningham, former gubernatorial chief of staff and legislator, "missed" the issue.

The Governor has no-clothes. It is clear, and her office has remained silent on this point to-date, that she did in fact know what was in the bill when it came to her; there were no surprises, she simply decided to veto it.

After forcefully ramming home the point that the Governor's office was indeed kept in the loop on the progress of the tax-credit bill, Bennett and Weiers move on to the question of English-only: The night we sat down with the governor, she had one more request: Talk with legislative Democrats to come up with a plan to deal with the so-called Flores lawsuit that requires the state to spend extra money to teach English to the children of illegal aliens.

We agreed to work with them but in no way gave a promise to accede to their demands. The budget, and particularly the tuition tax credit component, was not tied to a compromise on the Flores issue.

It was not until after the session ended that we began to hear rumblings the governor was unhappy with the agreement. In our one conversation between passing the budget and ending the session, she never mentioned that she had a concern about the five-year review issue. While the veto of school-choice expansion is receiving the most notoriety, the governor broke her word in several other areas.

This is in-line with Robb's analysis where he says: On the sunset issue, it seems likely that there was just a failure by the parties to nail down precisely what they intended.

On the English-learner issue, however, it's simply implausible that Bennett and Weiers would commit to a program supported by Democrats.

and then: Republicans crafted a plan to force the true implementation of English immersion. The Democrats generally oppose English immersion and want to simply increase funding for the current prevailing approach. As a result of this huge philosophical divide, it's highly unlikely that Bennett and Weiers would make a commitment to an outcome (a bill Democrats would support) as opposed to a process (a bill would be passed and Democrats would be consulted).

As best I can tell, the only folks attempting to carry water for the Governor on this point are Democrat Harry Mitchell from Tempe and Republic columnist EJ Montini. Neither makes a convincing case or sufficiently bolsters the argument that the Governor got bushwhacked by state Republicans who negotiated one thing and delivered another.

In fact, it seems clear that it is the Governor who negotiated one thing only to deliver something quite different. As Bennett and Weiers put it: In the end, the governor took what she bargained for and scrapped the things she didn't like because of outside political pressure. That is the very definition of acting dishonorably. Trust must be at the core of dealings among leaders of this state. Because of the governor's actions, trust no longer exists.

While that smacks of political rhetoric, it does at it's core underscore the basic point--one that I made in my original post on the subject: Janet looks like an Indian-giver. This episode damages Governor Napolitano with people like me--conservatives living in a red-state with a blue-Governor. She needs people like me to keep her job next year.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt throughout the first half of her term. As I pointed out here just days before news of the budget breakdown hit, I had no obvious reason to blind-vote (R) in '06. This whole incident has gone miles and miles toward changing that perception and I teeter on the verge of outspoken opposition to my Governor.

This is getting ridiculous

Randy Johnson must die! 4 Runs in 6 innings against the Brewers?

Chump...

The Fundraising Blues

We got to hear a lot of rumbling and mumbling about Howard Dean and the job he's doing at the DNC over this past weekend. According to a report in Business Week, the DNC under Dean has done a remarkably underwhelming job of fundraising:

According to the Federal Election Commission, the DNC raised $14.1 million in the first quarter of 2005, vs. the Republican National Committee's $32.3 million. Dean drew about 20,000 new donors, while his rivals picked up 68,200. The bottom line: Republicans have $26.2 million in the bank vs. $7.2 million for the Dems.

Some of the usual suspects derided that report yesterday. Lo and behold, what do we see developing today? Three top fundraisers at the Democratic National Committee have resigned at a time when its chairman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has come under fire from fellow Democrats for controversial comments and his Republican counterpart has raised more than twice as much money.

Could it be that indeed where there is smoke there is in fact fire?

Hope for my home-state?

According to this, yes. Ken Mehlman thinks Republicans can make gains in California, a state they once owned lock, stock and barrel but that has gone Democratic in each of the last 4 national elections.

The key to it appears to be an echo of the national trend: exurban areas are getting redder and redder while the large Democratic metro-areas are becoming less populous. Combine that with a Republican Governor and Mehlman has reason for optimism:

California is home to nearly 37 million people -- one of every eight Americans -- and is projected to add as many as 11 million more in the next two decades, roughly the equivalent of the state of Ohio. But while population growth is slowing in left-leaning coastal areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco, it is accelerating in more conservative regions such as the Central Valley and the Inland Empire area east of Los Angeles.

The state's large Hispanic population, long staunchly Democratic, has become somewhat less so in recent years. Bush won 32 percent of California's Hispanic vote in 2004, up from 28 percent in 2000. Schwarzenegger won about a third of Hispanic voters in the 2003 recall election even though Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Hispanic, was also on the ballot.

Mehlman has seized on those trends, traveling to California every six weeks this year for outreach work in Hispanic, black and Asian American areas. On a recent visit, he addressed a Hispanic community center south of Los Angeles and a black leadership forum in Sacramento, and held several fundraisers and meetings with GOP lawmakers.

In his outreach to ethnic minorities, Mehlman said he stresses the party's commitment to economic self-reliance and traditional family values.

It all remains to be seen if the trends can be reversed, but there appears a slim ray of hope that my home-state may in fact regain some of it's collective sanity!

Looking for Mr. Ryan

It's a girl thing. I can't explain it, and I won't try. I'll leave that to the Jakettes; women who still, years later, are waiting and wondering when their perfect man will show!

What I will do is wonder whether there is an equivalent mythology built around any female character from the 80's for us men in the same age-cohort?

Hillary falls off moderate wagon

Of late she's sounded almost reasonable on some issues. Back to form though here, in yet another smushing-together of talking points turned up to '11' on the screech-o-meter.

Why he hates fantasy baseball

Rookie of the Year candidate 2B Clint Barmes is out for three months, due to a broken clavicle suffered while carrying groceries.

Welcome to my world.

Non-smoking Guns

Just seem to lack the same oomph as their smoking counterparts. "Hearsay thrice removed," as James Robbins calls it.

Much to the glee of the usual suspects, the Downing Street Meme-o™ appears to be gaining escape velocity here in the US, though it was first published in it's current form a month ago in Britain and in it's first incarnation, three years ago!

You don't have to be an expert analyst to understand the fundamental flaw in trying to turn the memo into a meme-o.™ It's one man's impressions of another man's report of his own impressions of what he thought cabinet-level members of the Bush Administration were thinking.

Any analysis of this must start there, and Robbins is right in calling it "Hearsay thrice removed." The money-quote on this point gets straight at the point: By the time the Downing Street Memo was written overt action against Iraq was being widely discussed, spurred in part by the July 5, 2002, publication of some of the war plans in the New York Times. (A previous version had been leaked in May by the Los Angeles Times.) The July 5 article led to rampant speculation about the inevitability of war, especially in Britain, and whomever Dearlove and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw were talking to then may well have been reflecting this mood. Moreover, either Dearlove or Straw, or one of their staff, may well have been the "Whitehall source" for the Observer piece two days before the cabinet meeting in question. Either that or they read it in the paper and repeated it at the meeting. My question: Had they ever spoken to the president to get his views first-person?

Believing that the memo is somehow "proof" of something brings the left back to where they started when they state that Bush wanted war with Saddam before he took office; suddenly they're inside his head without ever actually trying to find out what was...well, in his head. And they say there is no such thing as ESP...strike one!

Robbins mentions war plans, as in a) how war plans were tipped by the NY Times in '02 and b) that existence of war-planning is proof that war is imminent. The latter point is the one of real interest, as it is completely illogical.

The canard goes something like this: There were plans in place for removing Saddam. You don't make war plans if you're not going to war, so obviously Bush intended to go to war before 9/11! Wrong on so many levels.

As Robbins points out: Contingency planning for military operations against Iraq had begun as early as November 2001. This is no secret; the full timeline along with a wealth of details can be found in General Tommy Franks's memoir American Solider[sic]. The plan that became known as OPLAN 1003V began to be put together in earnest in January 2002. The existence of war planning does not in itself prove that the use of force was inevitable. The purpose was to provide the president with the full range of credible alternatives for pursuing U.S. policy vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein's regime.

Buried in the National Archives are contingency plans that detail war strategies involving action against the Soviets in Europe and Asia. Can anybody point me to any direct conflict between the super-powers along those lines? Of course not, because it didn't happen.

"The existence of war planning does not in itself prove that the use of force was inevitable." A historically accurate point, as applicable to Iraq as it is to Cold War history. Strike two!

Lastly, but certainly not least, Robbins tackles the re-stating of the left's favorite anti-Bush meme: Bush lied! The meme-o™ no better proves this point than it does either of the first two discussed above.

Here Robbins' points need little clarification beyond emphasis: Dearlove's comments include the intriguing passage noted above, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." To the president's critics, the meaning is clear-- the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention.

This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by "fixed around" did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter-- it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.

But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that "administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities" or that "the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments." One would think that the Senate investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able to elaborate, one hopes he will.

The memo itself notes that the British assumed that Saddam had limited WMD capabilities-- and the September 24, 2002, British white paper on the topic spelled out exactly what Whitehall believed to be the facts.

Dearlove's silence--to date--is deafening. If there's more to the story, a greater clarification is owed the publics of both Britain and the United States on the subject.

As to fixing facts around the policy, his point is obvious. When presenting a case for something one compiles the best arguments available. Of course then the public arguments would not give much heed to dissenting views of the state of Iraq's WMDs.

If in fact then the implication is that the intel case was fabricated, 2 Congressional investigations have yet to uncover proof of such. The memo adds nothing to that argument. Strike three, and you are out!

The section of the memo dealing with strategic planning, yes, that was worth keeping close hold on. But the speculations about the inner workings of the American government? Sounds like the same things one could have heard on any newscast. Looking at the document in context it is hard to see what the commotion is about. Most of what might be thought sensational has already been written about elsewhere, to little fanfare. The charge of intelligence fraud (if it is such a charge) has already been investigated and found baseless. And the allegations that the president had already decided to go to war and was thus deceiving the American people are personal opinions based on unsubstantiated impressions from unnamed sources.

And that, as they say, is that.

The liberal evil of George Lucas

(Or, how I saw Revenge of the Sith over the weekend).

Tongue-in-cheek alert! Sound the sarcasm alarm!

There has been a minor disturbance in the Force, as many have asserted that George Lucas has allowed his political bias to seep into his storytelling. The most repeated example being the confrontation between Obi-wan and Anakin in the movie's finale:

"If you are not with me, then you're my enemy," says a dour Anakin Skywalker.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes!," replies the noble General Kenobi.

"Oh, what a bad man you are Georgie!" Well, not so fast! I would offer some examples in rebuttal that would perhaps point to liberal ideology as the great Galactic evil! (Not intentional, but some of this reveals plot points that some may not want to know; though why I'm not sure since, by virtue of Episodes IV-VI, we already know how this one ends! Anyway, be warned!)

When Chancellor Palpatine reveals his nature as Sith Lord to his Jedi council representative Anakin, he makes the point that, "Good is a point of view." In the same conversation, Darth Sidious tells his confused and conflicted protege' that if he is to understand the true nature of the Force he must embrace a wider understanding than that which the Jedi offer him.

Fast forward again to the final duel between former Master and Apprentice and you hear Kenobi deal in an absolute of his own: "Palpatine is evil!" The Apprentice's reply? An echo of his new Master's words--"From my point-of-view, the Jedi are evil!"

Sound like inflexible, dogmatic neo-conservatism to you? Actually, sounds a lot like what I hear self-described members of the left spouting all the time. At the end of the day, Anakin succumbs to the Dark Side because he is too willing to follow his own heart and will rather than do what he knows is right! Behavior that is neo-liberalist relativism at it's finest!

On a serious note, the Palpatine-Anakin dynamic is, by far, the best thing about the picture. Ian McDiarmid gives the best performance of the film as he woos the young Skywalker to the Dark Side. Which gets to a larger point.

The acting here is better than it's two predecessor's, by far (you want to care about Obi-wan's pain at seeing his young friend's transformation and betrayal). There is passion and emotion for the first time in the prequels; the characters actually have something to do and reasons to care about it, as opposed to the uninspired meanderings we get in Episode I & II.

By far the best of the prequels, it is well described as more in-line with the Star Wars ethos we know and love from the original trilogy. As a self-admitted Star Wars junkie, I was going to see this regardless. Just as I was compelled to see Episodes I and II: it's Star Wars dammit!

As such, it is by definition good. Though good, as we all know, is a point of view.

These Boots (On the Ground) Are Made for Walkin

My position on George W. Bush's foreign policy has been that I basically approve of his strategy, but have some serious problems with how that strategy has been implemented. Diplomatically, his administration has not been sincere or adroit enough to achieve stated policy objectives. The slightest bit more attention to diplomacy could have garnered more support for the invasion of Iraq and on a panoply of other international issues. Our gray-area policies on torture and rendition have become a PR nightmare which have proven counterproductive to our stated objective of spreading democracy and will serve as fodder for terrorist recruitment and anti-americanism for years to come. At a time when the spread of democratic ideals is our #1 foreign policy objective, Abu Ghraib, Qu'ran desecration, Gitmo and rendition have allowed the international debate to evolve into a discussion of our hypocrisy rather than a celebration of our values.

And of course, the issue of post-war planning in Iraq is the subject of much controversy. I happen to believe that an awful lot went right when it came to post-war planning. There were no mass-starvations or -migrations. No environmental disasters. Minimal sabotage of oil pipelines. Very few SCUD attacks on neighboring countries. No flooding of the Tigris or Euphrates.

But it is also clear that not enough was done to secure potential WMD sites (ostensibly the reason we went to war). Massive looting of, well everything, eroded an already-degraded Iraqi infrastructure and made reconstruction far more difficult and costly. And of course, the instability spawned by the surprisingly unanticipated insurgency has precluded the secure environment needed to engender solid political and economic development in Iraq. And some measure of success on those two pillars is what will be required to bring our troops home. Until that day, our men and women will continue to carry out their tasks with bullseyes on their backs and the physical and emotional burdens to them and their families will remain tremendous. This is to say nothing of the economic and political costs to our nation as a whole.

To what can we primarily attribute these failures? A lack of boots on the ground. Andrew Sullivan shares the latest proof point with a link to this article:

U.S. Army officers in the badland deserts of northwest Iraq, near the Syrian border, say they don't have enough troops to hold the ground they take from insurgents in this transit point for weapons, money and foreign fighters. From last October to the end of April, there were about 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the northwest region, which covers about 10,000 square miles. "Resources are everything in combat . . . there's no way 400 people can cover that much ground," said Maj. John Wilwerding, of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is responsible for the northwest tract that includes Tal Afar. "Because there weren't enough troops on the ground to do what you needed to do, the (insurgency) was able to get a toehold." said Wilwerding, 37, of Chaska, Minn. During the past two months, Army commanders, trying to pacify the area, have had to move in some 4,000 Iraqi soldiers; about 2,000 more are on the way. About 3,500 troops from the 3rd ACR took control of the area this month, but officers said they were still understaffed for the mission. "There's simply not enough forces here," said a high-ranking U.S. Army officer with knowledge of the 3rd ACR. "There are not enough to do anything right; everybody's got their finger in a dike."

With recent reports of sweeps along the Syrian border yielding some success in stemming the flow of munitions and jihadists as background, one wonders why only 400 troops were guarding 10,000 sqare miles of real estate bordering one of the pre-eminent exporters of international terrorism in the first place. Why was this not a priority? I'm no military expert, but Iraqi border integrity seemed to me to be a major objective from the outset. Just as sealing off al Qaeda escape routes into Pakistan seemed to me to be a very high priority during the Tora Bora campaign in Afghanistan. Why were these no-brainers not no-brainers for Pentagon planners?

I assume that they were. After all, these folks understand the risks far better than I. But on some level, and I assume the civilian leadership level, insufficient troop levels were approved. Perhaps this was driven by Donald Rumsfeld's "transformation" vision, in which smaller, more flexible and technically advanced US forces are emphasized over large troop footprints. Perhaps it was driven by a political calculation in which the Administration felt that there would be insufficient public support for the invasion if half a million US soldiers were in Iraq. And perhaps it was driven by a certain degree of sensitivity to being viewed as occupiers by the Iraqis themselves. More likely, it was a combination of all three.

However, it seems clear to me that insufficient boots on the ground has resulted in the worst possible outcome: unsecured borders which sustain the insurgency, mass looting and resultant infrastructure degradation, and a general level of insecurity that is retarding political and economic development and consequently leading to more Iraqi and American deaths. While I don't believe the situation is hopeless and I believe that progress has been made, the failure to commit a larger force has really put the entirety of the effort in serious jeopardy. And unfortunately, the clock is ticking. While invading Iraq and ousting Saddam was the proper strategic decision, its implementation in the form of insufficient troop levels represents a poor tactical one. The responsibility for this situation ultimately rests with our civilian leadership. And the buck stops with the Commander in Chief, George W. Bush.

BBQ, Shiner Bock, Baseball & Buddies

Had a great trip down to Austin last week. I was down there for a job interview with the Round Rock Express, Houston's AAA minor league team. It was an exploratory interview, but I came away with plenty of insight and a good feeling about possible opportunities at Round Rock and in baseball more generally. Again, shout outs to loyal reader and all-around good guy Joe Wood for his aid in securing the interview.

As the title of this entry would indicate, it wasn't all business down in Austin. I stayed with my friend Paul (no relation to Hogue), with whom I have been friends since high school. He was my first debate partner, and we have remained close over the years. It was great to see him and see that he is doing well. I also saw my friend Brooks, whom I met in grad school. During my interview, I cashed in with some free front-row tickets to the Round Rock-Memphis game on Thursday night and Brooks attended the game with me. Also great to see that guy.

Speaking of the game, it was rather strange for me to see former Friar Kevin "El Domo" Jarvis starting for Memphis. Jarvis always seemed to me to be a borderline decent major league pitcher who was always one meltdown away from being a solid #5-type guy. The Dome pitched a no-hitter through 5 1/3 before melting down in a familiar flourish, ultimately resulting in a come-from-behind victory for Round Rock.

People always say "Austin's a great town." And it is. But I have a special connection with Austin. I lived down there during my internship with the Texas Railroad Commission (which has more to do with oil and gas than trains and is one of the most influential state agencies in the country) and spent many weekends down there while I was in a relationship with a girl who was at UT law school. However, until I landed at Bergstrom, I didn't realize that this was my first time back in Austin since 1995. Ironically, the year I broke up with that girl. Wonder if there's any relationship? LOL Anyway, I spent one afternoon walking around downtown near the UT campus and the capitol. I walked by my old RRC office building and eventually found my way over to Scholz' Garten, an old beer hall founded by German immigrants which dates back to 1866. Had a couple of Shiner Bocks and a delicious sliced beef sandwich on white bread with onions and pickles. My bill came to $8.

Memories. Like the corner of my mind.

Where the ozone meets the road

You mean all that eco-friendly enviro-idealistic stuff comes with a price? Uh-huh. More than 2/3 as much according to this Scottsdale repair shop:

It's going to be a more expensive summer for some Arizona motorists this year. Prices for air-conditioning recharges are rising because of a controversial change in European policy that limits the supply of the refrigerant used in late-model vehicles.

At the Car Repair Company in Scottsdale, the average price for air-conditioning service has risen to $85 from a recent average of $50, owner Jim Atkinson said. That includes a pound of R-134a, the gaseous refrigerant used in car and truck air-conditioners since 1995.

Atkinson's father, an engineer and an "expert" on automotive-cooling systems, points out the problem: "This thing is a major, major international issue," said Atkinson's father, Ward, a Scottsdale engineer and leading authority on automotive air-conditioning systems.

A "major, major international issue," you say? Pressure from European concerns is forcing a shortage of R-134a in the US and driving up the price:

The situation arises from the European Community's plan for a wholesale changeover of auto air-conditioning systems to use a carbon-dioxide-based refrigerant. The change, which would go into effect in 2011 or 2012, is being promoted because of possible global-warming issues connected with R-134a, a fluorocarbon, that are negated by the new compound, known as R125. That compound is already in use in many stationary air-conditioning systems in Europe, Atkinson said. The planned changeover has caused most European manufacturers to abandon production of R-134a and some Japanese manufacturers to scale back in favor of the carbon dioxide refrigerant. "The only plants left in the world today are mainly in the United States and China, which have to meet the demand for the whole world," Ward Atkinson said.

I'm all for being smart about what we do and don't release into the atmosphere, but nothing makes my blood boil more than seeing prices go up drastically as a result of quick and drastic technology shifts. R-134a has been the standard for years and it's replacement of R-12 (Freon) in the 1990's is, to my mind, sufficient help in curbing potentially harmful destruction of the ozone viewed in combination with other environmental restrictions.

Meanwhile, the push for R-125 is driving up the price of R-134a while at the same time being near un-usable in a clime like ours:

"The U.S. and Europe are likely to go separate ways with CO{-2} refrigerant," Junichiro Hara, an engineer at the Japanese firm Calsonic Kansei Corp., told WardsAuto.com. "

The U.S. will not accept it. Europe will probably adopt it." There are several problems with carbon-dioxide refrigerant, Ward Atkinson said, including weight, cost and possible toxic leakage. But the greatest obstacle is that the systems do not work effectively in hot climates, such as Arizona summers."

In Arizona, it doesn't cool worth a darn," the engineer said. "CO{-2} looks great if you run it at 75 degrees Fahrenheit ambient. Once you get above 85 or 90 degrees, it's less efficient."

Once started, these things don't usually reverse. So that $85-dollar recharge will eventually become a $109-dollar recharge, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Thanks guys!

Obligatory Sports Post

(Or, yet another reason to hate Fantasy Baseball)

A's closer Octavio Dotel is going to have reconstructive surgery on his ailing elbow. Early odds are that he will not only miss the rest of this season but potentially all of next:

Dotel will be sidelined at least a year and possibly up to two years. That is a major concern for him because his contract is up after this season.

"What is the big deal," you ask? Yeah well, he was my #2 closer in not just one but both of my leagues. When you draft 10th in a 10-team league, you take what you can find and he slipped to me in both. A reasonable gamble on what should have been a decent team.

The reality of it all? He's already been cut in one league when he went on the DL and he'll be dropped like the proverbial hot-rock in the other today. Does it get any better than this!?


I love this game!

Ouch!

Not sure how to take this:

I know you don't actually care, but you were almost certainly right the first time.

If half the population has a below-median intelligence (true by definition);

If intelligence has a lower bound (0 IQ/ brain death/ etc) but no necessary upper bound, or even just an upper bound that is further above the median than 0 is below it and that trails off gradually (i.e. there are geniuses and a few super-geniuses);

and if intelligence has an otherwise roughly-normal distribution (a bell curve, which is a perfectly ordinary fact of probability and carries none of the baggage of The Bell Curve);

In short, if the distribution of intelligence is a left-censored bell curve (a bell curve truncated at 0 on one side but exhibiting normal trailing-off properties on the other);

then mean intelligence is higher than median intelligence.

From this it follows that *more* than half the population has below-average (meaning, as your correspondent insists,below-mean) intelligence.

Really.

(From a really, really, really smart reader at NRO's Corner)

Of Deniability and Culpability

Victor Davis Hanson writes another masterpiece for NRO. It demands a full read.

After a recap of the 'nature' of this terror war, Hanson examines the means at terrorist's disposal for countering America's superiority of arms. They are formidable but not all-powerful. The key is our being smart in navigating the veritable mine-field they create.

Unlike our previous discussion of 'reductive orientalism'(prompted in part by a VDH essay), I imagine this one won't necessarily engender a ton of disagreement but I could be wrong. It's happened before you know!

Of Local Interest

Another story about rising home values and prices in the Valley of the Sun. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight has released it's quarterly report for 1Q 2005. And?

Homes in Arizona more than doubled the national average of 2.2% increase in home prices with a rate of 5.2% in the first quarter of the year! The Arizona Real Estate Center at Arizona State University points to the Federal survey as yet another example of just how hot the Phoenix market is right now.

In fact, they say, if you use just resale data you get an even bigger rate of increase (monstrous in comparison) :

Using resale data, Valley home prices climbed 21 percent during the first three months of the year, according to the Arizona Real Estate Center.

Either way, I'll take it all. Call me selfish if you must, but having been shut out of the market in my hometown I will ride this for as long and as far as it takes me! Home ownership, of course, anchoring wealth-generation for the majority of the middle-class and all...

He's doing it again!

I recently talked about Arizona Republic columnist EJ Montini and his uncanny ability to tick me off. Well, he's at it again!

Today, Montini chimes in about Governor Napolitano's recent vetoes of bills in the budget deal and the resulting clash with legislative Republicans. His remarks are, while intended I'm sure to be somewhat satiric, contemptuous and worst of all, conveniently leave out a few essential points.

Montini begins by setting up his little analogy: A governor is like a single parent trying to raise a bunch of rowdy, undisciplined kids. They don't listen. They constantly test her authority. In order to get them to behave she sometimes has to drop all of those touchy-feely notions of child care and put her foot down.

At the state Capitol, that's called a veto.

From there, he dives right in to an assessment of what went awry:

The Republicans control the state House of Representatives and the state Senate. Because of that they don't feel that they need to consult with Democrats, including the only one who actually matters: Gov. Janet Napolitano.

So, without asking permission or seeking guidance, the lawmakers in the House and Senate got out their garden hose, dug a big hole in the ground and mixed together a batch of water and dirt. Now they're mad because the governor didn't find the resulting mud pies simply delicious.

Here his logic train runs off the rails. As all participants and observers have noted, the budget deal was a compromise; one that both parties agreed to. One where both parties committed to giving up some to the other while also taking some. One where one party decided they would take all and give nothing.

As State Rep. Steve Tully pointed out in a letter that Montini apparently didn't read though it was published in the paper he writes for, the Governor's office reviewed the amendments to the vetoed corporate tuition tax credit bill: On Friday, the governor reneged on the deal by vetoing the corporate tuition tax credit bill with the claim that the bill was not exactly as she remembered the agreement.

This, even though her staff reviewed, made changes to, and ultimately approved the amendments to the bill. In fact, the governor's staff reviewed the amendments as many as six times prior to passage by the House and Senate. And while she vetoed the bills she disliked, the governor did not veto the bills passed by the Legislature that she favored.

Additionally, Montni's colleague Robert Robb wrote a piece discussing the issue as well. Among other things, Robb essentially confirmed Tully's assertions when he wrote: Regardless of what the deal actually was, Napolitano's chief budget negotiator, George Cunningham, signed off on the corporate tuition tax credit language before it was passed with the five-year review rather than the hard sunset. He scrutinized the language carefully enough to insist that a $5 million-a-year cap apply to all donations, not just large ones, as initially drafted.

While Democratic State Rep. Harry Mitchell's letter to the editor attempted to bolster the Governor's characterization of the vetoes as resulting from last-minute changes by Republicans, it does nothing to blunt the assertions of either Tully or Robb that the Governor's office was, a)reviewing the bills as they evolved prior to submission for signatures and b)fully aware of what was and/or wasn't in them.

That being the case, this--and any--argument about what Napolitano did in reneging on her end of the deal while greedily taking what she was given in concession by the legislature is disingenuous. At best!

Just not good

Mea-culpa time: the Dodgers stink.

Last night's Cubs-Dodgers game was televised at ESPN2 last night, so I caught as much as my pressing duties at home would allow. My thoughts, in no real order:

--How does 3B Antonio Perez get to the majors without knowing how to conduct a run down between 2nd and 3rd? Hint: getting stuck having to dive at the runner while both the SS and 2B watch is not textbook. Suddenly it was like I was sitting in my living room during the '83 playoffs, watching the Dodger defense hand the NL pennant to the Phillies.

--Why is Duaner Sanchez pitching to Derek Lee with two out in the 8th inning of a one-run game after he's already gone 4-for-4? Has anyone seen Jim Tracy's brain...

A star is born!

While the team went down (just as predicted), not all is lost! Amare Stoudamire is a star. Don't believe me? Believe Tim Duncan:

He sat alone at his locker, his feet soaking in a bucket of arctic water, his knees wrapped in icepacks. After carrying his team into the NBA Finals, Tim Duncan couldn't stop looking at a statistics sheet.

Why? "Amaré," he said. "As usual."

Still don't believe me? Ponder this: in 5 games, matched almost exclusively against Duncan, Stoudemire averaged 37 points, just under 10 rebounds with 1 steal and over 1.5 blocks a-game. Last night as his team was being eliminated, he scored 42 while pulling in 16 rebounds.

As for the Suns as a team, much has been made in local media about how playing without Joe Johnson in the first 3 games hurt Phoenix. I believe that is all true, but I think another issue that hurt just as much, maybe even more was the disappearance of Quentin Richardson.

All his numbers were down across the board in this series. Regardless of whether it was a result of defense or just an ill-timed slump, Q is an important part of what the Suns did all year. Especially when it came to 3-point shooting. Last nights stat-line epitomized the situation: 0 points, 2 rebounds in 28 minutes.

Poor production from the '3' and Johnson's injury forcing changes to the rotation and on-court personality of the team hurt them severely.

Liddy's Clowns

Who knows how many words have been written since Tuesday's revelation that 'Deep Throat' is a man named Mark Felt who once was the second-most powerful man at the FBI? Bloggers are blogging, writers are writing and everyday citizens are writing letters to the editor:

From an era of huge disgrace of the presidency, we now know who had the courage to keep the Watergate story going for two persistent reporters and an editor who had the insight to see the story of the decade unfolding.

And now, G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Colson are frothing at the mouth, bad-mouthing W. Mark Felt - "Deep Throat" - as if he were the criminal. Liddy says that Felt should not have leaked anything but should have gone through channels. I am sure Liddy would have liked that.

Let's see: Should Felt have gone to his boss, who was far too new in the job to know much at all? Should he have gone to the attorney general? That would have been John Mitchell. Or later, Richard Kleindienst, who quickly resigned? Or should he have gone to the White House counsel? That would have been John Dean. Maybe he should have gone to Bob Haldeman? Now there's a possibility for an appropriate handling of it all.

Liddy and his college of clowns will always be the bums in that episode, will always be the criminals. Felt was trying to get the job done with the only options available to him.

They say hell hath no fury like a reformed sinner. I don't see Liddy, though furious, as being reformed!

With all due respect, I don't think somebody like Chuck Colson is off-base here. Colson, in part, spent his time in federal prison as a result of his improperly possessing, as White House counsel, a lone, solitary and single--one!--FBI file.

Now, how much information did Felt pass to Woodward and Bernstein of a similar nature? Say what you will about the conduct of the Nixon administration after the break-in, but there is still the small matter of the law.

It's not unreasonable to wonder if Mitchell at Justice or Dean at the WH would have played straight with Felt. If you conclude that they would not have and naively suggest there was nowhere else to go however, I must disagree.

This post at the Corner quotes a relative of a former FBI Special Agent familiar with Felt and one who had significant contact with him inside the Bureau at the time. The agent's position offers a legal alternative to what our letter-writer passes off as simply inevitable:

Dad's take is that Felt should have done something with the info he had, but going to the WaPo was illegal and, more important to my dad, a betrayal of his oath of office. Dad 's position is that Felt should have gone to the grand jury, which would have been independent of FBI, DOJ and White House control, personal consequences be damned.

And what of Congress? As the second-most powerful man at the FBI and one who had previously worked as a Congressional staffer, surely Felt had contacts there that could have handled an investigation and made such public without improperly leaking legally sensitive information. Is that an unreasonable question to ask? I do not believe so.

There is no doubt that what Nixon and his administration--including Liddy and Colson--engaged in after the break-in was illegal and beyond inappropriate; but there was a right way and a wrong way for Felt to deal with it, whatever his motives for doing so. Ignoring such with hand-wringing and moralizing about how rotten 'Nixon's gang' was simply doesn't cut it. There is, still, the small matter of the law.

"I hate Bush!"

That would be easier to take. Not to mention, far easier to make sense of. What am I going on about?

More inanity from the Reason-based community via Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity:

Apparently rightly identifying the nature of the SS "trust fund" is an 'impeachable offense.' Why, why, does anyone read this guy!?

Hero or villain?

Things like this are why you need to stop and think clearly in assessing the actions of W. Mark Felt. I just can't get away in all of this from the skeptical eye.

W. Mark Felt violated FBI and Justice Department policies by sharing with reporters information about the Watergate scandal, but it's not clear whether he broke any laws, several former federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

Not that anyone at the Justice Department is expressing a desire to prosecute the 91-year-old old Santa Rosa, Calif., resident. Even if it were determined that the former No. 2 official at the FBI violated laws by providing tips as "Deep Throat," more than 30 years have passed and the statute of limitations on prosecution has expired.

The former prosecutors said that if they were to look into Felt's conversations with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward they would examine whether he violated federal rules that keep grand jury matters secret, whether he disclosed other confidential material that was part of the Watergate investigation or broke privacy rules by revealing the names of people who had yet to be charged with a crime.

On the lighter side

What better to relieve the stress of a sick wife and four dogs going crazy at home (Yes; we only have two but we're baby-sitting two puppies for some friends)?

Why, laugh your head off at Paul Krugman of course! Or more accurately, Public editor Daniel Okrent's dismantling of his columnist as chronicled by well-known Krugman antagonist Don Luskin at NRO.

Deep Throat: Local edition

Retired RNC attorney Robert Mardian has a few things to say about the unmasking of Deep Throat. Mardian, who now lives in the Valley, expressed shock over the revelation:

Mardian said he never would have guessed Felt was Deep Throat, the storied confidential source who provided information to Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The Washington Post confirmed Felt was their source on Tuesday.

He cuts to the chase with his next comment: "He was in a position of authority at the FBI, investigating a matter, and the last thing in the world he should be doing is giving information to a newspaper," Mardian said.

Therein lies the problem, and serves as the root of any and all skepticism about him and his motives.

Light Blogging

through Friday. I'm off to Austin to talk baseball (Hat tip to loyal reader Joey Wood).

Hitchens vs Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is really one of my favorite writers on the political scene. I don't agree with him on everything and am troubled by his former Socialist tendencies, but I really respect his knowledge, his skill as a writer, and most importantly, his sense of humor. His manner is, probably for those who know me, very similar to my own.

Until today, I didn't know that he had a brother, that his brother is an award-winning journalist in Britain or that Christopher and Paul are estranged. The estrangement apparently stems from Paul's public statement about Christopher:

'I don't see why Christopher has become so pro-American; I can remember when he said he wouldn't be happy until he saw the Red Army watering its horses in the Thames.'

The brothers were recently re-united onstage at The Guardian's Hay Festival. This snippet should whet your appetite for more witty, fratricidal banter:

Peter Hitchens: You should have done what you do in almost any other occasion when you disagree with someone, you should have argued about it, and then we would have reached this position much earlier. Silence is never an answer to anything.

Cristopher Hitchens: I wanted it to mature in the cask.

Priorities

This Joshua Micah Marshall post at the new TPMCafe illustrates the gulf between the left and the right when it comes to what is necessary in a post-9/11 world:

When I asked, what would we do if we were back in power?, here's the focus of the dilemma that immediately came into my mind: health care.

The great challenge of progressive reform today is finding ways to counterbalance and reverse the pervasive privatization of risk we see across our society.

He goes on to wonder if Clinton-style monolithic healthcare isn't what the doctor ordered. Meanwhile back in the real world...

Felt Gypped?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.