Our True Canadian Friends

President Bush is making his first journey to Canada since he took office in 2000. It's an important visit because it highlights the importance of strong ties between the United States and Canada, particularly as noted by the extraordinarily high levels of trade and commerce between our tow nations. As a Canadian citizen, I was somewhat astonished to see the tremendous amount of play given to anti-American sentiment in Canada, even in light of the fact that the Liberal Media Elite loves to humble Bush. On the contrary, it has been my experience that relations between the two countries remain cordial, despite the exaggeration of differences resulting from the War in Iraq and the ban on Canadian beef.

Excerpts from a column in today's Wall Street Journal offers evidence that my sentiments in favor of the US are shared by many in the North:

Some 15,000 anti-Bush protesters are expected to march up Parliament Hill. All this makes for good television -- as did MP Carolyn Parrish's theatrics on Canadian TV this month, when she stomped merrily on a Bush doll during an appearance on a "comedy" show.

So it's refreshing to learn that Canada's hoi polloi (i.e., the silent majority) take a far different view of the U.S. According to poll results released yesterday, some 71% of Canadians identify the U.S. as their country's closest friend. In addition, 60% say they have "positive" feelings about America, while a further 25% say their feelings are "somewhat positive" -- adding up to a grand total of 85% with good vibes about the U.S. The main reason given for the close ties is trade and economic relations.

...[Canadians] want to strengthen the friendship between our countries and are tired of watching Canada being labeled anti-American because of a vocal minority."

If this sounds schmaltzy, we suppose it is. But it highlights an important point: Despite occasional disagreements, the two countries have a better relationship than any other border states in the world -- starting with the $1.2 billion in trade that crosses the border every day. Many Americans would be surprised to learn that Canada -- not Saudi Arabia -- is the biggest oil exporter to the U.S.

The Beginning of the End at the UN

Amid evidence of corruption and incompetence at the United Nations, it finally appears that sentiment is growing for substantial change. More than a figurehead, the UN Secretary General must be capable of spearheading movements to expand the role of democracy in the world, not placate autocrats and tyrants as Kofi Annan has done for years in Iraq, Syria, Darfur, and North Korea.

Glenn Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and publisher of the weblog InstaPundit writes in The Wall Street Journal to offer the following prescient comments:

[T]he U.N.'s ability to serve its crowning purpose -- the "never again" treatment of genocide that was vowed after the Holocaust, and re-vowed after Cambodia and Rwanda -- is looking less and less credible in the wake of its response to ongoing genocide in Darfur. And finally, the U.N. has so far played no significant role in defusing the Ukrainian crisis.

Things have gotten bad enough that some are calling for Mr. Annan's resignation, amid talk of former Czech President Vaclav Havel as successor.

Mr. Havel, after all, is a hero on behalf of freedom: A man who helped bring about the end of communist dominance in Eastern Europe, despite imprisonment and the threat of death -- a man who could write that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by the use of force." Mr. Annan, by contrast, is a trimmer and temporizer who has stood up for tyrants far more than he has stood up to them.

The U.N. is losing what shreds of moral legitimacy remain, even among those who were once sympathetic, as the extent of its corruption becomes too obvious to ignore. There's talk of replacing -- or, more diplomatically, supplementing -- the U.N. with a Community of Democracies that would draw its support from legitimate governments, not thugs and kleptocrats. At the very least, it seems likely that the U.N. will soon come under enormous pressure to reform.

In my estimation, the UN has long out-served its purpose, whatever it may have been, and an enormous restructuring that more heavily weights the policies of ruling governments rather than powerless figureheads is needed. In the wake of scandal, time will soon tell.

Only Surviving Account of 1st Thanksgiving

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Here are some excerpts from an interesting letter that especially highlight some of the reasons to be thankful during this time of the year. It’s hard to believe that it's coming up on 400 years shortly. -BBM)


Loving, and old Friend,

Although I received no letter from you by this ship, yet forasmuch as I know you expect the performance of my promise, which was, to write unto you truly and faithfully of all things, I have therefore at this time sent unto you accordingly. Referring you for further satisfaction to our more large relations.

You shall understand, that in this little time, that a few of us have been here, we have built seven dwelling-houses, and four for the use of the plantation, and have made preparation for divers others. We set the last spring some twenty acres of Indian corn, and sowed some six acres of barley and peas, and according to the manner of the Indians, we manured our ground with herrings or rather shads, which we have in great abundance, and take with great ease at our doors. Our corn did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sown, they came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom.

Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after have a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the company almost a week, at which time amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest King Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain, and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

We have found the Indians very faithful in their covenant of peace with us; very loving and ready to pleasure us; we often go to them, and they come to us; some of us have been fifty miles by land in the country with them, the occasions and relations whereof you shall understand by our general and more full declaration of such things as are worth the noting, yea, it has pleased God so to possess the Indians with a fear of us, and love unto us, that not only the greatest king amongst them, called Massasoit, but also all the princes and peoples round about us, have either made suit unto us, or been glad of any occasion to make peace with us, so that seven of them at once have sent their messengers to us to that end.

I never in my life remember a more seasonable year than we have here enjoyed; and if we have once but kine, horses, and sheep, I make no question but men might live as contented here as in any part of the world. The country wanteth only industrious men to employ, for it would grieve your hearts (if as I) you had seen so many miles together by goodly rivers uninhabited, and withal, to consider those parts of the world wherein you live to be even greatly burdened with abundance of people.

Your loving friend,

E.W. [Edward Winslow]
Plymouth in New England this 11th of December, 1621.

Why We Should Really Be Thankful

(EDITOR'S NOTE: On this Thanksgiving, as on all prior occasions, the safety, security, liberty, and freedom afforded to us by living in the United States gives us all something to be thankful for. However, it was not always this way. Countering the romanticized notions of life for the Pilgrims those many years ago, Caroline Baum from Bloomberg recounts the real reason that they took to celebrating this day in history. -EBO)


Thanksgiving Is Incentive Success Tale
by CAROLINE BAUM
Bloomberg
Wednesday, November 24, 2004

For most Americans, Thanksgiving is a holiday from work, a time to gather with friends and family and celebrate with a huge feast. If children know anything about the origins of this national holiday, declared each year by presidential proclamation, it's that the Pilgrims set aside a day to give thanks for a bountiful harvest in their new land, where they came to escape religious persecution.

What children -- and many adults -- don't know is that things weren't always good for the Pilgrims, a group of English Separatists who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and established the Plymouth Bay Colony. The first winters were difficult: The weather was harsh, and crop yields were poor. Half the Pilgrims died or returned to England in the first year. Those who remained went hungry. Despite their deep religious convictions, the Pilgrims took to stealing from one another.

Finally, in the spring of 1623, Governor Bradford and the others "begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery," according to
Bradford's History.

Old-World Baggage

One of the traditions the Pilgrims had brought with them from England was a practice known as "farming in common." Everything they produced was put into a common pool, and the harvest was rationed among them according to need.

They had thought "that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing," Bradford recounts.

They were wrong. "For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte," Bradford writes.

Young, able-bodied men resented working for others without compensation. They thought it an "injuestice" to get the same allotment of food and clothing as those who didn't pull their weight.

A New Way

After the Pilgrims had endured near-starvation for three winters, Bradford, with the advice of the leaders of the colony, decided to experiment when it came time to plant in the spring of 1623. He set aside a plot of land for each family, that "they should set corne every man for his owne particuler, and in that regard trust to themselves."

The results were nothing short of miraculous.

Bradford writes: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content."

The women now went willingly into the field, carrying their young children on their backs. Those who previously claimed they were too old or ill to work embraced the idea of private property and enjoyed the fruits of their own labor, eventually producing enough to trade their excess corn for furs and other desired commodities.

Incentives

Given appropriate incentives, the Pilgrims produced and enjoyed a bountiful harvest in the fall of 1623 and set aside "a day of thanksgiving" to thank God for their good fortune. "Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day," Bradford writes in an entry from 1647, the last year covered by his History.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Pilgrims' good fortune was not a matter of luck. In 1623, they were responding to the same incentives that men and women still respond to almost four centuries later.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Whole Stuffed Camel

In a cookbook called International Cuisine, presented by California Home Economics Teachers, 1983 (ISBN 0-89626-051-8), you will find:

Stuffed Camel

1 whole camel, medium size
1 whole lamb, large size
20 whole chickens, medium size
60 eggs
12 kilos rice
2 kilos pine nuts
2 kilos almonds
1 kilo pistachio nuts
110 gallons water
5 pounds black pepper
Salt to taste

Skin, trim and clean camel (once you get over the hump), lamb and chicken. Boil until tender. Cook rice until fluffy. Fry nuts until brown and mix with rice. Hard boil eggs and peel. Stuff cooked chickens with hard boiled eggs and rice. Stuff the cooked lamb with stuffed chickens. Add more rice. Stuff the camel with the stuffed lamb and add rest of rice. Broil over large charcoal pit until brown. Spread any remaining rice on large tray and place camel on top of rice. Decorate with boiled eggs and nuts. Serves friendly crowd of 80-100.

Shararazod Eboli Home Economist, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Hate U.

(Editor's Note: Protected speech? Possibly. But is it ok to bully others that don't agree? Hardly. I also doubt that Colombia would give tenure to members of the KKK, no matter how clear the first ammendment issues. -BBM)


Hate 101

Climate of hate rocks Columbia University

By DOUGLAS FEIDENDAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Many students say Columbia Prof. Hamid Dabashi, a department chairman, has bullied and threatened them for defending Israel.


In the world of Hamid Dabashi, supporters of Israel are "warmongers" and "Gestapo apparatchiks."

The Jewish homeland is "nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States."

It's a capital of "thuggery" - a "ghastly state of racism and apartheid" - and it "must be dismantled."

A voice from America's crackpot fringe? Actually, Dabashi is a tenured professor and department chairman at Columbia University. And his views have resonated and been echoed in other areas of the university.

Columbia is at risk of becoming a poison Ivy, some critics claim, and tensions are high.
In classrooms, teach-ins, interviews and published works, dozens of academics are said to be promoting an I-hate-Israel agenda, embracing the ugliest of Arab propaganda, and teaching that Zionism is the root of all evil in the Mideast.

In three weeks of interviews, numerous students told the Daily News they face harassment, threats and ridicule merely for defending the right of Israel to survive.

And the university itself is holding investigations into the alleged intimidation.

Dabashi has achieved academic stardom: professor of Iranian studies; chairman of the Middle East and Asian languages and cultures department; past head of a panel that administers Columbia's core curriculum.

The 53-year-old, Iranian-born scholar has said CNN should be held accountable for "war crimes" for one-sided coverage of Sept. 11, 2001. He doubts the existence of Al Qaeda and questions the role of Osama Bin Laden in the attacks.

Dabashi did not return calls.

In September in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, he wrote, "What they call Israel is no mere military state. A subsumed militarism, a systemic mendacity with an ingrained violence constitutional to the very fusion of its fabric, has penetrated the deepest corners of what these people have to call their soul."

After the showing of a student-made documentary about faculty bias and bullying that targets Jewish students, six or seven swastikas were found carved in a Butler Library bathroom last month.

Then after a screening of the film, "Columbia Unbecoming," produced by the David Project, a pro-Israel group in Boston, one student denounced another as a "Zionist fascist scum," witnesses said.

On Oct. 27, Columbia announced it would probe alleged intimidation and improve procedures for students to file grievances.

"Is the climate hostile to free expression?" asked Alan Brinkley, the university provost. "I don't believe it is, but we're investigating to find out."

Where is the outrage?

(Editor's Note: Over the last week there have been several developments of significance. Yet the reactions from the left and European establishment have been muted to say the least. Are problems really problems if they involve the USA in some way? The international double standard is simply amazing. As noted below, where are the protestors and human shields? Added to the Oil for Food scandal and the Darfur crisis in Sudan (where France, Russia, and China refuse to take strong action because of oil and military contracts they have with the Arabist government), demonstrate again the leadership deficit from the UN and our european "friends". For those out of the loop (who can blame you witht the negligant coverage we get from the main stream media), the recent elections in the Ukraine seem to have clearly been rigged in favor of the pro-Russian candidate with massive fraud; the UN is involved in yet another sex ring scandle involving children; and the French Army fired on unarmed protestors in the Ivory Coast, killing many. One suggestion floated is replacing Koffi Anon with Vaclav Havel, the an that helped lead the Czechs out of stalinism and into the west in the early 90s. -BBM)



Ukraine Crisis

Ukraine: Europe mumbles, Poland shouts

Swedish blogger Johan Norberg (via Instapundit) watches Ukraine's Orange Revolution unfold and asks:

"Where are the concerned European politicians who should condemn the fraud, and who could be with these crowds to show their support? And where are the 'human shields'? A lot of young westerners were willing to risk their lives to stop the war on Iraq. Aren't they willing to risk some discomfort to stop one of Europe's biggest countries from slipping back to dictatorship?"

If I recall correctly, Western European political class has done preciously little to help Eastern and Central Europe liberate itself in 1989/2001 (not to mention stop the war in its own Balkan backyard) - so why start now?





More UN Scandals

IT'S NOT JUST UNSCAM -- The U.N. has other problems:

The United Nations is investigating about 150 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. civilian staff and soldiers in the Congo, some of them recorded on videotape, a senior U.N. official said on Monday.

The accusations include pedophilia, rape and prostitution, said Jane Holl Lute, an assistant secretary-general in the peacekeeping department.

Yeah, I know that pointing out the double standards is considered unsporting -- but imagine how this would be playing if American troops were involved.

UPDATE: Patrick Spero has some observations on this story.


IS IT JUST ME, OR DO criminal sex rings follow UN peacekeepers wherever they're deployed? (c.f., Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Congo... I'm looking for this 'superior moral legitimacy' thing, I'm just not seeing it.)


STILL LOOKING FOR, NOT FINDING THE SUPERIOR MORAL LEGITIMACY: Continuing an earlier theme and via a tip-off from the blog of Sasha Castel,*

The Times (UK) reports on a vote of no confidence in the United Nation's management taken by the employees of its Secretariat in New York, after the U.N.'s director of oversight was cleared on charges of exchanging promotions for money and sexual favours following an extremely cursory investigation. Staff representatives who had raised complaints were not consulted or interviewed in the course of the investigation, nor were they informed it was taking place until it had exonerated the undersecretary.

Dileep Nair, the official accused of peddling promotions for sex, is incidentally the U.N.'s anti-corruption watchdog.

The present scandal follows close on the heels of Annan's recent admission that civilian and peacekeeping personnel on UN duty in Congo and Sierra Leone have committed what appear to be several hundred separate documented instances of gross misconduct, frequently dispensing food aid to under-age local girls on the condition of having sex with them first, and with instances of rape and paedophilia by peacekeepers documented on videotape as well. (see Scotsman, CNN, BBC, BBC). This continues a pattern of sexual predation perpetrated by the United Nations upon vulnerable host populations occurring in previous years with the presence of UN peacekeepers and officials in East Timor, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.



Ivory Coast Massacare

IVORY COAST UPDATE: More information, and video, on the alleged massacre of civilians by French Troops, here.

UPDATE: Much more here -- and scroll down for the photo.



Havel for UNSG

ANOTHER UPDATE: The more I think about it, the more I like the Havel-for-S.G. idea. Here's something Havel wrote recently in the Miami Herald:

Let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated into believing that attempts to change the established order and objective laws do not make sense. Let's try to build a global civil society that insist that politics is not just a technology of power, but must have a moral dimension.
At the same time, politicians in democratic countries need to think seriously about reforms of international institutions to make them capable of real global governance. We could start, for example, with the United Nations, which, in its current form, is a relic of the situation shortly after World War II. It does not reflect the influence of some new regional powers, while immorally equating countries whose representatives are democratically elected and those whose representatives speak only for themselves or their juntas, at best.
We Europeans have one specific task. Industrial civilization, which now spans the whole world, originated in Europe. All of its miracles, as well as its terrifying contradictions, can be explained as consequences of an ethos that is initially European. Therefore, unifying Europe should set an example for the rest of the world regarding how to face the various dangers and horrors that are engulfing us today.
Indeed, such a task, which is closely tied to the success of European integration, would be an authentic fulfillment of the European sense of global responsibility. And it would be a much-better strategy than cheaply blaming America for the contemporary world's various problems.
He's got my vote.

Britain Lays a Pox on Fox Hunting

According to The Wall Street Journal today, fox hunting will soon be illegal in Great Britain as a result of the Labour party's efforts. It falls on the heels of efforts by developed countries around the globe to control and sanitize the actions of free, tax-paying individuals. It reeks of the intelligentsia’s continuing encroachment into the everyday man's life under the auspices that elitists somehow know more than, and what's better for, us. In the article, the author, Lionel Shriver, sums up this trend wonderfully:

A few basics from the git-go: They may look cuter than rats, but foxes are pests, and prey on livestock. Bottom line: Foxes will be killed anyway. It is only a question of how.

Yet the deeper modern rift between the urban élite and the disempowered countryside is more salient. The urban professionals backing the ban have ideas about themselves, very precious ideas. They are civilized. They recycle. They believe that meat grows in cellophaned packets. They abhor genetically modified foods and animal testing. They are good. Britain's country dwellers, who actually make things, grow things, raise things and yes, kill things, are too busy to worry about being good.

Foxhunting turned an unpleasant necessity, the eradication of livestock predators, into a ritual -- an excuse for a frolic on horseback, fresh air, fellowship and a warming drink. And therein lies the nugget. For the virtuous, killing animals grimly is OK, but killing animals and enjoying it amounts to sadism and is therefore unacceptable. What was legislated last Thursday was not so much what rural sportsmen are allowed to do as what they are allowed to feel.

Alas, Europe in general is suffering under the tyranny of Goodness. The same impulse to legislate virtue drives the anti-smoking lobby. Hate-crime legislation levies additional jail time on criminals not for what they did, but why. Thus Goodness is not about doing good but affecting it, and about telling moral inferiors what they may or may not enjoy. In sum, the hunting ban is about vanity.

Though opponents have threatened to foxhunt anyway, daunting police with the prospect of arresting thousands, Britain is lately less a nation of hunters than of sheep.

Well said. Sadly, the United States is dogged by similarly so-called virtuous legislation.

Energy Policy Options

(Editor's Note: It's no secret that we need to become more efficient in our use of energy. Though the USA is already one of the most efficient countries in the world in terms of GDP per unit of energy, we still use more energy than most other countries per capita (because we contribute so much to the world economy per capita). There is room for improvement. There are two reasons for this. One, there is the possibility that global warming exists and that it is at least exacerbated by human CO2 emissions. Second is energy independance. Though complete energy independance is probably impossible without significant technological breakthroughs, we could at least become independant from the Persian Gulf supplies, eliminating the need to coddle dictatorships that repress freedoms and civil society and contribute indirectly to terrorism. Below are two articles from The New Republic, the first examines a proposal to treat CO2 emmissions in the same way as acid rain emissions (with tradable vouchers). The second examines the benefits of a 1/3 increase in average MPG over a 10 year period (5 years lead time with 5 years of implementation)... achievable with conventional technology... including near independance from Persion Gulf oil. California has recently passed legislation to this effect; the size of the Californian market may demand that the car companies make these requirements standard in all markets.

Of course, I think that in the short term (the next 30-50 years) there needs to also be increases reliance on nuclear and clean-coal technology (the Bush administration has been pushing the latter successfully). -BBM)



Energy Saver

by Gregg Easterbrook
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.22.04



This report, New Approaches on Energy and the Environment, released last week by the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future, offers the White House a menu of new policy ideas to decrease foreign-oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions without harm to the economy.

For sheer brainpower on energy and environmental issues, no one can touch Resources for the Future. The think tank was founded in 1952 by the Ford Foundation, which charged it with warning the world about the coming exhaustion of petroleum and other primary resources.

Instead Resources for the Future researchers concluded there was plenty of everything, and swam against the 1960s doomsday-chic tide by saying so.

Then the organization got interested in improved environmental protection using market-based ideas. Its triumph was the 1991 Clean Air Act revisions that created an allowance-trading program for acid rain reduction. Since 1991 acid rain has declined spectacularly--that's why you never hear about it anymore--and the trading system designed by Resources for the Future is the reason. Not only was the system successful, it cost far less than expected. When the 1991 program was enacted, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that reducing acid rain would cost about $10 billion a year. It turned out to cost only about $1 billion annually, because trading allowed the system to be efficient in market terms. Trading also created incentives for utility companies to invent new ideas to reduce emissions--because if a company cuts its acid rain below the legal mandate, it can sell the extra credits to someone else.

Now Resources for the Future has called for substantial alteration of U.S. energy policy, especially on fossil fuel use. New Approaches on Energy and the Environment is a powerful and important volume--my only complaint is that it does not roll the drums for increased use of zero-emission nuclear power and for building the badly needed natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the lower states. Otherwise the volume brims with appealing ideas.

The analysts of Resources for the Future offer these basic possibilities for progress on greenhouse gases and foreign-oil dependency: higher taxes on gasoline or on any carbon-containing (fossil) fuel; higher federal miles-per-gallon standards on vehicles; or a carbon-allowance trading system modeled on the acid-rain trading system [Easterbrook goes on to note that higher gas taxes (even if offset by lowering taxes elsewhere) or higher MPG would be difficult politically]...

That leaves carbon trading, and here I am guardedly optimistic. The emission-trading regime worked incredibly well for acid rain. "Tradable" is a good word in economics and in politics; systems based on trading allow individuals, not government officials, to be the ones who make the decisions about environmental priorities. Resources for the Future proposes a pilot program that would place a five dollar-per-ton charge on carbon emissions. All companies, such as electric utilities, that emit carbon dioxide would pay five dollars per ton, while companies that sell fossil fuels to individuals, such as gasoline retailers, would factor the charge into consumer prices. Every carbon-emitting corporation would get a maximum level--a "cap." The cap is what causes the reductions, by setting an upper limit. Any company that reduced emissions below the cap would be awarded tradable credits. As with the acid-rain trading program, the latter provision creates an economic incentive to invent ways to reduce greenhouse gases, since extra reductions create a product that can be sold. The product in this case is an emission allowance. Right now, no one is working on technology to limit greenhouse gas emissions because there is no economic incentive to do so. Experience teaches that once there is an economic incentive, human beings prove to be spectacularly ingenious.

Resources for the Future wants the revenue from a carbon-trading pilot program to go toward deficit reduction; a five dollar-per-ton carbon charge would raise about $8 billion in its first year. If carbon trading turned out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without causing economic harm, Resources for the Future would gradually increase the charge, to perhaps $40 per ton by 2020, raising a larger sum for deficit reduction. There's a safety-valve provision in the proposal--if economic harm is detected, the program stops. Acid rain reduction, it's worth noting, caused no economic harm and created net benefits by saving the Appalachian forests. The early, five dollar-per-ton charge would have no noticeable effect on consumers, costing the average driver about $10 per year via slight raises in gasoline prices. (Yes, you did the mental math correctly--the typical car emits two tons of greenhouse gases annually; SUVs emit three to four tons.) As the carbon charge rose, gasoline prices would slowly rise, encouraging people to pump less. But if you were determined to keep that mega SUV, you could do so the old fashioned way--by paying the price.

Joining the Resources for the Future report in a couple weeks will be the findings of the National Commission on Energy Policy, which is expected to recommend significant changes in U.S. energy policy, including action against greenhouse gases and gas-guzzler vehicles. The commission, a true bipartisan group whose members include the chairman of ConocoPhillips and the author of Dick Cheney's energy plan, is also expected to back the Alaska natural gas pipeline and other production increases. Its recommendations--more production and global-warming action--will therefore have an even-handed feeling. Given the frustration many in Washington feel that Congress can't move energy legislation even on consensus issues such as utility grid improvements, the National Commission on Energy Policy report may become a catalytic tool. One can always hope.






Turn On
by Gregg Easterbrook


Here's the math. About 17 million new cars and "light trucks" (SUVs, pickups, and minivans) are sold in the United States each year and driven, on average, about 12,000 miles annually. If the fuel efficiency of 17 million vehicles driven 12,000 miles annually rose by one-third, from a real-world 17 MPG to a real-world 23 MPG, that would save about 200 gallons of gasoline annually per vehicle, or about 3.4 billion gallons of gasoline. Since a barrel of petroleum yields 20 gallons of gasoline, about 170 million barrels of oil would be saved.

Perhaps you think, Aha! With U.S. petroleum demand at 20 million barrels daily, this MPG initiative has saved just about one week's worth of oil. Yes--in the first year, the MPG increase would have little effect, in much the same way that, in their first year, few investments yield much return. But remember the miracle of compounding! In the second year, with two model-years' worth of vehicles at the higher MPG, 340 million barrels of oil are saved. The next year, the savings is 510 million barrels, the next year 680 million, and so on. In just the fifth year of this initiative, we would need to purchase about 850 million fewer barrels of petroleum--approximately the amount the United States imports each year from the Persian Gulf states. If future vehicle sales are about the same as current sales, it would only take seven to eight years for there to be more vehicles on the road with the new standards than without them. Then, a tipping point might be reached, and national petroleum consumption could actually start to decline. (Note to econ majors: Yes, this is a simplified calculation that does not include the effects higher MPG standards might have on auto markets.)

...

But wouldn't higher MPG standards force people to drive econo-box death traps? No--mileage standards could rise by one-third with hardly any outward change in cars. Godzilla-class SUVs, such as the Hummer and the Excursion, would be history, but full-sized sedans and large SUVs, such as the Ford Explorer, could still grace auto showrooms.

Consider that, from 1981 to 2003, the average horsepower of new vehicles sold in the United States rose 93 percent, average acceleration time improved 29 percent, and average weight rose 24 percent, while average MPG remained essentially unchanged. That Detroit has been able to make its products heavier, faster, and more powerful while essentially keeping mileage the same means that engine efficiency has improved significantly: It's just that improvements have gone into power, not MPG. The main changes needed for vehicles to show a big rise in MPG, yet remain full-sized and comfy, are reductions in horsepower and acceleration.




Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Fish Have Feelings, Too

This one's great. PETA now claims that eating fish is cruel and unusual punishment for our finned friends in the ocean.

Touting tofu chowder and vegetarian sushi as alternatives, animal-rights activists have launched a novel campaign arguing that fish — contrary to stereotype — are intelligent, sensitive animals no more deserving of being eaten than a pet dog or cat.

Called the Fish Empathy Project, the campaign reflects a strategy shift by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as it challenges a diet component widely viewed as nutritious and uncontroversial.

"No one would ever put a hook through a dog's or cat's mouth," said Bruce Friedrich, PETA's director of vegan outreach. "Once people start to understand that fish, although they come in different packaging, are just as intelligent, they'll stop eating them."

Just as intelligent as what? Humans? Didn't WE catch THEM? If they were so intelligent, one would think that they would learn to avoid the hook or net. For my part, I know that I routinely avoid animals/humans with guns and weapons who want to serve me for dinner.

Fortunately, I am not the only one who thinks that PETA members are INSANE, and this individual actually happens to have a background in higher education:

"Fish are very complex organisms that do all sorts of fascinating things," said University of Wyoming neuroscientist James Rose. "But to suggest they know what's happening to them and worry about it, that's just not the case."

I tell you, some people simply have too much free time on their hands. These very same fanatics at PETA probably wear leather belts, run around in suede Birkenstocks, and flog their children. Give me a break! This sort of deranged circumspection never took place during the Inquisition or the Holocaust. I mean, come on: Fish have feelings? What? And besides, even if they do, it's called natural selection. Remember Darwin? One day, humans will be the fish of the animal kingdom and we'll wax nostalgic for the days when we were the top dog (no pun/bun intended).

Ignore these lunatics and eat up! In fact, pass the pepper.

Criminals Know Better...So Should Judges

Making the rounds today is a news article appearing in The Wall Street Journal emphasizing judges’ disdain for mandatory minimum sentences for a number of offenses, including drug dealing with possession of a firearm. Note the following excerpt:

A federal judge in Utah said he reluctantly sentenced a small-time marijuana dealer to 55 years and one day in prison because of harsh mandatory minimums imposed by Congress that he said he couldn't avoid. Weldon Angelos, [the] 24-year-old first offender, was a successful music executive with two young children at the time of his arrest.

Twenty-nine former judges and U.S. Attorneys had come to Mr. Angelos' defense, submitting a brief to the court arguing that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Angelos's sentence came under the mandatory-minimum laws because he carried a handgun to two $350 marijuana deals and police found several additional handguns after a search of his home. Possessing a gun at the time of a drug sale triggers mandatory-minimum laws.

What exactly is the problem here? Was Mr. Angelos unaware that dealing drugs is against the law? Perhaps he was unfamiliar with another law that deals harshly with drug dealers who carry firearms during transactions?

I don't want to jump to any accusations, but it would strike me that Mr. Angelos knew fully well the rules governing our society and was acting in blatant disregard for them, the police officers who annually lose their lives fighting the scourge of drugs in this country, and worse, the countless thousands who succumb to drug addiction each year because of dealers like Mr. Angelos who profit from the supply of illegal substances. Yes, it's clear that Mr. Angelos knew the laws and the risks, but thumbed his nose at them anyhow in favor of a short term gain...namely profit.

We live in an odd society. Criminals’ rights are often fought and scratched for, while those of the victims sit lonely by the wayside. The real victims here are users. Drugs, particularly narcotics, are ILLEGAL and ruin the lives of both users and their families. Even marijuana, despite many claims to the contrary that it is benign, ultimately renders users as empty shells of their former selves; one need only consider the burnout. Mandatory sentencing was enacted by Congress for the simple reason that judges were unreasonably lenient in sentencing convicted felons just like Mr. Angelos. Instead of defending this piece of trash's rights, we ought to be focusing on his clients' rights to a safe and healthy life. But then again, this would actually require a more prolonged effort and education of our children from these judges rather than their pathetic attempts assuage this scoundrel, who clearly knew better in the first place.

American Researchers Find Atlantis?

Apparently, Atlantis has been found; or rather, claimed to have been found. I've seen this claimed before, so we'll have to see how this pans out. But then again, Troy was eventually found...and it would predate Atlantis by centuries.

American researchersclaim to have found convincing evidence that locates the site of the lost kingdom of Atlantis off the coast of Cyprus.

The team spent six days scanning the Mediterranean sea bed between Cyprus and Syria using sonar technology. They believe they found evidence of massive, manmade structures beneath the ocean floor, including two straight, 2-km (1.25 mile) long walls on a hill.

They say their discoveries match accounts of the city written by Plato.

The Land of Lincoln

Brendan forwarded me the following comments in response to the recent appointment of Condoleezza Rice as the new US Secretary of State:

The media is overlooking something. Not only is Rice the first female black Secretary of State, she's the first black person to replace another black cabinet official of any gender. And do I need to mention this is the first administration to have two black Secretaries of State?

Thank God for the GOP's affirmative action stance. Namely, may the best person win.

I think Bush made a wonderful selection, indeed. For those of you who might remain skeptical or question her qualifications, I urge you to review Condoleezza Rice's biography.

Mach 10 or Die!

The end of an era seems upon us. In light of President Bush's emphasis on manned space flight going forward, NASA's endeavors in high speed air flight seem to be winding down. Marking the occasion is a test of their newest prototype utilizing scramjet technology to push an aircraft to a hoped-for record speed of Mach 10, or approximately 7,000 miles per hour. Most commercial jetliners fly under Mach 1 at approximately 600 miles per hour. Pretty slow by comparison, eh?


Courtesy of NASA
A Pegasus Rocket Ignites and Begins the Acceleration of the X-43A in a Previous Test Flight.
Wired News is reporting that NASA will attempt to break the aircraft speed record next week, say planners for the agency's experimental X-43A project.

The unmanned flight used a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or 'scramjet', engine that has no moving parts and only emits water as exhaust. The scramjet works by channeling oxygen from the air through a progressively narrowing chamber, which when compressed enough, is mixed with hydrogen fuel. Combustion of the mixture creates a force that thrusts the plane forward. The beauty of the mechanism is that the resulting exhaust is composed simply of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, or water.

Arafat Really Dead This Time

One of the greatest contributors to regional tension in the Middle East, the PLO's Yassir Arafat, finally died yesterday from liver and kidney failure. Despite the rhetoric being espoused by varied leaders around the world, clearly Mr. Arafat should be remembered for sidetracking every known attempt at peace in the region with the Israelis and encouraging an agenda of terrorist bombings to effect his cause. More a coward than a savior of the Palestinian people, his only lasting memories should be one of having horded billions of dollars while his so-called people wander aimlessly in the desert.

Indeed, my sentiments have been both echoed and refuted by the international community. As such, I have taken the liberty of including a few comments from leaders around the world. Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, shared my sentiments almost to a tee:

"I think history will judge him very harshly for not having seized the opportunity in the year 2000 to embrace the offer that was very courageously made by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barack, which involved the Israelis agreeing to 90 per cent of what the Palestinians had wanted."

He added that "many people regard Yasser Arafat as a terrorist and it is hard to believe that he could not have done more to restrain militant Palestinian groups."

Not surprisingly, especially in consideration of the 6,000,000 Muslims living in France, President Jacques Chirac hailed the passing of Mr. Arafat:

"It is with emotion that I have just learnt of the death of President Yasser Arafat, the first elected president of the Palestinian Authority. I offer my very sincere condolences to his family and to people close to him." He called Arafat "a man of courage and conviction who embodied the Palestinian struggle for a state."

Not wanting to rail against Chirac again, but a man of courage stands up to his enemies face to face; he does not anonymously and surreptitiously attack innocent women and children using suicide bombers. No, the latter acts are those chosen only by COWARDS.

Lastly, US President George Bush offered the following sentiments in a written statement:

The death of Yasser Arafat is a significant moment in Palestinian history. We express our condolences to the Palestinian people. For the Palestinian people, we hope that the future will bring peace and the fulfillment of their aspirations for an independent, democratic Palestine that is at peace with its neighbors.

Very diplomatic, Mr. President, but I much prefer Prime Minister Howard's remarks. Nevertheless, only history will serve as the true judge of Arafat's legacy.

Kerry's Stressed Supporters Undergo Therapy

It's pretty clear that the results of last week's election were surprising to many people. What's surprising, however, is the severe emotional strain that resulted from the Bush victory. Indeed, an article in the Boca Raton News reports that some Kerry supporters in Florida have recently been undergoing severe trauma treatment as a result of his loss in the election:

Shocked supporters of defeated US presidential candidate John Kerry are seeking help from psychologists, who refer to their condition as "post-election selection trauma." Florida trauma specialist Douglas Schooler alone has already treated 15 clients and friends with intense hypnotherapy since the Democratic candidate conceded on November 3. "I had one friend tell me he's never been so depressed and angry in his life," Schooler said. "I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated," he told the daily.

You can't make this stuff up. Can you believe that these very same people were only just recently accusing Republican supporters of being crazy? I figure it's only a matter of time until hypnotherapy gives way to electroshock therapy. Frankly, it's a good thing these 'Floridians' weren't in New York during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Freedom vs. Terrorism

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Terrorism has long been blamed on poverty. But, rigorous studies have shown this to be an unimportant factor. These studies show that the level of freedom is one of the most important variables. -BBM)


Freedom Squelches Terrorist Violence
By ALVIN POWELL
Harvard News Office
Thursday, November 4, 2004

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Though his study didn't explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations' tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable. "When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism," Abadie said.


Here is a link to the PDF file of the actual publication.

Challenging Chirac's Animosity to America

Jacques Chirac, the President of France, has been irrepressible in his disdain for the influence of the United States around the world. Indeed, he opted to fax congratulations to President Bush after the election rather than to call him personally. This is in sharp contrast to the efforts of other European leaders such as Tony Blair (UK) and Gerhard Schroeder (Germany).

Interestingly, it is beginning to appear that Chirac's sentiments are in some contrast to even members of his own staff and to growing numbers of French citizens, as evidenced by waning approval ratings. Nothing could more clearly espouse this new anti-anti-Americanism perspective in favor of reinforcing a strong global community and working relationship than a letter from Michel Barnier, the Foreign Minister of France, as published yesterday in The Wall Street Journal. The following excerpts are particularly refreshing to read:

I am writing to you as a friend of America. When I think of your great nation, the words "peace," "freedom" and "prosperity" come to mind.

I am writing to you as the citizen of a country that helped your country secure its own independence and later received your help, as faithful allies and liberators. Our destinies are intertwined. History demonstrates this, and economics proves it: two-thirds of your direct investment abroad are made in Europe, and Europe accounts for 75% of foreign direct investment in the U.S. In 2003, our exchange of goods and services approached $400 billion. France is the largest investor in U.S. stocks after the U.K. These investments represent about 650,000 U.S. jobs.

Because of all the things that connect us, I'm concerned about the campaigns against my country, and the recent surge of "French-bashing." There's a paradox here, since France is actually among your best friends in the fight against terrorism. Our intelligence experts work hand in hand and French special forces fight by your side in Afghanistan. Likewise, France is one of your most solid partners within the Atlantic Alliance. It heads NATO's operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan. It is the second-largest contributor to the NATO Reaction Force. In the end, the most inaccurate clichés are obscuring the most obvious truths.

Indeed, we have so much to do together to promote democracy, security and development. Let us recognize without animosity that the war in Iraq deeply divided us. The facts have been established and History will decide. But the important thing now is to turn Iraq into a real success story. France has no other aim. It will not send troops there but it is ready to help train Iraqi security forces and resolve the debt problem, and more broadly, to help prepare Iraq for elections in January.

This is why I believe we must give a new impetus to our political relations. When it comes to defense and trade, instruments of cooperation already exist and work well. The political dialogue between the EU and the U.S., on the other hand, is insufficient. The time has come to give it more substance.

America needs a capable, responsible Europe. And Europe needs a strong America, engaged in world affairs. Transatlantic cooperation has always been an essential condition for peace. Today, in a world that has become more unstable and more dangerous, our alliance is more necessary than ever. Let us make sure that it is able to meet the challenges that await us.

(UPDATE: President Chirac telephoned newly re-elected President Bush just this Tuesday morning, only moments after my post in The Realist Party. Coincidence? -EBO)

Totalitarian Consolidation in Venezuela

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Under-reported and mostly ignored, liberal democracy is being snuffed out of Venezuela in a fashion that is sadly reminiscent of many horror stories from the tragic 20th century. First, power is seized from independent organizations including the courts, the press, the police, and the legislature. Then, the rule of law is destroyed, allowing the arbitrary exercise of state power and the abrogation of individual and property rights. The two intertwine to culminate in the establishment of a one party tyranny. Excerpts from The American Thinker offer greater detail. -BBM)


From Bad to Worse in Venezuela

The great unreported story of the past week was Venezuelan Castrophile President Hugo Chavez's nearly total consolidation of power. Last weekend, in miserable elections that were mostly ignored by dispirited voters, Chavez "won" 21 out of 23 governors' seats. Venezuela's voters were still bitter over the stolen recall referendum last Aug. 15 and concluded that their votes didn't matter. But that consolidation of power is rapidly moving Venezuela, a country that supplies a sixth of the U.S.'s oil, deep into totalitarianism.

Chavez's first move since becoming 'El Supremo' is to settle old scores. Enemy number one is the media. Venezuela has an authentic independent press that freely scrutinizes Chavez's every move and he's long demanded that they stop. Since his consolidation, some leading news outfits, such as Gustavo Cisneros' Venevision, have gone from feisty wildcats to pliant hamsters, practicing self-censorship in the hopes that the censor's blade won't fall upon them. But such appeasement hasn't done them much good...

Already the Chavistas control the courts. They control the voter rolls and vote-counting apparatuses. They control the legislature and now the governorships. They control the once-meritocratic state-owned oil company, PdVSA, now running it through ignorant political hacks. They plan Zimbabwe-style expropriations against private property, a threat they will probably carry out. They control the army and are about to absorb the police - whom they don't control. They control the currency through capital controls and have designs on taking over the central bank. They have persecuted non-partisan political organizations like Sumate and now, have begun rounding up and murdering dissident military men. They control every institution in the country.

The last line of defense now is the media. And they want control of that, too.

Moral Values Myths, Part 2

From Andrew Sullivan, here's a post demonstrating that terrorism was the driving factor behind Bush's reelection, not gay marriage:

The percentage of people who said in 2004 that their vote was determined by the issue of "moral values" was 22 percent. In 1992, if you add the issues of abortion and family values together, that percentage was 27 percent. In 1996, it was 49 percent. In 2000, it was 49 percent. So the domestic moral focus halved in 2004. Obviously, the war took precedence, especially if you combine the categories of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism more generally.

Past Plans to End North Korean Threat?

Although it clearly seems the most practical strategy considering North Korea's obstinate stance regarding their nuclear weapons buildup, I was surprised to read the following in The Washington Times about the Clinton administration's intended response to any provocation from Kim Jong-il:

Newly declassified documents revealed the United States planned as recently as 1998 to drop nuclear bombs on North Korea if the country attacked South Korea.

As part of "scenario 5027," 24 F15-E bombers flew simulation missions at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina to drop mock nuclear bombs on a firing range between January and June 1998, the Korea Times reported Sunday.

The declassified documents also said the U.S. had kept nuclear weaponry in South Korea until at least 1998, despite officially claiming it had withdrawn all nuclear warheads in 1991.

Moral Values Myths

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The mainstream press has already passed judgment on the election and their conclusion is that evangelical, anti-gay marriage bigots gave Bush the majority he needed for victory. They base this conclusion on the results of a poorly worded un-scientific exit poll that reportedly shows 22% of those voting for Bush chose 'moral values' (undefined) as the single-most important reason for their selection. Leaving aside the fact that many voters supporting Kerry also did so while citing their own 'moral values', we are left with minimal information upon which to base conclusions. After all, 'moral values' is quite a nebulous term and can refer to just about anything.

However, for those in isolated social bubbles (that don't know anyone who voted for Bush) or in the mainstream press (the majority of whom vote democratic and live in major urban centers), it is important to understand why their candidate lost. Naturally, these people are attracted to what they want to hear, namely that they are morally superior to those (purportedly rightwing anti-gay evangelicals) who defeated their candidate. Unfortunately for Democrats and the country (as it is better to have a true competition of parties in the marketplace of ideas), this obfuscates the true reasons people voted Bush back in, and will hamper the reformulation of a Democratic party message in the future.

Indeed, one of the main reasons the Democrats lost middle America is that their leadership maneuvered the party into a position where it would be good news for the party if bad news occurred in Iraq and in the war on terror. They should have instead adopted a position that would have neutralized terrorism and Iraq as issues in the campaign. The following excerpts from a variety of sources highlight some of the more interesting observations from the election. -BBM)


The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS
Saturday, November 6, 2004
The New York Times

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.


The Gay Marriage Myth: Terrorism, Not Values, Drove Bush's Re-Election.
By PAUL FREEDMAN
Slate
Friday, November 5, 2004

Did "moral values" -- in particular, the anti-gay marriage measures on ballots in 11 states this week -- drive President Bush's re-election? That's the early conventional wisdom as Democrats begin soul-searching and finger-pointing. These measures are alleged to have drawn Christian conservatives to the polls, many of whom failed to vote last time. The theory is intriguing, but the data don't support it. Gay marriage and values didn't decide this election. Terrorism did.

The morality theory rests on three claims. The first is that gay-marriage bans led to higher turnout, chiefly among Christian conservatives. The second is that Bush performed especially well where gay marriage was on the ballot. The third is that in general, moral issues decided the election.

...the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000.

If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry.

These differences hold up at the state level even when each state's past Bush vote is taken into account. When you control for that variable, a 10-point increase in the percentage of voters citing terrorism as the most important problem translates into a 3-point Bush gain. A 10-point increase in morality voters, on the other hand, has no effect. Nor does putting an anti-gay-marriage measure on the ballot.

Actual Affirmative Action Analysis

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The issue of affirmative action has been fomenting on the minds of educators and school applicants for a long time now. The points raised both in favor and in opposition of this practice have been equally strong. Indeed, some efforts are required to ensure that minority students have equal opportunities that were long denied them in the past. On the contrary, it is important to maintain high academic standards to ensure that students receive the best education that this country can provide.

In excerpts from an article in The Wall Street Journal below, the results of a new study to be published in the Stanford Law Review serve to further complicate the issue. Frankly, by the time admittance qualifications are considered, it is far too late to reverse academic performance gaps between students. Rather than argue the affirmative action debate ad nauseum, greater emphasis should be focused on our failing elementary school systems. The question that begs asking is why the performance difference exists in the first place. -EBO)


Critics Assail Study of Race, Law Students
By JOHN HECHINGER
The Wall Street Journal
Friday, November 5, 2004

Research by a respected law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, asserts that blacks who benefit from affirmative action are being admitted to law schools where they find themselves in over their heads, achieving lower grades and failing the bar exam in higher numbers than they would have without the preferences.

Usually, social conservatives decry preferences because of perceived unfairness to white applicants. Although critics have talked before of a "stigma" that damages black recipients, the new analysis stands out for its detailed focus on alleged harms to the careers of black students.

Prof. Sander, who describes himself as a lifelong Democrat sympathetic to the goals of affirmative action, claims that abolishing preferences wouldn't reduce the number of black lawyers. In fact, he estimates it would likely increase the cohort of black attorneys emerging from the Class of 2004 by 8% and the number of those passing the bar the first time by 22%. Prof. Sander relied primarily on data that the Law School Admission Council collected on 27,000 students who entered 160 U.S. law schools in 1991, including their grades in college, test scores and bar-exam results.

The study found a stark achievement gap between blacks and whites throughout the nation's law schools. Close to half of the black law students ended up in the bottom tenth of their class. African-Americans were more than twice as likely as whites to drop out -- and more than six times as likely to fail state bar exams after multiple tries.

Prof. Sander argues that the reason for this outcome stems from a "mismatch" between the credentials of the black students and the institutions they attend. He argues that students who perform at the bottom of their classes at more selective colleges often are confused by tougher material taught at speeds that challenge higher-achieving classmates. At less selective colleges, the material tends to be simpler, so these students can pull into the middle of their class and pick up the baseline information needed to pass the bar exam. And he says there is a "cascade effect" on every tier of law school, from Harvard and Yale down the ranks, ensuring that, at each level, blacks perform worse and are less likely to become lawyers.

A well said prescription for sanity

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This sums it up nicely, IMO. From The Backseat Philosopher. -BBM)


To My Fellow Democrats

We Democrats are supposedly the party of the therapists, the teachers, and the 'relationship experts.' If anybody would be proud of the title, 'active listener', it would be a Democrat. We're the soft ones who understand where the other side is coming from and negotiate.

Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."

Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.

And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?

Here are some arguments that are being made that the Democratic party has simply not responded to, in the larger sense of the word "response":

Whatever the UN was, might have been, or should be, it now isn't. Genocidal tyrannies are on the Human Rights commision. Saddam Hussein funneled over 1.7 billion dollars to various decision makers and world leaders to weaken his sanctions program. One out of every three votes is about Israel. Until the UN is significantly reformed, you shouldn't take its decisions seriously.

If we view 1000 or even 10,000 dead soldiers as unacceptable, we will never be able to fight a real war again.

Proportional response with no preemption allows the other side to set the pace of the battle.

Throughout history, governments have had a strong interest in promoting long-term child-rearing heterosexual relationships. That is why governments create a legal definition of Marriage and provide lots of benefits to heterosexual couples who enter into it. This has been true for States throughout history independent of the religious beliefs of the populace. Worrying about changing that definition, even to the point of deciding against a change, is not automatically sexism or bigotry.

If you never are willing to draw a line where human life starts, there will be no line.

Just because it says something in the Bible doesn't mean there are no ancillary arguments supporting it. And just because someone uses the Bible as a source of their morality doesn't mean that any particular view of theirs is wrong. Actually, stuff that's lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book.

I am not saying that all these arguments should win. But I do not hear enough Democrats elucidating reasoned counterarguments to these positions. "Bush insulted our allies and the UN," "Bush lied, people died," "We have become the aggressor," "Homophobia," "Religious nut." These are not responses, these are dismissals. When Democrats start actively responding, we will succeed. Until then, we will be increasingly ignored as irrelevent.

Iranians welcome massively Bush's re-election

Iranians welcome massively Bush's re-election

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Nov 3, 2004

Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction on the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush's victory by calling and congratulating each other. Many were seen walking in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing a discret V sign.

Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.

As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy , those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future.

The regime and its US based known apologists and lobbyists had tried hard to make fear to Iranians on the outcome of a Bush win. Money was poured by controversial individuals, such as Akbar Ghahary the treasurer of IAPAC, to money oriented TV and radio networks, such as, 670 AM, Tamasha TV, Melli TV and a specific program of Apadana TV hosted by an ideologist named Faramarz Foroozandeh.

But all these desperate tries were not able to lure the Iranians of inside and nor especially the members of the Diaspora.

Witnessing such fiasco, the Islamic regime tried hard to bring the few thousands of professional demonstrators for its organized celebration of the 1979 attack against the US Embassy in Tehran. It's to note that the Iranian Capital has over 12 millions of inhabitants and that the today's official commemoration of one of the main Islamist act of terror ecountered another massive popular rejection.

Last Look on the Election

(EDITOR’S NOTE: With the election only just recently conceded by John Kerry to President George W. Bush, it is back to business in the United States. This will entail a focus on lackluster growth in the economy, still weak job growth, a looming crisis in healthcare and social security, and hopefully, real tax reform.

However, before we move past one of the more contentious presidential campaigns in recent history, it’s important to make a quick review of what went right and wrong. To that end, the best commentary that I have read on the subject comes from Caroline Baum’s column on Bloomberg, excerpts of which appear below. –EBO)


Post Mortem: Kerry Could Have Been Somebody
by CAROLINE BAUM
Bloomberg News
Wednesday, November 3, 2004

The 2004 presidential election was always John Kerry's to lose. And lose he did, by a margin of 3.5 million votes. Incumbent president George W. Bush won a 51 percent majority to Kerry's 48 percent. Bush amassed more than the 270 Electoral College votes needed for victory.

So what went wrong? The Democratic senator from Massachusetts was running against an unpopular president conducting an unpopular war in Iraq that's not going swimmingly. The U.S. economy has failed to create enough jobs, even in the face of solid growth, to convince the voters that the country is headed in the right direction, according to various opinion polls. The stock market posted no gains this year through Election Day.

Yet Kerry managed to lose the election. While the pundits from both parties will be writing the post mortems for the 2004 presidential election for days and weeks, herewith are my seven contenders for why the Massachusetts senator lost:

1. Anybody-but-Bush had to be somebody as well.
The vitriol directed at President Bush made it seem as if any Democratic candidate, short of being a complete boob, could walk away with the election.

That turned out not to be the case. The anybody had to be somebody. It's not enough to be not-somebody-else. John Kerry never defined himself except as an antidote to President Bush. ``A fresh start'' is better suited to a deodorant commercial than a campaign slogan.

2. George Bush is not the British pound.
Billionaire investor George Soros thought he could run Bush out of the White House in the same way he pushed sterling out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992.

He was wrong.

Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, spent $26.5 million to defeat Bush, more than any single donor or political action committee.

3. The European press can stay home.
Most newspapers in Europe endorsed John Kerry. That's probably the biggest kiss of death for a candidate next to a blessing from Al Gore.

Europe has yet to find something better than its stagnant- growth model. My advice to the Euro press: Devote your efforts to encouraging and endorsing leaders that bring new ideas to Old Europe and let us worry about our own.

4. Buying the Senate isn't as easy as buying a Senate seat.
As head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee this year, [New Jersey Senator Jon] Corzine was reportedly a whiz at raising money. Unfortunately, he led his party to defeat. The GOP increased its Senate majority to 54 seats from 51. The Democrats have 44 seats, down from 49, with Alaska still undecided.

The biggest blot on his record was the defeat of Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, who lost to John Thune. It may have been only one seat in sparsely populated South Dakota, but it was a big symbolic victory for the GOP.

5. Let them pitch Botox.
Hollywood and the music world came out in force for John Kerry. Bruce and John (Springsteen and Kerry) shared the stage at some high-visibility events over the past week, two millionaires united in their struggle for the little guy.

I could never understand why anyone would care what the folks in la-la land think about anything except the best Beverly Hills plastic surgeon.

I finally found an opinion poll (not in this election cycle) that validated my suspicions: Americans don't pay any attention to what the beautiful people think about substantive issues.

6. Even the Clinton team needs good raw material.
In an attempt to breathe some life into his campaign, Kerry hired Clinton wunderkinds James Carville and Paul Begala. Kerry is no Clinton. The best strategists can't spin straw into gold.

7. Cave dwellers don't influence the U.S. electorate.
Osama bin Laden came out of his cave last week for a pre-election video performance. The chattering classes said it would help Bush (a reminder of the terrorism threat) or it would help Kerry (a reminder that the al-Qaeda leader is still at large).

The lectern is a great look for academics. It's less effective for terrorists, whose punch lies in deeds, not words. Osama failed to stage any terrorist attacks at the summer Olympics in Greece. He was MIA at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in Boston and New York, respectively. And his experiment at influencing elections has been limited to Spain so far.

Election Wisdom

Whichever candidate wins, these ideas are humorous and appropriate, courtesy of Instapundit:

TAKE THE PLEDGE: Jeff Jarvises pledge is a welcome breath of sanity. So, no matter who wins:

I will not proclaim that the president is incompetent for failing to magically resolve some tough geopolitical situation, such as North Korea's nukes or the Israel/Palestine problem, unless I can propose something with stronger logic to recommend it than the fact that the president isn't doing it right now.

I will not obsess about trivial details of the president's demeanor, speech patterns, or long-past personal history.

I will not secretly hope that he fails at important goals so that I can elect someone from the other party four years hence.

I will not pretend that the president's budget is better, or worse, than it is, which is to say terrible.

I will not attribute magical powers to the president to heal the economy, large-scale social problems, or the growing rift between my boyfriend and myself on the matter of green vegetables. I will neither praise the president for improvement in these situations, nor criticise him for failing to mend them.

I will assume, until proven otherwise, that the president, like most politicians, is making stupid laws because he wants to appease key interest groups (a.k.a. The American People), not because He Is Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.

I will not write long, stupid posts on how the man I voted for, and his party, are wonderful people--intelligent, sensitive, and well-informed--while the other party, and its voters, are a bunch of moronic thugs who want only to Destroy a Once Great Nation. Nor will I deliver such rants in person.

UPDATE: Spoons has a different kind of pledge: "I PLEDGE TO BITCH ABOUT WHOMEVER IS ELECTED PRESIDENT." He makes a good point here, though: "Don't support a President just because he's President." Give him exactly the support he earns -- no more, no less. If you feel compelled to make some sort of feel-good pledge, pledge to treat whomever wins fairly, and to judge their actions without regard to whether you voted for him or not.

Jihadist Murders Dutch Filmmaker

Here's another tragedy as a result oof intolerance:

THE ENEMY STRIKES: Another Jihadist murder, this time aimed directly at the West's freedom of speech:

"A Dutch filmmaker who had received death threats after releasing a movie criticizing the treatment of women under Islam was slain in Amsterdam on Tuesday, police said. A suspect, a 26-year-old man with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, was arrested after a shootout with officers that left him wounded, police said. Filmmaker Theo van Gogh had been threatened after the August airing of the movie "Submission," which he made with a right-wing Dutch politician who had renounced the Islamic faith of her birth. Van Gogh had received police protection after its release."

...Theo van Gogh is a martyr - for exposing the misogyny at the heart of Islamism.

Final Thoughts Before the Election

(EDITOR'S NOTE: By now, most people have made up their minds ahead of the election. It's a tough call this year because the Bush administration has made a lot of mistakes and you could make a good argument that there have been enough of them to disqualify him from re-election. To that end, I don't think that Kerry will be a disaster; if he wins I will support him. Moreover, there are aspects of a Kerry presidency that could be an improvement. You could argue that a Kerry presidency with an adversarial congress would keep spending under better control, for example. Or, it would be a good thing for the democrats to become emotionally invested in the outcome in Iraq and more so in the WOT. This might do more to unite the country.

However, I don't think that a Kerry presidency would make the US loved in the world or reduce terrorist attacks. I don't think Kerry will prosecute the WOT as effectively and is unlikely to stand up to Iran and NK. Other things that worry me are Kerry's promise to cancel Missile Defense and nuclear bunker busters (could be the key to taking out future rogue nation nuclear sites with minimal collateral damage). He is soft on free trade and medical malpractice reform. He has stated in the past that he will accept stability in Iraq in place of democracy, which is a short term solution at best. He also seems content to treat the WOT as a police matter, as if we were fighting the Al-Sopranos instead of Al-Qaeda. He puts too much faith in multilateralism, and in corrupt international institutions like the UN, which do not represent US or even democratic interests. Domestically, he's beholden to the teachers unions and therefore against school choice or other reforms. He will not even discuss nuclear power as a route to energy independence in spite of his self-professed desire for energy independence, though other countries like France generate most of their own electricity this way.

Needless to say, there will be good and bad whoever wins tomorrow. -BBM)


Bush Voters in Baghdad
By LAWRENCE KAPLAN
The New Republic

We know what John Kerry thinks of Iraq. But what does Iraq think of him? Since he may soon be presiding over a war there, the question merits an answer. Yet, while the press has devoted page after page to the electoral preferences of the French, the opinions of those who count most overseas have received nary a mention.

Partly this derives from the simple fact that, as polls show, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't care who wins our election. Their concerns run closer to home -- especially how to stay alive. There's an exception, however: the thousands of academics, lawyers, rights advocates and other educated elites leading the effort to create a new Iraq -- nearly all of whom have hitched their fortunes to our own and nearly all of whom hope that President Bush wins.

Liberal Iraqis repeat the same question: Will the U.S. leave? These, after all, are the Iraqis building institutions, occupying key positions in ministries, and cooperating openly with the U.S. And they're the Iraqis with the most to lose in the event John Kerry makes good on his pledge to "bring the troops home where they belong."

This prospect, once unimaginable, has become very real in Iraq. The fear of abandonment has transformed meetings between Iraqi and U.S. officials, until recently arenas for grievance, into forums for the expression of solidarity.

But if John Kerry, who famously demanded that the U.S. "stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime" in Vietnam, imagines history repeating itself in Iraq, he really ought to visit the place. Having passed through eight time zones and one looking glass, what he will find is not the reactionary playground of his fantasies, but a country where thousands of idealistic young men and women go to work each day in the hope of creating a democratic society.