The Review

Bad News for our "friends" the Saudis

(Review) According to Time Magazine, a new book by Gerald Posner is about to make the Saudis look...bad. Posner relates the story of al-Qaida bigshot Abu Zubaydah, who, through a neat little bit of subterfuge, spilled the beans.

When questioning stalled, according to Posner, CIA men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.

Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do." The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. When the fake inquisitors accused Zubaydah of lying, he responded with a 10-minute monologue laying out the Saudi-Pakistani-bin Laden triangle.

Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high-ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda. Zubaydah told interrogators bin Laden said the arrangement was "blessed by the Saudis."

Zubaydah said he attended a third meeting in Kandahar in 1998 with Turki, senior isi agents and Taliban officials. There Turki promised, writes Posner, that "more Saudi aid would flow to the Taliban, and the Saudis would never ask for bin Laden's extradition, so long as al-Qaeda kept its long-standing promise to direct fundamentalism away from the kingdom." In Posner's stark judgment, the Saudis "effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade." Zubaydah told the interrogators that the Saudis regularly sent the funds through three royal-prince intermediaries he named.

If this is true, then maybe the fit is about to hit the shan.

Speaking of polls...

(Review) In case you need more evidence that the LA Times poll was a bit hinky, we now have the Survey USA poll taken for LA, San Diego and San Francisco TV Stations:

CA Governor Recall	8/26/2003
Remove Davis	64%
Keep Davis	35%
Undecided	1%
Data Collected	8/23/03 - 8/25/03
Geography	State of California
Universe	591 Certain Voters
Margin of Error	4.0%
CA Governor Replacement	8/26/2003
Schwarzenegger	45%
Bustamante	29%
McClintock	11%
Ueberroth	6%
Huffington	3%
Other	4%
Undecided	2%
Universe	572 Certain Voters
Margin of Error	4.2%
Client	KABC-TV Los Angeles KGTV-TV San Diego KPIX-TV San Francisco KXTV-TV Sacramento

That corresponds with all the other polls fairly closely. Which, of course, the Times poll does not.
So, the polls look like this, when you stick 'em all together:

Poll	Recall Davis - YES	Recall Davis - NO
Survey USA (8/23-25)	64%	35%
Los Angeles Times (8/16-21)	50%	45%
GL Research (8/13-18)*	63%	35%
Public Policy Institue (8/8-17)	58%	36%
Field Poll (8/10-13)	58%	37%
Gallup (8/7-10)	69%	26%
Time/CNN (8/8)	54%	35%

Poll	Schwarzenegger	Bustamante	McClintock	Ueberroth	Huffington
Survey USA (8/23-25)	45%	29%	11%	6%	3%
LATimes (8/16-21)	22%	35%	12%	7%	3%
GL Res. (8/13-18)*	31%	25%	17%	8%	3%
PPIC (8/8-17)	23%	18%	5%	4%	3%
Field Poll (8/10-13)	22%	25%	9%	5%	4%
Gallup (8/7-10)	42%	22%	13%	7%	7%
Time/CNN (8/8)	25%	15%	9%	4%	4%
*Republican Pollster, Simon votes reallocated to voters' second choice.

What was up with that LA Times Poll?

(Review) Another poll of the CA recall race has been released that contradicts the LA Times poll from earlier this week.

I thought the Times's poll was screwy at the time, but now I know it was. Frankly, the poll was as biased as can be.

The questions themselves are subtly tilted towards obtaining an anti-recall result. For instance, the Times asked several questions about the recall:

--Some people say that this recall election is an attempt by Republicans to overturn an election they lost in November 2002. Do you agree or disagree?

--Some people say that a gubernatorial election with 135 candidates on the ballot to replace Governor Davis diminishes
the seriousness of California’s electoral process. Do you agree or disagree?

--Some people say that recall elections like this one interfere with an elected state official’s ability to fulfill his or her
duties and efficiently run state government. Do you agree or disagree?

--Does the fact that the special recall election will cost the taxpayers at least 66 million dollars enter into your decision to
vote yes or no to recall Governor Davis, or does that fact not enter into your decision at all?

--Some people say that this recall sets a dangerous precedent in California because after the success that Davis’ opponents
have had in calling this special recall election, every elected governor from now on is likely to have to face a recall attempt by his or her opponents. Do you agree or disagree?

--Some people say that California has made it too easy for a recall measure to qualify for the ballot and that the state
should require a larger percentage of voters—more than the 12 percent it is now—to qualify a recall measure for the ballot. Do you agree or disagree?

These questions are little more than subtly disguised arguments against the recall. There could, after all, have been some other questions asked:

--Some people say that a recall election allows the voters to express legitimate dissatisfaction with an elected official by removing him from office for failing to execute his duties competently.

--Some people say that Gray Davis' record at restraining state spending makes a recall necessary in order to select a governor who can repair the damage done to the state's finances.

You know "some people" say a lot of things. Funny though, that the LA Times could only find arguments opposed to the recall. Ask those questions of a middle of the road voter, then ask how he feels about the recall. Chances are, after being barraged with a list of negative arguments about it, his support is gonna be a little soft.

That simply isn't how polling is supposed to be done. There should be an equal number of positivce and negative arguments presented to the pollee, to avoid biasing his answers.

Moreover, the Times asked at least one question that they know to be untrue.

In a recall election, a replacement candidate does not have to win by a majority vote. Because there are so many candidates on the replacement ballot, it is possible a new governor could be chosen with the support of less than 20 percent of the voters—even if, for example, Davis lost the recall election by 51 percent to 49 percent. Does knowing this could possibly happen make you more likely to vote in favor of recalling Gov. Davis, or more likely to vote against recalling Gov. Davis, or won’t it change the way you are likely to vote one way or the other?

Nobody is going to win with less than 20% of the vote. This is a purely theoretical and mathematical possibility. As a practical matter, it has never happened in any recall election, and it clearly won't happen in this election either. Voter behavior revolves around a few candidates, irrespective of how many are running. It is far more likely that, whoever wins the recall election (assuming Gray Davis is recalled), they will receive 40%+ of the vote. Indeed, it is far more likely for the winner to receive more than 50% of the vote than it is to receive less than 20%. And the Times knows this. This seems like another thinly disguised anti-recall question to me.

Here's another interesting question. When asking about the individual candidates, compare the first sentence of these two questions:

--Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is running as the only major Democratic candidate on the recall ballot.

--Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, will also be on the recall ballot.

Why not pop in a little campaign ad for Cruz Bustamante? He is the only democrat on the ballot, you see. It's especially important to note that when asking questions in a state with such a preponderantly Democratic voter base. "He's the only Democrats on the ballot! Think about that before you answer!"

I think it's becoming abundantly clear why the LA Times poll turned out the way it did, and why its results are contradicted by every other poll.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so, evidently. The editors of the Victorville Daily Press aren't pulling any punches about it today, either.

When the Los Angeles Times published its latest recall poll a week ago, the results were remarkably favorable to Democrats. The Times said Californians were in favor of recalling Gray Davis, but by a very small margin, 50 percent in favor, 45 percent against. The Times also said Cruz Bustamante leads Arnold Schwarzenegger in the race to replace Davis, 35 percent to 22 percent.

Other recent polls, of course, show much stronger support for the recall, and either show Schwarzenegger ahead or tied with Bustamante. The Public Policy Institute of California says Arnold is ahead and Gray Davis is way behind, while the Field Poll shows Bustamante and Arnold in a dead heat, and Davis losing big.

What's going on? Easy. The Los Angeles Times is, and has been, incredibly partisan regarding politics. Only those with remarkable memories can recall the last time a Republican seeking statewide or national office got a Times editorial page endorsement. Was it Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? It certainly wasn't either of the Bushes, and we can't imagine the Times not endorsing Adlai Stevenson, Jimmy Carter, any of the Kennedys, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore ... the list is depressingly one-sided.

After looking at the actual poll, I'm inclined to agree.

Intramural bombing

(Review) Not content with bombing US Troops in Iraq, Iraqi factions are now bombing each other. A car bomb exploded during Friday prayers outside the holiest shrine for Shiites in Iraq, and up to 17 people were reported killed.

What's the deal? I mean, what is it about the Arab Muslim world that makes bombings the standard act of disagreement? All I can say is, it's a good thing that Islam is the "religion of peace". Imagine what it would be like if it wasn't.

I Have A Dream

August 28, 1963
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.

But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Bustamante and MEChA

(Review) Finally, CA Lt. Gov Cruz Bustamante's past association with MEChA is being covered by Big Media.

Well, FOXNews, anyway.

In Wal-Mart's America

(Review) Harold Myerson, writing in today's Washington Post, elegantly demonstrates that the Left hasn't had a new economic idea since 1887, when Das Kapital was first published in English.

Myerson apparently believes that Wal-Mart is the focus of modern evil in the world.

Just as Ford, GM and the UAW once drove up wages for workers who were nowhere near auto factories, so Wal-Mart drives down wages for workers who never set foot there.

Prior to Henry Ford's assembly line revolution, cars were built by hand, one at a time. The use of the assembly line allowed that same number of workers to produce a vastly larger number of cars. This is what we call a "productivity increase".

Henry Ford was not a nice man who increased salaries just so his workers could all buy a car. He increased salaries because a) he could afford to do so as a result of the vastly increased productivity of the assembly line, and b) higher wages attracted larger numbers of potential workers, from whom he could choose the cream for his operation.

Ford didn't raise wages oput of any concern for the welfare of the worker. And the workers who worked for him knew it. In fact, it's rather surprising to hear a man of the Left praise Ford in this manner, since the Left in general has been less than impressed with Henry Ford's sterling altruism. As the Marxist historian Mark Rupert wrote in Producing Hegemony, "In the mid-1920s, one production worker described as follows the relentless pace and intense effort which his job required, and the consequences of failing to meet that standard on a daily basis: 'You've got to work like hell in Ford's. From the time you become a number in the morning until the bell rings for quitting time you have to keep at it. You can't let up. You've got to get out the production...and if you can't get it out, you get out.'

So let's not make Henry Ford into something he wasn't.

And let's not make Wal-Mart something it isn't either. Wal-Mart doesn't exist to provide large numbers of jobs that pay what Mr. Myerson believes are adequate wages. Wal-Mart exists to provide inexpensive products to consumers. That's it.

But beyond that, Wal-Mart, and retailing in general, simply can't produce the productivity increase in their "associates" that Henry Ford produced when he built the Highland Park plant in 1914. Since labor costs are the largest fixed cost for retailers, any across the board wage increases will result in price increases to consumers. Now, maybe consumers will flock to Wal-Mart in order to pay higher prices for the goods they need, because they want to support Wal-Mart's altruism in paying their workers more.

But, considering how much trouble and turmoil there's been in retailing among higher-priced chains in recent years, I tend to doubt it. Higher priced retailers have had to close stores and lay off thousands of workers. In the real world, that's the trade-off. Higher prices mean reduced demand, which means reducing the number of available jobs.

And let's also not pretend that the Wal-Mart workforce is the same as Ford's. Ford's men were the primary--indeed, the sole--breadwinners for their families. Wal-Mart employees tend to be secondary income earners, teens, and retirees. Myerson frames the argument as if retail employees were trying to support their families of their wages, which is, in the main, untrue.

Controlling as it does so much of the low-end retail market, Wal-Mart has, with great success, pressured suppliers to cut their labor costs. No other American company has done as much to destroy what's left of the U.S. clothing and textile industry or been so loyal a friend to the dankest sweatshops of the developing world.

Yes, Myerson is probably right that Wal-Mart's existence depresses wages for people who don't work there. But that's because people shop there for the low prices. Again, Wal-Mart is the largest US retailer because people prefer to shop there, and the reason they do so is because, when given a chance, people prefer to pay less for a thing than more. To keep prices low, Wal-Mart pressures suppliers to reduce their prices. Wal-Mart has no responsibility to subsidize high wages for their producers. Wal-Mart's responsibility is to provide its customers with the lowest prices possible for the goods they sell.

Myerson is implicitly arguing that Wal-Mart should charge higher prices to the 99% of consumers who buy there, so that the 1% who work in the textile industry can make more money.

And if life was all fuzzy kitties, that idea might just work.

Those dank sweatshops, by the way, have thousands of people begging to work in them, because the other jobs that are available are worse. I guess Mr. Myerson would rather have no Asians at all working for an American wage, rather than thousands of Asians working for lower wages. Nevermind that the cost of living in those countries is far lower than in the US, so that their real wages, even at what Mr. Myerson would call sweatshop wages, are higher than that of most of their fellow citizens.

Well, perhaps Mr. Myerson is right. Perhaps its better that they starve, rather than make what their society considers o living wage. Because if Mr. Myerson has his way, that's exactly what will happen. Americans are paid high relative wages because we have high productivity. We produce more units of product per unit of labor. Foreign workers are, in the main far less productive. They make, therefore, far less money. If Mr. Myerson thinks that compnaies will pay a western producivity wage for non-western productivity workers, then he's just insane.

And unless American unions can find the political leverage to block Wal-Mart's expansion into non-southern metropolitan areas, the company poses a huge threat to the million or so unionized clerks who work at the nation's major supermarket chains.

Well, for a Democratic activist, whose party receives untold millions in AFL-CIO political contributions, I imagine that the prospect does have the ring of crisis.

For the rest of us, who do, after all, occasionally have to buy food to feed our families and ourselves, the prospect of lower food or clothing prices is not quite as frightening.

And considering that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that wages are rising by 3.5% while inflation is at 1%, I'm not ready to get exercised about falling wages quite yet.

Yes, collective bargaining is a valuable tool to force rapacious employers into being less so. But there is a reason why union membership has declined over the past three decades, and it's not because company goons are cracking the heads of union organizers. Most businesses now offer pay and benefits that are acceptable to their workers, and, in response, workers see less of an incentive to unionize.

I would also note that, union organizations regularly take political stands and support candidates that are anathema to about half the work force. Perhaps the idea of belonging to an organization that will use worker's dues to support candidates and causes that the workers themselves dislike may also have something to do with the lack of enthusiasm the American workforce feels towards unions.

It may just be me, but I don't recall the moment when the American people proclaimed their preference for an economy driven by Wal-Mart to the one driven by General Motors.

Well, maybe it was when we decided to start buying Toyotas and Nissans in preference to the crap Detroit was putting out, and started shopping at Wal-Mart because they offered the same products for less.

It's called "voting with your feet."

Evidently, the idea of American consumers responding to the market in a rational way seems to mystify Mr. Myerson.

It is, after all, one thing to live in a nation where the largest employer wants workers to make enough to afford its cars; quite another to wake up in an America where the largest employer wants workers to make so little they'll be compelled to buy low-end goods in a discount chain.

Actually, I make a very comfortable living. And I still go to Wal-Mart and Target. I'm not "compelled" to do by low wages. The only sense I am "compelled" is in the sense that I have a compulsion to spend as little of my money as possible when I buy stuff.

And I love the turn of phrase that Wal-Mart "ants workers to make so little they'll be compelled to buy low-end goods in a discount chain." Mr. Myerson is evidently showing off his amazing psychic powers. He knows what Wal-Mart "wants". Not that he provides no evidence of how he knows what Wal-Mart "wants". He just knows it.

His whole argument is a perversion of how the market works. Well, actually, it's not so much of a perversion as it is a demonstration of total ignorance.

Indeed, polling has consistently showed that a clear majority of the American people have been dubious about the benefits of free trade -- but these are the only polls that the political elite, so poll-driven on other questions, has consistently ignored.

I'd say that's a great credit to the political elite.

Nine out of Ten economists believe that Free Trade is a benefit for everyone who engages in it, and the tenth guy is generally a MArxist whacko like Mr. Myerson. Ever since England repealed the Corn Laws after the Napoleonic Wars, it's been obvious that free trade beats mercantilism hands down for increasing the nation's prosperity.

And neo-luddites like Myerson or Ross Perot can whine all they want about the huge sucking sound of jobs fleeing to Mexico, or whatever, but history has demonstrated, again and again, that such arguments are foolish in the extreme.

Japan has a pretty protectionist economic system. For the last decade, it's been a shambling wreck. Remember when they were gonna rule the world, back in the 1980s? Mr. Myerson evidently feels that we should follow their path to prosperity.

I'll pass, thanks.

The relation of union power to mass prosperity is, in a word, causal. Anyone who doubts that should go to the only American city today where there's a boom in housing construction for the working class: Las Vegas. The MGM-Grand, the Bellagio and Caesar's Palace are the Ford and GM there, and a quite brilliant hotel workers union, which has won the right to represent the workers in all the strip hotels, is the latter-day UAW.

Whatever Mr. Myerson is smoking, I'd like a dime bag.

Now, try and stay with me here. Las Vegas is raking in billions of dollars a year from gambling. They have, over the last several years, been building huge hotel/casinos. In order to keep the casinos running they need a huge influx of employees. Because the permanent population of Las Vegas is so small, that means that thousands and thousands of people have had to be imported from out of state. That also means that new housing has to be built to house the influx of new residents.

No, Mr. Myerson, what is "causal" in Las Vegas is not union employment. The cause of the housing boom in Las Vegas is the million of Americans who pour money into the casinos there, thus prompting corporations to increase the number of casinos, hence the number of new jobs and new workers.

To believe otherwise, is to believe that Las Vegas, would, without union labor, be just another sleepy desert town.

Now, Mr. Myerson may actually believe this, but it's fantastically stupid, and it's a perfect example of why I have nothing but contempt for the Left.

Reaping what it has Sown

(Review) Alan Dershowitz is evidently feeling a bit of schadenfreude from the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq. And for good reason.

For more than a quarter of a century, the U.N. has actively encouraged terrorism by rewarding its primary practitioners, legitimating it as a tactic, condemning its victims when they try to defend themselves and describing the murderers of innocent children as "freedom fighters." No organization in the world today has accorded so much legitimacy to terrorism as has the U.N.

The bottom line is that the U.N. has served as an international megaphone for the perverse message that any people who feel that they are occupied have the right to resist occupation by randomly murdering innocent civilians anywhere in the world.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. Some Iraqis, who feel that they are now occupied, have taken the U.N.'s message to heart and are engaged in a "national liberation movement" of the kind long praised by the U.N. and are using the tactics rewarded by the U.N. against that very organization.

Now that the victims of "national liberation terrorism" are U.N. employees instead of Jewish babies, maybe the U.N. will finally come to its senses and understand that by legitimating and rewarding terrorism, they have created a Frankenstein monster that can be turned against any nation, organization or group. Unless there is a change, no one will be safe from this U.N.-created, -fed and -rewarded monster that threatens the entire world.

It's always so nice to watch when someone on the Left "gets it."

Back Online

Well, yesterday's hideous internet access problem appears to be fixed. I had email, but no web access. Now, I have both. I tell you, it's only when you don't have it that you realize that the Internet is a jones worse than China White.

Houston, we have a problem

Roy's Rock

(Review) John Derbyshire weighs in on Chief Justice Moore, and the 10 commandments monument in the Alabame Supreme Court building.

As I started out by saying, I am no authority on jurisprudence. It may be, for all I know — I really can't see it, but it may be — that there really are sound Constitutional grounds for your never-ending campaigns to scrub every last jot and title of religion from our public places. But just take a look at our country.

There is a war on: People who hate America are working day and night to destroy us. Just a few months ago they murdered 3,000 of us, and brought down two of our noblest buildings. Manufacturing jobs are long gone, and middle-class paper-shuffling jobs are following them fast. Public-sector unions are pillaging our state treasuries to fund their 50-90 programs (retire at 50 on 90 percent of your salary). Meanwhile, trial lawyers are chewing their way like termites through the private sector. We have 13 million illegal immigrants scoffing at our laws and helping themselves to the welfare provisions that citizens have spent their lifetimes funding through taxes. Two million of us are currently in jail, and the one-eighth of our population that is black supplies one-half of those inmates. Our education systems are collapsing under absurd demands that "no child be left behind" — everyone must be above average! — and hundreds of thousands of citizens have fled those systems in disgust to school their kids at home. Our universities are in the hands of nihilist ideologues who hate their own nation, culture and ancestors. The political system has seized up, impossible-to-cut spending programs crashing head on into impossible-to-raise tax rates. Drop a cigarette butt into some power generator in Cleveland and you can shut down the northeastern U.S.A. for a day. A North Korean nuke has been smuggled across the Mexican border and hidden in a filing cabinet on the 102nd floor of the Sears Tower. (I made that up, but if it hasn't actually happened yet, it won't be long.)

And action to deal with all these problems is massively hindered by the fact that we can't even talk about them in public for fear of being branded with one of the half-dozen modern equivalents of the scarlet letter — "racist," "nativist," "elitist," "profiler," and the rest of the idiot schoolmarmish cant we hear from the guardians of our public virtue.

In short, we are going to hell in a hand basket here, and all you liberals can think of is to jab your finger in the eyes of 46 percent of your fellow citizens over some footling dubious point of Constitutional law? Just ask yourselves — please, please, ask yourselves: Is Roy's Rock really a proper target for my zeal, my energy, my passion, my money? Is my reaction to it in any kind of proportion to any harm it might conceivably do?

It's too bad Justice Moore shot himself in the foot. Alabama's Attorney General (and Federal judicial nominee) Bill Pryor offered to have the AG's office argue the case on reasoinable and constitutional grounds, but, as I mentioned in my earlier post, Justice Moore is a fringe figure. As Quinn Hillyer writes:

But Chief Justice Moore made matters worse. Rather than accept an offer from Gen. Pryor to have the state AG's office argue in favor of the Commandments on reasonable and responsible grounds, Moore insisted on hiring outside attorneys and on making sweeping and grandiose legal arguments sure to be rejected. No need for detailed legal quotations here. The upshot of Moore's court filings was twofold: first, that the monument did indeed carry what any rational person would call a specifically faith-centered message at least bordering on "establishment" of religion — namely, that it was "an acknowledgement of God" as the source of all justice; second, that he as chief justice of Alabama was personally not subject (at least in First Amendment cases) to the dictates of a federal court.

It might have been an interesting case, if it had involved anybody other than Roy Moore.

Because the vital questions that should have been asked in this case about the limits to the US government under federalism were dismissed by Moore, who concentrated solely on an "acknowledgement of god" argument that he must have known wouldn't pass muster in a Federal Court.

Bustamante's "Tough Love"

(Review) Debra Saunders isn't impressed with Lt. Gov. Cruiz Bustamante's "Tough Love For California" budget plan.

If Bustamante is lucky though, voters will concentrate on his pulled promise and forget about his silly budget proposal, "Tough Love for California. "

Tough? As in hard to digest? There's nothing tough about promising taxpayers that other people -- rich people, commercial property owners, smokers and drinkers -- will be paying $8 billion in higher taxes.

Especially when Bustamante is promising to reduce the slated increase in the car tax -- except for cars valued over $20,000. Yes, it takes a tough Democrat to tell voters that they can have bigger and bigger government, and not have to pay for it.

As Bustamante's political adviser Richie Ross says, "The greatest political slogan is 'free food and beer'."

Problem is, there was a $38 billion shortfall because state revenues dropped dramatically. And here's Bustamante saying he can stabilize spending by raising the taxes most likely to drop in hard times.

No doubt Glendale resident Nancy Spiller will be giddy with delight over Bustamante's plan.

3 Questions

(Review) If the Bush Administration is serious about what Condoleeza Rice called our "generational committment bringing political and economic reform to the long-neglected Middle East, then Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have three important questions that need to be answered:

Where are the troops?
Where is the money?
Where are the civilian personnel?

Important questions, because sufficient quantities of all three are needed, and, at the present moment, don't appear to be forthcoming.

This is the Battlefield

(Review) Mark Steyn writes that Iraq is a key battlefield in the war against terror, and that the UN bombing should increase, rather than decrease our resolve, because the stakes are so high.

And so on Tuesday, up against an enemy unable to do anything more than self-detonate outside an unprotected facility and take a few Brazilian civil servants and Canadian aid workers with him, the global community sent out a Syrian ambassador to read out some boilerplate and then retreated into passivity and introspection and finger-pointing at Washington. This is the weirdly uneven playing field on which the great game is now fought. Islamic terrorism is militarily weak but ideologically confident. The West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure. We don't really believe we can win, not in the long run. The suicide bomber is a symbol of weakness, of a culture so comprehensively failed that what ought to be its greatest resource--its people--is instead as disposable as a firecracker. But in our self-doubt the enemy's weakness becomes his strength. We simply can't comprehend a man like Raed Abdel Mask, pictured in the press last week with a big smile, a check shirt and two cute little moppets, a boy and a girl, in his arms. His wife is five months pregnant with their third child. On Tuesday night, big smiling Raed strapped an 11-pound bomb packed with nails and shrapnel to his chest and boarded the No. 2 bus in Jerusalem.

The terrorists watch CNN and the BBC and, understandably, they figure that in Iraq America, Britain, the UN and all the rest will do what most people do when they run up against someone deranged: back out of the room slowly. They're wrong. There's no choice. You kill it here, or the next generation of suicide bombers will be on buses in Rotterdam, Manchester, Lyons, and blowing up the UN building in Manhattan. This is the battlefield.

Read the whole thing.

What We Should Do Now

(Review) Fareed Zakaria says that the Pentagon's Plan A isn't working too well in Iraq. He has some concrete suggestions for Plan B.

Economic Calendar

Existing home sales was the only number of consequence to come out today, and it came in better than expected. 6.12 million new homes were sold last month. That is much better than either the 5.83M sold in June, or the analysts's expectation of 5.9M.

A Crackup for World Trade?

(Review) Robert Samuelson writes that the system of global trade is in trouble, due to its reliance on the US Trade deficit.

The justification for free trade is that everyone ultimately benefits. Countries do what they do best. Poor countries sell inexpensive labor-intensive goods (shoes, toys, clothes) to wealthy countries and buy sophisticated knowledge-intensive goods (jets, pharmaceuticals, industrial machinery). Living standards in all countries rise. Some workers and industries may temporarily lose, but most consumers benefit and most workers are ultimately re-employed in trade-competitive industries. Countries use their export earnings to buy more imports; trade doesn’t permanently destroy jobs. Spending is circular.

If too many countries hoard, the logic of free trade collapses. Trade can become an economic depressant and job destroyer. Too many sellers chase too few buyers. Countries compete for bigger shares of stagnant markets and try to shift unemployment abroad. In the 1990s, the U.S. economic boom—and the big trade deficits—postponed these pressures. But now the boom is over, the dollar has depreciated on foreign exchange markets (making American products more competitive) and the U.S. deficit shows signs of stabilizing. In June, it dropped slightly.

A great, if silent, struggle has begun. For decades, expanding trade (now about $8 trillion annually) promoted global progress. It reduced poverty and spread prosperity. But if the trading system can’t solve its basic problem--overreliance on the U.S. market--it could foster political division and economic vulnerability for all.

Increasing trade deficits cannot be indefinitely maintained. And Japan is as good an example of any as to what happens when an export-driven domestic economy can no longer increase exports. Unless other countries are willing to learn from Japan's example, similar fates may await them.

Kim Jong-Il: Remember me? I'm still out here. Waiting.

(Review) How good is out intelligence about what the North Koreans are up to? And how reliable is the information we do have? Jonathon Pollack has some doubts about it.

Is the Army Stretched Too Thin?

(Review) Time Magazine is running a long feature article about the US Armed Forces, asking if we have enough troops to meet our current committments.

I think we probably don't. The force is about half the size it was when I was on active duty in the 80s and 90s. And, the contacts I still maintain indicate to me that there has been a lot of dissatisfaction since the late 90s about the frequency and length of deployments.

The Bush Admionistration seems to think that they can embark on an abitious foreign policy of combating terrorism--and terrorist states--with an economically sized military. Well, maybe it's true that we can beat any of these guys in combat with fairly small forces. But what happens afterward?

Former Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Erik Shinseki, a man with whom I practically never agreed with on anything, predicted that a war in Iraq would need a couple hundred thousand guys on the ground to keep the peace after the fighting stopped. Don Rumsfeld's guys predicted we'd have only 30,00 troops in Iraq by September.

Presently, there are 140,000 of our troops there. Which prediction seems closer to the truth?

I think "defense transformation" is a wonderful thing. And it might just, in a decade or so, be everthing Runsfeld claims it will be. I am becoming increasingly skeptical, however, that it is everything Rumsfeld claims it is right now.

Shinseki was too much of a Fulda Gap¹ guy to understand how to embrace transformation fully. Don Rumsfeld is, I think, not enough of a Fulda Gap² guy to understand that transformation's promise lies mainly in the future, rather than the present.

Polling oddities

(Review) Bill Whalen also notes some oddities about the LA Times' recall poll.

Oddity #1: Schwarzenegger has a positive press conference, runs an upbeat bio spot on statewide TV, and yet the Times reports that only a late surge in the poll brings him back to the same level as the Field and PPIC polls. One would assume that, after firming up his credentials as a fiscal conservative, Arnold would get more support from the right.

Oddity #2: Democrats had a week in which the dominant story line was intraparty division. Dianne Feinstein told Democrats to vote "no" on recall and skip the second half of the ballot; House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said to vote "yes" on Bustamante. Yet, according to Times, anti-recall sentiment is growing. It just doesn't add up.

Oddity #3: Bustamante received key endorsements from Democratic leadership groups, but also unveiled a budget "fix" that, if approved, amounts to the biggest tax increase in California history. Yet, in a survey adjusted for heavier-than-usual Republican turnout, Bustamante's poll numbers are nearly twice as strong as the PPIC's findings.

Oddity #4: The Times find that more than one-third of moderate Republican voters would support Schwarzenegger, and one-fourth would vote for Bustamante. This, even though the media have been telling voters night and day that Arnold is pro-choice and pro-gay rights--moderate to liberal on social issues. Bustamante's strength among Republicans sounds fishy: It's the kind of support you'd expect for a more familiar candidate, like Feinstein.

There's something fishy about the Times poll. Maybe it's just that this is an odd type of election. But the poll's responses seem pretty contradictory to me.

You dont say?

(Review) Jonathon Schell, in his regular "Letter From Ground Zero" column assessing the political fallout from the UN Bombing in Iraq last week, writes:

I can give myself as an example. I opposed the war in Iraq before it was launched and now regard it as a mounting disaster, with the worst yet to come. But according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 69 percent of the public still think the war was worth it. Obviously, I'm out of step with the public.

Really? Ya think?

Bustamante ahead?

(Review) A new poll done by the LA Times apparently shows that voters are divided on whether to replace Gray Davis as Governor, but a plurality want's Cruz Bustamante to replace him.

This poll is quite a bit different than the Field Poll conducted earlier last week, and even the LA Times' own reporting (free registration required), raises some question about the results. For example, only 50% of those polled support recalling Davis, yet the Times reports:

Overall, 72% of likely voters disapproved of Davis' job performance, including more than half of his fellow Democrats. Only 26% of likely voters approved.

But, according to the times, only 50% want to see Davis recalled. That seems...counterintuitive.

Additionally, the surprisingly strong showing for Cruz Bustamante--the Times gives him 35% compared to Arnold's 22%--seems rather strange. Not only is the Times the only organization to come up with such a strong number for Bustamante, but they report:

Nearly eight in 10 likely voters said things in California were headed in the wrong direction, and nearly seven in 10 said the economy was in bad shape.

And Cruz Bustamante is the guy they think will change directions? So if we get rid of the Democratic governor and replace him with another Democrat, that will change the state's policy direction? That seems counterintuitive as well.

Sacramento Bee political reporter Dan Weintraub interprets these odd results as follows.

In the coming week you will be hearing a lot of Republicans talking about liberal media conspiracies, and what they will see as an attempt by The Times to prop up the Democratic regime in Sacramento. I don’t think so. The poll may or may not be accurate. But having worked at The Times for 12 years, as well as at the Orange County Register and now the Bee, I have never seen any organized liberal (or libertarian) bias in the newsroom. It is true that many reporters are liberals, and that might color their view of the news or certain political figures. But mostly reporters just want to tell a good story. Davis would not be in the trouble he is in today if the press had not reported critically on his problems with the energy crisis, the budget and his pay-to-play fundraising style. And it’s just not credible to claim that The Times would skew a poll to try to help the Democrats. If the poll is wrong, it’s because telephone polling itself has become problematic in the age of cell phones, call-waiting and answering machines, and because this race, with its unique format and multi-candidate field, is going to be extremely difficult to assess.

That, at least, can't be argued.

Considering how heavily California is weighted towards Democrats, it wouldn't surprise me to see Cruz end up with between 30%-40% of the vote come the day of the actual election. So the real question then becomes how many of the remaining 60%-70% of the electorate will Arnold attract on the actual day of the election? How many people who are now answering polls saying they support, say, Larry Flynt, will actually vote for him on the day?

Bill, Bill, we hardly knew ye

(Review) Bill Simon has dropped out of the race to replace California Gov. Gray Davis in the Recall Election. More good news for Arnold, probably. Bad news for Gray and Cruz Bustamante, the Domocratic Lt. Gov. who's running to replace Davis.

Cavuto to Euros: Keep your advice to yourself

(Review) Niel Cavuto is getting a bit peeved at the Europeans who are offering us economic advice.

And right about now, the Europeans are the last ones who should be lecturing anyone on things economic. Trust me, our economy ain't exactly firing on all cylinders. But at least it's firing on some. The French and Germans would be lucky to have it firing on any!

But here's the kicker: these guys are telling us to start stimulating job growth. Last time I checked, France was looking at 9.5 percent unemployment. The Germans are at 10.6 percent, Italy's at 8.9 percent, and Spain's battling a jobless rate of more than 11 percent. These aren't exactly the kind of folks who should be lecturing anyone on anything having to do with jobs.

What's more, most of their economies are mired in recession, and those that aren't are, at best, looking at growth so tepid, it makes ours look gangbusters by comparison. Yet the people who lecture us on deficits are the very ones whose own red ink as a percentage of GDP makes ours look fiscally stellar by comparison!

I'm not saying France isn't right when it says our government spends too much here, but first take a look at what yours is spending there, because news flash to Jacques Chirac: Your socialist state is breaking your banks and your people.

And I have no problem having Germany correctly scold us on government intransigence. But this coming from a cradle-to-grave state that can't get its unions to budge on even the most basic of free market principles is a little galling.

Look, anyone is free to criticize. I just think it's good form to be in good shape when you do. Just like I won't tell you to put the cannoli down in the bakeshop, France or Germany shouldn't be telling us to put the waste down in our financial shop.

We know we have problems, and from what I can see, we're addressing a good many of them and making a good deal of progress. These things I know. Unemployment is heading back down. Theirs is going back up. Factory orders are improving. Theirs are worsening. Confidence numbers are advancing. Theirs are declining.

They're right. We're not perfect. But they're worse.

This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Every time I hear another collectivist Euro try to tell us how we should run our economy, my immediate response is, "Hey Kettle! It's for you. It's the Pot. He says you're black."

Getting advice on job creation from a continent that managed to create not a singe net new job from 1975 to 1995 probably isn't the best idea.

I always used to snigger when I would hear Europeans--and President Clinton--rave about how well the Dutch had done at bringing their unemployment rate down to 2%. You see, it's not hard to have a low "unemployment" rate when 14% of your workers are on freakin' disability. Either the Netherlands has the most fantastically dangerous workplaces in the industrialized world, or....something else is going on. Either way, it's not a model I'd be eager to emulate.

10,000 Dead in France

(Review) Mark Steytn wonders, as I do, how the French Government can be so insouciant about the heat-related deaths of 10,000 French citizens due to the current heat wave.

In Paris this spring, a government official explained to me how Europeans had created a more civilised society than America - socialised healthcare, shorter work weeks, more holidays. We've just seen where that leads: gran'ma turned away from the hospital to die in an airless apartment because junior's sur la plage. M Chirac's somewhat tetchy suggestion that his people should rethink their attitude to the elderly was well taken. But Big Government inevitably diminishes its citizens' capacity to take responsibility, to the point where even your dead mum is just one more inconvenience the state should do something about.

Meanwhile, Maggie Pernot wrote the other day to chide me for my continued defence of the Rumsfeld Death Camps at Guantanamo. The prisoners, she complains, are "kept in tiny, chainlink outdoor cages where they were likely to be rained upon". In fact, they have sloping roofs and cool concrete floors, perfect for the climate. If they had solid walls rather than airy wire mesh, they'd be Parisian sweatboxes and everyone would be dead. By contrast, if those thousands of French pensioners had been captured by the Marines and detained by Rummy in Cuba, they'd be alive today.

Ouch.

He's no Eisenhower.

(Review) Former general Wesley Clark is once again testing the waters for a Democratic presidential run for 2004. But, as Alan Down writes, this may not be the guy we want running the show.

This is the man who, as NATO shifted from war-fighting mode into peacekeeping mode, ordered his ground commander to deploy a helicopter assault team to block a surprise Russian advance into Kosovo's major airfield — an order his British subordinate answered with a terse and chilling rejoinder: "I'm not going to start World War III for you." After both men appealed to their national commanders — a practice permitted under NATO's vague and unwieldy war-fighting conventions — cooler heads in Washington and London agreed with Clark's subordinate, concluding that NATO's unity was more important than Kosovo's airport. A humiliated Clark was forced to rescind his order. Two months later, he was unceremoniously replaced as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe (SACEUR). The turn of events stunned Clark: "I never saw myself as a 55-year-old retired general," he later said.

Fortunately, he convinced his superiors to see him precisely that way.

Road Map to Nowhere III

(Review) The editors of the NY Post today lament the end of the Road Map's "Cease fire" with Palestinian Terrorists. As a read the article, one question was uppermost in my mind: Why is Yasser Arafat still alive?

I ask the question in the same way that Henry II asked about Thomas à Becket, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Road Map to Nowhere II

(Review) US Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) writes in NY Newsday that his mind wasn't changed about the Road Map with the Bombings this week. It was changed two weeks ago when he met with Mahmoud Abbas two weeks ago.

We shook hands warmly. In his hands, we had been told, was the best hope for peace with Israel. He was selected to replace Yasser Arafat principally because he is not Arafat. He is moderate, and believes that the Palestinians were mistaken in using violence to pursue their goals. Sitting across the table, he seemed almost wistful when he noted that the Palestinian hudna (cease-fire) allowed "about half of Gaza to go to the beach last weekend. They don't want to return to violence."...Why do these nations prefer roadside bombings over road maps to peace? Abbas' comment under the portrait of Arafat was telling: Peace allows people to go to the beach. What he didn't say, but what the man in the portrait understands, is that when populations feel comfortable enough to go to the beach, they may start asking uncomfortable questions about why their leaders haven't delivered jobs, housing, infrastructure, modern schools, transparent economies, free elections. And, if they cannot blame Israel and the United States for their failures, whom will they blame? Removing the West as a scapegoat dooms those regimes to the scrutiny of their own people.

Don't think that Yasser Arafat doesn't know this, and fear it. And don't think he'll just sit by and let it happen, either.

American Terrorism

(Review) Here's a little home-grown terrorism to deal with. It appears that the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) torched a Hummer dealership in Covina, CA today. This is the same group that allegedly set off a multi-million dollar arson in San Diego a few months ago.

Fortunately, their arsons haven't killed anyone yet.

A referendum on Iraq

(Review) Howard Fineman writes that the Democrats are trying to turn the 2004 presidential election into a de facto referendum on the War in Iraq, and that this weeks UN truck bombing may help them do so. But, he notes, it isn't a strategy without risk for the Democrats, since they'll have to be ready to answer some tough questions, too.

But the Democrats will have to answer questions of their own. Are they for putting more American troops in? (John McCain, the Democrats’ de facto secretary of defense, is for doing so.) Do they want a bigger role for the brave but still politically discredited U.N.? Do they want simply to pull out of Iraq altogether? And, if not, why aren’t they backing the president instead of taking political potshots at the beleaguered leader of the free world?

As far as I can tell, Democrats seem unable to answer those questions.

Problems in Iraq

(Review) Michael Ledeen writes that our problems in Iraq seem increasingly to be the result of outside forces, rather than Iraqi die-hards.

Iranian and Syrian leaders made no secret of their intent, and Bashar Assad even gave an interview in which he brazenly informed us -- and potential recruits to the jihad -- that the terror masters would use religiously inspired insurrection, assassination and terrorism, first to bloody and then to humiliate the West, and anyone who joined us.

Just a few days ago, Paul Bremer -- the de facto governor of Iraq -- complained at the large number of foreign terrorists flowing into the country, and he specifically labelled Iran as a prime mover. He announced that intelligence officers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were actively organizing terrorist operations.

Tuesday's Financial Times carried a front-page story warning that thousands of Saudis were headed to Iraq to attack U.S. and British targets.

Now perhaps more people will understand that the jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan is not limited to the citizens of one or two countries, but is waged against anyone who tries to make Iraq a free and successful country. The terror masters know that they would not survive successful democratic revolution on their doorsteps, because their own people would demand their freedom.

The facts have been available for a long time, and no one should be surprised at the truck bomb attack on the UN's offices in Baghdad on Tuesday, which claimed the life of the UN special representative to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

But, as human nature contains an unlimited quantum of hope despite millennia of intensely unpleasant experience, many will resist drawing the obvious conclusions and, even more, be reluctant to take appropriate action.

The money quote in this article is, "The terror masters know that they would not survive successful democratic revolution on their doorsteps, because their own people would demand their freedom."

That is the root of the problem. And it's a cancer that will have to be cut out of that society.

Road Map to Nowhere

(Review) Like me, John Podhoretz predicted that the Road Map for thew Mideast would end in failure. He writes a postmortem for it in todays NY Post.

The tragedy is that some Palestinians — even the newly installed prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas — showed signs they did understand the rules had changed. But the circumstances of the past two days have forced them to choose sides between a democratic future and a present dominated by terror and murder.

And they have implicitly chosen the terrorists and their murderous anarchy over the admittedly tricky and unpredictable path to peace.

Abbas and the Palestinian Cabinet say they'll crack down on "military displays" by the terrorists. That was about all Abbas got out of his colleagues, who wouldn't otherwise agree to arrest terrorists, to disarm terrorists or to do much of anything — except, doubtless, gloat privately at the sight of weeping Israelis.

And when Israel, after waiting 24 hours for Abbas to act, finally took matters into its own hands and assassinated a Hamas leader, Abbas attacked Israel — needless to say.

The ceasefire to which Palestinian terrorist groups supposedly agreed two months ago is now officially over. Of course, it was violated more than 200 times when it was still in force, but let's overlook that, shall we?

Until the Palestinians are willing to hunt down the terrorists in their midst, there won't be any peace for Israel.

A Winning Campaign Pledge

(Review) Well, You've gotta say this for Howard Dean: He certainly has a clear idea about the direction he wants his administration he wants to take. In today's Wall Street Journal, he promises us that is he is elected President, the first thing he'll do is repeal the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

Since tax rates are set by law by Congress, and Republicans will probably still control Congress after the next election, he may find that repeal is...problematic.

Still, you have to give it to the guy for pulling a Dukakis, and telling us up front that he will raise our taxes. But, considering that Americans historically reject candidates who promise tax increases, you should probably detract points for clear thinking.

Opinion Poll Results: Dump Davis

(Review) The Newest opinion polls show that 58% of Californian's want to recall Gray Davis. Even more disheartening for Davis is that 38% of Democrats want to recall him.

Winning 50% of the vote in a recall election is tough if 38% of your own party wants to dump you.

Kudlow for the Governator

(Review) Economist Larry Kudlow joins the Arnold bandwagon.

No time for complacency

(Review) Victor Davis Hanson writes that this is no time to get complacent in our war on terrorism, but rather to push harder. He thinks the latest terrorist attacks are a sign of the enemy's increasing desperation.

Because September 11 was a direct consequence of our early failures to confront our enemies, our general response to the latest challenges should be even greater defiance. It is time to bring to fruition the president's warning of nearly two years ago, that one is either with or against the terrorists. So Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, from which our enemies (many now in Iraq) operate, must either close their borders, turn over terrorists, and join the ranks of civilization — or chose the side of barbarism and accept the terrible consequences of such a fatal decision. And for the short term, we must continue on course-employing counterinsurgency tactics to go after the terrorists in the field, accelerating the transfer of governance to Iraqis to increase their visibility and responsibility in the conflict and restoring infrastructure to Afghanistan and Iraq.

No surrender, no retreat.

Cruz "MEChA" Bustamante

(Review) State Senator Gil Cedillo isn't the only California politician with ties to MEChA. As Michelle Malking writes, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is no stranger to the organization, either.

As a student at Fresno State University in the 1970s, Bustamante was an active member of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA, which stands for the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan. Bustamante repeatedly denies having a "radical ethnic agenda," but has refused to disassociate himself from his Mechista roots. In fact, Bustamante recently returned to Fresno State for a separate Latino commencement ceremony founded by two of his Chicano activist classmates.

MEChA has been dismissed by some as a harmless social club, but it operates an identity politics indoctrination machine on publicly subsidized college and high school campuses nationwide that would make David Duke and the KKK turn green with envy. MEChA members in the University of California system have rioted in Los Angeles, editorialized that federal immigration "pigs should be killed, every single one" in San Diego, and are suspected of breaking into a conservative student publication's offices and stealing its entire print run in Berkeley.

MEChA's symbol is an eagle clutching a dynamite stick and machete-like weapon in its claws; its motto is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing)." The MEChA Constitution calls on members to "promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza (race) with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan." "Aztlan" is the group's term for the vast southwestern U.S. expanse, from parts of Washington and Oregon down to California and Arizona and over to Texas, which MEChA claims to be a mythical homeland and seeks to reconquer for Mexico (reconquista).

MEChA's liberation agenda, outlined in El Plan de Aztlan, states defiantly:

We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent. Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner 'gabacho' who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture.

Substitute "Aryan" for "mestizo" and "white" for "bronze." Not much difference between the nutty philosophy of Bustamante's MEChA and Papa Schwarzenegger's evil Nazi Party. To date, however, the only exposure Bustamante's MEChA history has received has been on the Internet.

Hopefully, this is changing. I think that Californians are beginning to take a much closer look at what goes on in Saramento.

At least, I hope they are.

My Libertarian Persuasion

(Review) Arnold Kling responds to Irving Kristol's neoconservatism article with a brilliant defense of libertarianism, and oultines the risks of the neoconservative philosophy.

I am glad that Irving Kristol spelled out what he means by neoconservatism. By putting his cards on the table, he inspired me to show mine. I understand his argument that his neoconservative persuasion is more potent politically than my libertarian persuasion. By giving ground on the welfare state and making an alliance with religious conservatives, the neocons are able to forge a successful coalition.

But I see risks in the neocon approach. By leaving intact the apparatus of big government, the neocons may permit the revival of the "dead hand" of socialist planning. By allying with social conservatives, the neocons are saying that the "culture war" belongs in the political arena, where I fear it may do nothing but corrode and divide our society.

Finally, by advocating a high-profile, interventionist foreign policy, neocons may set in motion a process whereby the American people find themselves unhappy with the role of the world's policeman, leaving us so anxious to be relieved of that burden that we turn in desperation to world government. That may seem far-fetched, but consider that Israel's fatigue with policing the Palestinians is what led them to bring Yasser Arafat from Morocco to next door.

My libertarian persuasion may not have as much political oomph as Kristol's neoconservative persuasion. But the risks and flaws of the neoconservative persuasion are too important to ignore.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

Why California is in the trouble it's in

(Review) This letter, from a Glendale woman, Nancy Spiller, printed in the NY Times, is a nearly perfect illustratiion of the political daftness that California voters regularly bring to the polls. In writing about energy deregulation, she says:

We shouldn't have to make choices about electricity. It should be there for all of us, like air and water. It's a necessity of modern life.

And life should be all fuzzy kitties, Ms. Spiller.

In the real world, however, electricity has to be produced by people who expect to get paid for it (just in case their kids need food or anything). That means it has costs associated with it, which implies that we do, in fact, have to make choices about it, at least until the day that electricity flows like water from the throne of God directly into all of our homes.

Wake up and smell the ozone, Ms. Spiller.

Deregulation in California was a deal between energy companies and legislators, and the results are disastrous. Big business saw an industry that was in place, working well, with an infrastructure built in a sane and methodical fashion over the long term, and now it's harvesting the results for its own benefit, not consumers'.

Well, then why are we still electing legislators who regularly sell out the public weal for their own political gain? Why did we elect a governor who exchanged millions of dollars in campaign donations from state employees unions in return for a stste retirement plan that allows them to retire as early as 50, with 90% of their salaries? Why are people like Jackie Goldberg, Gil Cedillo, Cruz Bustamante, and Gray Davis still prowling the halls in Sacramento?

Because people like you keep electing them, Ms. Spiller, despite their sweetheart deals and special interest "pay for play" politics. And you keep electing them because they tell you that the world is all fuzzy kitties, and you don't have to make hard choices about...well...anything.

Well, the bill for that kind of politics is coming due, and we suddenly find that, since we're short by about forty billion bucks, we have to make hard choices after all. No doubt Ms. Spiller is shocked--shocked!--to learn that public policy has costs associated with it.

And the costs are just beginning, if people like State Sen. Gil Cedillo have anything to say about it (and he does). California is on the verge of passing a law that allows the state to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Cedillo has done everything possible to ensure that the illegals driver's license looks exactly the same as a regular license.

Why is this important? Because, under Motor Voter, all you need to register to vote in California is to produce...you guessed it...a driver's license. Yes, it's illegal to do so, but there isn't a mechanism in place for determining citizenship. Under Motor Voter, it's essentially run on the honor system. If you think California has fiscal problems now, wait until foreign nationals learn that they can vote themselves largesse out the state treasury. And don't think that Cedillo, with his long ties to MEChA, doesn't intend for that to happen.

Also, California did not have deregulation in the commonly accepted sense of the word. If you want to see what deregulation looks like, look at Pennsylvania, where, in comparison to highly regulated New York, the lights didn't go out. You might also want to ask why the problem in the Northeast appears to have stemmed from problems with the highly regulated power grid. Just in case you were, I dunno, interested in learning some facts.

What California had was a house of cards where wholesale prices were created in an "energy pool" market, but where retail rates were still regulated by the state. It doesn't take a master's degree in economics to see where that structure leads. It leads precisely to where it, in fact, led in California.

"We consider ourselves free from this cease-fire."

(Review) In what can only be a surprise to the more credulous among us, Hamas has declared the cease-fire with Israel to have ended.

Just in case, you know, the slaughter of innocents earlier in the week wasn't sufficient notification.

Economic Calendar

Once again, the economic news this morning points to a strengthening economy.

Initial claims for jobless benefits once again came in below the key 400k mark, and came in below expectations as well. With economists expecting 395k new claims, the actual number was appreciably lower, at 386k. This marks the fifth straight week of claims coming below 400k (although, the reading from last week was revised upwards to 403K).

The leading economic indicators came in right on expectations of a 0.4% increase, up from a revised 0.3% increase last month.

Finally, the Philly Fed index came in above expectations of 10.0, reading 11.0 this morning.

Clearly the economy is gathering steam for a more robust recovery. The slow but steady decline in jobless claims also indicates that the labor market, which has been the toughest sector of the economy, is starting to come around as well.

The buck stops here, sort of

(Review) Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Weintraub reviews Gray Davis' big speech. It's not a positive review.

It's true, for example, that neither the energy crisis nor the budget mess could have been easily prevented. But it's also true that Davis' failure to act on them promptly is what turned them from problems into catastrophes. And his failure to act is exactly why so many Californians, including many Democrats, want to remove him from office.

Davis is in full campaign mode again, painting his opponents as extremists and taking credit for everything he can. But he has still offered Californians no reason to keep him, other than that he wants the job and to take it away now would be unfair. The man who famously said the Legislature existed to implement his vision has yet to offer one, and apparently doesn't intend to now.

Imagine my surprise.

Administrative Announcement

Sorry for the light day of blogging, but my schedule was jammed today. Hopefully, tomorrow will be better.

There Will Be a Recall Election

(Review) So far, the anti-recall forces of Gray Davis are batting 1.000. An LA Federal judge rejected the ACLU's request to postpone the election. Every case, in both state and federal court, has gone against the Davis forces.

It sucks to be them.

Gray's Big Speech: "I take full responsibility, even though it's all the fault of Republicans."

(Review) I just couldn't let the day go by without taking a closer look at Gray Davis' speech last night in front of a partisan crowd at UCLA.

Let's first talk about energy. I know many of you feel that I was too slow to act during the energy crisis.

I got your message and I accept that criticism. I played the hand I was dealt as best I could. I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put all of us at the mercy of the big energy producers.

And, after inheriting that flawed scheme, I did nothing to change it, or to avert the eventual crisis that arose from it. Well, actually, I did do one thing. I refused to sign long-term power agreements until the price reached its peak, at which time I signed agreements that locked us into paying extremely high prices, even after the crisis passed, and power prices sank closer to their historical levels.

Prices we're still paying, by the way.

We got no help from the federal government. In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President Cheney to draft a national energy strategy.

I, of course, as the power crisis made abundantly clear, had no energy strategy of any kind.

Three years ago, I refused to give in to the pressure to raise rates astronomically.

Yeah, I did more than double rates, so that now a summer electric bill tops $200, but that's not, you know, astronomical.

Everyone I talked to said "raise rates, raise rates, raise rates." I would not do it.

Because it was easier to raid the state treasury and subsidize ratepayers, thus hopefully, putting the problem off until someone else had to deal with it.

I guess that didn't work out as well as I thought.

And I also couldn't let our homes, our businesses, our schools go dark. So I went to work, bought power, built new plants, encouraged conservation for the good people of this state and encouraged the use of clean energy.

Oh, yeah, and blew the budget surplus partially by using the general fund to pay inflated prices for energy, spreading the cost to all Californians, rather than energy ratepayers. That allowed me to postpone the day when my incompetence was exposed, rather than having it exposed immediately by passing the costs of my failure onto the ratepayers, who are, after all, voters.

Of course, now that we're $38 billion in the hole, I want to raise taxes.

My friends, last Friday, 50 million Americans lost electricity for 29 hours. In California, not a single light has gone out in the last two years.

At the cost we're now paying, I should certainly hope not.

I'm not looking for praise. We made our share of mistakes. And, like you, I wish I had known then all I know now. But my friends, if any of the Republicans in this recall campaign criticized the way we dealt with the energy crisis, you ask them specifically what they would have done to keep the lights on.

Well, actually, Both Tom McClintock and Bill Simon were pretty darned detailed about the full extent of Gray's incompetence, and what they would have done differently.

Now let's talk about the budget. I'm not happy with the budget I signed recently. I said so then, I repeat that today. But it was the best we could do given the position of Republican legislators who would not compromise and who wanted to strip away health insurance benefits from 400,000 children of working parents rather than increase taxes on the wealthiest Californians.

Yeah. That's what happened. In fact, Republicans actually wanted to go out and shoot immigrants in the head.

Let's see, Gray wanted to increase the state sales tax to 8%. Because, as I'm sure you know, only the wealthiest Californians pay sales tax. Gray tripled the car property tax to 2% of the vehicle's value. And, as everyone is aware, only the wealthiest Californians own cars. And Gray wanted to increase the Income tax from 9.3% at the top bracket to 11%.

Republicans, of course, opposed all of those tax increases, arguing that spending cuts were needed, rather than tax increases, especially since state spending grew at more than twice the rate of population increase and inflation over the last 4 years.

But as everyone considers how we got into this situation, let me put our situation into perspective. The American economy has tanked. Over the last couple years, it has shed 3 million jobs and gone from record surpluses to record deficit; 46 other states are facing similar problems.

Of course, our deficit alone is larger than the deficits of the remaining 49 states combined. In fact, it's larger than the budgets of 48 of them.

Yes, I could have been tougher in holding down spending when we had big surpluses. But let's be clear. Our increases on my watch went to education and health care, and I make no apology for that.

So, now that I think about it, I really couldn't have been tougher in holding down spending, after all.

And, of course, my need for campaign contributions necessitated me making a deal with state employee unions that allow them to retire at 90% of their pay at 50 years of age. In return for their tens of millions of dollars in cash, California taxpayers will now be funding one of the most extravagantly expensive pension plans in the industrialized world. Wait for another ten years when those bills start to become due.

Let me tell you something else about the budget. In California, the Constitution prohibits spending a dollar unless you get a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. So those spending increases I mentioned during the early part of my term - health care and education - those increases were supported by Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento. And one more point about the budget: Some Republicans accuse me of hiding the deficit. That is preposterous, my friends. In California, state finances are a matter of public record. They're available to anyone who wants to see.

Although, I'm still trying to figure out why I thought the deficit was $20 billion prior to the last election, then realized it was actually $40 billion the week after I won re-election.

Yeah, that's a puzzler.

Now let's talk about the recall. This recall is bigger than California. What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort to steal elections Republicans cannot win.

It is, in fact, a vast right-wing conspiracy. Although, since Democrats substantially outnumber Republicans in California, and since the Field Poll shows that 40% of Democrats want Gray run out of Sacramentro like some sort of poison troll, to accept this requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

It started with the impeachment of President Clinton, when the Republicans could not beat him in 1996.

Maybe my memory's a bit faulty, but the President Clinton did actually perjure himself in Federal Court. I mean, he got disbarred for it and had to pay a hefty fine. I think the impeachment had something to do with that. Perjury is a felony, I believe.

Call me crazy, call me a dreamer, but I prefer my presidents not to commit felonies. Not even little ones.

It continued in Florida, where they stopped the vote count, depriving thousands of Americans of the right to vote.

Well, again, the only vote count they were trying to stop was the selective recount in the heavily democratic counties. Those were the only votes that the Gore Team wanted to count. The supreme court thought that the Gore's Team plan for selective recounts was a violation of the 14th Amendment, that amounted to disenfranchisement of all Florida voters who did not live in Palm Beach and Broward County.

Oh, yeah, and when the entire state was recounted, it turns out that George Bush won anyway.

This year, they're trying to steal additional congressional seats in Colorado and Texas, overturning legal redistricting plans.

Actually, Democrats are fleeing the state to prevent Republican majorities in the state legislature from enacting any redistricting plans.

Here in California, the Republicans lost the governor's race last November. Now they're trying to use this recall to seize control of California just before the next presidential election.

That's a just factually incorrect. The recall movement started the moment you announced that the deficit was double what you admitted it was during the campaign. That is what led many Californians to believe you're a liar.

Just in time for the presidential election, my ass.

Call me old fashion, and I am. Call me old fashion, but I believe when an election is over, the people have spoken and it's time to get to work and do the public's business.

Ooh, well, unfortunately, the Progressives who enacted the recall process into law almost a century ago evidently disagreed with you, Gray. They thought the voters should get "do-overs". Sure, it sucks for you, but that's the law.

There are many reasons to be against this recall. It's expensive, it's undemocratic, it's a bad precedent, and it almost certainly will breed more recalls. The end result will be more campaigning, not less, more politics, not less, and less time to do the public's business.

OK, I think recalls can be abused, but it doesn't seem like it's been abused in California, where it's actually a fairly rare occurrence.

But calling it undemocratic? That's just stupid. What could be more democratic than having voter-led initiatives, recalls, and referendums? The trouble with the recall isn't that it's undemocratic, Gray. The problem is that it's too democratic. It means that a relatively small portion of the citizenry can throw monkey-wrenches in the regular political process.

You're arguing that once you're elected, the voters should have no way of tossing you out of office short of impeachment, no matter how much they desire to do so. So let's not pretend that you're the servant of the people's will. Maybe you're right, but let's not pretend it's more democratic to do that than it is to allow the voters to go to the polls and decide whether or not to recall you.

Think about it, Gray. You're arguing that having fewer elections is more democratic than having extra elections anytime the voters want to have them through initiatives or referendums.

That's just a stupid argument.

The Republicans behind this recall say they want you to oust me for past mistakes. My friends, they don't give a rip about past mistakes. This is all about control in the future, seizing back the governor's chair and believing with so many candidates running they can do it with just a handful of California voters. That's what this is all about.

Yeah. Right. But, of course, if you have the support of more than half the voters, it won't matter who gets chosen on the lower half of the ballot. Or how many votes they have. Because you'll still be governor.

But, considering that you couldn't get half the electorate to vote for you in the last election, I'd be worried if I was you, too.

My friends, from day one I have fought to improve our schools. This year in Sacramento, believe it or not, the Republicans wanted to kick 110,000 kids out of kindergarten.

Uh, actually, the Republican plan was to allow parents whose children were under 5 to wait until they were older to start Kindergarten. The Republican plan wouldn't kick anyone out of anywhere. It would allow Parents to decide if their kids were ready, rather than forcing 4 ½-year olds to start Kindergarten whether they were prepared or not.

Now let me speak about another issue that will be on the ballot, Proposition 54.

Proposition 54 is another Republican effort to divide Californians over race. I am going to fight this initiative, and I'm going to fight every day to make equal opportunity a reality for every person living in this great state.

Prop 54 would prohibit any arm of the California state government to any collect information about race, for any purpose whatsoever.

But, of course, attempts at colorblindness are now considered racist by the Left. Ironically, it is the left that constantly argues for policies that create strife along lines of race, gender, and class.

There is much more that needs to be done in California. This election is about your future. I intend to fight for it, and I need your help.

Yes, Gray, there is much that needs to be done. And sending you back to the private sector for the first time in your life is pretty much at the top of the list.

Mexifornia

(Review) John Fonte writes a fascinating review of Victor Davis Hanson's new book, Mexifornia.

Q&A with Pete Wilson

(Review) Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, on the advice he gave to Gray Davis.

When [Davis] first came to office, he said, "I'd appreciate your counsel." I said, "I will give you one bit of advice that is of critical importance: You as governor, with the power that the governor of California has, are the only thing standing between this utterly irresponsible legislature and financial ruin for this state. That is not exaggeration. If you don't stop them, and you can, by just refusing to sign a budget or vetoing a bad one, if you don't make them fiscally responsible, then don't expect that they will. They will instead spend through the multi-billion dollar surplus that I have left you, they will spend through every penny of revenue, including what clearly looks like a windfall, and then they'll spend money they don't have. But you can stop that — you have the power to do it, I did it every year for eight years. You'd better set them straight early, or else you're going to wind up in desperate trouble." Well, he has.

Too bad that was the one piece of advice that Gray Davis was congenitally unable to follow.

More evidence that California voters should grow the F*** up

(Review) Larry Sabato writes that California's system of Direct democracy through the initiative and referendum processes are a big part of California's problems, in addition to the voter behavior I described in the previous post.

Californians have piled foolish initiative upon foolish initiative in modern times. The result: A sizable majority of California's budget is rigidly predetermined by voter-mandated allocations to education, transportation and criminal justice, regardless of the economic conditions prevailing at any given time. Each initiative sounded good, but the budget hole is greater than the sum of these parts, as voters should have learned in the midst of their $38-billion state shortfall.

The Founding Fathers were right, and the progressives were wrong. Representative democracy beats direct democracy most of the time.

Who is Arnold?

Review) Tom Oliphant writes that Arnold gubernatorial campaign has been all hat and no cattle so far.

The polling news has stopped Arnold's one behind-the-scenes maneuver -- to muscle Simon and former Olympics and baseball czar Peter Ueberroth out of the race. Simon can read the polls (his new radio ad calls Arnold a liberal), and Ueberroth is about to seize the initiative and offer a bipartisan solution to California's horrid budget mess that mixes spending cuts with tax increases.

Indeed, Arnold's one headline-grabber last week -- naming investor Warren Buffett to cochair his "economic team" with Nixon-Reagan veteran George Shultz -- backfired when Buffett said (correctly) that the state's famous property tax limitations make no sense because they require too much reliance on sales, income, and capital gains taxes that soar and plummet with the economy and stock market.

Arnold needs an agenda and fast. Otherwise his bromides could not only stall his own campaign but threaten the recall itself. We are told that Arnold loves children, hates taxes, and can't lose, but that isn't selling, especially on TV.

I'm not an Arnold supporter. I guess the one guy I do support is Tom McClintock, who at least ran the state's budget for a few years.

Bill Simon? Loser.

First, Arnold is a gun control guy, so that already starts him off with two strikes as far as I'm concerned. But the hideous Warren Buffet suggestion about property taxes is just a non-starter. Not only with me, but with a lot of of other people on both sides of the political aisle. Look, I'm sure that Nebraskans just love the peorperty tax system they have. So what? Unlike us out here in California, they aren't also paying a 9.3% income tax.

Look, if you want to run your own business out here, look at the tax numbers. Let's say you want to do independent consulting, and you and your wife together earn 100,000 a year in your first year. Your taxes are:

Federal Income Tax: 28% (and I think I'm lowballing this)
State Income Tax: 9.3%
Self-Employment Tax: 15%

That's 52.3% of your income. So, you take home a bit less than $48k. With a median new home price running $350K or higher in most places, forget about buying a house. You aren't gonna be able to afford the monthly $3,100 mortgage/property tax payment that exists now, and raise a couple of kids on the remaining 875 a month. Not with a Water/Sewer bill of $65 per month and another $100 going to your Gas/Electric bill.

There's a reason our property taxes are so low out here, and that's because when politicians could easily raise them, they did so repeatedly. Prop 13 was the result of a tax revolt against Sacramento politicians who thought they had the right to help themselves to our money any time they felt like it. We've already been down the path that Warren suggests, and we didn't seem to like it too much.

Here's a little clue for Warren: Maybe the reason that we have a budget problem out here isn't because we aren't taxed enough. Maybe the fact that Gray Davis and the Democrats in the legislature increased spending by 37% over the last 4 years. Maybe the fact that 40,000 new state workers were hired during the Davis "hiring freeze" had something to do with it. Maybe, since we're not even majority shareholders in our own income, we are paying quite enough in taxes.

And maybe Californians need to grow the f*** up. The people of this state fill the legislature full of free-spending, lefties, then have the gall to bitch and moan about how high taxes are, and how much it costs to live in California. Well, Voter, that's your fault. You want to pretend that all these nifty government services from Sacramento come for free. Well, they don't. They cost money, and that money has to come out of your pocket. So, after voting in people like Gray Davis, Jackie Goldberg, Willie Brown, et al. for decades, don't act like Inspector Reynaud and pretend you're shocked--shocked!--to learn so much money is being spent.

Nuclear Proliferation

(Review) Henry Sokolski writes that we had better start getting serious about nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, or things might reall get out of hand.

Tehran has begun developing a grand negotiated nuclear bargain of its own. The stakes are high. If, like North Korea, Iran succeeds in getting the world to accept its nuclear program and is allowed to finish its nearly completed "peaceful" light water reactor (which after little more than a year of operation can make over 50 bombs worth of near weapons-grade plutonium), its neighbors are sure to follow suit.

Saudi Arabia, which helped bankroll Pakistan's bomb project and has medium-range rockets of its own, has already had officials visit Islamabad's bomb factory in Kahuta. There's even been talk about Pakistan loaning some of its nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, keeping them under Pakistani control (as the U.S. does with its weapons in Germany). Egypt and Syria, meanwhile, are planning nuclear desalinization plants (i.e., big reactors producing material which could be used for nuclear weapons).

Algeria, which was caught in 1991 covertly developing a reactor that might make bombs, now has it on line. Finally, Turkey, a close friend to Israel, has made it clear that Iran going nuclear would force Ankara to secure new "security assurances." Like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, which have either tried or considered producing nuclear weapons, all of these nations have or could quickly acquire nuclear-capable missiles.

So, just think about that: A nuclear-armed Arab world.

The Shah and Us -- and Regime Change

(Review) As the 50th anniversary of the US-inspired coup against the Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh arrives, George Will reflects on what regime change in Iran today might mean for the US over the long term.

[Kermit] Roosevelt said the coup succeeded because the CIA had accurately concluded that the Iranians, including most of the military, "wanted exactly" the result we were seeking. "If we," said Roosevelt, referring to the CIA, "are ever going to try something like this again, we must be absolutely sure that [the] people and army want what we want. If not, you had better give the job to the Marines!"

The shah's "at least temporary control of the country" lasted just a bit more than half of these 50 years. The fact that his control crumbled in 1979 under the assault of Islamic fundamentalists responsive to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini does not mean the coup was misguided or unavailing.

History teaches that everything is temporary. Besides, the coup's purpose was to confound Soviet designs, not settle Iran's future in perpetuity. The fact that the coup in some sense set in train events that led to today's highly unsatisfactory situation in Iran does not mean that the coup was not successful, any more than Soviet control of Eastern Europe for almost a half-century after 1945 meant that the Second World War was not worth winning. Rather, the point to be pondered on this anniversary is that U.S. involvement in regime change deeply implicates the United States in the future of the affected country.

Much as we are now deeply implicated in the futures of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Economic Calendar

Well, this morning brings good news and not so good news for the economy.

Housing starts came in much stronger than expected, at 1.872 million compared to expectations of 1.79 million. Unfortunately, the leading indicator of building permits (you need a permit before you start building, after all) was slightly weaker than the consensus expectation of 1.8 million, coming in at 1.78 million. Also coming in below expectations was the UMich Consumer Sentiment Index, which read 90.2 this morning, compared the consensus prediction of 91.5.

Bombing Baghdad

(Review) I wish I knew of an easy way to stop the terrorism in Iraq, other than the slow work of hunting down and capturing or killing those responsible.

Health Care Just Like Congress Has

(Review) Robert Bartley notes that Congresspeople and their staff have a pretty good health care plan. He wonders why the rest of us can't have it.

For themselves and their retainers, by contrast, our Congressfolk designed a plan based on consumer choice and competition. Each spring, the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the federal employee plan, sends a "call letter" to health insurance providers outlining goals and asking each company to propose a benefits package. All plans that meet minimum standards are offered as a choice to federal employees.

Thus federal employees and retirees can choose among a dozen or more options. They can strike their own trade-off between coverage and cost, with the government paying part of the premium according to a formula which typically works out at 72% to 75%. Enrollees can change plans once a year, and competition produces innovations in coverage. Prescription drug benefits are already routine, for example.

Competition, not so incidentally, also controls costs. As in other businesses, participating plans have to set premiums that cover their costs, but will lose customers if their price is too high. The GAO found that the costs of FEHBP essentially mirror those of other large purchasers of health care. This means its premiums have increased rapidly in the last three years, but over 28 years its costs have been about the same as Medicare, but its benefits have been richer. The system records high patient satisfaction, and it's accepted by physicians almost universally. Unlike Medicare, the FEHBP is not in crisis.

Hmm. consumer choice, competition, and cost control. Obviously, the rest of us aren't ready for such a sophisticated plan.

Ignorance is the real enemy

(Review) Ralph Peters writes that if we really want to win the peace in Iraq, we must combat the ignorance to which decades of totalitarian rule have acculturated the Iraqi people.

Even in relatively "Western" countries, such as Russia or Greece, I've been astonished at the patently lunatic conspiracy theories to which even elites subscribe. Indeed, one of the many politically incorrect questions that needs to be asked is simply this: Is there a direct correlation between our appetite for accurate data and the success of American civilization? The answer seems obvious, but don't try raising that question at Columbia.

Iraq has no tradition of rational inquiry. On the contrary, regimes predating Saddam's by centuries ruled by relying on fear, corrupted faith and mumbo-jumbo. Despite its secular, pseudo-scientific trappings, the Ba-athist regime disdained objective analysis. The truth didn't set anyone free. It earned them a cell or a bullet.

The people of Iraq and their neighbors never acquired the rigorous mental skills necessary to separate appealing delusions from concrete reality. The flight into fantasy serves as a psychological refuge: If Arabs live in failure and poverty, it's because someone else conspired against them, whether Americans, Israelis or the Mongols.

And, sometimes, the rumors in an information-starved society such as Iraq's under Saddam were far more accurate than the line broadcast by the government. The people have been conditioned to skepticism.

Thus, when Paul Bremer claims in good faith that we hope to return Iraq to its citizens as swiftly as possible, Iraqis hear the words as they have always heard official pronouncements: with cynicism and suspicion.

Freedom of thought and rational inquiry do not seem to be the default position for most societies. Nor has it been for most of history. Moving Iraq towards that position will certainly be a difficult task, especially as the Saddamite regime did its dead-level best to burn such ideas out of Iraqi society.

A bipartisan attack

(Review) Senators John Kyl (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) don't agree on much. But they agree that the Saudis are weasels.

A Misdirected Attack

(Review) The LA Times--quite surprisingly--comes out in support of Dr. Daniel Pipes for the US Institute of Peace.

The Joy of Recalls

(Review) Fred Barnes weighs in on the California recall.

California is in crisis. Its economy, its entrepreneurial spirit, its schools, its roads--nearly everything is declining. And the political class in Sacramento, with Democratic governor Gray Davis at the top, is a large part of the problem. To this, the recall election on October 7 is an appropriate and legal response. Its significance goes well beyond the fate of Davis and the political future of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The recall will answer the three most important questions about California. Will the unresponsive political class that rules in Sacramento be brought down? Will the budget mess be fixed? Will the decline of California be reversed? If Davis survives, the answers will be no, no, and no. But if he's removed from office and the political class is humbled, the answers might all be yes, and California might begin to recover.

With no recall at all, California would continue to stagnate. This would be just fine with the liberals, Democrats, and elitists who passionately oppose this reckoning at the polls. Of course, it's liberal Democratic elitists who tax, spend, regulate, and constitute the ruling political class in California. They have a lot to lose. One of their complaints--that the recall will cost too much, roughly $70 million--is frivolous and hypocritical. These are the folks who prompted Davis and company to boost state spending 37 percent in his first two years as governor and then to continue spending lavishly, even as a recession loomed in 2001 and a gigantic budget deficit grew.

Read the whole thing.

Telling the Truth in Iraq

(Review) Tom Friedman, writing from Iraq, says that Iraq can become quite a different type of Arab nation than we've previously seen.

But here's what is new and will have a big impact on inter-Arab politics, if Iraq can be rebuilt: Many Iraqis today express real resentment for the other Arab regimes, and even toward the Palestinians, for how they let themselves be bought off by Saddam. They feel that Saddam used the Iraqi people's oil wealth to buy popularity for himself in the Arab street — by giving Palestinians and other Arab students scholarships and nice apartments in Baghdad, and by paying off all sorts of Arab nationalist writers and newspapers. And then these same Arab intellectuals and media gave Saddam a free pass to torture, repress and starve his own people. In other words, "Arabism," in the minds of many Iraqis, is the cloak that Saddam hid behind to imprison them for 35 years, and now that they can say that out loud, they are saying it.

You'd never know this from watching Arab satellite television like Al Jazeera. Because although these stations have 21st-century graphics, they're still dominated by 1950's Nasserite political correctness — which insists that dignity comes from how you resist the foreigner, even if he's come as a liberator, not by what you build yourself.

But the truth will come out. "Iraq is going to be the Arab libido," a Lebanese aid worker in Baghdad said to me. "You know, when you have those naughty dreams that you can't tell anyone about and then suddenly you're on the couch talking about them — that's going to be Iraq." It's going to be where all the taboos that are not supposed to be spoken, get spoken.

Well, I certainly hope that comes true.

A change in Tactics

(Review) In a tactical switch, Iraqi resistance fighters have begun targeting the Iraqi infrastructure. Showing the same deep concern that Baathist regimes in the region have traditionally shown for the suffering of their citizenry, the resistance is cutting water and fuel lines.

Not so fast...

(Review) A federal judge may delay the California recall ballot, pushing it from Oct. 7 to next March, when the Democratic primary will be held.

Under the Voting Rights Act, the counties of Monterey, Merced, Kings and Yuba are required to get approval from the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia when election procedures are changed. The four counties are subject to that requirement because of suspected past discriminatory practices, according to the lawsuits.

The case filed by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights seeks to delay the entire recall vote.

Teri O'Rourke, a spokeswoman for the Recall Gray Davis Committee, said it's unlikely that a federal judge would break with the California Supreme Court and interfere with the election.

With all due respect to Ms. O'Rourke, she appears to have been wrong. Unless the Justice Dept. can give the required pre-clearance within two weeks, there's every chance that U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel will, in fact, order the election postponed.

That might very well be the only thing that prevents Gray Davis' political career from going to Z'Ha'Dum, if you know what I mean.

A little test

(Review) From Rod Dreher, in NROs "The Corner" weblog:

For liberals who can't discern a difference between Islamic fundamentalists and fundamentalist or otherwise conservative Christians, I propose a simple test. Imagine that you are boarding an airplane. You discover that the pilots are recent graduates of Bob Jones University. Do you proceed with boarding? Now suppose that you learn that the pilots are recent graduates of a Pakistani madrassah (Islamic school). Do you get on the plane now? Why or why not?

Point nicely made.

The "living wage"

(Review) How does the concept of the "living wage" work in the real world? Not very good, as any reasonably competent businessperson could tell you.

Ed Tinsley, who owns the K-Bob's steakhouse chain (I used to love eating there when I lived in Albuquerque), writes that Santa Fe's new Living Wage law means he won't be starting a new restaurant in New Mexico's state capitol anytime soon. And businesses who are already there, on on their way out of town.

The new bill is scaring off other new investment, too. Plunkett Research, a national market analysis firm, had planned to open a Santa Fe office—until the living-wage bill passed. Citing a "poor business environment," Plunkett’s management found that the new wage minimums made it hard to attract the investors and partners they had hoped to attract, and they decided against coming to Santa Fe. Local realtors have seen other firms’ plans to move to Santa Fe put off or canceled because of the bill, including several big restaurant chains.

Even as the living wage scares away prospective Santa Fe employers, it is driving existing businesses out of town. Take Robert Powell, who owns a Santa Fe staffing agency with 200 or so workers. With his labor costs rocketing up to 65 percent higher than his smaller, exempt competitors, he says that the new rules will force him out of business—or out of the city. He expects to move. Nambe Mills, a metal manufacturer that provides Santa Fe with hundreds of good jobs and has been in the city for 50 years, may follow suit. In a letter to the Santa Fe City Council while the bill was being debated, Nambe CEO Jim Weyhrauch warned: "What do we do if you were to pass this measure? We are not likely to sit around and watch our business decline."

Nor would I. Especially since the law contains this little gem.

To compound the injury, labor activists made sure that the new law punishes violations with criminal penalties. The owner of a 24-employee firm who hires a one-hour-per-day temp for 30 days without boosting everyone’s pay will now be facing—unbelievably--up to 180 years in prison and $360,000 in fines.

Because, as every good Union rep knows, hiring a temp is worse than murder, and should be punished accordingly.

You know, if you have children, I hope you're able to explain to them what it was like to grow up in a free country.

US v. Moore

(Review) Mark Alexander, in a rather turgid piece of prose, describes the Case of US v Moore. Now, leaving aside Alexander's rhetorical excesses, this case brings us some very important questions.

Let me briefly outline the case.

Roy Moore is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and is, admittedly, a fringe character. In that capacity, he ordered a monument to be emplaced in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, the highlight of which is a display of the 10 Commandments. The ACLU sued Justice Moore in Federal Court, and won a ruling that required Justice Moore to remove the monument. Justice Moore appealed to the 11th Circuit, but Judge Ed Carnes upheld the ruling of the trial judge, US District Judge Myron Thompson.

Judge Moore then refused to follow the ruling requiring him to remove the monument, and the state of Alabama faces a contempt citation with fines of $5,000 per day if the monument is not removed.

Chief Justice Moore has now appealed the case to the Supreme Court. (As an interesting aside, the 10 Commandments are chiseled in marble above the Justices' heads in the Supreme Court's courtroom.)

The ACLU's argument, of course, is that the Constitution prohibits the state from making such displays, but as Alexander points out,

Our copy [of the US Constitution] still says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which applies to, well, Congress, not Chief Justice Moore, who was elected to state office by the people of the state of Alabama. The only parties in this case involved in "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion are the ACLU.

Actually, through the incorporation of the Bill of rights to the states through the 14th Amendment, it also applies to the legislature of the state of Alabama as well, but that's neither here nor there. The point of the Amendment is to deny the legislature the ability to make laws that either have the effect of establishing a state church, or from prohibiting the citizenry from the free exercise of religious practice. In other words, the amendment is a prohibition on the making of law by the legislature, and nothing more.

I am entirely unconvinced that the Constitution says anything about whether or not a state can have a public religious display, and that judicial rulings to the contrary are based on activism, rather than a plain reading of the Amendment. Now, you can go on about Tom Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists all you want, but let's not pretend that Tom Jefferson's opinion expressed in a private letter have somehow been transmogrified into the Constitution.

It was, after all, the very same congress that wrote the 1st Amendment that also created the offices of Chaplain for the Senate and the House, and opened their sessions with a prayer from the Chaplain. Despite James Madison's objections, his colleagues in the 1st Congress evidently felt this was perfectly acceptable, and congruent with the text of the Amendment they wrote.

So, one question we should be asking is whether the trend over the last 40 years to remove by judicial fiat all religious expression from the public square is legitimate. It certainly has little foundation in either practice or constitutional commentary prior to the 20th century. What, therefore, legitimizes such an absolutist view of the 1st Amendment today?

Alexander offers the following questions for thought:

The foundational question all constitutional constructionists should be asking: On what legitimate constitutional grounds can a federal judge lodge demands, punishments and fines against chief judicial officers in the several states -- or does the federal bench now assume that the states are nothing more than administrative agencies of the central government -- rather than federally separated governments subject to their own constitutional sovereignty?

The real question Alexander proposes goes to the heart of Federalism, and it is monumentally important.

Several years ago, Federal Judge Russel Clark (a Carter appointee, unsurprisingly) ordered the Kansas City, MO, school system to spend tens of millions of dollars upgrading inner city schools. As part of his ruling, he required the county to increase taxes to pay for the school improvements. In his obituary four months ago, MSNBC noted,

Clark ordered several remedies, including busing students to faraway schools within the district, establishing an expensive system of magnet schools with different themes, trying to draw suburban students into the district to integrate it, increasing taxes on people who lived and worked in the school district, and making the state of Missouri pay millions of dollars to try to improve the district. The court orders produced new buildings and programs for the Kansas City School District but didn't significantly raise students' standardized test scores.

So, how much power does a Federal Judge actually have? Is it unlimited to the point that a Federal Judge can order states to raise taxes? If so, are we really a democratic republic, or have we become a judicial oligarchy?

Either we have a federal form of government, or we do not. If the former is true, then it is incumbent upon us to define more clearly the demarcation between the Federal bench's powers when it is applied to the constitutional offices of the several states.

Another important question to consider is this: What happens when the judiciary applies its powers on a regular basis to make rulings that are objectionable to the majority of the citizenry? This is by no means an unimportant question. If the will of the people is sovereign, how do we reconcile that with the absolute requirement to obey the rulings of an unelected judge with lifetime tenure, who may rule without any reference whatsoever to the people's will?

Here in California, we have voted by large majorities for Ballot Initiatives like Prop 187, which would deny state services to illegal immigrants, only to see the Federal Courts of the 9th Circuit invalidate those laws. I know of nothing in the constitution that requires states to pay unemployment or disability benefits to people who are in this country illegally. Nor, evidently, do 60% of my fellow Californians. But the 9th Circuit disagreed, so the will of the people is automatically invalid.

The only real restraint on the Federal judiciary is the expectation of justice, i.e., the notion that Judges will act with self-restraint and will apply the law and the constitution--as written--when making their rulings. Once judges begin to interpret the Constitution to mean what they wish it to mean (in other words, to make it into a "living Constitution"), rather than what it says, all sorts of trouble begins.

The reason we obey judges is not because they have the armed force to compel us, but because we regard them as impartial arbiters of the law, and obey them because we feel a duty to do so. To the extent that the judiciary politicizes itself, we cease to regard judges as impartial arbiters of the law, and our willingness to obey them is reduced. If our chances of winning or losing a controversy depend entirely upon the political affiliations or ideology of the judge, then of what use is the judiciary? Why even go to court if we do not expect the case to be decided on the merits of the facts or the law? If there is no expectation of justice, then that is certainly not an environment that promotes respect for the law.

We begin to react as Andrew Jackson did to the Supreme Court when it ruled against him, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

And, that, actually, appears to be exactly what Chief Justice Moore is saying about the 11th Circuit.

The Neoconservative Persuasion

(Review) Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of neo-conservatism, explains precisely what neoconservativsm is, and how it contrasts with conventional conservatism.

And he even mentions me! "Libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture."

OK, maybe not me in particular.

The Truth About Daniel Pipes

(Review) Charles Krauthammer want's Dr. Daniel Pipes appointed to the US Institute of Peace. But he doesn't want a recess appointment. He wants a full confirmation.

The attack on Pipes for stating this obvious truth is just another symptom of the absurd political correctness surrounding Islamic radicalism. It is the same political correctness that prohibits ethnic profiling on airplanes. We are all supposed to pretend that we have equal suspicions of terrorist intent and thus must give equal scrutiny to a 70-year-old Irish nun, a 50-year-old Jewish seminarian, and a 30-year-old man from Saudi Arabia. Your daughter is on that plane: To whom do you want the security guards to give their attention?

President Bush is considering bypassing the Senate and giving Pipes a recess appointment while Congress is out of town. For Bush, this would be an act of characteristic principle and courage. The problem, however, is that such an act makes the appointment look furtive. Worse, it lets the McCarthyites off too easy.

Pipes's appointment would be a great asset to the U.S. Institute of Peace. But it would be an even greater asset to the country to bring the Democrats' surrender to political correctness into the open. Let them declare themselves. Let the country see that for some of the most senior Democratic leaders, speaking the truth about Islamic radicalism is a disqualification for serious office.

Pipes's nomination has been endorsed by, among others, Fouad Ajami, Walter Berns, Donald Kagan, Sir John Keegan, Paul Kennedy, Harvey Mansfield and James Q. Wilson.

Who are you going to believe? Such unimpeachable and independent scholars? Or a quartet of craven senators?

Of course, those last questions are rhetorical.

The Awful Truth

(Review) Fred Barnes writes that George W. Bush is a big-government conservative.

<sarcasm>Imagine the surprise of small-government libertarians like me to learn this.</sarcasm>

So, really, This article is what we call a "Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious.

When I coined the phrase "big government conservative" years ago, I had certain traits in mind. Mr. Bush has all of them. First, he's realistic. He understands why Mr. Reagan failed to reduce the size of the federal government and why Newt Gingrich and the GOP revolutionaries failed as well. The reason: People like big government so long as it's not a huge drag on the economy. So Mr. Bush abandoned the all-but-hopeless fight that Mr. Reagan and conservatives on Capitol Hill had waged to jettison the Department of Education. Instead, he's opted to infuse the department with conservative goals.

A second trait is a programmatic bent. Big government conservatives prefer to be in favor of things because that puts them on the political offensive. Promoting spending cuts/minimalist government doesn't do that. Mr. Bush has famously defined himself as a compassionate conservative with a positive agenda. Almost by definition, this makes him a big government conservative. His most ambitious program is his faith-based initiative. It would use government funds to expand social programs run by religious organizations. Many of them have been effective in fighting drug/alcohol addiction and helping lift people out of poverty. So far, the initiative has had only a small impact, its scope limited by Congress.

Another trait is a far more benign view of government than traditional conservatives have. Big government conservatives are favorably disposed toward what neoconservative Irving Kristol has called a "conservative welfare state." (Neocons tend to be big government conservatives.) This means they support transfer payments that have a neutral or beneficial effect (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and oppose those that subsidize bad behavior (welfare). Mr. Bush wants to reform Social Security and Medicare but not shrink either.

*sigh* I guess the era of big government isn't over, after all. I suppose it was foolish to believe it ever would be.

And, evidently, the American people are simply immune to the argument that a large government is a danger to liberty, whether it's conservative or liberal. Especially when the government can dispense so many "free" goodies.

I suggest we all stop criticizing the Europeans. We are well on the way to joining them, and people like myself with a libertarian bent are just going to seem more and more like the crackpot fringe as time goes by.

Government is not the solution. It is the problem.

If the California Democratic Party was an ancient mariner, Gray Davis would be the albatross

(Review) THe Democrasts have invested a lot of time and money trying to make Gray Davis look gubernatorial. Evidently they've failed.

A new Field Poll has just been released that shows 58% of Californians want Davis ejected from the governor's mansion, and it's throwing the Dems into a frenzy.

Another party strategist said it will be virtually impossible for Davis to avoid the perception that he's waging a futile fight against the recall. Now, the strategist said, congressional and state lawmakers have to prepare for a full-fledged campaign for Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante.

"We're trying to stick with the original strategy of 'no' on recall and 'yes' on Bustamante, but it's harder and harder," the strategist said.

In other words, the new strategy their looking at is, "Replace that Davis weasel with a good Democrat".

Davis' numbers are very low in all the party's internal polls," one statewide Democratic strategist told Fox News. "Panic has set in all week and everyone has been trying to figure out what to do."

Several top Democratic sources told Fox News that Davis has been warned that if he does not reverse his sagging poll numbers by Labor Day, the party will have to abandon him and put virtually all of its financial and political resources squarely behind Bustamante.

"He's been given about two weeks," a Democratic strategist familiar with the situation said. "Until then, the party will stick with the same strategy. If things don't change, a different assessment will be made."

But another top Democrat told Fox News that Davis may not have that long.

"I can't see big party players holding back much longer than next week," the source said.

So, the party evidently is moving from a "The recall is dumb" position, to a new position that we can call, "Gray Davis: Good Riddance".

Blame Canada

(Review) The blackout is all Canada's fault. Clearly our northern "ally" has once again failed to provide us with the power supply we need to keep our--and their--economy running smoothly.

At least that's the accusation being thrown around on this side of the border.

From the Canadian point of view, the blackout was caused by America's arrogant refusal to keep the power grid modernized well enough to keep the supply of clean, modern, hydro-generated, Canadian electrons flowing smoothly.

Actually, the problem appears to be the fault of Ohio.

It raises the question, of course, as to why our power grid is so fragile, and I think we should press both the power companies and the government for answers.

Economic Calendar

The CPI came in right on expectations today with both an overal and core CPI reading of a 0.2% increase in prices. Capacity Utilization came in just slightly above expectations at 74.5%, while Industrial Production increased by 0.5%, which was well above the consensus expectation of 0.2%.

So, restrained inflation and increasing production. Not a bad start to the day.

The only real oddity of the day's economic reports was the Empire State Index, a survey which measures business conditions in New York state. Expectations were for a reading of 19.7, but the actual result was 9.98, which was a bit of a shocker. Indeed, briefing.com forecasted a reading of 23.0, which seems quite optimistic. Still, a reading of 10 on the index means that business conditions are still improving in New York, just not quite as quickly as analysts thought.

Asking the Hard Questions

(Victor Review) Victor Davis Hanson isn't afraid to ask the hard questions.

What is a base? Is it something like the facility in Saudi Arabia that enrages the local population, provides a rallying cry for unhinged Islamists, protects a medieval monarchy from an emerging consensual society in Iraq, and can't be used fully in a time of war? Or is it perhaps like our air facilities in Turkey, where over 80 percent of the local population demanded that we not use our resources there in the recent war against neighboring Iraq?

The fact is that the Iraq war proved to us that many of our bases are in the wrong place; and those that aren't too often could not be used. I think under current practice we could better define an existing base as either a nexus for local anti-American resentment or a means of exacting political or financial concessions.

What is an ally? Were NATO brothers like France and Germany allies — whose U.N. performances made China's seem friendly? Is Greece an ally — whose mass anti-American demonstrations were larger than those in Cairo or Damascus? Perhap it's Mexico, which opposed our efforts in Iraq and exports 1-2 million of its own people illegally across the border as a means to prevent much-needed radical reform at home. In this context, the current meaning of "ally" too often reads as a state benefiting from American friendship that in turn expresses its thanks by gratuitous expressions of hostility in times of crisis.

What is the United Nations? It cannot stop slaughter in Liberia, as it did not in Rwanda or Serbia. It asks the United States to preempt in Liberia to prevent chaos — but not in Iraq, when our security and the world's stability were in far greater danger. The only time many of its members ever approve of the idea of democracy is when voting in the General Assembly; horrific regimes like Libya, Syria, and Iran sometimes chair committees on humane causes. France claims it is a powerful nation worthy of a veto on the Security Council, but it is also a mere one state in a new European Union that as yet has no collective voice at the U.N. A better definition for the current body is something like the following: an international organization where Western liberal states seek to ingratiate themselves with tyrannies, theocracies, and tribes-- appeasement winning accolades of justice, while principles earn slanders of racism, colonialism, and imperialism.

What is a military alliance? Is it a bilateral, consensual effort to prevent military aggression? That is not quite the situation in Korea, where intellectuals write revisionist histories blaming us for the conflict; where a young generation demonstrates against our presence; where politicians employ bribery to open dialogue with the enemy North — and all the while 38,000 Americans patrol as sitting ducks for Communist artillery. Or is it NATO, where the host city of Brussels seeks to indict American generals as war criminals, and most of the member states spend only half what America does on defense?

Fortunately, he's not just asking questions, he's answering them as well, as you'll find out if you read the whole thing.

Opinions are like...well, you know what I was gonna say

(Review) According to a nationwide FOXNews/Opinion Dynamics poll, 47% of Americans think the California recall is silly.

Yeah, well, you don't freakin' live here, do you? Maybe if you did, you'd have a different opinion. Maybe since you don't, your opinion about our recall is utterly irrelevant.

The indictment against Gray Davis

(Review) Wanna know why Gray Davis is facing a recall with only 22% of the electorate willing to retain him? KABC talk show host and columnist Larry Elder lays out the facts of Gray Davis's record as governor.

-- In the governor's first four years in office, spending increased 36 percent, far higher than the 5 percent annual increase in the state's population and inflation.

-- As a quid pro quo for campaign contributions from state employees, California employees such as fire fighters and police officers can now retire as early as age 50, with 90 percent of their salary -- among the most generous pensions anywhere.

-- Although, by law, tax hikes require two-thirds legislative majority, the governor, by fiat, tripled the state's car tax.

-- The governor signed a bill to require employers to grant paid family and medical leave.

-- Most California businesses saw their workers' compensation premiums double and even triple, while increasing payouts, despite the fact that the number of claims filed actually decreased.

-- The state already imposes up to 9.3 percent state income tax, among the country's highest.

-- California's sales tax is 7.25 percent -- the nation's highest -- with some counties adding on even more.

-- During California's so-called energy crisis, the governor dragged taxpayers into the power business. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, " … (E)xperts estimate that California paid about $40 billion too much for power in 2000 and 2001 as energy firms jacked up prices. Adding in the $10 billion of overcharges from the long-term contracts would bring the state's tab for the energy crisis to $50 billion."

-- Despite the governor's declared "freeze" in hiring, he added 44,000 people to the state payroll.

-- For the first time since 1940, California lost residents to other states. Over the last several years, many businesses left California for business-friendly states like Utah and Nevada, resulting in a loss, since 2001, of nearly 300,000 jobs in manufacturing alone. This hurts, because, in a state of over 30 million, with almost 15 million tax filers, 11 percent of California taxpayers -- those earning more than $100,000 per year -- pay 80 percent of the state's income tax, while the top 5 percent pay nearly 70 percent of income taxes, and just 330,000 "high-income" taxpayers -- the top 2 percent -- shoulder about 50 percent of the state's income taxes.

That should be enough reason to recall anyone.

Off with their heads! I mean, you know, figuratively.

(Review) Jeb Babbin details the coming, much-needed, and long-overdue purge of Gen. Eric Shinseki and his acolytes at the Puzzle Palace, or, as you probably know it, the Pentagon.

All I have to say about the departure of Shinseki and his sycophants is, "Good riddance."

You should read the whole article, not because it describes a needed purge to reshape the Army's culture, but because it describes the cultural changes themselves that are needed to make the US armed forces a 21st Century fighting force, not the 1950's Cold War behemoth to which I belonged.

Recall Roundup

OK, the California recall has obviously become a major national news story, and every pundit wants to get in their two cents, as you can see below.

John Fund writes that our Lt. Governor, Cruz Bustamante, a man who finds the Lt. Governor's job a challenge may pick up enough support from unions and other special interests to get himself elected, especially since he's the only name Democrat on the replacement ballot, while there are 3 Republicans one the ballot to split the party vote. Thanks for that ray of sunshine, John.

Michael Tomasky personifies The American Prospect's willingness to leap to unsound, yet ideologically comfortable conclusions. He thinks Arnold will lose, and, by the way, so will George Bush in 2004. as Tomasky puts it:

A series of corrosively divisive events have made Americans choose sides to a degree that has no recent precedent in American politics. The Clinton impeachment, the 2000 election and the debate over the Iraq War have been the main events. But larger cultural developments and controversies, from same-sex marriage to whether one believes Martha Stewart and her $248,000 windfall are really worth a prosecutor's time, have created an America in which engaged citizens are defending their cultural and ideological turf and are increasingly distrustful of the people and institutions that don't share their mores.

Okay, so maybe he's right. The trouble with his argument is that it's pushed people who agree with him into a hate-filled, disgruntled minority, while great majority of Americans remain approving of W's presidency. At least John Fund's arguments against Arnold's candidacy are based in electoral math, rather than some odd, Pauline Kael-style, I-can't-believe-Nixon-won-No-one-I-know-voted-for-him, ideological frippery.

Joan Vennochi writes in the Boston Globe that Bill Clinton's involvement with the Gray Davis Campaign is part of a keen plot to make Hillary Clinton president of the United States. That's pretty far-fetched, and it still makes more sense than Tomasky's screed.

Ann Coulter, to whom I am usually quite reluctant to link, seems to have analyzed California's current problems quite accurately.

California is, in fact, a perfect petri dish of Democratic policies. This is what happens when you let Democrats govern: You get a state – or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" – with a $38 billion deficit, which is larger than the budgets of 48 states. There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation. California's credit rating has been slashed to junk-bond status, and citizens are advised to stock up for the not-too-far-off day when cigarettes and Botox become the hard currency of choice. At this stage, we couldn't give California back to Mexico.

Democrats governed their petri dish as they always govern. They buy the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits – and then turn around and accuse the productive class of "greed" for wanting their taxes cut. This has worked so well nationally that more people in America now work for the government than work in any sort of manufacturing job.

Strictly adhering to formula in California, as the private sector was bleeding jobs and money, Gov. Davis signed off on comically generous pensions for government workers. Government employees in the Golden State earn more than the private-sector workers who pay their salaries – and that's excluding the job security, health benefits and 90 percent pension plans that come with "Irish welfare," as government jobs used to be called.

Economists refer to this backward ratio between public and private-sector salaries as "France." (Inasmuch as they are paid more and work less than private-sector employees, perhaps we could ease up on treating public schoolteachers like Mother Teresa washing the feet of the poor in Calcutta.) The public-sector unions repaid Davis with massive contributions to his re-election campaign.

Actually this doesn't state the half of it. In return for extremely generous pension plans and disability rules for prison guards, state firefighters, and the like, Davis received millions upon millions of dollars in union contributions. These public-sector union members can now retire as early as age 50 with 90% of their salaries.

Davis bought himself re-election and is now the most hated officeholder in America. The people of California are willing to plunge their state into humiliation and chaos just to get rid of him. The fact that Arianna Huffington hasn't been laughed off a stage yet is a pretty good gauge of the public's frustration with Davis.

A pretty good gauge, indeed.

Boots on the ground

(Review) Our boys are on on the ground in Liberia.

Heat wave

(Review) The California city where I live regularly has summer temperatures between 100 and 110 degrees Farhenheit. Unlike most of Europe, however, everything is air-conditioned within an inch of your life.

But, as I say, most of europe has no air-conditioning, so when temperatures rise to 100 degrees, people start dying. That is why in France, the government reports that 3,000 people have died from heat-related causes during a heatwave that has sent temperatures soaring above their 75 degree average to nearly 100 degrees.

I remember when I lived in the Netherlands in 1990, and the summer heatwave pushed temperatures up into the mid-80s. I thought the Europeans were gonna have a cow. Most of the Americans just shrugged it off, but the Euros couldn't handle it. I grew up in Houston TX, where you could have temperatures of 100 degrees, and at the same time, have 100% humidity without a cloud in the sky. Prior to living in Europe, I had been stationed at Holloman AFB in Alamogordo, New Mexico. That was in the New Mexico Desert where the summer temperature on the "C" Ramp where the aircraft for the 49th TFW were parked could be in excess of 120 degrees. So, I thought an 88 degree temperature in the Netherlands was pretty temperate.

I don't think most Americans realize what a truly horrific climate we have in this country, compared to Europe.

And, because Europe's climate is usually so mild, they can't cope with a heat wave. Nothing is air conditioned over there. Heck, you can't even get ice in your drinks over there. So, when the temp starts to hit 100 degrees, they have a pretty rough time.

Economic Roundup

(Review) Well, inflation at the producer level is still restrained, with the overall PPI coming in right on expectations of 0.1%, and a slightly higher than expected core rate (minus food and energy) of 0.2%.

Weekly jobless claims, however, were a bit higher than expected, barely squeeking in under the key 400K mark at 398,000 new claims.

The Trade Deficit narrowed more than expected, coming in at $39.5 billion, instead of the estimate of $42 Billion that was the consensus.

Economic Roundup

Once again, the economic numbers came in better than expected this morning. Retail sales came in with a 1.4% increase, compared to a consensus estimate of 1%. A lot of that was powered by the stronger than expected auto sales that we say last week, but even without autos, sales were still up by 0.8%, compared to expectations of a 0.6% rise.

Tomorrow, of course, we get another look at the jobs picture, with the release of weekly initial claims for unemployment. Consensus estimates are for 393K, once again keeping new claims below the 400k level, and dropping the 4-week moving average to about 395k. Interestingly, the staff at Briefing.com are estimating only 385k in new claims, which puts them well below the consensus, and implies a 4-week average of about 391k, just off the top of my head. Briefing.com is often right about things, so I'm hoping that their estimate is more accurate than the consensus.

Tomorrow also brings us another glimpse at inflation with the release of the Producers Price Index (PPI), which is expected to be a restrained 0.1% increase, both overall, as well as the Core PPI, which excludes the volatile food and energy components.

Tomorrow's release of the trade balance is also expected to show a $42 billion deficit.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Next Governor of California: Arnold Wilson

(Review) David Horowitz believes that Arnold's decision to put former governor Pete Wilson in as the chairman of his campaign almost ensures Arnold's election. Democrats like Art Torres, who make painfully wrongheaded analyses about why Arnold is a weak candidate, are in for a big shock.

Liberals who think Prop 187 is a political albatross for Arnold are in deep denial and should think again. While it is true the liberal establishment and media denounced Proposition 187 as xenophobic and worse, a landslide majority of Californians -- including more than 40% of Hispanics--embraced 187 and turned it into law. They will do so (symbolically) again. Who better than a grateful American immigrant like Arnold Schwarzenegger to point out to obtuse liberals the difference between legal immigration and illegal entry--and the crippling consequences of not making the distinction?

Of course once Prop 187 was passed, the liberals immediately set out to overturn the people's vote. They took it to their friends in the judiciary who scuttled it. Californians have been forced to live with the destructive consequences of illegal immigration ever since. But that only makes Prop 187 an even more volatile memory now.

Two events that have taken place since Wilson's victory have actually increased the likelihood that Californians will embrace Arnold's position and reject the Democrats' prejudice again. The first of these is the 9/11 attacks, which have made the importance of secure borders an even more pressing issue than before. Particularly since Governor Davis and the Democrats have now seen fit to provide drivers' licenses to illegals. This is a typical Democratic scheme to gain new constituencies for the party, in effect granting illegals the right to vote (a driver's license and address are all the identity credentials needed). But the Democrats' scheme also allows terrorists to establish themselves as citizens of the country they plan to attack. Californian voters will not appreciate this.

Look, Prop 187 passed with 59% of the vote. Don't expect me to take you seriously if you try and argue that support for 187 is a political albatross. If you believe that supporting an issue that 59% of the electorate voted for is a political liability, then you're just a moron.

And the facts are that, despite what Democrats try and tell us about how the illegals are all hard workers who pay their taxes...well, while the former is certainly true, the latter in many cases is not. Huge numbers of illegals are working for cash, and I suspect that they aren't filling out tax returns come April 15th. Many of California's budget problems are directly caused by illegals. County health systems are failing because they are paying millions upon millions of dollars to provide essentially free medical care, emergency and otherwise, to illegals who sign a IOU to the hospital, then mysteriously disappear. We spend millions upon millions of dollars educating the children of illegals.

And don't think that California voters don't know this.

Keeping the lights on

(Review) Tom Friedman, still in Iraq, writes that while we are doing some wonderful things there, our lack of attention to the basics is screwing us up in many ways.

It's a travesty that four months after the fall of Saddam, the main road in and out of the country is still not safe. It underscores how much the Pentagon's ideological reach exceeds its military grasp. All of America's friends in Baghdad say the same thing: I love your ideas, but my daily life--salary, electricity, security--is worse since you came, not better.

"If you have an animal in the zoo who is fearful, angry and hungry, how can you train him?" Imad al-Tamimi, a college student who works for U.S. forces as a translator, asked me. "But if you secure him, caress him and give him some food, he will be obedient. The Iraqi people, if you secure their lives, give them a minimum level of good living, they will be your friends without your even asking them to be your friends. But that's not what's happening."

We have planted many good ideas and programs here, but the ideas will not be heard and the programs will not flower without more money to create jobs, more troops to protect the electricity and more time to train Iraqis so U.S. troops can get off the streets, and without a U.S. advisory team here dedicated to stay. There is no continuity. U.S. advisers come for a few months, then leave, and their replacements have to start all over.

It would be a tragic irony if the greatest technological power in the history of the world came to the cradle of civilization with its revolutionary ideas and found itself defeated because it couldn't keep the electricity on.

Friedman wrote on his last trip to Iraq--and quite correctly in my view--that if we really want to win the peace in Iraq, and win lifetime friends, the Iraqis should be showered with sucbeneficencece that thbelieveve they won the lottery.

Fort some reason, we seem unable to go farther than committing ourselves to half measures. A few months ago, Newt Gingrich was complaining that, one year after the overthrow of the Taliban government in Kabul, not a single mile of new road had been paved in Afghanistan. And, despite the fact that the Iraqis are grateful in many ways for our overthrow of the Saddamite regime, we are fools to think thatheirei will remain grateful without seeing some serious and tangible evidence of improvement in their lives.

The 3rd ID came home earlier this week. Why? Why aren't we keeping them there and patrolling the country? Why aren't the Iraqi ports jammed full of Caterpillars and John Deeres? Why aren't Help wanted ads popping up in major newspapers for welders, plumbers, and all sorts of tradesmen willing to go to Iraq and start rebuilding?

Sure, it would be expensive. But how much is it worth to us to prevent another 911, or even worse a nuclear or biological 911 that might claim thousands upon thousands of lives?

We have a chance to completely remake the Mideast by helping the Iraqis and the Afghanis create more tolerant and more democratic societies than any that currently exist in the region. But we won't do by half-hearted dabbling. All that will accomplish is an expense of blood and treasure that will ultimately gain us nothing.

The Rewards of Free Trade

(Review) Deputy US Trade Representative Josette Shiner defends free trade in the Washington Post.

Labor leaders urge the United States to "learn the lesson of NAFTA." Well, the lesson NAFTA teaches is that open trade is good for American workers, farmers, businesses and families. After NAFTA was signed in 1993, domestic employment, farm exports, manufacturing output and real wages all increased. From 1993 to 2000, civilian employment in the U.S. economy rose by a net 16 million jobs. During that same period, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada grew 57 percent, and U.S. manufacturing output rose by 41 percent -- even as the volume of imported manufactured goods more than doubled. U.S. manufacturing has endured a slump recently, but this has been part of a cyclical downturn, not the result of a structural problem stemming from trade. Economic indicators already show that the sector is recovering. Abandoning open markets on the cusp of an upturn could be disastrous -- a modern repeat of Smoot-Hawley protectionism that helped turn a 1930s recession into the Great Depression.

Free trade generates economic growth through exports, but it also improves the real wages and purchasing power of American families through imports. The two major U.S. trade agreements during the 1990s, NAFTA and the Uruguay Round, increased incomes and provided consumers with a greater choice of goods at better prices, raising living standards for a typical American family of four by up to $2,000 a year.

Imports also boost the productivity of America's businesses. From auto parts to computer parts, they help hold down production costs and make U.S. products more competitive at home and abroad.

Open global markets create investment opportunities, too, and the United States receives more foreign investment than any other nation in the world. International capital flows have helped keep U.S. interest rates low, funded new U.S. business ventures, increased U.S. productivity and wages and created new American jobs.

And yet, unions still oppose it. But, of course, unions are not tasked with increasing the living standards of American consumers. Their job is to inflate the salaries of their members, which is not the same thing at all.

Ms. Shiner's article is quite a nice one, but it doesn't quite match the Administrations actions when it comes to free trade.

Steady as She Goes, Mr. Greenspan

(Review) As I predicted last week, the FOMC meeting today produced no change in interest rate policy. Despite the rather large yield changes in the bond market, the Fed took a wait and see attitude.

The Fed's still concerned about deflation, and they want to watch for a while. This is not a bad idea, especially since the economy's growth rate is still substantially below it's potential, based on the sharp productivity gains we've seen. It appears that the Fed is going to remain on hold until they get a clearer indication that economic growth is approaching it's potential of 3.5%-4.5%.

Total California Recall

(Review) David Horowitz beleives Arnold's candidacy for Governor of California could provide more than just another statehouse for the Republicans.

Arnold's is a dream candidacy for the Republican Party, which he alone can rescue from the dead. He has already made Republicans more user friendly to the public at large. He will make it easier for media talent in the state to relate to the Republican Party, which has ramifications for campaigns beyond California. He will inspire significant numbers of independents to vote for his party. And if he is elected -- unlike the conservatives biting at his heels -- he will be a formidable counter-balance to the Democratic legislature, which means he could actually improve the financial condition of the state.

If Governor Schwarzenegger were to do the right thing -- for example veto Democratic attempts to protect their expensive programs -- he would be in a position politically to resist their override. He could just take his enormous popularity and media presence into their individual senatorial and assembly districts and immediately threaten their electoral futures. So great is his popularity and media presence. Of course politics has its uncertainties and unseen pitfalls and no one knows if Arnold will be able to navigate them successfully. But if he manages to do so and win, he will actually have a chance to revive the state and run for a second term.

Even more important, Governor Schwarzenegger would change the political equation for the next presidential contest in 2004. A Bush 2004 campaign with Arnold as the President's point man in the state would unquestionably turn it into a competitive affair. This means that even if Bush does not ultimately win the state, the Democrats will have to pour big dollars into the state to contest the election. The drain of money and resources will impact close races across the country.

Well, I hope so. My hope is that Arnold can bring a more libertarian sensibility to the Republican Party.

Republicans bother me because, even though they want to get the government out of my pocketbook (or, rather, they say they do), the price for that is a government that wants to get more deeply involved in my private life. A more libertarian sentiment among Republicans would be good, if it leads to a smaller, less intrusive government in every sphere.

Free-Trade on the chopping block

(Review) Economist Irwin Steltzer writes that a soft economy and an upcoming election year is putting a lot of pressure on the Administration to deviate from its free-trade philosophy.

In this, as in other matters involving trade, the relatively few who are hurt by imports know who they are, and organize to make their voices heard in Washington, while the millions of consumers who benefit from cheaper sneakers, T-shirts, autos, and other products--10 percent of the trade deficit is accounted for by the $10 billion worth of Chinese goods bought by Wal-Mart--don't recognize the relationship between free trade and their ability to get more bang for their bucks. If the president is not to deviate further from his free-trade philosophy, he will have to hold off the few, who will be angry, in the interests of the many, who will neither know nor appreciate his efforts on their behalf.

That's a lot to ask of a politician.

The Administration already has an iffy free-trade record as it is. I'm not sanguine about them keeping whatever creditntials they have left in this area if push comes to shove.

Dinner With the Sayyids

(Review) Thomas Friedman is back in Iraq, and has met with two very important Muslim clerics, Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddine, and Sayyid Hussein Khomeini (grandson of the late Ayatollah Khomeini). These two gentlemen represent what we hope will be the future of Islam.

I was invited to interview a rising progressive Iraqi Shiite cleric, Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddine, at his home on the banks of the Tigris. It was the most exciting conversation I've had on three trips to postwar Iraq. I listened to Mr. Jamaleddine eloquently advocate separation of mosque and state and lay out a broad, liberal agenda for Iraq's majority Shiites. As we sat down for a meal of Iraqi fish and flat bread, he introduced me to a small, black-turbaned cleric who was staying as his houseguest.

"Mr. Friedman, this is Sayyid Hussein Khomeini" — the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution.

Mr. Khomeini told me he had left the Iranian spiritual center of Qum to meet with scholars in the Iraqi Shiite spiritual centers of Karbala and Najaf. He, too, is a progressive, he explained, and he intends to use the freedom that the U.S. invasion has created in Iraq to press for real democratic reform in Iran. Now I understand why his grandfather once threw him in jail for a week. He has Ayatollah Khomeini's fiery eyes and steely determination, but the soul of a Muslim liberal.

The 46-year-old Mr. Khomeini said he's currently advocating a national referendum in Iran to revoke the absolute religious and political powers that have been grabbed by Iran's clergy. But in other interviews here, he was quoted as saying that Iran's hard-line clerical rulers were "the world's worst dictatorship," who have been exploiting his grandfather's name and the name of Islam "to continue their tyrannical rule." He and Mr. Jamaleddine told me their first objective was to open Shiite seminaries and schools in Iraq to teach their ideas to the young generation.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have no idea whether these are the only two liberal Shiite clerics in Iraq. People tell me they definitely are not. Either way, their willingness to express their ideas publicly is hugely important. It is, for my money, the most important reason we fought this war: If the West is going to avoid a war of armies with Islam, there has to be a war of ideas within Islam. The progressives have to take on both the religious totalitarians, like Osama bin Laden, and the secular totalitarians who exploit Islam as a cover, like Saddam Hussein. We cannot defeat their extremists, only they can. This war of ideas needs two things: a secure space for people to tell the truth and people with the courage to tell it.

Hopefully, a free and democratic Iraq can help provide both.

Our Middle Eastern "Friends"

(Review) Ralph Peters is getting tirted of watching American politicians kowtow to Mideastern potentates whose primary accomplishment seems to be impoverishing their own people.

Our willingness to trust those who smile and pick up the dinner tab in Riyadh or Washington has been a bipartisan sin - and a national disgrace. Hillary Clinton embraced Madame Arafat and Pakistan's peerlessly corrupt Benazir Bhutto. Both Presidents Bush refused - and continue to refuse - to acknowledge the vicious strategic agenda of the Saudi royal family.

Administrations from both parties bribed Hosni Mubarak with billions of dollars in aid while his cronies robbed Egypt into destitution. From the Straits of Gibraltar to the Himalayas, we have sold our nation's soul to second-rate devils for small change.

Future historians will regard our groveling at the feet of Saudi bigots and whoremongers as the equivalent of down-market strippers dancing for drunkards' tips.

I agree, although I think his choice of words constitutes an unfortunate slur on the character of strippers.

The Governator

(Review) Mark Steyn analyzes Arnold's run for the California Governorship, and the tactics the Dems will use to try and beat him.

1. Arnold is a Nazi.

Okay, Arnold's not a Nazi. He was born in the Austrian town of Thal, but not until 1947, and thus was technically unable to join the Nazi Party no matter how much he may have wanted to. But he certainly has family ties to the Nazis. His wife's grandfather, Joe Kennedy, was one of America's most prominent Nazi sympathisers.

2. Arnold is unqualified.

Yes, he's not a professional politician. And that's a disadvantage? The professional politicians are the ones who got California into this mess. This is a "throw the bum out" election, so the successful challenger will be the one who looks least like the bum. Gray Davis has been on the public payroll his entire adult life: he represents the full-time political class. Arnold represents the other California: entrepreneurial energy, wit and invention, the California that understands that if Hollywood and Silicon Valley were run by "qualified" people like Davis we'd still be watching flickering silents and you'd need union-approved quill-feathers to send e-mail.

I think that, for the first time in his life, Gray Davis is about to learn what a private-sector workplace is like.

The Lessons of History

(Review) Victor Davis Hanson reminds us that what happens on the home front can be more dangerous than what happens on the battlefield.

Western societies from ancient Athens to imperial Rome to the French republic rarely collapsed because of a shortage of resources or because foreign enemies proved too numerous or formidable in arms--even when those enemies were grim Macedonians or Germans. Rather, in times of peace and prosperity there arose an unreal view of the world beyond their borders, one that was the product of insularity brought about by success, and an intellectual arrogance that for some can be the unfortunate byproduct of an enlightened society.

I think we are indulging in this unreal hypercriticism--even apart from the election-season antics of our politicians--because we are not being gassed, or shot, or even left hot or hungry. September 11 no longer evokes an image of incinerated firemen, innocents leaping out of skyscrapers, or the stench of flesh and melted plastic, but rather: squabbles over architectural designs, lawsuits, snarling over Mr. Ashcroft's new statutes, or concerns about being too rude to the Arab street.

Such smug dispensation--as profoundly amoral as it is--provides us, on the cheap and at a safe distance, with a sense of moral worth. Or perhaps censuring from the bleachers enables us to feel superior to those less fortunate who are still captive to their primordial appetites. We prefer to cringe at the thought that others like to see proof of their killers' deaths, prefer to shoot rather than die capturing a mass murderer, and welcome a generic profile of those who wish to kill them en masse.

We should take stock of this dangerous and growing mindset--and remember that wealthy, sophisticated societies like our own are rarely overrun. They simply implode--whining and debating still to the end, even as they pass away.

"An unreal view of the world." That should say it all.

The Iraqi WMDs

(Review) Remember all those Iraqi WMDs that the Dems keep slamming President Bush for lying about (except, curiously, those Democrats on the Intelligence Committees in Congress)? Well, keep on thinking about them. According to Robert Novak:

Former international weapons inspector David Kay, now seeking Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for the Pentagon, has privately reported successes that are planned to be revealed to the public in mid-September.

Kay has told his superiors he has found substantial evidence of biological weapons in Iraq, plus considerable missile development. He has been less successful in locating chemical weapons, and has not yet begun a substantial effort to locate progress toward nuclear arms.

Senior officials in the Bush administration believe Kay's weapons discoveries should have been revealed as they were made. However, a decision, approved by President Bush, was made to wait until more was discovered and then announce it -- probably in September.

Howard Dean, undoubtedly, will let us all know that he isn't sure that finding Iraq's WMDs are a good thing.

Pressuring the wrong guy

(Review) Outspoken civil rights attorney and LA talk-show host Leo Terrell has abruptly quit the NAACP, and accuses the organization--theoretically a non-partisan, non-profit organization--of pressuring him to retract his support of a Bush judicial nominee. And he's a bit...uh...distraught.

"How dare the NAACP tell me who I can or cannot endorse on an individual basis. That is the part that makes this so outrageous," Terrell told Foxnews.com. "I am going to tell the whole world what the NAACP did to me."

Now the NAACP is about to learn that Leo is not a man who responds well to pressure. Something about which it seems they should have already known, based on his professional history.

Terrell, who is a sharp debater, by the way, is also a stand-up guy in every sense of the term. Everything I know about him tells me that, even though we may not agree on a lot of things, he's good people.

But he's not a man you want to cross lightly...

Not a threat to heterosexual marriage

(Review) Deroy Murdock writes that conservatives should not try to pull the speck out of their neighbors eye when they have a beam in their own in the issue of marriage.

For now, gay-marriage critics should admit that heterosexuals pose the biggest risks to straight marriage. Adultery is now sufficiently rampant that Web sites such as Chatcheaters.com and InfidelityCheck.org troll cyberspace for extramarital e-mail and chatroom liaisons. Divorce, of course, threatens matrimony, as do "marriage lite" arrangements such as domestic partnerships that taste great, but are less filling than actual marriage. If couples can enjoy the benefits of matrimony without pledging mutual fealty before God and family, why not just shack up?

These practices weaken straight matrimony far more than would watching Bill and Ted drive off to Niagara Falls with a "Just Married" sign pinned to their Bronco. Alas, raising the bar for heterosexuals is much more work and much less fun than ranting about homosexuals.

Yes, it's more fun to criticize the "other" than it is to fix your own community's shortcomings.

Although, as a "marriage lite" participant myself, I expect I'm pretty immune to pressure of that sort, although the reason I'm not married has less to do with me than it does my chick.

Handicapping the Democratic Presidential field

(Review) James Lileks handicaps the Democratic presidential race.

Dick Gephardt: Mr. Congress. He thinks, breathes, excretes the legislative imperative. If America were attacked again, he might well authorize an act of war, but his instincts would make him attach the declaration to a rider attached to a bill authorizing an inflation-related adjustment in the mohair subsidy. He can't help it.

John Kerry: He may indeed be better than the rest of us, but he could work harder at keeping the fact concealed. Might face heat this week as union members learn his fund-raising connections to Susie Buell, co-founder of the French-sounding Esprit clothing line. Esprit has been accused of using sweatshop labor, which suggests that Kerry personally believes that all garment workers should make 6 cents an hour and be thrashed with bamboo sticks when their pace slackens.

Actually, it means no such thing, but when Republicans dine at the same restaurant as someone accused of unfair labor practices, they're accused of going back in time to start the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.

Dennis Kucinich: No man with a Mo Stooge haircut has ever been elected president, and Kucinich will be no exception. His Web site compares him to Seabiscuit - another famous horse who came from behind, electrified a depressed nation, and was oddly unconcerned about Saddam Hussein's crimes.

Read the whole thing.

I Love LUCY

(Review) Economist Arnold Kling argues that we are not, in fact, in the midst of an economic recovery, but are still in the middle of a deep and prolonged recession.

He argues that a new index, which he has created, the Labor Capacity Utilization Index, or LUCY, shows that labor capacity utilization is horrifically low. Additionally he argues that the wide gap between productivity increases and increases in GDP indicate further economic weakness.

It's an interesting argument, but frankly, it isn't one I'm inclined to agree with without a lot more support than this single article.

Now, it may be that some measure of LUCY might be a useful economic number to look at, assuming that a reasonable method for doing so can be derived. But, Kling derives LUCY in the following way:

I measure labor utilization as hours worked in the nonfarm private sector, based on the index calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I measure labor capacity as the sum of men and women aged 16 and over. I took the ratio of utilization to capacity and divided it by its peak value in December of 1999 to get a maximum of 1.0; then I multiplied by 100 to get an index that can be interpreted as percent utilization of labor capacity.

From this rather sketchy description of his methodology, a few questions arise.

First, is he using the seasonally adjusted hours worked index or not? The numbers can be quite different when seasonal adjustments are applied. He says his measurement for utilization is "based on" the BLS' index. What does that mean? If he is using the total population of men and women aged 16 or over, how does he account for voluntary non-participation in the labor force by mothers with children, students, retirees, etc? Obviously a higher rate of voluntary non-participation means that actual capacity is far different than the total population of people over 16. For instance, when the baby boomers retire, how will that affect his measurement of capacity? Defining everyone over the age of 16 as "capacity" strikes me as a bit nonsensical, since, even if we were all put to work from some WWII style national effort, a significant percentage of all people over 16 would still be unemployed. So, while I'm interested in the LUCY concept, I'd like to see some more precision about how it's derived.

And some questions about its actual usefulness arise as well. The BLS already releases the total number of nonfarm payroll jobs every month. Surely seeing that the number of net new jobs is increasing or decreasing already tells us a lot of what we need to know. If we know, for example that we've already lost 328,000 jobs this year, and 2,575,000 since Jan 2001, doesn't that already let us know how bad the employment situation is. And we already define labor capacity utilization by deriving the unemployment ratio using the total number of people who are actively in the workforce, i.e. an unemployment rate of 6.3% is a capacity utilization rate of 93.7%.

Granted, using the number of people who are actively participating in the labor force has shortcomings as the measure of capacity. The number changes quite a bit from month to month, and people retire, new entrants come into the labor force, or the chronically unemployed get discouraged about their job prospects and drop out of the labor force. And, of course a lot of people who aren't officially in the labor force are working in theÂ…ahemÂ…unregulated portion of the economy.

But it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to regard the entire over-16 population as the nation's labor capacity, any more than it does to count every building that could conceivably contain a factory as part of industrial capacity. But by including people who don't want to be part of the labor force, it seems to me that Kling is doing just about the same thing with LUCY.

So, let's just use the unemployment rate as our measure of capacity utilization, and compare it to Kling's LUCY graph and see what happens. Here's Kling's LUCY graph:

OK, now I will use the unemployment figures, and create my own index. First, I will consider the labor force capacity to be the BLS' estimate of the total labor force. Then, I will subtract the unemployment rate to derive the percentage of people actually employed, which will be my figure for utilization. The lowest unemployment rate (3.8% in Apr 2000) leaves us with a utilization of 96.2%. I will convert this to an index of 100, using it as the base for my new Labor Intensity Utilization Scale, or LINUS. My graph for LINUS over the same period looks like this:

Now, when you compare LUCY and LINUS, what new information do you derive from LUCY that is not evident from LINUS?

That's all I'm asking.

As far as I can tell, despite differences in the scale, based largely on different values for the base number from which the index reading of 100 is derived, these two scales are giving us almost precisely the same information, at least in the sense that they display the same labor market trends in almost precisely the same way.

Both of them tell us what we already know, i.e. that the labor market isn't doing too hot. Unlike Kling, I'm not sure at all, however, that they are telling us the National Bureau of Economic Research is wrong about the state of the economy. Labor capacity utilization is not, after all, a leading index of economic activity. Businesses don't hire first, then watch sales rise. Sales rise first, and new employment is created as a result of the increasing business.

Yes, most of our productivity gains recently have been the result of fewer employees doing more work, but as I noted yesterday, you can only squeeze so much extra output from the same number of employees. Once you've done so, the only way to increase output is to increase hiring. So those increases in output are harbingers of future hiring, because, as long as demand increases, output must also increase to satisfy the demand. But, again, the improvement in employment is a trailing effect if economic expansion.

So, Kling's LUCY concept is interesting, but I'm not sure it's as useful as Kling presents it as being.

UPDATE: Arnold Kling responds to my criticisms as follows:

Now, when you compare LUCY and LINUS, what new information do you derive from LUCY that is not evident from LINUS?

Broadly speaking, they show the same thing, which is that the labor market is weak.

Some differences, which may not be important:

1)in this recession, employers are shortening the workweek, and LUCY picks that up. The unemployment rate does not;

2) strong economies pull people into the labor force (including people over 65, which is what makes it hard to set an upper age cutoff). LUCY will pick that up better than the unemployment rate.

3) some economists brush off the unemployment rate. Many view the household survey as flakier than the payroll survey; there is the controversy over whether or not to include discouraged workers; and unemployment has a reputation for being a lagging indicator.

In a sense, it is point (3) that I am fighting the most. People who want to say that the economy is recovering want to push the unemployment rate out of their minds. I'm saying that to do so is a mistake, and that the labor market is telling us something we should not ignore about economic weakness. That's all. I'm saying, if you don't believe Linus, then look at LUCY.

That seems an eminently reasonable response.

I am not, however, one of those people who "want to push the unemployment rate out of their minds". I think weakness in the labor market is telling us something important, but I also think that there are indications from other economic numbers that point to an improvement in labor conditions in the near term.

Recall Roundup

(Review) FOXNews has a rather comprehensive roundup of the California recall election.

Issa Isn't

(Recall) Arnold's entry into the California recall race isn't just bringing Democrats in, it's evidently pushing other Republicans out. A weepy Darryl Issa just took his little red wagon and went home. And after shelling out 1.7 million bucks to get the recall through, too.

I hope he thinks it was money well-spent.

Arnold, unfortunately, is not a defender of gun rights, unfortunately, no matter how masterfully he wields them on the silver screen, so he doesn't have my vote. But I always thought Issa was a pompous ass, so for that reason alone, I'm glad to see Arnold's entry in the race blow Issa's campaign out of the water.

Besides, it takes away yet another Dem argument that the recall is just a strategy to turn California into a a gay-bashing, fascist, police state.

Economic Roundup

The economic numbers released this morning ought to fuel a bit more optimism about the state of the economy.

First, the 2nd Quarter preliminary productivity number was up much more sharply than the expected 4.0% consensus estimate, coming in at a 5.7% increase. Such a high number, assuming minimal revisions later on, implies an annual 3.8% growth rate for the economy so far this year, much better than the lackluster performance we've seen in the 18 months prior. Okay, now the actual meat of the number shows that the 3.4% rise in 2Q output came on the back of a –2.2% drop in hours worked. So, essentially, fewer employees are producing more stuff. What is good about it though, is that it indicates that, even though employers are doing more with less right now, future hiring is on the way. You can only get so much productivity out of current staff. Eventually, to increase output, you have to add employees. I think this number implies that we are close to that "tipping point" on new hiring, as the last drops of increased productivity are squeezed out of current employee levels.

Happily, in light of that, the jobs sector is also chiming in positively once again, with initial unemployment claims coming in very slightly below expectations, at 390,000. In addition, this newest number brings the four-week moving average for initial claims below 400,000 as well, bringing the average down from 410k to 397k. This implies that while strong job growth may not be on the rise, at least job losses appear to be curtailed. Once you get below an average of 400k new claims, you can start ballparking economic growth at around a 3% annualized rate, and can expect to see rises in non-farm payrolls. I hasten to add that this isn't a scientific measurement, and there's no direct correlation between initial claims for unemployment and GDP growth. But, based on past experience, it's what we tend to see when the four-week moving average drops below 400k and stays there.

When you take both the details of the 2Q productivity numbers and the drop we've seen over the last month in initial unemployment claims, I think there is cause for some optimism concerning the probability of job increases in the near term.

More good news is also coming in today about consumer spending, as retailers announce their July same-store sales. Those sales are coming in stronger than expected as well, with both department stores and specialty retailers showing strong sales growth. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, is reporting same-store sales up by 4.6%, which is a full percentage point higher than consensus estimates from retail analysts. Even lackluster J.C. Penny saw sales up by 3.7%, which is, all other things considered, nearly a freakin' miracle. Clearly, consumers are spending substantially more than analysts expected.

More good news is also coming in from the stock market, as these stronger sales are causing retailers to issue new earnings guidance, increasing their estimates for earnings per share. (Indeed, one of the happy little market trends has been increasing earnings all across the board, as the vast majority of companies have announced higher than expected earnings.) As retailers and others issue more optimistic earnings guidance, the obvious implication is stronger economic growth for the immediate future.

The recent economic statistics give every indication of a strengthening economy, with jobs lagging behind the rest of the indicators, but beginning to catch up.

Naturally, this fuels speculation about the Fed's FOMC meeting coming up on Tuesday. I expect that the Fed will stand pat on short-term rates. The improved indications of economic activity don't seem to warrant another cut in short-term rates, especially since they are already at historic lows. At the same time, Consumer and Producer Prices seem very restrained, and with the 2Q GDP deflator reading of 1%, there doesn't appear to be any reason at all to raise rates due to inflationary fears. The best thing for the Fed to do, I think, is to keep the Fed Funds rate unchanged, while at the same time pumping money into the system through securities purchases at the discount window. The next best thing to do, and the thing I think they will do, is to do nothing at all.

Yes, I think Paul Krugman is going to have to find something other than the "Bush Recession" to talk about.

When the Levee Breaks

(Review) It's not just Arnold Schwarzenegger who's declaring his candidacy for Governor. The dam has broken on the Democratic side as well, with Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamonte and Insuranc e Commissioner John Garamendi declaring their candidacies as well. Now that the unified front of the Democrats has cracked, it'll be interesting to see how many Democrats--after weeks of assuring us that they were were united 100% behind Davis--will actually declare. Esxpectations are that Orange County Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez will run as well, and who knows how many other Dems will join her by Saturday's filing deadline.

Ah, this is gonna be quite a show.

Assuming it happens at all, that is. The California Supreme Court has been meeting behind closed doors to decide what to do about the various anti-recall lawsuits the Davis camp (i.e. the AFL-CIO) has filed.

Terminating Gray Davis

(Review) Arnold Shwartzenegger has announced that he will run for governor to replace Gray Davis in the recall election. It's kinda funny, because I was listening to KFI on the drive home this afternoon, and Laura Ingle, the KFI reporter who was on the scene at NBC studios reported that the general consensus was that Arnold would announce he wasn't running, and that former LA Mayor Dick Reardon would run. Indeed, they presented it like Arnold's refusal to run was a done deal.

It now appears that they were as wrong as can be.

Religion and Arrogance

(Review) I haven’t talked much about the Episcopal Church’s nomination and approval of openly gay Rev. V. Gene Robinson for the New Hampshire Bishopric. Mainly, its because homosexual issues just don't interest me. I'm not really interested, for example, in whether states allow civil marriages for homosexuals. I'm perfectly content to live and let live where homosexuality is concerned.

Nor am I big on religious issues, either. I'm perfectly happy to allow religious sects to believe whatever it is they wish to believe, without let or hindrance. Being at best an agnostic Deist myself, I don't spend much effort arguing or writing about religion.

Having said that, however, I have been musing about this particular situation. Not so much because this particular case is interesting in the micro, but what it says in the macro about how we as a society regard traditional religious thought and its conventions.

The disposition Rev. Robinson's case is striking in that, as an openly gay man who has lived with his partner for 13 years, Rev. Robinson would appear to have some scriptural strikes against him.

First, he is in a homosexual relationship. There is no doubt that the Bible condemns homosexual relationships in the strongest possible terms, both in the New Testament, as well as the Old. The Bible unambiguously regards homosexual practice as a sin. I have had long conversations with some of my United Methodist (Open Minds, Open Hearts) friends about this, and they go through great lengths in explaining that what the Bible says about homosexuality is not really what it means. Sorry, but I just don't buy it, any more than I buy Al Gore's "Living Constitution". The text has a discernible meaning, and that meaning corresponds pretty much with what the text says.

Second, he has been living with his partner outside of the sacrament of marriage. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that sex outside of marriage isn't a scripturally approved lifestyle either. (A proscription that I honor in the breach, rather than the observance, and about which, more in due course.) Had Rev. Robinson been having a sexual affair with a woman for 13 years, I think it's safe to say that his appointment would be equally controversial, as well.

Still, neither of those things seems to have hindered his ministerial career.

And that troubles me.

Many people, just like Rev. Robinson, seem somehow to have come to regard religious membership in a particular faith as being a right. If that faith disapproves of their lifestyle, then the obvious answer to them is to change the faith so that it accords with their wishes. The idea that they have a responsibility to do the reverse, and live in accord with the teachings of their faith seems never to have entered their little heads.

For these people, religion is no longer a set of transcendent principles to which they must conform in order to reach salvation. Religion's primary purpose for these people seems to have become a source of comfort to which they have an undeniable right, and in any conflict between their lifestyles and their faith, their faith must change.

The trouble with this idea, for Christians at least, is that the Kingdom of God is, in fact, a kingdom, not a representative republic. God provides the rules, and we obey or disobey them at our eternal peril. We may not like God's rules, but he seems relatively uninterested in whether we like them or not.

Look, I've lived with my girlfriend for several years. We purchased a house together two years ago. We are married in every way, except for the fact that we're not actually married. Now, I haven't darkened a church door in years, and I probably won't do so in the future. You see, I know that I live outside the canons of Christian doctrine in several ways, and I intend to do so for the foreseeable future. And, while I may be an arrogant SOB, unlike Rev. Robinson I'm not quite arrogant enough to demand my local church to abandon their scriptural principles to oblige my lifestyle. Unlike Rev. Robinson, I assume that God calls the church's shots, rather than my selfish pre-occupation with my own gratification. I may be making bad and sinful choices, but I expect that, if there really is a heaven and a hell, I'll be a lot less surprised about my final destination than Rev. Robinson will be.

Because, at the end of the day, this is what this subject comes down to: What is the Church's primary responsibility? It must either be to uphold the will of God as revealed through scripture, or it must be to provide spiritual gratification for its members.

Rev. Robinson and his ilk want to have their cake and eat it to. He wants to be a minister, and receive the spiritual comfort his religion affords him, while at the same time freeing himself from any responsibility to conform to the Christian mandate to live a godly life. God forbid he should have to choose a life of celibacy in order to refrain from committing sinful homosexual acts. Why, that would make his religion inconvenient.

And we certainly can't have that, can we?

Religion is, and always has been, about the will of God or the gods, and not about the preferences of its adherents. Religion presumes a supernatural Deity who commands us to conform to His will in order to achieve salvation. It is the Deity who prescribes or proscribes, and He does so without reference to our wishes. If we dislike the lifestyle that follows from conforming to His commands, then we are perfectly free to leave that religion. What we are not free to do is to command the Deity to conform his will to our preferences.

If we can, in fact, order our religion to mean anything we wish it to mean, then rather than submitting to the authority of the Diety we presume to worship, what he have is little more than feel-good, New Age philosophizing, with just enough Christian trappings thrown in to make us comfortable with its familiarity. Of course, it does not contain quite enough Christianity to place any responsibility on us to obey the will of God.

It may still be religion, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that its actual Christianity. Such a religion is undeniably man-centered, and not God- or Christ-centered. Just because you believe in Jesus doesn't make you a Christian. As Jesus himself said, the demons also believe.

And tremble.

But trembling before God doesn't seem to be much part of "Christianity" any more.

A grievous fault, And grievously hath Davis answer'd it.

(Review) Julius Wachtel is a lecturer as Cal State Fullerton. Despite that, he's all for the Gray Davis recall.

Still, blaming the recall on anyone but Davis and his party misses the point. We would not be in this sorry place had the governor paid more attention to his duties than his ambitions. Conducting the people's business with fingers crossed behind one's back has diminished confidence in government and stripped old-fashioned terms like "voter choice" of their meaning.

As a liberal, I am appalled. For myself and the many others who felt misled and cast an uninformed vote, and for those who must suffer the consequences of political gamesmanship, the recall hardly seems an assault on democratic values. On the contrary, it represents an opportunity to rise in their defense.

Why be surprised that citizens have turned to the state law for relief? At the very least, we will get to find out how choice is exercised when all who wish to be informed are informed.

Well, it's nice to see support for the recall coming in from such a source. But, I expect the "Lefty Academics for the Recall" caucus consists almost solely of Mr. Wachtel.

State Spending, Federal Subsidies

(Review) Sounding like some wild-eyed, Republican, Supply-Sider, Gregg Easterbrook writes in The New Republic that, while state officials are blaming their budget problems on Washington DC's stinginess, the real truth is that the states themselves practice profigate spending, then expect the Feds to bail them out without question.

Ever since World War II, the nation's governors, Republican and Democrat alike, have relied on a bookkeeping switcheroo in which Congress taxes Americans (that is, residents of states) at a higher rate than the federal budget actually requires and then sends some of the revenue back to states. This arrangement allows governors to denounce the big spenders in Washington while simultaneously relying on the big spenders in Washington to keep state budgets in the black. It also allows state income taxes and other local levies to be artificially lower than if they reflected the true cost of state spending, while focusing voter rage on a federal tax line that is artificially high.

A better--and more honest--policy would be for states, cities, and counties either to cut their budgets or to tax themselves at whatever level is needed to support their spending habits. Blaming Washington for money problems that localities have brought upon themselves simply feeds the unhealthy, but fashionable, pretense that government spending can go up while taxes go down, without consequences.

You know, the reason I really like TNR is the intellectual honesty they try to practice. This just isn't the type of honesty you'll find in, say The Nation. That's why TNR is the premier magazine of center-left opinion, and well worth reading whether you agree with them or not.

Hello, Joe

(Review) Well, maybe all this talk about Howard Dean is about to come to a crashing halt. Joe Biden is evidently considering declaring his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Our "friends" the Saudis

(Review) Richard Brookhiser pulls no punches where our relations with Saudi Arabia, and their relationship to Osama bin Laden are concerned.

Osama bin Laden hates the Saudi regime. But his quarrel with it is practical, not principled. Both he and the regime subscribe to a brutal and fanatical version of Islam. In his view, the regime gives only lip service, wasting its days in falconry, roulette and prostitution, while he does the hard work of living in caves and killing infidels. How many well-placed Saudis admit the truth of his indictment and, pricked by bad conscience, aid him on the sly?

The perverse bin Laden–Saudi dynamic has been obvious since 9/11. Any American grand strategy that does not address it is incomplete. What then is Mr. Bush doing? A harsh assessment, suggested by suppressing the speculation in the Congressional report, is that Mr. Bush isn’t doing enough. Out of Cold War nostalgia and oil-patch sympathies, he is letting the Saudi regime off the hook. We are still trying to sweet-talk them into helpfulness, as if they were allies, instead of confronting them as the shifty enemies they are.

This is about as good a summation as I have ever seen in two short 'graphs.

Democratic Legitimacy

(Review) Tom Friedman evaluates the Arab criticism of Iraq's new 25-person governing council.

Shortly after the 25-member Governing Council was appointed in Iraq, the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, questioned the U.S.-appointed Council's legitimacy. "If this Council was elected," complained Mr. Moussa, "it would have gained much power and credibility."

I love that quote. I love it, first of all, for its bold, gutsy, shameless, world-class hypocrisy. Mr. Moussa presides over an Arab League in which not one of the 22 member states has a leader elected in a free and fair election. On top of it, before the war, Mr. Moussa did all he could to shield Saddam Hussein from attack, although Saddam had never held a real election in his life. Yet, there was Mr. Moussa questioning the new U.S.-appointed Iraqi Council, which, even in its infant form, is already the most representative government Iraq has ever had.

But I also love Mr. Moussa's comment for its unintended revolutionary message: "power and credibility" come from governments that are freely "elected." If only that were the motto of the Arab League.

If only.

Democracy in Iraq? It's a Fairy Tale

(Review) Edward Luttwak writes in today's LA Times that the Iraqis are a bunch of bloody wogs who are too ignorant and primitive to be trusted with self government.

Actually, he doesn't actually come right out and say it like that. It's what he means, though.

A majority of Shiites are illiterate or almost so, and the only leaders they recognize are their imams and ayatollahs...As for the Kurds, our good allies who account for about 15% of Iraq's population, they certainly know more than most about the evils of dictatorship, but their own governance is much more tribal than democratic. That is why the Kurdish enclave is divided into two distinct and occasionally warring mini-states, led by the Barazanis and Talabani clans...Coming from a still partly tribal culture of modest accomplishments and unlimited pride, few Sunnis know anything at all about democracy except that it will not reserve 90% of easy government jobs for less than 20% of the population...The officers who now govern towns, city quarters and entire districts are constantly besieged by local leaders and imams demanding more of everything, from electricity to well-paid jobs, but who resist any suggestion that they themselves could act, for example, by leading their followers in badly needed cleanups of garbage-strewn streets. They prefer to keep them listening to their speeches and sermons for hours.

I say! That does seem like a deuced problem for our chaps in the Colonial Office, what?

Perhaps he's right. Perhaps its all just hopeless. Perhaps we should just lie down and wait to die. Or, perhaps he's wrong, and will in due course join the R.W. Apple Quagmire Brigade.

One thing's for sure: If we don't try to help the Iraqis create a reasonable form of self-government, their failure to do so will be in large part our fault.

Like rats leaving a sinking ship

(Review) The "sinking ship" in this case being the USS Gray Davis. Despite proclaiming loudly that no Democrat would sully themselves by standing as a replacement candidate for Gray Davis in the recall, their resolve is shrinking as election day approaches.

As well it should. Gray Davis appears to be an incompetent buffoon. Dick Nixon had a higher voter approval rating on the day he resigned in 1974 than Gray Davis does now. Every reasonable observer predicts that after the recall election, Gray Davis will be driven out of Sacramento like some sort of poison troll.

And if no Democrat runs on the replacement ballot, then the office goes to the Republicans by default. That's simple political stupidity. If the Democrats want to have a hope in hell of keeping the Governor's office in Democratic hands, then there needs to be a Name Democrat on the ballot. Someone who voters recognize, and have good feelings about.

Dianne Feinstein, basically.

The deadline for filing a candidacy is Saturday. It'll be interesting to see how many Democrats jump ship between now and then.

UPDATE: Rep. Loretta Sanchez argues in this morning's LA Times that the Democrats need to put Dianne Feinstein in the recall ballot.

Things fall apart/The center cannot hold...

(Review) Joe Lieberman (D-CN), is warning his party that they are on the verge of heading out to the political wilderness by moving sharply to the left.

"Among the nine Democrats running for president, I am the only one who supported both the Gulf War in 1991 and the war against Saddam this year," he said.

Lieberman also said Operation Iraqi Freedom is now a benchmark of Democratic credibility on national security, but also one of political consistency.

"It is an important test. Non only of whether you supported the war, but whether you stuck to your guns or became ambivalent about it when it became controversial with some parts of the Democratic constituency," he said, making a thinly veiled swipe at two of his opponents.

I suspect that, in the end, the anger that many Democratic constituencies feel towards W will probably overwhelm any good sense on the part of the Democratic Party. The Democratic nomination process is tilted leftwards, and many on the left feel the same unreasoning anger towards W that the right felt about Bill Clinton.

Nominating someone like Howard Dean may make these people feel all warm and snuggly about their moral superiority, but I don't think that a candidate who projects a dovish stance on national security will be able to enjoy the support of a majority of the American people.

And that's a good thing.

As a libertarian, there is much about the Republican Party that I don't like. I'm certainly outside the conservative fold when it comes to issues like abortion; legalization of drugs, prostitution, and other consensual "crimes"; homosexual marriage; and a wide raft of other things. Those simply aren't my issues, no matter how dear they are to the hearts of conservatives in general and Republicans in particular.

But one thing the Republicans do bring to the table, unlike the Democrats, is an absolute willingness to deal with foreign threats, if necessary by bombing them back into the Stone Age, or, at the very least, the Age of Reason. I spent too many years wearing this country's uniform to sit back and relax about threats to this nation's security, or to turn responsibility for maintaining it over to the UN or some other multilateral organization.

Economic Calendar

Factory Orders came in today at a better than expected 1.7% rise, which is sharply up from last month's revised 0.3% increase in factory orders. Once again, we see that the signs of an economic pickup are increasing, despite weakness in the labor market.

We have to look towards Thursday now, for another glimpse at the labor market through the lens of the weekly new unemployment claims number. Consensus estimates are for around 385,000 new claims, which, if true, would put us below 400,000 new claims for the third week in a row.

In point of fact, just looking at the last three weeks of new unemployment claims, I think it might be that last week's unemployment figures overstate the current weakness in the labor market, mainly because the unemployment numbers aren't quite current. So what we're seeing is the state of the labor market as it existed between 2 and 6 weeks ago, while the weekly unemployment claims are giving us a dimmer, but more current picture, and one which implies a strengthening of labor conditions.

Of course, if we're over 400,000 new claims on Thursday, that positive little scenario looks a bit less likely.

Still, it's nice to see the factory orders increase, as it implies that businesses are expecting more sales in the future, and are getting factory orders in now to increase their inventories. Speaking of which, Thursday will give us a look at wholesale inventories as well. Consensus estimates are for no change in invetories, but Briefing.com is actually predicting an increase of 0.2%.

We will see what we will see on Thurday.

If only he'd paid half as much attention to running the state, he wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.

(Review) Gray Davis isn't going down without a fight, evidently. He is suing the California Secretary of State, fellow Democrat Kevin Shelley, on the grounds that the recall is unfair. And unconstitutional besides. Gray Davis wants the California Supreme Court to overturn the State Constitution in the following way:

1) The state constitution says a recall election must be held within 80 days of the Secretary of State's Certification. Davis wants the recall election postponed until the Democratic Primary in March.

2) The state constitution prevents the governor's name from appearing on the list of candidates to replace him should the recall pass. Davis wants his name added to the list of replacements.

In addition, Davis claims the recall is unconstitutional because low voter turnout would effectively disenfranchise "millions of voters". Of course, the fact that the voters would be disenfranchising themselves because they don't wish to vote isn't addressed.

Hopefully, the courts will rule that the law means what it says, rather than what Gray Davis wishes it said.

Economic Roundup

Well, the last day of a busy couple of days on the economic calendar has come to an end. And with all the reports in for today, the picture is a bit mixed.

First, the ISM Index came in at a slightly lower than expected 51.8, compared with consensus expectations of 52.0. Still it’s nice jump over last months 49.8, and put the ISM out of recessionary territory for the first time in 4 months. Purchasing is increasing, which means that businesses are expecting a pick-up of consumer orders. (Consumers appear to be doing their part as well, with personal income and personal spending both up 0.3%.)

The Auto Sales numbers were surprisingly strong this morning, both beating expectations, with auto sales coming in at 5.8 million, compared to consensus expectations of 5.6 million. Truck sales were even stronger, with 8.2 million truck sales, which is much better than the consensus forecast of 7.6 million. So, now we know where that extra 0.3% in consumer spending went.

Another stronger than expected number this morning was the Michigan Consumer Sentiment index. The forecast was for a reading of 90.5, but the actual release was 90.9, showing stronger consumer optimism than expected.

Employment, however, is the one number that puts a little damper on the party. I said yesterday that the proof would be in the non-farm payrolls number, and despite consensus predictions of 10K net new jobs, the payrolls show that instead of creating jobs, the economy is still hemorrhaging them away. This month’s non-farm payrolls showed a net loss of 44,000 jobs. The unemployment rate itself dropped to 6.3%, but the attention given to that number hides the real truth, which is that jobs are still being lost.

This has been a tough year for jobs so far, as you can see below:

Month/Jobs
Jan/158
Feb/-121
Mar/-151
Apr/-22
May/-76
Jun/-72
Jul/-44(p)

We can, I think, hope that the second half of the year will change this jobs picture. If the economy does expand as some of the other economic statistics are indicating, then I think we can hope for increases, rather than losses in non-farm payrolls through the last half of the year.

Legitimacy in Iraq

(Review) Ralph Peters skewers the hypocrisy of World Bank President James Wolfensohn.

In a statement worthy of the French diplomat he apparently aspires to become, World Bank President James Wolfensohn concluded his meeting with the Iraqi Governing Council with the disdainful remark that "a constitution and an elected government would constitute a recognized government, but what do we do in the meantime?"

Whoaaa there, Daddy Warbucks! Hold the sauterne and the foie gras!

I don't recall that Saddam's regime was elected. Or that it governed by a constitution. Yet that terror-state was recognized as legitimate by the world's diplomats and international bankers. Every slithering, interest-bearing one of them.

And now Iraq's interim Governing Council doesn't deserve the level of recognition accorded Saddam Hussein?

It does raise an ionteresting question. The World Bank and the IMF do, after all, deal with any number of unsavory Third World governments without inquiring too closely about their democratic legitimacy.

A Public Display

Review) Charles Krauthammer thinks the objections to displaying the bodies of Usay and Quday is a bit of unwarranted whining.

When the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, Prime Minister Nuri Said, fleeing disguised as a woman, was caught, castrated and hacked to pieces by a crowd. When the strongman who took power, Abdul Karim Kassem, was overthrown five years later, he was shot and his body displayed on television. When Najibullah, deposed dictator of Afghanistan, was killed by the Taliban in 1996, he too was castrated, shot and hung, still alive, from a lamppost.

Given the neighborhood, the complaint about the offense to local sensitivities by the American treatment of the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein is hard to fathom. Not that the public display of overthrown tyrants is by any means an exclusively Muslim custom. Think back only to 1989, when the Ceausescus' summary execution was videotaped and their bodies shown on Romanian television, or, most famously, to Mussolini being strung upside down by the partisans.

FOr whatever reason, people need to see the bodies to accept that theose guys are really gone, and their not coming back. It may be unpleasant, but it does at least have the virtue of serving as a demonstration pour encourager les autres.