July 2008

Michael Ramirez has the last word on the Obama World Tour 2008.

More Obamanomics.

When I first heard this, I thought it was a spoof, but Obama really is saying this. Instead of drilling for oil, we just inflate our tires and get tune-ups? Say, here’s an idea: Why don’t we do both? For some fun, read the comments below the link. And the press actually worried not long ago that it was difficult to spoof Obama, which is why they didn’t go after him. I think there is a different reason for the media’s kid glove treatment, because the guy is a walking parody. Powerline has some fun with this latest pratfall.

Now, if the Democrats said that we should not drill because that way we will have oil when everyone else runs out of it (if that is a likely result), maybe I would listen. But that’s not the message, since that would conflict with the “citizen-of-the-world,” John Lennon “Imagine [there’s no petroleum]” Democrat mindset.

While we are at it, how about some more energy saving proposals of similar intellectual heft:

1.  Eat less, which should be easy, with the higher food prices due to the cost of fuel. The reduction of weight will more than make up for no drilling. Bonus: Drive naked for more weight reduction.

2.  Cut out the floor boards of cars and eliminate the gas pedal. How much gasoline did Fred Flintstone use, after all?

3.  With the Bush-caused Depression-era economy, hire the unemployed to push your car. This works better on city streets than on freeways.

4.  Adjustable side view mirrors that fold in when you are not changing lanes. The lessened winddrag will probably save as much oil as drilling would produce. Eliminate rear view mirrors, because with Obama this will be the first time for everything, and there is no need to look back.

5.  What is it with the American fascination with engine “horsepower”? Let’s think small and change to “hopepower,” as in, “With the Obama energy plans, all we can do is hope for power.” We could even keep the current designation “hp”: “Hey, bro, I’ve got 400 hp under the hood.” “Whoa, and there I thought your European ‘city car’ was lame! This is the change I’ve been waiting for!”

6.  Invest in an all-fuel converter that allows the car to run for brief periods of time on the magic Obama Supreme—hot air.

7.  Eliminate rear seats and trunks. With the coming post-capitalist order, we won’t have material needs and, so, no possessions to carry in the trunk, and we won’t be able to afford children to occupy the back seat.

8.  Wait for the new Michelle Obamamobile, a new “green” envy-ronmental vehicle that runs on bile, thus making it an instant favorite with class-warfare liberals now that the Prius is so Pleasantville. Also, it is easy to operate because it tells the driver exactly what to do at all times. It will eliminate such gas-wasting devices as air conditioning and radios that just allow us to wallow in complacency. It will be the first time that we can be really proud of an American car. There is one gas-wasting glitch that needs to be worked out, though. The Michelle Obamamobile can only make sharp left turns.

9.  What is a car? Saying that it requires four wheels, an engine, and a transmission, just creates categories that serve to divide us. We must move beyond artificial labels concocted by Dead White European-ancestry Males? In our post-modern time, why can’t a car have two wheels, a handlebar, pedals, and chain-guiding gears? Obama is the ideal spokes-person for such a change in attitude. Having people buy only this new type of “car” will save a huge amount of gasoline.

10.  It takes a lot of gas to go on level roads or uphill. It is much less work to go downhill. When Obama is elected, everything will go downhill all the time, including, of course, all streets and highways. Gravity will do the work of the greedy oil companies. Added bonus: Obama won’t need the gas-guzzling limousines, helicopters, and jumbo jet of his reactionary predecessors. He will just float above us all, a feat due to his remarkable lack of gravity.

While the faint light at the end of the economic tunnel may yet turn out to be the headlights of an oncoming train, there is room for cautious optimism. I have posted before about the decline of initial home mortgage delinquencies recently, along with some improvement in other leading indicators. I’d love to see the stock market go up to confirm these signals. But perhaps there is the psychology of irrational austerity still to overcome. One characteristic of what used to be called a “panic” was that it arose suddenly and quickly, but could also disappear as abruptly as it came. To the extent that a part of the current cycle is driven by psychology rather than fundamentals (what Phil Gramm so correctly, but undiplomatically, called a “mental recession”), the mood can change quickly. The more time passes, the more pent-up demand for products will begin to assert itself and can push psychology along with it.

Some additional thoughts on these economic stirrings, from columnist Donald Lambro of the Washington Times. While one has to be cautious about some of the current problems working themselves out fully before another year or two have passed (housing) or five to ten years have passed (energy), right now it does not look like the economy is heading for a crash. I am really happy to see the good report about exports, because that will keep unemployment at tolerable (i.e., non-European) levels, which will free up the Fed to increase interest rates modestly before too long. That should also have a beneficial effect on the dollar and the price of commodities.

I am very skeptical about the “objectivity” of the press. On their editorial pages, the left-leaning bias is even more obvious. But I have also said that, of the largest newspapers, the Washington Post probably has the least tilt to the left. Still, they, too, are generally pro-Obama. But when they get it right, I want to give a thumbs-up. And, boy, do they get it right in this editorial about Obama’s fatuous remarks about the events in Iraq, and, despite his protestations, about his feckless and stubborn “timetable” and artifical decoupling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

An interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about media and “human rights” groups’ sympathies for al Qaeda versus American officials. William McGurn discusses the case of the treatment David Addington has received from the Democrats in Congress and the media and contrasts this with the treatment accorded an al Qaeda combatant who killed one American soldier and maimed another.

If this study is correct, can we please stop talking about how the disparity in performance in math between girls and boys is the product of sexist conditioning, and start to talk about the disparity in performance between boys and girls in language and in educational achievement in general? Maybe we can have the same intense focus and hand-wringing about that problem, one of much greater scope and potential for social trouble. But, of course, that isn’t likely to happen, since the educational establishment doesn’t see the problems of boys being failed by the educational system as pressing. Males aren’t cool, for such politically-correct relics from the 60s.

That said, I am not convinced that the math performance “problem” has gone away. Some of the commenters to the article suggest that the study is flawed, and that the test has been dumbed down to “normalize” the result. They point to the fact that U.S. math performance continues to erode compared to the world.

I am more intrigued by the fact that this equality of performance was achieved by reliance on same-sex classes and schools. Although the article talks about 7 million standardized tests, the study seems to have focused on a particular program in New Jersey. There is considerable research to show that same-sex classes and schools produce enhanced academic performance for both sexes. This happens for the reasons stated by one of the girls—no distraction from the opposite sex, and different learning/teaching methods used. The only problem is that if anyone tries to establish males-only schools or classes, the professional feminists get the vapors. These things immediately get challenged under Title IX and on constitutional grounds. Of course, same-sex education for girls is a “progressive stance that addresses the peculiar needs of girls.” I am not suggesting total segregation of the sexes in a one-size-fits-all approach. I am, however, very much in favor of taking into account in some fashion what evidence and reason have made clear throughout human history: As a general proposition, males and females have different aptitudes, interests, skills, and learning techniques. Those differences should be accommodated. For boys as well as for girls.

Obama seeks to make up for his mistake in opposing the surge in Iraq by abandoning his stance of benign neglect regarding Afghanistan and calling for more troops there. Here is a piece that argues that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same, and that counterinsurgency efforts in one do not necessarily translate to the other, a detail that has escaped Obama so far. This is the classic mistake, simply fighting today’s battle using yesterday’s tactics without considering the differences. I have never been completely convinced that the “surge” alone, measured just by more troops, has turned the tide in Iraq. In part it was the shift in tribal alliances, due both to the appearance of American (Bush’s) seriousness to finish the task in Iraq and the overreaching by al Qaeda in Iraq through their brutality. Mainly I think that it was the change in counterinsurgency strategy introduced by General Petraeus (for which the increased number of troops was central). In part it was simply the length of time that the U.S. trained Iraqi troops that increasingly could take part in the operations in larger numbers.

Also, see this article for a further explanation of the problems with simply increasing forces as the U.S. did on Iraq. After all, the Soviet Union poured troops into Afghanistan to no avail. The real solution is the manner of fighting and by whom and what type of forces, combined with political alliances. The fractured nature of Afghan society in the frontier regions makes the Iraqi tribal areas look as if they are governed by political machines.

Here is a case of yet another disclosure of sensitive information by the favorite newspaper of America’s enemies, The New York Times. This time they revealed the identity of an interrogator of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, despite concerns for his safety voiced by his lawyers and the CIA. The newspaper claimed that revealing the name would make the story more authentic. Strange, but the media seem to have no problem citing “senior administration officials” or “unnamed sources” when it suits them. And the media go on and on about the need not to disclose names when to do so might dry up sources. So, the publication of a specific name cannot be that crucial to journalistic endeavors. Also, weren’t the media types, especially The Times so outraged by the disclosure by Robert Novak (via Richard Armitage) of the identity of a (non-secret) CIA desk employee named Valerie Plame? One might think that The Times’s outrage there was just because they didn’t get to leak the name.

I have posted previously about the annoying Al Gore. He is just so easy to ridicule, and I have to admit to deep satisfaction when doing so. His pushy and hectoring elitist environmentalism has always seemed to me like selfish economic posturing, given his investment in an energy-cap-trading venture. Then, of course, we add to that the energy-devouring mansion, other residences, private airplane rides, SUVs, etc., etc. Nor are his wealthy Hollywood supporters and political acolytes such as Arianna Huffington any better. Yet these people are feted in the media and among the “beautiful and connected” people as environmental warriors, examples to be heard and emulated, and morally superior beings for their perceived sacrifices (such as storing a Prius in the garage) toward a paradise of all-embracing environmental socialism.

On the other hand, George W. Bush is derided as an “oilman,” an ecologic despoiler, and someone to be demonized and shunned as a Neanderthal supporter of selfish polluting capitalism.

Well, now, hold on to your Stetsons. Check out the facts. Let’s compare the houses of Messrs. Gore and Bush. Bet you didn’t know this. I certainly haven’t heard any of this in the media. These inconvenient truths have been known to the media for years, yet they continue to persist in their mis-characterizations of Gore and Bush on environmental matters. For more information about the comparative environmental actions of Gore and Bush, read this hard-hitting commentary and, especially, the links provided there. (One of the links, about the Kyoto alternative, may not work. Here is the fixed link.) On one point, the media depictions are correct. Bush likes practical, free-market, choice-based, pro-growth environmentalism, whereas Gore prefers the statist, command-and-control, ideological, quasi-religious, no-growth kind (for you and me, but not for him, of course).

Once again, liberals revel in their feel-good hypocritical talk, while conservatives walk the walk and balance the goals of environmentalism with the desires and choices of individuals.

I am linking here to a series of quotes from wannabe-Chairwoman Michelle. The link is to Jim Geraghty’s Campaign Spot, which, in  turn, links to additional articles and posts. These quotes demonstrate to me, at least, that Mrs. Obama is even more self-absorbed, negative, whiny, elitist, snobbish, controlling, and radical than her husband, and without his ease and charm. That “controversial” recent New Yorker cover that protrayed her as a wild-eyed revolutionary is rather tame. But then what do I know? I’ve never had to try to get by financially raising my seven children on $400,000+ salary plus $500,000+ royalties. On the other hand, her remark that the $600 stimulus payment is a one-time temporary fix is true. However, like the proverbial broken clock that is right twice a day, she follows that (accidental) insight with her complaints about the horrible state of American economics which her husband’s plans will only make worse. Of course, what Geraghty calls dysfunctional populism about how terrible things have gotten year after year (despite all statistical evidence to the contrary) is a staple of Democratic Party politics. John Kerry made that a centerpiece of his campaign in 2004, though he didn’t have the skills of fakery to carry that off, given his mansions and his wife’s inherited wealth from her prior husband. Of course, the master has been John Edwards in 2004 and 2008. Remember the “two Americas”? I always thought that referred to the one that Edwards lived in, complete with gargantuan mansion, versus the other in which the rest of us lived (except Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Kohl, and a large number of other Dem Senators).

Here is a link to an earlier New Yorker puff piece about the poor, misunderstood woman.  This piece contains some of the quotes from the Campaign Spot post.

Now, this is interesting. The ban on off-shore oil drilling comes up for its annual reauthorization shortly before the election. In light of the polls that show the voters overwhelmingly supporting increased production, this could be a political winner that puts Nan, the San Fran Gran and Speaker of the House, and her minions on the defensive. 

When one is faced with this, however, common sense is difficult to come by. As I have noted before, if con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?

I have read Obama’s well-covered speech in Berlin. I have also read some of the many reviews, favorable and otherwise in foreign and U.S. publications. As in the U.S., the media generally (but not entirely) fawn over Obama. Ditto for the people at the speech, most of whom are young and students or professional types. The politicians (most of whom have met John McCain) are considerably more reserved about the miracle that is Obama.

At one level, the speech merely sounds like the typical speech a pol might give in any city during a political campaign. He flatters the local eminences and the local denizens, he tries to show some connection between himself and the locals, and he talks about some topics that are dear to the locals. All of those standard elements are there. The speech, especially when delivered by someone with Obama’s flair for reading prepared texts, is good. But it is hardly overwhelming, and it reads at times as if he is going through the motions. I have not heard the speech, but others that heard the audio remarked that the candidate at times sounded like he wanted to leave. But again, not having heard it myself, I cannot vouch for that.

But on another level, there are some troubling sentiments expressed in the speech. The whole “citizen of the world” intro is annoying. If Obama wants to run for president of the world, fine. But as a citizen of the U.S., running for the President, this suggests that he is a man of dual loyalties, to the U.S. and to the rest of the world. A basic principle of the law is that one cannot loyally serve two masters. If there is a conflict, which can Obama be counted on to serve? In light of his previous speeches about how the rest of the world “won’t let us” drive what we want, eat what we want, and turn on our lights as we want (unless we’re Al Gore), there is reason to be concerned.

What is it with the odd pairing of the dangers Obama sees in the world today? He talks about the terrorist bombings and in the next sentence about melting ice caps from cars in Boston? And “drought in Kansas”? That’s due to cars in Boston? Now we know why there was a dust bowl in the 1930s! It was those Model Ts and Stutz Bearcats.

Why does he equate the endemic European anti-Americanism, born of jealousy and kept alive by the increasingly authoritarian elitist political class in the bureaucratic EU, with the (by and large correct) view of Americans that Europe no longer matters much? At least not the “old Europe” of Donald Rumsfeld. Most Americans don’t spend much time worrying about Europe and when they see Europeans, they treat them with curiosity and respect. Too many Europeans, on the other hand, are fixated on their anti-Americanism. I hasten to add, however, that this mental failing does not afflict all Europeans. I have known several young people who have come over here and who admire the U.S., and some who would like to move here.

He has a strange perception of the reasons for the Berlin airlift. It had nothing to do with a shared commitment to progress. It had to do with more immediate military needs.

His call for free and fair trade is disingenuous. Those two are mutually exclusive. When “fair” trade is used, the speaker wants to constrain free trade. There and in another part of the speech where he inveighs against globalization, he is just another anti-free trade pol seeking to return the economy to the prosperity of the 1930s.

Why does he want the U.S. to emulate Germany on industrial “emissions”? The Europeans have not met their own Kyoto goals, and have just ignored them. And that has happened, even though the Germans received a baseline predicated on the old heavily-polluting East German industries that were so economically inefficient that many had to be dismantled. The Europeans have nothing to show to us in that regard. And, once again, he starts in with that nonsense about how he is going to make the waters go down and assuage those fearsome storms. But this time, he’s not going to do it alone. He’s going to do it with the Europeans.

The French newspaper Le Monde gives the theme of Obama’s speech as “Help us.” And that is just how he comes across. It’s the U.S. atoning for its sins and asking the Europeans to like us again. That is how the Europeans see this. That is how Obama and his constituency among the American elites, such as the academic nomenklatura, see it. It plays to a European conceit of “soft power.” It also plays into the European fancy that they get to participate in U.S. policy to constrain Americans acting in their self-interest, particularly through the use of “hard power.” But if it suits the Europeans’ interest, why, it is good to have American military power to further that interest (such as in the Balkans). Heck, it beats having to forego that wonderful European welfare state and use funds actually to defend themselves. If Obama wants a timetable to withdraw from Iraq after only six years and not to have bases there, how about withdrawing from Europe after sixty years? Let’s let the Europeans take care of their own business, rather than hiding under Uncle Sam’s military umbrella, all the while trying their best to undercut the U.S.? Have we alreafy forgotten Chirac and Schroeder?

His remark about rejecting torture and following the rule of law is a thinly-disguised jab at the Bush administration. Since when did the Bush administration endorse torture? Since when did they not follow the law? Unlike Clinton in the Balkans, Bush got Congressional approval and even sought U.N. approval. Whenever the Supreme Court, by thin majorities, overturned its own precedents to cast doubt on a Bush administration policy, the administration listened and got Congress’ help to implement how it read the Court’s opinion. And if we want to talk about civil rights, perhaps the Europeans should address the continuing assaults on freedom of speech in their countries, where legitimate criticism and politically-incorrect expressions of opinion are routinely prosecuted.

But I don’t know that this speech will play well in Peoria, if the American people are paying attention. If this was a speech for consumption in the U.S., it may be a mis-step. The speech is long on sentiment (and some of that is cringe-inducing) and woefully void of specifics. How will Obama get rid of all nuclear weapons? How will he end the problems in Darfur, Chad, Iran, Bangladesh, Burma, and Zimbabwe, all while causing the ice caps not to melt and the seas not to rise? Is this a call for years of Americans solving the world’s problems (with the Europeans, of course, since they have performed so well in the talks with Iran and on the battlefields of Afghanistan)? Thanks, but no thanks.

 Here is Rush Limbaugh’s take on the speech. No one can work himself into a lather like Rush, and he is in peak form.

Here is the interpretation by the Powerline guys. Their take is generally similar to mine, but they add some concise points about what the speech tells us about an Obama administration.

Here is a column that also picks up on the notion that this speech with its pandering to the Europeans may not play that well with American voters. Both the “citizen of the world” gaffe and Obama’s horrible mistake in blowing off a visit to wounded soldiers at the American military hospital give McCain openings that he has begun to exploit already.

There is nothing to add. The Word has been given. You must receive the Word. Now.

I didn’t write this, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed:

“Today, we mourn the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense.
Common Sense lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the Millennium. No one really knows how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He selflessly devoted his life to service in schools; hospitals, homes, factories and offices, helping folks get jobs done without fanfare and foolishness.
For decades, petty rules, silly laws and frivolous lawsuits held no power over Common Sense. He was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when to come in from rain, the early bird gets the worm and life isn’t always fair.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adults are in charge, not the kids), and it’s okay to come in second.
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Technological Revolution, Common Sense survived cultural and educational trends including feminism, body piercing, whole language and new math.
But his health declined when he became infected with the “if-it-only-helps-one-person-it’s-worth-it” virus. In recent decades, his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal legislation.
He watched in pain as good people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers and enlightened auditors. His health rapidly deteriorated when schools endlessly implemented zero tolerance policies; when reports were heard of six year old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; when a teen was suspended for taking a swig of mouthwash after lunch; when a teacher was fired for reprimanding an unruly student. It declined even further when schools had to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student but couldn’t inform the parent when a female student is pregnant or wants an abortion.
Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, criminals received better treatment than victims, and federal judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional sports.
As the end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments, regarding questionable regulations for asbestos, low-flow toilets, smart guns, the nurturing of Prohibition Laws and mandatory air bags.
Finally, when told that the homeowners association restricted exterior furniture only to that which enhanced property values, he breathed his last.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son Reason. His three stepbrothers survive him: Rights, Tolerance and Whiner.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.”

Back when Mr. Rogers was on television, some people dismissed that Gray Davis look-alike as not being “relevant” to children. So the edgier, more urban Sesame Street came along. Apparently that show also lacks relevance to the tykes in certain parts of the world. What to do? Palestinian television shows the way. I can see other possibilities now. Stay tuned for Hamas TV and Blow-Me-Up Elmo, KABOOMafoo, Thomas the Tank, and Bob the Bomber: “Can we bomb it? Yes, we can!” (Wait, that last phrase has a ring to it.) I’d love to see Hamas TV do an adult show like “Judge Judy” or “People’s Sharia Court.” It’d be a hands-offdown ratings winner.

I am not sure I want to act as an employment broker. But, given that some law students and recent law graduates may have difficulty finding employment, yet have significant financial obligations, I thought it might be helpful to direct them to this help wanted ad. Craig’s List certainly is an innovative way to advertise servicing wanted. NOTE: This ad is rated, well, more risque’ than G.

As rumors fly that John McCain will soon announce his choice for vice-president, I will have a go at some predictions and evaluations. In light of McCain’s comparatively advanced age, his selection for V.P. will be more closely scrutinized than normal.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)—a daring choice. Emphasizes McCain’s “independent” streak and ability to work “across the aisle.” Might appeal to disaffected moderate Democrats, especially Jews, put off by the Obamessiah’s leftist roots. Could help in potentially close states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, N.H., Connecticut, and Florida. Personally is a nice and decent guy, so can balance McCain’s grenade-with-firing-pin-pulled image. He and McCain are good friends and political allies. Downside: Joe is a liberal hawk. Might turn off an already highly skeptical base; think “McCain-Lieberman Global Warming Bill.” Adds nothing in regards to domestic policy (McCain’s weaker side). Provides no executive experience. Having two Senators on ticket hasn’t worked often, and not at all since Kennedy-Johnson. Also adds no buzz and probably registers lower than McCain on the Excite-o-meter. Two Older White Guys is probably not the best way to go.

Governor Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) Close McCain associate. Helped McCain campaign immensely with his support at a crucial time in the primaries. Popular in Florida and can lock up a potentially close state. Adds “executive experience” to the ticket. He and McCain like each other and are politically in sync. Downside: McCain will probably win Florida anyway with Crist campaigning for him. While Crist is a decent speaker, he’s still not going to get the girls fainting like Obama. Not as conservative as his popular predecessor, Jeb Bush, so won’t be a big draw for them (but not a turn-off, either). While distinguished-looking, he also looks too much like McCain. See the Two Older White Guys comment, above.

Governor Tom Ridge (R-Pa.) Bland choice. Popular governor in his state, so could make Pennsylvania a battleground. As former Homeland Security Secretary, has important executive experience. Downside: Ridge’s pro-abortion stance will do nothing to allay concerns of social conservatives that McCain is not really their man at heart. Ridge is not a scintillating speaker and looks like a typical pol. See the Two Older White Guys comment, above.

Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) The Huckster was openly competing for this position when he and McCain tag-teamed Romney in the primaries, and when he continued to run even after McCain was on the expressway to the nomination. Might help McCain with certain social conservatives. Has a network of supporters and contributors. Adds executive experience (though being governor of Arkansas may not be seen as an overwhelmingly positive attribute by Republicans). Pretty good speaker, especially off-the-cuff (unlike a certain Teleprompter orator on the other side). Enough musical hipness to impress the ladies at the meeting hall, though not enough to get Obamagirl to switch her infatuation. Downside: McCain will win the South anyway. When Huck kept running, after a while the McCain camp thought that the joke was overdone. It’s not clear that McCain is over his irritation. Huck may help with the social conservatives, but the whiff of economic “Christian socialism” that emanates from some of his speeches makes him a dicey choice for the economic conservatives that McCain largely has in his corner. Also will not sit well with a large Republican constituency that is annoyed at his innuendos about Romney’s religion during the primaries. Did I mention the problem of Two Older White Guys?

Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) Telegenic, brilliant, economic success story. Brings wealth and plenty of donors. Brings great executive experience that would help the ticket, as well as economic expertise to shore up McCain’s weakness there. Has shown ability to work across the aisle, but stand his ground, if necessary. Seen as a class act who can smooth some of the “rougher edges” of McCain’s public persona. Pretty good, though not great, speaker. If the measure of qualification for V.P. is whether one could see him as President, no candidate fits that better than Romney. Could help make Michigan close (if McCain stops going there and antagonizing the auto workers with his speeches). Could help McCain eke out a win in Utah. Just kidding on that last one. If Obama and McCain switched parties, but kept their same views, Obama would win in a landslide in Utah, the most Republican state in the Union. Downside: Story has it that McCain detests him viscerally. Now, that didn’t stop Kennedy from picking Johnson, but the dynamics of the 1960 Dem nomination contest and convention were different from the GOP race this year. Also, his religion is going to turn off some of the Huckabee true-believers. McCain cannot afford to alienate the religious conservatives, who are already quite suspicious of him after having had a friend in George W. A fevered chunk of them seems to think that a Mormon anywhere near the White House will deliver the country into the hands of the Antichrist. Other problems: Won’t create a buzz. His name (”Mitt”?!?!). With a son named “Tagg”? What’s next? A couple of kids named “You’re” and “Out”? Still, a safe bet in some ways and would probably take the gig because of the exposure ahead of the 2012 campaign, if McCain loses or decides not to run for reelection. But more likely a Cabinet Secretary, perhaps in Treasury or Commerce.

Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) OK, I like this guy. Young, experienced (several terms in the House of Representatives), popular (well, who wouldn’t be after the disastrous Governor Kathleen Blanco of Katrina incompetence infamy), telegenic, intelligent, pretty good speaker. Would bring great economic credentials. Solidifies Louisiana (though I think McCain will win there handily, anyway). Would bring buzz because of his youth, his American success story, and his ethnicity (parents are from India). Downside: His youth (he’s 36) is going to contrast awkwardly with the twice-as-old McCain. Since people vote for the presidential nominee, this could hurt McCain compared to Obama. Also was elected only recently as governor, so his executive experience is not that helpful (though it is more than Obama can offer). He may also want to finish his term as governor and then shoot for 2012 or 2016 (or anything up to 2040).

Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) Let me get this out there: she is my favorite. Photogenic (I enjoyed her on the cover of Vogue), decent speaker, very popular, has the all-American career mom/soccer mom appeal (5 kids—one in the Army, one with Downs’ Syndrome). Solid conservative, but not rabidly ideological. Now, think of Hillary (I know, me, too, but try anyway); then think of the opposite of everything you know about Hillary and you have Governor Palin. Downside: Too perfect. Will make the buzz about her, not McCain. Almost as with Bobby Jindal, her comparative youth (age 44) and her good looks will remind voters of McCain’s age. A bit short on high-level executive experience (but, again, more than Obama has). Won’t help McCain win any significant state. Alaska only has three electoral votes (though Gore would have loved to have had those in 2000) and is one of the most Republican states in the Union. She may also want to finish her term as governor. Her family obligations, especially towards her Downs’ Syndrome baby, may deter her from taking the V.P. spot.

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) Comparatiely youthful, experienced, popular, vigorous campaigner, savvy politician. CO-CHAIRMAN of McCain’s presidential campaign. Has shown he can reach across the aisle, yet hold his own in a state that has Al Franken (!) as the likely Democratic nominee for Senator. Good executive experience to balance McCain’s foreign policy strengths. Moderately conservative, as much as likely is possible in Minnesota. Solid on taxes, which will solidify economic conservative support. Former Catholic, who converted to evangelical Protestantism. May be a net gain for McCain among religious conservatives. Geographic balance. Could help McCain make Minnesota close and even tip it (though in 2008 that’s an uphill battle). It’s a state that some GOP optimists see as turning purple. Can also help McCain more broadly in neighboring states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and with ethnic voters in general (Pawlenty is of Polish/German background). And, guess what? The G.O.P. convention is in MINNESOTA! No major downsides I can see.

Result: I think GOVERNOR PAWLENTY is the most likely choice. Second choice is Mitt Romney, after very loud teeth-gnashing from McCain. You’ll just be able to feel the love at the convention, won’t you? Third choice is Charlie Crist. Of course, now that I’ve gone on record, McCain will probably pick Carly Fiorina or someone else no one is discussing.

I have written occasionally about how the large “mainstream” media are in the tank for Obama, with nary a pretense any longer at objectivity. As Rush says, they are the “media wing of the Democratic Party.” It looks like there is a winner in the competition for shallowest puff piece on Obama. Astonishingly, it isn’t Newsweek, though they made a valiant effort. Rolling Stone, too, should get honorable mention, along with Slate and the New York Times. But while there can only be one winner, there are no losers in the effort to join as a propaganda phalanx for Obama (oh, except the American people).

Here is Michael Ramirez’s take on the media’s schoolgirl infatuation with the Beatles Obama.

Have you heard lots of media coverage of the “secret” visit by John Edwards to his “mistress” and their suspected “love child”? I haven’t either. Certainly not, say, like the coverage of Senator Larry Craig’s bathroom footplay. Could that be due to media bias? When Slate magazine lists that as a definite concern, you know that media bias in favor of liberals and Democrats is not a right-wing construct.

Some additional commentary, including thoughts attributed to Andrew Sullivan, about the impact of these revelations on homosexuals. [CAUTION: The topic, though humerous, may be challenging for some.] Is it only I, or does Edwards’s “friend” look like Camilla Parker-Bowles (Prince Charles’s current wife) on a really bad day?

Michael Medved’s column about the similarities of the war in Iraq and the war of the Philippine insurrection about a hundred years ago. This is a column that I have been wanting to write, but Medved has done it for me. A couple of points: When we discuss the President’s war powers in my constitutional law course, among other things I ask them what constitutes a “war” that needs some sort of clear authorization from Congress, versus a lesser military response that may be more clearly within the President’s independent domain as Chief Executive of the U.S. and as Commander-in-Chief. Two—but certainly not the only two—factors are the size and length of the effort. In that sense both are “wars.” I then compare the death figures of various wars, and consider the population statistics to show the students what a real war looks like. From that perspective, the wars in Iraq and in the Philippines are minor tiffs, compared to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, Korea and Vietnam. That does not denigrate the real-life impact that every death has on the deceased’s family, the same that death from any other source has on the family of the deceased. But it should put the anti-war hysteria in some perspective.

Another point is that there was intense debate at home, as Medved mentions. There was a lot of soul-searching about having an overseas “colonial empire.” As part of that discussion, the Supreme Court weighed in with The Insular Cases. Those cases dealt with rather dry matters such as tariffs on imports, but the opinions delved into fundamental questions about the application of the Constitution to those territories. There was one view that only those Constitutional rights that the political branches chose to recognize applied. Another view would extend the Constitution wherever the United States went. The compromise view provided that certain constitutional rights applied of their own force; others depended on action by the political branches, depending on the status of the territory.

Despite the views of detractors of American actions yesterday, today, and tomorrow, American imperialism was always self-conscious, unlike that of the typical superpower. It reminds me of the Rolling Stones doing political message songs. It was obvious that they didn’t believe their own message, but went along because everyone else was doing it and it was economically advantageous. In the Philippines that translated to a plan for eventual independence rather than a plan for long-term occupation and suzerainty. In Iraq, the plan is the same, though the time line is condensed.

One more minor point about the Medved article. Obviously, he is (correctly) comparing William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic nominee in 1896, 1900, and 1908 to Obama. In addition to their comparable oratorical skills, they have similar intelligence. But they share something else, too. Bryan was said to have “an intellect like the Platte River, a mile wide, but an inch deep.”

If you want a precise summary of McCain’s problems in this campaign, Scrappleface has it for you. Obama is seen by many as the Promised One, so why have an election at all? The media are in the tank for Obama and follow him like rats did the Pied Piper. McCain generates excitement the way Obama generates an intelligent policy.  McCain prefers to aim his strongest salvos at conservatives, and reserve his gestures of graciousness for his opponents. Hence, McCain’s support among the majority of Republican likely voters ranges from tepid to lukewarm.

There is the old joke about the guy who wants to do research on hearts, so he goes to the morgue, where there are various hearts in jars. There are hearts from carpenters, architects, nurses, doctors, and so on, marked at $50 per heart. Then in a corner he notices a jar with a lawyer’s heart, marked $500. He asks why this heart is so expensive. The coroner tells him, “Do you know how rare it is to find a lawyer with a heart?”

Well, changing that joke a little bit makes it fit the scarcity of brains among government bureaucrats, a case in point being the TSA. My wife and two of my children went on vacation last week to visit my in-laws in Salt Lake City. We drove to Los Angeles International Airport. At the Unnamed Air Line that flies from Terminal 7 at LAX, Los Angeles, California, UNITED States, my wife was unable to check in because the machine refused to complete the ticket printing. When my wife sought help from the Unnamed Air Line clerk, he spent 15 minutes going from machine to machine to get the tickets to print. When none of them cooperated, (perhaps they belonged to the same union and did not want to cross the ticket line) the clerk eventually decided that the computer required my daughter to show a passport for the tickets to be printed. This presented a problem, since my daughter (did I mention she is SEVEN years old?) has never been out of the U.S. and has no passport. When so informed, the Unnamed Air Line clerk consulted with others for another 25 minutes. The tickets eventually appeared, and my wife and children headed to the gate after we said our good-byes.

But the story was far from over. Upon reaching the security scanner, my wife, with two kids and carry-on bags in tow, emptied her pockets, removed shoes, rings, watch, coins, body piercings, teeth fillings (just kidding about the last two), as we have all been trained to do by now. Everyone trooped through the cattle inspection chute, er, I mean, the close-scanner-of-intimate-details machine. For once, the buzzer remained quiet, and my wife thought that she was well on her way to sitting in the cramped seats on the commuter jet run by Unnamed Air Line’s contract partner.

But, hold on there, not so fast. She was told to go straight ahead, while everyone else going through the line went to the side to get dressed and reassemble their belongings being disgorged by the x-ray machine, relieved that they had escaped further delay and inconvenience. The TSA flack asked my wife if she knew why they were being searched. Now, I can think of three responses right away. “Because my tail light is out?” “Because I am the most attractive person you’ve seen all day?” and “Because you are fulfilling your quota of hassling people who have not the slightest resemblance to the people who have been responsible for every air plane hijacking?” (Did I mention that my wife is slightly over six foot tall, has long blonde hair and blue eyes, was towing two children, and, as a normal American female, was wearing clothes that would make it difficult to hide weaponry?)

My wife, being smarter than I, simply replied that she had no idea. Whereupon, she was informed that she had been “selected on a purely random basis.” Riiight. The “purely random” search, which involved taking a spread eagle stance and having a patdown, then extended to our seven-year-old daughter. (Did I mention that she too has long blonde hair and blue eyes?)

But the best was yet to come. A voice called out for a “male” to do a search. When such a strong specimen of TSA manhood appeared, the last “random selectee” was dealt with–our TWO-YEAR-OLD son. He, too, had to assume the spread-eagled position for his search, while our fine all-American TSA specimen patted him down. (Did I mention that our son has blond hair and blue eyes, and, oh, that he is TWO YEARS OLD?)

The whole experience shows the lunacy of the current TSA approach. I don’t believe the “random search” line. After all, this followed within minutes the problem with my daughter and her phantom passport at the Unnamed Air Line counter. Somehow, through some government foul-up, she is probably on a watch list for seven-year-old Barbie princess terrorists. Meanwhile, the four bearded twenty-something males fingering beads while shouting Allahu Akhbar and wearing “Obama Osama Rules” buttons will pass by with nary a glance from our uniformed human bloodhounds.

My wife has repeatedly “won” this random selection. Unless they are checking one out of every six to eight persons (which clearly isn’t the case), this shows amazing “luck.” The random selection odds are downright Darwinian. If she were this lucky in the lottery, we would be living in a beach house on Kauai. So, I cannot help but think that the dice are loaded. Someone has his hand on the roulette wheel. They are peeking when they draw the numbers. She looks so quintessentially Nordic that I am going with the politically correct quota, instead: FWB-M “Flying While Blonde, Mom.”

But let us go with the “random selection” line. Is there also a randomness to the application of common sense? Searching a 7-year old and a 2-year old? I mean, the little guy does sometimes unload substances into his diaper that are of a toxicity that may violate various treaties on chemical and biological weapons. But to have some stranger tower over him and then make him take a spread eagle stance while searching him is scary. The TSA already has the reputation that they search people in wheel chairs and arthritic little old ladies, along with the nursing infants. Isn’t it time that someone took them aside and said, “You know that stuff that keeps you from sticking a pencil in one ear and have it come out the other? Use it.”

Maybe it is time for alternative security measures. I am perfectly happy to undergo a security background check and then have a fingerprint or eye scan to speed up the security process when I want to fly. Or let’s try the El Al Israel Airlines approach, which focuses on getting the job done, rather than being politically correct. Instead of “random searches” that prove only a dedication to appearances, they focus on profiling and questioning suspicious individuals. Now I’m not suggesting profiling in the sense of searching every 7-year-old Fatima and 2-year-old Mo. But there are intelligent ways to do focused searches on those who trigger individualized suspicion. Or there is the TSA way.

A few weeks ago, I posted about the Medellin decision by the Supreme Court. In that case the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the Bush administration to order the Texas courts to review a conviction of a Mexican national (resident in the U.S. for most of his life) for a gang rape/murder. Medellin was sentenced to death. He had received legal assistance, but had not been advised of his rights to talk to a Mexican consular official. The International Court of Justice had told the U.S. that this violated international law, and that the U.S. needed to review the conviction. While the ICJ decision was not directly applicable to the federal or state courts of the U.S., the administration (to the accolades of their usual opponents in the academy and among “human rights” groups) directed the Texas courts to comply. This unilateralism by the Bush administration was found unconstitutional.

Now Mexico has gone back to the ICJ to get a decision to block Medellin’s execution. This is a further example of Mexican meddling in the internal affairs of the U.S., on behalf of people with whom Mexico hardly has close connection, seeing that Medellin has lived here most of his life. It also shows the perverse disregard in which liberals hold constitutional niceties such as separation of powers and federalism when matters of American national security are not at stake.

The Obama campaign was rather upset at the New Yorker’s cover, and Obama himself expressed disgust at the portrayal of his wife. Many media and other leftist types joined the chorus. (Here is an appropriate evaluation of the reaction to the cover.) I pointed out the much harsher cartoons and other works about McCain and members of the current administration. From the media there have been only the sounds of crickets chirping about the assassination and torture fantasies of some of their own. Another \”artist\” is making news now with yet another “assassinate Bush” original, this time in the form of a video game. Boy, these artists are just so edgy and daring, always exploring concepts that go against the grain of their peers. If Obama is elected I cannot wait for an “artist” to do a similar work that aims for the assassination of Obama, unlikely though it be that any artist would be that edgy. If such a work did appear. it will be vigorously defended by the artist’s peers as an exercise of his First Amendment rights, won’t it? [Just to be clear for any liberal Berkeley graduates that might read this, I am not calling for anyone’s assassination.]

One of the points frequently made by attorneys for the Gunatanamo detainees is how their clients have languished in their cells without hearings or trials because of government dilatoriness. Of course, that isn’t really the main cause for these delays, as Chief Justice Roberts made clear in his dissent in the recent Gitmo detainee case. Leaving aside the fact that these people received some review of their situation before they were even brought to Gitmo, the problem has been the constant litigiousness of these accused unlawful enemy combatants and their law professor/attorney enablers. Think just about the Supreme Court challenges and the need for Presidential and Congressional responses: The executive branch creation of a review process (2001-2002); Rasul v. Bush (2004); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004); The Detainee Treatment Act (2005); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006); The Military Commissions Act (2006); Boumediene v. Bush (2008). The process of getting a case before the Supreme Court takes time, so these guys began litigating fairly early. Roberts wondered aloud why these people didn’t just go through the established process, rather than litigate, and then see whether they got a fair hearing. Of course, that’s not as sexy for the lawyers out to make a name for themselves.

Well, guess what? Once more, that same Hamdan from the 2006 case wants to delay his hearing. The government is pushing to have him tried, but Hamdan (and his law professor/attorney representatives) wants to delay this until the federal courts have some other procedure in place. So he goes to court to get an order to force the government not to try him yet. You’d think he’d want to get out as soon as possible, because they are all innocent and wrongly held, aren’t they? This time, at least, the federal court didn’t bite. The judge allowed the trial before the military commission at Guantanamo to go forward. The government is pleased. Hamdan and his enablers are deciding whether to appeal their loss and delay the trial yet again while he rots in that terrible gulag that is a blot on America’s reputation.

While the trial has now begun, Attorney General Mukasey has urged Congress to legislate to clear up the unresolved issues from the Gunatanamo detainee cases. Here is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal that is rather skeptical that Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers will produce anything of substance and avoid further judicial meddling.

From National Review comes Andrew McCarthy’s take on the decision. McCarthy was the prosecutor at the trial of the “blind sheikh” who was found guilty of masterminding the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Another Obama post. Things get curiouser and curiouser. If one did not hear or see the actual words, it would be difficult to believe that someone like this could become the President of the U.S. In a way this is fascinating, about like watching a car wreck.

Here are a couple of hard-hitting and absolutely correct columns on the quasi-religious adoration of Obama, by his acolytes and by himself. In a sense, this is not really news about Obama. We have heard before about the “fainting female fans” at his ralliesspeeches and the “I changed my name to Hussein” cadres. The first half, about Obama’s acolytes, is covered in this column by Michael Medved on the cult of Obama, the second, about Obama himself, in this piece by Charles Krauthammer on the self-absorption of the candidate. It is difficult to recall when a candidate with such an excessive faith in his own messianism ran for office, and it is equally difficult to recall when a presidential candidate was such an empty suit. Messianic candidates are bad news for individual freedom. Hoping that this is all a political con game, and that Obama does not believe the fawning coverage by obsequious media, is a slender reed. Sooner or later, if he does not already believe in his superhuman nature, Obama will begin to believe his own press. BONUS: Some piling on from Jonah Goldberg. When the Boston Globe (!) gets into the game, as well, you know there is something to this beyond right-wing carping.

Speaking of press, the coverage of the Obama World Tour 2008 shows the extent of the media’s effort on behalf of the candidate. Note the lack of similar coverage for McCain’s trips to Colombia, Israel, Iraq, Mexico, etc. The argument that this is because Obama is a “new guy” is laughable. That might have worked in early 2007, but he’s still a new guy whom the voters don’t know? How many covers has he been on and how much coverage has he gotten according to the New York Times?! His travels will be covered by the fawning media like this is the biggest thing to happen to the human race, bar none. His speeches will be ginned up to be rallies and will be covered as such. Remember, before Obama no Republican (and only one Democrat—JFK) has found it appropriate to give an acceptance speech at a sports stadium. Convention centers that seat 20,000+ have usually been found sufficient for the task. On the other hand, political rallies at large sports stadia are not uncommon in certain political cultures of less properly republican pedigree.

Yes, it is that time of the season. One of my favorite Bob Dylan tunes with, ahh, slightly different words.

Al Gore has to be one of the most insufferable prigs in American politics. He is constantly lecturing and hectoring the common folk on how to limit their lifestyle, to accolades from a politicized Nobel Prize Committee and the clueless Hollywood nouveaux riches. He, on the other hand, is quite happy to live in an energy-devouring super-mansion, fly on private aircraft, and be driven around in large vehicles (while his “for show” Prius sits in the garage). I should also note that he is a general partner in an energy company that will stand to make serious money if a broad cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions is established through rigorous emissions limitations.

Planet Gore is National Review’s environmental blog. The name is great, and the blog itself very informative. Most of the links for this post come from there.

Here are some questions for Al. I especially like the last one in regards to Al’s electricity usage, which increased after he made his mansion more “energy-efficient.”

Here is another post, this one on the flight of fantasy that is Al Gore’s call to scrap all current energy generation within ten years. The Wall Street Journal chimes in.

And then there is this one on Al’s carbon footprint at the very speech in which he is telling others to cut back on their lifestyles. I don’t have two Lincoln Towncars and an SUV for me and my entourage when I give a presentation.

Some discouraging news about wind power, which Al favors, and I’ll pass on the obvious cheap joke at Al’s expense. Discouraging, that is, for consumers, but not for the lobbyists and the taxpayer-subsidized developers.

When I see the “Save Tibet” or “Save Darfur” bumperstickers on the Subarus of earnest liberals, I want to ask them, “So, how’s that bumpersticker working out for the people in Tibet [Darfur]?” Such stickers are cheap ways to make the owner feel morally good with a minimum of effort. “At least, I care,” is the message, “Not like the rest of you.” That Tibet hasn’t been saved in half a century, and won’t be at the rate that ethnic Chinese are settling there, and that Darfur is one of many fault lines in the Sudan in a centuries-old tribal struggle with ethnic and religious elements and roots in the slave trade, doesn’t seem to slow them down. But facts are stubborn things, to quote John Adams, so it’s best to ignore those and instead feel good about thinking good. And if we think and feel good, maybe all that good karma will change those stubborn facts. “Keep visualizing world peace, young grasshopper.”

This column from Charles Krauthammer has the right perspective about soft power and hard power. The former talks, the latter walks. It is a sad commentary on our human nature, but it is hard power that solves ultimate issues. Unfortunately, not every evil in the world can be easily and prettily solved through hard power, or every dictatorial thug removed. This is particularly true when most countries prefer the bumper sticker luxury and laziness of soft power while free riding on the hard power projected by one country. But a single workhorse cannot do the job without becoming exhausted. Such projection of hard power from the outside has its limits, then, and there may just be some problems that, regrettable as their existence is, will need to sort themselves out domestically in the Hobbesian fashion that is unfortunately commonplace in human history.

Of course, recognition of the limits of human perfectibility and the existence of evil alongside the good in human nature sticks in the craw of liberals. If there is a problem of evil there is a solution, if we can just sit down and talk about it. So we talk and talk, and, years later, nothing has come about because the guy on the other side shares neither our standards of good and evil, nor our view of the universal (secular) brotherhood of man where through our own efforts the lion routinely and without any awkwardness to the situation lies down with the lamb. It has been said about hard power that, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Well, if all you have is your mouth because you are too lazy or effete to wield a hammer, everything looks like a conference.

I wanted to post this in May, on the occasion of the appropriate day. This is a speech by federal judge Learned Hand at an “I am an American day” ceremony on May 21, 1944. The ceremony was for the swearing in of naturalized American citizens. But during that war year, it was more of a public rally and a celebration of patriotic commitment. It was held in New York’s Central Park with a crowd estimated to be between one million and one-and-a-half million.

Can one even imagine such a day being celebrated during our age of “hyphenated Americans” (as President Woodrow Wilson contemptuously called them nearly a century ago), when every group affiliated with identity politics of various kinds has its own day, week, month, and, occasionally, even year? The immigrant rallies of the last few years are in quite a contrast to the occasion marked by Hand’s speech. They are celebrations of separation, not assimilation; and of an immigrant minority demanding (and implicitly threatening) that the majority do its bidding, rather than being thankful for having escaped from the stifling economic and social basket cases that are the countries of their births and being allowed to live here.

My former First Amendment Law professor, the late Gerald Gunther, wrote the definitive biography of Learned Hand. I have a copy of that book, given to me by the students in one of my constitutional law classes, so I have some interest in the judge’s life. Hand’s “first” name, Learned, was originally his middle name. That, in turn, had been his mother’s maiden name, and her family had a history of using surnames as given names. Hand was born into a family with a long connection to the law. Eventually both he and his cousin Augustus Hand served on the same court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York.

Hand was a politically and judicially well-respected figure. He was appointed to the federal bench in his mid-thirties and made a name for himself with his writings off the bench. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo once responded to an interviewer that the most illustrious American judge was not on the Supreme Court. He was referring to Hand. Others described Hand as the greatest American jurist never to sit on the Supreme Court. He was often on Presidents’ short lists, but political views (he was a sort-of “Progressive” who was not consistently conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican), geographic considerations (there were several New Yorkers on the Supreme Court already at crucial junctures), and age (by 1942, when a spot appeared to open for him, he was 70), denied him that reward. Despite his professional fame, he was unknown to the public. This speech changed that dramatically. As the speech was popularized, he became very well known.Along with its use of religious imagery, the speech calls for a secular order based on toleration, self-examination, and temperance, all vaguely Aristotelian prescriptions.  Hand also injects the skepticism of formal legal and constitutional rules and of judicial power that marked his judicial philosophy.  He sees the primary protection of liberty in that elusive and undefinable spirit that rises through individuals to infuse the culture and from there, once more, to shape individual “faith.” Aristotle and Plato might have viewed this as the individual quest for arete, or virtue, that then is reflected in the community, and from there helps orient individuals towards such further efforts. The individual and the community are an interrelated whole, whose ethical and political excellence—or spirit of liberty—are both reflections and causes of each other. And everything depends on the golden mean and the avoidance of excess, either through individual license or collective tyranny. Laws and constitutions are mere formal structures, lifeless and brittle parchments, without that spirit to give them life and meaning.

This article describes the travails of a Peruvian eccentric. The doctors express puzzlement at why he ingested these articles. I think there are several obvious answers: 1. He may have been trying to counteract a severe dietary iron deficiency. 2. He misunderstood the concept of the ironman competition he entered. 3. He thought that’s how Superman became the Man of Steel. 4. He is a Stalinist. (Stalin means man of steel in Russian.) 5. He escaped from the secret Guantanamo torture chambers set up by Bush, Cheney, et al., hence the knife and the pieces of barbed wire in his stomach.

It’s likely, though, that had the doctors not “nailed” the operation, he would have been “screwed.” Fortunately, when the family took him to the hospital he didn’t “bolt.” It’s interesting that he didn’t try to swallow a spring. But then everyone knows, as Aristotle pointed out, that “one swallow does not make a spring.” The doctors’ opinion that he is a “nut” seems on the money, though.

In this post I want to conclude my review of the Boumediene and al Odah cases with some questions and observations.

1.  Why did the Court even decide this case? One problem for the Court is the unusual nature of the “war on terror,” a subject to which I will return. The Court is clearly concerned about not reaching a decision on the constitutional merits that formally accedes to too much discretion in the political branches’, especially the President’s, control over adjudicatory functions. But the Court surely is mindful of Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in the Korematsu case (the 1944 case that upheld the military order to exclude people of Japanese ancestry from certain military zones in the Western U.S.). Jackson recognized the President’s and the military’s expertise in determining the need for action and its appropriate scope, and the Court’s lack of competence in the area.  But Jackson urged that the Court not support such action through a constitutional precedent that would outlive the existing emergency. Rather, Jackson argued, the Court should simply avoid deciding the matter, discretion being the better part of valor at that stage. A full-blown precedent would enshrine a principle that could (and would) be applied in situations removed from the unique facts of the case that gave birth to it. So the Court here could have avoided ruling on this matter altogether by invoking the non-justiciable political questions doctrine. The Court instead took a formal position against the discretion of the political branches, expanding a trend that began in earlier cases, such as Rasul, Hamdi, and Hamdan, as (contorted) separation of powers judgments against only the President. Whereas the earlier cases were presented as the Court being a referee between Congress and the President, these cases pitted the Court as referee between itself and, on the other side, Congress together with the President. That resolution, too, has precedential effect well beyond the existing constitutional matter.

2. Perhaps because the Court is aware of those future ramifications, it created its very opaque “functional standard” to preserve maximum flexibility for future cases. On the one hand, the Court’s focus on the peculiarities of U.S. control over Guantanamo and the base’s proximity to the U.S. mainland suggests that the Court will not apply similar analysis to prisoners held at a facility overseas where U.S. control is less complete. On the other hand, and I think this is the likely result, the Court will extend this principle to prisoners held overseas, at least in cases like these prisoners. The Court’s functional balancing approach can mean whatever a future Court wants it to mean. In a different case, such as a more typical one involving many thousands of prisoners of war, the Court might strike a different “functional balance.” But no one knows, and no one can know, looking at the Court’s test. That’s what makes the test so maddeningly unpredictable for military policy-makers and operational commanders.

Moreover, the Court’s language in its opinion suggests a worrisome extension of the principle to all detentions abroad. As Justice Scalia’sdissent notes, “The Court says that if the extraterritorial applicability of the Suspension Clause turned on formal notions of sovereignty, ‘it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint’ in areas beyond the sovereign territory of the United States….Or, to put it more impartially, areas in which the legal determinations of the other branches will be (shudder!) supreme. In other words, judicial supremacy is not really assured by the constitutional rule that the Court creates. The gap between rationale and rule leads me to conclude that the Court’s ultimate, unexpressed goal is to preserve the power to review the confinement of enemy prisoners held by the Executive anywhere in the world.” Indeed.

3. So, while I agree with Scalia that, in its rhetoric, the Court is setting itself up to protect its institutionalturf and also advance once more the doctrinal constitutionalerror of judicial supremacy by extending habeas review to wherever the American flag goes, the devil is in the details. Specifically in the details the Court carefully avoids, that is, the constitutionalprocedures to which these people are entitled and the actual application of the writ.

As Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent made clear, unless the Court wants to give these people easy access to classified information (unlikely, given the problems that have already occurred when lawyers got their hands on such info in other cases, such as that of the first World Trade Center bombing trial), what additional procedures can the Court require that aren’t already available? The Court stressed that it was not addressing that issue, which is one to be resolved through further litigation. The Court also stressed that it was not addressing the President’s power to detain these people.

All of this leads me to wonder why the Court is moving deliberately slowly. After all, in the absence of Congressionallegislation that would route all these cases through a single designated district court, there will be litigation in various district courts, especially the court in D.C. Interestingly, perhaps not even all those cases will be resolved by the District Court, because the Court also said that generally District Courts should not decide habeas petitions until the military’sCSRT process has been concluded. Then those cases will be appealed to the Courts of Appeal, usually the D.C. Circuit. If, instead, the detainee files a habeas petition that the District Court accepts, that, too, will be appealed to the Circuit Court. I cannot imagine that either of these cases will not then be reviewed by the Supreme Court, especially if, as will happen from the litigants’ forum-shopping before friendly judges, a case goes against the government. Under the “rule of four,” review will be granted by the Supreme Court if four justices want it. Since there were four dissenters to Boumediene, it is a pretty good bet that they will want to review any lower federalcourt decision to release a suspected unlawful enemy combatant against the wishes of the government. Moreover, any procedural deficiencies in the current process may well result in a redetermination of the prisoner’s status under a revised process through a new CSRT proceeding, since the Court itself conceded the judiciary branch’s institutional deficiencies in making decisions about the status of detainees. All of this will take time.

4. Note that all of this just goes to the determination whether someone is properly held as an enemy combatant, of the unlawful kind in the case of these detainees. If not, then they must be released. If yes, they may be detained, presumably as long as the Executive directs. Again, the Court emphasized that the President’s power to detain was not at issue. Of course, our lawfare batallionswill quickly jump into action to challenge the President’s power to detain indefinitely, but that’s a future battle. Unlike the current cases that focus on the procedural rights of the detainees, the Court (or at least Justice Kennedy) seems more reluctant to get into the scope of the President’s substantive war powers to detain enemy combatants. On the other hand, that’s what many of us thought about the force of precedents in regard to the writ of habeas corpus and the constitutional rights (or lack thereof) of enemy combatants challenging their detention in war.

Note also that this case does not deal with the issues of the President’s power under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to try these detainees by military commission for crimes (including those that make them “unlawful” enemy combatants). Again, our lawfare batallionswill quickly lock and load their briefcases and fight the government on this, to get their clients into a civil federalcourt. But there, too, the Court is likely to be reluctant to interfere withthe President’s statutorily supported substantive powers to try these people once they have had the Court-demanded “meaningful judicial review” of their status as enemy combatants. I would expect Justice Kennedy to tread very carefully in a question of military trials of, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

5. I would expect the government to close down the Guantanamo facilities, because they no longer serve their purpose. These people might as well be held in a military brig in the U.S. or sent abroad.

6. I think that the principal problem here is the novelty and ambiguity of the “war on terror.” The Constitution’s framers’ approach to war and the military, such as the constitutional militia powers, the specific enumeration of Congress’ powers regarding the military, division of the power to declare war and the commander-in-chief power, were forged by personal experience in the Revolutionary War, as well as by general Enlightenment ideas about the rationality of progress and human perfectibility and by the 18th century way of “limited” war fought by professional soldiers (including mercenary troops) or popular militia for limited political, dynastic, or territorial objectives according to “laws” and “rules” accepted by governments of generally similar outlook.

That paradigm quickly became outdated in the 19th century with the advent of mass popular armies of conscripts fighting for all-or-nothing objectives rooted in secular ideology (a variant of the religious/political mass wars of the 16th and 17th centuries). Napoleon and the American Civil War come to mind. The 20th century saw another shift, though not as radical, to the idea of “total war” fought with weapons of increasingly massive lethality directed at civilian populations. But these were still wars fought between organized states where certain laws and rules of warfare might still hold if the participants shared basic views of civilized conduct. The Japanese and Russians in WWII, the Chinese and North Koreans for the last half-century, the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War stretch that notion to the breaking point, I agree. But even with them, deterrents of military retaliation against their civilian centers and military justice against war criminals might offer at least marginal incentives against brutality.

But the “war on terror” is not in the paradigm of previous thinking. There is still the potential of traditional state-state warfare (China, to a lesser extent Russia, to an even lesser extent Iran). But, increasingly, we are facing non-centralized political entities whose mode of operation is asymmetrical warfare. There have been similar groups in the past, such as pirates, and assorted guerrillas in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the Vietnam War. But, while guerrillas often blended into the population and fought more-or-less independently of some formal national army, their focus typically was military, and they often had a clear command structure and identifying insignia. The targets in the “war on terror” don’t have the same clear military focus. Their goals are ideological, and their means are terror. They not only blend into the population, their “command structure” is highly decentralized, they lack clearly identifying insignia, and their means are more traditionally associated with gangs. They kill, maim, torture for maximum terror effect. They kidnap for ransom. They target civilians more so than the military to make areas of the country ungovernable.

Clearly, these elements cannot be fought just (or even primarily) through the cumbersome formal criminal justice process with its outgunned police forces, arcane rules of evidence, and ceremonial components of “open trials,” etc. There must also be an application of a good dose of clandestine “operations,” special military forces, and regular military tactics to deal with such threats. Exactly how to strike that balance is what the administration and the military have been learning over the past five years. The courts are also trying to feel their way along, balancing the law enforcement aspects of the effort—with which courts are familiar and regarding which they have some institutional competence to act—with the military aspects—regarding which courts by their own assessment of their lack of information, expertise, and legitimacy, are simply incompetent to act.

I think that the assertion of potentially (but not necessarily) bold judicial power, contrasted with the very cautious tone on the particulars and the limited focus on minimal procedural protections at the adjudicatory stage supports my analysis. In other cases over the last few years, such as in rendition or relocation issues, the Court has steered clear of colliding with the executive. An interesting (but still not conclusive) case that might shed more light on the Court’s view of its role is whether the Court will contradict the Congress’ and the President’s decision to try guys like Hamdan or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before military commissions for their crimes. If the Court requires that such cases be tried in a federal court under the normal rules of evidence, that would be a seriously troubling development.  Traditionally, pirates and guerrillas were not entitled to the niceties of formal trials in civil courts for their unlawful activities. If the Court allows the trials of such people to proceed by military commission (as was commonly done by the Lincoln and FDR administrations) or by a secret civilian “national security” court (as some have suggested already exists in a different context), under modified and relaxed rules of evidence and of other procedures, that would show the Court’s appreciation of the seriousness of the threat from al Qaeda and such.

While this is the conclusion of my observations about the Guantanamo detainee case, I will have another post about some reactions from others to the case. As future cases come up (and they will), I will make additional comments.

In 2004-2005, when the real estate market was said to be “slowing,” and the papers were raising alarmist cries about an imminent bear market, I hoped that the market in fact was slowing for a few years to digest the unsustainable gains made in the preceding eight years. A soft landing at that level would be much preferable to a harder fall from a higher level. But this was not to be. The “slowing” market was still expanding at an annual rate of 6%-7% in our area. How awful! The market was just taking a breather before one final mad, overheated double-digit rise from 2005 to 2006. It was that last spurt that appears to contain the worst of the bad teaser loans and other ill-advised debt arrangements with unqualified borrowers as easy money had exhausted the supply of available good loans and chased increasingly overvalued real estate and bad creditors.

Since then we have been deluged with bad news about the real estate market. Those pundits who acted as if the boom market might never end are now falling all over themselves with the latest gloomy prediction of the week. As I drive through my neigborhood and as I get mailings from realtors, I notice two things. One, prices have fallen back to levels around 2003. Mind you, that still incorporates a tremendous run-up in value for the preceding six or seven years. Two, there are very few houses for sale, and those that are, mostly sell rather quickly. So things may not be quite as bleak even in California as writers who want to get their articles published (Gloom is “in” this election year!) would have you believe.

I listened to an interview with Larry Kudlow a few days ago, and he was discussing this very point. Barring any further and still unknown disasters, the market may be sniffing bottom, with a gradual recovery around the corner. Kudlow mentioned this article in Barrons. I agree with the writer’s very guarded optimism. The market will clear economic excesses with a brutal efficiency if left to its own devices.The wave of foreclosures on untenable loans to unqualified customers hit quickly and hard. The rate of delinquencies has been dropping. Therefore, the rate of foreclosures is likely to drop in the future. Once that happens, prices will stabilize. (NOTE: Look at the table in the article that shows the increase in value of real estate just since 2000, even after the price drop of the last year-and-a-half.)

Government involvement, however, is usually like the desanguinization fad in medicine. It may kill the patient, and any improvement in the patient’s condition is despite, not because of, the treatment. So, though this is an election year, it would be best for the government to avoid “saving” unqualified borrowers, as that will just delay the day of reckoning. Those that can afford the true loan rates don’t need saving. If the borrowers get to keep their teaser rates permanently, they will get an advantage for their avarice and/or stupidity that more responsible debtors don’t. That sends the wrong message. If the article is correct, the government’s “cure” would be too late and unncessary.

While the Fed’s action in regard to Fannie and Freddie may be justified on an emergency basis, I agree with those who think that those companies went off the road when they began to act not as market facilitators but as market investors in holding on to loans for their own portfolios. Their presence in the market and their privileged position distorted the normal competition that might have triggered an earlier response from a more decentralized and competitive market. In the longer term, that should be addressed, but not through a “bailout” or de facto government control of real estate lending. I think that having the government buying stock in companies that control such a large share of the country’s real estate loans sets a bad precedent of political economy.

UPDATE: For more on the Fannie/Freddie issue, here is an article by Larry Kudlow.

So, I have been taking public transportation since the beginning of the year. Yes, there is public transportation in Los Angeles. If you are lucky enough to live and work sufficiently close to it, the system can work for you. Fortunately, my law school is located a couple of hundred yards from a major subway stop, and the train station is near the freeway on which I drive to work.

I use the train most days I have to go to school. I have noticed that, in the last couple of months, there has been a significant jump in the number of riders.  The trains are fuller. Worse are the subways, which are much more crowded, except in the middle of the day. So, overall, rising gas prices have made public transportation more eceonomically viable, but less attractive. At the same time, when I drive, I notice traffic being considerably lighter than it was last summer. So the commute by automobile has become more attractive again. Having bought a gas-sipping compact, I am also finding that the direct monetary cost of commuting is well below the cost of public transportation. Still, I like public transportation because I like trains, and I gain time to do work.

But the public transportation system in L.A. has not, in my opinion, maximized its potential. They need to increase the number of cars on their trains. If Amtrak trains can pull six passenger cars on my route, Metrolink should be able to pull more than three to accommodate more riders. The subways should have six cars each, perhaps more. These changes would have a marginal cost, but would greatly enhance passenger comfort and retain riders. It would also make it easier to avoid that certain passenger from Simi Valley who is constantly picking something out of her hair and flicking it about.

The MTA has launched only lukewarm and haphazard advertising and information campaigns. I think that I have found a possible solution to create a “buzz” and get people out of their cars and into public transit: the Santiago Plan. A bit cheeky, I suppose. But I think you will find this plan as demonstrated in a stripped-down version on the videotape a compelling one. This is the best use to which I have seen the poles put. Moreover, if such a “goddess of the subway,” as the Chilean press dubbed her, also collected fares, cheating would diminish as male riders, at least, (plus some others on the Hollywood line) would happily place their one dollar fares on the person of such a conductor. That, in turn, would allow the transit police that now (occasionally) checks for fares, to be used for more productive activities, such as patrolling the stations against obnoxious drug-addled vagabonds. This is a winning proposition.

Oh,…but wait a minute. Given the looks and sizes of the great majority of transit riders and MTA personnel, maybe one does not want to have such bottoms-up acrobatics performed in close proximity to one’s visage.

BTW, notice how the enthusiastic ecdysiast required a rather substantial police escort. Why? It doesn’t appear that she was a pair of .38s or other weapons. Then she and a police escort were placed in an armored car. Was that for her protection, or for the police’s?

Is this a wise policy? Israel trades corpses of two kidnapped soldiers for 199 bodies and 5 live terrorists, including a particularly execrable specimen whose life should have been forfeited long ago. At one level, the decision shows admirable humanity. It pays deep respect to the brotherhood of soldiers. And for the parents of the unfortunates whose bodies were returned to Israel, this brings a sort of closure and allows them to honor their sons. But they were dead, and their souls have gone wherever souls go. Were their bodies worth the increased danger to the security of the living?

As the critics point out, the policy of bringing back your soldiers at all costs may be outdated when you are not dealing with regular enemy soldiers who reciprocate certain basic humane gestures, but instead with terror groups whose basic fighting tactic is to violate the laws of war with abandon, to terrorize civilians, and to butcher combatants. Simply kidnapping by stealth and killing the sol