Here is the Washington Post's report on the Israeli elections. Reader Joshua Sharf provided us with the following fine analysis of the Post's report:

The Washington Post article repeats all of the old bromides within the first few paragraphs: Likud is "hard-line," Sharon's "harsh military crackdown on Palestinians," Labor, which calls for unilateral surrender,and is completely beholden to the universal labor union, Histradrut, is "center-left," and, of course, "Sharon's tough military policies [are] aimed at destroying the Palestinian Authority." In reality, Likud is centrist, Sharon has been harsh to terrorists, not Palestinians in general, Labor left the center a long time ago, and Sharon could have destroyed the PA months ago if he had wanted to. He seems to be taking the "mend it, don't end it" line with the PA, and realizes that, in George Will's words, the West Bank is in dire need of de-nazification.

The article gives lip-service to the notion that Sharon, one of the last of the original generation of Zionists from 1948, would rather work with Labor than with the Orthodox parties. It then goes on for three paragraphs claiming that Labor, like the Democrats, suffer from not proposing an alternative. Perhaps because when your country is under assault, there is no reasonable alternative. The Post does mention that people don't trust Labor to negotiate successfully, and that even many traditional Labor voters have a Nixon-goes-to-China attitude; they remember that it took Begin to get Sadat to Camp David. The problem is not, as Labor would have it, that people think Labor compromised its principles in the last unity government; it's that Foreign Minister Peres, by taking every opportunity to publicly sabotage Prime Minister Sharon, showed that Labor still hasn't figured out that Arafat is evil.

Personally, I'd like to see Labor split. It would marginalize the irresponsible wing of the party, leaving them out of the government, while giving the Scoop Jackson Laborites the chance to form a responsible party, or rescue Labor's name.

Mr. Sharf's commentary on this and other issues appears here on his "viewfromaheight.blogspot" site.

Here, courtesy of the Washington Post and the blog No Left Turns, is President Bush's speech. In addition, No Left Turns has collected a few of the key quotations including my favorite by a wide margin -- "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."

Rocket Man, I agree completely with your assessment of President Bush's speech. I've seen nearly all of the State of the Union addresses since John Kennedy's first (I missed Clinton's last two because it got to the point that I couldn't watch the man). I don't recall any this good.

This may be as good a time as any to announce an exciting development--a new and improved Power Line site. We started this blog on Memorial Day of last year. I'd heard about blogging, read Andrew Sullivan and InstaPundit, and thought it sounded like fun. It took me less than ten minutes to set up the site on Blogger; the biggest hang-up was the site's name, which a 13-year-old friend of my oldest daughter supplied in a moment of inspiration. Starting a blog is easy; obtaining readers is harder. Through a variety of efforts and lots of good fortune, we have developed a large and growing audience, to every member of which we are very grateful. While we are thankful for the start that Blogger gave us, and appreciate all of the many virtues of the Blogger software, we concluded a few weeks ago that we wanted a more powerful and flexible software, a more reliable hosting service--our biggest complaint is that frequently we are unable to post (usually only briefly) because we are cut off from our Blogger server--and a more attractive, professionally designed site. I resisted this conclusion briefly, as it was my minimal expertise at writing HTML code that accounts for the waving flag, the quotes and links, the power line graphic, etc. But I was quickly convinced that we would be better off in the hands of a professional web site designer. Some time in the next week or ten days, we expect to make the transition to a new site that will feature the same content but should be more attractive and more fun for us and our readers. Stay tuned; we will keep you posted as the new site is finalized.

Another phenomenal performance by President Bush tonight. His evident sincerity and resolve shone through once again; he is his own best weapon. His exposition of the Iraq situation was eloquent and compelling, and should shift the terms of the debate from here on. Even the domestic catalog was better than I expected--generally speaking, everything between tax cuts and foreign policy leaves me pretty much cold. But the African AIDS initiative, in particular, was very effective and, in truth, sounds like a good idea. The speech's conclusion did a beautiful job of linking our present situation both to America's heroic role in the history of the 20th century, and to the September 11 attacks. I think the President seized the initiative tonight, and there seems to be a fair prospect that he can hold it.

It is always interesting to watch as the cameras pan over the Democrats in the audience. Tonight, John Kerry seemed cadaverous and oddly unresponsive, almost catatonic. Hillary Clinton was jumping up to applaud at precisely the moments where applause would befit a 2004 Presidential candidate. But most enjoyable to me were the repeated shots of a sour-faced Tom Daschle, looking utterly dejected and defeated. On the whole, an excellent night for the forces of truth and justice.

Thanks to reader Curt Benson for catching the Trunk and me on the radio this morning. Unfortunately, his reaction is not exactly a rave review: "Ouch! Your interview on the radio this morning was awful." Wait, it gets a little better: "Not your fault--the host, whom I've never listened to before, was clueless." Yes, she was. She also was the Democratic candidate for Governor of New Hampshire a few years ago. The lines were clearly drawn; the Trunk and I argued that race discrimination is always a bad idea (not to mention illegal, in the context of a state institution like the University of Michigan); she argued that it all depends. It was a minor skirmish in the ongoing war, but it's good to know that at least a few people were listening.

James Robbins of National Review Online on how Hans Blix hopes to parlay his report, which finds violations that under the Security Council resolution require concerted action against Saddam Hussein, into a mandate for something quite different. It seems that Blix thinks the fine work his outfit has done in uncovering violations merits an expanded role in an endless inspections regime. In his mind, and in the minds of his masters, the leaders of the former Western Europe, the inspections were not about giving Saddam Hussein one last chance to prove his compliance, but rather about giving Blix and his inspectors a chance to prove their capabilities. Now, having given himself the highest marks, Blix is ready to carry on indefinitely.

Today our friends at the Claremont Institute have started their own Web log, The Remedy. For its contributors The Remedy boasts a stable of the best political thinkers and analysts in the country, all students (actual or putative) of the great Harry Jaffa, preeminent authority on the thought of Abraham Lincoln. Please take a look and add The Remedy to your list of favorites.

As expected, Likud has won a big victory in the Israeli election, and Labor is down to 18 out of 120 seats.

Now that Scott Ritter is out of commission, the left has dug up another former U.N. weapons inspector who, while acknowledging that Iraq undoubtedly possesses weapons of mass destructioin and is trying to fool the U.N., accuses the United States of "shocking double standards" in threatening action against Iraq.

The Associated Press is reporting what seems to be a change in the Administration's plans for the State of the Union speech tonight. Citing an anonymous senior Administration official, AP says that President Bush "will use one or two new pieces of recently unclassified intelligence to outline his case against Iraq" in the speech. The President previewed the speech for a group of conservatives yesterday, and I'm guessing he got strong input that he needs to have some new information in the address.

Real Clear Politics also directed us to this piece by Stuart Taylor on racial preferences at colleges and universities. Taylor claims that because de facto "resegregation" of state colleges and universities is unacceptable to the "body politic," the real choice on this issue is between Michigan style preferences and "other strategems," such as the Texas top ten percent plan, designed to preserve racial diversity. Taylor devotes the remainder of his column to describing how unpalatable both sets of alternatives are.

Taylor's piece illustrates, first of all, why the Bush Administration briefs were so unfortunate -- they give the impression that true colorblindness is politically unacceptable and thus not part of what Taylor calls "the real choice confronting the Court and the nation." If the Administration's briefs had advocated true colorblindness, Taylor would have looked foolish had he claimed that this option is off-the-table.

I am aware of no pursuasive evidence that a colorblind approach is unacceptable to the American people. The fact that states have resorted to race-conscious strategems when told by the voters to abandon preferences shows only that the elites oppose colorblindness. Taylor says that "most of us would be highly distressed to see a drastic drop in the number of black and Hispanic students at our top universities." I believe that nearly all Americans would be distressed by "re-segregration." But there is no evidence that this would occur. A "drastic drop" from artificial levels imposed by university bureaucrats would probably be less distressing to most. In any case, since when does the constitutionality of racial discrimination turn on what "distresses most of us"?

Courtesy of Real Clear Politics and the New York Post, here is Daniel Pipes on "why Europe balks." Pipes borrows from an essay in the Weekly Standard by Yale professor David Gelernter, who finds that the former Western Europe, forged by World War II, has been replaced by the Old Europe of post-World War I vintage. Pipes agrees with Gelernter that 1920s-style self-hatred is now a dominant force in Europe, and that appeasement fits this mood perfectly, "having grown over the decades into a worldview that teaches the blood-guilt of Western man, the moral bankruptcy of the West, and the outrageousness of Western civilizaion's attempting to impose its values on anyone else."

Bob Woodward has a balanced article in tomorrow's Washington Post about the Administration's decision to begin releasing classified information on Iraq's concealment of banned weapons of mass destruction. Woodward nicely articulates the competing considerations: desire to persuade doubting Americans and Europeans, ambiguity in much of the evidence, and fear of compromising intelligence sources that will be crucial if and when war begins. Today Tom Daschle--who has a remarkable record of being wrong about virtually every public issue at every point in his career--called on the Administration to disclose what it claims to know about Iraq's violations. The problem with this, obviously, is that the Iraqis are not stupid, and disclosing what we know now--weeks or maybe months before we are in a position to do anything about it--will enable the Iraqis to figure out what our intelligence sources are, and hide their weapons more effectively over the coming weeks. This is really very obvious, so you can decide for yourself whether Daschle's challenge is issued in good faith.

The Daily Telegraph joins in the praise for Hans Blix's report to the Security Council in this article titled "The Damning of Saddam." It includes a good brief summary of the failings on the part of Saddam's regime that are itemized in the inspectors' report. The Telegraph says:

"Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, stated unequivocally last night that Saddam Hussein had failed to disarm, greatly strengthening the American and British case for war."

For readers in Minnesota, the Trunk and I will be on FM radio (I think the number is 107; correct me if I'm wrong, Trunk) tomorrow morning at 7:20. We will be talking about our article (mostly Trunk's) in the St. Paul Pioneer Press this morning, on the University of Michigan cases. We linked to the article this morning. One caveat: the show's producer warned us our segment could be pre-empted.

Update from Trunk: Rocket Man has it right. We'll be on KSTP's FM talk radio outlet, KFMP 107.1, in Minneapolis-St. Paul at 7:20 am for one segment. My caveat: the host (New Hampshire's Democratic former candidate-for-all-offices Deborah "Arnie" Arneson) doesn't see the difference between racial preferences and legacy preferences. I'm not confident we can do the job in 20 minutes.

My nine-year-old daughter Alexandra is a kid who, like her dad, leans Republican. When her fourth grade teacher gave her class an assignment requiring the students to write biographies of figures of the students' choosing, she chose to write about President Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes. As part of my daughter's project, she wrote Mrs. Hughes two weeks ago and sent her a set of questions seeking information on important issues such as her favorite food and her favorite color.

You might say my daughter caught Mrs. Hughes at a bad time. For the past week she has been in Washington helping the president with tomorrow evening's State of the Union address. She nevertheless made time to respond to Alexandra's questions, and Alexandra has agreed to share her answers with us as a Power Line exclusive.

Mrs. Hughes prefaces her answers to Alexandra's questions by saying, "I’m sorry I couldn’t go into more detail – I’m in DC working with the President on the State of the Union address." I think we understand.

In response to Alexandra's question about why she decided to help then-Governor Bush in the presidential campaign, Mrs. Hughes states: "I couldn’t say 'no' – he is such a wonderful man – trustworthy, kind, compassionate and honest. I thought he would make an excellent President of the United States. I respect him and admire him more each day."

Mrs. Hughes responded to Alexandra's request for a message to the members of her fourth grade class as follows: “I want young people to think of themselves as public servants leading lives that balance family and their careers. Too many people go into the workforce thinking only about money and belongings. You need devote time to your families and your community. Spend as much time as you can with those you love.”

It doesn't get much better than that, and admirers of President Bush have frequently taken his measure in part by the kind of people with whom he surrounds himself. But Vikings fans will be pleased to know that Mrs. Hughes identifies her favorite color as purple.

Israel's Knesset election is tomorrow, and Haaretz reports that Labor is virtually conceding defeat:

"'We will support Mitzna after the elections. We will accept the verdict handed down by the voter, and we will deduce the message sent to us,' Ramon [Labor's public relations directir] said at a press conference at the party's headquarters.... He also expressed confidence that no one at the top of the Labor brass would try to settle accounts with Mitzna. 'Reports on dismantling the Labor party were very premature.'"

American newspapers showed a brief glimmer of interest in Israel's election a couple of weeks ago, when polls showed Labor closing on the heavily-favored Likud party. But now that a conservative victory appears assured, interest has dropped to near zero. But, whether American newspapers wish to acknowledge the fact or not, the reality is that Likud--nearly always described as "right wing" in American press reports--now represents the center of the Israeli electorate. Labor is moribund on the left, and the most vigorous alternatives to Likud are on that party's right.

This column by Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post on the upcoming Israeli elections demonstrates the usual Post bias in favor of the Labor Party and its peacenik candidate. However, the column is noteworthy because it chastises the Europeans for failing to follow through on promises to insist on Palestinian reform and to promote new Palestinian leadership. But, of course, the Europeans are no more interested in the emergence of such Palestinian leadership than they are in findng evidence that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction.

Another issue that President Bush will not be discussing tomorrow night, according to Michelle Malkin, is the parlous state of our borders. Malkin adds that the Republicans avoid this issue even in RNC national mail order surveys, where it is not listed among important national issues.

The Associated Press is reporting that President Bush will discuss Iraq in broad terms in his State of the Union speech tomorrow night, but will not offer new evidence of Iraq's possession of banned weapons or of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. If this is true, a lot of people will be disappointed. The plan, apparently, is to assign the task of revealing such evidence to Colin Powell, probably early next week. It appears that the principal focus of the President's speech will be domestic policy.

We'll be commenting on the Blix and ElBaradei reports when we have had time to digest them, but in the meantime, here is the BBC's take:

"The report of the chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix was not so much the 'mixed bag' he had promised as the sandbagging of Iraq...What he said enabled the United States to increase the intensity of its diplomatic assault on Iraq, which might soon become a physical assault. This was the key test - whether the United States would moderate its language. It did not. It has plenty of ammunition from Iraq's 'missing munitions.'"

The BBC is clearly unhappy to see Baghdad "sandbagged," and it sets out its own summary of the "Evidence Against Iraq" and the "Evidence For Iraq." The BBC's final point of Evidence For Iraq is that "Iraq says that 'missing material' was all lost or destroyed," and it concludes with the age-old conundrum: "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?" The BBC's view, apparently, is that if half of Iraq's toxic material is accounted for but the other half isn't, the U.S. and Great Britain should view the glass as "half-full" and stop making trouble.

Reuters reports that Colin Powell told an Italian interviewer that the U.S. will, "in the next week or soon after," make public "a good part of [the] material... which come[s] from the work of our intelligence that show[s] Iraq maintains prohibited weapons." Powell also said: "The war is not on for tomorrow but the longer we wait, the greater the possibility that this dictator, who has clear links to the al Qaeda terrorist group, will move his weapons or technology elsewhere." I hope that when our intelligence information is disclosed, it reveals "clear links to al Qaeda" as well as banned weapons.

Michael Ledeen for National Review Online explains why Jacques Chirac is no Charles De Gaulle. The article arguably paints a somewhat flattering picture of De Gaulle, but is spot-on when it comes to Chirac.

Paul Wolfowitz addressed the Council on Foreign Relations last Thursday; here is the text. Wolfowitz' speech is a masterly exposition of the history of the Iraq situation and the uses and limitations of weapons inspectors. His detailed recitation of the ways in which Iraq had frustrated the inspections process over a period of years is infuriating. Wolfowitz makes the case for destroying Saddam's regime brilliantly. Let's hope President Bush does as well tomorrow night.

Hadley Arkes for National Review Online notes that Colin Powell has "put himself through one of the priciest ventures in adult education as he was sandbagged last week by the French, and discovered that his scheme of working through the United Nations was not only a path leading nowhere, but a path leading off course." Arkes recommends that President Bush give a "Sam Spade" style State of the Union address, to the effect that, since Al Qaeda has killed, and continue primarily to target, Americans, we are the ones who must do something about it.

This morning's St. Paul Pioneer Press runs Rocket Man's and my take on the University of Michigan cases pending before the Supreme Court: "'Affirmative action' and 'diversity' are misleading terms for gross discrimination." Steve Dornfeld of the Pioneer Press editorial page invited us to submit the piece as the counterpart to a pro-affirmative action piece by Joe Bollettieri: "President Bush has the right words but the wrong actions on affirmative action."

Deborah Orin in The New York Post reports that the Democrats are concerned about Al Sharpton's campaign for the presidency. This piece by J.D. Cassidy in FrontPage Magazine shows why they should be.

The editors of the Washington Post once again call on the United Nations Security Council to "follow the resolution." That means declaring Iraq in material breach and forcing Iraq to disarm. The Post notes that there is no way to square ongoing inspections with the terms of the Security Council resolution. By claiming otherwise, says the Post, Paris and Berlin are undermining the credibility of the United Nations and handing over the enforcement of global order to the United States. To which I say, thank you Paris and Berlin.

E.J. Dionne is at his most fatuous in this piece from today's Washington Post. Dionne's thesis is that President Bush can be "a commanding and unifying leader who rallies the country behind the war on terrorism and major foreign policy endeavors" or he can be "a partisan ideological leader who tries to transform domestic policy and politics" but "he cannot succeed at both." But why not? Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan all rallied the country behind major foreign policy endeavors and transformed domestic policy. The only evidence Dionne enlists for the proposition that Bush cannot do both is public opinion polls showing that support for Bush is declining. But Dionne knows, and pretty much acknowledges, that these polls are meaningless. If we are successful in a war against Saddam Hussein, if the economy improves, and if terrorist successes are minimal, then this success will be reflected in the polls, and Bush will join the ranks of Wilson, Roosevelt, and Reagan.

Dionne notes, however, that things may not go well for President Bush on all of these fronts. He feigns concern that, by polarizng the country, Bush has left "no political net below him if something should go wrong." But under what circumstances would Bush have a political net below him if his policies fail? Short of switching party affiliation, I can't think of any. The notion that by not proposing tax cuts Bush could immunize himself from Democratic criticism in the event of problems with the war on Iraq or the war on terrorism is silly even by Dionne's standards. The first President Bush tried to play the game that Dionne is prescribing for the second. The Democrats devoured him. Dionne's real grievance is that this President Bush refuses to play the chump.

The high temperature today in Minneapolis was below zero, so this cartoon, which recently appeared in a Montreal newspaper, seemed appropriate. It applies equally to Minnesota, and has considerable resonance in the Rocket household.

To all you Power Line readers in Southern California, all I can say is, eat your hearts out!

Today's London Times reports that police found "protective suits designed for use during a chemical warfare attack" in last week's raid on the Finsbury Park mosque, but Scotland Yard did not disclose the discovery for fear that such publicity "could inflame racial tensions." The suits also could be used for protection while formulating chemical or biological weapons.

Meanwhile, as a result of the ricin arrests in London, five al Qaeda terrorists who had been squatting in a farm house in Italy were arrested. Among the items found in the farmhouse was a stack of photographs, including this one:

Just a bunch of wild and crazy terrorists.

The World Economic Forum is going on in Davos, Switzerland, and it has drawn the usual cranks protesting under the banner of "anti-globalization," or, to put it more accurately, "keep the Third World poor in hopes they'll turn Communist." For some reason, masks are very big with these protesters. Here is a bus full of them wearing identical masks; this same mask shows up often, but I have no idea what it depicts.

President Bush was the principal focus of the protesters' wrath, which I guess proves he must be doing somthing right. Here is a protester in a Bush mask, making an eloquent and articulate argument with the message on his flag:

Comparing President Bush and other anti-totalitarian, anti-genocide leaders to Hitler is very common. Here is a photo of Bush with a Hitler mustache; very clever:

And here the Hitler analogy is explicit; Bush, Blair and Sharon are the Hitlers of today:

The pro-torture demonstrators keep calling other people "Hitler," but they're the ones who pin yellow stars on their enemies. Here is an anti-Semitic slur, protesters wearing Ariel Sharon and Donald Rumsfeld masks, followed by a golden calf. About that yellow star: is Rumsfeld Jewish? Do the demonstrators think he's Jewish? I guess so. It would be possible to do something more contemptible than this, but it wouldn't be easy.

Of course, no self-respecting demonstration would be complete without burning some American flags:

This one is even worse. On InstaPundit and other sites earlier this morning, there was speculation about the three bloody stars, and whether they represent the three states in which al Qaeda murdered Americans on September 11. I haven't heard any alternate theory:

Another pro-Communist festival is going on in Brazil, timed to coincide with the Davos conference. It's good to see that Latin American leftists aren't mired in the past, re-living the fantasies of forty years ago:

The Latin American leftists are unmasking the war on terror. Whatever that means:

And, once again, the ritual burning of the American flag:

Note the flag they're flying instead of burning: the hammer and sickle. These people--"anti-globalists," "peace" marchers, whatever euphemism they may be going by at the moment--are the same vicious totalitarians who worked throughout the Cold War to subvert freedom and promote tyranny.

Along with George Will's column on "diversity," Mark Steyn's Sun-Times column this morning is one of today's best: "It's not just Saddam, but the system that's got to go."

Here is a Washington Times headline that we hope is right: "Class Warfare Said Not to be Working for Democrats." The Times quotes James Zogby, himself a Democrat, if I'm not mistaken, as follows:

"The Democrats are dead wrong about class warfare. Remember, 66 percent of likely voters in a general election are investors. They have a vested interest in making sure that the stock market is sound and corporations healthy."

The poll data on this are interesting. When asked, a great many people say that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich. But I think that many people, when they say in a poll that something is "true," mostly mean that it sounds familiar. Thus, when asked whether the tax cuts favor the rich, they say Yes, because that's what they keep hearing. But other data suggest that relatively few people care much.

Friday's Boston Globe carried an AP story reporting the striking results of a study of children in single-parent families that was published in the medical journal Lancet: "Single-parent homes studied." (Courtesy of No Left Turns.) The study tracked a million children for 10 years, into their mid-20's.

Today's New York Times magazine carries a lengthy article by Bill Keller comparing Presidents Bush (43) and Reagan. The article seems to acknowledge that the liberal punditocracy has "misunderestimated" (to use President Bush's term) both of them: "Reagan's Son." (Courtesy of the Rocket Prof.) Also worthy of your attention is another Times magazine article portraying the dying singer-songwriter Warren Zevon (composer of "Lawyers, Guns and Money," "Tenderness on the Block," and many other fine songs): "In His Time of Dying." Zevon is dying of mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lung that is essentially untreatable and invariably fatal within an average of six months from diagnosis.

Mark Steyn summons all of Britain's poets, past and present, to a kind of "We are the World" session aimed at producing the "savage indictment of American imperialism to end them all." He recounts the results in his latest column: "Stanza to reason."

George Will is not impressed by the University of Michigan's argument that its admission policies promote "diversity." Deacon will not only ace the quiz Will formulates for a real "diversity" policy, I'm pretty sure Deacon will in turn grade this column an "A": "A Quiz for U. Mich."

This Q&A about next week's Israeli elections by Jonathan Tobin for Jewish World Review strikes me as sensible and, at times, insightful. In passing, Tobin notes that "for the first time since Washington noticed that Israelis elected their leaders, it has not tried to impose a left-wing government." For that, we can thank President Bush.

The headline in the Washington Post proclaims "FBI Taps Campus Police in Anti-Terror Operations." My first reaction was amusement, caused by thinking about the Dartmouth campus police of my day, which had the misfortune of being located under the Dartmouth Forensic Union where Rocket Man and I hung out. My second reaction was relief -- one would hope that, with terrorists having entered the country on student visas, the FBI would be communicating with campus police. But the Post reports that the reaction of some faculty leaders, student groups, and Muslim activists is that this represents a threat to academic freedom. They argue that "U.S. colleges and universities are unique places devoted to the exchange of ideas and even the hint of surveillance by government authorities taints that environment." This claim might have more force if our colleges and universities were consistently devoted to the free exchange of ideas, rather than the promotion of a politically correct liberal agenda. These same "faculty leaders" are probably the ones who cause or condone the exclusion from campus of critics of Islamic fundamentalism, such as Daniel Pipes.

In any case, the notion that FBI communication with the campus police would "taint" even an idealized college environment is implausble. If one makes it to the end of this over-heated article, one will finally encounter some common sense. Thus, Barbara O'Connor, chief of police at U. Mass (any relation to our own beloved Proctor O'Connor, Rocket Man?), says "I think we have a responsibility as a major university to contribute to the safety of the region, despite the political pressure that's been brought to bear. I understand people's concerns about civil liberties, but this is part of making sure people aren't harming citizens." And Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education, adds "Much of the concern expressed at the moment is speculative and anticipatory. It's ascribing sinister motives to the FBI before anything remotely akin to that has been proven."

The Post story is also interesting for its invocation of the FBI's COINTELPRO program of the 1960s, which monitored the campus radicalism of that era. As a student activist of that time, I would have to question any suggestion that the FBI was able to chill or significantly affect the course of student activism. And while I don't condone every tactic the FBI might have used, I think it was altogether appropriate that the FBI was keeping track of campus radicalism, given my first-hand knowledge of what many radicals of that time had in mind for America.

UPDATE by Hindrocket: It would be sweet to think that she is our O'Connor's daughter, Deacon, but I doubt it. It's probably hard for our readers to grasp how far we both have come in thinking that it is entirely appropriate and reasonable that the FBI should keep an eye on campuses to keep us safe from enemies of our country. I will say that academic freedom has little to fear from the FBI, and much to free from Islamofascists and their PC allies.

We are going through a period in which our elites have become hysterical about the fact that the Republicans have more or less taken over the federal government, and history is proceeding without any apparent regard for their preferences. This has a lot of consequences; one minor effect is that it is impossible to get straightforward reporting about poll data. This New York Times/CBS poll is being widely touted as showing drastic declines in public support for the Bush Administration in general, and the President's policies on taxes and Iraq in particular. Given the unanimous, daily drumbeat of criticism, it would hardly be surprising if these claims were true. But as usual, if we look at the actual raw data generated by the Times/CBS poll, the picture gives little comfort to the Democrats and their allies in Baghdad and the press. In particular, consider these findings:

When asked, "How much confidence do you have in George W. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the nation's economy--a lot, some, not much, or none at all?," the results were: a lot: 39%; some: 42%; not much: 13%; none: 5%.
When asked, "Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic about the next two years with George W. Bush?," the responses were: Optimistic--64%, Pessimistic--31%.
When asked, "Do you think the Bush Administration has made a lot of progress, some progress, not much progress, or no progress at all in improving the nation's economy?," the answers are: A lot--6%; Some--45%; Not much--27%; None-- 20%.
By a 21% to 11% margin, respondents say the 2001 tax cuts have helped the economy, with 65% saying they made no difference.
When asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power," 64% approve and 30% disapprove.
Finally, this poll is being cited as showing broad support for affirmative action and a rejection on the Administration's position in the Michigan cases. Here is the key question that was asked: "Do you think affirmative action programs in hiring, promoting, and college admissions should be continued, or do you think these affirmative action programs should be abolished? " The responses: Continue, 54%; Abolish, 37%. The key here, of course, is the wording of the question. "Affirmative action" is an infinitely flexible term that many people construe to mean inoffensive outreach measures. This poll did not ask the logical follow-up question about quotas; most polls don't. The results on that question are not in doubt. It is interesting, nevertheless, that the percentage saying they want to "continue" affirmative action programs was 50% in December 1996, 41% in December 1997; and 54% in this 2003 poll. It is hard to say whether these fluctuations mean anything. Possibly the constant attacks on the President's position over the last two weeks affected the responses somewhat.

The main point, I guess, is that you can't trust news stories about polls; you have to read the data yourself to draw any conclusions.

This piece in the Washington Times by Tony Blankley is interesting on several counts. Blankley notes a report from London's Daily Telegraph that the U.N. inspectors have uncovered documents that demonstrate ongoing work by Iraqi scientists to develop nuclear weapons. However, Hans Blix failed to mention these documents during discussions with Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac. Under the Security Council resolution, such information is to be reported immediately to the Council, which is then to convene immediately. Blankley notes that, in the unlikely event that Blix reported the information as required, the Security Council has not convened in response. Thus, either Blix or the Security Council is in violation of the resolution.

But the best thing about the article is the commentary by Blankley (an Englishman by birth, I believe) on the former Western Europe. Says Blankley, "We call them our European cousins -- but I demand a DNA test." As for the French, "their principles have been carefully crafted over the centuries to leave France free to be odious, cowardly, ungrateful, preening, greedy and untrustworthy -- as anyone who reads the newspaper can see on an almost daily basis." Based on this description, Blankley concludes that, at the end of the day, "France's greed for oil contracts will lead her to vote with us in the Security Council."

Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have an excellent editorial in the issue of the Weekly Standard out this morning. The editorial makes the case for the clarifying effect of the emergence of the Axis of Weasels: "Merci, M. de Villepin." Claire Berlinski has an equally fine article that constitutes a kind of companion piece to the editorial: "Mrs. Euro's Mideast Adventure."

The bottom-of-the barrel lying, cowardice, rapacity, and treachery put so prominently on display by the Axis of Weasels has once again reminded me of an unforgettable passage from Stephen Ambrose's marvelous book, Band of Brothers. Ambrose's book provides a memorable account, as the book's subtitle concisely has it, of "E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne, from Normandy to Hitler's Eage's Nest."

One of the heroes of Company E is a soldier who survived, but just barely. Former Corporal Walter Gordon was horribly wounded at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. He recovered, went to law school, and became a successful entrepreneur in the oil business in Louisiana. In December 1991 Gordon saw a story in the Gulfport Sun Herald. The story related that the mayor of Eindhoven, Holland had declined to meet with General Norman Schwarzkopf "because he had too much blood on his hands." According to the mayor, Schwarzkopf was "the person who devised the most efficient way possible to kill as many people as possible." The mayor's statement made Gordon angry.

Ambrose recounts that Gordon wrote the mayor as follows: "On September 17, 1944 I participated in the large airborne operation which was conducted to liberate your country. As a member of company E, 506th PIR [parachute infantry regiment], I landed near the small town of Son. The following day we moved south and liberated Eindhoven. While carrying out our assignment, we suffered casualties. That is war talk for bleeding. We occupied various defense positions for over two months. Like animals, we lived in holes, barns, and as best we could. The weather was cold and wet. In spite of the adverse conditions, we held the ground we had fought so hard to capture.

"The citizens of Holland at that time did not share your aversion to bloodshed when the blood being shed was that of the German occupiers of your city. How soon we forget. History has proven more than once that Holland could again be conquered if your neighbor, the Germans, are having a dull weekend and the golf links are crowded.

"Please don't allow your country to be swallowed up by Liechenstein or the Vatican as I don't plan to return. As of now, you are on your own."

This cartoon by Brian Fairrington of the Arizona Republican is a nice complement to our commentary on the Michigan cases:

This is a remarkable news story, which I just picked up from Yahoo's News Photos but have not seen reported anywhere else. The photo below is of an "unidentified Iraqi man holding some files" who jumped into a U.N. van as it was leaving for inspections in Baghdad earlier today. The picture shows him inside the van, with his files held close to his chest, being tugged on by an Iraqi guard.

The brief news report accompanying the photo says that the man was "taken from the car and led away by Iraqi officials." No word on what became of his files. No indication that the U.N. "inspectors" tried to prevent the man from being hauled away and shot (if he's lucky). No indication of any concern by the "inspectors" over their inability to talk to the man, obtain his files, and find out what he knew. No suggestion of any protest by the U.N. or its inspectors. No indication that the U.N. viewed the man's jumping into their van and trying to tell them something--we'll never know what--as anything but an annoying interruption of their effort to cover up for Saddam and keep him in power. I would have said that my opinion of the U.N. couldn't get much lower, but if we don't see some serious follow-up on this, I'll be proved wrong. Unbelievable.

Update: CNN has a little more, but not much. They add this picture of U.N. security guards and Iraqi policemen dragging the man away to be killed:

CNN adds that the man appeared "agitated and frightened," and yelled "save me, save me" as he jumped into the U.N. vehicle. CNN also describes the U.N. "inspector" who, "watched from the passenger seat, unfazed" as the Iraqi guards dragged the man out of the vehicle. So now we'll never know whether the man was a nut or someone with valuable information to offer. The U.N. had no interest whatever in finding out what he had to say. And now any other Iraqis who might be thinking of approaching U.N. "inspectors" with information that might interfere with the U.N.'s pro-Saddam agenda will know better.

Our reader Peter Swanson has a letter to the editor in this morning's Star Tribune. Peter takes issue with the Star Tribune's editorial endorsing the University of Michigan's race-based "affirmative action" admissions policy:

"Your Jan. 24 editorial suggests that the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy is an 'honest' and 'straightforward' way of achieving racial diversity. The problem is that the details of the point system only came to light when a professor obtained the policy under Michigan's Freedom of Information Act. Clearly, the university did not have as much confidence and pride in its affirmative action policy as the Star Tribune does."

I've read all the columns posted on RealClearPolitics this morning, and there are several good ones (I recommend Peter Brown's on the proclivity of Democrats to cite "world opinion" to constrain the United States and Ruben Navarette's on the liberal support for affirmative action). But the best I have found on the Web today is Emperor Misha I's dialogue commentary "We really weren't going to do this" on Bill Clinton's most recent attack on the Bush administration.

Rocket Man, I think you came up with a lame excuse to post pictures of women in bikinis. (Incidentally, Rocket Man, can you explain to me what the bikini women on the left and on the right are looking at?) As for boosting readership, we have already obtained a fair amount of evidence from Google that "Michelle Malkin nude" would do the trick.

Update by Hindrocket: As Doonesbury said many years ago, "Guilty, guilty, guilty." And, now that you mention it, no, I can't. Speaking of cheap ways of boosting our hit totals, I've often wondered--given what we now know about the magnetic appeal of the beautiful Michelle Malkin and the somewhat fetching Mary Landrieu--what would happen if we did a post that included the words "Anna Kournikova nude never before published." I don't know, maybe we'll try it some time.

Earlier today, while traveling to Switzerland, Colin Powell made some comments to reporters that, as reported by Haaretz, sound consistent with den Beste's analysis of the Iraq situation.

Powell said that "at least a dozen" countries would support an attack on Iraq without further U.N. action, but that a decision on whether to pursue military action will not be made before President Bush and Prime Minister Blair meet on January 31. Powell also chided Europeans who voted for the U.N. resolution threatening Iraq with "serious consequences," but now are leery of military action: "We can't be afraid to go down this road because the going's going to get tough or hard. You should have realized that was a possibility when you signed on and became a partner to (UN resolution) 1441." Finally, Powell confirmed that President Bush will "lay out more of the case" for disarming Iraq by force in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The Daily Telegraph has more on the al Qaeda arrests in Spain.

Steven den Beste has an optimistic view of the current slow-walk on Iraq:

"Blix and El Baradei will make their report next week and it will say, more or less, that Iraqi cooperation could be better but it's been good and there's no cause for war and instead they just need more time for the inspections to work.

"All of which will confirm what was evident from the very beginning: the inspectors have always seen their prime purpose as preventing an American attack. But just as attacking too soon is a mistake, so is delaying when you're ready. We are, now, and from this point forward any delay actually makes our situation worse. Bush isn't going to fall for it.

"So our ambassador to the UN will announce that the US thinks Iraq is in violation of Res 1441; the Europeans will say that it's too soon to tell that and more time is needed; nothing will happen in the UN, and Bush and Blair will announce hostilities on the 30th or 31st in a joint speech in Washington."

Den Beste's view is based in part on the assumption that President Bush doesn't have to pay attention to falling support in the U.S., constant yammering in the press, the lack of U.N. support or anything else, since a successful campaign, together with the horrors that will be revealed when Saddam falls, will justify his policy and moot the arguments of his critics. He also thinks the liberation of Iraq will be a turning point in history, in part because it will mark the end of the U.N. as an institution that anyone respects.

Here's hoping his predictions prove true. Especially the one about what happens at the end of the month.

Tomorrow's Washington Post appears to confirm that "the Bush administration will acquiesce to continued U.N. inspections [in Iraq], at least for the next several weeks." According to the Post, the Administration's willingness is based in part on the fact that it will, in any event, take several more weeks to prepare for military action. The Administration's stance is being presented as consistent with past policy; a source is quoted as saying: "We never said we would cut off inspections on Jan. 27. . . . We also have never shown any interest in allowing them to go on for four or five months."

The Post also claims that "British and U.S. officials believe it will become increasingly apparent to a council majority that, even without the discovery of an Iraqi 'smoking gun,' continued inspections will serve no useful disarmament purpose." Why that should be any more apparent than it already is after a few more weeks (or months) of inspections is beyond me.

It thus appears that we will endure more weeks or months of inaction, during which America's opponents in the Arab world, Europe and the Democratic Party continue to chip away at the consensus that once supported decisive action against terrorism. As President Bush once memorably said--and, I hope, has not now forgotten--time is not on our side.

It appears circulation may be down at the venerable National Geographic. I suspect this could be related to the magazine's unrelenting political correctness over the last two decades. Amazingly enough, given that history, National Geographic is now resorting to that well-known circulation booster, a swimsuit issue. You think I'm kidding? Here's the cover:

And here is a nice photo of three pro surfers in Hawaii from the National Geographic Swimsuit Issue:

Guys, National Geographic's example does give me some ideas...do you think we could boost Power Line's readership by coming up with some lame excuse to post pictures of women in bikinis? We'll have to think about it.

It appears that great progress is being made in rolling up al Qaeda networks in Europe. Sixteen al Qaeda suspects were arrested today in Spain. Their apprehension apparently is connected to the recent arrests in England in connection with the ricin plot, as well as to recent arrests in France and Italy. Given the obvious international threat posed by this network, it is hard to understand why any European government would fail to support efforts to prevent them from getting access to more destructive weapons. Of course, most European governments do. Shown below is one of the Spanish al Qaeda members being led away after his arrest.

Yeah, Deacon, several readers have already written in to say I'm losing faith too quickly. Thanks to Scott Lewis (who, like Deacon, referred to the Krauthammer piece), Dafydd ab Hugh (who said, "how can you take seriously a miraculously convenient tale of imminent collapse from an anonymous source 'reported' by the Associated Press?"), and Frank Martin (who said, "Just keep in mind that two weeks ago every one was ready to say that Bush would not take a stand on the University of Michigan affirmative action case. On the Friday news cycle, that was the 'general consensus'. on the following Monday morning, he set his own agenda, leaving the 'general consensus' to play 'catch-up basketball.'") OK, I feel better now. I hope to God you're right.

Let's not get too alarmed yet by that AP story quoting a "senior U.S. official" about the "weighing of options" that supposedly is occurring. There is no reason to suppose that the logic of the situation, as set forth in this piece by Charles Krauthammer, is lost on President Bush.

Breaking news from the Associated Press:

"The head of the U.N. nuclear agency will tell the Security Council next week that his inspectors need more time in Iraq, but that Saddam Hussein gets 'quite satisfactory' grades for his cooperation, an agency spokesman said Friday. 'Their report card will be a B,'' International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told The Associated Press."

Meanwhile, "a senior U.S. official said the Bush administration is weighing the option of extending U.N. weapons inspections in an effort to placate European allies and Russia."

I can imagine worse news, but it isn't easy. If the Administration knuckles under now, its support will bleed away. With tens of thousands of men en route for the Gulf, I don't understand how we can accede to months more of inspections. Moreover, the inspections process is obviously endless, and if we admit the principle that war can be triggered only by the recommendation of the inspectors, we may as well bring the troops home now and forget about it. If this report is true, it's a dark day.

Hey, Rocket Man, thanks for posting the Ann Coulter piece. I don't know why I stay up late at night grinding out over-heated analysis when Ann can lay it all out so coolly and so well.

For a humorous counterpoint to Deacon's scholarly observations on the University of Michigan cases, check out Ann Coulter's latest column. Ann says:

"Like everyone else in the universe, I too have strong opinions about how universities should run their admissions systems. But there is no Ann's Opinion Clause in the Constitution. There is, however, an Equal Protection Clause.
***
"If colleges wanted to admit only legacies, or only tuba players, or only people who got astonishingly low SAT scores – to ensure some of their graduates would be U.S. senators one day – the Constitution wouldn't stop them.
"What the states, including state colleges, cannot do under the Constitution is discriminate on the basis of race."

The estimable Stephen Schwartz is also on ANSWER's case: "Who pays for these demonstrations?" On a related note, Victor Davis Hanson's latest NRO column takes the measure of the demonstrators: "Evil over good."

Secretary Rumsfeld's "apology" for his "Axis of Weasels" remark regarding France and Germany is rapidly being recognized as a classic. If you haven't seen it, be sure to take a look: "Rumsfeld sorry for 'Axis of Weasels' remark." (Courtesy of Pat Everheart.)

My guess is that Paul Wolfowitz's speech earlier this week to the Council for Foreign Relations provides a fair preview of what President Bush is going to have to say in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday evening. It is in any event worth reading on its own terms. The speech is "Iraq Disarmament."

The good columns posted on RealClearPolitics this morning indicate that Secretary Powell is angry to have persuaded President Bush to bring the case for war against Iraq to the UN, only to be upbraided at the last minute by the French and Germans. The president will not back down now; instead, he will marshall a "coalition of the willing" to take on Iraq, and he will make his case for doing so in Tuesday's State of the Union message. The reasons for the Franco-German betrayal of the US (and apparently of their word given to Secretary Powell) are not entirely clear. One columnist who manages both to make sense of the situation and to wring some humor, however grim, out of it, is the gifted Diana West. Do not miss Lady Di's "Sheryl Crow and the Franco-German Union."

The National Review editorial posted below has this to say about the Texas ten-percent solution to promoting racial diversity (offering admission to anyone who finishes in the top ten percent of his or her high school class):

"As a policy matter, the Texas solution is no solution at all. It undermines merit more than preferences do. At least a preferential policy allowed colleges to apply meritocratic standards within each race. Under the Texas solution one Hispanic student loses out to another merely because the rejected student went to a more challenging high school. Besides, once the administration has accepted that the goal of the Texas solution is to engineer a 'diverse student body,' liberal critics will notice that it does not do the job as well as preferences do. If it is okay to count by race at the end of the process, why not at the beginning?"

The NR editors may be right that the Texas solution undermines merit more than the Michigan approach. On the other hand, the Texas solution not only gives minorities less of an advantage than the Michigan approach, it also does a better job of providing the advantage to those African Americans and Hispanics (as well as some whites) who are most likely to have been at a disadvantage that was no fault of their own. But the debate over the comparative merit of the Texas and Michigan approaches is (or should be) academic. Unless the Texas admissions standards can be validated as predicting academic performance at least as well as traditional meritocratic standards do (a very unlikely outcome), I regard the Texas solution as no more or less constitutionally infirm than the Michigan approach.

There you have it, folks. On this issue, Deacon's comments are definitive.

On a happier note, the Washington Post reports that Colin Powell is now a hawk on Iraq. The truth, I think, is that while Powell is in several ways a very impressive man, he is above all a consummate bureaucrat. He can see which way the wind is blowing, and doesn't want to be left out at the decisive moment.

The oddest aspect of the Post's analysis is the statement that the U.S. is "under assault from such important allies as France." In what sense is France an important ally of the U.S.? When was France last an important ally of anyone? The mainstream media are unaccountably fixated on France and Germany, historic enemies, now partners in a truly cynical and contemptible game. Forget about them; for England, Spain, Italy, Romania, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania and other European countries there is hope. France and Germany have crossed over to the other side.

Trunk, it will come as no surprise that I agree almost completely with Christoper Caldwell's analysis of the Administration's briefs. As to Frum's analysis, I recommend the rebuttal contained in this National Review editorial. Frum defends the Adminstration's briefs on the theory that they present the "nuanced" analysis ("muddled" is the word I would have chosen) necessary to sway the two key Justices, O'Connor and Kennedy. The NR editors respond that these Justices may be looking less for a brief they find congenial than for a political signal that will tell them "what position will be considered mainstream." And now "President Bush has sent them a signal: A conservative president does not think that he can afford to stand unambiguously for colorblindness. The odds that the justices will also fudge their position have therefore increased." I'm afraid that is true.

As much as I respect Frum, the notion that Justices O'Connor and Kennedy need a muddled Administration brief in order to strike down the Michigan plans in favor of a "nuanced" alternative strikes me as laughable. Neither Justice was ever likely to uphold the Michigan plans, which fly in the face of the jurisprudence O'Connor has fashioned in this area over the years. Moreover, O'Connor and Kennedy need no encouragement or help in dancing around issues like this. They both specialize in this sort of thing -- in fact it can be argued that O'Connor has raised it to an art form. If the Administration's briefs embody the ideal strategy for getting the best realistically attainable anti-preference result, then one would expect that Ted Olson, a fabulous lawyer with a great track record on the issue, would have pushed for these sort of briefs. But, by all accounts, he presented the White House with principled anti-preference briefs, devoid of the nuances Frum praises. I'm still not sure why the White House felt compelled to take a different approach, but I'm pretty sure it didn't do so in order to increase the odds of minimizing the future use of race-conscious measures.

Shhhh! Deacon doesn't know about the slush fund. He thinks we're doing this for free!

This evening Rocket Man and I attended a fundraiser in St. Paul at which Hugh Hewitt, our favorite talk show host, was the guest of honor. Hugh is an extraordinarily talented guy, but the most striking thing about him is his magnanimity. He is the only person I have ever met in his position who expends effort to lift up others around him. We are grateful for the many readers he has directed to our site and look forward to getting together with him again when he returns to Minnesocold (as he calls it). At the fundraiser we also met our favorite blogger, James Lileks. Hugh was almost as excited to meet him as we were.

Our faithful reader (courtesy of Hugh Hewitt) James Melcher introduced himself to us, and we also caught up with our friend and faithful reader Rich Pogin. Mrs. Rocket Man proposed that we use some of our Claremont slush fund to host an event or two of our own, and if we can get Deacon's authorization, we will start brainstorming ideas to draw down the fund.

David Frum has an interesting article on the Bush administration's briefs in the University of Michigan cases: "Not what they say, but what they do." Whatever solace one takes from Frum's article will be dashed by Christopher Caldwell's "No action." (Courtesy of No Left Turns). Deacon will grade the articles.

Mark Steyn's latest column does a nice job of following up on Rocket Man's investigations into the sponsors of last weekend's antiwar marches by memorializing a few of the antiwar events: "One woman bore a picture of some female genitalia — possibly hers, the provenance was obscure — over the caption ‘This Bush Is For Peace’. Another waxed eloquent: ‘Trim Bush’.

"Out in Marin County somewhere, other bushes for peace disrobed, lay down on a hillside and formed the words ‘No War’. I wonder if there are any conflicted nudists, with a bush for Iraq and a rack for Bush. Still, we should be grateful that they’ve got pudenda to rally. In Iraq, according to Harold Pinter, millions of children are ‘born without genitals’. Something to do with ‘depleted uranium’, the Great Satan’s calling card."

Need I command you? Don't miss "This is not the time to wobble."

Courtesy of our friends at Real Clear Politics, here is Robert Novak's take on the politics behind the Bush Adminstration briefs in the Michigan cases. We at Power Line don't completely trust Novak and his sources. When Novak says that Alberto Gonzales might have blown his shot at a Supreme Court nomination, Novak may mean that he or one of his sources hopes that Gonzales has blown his shot. In this case, though, we find plausibility in Novak's claim that Gonzales had a major hand in weakening the Administration's briefs. Less plausible is Novak's claim that the "sidestepping" on this issue is something that President Bush "has sought to avoid." The article by Ward Connerly that we posted the other day shows that Bush has been sidestepping on this issue, without any assistance from Gonzales, for some time. Finally, Novak may be correct in his claim that Gonzales is now compromised as a potential Supreme Court nominee. On the other hand, it can be argued that, in a sense, Gonzales is in a better position because he can now more effectively be sold to Hispanics as a supporter of their (alleged) interests.

To anyone looking for our coverage of the anti-American demonstrations last weekend, and the Stalinists who organized them, just link to our most recent archives on the left and scroll down.

Byron York of National Review Online on the Communists who organized the anti-war protests. Much of York's material has already appeared on Power Line, but the article is worthwhile in its discussion of the refusal of other anti-war factions to condemn Brian Becker and his fellow Workers World Party activitsts. The typical reaction seems to be "Good for them for having the wherewithal to call the domonstrations" and "This is ANSWER's dance and they get to call the tune." And perhaps this stance is understandable. As one of our readers, Stanton Brown, told me the other day, "I don't think you can mount a significant anti-war demonstration in this country if you remove all the virulent anti-America haters." Or perhaps even if you just remove the virulent anti-America haters who are Communists.

Last November 5 was the worst election day Minnesota's Democratic party had seen since 1978, the year of the so-called "Minnesota massacre." Today's Star Tribune carries a story about the soul-searching going on among party ranks: "Dejected DFL picks up pieces, tries to regroup." One of the party activists quoted in the piece recalls this inspirational bit of advice provided by the late Senator Paul Wellstone: "OK, we gotta figure out what to do and start doing it." If the article is to be trusted, it does not sound like they have made much progress getting to stage one yet.

The politics of "affirmative action," i.e., racial preferences, remains substantially more straightforward than the legal argument about it: "Polls show public sides with Bush in race case."

William Safire's column this morning clarifies the meaning of the Franco/German diplomatic maneuvering that is complicating the removal of Saddam Hussein, and provides some humor along with the analysis: "Bad Herr Dye." Read the column for its analysis of the maneuvering, but query how we missed this revealing story about Germany's execrable Gerhard Schroder (forgive the missing umlaut):

"The image-obsessed politician is extraordinarily sensitive to personal criticism. Last year, when a German press agency had the temerity to report an allegation that he dyed the hair at his temples, the supposedly Iron-gray Chancellor sent lawyers to court brandishing an affidavit from his hairdresser. A compliant judge ruled that any repeat of the horrendous charge would cost the news service $225,000. A British newspaper, defying the ban, headlined its irreverent account 'Bad Herr Dye.'"

Read Safire's column together with this AP story: "Powell doubts French commitment on Iraq."

Today's Washington Times carries this review by Phillip Gold of a book called Everything but the Burden: What White People Are Taking from Black Culture. The title of the book, and Gold's largely favorable review, has me thinking again about the University of Michigan cases and the Bush Administration briefs.

In the briefs, two possible justifications for race-preferences in college admissions mingle. One is "experiential diversity," through which white students learn from exposure to African-Americans. The other is ensuring access for a sizeable number of African-Americans to the best public universities, access defined here as ability to gain admission, rather than just a fair chance of being admitted. I do not intend to discuss again where the Bush Administration comes out on whether, or to what extent, these interests ultimately justify race-based preferences or race-conscious programs. Rather, I want to compare and contrast the two interests.

The second interest -- access -- seems like a substantial one. Given all that African-Americans have suffered, one would be hard-pressed to deny that the de facto exclusion, or even the significant underrepresentation, of blacks at public universities would be unfortunate. This is not to say that the interest in avoiding that result justifies discrimination against whites, but I can understand why some might think that it does.

The diversity interest, by contrast, seems light-weight at best for reasons I have tried to articulate in past blogs and perhaps for additional reasons brought to mind by the above-cited book review. The book is about the yearning and ability of white Americans "to acquire and/or consume blackness." The title suggests that whites, or at least whites of college age, are able, in today's culture, to acquire and consume "everything but the burden" of blackness. If so, this phenomenon undercuts the notion that white kids enter college needing to mingle with blacks in order to be exposed black culture and perspectives. But what about "the burden"? I would suggest that here too the need for experiential diversity is insubstantial. If the experience of my daughters is at all indicative, white kids in public schools learn about the suffering of African-Americans before they learn about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They learn about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King before they learn about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. This occurs because their first exposure to American history (indeed, their first three or four exposures) is through the yearly Black History Month. This starts in the first grade, whereas American History is usually not taught until the fourth or fifth grade (and even then usually begins with the oppression of the American Indian and the evils perpetrated by Columbus). The drum-beat continues throughout middle school and high school (where it is reinforced in literature classes) and, of course, into college where the mainstream liberal perspective is essentially indistinguishable from what proponents of diversity call the black perspective. The blacks admitted through preference programs are typically middle-class kids who (if my daughter's experiences with her African-American roommate and her friends are indicative) don't seem terribly "burdened."

I'll conclude with a story based on my experience in law school. Prior to entering, I heard someone cite as en example of the value of a racially diverse student body the idea that blacks could make a special contribution in criminal law classes due to their first-hand knowledge of police racism and brutality. But the black students in my criminal law classes had no more experience with the police than I did (less actually, but that's another story). Fortunately, our white criminal procedure professor filled the void. And that, I suspect, is what happens on college campuses today.

When I was a kid, I read a great many books, but there were only a few that I pored over obsessively. One of my favorites was Up Front, by Bill Mauldin. My father was a WWII veteran and a Mauldin fan; I found this book of his cartoons, which were originally published in Stars and Stripes, lying around the house, and was hooked. I knew all of the cartoons by heart and pretty much memorized the text, which was also excellent. For a while I tried to produce my own cartoons, but gave up on account of the fact that I can't draw. Mauldin's heroes, Willie and Joe, were dogfaces. Much of what I think I know about war came from them. A long time went by when not many people seemed to be interested in honoring men like Willie and Joe, but that, fortunately, has changed. Bill Mauldin died today. May he rest in peace. This link will take you to some of his classic cartoons from Up Front.

Here is just one of my favorites:


"I feel like a fugitive from the law of averages."

Rocket Man, are you sure that you and Trunk haven't been holding out on me when it comes to those Claremont Institute proceeds?

It must be true, as Hugh Hewitt says, that we are a "growing force in the Blogosphere." I say this because we have been attacked, for the first time as far as we know, by a left-wing blog called Soundbitten. Soundbitten didn't like our speculation about who funds A.N.S.W.E.R., the Communist front group that ran the anti-American demonstrations last weekend. So they responded with some speculation about who funds--I'm not making this up--Power Line:

"Why is the [sic] ironic? Because two of the three people who publish Power Line are affiliated with the Claremont Institute. And the Claremont Institute has received over $5 million in funding over the last two decades from donors like The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (the 'most influential right-wing foundation' in the U.S.) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

"So maybe, just maybe, Michael Moore is funding International A.N.S.W.E.R.'s San Francisco office, even though there's no real evidence to suggest it. But it's certainly clear who rewards the people at Power Line to float such theories."

Ah, would that it were true. Scaife and Bradley have indeed contributed to Claremont--not surprising, in that they are, as far as I know, the only two conservative foundations amid a sea of hundreds of liberal foundations. Unfortunately, however, none of that largesse has flowed down to the Power Line crew. Our positions as "Adjunct Fellows" of the Claremont Institute are wonderfully flexible; in essence: 1) we write when we feel like it; 2) they print our stuff if they feel like it; and 3) alas, no money changes hands.

So we continue to be dependent on our day jobs. Heck, we don't even have a tip jar. The only "reward" we get from this site is psychic. But it does add to our psychic rewards to know that the lefties think we're worth attacking.

Wow, Rocket Man, Hillary Clinton is on record that race is part of one's character. And those who refuse to adopt this racist view are kidding themselves. So now, according to Ms. Clinton, it must be proper to judge people on the basis of skin color, since it is part of the content of their character. What specific judgments about character are we expected to reach on the basis of race? In the context of the debate over race-based admissions policies, it seems that we are expected to conclude that African-Americans can't compete with whites. This is a conclusion I decline to reach. Am I just kidding myself?

And was Dr. King? The power of his speech (which I was fortunate enough to have been present for) lies precisely in the distinction he drew between skin color and character. Ms. Clinton not only conflates the two, but claims that those who decline to join her in this "don't understand Dr. King's dream and legacy." Would last Monday have been a holiday if King had proclaimed as his vision that his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, but that skin color would factor into the evaluation of their character? Ms. Clinton would convert what is probably the most powerful, coherent speech in American history into gibberish.

I think I understand Dr. King's dream. His legacy, unfortunately, is up for grabs.

Poetaster alert: Harold Pinter has been inspired by the poet laureate's doggerel and Tom Paulin's rantings to produce a poem that is a true rival to theirs in its awfulness and stupidty: "God bless America." (Courtesy of Tom Bevan.)

Rocket Man, I'm feeling more "Like the elderly and frail/Who've lasted through the night..." But having made it through the night, I'm feeling better to find columnists raising the kind of issues with the UN that we have been trying to raise. We have Claudia Rosett's "The tyrants club" and Jonathan Gurwitz's "UN membership isn't mandatory" to make me especially glad to see the morning light, both courtesy of RealClearPolitics.

Thanks, Trunk. But what I want to know is, what the heck are you doing up at 2:41 in the morning? If you don't start getting some sleep, you'll be feeling drained to the lees like the poet and me!

This morning's Washington Post finally allows an accurate description of the sponsors of last weekend's "antiwar" marches to appear in its pages, the group known to New York Times readers as "the activist group International Answer."

The Post, which didn't do much better by its readers than the Times, relegates the information to an opinion column on its editorial page, but there it is: "International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam Hussein and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas."

On behalf of all those who get their information from newspapers and other organs of the mainstream media--thank you, Michael Kelly, for "Marching with Stalinists." And on behalf of Power Line readers and others who rely on the blogosphere--thank you, Rocket Man, for scooping the New York Times, the Washington Post, and every other previous winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism on this important story. If you don't win the Pulitzer this year, you wuz robbed!

The latest Washington Post/ABC poll data have been released; the Post trumpets the data as bad news for the the Administration, with the headline "Poll Shows Rising Doubt About War With Iraq." The sub-headline says "President Bush's approval rating continues to slide." The complete data can be seen here.

The Post doesn't say much about the poll's methodology, except to note that it involved telephone interviews with 1,133 randomly selected adults, "including an oversample of 211 African Americans." This is a huge oversample--roughly 50%--and obviously would invalidate the data unless an appropriate correction were made. The Post does not indicate that any corrective measures were taken.

Even with the oversample, the data do not seem particularly noteworthy. The President's approval rating is of course down, but still strong at 59%, with a plurality of 36% strongly approving of his performance. The only area where his ratings are clearly down is the economy. It is curious how peoples' poll responses on the economy bear little correlation to actual economic trends. Significantly more people describe the economy as "poor" now than did during the most recent recession.

As to Iraq, respondents favored "having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power" by a 57% to 41% majority, with a 40% plurality strongly favoring such military action. These numbers are down from their peak, but that is hardly surprising given the constant criticisms of the Administration's policies and the politicization of the issue in recent weeks.

Based on the Post's methodological disclosures, it is impossible to say whether these data have any validity, or should be thrown in the wastebasket. At worst, they are consistent with the fact that there has been little good news on any front for quite some time (apart, of course, from the non-news that there have been no more major terrorist attacks). But the Post's casual admission of a gross oversampling of African-Americans raises the question whether it, like the Minneapolis Star Tribune--as the Trunk showed last October--has subordinated accuracy in polling to its own political agenda.

Hillary Clinton attacks the Administration's position (whatever it is) on affirmative action, as reported in the New York Sun:

“We are reminded once again by the events of the last year that there are those who don’t understand Dr. King’s dream and legacy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character?” she said, quoting from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “If we don’t take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves.”

So racism is now the official policy of the Democratic Party. If you were still in any doubt.

Here is an excellent piece by Andrew Sullivan about today's anti-Americanism and Tony Blair's anti-anti-Americanism. The piece appeared in the Sunday Times of London and can be found on Sullivan's fine blog.

Ward Connerly a courageous leader in fight against race-based preferences, provides his views on the Bush Administration briefs in this Washington Times op-ed. Connerly finds some merit in the briefs, but says he was ultimately disappointed by them. The reason for his disappointment is captured in this passage: "When the government uses 'race-neutral' means to achieve a desired racial outcome instead of explicit race preferences, the two approaches become a distinction without a difference. The deliberate pursuit of racial diversity by either race-neutral means or 'quotas' is the antithesis of enuring that individuals are guaranteed freedom from government discrimination."

In the interest of balance, I present this piece from National Review Online by law professor Douglas Kmiec in praise of the Bush Adminstration's briefs in the Michigan cases. Kmiec sees the briefs as standing for the proposition that "diversity as a matter of law cannot justify racial discrimination because ample race-neutral means exist to yield diversity." In my view, though, the briefs go further and endorse the subtler forms of racial discrimination, i.e., using ostensibly race-neutral selection devices designed to favor African-Americans, for the purpose of attaining diversity. I agree with Kmiec that the briefs' focus on "experiential diversity" includes "racial experience." Thus, although some conservatives are denying it, the briefs uphold the goal of racial diversity in education. Kmiec thinks this is a good thing. To the extent this goal is used to justify race-conscious selection devices (as opposed to outreach and recruitment of minorites), I disagree.

Trunk, I think I know what the poet meant. I'm feeling a bit drained to the lees myself this morning. I hope to have more to report on our investigation of A.N.S.W.E.R. later.

Unlike Tom Paulin and the poet laureate, Anthony Hecht is a real poet. This morning's New York Times has an interesting profile of the poet at 80, and quotes the following in conclusion, the poem's ending inspired by a Psalm:

Like trailing silks, the light
Hangs in the olive trees
As the pale wine of day
Drains to the very lees.

Like the elderly and frail
Who've lasted through the night,
Cold brows and silent lips,
For whom the rising light
Entails their own eclipse,
Brightening as they fail.

The best I can find in print this morning is the profile of Hecht: "Distilling the music of poetry."

Reader Joel Nickerson has started us on a quest to learn more about A.N.S.W.E.R., the Communist front organization that ran last weekend's anti-American demonstrations. As we indicated over the weekend, A.N.S.W.E.R. is a front for the Workers World Party, and its leaders are WWP members whose own words, as quoted on the WWP website, show that they are hard-core Marxist-Leninists. Joel points out that A.N.S.W.E.R. itself is not registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation. It raises money through a front called the Peoples Rights Fund--which has the same address and telephone number as A.N.S.W.E.R. The PRF appears to be A.N.S.W.E.R.'s main means of support, and the PRF's money comes chiefly from a handful of unknown donors. The directors of PRF are, however, identified on that entity's tax returns, and we have begun to investigate them. The results so far are.....curious. Stay tuned.

Paul Craig Roberts pays tribute in the Washington Times to Balint Vazsonyi who died last week. Vazsonyi was a concert pianist turned conservative commentator. He escaped from Hungary in 1956 and fell in love with this country, only to find that the ideas that, in his opinion, had destroyed Europe were gaining ground here too. I strongly recommend his book America's Thirty Years War, if you can find it.

Vazsonyi's book contains one of my favorite stories about communism. He tells of a great Hungarian musician who, as leader of the Budapest artistic communitiy in the early 1950s, would meet periodically with the state's Commissar of Culture. On his first meeting with the new Commissar, the musician asked what had happened to the old Commissar. "He has returned to his trade. He is a hat maker." "Oh," said the artist, "and what is your trade?" "I have no trade," the Commissar replied, "I have always been with the Party." The musician thought for a moment and then asked "So what will you return to?"

For the record, and in order to continue building our case for the dissolution of the UN, or America's withdrawal from it, let us note the formal election of LIBYA to chair the UN Committee on Human Rights. "Riding on a wave of African solidarity"--is it possible to make this stuff up?--here she comes, Miss Human Rights, there she is, your ideal--Najat Al-Hajjaji : "Libyan elected head of UN rights panel."

Good news for the snoozin' Swede: Saddam Hussein has agreed to assist him in hunting down even more empty warheads. According to the AP: "Iraq will conduct a 'comprehensive search' for old 122mm rocket warheads designed to hold chemical agents." Isn't this show scheduled to close on January 27? "Inspectors, Iraq Set New Practical Steps."

I have read Kirk Kolbo’s take on the Solicitor General’s briefs in the Michigan cases. Kolbo’s own briefs on behalf of the petitioners are outstanding, and, given his mastery of the subject and heroic work in the litigation, I hesitate to take issue with the analysis he was kind enough to provide to Power Line. Nonetheless, I think Kolbo is being too charitable to the government. Although the government never says that diversity is a compelling interest justifying racial preferences, I read the briefs as saying that some race-conscious admissions programs are constitutional by virtue of society's interest in racial diversity. I also read the briefs as failing to clearly rule out the possibility that overt racial preferences can be justified on that basis in some circumstances.

The government states that “public universities have substantial latitude to ensure that. . .student bodies are experientially diverse and broadly representative of the public.” To have this substantial latitude, it must be the case that states have the constitutionally required interest in creating such student bodies. Now, it can be argued that the government is talking about something other than racial diversity when it refers to “experiential diversity” and “broad representation.” However, that argument is undercut, I think, by the government’s lengthy discussion of the Texas, Florida, and California admissions programs. By using profiles of the racial composition of the student bodies at public universities in these states to illustrate how states can maintain “experientially diverse” and “broadly representative” student bodies through “race-neutral” selection systems, the government seems to be including racial diversity within the rubric of those interests that public universities have “substantial latitude” to promote.

At a more general level, the mischief in the government’s briefs is evident, at least to me, from this statement in the Summary of Argument sections: “The core commitment of the Equal Protection Clause and this Court’s precedents make clear that the government may not resort to race-based policies unless necessary. It may not employ race-based means without considering race-neutral alternatives and employing them if they would prove efficacious.” Keeping in mind the government’s characterization as “race-neutral” of the Texas, Florida, and California admissions programs, all of which were adopted in order to maintain levels of racial diversity higher than what would have been generated by pre-existing admissions criteria other than race, I understand the government to be saying (1) it is constitutional, when it comes to admitting students to public universities, to use race-neutral means to accomplish race-conscious ends and (2) if the race-neutral means fail to accomplish the race-conscious ends, it may even be constitutional to resort to some form of overtly race-based policies because at that point they are, in the government’s words, “necessary.”

I was hoping for something better from the Bush Administration.

DEBKAFile has a few war-related items, none of them encouraging. Among the items available on the site is one regarding the snoozin' Swede's discovery of the 12 empty warheads as the outcome of an Iraqi intelligence operation: "Saddam's pre-war feints and maneuvers."

Religion of Peace update: Found in a London mosque, more evidence of Islam's "peaceful" intentions. (Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan.)

As promised yesterday, we have obtained an exclusive statement from plaintiffs' lead counsel (our friend Kirk Kolbo) in the University of Michigan cases pending in the Supreme Court. We asked Kirk to comment on the administration's friend of the court briefs that were filed last week.

Kirk has been living and breathing these cases for the past five years. Despite his passion for the principle involved in the cases, he has the soul of a gentleman and a scholar. He takes his victories where he can get them and looks on the bright side. Some of what he says here may be subject to a slightly ironic reading, but his remarks are compelling and we present them to you unedited as a Power Line exclusive:

"While we would have welcomed the administration's views on the legal quesiton of whether 'diversity' could ever be an interest sufficiently 'compelling' to justify racial preferences in admissions, we are pleased with the arguments that the administration has made in its briefs. Although confident that the Michigan systems are illegal, we cannot take for granted the position of the Court on that matter. And any ruling that race may not be used to achieve diversity probably depends on the Court first concluding that these particular systems are illegal. Accordingly, we believe it is of great help that the administration has offered its view that the policies at issue in both cases are illegal.

"The briefs do not offer any support for the view that diversity is a compelling interest justifying racial preferences. They refer to the 'paramount' importance of maintaining public institutions that are 'open and available' to all, including all races, but that is certainly not an endorsement of the diversity rationale for racial preferences. Generally, when the briefs discuss diversity, it is in the context of 'experiential' or 'educational' diversity, which in our briefs we point to as something different from 'racial' diversity.

"The nomenclature in equal protection cases is also often crucial. For some forms of discrimination, e.g., gender, age, it is enough for the government to demonstrate an 'important' objective for classifications based on those criteria. Not so in race cases. The interest must be 'compelling.' So while it may seem counterintuitive, references to diversity (whether educational, racial or whatever) as 'important,' see., e.g. Grutter Br. at 10; Gratz Br. at 14, are of no real help to the University. Indeed, such references may be seen as an implied representation that the diversity rationale does not pass the strict-scrutiny standard.

"Most interesting to me is that some of the administration's arguments are attacks on the diversity rationale itself, although not expressly identified as such. For example, both briefs attack the absence of temporal limits for the racial preferences. See, e.g., Gratz Br. at 26 ('Indeed the logic and inevitable outcome of the University's policy would permit it to rely on racial and ethnic admissions preferences indefinitely to obtain and sustain any racial balance, including proportional representation or 'outright racial balancing,' it believes contributes to its educational mission.' We make the same point in our briefs to demonstrate that the nature of the interest is one that defies having any logical termination date. Second, the briefs assail to some degree the inherent arbitrariness of the diversity rationale. The foregoing quote makes the point, as does this one: '[T]o endorse the Law School's pursuit of a critical mass is to allow universities to discriminate against members of minority groups that are currently disfavored, politically unpopular, or simply out of vogue with academicians.' Grutter Br. at 31. There are encouraging cites to Croson, Adarand and Justice O'Connor's dissent in Metro Broadcasting on these points, which are also at the heart of our attack on the argument that diversity is a compelling interest.

"Finally, we do disagree with the administration that the Court can reasonably avoid deciding whether diveristy is a compelling interest. The cases are class actions in which injunctive relief is sought. The district court in Grutter enjoined the consideration of race to achieve diversity. I don't know how that judgment can be meaningfully reviewed without answering the question whether the University can in the future use race as a factor to achieve diversity. Of course, the adminstration did not explain how either."

The fact that the Bush Administration has put its stamp of approval on certain types of race conscious admissions policies is being lost (predictably enough) in the general media cacophony. The civil rights establishment pretty much assured that this would happen when it started blasting the Administration's briefs before it knew what the briefs would say. But now some conservative writers are committing (for whatever reason) the same error. Here, Deroy Murdock in the Washington Times applauds the briefs as an attack on the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Yet the Administration has endorsed "top ten percent" plans under which anyone who finishes in the top ten percent of his or her high school class becomes entitlted to admission at any public college or university in the state. Thus, blacks and hispanics who attend schools schools with little or no white presence are effectively relieved of having to compete against whites in the admissions process. Arguably, this is an example of the soft bigotry Murdock describes. Today's Washington Times also includes this piece by Tom Bray about the Michigan cases. Like Murdock, Bray makes no mention of the Administration's endorsement of using race conscious standards to attain racial diversity. Instead, he starts his piece by describing liberal attacks on the briefs, thus making it a "given" that the Administration has done the right thing.

It appears, then, that the Administration will receive no credit from minorities for having failed color-blind admissions. By the same token, it will probably lose no points with the majority of Americans who favor color-blindness. In sum, the short-term political fall-out will be the same as if the Administration had filed the briefs we hoped it would. The question, then, is why it didn't file such briefs. I don't know the answer. One possibility is that Bush believes in the position the Adminstration took. A second is that Administration policy was driven by a strategy of cultivating hispanic voters. The center-piece of that strategy may be the appointment of Bush's hispanic White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, to the Supreme Court. If Gonzales is nominated, the Michigan briefs will be at the center of the confirmation process. Having filed the briefs it did, the Administration will be positioned to point out the "nuances" in its position that are being overlooked now. In that way, Bush will receive more credit among hispanics for the nomination than he would have obtained had the Justice Department filed a strong brief against race-conscious admissions.

Contrast the report of Evelyn Nieves from the Washington Post on the antiwar marches posted by Rocket Man yesterday with that of David Horowitz on FrontPage this morning: "America Under Siege." The difference is that, like Rocket Man in his dispatches over the weekend, Horowitz has it nailed; Evelyn Nieves and the rest of the mainstream press are the useful idiots of America's enemies.

Evelyn Nieves of the Washington Post is a notorious cheerleader for the antiwar forces. Today her article is titled "Antiwar Sentiment Galvanizes Thousands." She describes A.N.S.W.E.R.'s role as sponsor of yesterday's demonstrations and acknowledges that A.N.S.W.E.R. is "the most radical of the networks mobilized against an attack on Iraq," but doesn't expound on their Stalinist politics. She repeats the most optimistic (inflated) estimates of the demonstrators' numbers and describes the demonstrators as though they were a typical state fair crowd, only with more veterans: "The marchers on a day reminiscent of late spring represented a cross-section of the nation, from World War II to Gulf War veterans, baby boomers and their children, teenagers and many older citizens." It's annoying, but I don't suppose anyone is fooled.

I am interviewing Kirk Kolbo, plaintiffs' lead counsel in the University of Michigan cases pending before the Supreme Court. Kirk advises me that plaintiffs' briefs are now available in pdf format on the Web site of the Center for Individual Rights. The briefs are outstanding; their refutation of the "diversity" arguments at issue in the cases is absolutely compelling. For plaintiffs' brief in the Gratz (undergraduate) case, click here and load the last document listed; for plaintiff's brief in the Grutter (law school) case, click here and do likewise. We will post Kirk's comments on the administration's briefs tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Religion of Peace Update: The BBC reports on an interview with Isioma Daniel, the Nigerian fashion reporter who was the subject of a fatwa after she wrote that Mohammed might have wanted to marry one of the Miss World contestants. Her article in a local newspaper was the excuse for rioting by Muslims in which 200 people, mainly Christians, were murdered. Daniel fled Nigeria and is now living in an undisclosed country. She cannot afford security and says she may have to spend the rest of her life in hiding. "I have to have plans for the future," Daniel says in the interview. "I'm only 21."

Also from today's Washington Post, here is Illinois native George Will on the commutation of the death sentences of all Illinois death row inmates. Will calls this "another golden moment for liberals that underscores how many of their successes are tarnished by being explicity, even exuberantly, anti-democratic." As Will concludes, "Ryan will be remembered as one of Illinois' worst governors, which is saying something. He will be so remembered if not for his administration's improprieties then for his disregard of democratic values, and his cavalier laceration of the unhealable wounds of those who mourn the victims of the killers the state of Illinois condemned."

Although President Bush has brought it on himself, some of the liberal arguments against his position in the University of Michigan cases are specious. Here, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post attacks the University of Texas' "top 10 percent" program on three grounds: first, that it isn't admitting enough African-Amercans, second that it relies on affirmative action in recruitment, and third that it will only as long as schools and communities remain segregated. As to the first argument, Hiatt points out that the entering class at Austin last year was only 3.4 percent African American. But Hiatt fails to show why, particularly for a student body that large, the benefits of diversity (exposure to different backgrounds and points of view) will not be realized with that level of representation. Second, outreach programs and other forms of aggressive recruitment of qualified minorities may be affirmative action, but few conservatives have any objections to them. Most believe, as I do, that finding qualified minority applicants is a good thing and that "affirmative action" becomes objectionable only at the point when race is used as a factor to decide which applicants to admit. Hiatt is attacking a straw man here. But his most inane argument (and one that I've seen elsewhere) is that Bush style admissions programs will work only as long as schools and communities remain segregated. This is actually one of the few virtues of the Bush approach -- that there is some point when, at least in theory, the preferences may end. What conceivable rationale would there be for race-based preferences If we got to the point that our communites and public schools were completely racially mixed? Hiatt's argument reveals that he wants racial preferences forever, under all circumstances. Like most liberals, he has no vision of a color-blind society and nothing to offer African Americans other than permanent entitlement programs.

One thing I have had difficulty getting an accurate report on is the size of yesterday's demonstrations. The largest was in Washington, but the phrase used by virtually every newspaper is that "tens of thousands" participated. Now, as Washington demonstrations go, "tens of thousands" is not necessarily a very impressive number. I have seen no official crowd estimate, but an InstaPundit reader who was there guesstimated the crowd at 50,000. The Washington Times, however, reported that A.N.S.W.E.R. had a permit for 30,000 people. Given that A.N.S.W.E.R. claimed to have 100,000 people at its Washington demonstration last October, this one was very likely smaller. But if the turnout was a disappointment, that wasn't reflected in any of the news coverage I saw.

And consider this. The photo below is of a demonstration that took place yesterday in Miami, opposing leftist Venezuelan ruler Hugo Chavez:


The Associated Press reports that "authorities estimated the group at over 50,000 people." So the anti-Chavez, pro-freedom rally by Cuban-Americans and others in Miami was likely larger than any of yesterday's antiwar rallies. How much coverage did it get in your local newspaper?

Here is one last photo from yesterday's antiwar demonstrations, which I think pretty well sums up their spirit.

This morning's Washington Post runs a devastating column by a former weapons inspector on the folly of the whole Blix shuffle: "It was never about a smoking gun." The column raises the question in my mind why we have submitted ourselves to this farce.

Our friends at RealClearPolitics have posted two excellent columns on the University of Michigan cases pending before the Supreme Court. The first is Terry Eastland's on the administration's briefs in the cases, "President decides to punt on affirmative action case" (obnoxious registration required but worth it), and the second is Thomas Bray's on the origin of the lawsuits, "Michigan race case not just a right wing affair." These columns raise the question in my mind why the administration has staked out a position that is not principled but that incurs the political cost of the principled position.

Milton Friedman endorses the Administration's tax cut proposals in a column that ran in Friday's Wall Street Journal, availble in electronic form on Sunday's OpinionJournal.

Just in the nick of time, the Bush administration choreographers appear to have directed the snoozin' Swede to the smoking gun: "UN inspectors uncover proof of Saddam's nuclear bomb plans." (Courtesy of Little Green Footballs and Michael J. Totten.)

Rocket Man, in response to your inquiry regarding the Bush Administration's briefs in the Michigan cases, I do not find your evaluation too pessimistic. As a friend of mine put it, "the Solicitor's briefs are predicated on the notion that it is not only constitutional but, indeed, good public policy to use race neutral MEANS to accomplish race conscious ENDS." One can only hope that the Court will, in fact, ignore the Administration's position entirely. I suspect, however, that the government's briefs increase by more than a little bit the likelihood of a bad outcome.

And here is an observation on the intellectual level of the protesters, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

"'Saddam Hussein is not a good person, but he has not attacked us directly to give us reason to attack him,' said Magda Saldana, 60, an elementary school teacher. 'The Iraqi people do not have to suffer because they have a madman for a leader.'"

Well, actually they do; and they will continue suffering until we liberate them.

Here are some more images from today's antiwar protests. They took place worldwide, but the biggest ones were in Washington and San Francisco and were organized and run by A.N.S.W.E.R.--about which, see below. The Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle covered the demonstrations, and both newspapers acknowledged that they were organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. Neither offered any hint that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a Communist front organization; both made the demonstrations sound wholesome and all-American.
This butterfly guy was in San Francisco; likewise the group below. Note the signs, and compare them to the signs in the post below about A.N.S.W.E.R.




Here are shots of the crowd at the Washington Mall, where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appeared, and a group in San Francisco that included Martin Sheen and Joan Baez:




There were also some counter-protesters. The group in Washington, which seemed to be especially large, included this former Marine. He still looks pretty formidable to me.


I like the sentiment expressed by this woman, too.


So far, the main story of the day appears to be the failure of the mainstream media to cover the disreputable nature of the leaders of the demonstrations. It will be interesting to see whether the bloggers will shame them into noticing that the antiwar forces of today are simply the pro-Communist forces of yesterday--only now they are pro-Saddam Hussein and North Korea.

Here is another photo of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s San Francisco office. The woman shown is identified by the Associated Press as "activist Nancy Mitchell." Note the signs. Also, this is a nice office in the most expensive real estate in the U.S. It would be interesting to see where the money comes from. One possibility: A.N.S.W.E.R. lists filmmaker Michael Moore ("Bowling for Columbine") as one of its supporters.


Now, who exactly is "activist" Nancy Mitchell? She is a prominent member of the Workers World Party (as well as the International Action Center, another WWP front which was founded by Ramsey Clark). Let's let her explain her politics in her own words, from the Workers World Party's website:

"Those of us who came to the movement during this period of reaction and through the expansion and success of the I[nternational]A[ction][Committee] over the last decade have had a lot of experience fighting racism and imperialism. But we may feel a little less prepared to do mass agitational work on the need for socialism and building a communist party in the United States.

"But I know I speak for the newer comrades when I say: I'm excited to start. I'm excited to strengthen my ability to talk about socialism, to get the paper out to the workers in my union, to build the branch meetings, to pass out palm cards with the www.workers.org Web site on them. And I'm really excited about having regular Marxism classes and doing introductory classes for students and workers, to show them that Marxism is not some field for academic study--it's a living struggle!"

In fifteen minutes of internet research, you can figure out that the anti-war demonstrations taking place today were organized and led by unreconstructed Communists. This would seem to be significant news. Watch for it tomorrow morning in the New York Times.

This is a photo of anti-war demonstrators in Washington, D.C. picking up their signs to begin the demonstration. The signs were supplied by a group called A.N.S.W.E.R., which is the principal organizer of the demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco.


This photo shows the A.N.S.W.E.R. office in San Francisco. The individual on the right is Richard Becker, A.N.S.W.E.R.'s principal spokesman.


A.N.S.W.E.R. is a front for the Workers World Party, a Stalinist group that cheered the Tiananamen Square massacre and supports Kim il Jong and Saddam Hussein. To learn more about A.N.S.W.E.R. and Mr. Becker, read this and this. And Mr. Becker describes his own political views here, in a eulogy to a man whom Becker describes as "the very embodiment of Leninism."

Um, no thank you.

Anti-war rallies are scheduled to take place around the world today. We'll probably post images of the protests and counter-protests from time to time.

The Washington Post editorializes, quite shrewdly, I think, on the Administration's briefs in the University of Michigan cases. The Post finds liberals' purported outrage over the Administration's position "a bit mystifying," and acknowledges that Bush's position "may be superficially attractive." But the Post correctly argues that once the Administration has conceded that "ensuring diversity is an important interest," its briefs "present an unpersuasive effort to split a hair that just won't split." The Post concludes:

"Nobody should be entirely comfortable with government's treating people differently by race. But achieving diversity in the educational arena is a goal with such broad support that, one way or another, it likely will be pursued by most states and educators. Does the court really want to remove from the table the most direct and honest way to accomplish an outcome that everyone -- President Bush included -- embraces?"

Sadly, I think the Post is right. If conservatives stand on principle--it is wrong for the government to discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race--we have a winning argument, logically, legally and politically. But if we begin by conceding that it is not just permissible but admirable for governments to try to achieve racial "diversity," and the only question is how this should best be done, we lose--logically, legally and perhaps even politically. Our best hope now is that the Court may ignore the Administration's position entirely. Deacon, Trunk--is that evaluation too pessimistic?

Based on this Washington Times report, it appears that the Administration will make a big issue out of the chemical warheads that were discovered in Iraq a few days ago. Ari Fleischer called the warheads "proof that [Saddam] has not disarmed."

More important, Colin Powell told a German newspaper that "we believe a persuasive case will be there at the end of the month that Iraq is not cooperating." Asked whether this means the Administration will reveal new intelligence proving Iraq's violations at the end of the month, Fleischer replied: "If it reaches the point where the president has come to the conclusion that he has seen enough to the point where the only way to protect us is by disarming Saddam Hussein, he will inform the country about that."

It is all coming together: the U.N. inspectors will report on January 27. Immediately thereafter, the Administration will release intelligence which, added to what the inspectors report, will show that Iraq has not disarmed, and will probably also detail links between Saddam and al Qaeda. The end of January is also when the vast armada now dispatched toward the Persian Gulf will arrive. The President's announcement will be the signal for the beginning of our attack on Iraq--or, more likely, the hasty departure of Saddam, his family and his top aides to Libya, engineered by the Arab states. This will all happen at the end of the month.

Rocket Man, your quotation from Paulin's poem reminds me that I have wanted to post a scholarly article by Judge Alex Kozinski and Professor Eugene Volokh. The article discusses the use of Yiddish words in judicial opinions. The article was originally written in 1993 and published in the Yale Law Journal, but Professor Volokh thought it was a sufficiently important contribution to knowledge that he has updated it and posted it on his Web site. You can tell from reading it that these guys have a little too much rattling around in their heads, but I found virtually every paragraph of it to be funny: "Lawsuit, Shmawsuit."

I held my nose, Trunk, and read that Paulin poem. Putting aside the political content, the striking thing is how bad it is. This guy is a famous poet? If so, poetry is in even worse straits than I thought. It reads a bit like a Mad magazine parody of the 1960's, only with dumber content. Anyway, these appear to be the key lines:

"the programme though

of saying Israel's critics

are tout court anti-semitic

is designed daily by some schmuck

to make you shut the fuck up"

Elegant, huh? This is evidently autobiographical; Paulin was invited to speak at Harvard, then dis-invited, then, if memory serves, re-invited. The controversy was over his own alleged anti-Semitism. Nowadays, of course, it takes more than criticism of Israel to be called an anti-Semite. Generally you have to stab a Rabbi, attack a soccer team with baseball bats, or say "Death to the Jews" a few thousand times. Paulin himself was called an anti-Semite for saying, among other things, that Jews living in the West Bank "should be shot dead. I think they are Nazis, racists. I have nothing but hatred for them." Thanks for that thoughtful "criticism of Israel," Tom. I may try my hand at parody later, but frankly, this "poem" may be so inept as to be beneath parody.

Steve Sack, the editorial cartoonist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, is a rabid liberal, and I'm sure he meant this cartoon to be complimentary of the U.N.'s role. Nevertheless, it aptly characterizes what is going on in Iraq.

The USS Boxer leaves San Diego Bay for the Middle East, loaded with Marines and attack helipcopters. The Boxer is one of the craft described by ben Beste in the post linked to below.

From the issue of the Weekly Standard out this morning I have discovered that the execrable Tom Paulin is the author of a new poem, originally published in the London Review of Books. Paulin's poem bears some interesting similarities to the poet laureate's now infamous quatrain, especially in the quality of thought represented. In fact, the differences seem relatively cosmetic (although both seem to relish words ending in "clad"; for the poet laureate "ironclad" is a key term, while for Paulin "mailclad" is).

Both poems are--how else to say it?--unpoetic, and patently nutty. I regret that Paulin's, being in free verse and running 133 lines, will be harder to parody, but I hope the blogosphere will once again rise to the challenge. Paulin's poem is "On Being Dealt the Anti-Semitic Card." The Weekly Standard's J. Bottum does a nice job commenting on the poem in "Apauling."

On a happier note, Stephen den Beste analyzes in detail the naval forces that have been dispatched toward the Persian Gulf region. It's a good lesson for those of us who are not well-versed in naval matters. His conclusion:

"All these ships can reach the Gulf in less than two weeks. This is no joke; this is real. This is no bluff. This isn't just posturing. You don't deploy these kinds of forces in this kind of numbers unless you're really serious. And you do not send a force like this to a theater to sit on its ass for six months and only then go into combat. In the ideal case, they get sent at the last possible instant both because that maximizes readiness and because it minimizes the window of risk to the men and ships from enemy air, missile or submarine assault.

"They're really going to start fighting, and soon."

Only I don't think they'll have to. I think the threat will suffice, this time.

I'm afraid you may be right, Deacon. The heart of the government's briefs is the contention that there are race-neutral alternatives, like Texas' "top ten percent" formula, that can achieve the goal of diversity. The Washington Post lost no time in headlining the news that "Race-Neutral Plans Have Limits in Aiding Diversity, Experts Say." The Post's "experts" point out, helpfully, that if the goal is to have a certain percentage of a college class be black, nothing will achieve that goal as effectively as a quota. The despicable Mary Frances Berry, chairman of the Commission on Civil Rights, says--with unimpeachable logic--"I don't have a problem with anybody trying economic, class-based affirmative action programs. They don't substitute for race, but they have important effects in overcoming wealth disparities. But it seems to me that if racial diversity is a worthy goal, rather than people squirming around to address race, they should acknowledge there is nothing wrong with giving a preference for race."

To make matters worse, Condoleezza Rice now says she thinks there are occasions when "it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body." So the Administration's policy appears to be incoherent, turning, perhaps, on the fact that the University of Michigan assigned so many preference points--20, approximately equivalent to a full GPA point on a four-point scale--to skin color. As to the fundamental issue--whether skin color can constitutionally be considered a qualification for admission to a public college or graduate school--the Administration appears to have come down on the wrong side.

I have quickly read over the Justice Department briefs in the Michigan cases. On first-read, they are worse than what I expected. My fear has been that the government would take no position on whether the state has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity through a preference program and would argue only that, whatever may be the case with respect to this general issue, the University of Michigan's race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional because they go too far. A decision along these lines by the Supreme Court, I fear, would cause public universities to use more subtle methods of discriminating on the basis of race in favor of minority group members. But it looks to me that the government has not only taken the position that it's okay for public universities to make race-based decisions, but has actually told them how to do so in a way that supposedly is constitutional.

Of course, the government doesn't come out and say this. What it says is that "ensuring that public institutions, and in particular public universities, are open and available to all segments of American society represents a paramount government objective" and that public universities "have substantial latitude to ensure that universities are open to all individuals and that student bodies are educationally diverse and broadly representative of the public." But the government is mixing two concepts. The state does have a paramount interest in making sure that student bodies are open to all individuals. It meets that interest by making completely color blind admissions decisions. But it's a massive leap to then say that the government also has a paramount interest in ensuring racial diversity. This is the proposition that I hoped the government would deny, or at least remain agnostic about. Instead, it seems to have embraced the diversity rationale.

The government goes on to hold out as shining examples of how to achieve racial diversity the allegedly race-neutral admissions standards used by the University of Texas and other institutions. Texas, as I understand it, awards slots at the Austin campus to kids who finish in the top 10 percent of their high school class. They came up with this scheme as a way of admitting lots of African-Americans and Hispanics who wouldn't otherwise make it. The system accomplishes this because, at many inner city and other high schools, African-Americans and/or Hispanics don't compete with white students. In other words, Texas has merely developed a more clever way than Michigan of achieveing a high level of racial diversity. And, in these briefs, the government applauds this. But in what sense is what Texas has done really "race-neutral?" Choosing a facially neutral selection system for the purpose of achieving a racial result is a classic form of discrimination, condemned as such in all areas of civil rights law. I find the Administration's stance very disappointing, again on first-read.

I'll try to take a closer look at this later tonight.

The editors of National Review deliver a solid analysis of what needs to be done regarding Iraq and what should not be done regarding North Korea. As the NR editors say, the time is now for President Bush to break once and for all with the failed policies of inspections in Iraq and appeasement of North Korea.

We have also obtained copies in PDF format of the plaintiffs' outstanding briefs in the two historic University of Michigan cases pending before the Supreme Court. We hope to be able to post them later today.

Patty Murray is taking well-deserved heat for her utterly misguided endorsement of Osama bin Laden. She cancelled a fund-raiser in Phoenix in the face of anticipated picketing by conservative groups. An aide declined to say whether the planned protests were the reason for the cancellation. This should continue non-stop until 2004, when she is up for re-election. Via PoliPundit.

I haven't read the briefs either, Rocket Man, and probably shouldn't comment until I have. However, one of my reservations about your analysis is that actions challenging affirmative action style discrimination don't come before the Supreme Court very often. If the Court follows what I understand to be the government's approach and strikes down the Michigan plans without strongly signaling that the diversity rationale can't ever support racial preferences by public universities, it will probably be years (and quite possibly decades) before the Supreme Court rules on the issue again. And who knows what the composition of the Court will be at that time. In the meantime, district courts and courts of appeals will do whatever they want, which often will mean upholding the new, marginally more subtle discrimination practiced by colleges and universities. If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court takes the bull by the horns, the lower courts will, by and large, enforce that mandate and "massive resistance" by colleges and universities will be largely unsuccessful. That is one of the reasons why I am disappointed that the Bush Administration apparently was unable to take the correct and popular position on this one.

Then, again, President Bush's policy towards North Korea could be worse. He could be following the advice of Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. The perpetually clueless Cohen has this to say: "Certainly, the Clinton administration's agreement with North Korea could have been improved. But Bush has not done that. He has left it a shambles -- with nothing to take its place." So there you have it. In Cohen's world, and the world of his fellow liberals, our problems with North Korea stem from imperfections in the Clinton agreement, not from the fact that North Korea is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and has no intention of abiding by any agreement, whatever its quality.

Charles Krauthammer on the descent of the Adminstration's policy on North Korea towards Clinton style appeasement. The situation with North Korea makes me wish, once again, that we had attacked Iraq last fall. I like to believe that we would be dealing more effectively with North Korea than we appear to be doing had we already dispatched Saddam Hussein.

My thoughts, for what they are worth, on the government's briefs in the University of Michigan cases, which were filed last night; see the Trunk's link below: Some conservatives will be disappointed that they contain tributes to the virtue of diversity and do not take a position on whether diversity can ever be a "compelling state interest" that justifies race discrimination. Instead, the government argues that under any standard, the Michigan programs are unconstitutional quota systems.

I haven't yet had time to read the briefs, and both Deacon and the Trunk have more technical expertise in this area than I do. But I think the important thing here is to win these cases. Conservatives worry that if the Supreme Court's language is less than sweeping, and any "diversity" loophole is allowed, university administrators will circumvent the ruling and continue to discriminate. That is true, of course. But this will happen regardless of how broad the Court's ruling purports to be. Just as Southern governors and school boards refused to obey Brown v. Board of Education for a number of years, universities will now persist in race discrimination (for the same reason--they think it is good public policy) regardless of what the Supreme Court says. It will take more than a single case to bring race discrimination to an end. But these cases can be a cornerstone in an effort that will, no doubt, take a number of cases and a number of years, to bring us closer to the goal of equal justice under law.

We are hoping to get inside information on the reaction of the plaintiffs' legal team to the government's briefs. If we do, we'll post it.

Mark Steyn's latest is not exactly funny, but it is nevertheless a must-read: "The Falklands War is a model of fierce good sense."

Also mandatory this morning is a column by Claremont Institute fellow Angelo Codevilla (a scholar whose essays on the war have been a regular feature of the Claremont Review of Books) that runs on FrontPage: "It's the regime, stupid!"

William Tucker tells another true story of New York City's welfare system that sounds like it comes from the overheated imagination of Ayn Rand: "Housing free-for-all." We aren't too smug about the situation Tucker describes; like New York City's homeless shelter system, Minnesota's welfare system is a worldwide attraction.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have received a great deal of criticism during the past year, some of it merited, so it is only fair to recognize their successes as well. This Washington Times article does a good job of explaining the fingerprinting project currently underway. Among other things, it says that two al Qaede members were detained while trying to enter the U.S. because their fingerprints matched prints lifted from papers in Afghanistan caves.

While in a sense this is not surprising, it is rather chilling to know for sure that terrorists who fled Afghanistan have succeeded in making their way to the U.S. And it is highly unlikely that these two were the only ones.

The Washington Post has a story this morning on the deliberations leading to the administration's support of plaintiffs in the two University of Michigan admissions cases before the Supreme Court, as well as some details regarding the administration's argument. As we reported last week, the administraton's brief takes remains "agnostic" on the "diversity" rationale that might support a non-quota based "affirmative action" policy. The story discusses the role of Condoleezza Rice in the adminstration's deliberations (also consistent with the information our sources had provided us last week); her stature has been enhanced as a result of her role here, the president's reliance on her, and her encouragement of the administration's assertion of a principled position in these historic cases: "Rice helped shape Bush decision on admissions."

Deacon, you said it all about George Ryan. I have only one footnote to add: while it is true, as you say, that it isn't necessary to speculate about Ryan's motives to condemn what he did, it is nevertheless noteworthy that he has just departed office under a cloud of scandal. This brings to mind one of the basic points that Ann Coulter makes in her book Scandal: If you have skeletons in your closet (Robert Byrd), a dead girl in your past (Ted Kennedy), or are merely of sub-par intelligence (take your pick), you have to be a liberal. Liberalism buys immunity from exposure in the mainstream press. I have to think that Ryan sought protection from his own foibles (or perhaps crimes) by joining the anti-capital punishment movement. And I'll bet it works.

Today's New York Times carries an interesting profile of Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "With incessant postings, a pundit stirs the pot."

Unless Mark Steyn takes the bait, I believe that Emperor Misha I's fisking of the hysterical John Le Carre will prove definitive: "Another 'celeb' opens his trap."

The destructive incompetence of Tom Friedman as a New York Times foreign affairs columnist is only incidental to this powerful column from the Jerusalem Post, but the columnist's point regarding Friedman is nevertheless trenchant: "Fighting Tom Friedman."

Also worth reading in today's Washington Times is this from Mona Charen about North Korea. Charen notes that it is a mistake to place North Korea among the post Cold War challenges faced by the U.S. In fact, North Korea is a relic of the Cold War and, as such, should be treated sternly rather than in a conciliatory manner.

Today's Washington Times contains two pieces about the disgraceful action of outgoing Illinois Governor George Ryan in commuting all Illinois death sentences. David Limbaugh focuses on the fact that Ryan has abused his power by usurping the functions of the judiciary and the legislature. Ryan was trying to single-handedly outlaw the death penalty in Illinois, something that manfestly is not his proper function. Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg reminds us of the horrible crimes that some of those receiving clemency indisputably committed. It isn't pretty. Goldberg also speculates about Ryan's motives, suggesting that the outgoing Governor may have been prompted in part by his own difficulties with the law in connection with a corruption scandal. However, there is no need to posit any motive beyond a combination of muddled thinking and meglomania. Nor do Ryan's motives matter.

To me, the upshot of what Limbaugh and Goldberg tell us is this: we have ceded to the state the power to punish those who injure us and our loved ones on the assumption that these critical decisions will made consistent with community norms enforced through trial by jury. Ryan has violated these assumptions, replacing community norms with his own personal values. Thus, he has undermined the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, including the basis for not taking the law into one's own hands. There is little a governor can do that is more damaging and less moral than this.

All I can say, Rocket Man, is: see below.

Is this a big deal? Maybe; I'm not sure what the significance of "empty chemical warheads" is. But it is hard to understand why the the leader of the U.N.'s monitoring team was so quick to announce that their discovery is "'not a smoking gun' that might indicate Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions."

The irresolute and dishonest Blix is only doing the bidding of his sponsors, Kofi Annan and certain leaders of the former Western Europe. Here, Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post reports on an interview with Jacques Chirac. I've long regarded Chirac as the second most reprehensible of these leaders, trailing the German guy. But after reading this piece, I'm not sure that Chirac hasn't surpassed Schroeder. It's all there -- disingenuous appeals to "let the inspectors do their job," incomprehensible claims (attributed to Arabs, but clearly embraced by Chirac) that our approach to Iraq is inconsistent with our approach to Israel, and a total lack of urgency that may suit a backwater nation, such as Chirac's is becoming, but is unacceptable in a great power. And all in the service of cowardice and avarice.

Time reports that Saudi Arabia is leading a push among Arab states to induce Iraqi military leaders to depose Saddam Hussein:

"Convinced that President Bush is serious about invading Iraq, Arab leaders hope to avoid war by orchestrating a coup in Baghdad." What has caused these countries, all of whom have officially opposed regime change in Iraq, to turn on Saddam? "[W]hat finally pushed the notoriously cautious Saudis into action is the recognition that with tens of thousands of additional American troops headed for the Gulf, the Bush Administration really is ready to go to war."

According to the Time report, the Saudis and other Arab leaders are open to abdication by Saddam, but doubt that this will happen. More likely, they think it will be necessary for the Iraqi military to do him in. Needless to say, the motives of the Saudis and their Arab colleagues are not noble. Their goal is to maximize stability and to minimize change, including moves toward democracy, not only in Iraq but throughout the Arab world. Nevertheless, the Administration's first choice has always been to depose Saddam without having to fight. I think, more than ever, that that is what will happen.

The Washington Post continues to denounce what it calls the "irresolution" of Hans Blix. It's not a bad pun, I suppose, but what this Post editorial really exposes is the fundamental dishonesty of Blix's operation.

Linda Chavez, who but for some unfortunate immigration matters would be Secretary of Labor, reinforces Roger Clegg's views on why the Administration should oppose the principle of race-based college admissions preferences, and not just the particularly egregious practices of the University of Michigan. Chavez notes that, as a candidate of governor of Texas in 1998, Bush affirmed his disagreement with the statement, "For the sake of obtaining a diversity of viewpoints and experiences, public educational institutions should be allowed to consider the race and ethnicity of applicants." Indeed, although not specifically discussing the U.S. Constitution, Bush made the following statement that provides a pretty good summary of the constitutional mandate in this area: "Public colleges and universities have an affirmative duty to offer equal opportunity to all applicants. Equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal results -- but it guarantees that every person will get a fair shot based upon their potential, heart and merit." And, of course, without regard to race or ethnicity.

Roger Clegg of National Review explains why we must hold our applause for President Bush when it comes to the brief the Administration will file in opposition to the University of Michigan's race-based admissions policies. It is now clear that the government will say that Michigan's racial preferences are unlawful because they are not "narrowly tailored" to meet the state's alleged interest in promoting "racial diversity" on its campuses. But it is not yet clear whether the government will argue that, regardless of how it tailors its preferences, Michigan has no "compelling interest" in achieving a "racially diverse" student body through racial preferences. As Clegg explains, if the Supreme Court strikes down Michigan's program because it is not well-crafted, but buys the diversity rationale as a justification for race discrimination that is more carefully crafted, then schools "will make a few cosmetic changes in their programs, but continue to discriminate." This, of course, is what happened after the Supreme Court's last major pronouncment on this subject in the Bakke decision a quarter of a century ago.

Here is one you won't want to miss: a live internet discussion later today on the Washington Post's website:

"LIVE DISCUSSION:
"Human rights advocate Bianca Jagger will discuss the mission, goals of antiwar activists from her Baghdad location. (Thursday, 11 a.m.)"

If you haven't read P.J. O'Rourke's Holidays in Hell, you should. One of the book's delights is his description of the despondency of leftists ("Sandalistas") who traveled to Nicaragua (or maybe it was El Salvador) in expectation of celebrating a Communist victory in the first election in many years. To their dismay, the anti-Communist candidate won. Among their disappointed number was a much younger Bianca Jagger, who even then was consigned by O'Rourke to the "lonely hell of the formerly cute."

Our astute reader and fellow Star Tribune watcher Gary Larson captures the bullying thuggishness of the editorial voice of Minnesota's dominant newspaper in a piece posted on America's Voices: "Liberal orthodoxy fails in flyover land." Larson keys his analysis to the Strib's endorsement of Walter Mondale over Norm Coleman this past November. I'm still trying to figure out how the paper's editorial board decided to throw its weight behind Minnesota's stultifying third-party candidate Tim Penny just as he was sinking like a stone to finish barely ahead of the comedic Green Party candidate in the race that brought us Minnesota's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty.

PoliPundit thinks the President's position opposing race discrimination by public universities is a political winner. I think he's right.

The Weekly Standard's J. Bottum brings the tools of literary analysis to bear on the quatrain that inspired the blogosphere: "Poetry in Motion."

Anti-abortion groups are trumpeting a new poll in which 68% of respondents favored "restoring legal protection for unborn children." The catch is that in the question, they were reminded of "medical advances that reveal the unborn child's body and facial features in detail." These poll results are consistent with the fact that, notwithstanding nearly thirty years of heated debate, results of polls on abortion vary widely depending on the phrasing of the question. The data are also consistent, however, with a trend toward the anti-abortion side that has been visible for some years.

Gen. Richard Myers lays out more detailed strategies for a possible war with Iraq. As I've said before, I assume the real intended audience for these announcements is in Baghdad.

This item from the Daily Telegraph is, I think, very important:

"White House officials have reassured Republicans by signalling that America and Britain are prepared to release powerful intelligence evidence to cement the case for war against Iraq.
"Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, and Karl Rove, President George W Bush's chief political strategist, have each indicated privately that the administration has proof that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
"Mr Card received blunt warnings from conservative Republican senators last week that Mr Bush had to produce a much more concrete case for war if he hoped to keep public support.
"Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said more information should be released and asked: 'What is the connection between Iraq and al-Qa'eda?' According to sources at the private meeting, Mr Card is understood to have urged him: 'Don't worry.'
"Mr Rove is believed to have used similar language during private briefings to politicians in Washington.
"He strongly suggested that the Bush administration already possesses a piece of intelligence from the CIA or MI6 that would amount to the 'smoking gun' critics are calling for."

Well, I hope so. The fact is that the Administration has so far done a poor job of explaining the priority being given to Iraq, and of linking Iraq to the broader war on terror. The American public, for the most part, trusts President Bush and has been willing to cut him slack on this, but if he can't come through with a more powerful justification than has been presented so far, he will be in trouble. The President's falling poll numbers reflect, I believe, that for the first time he is leaking support not only from the left, but from the right. That will change quickly if the Administration and the British come through with the promised intelligence.

Many of you have seen this obnoxious photo of the dimwitted Sheryl Crow at a recent music awards show. ("War with Iraq will give us bad karma," or some such drivel.)


That genius Tim Blair came up with this photo, which InstaPundit also linked to; it shows Ms. Crow wearing a much more suitable (and revealing, in both senses of the word) t-shirt.

Mrs. Trunk submits for your consideration Michelle Malkin's "Hip-hop hogwash in the schools." Also not to be missed today is Thomas Sowell's gloriously sane "Hard times for envy."

While I'm on the subject of the peace movement, then and now, here is an excellent article by Adam Mersereau, for National Review Online, about the arrogant ethnocentrism of that movement. Mersereau gets it right when he states, " Peacenik foreign policy is really very simple; without an action by the United States, there will be no reaction by others. If America does not start a war, there will be no war. . . .The group that most openly celebrates the diversity of mankind does not understand that many people in the world hold diverse beliefs and subscribe to ideologies that are entirely independent of American influence."

As we reported last week, the administration has announced that it is opposing the University of Michigan admissions policies at issue in the two cases pending before the Supreme Court: "Bush says Michigan plan unconstitutional."

I'm not surprised, Rocket Man, that the left is reviving the "teach-in." It was an extremely effective method of spreading all sorts of false information during the War in Vietnam. It was through one-sided teach-ins of the kind held recently in Oakland, that college kids of our generation were "taught," among other myths, that Ho Chi Minh was a benign reformer; that the United States had ignored legitimate attempts by Uncle Ho to discuss peace on terms that didn't invovle the North simply swallowing the South; and that the South Vietnamese would certainly choose to be governed by Ho if a free election were held. We never taught that Ho was a ruthless Communist butcher who had remorsely killed many thousands of North Vietnamese and who was never willing to put his alleged popularity to a test in a fair election in the North or the South. Of course, what is new about the teach depicted in Rocket Man's post is that it was sponsored by the City of Oakland and inflicted on public school students. The only bright side is that the war with Iraq will likely turn out to be a huge and popular success that indisputably improves the lives of the people of Iraq. Thus, the more perceptive students in Oakland will come to further distrust the incompetent bureaucrats to whom their education has been entrusted.

Some of you may have read about the bizarre article in the Boston Globe which suggested that had she lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would really have appreciated Ted Kennedy's efforts on behalf of the elderly. Mark Steyn is at his best as he relates this particular obtuseness to the broader phenomenon of liberalism's callousness toward actual people, as opposed to the hypothetical mass of mankind:

"If we right-wing madmen do indeed spend every waking minute dreaming up ways to kill as many children as possible, we're not very good at it. By contrast, the left does a wonderful job of sacrificing the little people in the name of its own corporate interests. In America, generations of black children have drowned in the swamp of inner-city public schools because the Democratic Party subordinates their interests to those of the teachers' unions. Overseas, the hypothetical body-count of an Anglo-American war with Iraq exercises Bill Blaikie far more than the actual slaughter Saddam has already visited on his people. But then one of the curious qualities of the ideological left is its increasing imperviousness to reality."

Senate Democrats show the same respect for the fragile institutions of democracy that they displayed during the Florida re-re-recount. They will continue playing these games unless and until they begin paying a political price, and there is no prospect of that on the horizon.

Federal officials are moving ahead to address the danger posed by shoulder-fired missiles to American commercial aircraft. The ultimate solution is to equip commercial airliners with the same kinds of defensive technologies now used on military aircraft, which will be quite expensive. I agree with the airlines that this is, in effect, a national defense expense that should be borne by the taxpayers. Before long, money will have to be found in the budget.

Rocket Man, I have only daydreamed about "Michelle Malkin nude." Unlike Pete Townsend, I have never "done research" to satisfy my curiosity.

D.J. Tice of the St. Paul Pioneer Press has a terrific column this morning on the dust-up created by the "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty" and its Star Chamber verdict condemning Bjorn Lomborg. The column takes a fair-minded look at what appears to be a mugging: "Attacks on environmental skeptic raise a few questions."

Our friends at RealClearPolitics have included D.J.'s column among an impressive roster of columns out this morning. It's hard to choose among the rest of the columns; they are virtually all worth reading. Not to be missed are Hugh Hewitt's "North Korea: A fumbled framework" and Michael Kelly's "Oust Saddam? It'll take an army, not a Blix."

The folks at RCP also have posted columns by Thomas Friedman and John Le Carre. Friedman has to be one of the worst foreign affairs columnists ever (although he has a lot of competition, some of it from within the Times itself) and his column this morning seems to me to offer a classic example of his deep flaws. Le Carre's column--"The United State of America has gone mad"--offers a classic example of the European hatred of America, resulting in symptoms remarkably like Friedman's: an inability to observe facts with your own eyes. In Le Carre's case, the symptoms appear to have escalated to hysterical blindness.

Two brief observations, both relating to nudity:

Admittedly, we thought it was funny when two misguided web-surfers made their way to Power Line via the Google search "Mary Landrieu nude." But as to the degenerate who found us by Googling "Michelle Malkin nude" earlier today, all we can say is: Shame on you!

Trunk, that wasn't you, was it?

And also, some madness seems to be seizing middle-aged anti-war matrons all over the world. It causes them to be possessed by a sudden and inexplicable urge to disrobe in the cause of world peace. They even have a website, as of the last 24 hours or so: it is called "Bare Witness". The latest outbreak of the malady occurred a few days ago in Ashdown Forest, England. Fortunately, I think we here in Minnesota will be safe from this contagion, at least until spring; the high temperature today was about four degrees. And with any luck, by spring the war will be over.

The Washington Post--scooped days ago by Power Line--is belatedly announcing that the Administration will enter the University of Michican cases on the side of the plaintiffs. The Post reports that the details of the Justice Department's brief are still being worked out; yet to be decided is how fervently the brief will genuflect in the direction of diversity before coming down on the plaintiffs' side.

Today the Oakland public schools held a "teach-in" on the possible war with Iraq. Every speaker whom they invited to come to the schools opposed the war; none supported the Administration's policy of disarming Saddam Hussein. Just another reminder that huge segments of the American establishment are perverse at best, treasonous at worst.

Abraham Lincoln was not only a reader of Shakespeare's plays, he was an avid fan and student of them. In an unjustly ridiculed letter to a Shakespearean actor Lincoln stated that his favorite of the plays was Macbeth. Knowing that it was his favorite play is reason enough to reread it, but Theodore Dalrymple's account of the play conveys a sense of why it might have been his favorite. Dalrymple is a British physician and brilliant essayist; his essay appears in the new issue of City Journal, the quarterly publication of the Manhattan Institute. The essay is worthy of being printed out and read at your leisure: "Why Shakespeare is for all time."

If you haven't already seen this on InstaPundit, check out this London Times article on the expanding ricin investigation:

"A detective was stabbed to death and another officer was seriously injured when police raided a flat in Manchester last night as part of an investigation into the discovery of the poison ricin.
"Two other officers suffered stab wounds but their injuries were not thought to be life-threatening. A fifth officer suffered a broken ankle."

This is going to turn into a huge story, I think.

This superb article, Confessions of a Law School Admissions Officer, is from the Indianapolis Star and was posted on FrontPage Magazine. The author, who served for four years on the University of Indiana Law School admissions committee, reminds us how important it is for the Administration to intervene on the side of fairness and justice in the University of Michigan case:

"A policy however well-meaning in the abstract can feel foul to those given the job of implementing it. And in my four years on the admissions committee, routinely leapfrogging minority applicants over so many dramatically more qualified non-minority applicants, foul is how our affirmative action policy came to feel. Seeing the photographs and reading the record and personal statements of non-minority applicants whom we rejected in order to admit the far less qualified left me feeling as though I should wash. Eventually, I could not acquiesce in this policy any longer."

We, as a nation, should not acquiesce in race discrimination by government entities any longer.

The World Tribune is reporting that Saddam Hussein is sending his cousin to Egypt to meet with President Mubarak to discuss "personal issues." "Arab diplomatic sources," according to the World Tribune, say the topic under discussion will be Saddam's option of abdicating and fleeing to another Arab country. President Mubarak has said that any such plan must be approved by the United States.

Fox News has obtained a memo from the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to Tom Daschle, outlining their plans to stall President Bush's judicial nominees. Among other things, they want to establish a principle that only one circuit court nominee can be considered in each hearing, and that only one "controversial" nominee can be considered in each hearing. The Democrats, of course, will decide who is "controversial." And hearings are to take place only every three to four weeks.

More on Lomborg: Here is a link to Lomborg's brief comment on the decision of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, along with other relevant materials, including the text of the Committee's decision itself. I find it deeply ironic that the Working Party of the Committee that carried out the ritual denunciation of Lomborg, whose report identified no errors in Lomborg's book and premised its criticism on his purported failure to follow proper scientific procedures, contained, at best, a single scientist. Its five members were a physician, a professor of philosophy, a lawyer, a professor of political science and a professor of agronomy.

This whole episode represents a new low in the politicization of science. Unfortunately, it also illustrates the effectiveness of the left's systematic takeover of the institutions of the West--universities, newspapers, non-profits, newspapers, etc. Millions of people will read a headline reporting that Lomborg has been discredited, or an ill-informed article like the one in the Star Tribune. Only a handful will read the real story.

Devotees of grim humor will appreciate the prospective selection of Mohammar Gadhafi's Libya to the chairmanship of the UN Commission on Human Rights: "US hits Libya's ascension to UN post." From the folks who brought us the bombing of American GIs in Berlin and the bombing of Pan Am 103, we look forward to new leadership in issuing routine condemnations of Israel's democracy.

We aren't quite ready to say "you read it here first," but this morning's Washinton Times catches up with our sources on the president's intentions regarding the Michigan cases pending in the Supreme Court: "Bush set to break silence in race case." We are ready to say we stand by our story; the administration will file an amicus brief opposing the legality of the university's admissions policies.

I'm not heavily into popular culture in general, and, in particular, I'd never seen a "reality" television show. But a week ago my wife and daughters were eager to watch Joe Millionaire. I saw it with them and thought it was very fun. Tonight my wife and I were working on dinner when I said, "Wait a minute! Isn't this the night Joe Millionaire is on?" Sure enough. We watched it again. It was highly entertaining; at the end Evan narrowed the competitors down to five. Next week they're all going to Paris. I don't draw any particular conclusion from this, other than the fact that the program brings the concept of a "guilty pleasure" to a whole new level. I don't know, maybe I like it because it reminds me of my own single days. Right, guys?

The "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty" is surely a creation of the great Monty Python, right? Unfortunately, the liberal moralists at the Minneapolis Star Tribune lack both a sense of humor and of fair play. Their editorial this morning therefore takes this august tribunal's verdict on Bjorn Lomborg (author of the formidable Environmental Skeptic) at face value: "Biased science: chiding an environmental skeptic." Steve Hayward is both fairer and more knowledgeable than the Star Tribune editors. His account of the committee's Star Chamber proceedings finds the tribunal's verdict wanting: "Lomborg Gets the Galileo Treatment, Or, 'Shut up,' They Explained."

The same BBC report linked to below also notes that British cabinet member Clare Short said she "does not want the UK to join any unilateral American military action against Iraq." Which seems odd to me, inasmuch as if Britain joined us, it wouldn't be unilateral.

This ambiguous use of the word "unilateral" has become widespread; a much-hyped Knight-Ridder poll has led to headlines like this one in this morning's St. Paul Pioneer Press: "No war, Americans Say." The article's lead sentence reads: "With U.S. troops heading for the Persian Gulf, Americans say in overwhelming numbers that they oppose unilateral U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, according to a national Knight Ridder poll." But unilateral action is not one of the options that is even being considered. In any scenario, a number of allies will join in an action against Saddam. So why do reporters and politicians keep denouncing "unilateral" action?

As to the Knight-Ridder poll, the actual data, which can be viewed here, are quite different from the hype. It is true that when asked whether they would support attacking Iraq "alone" and "without the support of the United Nations," 34% of respondents said Yes, and 59% said No. However, when asked whether they would support at attack on Iraq in which "one or two of [the U.S.'s] major allies" joined, without U.N. support, 47% said Yes and 45% said No. With U.N. approval, support for an attack on Iraq is overwhelming at 83%.

Moreover, when asked "Do you think the U.S. should or should not take military action to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power?" the results are as follows:

Should: 63%
Should not: 28%

So much for the "No War, Americans Say" headline!

And, when asked whether they would support or oppose military action if that means keeping American troops in Iraq for one year after the war to maintain order and establish a new government, 80% said they "would support" military action, compared to only 16% who "would oppose" such action.

The BBC reports that in press conference earlier today, Tony Blair said he is "quite sure" that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein will be disarmed, with or without a new United Nations resolution. The BBC interprets this as a hardening in Blair's line, and in a separate commentary, the BBC says that Blair's statements "almost certainly mean war."

Blair also "outlined his confidence in the weapons inspections team and said things would be clearer when the inspectors reported on 27 January." Well, I hope so. But the same BBC report says that Richard Perle, head of the Defense Department Policy Board, "told BBC News that United Nations inspectors currently scouring Iraq had no chance of finding weapons because they had been hidden." That sounds more likely to me.

This piece by David Ignatius was in the Washington Post on Friday, but I just saw it today via Mickey Kaus. Ignatius looks at progress in the war from the perspective of al Qaeda; what he sees is pretty optimistic. For us, that is.

Based on the Sunday morning talk shows, it appears that the Pickering nomination will be a donnybrook. Tom Daschle drew a line in the sand, saying: "I think this really lays bare the administration's real position on civil rights. This exposes the Southern strategy clearly." Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a good battle for the Republicans to fight. The "civil rights" case against Pickering is extremely weak, and the Democrats don't seriously try to disguise the fact that the real reason they oppose him is that he is a conservative. I don't think they can sell their case to the public, and they don't have the votes to block Pickering without a filibuster, which they are threatening and which I think will make them look terrible. Also, a filibuster is a strategy they cannot repeat every time the President nominates a conservative to the bench.

Together, the Pickering fight and the University of Michigan Supreme Court cases give the Administration and the Republican Party an opportunity to stake out a position on race that is both principled and politically popular. PoliPundit linked to this Washington Post poll where the question asked was:

"In order to give minorities more opportunity, do you believe race or ethnicity should be a factor when deciding who is hired, promoted, or admitted to college, or that hiring, promotions, and college admissions should be based strictly on merit and qualifications other than race or ethnicity?"

The results: 5% in favor of affirmative action, 92% opposed. This poll is two years old and the results are so extreme that they may be a bit of a fluke. But there is no question that the principle of equal protection under the law is one that resonates with the American people. If the Republicans lead on this issue, the vast majority of Americans will be with them.

Available on OpinionJournal this morning (via the December issue of Commentary) is Victor Davis Hanson's "Bomb Texas: The psychological roots of anti-Americanism." It is mandatory reading, along with George Will's biweekly Newsweek column: "Once more, the bullhorn." (Both courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

Greg Brown is a prolific singer/songwriter in the urban folk mold. He is based in Iowa, but in 1980 founded a record label based in St. Paul on which to record and market his music. Although his singing is definitely an acquired taste, the songs are deep in the American vein and generally good. It is a bit easier to hear their beauty when they are interpreted and performed by some of the admiring female performers such as Shawn Colvin who have tried to popularize his work.

St. Paul's own Bob Feldman has carried on Brown's label (Red House Records) as a labor of love, signing his favorite artists to the label while it continues to serve as an outlet for Brown's work. Red House has just released a tribute album to Brown entitled "Going Driftless" featuring a fabulous roster of female performers singing Brown's songs. You can sample the entire album via the Red House Web site.

Today's New York Times carries a terrific profile of Brown by Peter Applebome: "Tucked away in a corner of country."

This morning's Minneapolis Star Tribune, under the heading "Four Approaches to Terrorism," has columns outlining different analyses of the problem. One is by a Muslim psychiatrist named Fatma Reda who explains why it's all our fault. Nothing new there, but I liked this reasoning:

"Unfortunately, what is being exported is fast food, fast movies and fast cars. Those exports create unbelievable havoc in Middle Eastern societies by destroying family values and societal cohesion."

There it is, the ultimate Twinkie defense: You sold us fast food, so we had to kill you!

Today's Washington Post has two sensible opinion pieces about Iraq. First, a Post editorial decries the ongoing inspections "charade". The Post notes that it is clear from the Blix Report that Iraq has made false disclosure and has failed fully to cooperate with inspectors. Thus, "the discovery or non-discovery of weapons by inspectors is, under the terms of the U.N. resolution, irrelevant;" a material breach has already occurred. However, the Post argues that, as a practical matter, President Bush must convince the U.S. public and most of our allies that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Blix and his crew are unlikely to produce such evidence. The Post concludes that, if the continuing charade in Baghdad doesn't flush out the needed evidence, President Bush should present the evidence the U.S. has, and then demand that the U.N. Security Coouncil hold Iraq accountable for the material breaches of Resolution 1441 that are already evident from the Blix Report.

The second piece is by Post columnist Jim Hoagland. Hoagland raises the question of how President Bush would respond if Saddam Hussein were removed by military coup or fled Iraq and replaced by a similar kind of figure. Hoagland hopes that Bush would proceed with military action to ensure that Iraq is disarmed and to promote change in the nature of the Iraqi regime. To the extent that the answer to Hoagland's question is unclear, Saddam's removal becomes less likely, as does the possbility that Bush will have to decide what to do in that event. Only by signaling our intentions to tolerate a military coup or similar option would we promote the prospects for such a resolution. And it seems unlikely that we would signal such intentions while working with the opposition forces in Iraq.

Trunk, my reaction to Will's column on Senator Graham is that Graham talks a good game. In any event, his chances of being the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 don't seem much better than mine. I suspect that he is actually running for Vice President and might be an astute choice for that spot.

This Washington Times article, "Tip of the Spear Ships Out," is about the imminent deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Stewart, Georgia, to the Persian Gulf. It will make you want to stand up and salute.

The McCain-Feingold chickens are coming home to roost. After decades of dependence on "soft money" contributions from unions and fat cats, the Democrats have been unsuccessful, so far, in significantly expanding their small donor base. The Washington Post reports on the uphill battle faced by the candidates seeking to challenge President Bush:

"[T]he sustained two-year effort by the party's national, senatorial and congressional campaign committees to strengthen 'hard money' fundraising did not succeed in lessening their dependence on 'soft money,' which no longer is legal. Instead, the Democratic committees in the 2002 elections were even more dependent on soft money--which national parties could raise in unlimited amounts until two months ago--than in previous elections."

The Democrats have responded to their lack of small donor support at the Senate level by recruiting rich candidates who can self-finance their campaigns. But not even John Kerry, who married the Heinz ketchup fortune, is rich enough to finance a Presidential run. The practical consequences of McCain-Feingold will be almost entirely unintended, as its ban on issue advertising will certainly be held unconstitutional, and the prohibition of soft money (together with the increase in the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000) will be a great boon to Republicans. It won't be long before agitation to amend the statute to benefit Democrats will begin. Here's a prediction: John McCain will be among the agitators.

George Will has a column this morning about Florida Senator Bob Graham and his prospective presidential candidacy. The column is of interest because, given Graham's perch on the Intelligence Committee, his criticism of our war effort as insufficiently aggressive is depressingly well-informed: "Dems' Florida Hope."

Last Sunday the New York Times carried a good column by David Frum; today it carries a good column by David Brooks. Brooks's column explains the weakness of the Democratic Party's ritual critique of tax cut proposals like President Bush's: "The triumph of hope over self-interest." Our friends at RealClearPolitics have found two columns that make excellent companion pieces: Larry Paquette's indignant personal plea, "Everybody, why not leave rich folks alone?," and Lou Dobbs's "Going for the knockout."

Contrast the reasoning presented in these columns with that offered on the Senate floor by Minnesota's Senator Mark Dayton: "'No shrinking violet,' Dayton tries to fill Wellstone shoes."

Lately the news has been full of anti-war demonstrations. Shown below are scenes from an international "peace" demonstration in Baghdad; a "peace" demonstration in Germany (for those who don't speak German, those t-shirts say "No Blood for Oil"); and an anti-war demonstration that took place today in Los Angeles. To spare the faint of heart, I didn't reproduce the picture of Martin Sheen flashing a peace sign.




Scenes like these make it easy to feel that we are alone in a sea of insanity. Or, perhaps, cowardice. That is not quite true, however. The British aircraft carrier Ark Royal sailed for the Middle East a couple of days ago with the largest British naval force launched since the Falklands war. The photo below is of a little girl whose father sailed with the fleet.


If we're choosing up sides, I'll take the girl.

The New York Times often goes astray when it tries to cover popular culture. Connoisseurs of the Times' corrections page will enjoy this conflation of bluegrass music and NBA basketball of the 1960's:

"An article in The Arts on Monday about Bering Strait, a country music band from Russia, merged the names of two artists who, along with Lester Flatt, influenced a teacher of the band members. They were Earl Scruggs and Bill Monroe — not Earl Monroe."

Here is the National Review's take on North Korea. The NR editors make the obvious, but somehow frequently overlooked point that developments in North Korea underscore the need to deal with Saddam Hussein before he becomes a nuclear power, and hence a serious threat to our security, as North Korea is now. As to actually dealing with the North Korean threat, the editors find our options quite limited. They see China as the key, and hope that China's fear of nuclear profileration in Asia will provide the incentive for China to curtail the North Korean threat. To that end, they suggest that we begin pulling troops out of South Korea, thereby (the editors hope) increasing the likelihood that South Korea and Japan will look to obtain nuclear weapons in the absence of North Korean disarmament.

While we wait to find out what position, if any, President Bush is going to take in the University of Michigan racial preference cases, here is Thomas Sowell's latest on the subject, from the Washington Times. Sowell shows that the key study relied on by proponents of racial preferences in college admissions -- The Shape of the River, by Bowen and Bok -- is flawed. That study understates the extent to which African-Americans admitted as a result of preferences fail to perform acceptably at college because it fails to differentiate between blacks who receive preferences and those who are admitted without them. Other studies that do not engage in this bit of trickery show what any reasonable person would expect -- when admissions are substantially relaxed, those who are admitted by virtue of the relaxed standards are significantly more likely not to do well in college. Thus, Sowell shows that at state universities studied, relaxed standards translate into massive differences in graduatation rates.

The Star Tribune not only profiles our friend Kirk Kolbo's Supreme Court case, they assign their Washinton beat reporter to write it up and then they place the story just under the fold on page one: "Minneapolis lawyers at center of Supreme Court's biggest case."

Hey, we can't feel bad about the fact that it took our local papers five years to discover that a local lawyer was representing the plaintiffs in the country's most significant racial discrimination lawsuit. We're pretty sure that if Kirk had represented the side that purports to favor "diversity," they would have been right on it!

Hearty congratulations to Kirk and his partners for getting some long overdue recognition for their work on the case of a lifetime, the twenty-first century's Brown v. Board of Education.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took to the airwaves to defend himself against charges of corruption Thursday night. But, in a chilling glimpse into the reality of election campaign "reform" laws, the plug was pulled on his speech:

"Mr Sharon was barely warming to his task, thumping the podium about 10 minutes into his speech, when the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Mishael Cheshin, a Supreme Court Justice, decided he was violating a law preventing the broadcast of 'election propaganda' in the month before a vote. In quick succession, Israel's three television stations, along with state and army radio, cut off the sound, with announcers saying they had been ordered to do so."

So politicians can be attacked, but if they defend themselves, they are engaging in illegal "election propaganda." In the thirty days before an election, apparently only the media can speak. Israel's campaign laws are not identical to McCain-Feingold; in particular, McCain-Feingold does not purport to restrict what candidates themselves can say. But Israel's law appears to be motivated by the same spirit as McCain-Feingold--a desire that during the critical last weeks of an election, all discourse be moderated by the media, lest direct communication with the voters persuade them to vote for conservatives.

Tim Blair does a wonderful job of collecting the blogosphere's rejoinders to England's execrable poet laureate. In order to join the fun, let's first review the poet laureate's now-infamous quatrain:

CAUSA BELLI by Andrew Motion

They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.

Now let me paste in a selection of the rejoinders Blair has posted and encourage you to spend the time necessary to appreciate all the masterpieces collected on his site:

COURSES YUMMY by Will Warren

They knead, good cooks, and gloat, but never burn
a flan or other creamy dish: that, you can be sure, they learn.
Our waiter's walk is far from straight: like Dad
he's soused, but brings my salad: oil, well clad.

POOR ENGLAND by Nelson Ascher

To have as poet laureate Andrew Motion
whose business is not verse, but self-promotion,
seems bad enough, but then it's more appallin'
to think he'll be succeeded by Tom Paulin.

COSI FAN BELTI by Adelard Moonbat

Where do they get this verse of rocket-rage,
Which Guardian finds worthy of its page?
Mayhap, its bien-pensants still crave his sound,
But that Motion lad's a knothead, I'll be bound.

CODDLED ANTI-BELLISTS by Holly Watson

They whinge and scream but never suggest
How else might power from Saddam might be wrest;
Pampered pacifists have never heard
That keeping the peace takes more than words.

And let us conclude with this observation: "Mooshu's Latin stinks. The Latin phrase in international law is 'casus belli' (case or event of war) and not 'causa belli' (cause of war). Masefield or Tennyson wouldn't have made that mistake, and neither would more competent newspaper editors (but it's the Guardian, after all)."

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports on a forum for Middle Eastern aliens relating to the requirement that they register with the INS; Friday was the registration deadline. The main idea of the program is to try to enforce the requirement that visitors leave the country when their visas expire. It has sparked widespread protests from Middle Easterners who think they are unfairly singled out. The Strib's story focuses on a Pakistani who, as a result of registering, was required to leave the country since his visa expired when he lost his job; he then re-entered the country immediately on a new visa, based on his wife's residence here. This process of complying with the law was unexpected and understandably painful. In a typical burst of hyperbole, the Pakistani concludes that "These days, getting arrested on a visa violation is 'like a death sentence' for foreign visitors." Yes, exactly like a death sentence, except they don't actually, you know, kill you. They just make you comply with the immigration laws.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press carries a profile of our friend Kirk Kolbo, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the historic racial discrimination cases pending against the University of Michigan in the Supreme Court: "Lawyer fights for race-neutral policies."

The Washington Post reports on Republican Senators who are already raising objections to the President's tax cut package. Joining the always-treacherous John McCain and the Missing Linc are Charles Grassley, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich and Susan Collins. It is hard to see how President Bush can bargain effectively with the Democrats when he is already being sold out by this many Senate Republicans. Nevertheless, indications are that the Administration will fight hard for the tax cut plan. President Bush will go on the road to promote it as he did two years ago, and the bill will start in the House where party discipline is better and speedy passage is likely.

The proposal to eliminate taxation on dividends appears to be in the most trouble. On the bright side, acceleration of the already-scheduled marginal rate reductions and elimination of the marriage penalty apparently are looking secure.

Mark Steyn provides us his own take on the poet laureate's quatrain that has proved an inspiration to Rocket Man and other of the blogosphere's finest wordsmiths: "Going through the motions."

Update from Rocket Man: Steyn is always funny, but this is truly hilarious! Whatever else you read today, don't miss it.

Sincere thanks to our friends at RealClearPolitics for including my piece on "racial profiling," complete with a link to the Power Line, among the roster of today's best columns.

Tomorrow's Sunday New York Times Book Review features a review by Robert Dallek of a new book by Michael Lind on George W. Bush, Made in Texas. Dallek sounds so stupid, and the book sounds so bad, that the review might be of interest to you: "The Really Deep Southern Strategy."

The current issue of the Weekly Standard is out and several good articles, including a couple on the North Korean fiasco, are available online. The cover story is an article by Noemie Emery on the Democratic party line on Republicans: "Greed, Oppression, Patriarchy." Although her article is somewhat impressionistic, her analysis is consistent with Ronald Radosh's more detailed account in his interesting book on the Democratic Party since 1964, Divided They Fell.

Andrew Ferguson also has a feature article that is both funny and acute, on Richard Nixon on the occasion of what would be his ninetieth birthday: "Still the One." Ferguson's article addresses the source of the hatred felt by the liberal elite toward Nixon despite the fact that "he was the most liberal president of the past sixty years."

Ferguson recounts several hilarious Oval Office conversations that Ferguson has listened to in the Annex devoted to housing the Nixon tapes. As Ferguson listens to tapes pulled randomly from the archives, he says, "there were moments when I thought [the archivist] was pulling a gag, slipping a Rich Little tape into the machine."

Ferguson last quotes a conversation between Nixon and arts guru Nancy Hanks in which he discusses the movie industry, among other things: "'Now, Nancy, it turns out, 52 percent of the movies we see here in the United States were made abroad. What I want to do is find a way to keep these damn foreign movies out. Oh, I know they're supposed to be so damn great and so forth. To tell you the truth, I don't see many movies. Saw 'Love Story.' 'Patton.' But my point is, I will not have America slip to number two in the world when it comes to movies.'

"Mrs. Hanks protests that the popularity of foreign movies is owing to their superior quality.

"'Well, then, here's what I want you to do. I want you to take it to the movie industry. You tell 'em, You've got to start producing good movies. Say: No more of this weird stuff! Shape up!

"'The family movie is coming back, you know. People don't like arty. They don't like offbeat.

"'But the film industry, they're trying to reflect the intelligentsia'--the word drips with venom--'and that is their big mistake. Following the intelligentsia is where they always go wrong. Look at these film schools today. All they do is the weird stuff. They produce weird movies. They produce weird people.'"

Ferguson provides a persuasive answer to the question he raises in the article.

Yeah, Deacon, I can't disagree with Murray and Carter--most people don't realize how few catchers have put up good offensive numbers over more than a few seasons--but like many who saw the headline a few days ago, it took me a long, horrifying moment to realize they weren't talking about Jimmy and Patty.

Dumb son of a bitch. Lyndon Johnson called him his worst mistake, and that's saying something.

This week Eddie Murray and Gary Carter were elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Murray's election was a no-brainer; he had more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. Carter's election might seem questionable to younger fans just looking at his offensive numbers, which may not look that impressive compared to the top hitting catchers of recent years like Mike Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez. However, measured against his era, and coupled with his defensive prowess, they probably justify Carter's election. In this piece from the Weekly Standard, David Skinner lauds Carter the player and reminds us what a decent person he is. It's a good article, but I'm bothered by the following line: "Carter was a longtime Montreal Expo, but he entered my consciousness during the 1980s as a New York Met." While there's nothing wrong with him entering Skinner's consciousness that way, I suspect that if Carter had remained in Montreal (and even if he had won a World Series there, as he did in New York), he would still be waiting to be elected to the Hall of Fame, having not sufficiently entered the consciousness of the sportswriting electorate.

Frank Gaffney shares my disgust at the outbreak of revisionist history with respect to North Korea by former Clinton Administration officials and Democratic legislators. Writing for National Review Online, Gaffney demolishes these attempts at revisionist history. Regarding Lieberman's pathetic comments, Gaffney notes (as I did the other day) that the purpose of Clinton's "Agreed Framework" was to prevent North Korea from developing any nuclear weapons, not merely to prevent them from developing such weapons through weapons-grade plutonium. And Gaffney points out that, according to U.S. intelligence, North Korea began its covert uranium weapons program between 1998 and 2000. Thus, they were not driven into this program by President Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Gaffney contends that, since the Clinton apologists are proposing that the current situation be resolved through another negotiated promise by North Korea, it is essential that they "be scrupulously honest about the historical record concerning those earlier, ominously fraudulent undertakings." Unfortunately, they cannot be honest about them and still effectively advocate going down that road again.

One of my pet peeves recently has been op-ed pieces on North Korea by members of the Cllinton Adminstration who helped formulate the failed policy of appeasement that got us into the current mess. I might have thought that the only thing more unwelcome than these pieces would be one by Dennis Ross, who helped formulate the failed policy of appeasement towards the PLO. But unlike other members of the Clinton foreign policy team, Ross (who started out on the first George Bush's team) shows signs of "growing out of office." In this Washington Post op-ed, Ross contends that we need to keep the military option on the table when it comes to North Korea. Ross believes that only Russia and China can apply the kind of pressure that might cause North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. And he believes that Russia and China will exert this pressure only if they fear that the U.S. might fight and win a war on the Korean peninsula. Perhaps Ross is able to attempt constructive commentary, rather than revisionist history, when it comes to North Korea because this wasn't his area. But Ross also praises President Bush's policy towards Iraq, and in other writings he is making far more sense regarding Israel than he ever did at the State Department.

I'm staying out of the poetry writing contest, Rocket Man, but the philosopher all-star team brings back memories. Actually Edwards' remarks remind of an old 1970s comedy routine. Like the student in that routine, Edwards could probably identify the colors of Wittgenstein's Blue and Brown books, but would surely trip up on the color of the green book.

Hey, Rocket Man, it's a classic! I'm entering it in the Poetry Contest. It can be rapped or sung as a country song; it's a multipurpose masterpiece. Compare with the latest from the Doggerel Pundit, New Year's Diet:

To go completely off your feed,
Read each week an Ivins screed.
Krugman makes a body queasy,
Oatmeal please, and take it easy.
Rall cartoons are on the net
And from his last I’m nauseous yet.
Cockburn sets a stomach whirling,
Stuff from Streisand causes hurling.
Chomsky’s writing, I believe,
Is worth one ounce at every heave.
Carter causes ripples gastric,
He alone, four pounds—fantastic!
Table Fisking trims the bubble,
Eat a bite then throw up double.
Sheen, your appetite he’ll sever,
Snack, and bear Sarandon? Never!
See fat Moore his world expose
and fear your plate forever!

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is running a poetry contest, inspired by a pathetic bit of antiwar doggerel by Britain's poet laureate. He (the poet, that is) has been topped, mocked, ridiculed and eviscerated by bloggers, starting with Tim Blair. This inspired me to pen my own bit of doggerel; I didn't have the Rottweiler exemplar before me so my effort doesn't conform to the rhyme or meter scheme, or whatever it is that poems have. Anywhere, here it is. Be warned in advance, it's really bad. In fact, I hereby authorize Deacon and the Trunk to delete it if they think it will drive away readers. Here goes:

For eight long years we had President Bill
Whose interest in terror was less than nil.
Al Qaeda bombed with wild abandon,
But Bill was happy because he had one--
An intern, that is, named Monica
Who played Bill like a harmonica,
But so did Kim, Saddam and Osama,
The turban-headed jihad-bomber.
Now the mess is George's to straighten;
The terrorists he is checkmatin'
No thanks to the feckless Democrats
Or our State Department bureaucrats.
So for George W. let's all cheer--
He's the hero of the blogosphere!

It occurs to me that if it had a little country music to go with it, it wouldn't be so bad.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported today that the Ramsey County District Court has completed a study of bail decisions, which concluded that race was not a factor. This is not a surprise; it is consistent with data collected several years ago on Hennepin County (where Minneapolis is located), which the Trunk and I have analyzed and written about.

The conclusion of the Pioneer Press article, however, reads like a parody:

"The study found the current evaluation fair to all races. Still, Mott said, judges and court personnel will continue seeking reasons behind the high number of minorities in Minnesota prisons in comparison with the state's minority population as a whole. For example, African-Americans make up 36 percent of the state's prison population, but just 3.5 percent of the state's population, according to the 2000 census.

"'A 20-year-old African-American male isn't going to have the 15 years on the job like a 50-year-old white male,' Mott said. 'But would a 50-year-old black male have 15 years on the job? Maybe. Then the question is, ultimately, is there bias and discrimination outside the court?'

"Hankes said recent statistics found that 56 percent of people booked into the Ramsey County Adult Detention Center were people of color. The county's minority population is 25 percent. That disparity, he said, is a mystery studies have yet to solve.

"'Everybody (conducting the study) is well meaning here, but then you still have that number that makes you go, 'Wait a minute,'' Hankes said. 'The number lays out there; it's in your face.'"

I love that phrase: "a mystery studies have yet to solve." What that means, I guess, is that studies have failed to find any evidence of racism in Minnesota's criminal justice system. Absent such evidence, the remarkable number of black men in the state's prisons can only be considered a "mystery." Well, here's a clue: those people are in jail because they committed crimes. Nationwide, the black murder rate is about seven times the white rate. A couple of years ago, a study was done of crime reports in Hennepin County, which found that in more than 60% of the Category 1 crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault, etc.), where the victim was able to describe the perpetrator, the perpetrator was black. Which is pretty conclusive evidence that in Minnesota, as in every other state I know of, blacks are "over-represented" in prisons because they commit an amazing number of crimes. I frankly find it a little hard to believe that the Pioneer Press's reporter, and the individuals she quotes as they scratch their heads over the "mystery," haven't noticed this basic fact.

Frontpage features an excellent column by Thor Halvorssen on the popular revolt underway in Venezuala against Castro's acolyte Hugo Chavez: "Is John Galt Venezuelan?" Can anyone explain to me whose side the United States is on?

Important as always is Daniel Pipes's latest essay: "The Scandal of US-Saudi Relations." The essay appears in the winter issue of the National Interest (not, as I erroneously stated earlier, the winter issue of Middle East Quarterly, the flagship publication of Pipes's invaluable Middle East Forum organization), and is long enough that it should be printed out and read at your leisure.

To borrow Peter Schramm's unit of measurement on No Left Turns, the essay is a four-coffee read. But given the nature of Pipes's essay, I need to add a refinement to this unit of measurement. The refinement is derived from the Albert Brooks School of Comedy and is known as the Danny Thomas double take. As explained by Brooks in one of his lessons on elementary comedy moves, the Danny Thomas double take is the expression of shock by means of spitting a mouthful of coffee across the room. Pipes's essay is a four-coffee read with ten Danny Thomas double takes.

This morning's must-read column is Charles Krauthammer's "Powell and Bush at cross purposes?"

The Washington Times seems to have almost all the news stories of interest this morning, including several on which it's miles ahead of its competitors. I won't post them all, but one follow-up from yesterday is worth a look: "Race case under Bush's 'review.'" According to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, the president has not yet determined whether the administration will file the brief prepared by the Justice Department opposing the University of Michigan's racially discriminatory admissions policies.

I have only found the New York Post carrying this story of interest regarding our efforts to inspire Saddam Hussein's travel outside Iraq: "B-1s swarm to Gulf." Also of professional interest to us is Andrea Peyser's column about the kind of judge who makes us think about pursuing our other interests on a full-time basis: "Judge's justice is blind fury."

This morning's best editorial is the Wall Street Journal's "Playing the Lott card," courtesy of RealClearPolitics. Also worth a look is the Journal Taste page editorial "The man with the golden gun."

Alfred A. Knopf has announced that it will cease publication of Michael Bellesiles' Arming America. This whole saga has been a pretty significant victory for truth. Now if we could just do something about the New York Times.

Before I sign off for the night, I have to add a quick comment regarding the Trunk's post, below, on John Edwards' clueless performance on ABC. I'm not thinking primarily of the fact that he couldn't come up with the name of a favorite philosopher, although that is pathetic--it reminds me of the days when Deacon and I would invent baseball teams consisting entirely of philosophers: "Chico" Marx at shortstop, Spinoza at second, Arthur Schopenhauer the slow but strong-armed right fielder. Instead, I'm referring to Edwards' choice of I.F. Stone's book about the death of Socrates as his favorite book.

There was a time, not so many years ago, when a Presidential candidate who selected a book by a Communist stooge (and, if memory serves, spy) as his favorite would have been doomed to a speedy oblivion. Apparently that is no longer the case. But it will be interesting to see whether anyone outside the blogosphere even notes the fact that John Edwards can't think of a better book than one by a Communist mole who thought Socrates was guilty. As, in a socialist workers' paradise, he would have been.

The Washington Times reports on the battle brewing over the confirmation of Judge Pickering. I have a feeling that this could become a defining moment. The Democrats are issuing apocalyptic pronouncements; Tom Daschle says: "It is surprising to me that the administration, given all the problems that the Republican Party has had in the last few weeks, would act so irresponsibly." Well, some of us would say that it is the Democrats who have had problems in the last few weeks--i.e., getting clobbered in the midterm elections. But the Democrats seem to have fallen into the old trap of believing their own press clippings. It appears that the Republicans, both in the Administration and in the Senate, are willing to go to bat for Judge Pickering. So let the battle begin. I think this is one we can, and will, win.

Fox News is performing an invaluable service by keeping this reminder of why Patty Murray recently finished first in a Senate staffers' "Dumbest Senator" poll in the public eye. Today's headline--Sen. Murray Defends bin Laden Comments--is exactly what we want for the next two years.

Israeli politics can be impenetrable to the outsider, and headlines recently have focused on alleged scandals and Likud's plummeting poll numbers. But for what it's worth, Debka File is confident that Ariel Sharon has nothing to worry about.

Ann Coulter weighs in on North Korea in her latest column, "Axis of Stupidity."

Hans Blix reported today that the U.N. inspectors have so far found no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Ari Fleischer responded that the U.S. government "knows for a fact" that Iraq possesses such weapons.

At some point very soon, one of two things has to happen: either the inspectors actually find something--highly unlikely--or the Administration comes forth with some evidence of what we ostensibly know. If the inspectors report complete failure on January 27, it will be very difficult for the Administration, having detoured through the United Nations and agreed to the inspections regime, to simply ignore the inspectors' report and proceed with war. I have always assumed that the Administration has an ace in the hole and, when the time comes, will dramatically unveil evidence that justifies going to war. It is inconceivable that they don't have a Plan B if (when) the inspectors come up empty. Isn't it?

My new fave Emperor Misha I of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has a hilarious Poetry Contest instigated by Rocket Man's fave Tim Blair. Misha sets forth the genesis of the contest as follows:

"Tim Blair came across the following piece of dreck from Britain's Poet Laureate (which, in the ancient British dialect of English, means 'somebody who gets paid to write utter shite while pretending to be incredibly wise'... Hmm, just like in New Joisey, actually):

"CAUSA BELLI by Andrew Motion

They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad."

Blair, Misha, and other inspired poetic souls of the blogosphere show that it's not hard to improve on the poet laureate's doggerel. If you would appreciate a laugh today, I'm pretty sure the Poetry Contest will do it for you.

This column by Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post offers a more sensible analysis of the situation with North Korea than most of what I've seen on the subject. Hoagland concludes that the Bush Administration has taken the right appoach since Ocboer, and that the concession of agreeing to formal negotiations with North Korea while it continues to break its previous agreements "neither could nor should settle this face-off." And Hoagland succinctly demonstrates the fatal flaw of the failed appeasement policy of Bill Clinton, which the Democrats continue to advocate: "The aura of invulnerability conveyed by a dozen or so nuclear warheads is for Kim Jong Il a greater asset than anything any American president can grant."

The renomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has led to renewed attacks on the judge for his rulings in a 1994 cross-burning case in Mississippi. Here, Byron York of National Review examines the facts of that case and concludes that Pickering's rulings were reasonable ones in a difficult case. If the facts are as York states them, I agree.

In a post on No Left Turns earlier this week, Peter Schramm recounted a recent Sunday morning television interview of presidential wannabe John Edwards:

"I happened to see The Boy Wonder on ABC this morning interviewing presidential hopeful John Edwards, and Stephanopoulos asked him who his favorite philosopher was (a very original question). Edwards started talking about his favorite politician (a former governor of North Carolina) and when asked again, he said he didn’t know. Then Stephanopoulos asked him what his favorite book was and Edwards said: 'I.F. Stone’s The Trial of Socrates.' It seems to me that there should have been a follow-up question."

I wrote Peter to ask what follow-up questions he had in mind, and received the following response: "Since the question had to do with his favorite philosopher (which he couldn't answer) and the next had to do with his favorite book (which was about a philosopher, arguably the first and best) one thing that could have been asked is: Why is Socrates not your favorite philosopher since your favorite book is about Socrates? Another could have been: Since you mention that Stone's book is your favorite but did not mention that the subject of that book, Socrates, is your favorite philosopher, is that because Stone persuaded you that Socrates was gulity? And does his guilt make Socrates a good or bad philosopher? I could go on, but you get the point. It could have been a great conversation, if either of them knew anything (about either Socrates, or Stone's book)."

I can think of a few other interesting follow-ups that might have occurred to the interviewer. The interview Peter is referring to is the one in which Edwards hammered President Bush for being soft on North Korea. Yet I.F. Stone was the most notorious American apologist for North Korea ever. His shoddy 1952 book The Hidden History of the Korean War is a classic of left-wing disinformation asserting that the United States initiated the hostilities leading to the Korean War and has now been definitively disproved by documents from Soviet archives. How about asking Edwards what he found admirable about I.F. Stone in this context? Wasn't he one of the disgraceful men of the left who never found any fault with state crimes so long as they were committed by Communists?

Peter's point was essentially that Edwards doesn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about. My point would have been the same.

Yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune had a nice article on the swearing-in of our friend John Kline as a new Congressman. It's a nice reminder of how much fun politics can be when you win. In John's case, the reward follows six years of hard work that culminated in November in his defeat of an incumbent Democrat.

Well, guys, I can't wait to see what the Administration does in the Michigan cases on the 16th. If it turns out our sources are better than the Washington Times', it will be another victory for the blogosphere!

Unlike us in our report last evening, the Washington Times isn't so sure that the administration will do the right thing in the Michigan cases pending before the Supreme Court. Its story this morning seems to lack knowledgeable sources and mostly illustrates the political pressures on the administration to do the wrong thing. Left unnoted are the political pressures on the administration to do the right thing, which are also substantial. In any event, the story is worth reading: "White House set to stay out of affirmative action case."

Great line from Ann Coulter on Lieberman, Rocket Man. The man is a poseur. Notice the opening sentence of his Washington Post op-ed posted below about North Korea. At the outset, he reminds the reader, as if in passing, that he supports President Bush on Iraq. In my view, he's trying to assume his customary pose as an honest broker who calls them as he sees them, and who attacks Bush more in sadness than in anger. But think about it. Senate Democrats, including the biggest knaves among them, generally profess support for Bush on Iraq. So Lieberman is simply following the party line -- support Bush on Iraq, where his policy is popular and likely to succeed resoundingly, and attack him on North Korea, where he's in a real bind due to the policies of Clinton.

This is Lieberman's modus operandi -- establish his bona fides as a different kind of Democrat and then affirm the party line. During the various Clinton scandals, such as Chinagate and the Lewinsky affair, Lieberman spoke out early, expressing concern about the conduct of the Administration and/or President Clinton. The media played up these statements, citing them as evidence that at least some Democrats were taking the scandals seriously and that there would be no whitewash. In the end, though, Lieberman joined with his fellow Democrats and winked at obvious wrongdoing. And the media gave Lieberman's conclusions extra credibility because of his initial statements of concern and his overall reputation for fair-mindedness. I came to suspect that the whole thing was choreographed from the start, and that the Democrats were using Lieberman, with his consent. In some ways, I think Lieberman's op-ed piece on North Korea is more of the same.

As we have previously noted, January 16 is the day on which the Bush administration must file its brief and show its hand in the two momentous University of Michigan racial discrimination cases pending before the United States Supreme Court. The question before the Court is the legality of the "affirmative action" admissions programs in the university's undergraduate and law schools.

Our sources tell us that the administration will file a brief arguing that the programs constitute illegal race-based quotas, but remain "agnostic" on the "diversity" rationale advanced by the university to justify the programs. I think this sounds like a relatively positive outcome, at least compared to what I had feared might be the administration's position on this core question of principle. The problem is that this would simply require schools to be slightly less blatantly discriminatory and slightly more flexible in administering their admissions programs to avoid liability, and delay the day when the use of skin color is simply proscribed, as it should be. But it is possible to do worse, and the administration's position should make it a harder for the Court to do worse. If my information is accurate, all I can say (at least at this time) is "On to Baghdad!"

It is time to vote for the 2003 Bloggies! Vote for your favorites in categories like best blog, best new blog, etc.

Earlier today, Charles Schumer and other Democratic Senators announced that they would filibuster to prevent Charles Pickering from being appointed to the 5th Circuit. I'd prefer he get confirmed, of course, but the filibuster alternative isn't all bad. I think that whoever filibusters conveys a horrible impression with the public.

Yeah, Deacon, whoever saw anything positive in Lieberman was wrong. Whenever I think of him, I remember Ann Coulter's description of him as a member of the world's smallest club: "Orthodox Jews for partial birth abortion." Politics has always trumped everything else with Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman cyncially joins the "blame American first" crowd in this piece about North Korea in the Washington Post. Lieberman goes further than even most Democrats when he argues, without evidence, that "the Bush administration has bullied its way to the opposite result from what it presumably wanted -- a non-nuclear North Korea" (what is the word "presumably" doing in that sentence?) And Lieberman actually claims that the Clinton appeasement policy was working until Bush came along because the North Koreans "kept [the] central part of the agreement [pertaining to weapons-grade plutonium]" and relations between the two Koreas, and even between North Korea and the U.S., improved. Only if one reads further (not easy to do because Lieberman doesn't write much better than he speaks) does one get an acknowledgement that North Korea flat-out violated the 1994 by pursuing a nuclear program based on uranium enrichment. Ever the apologist, though, Lieberman again points out that the North Korean nuclear program is not based on plutonium, as if this is supposed to console us.

In addition to re-writing the historical record, Liberman offers as a solution the usual mush -- forget the past and simply negotiate a new agreement by which North Korea agrees to become a non-nuclear power (with "full international inspections" of course) in exchange for political recognition and regional economic investment. Lieberman fails to explain why the North Korean dictator would agree to disarm in exchange for these benefits, unless he believed that he could obtain the benefits without living up to his promises. As he was able to do under the Clinton appeasement policy that Lieberman defends.

Reader John Richardson steered us to this humorous psychoanalysis of Michael Moore (what do you think, is he the world's most overrated human?) by the wonderful Rachel Lucas.

Our correspondent Joshua Sharf points out that "The biggest problem with the Democrats' 'Stimulus Package' is the very thing they're trying to use as a selling point: its temporariness." He notes that permanent, structural change is best because business can count on it and plan on it. Permanence is made difficult, however, by the odd rule "that requires 60 votes to make tax cuts that extend beyond 10 years permanent. This is why the tax cuts of 2001 are slated to end in 2011." I basically agree with Joshua, except I would note that permanent, structural change is the last thing the Democrats want, so it's no surprise their feeble "stimulus" approach quickly expires. My only other caveat is, I am not sure how confident business can be about the permanence of any economic policy adopted by Congress. Ten years may be about as far as anyone feels able to see.

Joshua is a blogger, by the way--I can't remember whether we've linked to him before, but his blog is called View From A Height. It's very nice; take a look.

George Will on the president's economic plan (after reading Will's piece, I won't call it a stimulus package). According to Will, the plan's primary purpose is long-term structural change, rather than changes in short-term conditions. Will notes that the current system of double taxation of dividends "in effect subsidizes corporate financing by debt rather than equity, because interest is deductible and dividends are not." However, Will argues that the stimulative effect of President Bush's proposal to eliminate taxation of individual's dividend income is limited because half of all dividends go to 401(k)s, pension funds, and other untaxed accounts. Thus, says Will, it would be better to cure double taxation by allowing corporations to expense dividends against income.

This column by a Univerisity of Indiana Law School professor explains what "affirmative action" really means when you cut through the mumbo jumbo, and as such is a useful contribution to the debate raised by the University of Michigan cases (which do likewise): "Bar lowered way too far for minorities at law school." (Courtesy of No Left Turns.)

Bruce Bartlett in the Washington Times recalls that Democrats once supported reducing taxes on corporate dividends. In fact, Jimmy Carter campaigned on a platform of eliminating the double taxation of corporate profits. He continued to advocate this after his election, and the New York Times supported him on this. However, Carter never proposed eliminating or reducing double taxation to Congress. Bartlett believes that this was because of "opposition from the Republican-leaning corporate community." Among other possible reasons, businesses apparently were wary of creating pressure to pay out dividends. Bartlett concludes by setting forth the advantages to our economy of decreasing (or better yet eliminating) double taxation. He points to one study that estimates that the complete elimination of taxes on dividends would raise the Standard & Poor's 900 index by 8.5 percent. And he notes that in New Zealand, where double taxation of corporate income was eliminated, corporate debt fell significantly.

Mrs. Trunk submits for your consideration William Buckley's take on the Democratic response to President Bush's economic plan: "Democratic folklore."

In his terrific WorldNetDaily column this morning Hugh Hewitt pays us the great compliment of describing us as Dickensian moralists: "Cheers for Nickleby and Dickens." (For the record, my favorite Dickens novel is Bleak House.) As always, we are sincerely grateful for Hugh's generosity in sharing his loyal audience with us.

Claudia Rosett has an invaluable account of the UN's welfare for terrorists program on OpinionJournal. I disagree with the point of her column; she wants the organization to focus on legitimate emergency missions. I think the problem she describes is inherent to the organization in its present form and that the organization should therefore be undermined at the least and destroyed if possible. In any event, her column is a good one: "Insane Asylum Policy."

The best column in the papers this morning is Kathleen Parker's "When it comes to Islam, there's no joking around," a column that I found much to my surprise in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Also worth reading, as usual, is Michael Kelly, who provides a brief history lesson illustrating the stupidity of the commentary that blames President Bush for the North Korean fiasco: "Kick the (Korea) can." And this morning's best editorial is the New York Post's "Israel, waiting in agony." The latter should be read in conjunction with Steven Plaut's "Israel's nightmare is not Saddam."

This, on the other hand, is pretty funny. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gets a phone call from his mentor, Fidel Castro. I wish we had the whole transcript, though. What did Fidel send to Chavez?

This is truly sick: a new series of television ads promoting the idea that driving SUVs supports terrorists. The ads, which apparently are the brainchild of former conservative Ariana Huffington, feature people saying things like "I helped hijack an airplane," and "I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country."

The logic? Well, SUVs burn gas, and some gas comes from the Middle East, and some of that Middle Eastern gas money winds up in the hands of terrorists. Of course, those of us who are still conservatives, unlike Ms. Huffington, would probably say we should keep driving our cars and kill the terrorists. Oh, and also, drill for oil in Alaska. Do you suppose liberals will run ads in the districts of Congressmen who have blocked Alaskan oil development, saying "I gave money to a terrorist training camp"? Just a thought.

E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post takes exception to claims that he and his fellow Democrats are engaging in class warfare when they attack President Bush's economic policies. But he fails to come up with a better description for a camp that supports increased expropriation of the assets of well-to-do Americans and accuses these people of being greedy when they complain about it. Actually, Dionne doesn't really deny that he engages in class warfare. Instead, he grouses that the Republicans do it too. He cites President Bush's criticism of some trial lawyers, as well as conservative attacks on the "Hollywood elite" or the "cultural elite." But the examples Dionne cites involve objections to the actions through which one group of people becomes wealthy, or they refer to certain sets of cultural attitudes. This is not class warfare in any strong sense because it does not single out individuals for attack based solely on their economic status, much less urge that anyone be made less wealthy through state action.

In renominating Pickering, President Bush is indeed acting more boldly than I expected, Rocket Man. As I said last night, this nomination will be attacked vigorously on the grounds that Pickering, like his sponsor Trent Lott, has not come down firmly enough against instances racism. To the extent that the charge is false (as it appears to be) and to the extent that Judge Pickering is a distinguished jurist (I don't know enough to opine on this), the President is to be applauded. In general, it is good to see Bush sticking to his guns. But the big test is not the re-nomination of this or that southern judge. The big test will be the Administration's position in the University of Michigan racial preference cases.

President Bush has announced that he will renominate all 31 judicial candidates who were not confirmed by the Senate during the last session, including Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, who were voted down on a straight party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee, which was controlled at the time by Democrats. Bush was not intimidated by suggestions that the Trent Lott affair required him to back off on nominations of southerners who had been attacked by the Democrats. Good news, I think. Bush is consistently bolder than either his opponents or his supporters expect.

Stanley Kurtz in National Review Online reports that Daniel Pipes has recently been "disinvited" from two important speaking engagements at American universities. Kurtz notes that Pipes is a leading expert on terrorism and the Middle East, and one of the very few such experts who warned of the danger posed by Islamism prior to September 11. I would suggest that, in addition, he is one of the few such experts who fully appreciates the danger posed by Islamism after September 11. This explains why he is being blackballed. Unless one wants to accept the Orwellian explanation of those who have revoked Pipes' speaking invitiations -- that Pipes practices McCarthyism.

John Fonte of the Hudson Institute shows that Republicans, and to some extent conservatives, were instrumental in the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fonte is responding in National Review Online, to the claim that conservatives were "missing in action" on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Fonte is forced to acknowledge that leading conservative thinkers did not support the 1964 Act, nor did the leading conservative in Congress, Barry Goldwater. In defense of Goldwater, Fonte notes that the Senator had supported previous civil rights legislation, but was concerned that the 1964 Act might cause the federal government to require discrimination against whites. Democrats addressed this concern by adding language that specifcally disavows preferences based on race, and virtually every key liberal in Congress denounced such preferences. To the extent that Goldwater continued to fear that the 1964 Act would nonetheless lead to "reverse discrimination" he was, of course, prophetic. However, I believe that Goldwater's opposition to the act, which was also based on other concerns and states' rights arguments, was misguided. At the end of the day, one can conclude that the conservative record with respect to civil rights in the 1960s is mixed, but that in the years since it has been conservatives who have upheld the anti-discrimination principles of the 1964 act and liberals who, in violation of their repeated promises, abandoned these principles almost immediately.

Nick Coleman is a columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press who has the Democratic Party running through his veins; his father was the respected Democratic majority leader of the state senate from 1973-80, until just before his premature death from cancer in March 1981. But even Nick Coleman realizes that one of the great stories of this past November 5 is the election of Minnesota's new governor, Tim Pawlenty, who was sworn into office yesterday. Coleman's profile of Tim is a terrific piece of first-hand reporting: "Back home for haircut, humility."

Anti-terrorist police in London have arrested six men of North African origin who apparently were manufacturing ricin, a deadly poison. Ricin is also one of the toxins believed to have been produced by Saddam Hussein.

Tom Daschle has announced that he will not run for President in 2004, saying his "passion" is in the Senate. It will be interesting to see whether he tries to defend his Senate seat against either John Thune or Bill Janklow in 2004.

Emperor Misha I of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is a little too vulgar for us to quote verbatim, but his commentary on the execrable Jack Straw, the leaders of what he calls EUnuchland, and their aborted conference with the cronies of Yasser Arafat is excellent: "The Last Straw."

This troubling AP report says that "U.N. inspectors have yet to turn up any sign of prohibited weapons in Iraq, complicating the Bush administration's task of justifying an armed invasion. Allies already are expressing misgivings...." In particular, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw reportedly is saying that the likelihood of war has dropped below 50%.

I've never assumed that the Administration's Iraq policy depends on what the inspectors do or do not find. My hope has been that U.S. intelligence services know where at least some of the weapons of mass destruction are, and that on or about January 27, in conjunction with the inspectors' report, there will be a dramatic revelation that will decisively show that Saddam has been lying. This would be followed either by Saddam's flight or by his deposition by military means.

If the inspectors report on January 27 that they couldn't find anything, and the Administration has nothing to offer beyond its already-expressed conviction that Iraq possesses and is hiding such weapons, my confidence in the Administration will prove to have been misplaced. We'll know soon.

Mark Steyn's latest is "America's fake identity crisis." Even though it's funny, and Steyn's timing on this one is not the greatest, it has produced a setback in my anger management therapy.

If you have the patience to read a column about Tom Delay, regardless of what you think of him now this column will make you see him in a new light: "Thinking outside the boxes about Tom Delay."

The latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll suggests broad public support for the key elements of the Administration's economic stimulus bill. The public supports each aspect of the proposal, by the following margins:

Accelerating income tax cuts: 65% to 32%
Reducing taxation on dividends: 58% to 37%
Expanding tax credits for families with children: 86% to 12%
Reducing the marriage penalty: 80% to 18%
Tax incentives for business investment: 65% to 31%

There are lots more poll data that are worth a look. Generally, the numbers indicate that a substantial majority of Americans both favor tax cuts and believe that they will help the economy. The Democrats will of course try to chip away at these numbers, but the instinctive popularity of tax cuts is hard to fight. The Democrats will posture themselves as also favoring tax cuts, only different, smaller and temporary ones. I doubt this will work much better for them than the "me too, only less" policies of the Rockefeller Republicans worked in the dark days of the 50's and 60's.

ABC News reports that the FBI's search for five Middle Eastern men said to have entered the country illegally from Canada was based on false information given by the individual who ran the fake-passport ring, whose arrest gave rise to the scare.

Oops, I screwed up the HTML on the photos below so that on some browsers they appeared horizontally and stretched out the site excessively. Sorry for the snafu, which I've corrected.

The Administration's economic stimulus plan is very bold; characteristically, the boldness is apparently driven by the President himself. The plan is summarized here by the Washington Post. It includes acceleration of the already-enacted income tax cuts through 2006, not just 2004; complete elimination of taxes on dividends; various investment incentives for business; an increase in the child tax credit; and elimination of the marriage penalty.

Not all of this will survive in the final bill; how much tax relief we get depends largely on how many Republicans cross over to the other side. John McCain, not surprisingly, is already voicing criticisms that echo those of the Democrats. Two years ago, a number of Senate Democrats (twelve, if I recall correctly) voted with the Republicans for tax relief; this year, I suspect the Democrats will hang tougher. Still, the basic strategy seems right. Since the Democrats will attack either a big plan or a small plan in exactly the same way, there is little reason not to be bold. As a tax economist from the Heritage Foundation put it,"If you're going to fight this battle, you might as well make it something worth fighting for."

Richard Cohen has an uncharacteristically sensible column about the Democrats' race problem in the Washington Post today. It concludes:

"Now, though, the Democrats must deal with the present. And that means dealing with complex issues, such as affirmative action and hate-crime legislation, that to many Americans seem far removed from lynchings or segregated drinking fountains. Yet too many Democrats -- and Gore has been one of them -- are quick to draw a line and ask: Which side are you on? It makes others ask a different question in response: What era are you living in?"

I've been brooding on the photos of the victims of the latest Palestinian atrocity linked to by Trunk below. I think it's important not to make this issue too complicated. Here is my simple assessment.

Problem:


Solution:

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post explains why South Korea should not dictate U.S. policy for dealing with the threat posed by North Korea's acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. His point is that South Korea has particular interests that do not necessarily coincide with our interests, the interests of the suffering North Koreans, or those of global stability. The point is an obvious one, except to the former Clinton Adminstration appeasers, whose views seem, somehow, to be dominating the debate.

Michael Ledeen, in National Review Online, reports on a new public opinion poll in Iran. The poll was conducted in the city of Isfahan, a key center of support for the revolution in 1979, and (as a matter of pure coincidence) the birthplace of my wife. According to Ledeen, 85 percent of the respondents said they regret that the revolution took place. Those who conducted the poll and reported its results have been imprisoned, again according to Ledeen. Ledeen also reports that armed battles between anti-regime demonstrators and pro-regime security forces have recently occurred in several Iranian cities. Meanwhile, leaders of the regime are busy arming Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas with, among weapons, "new missiles of North Korean design with chemical-laden warheads". And, says Ladeen, these same leaders are "preparing to use the outbreak of fighting in Iraq as an excuse for a new, more-terrible represssion of the long-suffering Iranian people." In the past, if I recall correctly, Ladeen has predicted that the Iranian regime will fall once we topple Saddam. I don't read this article as necessarily retracting that prediction but, at a minimum, Ladeen now seems convinced that the price of overthrowing the regime in Iran is likely to be quite high.

Two blogs with which I was not previously familiar have linked to my article on "racial profiling" on the Claremont Institute Web site. They are inspired bloggers with interesting blogs and I would like to return the favor: Andrew Ian Dodge of La Blogatrice and Emperor Misha I of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Byron York, in National Review Online reports that President Bush will soon renominate the judicial candidates he selected previously, but whose nominations were not acted upon the Democratic Senate. York also predicts that Bush will renominate Priscilla Owen, whose nomination was voted down by the Judiciary Committee, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And he believes that Bush will likely renominate Charles Pickering, whose nomination was also killed, to the same court. York's prediction as to Pickering surprises me. Pickering was Trent Lott's choice for the court. He has also been accused of going too easy in the sentencing of a cross-burner. York's article demonstrates that this charge is probably unfair. Even so, unless Pickering is a truly outstanding jurist, renominating him strikes me as picking an unnecessary fight. To the extent that Pickering was originally nominated due to the influence of Senator Lott, rather than any superior credentials, the better course might be to nominate a different conservative for that Fifth Circuit slot.

Last Friday the Wall Street Journal's Taste page dubbed Gil Hodges "A man for all seasons" and made the case for his entry into baseball's Hall of Fame. It's a compelling case and an excellent column.

More on "Gangs of New York": Steve Sailer calls it "A (Circus) Train Wreck" in his interesting review of the film.

Looking for the Bloom County cartoon strip that Rocket Man described in a recent post led me to the Official Berkley Breathed Web Site. And the site led me invevitably to the readers' favorite Bloom County strip--laugh out loud guaranteed by the Power Line.

It is genuinely shocking to see the faces that go with the numbers of the dead racked up in the latest massacre of Israeli civilians. If you have the heart for it, take a look at the home page of the Israeli Emergency Solidarity Fund.

Our reader Mitch Berg over at Shot in the Dark performs a truly admirable fisking of columns by Star Tribune editorial board members Lori Sturdevant and Jim Boyd that ran in yesterday's Star Tribune; Mitch links to both columns, focusing his analysis mostly on Sturdevant's. (He also links to James Lileks' excellent dismissal of the columns.) As part of my anger management therapy I have been prohibited from reading Star Tribune editorials and editorial columns as closely as Mitch does, but even if I were permitted to do so, I couldn't have met the standard Mitch sets here.

If you haven't yet checked out the announcement of the first Idiotarian of the Year Award presented by Little Green Footballs, you really should do so. The illustration that runs with the announcement of the award does justice to the occasion in an incredibly heartwarming manner.

While checking out the announcement of the award, you will also have the opportunity to catch up with Charles Johnson's voluminous commentary--all of which is outstanding--on the latest massacre by Arab terrorists of innocent Israeli civilians.

Over the weekend, the Boston Globe reported on the special forces operations already being undertaken by U.S. and allied soldiers inside Iraq. For Power Line readers, this was old news, Debka File having written about these missions months ago. Now, Debka says that "The US is expected to launch the coming war against Iraq with parachute drops on Baghdad, together with commando landings in the city from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers." Debka claims that the U.S. will model its urban warfare in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities on techniques developed by Israel to control and subdue terrorists on the West Bank.

Well, maybe that's Plan B. But I still think Plan A is to convince Saddam Hussein that his only choices are flight and death, at which time he will flee Iraq and a new regime will be installed without the necessity of a war. Like most tyrants, Saddam isn't crazy, he's evil. He will accept well-heeled exile in Libya in preference to death.

Good news: The Washington Post reports that "After several years of hefty increases in spending for popular domestic programs, the Bush administration is attempting to put the government on a new, wartime fiscal path that could sharply restrain the growth of such initiatives for the foreseeable future."

Reader John Richardson has apprised us of Mark Steyn's latest, on gun control in England: "This is what happens when governments try to ban guns." Steyn quotes the Birmingham (UK) police chief, who sounds eerily like Minneapolis's Chief Olson, commenting, like Olson on the murder of Tyesha Edwards, on a horrendous gang-related murder: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident."

One more from the Times: many observers are noting that all of the prominent Democratic Presidential candidates are Senators or Representatives, which in recent years has been a kiss of death. No sitting member of Congress has been elected President since John Kennedy in 1960. In modern history, Presidents have come mainly from the ranks of governors. (I assume this is why the obscure and unimpressive Howard Dean is taken seriously in some circles.) Some insiders believe that governor-elect Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania will be the Democrats' strongest candidate, but not until 2008.

The Times also has a nice profile on Senator-elect Norm Coleman, who bills himself as a pragmatic, "get things done" conservative. Norm is a politician and administrator of great ability; he has successfully positioned himself as a "moderate," which greatly improves his press coverage. In fact, I view him as a solid conservative, which is of course not inconsistent with his record of "getting things done" as Mayor of St. Paul. Coleman is strongly pro-life as a result of searing personal experience, the loss of two children in infancy due to genetic defects. A pivotal moment in his election campaign came in his one debate with Walter Mondale, when Mondale sneeringly referred to Coleman's anti-abortion stance as "arbitrary." Coleman's response was crushing. Normally being pro-life guarantees negative press coverage, which I think is part of the reason why Coleman always calls himself a "pragmatic" or "moderate" conservative. I suspect it is also why in interviews, Coleman invariably mentions his opposition to oil development in Alaska. But don't be fooled. Coleman is no squish, and will be an excellent addition to the conservative forces in the Senate.

This morning's Washington Times runs Michelle Malkin's astounding column: "Who's watching the White House?"

Diana West stakes the success of the Bush presidency on the position it takes in the University of Michigan racial discrimination ("affirmative action") cases: "Bush must take a stand on affirmative action." Events conspire to force the administration to show its hand on January 16.

Although I agree entirely with both the principle and the politics of Diana West's point, I stake the success of the Bush administration on fixing the broken record that plays after every fresh act of mass murder committed by Arab terrorists on Israeli civilians: "Twenty-three killed, at least 100 hurt as two suicide bombers hit Tel Aviv." You know, the record that traps the stylus in the groove endlessly replaying: "'There are those who want to derail the peace process, but [the president] will not be deterred,' a spokesman said."

Although we have hesitated to stake our own success on prognostications for 2003, I am not optimistic on either of these two counts.

It's impossible to say whether any or all of this is true, but the Washington Times reports on an allegation that the Justice Department "stole" software called PROMIS from a company named Inslaw; Robert Hanssen then sold it to the Russians; and Osama bin Laden bought it on the Russian black market. Among other things, the software ostensibly would have allowed bin Laden to track efforts to locate him, as well as to monitor electronic banking transactions and access databases on potential targets. Fascinating stuff.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: Thanks to reader Frank Martin, we have now learned that he is not only unfunny, he is also a fan of bad poetry: "A Bright City Light."

Haaretz has a report on the double homicide bombing at the Tel Aviv bus station, for which the al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade has admitted guilt. The death toll currently is at 22.

There has never been any serious doubt about the Arabs' intentions, but for what it's worth, note the rationale stated by al Aqsa: to kill "the Zionist occupiers of the land of Palestine"--that is to say, Israel. The Arabs' attempted genocide is based not on Israeli government policy, nor on settlements in the West Bank, or anything else, other than the mere fact of non-Muslims living in the Middle East.

The Washington Post also deserves credit for publishing this piece by Dennis Mullin, a former correspondent for U.S. News and World Report. Mullin reminds us that Al Qaeda is part of a "real crusade, and not just a protest against American hegemony." Responding to European criticism of U.S. policy, Mullin observes that "when softer targets in Europe and elsewhere come into focus for Al Qaeda and others, and prove easier to attack than American ones, [Europeans] may find that the United States is doing the right thing. That is, of course, unless this time the Europeans are willing to convert" to Islam.

This Washington Post editorial calls on the Bush Administration to "act aggressively in all theatres" in response to the "confluence of crises" the U.S. faces. The editorial laments the "failed" policies of Bill Clinton towards Iraq and North Korea, and gives President Bush credit for reversing them. However, it expresses concern that Bush is not acting decisively enough with respect to North Korea. The Post offers no concrete suggestions for dealing North Korea, and its second-guessing of President Bush in this matter seems premature. Nonetheless, it is encouraging to find this famously liberal newspaper expressing what is essentially the correct line with respect to the big picture on foreign policy.

Democrats are already denouncing President Bush's economic stimulus plan, which will be released Tuesday, as "tax cuts for the rich." (See the plan? Who needs to see the plan?) So the Democrats' trusty war-horse will be dragged out of the barn for one more trot around the pasture. Will it work?

Here in the formerly-liberal state of Minnesota, there is some encouraging news. Our governor-elect, Tim Pawlenty, ran and won on a no new taxes pledge, notwithstanding the fact that the state faces a projected $4.5 billion deficit over the next two years. (If you rely on mainstream media for your news, it is a closely-guarded secret that the amount of the "deficit" is almost exactly equal to the projected increase in state spending over the same period. So if taxes, spending and the economy are all flat, the deficit disappears.) Since the election, nearly all conventional media outlets have been promoting the need for tax increases; only local radio host Jason Lewis, along with the Governor-elect himself, have been holding the line.

This morning's Minnesota Poll, published by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, indicates that Minnesotans are squarely behind Pawlenty's approach. Given six options for dealing with the state's projected deficit, a whopping 76% chose "cut state spending." (It is reasonable to assume that an even larger percentage would have supported "freeze state spending.") The second-to-least popular choice, at 37%, was to "raise taxes."

Pawlenty's victory illustrates the principle that the messenger is as important as the message. Pawlenty is a tremendously talented politician, who at age 41 may have a future on the national stage. He is such a palpably nice guy that even the staunchly Democratic Star Tribune, in an editorial this morning, calls him a "leader of obvious intelligence and decency" whose ten years in the legislature "have shown him to be a person of substance and genuine commitment to public service." (Of course, they're trying to soften him up for their plea to raise taxes.)

There are obvious differences between the state and federal levels; for one thing, we've seen very little effort from either the Administration or Congressional Republicans to restrain spending. Still, the fact that the vast majority of Minnesotans have no wish to raise taxes to fund ever-growing government offers hope that the Democrats' class warfare theme will once again fall on deaf ears.

Lots of western academics and malcontents denounce "capitalism" and "globalization." Neither term, as far as I can see, means much of anything beyond "normal life," but their opposites--socialism and isolation--have implications that are all too concrete. The United Nations has warned that in North Korea, one of the last surviving socialist paradises, entirely uncontaminated by globalization, seven million citizens may be without food as of next month. At least two million North Koreans have already starved to death. (It occurs to me that if the same number of Palestinians had starved, there wouldn't be any left. It is curious how little attention liberals who editorialize every time a stray Israeli bullet, shot in self-defense, accidentally kills a Palestinian Arab have paid to these millions of casualties of socialism.)

Why haven't even more North Koreans starved under Kim Jong-il's socialist regime? "The US has been the largest contributor to emergency food deliveries over the past seven years, which have fed nine million people a year." Only in America, folks, do we feed not only our friends but our enemies, for no reason other than simple goodness. No wonder the bad guys, in their various incarnations over the years, have always hated us.

Debka File reports that al Qaeda is planning bioterror attacks against both the U.S. and Israel. These attacks will be made possible by materials and expertise supplied by Iraq, and the mastermind behind al Qaeda's bioterror capability is said to be Abu Musaab al Zarqawi, who has been trained by Iraq and currently resides in Iraq, according to Debka.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this report, if true, is Debka's claim that Pakistan is actively working to undermine the U.S. and support al Qaeda. Debka says that Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, said by many to be the top surviving al Qaeda leader, lives in Pakistan "under the full protection of Pakistan’s military leaders and intelligence." Debka attributes the recent military clashes between American and Pakistani troops to the Americans' coming too close to off-limits areas where Pakistan is protecting al Qaeda operatives.

It's a slow news day--a good time for reading new blogs. If you're not already familiar with it (or even if you are), you should check out Little Green Footballs, one of the best. We are especially fond of LGF because it was one of the first blogs to link to Power Line when we were starting out. Among other things, LGF has just awarded its first annual "Fiskie" award to the Idiotarian of the Year. This year's winner: Jimmy Carter.

LGF has also linked to this article in the World Tribune on a new report on Saudi financing of al Qaeda. The report was written for the U.N. at the request of Colombia, the current President of the Security Council; the author is a Frenchman who was formerly an expert on al Qaeda for France's intelligence service. His report indicates that over the past decade, Saudi Arabia has transferred $500 million to al Qaeda, and that the flow of money has not stopped since September 11. Most of the money flows through Islamic charities, and a fundamental problem, according to the U.N. report, is "the lack of a definition of terrorism." Which means, I guess, that the Saudis actually believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I do have one question: Why did Colombia commission the report? There is no obvious reason why Colombia would do this, unless it was asked to by another Security Council member to whom it is indebted--maybe for help in combatting its drug cartels. Just a thought.

Anyway, Little Green Footballs is a great blog. Check it out.

The Washington Times ran a contest to determine both the Noble and Knave of the Year. The Noble of the Year is Pat Tillman, the man who gave up an NFL career to join the infantry. The Knave of the Year award goes to the writers and editors of New York Times, who edged out Harry Belafonte and Senator Jeffords. Both winners are excellent choices.

No one here at Power Line was willing to do much prognosticating for the New Year. To make up for our reticence, we offer Tony Blankley's predictions for the year 2003, in the Washington Times. Blankley's predictions are bold, although the projected good news and bad news tend to cancel out one another.

Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute advocates threatening to encourage both Japan and South Korea to "go nuclear" if North Korea doesn't back down. Carpenter believes that this threat might cause North Korea to reconsider. He also suggests that, even if it does not, a nuclear balance of power in Northeast Asia would be preferable to a North Korean monopoly. Again, though, is there reason to believe that Japan and South Korea are willing to go nuclear at this time?

Desperate times call for desperate columns. That was my initial reaction to the column we posted yesterday by my hero, Charles Krauthammer, on North Korea. For those who missed it, Krauthammer urged that we threaten China with a nuclear Japan if China does not help us squeeze North Korea into abandoning its nuclear project. But does Japan have any desire to acquire nuclear weapons? I'm not aware that they do. And would the threat of a nuclear Japan be enough to fundamentally alter Chinese policy? That's not clear to me either.

Not that I have a better answer. One thing we shouldn't do, though, is release vessels carrying North Korean missiles and nucelar technology bound for places like Yemen, when he are lucky enough to intercept them on the high seas. Here, David Rivkin and Lee Casey, my former law colleagues, argue on National Review Online that seizing such cargo is justified not only by geopolitical imperatives, but probably by international law as well. According to Rivkin and Casey, seizing the scuds would have been improper only if they were intended only for Yemen (with whom we are not at war) and not for Al Qaeda. Since it is far from clear that this was the case, Rivkin and Casey contend that we should have seized the cargo and then offered Yemen the opportunity to prove, in a U.S. court, that the scuds belonged to it, and it alone.