So the die is cast. Saddam and his sons—plus, I imagine, some of his other toadies—must either leave Iraq within the next 48 hours, or there will be war.

The aftermath of the President’s speech leaves a bitter resolve in the pit of one’s stomach. The most solemn duty a President can perform is to send America’s sons and daughters to war. The President and his advisors have determined that Saddam possesses weapons not seen on a battlefield since WWI—if then, and that he must be disarmed either voluntarily or by force, and according to the polls, most American’s agree with him. Nearly 300,000 American, British, Australian, Czech, Bulgarian, Albanian troops and support personnel—and with the inclusion of other support arrangements, a force comprised of about 30 countries or more in total—are arrayed against Saddam’s regime. All of these forces will act at a time of the President’s choosing, should Saddam not leave immediately.

How must Chirac and the weak leadership of Germany feel tonight? Defiant? Maybe. Fearful of being caught out in lies? Possibly. It appears that Saddam is at least giving the appearance that he will use chemical and biological weapons by issuing chemical/bio protection suits to his troops and moving artillery and chemical/bio capable shells near to our troops in Kuwait. If Saddam’s officers are foolish enough to use them, several things will no longer be in question, if they ever really were:
1) Saddam lied repeatedly when he claimed to have destroyed any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This past weekend, Saddam spoke to Iraqi TV viewers
admitting that Iraq had such weapons for "defensive purposes" against Iran.
2) World opinion will switch overwhelmingly in favor of the coalition of the willing, led by the US.
3) Should the war crimes trials be televised, they will rivet viewers to their sets beyond anything seen ever, including the "O. J. trial".
4) Chirac and his "coalition of weasels" will lose all credibility among those who give more than a cursory thought to these issues.
5) Tony Blair’s popularity will rise, and his career will be secure.
6) Should the war be fought successfully, and should the President be able to use his popularity to pass his stimulus package in Congress, he will be unbeatable in 2004.
7) Kim Jung Il will pull in his horns somewhat. The presence of one Trident submarine, which I can only imagine is somewhere in the Sea of Japan right now, is enough of a counterforce element to trump Kim’s two fission technology nukes. Add to that the failure of Kim’s recent ballistic missile test, the movement of Air Force fighters and bombers to the region, the movement of anti-missile weapons to Japan, and the face-saving shipment of food stocks from the UN to the region, it seems reasonable to expect that Kim will remain quiet for a time in the face of a display of American military power unfettered by the indecisive controls of a LBJ or a Bill Clinton.
8) France should be held accountable by any country whose soldiers or populace suffer casualties from chemical or biological weapons or through any additional preparations that Iraq made as a result of the delays caused by French "diplomacy". Now those are reparations I’d like to see paid in full.

I just watched part of Bill Maher's show on HBO. The estimable Dennis Miller was on, along with Arianna Huffington and a strikingly beautiful woman listed as a “Fox News analyst”. Well, I’ve seen Dennis on Leno, and he could have laid Huffington out flatter than Saddam will be in a week’s time, but he didn’t. A gentleman’s discretion? Or just letting the statements of the hypocrite speak for themselves?

Apparently Huffington owned a SUV last year, but now, she says, no one should own one. Oh, that’s good; the elitist deigns to tell us what to do again. She tried to help her husband, Michael Huffington, become a Senator from California in 1992—they were unable to buy the seat. I’ll let Paula Poundstone take it from here.

Obviously, Arianna has found the Democratic party’s point of view to be the most advantageous to her now—at least, she reasons, she can get the most TV time by pretending to be a Democrat.

Although Dennis didn’t “lay the smack down” on Arianna as fully as I think he could have, I’ll take 1 Miller over 50 Huffingtons any day.

Where can criminals score big heists easily? Why, from jail, of course!

It's not quite the equal of the theft of the Salvador Dali painting from Rikers Island men's prison in New York, but Seattle is trying its best. A sum of $10,000 in cash--part of a $20,000 bond from an accused drug dealer--was stolen today from a jail safe here.

This “editorial” is crap.

Once again, as a former Georgian, I am ashamed to have asked my father to vote for Carter for Governor. I voted for Ford for President, at least.

Let’s examine the “editorial” in more detail. I’ve copied Mr. Carter’s New York Times “Op-Ed” in plain text; my comments are italicized.

Just War — or a Just War?


By JIMMY CARTER


Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

Our nation fought two wars against England, and counted France as an ally. No “NGO” authorized our revolution according to Mr. Carter’s criteria. No restraints were placed on the efforts of the combatants other than their willingness to suffer losses and expend treasure. Little in the way of international law existed at that time, other than “to the victor go the spoils”.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

This is my favorite paragraph. Mr. Carter cannot resist a slap against his former colleagues in the Southern Baptist Convention. Little has been written about the opinions on the ward that the Southern Baptists hold in the mainstream press, at least the press that appears outside of Plains. Perhaps some readers of this “editorial” will be curious enough to find out what those religious leaders believe we should do, or not do, as concerns Iraq.

I was in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. Mr. Carter was concerned with weighty defense issues such as repainting parking lots for diagonal parking instead of straight in parking, at least as far as I can recall at Randolph AFB in Universal City, TX. His “leadership” left the Shah of Iran to the mercies of the Iranian mullahs, resulting in the first religious dictatorship in the region. He showed impotence in the face of a clear attack upon US diplomats, allowing them to rot in Iranian custody for over 400 days. If ever a President was presented with the causus belli for “a just war”, it was him. President Reagan would have used our sovereign power to rescue those people immediately, as would both Presidents Bush 41 and 43.

Mr. Carter is a coward who cloaks himself in self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I love seeing him nailing together homes for the poor and needy; he should stick to what he knows. Appropriate application of military power is as foreign a concept to him as how to focus on large strategic concepts instead of piddling details.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

Mr. Carter would have done nothing to stop September 11th even if he had precise knowledge of the events on September 10th. Endless wrangling and delay has created a split between the US and its “allies”—France, Germany, Russia and China—who are acting like opportunistic hucksters. When the war is over, and the records of the Saddam dictatorship are opened for all to see, the source of Saddam’s war material and technology in recent years will be found among these four “allies”.

Israel exists today because it acted in 1967 before the Arab nations could launch their attack. Israel was nearly destroyed in the Yom Kippur war because it failed to take action on information available to it before the Arabs attacked. America was thrust into WWII by an attack that may have been foreseeable, but was not prevented by measures to alert our forces or assume defensive postures to warn the Japanese that a sneak attack would be impossible. By Mr. Carter’s “logic”, our policemen would have to wait until a gunman fired on them before using force to defend themselves.

Would Mr. Carter have us wait until Saddam reaches the level of North Korea, the level where clear possession of weapons of mass destruction would embolden him to thumb his nose at the world and dare us to act? Where he could pursue his mad dreams of becoming the second coming of Saladin and arming terrorists to attack the US with his WMD, or to threaten our national interests in strategic places throughout the world? Aren’t twelve years and seventeen UN resolutions, meek cruise missile attacks and responses to anti-aircraft radar enough to have exhausted anyone’s reasonable definition of diplomatic efforts?

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

No sane person wants war for the sake of war. No sane person wants innocent lives to be lost by accident. The weapons that we will use are many times more accurate than those used in the Gulf War. However, Saddam deliberately positions some military targets near civilian sites in the hope to deter us, or to create “photo ops” to discredit us as indiscriminate killers.

It is the nature of war that some innocent lives will be lost. Our apparent strategy is to use massive firepower to shock and overwhelm Saddam’s forces in order to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion with minimum loss of life on both sides. I pray that we are successful in that regard more than anything.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

Nope. Apparently Mr. Carter was playing with his slide rule during War College. Our attack must be massive. It must cause the world to gasp in awe. Dictators and terrorists the world over must know, once and for all, that the way to engage the free world is not down the path of war, but through serious negotiation with real outcomes.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The last time Congress had the fortitude to declare war was in WWII. The resolution that authorized the President to act after September 11th is as close as we’ll come to such a declaration. The people voted last November, Mr. Carter, and they didn’t give the Democratic Party majorities in either house of Congress, nor in most state houses.

Our President, as he said this past week, swore an oath to protect the Constituition of the US and the people of our nation. He is not the president of some toothless NGO, and our foreign policy is not determined by the UN.

If we have to occupy Iraq for a time, I hope that we will do so in the spirit of the Marshall Plan and General McArthur’s efforts to restore Japan. The Marshall Plan cost ~$13 billion in late 1940s dollars. I’m sure that you would agree that it was a worthwhile investment in the future of civilization.

As Mr. Carter showed during his presidency, mastery of economics was and is not his strong suit. If the real motivation for the war was “about oil”, the President would only have to leave the situation as it is, without bringing an end to the crisis. The commodity markets hate uncertainty, and the rise in oil prices reflects the uncertainties of supply in the Middle East and in Venezuela. As in 1991, oil prices will decline swiftly once hostilities end and non-Iraqi suppliers bring their production back from temporary suspension.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

The Plains press has your knickers in a knot, Mr. Carter. How could the situation NOT be a clear improvement? Another haven for terrorists will be denied them, not to mention technology and funding. The Iraqi people, perhaps the best educated in the region before Saddam turned rogue, will be free to express themselves politically and economically. Our President has said that we will not stay a day longer than necessary. Would you condemn the citizens of Iraq to endless butchery and torture at the tender mercies of Saddam?

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Doing what must be done, despite the wrangling of those who would ensnare us in a bureaucracy run by Poodles, will gain us the respect of our people and of freedom loving people everywhere. Once despots and criminals learn that the United States is a country of principle, and of its word, they will fear to challenge us, and will lose respect among those they hope to attract to their cause. Weakness breeds weakness, Mr. Carter. Do you feel guilty for the weakness shown in your policy towards Iran, and the chain of events caused by it?

I am astonished that members of Congress, including one loony Senator, believe that bringing back the military draft is a good idea. Personally, I believe that the voluntary force has been a boon to our services. It has made overall morale higher, racial tensions have virtually disappeared, and the quality of the efforts made by the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are much higher.

One of the "reasons" for reinstituting the draft is to limit the President's ability to go to war! In my opinion, there can be no greater lunacy in these times than to propose anything to reduce the effectiveness of our national defense. If Senator Holling's dallying with Hollywood over copyright--in favor of Big Media--wasn't anti-consumer and against the public interest enough, this proposal should clinch it. The good people of South Carolina need to rid us of this idiot. As for Charlie Rangel, he seems to have lost his way after he failed to help his candidates win in NY. This seems a very cynical way to grab the spotlight again, Congressman. Find another issue to harp on; leave our national defense policy in the hands of those who understand what they're doing.

I listened to Secretary Powell's speech to the UNSC today, and I am impressed. I was already in favor of using force to overthrow Saddam. With the amount of evidence presented today--and we can only guess at the larger mountain of evidence that the government must have in its pocket to avoid revealing national technical means of gathering intelligence--I can only hope that reasonable Americans and citizens of other countries can only conclude that Saddam must go.

Thank God for George Bush, Colin Powell, and the rest of the Bush administration. Clinton dropped a few bombs filled with concrete in 1998 after the inspectors were expelled. We now have adults running the show. Saddam, as Arnold said in Raw Deal (1986), "Resign, or be prosecuted".

Please, Saddam, let us prosecute us with the full fury of our armed forces.

The loss of the space shuttle Columbia has affected the entire nation in a profound way. While some are calling for a total reexamination of the shuttle program—and perhaps, its termination—popular opinion seems to be on the side of continuation of the manned space program.

Despite the obvious risks, it seems equally obvious that humans are far better equipped than machines to perform tasks that require immediate decisions based on unforeseen data. For example, the painfully slow exploration of the Mars Lander—remarkable, to be sure—was limited to a tiny area that a man could traverse in a few steps. That same man could evaluate the locations of the most interesting rock formations in moments, not minutes—assuming the Lander’s camera would have been high enough and oriented correctly to see them.

In my opinion, the most deserved criticism of the shuttle program is that the vehicle is too expensive to operate and too limiting for the varieties of missions we should be focused on in the future. Jerry Pournelle, a scientist and science fiction writer whose writings I have enjoyed for many years in Byte magazine and in books has argued for decades that more specialty vehicles should be built according to the purpose they are meant to serve. Here is a sample of the debate on Jerry’s web site:

Whether the concept of a “single stage to orbit” spaceship is realistic or not, these things are true about today’s shuttle program:
1) The ship has a 50,000-pound payload capacity. Most of its missions have lifted less than half that amount. Using the shuttle to loft ant farms to orbit makes far less sense than using a Hummer H1 as a daily commute vehicle.
2) Lifting humans to the space station is expensive in the shuttle, and with no escape capabilities like the old Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo ships had, is very dangerous.
3) The shuttle was built in the era of 8086-based CPUs and decades-old knowledge of aircraft design for high temperature environments. However, the contractors who support the shuttle, and the Congressmen whose states and districts benefit from space, seem concerned only with continuing the status quo. Each shuttle flight costs about $500 million—so expensive that only four or five missions are launched each year, instead of the $5 per week that was promised at the inception of the program.
4) If we can produce a ship that cuts payload-lifting costs dramatically, more private sector companies will be interested in exploring the possibilities of space-based research and manufacturing. That would further cut costs to the taxpayer since businesses would partly defray the costs of flights, not simply feed at the public trough.
5) It is arguable that the shuttle’s famous recoverable and reusable booster rockets have not been a success, and while environmentally PC, are not economical to continue. Sadly, one report on the foam insulator that flaked away from the shuttle’s fuel tank and apparently damaged the shuttle’s left wing indicates that a CFC-free foam was substituted from a more robust foam originally used in order to comply with a NASA goal to use more environmentally safe products. Surely the levels of pollution produced are miniscule compared to the dangers to the crew and spacecraft. Here’s more on the controversy:

NASA’s budget has decreased over the past decade when expressed in constant dollars. Continuing to spend the money in the same way without reexamining the goals of the program and the risks involved invite more disasters in the future, not to mention limiting the returns from diverse approaches and missions. Fourteen of the brightest, bravest humans the world has ever produced have been lost on this spacecraft. We owe their colleagues to provide the safest purpose-built system for manned missions to space we can build. We owe ourselves, and future generations, returns for our investment in space research and exploration that pay dividends for humanity, not just for a select group of contractors.

Hmmm...perhaps this is related to this interesting development. How many casual supporters of the environmental movement would support restricting the military's ability to train and prepare properly for the conflicts that face us around the world? I hope this story gets plenty of attention, and that readers understand the dangers such potential training restrictions are to the safety of the men and women in our ared forces.

Gov. George Ryan of Illinois commuted all of the death sentences of inmates in the state currently serving death sentences on Saturday. As one report termed it, his act “…spared the lives of 163 men and four women who have served a collective 2,000 years for the murders of more than 250 people.”

I understand that the Governor is concerned about the flaws in his state’s criminal justice system and the possibility of error leading to the death of an innocent person, or at least the death of someone who should not be judged guilty of crimes meriting that level of punishment.

I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. I certainly do not want the criminal justice system to put anyone to death who is not guilty of the crime that they stand convicted of.

Our system provides for the right of appeal, especially in capital cases. However, the people of Illinois established a set of laws that provide for the death penalty if the system—the jury, the judge, the appellate courts—agree on the application of that penalty for the crime. Dismissal of those judgments should not be left solely to one man, no matter how well intended--or how guilty--his actions may be.

If Governor Ryan felt that the death penalty was wrong, he should have found a way for Illinois’ voters to affirm or reject his argument. He did not run for reelection as Governor. Apparently, his conduct while serving as Secretary of State might not sit right with the voters. He may be found guilty and serve time in prision himself.

Governor Ryan could have taken one or more of the following actions:
- approve a sum of money to review the DNA and other available evidence for each death row inmate to ensure that no effort to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals was spared. The vote of the legislature, or a vote of the people on an initiative, would have supported his position.
- propose a law or an initiative to ban the death penalty, and to make it retroactive to all those serving on death row at the time the initiative or law came up for a vote.
- sue the state government to declare the state’s death penalty law unconstitutional.
- he could have run for a second term on a “no death penalty” platform to allow the voters to express their will.

Governor Ryan may feel that his conscience is clean. The family and friends of the victims of the murderers whose sentences were commuted must feel rage beyond words. The voters must feel cheated of their chance to express their opinions on one of the most important issues of the day.

For what it's worth, I wrote letters to the editors of both the Seattle P-I and the Tacoma News Tribune in response to articles that ran in each paper last week decrying the use of depleted uranium in military munitions. Now the great Instapundit has heard of the P-I story.

Here's my letter, sent last Friday:

To the Editor,

I agree with the article's implication that contamination of the ocean with radioactive material would alarm fishermen and consumers alike. However, I hope you will take the time to do further research on the actual level of danger to the public.

The article correctly states that depleted uranium remains radioactive for approximately 4.5 billion years. Basically, the time period you refer to is the radioactive half-life of the material. The half-life for a given radioisotope is the time for half the radioactive nuclei in any sample to undergo radioactive decay. After two half-lives, there will be one fourth the original sample, after three half-lives one eighth the original sample, and so on.

For example, Plutonium is one of the most highly radioactive materials on earth--so much so that it is not normally found in nature, but is created by man through atomic fission. Plutonium's half-life is approximately 24,000 years (Knapp, Brian, Nuclear Physics, 1996). The end of the decay process results in a material that is stable, like lead.

In fact, depleted uranium's long half life makes it useful for radiation shielding! Some DU applications include use in medical isotope casks, radioactive source shields, tank armor, and ammunition for the CIWS (AKA Phalanx) and the A-10 aircraft used by the Air Force and National Guard.

The real "danger" of DU is not radioactivity, but toxicity. Uranium is a heavy metal, like arsenic, cadmium, barium, zinc, lead and mercury. Given the small number of rounds fired during the tests you reported, the level of toxic exposure in a given area of the sea is virtually statistically insignificant. Ironically, the lead weights that fishermen use to hold down their baited hooks and nets are much more commonly deposited in the ocean environment than DU. Perhaps your next story can sensationalize that danger?

One of the best articles on the risks of exposure to DU is a recent study by the British Royal Society--the summary is all you need to read.

I happened to see a portion of Sean Penn's appearance on Larry King Weekend tonight--you can read the transcript if you like. Sean and Larry were talking about Sean's recent trip to Iraq. They discussed his reasons for going on the trip, how he came to be invited to go in the first place, his feelings on war, his feelings on News Corp.'s media properties, whether actors should speak out on political issues, and his future as an actor and a director. I came away with several impressions of Sean, and I have a few suggestions for things he should consider as he moves forward as a "political celebrity".
- He feels guilty about his success in what is a frivolous occupation, and wishes he could make a greater contribution to the world.
- He spends lots of time talking with journalists and other lefty friends who he trusts to provide "stubborn facts" for his consideration.
- He has thin skin. Bill O'Reilly's show and News Corp.'s media have really gotten to him.
- He has more than a passing acquaintance with the drug culture. His fractured syntax and thought jumps show some fried synaptic connections are in his brain case. He thinks the drug war was and is a failure, of course.
- Our leadership of the coalition that defeated Iraq in 1991 means that we are responsible for the terrible burden that sanctions have placed on the Iraqi people.
- Our motives for going to war are suspect, and war may create a new generation of people who hate America. His children may grow up to face that generation at some future day, if mankind doesn't erase itself from the earth in this generation.
- We need to provide more data on the threat to our country. We have the technology--sort of like that "CSI" show--to find his hidden weapons like needles in a haystack.

I think that it would be worth Sean's time to consider these points so that he can feel he's dealt with the issue in a "fair and balanced" way.
- Iraq's citizens suffer under the yoke of a brutal madman who has destroyed their country's economy and world standing. They starve in part because UN sanctions limit trade, and in part because the state treasure that is earned goes to build grand palaces for Saddam--as well as monuments, mosques, and entertainment--as well as to purchase dual use materials and technologies to reconstruct his weapons programs.
- South Africa lived under sanctions for a time, and was embraced as a noble member of the world community when it finally acted to comply with the sanctions placed against it. Iraq could have provided food, shelter, and better education for its people for years had it done the same. It is interesting that there was no outcry by the left against the conditions forced upon South Africans by sanctions. Perhaps that was because that country's leadership was not so evil as to oppress its people while denying itself nothing under the terms of the sanctions, as Saddam's thuggish government does.
- If Saddam is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, will he be more, or less, likely to intimidate his neighbors and threaten Israel with destruction while daring the US and its allies to act? Will his children be safer if we do nothing?
- If decisive steps had been taken in the 90s to stop North Korea--destroying or forcing the destruction of its reactors and nuclear facilities while providing funds to build replacement power generation systems--would we be facing the threat to our interests and our allies in the Far East today? Some might call this the "pay me now, or pay me later" decision.
- I agree with Jerry Pournelle, who says that we should build some "monuments" in the Middle East that show the extent of our power to act as a reminder of our willingness to meet force--whether by armies or terrorists--with overwhelming force. Those monuments should contain a statement that we have no designs on territory and that we are willing to leave them alone as long as they do not export their war to our shores, to our citizens living abroad, and/or to the borders of our allies.
- Unfortunately, despite the paranoia of druggies everywhere, "the man" doesn't have spies everywhere. Our human intelligence assets were depleted in the 70s and further drained under Clinton. Finding Iraq's buried weapons requires feet on the street as well as electronic snooping. But one thing is already apparent: the inspectors aren't able to find the items they found--artillery shells filled with gas agents, manufacturing equipment, etc.--that they found prior to 1998. That's the "baseline" issue that Blix referred to in his full comments that were aired last week by news agencies that reported more than the "money quote". Is the gun beginning to smoke a bit, Sean?
- Scott Ritter is a punk, and a disgrace to the Marine Corps. He took money from an Iraqi stooge to fund his lecture tour. His absence from the airwaves is an indication that even the press find his conversion from hawk to dove spurious.
- If Iraq is polluting the Tigris with 500,000 gallons of sewage a day and can't afford to repair its infrastructure to provide safe water for its people, please ask Saddam about the money he's using for the purposes mentioned in my first point above. Of course, Saddam has already shown his environmental credentials back when he had the Kuwaiti oil wells blown up. Quite a clean up project that was, run by mostly American firms. Made a nice IMAX movie that would be worth your time to watch. Maybe we'll help the people of Iraq rebuild after the war as we helped the Germans and Japanese after WWII, the war my father fought in. What was your comment in the interview? "Probably would have fought in -- would aspire to be able to say I would have fought in World War II. ".

Hoo-rah.

According to a study summarized in an Associated Press article posted on MSNBC's web site, "injuries from gunshots result in $802 million a year in hospital charges nationwide, with nearly a third of victims uninsured, a new study indicates. That made them the leading cause of hospital time spent on uninsured treatment.".

I wonder
- how many injuries from "blunt instrument trauma"--fist, bat, motor vehicle collision, frying pan, trash can lid, etc.--required treatment, and at what cost.
- how many injuries were the result of acts of self defense by the legal gun owners, and how many were by criminals, or with stolen guns--and at what cost.
- who funded the study

If we were as exercised about bad drivers--not just drunk drivers, or even law breakers--but incompetent drivers, as we are against guns, we could save enormous amounts of money--lost commute time, injury, property loss, infrastructure expansion and repair, to name a few categories. Driving is a privilege, and those of us who share the roads with each other should be able to count upon each driver's attention, skill, equipment condition and mental stability to make our time driving safe and sane.

This controversy has gone on too long. Augusta National and the Boy Scouts of America have been on the liberal hit list for some time now. I'm happy that both have successfully resisted the challenges to their charters. Forcing Augusta National to admit a woman--my bet is, a rich white Republican woman if this finally happens--is not an interesting discussion. Forcing to let women attend school is, or leave home without wearing a black sack in blazing temperatures, or being subject to divorce by her husband at a whim--is. I bet that private clubs exist in Arab countries of all stripes. Why aren't NCoWO activists there? Why aren't these women who are wound up about a country club, of all things, more concerned about people dying every day?

Oh, that would require more than just pieces on Today and in the NYT to get a buzz going. It requires real work on the ground in a hostile foreign land.

And there's no chance for graft; no opportunity for Jesse Jackson and his pack of hyenas to get their taste. I agree that it's unfair to single out Tiger Woods to boycott the Masters--he has a chance to make history as the first to win three consecutive championships. Why should he sacrifice a once in a lifetime opportunity to make such a silly gesture?

If the sorry state of the UN's search tool and web design in general is any indication, the fact that Iraq is in "material breach" of the latest resolution on inspections won't lead to UN-sanctioned action before 2003. However, just three days after agreeing to the UN resolution in an 8 page screed that reveals much about the diseased minds who authored it, Iraq has fired on coalition aircraft patroling the no-fly zone.

All of the ills that Iraq suffers would have ended had it adhered to the conditions set forth in the previous resolutions over the past eleven (11) years. The US and its allies have been attacked for causing suffering to the Iraqi people. The private reactions of the Iraqi citizenry reveal those accusations to be the lies that they are.

If Saddam keeps thumbing his nose at the world, his apologists and the UN won't be able to stop the onset of a short, violent war that will once again decimate Saddam's forces. This time, we trust, the cleanup will be complete.

It took another great post by James Lileks to rouse me from my blogcoma. Another fine summary of Mondale's disconnection with anything relevant to the 21st century.

Just as it seemed that the Internet profiteers in the 90s were destroying the thing, the bloggers have created another great use for the wonderful set of tools that comprise it. Instant, unvarnished, analysis and reporting--sometimes with an agenda, but woe to those who try to manipulate the truth in this space! Mondale's sad lack of understanding of the net stands in stark contrast to that of his opponent. I hope that Minnesota's voters are a little brighter.

As for Tacoma, and Washington, we'll see. I don't see any upsets in the races for the House here; no Senate seats are contested this cycle. Self-imposition of taxes are, however, for dubious transportation improvements.

I absolutely love this thorough debunking of "Fritz" Mondale's acceptance speech. Bleat on, Mr. Lileks!

It was refreshing to hear the top story of the eleven o'clock news on the all-talk radio station here lead with the World Series standings tonight. While there are plenty of things to worry about, a return to something close to normalcy--if only for a day or so--is welcome.

It's incredible that Tacoma, where we live, is a nexus of the investigation into the “Serial Sniper”. Apparently, a 42 year old former soldier stationed in Fort Lewis near here and his stepson are “persons of interest” in the investigation. The ex-soldier is wanted on Federal firearms charges.

Apparently, the sniper asked that authorities deposit ten million dollars to the account of a stolen credit card that was taken in an armed robbery in September. Sadly, a person was killed and another person was wounded in that event.

There will be lots of speculation on who these people are, and their connections to the actual sniper, assuming that the soldier and sniper are not one in the same.

Army Ranger and Special Ops forces train at Fort Lewis. Apparently, sniper training is part of the program at the base here. However, I think that there is another theory that may apply here.

Suppose that the soldier stole weapons and ammo from the base prior to his discharge, and that he has been selling them to groups like the “Camp Ground Zero” militia group that runs the training base in Alabama that is also a subject of today’s investigation. Suppose further that the sniper bought a weapon and ammo from the militia base, and was trained in rudimentary marksmanship there. The ex-soldier and his stepson may not be the perpetrators, but may be accessories to a horrible sequence of crimes.

I sincerely hope that the authorities are onto the sniper and will make an arrest soon without further loss of life, unless it is the sniper’s.

One thing you can always count on: nothing ever stays the same forever.

I'm sure that someone said those words, or words to that effect, better before now. The departure of Lou Pinella, the guiding force behind Mariners baseball in Seattle, is now a fact, not a rumor. The Seattle Times does a fine job of conveying some of what Lou has meant to this city. It is arguable that the Seattle Mariners would have moved to some other city had Lou and the "refuse to lose" team of 1995 not energized the city as never before. The 116 game season in 2001, division and wild card championships, and 300 wins in the past 3 years are hallmarks of a team and manager who strove for excellence year in and year out.

Mariners fans everywhere will miss Lou terribly. Those who appreciate his achievements while he was here shouldn't selfishly seek to deny him the chance to be closer to his family, especially to his parents and grandchildren. The fact that it is so hard to let him go without such thoughts is a testiment to what he has meant to us all.

Godspeed, Lou, and thanks for the memories.

I don't currently own a gun, but I respect the rights of those who choose to do so. As many have pointed out, criminals will be ingenious in their efforts to defeat "fingerprinting" of weapons.

In fact, if the criminal doesn't wish to steal a gun, deface the rifling, exchange the barrel, etc., they have other options.

Lead poisoning is a concern for police and military shooters--as well as range operators. So-called "frangible ammo" was developed in part to provide lead-free ammunition with the additional benefit that the bullets virtually destroy themselves on impact, reducing the risk of injury from richochet. The unintended consequence is that a smart sniper with the means to obtain frangible ammo can fire, say, a .223 cartridge at 4,000 fps (most standard loads shoot at 2,000-2,500 fps) with almost no concern for recovery of the spent shell--it would be reduced to little more than tiny copper/tin fragments.

Here's a link with some additional information on frangible ammunition.

I'm not trying to educate the bad guys or frighten the rest of us. Like most bloggers, I think that the issues need to be thought through carefully before jumping head first into solution space.

I'm glad to see that he's finally got a blog of his own. I hope he keeps 'em coming as regular as second helpings at Mama's.

This man is a complete and utter fool, and the very embodiment of Stalin's term, "useful idiot".

I live in the Northwest, in Tacoma. I volunteered for duty in the Air Force and served from 1976 until 1979 in Texas and Colorado. I served with many Vietnam vets who were proud of their efforts in the war while I was stationed at Randolph AFB. They--and I--would willingly defend the USA again if asked--I'd wager that is as true now as then for those who are still with us.

Seattle's Congressman has no shame, and has no business calling himself a veteran. He is a traitor to everything he swore to in the oaths he took upon entering the armed services and the Congress of the United States.

Who would have believed that New Jersey would elbow Florida aside to become the new butt of political jokesters nationwide? Now that the state court has ruled in favor of the Democrats, those pols must be kicking themselves for not dealing with this in a primary election earlier this year. The real worry is that this sort of thing could become a regular tactic of party bosses in the future.

Sure is funny to see the Democrats going to state court about a federal election--again. The argument to grant an exception from the New Jersey statute that requires candidates to remain on the ballot if not replaced more than 51 days prior to the election is weak. If Torricelli hadn't realized he had no chance to win, and decided to resign in order to try to save the Senate for the Democrats, this mess wouldn't have happened. The Democratic leadership should have forced this issue to a head weeks ago and kept the resolution of the problem within the law.

I look forward to seeing how this plays out over the coming weeks.

Well, the enriched uranium story has apparently turned out to be a hoax--the reports from Turkish authorities even got the weight of the material wrong.

Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle and two other far-left Congressmen visited Iraq over the weekend to sharpen their "Hanoi Jane" skills and shill for Saddam. The Wall Street Journal has a great piece on how this lurch to the left is likely to hurt Democrats this fall and in 2004.

Well, this news about the seizure of more than 33 pounds of weapons grade Uranium by Turkish paramilitary police is alarming, to say the least. The culprits hit the material in a lead box inside a taxi that was stopped 155 miles from the Iraqi border.

At this point, the culprits haven't revealed their destination. I imagine Saddam would have paid more than the $5 million dollar going rate for the package, had it reached him.

Apparently the Tawny Kitaen divorce from St. Louis pitcher Chuck Finley has taken an ugly turn. She's sued her husband for $12 million, claiming he promised to support her financially forever. Wow! Quite a sum in return for such services as helping choose Finley's hair color.

Wow! What a Fisking of Al Gore's speech in San Francisco on Iraq! Michael Kelly mops the floor with Gore; the final paragraph in Kelly's column sums up Gore's latest, saddest flip-flop better than most.

"What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace."

Now that we've realized that the Web isn't going to cure every ill that society suffers, including canker sores and incontinence, one has to admit that the darn thing is awfully useful after all. If you live in Tacoma, it's pretty hard to get Dave Barry's column in print in a timely fashion. After spending days reading opinionated screeds--some of which are my own--we deserve to take a minute to enjoy the Web and have a laugh at one of the most vexing parts of modern life--laundry--as chronicled by Mr. Barry as only he can.

By the way, "cankersores.org" is a site under construction. Its advocates need to get on the ball like those who established "incontinence.org". The latter have an advantage since they have long practiced the ability to complete a job in a hurry.

"The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages."

This is from the first paragraph of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The complete document is very well written, but nothing in it captures the spirit of America and the values we strive to protect like the portion quoted above.

Essentially, this is why we won the original Cold War, and why we'll win this war. People--everyone on earth--want a chance to build lives for themselves and for their children. No one wants to live in slavery, or in a war without end. Those who struggle to survive under the jackboot of totalitarianism yearn for freedom. This is Sadaam's greatest fear, and our greatest weapon.

ESPN.com's Ray Ratto has the goods on last night's ugly incident in Chicago.

This raises a question: why is it that so many of the perps on "Cops"--as well as the "father and son" in last night's episode--wind up shirtless? Warning--if you click the "Cops" link, you'll see someone a little more disrobed than the Chicago duo.

The end of General Magic comes at last.

They beat out Go Corp. for AT&T's favor, but never realized their potential. Kinda like Momenta failed to do.

The Command Compass was nice, but not $4,995 worth!

Hey, the White House has a blog ! It sure beats Democrats.com.

Actress Tawny Kitaen agreed Wednesday to a plea bargain on spousal abuse and battery charges alleging she attacked her husband, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Chuck Finley, according to ESPN.

I don't usually go in for gossip, but I really liked her in that Whitesnake video and in "Bachelor Party" with the world's greatest actor, Tom Hanks.

According to MSNBC, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan says that he has received a letter from Iraq's Foreign Minister which says that Iraq accepts the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.

I doubt that there truly are no conditions on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. In any case, many questions remain unanswered, including these:

1) Will troops accompany the inspectors in case Iraq denies entry to the sites that the inspectors wish to visit?
2) The composition of the inspector groups is different than in the early 90s. Back then, the inspectors were composed of delegates from the US and coalition forces. Now, they are expected to be UN employees, subject to its silly politics and policies. Back then, the inspectors had access to confidential intelligence information to tip them off to activity around the sites in question. Now, the allies probably will not share sensitive information for fear that it will educate the Iraqis about the methods used to gather the data. Given these and other issues with the quality of the inspectors and the inspections, will the results be satisfactory to the US and its allies? I doubt they will, and rightly so.
3) What about the other resolutions that Iraq continues to violate?

Saddam is proving adept at negotiation through the media. I doubt that he can deflect the President from his course to see that Iraq disarms, stops supporting terror, and adheres to the UN resolutions in force. The pressure on Iraq to prove itself through deeds, not words, will continue.

Well Dilfer wasn't bad, his injured knee seemed sound, but the Seahawk defense, especially against the run, was anything but. Add to that, the Hawk special teams play was poor.

The new stadium is glorious. I'd forgotten what a treat the "real" half-time show at a football game could be. The Washington State Cougar and Washington Husky bands joined for the first time ever to perform patriotic songs along with a singing group from McCord Air Force Base. They also unfurled one of the largest flags I've ever seen in person.

As for fan support, they did their best; the metal bleachers resounded as the fans stomped and yelled when Arizona had the ball near the end zones. They cheered and booed lustily as the situation dictated; everyone wanted to see the Hawks win. Alas.

Still, a record of 0-2 does not a season make (yet). The Steelers and the Rams were picked to return to the Super Bowl, and both are also 0-2.

We will see what Coach Holmgren asks General Manager Holmgren to do. Without a big bodied run stopper in the middle, we may have to make a trade if the Hawks cannot stop teams from running on them. We won't give up yet!

We had a nice family barbeque last night over at Kathy's daughter's house. Lots of laughs, no talk of terrorism--as long as you leave out their Rottweiler, who is only a minor terror. Actually, she (Thora, the Rottweiler) is a good dog with some funny traits. Human howls encourage her to join in. She loves tug of war, petting, food treats, disobeying orders to stay "out of the kitchen", and eating cat food.

Our three Labrador dogs--I have dubbed them "Logs"--are much the same, minus the cat food habit, as we have no cat. The Logs love to sleep, eat, rassle, and play with their toys. The Black Log, Abby, loves the "Wooly Chew "Bone" (SI03PB)" I bought for them from Orvis.com. Abby, who gets no respect from the two other Logs, has claimed it for her own. She looks so funny carrying it around--a big body crowned with a smallish head clutching a big wooly toy tenderly in her jaws

Fun stuff to see.

Today we go to our first real football game at the new SeaHawk Stadium. Hope springs eternal once again as Trent Dilfer returns as the starting Quarterback, with knee brace. The Hawks were at their best in the preseason with Dilfer at the controls. Hopefully that wasn't a fluke, and that Dilfer's knee injury is truly ready to test game conditions.

The President has made his case to the UN. It was a direct, forceful statement. The President took Iraq to task for its failure to comply with every UN resolution that was passed by the Security Council following its defeat in the Gulf War. His speech detailed the suffering of the Iraqi people, its support for terror, and the waste of Iraq's treasure and productivity on weaponry and on enrichment for Saddam. The President detailed the US' long standing support for the UN. However, he cautioned the body that inaction on Iraq was not an option.

Prior to the President's speech, President Chirac of France proposed a time limit for compliance with UN inspection resolutions. His proposal outlined a three week period during which Iraq must begin to admit inspectors. I agree; Iraq should comply in short order, without further delay. However, the original resolutions--and their full terms--in all of the aforementioned UN Security Council resolutions must be complied with in that time. Failure to do so will only give the Butcher of Baghdad more time to pursue and acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. As the President said, once Saddam has such weapons, the world's options to deal with him will be limited indeed.

Today was a very tough day for most Americans. Like that fateful day a year ago, I sat riveted to the TV. I watched the ceremony at the Pentagon, the reading of names at Ground Zero, and the wreath ceremony at Shankesville. I tried to avoid the voices of the commentators; most of what can be said has been said. The best coverage was simply the images. Thankfully, CNBC World showed President and Mrs. Bush's interaction with the families at Shankesville without any announcers at all. The only sounds that were heard were the sounds of the wind, and faint, unintelligible speech. I shed tears more than once today. I said a prayer for those who lost a loved one that day and for those whose loss occurred in service to our country since then.

I hope that today has brought some solace and peace to those in pain of loss. For the rest of us, buck up. We have a call to action to heed. Let us listen carefully to the President's words tomorrow. I trust that they will shake the foundations of the butcher of Babylon to the core.

Then, let's roll.

Susan Sontag and Paul Krugman have forgotten much of what the President has said about the war on terror. The terrorists are not a group of thugs who act independently of any nation, like some set of characters from a Bond movie. They live somewhere; they receive economic support and aid from a government, or from a group of people within a nation, or both. While the war on terror may force us to live with ambiguity, it will have its D-Day and Vx-Day equivalents. It may not fit into the neat categories that the New York Times editorial board would like it to have--but it is no Vietnam.

If Saddam obtains nuclear weapons, he can place terrorists and his fellow "Axis" members under his protection. All of the Middle East, and Turkey, would be under constant threat, as we were during the First Cold War. This situation cannot be tolerated. We must deny terrorists their hidey-holes, and madmen their nightmare weapons, while we still can.

Many will link to Dave Barry's tribute to the passenger's on United Flight 93. I was very moved by it.

It will take some time, but I recommend reading this. Francis Fukuyama is the author of the famous article entitled "The End of History?". I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree with quite a bit, and respect his point of view on the rest.

I also enjoyed this. Remembrances and mourning have their place, and are important. However, let us get on with the job that we have been forced to undertake.

Many, many things have been written about the impact of 9/11 on America, and the world since that tragic day. Now a debate rages about Iraq: is it a sponsor of terrorists, or not? Should we give Saddam a chance through negotiation for more inspections, or assume that he would make a mockery of the process? Should we attack now in order to force a “regime change”, or wait?

Wait for what? For Saddam to strike? Or for Saddam to present incontrovertible evidence that he has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, if not to the US or Europe, then to Israel or other friends in the region?

It occurs to me that we were given a brief respite between the original Cold War and a new, more malicious version. The New Cold War pits America against a type of enemy who we call “evil doers” and terrorists. However, these enemies are not in one country, not sponsored by one state. They cannot be defeated on a battlefield; they do not seek that kind of war as a rule.

There are many parallels between this Cold War and the last:
• The enemy includes a number of states and a number of terrorist groups funded by them.
• Destruction of a group, or toppling a regime, will not end the threat. The threat will take years to contain, years longer to defeat.
• We will achieve victories in visible, and invisible, battles.
• Ideas, ideals, and economics are among the chief weapons to be used in this battle.
• Our convictions will be tested from within as well as by our enemy directly. There are many free people who fear war, who fear the loss of young lives, who fear—fear.

Are we more secure a year after 9/11? In some ways we are. Passengers have already shown both the willingness and the ability to protect themselves on aircraft. Citizens are volunteering for duty in police, fire, and military service in increasing numbers. We honor those willing to make the sacrifice in defense of our liberty more now than on 9/10.

However, the Homeland Security Department is a politicized mess, bogged down over turf and Civil Service rules. The Transportation Security Agency is at best a work in progress.

We have no choice but to slog through these messes. Our borders must be better protected than before. We have a right to know who is in this country, whether that requires a form of “profiling” or not. Public gathering places, mass transit, seats of government, and critical infrastructure must be protected. Sadly, we cannot count on the oceans to protect us from attack. We cannot hope for the best, and fail to prepare for the worst.

We have been called to act in our own defense. This is not like a failure to prepare for a natural disaster—something that may or may not happen. Something that can be compensated for by a neighbor’s generosity, or parcels from a relief agency. Now lives, and the future of our way of life, are at stake. To fail to act would be to fail ourselves and our children, and to embolden an implacable enemy who seeks signs of our weakness, and draws strength from them.

There is plenty of evidence that Saddam is a psychopath in the mold of Hitler and Stalin. Let us not give him the opportunity to prove that he is a killer on the same scale.

I have been thinking about investment quite a bit lately. After losing $30,000 in three weeks around a month ago, I decided to pull out of the market for a while. I will remain out until the hysteria over corporate responsibility shakes out and the prospects for the economy improve in an unequivocal sense.

Of course, there is a way to change investor psychology that would help offset these factors almost overnight.

Government loves to collect taxes. Here is a section of a report from the Congressional Budget Office that speaks to likely causes for the decline in income tax receipts; the full report is here :

The Usual Suspects

The first likely factor is capital gains income. Realizations of capital gains are not part of national income or GDP. But they are taxable income to individuals and corporations. Consequently, they can grow more rapidly or fall more precipitously than national income, resulting in changes in revenue proportionately greater or smaller than changes in overall economic activity. CBO's analysis indicates that rapid growth of capital gains realizations explains about 30 percent of the growth in individual income tax receipts relative to GDP from 1995 to 1999, so they may be playing a major role in the decline in FY 2002 receipts.

When projecting gains receipts in its January 2002 and March 2002 baselines, CBO already had good estimates of the calendar year 2001 level of the stock market and GDP--big influences on the level of gains realizations that would help determine final tax liability payments in April 2002. As a result, the March baseline, in comparison to the baseline of January 2001, projected a 23 percent decline in realizations and a $27 billion decrease in gains receipts. But because realizations are so volatile, the decline may be greater than econometric analyses of past behavior would suggest. Distributions of capital gains from mutual funds were down in calendar year 2001--reportedly by about 80 percent. Total gains realizations differ from those in mutual funds: stocks are the principal component of mutual funds, but only about half of total taxable gains come from stocks, with the rest coming from other capital assets, such as real estate. As a consequence, total gains would likely have fallen less than gains in mutual funds. Thus, while realizations almost certainly explain some of the FY 2002 shortfall, they very likely do not account for all of it.

A second likely factor is the slower growth of very high incomes in comparison to that of overall income. Those incomes are taxed at the highest rates and produce a disproportionate amount of income tax revenues. From 1995 to 1999, very rapid growth in very high incomes accounted for about 16 percent of the growth in the revenues in excess of GDP. A reversal could very well reduce receipts by a significant amount.
In addition, enough changes occurred this year--including the tax cut, the recession, and the drop in the stock market--to have altered the usual division of tax liability between withholding and estimated payments on the one hand and final payments and refunds on the other. In the 2001 tax year, the ratio of refunds to withholding departed from its previous, relatively stable, pattern. The larger-than-usual role played by final payments and refunds may mean that taxpayers were surprised by economic developments in 2001 and continued to withhold higher-than-necessary amounts. That overwithholding could have been simply the consequence of lower capital gains realizations; but it could also have been because earnings weakened over the course of calendar year 2001, and taxpayers paid withholding at a higher marginal rate than would have been the case had their earnings been steady throughout. In either case, the overwithholding suggests that shortfalls in receipts from two different years could have been bunched into a single year's collections, making the reduction look more ominous than it really was.

Noticeably absent from this list of likely causes are stock options and bonuses, because bonuses are a form of wage income, and most options are included in wage income measures when exercised. They also reduce taxable corporate profits at the same time that they increase taxable wage income. Nevertheless, options and bonuses may play a role in the distributional effect just described. To the extent that they accrue primarily to people with very high income, their rise and fall can affect the receipts-to-GDP ratio. The lower the proportion of income coming from bonuses and options of high-income individuals, the lower the receipts from a given level of wages and salaries. And because options income is typically withheld below the top marginal tax rate, it can disproportionately affect April payments when taxpayers settle up on their liability. Some early evidence suggests that options income may have fallen by 50 percent in calendar year 2001, in contrast to the 30 percent decline built into CBO's projections.

I believe that the drop in capital gains income is due to factors that include 1) lower receipts from the sales of stock, mutual funds, businesses, etc. and 2) a decline in dollars invested in these instruments.

One factor that could help increase investor interest in putting more capital to work is equal treatment of capital gains and capital losses in income tax law. If your investment earns a dollar today, that dollar is fully taxable less applicable deductions. However, under current law, if your investment loses money, you cannot fully deduct those losses on a dollar for dollar basis. The government allows you to write off a maximum of $3,000 per year until your loss is deducted completely. If you lost a little, this may only take a year or so. In my case, and I believe in the case of many people nearing retirement age, the losses cannot be deducted in the investor’s remaining lifetime.

This is unfair, and stacks the deck against those willing to put capital at risk.

Please take the time to read this and this. There may be better indictments of some of the most stupid behavior and ideas in America, but these will do for today.

This story does an even better job of exposing Terry McAuliffe. I wonder if he'll crawl under a rock for a few months until the dust settles on all the "corporate responsibility" and insider trading scandals.

This analysis of the PC economy and the Microsoft anti-trust ruling is the best I have read--I wish I had written it.

This should be especially interesting for all those Democrats who try to claim that the government had a role in the growth of the stock market in the 1990s; maybe this will enlighten you as to the government's power to damage the true engine of growth--hard working businessmen and women. Usually, the government's role is similar to that of the amazed mother-in-law who stares incredulously at the success her no-account son-in-law became--despite her warnings to her daughter.

From FoxViews at the Fox News site:

Sam Donaldson interviewed Terry McAuliffe on This Week. Appearing to be enjoying an adrenaline rush, the Democratic party leader stood by his criticism of Bush and the upcoming economic forum.
He also defended his Global Crossing investment by saying he was a "venture capitalist."

A jovial Donaldson appeared to enjoy McAuliffe’s energy level and failed to press him on the issues.

Now that's funny. Terry McAuliffe, the venture capitalist? As this story in Business 2.0 points out, McAuliffe was simply offered a chance to buy pre-IPO shares that were frequently flipped--sold for a quick profit after the IPO date--in the 1990s. McAuliffe was smart enough--or lucky enough--to hold onto his shares until 1999 and sell them for $18 million.

If McAuliffe were a "venture capitalist", he'd have done due diligence, reviewing start up business plans. He would have stayed awake at night worrying about the money he had at risk, about tough personnel decisions he might have to make. Nope, Terry is just a friend of a contributor to the Democratic party who got in on one of the most lucrative opportunities of the past century. Whether McAuliffe did anything wrong or not, he is certainly stretching the truth by calling himself anything but a crony of a fat cat.

Will there be a baseball strike? Reports out of the player representative meetings in Chicago today seem to indicate that the answer is yes. That is sad news indeed for all of us baseball fans.

My wife was offered a chance to buy Mariner’s playoff tickets for this season. I would jump at the chance, despite the slender lead the team is clinging to, if not for the threat of a strike.

We bought SeaHawk season tickets earlier in the month. Although Seattle’s star quarterback, Trent Dilfer, sprained his knee in an exhibition game Saturday, I’m still cautiously optimistic about the season.

Football—college and pro—is the number one sport in America. NASCAR appears to be well on its way to breaking into the top three, if not the top two. A baseball strike will only hasten the change. NASCAR drivers do not strike. Neither do professional golfers.

In an era of declining discretionary income, baseball cannot afford to take fan loyalty for granted. My wife and I had a great time on a tour with the BMW club on Saturday. We may decide that our spare time—and dollars—are all accounted for with SeaHawks and driving adventures.

Baseball, be careful. Will the networks pay for rights to games no one watches?

Now we read that Saddam plans to draw US forces into Iraq’s cities rather than deploy his armies in the desert. Apparently, he thinks that he can bog us down in house to house fighting, popping up to shoot at us from a rabbit warren of tunnels and bunkers underground.

Hmmm.

As I recall, a favorite tactic in modern mobile warfare is to bypass enemy strongholds in order to capture and hold strategic chokepoints. If Saddam hides his army, we could set up an interdiction plan to control his borders, destroy his media outlets (and replace them with ours), secure his oilfields, and generally starve him out in the open. This would take more than a few weeks of bombing followed by a few days of combat, as in Bush vs. Saddam I, but would be even more effective. We could create an UN-administered zone containing the captured territory and leave him the ruler of a land-locked, resource poor slum.

As for using his Scuds to launch terror weapons from Baghdad at Israel or Kuwait, does anyone think that we have not improved our ability to shoot down his largely ineffective missiles since the Gulf War?

$6 per barrel oil, anyone?

Things move more slowly in summer. The pace of the war against terrorism seems to be moving slowly in Afghanistan, but moves all too quickly if Israel’s battlefront is included. Moreover, it should be--the PLO and Arafat’s "government" are no less bent on genocide now than at any time in its sad history. The Israeli government must feel profoundly bitter and torn as they transfer funds to the Palestinian "government" in the aftermath of the recent university bombing.

Russia is assisting Iran with the construction of nuclear plants. That bears repeating. Russia is assisting Iran with the construction of nuclear plants. Fortunately, the Russian government is reconsidering its plans after pressure from the Bush administration.

Iraq now says that it may readmit UN weapons inspectors. Of course, Saddam Hussein has had years to perfect his camouflage techniques for his weapons stores and death factories.

Jordan’s King Abdullah says that talk of deposing Saddam is "somewhat ludicrous". Of course, Jordan depends heavily on support from Iraq, making the King’s motives subject to question.

The Saudi royal family is lead by a man near death in a hospital in Switzerland. Will his successor be friendly to the West? Or will his successor do anything to retain power, continuing to tolerate and even finance religious extremists up to the minute of his execution?

Indonesia, the largest predominately Muslim nation in the world, has its share of terrorists and revolutionaries who threaten its stability. The same is true of the Philippines. The US is trying to shore up these governments with aid, including anti-terrorism training for their armed forces.

The Russians are trying to exact heavy tolls and establish virtual control over oil shipped across the Caspian Sea from land-locked countries in the region. It recently held a series of naval exercises there that are clearly efforts to intimidate its oil-producing neighbors.

The list of truly serious problems goes on and on almost without end. Our nation, which seemed to want to turn inward after the 1992 election, cannot shirk its role in the world. However, we must accept that simple solutions are not to be found in any of these cases. Europe is long on criticism of US policy, but short on action--except in support of Arafat and Saddam. When and where we act, and act we should in many of these cases, we must accept that long-term US commitment to each of these regions is required to help foster stability and peace.

A slow summer indeed.

I wonder if bin Laden is still alive. We have read conflicting statements from those supposedly in the know in and out of government. What a blow it would be to the al-Qaida and their cronies if his body could be positively identified! What a boost it would be domestically!

As for the economy, who does the average investor trust to tell them that it is safe to invest again? Rather than the death of a hated enemy, who could return--alive--to save us? I doubt that a politician could have that kind of impact. Would a positive ruling in favor of Microsoft have the opposite effect of the guilty verdict back in early 2000 on the market? Would tech stocks bounce?

Probably not. But if you are going to own tech, own Microsoft.

While the run of stories on corporate responsibility is bad, let us not forget that this is America. Only in America can there be such widespread discussion of issues like this, whether the discussion takes place in the mass media, on talk radio and TV, or on the Web.

I enjoyed a comment I heard on the radio today very much. A caller challenged Congress to sign the federal budget with the same responsibilities for accountability that CEOs are expected to follow. Will Congressmen (and women) ever stop pointing fingers at "evil executives", or other scapegoats of the moment? The Democrats are returning to their roots as the "anti-business" party. Class warfare gets us--all of us--exactly nowhere!

I hope that some sort of reason takes hold and that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water; that is, that the stampede to "do something" about executive power run amok does not itself run amok. Many, many people in America have large personal stakes in the capital markets. Winning the 2002 elections through the long-term destruction of the investment class would be a pyrrhic victory indeed for the Democrats. What would the Social Security system--not to mention society at large--look like if every person entering retirement age truly depended upon it for 100% of his or her retirement income? I don't believe any Democrat wants that, not even those hypocrites who flew on corporate jets to get to fund raisers this weekend.

Give the SEC the headcount and budget it needs to vigorously uphold the laws that are on the books today. Change the law to make stock options an expense, if that is the right thing to do--after an informed debate. For God’s sake, stop demagoging the economy!

Do you remember the early days of the Bush administration? Back when the Democrats accused Republicans of talking down the economy? It turned out that we really were in a recession, and that a stimulus was required to help bring us out of it.

Now, it seems, Democrats are talking down the economy and the stock market. Investors are taking major hits. People who were looking forward to retiring are now looking at working for several years longer.
What are the motivations for this behavior?

I believe that the President, back in 2001, wanted to avoid a deep recession becoming the hallmark of his presidency, and acted quickly (with the support of both houses of Congress) to do what could be done by the government. The Fed acted in concert, perhaps concerned that the interest rate increases of 2000 were too much, too quickly, for the economy to take.

Now, the Fed is standing pat, having shot most of its bolts. Interest rates are more than low enough, if only businesspeople would borrow to make investments.

However, we are caught in the quarterly numbers trap. For many years, businesspeople have warned that business is becoming too beholden to next quarter’s profit and forecast data. Even mighty Microsoft has to beat the whisper numbers and year to year comparisons, no matter how much it invests in new initiatives that will, eventually, bring in more revenue and profit.

With this sort of scrutiny, coupled with terrorist jitters, corporate scandals that affect the most admired of companies (Enron, Fortune magazine’s poster child), and perhaps most nefariously, lack of pricing power, it is no wonder that the stock market averages are dropping like stones.

The Democrats, concerned only with winning, are not helping. They appear to have Republicans running away from good ideas like Social Security privatization. They appear to have a super majority forming in Congress that will pass any new corporate reporting/accounting regulatory bill that can be cobbled together--no matter the unintended consequences. Even John McCain now opposes stock options. How many political contributions were paid with those options in the "roaring '90s"?

Investor psychology is shot. I really wish my broker would have put me in Ginnie Mae issues back in March of 2001 when I asked him to. I’d be sleeping like a baby, earning about 7%.

As for what is next, I predict plenty of demagoguery, seasoned with overlarge helpings of attacks on President Bush’s Harken energy record. As to that, if you file the form saying you are going to sell stock, is it so critical to file the form saying that you sold the stock? I think the disclosure for most investors who pay attention has taken place. There's no there there--sorry Washington Post and New York Times.

I can hardly watch CNBC. I can remember watching it constantly back in 1998 and 1999. It was on a good portion of the time at the PRO Sports Club in Bellevue. All those Microsofties who worked out at the club had elaborate spreadsheets written in Excel, but really burned into their brain. I can still estimate the tax impact on a given level of income--like that!

Obviously, the late 1990s weren’t really about investing for a large number of people. To them, the stock market was a huge lottery that almost always paid you for playing. The coolest people flipped IPOs. Others bought the stocks of the day mentioned early on CNBC, then sold after lunch. Sadly, real investors tried to follow the buy and hold strategy that seemed to work for so long, and saw smaller returns than the gamblers. Still, do you know any day traders today?

It’s hard to see when the current negative psychology will turn. The business reporting in the 1970s and that of today seem eerily similar--there’s almost no good news, and what good news there is doesn’t matter.
I’m not an expert by any means, but I think that there are a few signs that could point to a turn-around--when and if these events occur are open questions:

• Coalition forces find the body of bin Laden and his top henchmen. Despite denials in the Arab world, the identities of the remains are established beyond a shadow of a doubt. I wonder what the market reaction to the discovery of Hitler’s body was back in 1945?

• The FBI, CIA and the agencies in the Department of Homeland Security (more on this below) stop the attack that Al Queda must be planning for the 9/11 anniversary.

• Accounting and brokerage/investment banking reforms are signed into law. Of course, the people in the agencies entrusted with the new powers must be competent and the agencies funded sufficiently to do the job.

• Some high profile cheats go to Attica, or some similar prison without a putting green.

• The Department of Homeland Security is formed. By the way, could that name be any lamer? How about calling it the United States Security Agency? Or the Department for the Protection of American Freedom? Homeland seems so Russian—they referred to their country as “the Motherland”. It's sad that one of the major impediments to the passage of legislation to create the agency is a provision that the President wants that would allow agency employees to be fired. Imagine, firing someone because they couldn't do their job. The union that represents government employees has made it all but impossible to get rid of incompetents, and it looks like they plan to oppose this provision "vigorously"

• The elections conclude this fall. I think that this cycle will surprisingly bitter and cynical, but the bitterest and most cynical may be surprised—at their losses. I believe that the public is weary of politics, and wants a government that really does work together for the common good without demagoguery.

Of course, people will feel better--at least for a couple of hours--when the next Tolkien installment comes out at the end of the year. The title has nothing to do with the WTC, as anyone who’s read the trilogy knows.

Why is it that people do not act with enlightened self interest foremost in their thoughts? Of course, the obvious retorts are, "Enlightened--from whose point of view? Enlightened--by whom (or what)?"

So much of history shows these mistakes in naked clarity. Economic and political issues are not settled in World War II, leaving openings for the rise of Fascism and Communism. Today, Arabs sit on vast oil resources with the potential to make the desert bloom, and raise their peoples to the forefront in industry, education, social advancement--all the aspirations of first world democracies. Millionaire professional baseball players and billionaire baseball owners squabble over largely economic issues, threatening each other with a work stoppage that might, just might, finally drive the long suffering fans away for good.

Why are these things so hard to see now, when action is possible, rather than afterwards?

If national fascism and Communism--in Europe--can be conquered, then concerted efforts can conquer religious and political differences in Ireland, in the Middle East, and in other hot spots around the globe. Recent reports of the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal attributed to the USAF put the number of warheads at 400 or so. This is more than enough to make Mecca and Medina uninhabitable for 57 years or more--if anyone would want to visit a slag heap--with more than enough left over for most of the other Arab cities. The Arab birth rate shows a growing need for land, food, water and services in Arab territories that must be met. Otherwise, those basic needs will couple with religious fervor to pressure Israel and its supporters in the West mercilessly for concessions. Add to this the decline of the Israeli birth and Jewish immigration rates, and it can be seen where economic and political power will fall inevitably.

What of immigration in the developed nations of the world. Declining birthrates among the indigenous populations coupled with legal and illegal immigration changes the political, cultural and economic infrastructures of these countries. Will a future US be as willing to intercede in the Middle East, Asia or Europe as it might be in Central or South America? Will our need to spend on Social Security--the effort to privatize it having been effectively countered by the news of ten or so spectacular corporate frauds and the commensurate impact on stock prices overall--overwhelm all other aspects of government spending?

Will government remain a driver for technology research and innovation? Will we even have a space program for anything other than communications satellites? Will basic science lack a sponsor other than those interested in directed research rather than pure scientific inquiry?

What will the world of 2022 be like? Will our leaders continue to demagogue each other on petty concerns of the moment, or will it take wake up calls louder than 9/11 to awaken the populace that a new class of leader is required? Will the great New York Times continue to print stories that blame an administration for cutting spending on items like Superfund site clean up when in fact the spending on such programs has increased over past years, just not at the rate that special (Democratic) interests demand?

I hope that my wife’s grandchildren grow up in a world where leaders lead from principled thought on such issues rather than be led by polls and pollsters who hope to "win the week". I urge everyone to read a wide variety of news sources in order to be informed independently of political flacks and party hacks. Use the tools to understand the issues, and insist that candidates address them. And vote, in every election.

Information--and the capacity to understand it through education--are the best tools that citizens have to protect their rights from those on both sides who would curtail them. All business is not bad, not even big business. Without investment there would be no products, no housing, no utilities or services. Without regulation--enforcement of laws on the books today, for example--opportunists who exist during every age will run rampant. The trick is to strike a proper, fair balance, and to restore confidence that the system is operating in its own "Enlightened Self Interest".

I had hoped to make this a daily occurrence; a catharsis of sorts. I have not been as diligent as I planned to be, however.

In order to eliminate availability of a PC in every room of the house as an excuse, I am trying an experiment with this edition. I am writing this on my Pocket PC in Pocket Word. I will e-mail the final result to myself, and then copy the text into the site tomorrow. Eventually, I will buy an 802.11 card for the Pocket PC so that I can complete the entire process from the Pocket PC from start to finish.

The NASDAQ average is down again today. It is about where it was 5 years ago. At one point during its run-up that ended above 5,000, "investors" jumped from one "New Economy" trend to another. The Dot Coms--any Dot Com. Then Palm. Then phone software. Then cellular networks and telecommunications infrastructure. Then Linux. Then optical networking. Then the bottom fell out.

Ironically, the explosion of demand for 802.11-based wireless networks in recent years has not seen a run-up in associated stocks. The momentum players are played out; the battered individual investor no longer trusts an analyst's recommendation.

Still, we will see. Microsoft embraced wireless LAN technology in Windows XP. As component prices drop and security is strengthened, more and more networks will go in--at home and at work. People will buy cheap, heavy laptops that can be put away & out of sight at home, yet brought out to connect through broadband anywhere they are needed.

Tech stocks, anyone?

The second most dangerous thing in the entire world is a person under the influence of alcohol.

The most dangerous thing in the entire world is two people under the influence of alcohol.

Perhaps I exaggerate a bit. Still, it is impossible to carry on a rational conversation. No good decisions are made. Only regrets remain in the aftermath of lives damaged, if not destroyed.

As for myself, I hope to live my life free of alcohol starting now. It will be difficult in subtle ways; alcohol is a part of the social fabric of society. It is the one drug that is accepted, although its effects are well documented. Deaths due to accidents caused by drug drivers are but one statistic. How many marriages end due to the substance? How many lives--adult and child alike--are scarred?

I am pleased to see more and more restaurants voluntarily adopting a no smoking policy. That is the way it should be; government should not force the issue. If a restaurant wishes to cater to smokers, non-smokers are free to patronize other restaurants if they wish.

I'll go to restaurants that serve alcohol in the future. I'll be the one drinking water or at most, a diet soda.

All is right in Marinerville. Edgar returns to the lineup, strokes a homer and a two-run single. Edgar adds much needed pop to the team who’ve not scared many teams this season, especially in close games. Hopefully Edgar and other key members of the team who have been dinged up--Bret Boone, Mark McLemore and Jeff Nelson notable among them--will remain healthy. If Jeff Cirillo can continue hitting during the rest of the season as well as he did during inter-league play, we can look forward to the post season again and another shot at the D*&n Yankees.

Did you know that the judge who wrote the opinion on the Pledge of Allegiance ruling was appointed by President Nixon? That explains a great deal. He’s been on that particular bench since at least 1972. He is a "senior judge"--a sort of semi retired status that judges assume while their replacements are confirmed by the Senate. That is, if the Senate would vote on President Bush’s nominees for the many vacancies in Federal courts around the country.

If that’s not reason enough to vote Republican this Fall, I don’t know what is. Get Senator Patrick Leahy of the People’s Republic of Vermont out of the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and let sanity return to the process of confirming judicial appointees. Also, I hope that the people "represented" by those who voted against the House of Representative's resolution in support of the Pledge of Allegiance throw the bums out when they next come up for re-election.

And let's prevent this senior judge from inflicting any more "senior moments" on the people of the United States of America.

In case you need it, here is the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It boggles the mind that a US Federal Court ruled the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States unconstitutional today. This would have to go down as the penultimate moment, the "high tide" of Political Correctness in America.

For some years now, the majority of Americans have been assailed by "incrementalism". That is, small assaults on traditions and practices of the mainstream that are couched by the PC crowd as harmful to the sensitivities of minorities, whether those minorities be racial, political, disabled, or even "people of size". I certainly do not advocate racism, or prejudicial behavior against individuals because of the group that they ostensibly belong to. However, it makes no sense for the sensitivities of a few to be used against the practices of the majority in cases where it is perfectly acceptable for the minority to "opt out".

No one forces school children to repeat the Pledge in whole or in part. That alone should have been enough for the court to dismiss the case.

What next? Will the Chaplains in Congress, the military and other governmental offices be dismissed? Will the word God be struck from public buildings and our currency? Will the Supreme Court no longer invoke God’s name before its sessions begin? Will the President no longer swear an oath on a Bible repeated by the Chief Justice?

I believe that the public outcry over this travesty will compel the Justice Department to appeal the ruling, where it will be overturned without delay. The judges should be ashamed of themselves, and the person who filed the suit originally should find productive work peeling vegetables or filling potholes so that he does not have time to file such silly actions and waste the public’s time and money.

Wa-hoo! We accomplished quite a bit today. My wife and I hung pictures and cleared out 12 boxes of DVDs, CDs, and equipment from an area upstairs we--I--had let go too long. We are close to finishing up our move-in--only 6 months after the fact.

Thank you, Mark Cuban. I watched the Mariners beat Houston today on HDNet. What a picture! If you are thinking of getting HDTV, HBO HD and HDNet are awesome on DirecTV.

Unfortunately, our home is blocked from direct line of sight of Seattle's TV antennas by several land formations. I had an expert out to test for HDTV signal strength to determine whether an antenna would work; unfortunately, the answer was no.

Therefore, I hope that the merger between Dish Network and DirecTV goes through. I hope that the FCC will mandate that they carry all available HDTV channels as part of their effort to move HDTV forward. I do not believe that consumers will suffer; cable has the lion's share of the TV transmission market.

If you do not have HDTV, get it. And write your representative to tell them to support the merger and support the roll-out of HDTV nationwide.

Within the next week, we will finally clear up most if not all of the remaining move-in items in our new home. We have been too busy to hang our pictures, and too entertained to worry much about putting away CDs, photos and the like. We have a hard deadline next Saturday night; we expect to be ready well before then.

I am typing this on Kathy’s rebuilt laptop. Finally, I think that it’s done. Now, on to the desktop upstairs!

The dogs definitely prefer air conditioning, even though the thermometer barely touches the high seventies. They wouldn’t last long in Georgia, where I grew up. Our high here is equivalent to the "cool of the morning" there. They are pretty good dogs, even if they are wimps. The tile floor should be as cool as the underside of the pillow for them.