IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES:

Morocco's march to democracy rests on king's whim (Neil Macfarquhar, 10/01/05, The New York Times)

[M]orocco has moved further along the reform road than any of its Arab neighbors. Its press is vibrant and outspoken. An 18-month-old family law no longer treats women as male chattel. Voluntary organizations can be formed with relative ease, and scores of them work on everything from improving prison conditions to raising the country's abysmal illiteracy rate.

Yet that entire system of law rests not on a framework of checks and balances but on the whim of the king. Morocco's constitution declares the king both sacred and the "prince of the faithful." Other Arab constitutions do not declare the ruler holy, but an official reverence cocoons virtually every president or monarch in the region. Anyone who challenges the ruler does so at his own peril.

It is a fact that raises a central question here and across the Middle East: What is needed to turn states of despotic whim into genuine nations of law? In Morocco, an essential first step, many reformers believe, is an open reckoning with the abuses that this system spawned in the past. That effort shows the profound limits that real reform faces in even the most forward looking Arab nations.

A few months ago, Marzouki took the extraordinary step of testifying at a public forum about the misery he endured in Tazmamart, whose name has become a catchphrase for the abuses Moroccans suffered under the 38-year rule of the late King Hassan II.

But Marzouki chose not to testify before the official Equity and Reconciliation Commission, established last year by the young king, Mohammed VI, to lay bare what Moroccans often call the terror of his father's rule and to establish reparations for about 13,000 victims.

The commission's public hearings, which started in December, are without precedent in the Middle East. Royal advisers point to them as evidence of how far along Morocco is on the road to democratic transformation.

Yet to many abused prisoners like Marzouki, the commission hearings have proved inadequate.

BACON ON THE HOOF (via Robert Schwartz):

It's Always Fair Game for Wild Pigs (PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN, September 30, 2005, NY Times)

MICHELLE STRAUB knows what it is like to feel deeply and profoundly nervous. Just hearing the grunts of wild pigs behind shrubs, the rustle of grasses signaling they were near, made her knees shake and her French-manicured nails quiver on the trigger. Only she knows the true terror of the heart that comes from holding a 7-millimeter rifle while bushwacking down steep trails made by potentially ferocious marauding wild pigs and having your husband turn to you to say, "I think I hear something."

Her quarry in these golden Mendocino hills was Sus scrofa, a squat, muscular wild boar with coarse dark hair, hairy ears, a thick armor-like hide and skewers for tusks, which is now overrunning the countryside to become the latest plague of California.

Along with states like Texas, Florida and Hawaii, California has become a prime habitat for pigs, so much so that the state Department of Fish and Game has begun offering advanced wild boar hunting clinics to encourage people like Mrs. Straub, a 29-year-old executive secretary from Santa Rosa, to hunt pigs.

The pigs are a nonnative hybrid species that can run up to 25 miles an hour and whose meat is prized by cooks - Mrs. Straub and her husband, Randy, among them. They flourish in all but two counties of the state, and their moonlit sashaying in search of grubs and acorns along Highway 1 near Carmel has become so treacherous to motorists that the state Department of Transportation put up "Pig Xing" signs last year.

This is California in the cross hairs: a maddening pig Interstate where zigzaggy pig trails lead into dense, burr-ridden canyons, and trampled grasses indicate where pigs have been and gone.

"You think of little domestic pigs at the county fair as pink and cute with a curly tail," Mrs. Straub said. She hired Tim Lockwood, a hunting guide from Santa Rosa, to help her unleash her inner Annie Oakley at 5 a.m. one recent Sunday on a 1,252-acre private ranch. "These pigs are not cute."

WHERE'D MY PARTY GO?

After New Labour, what's left?: Whatever else the left might have lost, it retains its unsurpassed capacity for self-delusion. (Mick Hume, 9/30/05, Spiked)

What can it mean to be on the left today? Nobody seemed to be asking that question at the annual Labour Party conference, but it screamed out of every staged-managed debate.

Many have commented on the lifeless state of the Labour conference, compared to the heated and controversial affairs of past years. Yet few seem to have understood what has changed. It is not simply about the control now exercised by Tony Blair's party managers and PR people. The rise of these petty bureaucrats has been facilitated by a far more important political process - the death of the left. [...]

The role of chancellor Gordon Brown at the conference, and the reaction to it, perhaps best illustrated the left's demise. Over the years, as its influence and authority has waned, the Labour left has scaled down its aspirations time and again, from the demand to nationalise the commanding heights of the economy to a request to keep the lowest-paid workers above the poverty line. During the New Labour years, the left has increasingly attached its hopes to Brown, as the supposedly 'Real Labour' alternative to Blair, despite the absence of any real evidence to support this claim.

The scale of the left's self-delusion over Brown should have become unavoidably evident to all at this week's conference, when the chancellor gave a defining speech that not only pledged to carry on the New Labour project, but also dipped into Margaret Thatcher's old handbag to offer the dream of a share-owning, property-owning democracy. Brown stands revealed as what he always was, the political equivalent of a bank manager - and a dour Scottish Presbyterian bank manager at that. Some left-wing observers seemed genuinely shocked to be confronted with the Real Brown rather than their fantasy about Real Labour. Yet still they will cling to the dream that he didn't really mean all that, and things will be different once 'our Gordon' takes over. Whatever else the left might have lost over the years, it retains its unsurpassed capacity for self-delusion.

Nobody with eyes to see could now seriously contend that the tension between Blair and Brown is any sort of left v right conflict over political principles. This is more like the feuding, feudal politics of an ancient old royal court, where personal cliques and factions manoeuvre for power and squabble over the succession to the throne. The left's keenness to hitch its three-wheeled wagon to one of these courtly cliques only confirms its own loss of direction and independence.

Nor, we might note in passing, does the left that formally exists outside the Labour Party appear to offer much better prospects for progressive politics.

JOE V. HAJI:

The IED Tussle: The "improvised explosive device" may seem a humble opponent for the US military, but it is the focus of a battle of innovations pitting high-tech against low cunning (Bartle Bull, October 2005, Prospect)

During lulls in the night fighting in Baghdad’s Sadr City last year, as Muqtada al Sadr’s militia turned Baghdad’s biggest ghetto into the most booby-trapped war zone on earth, it used to look to me like someone was staging Macbeth in hell. With the dark air full of dust and smoke, human figures moved over the pavement like black ghosts while car lights swerved crazily through the smog.

The spectres around me were mostly involved in planting the homemade bombs known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs—the insurgency’s main weapons in Iraq. The swerving cars were avoiding the Coke cans that indicated the buried bombs. And the youths hunched over the road pouring liquid into the dark bitumen would explain to me that it was kerosene they were dishing out: relatively viscous, it seeps into a road surface, and then, when lit, melts it, making digging easier. Thus the orange flames that flared all night along the boulevards. The ordinance most likely to be buried in the small pits then were 105mm howitzer shells that the guerillas called “Austrians,” after the country where the shells had been made. Wires led from detonation charges into the doorways of small, shabby mosques where other groups of teenagers in black stood around car batteries attached to the wires.

I never had contact with the other side of this battle—coalition forces—back then, but an NBC cameraman I knew told me that from the inside of a 7th Cav Bradley, these young men on the streets looked like video game targets through the thermal night vision screens inside the American armoured vehicles. One night the Bradley my friend was travelling in was hit by twelve IEDs.

The IED might seem like a relatively low-tech piece of weaponry in a military epoch of lasers, unmanned drones and smart bombs. And it might appear a humble opponent for a US military establishment 3m strong that consumes $400bn a year. But it is the defining weapon of America’s war in Iraq, and it has been the focus of a battle of innovations and counter-innovations marshalling high-tech gadgetry and low-tech cunning on both sides.

When military historians write the annals of this struggle, they will remember it as the "IED war." The IED is responsible for 80 per cent of American casualties in Iraq, and it is unprecedented in modern warfare to find a conflict so dominated by a single weapon.

WHY?:

Turkey's future lies in EU, says Blair (Mark Oliver, September 30, 2005, Guardian Unlimited)

Tony Blair today insisted Turkey's future was in the EU as British officials in Brussels worked to dispel a looming crisis over next week's talks on its membership.

In an interview with Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper, the prime minister said he would work hard to help Turkey realise its EU ambitions. [...]

Turkish officials reacted angrily after Austria yesterday blocked an EU agreement on the ground rules for formal talks on the country's entry.

Last December, EU leaders agreed that Turkey - which first applied for membership more than 40 years ago - had taken the necessary steps towards qualifying for the talks to begin.

The negotiations had been due to begin on Monday after EU states said Ankara had worked on its human rights record as well as economic and social reforms.

But while the other 24 other member states were happy with the terms, Austria said it wanted a downgraded and associate EU membership for Turkey to be an option.

LET'S SEE HOW MUCH HIL LEARNED FROM BILL:

Incoming FDNY chaplain questions 9/11 story (CAROL EISENBERG, September 30, 2005, Newsday)

An imam slated to be sworn in Friday as the second Muslim chaplain in Fire Department history said he questioned whether 19 hijackers were responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and suggested a broader conspiracy may have brought down the Twin Towers and killed more than 2,700 people.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Imam Intikab Habib, 30, a native of Guyana who studied Islam in Saudi Arabia, said he doubted the United States government's official story blaming 19 hijackers associated with al-Quaida and Osama bin Laden.

"I as an individual don't know who did the attacks," said Habib, 30, a soft-spoken man who immigrated to New York in July 2000 after spending six years in Saudi Arabia getting a degree in Islamic theology and law. "There are so many conflicting reports about it. I don't believe it was 19 ... hijackers who did those attacks."

Asked to elaborate on his reasons for doubting that story, he talked about video and news reports widely disseminated in the Muslim community.

STRIKE THAT, REVERSE IT:

Time For a Saudi "New Deal": The kingdom is the global center of both oil production and the Islamic faith; its politics could endanger worldwide stability (Fahad Nazer, 27 September 2005, YaleGlobal)

Shortly after the death and burial of King Fahd, Saudi tribal leaders, senior religious scholars, and other notables pledged allegiance to the new king Abdullah in a traditional ceremony known as Bayaa – essentially the Saudi version of the social contract. However, in this model, the citizens are expected to defer all political matters to the rulers and religious authorities. For his part, the king is supposed to lead the community in accordance with the laws of God. This "deal," as Bayaa is loosely translated from Arabic, needs some renegotiating.

Just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt felt it necessary to initiate a New Deal with the American people in response to the dramatic changes since the country's founding, Abdullah must now consider similar steps. FDR's New Deal changed the basic assumptions about the obligations of the state, and Abdullah's new deal must be just as drastic.

Since the founding of the Kingdom, Saudi political discourse has revolved around mostly religious concepts, applied in a political setting. The rulers eliminated the prospects for pluralism by claiming that they alone have legitimacy, since they have the support and consent of religious scholars, the ultimate authorities on Islam. Add to that arrangement the claim that the Quran is the constitution of Saudi Arabia, and one is effectively discouraged from ever questioning the political system. The implication is always there: One who supports reforming the system is trying to improve on the Quran, the word of God.

But the ramifications of the Bayaa's rigid hold on Saudi Arabia reach far beyond the country's borders. What happens domestically in the kingdom has implications for the rest of the world. As the birthplace of Islam and the world's largest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia plays a crucial global role. Should Saudi oil production be disrupted as a result of domestic turmoil, the effects on the global economy could be devastating. And as guardian of two of Islam's holiest sites, the Saudi religious establishment – along with its fatwas, or edicts – is extremely influential among Islamic scholars worldwide.

But why is a New Deal necessary? And why should the government willingly reform itself, when it controls virtually every aspect of Saudi society? The simple answer is that a more inclusive, democratic system will not only ensure the stability and prosperity of the country as a whole, but will also likely improve the chances of the royal family surviving what are bound to be turbulent times in the future.

PROGRESSIVE EUROPE (via b):

First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands (Paul Belien, 2005-09-27, Brussels Journal)

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”

RICH FOLK DON'T GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY:

The great jobs switch: The fall in manufacturing employment in developed economies is a sign of economic progress, not decline (The Economist, Sep 29th 2005)

THAT employment in manufacturing, once the engine of growth, is in a long, slow decline in the rich world is a familiar notion. That it is on its way to being virtually wiped out is not. Yet calculations by The Economist suggest that manufacturing now accounts for less than 10% of total jobs in America. Other rich countries are moving in that direction, too, with Britain close behind America, followed by France and Japan, with Germany and Italy lagging behind (see article).

Shrinking employment in any sector sounds like bad news. It isn't. Manufacturing jobs disappear because economies are healthy, not sick.

The decline of manufacturing in rich countries is a more complex story than the piles of Chinese-made goods in shops suggest. Manufacturing output continues to expand in most developed countries—in America, by almost 4% a year on average since 1991. Despite the rise in Chinese exports, America is still the world's biggest manufacturer, producing about twice as much, measured by value, as China.

The continued growth in manufacturing output shows that the fall in jobs has not been caused by mass substitution of Chinese goods for locally made ones. It has happened because rich-world companies have replaced workers with new technology to boost productivity and shifted production from labour-intensive products such as textiles to higher-tech, higher value-added, sectors such as pharmaceuticals. Within firms, low-skilled jobs have moved offshore. Higher-value R&D, design and marketing have stayed at home.

All that is good. Faster productivity growth means higher average incomes. Low rates of unemployment in the countries which have shifted furthest away from manufacturing suggest that most laid-off workers have found new jobs. And consumers have benefited from cheap Chinese imports.

WHO'S OFF CENTER?:

HALF OF U.S. SEES ‘JUDICIAL ACTIVISM CRISIS’ (MARTHA NEIL, 9/30/05, ABA Net)

More than half of Americans are angry and disappointed with the nation’s judiciary, a new survey done for the ABA Journal eReport shows.

A majority of the survey respondents agreed with statements that "judicial activism" has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters’ values should be impeached. Nearly half agreed with a congressman who said judges are "arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable."

The survey results surprised some legal experts with the extent of dissatisfaction shown toward the judiciary. "These are surprisingly large numbers," says Mark V. Tushnet, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.

"These results are simply scary," adds Charles G. Geyh, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington.

OBLIGATORY MONARCHIST REFERENCE:

Salazar: Bush 'acts like a king' (M.E. Sprengelmeyer, September 30, 2005, Rocky Mountain News)

Saying President Bush sometimes acts "like a king," Sen. Ken Salazar warned Friday that he would vehemently oppose Bush's next Supreme Court pick if it turns out to be one of two controversial U.S. Circuit Court judges or someone else he considers an unqualified ideologue.

MORE:
RANGEL ALL TANGLED IN RACE RAGE (DEBORAH ORIN, September 30, 2005, NY Post)

REP. Charles Rangel has scored plenty of headlines in his 35 years in Congress, but lately, he's outdone himself by comparing President Bush to the revolting Southern racist "Bull" Connor, who sicced attack dogs on black protesters in 1963.

"George Bush is our 'Bull' Connor," claimed the Harlem Democrat — New York's most senior member of Congress — as he charged that the Hurricane Katrina response was slow because many victims were black.

But that's not all.

Rangel raised eyebrows by saying the Iraq war to topple Saddam Hussein was as bad as the Holocaust — "This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed" by the Nazis, he said in June.

In July, Rangel got into a flap after the official Congressional Record ran a statement under his name blaming a fictitious 1712 slave-owner, "Willie Lynch," for tactics that destroyed the black family.

MORE MURDER = LESS CRIME? (via Governor Breck):

Bennett Under Fire for Remark on Crime and Black Abortions (Brian Faler, September 30, 2005, The Washington Post)

Democratic lawmakers and civil rights leaders denounced conservative commentator William J. Bennett yesterday for suggesting on his syndicated radio show that aborting black children would reduce the U.S. crime rate.

The former U.S. education secretary-turned-talk show host said Wednesday that "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett quickly added that such an idea would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." But, he said, "your crime rate would go down."

MORE (via Michael Herdegen):
All in the family (John Leo, 10.03/05, US News)

In a policy brief released last week, the Washington-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf looked at 23 recent studies dealing with family structure and youth crime. In 19 of the 20 studies that found family structure to have an effect, children from nonintact or single-parent families had a higher rate of crime or delinquency. Neighborhoods with lots of out-of-wedlock births have lots of crime. Ominously, one study said that the more single-parent families there were in a neighborhood, the more crime there was among two-parent kids living around them. Again, these studies are controlled for race.

Among the other findings:

- Adolescents in single-parent families were almost twice as likely to have pulled a knife or a gun on someone in the past year. This was after controlling for many demographic variables, including race, gender, age, household income, and educational level of parents.

- In a large sample of students in 315 classrooms in 11 cities, the "single most important variable" in gang involvement was found to be family structure. In other words, the greater the number of parents at home, the lower the level of gang involvement. A study of American Indian families found that living in a two-parent family reduced gang involvement by more than 50 percent.

- Another study concluded that out-of-wedlock childbearing had a large effect on the rate of arrests for murder, an effect that "seems to have gotten stronger over time."

- "Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here," one study reported. The other family types studied were single mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families.

- One study, judged most important by the institute, found that divorce rates had no relationship to violent crime rates but that out-of-wedlock births had a strong relationship to youth crime--nearly 90 percent of the increase in violent crime between 1973 and 1995 was accounted for by the rise in out-of-wedlock births.

Browse through an archive of columns by John Leo.

The upshot of these studies is that America is confronted by a form of poverty that money alone can't cure. Many of us think social breakdown is a result of racism and poverty. Yes, they are factors, but study after study shows that alterations in norms and values are at the heart of economic and behavioral troubles. That's why so much research boils down to the old rule: If you want to avoid poverty, finish high school, don't have kids in your teens, and get married.

EMBARRASSMENT OF GOP RICHES:

Think Locally On Relief (Jeb Bush, September 30, 2005, Washington Post)

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Americans are looking to their leaders for answers to the tragedy and reassurances that the mistakes made in the response will not be repeated in their own communities. Congressional hearings on the successes and failures of the relief effort are underway.

As the governor of a state that has been hit by seven hurricanes and two tropical storms in the past 13 months, I can say with certainty that federalizing emergency response to catastrophic events would be a disaster as bad as Hurricane Katrina.

Just as all politics are local, so are all disasters. The most effective response is one that starts at the local level and grows with the support of surrounding communities, the state and then the federal government. The bottom-up approach yields the best and quickest results -- saving lives, protecting property and getting life back to normal as soon as possible. Furthermore, when local and state governments understand and follow emergency plans appropriately, less taxpayer money is needed from the federal government for relief.

DREAM TICKET FOR 2008:

Here's your Winning Team.

WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH...THE CONSTITUTION?:

Dangers of a Drunk Dubya (DOUG THOMPSON, Sep 24, 2005, Capitol Hill Blue)

In normal times, such a story in a tabloid like the Enquirer would be dismissed as just another fantasy for the newspaper that normally devotes its front page to gossip about celebrity divorces. But an America with Bush as President is anything but normal and too many warning signs point to the sad fact that Dubya the drunk is back on the bottle. Plus we reported the same thing in a story about Bush’s temper tirades on August 25.

Like the President, I’m a recovering alcoholic. Unlike him, I’ve been sober for 11 years, three months and 16 days. Bush says he quit drinking without help from any organized program. I had a lot of help – from family, friends and Alcoholics Anonymous. As an alcoholic, I can say without hesitation that available evidence tells me that Bush is drinking and drinking heavily.

This brings us to Off Center : The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, which is sure to be a hit with the Looney Left. It's kind of the inevitable sequel to What's the Matter with Kansas--starting from the assumption that the election of Republicans to run Washington is an obvious error it goes on to the logical next step and argues that the exercise of power by those "elected" officials is per se illegitimate and ways must be found to stop them. That's funny enough, but the authors try to scare up support by demonstrating that the modern GOP, including George W. Bush, is not just conservative but so radically to the Right as to be a unique occurrence in the history of our politics. All this requires them to ignore is that the overall set of policies that makes up compassionate conservatism is also being implemented by John Howard and Tony Blair and that if you picked up any newspaper or magazine in the West over the last month or so you'd find that everyone realizes that the same reforms must be undertaken in such places as Japan and Germany. The simple truth is that if George W. Bush didn't exist our political system would have raised up someone rather similar to him, as it is doing throughout the developed world.

The personal hatred that folks harbor towards President Bush blinds them to the entirely orthodox nature of his politics. This is not healthy for them for reasons that are readily apparent. However, if we continue with the logic of such folk the third volume in their trilogy is likely to hold that since the elections of Republicans are illegitimate and governance by Republicans is illegitimate then the laws they pass and the republic itself are illegitimate. The authors of Off Center give us a preview of this line when they get to a hilarious discussion of the "Four Great Obstacles" to reforming the American system so that Republicans won't have power:

(1) "The You Can't Get There From Here" Obstacle--here they acknowledge with no little chagrin that the Constitution of the United States sets up the very procedures of governance that produced the results they despise.

(2) The "Fox Guarding the Henhouse" Obstacle--here they acknowledge that Republicans, having won so many popular elections and control of so much of government, are hardly likely to figure out ways to put their opponents in control instead.

(3) The "Nobody Cares" Obstacle--here they acknowledge that rather little of the American public shares their hysteria so there's no meaningful constituency for reform.

(4) The "Half a Loaf is Worse than None" Obstacle--here they acknowledge that what reforms might be enacted in such a political climate could well benefit Republicans instead of Democrats and so should not be advocated by the Left. Rather convincingly, if unintentionally showing that they aren't pro-reform, just anti-GOP.

In short, what they see as obstacles to the kind of America they want to live in are: the American political system; the American people; and the elected government of America. Dangerous territory this, for it reveals such an estrangement from the realities of the nation -- and, as suggested above, of the sort of Third Way policies that are de riguer throughout the West -- that they may not be capable of reconciling themselves to the End of History. The other group of people that suffers such an extreme derangement is the Islamicists, with whom we are currently at war. Political bitching is one of our birthrights, but when it begins to cross over into such open antagonism for the democratic majority and the choices they make the end results are seldom pretty. Rather than attack the Republic root and main, the Left ought to be developing the next generation of ideas and leaders that may appeal to a majority of the American people and thereby win elections. One suspects that if they did actually manage this feat they'd rather quickly adjust to the notion that those who win elections get to wield power.

MORE:

    -Jacob S. Hacker (Peter Strauss Family Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University)

    -BOOK SITE: Off Center: The Republican Revolution & the Erosion of American Democracy.
By Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson

    -New America Foundation : Bio - Jacob Hacker

    -ESSAY:The Dispensable Man (Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, September 30, 2005, Washington Post)

    -ESSAY: ‘Economic risk has shifted from the government and corporations to workers and their families’ (Jacob S. Hacker, September/October 2005, Boston Review)

    -ESSAY: Bigger and Better: When it comes to providing broad-based social-insurance programs, it’s the government that’s rational and the market that’s dumb. (Jacob S. Hacker, 05.06.05, American Prospect)

    -ESSAY: Popular Fiction (Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, 11.08.04, New Republic)

    -ESSAY: Good Medicine: Medicare does need changes. But its expansion is the key to eventual universal coverage. (Jacob S. Hacker and Mark Schlesinger, 10.01.04, American Prospect)

    -ESSAY: Bradley Does Healthcare (Jacob S. Hacker, October 7, 1999, The Nation)

    -ARCHIVES: Jacob S. Hacker (New Republic)

    -ARCHIVES: Jacob S. Hacker (American Prospect)

NOT THE APPARAT BUT THE PLAN ITSELF:

When Goodness Won (Robert Conquest, Sep 22, 2005, New Republic)

We are inclined to forget that the Bolsheviks were a small section of a small, and often ill-educated, segment of Russian society. Rosa Luxemburg, from the far left, warned that the Leninist program of suppressing the freedom of ideas would lead to both brutalization and stultification. She was right. The result can be seen in a volume such as this one, in the meanness and the petty-mindedness of the ruling apparat.

After the imposition of this repressive order--largely by what we might now call Cheka death squads--came a more formalized terror state, inflicting on Russia a whole slew of human, intellectual, economic, and ecological disasters. But it is above all the effect of the dictatorship upon the Russian mind that has still not been fully understood in the West. As Anne Applebaum argued recently, it is important that we get this huge section of world history properly into the thinking of the West (and indeed of Russia). This book provides yet another extraordinary insight into the awful post-Stalinist heritage. Not only was genuine thought, as far as possible, destroyed, but something in the nature of Orwell's "newthink" was successfully put in its place.

From the late 1920s on, the country's politics and economy were run on the basis of what is now called "negative selection."

JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL PARTY:

West Bank Elects Councils: Preliminary results show Fatah in control of most local bodies, but Hamas wins a third of the vote. Participation is strong at 81%. (Laura King, September 30, 2005, LA Times)

The militant group Hamas captured up to one-third of the votes in Palestinian municipal elections held Thursday, according to preliminary unofficial results, a solid showing that could presage its performance in parliamentary balloting early next year.

The Palestinian commissioner for local elections, Jamal Shobaki, said it appeared that the governing Fatah movement had won a majority on councils in 45 towns or villages and Hamas had captured 22. The initial results in 15 locales were inconclusive.

The turnout was about 81%, Shobaki said.

Throughout the day, Palestinians gathered at schools and municipal centers throughout the West Bank to cast their votes.

Old men leaned on canes as they shuffled toward ballot boxes; little boys chased after one another wearing headbands of satiny green for Hamas or the checkered black-and-white cloth representing Fatah, which is led by Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority.

Democratic elections are still something of a novelty for Palestinians, who went to the polls in January, electing Abbas successor to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. Municipal votes were also held in January and May, and a fourth round is planned before year's end.

"My vote is important," said Haniyeh Qurt, 54, a veiled woman who emerged beaming from the polling station at the Boys' Secondary School in the West Bank city of Beitunia, outside Ramallah. "You see, I'm a citizen, and this is my right."

THEY MAKE NICE STARTERS:

Million dollar homes dime a dozen(Jen Haberkorn, September 30, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

A $1 million home used to be a rare, grand mansion in the hills or on the water.

Today, a $1 million price tag dangles from a three-bedroom Bethesda home close to the Metro and in a good school district. But the bathrooms still sport early 1990s decor.

Or a 1950s home in Arlington that's close to the Metro and has a detached, one-car garage. But it has only two bedrooms.

For the first time, there are more than 1 million owner-occupied homes in the United States worth $1 million or more, according to Census Bureau figures released late last month.

AND MCCAIN SHALL LEAD THEM:

McCain economy bloc (Robert Novak, Sep 29, 2005, Townhall)

The Senate was up to its old tricks Monday evening. It prepared to pass, without debate and under a procedure requiring unanimous consent, a federal infusion of $9 billion into state Medicaid programs under the pretext of Katrina relief. The bill, drafted in secret under bipartisan auspices, was stopped cold when Republican Sen. John Ensign voiced his objection.

The bill's Democratic sponsors railed in outrage against Ensign, a 47-year-old first-termer from Las Vegas, Nev., who usually keeps a low profile. But he was not acting alone. Ensign belongs to, and, indeed, originated, a small group of Republicans who intend to stand guard on the Senate floor against such raids on the Treasury as Monday night's failure. The group includes Sen. John McCain, who long has tried to wean Republicans from ever greater federal spending but attracted little support from GOP colleagues until recently.

Fear has enveloped Republicans who see themselves handing the banner of fiscal integrity to the Democrats. The GOP is losing the rhetoric war, even though Democrats mostly push for higher domestic spending, because Republicans, while standing firm against tax hikes, have also declined to cut spending. Fearing the worst in the 2006 and 2008 elections, Republican senators who would not be expected to do so are looking to McCain to lead the party back to fiscal responsibility.

IF YOU INTRODUCE A GUN IN THE FIRST ACT, IT HAS TO BE FIRED BY THE END OF THE PLAY:

Coming Soon: The Ronnie Earle Movie (Byron York, 9/29/05, National Review)

For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. "Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a 'bloodless coup with corporate cash,'" reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum's website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."

"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We've been shooting for about two years."

RESTOCKING THE GHETTO:

Purging the Poor from New Orleans (Naomi Klein, September 27, 2005, The Nation)

New Orleans is already displaying signs of a demographic shift so dramatic that some evacuees describe it as "ethnic cleansing." Before Mayor Ray Nagin called for a second evacuation, the people streaming back into dry areas were mostly white, while those with no homes to return to are overwhelmingly black. This, we are assured, is not a conspiracy; it's simple geography -- a reflection of the fact that wealth in New Orleans buys altitude. That means that the driest areas are the whitest (the French Quarter is 90 percent white; the Garden District, 89 percent; Audubon, 86 percent; neighboring Jefferson Parish, where people were also allowed to return, 65 percent). Some dry areas, like Algiers, did have large low-income African-American populations before the storm, but in all the billions for reconstruction, there is no budget for transportation back from the far-flung shelters where those residents ended up. So even when resettlement is permitted, many may not be able to return.

As for the hundreds of thousands of residents whose low-lying homes and housing projects were destroyed by the flood, Drennen points out that many of those neighborhoods were dysfunctional to begin with. He says the city now has an opportunity for "twenty-first-century thinking": Rather than rebuild ghettos, New Orleans should be resettled with "mixed income" housing, with rich and poor, black and white living side by side.

What Drennen doesn't say is that this kind of urban integration could happen tomorrow, on a massive scale. Roughly 70,000 of New Orleans' poorest homeless evacuees could move back to the city alongside returning white homeowners, without a single new structure being built. Take the Lower Garden District, where Drennen himself lives. It has a surprisingly high vacancy rate -- 17.4 percent, according to the 2000 Census. At that time 702 housing units stood vacant, and since the market hasn't improved and the district was barely flooded, they are presumably still there and still vacant. It's much the same in the other dry areas: With landlords preferring to board up apartments rather than lower rents, the French Quarter has been half-empty for years, with a vacancy rate of 37 percent.

The citywide numbers are staggering: In the areas that sustained only minor damage and are on the mayor's repopulation list, there are at least 11,600 empty apartments and houses. If Jefferson Parish is included, that number soars to 23,270. With three people in each unit, that means homes could be found for roughly 70,000 evacuees. With the number of permanently homeless city residents estimated at 200,000, that's a significant dent in the housing crisis. And it's doable. Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, whose Houston district includes some 150,000 Katrina evacuees, says there are ways to convert vacant apartments into affordable or free housing. After passing an ordinance, cities could issue Section 8 certificates, covering rent until evacuees find jobs. Jackson Lee says she plans to introduce legislation that will call for federal funds to be spent on precisely such rental vouchers. "If opportunity exists to create viable housing options," she says, "they should be explored."

Malcolm Suber, a longtime New Orleans community activist, was shocked to learn that thousands of livable homes were sitting empty. "If there are empty houses in the city," he says, "then working-class and poor people should be able to live in them." According to Suber, taking over vacant units would do more than provide much-needed immediate shelter: It would move the poor back into the city, preventing the key decisions about its future -- like whether to turn the Ninth Ward into marshland or how to rebuild Charity Hospital -- from being made exclusively by those who can afford land on high ground.

A Bush Cabinet officer predicted this week that New Orleans likely will never again be a majority black city, and several black officials are outraged.

Alphonso R. Jackson, secretary of housing and urban development, during a visit with hurricane victims in Houston, said New Orleans would not reach its pre-Katrina population of "500,000 people for a long time," and "it's not going to be as black as it was for a long time, if ever again."

Rep. Danny K. Davis, Illinois Democrat and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, quickly took issue. [...]

Other members of the caucus said the comments by Mr. Jackson, who is black, could be misconstrued as a goal, particularly considering his position of responsibility in the administration.

SLIPPAGE:

Governor says national Dems are too liberal (Associated Press, 9/26/05)

State Democrats should distance themselves from liberal national party leaders whose agenda frequently differs from Wyoming, Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal told state party members at a meeting attended by a Democratic National Committee vice chairman.

Wyoming Democrats should instead focus on local issues that relate to Wyoming residents, Freudenthal told about 75 state Democrats Saturday night.

"This is a party that's not afraid of firearms," Freudenthal said. "It's a party where people are interested in whether the governor managed to shoot an antelope with one shot."

"I don't care about Howard Dean," he said, referring to the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

DNC Vice Chairman Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., who attended meeting, acknowledged that the national organizations had slipped.

PROPOSITIONS ARE AN AWFUL IDEA, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM, FOLLOW THEM:

Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill (MSNBC, 9/29/05)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger followed through Thursday on his promise to veto a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving the issue up to voters or judges who will likely face the volatile issue in the next year. [...]

Schwarzenegger said the bill by Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno contradicted Proposition 22, which was approved by voters in 2000 and said only a marriage between a man and woman is valid.

The governor said the state constitution bars the Legislature from enacting a law allowing gay marriage without another vote by the public and that Leno's bill wouldn't provide for that vote.

A KELO OF DOPES:

Endangered Species Act rewrite passed by House (Erica Werner, 9/29/05, ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The House on Thursday passed legislation that could greatly expand private property rights under the environmental law that is credited with helping keep the bald eagle from extinction but also has provoked bitter fighting.

By a vote of 229-193, lawmakers approved a top-to-bottom overhaul of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, perhaps the nation's most powerful environmental law. The law has led to contentious battles over species such as the spotted owl, the snail darter and the red-legged frog.

WHAT'S THE SECRET PASSWORD?:

Miller Agrees to Testify in CIA Leak Probe (JOHN SOLOMON, September 29, 2005, The Associated Press)

After nearly three months behind bars, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released Thursday after agreeing to testify about the Bush administration's disclosure of a covert CIA officer's identity.

Miller left the federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., after reaching an agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. She will appear Friday morning before a grand jury investigating the case.

"My source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations," Miller said in a statement.

Her source was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, reported the Times, which supported her contention that her source should be protected.

MORE:
A CIA-Did-It Defense for Scooter in the Plame Leak Case? (David Corn, 9/30/05, The Nation)

The end of this sub-plot has caused Libby's team to leak his defense to the media. The Post quotes "a source familiar with Libby's account of his conversations with Miller." The odds are that source is Libby or his attorney. This super-secret source says that on July 8, 2003, Miller and Libby talked. This was six days before columnist Bob Novak disclosed the CIA identity of Valerie Wilson and two days after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an explosive Times op-ed disclosing that his trip to Niger in February 2002 had led him to conclude that President Bush had falsely claimed that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium in Africa. In this conversation, Miller asked Libby why Wilson had been sent on this mission by the CIA. (Miller, whose prewar reporting had promoted the administration's case that Iraq was loaded with WMDs, had a personal, as well as professional, interest in Wilson's tale.) Libby, according to this source, told Miller that the White House was, as the Post puts it, "working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected." Libby noted he had heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with it but he did not know where she worked.

Four or five days later, according to the Libby-friendly source, Libby and Miller spoke again. Now Libby knew more. He told Miller that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had a role in sending Wilson to Niger. This source tells the Post that Libby did not know her name or that she was an undercover officer at the CIA. That latter point is crucial, for, under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Fitzgerald can only prosecute Libby if Libby disclosed information about a CIA officer whom he knew was a covert employee.

HE'S EVEN GOT THE CHRONICLE DUBIOUS:

Legal experts say Earle better have 'smoking gun' (MARY FLOOD, 9/292005 Houston Chronicle)

Most legal experts looking at the conspiracy indictment of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said Wednesday that either an insider has turned against DeLay or the prosecutor may have gone too far.

"I can't imagine indicting a majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives without having a smoking gun, and that means someone who flipped on DeLay," said Buck Wood, an Austin lawyer who filed a related civil lawsuit on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates. "He's got to have corroborating evidence, too, bills and things proving where DeLay was at key times."

Several lawyers and law professors said Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle could have talked the grand jury into a questionable indictment if he hasn't secured key witnesses who were "in the room" with DeLay. Otherwise, this conspiracy case could be too hard to prove with just circumstantial evidence, they said.

SOMETIMES THE TRANNIES MAKE IT TOO EASY:

U.S. insists on keeping control of Web (BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, September 29, 2005, Associated Press)

A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.

"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet," said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."

Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.

LET THEM CHOOSE:

Lessons Not Learned: Jonathan Kozol's analysis of American schools is worthy of a third-grader. (ABIGAIL THERNSTROM , September 29, 2005, Opinion Journal)

Jonathan Kozol has a devoted following, and "The Shame of the Nation" will not disappoint his fans. It's vintage Kozol--a jeremiad. His core complaints are familiar: American public schools are segregated, and those that have few whites in them are financially starved. He adds only one new element: The standards, testing and accountability "juggernaut" has crushed the "humane and happy" education we once had. [...]

One hates to argue with religious conviction, but Mr. Kozol's faith-based writing has little grounding in actual evidence. The words "segregation" and "apartheid" run like a mantra through the book, as if repetition will somehow make them true. In fact, American schools are not segregated; their racial composition reflects the nation's changing demographics.

Typically about 30% of the classmates of both blacks and Hispanics are white, but in big-city school districts whites are in short supply. The Los Angeles Unified School District, for instance, is 71% Latino, while a mere 10% of its students are white. Whites constitute only 15% of students in New York City, 10% in Chicago and Houston, and so forth. Mr. Kozol may be the last moral man standing, but his nonstop sermonizing will not change the racial composition of the big-city schools that most black and Hispanic students attend.

Instead of undertaking an analysis that looks at the facts and grapples with the hard reality of dysfunctional families, disruptive kids, undereducated teachers, stifling union contracts and a host of other ills, Mr. Kozol talks dreamily of a new protest movement led by parents and teachers who have nothing to lose but their chains. As Lincoln once famously said about a book: "People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."

WILL THIS BE AN OPEN BOOK EXAM?

UN asks employees to take quiz on ethics (Steven Edwards, National Post, September, 29th 2005)

In the wake of management scandals, the United Nations is trying to increase its employees' integrity by asking them to take a multiple-choice ethics quiz and offering certificates featuring images of African Masai tribesmen to those who do well.

The initiative comes as a Congressional committee launches hearings into the UN's plans for overhauling its management after the General Assembly rejected the sweeping reforms proposed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Being big UN boosters, we’d like to help:

1. You are a commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Africa who are accused of preying sexually on local children. Do you:

a) lament the precociousness of African kids and ask UNESCO to study the problem;
b) assure everyone they used condoms, so what’s the big deal;
c) leer knowingly and boast how your troops are “bad-ass Masai tribesmen”; or
d) blame Israel?

2. You are a UN Special Envoy for AIDS who promised to halve AIDS worldwide when you took the position, but it has quintupled and your position is up for renewal. When a U.S. congressman from Kansas calls for your resignation as a consequence, do you:

a) express your sincere hope he will soon come out of the closet;
b) mumble how more people have been killed by religion than anything else;
c) tell him to take it up with George Bush; or
d) release the results of your new study on how AIDS retards global warming?

3. Fox News reports they have discovered you have a multi-million franc Swiss bank account. Do you:

a) claim you just wanted to avoid exchange hassles on ski-trips;
b) accuse the Zionists of planting it;
c) insist it is a rapid response emergency fund for Swiss tsunami relief; or
d) whine about how everyone will give to a dying child but nobody wants to pay for administration?

4. You are the director of a UN division that has racked up $434,629.00 in unpaid New York City parking fines. Do you:

a) smugly invite them to “take it to the ICC”;
b) declare it would never have happened if New York had decent mass transit in accordance with UN Millenium goals;
c) offer to pay it off over two hundred years at zero per cent; or
d) promise to set it off against U.S. subscription arrears from 1982?

5. Genocidal slaughter erupts in Africa again while UN troops stand by under rules of engagement that prohibit bullets. When denying all responsibility, do you attribute the real blame to:

a) not enough U.S. troops;
b) too many U.S. troops;
c) the wrong kind of U.S. troops; or
d) all of the above.

6. For the three hundred and sixty-fifth time, the U.S. refuses to be bound by Kyoto. In briefing notes you prepare for the Secretary-General, do you urge him to:

a) offer a permanent Security Council seat to North Korea;
b) declare all of California a World Heritage Site;
c) nominate Jesse Jackson as his successor; or
d) ask the Masai tribesmen to face the Gulf of Mexico and do their traditional hurricane dance.

AND REDDER:

Cut-Rate Homes For Middle Class Are Catching On (DEAN E. MURPHY, 9/29/05, NY Times)

Some middle-class families are buying homes at budget prices made possible by government agencies, private developers, not-for-profit groups and employers.

Affordable housing, once shorthand for low rents for the poor, is being stretched like never before to include homeownership for people who are more likely to have Starbucks cash cards than food stamps in their wallets. These middle-income earners, priced out of homes from Burlington, Vt., to Santa Fe, N.M., are being offered financial breaks to live in hot real-estate markets and near their jobs.

"Our thinking is that a healthy middle class is important to the city," said Geoffrey Lewis, assistant director of policy at the Boston Redevelopment Authority, which has overseen the building of hundreds of units reserved for middle-income earners. "We want to keep these people in Boston; they are the glue in the neighborhoods and the glue in the economy as well."

Sometimes called low-cost, work force or inclusionary housing, the cut-price units are most popular in places "suffering from success," as one study described the cities where real estate costs outpaced incomes and where government officials, businesses and housing advocates were struggling to increase homeownership for all but the rich.

Unlike traditional government programs intended for the most disadvantaged, the emphasis is on people with full-time jobs who earn too much to qualify for federal assistance but too little to obtain a conventional mortgage, at least not in the cities or neighborhoods where they want to live.

Typically, those household incomes are 80 percent to 120 percent of the median income, which, in expensive metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Boston and New York, can extend into six figures for a family of four.

Nicolas P. Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, said, "In many places where housing costs have escalated, that historical social contract appears to have been voided, the contract that if you work you can find a decent place to live."

The price breaks are usually not achieved through direct subsidies but a range of cost-cutting programs, including cities making zoning changes for developers, providing land at reduced cost, expediting approvals of building plans and allowing the construction of bigger and more expensive homes elsewhere. [...]

"By creating ownership, you are giving moderate income residents a financial stake in their neighborhoods, so they benefit from the improvement rather than be hurt by it," said Shaun Donovan, the housing commissioner in New York.

The spread of the phenomenon is too new and dispersed to be quantified, government officials and housing advocates say, and so far it occupies only a small piece of the nation's affordable housing pie. Still, it is catching the attention of home builders, city planners, educators and business people across the nation, leading to workshops and seminars on the subject as well as a spate of local laws that make it simpler for developers to offer the units.

MORE:
Norwich Selectboard Backs Affordable Homes (Mark Davis, 9/29/05, Valley News)

The selectboard formally urged the town's planning commission last night to move more quickly to pave the way for an affordable housing development.

After a lengthy discussion, selectmen decided that despite some concern about the propriety of meddling with another committee, they needed to nudge commissioners to approve a boundary line change needed to make it possible for developers to bring an affordable housing project to a gentrified community that has long discussed the need for such homes.

“For many any years, we've said, ‘Oh, we must have affordable housing in the town',” Selectboard Chairwoman Alison May said. “A selectboard has never taken a real lead on this. Here is an opportunity. I think this is a chance for us to take some real leadership.

The selectboard's decision comes at a crucial time for affordable housing in Norwich.

Twin Pines Housing Trust of White River Junction and the Burlington-based Housing Vermont want to build 28 single-family homes and apartments on the old Agway property off Route 5, about a half mile from downtown. But before the project can move forward, the planning commission must vote to extend the boundary line of the town's designated residential area to include the Agway property.

Twin Pines' board recently told the commission that the approval must come soon, because the property will surely attract other bidders.

IF JIMMY CARTER HAD READ IT HE'D STILL BE PRESIDENT TODAY:

OBIT: M. Scott Peck, Self-Help Author, Dies at 69 (EDWARD WYATT, September 28, 2005, NY Times)

Dr. Peck is among the founding fathers of the self-help genre of books, which retain their popularity from year to year. "The Road Less Traveled," published in 1978, and its later companion volumes, "Further Along the Road Less Traveled" (1993) and "The Road Less Traveled and Beyond" (1997), have sold more than 5 million copies in North America, according to Dr. Peck's publisher, Simon & Schuster, and have been translated into more than 20 languages.

" 'The Road Less Traveled' really marked the beginning of contemporary self-help," said Jan Miller, a literary agent whose firm, Dupree Miller & Associates, represents other stars in the field, including Dr. Phil McGraw and Joel Osteen. "It was a significant work because he was able to blend the psychology and the spiritual so magnificently."

Unlike the huge best sellers of today, however, which arrive in bookstores accompanied by blaring trumpets of publicity, "The Road Less Traveled" went all but unnoticed when it was released in 1978.

Simon & Schuster initially printed only about 5,000 copies, one of which was sent to Phyllis Theroux at The Washington Post. Ms. Theroux was later quoted as saying that she spent two weeks writing a review "that would force people to buy the book."

That eventually happened, but only after Dr. Peck labored to stimulate sales by copying the review and sending it to several hundred newspapers around the country. The hardcover book sold a respectable 12,000 copies, and the paperback edition sold 30,000 in its first year.

That number doubled in each of the next two years, and in mid-1983, five years after publication, "The Road Less Traveled" reached the New York Times best-seller list for the first time. It has since spent 694 weeks on the list, the equivalent of more than 13 years. [...]

The book focused on Dr. Peck's core belief that, as stated in its opening sentence, "Life is difficult," and that its problems can be addressed only through self-discipline. Humans, however, tend to try to avoid problems, a habit that only creates more difficulties, Dr. Peck said.

To that dose of self-discipline, Dr. Peck added an inseparable spiritual element. "I make no distinction between the mind and the spirit, and therefore no distinction between the process of achieving spiritual growth and achieving mental growth," Dr. Peck wrote in the preface to the original book. "They are one and the same."

Dr. Peck's approach to self-discipline was infused not only with his general belief in the help of higher power, which made his books particularly popular with 12-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous, but also with his specifically Christian personal beliefs, which crystallized relatively late in life.

MORE:
The religion of science (M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled)

Science is a religion because it is a world view of considerable complexity with a number of major tenets. Most of these major tenets are as follows: the universe is real, and therefore a valid object for examination; it is of value for human beings to examine the universe; the universe makes sense--that is, it follows certain laws and is predictable; but human beings are poor examiners, subject to superstition, bias, prejudice, and a profound tendency to see what they want rather than what is really there; consequently, to examine and hence understand accurately, it is necessary for human beings to subject themselves to the discipline of the scientific method. The essence of this discipline is experience, so that we cannot consider ourselves to know something unless we have actually experienced it; while the discipline of scientific method begins with experience, simple experience itself is not to be trusted; to be trusted, experience must be repeatable, usually in the form of an experiment; moreover, the experiment must be verifiable, in that some other people must have the same experience under the same circumstances.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MONEY BEING DETERMINATIVE?:

As Corzine lead wilts,
Clinton gets call (Kenneth R. Bazinet, 9/29/05, NY Daily News)

Former President Bill Clinton is being called in to help rescue the slumping New Jersey gubernatorial campaign of Jon Corzine, who has given up a double-digit lead and is just 4 points ahead of Republican Doug Forrester in a new poll.

"It's 911 time in the Corzine campaign. Obviously, he's in trouble," said a senior Democratic strategist.

Clinton will campaign with the Democratic U.S. senator today at Kean University in Union, hoping to turn around Corzine's stalled run for the New Jersey statehouse.

A Quinnipiac poll gives Corzine a 48%-to-44% lead over Forrester - a 6-point drop from a month ago

LATE BUZZ:

Graham: Williams ‘seriously considered' (WENDY JEFFCOAT, 9/29/05, The Times and Democrat)

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Karen Williams of Orangeburg is being "seriously considered" for a slot on the Supreme Court, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says.

Graham, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he fully supports Williams as a candidate for the bench.

"I know she (Williams) is seriously being considered for the Supreme Court," Graham said. "(She) brings the experience and knowledge base required to be on the Supreme Court."

EVEN-HANDED ANALYSIS:

Ban on Corporate Funds Is a Fixture in Texas Election Law (Richard B. Schmitt, September 29, 2005, LA Times)

The Texas law that Tom DeLay is accused of violating dates to the era of the robber barons and has been widely emulated in other states concerned about corporate influence in politics. It bans the use of corporate funds on behalf of state political candidates.

Such laws — including bans at the federal level — have withstood legal challenges that they violate the free-speech rights of corporations.

Nonetheless, it is far from clear whether Rep. DeLay (R-Texas), who is charged with conspiracy to break the law, committed a crime. He has asserted that he played no active role in the affairs of the political committee that raised corporate funds and allegedly funneled them to Texas candidates.

His lawyers are likely to argue that the funds were legally spent. The prosecutor has disclosed little of his evidence.

Such a prosecution, although rare, shows the downside of banning corporate contributions. It leads corporations to find other ways to get money to candidates — or at least that is the argument of some campaign finance reformers.

22 FOR ROE:

Roberts Confirmed by Senate (Fred Barbash, September 29, 2005, Washington Post)

The Senate confirmed John Glover Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States, replacing the late William H. Rehnquist, the mentor for whom he clerked. The vote was 78-22. [...]

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters after the confirmation, "I believe that there's a very decisive bipartisan flavor to this vote. Judge Roberts -- soon to be Chief Justice Roberts -- got half of the Democrats and Senator Jeffords," an independent. "And to come away with 78 votes, considering where the Senate was in such contentious straits earlier this year, I think is really remarkable."

WHAT A DEAL

Bush Reported Near to Nominating Judge (Elisabeth Bumiller, NY Times, 9/28/05)

Republicans said there appeared to be less possibility that Mr. Bush would select Priscilla R. Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, federal appellate judges appointed by the president. Judges Owen and Brown, strong conservatives, set off bitter confirmation fights in the Senate, and Democrats blocked them for years by filibusters until a compromise on their confirmations was reached this year.

On Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Bush a letter urging him not to name to the court any of the three judges who were part of the compromise - Judge William J. Pryor Jr. and Judges Owen and Brown.

"The nomination of any of these individuals to the Supreme Court would represent an unnecessary provocation and would be met by substantial opposition in the Senate," the letter said.

It is tempting, on the day of Chief Justice Roberts confirmation, to assume that this is not too harmful. After all, if we can still get Justices like John Roberts, what's the harm. That is still the best possible outcome -- that the deal does no harm. That gets less and less likely, however. Senator McCain has tied us to a deal in which the only group that can't be nominated to the federal bench is outspoken conservatives. That being the case, people ambitious to get onto the bench will learn their lesson -- don't be outspoken.

President Bush will not nominate Janice Brown because he cannot. He will not nominate Priscilla Owen because he cannot. He won't even nominate Michael McConnell, because he cannot. He won't nominate Viet Dinh, because he cannot. Quite the deal Senator McCain brought home for conservatives.

CLOSE YOUR EYES AND THINK OF THE OUTBACK

Australians do ‘patriotic duty’: Birthrate up (Reuters, September, 29th, 2005)

Treasurer Peter Costello urged Australians to “do their patriotic duty” and have more children but it seems they were doing it anyway, just for fun. A new study shows the birthrate hitting its highest level in seven years.

A study by Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald showed the country’s birthrate at 1.77 per woman in 2004, its highest level since 1997. McDonald believes the rate will stay around 1.8 for the next 5-10 years.[...]

“That kind of public discussion has been pretty prominent and I think that has had its effect,” he said. During a budget speech in May last year, Costello urged Australians to have more children, telling couples to “have one for your husband, one for your wife and one for your country.”

Super idea, but perhaps best not to tell the kids which was which.

BLAIRY-EYED (via Robert Schwartz):

Brown marching towards the sound of guns: Labour’s Left will not like it but the Chancellor made it plain yesterday that his eyes are fixed on the big picture (David Aaronovitch, September 27, 2005, Times of London)

The question of how Britain deals with the new world economy is the big question of modern politics. Other things count, of course, but nothing like so much. So at this point enters the leader-in-waiting of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown. The attitude he takes towards these issues defines where he really stands on the political spectrum. Forward? Back? Stuck in the middle, mouthing platitudes?

It had occurred to some on the Left, even before yesterday’s speech, that the answer was “forward”. The Statesman feared as much. Labour people might be longing, wrote the Editor, for “a true Labour politician, a man with socialism in his bones”, but he worried that “some of his priorities suggest that he would have to work hard to fulfil the hopes that many on the Left, with mounting desperation, are vesting in him”.

Characteristically the magazine then went on to give the Chancellor no clue at all as to what he should do, other than to run a long piece on the paradise that is Sweden. Which is always, in my experience, a bad sign. Lord, but it is difficult these days to find a publication that acknowledges the existence of a Left whose desperation is not mounting.

Back to The Guardian where some were trying hard to keep desperation under control. Yesterday one of its most astute columnists sought to reassure readers about the unexaminable leftness of Brown. He had to sound a bit Blairy, she explained, because, “he has many audiences to address when he speaks to conference this week — party, business, media. He cannot break free to articulate a vision that is truly distinctive without producing stories of a split with Blair and endangering the handover.”

Well, doesn’t a leader always have these pressures to contend with? Besides, it was instructive to see what Mr Brown had elected to put in his speech. Not the populist bits (which were good), nor the codas, but the stuff he wanted to have there. Like his assault on protectionism, his promise to abolish or reform the CAP, his refusal to countenance a return to protectionism in trade, his desire for a flexible Europe. There was China, “now producing almost half the world’s electronic goods and soon half the world’s clothes”, and together with India producing four million graduates.

Then this: “We must meet and master what is now the biggest global industrial restructuring in our economic history . . . Everywhere the pace of innovation is faster than ever before, everyday global competition more threatening . . . We will not make the mistake of the 1930s — there will be no retreat into protectionism . . .”

This is what the Chancellor sees, and he sees it as clearly as the man he is likely to succeed. The debates we engage in with such obsessive repetitiveness and attention to detail, are minor considerations set against the strategic questions of Britain’s stance in the world. Do we face the global competition by retreating into our shells and hoping it will go away, or do we march towards the sound of the guns?

The choice is not about principle versus political positioning, so as to garner short-term centrist votes. It’s about whether Britain is a progressive, successful country, full of plumbers, or becomes a backward-looking, defensive one. Gordon Brown has, I think, made his choice.

SO MUCH FOR COMMUNION WITH THE EPISCOPALIANS:

Russian admiral named patron saint of nuclear bomber force

MOSCOW (AFP) - Historic Russian admiral Fyodor Ushakov -- a hero of Russia's wars against Turkey and Napoleon Bonaparte -- was designated the patron saint of nuclear-armed, long-distance Russian bombers by the Orthodox Church.

IF EVIL EXISTS, THEN...:

New 'Night Stalker' looks to follow in past's creepy footsteps (Suzanne C. Ryan, September 29, 2005, Boston Globe)

Frank Spotnitz will never forget Jan. 11, 1972.

That was the day ABC broadcast ''The Night Stalker," a thriller about a headstrong newspaper reporter, Carl Kolchak, who is convinced a vampire is on the loose in Las Vegas. The film, which starred Darren McGavin, quickly became a cult classic and spawned a short-lived TV series that later inspired ''The X-Files."

''It scared the pants off of me," recalls Spotnitz, a television producer who was 11 years old at the time. ''It seemed so real."

Tonight at 9, Spotnitz, who worked for eight years as a producer and writer on ''The X-Files," is hoping to spook a new generation with the premiere of his ''Night Stalker" remake series on ABC. [...]

''The mythology of the show is good versus evil," Spotnitz says. ''I believe there is evil in the world . . . and evil seems more powerful than good because evil is not handicapped by a conscience or morality or mercy. So how do you win?"

KADEER IN THE SPOTLIGHTS:

China warns of Xinjiang 'danger' (BBC, 9/29/05)

China's top security official has warned of a new crackdown on "separatism" in the remote north-western region of Xinjiang.

The warning came ahead of ceremonies planned for 1 October to mark half-a-century of Chinese control.

Luo Gan said officers should remain "prepared for danger".

Xinjiang is home to a large population of Muslim Uighurs, some of whom want an independent homeland in the region they call East Turkestan. [...]

The authorities last month accused a prominent Uighur businesswoman-turned-activist, Rebiya Kadeer, who was recently freed from jail under intense international pressure, of planning to sabotage the forthcoming ceremonies.

Ms Kadeer has since gone into exile in the United States.

WHO HAS THE MOVIE RIGHTS? MACK SENNETT?:

Venice 'will get protection dam' (BBC, 9/29/05)

Controversial plans to build an underwater dam to protect Venice from flooding will go ahead, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has said.

The 4.5bn euro (£2.9bn) project, dubbed Mose - the Italian name for Moses - is due to be completed by 2011.

"All doubts have vanished - there is no way back," Mr Berlusconi stressed.

Environmentalists have criticised the project, and the mayor of Venice protested against the decision saying the city council had been bypassed.

The plans envisage building 78 hinged flood barriers on the seabed which would be raised when high tides threaten the city.

But some environmentalists say the 28m (92ft) high, 20m (65ft) wide structures will turn Venice into a pond and will cause more damage than the floods which periodically submerge its streets.

ONLY ONE GULLIVER IN LILLIPUT:

EU's biggest economies becoming less competitive (Honor Mahony, 9/29/05, EU Observer)

Nordic countries have once again been ranked as among the world's most competitive economies, according to a >World Economic Forum (WEF) report published Wednesday (28 September).

Finland comes out on top with Sweden and Denmark falling into third and fourth place behind the US. [...]

Estonia, which the WEF says is "by a significant margin the most competitive economy among the 10 countries that joined the EU last year" is ranked 20 while other important movers are Poland which moved up nine places to 51st place and Ireland ranked 26 - up four places from last year.

For other European countries however, the news is bleaker. Many of the big European countries have slipped down the rankings.

Neither of Britain or Germany, the EU's two biggest economies feature in the top ten, with the UK ranked at number 13 and Germany moving down two places to 15.

France, meanwhile, moved from 27th place down to 30th place, while Spain and Belgium moved down six places to 29th and 31st ranking respectively.

Among the worst performing EU countries are Italy and Greece, the lowest ranking EU countries bar Poland.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD JOBS GONE? BEGGING:

Big Hands on the Little Hands (GLENN COLLINS, 9/29/05, NY Times)

The little-old-watchmaker-guy stereotype is wrong on three counts.

A lot of them aren't little, or old, or guys. In fact, because of a luxury boom, a new generation of young horologists is receiving training in an antiquated art. For despite the sleek, solid-state domination of the quartz watch and the digital display, expensive and intricate mechanical watches are back.

But very few people are qualified to repair them.

Thus, on a recent morning, Harry Papathomas, a 20-year-old mechanical adept from Madison, N.J., was using a jeweler's saw to fashion a brass file-cleaner. As the first step in his education as a watchmaker, it was a personal statement of craftsmanship, to create his own tools.

"This is an art form within the confines of a watch," he said. He is one of six students who have enlisted in a free, but highly selective, two-year, 3,000-hour training program that began this month at a new school established by the Watchmakers of Switzerland Training and Education Program, a group set up by the Swiss watch industry to standardize training worldwide.

It is now the fifth such American watchmaking school, joining others in Oklahoma, Seattle, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The course-completion certificate is the most prestigious worldwide credential for Swiss watchmakers.

"The repairs are there, waiting, as soon as they graduate," said Paul Madden, the course instructor. Potentially 100,000 high-end watchmaking jobs are open in the United States, but only 5,000 experts are available to fill them, according to the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, a trade group in Bienne, Switzerland, that represents 90 percent of the country's watchmakers.

When students graduate they can command a starting salary of $55,000 a year, or make six figures in their own businesses, according to the watch federation.

A CLOSED CHURCH

Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science (George Johnson, New York Times, September 27th, 2005)

Modern science is sometimes said to have grown from the Christian belief in a single supreme being who created and sustains an orderly cosmos. Since he could have written the laws any way he wanted, it follows that they can only be discovered empirically, not deduced from first principles as Aristotle tried to do. The Book of Nature must be studied as assiduously as the Book of God.

Historians go on to describe how science shed its theological chrysalis and went its separate way. The result is what the Templeton people call "flat science." Early in the seminars, Denis Alexander, a Cambridge immunologist and Christian, made the radical suggestion that science reclaim its theistic roots, taking as its deepest premise the existence of God.

Another speaker, John Polkinghorne, a Cambridge physicist turned Anglican priest, saw profound significance in the fact that humans - rational, conscious creatures endowed with intentionality and free will - find themselves in a universe with laws they can understand. In "The Faith of a Physicist," he gives his take on the big bang theory with God stepping in to ensure a chemistry "fine tuned" to generate life.

Listening to the reconcilers and reading their books, even an agnostic could appreciate how the beauty of the cosmos might compel one to believe in something transcendent. But what writers like Dr. Alexander and Dr. Polkinghorne are talking about is not just the awe one feels hiking above the timberline or inhaling the ocean air. They are looking to science for something far more specific - the constant, hovering presence of the kind of God described in Sunday school, who watches over us and responds to our prayers.

This is not the God of deism, who cranked up the universe and let it run. In drafting the principles of physics he left trapdoors - what Dr. Polkinghorne calls "causal joints" - through which to intervene, placing the earth in a hospitable orbit or unleashing the cascade of mutations needed for a microbe to evolve into a man. The trick is to do this without appearing to violate his own laws.

Some theologians speculate that this happens on the subatomic level, when a particle appears to dart probabilistically, with a roll of the quantum dice. Maybe it is God doing the shuffling, and what appears to mortals as quantum indeterminacy is divine intervention in disguise.

Others propose that God acts through nonlinear dynamics, in which microscopic fluctuations give rise to potentially earthshaking results - chaos theory's "butterfly effect." Here too the influence would be undetectable. With or without the guiding hand of the creator, reality would appear the same.

Dr. Dawkins has written that "a universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without." If the God hypothesis is meaningful, it should be subject to a test. But the theistic gloss Dr. Polkinghorne and others give to science is immune to this kind of scrutiny. It has, by design, no observable consequences.

The reconcilers insist that the same is true for the belief that there is nothing but matter and energy, that you can be either a materialist or a theist and still do good research. But for many scientists, entertaining supernatural explanations is a violation of the craft. A study reported in Nature in 1998 found that only 7 percent of the members of the elite National Academy of Sciences believed in God. For biologists the figure was just 5.5 percent.

"You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs," Peter Atkins, an Oxford University chemist, has said. "But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

The campaign to keep theories of intelligent design or creationism out of science classes is really an effort to silence or even exclude religious teachers.

WORTH FRAMING

Melting Arctic sounds alarm bells (Katherine Harding, Globe and Mail, September 29th, 2005)

Andy Carpenter has only to walk out his front door to see that the Arctic's thick blanket of snow and ice is melting, drip by drip.

"It's impossible not to notice this," said the mayor of Sachs Harbour, a remote hamlet of 120 on the shore of Banks Island in Canada's Western Arctic. "What worries me is that people are starting to get used to it."

YOUR MOST EXCELLENT EXCELLENCY

Jean's siren song of freedom (Andrew Coyne, National Post, September 29th, 2005)

After the oath of allegiance, after the musical numbers, after the Prime Minister's introduction, I settled in to hear the new Governor-General deliver her first address to the nation, expecting to hear the usual banal bureaucratese, or worse, the coded appeals to regional and racial chauvinism -- sorry, diversity -- that have become the official language of Ottawa. Indeed, given her own past, I half expected some sly reference to the independence of small peoples or the like.

I had not expected to hear the full-throated song of love to this country that in fact followed, a speech of heartbreaking sincerity and jaw-dropping boldness -- the most ringing endorsement of undifferentiated pan-Canadianism, I'm willing to guess, that the capital has heard in years. Nor could anyone have anticipated precisely how she would choose to convey her message, the points she emphasized, the words she preferred. The gesture of renouncing her French citizenship had been welcome enough. But the speech was note-perfect in tone, and transformative in content.

It was uplifting without being Pollyannaish, tender yet tough-minded, vigorous, audacious, even bellicose in spots.

In place of the usual gooey cliches of Canadian nationalism, the obsession with minor differences, the nursing of ancient grievances, the exaltation of some supposed national predisposition to statism, we heard an invocation of a different Canada, and a different Canadianism -- an older, meatier variety, before the Liberals and their bureaucratic accomplices went to work bleaching the life out of it. It was a speech, perhaps paradoxically, that only an immigrant could have given, or could get away with, for it spoke from and to the reality of the immigrant experience, of what immigrants really see in this country, and cherish about it. It is why they come here, and it is worlds away from what the mythmakers would have us believe about it.

The headline-making passage was, of course, her firm declaration that "the time of 'two solitudes' ... is past." This wasn't a fond hope. It was a brisk directive -- not only to the traditional divisions of French and English, but to "all the solitudes." We must learn, she said, "to see beyond our wounds, beyond our differences, for the good of all." Beyond our wounds? Beyond our differences? But, but ... what about the mosaic? What about the community of communities? What about the Canada "whose strength is its diversity," the Canada that issues weekly apologies for centuries-old slights, that spent 40 years turning itself inside out trying to meet the latest revision of Quebec's "historic demands"? Balls to that, said this descendant of slaves. Get over yourselves. "We must eliminate the spectre of all the solitudes and promote solidarity among all the citizens who make up the Canada of today."

It was quite the show-stopper, as one might expect from a speech that began: "My own story begins as a young child in another country, one 'draped in barbed wire from head to toe’...” In one week, this supposedly feckless and trendy journalist with putative separatist leanings has slammed multiculturalism, renounced her French citizenship and told the whole country to grow up. It reminds one of what completely escapes the anti-immigrant lobby–that without the energy, patriotism and clarity of vision born of near-spiritual gratitude of our immigrants, the Anglosphere would be atrophying like Europe.

HUH?:

Crunching Baseball's Numbers (Carl Bialik, September 29, 2005, Wall Street Journal)

The Oakland A's are a very good baseball team that nonetheless will miss the playoffs, thanks in large part to a stretch of bad play at home late this season.

Just how much of a fluke was that stretch from August 12 to September 7, in which the A's lost five straight three-game series at home? A's manager Ken Macha hazarded a guess last week in a chat with Sacramento Bee sports columnist Mark Kreidler: a 512-to-1 shot. "It sounds high, but since Macha studied civil engineering in college and I studied journalism ethics (or did I only audit that course?), we'll go with his version," Mr. Kreidler wrote.

It seems Mr. Kreidler should have trusted his instincts, because Mr. Macha's calculations appear to misstate the odds against his team's poor play. But examining the numbers more deeply provides an interesting illustration of probability theory, and demonstrates why many statistics and math professors like to use baseball in their lesson plans.

Let's start by assuming the A's have a 50% chance of losing each home game. The games in question were played as a best-of-three series. Each game of that series had two possible outcomes, so for the three-game set, there are eight (2*2*2) possible outcomes. One such outcome is that the A's sweep; another is that their opponent wins the first and third games but loses the middle game, for instance.

In four of the eight possible outcomes, the A's lose the series, because they lost at least two of the three games. Each outcome has an equal probability in this scenario. So the A's have a 4 in 8 (or 1 in 2) chance of losing any particular series.

There were five series, and we've already seen that the A's had a 1 in 2 chance of losing any individual series. To come up with their odds of losing all five series, you multiply the probabilities together (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2) to get 1/32. In other words, using this method, the odds of the A's losing all five series is 1 in 32 -- far more likely than the 1 in 512 that Mr. Macha estimated.

But...

BRING BACK I.D.S.:

Tories must not swerve to the right, says Davis (Rosemary Bennett, 9/29/05, Times of London)

DAVID DAVIS will not repeat the mistakes of previous Tory leaders by “swerving to the right” to cling on to core Conservative voters, he vowed last night. [...]

[M]r Davis, in an interview with The Times today, says that he is the unifying candidate and will not repeat the mistakes of previous leaders who have made promises to steer a centre course, but then retreated to the right.

BLOW, WIND, BLOW:

Demoralized Dems: Why the party has so little faith in its political prospects. (Howard Fineman, Sept. 28, 2005, Newsweek)

With George W. Bush’s presidency mired in the muck of hurricanes and doubts about the war, you’d think Democrats would be bursting with energy, eagerly expecting to regain power. But, in a roomful of well-connected Democrats the other night, I was struck by how gloomy they were. They can’t stand Bush, but didn’t have much faith in their own party’s prospects. [...]

The president’s nomination of John Roberts was a ten strike, knocking apart whatever united front the Dems might have been able to muster on judicial issues. However genial and cerebral he may be, Roberts also is a board-certified conservative, blessed by the James Dobsons of the world.

No one doubted that at least a few Red State Democrats would vote for him, but the defection of Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont (no less), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, was a stunner—and a demoralizing one for the party faithful.

Democrats are vowing to remain unified over Bush’s next pick—which almost certainly will be a woman, a Hispanic or both. So the party could find itself in a tough political position once again. [...]

The GOP has Rudy, Colin, Arnold, McCain and Condi—just to name a few: big, bold, controversial characters. Good copy if nothing else. The more or less official roster of titular Democratic leaders includes Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and 2004 nominee John Kerry. ‘Nuff said. [...]

What Big Idea would a Democratic presidency be about? No one seems to know, which is perhaps the main reason why the party faithful in that room seemed so lost.

If your message is a winner, all events, even those beyond your control, will fit within it. If your message is a loser there's no likelihood that events will salvage you. It's instructive that the only exception to this rule was the most significant event of last century, the Great Depression. Would you want to be the Democrats, stuck waiting and hoping for the next one?

MORE:
House GOP Uses Storms to Ease Energy Laws (H. JOSEF HEBERT, September 28, 2005, AP)

Legislation that would end the longtime ban on energy development along most of the country's coasts and open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling advanced Wednesday in the House.

Opponents said Republican leaders were exploiting the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita to pass pro-industry measures that they failed to get included in an energy bill signed into law only two months ago. [...]

The bill will be combined with proposals intended to spur expansion or construction of refineries — an idea being worked on Wednesday by a different House committee.

LOCKDOWN THE LEGACY:

Parents offered school choice (Samantha Maiden, 29-09-2005, The Australian)

PARENTS will be offered greater choice of public schools under landmark reforms that could include taxpayer-funded vouchers for struggling students to spend in private schools.

Warning that parents were lying about where they lived to secure places at prestigious public schools, Education Minister Brendan Nelson called for an end to the geographical "zones" that forced families to move house or miss out on enrolment in high-performing public schools.

"We know that there are parents lying about where they live in order to get their children enrolled in certain government state schools around Australia," Dr Nelson said.

"There are also teachers queued up who want to teach in them. What we have discovered from parents is that what they are looking for is a school with a high level of communication between the school and parents, particularly about the progress of children."

His call for action will be backed today by Labor leader Kim Beazley.

In a speech to an education conference in Sydney, he will unveil reforms to ensure parents have greater choice between public schools in their region and specialist schools targeting trades, maths and science.

Choice will be the centrepiece of the radical rethink of the ALP's education policies, with Mr Beazley warning the premiers they must embrace reform or risk funding cuts.

CONFUSING POLITICS WITH PROSECUTION (via Kevin Whited):

DeLay blames 'fanatic' DA for indictment (R.G. RATCLIFFE and JANET ELLIOTT, 9/28/05, Houston Chronicle)

"I have done nothing wrong ... I am innocent," DeLay told a Capitol Hill news conference in which he repeatedly criticized the prosecutor, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. DeLay called Earle a "unabashed partisan zealot," and "fanatic," and described the charges as "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history."

In Austin, Earle told reporters, "Our job is to prosecute abuses of power and to bring those abuses to the public."

I JUST KNOW THERE'S A PEAK IN THERE SOMEWHERE... (via Kevin Whited):

Oil reserves are double previous estimates, says Saudi (Saeed Shah, 28 September 2005, Independent uk)

Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil producer, and Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, yesterday declared that the world had decades' worth of oil to come, in an attempt to calm fears about the record prices experienced in recent weeks. [...]

Mr Naimi also said that there were "no takers" for more oil right now, as a result of constrained refining capacity. Roughly a quarter of US refining capacity is still shut after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the country's southern coast, but global refining capacity - to turn crude oil into petrol and other products - was struggling to keep up with demand even before that.

"Give us the customers and we will pump more oil," the Saudi oil minister told reporters at the 18th World Petroleum Congress, adding that more refineries needed to be built. He said that enough global output would be added in the next three to four years to restore "some margin of safety" to oil markets.

DOES A CONSENSUS REALLY HAVE TO BE 100%? (via Kevin Whited):

Just Vote No: Iraqis should reject the constitution. (Fred Kaplan, Sept. 27, 2005, Slate)

When Iraqis go to the polls Oct. 15 to vote on the constitution, it would probably be best if they rejected it. Elections for a new parliament are scheduled to take place this December in any case. Let them be for a new constitutional assembly (as current law provides in the event of a rejection), and let the process start over again. Further delay may prolong the chaos, but passage of this parchment will almost certainly make things worse—and for much longer still.

I say this with nothing but dismay. The Bush administration wants to withdraw most U.S. ground troops from Iraq by the end of next year, as do I. The official rationale will be: We've done our job; Iraq has a new government and a new constitution; we'll keep a cadre of troops behind for training and essential security, but otherwise the defense of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. But if there is no new constitution, no new government, a major pullout will be harder to justify.

And yet, the whole point of a constitution is to establish a foundation of consensus, to put forth a rule book that's accepted (even if reluctantly) by all the key factions; in short, to lay the groundwork on which politics can legitimately be played out.

At any rate, no one has yet made a case for why anyone other than the Sunni should want a constitution that they'd be satisfied with and it seems obvious that such a constitution, rather than being opposed by 20% of Iraqis, would be opposed by 80%.

MORE:
Heart of Darkness: From Zarqawi to the man on the street, Sunni Arabs fear Shiite emancipation. (FOUAD AJAMI, September 28, 2005, Opinion Journal)

It was the luck of the imperial draw that the American project in Iraq came to the rescue of the Shiites--and of the Kurds. We may not fully appreciate the historical change we unleashed on the Arab world, but we have given liberty to the stepchildren of the Arab world. We have overturned an edifice of material and moral power that dates back centuries. The Arabs railing against U.S. imperialism and arrogance in Iraq will never let us in on the real sources of their resentments. In the way of "modern" men and women with some familiarity with the doctrines of political correctness, they can't tell us that they are aggrieved that we have given a measure of self-worth to the seminarians of Najaf and the highlanders of Kurdistan. But that is precisely what gnaws at them.

An edifice of Arab nationalism built by strange bedfellows--the Sunni political and bureaucratic elites, and the Christian Arab pundits who abetted them in the idle hope that they would be spared the wrath of the street and of the mob--was overturned in Iraq. And America, at times ambivalent about its mission, brought along with its military gear a suspicion of the Shiites, a belief that the Iraqi Shiites were an extension of Iran, a community destined to build a sister-republic of the Iranian theocracy. Washington has its cadre of Arabists reared on Arab nationalist historiography. This camp had a seat at the table, but the very scale of what was at play in Iraq, and the redemptionism at the heart of George Bush's ideology, dwarfed them.

For the Arab enemies of this project of rescue, this new war in Iraq was a replay of an old drama: the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258. In the received history, the great city of learning, the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, had fallen to savages, and an age of greatness had drawn to a close. In the legend of that tale, the Mongols sacked the metropolis, put its people to the sword, dumped the books of its libraries in the Tigris. That river, chroniclers insist, flowed, alternately, with the blood of the victims and the ink of the books. It is a tale of betrayal, the selective history maintains. A minister of the caliph, a Shiite by the name of Ibn Alqami, opened the gates of Baghdad to the Mongols. History never rests here, and telescopes easily: In his call for a new holy war against the Shiites, Zarqawi dredges up that history, dismisses the Shiite-led government as "the government of Ibn Alqami's descendants." Zarqawi knows the power of this symbolism, and its dark appeal to Sunni Arabs within Iraq.

Zarqawi's jihadists have sown ruin in Iraq, but they are strangers to that country, and they have needed the harbor given them in the Sunni triangle and the indulgence of the old Baathists. For the diehards, Iraq is now a "stolen country" delivered into the hands of subject communities unfit to rule. Though a decided minority, the Sunni Arabs have a majoritarian mindset and a conviction that political dominion is their birthright. Instead of encouraging a break with the old Manichaean ideologies, the Arab world beyond Iraq feeds this deep-seated sense of historical entitlement. No one is under any illusions as to what the Sunni Arabs would have done had oil been located in their provinces. They would have disowned both north and south and opted for a smaller world of their own and defended it with the sword. But this was not to be, and their war is the panic of a community that fears that it could be left with a realm of "gravel and sand." [...]

We have not always been brilliant in the war we have waged, for these are lands we did not fully know. But our work has been noble and necessary, and we can't call a halt to it in midstream. We bought time for reform to take root in several Arab and Muslim realms. Leave aside the rescue of Afghanistan, Kuwait and Qatar have done well by our protection, and Lebanon has retrieved much of its freedom. The three larger realms of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria are more difficult settings, but there, too, the established orders of power will have to accommodate the yearnings for change. A Kuwaiti businessman with an unerring feel for the ways of the Arab world put it thus to me: "Iraq, the Internet, and American power are undermining the old order in the Arab world. There are gains by the day." The rage against our work in Iraq, all the way from the "chat rooms" of Arabia to the bigots of Finsbury Park in London, is located within this broader struggle.

In that Iraqi battleground, we can't yet say that the insurgency is in its death throes. But that call to war by Zarqawi, we must know, came after the stunning military operation in Tal Afar dealt the jihadists a terrible blow. An Iraqi-led force, supported by American tanks, armored vehicles and air cover, had stormed that stronghold. This had been a transit point for jihadists coming in from Syria. This time, at Tal Afar, Iraq security forces were there to stay, and a Sunni Arab defense minister with the most impeccable tribal credentials, Saadoun Dulaimi, issued a challenge to Iraq's enemy, a message that his soldiers would fight for their country.

The claim that our war in Iraq, after the sacrifices, will have hatched a Shiite theocracy is a smear on the war, a misreading of the Shiite world of Iraq. In the holy city of Najaf, at its apex, there is a dread of political furies and an attachment to sobriety. I went to Najaf in July; no one of consequence there spoke of a theocratic state. Najaf's jurists lived through a time of terror, when informers and assassins had the run of the place. They have been delivered from that time. The new order shall give them what they want: a place in Iraq's cultural and moral order, and a decent separation between religion and the compromises of political life.

THE WISDOM OF GITMO:

Spain press slams al Qaeda verdict (AP, 9/27/05)

Spanish newspapers on Tuesday criticized the verdict of Europe's first major trial of suspected al Qaeda members, including three linked to the September 11 attacks, labeling it a failure and a blow to police and prosecutors.

"They (the accused) recruited fanatics but their role in September 11 was pure fantasy," the daily El Mundo headlined its editorial.

"The first major trial against Islamic terrorism in our country has finished with certain a sense of failure in not being able to prove a direct link between the accused and the September 11 attacks," the daily La Razon wrote.

In the verdict Monday, Syrian-born businessman Imad Yarkas was convicted and sentenced to 27 years for leading an Islamic terror cell in Spain and conspiring to commit murder in connection with the September 11 attacks, in 2001. But the sentence was a tiny fraction of the nearly 75,000 years sought for him by prosecutors. (Full story)

Two other suspects charged as accessories to murder in the suicide airliner attacks were acquitted, although one was convicted of collaborating with a terrorist group.

At the trial, the chief state prosecutor had asked for "exemplary sentences" to show terror should be fought in court, not with Guantanamo-style detention camps.

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICAL SPEECH:

DeLay Indicted in Campaign Finance Probe (LARRY MARGASAK, September 28, 2005, The Associated Press)

A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.

DeLay attorney Steve Brittain said DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today," DeLay said.

GOP congressional officials said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties. Some of the duties may go to the GOP whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. The Republican rank and file may meet as early as Wednesday night to act on Hastert's recommendation.

MORE:
“Dollars for Dismissals”: The prosecutor in the DeLay case dropped charges in exchange for cash to pet cause. (Byron York, 9/28/05, National Review)

Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor who has indicted associates of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in an ongoing campaign-finance investigation, dropped felony charges against several corporations indicted in the probe in return for the corporations' agreement to make five- and six-figure contributions to one of Earle's pet causes.

A grand jury in Travis County, Texas, last September indicted eight corporations in connection with the DeLay investigation. All were charged with making illegal contributions (Texas law forbids corporate giving to political campaigns). Since then, however, Earle has agreed to dismiss charges against four of the companies — retail giant Sears, the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, the Internet company Questerra, and the collection company Diversified Collection Services — after the companies pledged to contribute to a program designed to publicize Earle's belief that corporate involvement in politics is harmful to American democracy.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday unanimously elected Roy Blunt of Missouri as their majority leader, replacing Tom DeLay, who was forced to give up the job after being indicted by a Texas grand jury, lawmakers said.

After a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, lawmakers said Blunt's position was an interim arrangement for the rest of the year and that he would share leadership responsibilities with Rep. David Dreier of California.

CHURCHILL VS THATCHER:

Kenneth Clarke is all smoke and no fire (Mark Steyn, 27/09/2005, Daily Telegraph)

The cynical argument in favour of a Clarke leadership victory is that he'd be the final nail in the Tory coffin and open up space for a new party on the Right and a long-overdue realignment in British politics. But it never works out like that, does it? More likely, Ken's men would lose just slightly not too badly enough to linger on ineffectually and diminish British conservatism for another half-decade.

I'd say this is a time for strategy, not tactics, and it's in that department that Mr Clarke fails to meet the minimum qualifications for even the squishiest "conservative" leader.

On Europe, the Conservatives ought to be committed not just to bland assurances not to worry, no need to frighten the horses, old chap, everything's on the back boiler now, but to an explicit reassertion of national sovereignty: over-Europeanisation as represented by, for example, the Convention on Human Rights is an obstacle to the effective defence of the realm, and if Tories won't stand up for national security, what are they for?

Likewise, Mr Clarke is one of the Tory heavyweights most explicitly opposed to the war in Iraq. In some ways, that's admirable: one can be opposed to the Iraq war or in favour of it, but to be - as my colleague Boris Johnson and so many other Tories are - allegedly in favour of it while opposed to Mr Blair's grounds for it puts you in the John Kerry circle of hell reserved for eternally self-twisting pretzels.

So, given that we're in it and thus we have to win it, is an anti-war leader really what a conservative party needs to regain its credibility in this area? I don't subscribe to the view that Blair is Churchill, but Clarke's misplaced faith in the stability and reasonableness of dictatorships qualifies him as a passable Lord Halifax.

"Social conservatism"? Include him out. Liam Fox may be het up about abortion, but on this issue, as on many others, Mr Clarke's attitude remains one of benign neglect. Yet Dr Fox surely has a point when he draws attention to Britain's 180,000 annual abortions.

It would be statistically improbable to have an American presidential election fought, as the German election just was, between two childless candidates. You can't breed at the lethargic rate of most Europeans and then bitch and whine about letting the Turks in: demographically, they're the kids you couldn't be bothered having.

A conservative party ought to be natalist, and ought to support policies - like a flat tax - that help restore the societal architecture vandalised by careless governmental social engineering. As much as Europe and Islamism, social and fiscal policy are now a matter of national survival.

Most Tories don't want to hear this kind of talk.

NUEVO ORLEANS:

Speaking Spanish in a new New Orleans (GREGORY RODRIGUEZ, Sep. 28, 2005, Los Angeles Times)

No matter what all the politicians and activists want, African-Americans and impoverished white Cajuns will not be first in line to rebuild the Katrina-ravaged Gulf Coast and New Orleans. Latino immigrants, many of them undocumented, will. And when they're done, they're going to stay, making New Orleans look like Los Angeles.

It's the federal government that will have made the transformation possible, further exposing the hollowness of the immigration debate.

President Bush has promised that Washington will pick up the greater part of the cost for "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen." To that end, he suspended provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act that would have required government contractors to pay prevailing wages in Louisiana and devastated parts of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. And the Department of Homeland Security has temporarily suspended sanctioning employers who hire workers who cannot document their citizenship. The idea is to benefit Americans who may have lost everything in the hurricane, but the main effect will be to let contractors hire illegal immigrants.

Mexican and Central American laborers are already arriving in southeastern Louisiana. One construction firm based in Metairie, La., sent a foreman to Houston to round up 150 workers willing to do cleanup work for $15 an hour, more than twice their wages in Texas. The men -- most of whom are undocumented, according to news accounts -- live outside New Orleans in mobile homes without running water and electricity. The foreman expects them to stay "until there's no more work," but "there's going to be a lot of construction jobs for a really long time."

Because they are young and lack roots in the United States, many recent migrants are ideal for the explosion of construction jobs to come. Those living in the United States will relocate to the Gulf Coast, while others will come from south of the border. Most will not intend to stay where their new jobs are, but the longer the jobs last, the more likely it is that they will settle permanently.

One recent poll of New Orleans evacuees living in Houston emergency shelters found that fewer than half intend to return home. In part, their places will be taken by the migrant workers.

THINK OF IT AS SELF-DOGGING:

Did you say dooging or blogging (Jeffrey Goldfarb, 9/28/05, reuters)

Blogs and podcasts may seem to be all the rage, but most of the world has no idea what those words even mean.

A survey of British taxi drivers, pub landlords and hairdressers--often seen as barometers of popular trends in the United Kingdom--found that nearly 90 percent had no idea what a podcast is and more than 70 percent had never heard of blogging.

"When I asked the panel whether people were talking about blogging, they thought I meant dogging," Sarah Carter, the planning director at ad firm DDB London, said Tuesday.

Dogging is the phenomenon of watching couples have sex in semi-secluded places such as out-of-town car parks. News of such events are often spread on Web sites or by using mobile phone text messages.

More people (56 percent) understood the phrase "happy slapping"--a teenage craze that involves assaulting people while capturing it on video with their mobile phones--than podcasting (12 percent) or blogging (28 percent).

"Our research not only shows that there is no buzz about blogging and podcasting outside of our media industry bubble, but also that people have no understanding of what the words mean," Carter said. "It's a real wake-up call."

DESTINATIONS, NOT TECHNOLOGIES:

Shuttle and space station were mistakes, space agency chief tells US daily (AFP, 9/28/05)

The US space agency NASA lost its way in the 1970s when it focused on the space shuttle and International Space Station, NASA chief Michael Griffin reportedly said.

"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."

Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin told USA Today: "My opinion is that it was. It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."

Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."

HOWARD DEAN VS THE DEMOCRATS:

Filibuster Showdown Looms In Senate: Democrats Prepare For Next Court Pick (Dan Balz and Amy Goldstein, 9/28/05, Washington Post)

Democrats have splintered almost evenly over Roberts's nomination as chief justice, leading to frustration among party activists who think their elected leaders did not put up a serious fight against him. Pollsters have told party leaders that a show of opposition against Bush's next nominee could be crucial to restoring enthusiasm among the rank and file on the left.

In an interview, Dean said Democratic unity is essential in the upcoming battle and that the party "absolutely" should be prepared to filibuster -- holding unlimited debate and preventing an up-or-down vote -- Bush's next high court nominee, if he taps someone they find unacceptably ideological. He cited appellate court judges Priscilla R. Owen and Janice Rogers Brown as two who would be likely to trigger such opposition.

"Those people are clearly not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure they don't," he said. "If we lose, better to go down fighting and standing for what we believe in, because we will not win an election if the public doesn't think we'll stand up for what we believe in."

The possibility of a filibuster comes only a few months after an agreement that supposedly eliminated such threats. The Gang of 14 agreement barred filibusters against judicial nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances." The compromise also blocked Republican threats to change Senate rules to bar the use of filibusters to block judicial nominations, a step considered so drastic it became known as the "nuclear option."

Owen and Brown were cleared for confirmation to the appellate courts as part of that agreement, and Republicans said then that Democratic acquiescence in their confirmation meant the opposition party could not use ideology to bar future Bush nominees.

MILKING TRAGEDY:

Laura Bush Joins Hit Makeover Show as It Focuses on Storm Victims (ANNE E. KORNBLUT, 9/28/05, NY Times)

BILOXI, Miss. [...] Mrs. Bush flew here on Tuesday for a cameo on "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," the blockbuster ABC show that usually does impromptu remodeling for disadvantaged homeowners but is now taking supplies to hurricane victims for segments to be shown later this year. [...]

Part of the appeal, an aide to Mrs. Bush said, is that the segments will not run until at least November, when public interest in the hurricane relief effort may have diminished but the need for donations and volunteers will remain high.

"The coverage will start to die off a little bit, as people are getting into the hardest time," said the aide, Susan Whitson, Mrs. Bush's press secretary. Her intent, she said, is "keeping this message out there as long as possible." [...]

Mrs. Bush later addressed the inherent challenge for the show: selecting just one home to rebuild.

"They haven't chosen one yet," she said. "I'm trying to encourage them to maybe choose a school or a library to do, which would help everybody in the community."

And Tom Forman, the show's creator and executive producer, said he had given no thought to any political reasons the White House might have had for wanting to participate.

"The thing about making this show is I packed up and put away my cynicism a long time ago," he said.

"I think given the scope of the disaster, you throw the rules out the window," he said. "And while we're certainly a nonpartisan show, I don't think she was there as a politician or a politician's wife or even as the first lady. I think she was there as someone who cares."

JUST ANOTHER SPECIAL INTEREST:

Powerful Teachers Union Is in the Thick of Ballot Battles (Jordan Rau, September 28, 2005, LA Times)

Employing a political war chest on a par with those of major parties, the California Teachers Assn. is used to being in the thick of campaigns. But on a muggy Monday morning at the end of July, when most of their peers were on vacation, hundreds of teachers gathered at UCLA were reminded that they were now targets as much as participants.

"There are people in this state who are trying to portray us as something that has nothing to do with children, nothing to do with students and everything to do with greed," the union's president, Barbara Kerr, told organizers and negotiators attending an annual summer training institute. "And they are wrong."

California's largest teachers union is, depending on where one stands, either the epitome of labor's stranglehold on the state Capitol or one of the few lobbies strong enough to champion education against Sacramento's more moneyed interests.

In the Nov. 8 election, the 335,000-member union has more at stake than perhaps any other group.

OUR GANG:

'Gang of 14' backing Roberts (Charles Hurt, September 28, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

The "Gang of 14" senators who brokered the end to judicial filibusters has so far stuck together in unanimously supporting the nomination of federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next Supreme Court chief justice.

That stamp of approval, Republican leaders say, paves the way for a smoother confirmation of the next Supreme Court nominee.

"The process has been handled very well," Majority Whip Mitch McConnell told reporters yesterday. "The outcome will be largely bipartisan. I think that's very good for the Senate, because in many ways the Senate itself was on trial here."

Specifically, Republican leaders say, the comfortable approval of Judge Roberts means the next nominee should be confirmed without answering specific questions on personal opinions about abortion and other hot-button political issues.

THERE'S HIS FIRST CAMPAIGN AD FOR SC:

McCain is 'a warmonger,' Sheehan says after meeting (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/25/05)

Peace mom Cindy Sheehan didn't change her opposition to the war in Iraq after meeting Tuesday with one of its supporters, Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam veteran whom she called "a warmonger." [...]

"He tried to tell us what George Bush would have said," Sheehan, who protested at the president's Texas home over the summer, told reporters. [...]

McCain, R-Ariz., also seemed disappointed in the meeting, which he said had been misrepresented as including some of his constituents. Only one person in her small delegation has ties to the state, and that person no longer lives there. [...]

"He is a warmonger, and I'm not," Sheehan said after meeting with McCain.

CAR CULTURE KILLS:

The Little Engine That Could (OTIS WHITE, 9/28/05, NY Times)

WE'VE learned a lot about evacuating cities in recent days, much of it deeply troubling. But if the failures of New Orleans and the gridlock of Houston show anything, it's that we urgently need a third way out of cities, something other than flying or driving. Fortunately, there is such a way: passenger rail.

If local and federal authorities had worked with Amtrak to make better use of its trains in New Orleans, thousands could have been evacuated before the worst of Katrina hit. And if Houston had gone ahead with earlier proposals to develop high-speed rail links, the same might have been true there.

For decades, two myths have stymied efforts to develop intercity rail systems outside the Northeast: that rail can't compete with cars and airplanes and that the only region where passenger rail has been successful, the Northeast, has unique characteristics. Both are wrong.

WELL, WE TOOK AWAY THEIR CAMP FOLLOWERS:

Army Investigates Photos of Iraqi War Dead on Web (THOM SHANKER, 9/28/05, Washington Post)

The Army has opened an investigation into whether American troops have sent gruesome photographs of Iraqi war dead to an Internet site where the soldiers were given free access to online pornography, Army officials said Tuesday.

Some photographs on the Internet site show people in American military uniforms standing around what appear to be dead bodies. Other photos include graphic images of severed body parts and what appear to be internal organs spilling from bodies onto the ground.

DEATH TO BUCKLEY:

High Court to Decide Campaign Finance Cases (Charles Lane, 9/28/05, Washington Post)

Campaign finance reform emerged as a major theme of the coming Supreme Court term yesterday, as the justices announced that they will rule on federal and state efforts to regulate campaign-season advertising by advocacy groups and to limit spending by candidates. [...]

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled last year that the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling upholding McCain-Feingold precluded such a case-by-case effort to avoid the law's provisions. The Bush administration urged the Supreme Court to uphold that decision without a hearing, which the high court could have done if five justices had agreed.

McCain-Feingold was upheld 5 to 4 in 2003. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a member of that majority but will leave the court as soon as a successor is confirmed by the Senate.

"O'Connor was the swing vote" in that case, said Rick Hasen, a specialist in election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "This could provide the vehicle for a more conservative court . . . to reverse that aspect" of the 2003 decision. [...]

The second case accepted yesterday involves three consolidated challenges to a 1997 Vermont law that puts a ceiling on how much a candidate for state office can spend. Under the law, candidates for governor may spend no more than $300,000 per two-year election cycle. Candidates for lieutenant governor may spend no more than $100,000, and smaller limits apply to other offices.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, based in New York, upheld the Vermont law last year, ruling that the law was carefully designed to meet compelling needs to avoid political corruption, or the appearance of corruption, and to prevent fundraising from taking too much of politicians' time and attention.

But Vermont's Republican Party and other political activists say the law violates their constitutional right to free speech. They note that the Supreme Court struck down expenditure limits on First Amendment grounds in its landmark 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo , and they argue that the 2nd Circuit was wrong to find that Buckley left some room for laws like Vermont's.

Supporters of campaign spending limits, including 13 states, a bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators, the NAACP and 17 current and former state judges, urged the court to hear the case.

But Hasen said this strategy may backfire, because it is likely the court took the case to reverse the 2nd Circuit's ruling.

Two other appeals courts had previously struck down expenditure limits, he noted, but the Supreme Court did not decide to review those rulings.

THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY SINCE ARGENTINA:

The Great Chinese Bank Sale (Jonathan Anderson, September 2005, Far Eastern Economic Review)

The hedge-fund manager sitting across the table shuts his eyes in frustration and slaps his palm to his forehead. “What on earth are they thinking? This is Latin America all over again. Everybody jumps in on a whim, and then they spend a decade digging themselves out. Plus they lose a truckload of our money in the process. This time is no different.”

The place is New York, in one of the countless hedge-fund offices populating east midtown. The time is mid-June 2005, and the reference is to Bank of America’s announcement that it would purchase a 9% stake in the P.R.C.’s China Construction Bank for the princely sum of $3 billion—making it the most expensive banking acquisition (or, for that matter, any acquisition) in China’s history. [...]

According to the press announcements of the overseas banks themselves, this is one of the greatest investment opportunities of the new century: a chance to enter a financial market with $4 trillion in assets, and what’s more, a market that is growing at double-digit rates with no slowdown in sight. Chinese per-capita income is only $1,500, and consumers are just beginning their love affair with mortgage and credit card debt; imagine what riches lie ahead over the next decades as incomes double and double again.

For more cynical observers, of course, this is just the latest in a long string of disastrous banking follies. Perhaps the most engaging read of the past year was Tim Clissold’s Mr. China, a story of two private equity entrepreneurs who collected hundreds of millions of dollars from global investors in order to buy into the “greatest growth story of the century” and transform the Chinese corporate landscape in the process, but ended up pissing away most of the funds down the black hole of mainland economic reality.

So it will be with the banks. According to detractors, Chinese banking problems have simply been glossed over through state bailouts and creative accounting. Nothing has changed in the economy, as civil servants still dutifully shovel money into moribund state enterprises with no regard for repayment prospects. Once the next downturn hits, banks will face a tidal wave of new bad loans, and the foreign giants will be forced to write down tens of billions of dollars in worthless investments in the process.

So which is it? A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, or a pending disaster? In fact, neither. The truth of the matter is that China’s financial system is neither an explosive minefield nor a beckoning gold mine, but rather a profoundly middle-of-the-road investment option.

LIKE HAITI, BUT WITH OIL:

It's Azerbaijan's turn (Farhad Husseinov, 9/28/05, International Herald Tribune )

A country of 8.5 million people - roughly half of whom live in poverty - on the Western shores of the energy-rich Caspian Sea, [Azerbaijan] is preparing for parliamentary elections in early November. Baku, the capital, is the next obvious candidate for a democratic revolution of the kind witnessed in Georgia and Ukraine. At stake are the multibillion-dollar investments of oil giants like BP and Chevron.

The incumbent president, Ilham Aliyev, is a Soviet-educated autocrat who inherited power from his late father, Geidar Aliyev, in late 2003 as a result of rigged elections followed by a ruthless police crackdown. [...]

The greatest hope is invested in the newly forged Freedom Bloc, with the pro-Western Musavat Party as its driving force, which succeeded in holding a series of rallies across the country that the government was compelled to allow because of domestic and international pressure. The last such demonstration was organized in Baku on Sept. 10 and drew about 50,000 people, many of them wearing orange shirts and waving orange flags in an echo of the pro-democracy rallies in Ukraine last year.

In today's globalized world, democracy requires support from without. The Bush administration's "freedom agenda" is a praiseworthy step in this regard. It should, however, also be extended to illiberal countries that possess oil or host a NATO military base. Democratic turnover in the post-Soviet states is not Western imperialism by another name, as some would like us to believe. What they represent, rather, is a shift toward the rule of law, democracy and national reconciliation.

Azerbaijan presents the next opportunity for Western leaders to prove their commitment to the founding principles of their own nation-states. With time, this moral choice will prove to be a smart strategic choice as well.

LEGALIZE THEM:

Illegal aliens outpace legals (Stephen Dinan, September 28, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Illegal immigration into the United States regularly outstrips legal permanent immigration and showed a dramatic increase from 2003 to 2004, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The annual number of legal and illegal immigrants and legal temporary visitors peaked at about 1.5 million in 2000, dropped to 1.1 million in 2003 and has rebounded slightly since, said the authors of the report, which studied immigration trends in the past 13 years.

Illegal immigration topped legal immigration in four of the past 10 years. And much of the 2004 rebound in immigration can be attributed to the number of new illegal aliens -- 110,000 more than in 2003, the report said.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said the high percentage of illegal aliens shows that the immigration system is broken.

"To reverse that trend, immigration reform must be comprehensive and address both enforcement and improved avenues for legal immigration," he said.

California is facing what some are calling a dire shortage of farm workers to harvest the region's fruit and vegetables. Many farm workers have left the fields to take less-grueling, better-paying jobs in construction and other business sectors.

France's multiculturalism is manifesting itself in one of Paris's quintessential establishments, the neighborhood bistro. Ethnic Chinese, hailing from China, Cambodia or Vietnam, are fast replacing French as bistro proprietors.

| Comments (15)

---

DONDE ESTA LOS MINUTO HOMBRES?:

Immigrants storm Spanish enclave (BBC, 9/27/05)

Hundreds of immigrants have tried to break through the border fences around the Spanish enclave of Melilla in North Africa, police sources say.

At least 18 people - both police and immigrants - were injured.

About 100 people managed to break through into Spanish territory, where they are being questioned.

Melilla and nearby Ceuta are seen as stepping stones to Europe by African immigrants. Spain is doubling the height of the fences around Melilla.

W IS MS, THE DEMOCRATS ARE N.O.:

Democrats In Disarray (E. J. Dionne Jr., September 27, 2005, Washington Post)

The party splintered over the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice. The newspaper Roll Call reported yesterday that some House Democrats were opposing the decision by their leader, Nancy Pelosi, to boycott a Republican-led investigation of the Katrina disaster. Pelosi favors an independent commission. You know the party has a problem when even the politics of Katrina divides its members. [...]

[C]onsider the lay of the land for the 2006 congressional elections. It takes 218 seats to form a majority in the House of Representatives. Kerry carried only 180 congressional districts, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Put another way, Democrats, according to the Almanac, now hold and have to defend 41 House districts that Bush carried. Republicans are defending only 18 districts that Kerry carried.

The core difficulty for Democrats is that they must solve two problems simultaneously -- and solving one problem can get in the way of solving the other. Over time Democrats need to reduce the conservative advantage over liberals in the electorate, which means the party needs to take clear stands that could detach voters from their allegiance to conservatism. For some in the party this means becoming more moderate on cultural issues such as abortion. For others it means full-throated populism to attract lower-income social conservatives. Some favor a combination of the two, while still others worry that too much populism would drive away moderate voters in the upper middle class. The debate often leads to intellectual gridlock.

But even indeterminate talk of a "national" message makes many Democrats holding those 41 pro-Bush House seats (and Democratic senators from red states) nervous. Such Democrats figure they know their own districts better than any national party leader or consultant, and they often prefer to operate on their own.

MAYBE HE IS W'S POODLE...:

Four more bold years, vows Blair (Philip Webster, 9/28/05, Times of London)

TONY BLAIR gave notice of a four-year programme of relentless change yesterday as he told Labour that it would have to be even bolder in its reforms if it was to win a fourth term in power.

As the Conservative Party’s leadership race was thrown wide open in London, the Prime Minister told his party’s Brighton conference that his conclusion from three election victories was that it could win another if it adapted to the shifting aspirations of the people.

In a clear message to his successor, whom he expects to be Gordon Brown, Mr Blair said that every time he had introduced reforms he wished in retrospect that he had gone farther than he had. Now his prescription was an even tougher dose of change. [...]

Mr Blair said that Labour would win by helping Britain to respond to the urgent pace of globalisation, tackle growing worries over social disorder and by introducing private and other provision into the education and health services. He promised a reappraisal of the criminal justice system, starting from the premise that its primary duty must be to allow law-abiding people to live in safety. [...]

Mr Blair promised that over the next year Labour would:

Publish plans to reform pensions, including incentives to help people to save for a second pension;

Produce proposals for the future of Britain’s energy policy, including civil nuclear power;

Publish plans for changes to transport funding, including road pricing;

Prepare for a shake-up of local government, with new freedoms for good councils, more city mayors and more power to local communities;

Carry out a radical reform of incapacity benefit;

Introduce a radical extension of summary powers to police and local authorities, focusing on binge drinking, drug dealing and organised crime, and development of existing antisocial behaviour law.

But his most controversial pledges again related to health and education. He said that Labour must break down the “old monolith” of the NHS, bring in new providers and give patients more choice.

MORE:
Meanwhile, the Tories do indeed prepare to attack Blair from the Left, Tory faithful keep their say as Howard's changes rejected by referendum (Rosemary Bennett, 9/28/05, Times of London)

KENNETH CLARKE’S hopes of becoming the next Conservative leader received a significant boost last night when rank-and-file members held on to their voting rights in a party referendum. [...]

[T]he prospect of Mr Clarke becoming the next party leader could spark a frenzy of tactical voting among right-wing MPs who could rally behind another candidate to try to block the pro-European former Chancellor reaching the last two.

SO MUCH FOR JAPANESE RETICENCE:

How a lowly samurai inspired Koizumi to put rebels to sword: Japan's reforming Prime Minister tells of his great political gamble (Richard Lloyd Parry and Robert Thomson, 9/28/05, Times of London)

WHEN Junichiro Koizumi, the man behind Japan’s political revolution, has time to himself, he seeks refuge in the past, reading about a bloody era of Japanese history known as the Momoyama Period.

Late in the 16th century, after a century of continual civil war, Japan was adrift and in despair. Out of nowhere came a lowly samurai named Oda Nobunaga, who won a series of brilliant victories, overcame the corrupt aristocracy and dominated Japan.

He was an aesthete, art patron and merciless killer. His most notorious act of brutality was to burn down 3,000 Buddhist temples outside Kyoto and butcher their inhabitants. And 400 years later, Oda Nobunaga is a source of inspiration, if not a role model.

“I am learning greatly about the harsh life of a samurai warlord,” Mr Koizumi told The Times in his first interview since winning an election that has turned Japan’s political order on its head. “Every day they faced death. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt.” Like his samurai exemplar, Mr Koizumi has risen from relative obscurity to set in motion a transformation of Japanese politics.

MAN, THE SOCIAL ANIMAL

Survey finds Canadians increasingly out of touch (Misty Harris, National Post, September, 2005)

Canadians are suffering from "touch deficit," with a third of the population regularly going an entire day without any human contact, according to a study released yesterday.

Experts say an increased focus on social boundaries, changes in gender roles and greater reliance on electronic communication are making it harder than ever to reach out and touch someone.

"There has been a radical decrease in the amount of touch and obviously an increase in the touch deficit," says Patti Wood, an authority on nonverbal communication and spokeswoman for Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion. "There's fear or concern about what's an appropriate touch."

Conservatives are often accused of simply pandering to nostalgic impulses, but now, thanks to science, we have proof life really was better in the good old days when everyone pawed one another all day long.

THE GREAT MENTIONER STRIKES:

High Court Selection Process Winds Down (DEB RIECHMANN, September 27, 2005, AP)

President Bush, close to nominating a successor to retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has narrowed his list to a handful of candidates that outside advisers say includes federal judges and two people who have never banged a gavel — corporate attorney Larry Thompson and White House counsel Harriet Miers.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Bush had pledged to consult with senators about his selection and said, "I think we were essentially wrapping that process up as early as today." [...]

Bush on Monday hinted he might choose a woman or minority member. But some outside advisers were intrigued by another part of Bush's reply. The president said he had interviewed and considered people from "all walks of life."

That raised speculation that Bush was actively considering people who were not on the bench — such as Miers, a Texas lawyer and the president's former personal attorney, and Thompson, a counsel at PepsiCo, who was the federal government's highest ranking black law enforcement official when he was deputy attorney general during Bush's first term.

"It could be someone outside of the legal judicial field like a Larry Thompson, or it could be a senator," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest legal group founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.

Sekulow said he's heard Miers' name mentioned "fairly significantly" during the past two days. She doesn't have judicial experience, but she's a "well-respected lawyer — someone the president trusts."

"I think Harriet could certainly be in the mix," he said.

Two other judicial activists, including one with contacts at the White House, said they too had heard Miers' name mentioned, but agreed with Sekulow, who cautioned: "I don't think anybody has that crystal ball but the president."

Miers is leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court so naming her would follow a move Bush made in 2000 when he tapped the man leading his search committee for a running mate — Dick Cheney.

"Given the Cheney precedent and the president's well-known loyalty to his aides, it's certainly possible the president could turn to Harriet," said Brad Berenson, a lawyer who formerly worked in the counsel's office of the Bush White House.

FOREIGN BODIES:

Iraq's foreign fighters: few but deadly: A new report says foreigners make up 4 to 10 percent of Iraq's 30,000 insurgents. (Dan Murphy, 9/27/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

Much of the US effort in Iraq in recent months has been aimed at stopping the inflow of foreign jihadis. US warplanes have blown up bridges to deny insurgent infiltration routes, troops have occupied small towns thought to be crossing points for foreigners into bigger cities, and spy drones continuously buzz the Syrian border.

Even if the US can seal Iraq's borders, stopping the flow of foreign fighters would do little to eliminate most of the country's insurgents. Only 4 to 10 percent of the country's combatants are foreign fighters, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released last week. But while they are a minority, says the report, they are a potent segment largely from Algeria and Syria.

"The fact that there are 3,000 foreign fighters in Iraq is cause for alarm, particularly because they play so large a role in the most violent bombings and in the efforts to provoke a major and intense civil war,'' write coauthors Anthony Cordesman, a former director of defense intelligence assessment for the secretary of Defense, and Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi national and security analyst. Based mostly on Saudi intelligence, they estimate that active members of the insurgency number about 30,000.

MORE:
US is logging gains against Al Qaeda in Iraq: The US military says improved intelligence led to the killing of two key leaders of the group. (Jill Carroll and Dan Murphy, 9/28/05, CS Monitor)

In a succession of intelligence breaks, the US says it has killed two key members of Al Qaeda in Iraq in recent days, including the organization's No. 2 man who is suspected of orchestrating a series of suicide bombings in Baghdad since April.

According to American military officials, the US has either made key arrests or developed informants who have led to a cascade of actionable intelligence over the past month. Since the middle of August, the US has reported killing or capturing at least 16 members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

How big a blow this is to the insurgency in Iraq remains unclear. While US human intelligence has clearly improved, no one has a clear understanding of the internal workings of Mr. Zarqawi's network, which is thought to be only a small portion of Iraq's decentralized and highly complex insurgency.

"By itself these events don't do much to destroy Al Qaeda as much as undermine and undercut it. But this comes after some very successful operations in Tal Afar that wrapped up the Al Qaeda network there,'' says Anthony Cordesman, a former senior intelligence analyst for the US and now an expert on the Iraq insurgency at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

THE 51ST STATE (via oswald booth czolgosz):

Feds cloud real plan: Toxic change targets Alberta and lets Ontario go free (Ezra Levant, 9/26/05, Calgary Sun)

Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, harmless gas.

Actually it's not just harmless -- it's necessary for life on Earth, as all green plants require it for photosynthesis.

But on July 16, the federal government announced its intention to classify carbon dioxide as a "toxic chemical" under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

According to the Act, a toxic chemical is defined as "an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment," or "a danger to the environment on which life depends" or "a danger in Canada to human life or health". To call carbon dioxide any of these things is to lie. Carbon dioxide is essential not only to plant life, but it's the gas that humans -- and animals -- exhale when we breathe.

Carbon dioxide is not a toxic chemical in science or in common sense, so what's going on? In the same official notice, the explanation was provided: It's the way Ottawa plans to get jurisdiction over the oil patch to implement their Kyoto taxes.

WHERE'S O.W. HOLMES WHEN SHE NEEDS HIM?:

Playmate appeals to Supreme Court (AP, 9/27/05)

Former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith is going to the United States' highest court in her fight over the fortune of her 90-year-old late husband.

U.S. Supreme Court justices said Tuesday they would consider Smith's appeal, in which the stripper-turned-reality television star stands to win as much as $474 million that a bankruptcy judge initially said she was entitled to.

Smith has not gotten any money from the estate of J. Howard Marshall II, an oil tycoon who married her in 1994 when he was 89 and she was 26. Marshall, one of Texas' wealthiest men, died in 1995.

A PRICEY GLUT:

Oil turns lower on healthy supply (Reuters, 9/27/05)

Oil edged lower Tuesday on signs that crude supplies remain plentiful, even with all U.S. Gulf of Mexico oil output locked in after Hurricane Rita.

Saudi Arabia said there were no takers for OPEC's spare supplies, while the kingdom may pump less crude in October.

OF MEESE AND MEN IN BLACK:

Assessing a Wishlist for the Justice System: Changes on Supreme Court Could Advance Goals Of Reagan-Era Document on Constitution (JESS BRAVIN, 9/27/05, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)

John Roberts is poised to become the first alumnus of Ronald Reagan's Justice Department to sit on the Supreme Court, with the Senate likely to confirm him as chief justice this week. But will he use his new post to advance that era's blueprint for a conservative judiciary?

In 1988, under Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the department's Office of Legal Policy issued a 199-page report titled "The Constitution in the Year 2000." The document, capping years of administration efforts to reverse liberal legal precedents, envisioned a justice system that upheld "traditional family values," set rigid definitions of private property, and enforced "laws that reflect conceptions of public morality."

The report concluded that the future would depend on "the values and philosophies of the men and women who populate the third co-equal branch of the national government-the federal judiciary."

Nearly a generation later, much of the Constitution 2000 blueprint has been realized, thanks to the people placed on the bench by President Reagan and his Republican successors.

"The criminal-defendants' rights revolution has clearly stalled, there has been a fair amount of laissez-faire in antitrust issues and regulatory issues in general and considerable deference to the executive in administrative law," says Washington lawyer David Rivkin, who helped draft Constitution 2000.

In the 1960s, liberals "were arguing there was a constitutional basis to allow a judicially imposed redistribution of wealth: 'Why should one person live in a hovel and another live in a palace?'," Mr. Rivkin says. "None of it got off the ground."

Still, there are areas where the vision remains incomplete. Constitution 2000 and related Reagan administration documents dismissed the "so-called 'right to privacy' " -- which the court still reads to encompass abortion and homosexual activity -- as "not reasonably found in the Constitution."

Those are among the issues where Judge Roberts's former colleagues hope that he can make a difference. A second Bush Supreme Court nominee, who may be announced as soon as this week, could accentuate that shift, by succeeding retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- a Reagan appointee who nonetheless has ruled against some Constitution 2000 ideals.

USEFUL NONSENSE:

Forget SARS, West Nile, Ebola and avian flu. The real epidemic is fear.: We keep bracing ourselves for one cataclysmic threat after another. Our perceived lack of safety has become an obsession, (LIANNE GEORGE, 9/29/05, MacLean's)

For almost a decade, North Americans have been bracing for one cataclysmic threat after another -- superbugs, bioterrorist attacks, apocalyptic plagues. There have been real threats (Y2K, West Nile, mad cow, SARS, anthrax), but in each case, the amount of paranoia surrounding the threat has been exponentially larger than the threat itself.

So fear has become the epidemic -- and safety, or our perceived lack of it, an obsession. Perhaps what's most unsettling is that the definition of what it means to be safe keeps changing. Six years ago, being safe meant building a subterranean bunker and stocking up on bottled water and duct tape in the event the Y2K bug should destroy the world's computers and bring about global anarchy. More recently, safety has meant slathering oneself with DEET to ward off West Nile-infected mosquitoes; swearing off burgers, those purveyors of mad cow disease; donning paper masks on subways to avoid contracting SARS; and stocking up on Cipro, on the off chance some maniac should unleash anthrax in our midst.

This minute, it means having an ample supply of Tamiflu. Experts are saying that when -- not if -- an outbreak occurs, there will be a critical global shortage of the drug. Governments and multinational corporations are frantically stockpiling it. Ordinary North Americans and Europeans, fearing there won't be enough left for them and theirs at the crucial moment -- and lacking faith in public institutions to protect them -- have taken to creating survivalist flu blogs and building their own anticipatory stashes.

For Fields, who sells Tamiflu prescription-free, it's meant filling orders, 10 per cent of which are coming from Canadians, at a rate of 13,000 boxes (or US$877,500 worth) per week. "It's unbelievable," he says. "Most people buy it for their whole family. Consumers, doctors, professionals -- anyone, you name it." In his office, he's set aside about 80 boxes for personal use since, rumour has it, one course might not be enough. "Better safe than sorry."

There's no denying that avian flu is genuinely scary. As the latest end-of-days hypothetical, the virus has all the makings of a media blockbuster. It's strange and new and it can mutate quickly into unpredictable, ever-more-threatening forms. Thanks to migratory birds and global travellers, it has the potential to blanket the world quickly. Worst of all, there is no known vaccine for the virus, which accompanies a horrifying list of symptoms including a high fever, serious respiratory complications, extreme body aches, multiple organ failure and often death in 72 hours or less.

Eight years ago, the H5N1 strain infected its first 18 people in Hong Kong, six of whom died. This was the first time the virus was found to have been transmitted directly from bird to human. Later, it resurfaced in Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia, resulting in more human deaths and the destruction of millions of chickens. Scientists have been debating ever since the likelihood that it will mutate into a form that is readily transmittable between humans -- a scenario that would produce one of the most deadly viruses humanity has ever seen. Flu epidemics operate in cycles, experts say, and we're well overdue for the next one. In the U.S., scientists are working on developing a preventative vaccine, but since no one can predict what a mutated virus would look like, no surefire vaccine can be developed until an outbreak actually occurs. London-based virologist John Oxford, one of the world's leading flu experts, has likened it to "a tsunami rushing toward us."

For now, though, it all remains hypothetical. In his new book, The Politics of Fear, U.K. sociologist Frank Furedi suggests that the more secure a society is -- in terms of health, wealth and political stability -- the more likely it is to fixate on theoretical menaces. In turn, the more obsessed we become with keeping safe, "the more insecure we become," he says, "because safety becomes this elusive quest you never achieve. Even if you never leave the house, you can always slip in the bathtub."

In life, there is much to fear (even fear itself!), and a certain amount of paranoia is necessary for survival since it compels us to implement reasonable precautions, like condoms and bicycle helmets. But what Furedi is describing is a culture plagued by free-floating anxiety, exacerbated by the dramatic and devastating news events of our time: tsunamis, hurricanes, 9/11. It's not that we're more afraid now than we used to be; it's that the things we fear are less tangible, and the fear itself more diffuse and promiscuous. It will affix itself to global terrorism or earthquakes one day, killer bees the next. And when people feel a sense of general insecurity, says York University sociology professor Donald Carveth, their natural response is to try to identify the source, to give the enemy a face and a name, and exert whatever measures of control they can over it. "To feel threatened by vague, abstract forces -- that's terrifying," he says. "When you've got an enemy, no matter how powerful he is, once he's been identified, you can get him in the sights of your guns." [...]

Whether people realize it or not, fear also serves a real, practical function -- it mobilizes us and informs our political and consumer decisions in all sorts of ways. (Y2K, for instance, generated $100 billion for the global economy -- a boon for computer nerds everywhere.)

THE NH DIFFERENCE:

N.H. Politician Facing Calls to Resign (DAVID TIRRELL-WYSOCKI, 9/27/05, Associated Press)

A member of the powerful state Executive Council is facing calls to resign for hiring a campaign aide he knew was a convicted child sex offender, but he said Tuesday he has no intention of stepping down.

"I don't plan to resign. There's too much work yet to be done," Raymond Burton told The Associated Press in a phone interview.

The aide, Mark Seidensticker, 45, was arrested last month and accused of inappropriate contact with teenage boys. Based on that arrest, Burton said he no longer will employ Seidensticker, who is being held on $50,000 bail at the Merrimack County jail. [...]

U.S. Sens. John Sununu and Judd Gregg and both of the state's congressmen have urged Burton, to resign. All four are Republicans, as is Burton. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, also called Monday for Burton to step down.

DAN RATHER LANDS ON HIS FEET:

Purported al Qaeda Newscast Debuts on Internet (Daniel Williams, September 27, 2005, Washington Post)

An Internet video newscast called the Voice of the Caliphate was broadcast for the first time on Monday, purporting to be a production of al Qaeda and featuring an anchorman who wore a black ski mask and an ammunition belt.

I FIXED THE POST OFFICE...YOU FIX THE REST:

Koizumi on the home straight (J Sean Curtin, 9/28/05, Asia Times)

[A]fter parliament reelected him prime minister last week, Koizumi reaffirmed his commitment to step down from office in September 2006 when his term as LDP party president expires.

Ryoji Yamauchi, President of Asahikawa University and a political commentator said: "I believe he will step down next September, just as he has said. While such an action appears to fly in the face of political logic, it perfectly fits in with Koizumi's personal style."

Most political analysts struggle to explain why Koizumi is so keen to abdicate after winning such a stunning victory that greatly enhanced his authority. Yamauchi has a theory: "Koizumi wants to go out when he is at his peak and basking in glory - that way he can avoid dealing with the chronic problems plaguing Japan like the pensions crisis, the social welfare nightmare and our battered relations with China and Korea, a problem directly caused by Koizumi's insensitive brand of nationalism."

LESS REFORM, PLEASE, WE'RE CONTINENTAL:

In Polish coalition, an uneasy partnership (Graham Bowley, 9/26/05, International Herald Tribune)

The unexpected ascendancy of Law and Justice - after the liberal Civic Platform was well ahead in opinion polls until last week - means the pace of economic change in Poland will be slower than Civic Platform promised.

Law and Justice drew support from the demise of the Democratic Left Alliance after its candidate for president withdrew amid corruption allegations, and Kaczynski won over left-leaning voters with bitter attacks on his would-be partners' program for a flat 15 percent rate for personal, corporate and consumption taxes.

On Monday, Kaczynski promised "lower taxes and pro-investment policies to stimulate the economy." But he ruled out the flat tax, and the divergence in approach to the economy appeared already to be causing friction between the prospective partners.

Law and Justice, which favors a far more interventionist approach to the economy than Civic Platform, says it will seek to scale back the independence of the central bank because it believes interest rates are too high, and wants to slow the privatization of state assets.

Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz, a former central bank governor and one of Civic Platform's candidates for finance minister, said Law and Justice's victory "is worrying news for investors," according to Bloomberg.

The news agency quoted her as telling Polish public radio: "This will mean a slower decline in unemployment and less foreign investment. This will make our fight for the flat tax and fast euro-adoption pretty hopeless."

Mateusz Szczurek, an economist at ING Bank in Warsaw, said he thought the two parties were still capable together of pushing through significant economic change despite their differences.

"I can still see very positive developments being done by the new government," he said, adding that Polish zloty had initially weakened on financial markets Monday after Civic Platform's weaker-than-expected showing but had later recovered. "I believe that change is going to happen," he said.

Krzysztof Bobinski of the Unia and Polska Foundation said there could be tensions on European policy because Law and Justice was more skeptical about Poland's role in the European Union.

"This will make Poland's Europe policy more difficult," he said.

There could be further divergences on attitudes toward Germany and Russia, with Kaczynski, and his brother Lech Kaczynski, who is standing for president, urging a more muscular, confrontational approach to Poland's neighbors.

NEVER FLY A THIRD WORLD PLANE:

A Skeptic Under Pressure: A U.S. engineer faces bankruptcy and arrest in Austria as he questions the safety of a component in the huge Airbus A380 jetliner. (Peter Pae, September 27, 2005, LA Times)

Joseph Mangan, 41, is a whistle-blower. As a result he and his family find themselves in a foreign country with unfamiliar laws, fighting a legal battle that has left them almost penniless.

A year ago, Mangan told European aviation authorities that he believed there were problems with a computer chip on the Airbus A380, the biggest and costliest commercial airliner ever built. The A380 is a double-decked engineering marvel that will carry as many as 800 passengers — double the capacity of Boeing Co.'s 747. It is expected to enter airline service next year.

Mangan alleges that flaws in a microprocessor could cause the valves that maintain cabin pressure on the A380 to accidentally open during flight, allowing air to leak out so rapidly that everyone aboard could lose consciousness within seconds.

It's a lethal scenario similar to the 1999 crash that killed professional golfer Payne Stewart and five others when their Learjet lost cabin pressure and they blacked out. The plane flew on autopilot for hours before crashing in South Dakota.

Mangan was chief engineer for TTTech Computertechnik, a Viennese company that supplies the computer chips and software to control the cabin-pressurization system for the A380, which is being assembled at the Airbus plant in France.

In October, TTTech fired Mangan and filed civil and criminal charges against him for revealing company documents. The company said the information was proprietary and he had no right to disclose it to anyone.

Mangan countersued, saying he had been wrongly terminated for raising legitimate safety concerns.

Unlike U.S. laws that shield whistle-blowers from corporate retaliation, Austrian laws offer no such protection. Last year an Austrian judge imposed an unusual gag order on Mangan, seeking to stop him from talking about the case.

Mangan posted details about the case anyway in his own Internet blog. The Austrian court fined him $185,000 for violating the injunction.

And the Vienna police, who are conducting a criminal investigation into the matter, searched the family's apartment for four hours, downloading files from Mangan's computer as his children watched.

GO PBS:

CPB Taps Two GOP Conservatives for Top Posts (Paul Farhi, September 27, 2005, Washington Post)

A leading Republican donor and fundraiser was elected chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting yesterday, tightening conservative control over the agency that oversees National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

Cheryl F. Halpern, a New Jersey lawyer and real estate developer, won approval from the CPB's board. She succeeds a close board ally, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who stirred controversy earlier this year by contending that public broadcasting favors liberal views. Tomlinson's term as chairman had expired, but he will remain a member of the board.

The board also elected another conservative, Gay Hart Gaines, as its vice chairman. Gaines, an interior decorator by training, was a charter member and a chairman of GOPAC, a Republican fundraising group that then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) used to engineer the GOP takeover of the House in 1994.

With the changes, conservatives with close ties to the Bush administration have assumed control of every important position at the agency, which distributes about $400 million in federal funds to noncommercial radio and TV stations and is supposed to act as a buffer against outside political influence.

86ED:

Don Adams, Television's Maxwell Smart, Dies at 82 (DOUGLAS MARTIN, 9/27/05, NY Times)

[S]mart's charm lay in his utter humanness, the opposite of Bond's preposterous competence. In an interview with The Saturday Evening Post in 1966, Mr. Adams analyzed Smart: "He's not superhuman. But he believes in what he does and he wants to do his best."

His best was rarely good enough. Smart called into work with a dial phone on the sole of his shoe, and often got a wrong number. He wore jet shoes that shot him up, often into the roof. He was so security-minded that he would often swallow secret messages before reading them.

Donald James Yarmy was born on April 13, 1923, in Manhattan. He said changed his last name to that of his first wife, Adelaide Adams, because acting auditions were often done in alphabetical order.

His father ran a few small restaurants in the Bronx. Mr. Adams grew up hating school and playing hooky at the movies. During World War II, he joined the Marines at 16 by lying about his age. On Guadalcanal, he was shot and contracted blackwater fever, fatal 90 percent of the time.

After the war, he drifted into stand-up comedy, always refraining from dirty jokes, presaging the almost ludicrous uprightness of Maxwell Smart. He cut back on nightclub work to support his family with jobs as a restaurant cashier and as a commercial artist.

His first real success as a comic came when he won an Arthur Godfrey "Talent Scouts" competition in 1954, which led to television variety show appearances on "The Steve Allen Show" and elsewhere.

Mr. Adams created the comedy character Byron Glick, an incompetent house detective, who was a precursor to Max. Mr. Adams tried comedy writing, producing material for Garry Moore and Mr. Allen. When Mr. Adams's friend Bill Dana got a comedy series, he hired Mr. Adams to regularly play Byron Glick.

"Get Smart" was originally the brainchild of the producers Dan Melnick and David Susskind, and was then refined by the writers Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. ABC passed on the show, but NBC loved it. The writers first thought of Tom Poston for the Smart role, but Mr. Adams was under contract to NBC.

The program was immediately a success with viewers, though Jack Gould, reviewing the new show in The New York Times, fretted that Mr. Adams was trying too hard to be funny. Mr. Gould, however, heartily approved of Ms. Feldon, fondly recalling her appearances in Revlon's "Tiger Girl" commercials.

In an interview on NBC's "Today Show" in 2002, Ms. Feldon gave Mr. Adams credit for much of the show's success. "When you got in a scene with Don, it was like stepping onto a surfboard, and you just flew over those waves," she said. "And it was exhilarating."

Once upon a time (in the '60s) there was a television show called "Get Smart." It was a sendup of James Bond spy dramas and featured the bumbling secret agent 86, Maxwell Smart, played by Don Adams, who died Sunday at age 82.

Many of its gags entered the culture permanently, used by people who had never seen the show. For example:

Sorry about that!

The response to a colossal blunder. In 1965 one of the Gemini astronauts used it. It became a favorite of grunts in Vietnam.

Others:

And loving it!

Response to a warning of grave danger.

Would you believe . . . ?

MEANWHILE, IN THE ANGLOSPHERE...:

Blair promising to step up reform (BBC, 9/27/05)

Tony Blair will tell the Labour Party it must continue to modernise Britain as he seeks to show he has not run out of steam as prime minister.

He will outline to the party's conference in Brighton a host of reform plans for the public services.

The solution to challenges facing the UK is "not less New Labour but more New Labour", Mr Blair will say.

He speaks after Gordon Brown delivered a speech seen as confirming his status as leader-in-waiting.

STILL A SHORTAGE:

State posts strong house, condo sales: Median prices climb, but some local agents see market softening (Kimberly Blanton, September 27, 2005, Boston Globe)

Massachusetts single-family home sales posted the second strongest August on record and condominium sales continued their relentless rise last month, the Massachusetts Association of Realtors reported yesterday.

In August, 5,482 single-family homes sold statewide, second only to the August 2001 record of 5,526. The median house price of $375,000 was nearly 5 percent higher than a year ago. [...]

Real estate brokers and analyst say Massachusetts has experienced less speculation than lower-priced housing markets such as Florida or Arizona. Yet, rising inventories of suburban Boston homes are concerning homeowners, amid growing evidence it has become more difficult to sell. The single-family market data also is creating confusion, because no clear trend has emerged: sales have been down three of the past five months and up two, while prices rise steadily.

Maggie Tomkiewicz, president of Massachusetts Association of Realtors, said the single-family market is holding up. She said there is currently 6 3/4 months of supply of single-family houses on the market, while 7 1/2 months to 8 1/2months is a balanced market.

LET'S AT LEAST GO POSTAL:

Koizumi resumes reform drive in Diet policy speech (REIJI YOSHIDA, 9/27/05, Japan Times)

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi relaunched his reform offensive Monday, vowing to "boldly scale down" government by privatizing the postal services, cutting personnel costs and reforming state-backed financial institutions.

However, in his policy speech to the special Diet session, he offered neither numerical targets nor a timetable to guide his renewed pledge for small government. Instead, he focused on his plan to privatize the giant state-run mail, postal savings and insurance institution. He began by repeating his vow to slash the number of government workers.

"I will review their salary structures and set a net-reduction target for the number of state government workers," Koizumi said during his address to the Diet. "I will boldly scale down the size of the government by implementing structural reforms like these."

Koizumi's ruling Liberal Democratic Party won big in the Sept. 11 general election by campaigning on the theme of reform. In the wake of their stinging defeat, the opposition parties are also now attacking "inefficient" government workers and services and calling for restructuring.

Koizumi also touched on diplomacy, merely repeating earlier stated polices and offering no new strategies toward Iraq and North Korea.

Due to the limited agenda, the 11-minute speech turned out to be Koizumi's shortest since taking office in April 2001 and the second-shortest in postwar Japan, according to one of his deputies.

THE FACTS WEREN'T USEFUL WEAPONS:

Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy: Rumors supplanted accurate information and media magnified the problem. Rapes, violence and estimates of the dead were wrong. (Susannah Rosenblatt and James Rainey, September 27, 2005, LA Times)

Maj. Ed Bush recalled how he stood in the bed of a pickup truck in the days after Hurricane Katrina, struggling to help the crowd outside the Louisiana Superdome separate fact from fiction. Armed only with a megaphone and scant information, he might have been shouting into, well, a hurricane.

The National Guard spokesman's accounts about rescue efforts, water supplies and first aid all but disappeared amid the roar of a 24-hour rumor mill at New Orleans' main evacuation shelter. Then a frenzied media recycled and amplified many of the unverified reports.

"It just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done," Bush said Monday of the Superdome.

His assessment is one of several in recent days to conclude that newspapers and television exaggerated criminal behavior in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, particularly at the overcrowded Superdome and Convention Center.

PRETTY BIG NET:

US Household Net Worth Up 1.9% To $49.83 Trillion In 2Q (Campion Walsh, 9/21/05, Dow Jones)

U.S. households saw their total net worth rise 1.9% to a record $49.83 trillion in the second quarter of 2005, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday.

GOLDILOCKS FOR PRESIDENT:

Return of the right (The Economist, Sep 26th 2005)

More surprising than who lost was who came out on top. Until a few days before the election, the free-market Civic Platform had led the polls. But it was overtaken at the last moment by another right-wing party, Law and Justice. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Law and Justice’s straight-talking candidate for prime minister, managed to appeal to both those who want to grasp the opportunities that capitalism and democracy have created, and those who fear change.

AMEN, BROTHER:

Man Takes Citizenship Oath, Wins Lottery (AP, 9/26/05)

A man who immigrated from Kenya to the United States found prosperity beyond his expectations on the day he became a U.S. citizen.

Shortly after Moses Bittok, of West Des Moines, took the oath of citizenship on Friday, he discovered he had a $1.89 million winning ticket from the Iowa Lottery's Hot Lotto game.

"It's almost like you adopted a country and then they netted you $1.8 million," Bittok said Monday as he cashed in his ticket. "It doesn't happen anywhere — I guess only in America."

STILL TIME TO CHANGE YOUR PICKS....:

Bush Drops 'Diversity' Hint About Nominee (JESSE J. HOLLAND, Sep 26, 2005, AP)

President Bush hinted on Monday that his next nominee for the Supreme Court would be a woman or a minority, saying that "diversity is one of the strengths of the country." [...]

Two-thirds of the 100 senators Republican and Democrats alike had already announced their support of Roberts, the conservative federal appeals court judge, as the successor to the late William H. Rehnquist before the Senate even started its final debate Monday afternoon. [...]

A floor vote is planned for no later than Thursday.

I WANNA SELF-DESTRUCT, JUST LIKE DEAR OLD DAD:

Bayh says he won't support Roberts nomination (Maureen Groppe, 9/26/05, Indianapolis Star)

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh said Friday he will vote against the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States because not enough is known about how Roberts will act. [...]

Bayh was the last Senate Democrat considering a 2008 presidential run to announce how he will vote.

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. voted against Roberts and Wisconsin Sen. Russell D. Feingold voted for him when the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed his nomination Thursday. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton announced her opposition after the committee vote and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has also said he’ll vote against Roberts when the full Senate takes up the nomination next week.
Women’s groups, which are influential in the Democratic primary process, are opposed to Roberts.

HE CAN'T RETIRE FAST ENOUGH:

Greenspan: Homeowners could weather price drop (Jeannine Aversa, 9/26/05, AP)

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, softening his concern about a possibly overheated housing market, said Monday that many homeowners have enough equity to cushion the shock if prices drop. [...]

"The vast majority of homeowners have a sizable equity cushion with which to absorb a potential decline in house prices," he said. Less than 5% of home borrowers were highly leveraged, according to one measure, he cited.

An end to the housing boom, meanwhile, could have a silver lining, the Fed chairman added.

Greenspan hypothesized that it probably would be accompanied by a moderation in the growth of consumer spending. That could lead to a boost in Americans' personal savings rate, which has been dismally low, and could curb Americans' insatiable appetites for foreign-made goods, helping to narrow the United States' bloated trade deficit, he said.

WHY NOT JUST USE HIGHWAY MONEY TO BUILD THE TANCREDO WALL?:

Rebuilding Republican credibility (Charles Bloomer, September 26, 2005, Enter Stage Right)

In a recent column, I criticized the Republican leadership for ignoring two topics that have become important to their conservative base – illegal immigration and massive spending. In this column, I want to follow up with some ideas for actions that the party can take to help regain credibility.

The conservative base is not opposed to immigration, so long as it is legal and in the best interest of this country. [...]

The solution is simple, but will cost money. The Republicans in office, including the president and congress, must authorize and fund significant increases in our Border Patrol. [...]

Among fiscal conservatives, the Republicans in office have lost all credibility as the party of smaller government. [...]

At least some Republicans are paying heed to the grumblings of conservatives. The Republican Study Committee in the House of Representatives has responded to the challenge laid down by Tom DeLay. The RSC has come up with a list of recommendations for cuts to offset the funds to be spent on Katrina rebuilding.

The RSC ideas are a good start, but need to go further. Rather than spend billions of tax money to rebuild New Orleans, the administration should encourage private investment in the rebuilding process. Tax incentives on investments in post-Katrina and post-Rita, recovery such as an elimination of capital gains tax on those investments would draw considerable private money. Make the tax holiday on capital gains effective for ten years.

Beyond hurricane relief, the RSC should study ways to seriously cut the fat and pork from the federal budget. A great start would be to eliminate the 6000-plus pork barrel items in the Transportation Bill.

HER IMPERIALIST HIGHNESS:

Rice will visit Haiti on Tuesday (The Associated Press, September 26, 2005)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to Haiti on Tuesday to show support for presidential elections set for Nov. 20.

During her daylong visit, she will meet with members of the interim government that has been in place since shortly after the departure of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February 2004.

JUSTICE SHOPPING:

Supreme Court may hear abortion case (The Associated Press, September 26, 2005)

The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions, setting up a showdown that could be decided by the president's new choice for the court.

WHAT'S THE LIFE EXPECTANCY ON THAT JOB?:

Pentagon: Top Zarqawi Aide Killed (CBS News, Sept. 26, 2005)

The No. 2 al Qaeda leader in Iraq was killed Sunday night, U.S. officials say. Abu Azzam, reportedly the deputy to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was shot during a house rain in Baghdad, according to Pentagon officials.

As the aide to Zarqawi, Azzam was reportedly in control of financing foreign fighters coming into Iraq, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

According to Pentagon officials coalition troops raided the house in response to a tip. When Azzam opened fire, these officials say, he was killed with troops' return fire.

What effect this will have on the insurgency remains to be seen. In the past, key Zarqawi lieutenants have been killed or captured without any decrease in the number of suicide bombings.

AND NOW WE'VE DISPOSED OF NEW ORLEANS...:

Crime Rate Remains at 2003 Level, Study Says: Justice Department Statistics at Lowest Mark Since 1973 (Mark Sherman, September 26, 2005, Associated Press)

The nation's crime rate was unchanged last year, holding at the lowest levels since the government began surveying crime victims in 1973, the Justice Department reported yesterday.

Since 1993, violent crime as measured by victim surveys has fallen by 57 percent and property crime by 50 percent. That has included a 9 percent drop in violent crime from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004.

The 2004 violent crime rate -- assault, sexual assault and robbery -- was 21.4 victims for every 1,000 people age 12 and older. That amounts to about one violent crime victim for every 47 U.S. residents.

By comparison, there were 22.6 violent crime victims per 1,000 people in 2003. The Bureau of Justice Statistics said the difference between the rates in 2003 and 2004 was statistically insignificant.

Homicide is not counted because the bureau's study is based on statements by crime victims. In a separate report based on preliminary police data, the FBI found a 3.6 percent drop between 2003 and 2004 -- from 16,500 to 15,910. Chicago was largely responsible for the decrease.

MUST BE NICE NOT TO HAVE FILIBUSTERS:

Schools voucher plan to end rift (Samantha Maiden, 27sep05, The Australian)

AUSTRALIA'S schools are on the verge of a revolution that will end "the Berlin Wall" between the public and private systems and deliver greater choice to parents, former competition watchdog chief Allan Fels has predicted.

Speaking on the eve of the Schooling for the 21st Century conference, Professor Fels said it was time to debate a voucher scheme that would allow parents to spend a taxpayer-grant at public or private schools.

Parents and students should also be offered greater choice between public schools, including being able to select from a cluster of schools in their region, rather than the current "take it or leave it" option based on residence.

As Education Minister Brendan Nelson steps up his campaign to apply benchmarks to key curriculums in the nation's schools, Professor Fels warned transparent and easily accessible information for parents and students on school performance was the key to driving competition and quality.

"We are going to find that the Berlin Wall between public and private schooling will start to come down," Professor Fels told The Australian.

SHUT UP, THEY DEFENDED:

'Intelligent Design' Trial Begins Today: A court case brought by parents in Pennsylvania could have a profound impact on America's debate over religion and its role in public life. (Josh Getlin, September 26, 2005, LA Times)

In the beginning, members of the Dover Area School District board wrangled over what should be required in their high school biology curriculum.

Some were adamant that science teachers should stick with the widely taught theory of evolution and random selection. Others said the teaching of "intelligent design" should also be required, arguing that certain elements of life, like cell structure, are best explained by an intelligent cause.

The debate had strong religious overtones.

"Nearly 2,000 years ago, someone died on a cross for us," said board member William Buckingham, who urged his colleagues to include intelligent design in ninth-grade science classes. "Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him?"

Today, a trial begins over the board's decision last year ordering that students be taught about intelligent design and flaws in Charles Darwin's theories.

Several parents, fearing the intrusion of religion into public schooling, filed a lawsuit to block the policy, backed by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys.

IF YOU CAN'T FAKE SINCERITY....:

An ideal husband (Joshua Glenn, September 25, 2005, Boston Globe)

THE ONLY WAY for a married man to ''win the battle of the sexes," insists former Somerville resident and manliness expert Craig Boreth (he wrote ''The Hemingway Cookbook"), is to ''convince your wife that, in reality, she has won." Easier said than done, no doubt, but Boreth's new book, ''How to Iron Your Own Damn Shirt: The Perfect Husband Handbook" , features 50-plus seemingly airtight stratagems for pulling this off.

Husbands, if you haven't figured out how to act like you're listening closely at the breakfast table or apologize convincingly, or pretend not to look at other women, Boreth has solutions. These are, respectively: Practice what therapists call ''active listening" (pay attention to body language, ask questions, summarize); first de-escalate, then semi-apologize, then find out exactly what upset her, then be honest, then negotiate a compromise; and only glance--as though looking at the sun.

Rather than becoming perfect, ''a husband's only goal should be to create the perception in his wife's mind that he's perfect," Boreth said in an e-mail interview. ''If that requires a little subterfuge in order for him to maintain some degree of sanity and manhood, then so be it."

YOU DON'T OCCUPY AN ALLY:

A Shift on Iraq: The Generals Plan a Slow Exit (David Ignatius, September 26, 2005, Washington Post)

Posted on a bulletin board at Centcom headquarters here is a 1918 admonition from T.E. Lawrence explaining what he learned in training Arab soldiers: "It is better to let them do it themselves imperfectly than to do it yourself perfectly. It is their country, their way, and our time is short."

That quote sums up an important shift in U.S. military strategy on Iraq that has been emerging over the past year. The commanders who are running the war don't talk about transforming Iraq into an American-style democracy or of imposing U.S. values. They understand that Iraqis dislike American occupation, and for that reason they want fewer American troops in Iraq, not more. Most of all, they don't want the current struggle against Iraqi insurgents, who are nasty but militarily insignificant, to undermine U.S. efforts against the larger threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists, who would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if they could.

I had a rare opportunity to hear a detailed explanation of U.S. military strategy this weekend when the Centcom chief, Gen. John Abizaid, gathered his top generals here for what he called a "commanders' huddle." They described a military approach that's different, at least in tone, from what the public perceives. For the commanders, Iraq isn't an endless tunnel. They are planning to reduce U.S. troop levels over the next year to a force that will focus on training and advising the Iraqi military. They don't want permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Indeed, they believe such a high-visibility American presence will only make it harder to stabilize the country.

JUST WHEN WE SOLD THE HOUSE AND BOUGHT OIL FUTURES ON PAUL KRUGMAN'S ADVICE:

Oil bubble set to burst?: Some analysts say prices could now retreat after industry dodges severe damage from Rita.

Could the recent spike in oil prices have created a bubble that's about to burst?

With Hurricane Rita causing less damage that originally feared to the oil industry and oil prices treading water Monday, some industry analysts said we may be about to watch a steady, and significant, drop in energy prices.

"Price declines could be slow this week, maybe with a bubble burst at some point in the future," said analyst Peter Beutel, president of Cameron Hanover. "It does appear we've turned the corner here in this market. I don't think we'll see prices at these levels again anytime in the next five years." [...]

But before you start cheering Beutel's prediction, understand that part of his forecast is based on the belief that oil is high enough now to spark a global recession, which will significantly cut demand. He also believes that recent oil price records have spurred plans to increase global oil production, which he sees feeding the decline in oil prices.

Beutel sees oil prices falling all the way to the $25 to $35 a barrel range in late 2006 or 2007. Most other analysts aren't willing to follow that forecast, although some agree there could be a pullback in prices, even without a recession, if consumers start to have some breaks go their way.

"I think if the rest of the hurricane season doesn't cause disruptions, and global supplies stay as they are, we should see prices pulling back into in the low to mid-$50's, without a recession," said Sheraz Mian, oil analyst for Zacks Investment Research. "We could be in the high $40's if it's a warm winter."

CABANARAMA:

Kerry's not- so-amazing race, on film (Lloyd Grove, 9/26/05, NY Daily News)

I hear that John Kerry loyalists are kicking themselves for cooperating last year with filmmaker Steve Rosenbaum on "Inside the Bubble," a potentially devastating behind-the-scenes look at the Massachusetts senator's failed presidential campaign.

I'm also told that Hillary Clinton partisans are licking their chops to see the film, which "could end up being the silver bullet that kills Kerry's presidential chances for 2008," says a Lowdown spy.

SKIMMING (via Jefferson Park):

Korean War pals to attend 45th Division event (Brandy McDonnell, 9/26/05, The Oklahoman)

Ted D.D. Foster Jr. and Johnny H.T. No have been arguing for more than three decades over who saved whose life.

Their friendship was forged in the Korean War. Foster, 80, a retired colonel with the Army National Guard, credits No with guiding their platoon safely through a minefield and helping him communicate with Korean troops and refugees.

"In my mind, his contribution is by far greater," Foster said. "He and I have been together since 1952, so we've been together a hell of a long time."

No, 84, who was a South Korean interpreter in the platoon Foster commanded, counters that Foster sponsored him, and later his family, when he immigrated to Oklahoma more than 30 years ago.

"He claims I saved his life, but once I was in America, he helped me so much," No said. "Everything I have (is) owed to him."

THE MAN'S DEATH ON TRANSNATIONALISM:

Why Kyoto will never succeed, by Blair (Patrick Hennessy and James Langton, 25/09/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Tony Blair has admitted that the fight to prevent global warming by ordering countries to cut greenhouse gases will never be won.

The Prime Minister said "no country is going to cut its growth or consumption" despite environmental fears.

Mr Blair's comments, which he said were "brutally honest", mark a big environmental U-turn and will dismay Labour activists. [...]

His remarks, unreported at the time but now published in a transcript of the conference, are certain to spark wide-ranging criticism that he is again signing up to the agenda of President George W Bush. Under Mr Bush, the US has consistently refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

SEND IN THE KRAUTS:

Schröder's Putsch against Reality: The results of the German elections eight days ago are clear: German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's party got 450,000 fewer votes than the political camp supporting his opponent Angela Merkel. But he's still claiming the chancellery for himself. It's a political circus that threatens to make Chancellor Schröder into the lead clown. (Dirk Kurbjuweit , 9/26/05, Der Spiegel)

Schröder has presented himself since the elections as a man with a future, as someone who has scored a last-second goal thus giving himself a shot at overtime. But this is roughly where the sports analogy ends. In soccer, for example, the referee calls overtime when there is a tie. But there was no tie here. Schröder and his Social Democrats lost the election to the Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), by almost 450,000 votes. In politics, like in sports, Schröder should have been out of the game, because it's normal procedure in Germany that the chancellor comes from the strongest party -- that the strongest party leads the ensuing governing coalition.

All that, it seems, is irrelevant to Schröder. He has staged the first putsch in German post-war history, a putsch against reality. On the evening of the election, he announced that he had no intention of allowing Angela Merkel to take the helm of a possible grand coalition between his own party and the CDU.

Berlin has been in an uproar ever since. Since the vote, there is reality and there is Schröder's version of reality. And there is also a major effort on the part of the SPD to ensure that reality conforms to Schröder's concept of reality, to restyle Schröder's revolt as an act of statesmanship.

Suddenly the German political stage has turned into a Las Vegas casino, where everyone furiously plays poker by day and watches Siegfried and Roy, the illusionists, put on their act by night. But in Berlin the illusionists' names are Gerhard Schröder and Franz Müntefering, who, it turns out, have shown themselves adept at transforming mice into elephants, poodles into tigers.

CURIOUS SORT OF STAGNATION (via Robert Schwartz):

Don't Blink. You'll Miss the 258th-Richest American (NINA MUNK, September 25, 2005, NY Times)

THE latest Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America has just hit the newsstands. The idea for the Forbes 400 - rather than, say, 300 or 500 - was inspired by Mrs. Astor's 400, the definitive list of New York high society in the 1890's. It's rumored that Mrs. William Backhouse Astor Jr. limited her social list to 400 because only 400 people could fit into her ballroom, but that may not be true. In any case, they had to be the right 400 people. As her escort, Ward McAlister, explained to reporters in 1888: "If you go outside that number, you strike people who are either not at ease in a ballroom or else make others not at ease."

The first edition of the Forbes 400, dated Sept. 13, 1982, included mainline families like the Rockefellers, the Mellons and the du Ponts. But they found themselves together with self-made men, some of whom were not terribly at ease in a ballroom: William R. Hewlett, who had started Hewlett-Packard in a one-car garage with his classmate David Packard and was then worth $1.3 billion; Robert C. Guccione, the founder of Penthouse magazine, then worth $400 million; Saul P. Steinberg, a corporate raider who had accumulated a $260 million fortune; An Wang, originally of Shanghai, who had started Wang Labs with $15,000 in 1951 and was worth around $400 million in 1982; Meyer Lansky, a mobster whose estimated net worth that year was $200 million; and Laurence A. Tisch, who built a fortune then valued at $600 million by assembling a huge conglomerate, the Loews Corporation. (Note: all net worth figures are in 2005 dollars.) All you needed to join the Forbes 400 list was money.

Right from the start, the Forbes 400 reflected an American ideal: we were a nation of smart, hardworking, resourceful, determined, innovative, daring self-starters. Above all, the Forbes 400 suggested mobility and unlimited opportunity. Every year, more of the old names fell off the list, only to be replaced by names you'd never heard of - names of people who had been inspired to build something from nothing. Inherited wealth, which once dominated the Forbes 400, has over the years come to account for less than 40 percent of the list. The number of Ivy League graduates has dropped, too. And New York City is no longer the epicenter of American wealth.

A few days ago, I read through the newest Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America, hoping to find many names I'd never heard of. They're not there. Through no fault of its own, the list no longer reflects a dynamic and elastic economy; instead, it reflects a growing concentration of wealth and economic power. Warren E. Buffett, Paul G. Allen, Kirk Kerkorian, John W. Kluge, Carl C. Icahn, Michael R. Bloomberg, Ronald O. Perelman, Leona Helmsley, Henry R. Kravis, the Waltons, the Pritzkers, the Newhouses, the Lauders - the same old names, one after another.

It's hard to say when the Forbes 400 list started to stagnate, but 1999 may have been a turning point.

BUT...BUT...BUT...HE LIKES JAZZ MUSIC AND SCOTCH....:

Former rival helps Hu solidify grip on China (Joseph Kahn, SEPTEMBER 25, 2005, The New York Times)

Three years after becoming China's top leader, Hu Jintao has solidified his grip on power and intimidated critics inside and outside the Communist Party with the help of the man once seen as his most potent rival.

Hu, China's president and Communist Party chief, and Zeng Qinghong, vice president and the man in charge of the party's organizational affairs, have tackled the most delicate domestic and foreign policy issues as a team, governing as hard-liners with a deft political touch, former Chinese officials and scholars with leadership connections said.

Their bond is a surprise because Zeng was the longtime right-hand man of the previous No. 1 leader, Jiang Zemin. A skillful back-room political operator considered to have strong military ties, Zeng was long viewed as the only person capable of challenging Hu for power.

Instead, Zeng and Hu joined forces last year to push Jiang to retire and to give up his position as leader of China's military, party insiders said. That cleared the way for Hu to become military chief and weakened the formidable political network Jiang had constructed in his 13 years at the helm.

Their alliance has shored up the Communist Party as it faces enormous stresses, including simmering social unrest and an uphill struggle to curtail corruption. They have quieted talk of serious factional splits and paved the way for Hu to impose his orthodox, repressive stamp on Chinese politics.

MORE:
China's leaders launch smokeless war against internet and media dissent (Benjamin Joffe-Walt, September 26, 2005, Guardian

China announced a fresh crackdown yesterday on the internet amid further revelations of a plan by Hu Jintao, the president, to suppress dissent.

"The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest," said a statement from Xinhua, the official news agency. The announcement called for blogs and personal web pages to "be directed towards serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests".

The statement was just one of a series of initiatives by the government to root out politically sensitive news from domestic and foreign media. [...]

Providing further evidence of an organised national crackdown, the New York Times reported yesterday that Mr Hu called for a "smokeless war" against "liberal elements" in China during a secret leadership meeting in May

ALIEN TECHNOLOGY IS EVEN BETTER THAN STEROIDS (via Robert Schwartz):

Joe Bauman, 83, Who Hit 72 Homers as Minor Leaguer, Dies (RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, 9/22/05, NY Times)

Joe Bauman, who hit 72 home runs in 1954 playing for a minor league team in Roswell, N.M., setting a single-season record for professional baseball that stood for nearly half a century, died Tuesday at a hospital in Roswell. He was 83.

TRY TAKING THIS ISSUE TO THE VOTERS:

Legal railroading disguised as efficiency (Ira Reiner, September 26, 2005, LA Times)

THE SENATE Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 this week. This legislation, ostensibly designed to make the justice system more efficient, is a Trojan horse whose transparent purpose is to strip the federal courts of virtually all of their jurisdiction to review state criminal court proceedings.

Essentially, the legislation would eviscerate the role of the federal courts in ensuring that innocent people are not mistakenly convicted of crimes and that state courts do not send people to prison in violation of their constitutional rights. It would restrict habeas corpus rights, which are enshrined in the Constitution, date back to the Magna Carta and guarantee that you can go to a court and tell a judge that you are being held illegally.

Why is this the role of the federal courts?

OF COURSE CAPITALISM IS A PARTISAN ISSUE:

Free trade isn't free of partisan politics (Daniel P. Erikson and Eric Jacobstein, September 26, 2005, LA Times)

BITTER PARTISANSHIP is putting the United States' trade agenda in the Americas in serious jeopardy. Faced with dim prospects for a hemisphere-wide free trade area, the Bush administration has focused on strengthening trade ties with Latin America through the creation of smaller, regional pacts such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified by Congress earlier this year.

The next phase of this strategy encompasses the Andean countries of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru (with Bolivia participating as an observer). But to succeed, the White House must address the way the CAFTA vote crystallized deep divisions between Republicans and Democrats that threaten to undermine economic integration in the hemisphere.

The White House deservedly claims CAFTA as an important triumph, but the nature of the victory confirmed the near-total collapse of a bipartisan trade consensus in Washington. CAFTA was passed by Congress on July 27, but only after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stayed up past midnight twisting arms to produce a 217-215 vote. More than 90% of Democrats united in opposition to CAFTA; only 15 broke ranks to support the agreement.

THE TEMPTATION OF ROBERTS REDUX:

Bush Again Faces Tough High Court Choice (David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt, September 26, 2005, LA Times)

The diversity issue "is being overplayed by the media. I think you should take the president at his word: He wants a judicial conservative, someone who is extremely smart, has a good temperament and a reverence for the Constitution," said Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the conservative Federalist Society, who has been advising the White House through Roberts' nomination process.

Washington lawyer Bradford Berenson, who served in the White House counsel's office during Bush's first term, also thinks the nominee will be a true conservative.

"I would predict he will keep his promise and appoint a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, a strong judicial conservative," Berenson said. "I don't buy the argument the president will pull his punches. That's not his style."

U.S. appeals court Judges J. Michael Luttig in Virginia, Michael W. McConnell in Denver and Samuel A. Alito Jr. in Philadelphia remain on the list of possible nominees.

If Bush looks for "another John Roberts," some believe, McConnell could emerge as the nominee.

He is a former University of Chicago law professor known for his scholarly interest in religion and the 1st Amendment. He was also a regular advocate before the Supreme Court before Bush named him to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver.

"He is a person of proven legal brilliance and judicial temperament, and he is respected by scholars on the left as well as on the right," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. "He was broadly endorsed by academics when he was nominated before." Still, he added, "there's not much political upside for Bush in nominating him."

TEXTBOOK:

Hamas Halts Its Attacks on Israel From Gaza Strip (Laura King, September 26, 2005, LA Times)

In an abrupt reversal after a two-day Israeli campaign of arrests and assassinations, the Palestinian militant group Hamas announced Sunday it would no longer use the Gaza Strip as a staging ground for attacks against Israel.

The declaration, delivered at a late-night news conference in Gaza City by Hamas' top political leader, Mahmoud Zahar, came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised a no-holds-barred crackdown on Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant organizations.

"The movement is announcing a halt to all its military operations from the Gaza Strip against the Israeli occupation," Zahar told reporters. He said Hamas was acting to protect the interests of the Palestinian people.

THE LEFT GETS WHAT IT ASKED FOR...:

Bush offers Pentagon as 'lead agency' in disasters (Bill Sammon, September 26, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

President Bush yesterday said he wants Congress to consider putting the Pentagon, not state and local agencies, in charge of responding to large natural disasters in the future. [...]

"It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice," he said.

That would require a change of law, since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the military from performing civilian law enforcement duties. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is investigating possible reforms to the act, which Pentagon officials consider archaic. [...]

Mr. Bush's push for greater consolidation of federal power in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita mirrors his successful implementation of the Patriot Act in the wake of September 11. The act, which gives law enforcement officials greater authority to pursue terrorists, has been called overly intrusive by critics.

Similarly, critics are already warning against repeal of Posse Comitatus.

"Washington seems poised to embrace further centralization and militarization at home," cautioned Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "That has the makings of a policy disaster that would dwarf Hurricane Katrina."

More than 80 percent of the $1.5 billion in contracts signed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency alone were awarded without bidding or with limited competition, government records show, provoking concerns among auditors and government officials about the potential for favoritism or abuse.

Already, questions have been raised about the political connections of two major contractors - the Shaw Group and Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton - that have been represented by the lobbyist Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former leader of FEMA.

TWIN 51% MANDATES:

Polish centre-right nears victory (BBC, 9/26/05)

Centre-right parties with links to the former Solidarity movement in Poland have ousted the left in the country's general election.

With 60% of votes counted, the Law and Justice Party (PiS) polled 27%, ahead of the Civic Platform (PO) on 24%.

The vote is being seen as a major snub to the ruling left, who have been hit by scandal and seen unemployment rocket to 18%, highest in the European Union.

The polls are Poland's first since joining the EU in May 2004.

The elections chose the 460-member lower house of parliament while the country will go back to the polls in two weeks to elect a new president.

Law and Justice leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski is expected to become Poland's next prime minister.

His identical twin brother, Lech Kaczynski, is running for president.

Polish voters appeared to take a sharp turn to the right Sunday, with exit polls showing that they had swept out of power former Communist leaders tainted by corruption accusations and had handed an election victory to conservative parties that promised more jobs, lower taxes and clean government.

Exit polls for Polish public television showed the anti-corruption Law and Justice Party leading with 27% support and the pro-market Civic Platform a close second with 24%. The two groups, which have their roots in the Solidarity labor movement, together appeared set to win at least 295 seats in the 460-member Sejm, the powerful lower house of parliament.

They also were expected to control the 100-seat upper house, with the exit polls showing that together they would win more than 80 seats. [...]

The ruling Democratic Left Alliance, which had struggled in preelection surveys just to get more than the 5% of the vote required to win any seats in parliament, performed better than expected, capturing 11%, according to exit polls.

NO GORE, HE:

Brown to lead 'as a New Labour PM' (JAMES KIRKUP, 9/25/05, The Scotsman)

GORDON Brown will today declare that he will lead Britain as a New Labour Prime Minister, setting himself on a collision course with trade unions and the old left with a personal manifesto continuing Tony Blair's programme of reform.

In what the Chancellor describes as his vision for Britain for the next decade, Mr Brown will symbolically embrace the Blairite agenda he has often appeared to resist, telling the Labour conference the party "must and will be New Labour."

Mr Brown's deliberate vow to uphold Mr Blair's policies is a calculated attempt to appeal to former Tory voters in the centre-ground who worry that the Chancellor will try to take Labour back to the left when he assumes power in the next two years.

That transfer of power is now all but inevitable, with even the most Blairite ministers at the Labour conference in Brighton yesterday openly discussing an amicable, phased handover which would see Mr Brown appointed unopposed.

GOOD RESUME BUILDER:

Fusion Center takes aim at terror: But secrecy alarms civil libertarians (Stephanie Ebbert, September 26, 2005, Boston Globe)

Three miles down the road from Shoppers World, in a nondescript office inside State Police headquarters, a team of young intelligence analysts is launching a new front against terrorism.

Called the Commonwealth Fusion Center, the operation was funded by the state last fall and officially opened in May with a mission: to provide statewide information sharing among local, state, and federal public-safety agencies and the private sector in coordinating intelligence against terrorism.

In a secretive operation that is alarming civil-liberties advocates, 18 civilian analysts examine criminal data and 23 intelligence officers -- State Police troopers who have the power to arrest -- work in the field. Raytheon Co. won a $2.2 million contract to develop intelligence-sharing software for the state that aims to integrate databases and help analysts root out criminal trends. [...]

Fusion centers are an emerging trend nationwide, and at least a half-dozen states have established such centers in recent years. Last year Governor Mitt Romney, who chairs an intelligence-sharing group for the Homeland Security advisory council, called for a national network of state-based fusion centers.

WHY NOT JUST CALL FOR A VOICE VOTE?:

The Wrong Battle: John Roberts is the best Supreme Court nominee a left-wing partisan could hope to get out of this White House. (Eleanor Clift, Sept. 23, 2005, Newsweek)

Here’s a mind game: if the vote to confirm John Roberts were a secret ballot, would most Democrats vote for or against him? My guess is that Roberts would rack up numbers like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (96-3) and Stephen Breyer (87-9)—both appointed by President Clinton—if Democrats didn’t have to placate party activists so angry at President Bush they believe he should be opposed at every turn.

HALOS AND BLACK GOWNS

Let's draw a line through a bill of rights (James Allen, Sydney Morning Herald, September 26th, 2005)

So adopt a bill of rights, as Canada, the US, Britain and New Zealand have done, and you transfer a chunk of power to unelected judges to draw some of these contentious lines, under the cover provided by the amorphous, appealing language of rights.

Without a bill of rights in place, these difficult, debatable social policy lines are drawn on the basis of elections, voting and letting the numbers count. With a bill of rights in place the unelected judges decide - though ironically they, too, decide by voting; four justices' votes beat three. Victory does not go to the judge writing the most moving judgement or the one with the most references to moral philosophy.

What makes a bill of rights, and its transfer of power to judges, appear attractive is the unspoken assumption that the moral lines drawn by judges are somehow always the right lines, that a committee of ex-lawyers somehow has a pipeline to godly wisdom and greater moral perspicacity than secretaries, plumbers and regular voters. A good many judges, human rights lawyers and legal academics may happen to think this. I do not. Most Australians so far do not.

It’s the greatest political con job since the Divine Right of Kings.

A BIT OFF TODAY:

China must wait for democracy (Spengler, 9/27/05, Asia Times)

[C]hina must learn to rule cities that are mushrooming into the largest urban concentrations the world has ever known, populated by poor migrants speaking various dialects. By far the largest popular migration in history is in flow tide between the Chinese countryside and coastal cities. In the mere span of five years between 1996 and 2000, China's urban-rural population ratio rose to 36%-64% from 29%-71%, and the UN Population Division projects that by 2050, the ratio will shift to 67%-33% urban. Chinese cities, the UN forecasts, will contain 800 million people by mid-century. By 2015, the population of cities will reach 220 million, compared to the 1995 level of 134 million.

Well over half a billion souls will migrate from farm to city over the space of half a century. All of them will be quite poor. China claims 80% literacy, but as countryside reads less than the city, it is a fair guess that a third of the migrants will be illiterate, and many of them, again perhaps a third, will not be able to understand a political speech in Mandarin, the largest dialect. No historical precedent exists for a population transfer on this scale, and to conduct it peacefully would be a virtuoso act of statecraft. To require China to adopt a Western parliamentary regime in the process is utopian. [...]

The contrast between China and Iran is instructive. As I observed elsewhere (Demographics and Iran's imperial design, September 13) Iran's demographic trainwreck pushes its government toward monstrous measures at home and adventures abroad. Its new president Ahmadinejad recently proposed to forcibly relocate 30 million rural Iranians, reducing the number of villages to only 10,000 from the present 66,000. China requires no such plan, for its high economic growth rate encourages underemployed peasants to find more productive work in cities. China's problem is to constrain migrants from the countryside, where up to 200 million farmers have little effective employment. Iran already suffers from an 11% unemployment rate. Ahmadinejad will dump the footloose young men of Iran into the army, taking a page from Hitler's book.

As long as China's economic growth continues to produce jobs, guiding the country through this great migration will command the undivided attention of the Chinese government. Except for securing supplies of energy and raw materials, nothing that China might undertake in the sphere of strategic policy will mar or bless this, its principal endeavor. It has no incentive to undertake foreign adventures. With no hope of achieving the required economic growth, by contrast, Iran's leaders hope to seize a regional empire, tempted by the oil riches of neighbors who also have a large Shi'ite Muslim population. [...]

The faith that underlies constitutional politics as it originated in the Anglo-Saxon world stemmed from a religious faith. America did not assign democratic rights to its citizens because it aspired for a more efficient market for public goods, but rather because Americans believed in a God who championed the poor and downtrodden, who could not help but hear the cry of the widowed and fatherless. It is possible that an enlightened but non-religious view of the rights of man, on the French model, might produce the same political result, but no sane person would want to repeat the political experience of France.

I do not propose that the Chinese must become Congregationalists before they can practice democracy. But political faith presumes a deeper sort of faith in the inherent worth of the humblest of one's fellow-citizens.

SCREW 'EM, I GOT MINE:

My Speech at the Antiwar Rally (Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., September 26, 2005, Mises.org)

I was invited to speak at a peace march and rally in Birmingham, Alabama, sponsored by the Alabama Peace and Justice Coalition, and gladly accepted the offer to speak against the war in Iraq.

Yes, as you might guess, the program was dominated by leftists who rightly oppose the war but want big government to run the economy. I accepted for the same reason I would accept an engagement to speak against taxes even if sponsored by a right-wing group that also favored the war and militarism.

The opportunity to make a difference in favor of freedom should not be passed up, even if one's associates have a mixed-up ideology. After all, most ideologies these days are mixed up, and have been for the better part of a century.

Those who want free markets domestically typically want central planning and socialism when it comes to war and peace, while those who see the merit of diplomacy and minding one's own business in foreign policy can't reconcile themselves to capitalism as the only economic system that lets people alone to live happy, prosperous lives.

SOME THINGS EVEN A EURO WON'T SIT STILL FOR (via Matt Scofield):

ran defiant in face of IAEA criticism over nuclear stance (Daniel Dombey in Brussels and Gareth Smyth in Tehran, September 26 2005, Financial Times)

On Friday, European ambassadors walked out from a military parade in Tehran where missiles bore anti-US slogans.

THEY ARE WHO THEY THINK WE ARE:

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries (Katrina Tweedie, 9/19/05, Times of London)

A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America.

England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest. [...]

Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years and levels, per head of population, are now comparable with cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Tbilisi.

The attacks have been fuelled by a “booze and blades” culture in the west of Scotland which has claimed more than 160 lives over the past five years.

HOW CAN THERE BE A PERFECT GOD IN A POSTLAPSARIAN WORLD?:

Is God Omnipotent?: Surprising answers from the world's religions. (Deborah Caldwell, BeliefNet)

If God is all-powerful, why did he allow Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? Or the Asian tsunami? Or September 11? Or the Holocaust? Or bubonic plague?

Whenever incomprehensible, seemingly random tragedy affects us, we humans try to make sense of it--which is why, as we deal with the wreckage of Katrina and Rita, we ask about God's role. We wonder: If God is all-powerful, couldn't he have prevented the hurricanes? But since he didn’t prevent them, what kind of vindictive God is that? (And who wants such a God?

Then the next thought swirls to the surface: If God isn’t inherently cruel, is it possible He isn’t actually omnipotent?

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

COUNTRY WITHOUT A CLUE:

Spain: A country falling apart (Carlos Alberto Montaner, Firmas Press)

While Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero tries to unify the planet with a fanciful dialogue of civilizations, Spain crumbles dangerously before his frozen indifference.

The two most evident, most immediate fragments are Catalonia and the Basque provinces, the nation's most developed regions. But the centrifugal spasms won't end there, of course. Eventually, once regionalism strengthens, separatist tendencies will increase noticeably in Galicia and the Canary Islands. [...]

Spain, after all, is an abstraction. The country even lacks myths, historical heroes and shared symbols. That was a rightist vision that vanished after Franco's death. There isn't even a clear consensus on the national flag and coat of arms.

That explains the general prevalence among pro-Spain advocates -- the españolistas -- to be as indifferent and hold the same values (small and sweetly homespun) as people in the regions.

What's really important is one's salary, one's car, or the party with friends to watch a game of soccer. The militant españolistas who can quote Miguel de Unamuno's statement that ''Spain hurts me'' don't exceed 20 to 30 percent of the census.

Can this growing process of rupture be halted, or at least be substantially slowed down? Realistically speaking, it is unlikely. It might, if the two major parties, Socialist and Popular, forge a pact to defend the Spanish state. But Zapatero's Socialists prefer to govern with the support of regional separatists, even if they have to surrender increasing chunks of authority. They are even willing to reach secret accords with ETA (Basque) terrorists, rather than move closer to their right-of-center adversaries to buttress the central government.

It seems, therefore, that the political landscape in Spain has entered a critical period that could lead to a truly dangerous alternative: (1) Some regions invoke the right to self-determination, break away from the state and set up their own tents. Or, (2) the government is redesigned into a model where the central power barely retains a symbolic value, with no duties other than printing postage stamps and entertaining foreign ambassadores assigned to Madrid.

MORE:
Zapatero's Spain: Spain's problem with terrorism is Europe's: It does not want to defend itself ( Christopher Caldwell, 05/10/2004, Weekly Standard)

LESS THAN THREE DECADES after the end of Francisco Franco's dictatorship, Spaniards are cautious about saying anything against the democratic process--or even against the results of a particular election. Most in the intellectual and political classes are reluctant to say that al Qaeda terrorism wrested a near-certain electoral victory from the party that al Qaeda hoped would lose, and handed power to the antiwar party that al Qaeda (at least according to its "strategy" document, which was intercepted on the Internet by Norwegian authorities) hoped would win. But this Spanish circumspection, admirable in many ways, has produced a chain reaction of self-interested self-deception: And from there it is only a short step to saying that Spain has no continuing problem with terrorism at all.

The Popular party would have won. It did better in absentee ballots this year--those sent by mail before the March 11 explosions--than in the 2000 landslide that gave it an absolute majority. In the days before this year's election, two prominent Socialists, the charismatic Castilian governor José Bono (whom Zapatero would name defense minister) and European Union foreign-policy chief Javier Solana, were jockeying for support as candidates for the PSOE leadership after Zapatero's inevitable loss. A balanced view was given by the longtime president of Catalonia, Jordi Pujol, whose Convergencia i Unió party backs neither the governing coalition nor the Popular party opposition. "Let us be clear about this," Pujol said in his office in Barcelona in mid-April. "The victory is legitimate. That cannot be discussed. But without the bombing, the other party probably would have won. March 14 was a legitimate victory but it was also a victory for terrorists."

The best indication of the PSOE's slim prospects going into the election was Zapatero himself. He was the kind of candidate a party runs when it has slim hopes of victory. (Similarly the Popular party's candidate, Mariano Rajoy, was a complaisant, bipartisan fellow, meant to bring the country together after eight years of polarizing rule by Aznar.) Zapatero's investiture speech on April 17 proposed a range of boilerplate center-left reforms that Spain somehow got through the 1990s without (handicapped access, gay marriage) and then proposed giving Spain a few things that it already had (secular education and a law on violence against women). Zapatero nominated a record eight female ministers, called for the advancement of women through an equal rights commission, and promised a "new politics of water." This was a bric-a-brac agenda, the kind of governing proposal a European president would call for if he hadn't expected to have to propose one at all.

With one exception. Zapatero had wooed the nearly 90 percent of Spaniards who opposed their country's participation in the Iraq war. He had promised to bring Spain's troops back from their bases near Najaf unless the U.N. took over operations in Iraq. Now he decided not to run the risk that the U.N. might actually do so. In his first act after taking office, he ordered the troops home. When the opposition asked for a parliamentary debate, he scheduled one for after the troops' return. While the act enraged the United States and the Popular party opposition, Zapatero had already paid that price and would have been crazy (in domestic political terms) to do anything else. When, during the investiture debate, a Progressive party deputy asked him, "Can you explain, once and for all, what you want?" he replied simply: "To take Spain out of the Azores photo, take Spain out of the illegal and unjust war that took place."

THE PHOTO IN QUESTION shows Aznar with George Bush and Tony Blair at the meeting Aznar hosted in the Azores on the eve of the Iraq war. The Spanish often talk of it as Americans do of the photo taken of Michael Dukakis in a tank during the 1988 presidential campaign: as a moment when a man with big pretensions steps into a situation in which his surroundings reveal him as too small for the job. But that was wrong. One didn't have to like the Spanish role in Iraq. But there was nothing preposterous about it.

Aznar is said to distinguish privately between politicians who are serious and those who are simpático, simpático being a synonym for unserious. In eight years in office, he had turned Spain from an unserious country into a serious one, in a way that was most obvious in his handling of the economy. Aznar broke the power of unions, froze the salaries of functionaries, privatized dozens of state enterprises, and won the intellectual argument that lowering taxes was sometimes more responsible than raising them. He entered office in 1996 with unemployment at 22 percent and cut it in half. Half the jobs created in Europe since 1996 have been created in Spain. After the dot-com bust, Spain never dipped into negative growth as other European countries did--and Spain is still growing at twice the European rate. Aznar's hopes of joining the G-8 group of major economies sounded absurd when he took office; now it seems absurd that Canada should have that honor and Spain not. It is true that Aznar received the free gift of monetary stability from the establishment of the Euro; but fiscal stability came from his living up to the E.U. stability-and-growth pact (unlike France and Germany) and balancing his country's budget every year. Zapatero has promised not to change economic course, and chose as his economics minister the highly respected Pedro Solbes, for five years the E.U. economics minister in Brussels, who is unlikely to favor such a change.

In this economic climate, Spaniards began to tell pollsters they were more comfortable with a larger role for Spain on the world stage. In Aznar's view, this meant shifting Spain's allegiances from France and Germany to the United States. Aznar drew benefits for Spain from this partnership. U.S. assistance helped the government deal a serious blow to the Basque terrorist group ETA (presumably through communications intercepts). And it was the United States that mediated an end to the Moroccan army's seizure of the Spanish island of Perejil in July 2002, when Spain's E.U. partners, particularly France and Greece, then just starting its six-month term in the E.U. presidency, proved reluctant to alienate the new Moroccan king.

The idea that Aznar's foreign policy was an aberrant personal enthusiasm that could somehow be excised from the rest of his achievements was never true. But that foreign policy cut against other countries' obsession with building the E.U.--and against the grain of what Spain's intellectual elite considers the country's national identity. Spain's experience of right-wing dictatorship has made it a reflexively center-left country--and it is almost certainly the most anti-American country in Western Europe. Spain has reactionaries who resent Theodore Roosevelt for robbing it of its empire in 1898. It has anti-anti-Communists who fault President Eisenhower for propping up Franco in exchange for military bases in the 1953 Pact of Madrid. It has democracy activists who fault the month-old Reagan administration for sitting idly by on February 23, 1981, when army officers sought to topple Spain's new democracy in a coup d'état. (It is to "23-F," as the day is called, that all Spaniards repair when an argument turns to democracy in Iraq.) The Socialist Felipe González won the presidency the following year on an anti-American platform and ruled for a decade and a half. As one former PSOE cabinet member said in an interview, "Our experience of America is like Italy's experience of America turned inside out."

So as Aznar drew closer to the United States, he was vulnerable to the accusation that he was reverting to an "older idea of Spain"--a franquista one.

WOMEN IN BLACK:

Chick List: A look at the women who may replace Justice O'Connor. (MELANIE KIRKPATRICK, September 25, 2005, Opinion Journal)

[T]he feminine Big Four are Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Alice Batchelder, all appeals-court judges. Each is a judicial conservative of intellectual heft and with more experience on the bench than Judge Roberts. None, however, is as bulletproof as Judge Roberts, who managed to pursue a 25-year career in law without leaving much of a public record of his views on hot-button issues. [...]

[Judge Jones] has said and written numerous things that could be used to attack her on ideological grounds. She's particularly vulnerable on Roe v. Wade, which she has called an "exercise in raw judicial power." In a concurring opinion in McCorvey v. Hill last year, a case involving the original defendant in Roe, she wrote of the court's "willful blindness to evolving knowledge" and suggested that Roe be reconsidered in light of modern scientific evidence on the viability of fetuses and the effects of abortion on the health of women.

If anything, Judge Brown is even more outspoken. She once referred to colleagues on the California Supreme Court as "philosopher kings" when it overturned a law requiring parental consent for minors who wanted abortions. She's an advocate for property rights, and she's called big government "the opiate of the masses" and the "drug of choice" for many segments of society. In 2000, she wrote the opinion affirming Proposition 209, which banned racial and sex preferences in state hiring and contracting.

Her credentials aren't as impressive as Judge Jones's, and she might be too libertarian for Mr. Bush. But if nominated, her personal story would complicate matters for liberal interest groups. The NAACP would have to decide whether to oppose the confirmation of a daughter of a sharecropper from Alabama. She was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit earlier this year as part of the filibuster-ending deal in the Senate.

Judge Owen was part of the same pact and now sits on the Fifth Circuit. Before that, she was a judge on the Supreme Court of Texas, where she upheld a parental-notification law and was supposedly accused of judicial activism by Alberto Gonzales. He says his comment was misinterpreted, but that won't stop the left from using it against her. Those who say the mild-mannered Sunday school teacher might not be up for a fight forget she just endured a four-year battle for her appeals-court job.

Finally, there's Judge Batchelder, who's been called a Midwestern Edith Jones. Reagan appointed her to the federal bench in Ohio, and the first President Bush named her to the Sixth Circuit in 1991. She has voted to uphold Ohio's ban on partial-birth abortion, strike down the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program and allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a courtroom. Her husband served 30 years in the Ohio statehouse, which means she understands politics. A downside is that, at 61, she's somewhat older than the competition.

THERE'S MORE ROOM AT THE TABLE:

Rouson takes the Republican plunge (St. Petersburg Times, September 25, 2005)

He's been courted by the likes of Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist and legions of Tampa Bay Republican activists. Last week, Darryl Rouson, the never dull former president of the St. Petersburg NAACP, took the plunge and became a Republican.

"It's our heritage, and it can be our legacy," said Rouson, invoking past Republicans including Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver and Frederick Douglass. "I know it's not a very popular thing among a lot of African-Americans, but I just believe we should be at every table and speak the truth."

The St. Petersburg lawyer and vocal antidrug crusader had already widely been seen as a closet Republican, but he was registered with no party affiliation.

THANK YOU, INDIANS:

It's All Tied Up Approaching the Wire (JOE LAPOINTE, 9/25/05, NY Times)

At the beginning of yesterday's game against the Toronto Blue Jays at Yankee Stadium, Jaret Wright gave up a single to right field, a single to left field, a single to center field and a single in the infield to fall behind by a run.

What else could go wrong? Oh, plenty of things, and they added up to a 7-4 Toronto victory that ended the Yankees' winning streak at five games and left them tied with the Boston Red Sox in the American League East. [...]

The Yankees, who have won 11 of their last 13 games, will finish their home schedule today against Toronto before ending their season with a four-game trip to Baltimore and a three-game visit to Boston.

MORE:
Down the stretch they come (KEVIN BAXTER, 9/25/05, Miami Herald)

[T]he three division races and the wild-card competition in the American League are almost certain to go down to the final weekend, perhaps to the final pitch. And thanks to either a stroke of genius or a stroke of good luck -- or maybe a little of both -- all four playoff teams will have to beat their nearest rivals face-to-face before they can advance.

The Chicago White Sox, who went into the weekend leading the Indians in the Central by 1 ½ games, will finish the season with three games in Cleveland. And the Yankees, who were leading the Red Sox by a game in the East on Friday, will be in Boston next weekend.

The race in the West could be over by then because Los Angeles, which started Friday three games up on the reeling Athletics, start a make-or-break four-game series in Oakland on Monday.

This is the way the final week should be -- but rarely is, even with the additional suspense of the wild card. In fact, this could mark the first time since the advent of three-division play that the American League has entered the final weekend with more than one championship truly undecided. So after six months, it has come down to this:

RED SOX-YANKEES

These two teams have finished 1-2 in the East every year since 1997, and they're certain to do so again this fall. But whichever one finishes second this year -- and in each of the past seven seasons, that has been the Red Sox -- is almost certain to get an early start on winter....

DECLINIST, NOT TRIUMPHALIST:

Capitalism vs. Democracy: We often assume they go hand in hand, but recent elections in Japan and Germany provide a sobering reminder that there are deep conflicts. (Robert J. Samuelson, 9/25/05, Newsweek)

The recent German and Japanese elections deserve more attention than they've got because they illustrate the uneasy relationship between capitalism and democracy. Capitalism thrives on change—it inspires new technologies, products and profit opportunities. Democracy resists change—it creates powerful constituencies with a stake in the status quo.

Capitalism (by which I mean an economic system that relies heavily on markets and private ownership) and democracy need each other. The one generates rising living standards; the other cushions capitalism's injustices and, thereby, anchors public support. But this mutual dependence is tricky because if democratic prerogatives are overused, they may strangle capitalism.

KNOW YOUR ENEMY:

Antiwar Rallies in Washington and Other Cities (MICHAEL JANOFSKY, 9/25/05, NY Times)

Vast numbers of protesters from around the country poured onto the lawns behind the White House on Saturday to demonstrate their opposition to the war in Iraq, pointedly directing their anger at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

WHEN THE TEACHER BRINGS THE APPLES:

Hong Kong Democracy Advocates Visit China (KEITH BRADSHER, 9/25/05, NY Times)

Hong Kong’s chief executive led all but one member of the city’s legislature across the border to mainland China today, starting a two-day trip that marks the first time Beijing authorities have let in prominent Hong Kong advocates of democracy since the Tiananmen Square killings on July 4, 1989.

The trip marks the latest in a series of steps by the Chinese government to tamp down calls for greater democracy here. Democracy advocates have long criticized Beijing, but agreed to the trip today and Monday without conditions. [...]

Leung Kwok-hung, a lawmaker and longtime leftist radical better known in English and Chinese as Long Hair because his hair hangs down to the middle of his back, brought along a large, bright purple gift basket lined with aluminum foil inside and holding five red apples. The apples were to symbolize the exclusion from the trip of journalists from Apple Daily, a pro-democracy newspaper here whose journalists have been banned from the mainland for years.

In an interview here just before boarding the bus, Mr. Leung said that he also planned to hand Zhang Dejiang, the powerful Communist Party secretary of Guangdong province, a letter addressed to Vice President Zeng Qinghong of China. The letter would call for China to come clean about what happened in Tiananmen Square and would ask that China stop interfering in Hong Kong politics, Mr. Leung said.

[The Associated Press reported Sunday evening from Guangzhou that security officers led Mr. Leung away from a meeting room just before the lawmakers were to meet Mr. Zhang. Mr. Leung looked stern, and neither he nor the security officers said why he was being led away, The A.P. said.]

Nervous about possible pro-democracy protests by some lawmakers during the trip, Chinese authorities tightly limited news media coverage. Hong Kong officials disclosed on Friday that only a handful of television camera operators and photographers would be to enter most of the sightseeing locations visited by the lawmakers, and no reporters, who would have listen to soundtracks recorded by the camera operators.

MORE:
Taiwan author gets a bit too free with his speeches (Robert Marquand, 9/26/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

A leading writer and political maverick from Taipei who ardently supports the unification of China and Taiwan - is confounding authorities in a rampaging lecture tour that ends Monday, by doing something no one here ever does: criticize the Communist Party in public.

In truth, Li Ao, a TV personality, leftist, and prolific author who was born in northern China, attacked the US, Japan, and nearly everything but the moon in rambling speeches that have embarrassed official China.

Mr. Li's broadsides chided the Party for a lack of intellectual freedom in China, told how the early Party allowed feisty debates, and included quotes from Mao about the Party one day ending - all broadcast live on Hong Kong's Phoenix TV, which reaches millions on the mainland.

Such events here are rare.

More broadly, experts say, the improbable Li event underscores how frigid the political climate in China has become.

As the government of Hu Jintao continues to consolidate its power in preparation for a key Party plenum next month, there is little room for the type of debate Li advocates.

If the negative official response is an indicator, Li's speeches were also a surprise.

GRANTS, NOT LOANS:

IMF committee backs debt erasure (BBC, 9/25/05)

A deal by the world's richest states to erase debt of up to $55bn (£31bn) owed by the poorest has been backed by one of the main international lenders.

The International Monetary Fund's panel said in Washington it had approved all elements of the deal, which now goes to its twin institution, the World Bank.

Leaders of the G8 industrialised states proposed the move at the UK-chaired summit in Gleneagles, Scotland in July. [...]

The World Bank and IMF meetings are the first Paul Wolfowitz is attending as head of the World Bank since taking up the post in June.

The former deputy US defence secretary has called for increased development aid to lift millions of people out of poverty.

COUNTRIES TO BENEFIT

Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

YET THEY NEVER LOSE A VOTE:

Next Court Nominee May Face Challenges From G.O.P. (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 9/25/05, NY Times)

[B]oth socially conservative and more liberal Republican senators say they may vote against confirmation of the next nominee if the pick leans too far to the left or the right on prominent issues like abortion rights.

GROAN AND BEAR IT (via Ali Choudhury):

Intelligent design theory + postmodernism = pure science fiction: When the religious Right adopts the epistemology of the multicultural Left -- that truth is relative -- there goes the Enlightenment (Noam Scheiber, 29aug05, The Australian)

IN 1993, journalist Jonathan Rauch published a book called Kindly Inquisitors, in which he catalogued contemporary threats to the Enlightenment tradition of seeking truth through logical or empirical discourse.

One of Rauch's points was that, while this (classical) liberal system for amassing knowledge appeared to be under attack from both the religious Right and the multicultural Left, in fact the two groups were making a version of the same argument: mainstream science didn't accord their beliefs the respect they deserved, whether it was creation science on the one hand or feminist or Afro-centric science on the other.

Rauch's book has held up remarkably well in the 12 years since it was published.

This is particularly so in light of the debate in the US over intelligent design (ID) -- the idea, popular on the Right, that life is too complex to have resulted from random variation. Even US President George W. Bush has suggested, as the creation scientists (and multiculturalists) of the 1980s and 1990s did before him, that both sides of the supposed debate be treated as legitimate in public school curricula.

But there was one thing Rauch didn't anticipate. At the time, he suggested that even though creationists had adopted the tactics of the academic Left -- the demand for equal time -- they still believed in objective truths. They just didn't think all of these truths were discoverable by science.

By contrast, today's IDers have gone further and adopted the epistemology of the Left -- the idea that ostensibly scientific truths may be relative.

Just because science is necessarily relativistic and merely metaphorical does not mean that there is no objective Truth about Creation, nor that it is unknown to us. It's just Revealed, rather than Rational.

NO WONDER THE LEFT THINKS HE'S A GOD:

Katrina's harsh lessons make Bush all the wiser (Bill Sammon, 9/25/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Last night, the president issued a statement declaring major disasters in Louisiana and Texas.

The declaration makes both states, local governments and some private nonprofit groups eligible for federal assistance, including grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other disaster relief.

In Washington, officials said Rita, which made landfall near the Texas-Louisiana state line around 3 a.m. yesterday, was not nearly as devastating as Katrina, which struck Louisiana and Mississippi on Aug. 29.

"The damage is not as serious as we had expected it to be," R. David Paulison, acting director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, told reporters. "The evacuations worked."

WILL BEING LESS SETTLED REALLY MAKE YOU MORE FORWARD LOOKING?:

Is It Better to Buy or Rent? (DAVID LEONHARDT, September 25, 2005, NY Times)

THE thought has occurred to just about everybody who owns a home in a hot housing market: maybe it's time to cash out.

The hard part is figuring out how to do so. Only a few families can actually pick up their life in, say, California and move it to Nebraska. The other option - renting - has long been derided as the equivalent of throwing money away.

But renting might deserve another look right now. After five years in which rents have barely budged while house prices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and elsewhere have doubled, renting has become a surprisingly smart option for many people who never would have considered it before.

Owning a home often ties up hundreds of thousands of dollars that might be invested more safely and more lucratively elsewhere over the next decade. And while real estate brokers may hate to acknowledge it, home ownership involves its own versions of throwing money away, like property taxes and the costs of borrowing.

Add it all up - which The New York Times did, in an analysis of the major costs and benefits of owning and renting, including tax breaks - and owning a home today is more expensive than renting in much of the Northeast, Florida and California. Only if prices rise well above their already lofty levels will home ownership turn out to be the good deal that it is widely assumed to be.

In the Bay Area of California, a typical family that buys a $1 million house - which is average in some towns - will spend about $5,000 a month to live there, according to the Times analysis. The family could rent a similar house for about $2,500, real estate records show, and could pay part of that bill with the interest earned by the money that was not used for a down payment.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY EQUUS CABALLUS

Record haul of 20,000 new species expected (Robin McKie and Zoe Corbyn, The Observer, September 25, 2005)

Wildlife on Earth has never looked so bountiful. Scientists believe that 2005 could be a record year for the discovery of new creatures.

A total of 20,000 new species, from beetles to dolphins, and from monkeys to birds, are expected to be uncovered by zoologists.

'The world may seem to get smaller, but we are finding more and more new animals on it every year,' said Andrew Polaszek, executive secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 'We could see a record haul in 2005.'

This year's discoveries include a new species of macaque monkey, Macaca munzala, in India and a new species of mangabey monkey in Tanzania. Other recent discoveries have included the Vietnamese striped rabbit, pinpointed from samples being sold in a local fair, and the discovery of a complete new species of extinct human being, Homo floresiensis - the so-called Hobbit people - in Indonesia.

spe-cies n. pl. species

Biology: A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

When evolutionary biologists remind us how science is self-correcting, few of us suspect they mean they correct the language to substantiate their theories.

RUBE GOLDBERG RECONSTRUCTION:

Rebuilding plan paving way for conservative goals (Rick Klein, September 25, 2005, Boston Globe)

Republican lawmakers in Congress have tried repeatedly in recent years to allow children to use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools. They have been defeated seven times since 1998.

At least nine times in the past decade, Republicans sought to repeal or undermine a Depression-era law that requires federal contractors to pay the ''prevailing wage" in the region they are working in. None of the efforts succeeded.

But now the GOP is poised to realize both of those goals. President Bush's reconstruction package for the Gulf Coast region devastated by Hurricane Katrina includes nearly $500 million for vouchers that children can use at private schools anywhere in the nation. And Bush declared a ''national emergency" to waive the prevailing wage law during the cleanup, freeing contractors to pay construction workers as little as the minimum wage, rather than the $8 to $10 prevailing wages in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

As the federal government's response to Katrina takes shape, the White House and Congress are enacting or seeking to pass a wide range of policies that have been consistently rejected by Congress, despite Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

BTW: If Andrew Moore and ted welter could e-mail me I'll send your books.

MORE:
Liberals and Conservatives Hitch Wagons to Recovery (Ronald Brownstein, September 25, 2005, LA Times)

Both Democrats and Republicans increasingly view the battered landscape of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as a giant laboratory for testing their competing domestic policy agendas.

Politicians and policy advocates across the ideological spectrum — John Edwards and Newt Gingrich, the Sierra Club and the Wall Street Journal editorial page — are trying to jump-start new ideas, and revive old ones, by linking them to the massive post-Katrina reconstruction.

For Republicans, the proposals include initiatives such as tax cuts for business, education aid that would follow students to private schools and the relaxation of federal environmental regulations.

For Democrats, the priorities include expanded housing assistance for the needy, more generous income support for the working poor and new efforts to promote renewable energy and mass transit.

What both sides share is that they see the massive reconstruction as a way to demonstrate the value of programs they hope will be adopted nationwide.

"It is once in a generation that an opportunity like this comes along, where the status quo is called into question and where the policy community and Congress can look at it, change it and improve it," said Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Given how hard it is to change that status quo … every policy organization, every think-tanker, every ex-Cabinet officer is going to have a vision, and even a plan, of what we should be doing."

"YOU'RE KILLING US":

Party of choice?: How pro-choice groups are hurting the Democrats- -- and their own cause (Amy Sullivan, September 25, 2005, Boston Globe)

[M]omentum may be shifting back to the pro-choice side. Their unlikely hero is the pro-life Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has won support for a strategy to lower abortion rates by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. But abortion rights groups are blowing this opportunity, using inflammatory rhetoric that alienates moderates and imposing a litmus test on the political party that is, for the foreseeable future, the one most closely aligned with their interests.

According to a recent analysis by the centrist organization Third Way, a consistent 62 percent of voters are what Third Way calls ''Abortion Grays"--people who don't want abortion to be illegal, but who would like fewer abortions to take place. These voters have cast their lot with Republicans in the last three presidential elections, but could be recaptured by an effort that promised to make abortions rare, as Bill Clinton famously put it.

Reid has introduced legislation he calls ''Prevention First," which aims to reduce unwanted pregnancies by improving access to birth control and making it more affordable. The approach is far from new--choice groups have promoted it themselves for years. It provides a lifeline to Democrats, who finally have a win-win issue. If Republicans oppose it, they risk being labeled extremists; if they support it, and it passes, Democrats can rightly claim to have done more to cut abortion rates than their political opponents.

And yet, as the ad against Roberts showed, abortion rights groups have the impressive ability to marginalize themselves in the public debate even when they represent a majority position.

WHY NOT JUST BUY A PACK OF SEA MONKEYS?:

Women bypass sex in favour of 'instant pregnancies' (Charlotte Edwardes and Andrew Alderson, 25/09/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Women are increasingly seeking inappropriate IVF treatment because they do not have the time or inclination for a sex life and want to "diarise" their busy lives.

Wealthy career women in their 30s and early 40s, some of whom have given up regular sex altogether, are turning to "medicalised conception" - despite being fertile and long before they have exhausted the possibility of a natural conception.

They are prepared to pay thousands of pounds for private IVF treatments - even though they have unpleasant and potentially harmful side effects - because they believe it offers them the best chance of "instant" pregnancy.

STILL THE SAME OLD STORY:

Reading From Left to Right (A. O. SCOTT, 9/25/05, NY Times)

Hunting for ideological subtexts in Hollywood movies is a critical parlor game. Many a term paper has been written decoding the varieties of cold war paranoia latent in the westerns and science-fiction movies of the 1950's. Now, thanks to the culture wars and the Internet, the game of ideological unmasking is one that more and more people are playing. With increasing frequency, the ideology they are uncovering is conservative, and it seems to spring less from the cultural unconscious than from careful premeditation.

Last fall, "The Incredibles" celebrated Ayn Randian libertarian individualism and the suburban nuclear family, while the naughty puppets of "Team America" satirized left-wing celebrity activism and defended American global power even as they mocked its excesses. More recently we have learned that flightless Antarctic birds, according to some fans of "March of the Penguins," can be seen as big-screen embodiments of the kind of traditional domestic values that back-sliding humans have all but abandoned, as well as proof that divine intention, rather than blind chance, is the engine of creation. I may be the only person who thought "The Island," this summer's Michael Bay flop about human clones bred for commercial use, indirectly argues the Bush administration's position on stem cell research, but I have not been alone in discerning lessons on intelligent design and other faith-based matters amid the spooky effects of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." That movie, by the way, came in a close second behind "Just Like Heaven" at the box office last week, following an initial weekend in which it earned more than $30 million, one of the strongest September openings ever.

The objection to such message-hunting, whether it seeks hidden agendas of the left or the right, and whether it applauds or scorns those agendas, is always the same: it's only a movie. And what is so fascinating about "Just Like Heaven" is that it is, very emphatically, only a movie, the kind of fluffy diversion that viewers seek out on first dates or after a stressful work week. Its central couple - Ms. Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo - meet cute in a gorgeous apartment to which both lay claim. Their blossoming romance faces the usual obstacles, as well as some that are not so usual. For one thing, they can't stand each other; for another, one of them is a disembodied spirit visible only to her unwilling roommate.

So far, no obvious Republican Party talking points. This is not a movie that, at least at first, wears its politics on its sleeve. It takes place in San Francisco, perhaps the bluest city in one of the bluer states in the union, in a milieu of entitled urban professionals. Mr. Ruffalo, sad, scruffy and sweet as ever, brings a decided alt-culture vibe with him wherever he goes. With his dark, baggy sweaters and his slow, tentative line readings, he represents a new movie type decidedly at odds with the norms of movie masculinity: the shy, passive urban hipster as romantic ideal.

But a movie that looks at first like a soft, supernatural variation on the urban singleton themes of "Sex and the City," by the end comes to seem like a belated brief in the Terri Schiavo case. (If you insist on being surprised by the plot of "Just Like Heaven," it might be best to stop reading now). Elizabeth, as it happens, is not dead, but rather in a coma from which she is given little chance of awakening. To make matters worse - and to set up a madcap climax in which Donal Logue rescues the film's faltering sense of humor - she has signed a living will, which her loving sister, urged on by an unprincipled doctor, is determined to enforce. But Elizabeth's spirit, along with Mr. Ruffalo's character, David, has second thoughts because she is so obviously alive, and the two must race to prevent the plug from being pulled, which means running through hospital corridors pushing a comatose patient on a gurney.

Would I have been happier if Elizabeth died? The very absurdity of the question - what kind of romantic comedy would that be? - is evidence of the film's ingenuity. Who could possibly take the side of medical judgment when love, family, supernatural forces and the very laws of genre are on the other side? And who would bother to notice that the villainous, materialistic doctor, despite having the religiously neutral last name Rushton, is played by Ben Shenkman, a bit of casting that suggests a faint, deniable whiff of anti-Semitism? Similarly, it can't mean much that Elizabeth, the ambitious career woman, is sad and unfulfilled in contrast to her married, stay-at-home-mom sister. Or that the last word you hear (uttered by Jon Heder, first seen in "Napoleon Dynamite") is "righteous."

SOLIDARITY:

Shiite Leader Urges 'Yes' In Vote on Iraq Charter (Associated Press, September 25, 2005)

The leader of Iraq's largest Shiite Muslim political organization joined the country's most revered and powerful Shiite cleric Saturday in a strong public push for voter support of a new constitution, three weeks ahead of a national referendum.

"It is our religious duty to say 'yes' to the constitution and to go to the ballot boxes," Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told more than 2,000 supporters gathered in Baghdad to mark a 1991 Shiite uprising that was crushed brutally by President Saddam Hussein.

The appeal added a key voice of support two days after Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani also directed followers to back the charter. Shiite solidarity is essential if the constitution is to pass in the Oct. 15 vote. If two-thirds of voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces reject the document, a new government must be formed and the process of writing the constitution started over.

Minority Sunni Arabs are dominant in four provinces and could defeat the new charter. On Saturday, Sunni clerics and tribal leaders expressed optimism they could do just that.

I AM:

Noah Riner ‘06 Welcomes Class of ‘09 (Noah Riner, September 20, 2005, Dartmouth College Convocation)

You’ve been told that you are a special class. A quick look at the statistics confirms that claim: quite simply, you are the smartest and most diverse group of freshmen to set foot on the Dartmouth campus. You have more potential than all of the other classes. You really are special.

But it isn’t enough to be special. It isn’t enough to be talented, to be beautiful, to be smart. Generations of amazing students have come before you, and have sat in your seats. Some have been good, some have been bad. All have been special.

In fact, there’s quite a long list of very special, very corrupt people who have graduated from Dartmouth. William Walter Remington, Class of 1939, started out as a Boy Scout and a choirboy and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He ended up as a Soviet spy, was convicted of perjury and beaten to death in prison.

Daniel Mason ‘93 was just about to graduate from Boston Medical School when he shot two men – killing one – after a parking dispute.

Just a few weeks ago, I read in the D about PJ Halas, Class of 1998. His great uncle George founded the Chicago Bears, and PJ lived up to the family name, co-captaining the basketball team his senior year at Dartmouth and coaching at a high school team following graduation. He was also a history teacher, and, this summer, he was arrested for sexually assualting a 15-year-old student.

These stories demonstrate that it takes more than a Dartmouth degree to build character.

As former Dartmouth President John Sloan Dickey said, at Dartmouth our business is learning. And I’ll have to agree with the motto of Faber College, featured in the movie Animal House, “Knowledge is Good.” But if all we get from this place is knowledge, we’ve missed something. There’s one subject that you won’t learn about in class, one topic that orientation didn’t cover, and that your UGA won’t mention: character.

What is the purpose of our education? Why are we at Dartmouth?

Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

“But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society…. We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”

We hear very little about character in our classrooms, yet, as Dr. King suggests, the real problem in the world is not a lack of education.

For example, in the past few weeks we’ve seen some pretty revealing things happening on the Gulf Coast in the wake of hurricane Katrina. We’ve seen acts of selfless heroism and millions around the country have united to help the refugees.

On the other hand, we’ve been disgusted by the looting, violence, and raping that took place even in the supposed refuge areas. In a time of crisis and death, people were paddling around in rafts, stealing TV’s and VCR’s. How could Americans go so low?

My purpose in mentioning the horrible things done by certain people on the Gulf Coast isn’t to condemn just them; rather it’s to condemn all of us. Supposedly, character is what you do when no one is looking, but I’m afraid to say all the things I’ve done when no one was looking. Cheating, stealing, lusting, you name it - How different are we? It’s easy to say that we’ve never gone that far: never stolen that much; never lusted so much that we’d rape; and the people we’ve cheated, they were rich anyway.

Let’s be honest, the differences are in degree. We have the same flaws as the individuals who pillaged New Orleans. Ours haven’t been given such free range, but they exist and are part of us all the same.

The Times of London once asked readers for comments on what was wrong with the world. British author, G. K. Chesterton responded simply: “Dear Sir, I am.”

Not many of us have the same clarity that Chesterton had. Just days after Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the Gulf Coast, politicians and pundits were distributing more blame than aid. It’s so easy to see the faults of others, but so difficult to see our own. In the words of Cassius in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “the fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves.”

Character has a lot to do with sacrifice, laying our personal interests down for something bigger. The best example of this is Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsemane, just hours before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” He knew the right thing to do. He knew the cost would be agonizing torture and death. He did it anyway. That’s character.

Jesus is a good example of character, but He’s also much more than that. He is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums, looters, and me.

It’s so easy to focus on the defects of others and ignore my own. But I need saving as much as they do.

Jesus’ message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for us.

In the words of Bono:

[I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s—- and everybody else’s. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that’s the question.

You want the best undergraduate education in the world, and you’ve come to the right place to get that. But there’s more to college than achievement. With Martin Luther King, we must dream of a nation – and a college – where people are not judged by the superficial, “but by the content of their character.”

Thus, as you begin your four years here, you’ve got to come to some conclusions about your own character because you won’t get it by just going to class. What is the content of your character? Who are you? And how will you become what you need to be?

CAN MARY KATE AND ASHLEY BE FAR BEHIND?:

In Poland, Twins Shoot for Moon: Siblings Run in Pair of National Elections (Craig Whitlock, 9/25/05, Washington Post)

When they were kids, the Kaczynski twins were a pair of tricksters. Friends could barely tell them apart, let alone teachers. Jaroslaw, the older by 45 minutes, would take science tests for his brother, Lech, who would return the favor on language exams.

Today, the Kaczynski brothers are teaming up again, this time in a bid to take over the Polish government. Lech is running for president on Oct. 9. Jaroslaw is mounting a separate campaign to become prime minister in parliamentary elections Sunday.

The brothers' Law and Justice party, of which Jaroslaw Kaczynski is chairman, is locked in a dead heat with its chief rival, the Civic Platform, for control of Parliament, opinion surveys show. Lech Kaczynski, the mayor of Warsaw, is trailing in the presidential contest by a margin of several points, according to recent polls. But analysts say both contests remain highly volatile and that there is a real chance the twins could gain joint control of the country.

The Kaczynskis' chubby faces have been a familiar sight in Poland since 1962, when as 12-year-old actors they hit it big in the movies, playing identical twins in the classic Polish children's movie "Those Two Who Would Steal the Moon."

They returned to prominence in the 1980s, playing key roles in the Solidarity trade union movement that helped end communism in Poland, and have remained active in national politics since then.

LEADING US BACK HOME:

What Yale women want (Karen Stabiner, September 23, 2005, LA Times)

IF THE LAST generation of women obsessed about cracking the glass ceiling, a new crop of college undergrads seems less interested in the professional stratosphere than in a soft — a cushy — landing.

The New York Times recently got its hands on a Yale University questionnaire in which 60% of the 138 female respondents said that they intend to stop working when they have children, and then to work part time, if at all, once the kids are in school. A reporter talked to students at other elite East Coast colleges who echoed the same back-to-the-future sentiment: Work is but a way-station; a woman's place is in the home.

The young women think they're doing the right thing for their eventual children, having watched too many of their moms' generation try to juggle career and family. And at least one male student at Harvard finds the whole lord-and-master idea "sexy." This, from excellent students who have clambered over the backs of other, merely good students to gain entry into schools that traditionally have incubated tomorrow's leaders.

FINE, VERIFY:

U.S. Hails IAEA Decision on Iran Referral (GEORGE JAHN, 9/24/05, Associated Press)

The U.N. atomic watchdog agency Saturday put Iran just one step away from referral to the Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities in coming months - a move the United States has been pushing for years.

The chief U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency hailed the decision, describing it as a wake-up call for Tehran ``to come clean'' or face the consequences.

But his Iranian counterpart blasted the approval of the resolution and warned of retaliation. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity.

OUR LINE:

India toes US line, dumps Iran (CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA, SEPTEMBER 25, 2005, Times of India)

They are five sentences that signal a fundamental change in Indian foreign policy of over
five decades.

In an overt and transparent shift in alignment and emphasis, the Congress-led UPA government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday signed up with the United States on a touchstone issue, asking Iran to be flexible and make concessions to avoid a confrontation with Washington on the nuclear issue.

India’s blunt message, which is also aimed at allaying U.S concerns over New Delhi’s long-standing ties with
Teheran, was conveyed by Prime Minister Singh to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad when the latter telephoned him on Friday.

In fact, the UPA government went to unusual lengths to disclose the gist of the conversation between the two leaders in a brief press release sent to select media.

MORE:
Biggest Indo-US naval exercise (RAJAT PANDIT, SEPTEMBER 24, 2005, Times of India)

India might still be shy of openly jumping onto the controversial US-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) bandwagon but it's certainly steaming ahead to practice mammoth operations with American forces on the high seas.

India's largest-ever naval exercise with any country will kick off on Sunday when Indian and American aircraft carriers, destroyers, guided-missile frigates, fighter and surveillance aircraft undertake combat manoeuvres in the north-west Arabian Sea.

The sheer scale of this 10-day Indo-US exercise, "Malabar-05", can be gauged from the fact that it will involve almost 10,000 officers and sailors from the two nations.

BRITS ACTING LIKE THE DUTCH WITH FRENCH IMPLEMENTS?:

Doc's outrage on disabled
Outburst (JOHN COLES, 9/24/05, Daily Sun)

A RETIRED GP sparked fury yesterday by saying disabled kids should be guillotined to save cash.

The outburst by Owen Lister, 79, a Tory councillor and deputy mayor, came in a council meeting over funding to care for such youngsters.

Mr Lister said it was too expensive to look after severely disabled children — and the money should be used elsewhere.

TIME FOR BREATH LATER:

New Tests for Egypt's Opposition: Embattled Nour Puts Hope in Vote For Parliament (Daniel Williams, 9/24/05, Washington Post)

Egypt had barely caught its breath from the presidential vote -- the first time Egyptians could mark ballots listing more than one candidate -- when parties and politicians started gearing up for the November parliamentary elections. The campaign promises to be wide open. With nearly 450 seats at stake, there could be thousands of candidates.

Although [Ayman] Nour won only about 7 percent of the presidential vote, he says he believes he can claim a place as top opposition leader by running his party's candidates in every parliamentary district and winning a significant share of seats. Nour accuses government agents of mounting the challenge to his party leadership and other judicial maneuvers to divert him from organizing and campaigning. [...]

Political observers contend that even with Nour's low vote total, his performance signaled at least one change in Egyptian politics: He pushed aside traditional, docile opposition parties and their geriatric leadership. He won more than twice as many votes as Noman Gomaa, the 71-year-old leader of the Wafd Party, an organization with an 80-year history. "At 40 years old, Nour has emerged as the country's de facto leader of the opposition," said Cairo magazine. Other opposition parties are grappling with leadership changes.

A parallel generational change is underway at the National Democratic Party (NDP), Mubarak's political organization and electoral juggernaut. Mubarak's 41-year-old son, Gamal, and a group of businessmen, technocrats and academicians ran the presidential campaign. Old-line NDP politicians were nowhere to be seen or heard.

The NDP is preparing to run a slate of fresh faces in the parliamentary elections, said Mohammed Kamal, a member of the presidential campaign team. The NDP is trying to change its reputation from a party that mainly provided stuffed ballot boxes at past elections to one that has a genuine mandate to rule Egypt, party officials say. Currently, the NDP holds more than 80 percent of the legislative seats.

Gamal Mubarak's inner circle is playing a key role in picking parliamentary candidates, his associates say. He also heads the ruling party's policies committee, a group that has designed recent free-market initiatives in Egypt. He has steadfastly denied having presidential ambitions, yet his very presence overshadows any other NDP voice.

UPPITY YOUNGSTER:

GOING AFTER BYRD (Robert Novak, 9/24/05, Townhall)

Republican leaders have a strong backup candidate to challenge Sen. Robert Byrd's election in West Virginia to a ninth term: former West Virginia University basketball coach Gale Catlett.

The GOP's first choice is still Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, but she has shown reluctance to run. Catlett remains a popular figure with instant recognition in West Virginia.

The 87-year-old Byrd, the Senate's senior member in both age and service, is a living legend in the Mountaineer state. But Republicans believe he is incapable of waging a vigorous campaign and would be vulnerable to a strong challenger. Catlett is 64 years old.

NEW LODGE BROTHER:

A Million Little Pieces NADER MOUSAVIZADEH, 9/24/05, NY Times)

THE United Nations summit meeting last week should be the last of its kind. It allowed world leaders, once again, to over-promise and under-deliver on behalf of an organization that few of them genuinely wish to equip for success. With the failure of its member states to agree on meaningful reform - even after Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq and the oil-for-food scandal - it is time for a new approach.

The central, governing structures of the United Nations - the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat - have each in their own dismal way been allowed to decay to the point where they arguably do more harm than good to the very causes they were founded to serve. They should be dissolved, and their legislative responsibilities transferred to the governing bodies of the United Nations agencies that have demonstrated a capacity to deliver, decade after decade, on the world body's founding ideals - agencies like the High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Development Program and the World Food Program. From coordinating the global relief effort in the aftermath of the tsunami to providing shelter for refugees from southern Sudan and shepherding East Timor to independence, the staff of these frontline organizations have brought meaningful, measurable progress to millions around the world.

On their own, most, if not all, of the major United Nations agencies would stand a fair chance of earning the legitimacy, support and resources necessary to succeed. The United Nations Development Program is already financed by voluntary contributions. Its board is made up of donors and recipient countries - all with a powerful common incentive to sustain an organization that can fight poverty efficiently. Taking one step further toward the model of, say, the World Health Organization (which operates independent of United Nations governing structures, though it is part of the United Nations family) need not disrupt its operations nor damage its finances. To the contrary: freed from the management rules and practices still imposed by the General Assembly, the Development Program would be even more able to attract the right people and improve the lives of the poor.

Each of the United Nations funds and programs could be reconstituted on this stand-alone model: financed by voluntary contributions; governed by a board composed of shareholders with an interest in results, and not just process; and staffed by men and women, hired on the basis of merit, who are given the resources to make a difference. Accountability, transparency - and, ultimately, success - would have a far greater chance of flowing from such a model than from the present one.

PSSSST, CIVIC PLATFORM ARE UBERCONS, PASS IT ON:

Polish election battle (Jan Repa, 9/24/05, BBC)

Since the break-up of the Soviet bloc 16 years ago political power in Poland has alternated between parties which emerged from the Solidarity movement and the ex-communist Democratic Left Alliance.

Despite this, the general strategy pursued by Poland has been remarkably consistent:

• integration with Western institutions like Nato and the EU
• the creation of a market economy with a strong element of social welfare
• an eastern policy aimed at establishing a belt of friendly countries between Poland and Russia

It was a Democratic Left Alliance leadership which last year brought Poland successfully into the EU and which backed the Orange Revolution in neighbouring Ukraine.

Nonetheless, the ex-communists now face electoral meltdown.

A succession of corruption scandals, the failure to bring down unemployment and suggestions of continuing dubious links with Moscow have appeared to validate opposition claims that, in the end, you cannot trust an old "commie".

That leaves the centre-right parties making all the running.

Civic Platform and Law and Justice have been running neck-and-neck in opinion polls - with a combined opinion poll score of between 60 and 70%.

They have already announced their intention to form a coalition government - with the party that wins more seats getting the post of prime minister.

But in the absence of a strong challenge from the Left, the two parties have, in recent days, taken to attacking each other.

Law and Justice, in particular, has worked hard to capture part of the ex-Democratic Left Alliance vote - stressing its commitment to social welfare and accusing Civic Platform of trying to conduct a "liberal experiment" on the nation.

AND HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A HURRICANE:

Labour conference security tight (BBC, 9/24/05)

[M]r Blair - who arrives in Brighton on Saturday - appears determined to use the conference to call for reforms in industry, health, education and welfare.

He said helping Britain meet the challenges of the new global economy would be the central message of the conference, whose theme is "Securing Britain's Future".

He wants to highlight the changing global economy and the increasing power of China and India.

He has also stressed the need to push on with reforming the public sector.

Unions are not only unhappy about greater use of private firms in the NHS, they are also concerned about public sector pension reforms, including a possible raising of the retirement age.

THEY LIKE THE STATUS QUO:

Stillstand in Deutschland: German voters choose stalemate. (Christopher Caldwell, 10/03/2005, Weekly Standard)

WHAT MADE THE ELECTION look like a safe win for the CDU opposition was the steadily worsening quality of life for median Germans. The main problem was that 11 percent of them (19 percent in Berlin) had no jobs. In February, unemployment rose to over 5 million people. That was a record high, but the jobless rate has been in or near double digits since the mid-1990s. Starting with Thatcher's Britain, almost all European countries have fought unemployment through deep and sometimes painful reforms. A quarter-century later, Germany--along with France and Italy--is still holding out.

But Germany has also spent 1.4 trillion euros to rebuild the former East Germany. As the state goes broke, its reputation for high-quality social services wanes. The country had its Sputnik moment in 2003, when the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranked the German education system near rock-bottom of 32 developed countries surveyed. To add to the problem, Germans are having children at half the rate they were when the socialist state was built up in the 1950s and 1960s. Since pensions and health care, the most expensive parts of the social system, are pay-as-you-go, battles over the role of the state increasingly pit the old against the young.

A FAMILY HISTORY OF GOOD LIES:

The Bush Golf Dynasty (Dan Jenkins, October 2005, Golf Digest)

Ike aside, you have to say the Bushes have done their part for the game. As for these Bushes, by the way, they didn't even introduce golf to themselves. They had ancestors who took care of that. One of them was George Herbert Walker, Old 41's maternal grandfather--his mama's daddy.

G.H. Walker, a single-digit handicapper, was president of the U. S. Golf Association in 1920, and that year he decided to donate a cup to an international competition for amateurs. Legend has it that G.H. didn't want the matches or the trophy named after him, but the blue coats and striped ties managed to twist his arm. Two years later, the first Walker Cup between the United States and Great Britain & Ireland was played at the National Golf Links of America on Long Island.

Things were a little different then. The U.S. side invited any country that wanted to compete, but only Great Britain made it. And then there was this: Bernard Darwin, the golf writer for The Times of London, was invited to play when British captain Robert Harris "fell ill." Darwin took out U.S. captain William C. Fownes Jr., but a U.S. team that included Chick Evans, Francis Ouimet and Bobby Jones had more than enough talent to make up for it.

The 41st president and father of the 43rd recalls a story about his grandfather and Jones that once made the family rounds. Supposedly, G.H. bawled out the young Jones one day for losing his temper and throwing a club in a tournament. But after the scolding, G.H. put his arm around Jones' shoulder and told him that if he could control his temper, he could become the greatest player the game had known.

This seems like a convenient place to mention that Prez 41 is an old pal of several years, and he's my chief source for much that's in here. Not to guest-room drop, but at one time or another I've been overnighted at Camp David in Maryland, at the Kennebunkport compound in Maine and in the Houston homestead by Old 41 and the incredible Barbara, the Valerie Hogan and Barbara Nicklaus of first ladies.

It was 15 years ago that the president invited me to join him, former Chicago Bears running back Walter Payton and then-U.S. Congressman Marty Russo, the Congressional golf champion for 10 of the previous 14 years, for a game. After a helicopter ride aboard Marine One and a 15-vehicle motorcade, we ended up at Holly Hills Country Club in Ijamsville, Md., a little under an hour by car from D.C. As I said at the time, the president seemed to take himself far less seriously than any CEO of any plastics company I've ever encountered. He was the friendliest and most relaxed person in every room and on every fairway.

By my scoring that day, the president, who once played to an 11, overcame his objection to the use of mulligans to shoot a three-mulligan 86 or a two-mulligan 88. Payton shot a three-mulligan 85, I shot a three-mulligan 78 or a two-mulligan 80. And Marty Russo shot a one-mulligan 68, which put him at a shocking four under par as well as under arrest.

Fast-forward 15 years. Interestingly, Old 41 remembers hearing that his grandfather had also been a good friend of Dwight F. Davis, the man who donated a cup for tennis back in 1900. However, the 41st president doesn't remember whether G.H. Walker and Dwight F. Davis were friends of Joe Bob America, the gentleman who donated a cup to the sport of yacht racing.

Another ancestor who contributed to the Bush golf dynasty was Prescott Bush, Old 41's father. Prescott Bush was himself a president of the U. S. Golf Association at one time--1935--before he became a U.S. senator from the state of Connecticut.

Prescott Bush was by far the best golfer in the family. He was beyond scratch, an eight-time club champion at Cape Arundel Golf Club in Kennebunkport, where for many years he held the course record of 66. Cape Arundel is also where Old 41 once went 18 holes in about two hours. I know this. I was playing along with him. We had to hurry so we could go for a speedboat ride and take a walk before lunch.

Your Bushes don't throw a lot of grass up in the air when they play. My own assessment of 41's game is that he has a good swing, and there's evidence of a lot of athleticism in the guy. But like most golfers, the short game is his weakness, especially putting.

"I could be great, but I'm allergic to practice and I break out in hives," he says. With such a family pedigree--two presidents of the United States, two governorships (Texas and Florida), a senator (Connecticut) and two presidents of the USGA--you'd think it would help his game.

But as we say in Texas, "A pedigree don't cure a pull hook."

Could be one reason why he jumps out of airplanes.

THANKS, BUT NO THANKS

Jean lamented multiculturalism's 'absurdities' (Kate Jaimet The Ottawa Citizen, September 23rd, 2005)

The government's policy of multiculturalism encourages people to stay in ethnic ghettos and leads to "all sorts of absurdities," governor general-designate Michaelle Jean has said

Ms. Jean made the comments in French at a colloquium in Montreal last April, before she was named the country's next governor general. They were reported in the Canadian Jewish News.

"Citizenship means living together. ... But does 'multiculturalism' really propose us living together?

"We are even given money so that we will each stay in our own separate enclosure. There's a kind of proposition of ghettoization that is there, and that is financed. Yet 'multiculturalism' is proposed as a founding model of Canada," she said at the colloquium held by the Institut de Judaisme Quebecois.

Ms. Jean went on to criticize the leaders of organizations who make their living from multiculturalism.

"It's terrible, when you think about it. My dream is that we reflect much more deeply on citizenship, on belonging, which is not a negation of where we come from or our heritage, whether we are from Abitibi or Haiti or somewhere else.[...]

Ms. Jean, who immigrated from Haiti as a child, will become Canada's first black governor general when she assumes her post next week.

More evidence of how immigrants save us from ourselves.

PEOPLE LIKE TRAINS...:

Seattle's 1-Track Mind Goes Off the Rail: City Council members all but kill a repeatedly voter-backed monorail plan. Trying to keep it alive, supporters wedge it onto the Nov. 8 ballot. (Sam Howe Verhovek, September 24, 2005, LA Times)

Four times in the last eight years, Seattle's voters have been asked whether they want the city to build a monorail line, and four times they have said yes.

Now it looks like they will be asked whether they really, really mean it.

Citing spiraling costs, the City Council voted Friday to all but kill the planned 14-mile monorail project by denying street-use permits for it. Then, with just minutes to go before the deadline for submitting initiatives for the Nov. 8 ballot, the city's monorail authority approved a new measure asking voters to approve a scaled-back, 10-mile plan.

"It's time for the people to decide whether they want to save the people's train," said Kristina Hill, a defiant board chair of the quasi-public Seattle Popular Monorail Authority.

The authority acted after the nine-member City Council, following the wishes of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, voted unanimously to deny needed permits.

WHO BUT THE GRAY LADY WOULD BE NOSTALGIC FOR SOVIET LANDSCAPES?:

A new Moscow erases the old (and history) (Seth Mydans, SEPTEMBER 24, 2005, The New York Times)

With stunning speed in the past few years, the developers have torn down scores of buildings in the city center, ripping the soul out of much of this stolid, quirky city.

They have left those who love Moscow in stunned despair, raising small voices against the forces of money and politics, mostly ignored by a public that has become increasingly cowed and passive at the feet of those with power.

"I'm sad about this, but after five years I'm going to stop being sad because there's going to be nothing left to lose," said Aleksei Komech, director of the Ministry of Culture's State Institute of Arts Research, as wreckers hacked away at a classic building just outside his window.

Last year the city's central district announced plans to knock down or renovate as many as 1,200 buildings in the city center. Preservationists say "renovation" is often a cover for destruction.

In August, Moscow's first deputy mayor, Vladimir Resin, said the city planned to build 60 skyscrapers in the next 10 years, some of them 50 stories high.

"This tiger always needs meat," Komech said. "So we know that from now on we can expect new projects, new ring roads, new tunnels. There's more money than you can imagine in Moscow now." [...]

"Russia is in the midst of a collapse of culture and there is nothing we can do about it," said David Sarkisyan, director of the State Museum of Architecture. "It is a horrible crime. The old generation of cultivated people is dying off. No one is coming to replace them."

The voice of the future, and apparently the voice of the majority, comes from people like Katrina Semikhatova, 27, a public relations representative for a major Moscow developer.

"I don't think Moscow is a beautiful city," she said as she surveyed a vast construction site where a new commercial and residential center was being built on the banks of the Moscow River.

"I think Moscow must be better," she said. "For me, Moscow has very few beautiful landscapes on the average. There is always something ugly. Today we have a chance to build a whole new city."

THE EU IS AIRBUS'S PROBLEM, NOT ITS PROP:

Mandelson extends olive branch on subsidies (James Kanter, 9/24/05, International Herald Tribune)

Europe will have to be prepared to curb subsidies to Airbus if a settlement is reached with the United States in the dispute over government aid to the aircraft maker and its chief rival, Boeing, the top European trade negotiator said Friday.

The candid warning from the European Union's trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, to his own side signaled a desire to restart talks with Washington, even as a dueling lawsuits at the World Trade Organization inched forward Friday. [...]

If talks do restart, "then European government funding will have to adapt to the outcome of those negotiations," he added, referring to the millions in development loans provided to Airbus - aid that Washington insists be cut off.

WHERE'S SHAKESPEARE WHEN YOU NEED HIM?:

Orioles Tell Palmeiro Not to Bother Returning (Tim Brown, September 24, 2005, LA Times)

Rafael Palmeiro, his possible Hall of Fame career tainted by a steroid suspension and an ongoing congressional investigation, will not be in uniform again this season, the Baltimore Orioles announced Friday — an action amounting to a paid suspension.

Palmeiro, who turns 41 today and is considering retirement, was expected to return to the club Friday after rehabilitating a sore knee and ankle for three weeks at his Texas home.

Instead, he was told he was not welcome back.

Oriole officials met Friday after published reports that Palmeiro allegedly had told an arbitration panel that teammate Miguel Tejada provided him with a vitamin that might have led to his testing positive for the steroid Stanozolol. At the end, they decided Palmeiro's presence over the final 10 days of the season would be too great a distraction.

At the same time, the Health Policy Advisory Committee, which hears appeals from players who have tested positive for banned substances, issued a statement Friday calling "incorrect" the reports that Tejada provided steroids to Palmeiro, or that Palmeiro claimed it to be so.

"There is no evidence whatsoever supporting any claim that Miguel Tejada has ever provided any illegal substance of any kind to any player," the statement said.

MOVE OVER MIKHAIL, WE NEED ROOM ON THE ASH HEAP:

U.S. Says China Must Address Its Intentions: How Its Power Will Be Used Is of Concern (Glenn Kessler, 9/22/05, Washington Post)

Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick bluntly warned China last night that it must begin to take concrete steps to address what he called a "a cauldron of anxiety" in the United States and other parts of the world about Chinese intentions. [...]

Among other points, Zoellick said:

· China should openly explain its defense spending, intentions, doctrine and military exercises to ease concerns about its rapid military buildup.

· China shows "increasing signs of mercantilism," seeking to direct markets rather than open them, and such actions must cease before its policies undercut U.S. domestic support for open markets. Zoellick said China's efforts to "lock up" energy supplies are "not a sensible path to achieving energy security."

· China should end its tolerance of "rampant theft of intellectual property and counterfeiting" if it is to be considered a "responsible major global player." China must also do "much more" to allow its currency to adjust to market rates.

· China should adjust its foreign policy to focus less on national interest and more on sustaining peaceful prosperity, including ensuring North Korea's compliance with an agreement to end its nuclear programs, supporting efforts to end Iran's nuclear programs, and pledging more money to Afghanistan and Iraq. China's dealings with Sudan, Burma and other "troublesome states indicates at best a blindness to consequences and at worst something more ominous," Zoellick said.

· China should not attempt to "maneuver toward a predominance of power" in Asia by building separate alliances in Southeast Asia and other areas.

Zoellick also addressed democracy in China, saying it is "risky and mistaken" to believe the Communist Party's monopoly can be secured "through emphasizing economic growth and heightened nationalism." He said closed politics are "simply not sustainable" and that pressure is building for political reform.

"China has one umbrella labor union, but waves of strikes," Zoellick noted. "A party that came to power as a movement of peasants now confronts violent rural protests, especially against corruption. A government with massive police powers cannot control spreading crime."

Zoellick said China should consider elections at the county and provincial level, reform its judiciary and "stop harassing journalists who point out problems."

MORE:
Whither China: From Membership to Responsibility? (Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State, Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, New York City, September 21, 2005)

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of Mr. Zheng Bijian, Chair of the China Reform Forum, who over some decades has been a counselor to China’s leaders. We have spent many hours in Beijing and Washington discussing China’s course of development and Sino-American relations. It has been my good fortune to get to know such a thoughtful man who has helped influence, through the Central Party School, the outlook of many officials during a time of tremendous change for China.

This month, in anticipation of President Hu’s visit to the United States, Mr. Zheng published the lead article in Foreign Affairs, "China’s ‘Peaceful Rise’ to Great Power Status." This evening, I would like to give you a sense of the current dialogue between the United States and China by sharing my perspective.

Some 27 years ago, Chinese leaders took a hard look at their country and didn’t like what they saw. China was just emerging from the Cultural Revolution. It was desperately poor, deliberately isolated from the world economy, and opposed to nearly every international institution. Under Deng Xiaoping, as Mr. Zheng explains, China’s leaders reversed course and decided "to embrace globalization rather than detach themselves from it."

Seven U.S. presidents of both parties recognized this strategic shift and worked to integrate China as a full member of the international system. Since 1978, the United States has also encouraged China’s economic development through market reforms.

Our policy has succeeded remarkably well: the dragon emerged and joined the world. Today, from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization, from agreements on ozone depletion to pacts on nuclear weapons, China is a player at the table.

And China has experienced exceptional economic growth. Whether in commodities, clothing, computers, or capital markets, China’s presence is felt every day.

China is big, it is growing, and it will influence the world in the years ahead.

For the United States and the world, the essential question is – how will China use its influence?

To answer that question, it is time to take our policy beyond opening doors to China’s membership into the international system: We need to urge China to become a responsible stakeholder in that system.

China has a responsibility to strengthen the international system that has enabled its success. In doing so, China could achieve the objective identified by Mr. Zheng: "to transcend the traditional ways for great powers to emerge."

As Secretary Rice has stated, the United States welcomes a confident, peaceful, and prosperous China, one that appreciates that its growth and development depends on constructive connections with the rest of the world. Indeed, we hope to intensify work with a China that not only adjusts to the international rules developed over the last century, but also joins us and others to address the challenges of the new century.

From China’s perspective, it would seem that its national interest would be much better served by working with us to shape the future international system.

If it isn’t clear why the United States should suggest a cooperative relationship with China, consider the alternatives. Picture the wide range of global challenges we face in the years ahead – terrorism and extremists exploiting Islam, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, poverty, disease – and ask whether it would be easier or harder to handle those problems if the United States and China were cooperating or at odds.

For fifty years, our policy was to fence in the Soviet Union while its own internal contradictions undermined it. For thirty years, our policy has been to draw out the People’s Republic of China. As a result, the China of today is simply not the Soviet Union of the late 1940s:

It does not seek to spread radical, anti-American ideologies.

While not yet democratic, it does not see itself in a twilight conflict against democracy around the globe.

While at times mercantilist, it does not see itself in a death struggle with capitalism.

And most importantly, China does not believe that its future depends on overturning the fundamental order of the international system. In fact, quite the reverse: Chinese leaders have decided that their success depends on being networked with the modern world.

If the Cold War analogy does not apply, neither does the distant balance-of-power politics of 19th Century Europe. The global economy of the 21st Century is a tightly woven fabric. We are too interconnected to try to hold China at arm’s length, hoping to promote other powers in Asia at its expense. Nor would the other powers hold China at bay, initiating and terminating ties based on an old model of drawing-room diplomacy. The United States seeks constructive relations with all countries that do not threaten peace and security.

So if the templates of the past do not fit, how should we view China at the dawn of the 21st Century?

On both sides, there is a gulf in perceptions. The overwhelming priority of China’s senior officials is to develop and modernize a China that still faces enormous internal challenges. While proud of their accomplishments, China’s leaders recognize their country’s perceived weaknesses, its rural poverty, and the challenges of political and social change. Two-thirds of China’s population – nearly 900 million people – are in poor rural areas, living mostly as subsistence farmers, and 200 million Chinese live on less than a dollar a day. In China, economic growth is seen as an internal imperative, not as a challenge to the United States.

Therefore, China clearly needs a benign international environment for its work at home. Of course, the Chinese expect to be treated with respect and will want to have their views and interests recognized. But China does not want a conflict with the United States.

Nevertheless, many Americans worry that the Chinese dragon will prove to be a fire-breather. There is a cauldron of anxiety about China.

The U.S. business community, which in the 1990s saw China as a land of opportunity, now has a more mixed assessment. Smaller companies worry about Chinese competition, rampant piracy, counterfeiting, and currency manipulation. Even larger U.S. businesses – once the backbone of support for economic engagement – are concerned that mercantilist Chinese policies will try to direct controlled markets instead of opening competitive markets. American workers wonder if they can compete.

China needs to recognize how its actions are perceived by others. China’s involvement with troublesome states indicates at best a blindness to consequences and at worst something more ominous. China’s actions – combined with a lack of transparency – can create risks. Uncertainties about how China will use its power will lead the United States – and others as well – to hedge relations with China. Many countries hope China will pursue a "Peaceful Rise," but none will bet their future on it.

For example, China’s rapid military modernization and increases in capabilities raise questions about the purposes of this buildup and China’s lack of transparency. The recent report by the U.S. Department of Defense on China’s military posture was not confrontational, although China’s reaction to it was. The U.S. report described facts, including what we know about China’s military, and discussed alternative scenarios. If China wants to lessen anxieties, it should openly explain its defense spending, intentions, doctrine, and military exercises.

Views about China are also shaped by its growing economic footprint. China has gained much from its membership in an open, rules-based international economic system, and the U.S. market is particularly important for China’s development strategy. Many gain from this trade, including millions of U.S. farmers and workers who produce the commodities, components, and capital goods that China is so voraciously consuming.

But no other country – certainly not those of the European Union or Japan – would accept a $162 billion bilateral trade deficit, contributing to a $665 billion global current account deficit. China – and others that sell to China – cannot take its access to the U.S. market for granted. Protectionist pressures are growing.

China has been more open than many developing countries, but there are increasing signs of mercantilism, with policies that seek to direct markets rather than opening them. The United States will not be able to sustain an open international economic system – or domestic U.S. support for such a system – without greater cooperation from China, as a stakeholder that shares responsibility on international economic issues.

For example, a responsible major global player shouldn’t tolerate rampant theft of intellectual property and counterfeiting, both of which strike at the heart of America’s knowledge economy. China’s pledges – including a statement just last week by President Hu in New York – to crack down on the criminals who ply this trade are welcome, but the results are not yet evident. China needs to fully live up to its commitments to markets where America has a strong competitive advantage, such as in services, agriculture, and certain manufactured goods. And while China’s exchange rate policy offered stability in the past, times have changed. China may have a global current account surplus this year of nearly $150 billion, among the highest in the world. This suggests that China’s recent policy adjustments are an initial step, but much more remains to be done to permit markets to adjust to imbalances. China also shares a strong interest with the United States in negotiating a successful WTO Doha agreement that opens markets and expands global growth.

China’s economic growth is driving its thirst for energy. In response, China is acting as if it can somehow "lock up" energy supplies around the world. This is not a sensible path to achieving energy security. Moreover, a mercantilist strategy leads to partnerships with regimes that hurt China’s reputation and lead others to question its intentions. In contrast, market strategies can lessen volatility, instability, and hoarding. China should work with the United States and others to develop diverse sources of energy, including through clean coal technology, nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and biofuels. Our new Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate – as well as the bilateral dialogue conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy and China’s National Development and Reform Commission – offer practical mechanisms for this cooperation. We should also encourage the opening of oil and gas production in more places around the world. We can work on energy conservation and efficiency, including through standards for the many appliances made in China. Through the IEA we can strengthen the building and management of strategic reserves. We also have a common interest in secure transport routes and security in producing countries.

All nations conduct diplomacy to promote their national interests. Responsible stakeholders go further: They recognize that the international system sustains their peaceful prosperity, so they work to sustain that system. In its foreign policy, China has many opportunities to be a responsible stakeholder.

The most pressing opportunity is North Korea. Since hosting the Six-Party Talks at their inception in 2003, China has played a constructive role. This week we achieved a Joint Statement of Principles, with an agreement on the goal of "verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in a peaceful manner." But the hard work of implementation lies ahead, and China should share our interest in effective and comprehensive compliance.

Moreover, the North Korea problem is about more than just the spread of dangerous weapons. Without broad economic and political reform, North Korea poses a threat to itself and others. It is time to move beyond the half century-old armistice on the Korean peninsula to a true peace, with regional security and development. A Korean peninsula without nuclear weapons opens the door to this future. Some 30 years ago America ended its war in Viet Nam. Today Viet Nam looks to the United States to help integrate it into the world market economic system so Viet Nam can improve the lives of its people. By contrast, North Korea, with a 50 year-old cold armistice, just falls further behind.

Beijing also has a strong interest in working with us to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles that can deliver them. The proliferation of danger will undermine the benign security environment and healthy international economy that China needs for its development.

China’s actions on Iran’s nuclear program will reveal the seriousness of China’s commitment to non-proliferation. And while we welcome China’s efforts to police its own behavior through new export controls on sensitive technology, we still need to see tough legal punishments for violators.

China and the United States can do more together in the global fight against terrorism. Chinese citizens have been victims of terror attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. China can help destroy the supply lines of global terrorism. We have made a good start by working together at the UN and searching for terrorist money in Chinese banks, but can expand our cooperation further.

China pledged $150 million in assistance to Afghanistan, and $25 million to Iraq. These pledges were welcome, and we look forward to their full implementation. China would build stronger ties with both through follow-on pledges. Other countries are assisting the new Iraqi government with major debt forgiveness, focusing attention on the $7 billion in Iraqi debt still held by Chinese state companies.

On my early morning runs in Khartoum, I saw Chinese doing tai chi exercises. I suspect they were in Sudan for the oil business. But China should take more than oil from Sudan – it should take some responsibility for resolving Sudan’s human crisis. It could work with the United States, the UN, and others to support the African Union’s peacekeeping mission, to provide humanitarian relief to Darfur, and to promote a solution to Sudan’s conflicts.

In Asia, China is already playing a larger role. The United States respects China’s interests in the region, and recognizes the useful role of multilateral diplomacy in Asia. But concerns will grow if China seeks to maneuver toward a predominance of power. Instead, we should work together with ASEAN, Japan, Australia, and others for regional security and prosperity through the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

China’s choices about Taiwan will send an important message, too. We have made clear that our "one China" policy remains based on the three communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act. It is important for China to resolve its differences with Taiwan peacefully.

The United States, Japan, and China will need to cooperate effectively together on both regional and global challenges. Given China’s terrible losses in World War II, I appreciate the sensitivity of historical issues with Japan. But as I have told my Chinese colleagues, I have observed some sizeable gaps in China’s telling of history, too. When I visited the "918" museum at the site of the 1931 "Manchurian Incident," I noted that the chronological account jumped from 1941 to the Soviet offensive against Japan in August 1945, overlooking the United States involvement in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945! Perhaps we could start to ease some misapprehensions by opening a three-way dialogue among historians.

Clearly, there are many common interests and opportunities for cooperation. But some say America’s commitment to democracy will preclude long-term cooperation with China. Let me suggest why this need not be so.

Freedom lies at the heart of what America is… as a nation, we stand for what President Bush calls the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. As I have seen over the 25 years since I lived in Hong Kong, Asians have also pressed for more freedom and built many more democracies. Indeed, President Hu and Premier Wen are talking about the importance of China strengthening the rule of law and developing democratic institutions.

We do not urge the cause of freedom to weaken China. To the contrary, President Bush has stressed that the terrible experience of 9/11 has driven home that in the absence of freedom, unhealthy societies will breed deadly cancers. In his Second Inaugural, President Bush recognized that democratic institutions must reflect the values and culture of diverse societies. As he said, "Our goal… is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way."

Being born ethnically Chinese does not predispose people against democracy – just look at Taiwan’s vibrant politics. Japan and South Korea have successfully blended a Confucian heritage with modern democratic principles.

Closed politics cannot be a permanent feature of Chinese society. It is simply not sustainable – as economic growth continues, better-off Chinese will want a greater say in their future, and pressure builds for political reform:

China has one umbrella labor union, but waves of strikes.

A party that came to power as a movement of peasants now confronts violent rural protests, especially against corruption.

A government with massive police powers cannot control spreading crime.

Some in China believe they can secure the Communist Party’s monopoly on power through emphasizing economic growth and heightened nationalism. This is risky and mistaken.

China needs a peaceful political transition to make its government responsible and accountable to its people. Village and grassroots elections are a start. They might be expanded – perhaps to counties and provinces – as a next step. China needs to reform its judiciary. It should open government processes to the involvement of civil society and stop harassing journalists who point out problems. China should also expand religious freedom and make real the guarantees of rights that exist on paper – but not in practice.

Ladies and Gentlemen: How we deal with China’s rising power is a central question in American foreign policy.

In China and the United States, Mr. Zheng’s idea of a "peaceful rise" will spur vibrant debate. The world will look to the evidence of actions.

Tonight I have suggested that the U.S. response should be to help foster constructive action by transforming our thirty-year policy of integration: We now need to encourage China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system. As a responsible stakeholder, China would be more than just a member – it would work with us to sustain the international system that has enabled its success.

Cooperation as stakeholders will not mean the absence of differences – we will have disputes that we need to manage. But that management can take place within a larger framework where the parties recognize a shared interest in sustaining political, economic, and security systems that provide common benefits.

To achieve this transformation of the Sino-American relationship, this Administration – and those that follow it – will need to build the foundation of support at home. That’s particularly why I wanted to join you tonight. You hear the voices that perceive China solely through the lens of fear. But America succeeds when we look to the future as an opportunity, not when we fear what the future might bring. To succeed now, we will need all of you to press both the Chinese and your fellow citizens.

When President Nixon visited Beijing in 1972, our relationship with China was defined by what we were both against. Now we have the opportunity to define our relationship by what are both for.

We have many common interests with China. But relationships built only on a coincidence of interests have shallow roots. Relationships built on shared interests and shared values are deep and lasting. We can cooperate with the emerging China of today, even as we work for the democratic China of tomorrow.

ATOMS DON'T TAKE UP MUCH ROOM:

Supersize Strollers Ignite Sidewalk Drama (STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM, 9/22/05, NY Times)

ONE recent evening during rush hour on a Washington subway, Jose Rivas found himself cornered by a giant stroller, with no clear path of escape. "She saw us," Mr. Rivas, 33, said of the woman pushing the buggy. "She looked at us. She was basically like: 'You better find a way to get out. It's not my responsibility.' "

When he tried to step around her to reach the door, her look became a glare. The confrontation was like a battle, he said, and the weapon, a long, army-green-colored stroller.

Christopher Peruzzi, 39, of Freehold, N.J., has also had to dodge baby strollers - especially those that are "double wide or triple long" - usually in stores, and he doesn't like it either. "They're blocking off products you want to get to," he said. "I find this particularly annoying in Barnes & Noble and Walden Books. I'm here to read. I'm not here for your kid to slam into me."

Pricey, supersize baby strollers like the Bugaboo and the Silver Cross - nicknamed Hummers - have been derided as symbols of yuppie extravagance. (They cost upward of about $700.) But some critics now say that size is not the only problem. What's worse, they say, is the way some parents use them to bulldoze their way through public places.

"I liken it to the SUV experience," said Elizabeth Khalil, 28, a lawyer in Washington. "It's just your mission to mow down everything in your sight because you can."

Critics - many of them people without children....

WHERE YOU HITTIN', WILLIS?:

Willis gains stature as hitter -- batting 7th (Juan C. Rodriguez, September 23, 2005, Orlando Sun-Sentinel)

Nine years before Dontrelle Willis was born, Expos starter Steve Renko batted seventh in an Aug. 26, 1973 game against the San Diego Padres.

A pitcher hadn't hit higher than eighth since then -- until Thursday.

Manager Jack McKeon slotted Dontrelle Willis in the seven hole against Pedro Martinez and the Mets. Last Saturday, Willis became the second pitcher since 1998 to hit eighth.

"The guy's a pretty good hitter," McKeon said. "You throw a left-handed hitter in the middle of that lineup. One good thing is he puts the ball in play all the time."

Willis, who in his first at-bat worked the count full before David Wright reached into the camera well to catch a foul pop, entered the game batting .250 (21 for 84). He already had the season franchise marks for runs (14), hits and RBI (11) by a pitcher. He added a single in the fourth and finished the night 1 for 4.

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER WHITE SUPREMACIST REFERENCE:

President Bush Is 'Our Bull Connor,' Harlem's Rep. Charles Rangel Claims (MEGHAN CLYNE, September 23, 2005, NY Sun)

Comparing President Bush to the Birmingham, Ala., police commissioner whose resistance to the civil rights movement became synonymous with Southern racism, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday of the president: "George Bush is our Bull Connor."

Mr. Rangel's metaphoric linkage of Mr. Bush to the late Theophilus "Bull" Connor - who in 1963 turned fire hoses and attack dogs on blacks, including Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrating in favor of equal rights - met with wild applause and cheering at a Congressional Black Caucus town hall meeting, part of the organization's 35th Annual Legislative Conference.

TOUCHING BASE:

2nd Banana Whose Taste Is Irresistible (JACQUES STEINBERG, 9/23/05, NY Times)

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 21 - Just as there has never been another lead character on television quite like Larry David - it would be hard to imagine Ralph Kramden or Ray Barone picking up a prostitute to qualify for the carpool lane to Dodger Stadium - there has never been a sidekick quite like Jeff Greene, the fictional Mr. David's fictional manager. [...]

Mr. Garlin's Jeff is more than Larry's bumbling enabler. Given how hard it can be, at times, for even loyal fans to watch Larry - in the second episode of the new season, he squares off with a man in a wheelchair over a handicap-accessible toilet - Jeff dilutes Larry's acidity with much-needed base.

"You're dealing with a show where the lead character is making the irritating and uncomfortable choice," said Jon Stewart, a friend of Mr. Garlin since both were stand-up comedians in New York in the late 1980's. "They both do a lot of shameful things. But Jeff is a cushion to Larry's harder floor."

"He is what I consider to be a human Cinnabon," Mr. Stewart added. "You probably shouldn't partake, but you just can't resist."

Mr. Garlin, 43, also plays an important role off camera on "Curb," as one of five executive producers. That title serves, at least in part, as an acknowledgment from Mr. David that the series might not have materialized had Mr. Garlin not broached the rough idea for it over lunch at a Koo-Koo-Roo chicken restaurant in Beverly Hills in the late 1990's.

While that conversation was impromptu, it was consistent with the backstage role that Mr. Garlin has played throughout a two-decade career as a comedian and actor: that of a trusted sounding board for fellow practitioners. In the mid-1990's, Mr. Stewart and Denis Leary extended separate invitations to Mr. Garlin, who trained at Second City in Chicago, to travel with them for several months to winnow stand-up material for HBO specials. (Mr. Stewart's was called "Unleavened"; Mr. Leary's, "Lock 'n' Load.") Mr. Garlin was charged with telling each comic where the laughs were.

"I literally go out with a set of bullet points," Mr. Leary said of his sets. "I start talking. I find spots the audience finds interesting.

"When we'd get done, Jeff would tell me: 'This bit is good. This other bit has nothing to do with what we're talking about.' "

"I'd object," Mr. Leary added. "And like a baseball manager, he'd come right back at me."

By 1999, Mr. Garlin and Mr. David, who knew each other casually, were working in nearby offices at Castle Rock Entertainment. Mr. Garlin had just finished a run on "Mad About You" - he played Marvin, who worked in a sporting goods store - and was working on a pilot. Mr. David had finished "Seinfield" (he was a co-creator and executive producer) and was trying to figure out what was next.

When Mr. David mentioned to Mr. Garlin over lunch that he was mulling a return to the stand-up stage, Mr. Garlin had a ready reply: Mr. David should have it filmed as an HBO special. Implicit in Mr. Garlin's suggestion, both men agree, is that the backstage run-up to that special be a component of the special itself.

"I was very specific as to what the special would be because I had just directed Jon and Dennis," Mr. Garlin said, in an interview at one of his favorite haunts, the sprawling Farmers Market here. "The difference was that mine included a lot more stand-up and Larry's included more behind-the-scenes."

"He was right," Mr. Garlin added. "I could have brought the idea to a million other people, and we wouldn't be talking about a great show."

Mr. David refined that lunchtime conversation into a special in which the real Mr. David prepared a real comedy special while assisted by a fictional wife and manager. Cheryl Hines, a sketch comedy veteran, was cast as his wife. For the manager, Mr. David recalled thinking, "Why not Jeff?"

"Jeff never gives you anything that's off in a scene," Mr. David said. "He also has a great eye for what's wrong in a scene, when he's off camera."

"He is always honest," Mr. David added. "We've gotten in fights about that from time to time."

Having studied improv at Second City and mounted three one-man shows there, Mr. Garlin embraced the structure of "Curb." In lieu of dialogue, the actors are given outlines, sometimes just moments before the cameras roll.

Some actors appearing as guests have vomited with anxiety, Mr. Garlin said. "For me," he said, "being able to act out scenes with Larry David, you can't get more freeing or lucky than that."< /blockquote>

| Comments (1)

---

"WHO'S YO' DADDY?" CONSERVATISM? (via Robert Duquette):

Goodbye to All That: Is this the end of “compassionate conservatism”? (Jonah Goldberg, 9/23/05, National Review)

Here's my silver-lining hope this hurricane season: George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism gets wiped out like a taco hut in the path of a Cat. 5 storm.

Outside of people inside the administration, I've never met anyone who really likes the president's "compassionate conservatism." To the extent conservatives praise it at all, they celebrate the fact that compassionate conservatism got Bush elected. This is no small or insignificant feat, note the realists. Without victory, nothing else is possible. "It's the lady that brought us to the dance," they explain.

Now, don't get me wrong. I actually respect much of the substance of compassionate conservatism.

MORE:
Let's Deploy the 'Little Platoons': A conservative vision of social justice. (IAIN DUNCAN SMITH AND RICK SANTORUM, September 23, 2005, Opinion Journal)

For all the differences between the United States and Europe, we share a common challenge: how to improve the social well-being of our citizens without a massive growth in the size and intrusiveness of government. We're convinced that conservatism--properly understood--offers the surest road to social justice. [...]

Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond are charting a new vision of social justice. It recognizes that the problems caused or aggravated by the growth in government cannot be corrected by a crude reduction in its size. Policy must also deliberately foster the growth of what Edmund Burke called "the little platoons" of civil society: families, neighborhood associations, private enterprises, charities and churches. These are the real source of economic growth and social vitality.

The social justice agenda we endorse is grounded in social conservatism. That means helping the poor discover the dignity of work, rather than making them wards of the state. It means locking up violent criminals, but offering nonviolent offenders lots of help to become responsible citizens. It endorses a policy of "zero tolerance" toward drug use and sexual trafficking, yet insists that those struggling with all manner of addictions can start their lives afresh.

In America, this vision emerged a decade ago with bold conservative initiatives aimed at empowering individuals and grassroots groups helping the nation's neediest, such as the Community Renewal Act and other antipoverty initiatives. Today's CARE Act is part of the same tradition. Likewise, the Bush administration's plan to create a Gulf Opportunity Zone after Hurricane Katrina would offer tax relief and small-business loans to support a culture of entrepreneurship. [...]

"The most important of all revolutions," Burke wrote, is "a revolution in sentiments, manners and moral opinions." Yet we believe that social-justice conservatism can produce societies that are more humane than anything liberalism could accomplish. As we build a conservative alternative--a vision informed both by idealism and realism--we have evidence, experience and common sense on our side.

OTHER THAN THAT HOW'D YOU ENJOY THE LECTURE, MR. HU?:

Friendship visit by ally of China turns into blistering lecture (Joseph Kahn, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, The New York Times)

China's leaders may have felt they had no better friend in Taiwan than Li Ao, a defiant and outspoken politician and author who says that Taiwan should unify with Communist China. But when the Chinese government invited Li to tour the mainland this past week, the Communist Party got a taste of its rival's pungent democracy.

During an address at Beijing University on Wednesday, broadcast live on a cable television network, Li chided China's leaders for suppressing free speech, ridiculed the university administration's fear of academic debate and advised students on how to fight for freedom against official repression. [...]

[W]hen he arrived in mainland China, he surprised his hosts with caustic comments aimed not at Taiwanese separatism, but at mainland authoritarianism. Though Li did not criticize Hu directly, he made pointed references to the lack of freedoms in mainland China and suggested that "poker-faced" Communist Party bureaucrats do not have enough faith in their legitimacy to allow normal intellectual discussion.

With several top university officials sitting by his side, he called the administrators "cowardly" for ferreting out professors at the school who are suspected of opposing communism.

Though his arrival in mainland China was covered prominently by the state-run media and his speech was viewed on television by millions around China, the authorities imposed a blackout on reporting about his visit after the speech.

THE SUCCESSOR:

John McCain (Michael Barone, 9/22/05, US News)

I attended an American Spectator dinner last night featuring John McCain. McCain spent much of the evening casting votes in the Senate, but returned and spoke with impressive energy and at considerable length. He said it was fine if everything was on the record. Those who think that McCain is still smoldering with anger at George W. Bush over the 2000 campaign should think again: McCain spoke fervently and with obvious sincerity about how much he admires Bush and the job he has been doing as president.

McCain addressed two issues that have the potential to divide the Republican base: spending and immigration.

On spending, he said that to offset the spending of Hurricane Katrina and to prevent what "may be the largest deficit in history," Congress should revisit the highway bill—the big transportation bill passed earlier this year—and should consider delaying or repealing the Medicare prescription drug bill. On both of these issues his positions are to the right of the Bush administration's: After all, Bush signed both bills.

NO, LOOK AT THE OTHER BIG PICTURE:

Limiting Government's Role: Bush favors one-time fixes over boosting existing programs to help Katrina victims. (Peter G. Gosselin and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, September 23, 2005, LA Times)

Two days after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to issue emergency vouchers aimed at helping poor storm victims find new housing quickly by covering as much as $10,000 of their rent.

But the department suddenly backed away from the idea after White House aides met with senior HUD officials. Although emergency vouchers had been successfully used after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the administration focused instead on a plan for government-built trailer parks, an approach that even many Republicans say would concentrate poverty in the very fashion the government has long sought to avoid. [...]

As President Bush tackles the monumental task of easing the social problems wrought by Katrina, he is proving deeply reluctant to use some of the big-government tools at his disposal, apparently out of fear of permanently enlarging programs that he opposes or has sought to cut.

Instead of depending on long-running programs for such services as housing and healthcare, the president has generally tried to create new, one-shot efforts that the administration apparently hopes will more easily disappear after the crisis passes. That has meant relying on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has run virtually all of the recovery effort. [...]

At least in the case of housing, critics say that the president's unwillingness to rely on existing programs could raise costs. Instead of offering $10,000 vouchers, FEMA is paying an average of $16,000 for each trailer in the new parks it is contemplating. Even many Republicans wonder why the government would want to build trailer parks when many evacuees are now living in communities with plenty of vacant, privately owned apartments.

IF THEY WERE LESS CREDULOUS THEY MIGHT HAVE NOTICED THE MEDICALERT BRACELET:

New 'Hobbit' disease link claim (BBC, 9/23/05)

Scientists are to present new evidence that the tiny human species dubbed "The Hobbit" may not be what it seems.

The researchers say their findings strongly support an idea that the 1m- (3ft-) tall female skeleton from Indonesia is a diseased modern human.

BY "FASCIST" HE PRESUMABLY MEANS ANTI-BOLSHEVIK?

Warren Beatty: Schwarzenegger 'Fascist' (NewsMax, 9/23/05)

Actor Warren Beatty leveled a blistering political assault on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday night, accusing him of governing "by show, by spin, by cosmetics and photos ops."

Beatty made his remarks at a convention of the California Nurses Association, an organization that has emerged in the last year as one of Schwarzenegger's most vociferous critics. [...]

But Beatty used most of his address to rail against the Republican governor's "year of reform" ballot initiatives in the Nov. 8 special election. Schwarzenegger is pushing several measures that would curb the power of the Democrat-controlled Legislature and the state's powerful public employee unions.

Beatty, who has criticized the governor several times this year, called the initiatives "union busting" and "fascist."

MAYBE THE COULD TRY READING BOOKS?:

Deadly plague hits Warcraft world (Mark Ward, 9/22/05, BBC News)

A deadly virtual plague has broken out in the online game World of Warcraft.

Although limited to only a few of the game's servers the numbers of characters that have fallen victim is thought to be in the thousands.

Originally it was thought that the deadly digital disease was the result of a programming bug in a location only recently added to the Warcraft game.

However, it now appears that players kicked off the plague and then kept it spreading after the first outbreak.

DON'T LIKE US, BE MORE LIKE US:

They're Not Going To Like Us (David Ignatius, September 23, 2005, Washington Post)

I've had a lesson in our unpopularity in Egypt, where I've been hearing anti-American broadsides from activists who should be thanking the Bush administration for its pro-democracy stance. These are people who, but for the administration's pressure over the past few years on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, might well be in prison. But do they appreciate President Bush's help? Not on your life.

Take the pro-democracy speech in June by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She told an audience at the American University in Cairo that the administration was breaking with a 60-year-old policy that "pursued stability at the expense of democracy" and choosing instead to support democratic activists even when they challenged pro-U.S. rulers such as Mubarak. But the Egyptians remained dubious, to put it mildly. [...]

Another leading democracy activist, Hisham Kassem, said he warned the secretary of state when she was in Egypt not to expect any bouquets. "I told Rice your administration is the most unpopular ever in the Arab world and will remain so until Bush leaves office." He thinks that this anti-Americanism is unfair and that Arab historians will eventually realize the importance of Bush's pro-democracy policies. But not anytime soon.

The Bush administration might do better in this part of the world if it accepted its unpopularity, rather than trying to wish it otherwise. That's especially true in Iraq. Most Iraqis were profoundly grateful that the United States toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003, but that doesn't mean they like being occupied. The antibodies against the American presence are just too strong. The average Iraqi experiences U.S. occupation as a daily humiliation.

The potency of this anti-Americanism means, among other things, that we can't solve our problems in Iraq by sending in more troops. A bigger U.S. footprint would only increase Iraqi anger and fuel the insurgency. In contrast, fewer American troops may actually make it easier to stabilize the country, if the United States can help the Iraqis create a strong military and government of their own. America may be having trouble defeating Abu Musab Zarqawi, but the Iraqis won't.

PEPPERED MOUTHS:

Evolutionary Tools Help Unlock Origins of Ancient Languages (Scientific American, 9/23/05)

The key to understanding how languages evolved may lie in their structure, not their vocabularies, a new report suggests. Findings published today in the journal Science indicate that a linguistic technique that borrows some features from evolutionary biology tools can unlock secrets of languages more than 10,000 years old.

Because vocabularies change so quickly, using them to trace how languages evolve over time can only reach back about 8,000 to 10,000 years. To study tongues from the Pleistocene, the period between 1.8 million and 10,000 years ago, Michael Dunn and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics developed a computer program that analyzes language based on how words relate to one another. They developed a database containing 125 "structural language features," which include traits such as verb placement within clauses, for two sets of languages.

IT'S ONLY BAD WHEN THE JEWS DO IT:

Spain builds own Berlin Wall to stop immigrants (Expatica, 22 September 2005)

Spain announces it is to make its frontier fence with Morocco as high as the Berlin Wall after 12 men are badly injured trying to get across existing fences into Melilla.

In all 70 tried to break through the three metre-high fences which are topped with row upon row of barbed wire.

Twelve suffered broken bones, cuts and other injuries and were being treated in hospital.

One man was captured by TV cameras hanging from the barbed wire in apparent pain.

The latest assault came as Spain announced it is to make the frontier fences higher.

They will be the same height as the Berlin Wall.

THE DISCIPLINE OF AN ELECTORATE:

How some senators plan to vote on Roberts (Associated Press, 9/23/05)

All 55 Senate Republicans are expected to vote for John Roberts' confirmation as Supreme Court chief justice next week. The 44 Democrats are less unified.

Democrats who have announced their support for Roberts (8):

Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Max Baucus of Montana, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Democrats who voted for Roberts on the Judiciary Committee (3):

Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

THERE'S A REASON GOD DIVIDED THE PLUMBING:

Ass Backwards: The media's silence about rampant anal sex. (William Saletan, Sept. 20, 2005, Slate)

There's no delicate way to put this, so I'll just quote the survey report: "For males, the proportion who have had anal sex with a female increases from 4.6 percent at age 15 to 34 percent at ages 22–24; for females, the proportion who have had anal sex with a male increases from 2.4 percent at age 15 to 32 percent at age 22–24." One in three women admits to having had anal sex by age 24. By ages 25 to 44, the percentages rise to 40 for men and 35 for women. And that's not counting the 3.7 percent of men aged 15 to 44 who've had anal sex with other men.

The last time major national surveys asked about this practice, in the early 1990s, only 20 percent of men aged 20 to 39 said they'd had anal sex with a woman in the preceding 10 years. Only 26 percent of men aged 18 to 59 said they'd ever done so. In the first survey, the 10-year limit excluded half the sexual career of half the sample, but that isn't enough to explain a doubling in the percentage saying yes. In the second survey, according to the current report, the inclusion of men aged 46 to 59 might have diluted the sample with "cohorts that were less likely to have had anal sex." But that's the point: Newer cohorts are more likely to have tried it.

Why does this matter? Because anal sex is far more dangerous than oral sex. According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex. Presumably, oral sex is far more frequent than anal sex. But are you confident it's 50 times more frequent?

A CDC fact sheet explains the risks of anal sex. First, "the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the [HIV] virus to enter the body." Second, "condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex." These risks don't just apply to HIV. According to the new survey report, the risk of transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases is likewise "higher for anal than for oral sex," and the risk "from oral sex is also believed to be lower than for vaginal intercourse."

JUST ANOTHER MAJOR REWRITE:

Rewrite of Endangered Species Law Approved: House to Vote Soon; Senate Could in 2006 (Juliet Eilperin, September 23, 2005, Washington Post)

Setting the stage for the most sweeping restructuring of endangered species protections in three decades, the House Resources Committee yesterday approved legislation that would strengthen the hand of private property owners and make it harder for federal officials to set aside large swaths of habitat for imperiled plants and animals.

Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.), who has sought to revamp the Endangered Species Act for more than a decade, said the bill would make the landmark 32-year-old law more effective.

"The whole underlying premise of what we're trying to do is recover species," Pombo said, adding that his measure would ensure "individual property owners are not forced to shoulder the financial burden of conserving endangered species for all Americans."

GOP leaders are eager to move the bill and it is expected to pass by a comfortable margin next week. The question remains whether Senate Republicans, who have begun hearings on the issue but have yet to introduce legislation, can pass a bill that would allow the two chambers to reach a compromise next year.

Many Democrats, as well as some Republicans and an array of environmental groups, have voiced concern about Pombo's measure and suggested it would not pass as it now stands.

TYPHOID ABDUL:

From Patriot to Proliferator: The myth of a Pakistani scientist as his nation's savior long protected him. It took his peddling of atomic know-how to shred it. (Douglas Frantz, September 23, 2005, LA Times)

In spring 2000, Lt. Gen. Syed Mohammad Amjad was in his office at Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau when one of his senior investigators delivered the report he was dreading.

The bureau had been created six months earlier to root out corruption among bureaucrats, politicians and the business elite. Amjad, a career army officer known for his integrity, was given authority to arrest anyone.

The investigator had been quietly verifying the contents of a 700-page dossier on Abdul Qadeer Khan, the scientist whose reputation as the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb made him the country's most revered figure.

It was clear that Khan was living far beyond his modest government salary, the investigator reported. He had stashed $8 million in banks in Pakistan; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and Switzerland, acquired seven expensive houses, paid monthly stipends to 20 journalists to burnish his image and collected kickbacks on purchases by the government lab he ran.

Corruption was easy to prove, the investigator said, but pursuing Khan would entangle the young bureau in a political struggle it was likely to lose. The scientist was shielded by a largely self-constructed myth that he had almost single-handedly ensured Pakistan's national security by building a nuclear arsenal to counter India's.

"My humble suggestion is not to open a case at this stage," the investigator told Amjad, according to a person who attended the meeting. Amjad reluctantly agreed.

Khan's protective wall did not collapse for nearly four more years.

In February 2004, facing rising international pressure, the government forced Khan to confess that he had run a highly profitable black-market operation that sold nuclear secrets and technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. His activities made him the single most important figure in the spread of atomic weapons beyond a small clutch of nuclear states.

Much about Khan's network has been discovered since then. Still, mystery surrounds what turned a proud and ambitious man from patriot to proliferator. [...]

In early 2000, Khan summoned Hamid Mir, a prominent Pakistani journalist, to the lab at Kahuta to rage about Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who had taken control of the country in a coup the previous October.

Musharraf had had the gall to cut funding for the lab's program to develop missiles based on the North Korean designs, Khan told him. "Young man, he is trying to appease the Americans by stopping my missile program," Khan said.

Two former senior military officers close to Musharraf said the new Pakistani leader was actually trying to assert control over Pakistan's sprawling nuclear establishment, particularly Khan's operation. But Musharraf had to proceed cautiously because of Khan's enormous popularity and his own tenuous grasp on power.

Amjad's inquiry at the National Accountability Bureau did not lead to Khan's prosecution, and an investigation of two trips Khan made to Dubai later in 2000 also was inconclusive. But Musharraf thought he had enough evidence to take some action.

In March 2001, Musharraf removed Khan as head of the lab and forbade him to set foot inside Kahuta again. He softened the blow by appointing Khan as a presidential advisor.

"Musharraf didn't want a domestic backlash, and he didn't want to belittle him," said the former military officer, who was involved in the decision.

Khan remained defiant. He continued to expand his black-market dealings while denying that he had peddled nuclear technology.

In an interview in fall 2001 for "Stealing the Fire," a documentary about the spread of nuclear technology, Khan denied ever helping anyone other than Pakistan obtain nuclear equipment or weapons.

"We have not indulged in any proliferation," he said, according to a transcript of the session provided to the Los Angeles Times by the film's producers, John Friedman and Eric Nadler. "You cannot buy nuclear weapons. You cannot get a nuclear weapon on a platter."

That, however, was precisely what Khan was offering Libyan strongman Moammar Kadafi. In an agreement reached in 1997, Khan had promised to provide Libya with a complete bomb factory, from uranium enrichment to nuclear warhead. The price tag was $100 million.

But even after he was demoted, Khan was powerful enough to continue using Pakistani government aircraft to fly nuclear goods to Libya.

In the end, Khan and his network were put out of business by one of their own customers, a man long regarded as a terrorist who now wanted to be accepted by the international community.

On Dec. 19, 2003, after months of secret negotiations with British and U.S. officials, Kadafi agreed to abandon his chemical, biological and nuclear programs. As part of the deal, Libya turned over records that directly tied Khan to the sale of nuclear technology and a warhead design.

Musharraf negotiated Khan's final surrender: The scientist would confess on television to unspecified proliferation in exchange for keeping his wealth and strict confinement to his home.

Mir, the journalist, met the defeated scientist at his government office a few days before he began his house arrest in February 2004. Khan railed that U.S. and Pakistani intelligence had caused his troubles, and he lashed out at Musharraf, predicting that he would do the Americans' bidding again by turning over Osama bin Laden just before the U.S. elections in November of that year.

"He thought that nobody could touch him because he is a hero," Mir said. "It was beyond his expectations that Musharraf could arrest him. That shock destroyed his mental health."

THE STRANGLER SHIFTS HIS GRIP:

Barroso's red-tape-cut not enough, says business (Lucia Kubosova, 9/22/05, EU Observer)

The business community has expressed disappointment over the unofficial list of around 70 laws Brussels wants to scrap due to their negative impact on Europe's economy.

They argue most of the bills are overdue and would have to be shelved anyway.

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK:

Free school for one-girl families (Jyotsna Singh, 9/23/05, BBC News)

The Indian government says it will reward girls from single child families with free education and other benefits.

The move is intended to bolster India's dwindling female population and help promote population control.

AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS MINE LIES A BIG, BIG PARTY:

Mine safety drive fails in China (Daniel Griffiths, 9/23/05, BBC News)

China has admitted that a campaign to get officials to give up illegal stakes in the country's highly profitable but dangerous coal mines has failed.

The country has the world's deadliest mining industry, and thousands die each year in mining accidents.

This campaign was supposed to be part of a major drive to improve safety in its coal mines.

Local officials often have shares in the mines, which have risen in value as coal fuels the booming economy.

But poor safety standards and many illegal operations have led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 miners in the first half of this year alone.

Beijing ordered all local officials to give up their stakes after growing public anger about the problem.

Now, though, it has admitted that those orders have been ignored by many Communist Party cadres.

UP TO US TO RAVEL IT:

Our devolving society (Waterbury Republican-American, September 23, 2005)

Seven years ago, Ohio passed a law requiring girls under 18 to get their parents' written consent before having an abortion. Tied up in court since then by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers on behalf of a Cincinnati abortion clinic, the law also requires women seeking abortions to meet face-to-face with a doctor to learn more about the procedure and its risks and alternatives.

U.S. District Court Judge Sandra S. Beckwith now says the law is "legal" because the "evidence does not demonstrate that (the statute) imposes undue burdens on the abortion right." Pro-lifers were too busy hailing the ruling and the ACLU too busy mulling an appeal to realize how well this decision illustrates the devolution of civil society.

In bygone days, many of society's most important laws were unwritten. Paramount among them was that parents were responsible for giving their children a proper upbringing. Among other things, they were to feed, clothe and nurture them, teach them proper manners and discipline them when they got out of line. Parents understood that teenagers are incapable of making reasoned decisions because young brains are not yet wired to consider the full consequences of their actions. The goal of parents was to guide their children and mold them into productive, responsible adults, and the vast majority didn't need a judge to prod them to take their jobs seriously.

So had a 15-year-old showed up at a doctor's office looking for an abortion, any physician worth his diploma would have contacted her parents because it was the right thing to do. And a doctor true to his oath would have counseled a woman seeking an abortion about the many potential physical and psychological traumas; again, it was the right thing to do. But all that changed after abortion became a "constitutional right," and legal and illegal supplanted right and wrong as the barometer of behavior in America.

With virtue and standards taken out of play, the fabric of society unraveled.

YOU'RE ALL GOING DOWN WITH ME:

Columnist Correction Policy Isn't Being Applied to Krugman (Byron Calame, 9/16/05, NY Times Public Editor's Web Journal)

An Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times who makes an error "is expected to promptly correct it in the column." That's the established policy of Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page. Her written policy encourages "a uniform approach, with the correction made at the bottom of the piece."

Two weeks have passed since my previous post spelled out the errors made by columnist Paul Krugman in writing about news media recounts of the 2000 Florida vote for president. Mr. Krugman still hasn't been required to comply with the policy by publishing a formal correction. Ms. Collins hasn't offered any explanation. [...]

A bottom-line question: Does a corrections policy not enforced damage The Times's credibility more than having no policy at all?

BAD POLITICS, GOOD POLICY:

Rove Is Paving Way for Guest Worker Program (Mary Curtius, September 22, 2005, LA Times)

White House political strategist Karl Rove is offering lawmakers new details of an administration-backed guest worker program that would temporarily legalize the status of millions of illegal workers, according to Republicans who have attended the meetings.

The White House effort is seen as its latest step toward reasserting President Bush's leadership on one of the most divisive issues confronting Republicans.

Concerned that increasingly strident anti-immigrant voices within the party were undermining the administration's efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters, the administration formed a coalition of business groups and immigration advocates during the summer to lobby for the sort of comprehensive reform plan Bush has advocated since early in his presidency.

And some lawmakers see the recent White House sessions as evidence that Bush intends to pursue his plan as soon as this fall -- despite the strains Hurricane Katrina has put on the legislative agenda and despite ongoing opposition within his party.

GOOD POLITICS, GOOD POLICY:

House OKs Faith As Head Start Hiring Issue (BEN FELLER, 9/23/05, AP)

The House voted Thursday to let Head Start centers consider religion when hiring workers, overshadowing its moves to strengthen the preschool program's academics and finances.

The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars.

Democrats blasted that idea as discriminatory.

DANCE, PAINT BOY:

Scalia Defends Government's Right to Deny Art Funds (DANIEL J. WAKIN, 9/23/05, NY Times)

Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court made an unusual appearance at the Juilliard School yesterday and defended the government's right to deny funds for art it disapproves of, elaborating in person on what he has written on the bench.

He told reporters that choosing what art to subsidize is no different than the stances the government takes all the time in other areas.

"The First Amendment has not repealed the basic rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune," Justice Scalia said. "When you place the government in charge of funding art, just as when you place the government in charge of providing education, somebody has to pick the content of what art is going to be funded, what subjects are going to be taught.

"The only way to eliminate any government choice on what art is worthwhile, what art isn't worthwhile, is to get the government totally out of the business of funding," he said.

FRIDAY THE RABBI STAYED EQUANIMOUS:

Rabbi Eliyahu changes mind on refusal (yaakov katz and matthew wagner, Sep. 23, 2005, THE JERUSALEM POST)

In a surprise break from his fierce opposition to disengagement and his support of calls for the refusal of IDF evacuation orders, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliahu, in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post, urged members of the national religious camp on Thursday to remain loyal to the state and the army.

This view stands in stark contrast to that espoused by a group of settlement rabbis – such as Zalman Melamed of Beit El, Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba, Elyakim Levanon of Elon Moreh and David Dudkevitch of Yitzhar – who see as their leader former Ashkenazi chief rabbi Avraham Shapira.

In the name of Shapira, these rabbis are calling for a radical revamping of the relationship between religious and secular Zionists.

Eliahu's equanimity, in his first interview with the press since disengagement, was a striking departure from his own previous adamant opposition to the pullout, which he had called a "curse from heaven."

WHERE THE WAR ENDS:

The Danger Next Door (SETH G. JONES, 9/23/05, NY Times)

Unlike the violence in Iraq, the fighting in Afghanistan is not the result of a local population deeply hostile to American forces. A 2004 opinion poll by the Asia Foundation showed that 65 percent of Afghans had a favorable view of the United States government, and 67 percent had a favorable view of the American military - findings supported by my own observations and data from trips to the region during the last three years.

Nor is the fighting in Afghanistan the result of a failing American political and military strategy. American conventional and Special Forces have conducted effective strike operations and civic action programs that have undermined Taliban, Qaeda and Hezb-i-Islami insurgents and their local support network in Afghanistan.

Instead, a complex support network in Pakistan is the key to the Afghan insurgency's survival. Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan get supplies and help in Pakistani provinces like North-West Frontier and Baluchistan. Numerous captured Taliban prisoners have said they received training in Pakistani areas like the Mansehra district. Even more troubling, evidence suggests that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate has helped Taliban insurgents.

WHERE'D HE PLAY FOOTBALL?:

Poll: Istook trails Gov. Henry by 8 points (Jim Snyder, 9/22/05, The Hill)

A poll paid for by the Oklahoma state GOP shows Rep. Ernest Istook, now in his seventh term, as the strongest contender against Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat.

Istook is considering running for the chance to take on Henry, who was elected in 2002 with just more than 43 percent of the vote and is among the GOP’s biggest 2006 targets.

The poll measured five potential Republican nominees against Henry.

Istook finished the strongest but would not win, according to the poll. In that race, Henry would beat Istook 44 to 36 percent.

SOONER OR LATER YOUR CHICKS LEAVE THE NEST:

Iraqi Forces Show Signs Of Progress In Offensive (Jonathan Finer, September 22, 2005, Washington Post)

TALL AFAR, Iraq -- The Iraqi soldiers had already searched the house, according to a sticker plastered across its front gate.

But when their commanding general and a U.S. colonel arrived one afternoon last week to praise their performance and observe them in action, the troops wanted to give a demonstration. With theatrical intensity, they charged the two-story structure on the nearly deserted block, rifles at the ready, while other soldiers and two reporters watched from the street.

A fiery explosion -- some soldiers said they saw a man throw a grenade, others said the door was rigged to blow -- erupted from inside, followed by bursts of gunfire. The shouting soldiers stumbled out through a cloud of smoke, covered in blood. The rest of the platoon, which had lost a lieutenant in a grenade attack the day before, appeared dejected, some huddling around the wounded, others sitting with their heads in their hands.

What happened next, commanders here said, suggested significant progress toward the goal of shifting security functions to Iraqi forces so that the United States can begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. When the clashes grew intense, the Iraqi soldiers did not shrink, American officers said.

MORE:
President Discusses War on Terror and Hurricane Preparation (George W. Bush, The Pentagon, 9/22/05)

Today General Abizaid delivered a detailed brief on the global war on terror, with particular attention on the major battlefronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan, we have nearly 18,000 American troops who continue to serve as part of a coalition that has made extraordinary progress in delivering freedom and security to the people of that proud nation. This past Sunday, the Afghan people took another vital step toward democracy by electing representatives to their provincial councils and the National Assembly. President Karzai described the moment this way: "After 30 years of wars and interventions and occupation and misery, today Afghanistan is moving forward." And that's positive news for the world.

I mention Afghanistan is not yet complete. The international community is helping Afghanistan become a lasting democracy. There's still terrorists who seek to overthrow the young government. See, they want to return Afghanistan to what it was under the Taliban, a miserable place, a place where citizens have no rights, women are oppressed, and the terrorists have a safe haven to plan and plot attacks. And that's why coalition forces and our special forces and Afghan forces are conducting precision raids against high-value targets in southeastern Afghanistan. Our country will stand with the Afghan people as they secure their freedom and become an ally in the war on terror.

President George W. Bush delivers a statement Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005, on the War on Terror during a visit to the Pentagon. Said the President, " The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission. For the security of the American people, that's not going to happen on my watch." White House photo by Shealah Craighead As we work to help defeat the enemies of a democratic Afghanistan we're also working to defeat the enemies of a democratic Iraq. General Casey briefed us about a comprehensive strategy to achieve victory in Iraq. We're going to deny the terrorists a safe haven to plot their attacks. We'll continue to train more Iraqi forces to assume increasing responsibility for basic security operations. Our forces will focus on hunting down high-value targets like the terrorist, Zarqawi. We'll continue working with Iraqis to bring all communities into the political process. Together we'll help Iraq become a strong democracy that protects the rights of its people and is a key ally in the war on terror.

General Abizaid and General Casey extensively talked about how we're going to achieve this victory. The terrorists are concentrated in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. Over the last several months, terrorists have continued to launch suicide attacks and assassinate Iraqis who are working to improve their country. The number of attacks has increased, particularly in the last week, as the terrorists have begun their campaign to stop a referendum on the constitution.

See, they don't care who they kill; they just kill. They kill innocent people. They kill women. They kill children. They kill election workers. And they've had a history of this before. They've had a history of escalating their attacks before Iraq's major political milestones, like the handover of sovereignty in 2004, the free elections this past January, and the drafting of the constitution over the summer.

Recently, Zarqawi, the terrorist, the killer, has called for a total war on Shia Iraqis. His hope is to set off a civil war that will divide the country and derail its march to democracy. Today our commanders made it clear, as Iraqis prepare to vote on their constitution in October and elect a permanent government in December, we must be prepared for more violence.

Standing with President Bush as he delivers a statement Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005, at the Pentagon on the War on Terror are: Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. White House photo by Shealah Craighead To defeat the terrorists, we're constantly adapting to their changing tactics and conducting aggressive counterterrorism operations in the areas where they're concentrated. As more and more Iraqi security forces complete their training, they're taking on greater responsibilities in these efforts. Iraqi troops are increasingly taking the lead in joint operations. They're conducting independent operations and expanding the reach and effectiveness of American forces. The growing size and increasing capabilities of the Iraqi security forces are helping our coalition deal with a challenge we have faced since the beginning of the war. It used to be that after we cleared out a city, there were not enough qualified Iraqi troops to maintain control. And so what would happen is, is that the terrorists would wait for us to leave, and then they'd try to move back in. And sometimes, with success. Now the increasing number of more capable Iraqi troops has allowed us to hold on to the cities we have taken from the terrorists. The Iraqi troops know their people, they know their language, and they know who the terrorists are. By leaving Iraqi units in the cities we've cleaned out, we can keep the cities safe, while we move on to hunt down the terrorists in other parts of the country.

We saw the value of large and more capable Iraqi security forces in Najaf and Fallujah last year, when America and Iraqi forces conducted joint operations to clean out terrorist strongholds. We followed up these successful efforts by working with the Iraqi government to ensure that Iraqi forces were able to maintain law and order. We worked with local leaders to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope. As a result, the people of Najaf and Fallujah are safer, and their cities are moving ahead with vital reconstruction. And that's part of our strategy to help develop a secure, safe democracy in Iraq.

We're seeking to repeat this success elsewhere in Iraq, most recently in the country's northwest region. This area was the main route of foreign terrorists entering Iraq from Syria and a major concern of coalition forces. During operations in the key town of Tal Afar, Iraqi security forces outnumbered U.S. forces for the first time in a major offensive operation. Our joint efforts killed, captured or flushed out hundreds of terrorists. As a part of General Casey's strategy, Iraqi forces remain in Tal Afar to ensure that the terrorists are not allowed to return, regroup and hold hostage the innocent residents of that city.

President George W. Bush gestures as he delivers a statement Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005, on the War on Terror during a visit to the Pentagon. President Bush also thanked the leadership of the Pentagon for their help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. White House photo by Eric Draper Thanks to these operations we're making it more difficult for foreign terrorists to enter through the northwest part of Iraq. Coalition and Iraqi troops are now focusing their efforts in western Iraq where we're trying to stop foreign terrorists from entering through Syria and prevent al Qaeda from establishing a safe haven in the Anbar province.

General Casey is working with his Iraqi counterparts to restore Iraqi control of this region. And when we have completed this task, elements of the Iraqi military will remain to protect Iraq's border and ensure that the enemy does not return to dominate this region and intimidate its citizens.

To ensure that we can maintain this aggressive pace the military operations through the election period, we have temporarily increased our troop levels, just as we have before other major political events. As the Iraqi security forces establish control over more and more of their country, American troops will support these forces and continue to hunt down the terrorists in the remaining problem areas.

Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make. They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.

Iraqis are providing security in Najaf and parts of Diyala province. In all these areas, the Iraqis are gathering useful intelligence. They're forging alliances with civic and religious leaders. As the Iraqi security forces show they're capable of keeping the terrorists out, they're earning the confidence of the Iraqi people and ensuring the success of a free and democratic Iraq.

Listen, there are differences of opinion about the way forward; I understand that. Some Americans want us to withdraw our troops so that we can escape the violence. I recognize their good intentions, but their position is wrong. Withdrawing our troops would make the world more dangerous, and make America less safe. To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us.

President George W. Bush delivers a statement Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005, on the War on Terror during a visit to the Pentagon. President Bush also thanked the leadership of the Pentagon for their help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. White House photo by Eric Draper Now the terrorists are testing our will and resolve in Iraq. If we fail that test, the consequences for the safety and security of the American people would be enormous. Our withdrawal from Iraq would allow the terrorists to claim an historic victory over the United States. It would leave our enemies emboldened and allow men like Zarqawi and bin Laden to dominate the Middle East and launch more attacks on America and other free nations. The battle lines are drawn, and there is no middle ground: either we defeat the terrorists and help the Iraqis build a working democracy, or the terrorists will impose their dark ideology on the Iraqi people and make that country a source of terror and instability to come for decades.

The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission. For the security of the American people, that's not going to happen on my watch. We'll do our duty. We'll defeat our enemies in Iraq and other fronts in the war on terror. We'll lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

Since our country was attacked on the morning of September the 11th, 2001, we have known that the war on terror would require tremendous sacrifice and commitment. Across the world, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces are taking on dangerous and difficult work. Some have given their lives in battle; they did so in a cause that is just and necessary for the security of this country. We're grateful for their service. We pray for their families they left behind. We'll honor their sacrifice by completing their mission and winning the war on terror.