January 31, 2007
THE LITTLE ORANGE BOOK:
A Graceful Guide to Vietnamese History and Cuisine (Warren Johnston, 1/31/07, Valley News)
In 1975, just days before the North Vietnamese Army swept into the city, 6-year-old Andrea Nguyen and her family escaped from Saigon to a new life in California.Along with than a change of clothes and few other things, one of the most valuable possessions the family took was her mother's small recipe notebook. That little orange book and her parents' passion for the distinctive Vietnamese cuisine molded Nguyen's life and became the essential link to the family's rich heritage and cultural past.
When she decided to write a cookbook, her mother gave her the orange notebook, which became the basis of Into the Vietnamese Kitchen, which was published in December.
"So, consider this book a new, expanded version of that notebook. I present it to you from the heart and soul of our family kitchen," Nguyen writes in the introduction.
The book is a lesson in the history of a proud country and a doorway into the culture of Vietnam, where the food reflects centuries of influence from foreign occupation and strife, as well as the ingenuity and creativity of the people who live in the beleaguered nation.
AND LABOUR HAMMERS THE STAKE IN:
Forget constitution or we veto all plans, Britain tells the EU (Philip Webster, 2/01/07, Times of London)
Britain will refuse to sign up to minor changes in the running of the European Union unless it secures a pledge that there will be no revival of the European constitution, The Times has learnt.Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have agreed that the Government should take a tough line to avoid the constitution dominating British politics for the two years leading up to the next election.
As we watch Baghdadistan struggle it's all too easy to forget how quickly political situations change. Recall just how recently the EU was thought to be inevitable, but now it's not only the continental states but the party of the British Left that are dispatching it.
THEY WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE 13% WITHOUT THE COERCION THE MONOPOLY PROVIDES:
An intelligent approach to intelligent design (Michael Balter, January 31, 2007, International Herald Tribune)
Given the theory of evolution's monopoly in the classroom, one might think that it has gained a steady stream of converts over the years. But a recent poll taken for the BBC found that the British public was split on the issue: Only 48 percent of respondents thought evolution best explained the development of life on earth, while 22 percent chose creationism, 17 percent intelligent design, and the rest said they did not know.As depressing as those figures might be to scientists, they are pretty good compared to the results of similar surveys in the United States. A Gallup poll in November 2004 found that only 13 percent of respondents thought that God had no part in the evolution or creation of human beings, while 45 percent said they believed that God had created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so.
To be sure, this chronic skepticism about evolutionary theory reflects the continuing strong influence of religion. Yet it also implies that scientists have not been persuasive enough, even when buttressed by strong scientific evidence that natural selection alone can account for life's complexity.
Could it be that the theory of evolution's monopoly in the classroom has backfired?
With all due regard to Mr. Balter, you have to laugh at the notion that religion is the only basis for continuing skepticism about Darwinism. Heck, catch them with their guard down and even the most vocal of the adherents don't really believe natural selection suffices.
And, of course, the honest ones are beyong redemption, Why Do We Invoke Darwin?: Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology (Philip S. Skell, 8/29/05, The Scientist)
Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils - even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures - but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000. "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one." [...]
Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.
-The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr: The preeminent biologist, who just turned 100, reflects on his prolific career and the history, philosophy and future of his field On July 5, renowned evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr celebrated his 100th birthday. He also recently finished writing his 25th book, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline [Cambridge University Press, in press]. A symposium in Mayr's honor was held at Harvard University on May 10. Scientific American editor and columnist Steve Mirsky attended the symposium and wrote about it for the upcoming August issue. On May 15, Mirsky, Brazilian journalist Claudio Angelo and Angelo's colleague Marcelo Leite visited Mayr at his apartment in Bedford, Mass. (Scientific American, 7/06/04)
Claudio Angelo: What is the book about?Ernst Mayr: What the book is about. (Laughs.) Primarily to show, and you will think that this doesn't need showing, but lots of people would disagree with you. To show that biology is an autonomous science and should not be mixed up with physics. That's my message. And I show it in about 12 chapters. And, as another fact, when people ask me what is really your field, and 50 years or 60 years ago, without hesitation I would have said I'm an ornithologist. Forty years ago I would have said, I'm an evolutionist. And a little later I would still say I'm an evolutionist, but I would also say I'm an historian of biology. And the last 20 years, I love to answer, I'm a philosopher of biology. And, as a matter of fact, and that is perhaps something I can brag about, I have gotten honorary degrees for my work in ornithology from two universities, in evolution, in systematics, in history of biology and in philosophy of biology. Two honorary degrees from philosophy departments.
Steve Mirsky: And the philosophical basis for physics versus biology is what you examine in the book?
EM: I show first in the first chapter and in some chapters that follow later on, I show that biology is as serious, honest, legitimate a science as the physical sciences. All the occult stuff that used to be mixed in with philosophy of biology, like vitalism and teleology-Kant after all, when he wanted to describe biology, he put it all on teleology, just to give an example-all this sort of funny business I show is out. Biology has exactly the same hard-nosed basis as the physical sciences, consisting of the natural laws. The natural laws apply to biology just as much as they do to the physical sciences. But the people who compare the two, or who, like some philosophers, put in biology with physical sciences, they leave out a lot of things. And the minute you include those, you can see clearly that biology is not the same sort of thing as the physical sciences. And I cannot give a long lecture now on that subject, that's what the book is for.
I'll give you an example. In principle, biology differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
Now then you can say, how can you have theories in biology if you don't have laws on which to base them? Well, in biology your theories are based on something else. They're based on concepts. Like the concept of natural selection forms the basis of, practically the most important basis of, evolutionary biology. You go to ecology and you get concepts like competition or resources, ecology is just full of concepts. And those concepts are the basis of all the theories in ecology. Not the physical laws, they're not the basis. They are of course ultimately the basis, but not directly, of ecology. And so on and so forth. And so that's what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
THEY'RE BOUND BY TRADE TREATIES, WE AREN'T BY KYOTO:
Chirac tells U.S. to join climate protocol or face taxes (Katrin Bennhold, January 31, 2007, International Herald Tribune)
[I]n an interview, Chirac warned that if Washington did not join a global climate accord, a Europewide carbon tax on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol could be imposed to try to force U.S. compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for U.S. goods."A carbon tax is inevitable," Chirac said. "If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay."
LAND OF MAKE-BELIEVE NOT (via Kevin Whited):
Welcome to Palestine (Caroline Glick, 1/31/07, Real Clear Politics)
In the world of international diplomacy few issues receive more wall-to-wall support than the notion that it is essential to establish a Palestinian state. Leaders worldwide are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a State of Palestine to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists.This state was officially founded in the summer of 2005, when Israel removed its military forces and civilian population from the Gaza Strip and so established the first wholly independent Palestinian state in history. Israel's destruction of four Israeli communities in Northern Samaria and curtailment of its military operations in the area set the conditions for statehood in that area as well.
And so it is that as statesmen and activists worldwide loudly proclaim their commitment to establishing the sovereign State of Palestine, they miss the fact that Palestine exists.
Having recognized that rather obvious fact, consider what a gratuitous and counter-productive affront it is to maintain the political fiction that it isn't a state yet.
NOT THAT THE KNOW-NOTHING RIGHT WILL EVER CATCH ON TO HOW MUCH GOOD THE DO-NOTHING CONGRESS DID (via Kevin Whited):
A Health-Care Bargain (DAVID GRATZER, January 31, 2007, Wall Street Journal)
Three years ago this month, insurance companies began offering Americans a new type of medical coverage: health savings accounts, which marry low-cost, high-deductible health insurance policies with pre-tax accounts to pay for day-to-day health care. But the anniversary is muted. A slew of reports have been critical, dismissing consumer-driven health care as unpopular and harmful; and with the Democrats in control of Congress, Washington's enthusiasm for the concept has cooled. Nevertheless, the Republicans should take credit where due. The White House ought to build on the growing success of HSAs, which are integral to the president's vision of "affordable and available" health care.An executive of an upstart airline recently described her company as having three 757s, more than 200 employees, and one big headache: rising health-care costs. Thus, they made the switch to HSAs in 2006, and premiums rose just 5%, compared with a national average of over 8%. Such successes aren't making the news, but overwhelmingly negative stories are. A much reported Commonwealth Fund survey, for example, concluded that enrollment in consumer-driven plans is stagnant, people are grossly dissatisfied, and care is delayed. But the report was flawed on its face: For one, it was unrepresentative, drawn from a pool of "Internet users who have agreed to participate in research surveys."
Here's the untold story: Despite recent entry into the market, these plans are gaining popularity. Drawing on information from major insurance carriers, William Boyles, publisher of the Consumer Driven Market Report, estimates that enrollment in HSA-type plans or HRAs (a forerunner to health savings accounts) more than doubled since January 2006, to 13.4 million Americans. The estimate is plausible, as last year twice as many employers offered this coverage than in 2005, and the number of financial institutions supporting HSAs tripled.
Early data suggest good results. [...]
Looking back on GOP-era Capitol Hill, welfare reform stands out as the greatest achievement; health savings accounts may eventually be considered a close second.
Except that HSA's will eventually be universal, so they are far greater.
MORE:
Bad Plan, Necessary Step: The progressive case for Bush's health insurance tax deduction (Paul Starr, 01.24.07, American Prospect)
Anyone with a long view of the struggle for universal health insurance ought to be in favor of it.Before I bring down a chorus of disapproval, let me explain.
Ever since the 1940s, when employment-based insurance took off, proposals for universal coverage have faced a huge barrier in public opinion. The millions of people receiving employer-provided coverage have had no idea how much it costs.
Many employees believe they are getting coverage essentially for free. Or else they see their own share of the premium -- say, 20 percent -- and mistake it for the whole cost. New taxes inevitably seem to them an extra burden, and they are easily recruited into the opposition.
To get a clear and fair debate over progressive proposals -- whether those are for single-payer or other alternatives -- requires that Americans understand how much health insurance already costs. The Bush proposal is a step in that direction. It would eliminate the tax-free status of employer payments for health insurance, which means everyone would see on their W-2 how much they were paying for coverage. Then there would be a $15,000 deduction for a couple ($7,500 for a single person) regardless of whether they bought health insurance directly or received it via their job.
Is this more equitable than the current system? Yes, actually it is.
Imagine Democrats trying to take the burgeoning savings accounts of the hundreds of millions of healthy Americans?
MORE/MORE:
A Tax Increase You Could Love (AMITY SHLAES, January 26, 2007, NY Sun)
[T]he big change here isn't in the pennies and dimes. It is in the way the plan lodges responsibility for a family's health budget with the family, instead of employers. This isn't merely a tax shift but also a cultural shift, Republicans say. It would make Americans feel stronger and more economically secure.And they are right. In fact, the move is long overdue. The old system of employers providing health care is as much a result of historical accident as of coherent policy. Back in the 1930s, Congress and President Roosevelt created Social Security over corporate protests. A national system of payment for health care seemed next. In 1945 Harry Truman would go around talking about "the right to adequate medical care."
Terrified employers raced to pre-empt Presidents Roosevelt and Truman by proving they could handle health themselves. They contracted with Blue Cross and Blue Shield to provide benefits for employee pools. The tax treatment came last -- in fact no one knew for a while whether companies really could claim the insurance deduction.
But World War II made the new arrangement seem doubly logical. Congress imposed an "excess" profits tax of as much as 90% and froze wages. Paying for health insurance was a way to reduce tax bills and keep workers, who were suddenly scarce. Unions were pleased. By 1945, 32 million Americans were in health-insurance programs, many sponsored by companies, up to 13 million from 12 million just five years before.
Though such fringe benefits quickly came to feel as American as a Ford in the driveway, the arrangement affected our culture in ways that were not all positive. It helped give rise to the Organization Man of the 1950s, a fellow dependent on his employer to the point of caricature. Corporate health plans also smothered incentives to economize. Having three parties responsible for health-cost decisions meant that no one was. Needless to say, innovations from magnetic-resonance imaging devices to the heart stent -- you name it -- only expanded spending.
Fast forward to today and the accidental health insurance exclusion has morphed into a giant revenue drain. In 2007, the federal government will forgo about $150 billion in tax revenue by way of this break. That figure is higher than the cost of either of two other such deductions, one for home-mortgage interest and the one for state and local taxes. It is something like paying for an extra Iraq every year.
OUTLASTED ANOTHER ONE... (via Ed Driscoll):
Molly Ivins Dies of Cancer at 62 (KELLEY SHANNON, 1/31/07, Associated Press)
Best-selling author and columnist Molly Ivins, the sharp-witted liberal who skewered the political establishment and referred to President Bush as "Shrub," died Wednesday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was 62. [...]"I'm sorry to say (cancer) can kill you but it doesn't make you a better person," she said in an interview with the San Antonio Express- News in September, the same month cancer claimed her friend former Gov. Ann Richards.
A RATHER TYPICAL SUPER BOWL QB:
How Does Grossman Rank Among the Worst Super Bowl QBs? (ALLEN BARRA, January 26, 2007, NY Sun)
Let's compare Grossman with the leading competition for Worst Super Bowl QB:Joe Kapp, 1969, Minnesota Vikings. Kapp passed for just 1,706 yards but had a respectable 7.3 yards per throw and an okay TD-to-interception rate of 19-13. Kapp's Vikings got stuffed in the Super Bowl by Kansas City, 23-7.
Terry Bradshaw, 1974, Pittsburgh Steelers. Later, Bradshaw would develop into a great and one of the greatest of postseason quarterbacks. In 1974 he was dreadful, completing just 67 of 148 passes for 785 yards and a horrendous 5.3 YPP and 7 TDs against 8 interceptions. [...]
Craig Morton, 1977, Denver Broncos. The much-maligned Morton wasn't bad in '77, passing for 1,929 yards and a 7.6 average with 14 TDs and 8 INT. Lost to history is the fact that in '77, at least, Morton was as good a passer as his Cowboy opponent, the great Roger Staubach. But Staubach's Cowboys had the better defense and won 27-10.
Vince Ferragamo, 1979, Los Angeles Rams. Ferragamo's name has pretty much become a joke among NFL history buffs, and it's true he had just 5 TD passes to 10 interceptions that season, throwing for only 778 yards. [...]
David Woodley, 1982, Miami Dolphins. There's no getting around it: Woodley was one of the worst ever to make it to the big game, passing for only 1,080 yards with a dreadful 6.03 average and 5 TDs and 8 Ints. [...]
Drew Bledsoe, 1996, New England Patriots. One of Bill Parcells's great achievements was going to the Super Bowl with a quarterback as undistinguished as Drew Bledsoe, whose numbers are fairly similar to Rex Grossman's this year: 4,086 yards but a only 6.56 YPP average. [...]
Kerry Collins, 2000, New York Giants. Kerry Collins should just have gone out on the field with the word "Mediocre" stitched to the back of his uniform. [...]
Trent Dilfer, 2000, Baltimore Ravens. Truly the 2001 Super Bowl matched the two most perfectly ordinary quarterbacks in the game's history. Dilfer threw fewer passes than the Ravens other QB, Tony Banks, 225 to 274. But Dilfer had a better YPP, 6.7 to Banks' 5.8, so by the end of the season, he was Baltimore's starter. He wound up with a measly 12 TDs against 11 interceptions. [...]
Brad Johnson, 2002, Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Like Dilfer, Johnson played QB for a team with a truly great defense. Unlike Dilfer, Johnson made some small contributions: 3,049 yards passing, 6.8 YPP, and, best of all, a TD-INT ratio of 22-6.
PLENTY OF FLUFF AND NUTTERS TO GO AROUND:
Biden Unbound: Lays Into Clinton, Obama, Edwards (Jason Horowitz, 1/30/07, NY Observer)
"Are they going to turn to Hillary Clinton?" Biden asked, lowering his voice to a hush to explain why Mrs. Clinton won't win the election.
"Everyone in the world knows her," he said. "Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can't break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats? Where do you want to be? Do you want to be in a place where 100 percent of the Democrats know you? They've looked at you for the last three years. And four out of 10 is the max you can get?"
Mr. Biden is equally skeptical--albeit in a slightly more backhanded way--about Mr. Obama. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
But--and the "but" was clearly inevitable--he doubts whether American voters are going to elect "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate," and added: "I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic." [...]
Mr. Biden seemed to reserve a special scorn for Mr. Edwards, who suffered from a perceived lack of depth in foreign policy in the Presidential election of 2004.
"I don't think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about," Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards' advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.
"John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, 'I want us out of there,' but when you come back and you say, 'O.K., John'"--here, the word "John" became an accusatory, mocking refrain--"'what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?' Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it--they are just smart enough not to enunciate it."
This is what makes the Joe Biden of Richard Ben Cramer's What it Takes so endearing: he combines the rare capability of offering both the most intelligent analysis of the political situation with verbiage that effectively buries his chances of being taken seriously.
WAH WAH, HE EXPLAINED:
Memo to Republicans: Shut up, shut up, shut up! (Ted Rall, 1/30/07, United Press International)
The accompanying picture does indicate momentary self-control, as Mr. Rall is not sticking out his tongue or making any funny faces.
THE CW IS ALWAYS WRONG...
Whose Iran? (LAURA SECOR, 1/27/07, NY Times Magazine)
Early on, Ahmadinejad's faction was expected to win last month's elections handily. But the results contradicted the conventional wisdom about the Iranian electorate. The president put forward his own slate of candidates for the city councils. It was trounced. By some reckonings, reformists won two-fifths of the council seats and even dominated in some cities, including Kerman and Arak. Some conservative city-council candidates did well, particularly in Tehran, but they were not the conservatives associated with Ahmadinejad: rather, they belonged to the rival conservative faction of the current Tehran mayor, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. And most significant, the vote for Rafsanjani for the Assembly of Experts dwarfed that of Mesbah-Yazdi by nearly two to one. By mid-January, Ahmadinejad's isolation even within his own faction was complete: 150 of 290 members of parliament, including many of Ahmadinejad's onetime allies, signed a letter criticizing the president's economic policies for failing to stanch unemployment and inflation. A smaller group also blamed Ahmadinejad's inflammatory foreign-policy rhetoric for the United Nations Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. As if that were not enough, an editorial in Jomhouri Eslami, a newspaper that reflects the views of the supreme leader, accused the president of using the nuclear issue to distract the public from his failed policies. Ahmadinejad's behavior was diminishing popular support for the nuclear program, the editorial warned. The Iranian political system seems to be restoring its equilibrium by showing an extremist president the limits of his power. But is it an equilibrium that can hold?In part, last month's election results reflected the complexity of Ahmadinejad's skeptical, conditional and diverse constituency. They also demonstrated his isolation within the powerful conservative establishment, whose politics, however opaque, are determinative. At its center, Khamenei commands a faction known as the traditional conservatives. No elected leader can serve, let alone execute a policy agenda, without the acquiescence of the supreme leader and his associates. But was Ahmadinejad one of the leader's associates? Or was he, like his predecessor, Khatami, something of a political rival? The answer to this question should determine the extent to which Ahmadinejad's foreign-policy extremism and authoritarian tendencies are taken seriously as a political program. But it is a puzzle that has vexed political analysts since the president took office in August 2005, bringing with him a faction that was largely new to the post-revolutionary political scene. Composed partly of military and paramilitary elements, partly of extremist clerics like Mesbah-Yazdi and partly of inexperienced new conservative politicians, those in Ahmadinejad's faction are often called "neoconservatives." But to the extent that they have an ideology, it is less new than old, harking back to the early days of the Islamic republic. Since that time, the same elite has largely run Iranian politics, though it has divided itself into competing factions, and the act of wielding power has mellowed many hard-liners into pragmatists. Ahmadinejad's faction, on the other hand, came into power speaking the language of the past but with the zeal of the untried.
...but seldom as wrong as it was about the Ahmedinejad election.
SOMEONE DIDN'T GET THE PERLSTEIN MEMO:
Senate Republican challenges Bush on war powers (Laurie Kellman, 1/30/07, ASSOCIATED PRESS)
"Read the Constitution," [Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California] told her colleagues last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."Congress used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia.
Doesn't she know we're all ignoring the Democrats stab-in-the-back of South Vietnam?
NEAT STRIPED PABULUM YOU CAN EAT WITH A SHOVEL:
The Secret of Obama's Appeal Stays a Secret (Andrew Ferguson, Jan. 31, 2007, Bloomberg)
Barack Obama's book ``The Audacity of Hope'' is well into its fourth month on the bestseller list, and even a professional sourpuss (not that I know any) can see why.``I am new enough on the national political scene,'' he writes in the book's prologue, ``to serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.''
Never mind the mixed metaphor about striped people projecting on screens (a rare infelicity from such a graceful writer). The statement is the purest Obama, the kind of sentiment that people seldom get from a career politician: knowing, self- aware, candid, vivid in its expression and -- most amazing of all -- true.
``The Audacity of Hope,'' in fact, can best be understood as an extended effort on the part of the first-term Illinois senator to keep that screen as blank as possible.
He's been so successful that already some of his would-be supporters are expressing frustration at their inability to pin Obama down on their favorite causes.
THERE IS NO BRITAIN:
Scots Guard: How Anti-Scottish sentiment will crush Britain's Labour Party. (Alex Massie, 01.31.07, New Republic)
Like Bute before him, Brown has found himself subject to trial by tabloid in London. And he, too, is being found wanting.The current tensions have arisen as a result of a Labour government's decision to establish a Scottish parliament in Edinburgh in 1999. This was, as John Smith, Blair's predecessor as Labour leader and another Scot, put it "the settled will of the Scottish people." Unfortunately, no one thought to ask the English what they thought of this disruption to what they had assumed was a great and happy Union. Since devolution, the English have come to suspect they have received the leaner half of the bargain first made in 1707 when the Scots and English parliaments first agreed to unite. And, now that Brown is on the point of succeeding Blair, the English are revolting.
The 59 Scottish MPs who remain at Westminster may (and do) vote on laws affecting England but not Scotland, while English MPs have no reciprocal right to legislate or vote on matters reserved to the new parliament in Edinburgh. Worse, the English look north and see a Scottish parliament that lavishes baubles--such as free university tuition and health care for the elderly--upon Scots that are unavailable in England. Annual identifiable government spending remains approximately $3,000 per capita higher in Scotland than England, providing grounds for English grousing that the Scots are little more than subsidy junkies. And English discontent is granted righteousness when Blair's government relies upon the votes of Scottish Labour MPs to provide its majority for increasing college tuition fees in England.
So these are chilly times for Scots at Westminster. A cry of "English votes for English laws" can be heard whenever the English stir themselves to contemplate the Union. According to a poll for the BBC's "Newsnight" program, 61 percent of them now favor an English Parliament. The programs' host, Jeremy Paxman, has complained that the English are compelled to suffer under a "Scottish Raj." It is time, The Daily Telegraph's Simon Heffer wrote recently, for "English independence from Scotland."
No representation without legislation.
WHAT ABOUT THE STEEL TARIFFS?:
Bush Seeks Less Money for Farm Programs (Greg Hitt, 1/31/07, WSJ: Washington Wire)
Plowing into the sensitive political debate over farm policy, the Bush administration is proposing to lift spending on conservation initiatives but trim the commodity subsidies that support farm production. The plan, to be unveiled today by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, is designed to pull agriculture spending $10 billion below the controversial farm program adopted in 2002. [...]The more market-oriented program will undoubtedly spark sharp debate in the Democratic-led Congress, where lawmakers are gearing up to overhaul the 2002 program. The new program will be touted as consistent with President Bush's call to eliminate the federal deficit. But in taking on the politically sensitive subsidy issue, the Bush administration is also making an effort to signal a new seriousness in the Doha Round of global trade talks, bringing domestic programs in closer alignment with the course of negotiations.
NO ONE'S KILLED MORE CIVILIANS THAN WE HAVE:
Iranians Overwhelmingly Reject Bin Laden (World Public Opinion)
Although the U.S. government has accused Iran's government of sponsoring international terrorism, the Iranian people themselves are somewhat more likely than Americans to oppose attacks that deliberately target civilians. [...]Both Iranians and Americans have strongly negative views of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Three in four Iranians (74%) and more than nine in ten Americans (94%) view bin Laden unfavorably, including large majorities (68% and 89%, respectively) who view him very unfavorably. Only 10 percent of Iranians look at the al Qaeda leader favorably (2% Americans). [...]
At the most general level, respondents were asked: "Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"
A very large majority of Iranians (80%) take the strongest position that such attacks "are never justified," and another 5 percent say they are rarely justified. Only 11 percent call them sometimes (8%) or often (3%) justified.
Americans largely concur but at lower levels of intensity. Forty-six percent say that such attacks are never justified, while 27 percent say they are rarely justified. Twenty-four percent see them as sometimes (19%) or often (5%) justified.
Iranians were also asked specifically about attacks on American and Iraqi civilians, with "sometimes" or "never" justified the only options given. Nine in ten Iranians (88%) say that "attacks against Iraqi civilians in Iraq" are never justified. Nearly as many (76 percent) say "attacks against American civilians living in the United States" are never justified (15% sometimes justified).
Respondents were then asked to think "in the context of war and other forms of military conflict" and to consider whether certain types of civilians could be a legitimate target. Overwhelming majorities of Iranians reject as "never justified:" attacks on women and children (91%), the elderly (92%), and "wives and children of the military" (86%).
Americans largely agree, though larger percentages in each case said such attacks are rarely justified. This is true for attacks on women and children (72% never, 15% rarely), the elderly (71% never, 16% rarely), and wives and children of the military (74% never, 12% rarely).
Three more questions dealt with targeting civilians employed by the government. Here again, Iranians are more unequivocal than Americans in their rejection of such attacks, whether the targets are civilians employed by the government, policemen, or intelligence agents.
THEY DESERVE GENIUS GRANTS:
Schoolyard penis seen from space (EducationGuardian.co.uk, January 31, 2007)
Two pupils who drew a giant penis on a school lawn using weed killer two years ago can still admire their work from satellite photos now posted on the internet.Despite the school re-seeding the area, the penis has turned up on satellite image search engines because a photo was taken before the new grass could conceal the appendage.
The unnamed pair of year 11 pupils from Bellemoor school for boys in Southampton, burned the 6-metre (20ft) phallus into the grass as an end of term joke.
FORTUNATELY, NYC HAS CORPORATE OFFICES, NOT PLANT FLOORS::
Bush pushes free trade at tractor plant: Campaigning to renew his fast-track powers, the president also gets a chance to drive a giant earthmover (James Gerstenzang and Molly Hennessy-Fiske, January 31, 2007, LA Times)
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, signaled a readiness Tuesday to work with Bush on the issue, saying he was trying to get the two political parties out of "divorce court.""If we don't give trade promotion authority [to the White House], we've got to have a good reason for not giving it," he said during a committee meeting. [...]
Bush's audience, 300 plant workers and company managers, was generally subdued. But it came alive, just as he did, when he described his encounter with a D10 track-type tractor, a behemoth of a machine.
He climbed aboard, telling reporters, "I would suggest moving back. I'm about to crank this sucker up."
With that, the machine came to life, moving forward on its yellow metal treads, until the president brought it to a halt about 20 feet down the line and started it on a backward turn. When Bush climbed down from the cab, the inner boy was shining through, and a broad, sheepish grin crossed his face.
"Oh, yeah," he said.
"If you've never driven a D10," he told the workers and managers a few minutes later, "it's a cool experience."
Mr. Rangel is about as pro-trade as his party gets these days.
FEAR OF THE TRINITY:
In Legacy of a Revered Martyr, Saudi Shiites Find Sustenance: Lessons From Killing of Hussein in 7th Century Define Lives, Ambitions of His Followers Today (Faiza Saleh Ambah, 1/31/07, Washington Post)
To many of the region's historically persecuted Shiites, the death of Hussein in what is now Karbala, Iraq, the event that triggered the schism between Sunnis and Shiites, remains central to their lives. Shiite belief that Hussein and his descendants were robbed of their rightful succession as rulers of the Islamic world heightens their sense of persecution and victimization.The story of Hussein, who chose to confront an enemy army with only a small band of men rather than bow to an oppressive leader, permeates Shiite life from childhood, Hani said.
"You cannot understand Shiites if you don't understand the lessons of Hussein's death," the 44-year-old author added. "Hussein taught us not to fear death because you can achieve victory even through death, as long as you fight injustice and stay true to your principles."
That lesson has not been lost on Saudi Arabia's long-suppressed Shiite minority, a 2 million-strong community living mainly in the oil-rich Eastern Province. Shiites here have only recently been granted greater religious freedoms, including the right to commemorate Ashura publicly. But fears in the Arab world of growing Shiite clout have raised concern among local Shiites that sectarian tensions could roll back some of the progress.
Shiite Iran's increased regional influence, Iraq's newly dominant Shiite majority and the push for more power by Lebanon's Shiites have led to a closing of Sunni ranks in many countries of the region and calls for quashing a Shiite revival.
Shiites, who make up less than 15 percent of the kingdom's 16 million citizens, are considered heretics by the Wahhabi Sunni ideology practiced in the kingdom.
Emboldened by Iran's 1979 revolution, Saudi Shiites began staging demonstrations during Ashura demanding more rights and freedoms. This led to a brutal government crackdown that resulted in scores of deaths, hundreds of arrests and tense relations in the 1980s.
The situation improved after Shiite exiles returned in 1994 following a truce with the government. And several years ago, reform-minded King Abdullah launched a policy of openness, allowing the community to build mosques and once-illegal community centers called husseiniyas. Shiites have also been granted a small measure of political power with wins in local municipal elections in 2004. But many complain that they still face severe discrimination in government positions, in the military and in schools.
Now, after a lull, Wahhabi clerics have again started issuing fatwas, or religious edicts, labeling Shiites infidels who are more dangerous to the faith than Christians and Jews.
They've got the three right.
EVERYTHING WILL BE DIFFERENT...:
FBI probing Rep. Miller's land sales: The Diamond Bar congressman made millions but avoided taxes by saying the sales were forced. Cities that were the buyers deny it (William Heisel, January 31, 2007, LA Times)
The FBI is investigating Rep. Gary Miller (R-Diamond Bar) for a series of land transactions in which he avoided paying capital gains taxes after saying he had been forced to sell under eminent domain in Monrovia and Fontana.The federal investigation was initiated after The Times reported in August that officials in both cities denied that they had acquired Miller's property using eminent domain, which enables governments to buy land for certain purposes even if owners do not want to sell.
After a land sale in Monrovia in 2002 and two subsequent sales in Fontana in 2005 and 2006, Miller claimed an exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 1033, which grants those forced to sell property through eminent domain at least two years to reinvest the profits without paying capital gains taxes.
Miller's repeated use of the forced-sale exemption has enabled deferment of capital gains taxes through at least 2009.
Dick Singer, a spokesman for Monrovia, said federal agents had interviewed city officials and requested a videotape from a City Council meeting in 2000 cited by The Times in which Miller asked city officials four times to buy his land.
Thank goodness we threw the bums out....
NO ONE'S EVER KIDDING:
HOSTILE ACTS: "The Sarah Silverman Program" puts the mean back in funny. (TAD FRIEND, 2007-02-05, The New Yorker)
Hostility may be the engine of humor, but the broadcast networks dread its snarl. Whenever they air a truly mean sitcom, such as the long-gone "Buffalo Bill" or "Action," the audience flees, so TV executives have learned to muffle their comedies' barbs in "Only kidding" smirks and "You're the greatest" hugs. Even on "Seinfeld," which forbade hugs and learning, the core foursome reserved their mockery for outsiders, for the close-talkers and re-gifters. They were there for one another--the network made sure that we saw the love beneath.So "The Sarah Silverman Program," much the meanest sitcom in years--and one of the funniest--premières this week, perforce, on Comedy Central. Silverman, the telescope-necked comedienne, has had trouble finding the right showcase for the contrary elements of her persona: the post-feminist tomboy who's sexually cocky and emotionally frigid, the eerily alert counterpuncher who's totally self-involved. (In her 2005 concert movie, "Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic," Silverman makes out with her own mirrored image.) She is best known for jarring "The Aristocrats," the documentary about a legendary joke, with her deadpan claim that "Joe Franklin raped me," and for dropping the epithet "chinks" into a joke on "Late Night with Conan O'Brien." Unlike many comedians, Silverman excavates prejudice less by digging into her own background (though in one episode she insincerely promises "full-frontal Jew-dity") than by strip-mining the turf of other minorities, particularly blacks and gays. Her game is to throw out stereotypes in a little-girl voice and with a winsome look that suggests no offense can legitimately be taken. You might admire Silverman's boldness, or you might feel that there's something sneaky in her appropriation of slurs that never wounded her--that it's the standup equivalent of the person who cuts in line and then can't believe you object.
Ah, the mental calisthentics a liberal has to go through to laugh at others.
NO MAHMOUD FOR COMPROMISE:
Shoppers see red and President feels the heat over tomatoes: Robert Tait finds the Iranian people and parliament in revolt (Robert Tait, January 28, 2007, Observer)
History is not littered with cases of heads of state being brought down by the price of tomatoes but, with his critics growing by the day, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could be in danger of earning such a distinction.Besieged by denunciations of his economic and nuclear policies, the President was put further on the defensive last week by MPs complaining that the cost of tomatoes had soared to 30,000 rial (£1.65) a kilo - an unthinkable price in a country where the average worker scrapes by on £225 a month.
Prices subsequently slipped back in response to the outcry. But the startling statistic crystallised popular anger over runaway inflation, which has eaten into the living standards of the army of low-income Iranians whom Ahmadinejad came to office pledging to help. [...]
More threatening to Ahmadinejad's authority is the increasing assertiveness of Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President and head of the powerful expediency council. Rafsanjani - whom Ahmadinejad defeated in the last presidential election - believes Iran faces a crisis and must negotiate on the nuclear case, even if it means backing down.
Rafsanjani last week voiced his concerns about the economy and the nuclear strategy to 100 MPs. He said the expediency council would scrutinise Ahmadinejad's budget and criticised 'high-ranking officials' for under-estimating the international threat.In remarks interpreted as designed to show the President's waning influence, Rafsanjani described how a top-level official had been slapped down by Khamenei. 'We had a session with the supreme leader and a group of officials,' he said. 'Somebody said, "the threats are not serious and there is no need for concern", to which Ayatollah Khamenei replied, "the threats are serious".' The unnamed official is broadly assumed to have been Ahmadinejad.
Rafsanjani reminded MPs that the 'highest religious duty' of officials was preserving Iran's Islamic system - implying this might mean making painful compromises with the West.
Rafsanjani was pushing at an open door. Parliament is in open revolt, believing the President guilty of incompetence, arrogance and self-indulgence.
Moves were afoot to rein him in even before Rafsanjani's pep talk. A petition is being circulated to summon Ahmadinejad for questioning over his economic and nuclear policies, while impeachment proceedings are under way against four ministers.
Emad Afrough, a fundamentalist MP, said parliament would start dictating to Ahmadinejad unless he learnt the art of consultation. 'The political situation is going to force the government to consult more. If not, some issues be dictated to them,' he said. 'The government cannot count on the fundamentalists like before.'
A reformist MP, Akbar Aalami, said disenchantment had reached unprecedented levels. 'This government lacks the maturity to fulfil its legal duties and exercise authority,' he said.
With Ahmedinejad isolated those above and below him the U.S. should be addressing both.
ALL HUMOR COMES AT SOMEONE'S EXPENSE:
No Joke: Hillary's failure to connect (Jonah Goldberg, 1/31/07, National Review)
A weird thing happened in Iowa this week. Hillary Clinton was campaigning for president -- no, that's not the weird thing -- and she paraphrased a question from the audience about what in her experience prepared her to deal with "evil and bad men." Before she could answer, the audience burst into laughter, and Clinton joined in.It was such an awkward moment, much of the commentariat hasn't figured out exactly what to say about it, starting with Clinton herself. At first she tried to explain that she was thinking of Osama bin Laden and Bush's inability to capture him. Later, she claimed she was making a joke -- just not about her husband.
From my own viewing of the video -- you can find it on YouTube and elsewhere -- Hillary wasn't making any joke at all. She was merely the butt of one and laughed along with the crowd -- without getting the joke -- in an excruciating "I meant to do that" sort of way.
When asked whether the joke was about Bill, she said, "Oh, come on. Well, I don't think anybody in there thought that." But of course everyone thought that.
If there's one fact the Left doesn't want to face it is that all comedy is conservative.
CRANK UP THE VCR:
'The Supreme Court': PBS Does Justice to History (Tom Shales, 1/31/07, Washington Post)
Although the idea of spending four hours listening to professors and law clerks might not sound precisely irresistible, "The Supreme Court" -- a two-part history of "the most powerful judicial tribunal in the world" -- bravely upholds a PBS tradition. Namely, providing television for people who have a serious interest in the country and world around them.The film is rarely as dry as one might fear, filled as it is with the stories of epochal cases -- Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade-- and illuminating details, such as the fact that President Dwight D. Eisenhower only appointed Earl Warren to the court because of a promise made at the 1952 Republican convention. Or that when the court handed down its decision on Marbury v. Madison in 1803, it lacked a home of its own and was forced to convene in a hotel lobby.
History is inherently dull stuff only to the determinedly uninformed, but obviously presentation counts, especially in television. Executive producer Jody Sheff keeps "Supreme Court" (airing in two two-hour segments) arrestingly visual. There are various historic photographs, well-shot and edited close-up interviews with authoritative figures -- including current Chief Justice John Roberts, who proves a highly telegenic communicator. And there are printed or written words from key decisions that are pulled from documents, magnified and swept across the screen -- a case in which taking words out of context, literally, is helpful.
WHY DOES DAD HAVE THE CAR RUNNING AND THE GARAGE DOOR CLOSED?:
"Goodnight Moon" | Gentle, playful and musical (Mary Murfin Bayley, 1/31/07, The Seattle Times)
It is hard to imagine a more still and quiet picture book than Margaret Wise Brown's 1947 "Goodnight Moon," or one less likely to become a full-length musical complete with tap-dancing bears. The book's lovely illustrations by Clement Hurd show the same simple green room and small bunny going to bed as each page gets darker and the stars outside the windows get brighter. The text is a series of goodnights: to mittens and kittens; to comb, brush, and bowl full of mush; to the pictures on the walls; and to a quiet old lady whispering hush. The goodnights gradually open out to include the moon, the stars and the air.Despite adding some scenes of showbiz razzle-dazzle and high-energy slapstick, the Seattle Children's Theatre version retains much of the gentle mood of the book.
Nothing has contributed more to reduced fertility rates than the stage in toddlers' development where they make their parents read this book repeatedly.
THE WHITE WHALE STAYS ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST:
Air Force tanker request gives Boeing edge, for now (Alicia Mundy, 1/31/07, Seattle Times)
After a behind-the-scenes battle in which politics counted as much as procurement goals, the Pentagon on Tuesday unveiled its rules for a potential $100 billion contract to replace the Air Force fleet of refueling tankers -- and the balance of power tilted toward Boeing.The request for proposal (RFP) issued by the Pentagon "inherently favors Boeing" against its only competitor, a partnership between European Aeronautics Defence & Space (EADS), and Northrop Grumman, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst.
NOT CHINA'S MODEL, FRANCE'S:
One thing China can't offer Africa (Bright B Simons, Evans Lartey and Franklin Cudjoe , 2/01/07, Asia Times)
China's model is much too dependent on the extravagant profusion of resources and too unproductive to be of much use. The African connection in this context is discussed in detail in the second half of this article.In the past decade, China has moved mountains to effect radical, wholesale changes to the way its defense industries are organized and their output calibrated to the global projection needs of its evolving geopolitical strategy. The impression has been given that reforms will be bold and sweeping and will manifest in a clear break from the traditional approach of melding technical progress to political priorities in China.
But clearly, from the results, it does not seem as if Chinese leaders had been prepared to move sufficiently away from their comfort zone, because they have only imported the most bureaucratic, centralist, crony-based aspects of military-industrial complexes in operation elsewhere, so that the long-lamented issue of the coupling of the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) bureaucratic inefficiency to a resource-intensive approach to military innovation has now been compounded with and magnified by the admission of private sector's "rent seekers" (corrupt influences) into the fold.
It makes one wonder whether China has been taking lessons from fabulously Dirigiste France. The French military-industrial complex, which has spawned white elephants such as the fancy-ballroom aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is a perfect study of how anti-competitive, over-subsidized, crony-dependent, pork-barreled institutional frameworks can handicap even the finest engineering and managerial talent.
The extent to which France's Grande Ecole and Ecole Polytechnique old boys' networks have become stumbling blocks in the reform of that country's stagnating defense industry cannot be summarized here; that the country's defense industry was nearly bankrupted in the mid-1990s ought to suffice as a hint.
Two hundred and twenty years after the Revolution they haven't figured out that the French model doesn't work?
WHAT HAS A QUARTER CENTURY OF FREE TRADE GIVEN US...:
Dems want trade talks to include protections (David J. Lynch, 1/30/07, USA TODAY)
President Bush and congressional Democrats fired the opening salvos Tuesday in what could become a major debate about whether the U.S. pursues additional trade agreements. [...]The looming battle about an extension comes amid what Democrats say is rising economic insecurity despite an unemployment rate of 4.5%.
...besides unprecedented global growth and democratization, deflation, full employment, and $53 trillion in household net worth?
THEY VOTE DEMOCRAT, DON'T THEY?:
Essay linking liberal Jews and anti-Semitism sparks furor (Patricia Cohen, January 30, 2007, International Herald Tribune)
The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist. [...]
By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.
January 30, 2007
MAVERICK ISN'T GONNA LIKE THAT:
How Mitt Romney Avoided Campaign-Finance Rules (Wall Street Journal, 1/30/07)
Federal law limits how much money individuals can give to presidential candidates -- $2,300 per election. But what about Compuware Inc. founder Peter Karmanos? Last year, he gave $250,000 to presidential aspirant and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Since 2004, 15 other Romney backers have sunk at least $100,000 each into the Republican's coffers, sometimes with a series of checks issued on a single day.Because he doesn't hold federal office, Romney became subject to the federal rules only after he set up a presidential exploratory committee earlier this month. Until then, his team took advantage of a little-noticed gap between federal and state law. While most states limit political donations, about a dozen don't. Romney's political team set up fund-raising committees in three of those: Michigan, Iowa and Alabama. During that time, his political action committees raised $7 million.
As a result, Romney was able to hit the ground running, a big advantage in what has already become a feverish race.
GONNA NEED MORE ROBOTS:
Job offers topped seekers in '06; unemployment down (Japan Times, 1/31/07)
The average ratio of job offers to job seekers topped 1.0 in 2006 for the first time in 14 years, while the unemployment rate for the year fell to an eight-year low, government statistics showed Tuesday.Last year's ratio of job offers to seekers rose 0.11 point from 2005 to 1.06, meaning there were 106 offers to every 100 people seeking work, the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry said.
FILTHY EUROS (via brian boys):
The man who knows why we're so hooked on coffee: Starbucks plays on our secret desires and trains us to speak its language. After visiting 400 outlets, one academic reveals how it's done (David Smith, January 28, 2007, The Observer)
The reason for the remarkable growth of one of the social markers of the past two decades - upmarket coffee shops such as Starbucks and Caffe Nero - could now be a little clearer thanks to an American academic who has undertaken a remarkable personal odyssey to try to get to the bottom of the conundrum. Bryant Simon spent a year visiting more than 400 of its coffee shops in several countries, observing customers for around 12 to 15 hours a week. [...]There are 530 branches in the UK and, with profits soaring, the company has said it aims to add 50 per year, about half of them in the south east of England. Anyone can now calculate their 'Starbucks density' using a locator on the company website: a person in Regent Street in London is within five miles of 166 branches.
It is proof the formula works even in a nation of tea drinkers, but Simon feels one element was lost in the move across the Atlantic: 'Starbucks is dirtier in Britain. Americans have been taught to do part of the labour, and they clean up after themselves. In the US, part of Starbucks' appeal is its cleanness.'
Don't they all have maids and butlers to pick up after them?
NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THAT CLEARED UP:
A Fundamental Evil (Doug Soderstrom, 31 January, 2007, Countercurrents.org)
I have come to the conclusion that the Christian fundamentalists, also known as the religious right, are the most evil people in the world
THE DEMOCRAT SENATE CAN DO ANYTHING REPUBLICANS WAN T IT TO:
Republicans clear way for minimum-wage rise (Reuters, 1/30/07)
Full Senate approval is now possible because Democrats agreed to Republican demands to include tax cuts for small businesses to help cover the cost of raising the minimum wage over two years to $7.25 per hour from $5.15 per hour.On an 87-10 vote, the Democratic-led Senate agreed to end more than a week of debate and hold a vote in coming days on the bill to increase the minimum wage and provide about $8.3 billion in tax breaks.
GENERAL ASHCROFT WINS AGAIN:
Court reinstates key Padilla charge (CURT ANDERSON, 1/30/07, Associated Press)
A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated a key terrorism charge, the only one carrying a potential life sentence, against suspected al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla.A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with federal prosecutors in Miami that the charge that the U.S. citizen and his two co-defendants conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas did not duplicate other counts in the indictment.
The Atlanta-based court reversed a decision last summer by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who said the three charges in the indictment contained nearly identical elements and could subject the defendants to extra punishment for the same act, violating protections against double jeopardy.
THE STEFANI WIVES (via Bryan Francoeur):
Chairman: Bush officials misled public on global warming (AP, January 30, 2007)
The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."
Because the Left can't tolerate doubt.
WHAT'S THE CHINESE FOR SOYLENT GREEN? (via Fred Jacobsen):
China's getting old before it becomes rich: AGING POPULATION LACKS SUPPORT OF PENSIONS, FAMILY (Evan Osnos, 1/30/07, Chicago Tribune)
A generation after China adopted its unprecedented one-child policy, the world's most populous nation is aging faster than any major country in history. The graying of the population, lost in the astonishing statistics on China's economy, threatens to hinder growth and strain a frayed public-welfare system, say researchers in China and abroad.``They are looking at 400 million old people, 30 years from now, the vast majority of whom will not have pensions or health care or extended family,'' said Richard Jackson, director of the Global Aging Initiative at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. ``This is social and political dynamite, and the government knows it.''
The problem is a peculiar side effect of progress. For most of Chinese history, people over 60 rarely numbered more than 7 of every 100 people. But improved health care, sanitation and living standards since the Communist Revolution have allowed the average citizen to live more than 30 years longer than in 1949. At the same time, China has restricted family size since the late 1970s in an attempt to control population growth.
The result is a China-size version of America's Social Security crunch, in which there are neither enough offspring nor pension funds to finance tomorrow's retirements. But China faces an even greater hurdle, because its per-capita income remains barely a tenth of U.S. levels. As economists put it, China is getting old before it has gotten rich.
``Feeding the people is the most common problem in developing countries, and taking care of the elderly is the most common problem in developed countries. China has to solve both at the same time,'' said Hu Angang, an economist at Qinghua University in Beijing.
NOW WE'VE NO EXCUSE NOT TO NUKE THEM:
U.S. missile defense maturing, latest test a success (Andrea Shalal-Esa, 1/30/07, Reuters)
[Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency,] said there would be no formal announcement that the system was operational. He predicted the capability to defend against enemy missiles and to continue testing and development work would be achieved within a year."It's just a matter of maturation," he told reporters after a speech hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute, a public policy group.
IT'S THE ECONOMY, MAHMOUD:
Iranian President's Setbacks Embolden His Domestic Critics: Establishment Rivals Fault Populism, Foreign Policy; Nuclear Deadline Looms (BILL SPINDLE, January 30, 2007, Wall Street Journal)
Many of Tehran's elite politicians and even clerics have long harbored concerns about Mr. Ahmadinejad, who ascended to the country's top political post from outside the traditional ruling circles. But the immense popularity he generated among Iran's poor and working-class voters kept many of his critics from speaking out or openly moving against his policies. [...]a round of elections late last year -- for local municipal and village leaders as well as an important national consultative body -- has undermined Mr. Ahmadinejad's political momentum and unleashed a flood of public criticism and moves to clip his wings. Candidates whom Mr. Ahmadinejad supported fared poorly in the elections, while key adversaries re-established themselves as fixtures of the political scene.
In Tehran's city council, from which Mr. Ahmadinejad launched his campaign for president two years ago, his supporters went from a majority to a handful of seats. Meanwhile, Hashemi Rafsanjani, whom Mr. Ahmadinejad defeated in the presidential election two years ago, dominated the voting for seats on the Assembly of Experts, the body charged with choosing a new Supreme Leader when the 67-year-old Mr. Khamenei steps down or dies.
Since those public votes, a drumbeat of criticism against Mr. Ahmadinejad's administration has emerged from within Iran's Parliament and among some senior regime officials. The president even found himself confronted by a crowd of jeering students during an appearance at a Tehran university campus, with a video of the incident distributed on the Internet3.
"The elections opened a space and legitimized criticism of him," said Nasser Hadian, a political-science professor at the University of Tehran. "There are going to be more attempts to contain him."
The poor showing by candidates associated with Mr. Ahmadinejad in local elections -- and the relatively better performance of reform candidates opposed to him -- resulted from the sort of strong turnout that generally favors reformers. The country's conservatives also failed to rally behind a single slate of candidates, as they did during the earlier presidential election. But high on many voters' minds is Iran's increasingly muddled economy.
THERE IS NO LEBANON:
Iran and Saudi Arabia mediating in Lebanon crisis (Michael Slackman, January 30, 2007, International Herald Tribune)
Leaders of Hezbollah, the Iranian- backed party trying to overthrow Lebanon's government, have recently visited the Saudi ki