Monday, December 29, 2003

posted 12/29/2003 10:59:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Miracle in the Desert

That's what it's being called, and justifiably so. I'm not much for believing in miracles, but this one shakes my non-faith.

Most sports contests are pretty pedestrian. Looking at it objectively, you have some highly-overpaid athletes battling each other for a silly title that has no great significance. The athletes do their thing, and one side or the other wins. Fans may get emotionally involved, but hey, it's only a game afterall.

Then once in a while something occurs which transcends the run-of-the-mill nature of most sports. It isn't heroism, exactly, because weighty matters such as life or death or freedom or slavery aren't on the line. But it is definitely something extraordinary.

Call it heart. Call it a reaching and achieving far beyond expectations. Maybe even call it destiny.

Whatever you call it, that's the kind of a week it's been for the Green Bay Packers.

It started with the tragic news of the death of Irv Favre, Brett's father, just one day before an important game with the Oakland Raiders on Monday Night Football. The storyline quickly focussed on how Brett would react to that horrible news. He could have skipped the game, and no one would have blamed him a bit. He could have played, but been distracted and ineffective.

Instead, Brett opened himself up to his team-mates, and he dedicated the game to his father the way he knew Irv would have wanted. He played one of the most brilliant games of his entire brilliant career, and the rest of the team had his back, as they torched the Raiders 41-7. It was amazing to watch and to savor.

Still it was only one game, albeit a great one. The Packers were still fighting to make the playoffs, and it would not be surprising for them to suffer an emotional letdown. Brett Favre took several days off to attend his father's funeral, along with other players and coaches. Could he and his team do it again? And even if they did, would it matter?

One by one, events went against the Packers. They'd be in the playoffs if San Francisco beat Seattle on Saturday. It went down to the wire, but Seattle won. Next, the Packers would be in control if the Cowboys won on Sunday morning. The Cowboys lost. There were other games which would allow the Packers a wild-card slot if the outcomes went certain ways. They didn't.

All the possibilities had dwindled down to a Packer victory combined with a Minnesota defeat. The Packer victory was the easy part, since the game was being played in front of 70 thousand rabid fans at Green Bay's Lambeau Field, and Denver was resting half a dozen of its first-string players. But for Minnesota to lose to the lowly Arizona Cardinals was almost too much to hope for.

And indeed it was too much to hope for, for the first 56 of the 60 minutes of the game. Even though Arizona took a 6-0 lead into half-time, we all knew it wouldn't last. Sure enough, the Vikings finally got moving and built up an insurmountable 11 point lead. The Packers were thrashing the Broncos, but in the final analysis it wouldn't matter; the Pack's season was about to come to a crashing end.

Events had conspired to create an apparently hopeless situation. Had anything happened differently: if Seattle had lost or Dallas had won; had the Vikings been ahead by 21 points or down by 21; there would have been no uncertainty and no drama. Instead there was still a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of hope. Just a "fool's hope", as Gandalf would say. All a hapless Arizona team needed to do was score a quick touchdown, recover an on-side kick, and score another touchdown in the last two minutes of the game. Theoretically it was not impossible...

I didn't expect it to happen, but it still somehow seemed wrong for it not to. After that magnificent Monday Night game, it would all come to nought. And then the TV announcers reported that the Cardinals had scored a touchdown on a fourth-down pass and cut the Vikings' lead to 5 points. The two-point conversion failed (which turned out to be good). But I had a bare inkling that impossible things might actually happen.

Then the second unlikely event transpired, as it was announced that the Cardinals had recovered the on-side kick. Still it would be so easy for them to throw an interception or fumble the ball (which they did, but the Vikings didn't recover it) or simply stall on their drive for the end-zone (which they did, running the count to fourth down with 4 seconds left).

Finally, with time expired, the Cardinal quarterback rolled out and threw a desperation pass into the end-zone, which the receiver caught but was pushed out of bounds before he could land (he probably would have landed out-of-bounds). It was ruled a touchdown, and the Vikings were defeated, and the Packers were Division champions and in the playoffs.

The emotion and celebration for Green Bay Packers fans and players alike has been fantastic. It shouldn't have been possible, but it was, and it almost defies rational explanation. One can believe in angels (and many are convinced that Irv Favre had a lot to do with the outcome) or one can believe in destiny. Disbelief is the more difficult course to follow.

This is what takes sports out of the realm of the hum-drum and into the realm of greatness.

And what of the future? The Packers have been given a nearly inconceivable opportunity. I don't think they will waste the "Miracle of the Desert". Next week they will beat the Seattle Seahawks in front of 70 thousand frenzied fans at Lambeau Field. The road to the Superbowl is open, and if Brett leads his team to another championship, we can all believe that Irv Favre is looking down and beaming with pride.

No, it doesn't get any less hum-drum than this.

Wednesday, November 05, 2003

posted 11/05/2003 03:37:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

“Cover Your Ass” or “Protect Your Assets”?

Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.

When the Bush Administration (or any Administration) insists that intelligence-gathering details must be kept secret for reasons of “national security”, and that they’re prevented from effectively refuting accusations that they screwed up out of a need to protect intelligence assets, how do you disprove that?  How do you know whether they are telling the truth, or merely covering their asses, or even putting out deliberate misinformation to fool the enemy?

Steven Den Beste has a long post discussing this issue in relation to the leaked Democrat memo which outlines a strategy to use their access to classified data on Iraq against Bush in the 2004 campaign.  Steven contrasts that memo with Dewey’s willingness to forego similar political attacks in 1944 in order to avoid compromising our ability to decrypt enemy codes.

The problem is, waiting years later until the war is over to reveal intelligence failures is too late.  Such a delay may prevent failures from ever coming to life, or else by the time they do see daylight no one may even care.  Certainly such a delay does nothing to quickly correct those failures and avoid new ones.  And it means that the same higher-ups who were ultimately responsible for them will remain in charge.

This dilemma offers a responsible opposition political party the opportunity to play a vital role.  Senators and Representatives from the other party (or parties) who sit on intelligence oversight committees should bore in on mistakes and failures and insist on fixing them.  This must be done behind closed doors, but the implicit threat always exists that continuing failure by the Administration to correct really horrible problems could provoke the opposition into going public.

This only works if the opposition is patriotic and sincere, and is perceived to be patriotic and sincere, in its desire to quietly fix problems.  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates and its other spokesmen are increasingly perceived by the general public as being knee-jerk political opportunists who are in thrall to the radical anti-American leftists within their own party.

This leaked memo will (justifiably) confirm that perception.

The memo eviscerates the implicit threat that the Bush Administration risks public exposure if it fails to respond to closed-door critiques.  Who is going to believe the Democrats now if they do that?  The Bush Administration will simply characterize the charges as being politically motivated, and then accuse the Democrats of endangering lives and harming the war effort by violating security restrictions.

The result is that a vital check-and-balance within our system has been rendered all but useless.  The lack of credible political opponents is harmful to the nation’s security.

The Democrats have shot themselves in the foot with this memo.  They will pay a political price for that.  But the rest of us will also pay a heavy price, measured in our greater vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

Monday, September 29, 2003

posted 9/29/2003 08:52:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

UPDATE (9/29/03) Here comes the new storyline!

Republican consultant Kenneth L. Khachigian has an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today which picks up on the theme that Republicans should try to shove Bustamante down into third place.

This is the leading edge of the new media feeding frenzy. Expect a lot more columns and stories playing up McClintock's come-from-behind charge to overtake Bustamante.

Sunday, September 28, 2003

posted 9/28/2003 11:53:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

Republicans are in full panic mode that McClintock will tilt the election to Bustamante.

Democrats are in full panic mode that Bustamante is dead in the water.

Polls show Davis is way behind and maybe even losing ground.

Folks, it's over. Gray Davis is dead, burnt, ash of toast. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the new governor. And Tom McClintock is the new conservative hero.

Everybody had been focussed on the fact that two major Republicans are "splitting" their party's vote, thereby making it possible for Cruz Bustamante to win with a weak plurality. This is a very superficial, static analysis which is based on an improper application of historical results. Democrats are the dominant political party in California, so it seems logical that it would take a united Republican front to have even an outside chance of defeating the Democrat for Governor.

But this is the antithesis of a normal, historically-typical election. This is a "throw the bums out" election, and the people who vote are going to skew heavily anti-politician and anti-government. Let's look at what this means.

Around a million absentee ballots have been cast so far, and Republicans worry that the absentee votes cast for McClintock are lost forever, even if he were to suddenly withdraw from the race and throw his support to Schwarzenegger (which won't happen). True, but so what? Even in a normal election the early absentee ballots run more Republican and conservative than the election day voting. This election will accentuate that. The huge burst of absentee balloting is not coming from people who are eager to keep Gray Davis in office or who are fans of Cruz Bustamante. It is coming from people who can't wait to overturn the status quo.

So at 8:10 pm on October 7th, when the various county registrars release the early absentee vote counts, those numbers will show Davis going down by a huge margin. They will also show Schwarzenegger with a comfortable lead over Bustamante, and Tom McClintock with 10% to 15% of the vote.

In order for Davis or Bustamante to overcome that initial handicap, each would have to win in the election-day voting, and win by more than just the skins of their teeth. But if the election was close enough on election day for Bustamante to have a chance, then a large fraction of McClintock's supporters would hold their noses and vote for Arnold, which would easily put him over the top.

It's a lose-lose situation for both Davis and Bustamante. All those Republicans out there who have worked themselves into a state of shear terror have done so for nothing. As the results are reported on election night, we may see the percentage gap narrowing on the recall question and between Schwarzenegger and Bustamante, but the absolute margin of votes will continually increase. Even that might not be true; the percentage gap could also widen, and this could turn into a runaway landslide.

Indeed, if other polls in the coming few days mirror today's USAToday/CNN/Gallup poll, the pressure will abate for McClintock supporters to vote for Arnold to avoid Bustamante. If it seems certain that Arnold will win big, some of his reluctant conservative supporters may find it safe to swing back to Tom.

The news media needs conflict and it needs a story theme. If Davis' ouster and Arnold's victory is seen as a done deal, they'll have to turn elsewhere to find enough drama.

The surprise, last-minute election news frenzy may turn out out to be the question of whether Tom McClintock beats out Cruz Bustamante for second place.

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

posted 9/23/2003 01:21:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

A good, clean, unanimous decision.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court's decision avoided the "chop the baby in half" solution which I had predicted below.

There seemed to be some sentiment to postpone Propositions 53 and 54 until the March primary, but then the 11-judge panel would have had to go to a lot of effort justifying such a conclusion. This way they simply deferred to the District judge's original ruling:

We recognize that there may be a stronger case on the merits for delaying the initiatives than the recall, because the initiatives were originally scheduled to be voted upon in March 2004 and would not take effect until at least 2005, while the result of the recall would be immediate. Because votes are already being cast on both the recall and the initiatives, however, moving the initiatives to a later election creates the same problem as moving the recall; an election would be halted after it has already begun. Although the claimed state electoral law violations do implicate the public interest, and the voters and ballot proponents anticipated a later election based on earlier certification, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the harms. Finally, we are reluctant to intercede in ballot timing of the initiatives, an electoral matter that falls within the province of the state to determine.

So what are the political consequences? The off-again on-again court orders added yet another set of unexpected twists to the entire recall drama, and may even have prevented Californians from losing interest. Now we are into the two-week home stretch. The pace will be fast, and excitement will build to a crescendo. Absentee ballots will once again pour in. Public opinion polls will pour forth. The news coverage will be non-stop recall, perhaps even approaching Gary Condit or Princess Di levels, as we come up on October 7th.

With Prop 54 still in the mix, Democrats will have a lever to get minority voters to the polls. That will help Davis some, but not nearly enough. After all, it doesn't really matter whether he loses by a 60%-to-40% or a 51%-to-49% margin; either way he's out of there.

Bustamante will get a boost, but I think it will also fall short. The decision by Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster regarding Bustamante's illegal money-laundering will add to his negatives. Especially because Bustamante is refusing to return the money to donors, claiming it's already all spent.

The main thing now is that Democrats can't scapegoat the U.S. Supreme Court for the recall election, which is the trap the 3-judge panel had tried to set up. Recall supporters still have the emotional edge, and even with Prop 54 left on the ballot they should turn out in much larger numbers than recall opponents.

One might even speculate that the confusion caused by the 3-judge panel's decision will seriously hurt the get-out-the-vote efforts of Democrats and their liberal allies. By the ACLU's logic, if minority voters are too stupid to properly handle punch-card ballots, how can you expect them to handle conflicting news reports about whether the recall election is on schedule?

Monday, September 22, 2003

posted 9/22/2003 09:13:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

Sacramento Bee shoots its leg off

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Wiener
To: ombud@sacbee.com
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Daniel Weintraub's blog

Dear Mr. Marcano,

I was shocked to read that the Sacramento Bee is now trying to reign in Daniel Weintraub's superb blog. Don't you people have the slightest clue?

Daniel Weintraub has become THE news guru for the current recall election because of his fast, insightful, leading-edge reports and analysis. EVERYONE who cares about the recall now stops at least once and often several times a day at his blog. He is constantly quoted in other stories throughout the Internet.

And because of Daniel Weintraub, the Sacramento Bee has seen its reputation and influence skyrocket. No other paper can compete in recall election coverage, including the Los Angeles Times.

At least that was the situation up until today. Now the Sacramento Bee has gone and shot its entire leg off with this idiotic decision. Mr. Weintraub's reports are likely to slow down, and all his readers will have to be concerned that he is either self-censoring his comments or (more likely) being censored by timid, politically-correct editors.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Weintraub finds himself another job and a newspaper that properly respects him. Then the Sacramento Bee will learn the hard way that it needed him much more than he needed it.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel Wiener

Monday, September 15, 2003

posted 9/15/2003 01:30:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

UPDATE (9/16/03): I love it when a plan comes together!

The 9th Circuit Court has decided to have an 11-judge panel reconsider yesterday's ruling by a 3-judge panel to postpone the recall election. This comes after the Los Angeles County Registrar revealed [catch by Daniel Weintraub] that the new voting machines can't handle both the super-long recall ballot and the large number of other March, 2004 contests:

"It's more than a wrinkle," said Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack. "No one even asked the largest county in the state if we had the capacity to run it in March. The answer is no."

What a set-up! The full 9th Circuit Court can now avoid enormous embarrassment and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court by simply doing what I describe below: Allow the recall election to proceed on October 7th, but postpone the propositions until March, 2004.

If they do that, the Supremes won't touch the matter. Democrats will be unable to demonize the U.S. Supreme Court because it will be entirely a 9th Circuit Court decision. The anger level and get-out-the-vote intensity of recall supporters will have been elevated by the effort to abort the election, but recall opponents will have no excuse for comparable anger against a "partisan Supreme Court". And there will be no Prop 54 on the October ballot to energize minorities to get to the polls, and incidentally vote for Davis and Bustamante.

You'd almost think the 9th Circuit Court was in league with the Republicans...

Did the 9th Circuit Court screw Davis and Bustamante?

All the pro-recall people are all upset over the decision by the 9th Circuit Court to block the October 7th election. But those first impressions may be wrong.

So here's my fearless prediction, after pondering the political implications and after reading the decision itself.

The Court's decision has a veneer of plausibility, since the previous (Republican) Secretary of State, Bill Jones, had already conceded in a consent decree that voting machines used in many California counties were defective and had to be replaced. Back then everyone basically agreed that it would take time to replace them. It couldn't be done in time for the 2002 election, but it was feasible for the March, 2004 primary. Nobody really expected a statewide election to take place during the interim, although it was theoretically possible (not just from a recall, but by the Governor calling a special election for some initiative or bond measure).

In other words, everyone agreed that the public interest in holding a regular election in 2002 outweighed the public interest in postponing elections until better voting machines were available.

So does the public interest in holding a recall election in October, 2003 outweigh the public interest in postponing this election until better voting machines are available?

This is the weak spot in the 9th Circuit Court decision. The judges tap-danced hard on this one, arguing that the recall might have been postponed till March anyway:

The operation of this exception produces arbitrary results; because the signatures were certified seven and a half — instead of six — months in advance of the March 2004 election, this exception does not apply, and the deadline falls in early October. In essence, granting a preliminary injunction would put the election only one and a half months after the longer six-month time period provided for by the California Constitution.

But the whole point of a recall, and the reason it was written into the California Constitution the way it was, is that the people must have the power to quickly rid themselves of an elected official when they believe the situation warrants it. Otherwise why not just wait until the end of that official's regular term? Six months from certification is the outer limit allowed in the California Constitution for scheduling the recall election.

The 9th Circuit Court has a much better case for booting Propositions 53 and 54 (the Racial Privacy Initiative) from the October 7th ballot, and the Court explicitly says so:

The case for postponing the election is even stronger with respect to the votes on Propositions 53 and 54. The two propositions on the special election ballot were originally scheduled to be placed on the ballot of the March 2004 election. Indeed, on July 15, 2002, more than a year ago, then Secretary of State Bill Jones issued and signed a certification placing the initiatives on the March 2, 2004 primary election ballot. ...

There is no urgency in obtaining a public vote on the propositions. Proposition 53, to establish the “California Twenty-First Century Infrastructure Investment Fund,” would require specified percentages of the California general fund revenues to be set aside for acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, modernization or renovation of local infrastructure. The first year affected by the proposition would be 2006.

Proposition 54 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color, or national origin to classify current or prospective students, contractors, or employees in public education, contracting, or employment operations. The initiative has an effective date of January 1, 2005.

So here's what I believe is likely to happen. For the next few days everyone is going to froth at the mouth over the 9th Circuit Court's action. Recall supporters will be livid, and recall opponents will be cautiously delighted. Then the U.S. Supreme Court will step in and rule that the public interest in holding a recall election without delay, as prescribed in the California Constitution, outweighs the public interest in waiting for better voting machines. The U.S. Supreme Court will specifically note that the 2002 elections took place using the same voting machines.

But, the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with the 9th Circuit Court that there is no urgency in voting on Propositions 53 and 54, and that those should be postponed until March, 2004. Doing it in that way will take the sting out of the USSC decision; it will appear very measured and reasonable and "judicial", and will be hard to paint as just another Republican coup by a partisan right-wing court. After all, it makes it far more likely that both propositions will be defeated in a Democratic-weighted primary election. Especially for liberals who are horrified by Prop 54, that is a very big deal.

If the USSC follows the above scenario, it will be a HUGE defeat for the Democrats. Gray Davis might have had a chance to survive if the recall election itself was postponed till next March, during a hot Democratic primary. If nothing else it would be a reprieve, and who knows, by then the horse could learn to talk. But an October recall election is a political death sentence for Davis, and everybody knows it. The Democrats' only hope was to motivate their base of minority voters to get to the polls. A lot of that motivation drains away if there's no Prop 54 to vote against.

It's also a HUGE defeat for Bustamante. He was counting on anti-Prop 54 sentiment to help turn out Latinos and blacks. He was going to transfer $3.8 million of heavily-criticized contributions into the campaign to defeat Prop 54 (featuring himself in the TV commercials). Now what will he do with the money? No matter what new scheme he comes up with for spending the money, it will look dirty and it will further raise his negatives.

And what of the propositions themselves? Both were iffy even in an October election. Prop 53 is bad policy, in that it locks in future state spending. True, the state's infrastructure is decaying, but our bigger problem is huge budget deficits and uncontrolled state spending. Prop 53 would virtually guarantee future tax hikes, and I think the voters will be quite skeptical. Prop 54 is mainly a symbolic measure. It's loaded with loopholes in order to survive the inevitable court challenges. And its sponsor, Ward Connerly, practically conceded defeat a few days ago. So moving the propositions to March probably won't matter.

The 9th Circuit Court (and especially these particular judges) has a reputation for being extremely liberal, partisan, and results-oriented rather than following the law and U.S. Supreme Court precedents. In this case I think they've overplayed their hand. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly slapped the 9th Circuit Court down, and is likely to do so again.

Liberals may come to rue this court decision as the final nails in Davis' and Bustamante's coffins.

Friday, August 08, 2003

posted 8/08/2003 05:52:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

UPDATE: Bustamante can't appoint himself Lt. Governor

I received a private email which indicates that Bustamante, if he became Governor, could not appoint himself Lt. Governor. Article V, Section 2 of the California Constitution states that "The Governor may not hold other public office." Hence the Governor is not eligible to appoint himself to any other position, and Bustamante could not solve the dilemma I pointed out below. I'm not convinced that Bustamante is entirely prevented from appointing himself Lt. Governor, since he wouldn't actually become Lt. Governor until the state legislature either confirmed him or refused to reject him, and that could be after the newly-elected governor had already taken over the office. But that's really stretching it, and the courts could easily decide against Bustamante.

So here's a likely scenario: On election night, during Davis' concession speech, he tearfully proclaims that he will not remain governor for one minute longer in view of the people's decision, and he resigns on the spot. Later on Davis could pretend that he didn't think through the implications, but it would be too late. Bustamante would already be governor, and soon thereafter he would be nothing.

Will Davis retaliate against Bustamante?

After the Democratic Party desperately attempted to maintain a united front against the recall of Gray Davis, by pressuring every prominent Democratic to keep his or her name off the replacement ballot, Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante finally broke ranks. Bustamante's entry into the race has dramatically reduced Davis' hopes of surviving the recall, since Democrats will now have an alternative and an opportunity to retain the California governorship.

Davis has never been on good terms with Bustamante. Davis now has reason to be especially pissed with Bustamante. And having Gray Davis as a bitter enemy just might end Cruz Bustamante's political career.

Suppose Davis loses the recall, and suppose a Republican is elected to replace him. Davis would then have a golden opportunity to retaliate against Bustamante by resigning the governorship a few days before he was officially replaced. Bustamante would automatically be elevated to the position of Governor for that brief time, and the position of Lt. Governor would become vacant. After the Republican was sworn in as the new Governor, he would then be able to appoint someone else as Lt. Governor to fill the vacancy. Of course the Democratic state legislature could reject that appointment, but Bustamante would still be out of office.

The only flaw I can think of is that Bustamante might appoint himself as Lt. Governor during the time he was Governor, and the state legislature would likely confirm him later on. Unless, that is, the new Governor could rescind the appointment and appoint someone else. Or Davis could submit his resignation just a few minutes (or a few seconds) before his official departure, to catch Bustamante by surprise so that Bustamante wouldn't have time to re-appoint himself Lt. Governor.

The result: Cruz Bustamante finds himself out on the street as a private citizen, with his political career in tatters. Just like Davis.

Could Gray Davis really be that vengeful?

Yes.

Saturday, July 12, 2003

posted 7/12/2003 11:53:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

The Recall Loophole

There is a legal loophole by which Gray Davis can avoid a recall election and still remain governor.

Here's how it works:

• Davis resigns before sufficient signatures for the recall election are officially certified to the Secretary of State; the recall is instantly over, since the object of the recall is no longer in office.
• Lt. Governor Bustamante assumes the governorship.
• Bustamante appoints Davis to the now-vacant office of Lt. Governor. (Davis is eligible since he previously only served one term as Lt. Governor and hence isn't term-limited out.)
• The Democrat-dominated State Legislature either confirms Davis by a majority vote of both houses, or it fails (by a majority vote of both houses) to reject Davis within 90 days of his appointment. In either case Davis becomes the new Lt. Governor, as per Article V, Section 5 of the California Constitution.
• Bustamante then resigns as governor.
• Lt. Governor Davis assumes the governorship.
• Davis appoints Bustamante to the now-vacant office of Lt. Governor.
• The Democrat-dominated State Legislature either confirms Bustamante by a majority vote of both houses, or it fails (by a majority vote of both houses) to reject Bustamante within 90 days of his appointment. In either case Bustamante becomes the new Lt. Governor.
• If a new recall drive against Davis commences, and it appears headed for the ballot, repeat the above procedure.

Of course there are a few minor problems with the above plan:

• Bustamante may be a tad reluctant to resign once he achieves his ambition of becoming governor.
• The Democrats in the State Legislature are not big fans of Gray Davis, and they may be a tad reluctant to participate in the farce.
• The State Supreme Court could rule that when Davis again became governor, the old recall petitions regained their validity.
• The citizens of California could lynch Davis and Bustamante.

posted 7/12/2003 11:15:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Will Gray Davis resign?

On the one hand the idea seems inconceivable. Davis has spent his entire life climbing the political ladder, finally reaching the position of Governor, with all the power and patronage that position offers to an unscrupulous politician. At one time he harbored serious hopes for the Presidency (as does every California governor). What meaning would Davis' life have left if his political career was to be shattered?

On the other hand, the political pressures for Davis to resign may become overwhelming. There will be a recall; the only remaining question is when, and even that is looking more and more like a special election at the end of 2003. If the Democrats' private polls indicate that Davis is toast, they will do whatever it takes to jettison him rather than risk having a Republican replace him.

The rumors and the media drumbeat have already started. If Davis is going to resign, he has to do it within the next week or two, before enough valid signatures are certified to the Secretary of State to trigger the recall election. After that, a special election must be held anyway, so a resignation would be pointless.

Article II of the California Constitution states:

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

Exactly what constitutes certification, and when is the "date of certification of sufficient signatures"? Article II, SEC. 14. (c) states:

The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of the signatures certified to that office.

Furthermore, Section 11104 of the California Elections Code specifies that:

11104. (a) The elections official, 30 days after a recall has been initiated and every 30 days thereafter, or more frequently at the discretion of the elections official, shall report to the Secretary of State all of the following:
... (3) The number of valid signatures, verified pursuant to subdivision (b), submitted during the previous reporting period, and of valid signatures verified during the current reporting period.

Each county is going to be forwarding its counts of valid signatures to the Secretary of State, and in most cases that will occur as quickly as possible. If there are enough valid signatures to qualify the recall through sampling procedures, rather than a complete count, if won't take the counties very long to process the petitions.

In my opinion, the California Constitution is quite clear: As soon as enough valid signatures are reported by the counties to the Secretary of State, that becomes the "date of certification". Most likely it will be July 23rd, five days after the end of the monthly reporting period. After that, a recall election must be held.

Davis will deny right up until the last possible second that he would ever even consider the possibility of resignation. But then I can easily envision him doing an instant flip-flop, declaring that he will make the ultimate self-sacrifice in order to spare California the $30 million cost of a special election at a time of horrible budget problems. Davis can play the martyrdom card, and declare that he won't let sore-loser/ambitious Republicans get away with plunging the state into a political crisis when everyone should instead be focused on passing a budget.

That would end the recall and hand the governorship to Lt. Governor Bustamante. Democrats would remain in control, and Davis would at least be spared the ignomy of becoming the first governor in California history to be recalled.

Would Bustamante be any better a governor than Davis? Who knows?

But at least we'd be rid of Davis. Regardless of who his successor might be, accomplishing that is well worth the risk.

Saturday, May 24, 2003

posted 5/24/2003 11:44:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

A Better, Cheaper Technological Solution to Open Government

Governor Davis is proposing to save the state of California $9.3 million per year by eliminating the Brown Act mandate under which local governments and agencies must post their agendas. According to California law, the state government cannot impose "unfunded mandates" upon local governments. That prevents the state from effectively forcing local governments to raise taxes to pay for state regulations.

Not surprisingly, Davis' plan has aroused intense controversy and opposition from advocates of open government.

So here's my modest proposal:

California should establish a statewide web site wherein all local governments and agencies can publish their agendas. They would still be mandated by the state to do so, with the same advance notice timelines as presently exist. But the cost of satisfying the mandate would drop to near zero.

The state web site would provide citizens with a single, easily accessible, indexed source of information on meeting agendas. Additionally, citizens would be able to "subscribe" to agendas for a particular local government or agency, so that those agendas would be automatically emailed to subscribers as soon as they were posted.

This basic concept would be expanded to include minutes of meetings, as well as all legal notices that were previously required to be published in newspapers of record. Again, citizens would be able to easily view the minutes and the legal notices on-line, as well as subscribe to them by email.

This concept can be still further expanded to include all legal notices which individuals and organizations and business are presently required to publish in newspapers of record. Examples include DBA's and development proposals and EIRs and initiative measures. Citizens could obtain email subscriptions to such notices, broken down by category and/or locality.

This proposal would greatly increase accessibility to the above information, far beyond the present physical posting and print-publishing requirements. Most Californians these days have access to the Internet, and could check a centrally maintained web site at least as easily as they can check a newspaper or travel to meeting location where an agenda or legal notice is posted on paper. The email subscription capability will assure interested citizens that they will never miss seeing an agenda, especially in the case of a special meeting. Even for the increasingly rare instances where a citizen does not have personal Internet access, that individual can always go to a public library to obtain the information.

The cost to the state of California for setting up a central web site would consist of a one-time design expense of between $100,000 and $1,000,000. Once set up, the web site would function automatically. The only on-going costs would be for bandwidth and data storage (at most a few thousand dollars per month). This is a pittance compared to the annual $9.3 million expense of the current state mandate.

There are many ancillary advantages. Each local government or agency would be given a password that would allow it to post information (via a web form) to its portion of the web site. Postings would be automatically time-stamped, so there'd be no dispute as to whether a deadline had been met for proper advance notice. All postings would be automatically archived on the web site, and past agendas and minutes and legal notices could be accessed based on either date or content (with the assistance of a localized search engine).

In addition to saving the state of California over $9 million per year in mandated expenditures, local governments and agencies throughout California would save tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per year for legal notices that previously had to be published in newspapers. Tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of annual savings by businesses and individuals would also be realized.

The only losers would be print newspapers, which would no longer reap this non-productive windfall of revenue. For everyone else it is a win-win proposition.

This will make the government more open to more citizens at greatly reduced cost, by utilizing modern technology.

Sunday, April 06, 2003

posted 4/06/2003 12:28:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

A tragic "friendly fire" incident may cement Kurdish freedom

Nothing completely eliminates the fog of war, and the news of a "friendly fire" attack which killed a number of Kurd fighters and some U.S. special force members is indeed horrible. But the indirect result may be to protect the Kurds from a Turkish invasion.

Turkey fears an independent Kurdistan. Also, one of the big dangers of the war in Iraq was that Turkey would use the opportunity to enter Kurdish areas and possibly seize the rich oilfields in Kirkuk and Mosul. The U.S. has repeatedly warned Turkey to stay out. But if Turkey ignored that warning, what could the U.S. do about it, other than go to war with a nominal ally and NATO member? It was an ugly scenario.

The Kurds have filled the gap left by Turkish refusal to allow American soldiers to enter Iraq from the north. They've helped wipe out the Ansar Al-Islam terrorist camp, and they are providing the ground muscle to push back Saddam's forces.

The United States still insists that Iraq's "territorial integrity" will be maintained, and that Kurdistan will not become a separate nation. But the Kurds have already earned a very high degree of autonomy, even if (on paper) they stay part of Iraq. And now the United States owes the Kurds a blood-debt.

We also have the answer to what would happen if Turkish troops moved to invade Iraq. There would be one or more massive "friendly fire" incidents in which Turkish military units would be bombed by U.S. aircraft. The carnage would be horrible. The U.S. would express its "deep regrets", but point out that Turkey wasn't supposed to be in Iraq in the first place, and we naturally assumed that we'd spotted an enemy column.

And we'd have plausible deniability, simply by pointing to the similar unfortunate attack against the Kurds.

I strongly suspect the message has already been delivered to Turkey, that we cannot guarantee the safety of Turkish forces wandering around Iraq. Because of that, Turkey will be deterred from taking any risky military actions.

So the Kurdish soldiers did not die in vain. They gained their people's liberty.

Sunday, March 09, 2003

posted 3/09/2003 10:48:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

Gray Davis gets sucked into a Black Hole.

Today's Los Angeles Times Poll is reporting that Governor Davis' favorable job rating has reached an all-time low of 27%, with 64% of Californian's disapproving.

Buried within the poll data is the fact that 39% support a recall drive, while 51% oppose it. Is that a glimmer of good news for Davis? Not really.

This question followed another question in the poll which asked whether the recall drive was motivated by Davis' mismanagement of the state or was a partisan Republican effort? (44% said mismanagement, 36% said partisan Republican effort, and 10% said both). Logically, the order of the questions should have been reversed, unless of course the Los Angeles Times (whose article contained comments from three people opposed to the recall and none in favor) deliberately wanted to skew the results in Davis' direction.

Support for the recall dropped off, from 39% to 27% (with another 2% undecided) , when people were informed about the $25 million cost to hold a special election. It's also noteworthy that only 37% of Californians said they'd been following news of the recall effort either "very closely" (8%) or "somewhat closely" (29%). 24% said they'd been following the news "not very closely" while 38% said "not closely at all".

I think recall supporters should be strongly encouraged by this poll:

• Davis is enormously unpopular and will likely become more so as the budget crisis continues.
• One major negative argument - the $25 million cost of a special election - is relevant only to the petition drive. Once enough signatures are gathered, the election will take place. So that's no longer a substantial reason to vote to keep Davis in office.
• Another major negative argument - that Davis was just re-elected, so this is merely partisan Republican sour grapes - recedes with each passing month. By the time a special election is actually held, probably in the October or November 2003 time-frame, it will already have been a year since his re-election.
• This Los Angeles Times poll represented registered voters, not likely voters. In a low-turnout special election, the likely voters can be expected to skew much more heavily against Davis.

Bottom line: Davis is in deep shit, and he knows it.

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

posted 2/12/2003 03:20:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

What's in a name?

The invasion of Iraq is likely to begin in a matter of days. What will the history books call it?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States quickly moved in forces to prevent Hussein from continuing into Saudi Arabia. The very poetic name chosen was Desert Shield. That operation continued for the next five and a half months while the U.S. prepared its counterattack.

I fully expected the counterattack to be named "Desert Sword" -- it just seemed so obvious. Instead it became Desert Storm, and I remember thinking what a wildly romantic and inspired choice that was.

In a few days we'll know the identity of this new military operation. Perhaps it will be clever, perhaps it will be pedestrian.

What would you name it? Post your suggestions in the Comments section, and we'll see if anyone guesses right. We'll also see what better names could have been selected.

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

posted 2/11/2003 01:41:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

More ULTIMATE IRONY from France and Germany as they skewer NATO.

Three of the 19 NATO countries, France, Germany, and Belgium, have vetoed an official request from NATO member Turkey for military defense assistance, thereby plunging the NATO alliance into a crisis which might well destroy it.

That's fine by me. Good riddance to NATO, which long ago outlived any possible useful purpose and now just sucks up money and troops and equipment from the United States.

But what I find really amazing is the stupidity of the French and German actions. Is this any way for them to head off U.S. military action?

Turkey, with a new Islamic government and much popular opposition to an Iraqi invasion, had been dragging its feet in acquiescing to U.S. requests to use airbases and launch military strikes from Turkish territory. Now Turkey has been spat upon and publicly betrayed by France and Germany. How is that likely to sit with Turkish public opinion?

France and Germany have just solidified support for the U.S. in Turkey, a critical front-line nation. What kind of masterful diplomatic maneuver is that?

When so many French and German actions are so consistently counterproductive, you almost have to wonder whether they secretly do want the United States to invade Iraq...

Sunday, February 09, 2003

posted 2/09/2003 01:52:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

THE ULTIMATE IRONY: France and Germany have just eliminated the last practical chance of avoiding war in Iraq.

When President Bush proclaimed that "The game is over," the French and Germans went into panic mode. They obviously are aware from their own intelligence sources that (almost) irrevocable orders have now been issued, and the U.S. countdown is underway. So they are floating a last-ditch plan under which French and German forces would lead a "peaceful" military occupation of Iraq in support of additional inspectors, as a way of staving off the U.S. invasion.

There is obviously no way that Bush will accept this gambit. He is politically and militarily committed. His Thursday speech was a de facto declaration of war, and an ultimatum to the United Nations to either get on board or be tossed into the dustbin of history.

At this point there are only two ways to stop the tanks and troops and precision bombs and cruise missiles from being launched:
1. Saddam Hussein is deposed (and killed) by a coup.
2. Saddam Hussein and his entourage flee into exile.

While neither of these were high probability options, they were not negligible either. Saddam has repeatedly purged his military forces of anyone who might be the least bit dangerous to him, but even so the remaining officers have no desire to die on his behalf. If they were absolutely certain that the Americans were invading, they could be motivated to take pre-emptive action. But there are enormous risks either way, and the odds of a successful coup remain low.

Similarly, the only thing that could conceivably convince Saddam to accept exile would be the absolutely certainty that the Americans were about to invade and would shortly kill him. Even then, given his megalomania and desire for power, exile would remain a long-shot. It definitely would not happen until the very last minute when all hope was lost.

The French and Germans could have delivered that final death blow to Saddam's hope. They could have privately sent word to Hussein that it was impossible for them to prevent or further delay U.S. military action, and therefore they were switching sides and climbing on board the U.S. bandwagon. Coupling that with a credible offer of a very cushy exile, it might barely have been enough to draw Hussein out of Iraq. France and Germany would then claim credit (and be given credit by all of Bush's foes) for negotiating a peaceful solution. Just as importantly from their perspective, they would have denied the U.S. the prestige of another successful lightning military operation, while maintaining the U.N.'s aura of authority and "relevance".

Instead, the latest French and German plan allows Saddam Hussein to cling to hope. He's already made new promises to do everything the inspectors want, including U-2 flyovers and interviews with scientists. Now he'll likely announce his "conceptual" agreement to the French and German plan. Saddam will pretend to accept anything that looks like it might postpone the invasion, because he knows it will be difficult if not impossible for the United States to rebuild momentum and support if it backs down now.

The French-German plan allows Saddam Hussein to rationalize to himself that he still has a chance to out-maneuver Bush and remain in power. And his military officers will calculate that a coup attempt is just a high-probability death sentence.

France and Germany have outsmarted themselves with all their oh-so-clever diplomatic strategies. They've just destroyed the only realistic alternatives to a U.S. invasion.

[UPDATE: I now see that Donald Rumsfield is effectively saying the same thing.]

My guess is that the person this really pisses off is Vladimir Putin. Unlike Schroeder and Chirac, Putin is not reflexively anti-American, nor is he eager to humiliate Bush. He just wants to protect Russian interests in Iraq and keep the U.S. somewhat in check. Putin was urgently trying to arrange an exile deal with Hussein, and the French-German plan has torpedoed that. Putin is a hard-headed realist, and he is now going to have to bow to the inevitability of U.S. military action. If I'm right, Russia will not sign on or even give lip service to the French-German plan, because it would just make Russia appear as impotent as them when the U.S. ignores their plan and proceeds with its invasion.

I have no doubt that diplomatic efforts are going to get more and more frantic and hysterical in the coming days, as the countdown nears zero. But war is now inevitable.

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

posted 1/29/2003 06:02:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Further Update: McClintock sees the same contradiction.

Today's Los Angeles Times has the following quote: "Is it a tax levy or is it not a tax levy?" said McClintock. "If it's a tax levy it requires a two-third vote. If it's not a tax levy, it's subject to referendum."

The Democrat-appointed Legislative Counsel's spin is that this is a "tax levy" which reduces taxes (on vehicles worth less than $5,000). Never mind that the Vehicle License Fee for all others will go up radically; that's merely an "insufficient revenue" determination which was already permitted by the 1998 law and clarified by this bill.

Give the Assembly Democrats points for creativity. If the courts actually bought this theory (which is doubtful), it would effectively eliminate the referendum provision in the California Constitution. From now on all bills passed by the Legislature could simply include a tiny tax reduction on some minor fee. That would instantly turn them into "tax levies" which shielded them from a referendum but nevertheless did not require a 2/3 vote because the tax levy was a revenue reduction instead of a revenue increase.

Whatever the courts ultimately decide, this is a political loser and the Democrats know it. Davis is now explicitly saying he will veto a Car Tax increase. There appears to be little if any support for a Car Tax hike in the State Senate. And even the ever-reliable tax-and-spend Los Angeles Times editorialized today that there is No Way Around State Cuts: "The first step, however, should be meaningful budget cuts -- the kind that powerful special interests, including education, prisons and health care, will howl about. But that's where the big money goes and that's where savings are to be found."

The Sacramento chess game continues.

I previously said that State Senator Tom McClintock had made a brilliant chess move by threatening a referendum to block an increase in California's Vehicle Licensed Fee. Now we've seen the Democrats' countermove: The State Assembly passed it anyway, but added an amendment to exempt vehicles worth less than $5,000. Supposedly this makes it a tax levy which is not subject to a referendum. Republicans are naturally crying foul and are threatening to take it to court.

I think the Democrats have really boxed themselves in.

The California Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of the Legislature to raise taxes. Here's the exact wording from Article 13A, Section 3:

Section 3. From and after the effective date of this article, any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed.

Since Republicans boast enough votes in both houses to block the 2/3 majority needed for any tax hike, Democrats keep looking for ways around this restriction. The Vehicle License Fee was an attractive target because of a provision in the 1998 tax reduction bill which allowed the Car Tax to return to the original elevated levels if the State was found to be receiving insufficient revenue. So the Democrats figured they could pass a bill by a simple majority vote effectively defining the current budget crunch as insufficient revenue.

That's a rather questionable position. The above Section refers to "any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues". From a legal standpoint, neither side's interpretation is a slam dunk (although I personally think the case for a 2/3 majority is stronger).

But suppose the Democrats' argument was to prevail in court. McClintock proposed a fallback position, namely a referendum as authorized by Article 2, Section 9 of the California Constitution:

SEC. 9. (a) The referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes except urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for usual current expenses of the State.

(b) A referendum measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State, within 90 days after the enactment date of the statute, a petition certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election, asking that the statute or part of it be submitted to the electors. In the case of a statute enacted by a bill passed by the Legislature on or before the date the Legislature adjourns for a joint recess to reconvene in the second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session, and in the possession of the Governor after that date, the petition may not be presented on or after January 1 next following the enactment date unless a copy of the petition is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 10 of Article II before January 1.

(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the next general election held at least 31 days after it qualifies or at a special statewide election held prior to that general election. The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.

But note from Paragraph (a) in the above Section 9 that referendums do not apply to "statutes providing for tax levies". Hence Democrats deliberately modified their bill to exempt vehicles under $5,000, based on a legal opinion that such an amendment would classify it as a "tax levy" and thereby shield it from a referendum.

So which is it? If this is just a clarification of the 1998 bill rather than "changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues" then it would not require a 2/3 vote but it would be subject to a referendum. Whereas if this is a "tax levy" then it can't be subjected to a referendum but it requires a 2/3 vote. I don't see how Democrats can have it both ways.

It appears that the Democrats in the State Legislature are desperately flailing around, because they are philosophically and politically incapable of enacting the major spending cuts that the current deficit requires. So they posture and pass bills which they know won't pass legal muster, just to be seen as doing something.

Gray Davis may be smart enough to see the trap and veto the Car Tax increase. But that still won't solve the budget deficit. Whether Democrats like it or not, big spending cuts are inevitable.

Friday, January 24, 2003

posted 1/24/2003 07:16:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Car Tax referendum?

California's budget battle was just racheted up a large notch. I didn't hear it myself, but this post indicates that State Senator Tom McClintock was just on the John & Ken radio talk show (KFI AM 640) an hour ago, and he threatened to lead a referendum against any hike in the Vehicle License Fee.

The Democrats are anxious to raise taxes to fill the enormous hole in California's budget, and the Vehicle License Fee (a.k.a. the VLF or Car Tax) is their favorite candidate. Not only would it raise an estimated $4.2 billion dollars over the next 18 months, but the increase can arguably be accomplished without the normal requirement for a 2/3 supermajority in the state legislature. That's because of an ambiguous provision in the original 1998 bill which lowered the tax; that provision allows the tax to go back up to its original level if the State finds itself with "insufficient monies" (without defining that condition). Hence Democrats argue that this would be a tax restoration rather than a tax increase. Republicans had promised to challenge that interpretation in court, but their chances were somewhat iffy (especially since California's court system is also facing potential budget cutbacks).

A referendum in California is difficult to pull off, given the extremely short circulating period (90 days from signing of the bill to verification of signatures) and the high cost and the technical barriers (e.g., the entire text of the bill, however long it may be, must be attached to each individual petition section). But it can be done and has been successfully done in the past. If all the taxpayer organizations (like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) swing into action behind Tom McClintock, I have no doubt that it will be done again.

That puts Democrats between a rock and a hard place. Do they go ahead and try to "restore" the Vehicle License Fee, knowing that it will almost certainly result in a referendum? If enough signatures are gathered, such a referendum will prevent the Car Tax hike from taking effect until the next statewide election (normally the March, 2004 presidential primary). But Governor Davis would almost be forced to call a special election sometime later this year. Politically, how could he argue that the Car Tax hike he had signed to help solve this year's deficit could now wait until next year, just to save a few million dollars in election expenses?

Even worse for the Democrats, any initiative measures that had already qualified for the March, 2004 ballot would also have to appear on that same special election ballot. That means Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative would share the ballot. Liberals were hoping that an exciting Democratic presidential primary and a dull Republican presidential primary would help defeat that initiative in March, 2004. But conservatives, who would be drawn to a special election to defeat a Car Tax hike, would likely help pass the Racial Privacy Initiative and vice versa.

All in all, it's a brilliant chess move by Tom McClintock. I can't wait to see what happens next.

Monday, January 20, 2003

posted 1/20/2003 05:05:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Oh, the Inhumanity!

Just when it seems that the human race has finally groped its way upward towards a significant level of maturity, this comes along. [Article link requires paid subscription to the Wall Street Journal; see excerpt below.]

It used to be that anyone outside of a person's immediate family wasn't considered to be truly human. Everyone else was a sub-human or an enemy, subject to being killed or conquered or enslaved or otherwise exploited without a second thought. Over the centuries the definition of humanity was slowly extended to include the rest of the tribe, then the rest of the nation, eventually even the rest of the world. Over the centuries it was extended to include tolerance for other cultures and other races and other religions. It's been a long, difficult struggle towards enlightenment, with many set-backs along the way.

But apparently we aren't quite ready to take the final step...

Fans Howl in Protest as Judge Decides X-Men Aren't Human
Marvel Fought to Have Characters Ruled Nonhuman to Win Lower Tariff on Toys
by Neil King Jr., Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2003

Judge Judith Barzilay huddled late last year with a telepathic professor and a cast of mutants to ponder an age-old question: What does it mean to be human?

<< snip >>

Her ruling thundered through the world of Marvel Comics fans. The famed X-Men, those fighters of prejudice sworn to protect a world that hates and fears them, are not human, she decreed Jan. 3. Nor are many of the villains who do battle with Spiderman and the Fantastic Four. They're all "nonhuman creatures," concluded Judge Barzilay.

Marvel subsidiary Toy Biz Inc. pushed Judge Barzilay to declare its heroes nonhuman so it could win a lower duty rate on action figures imported from China in the mid-1990s. At the time, tariffs put higher duties on dolls than toys. According to the U.S. tariff code, human figures are dolls, while figures representing animals or "creatures," such as monsters and robots, are deemed toys.

<< snip >>

The most incredible aspect of this whole sordid affair is that the U.S. Government defended the X-Men's humanity, while Marvel stabbed them in their non-human backs.

Thursday, January 16, 2003

posted 1/16/2003 12:05:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

The Inpection Trap.

According to this article, the Bush Administration is privately reassuring Republicans that it will produce the necessary evidence to marshall public support for a war against Iraq.

Many skeptics have been complaining that Bush has failed to demonstrate a connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein, but they are totally missing the politics of the situation. Whether or not it exists, why would they ever expect Bush to provide such a connection at this point in the process?

What Bush is doing is creating an "inspection trap".

U.N. inspectors are busy running around in Iraq, but so far haven't uncovered "smoking gun" evidence of WMDs. Rumsfield is saying that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." So anti-war activists are jumping on that. They are asking how Iraq can be required to prove a negative. They are more and more building their case around the failure of the Bush Administration to come up with concrete proof of either Iraqi WMDs or Iraqi-terrorist links. On the surface it seems like an effective anti-war strategy. It has had a limited amount of resonance with the American public, and it has had strong resonance with public opinion in other countries.

It is, as I said, a public relations trap.

Troops and material are still being moved into position for the upcoming war, and the pace is picking up rapidly, as indicated by all the recent reports about troop embarkments and other deployments. In a matter of weeks everything will be in place. Why would the Bush Administration want to prematurely reveal "smoking gun" evidence until the very day it was ready to flip the switch and start the actual aerial bombardment?

When the time comes, I guarantee you that Bush will make a major speech to the nation laying out his arguments for going to war in highly persuasive terms. He'll reveal previously-secret intelligence evidence which (true or not) will appear extremely convincing with regard to WMDs and terrorist ties. In effect the Administration is suckering its anti-war foes into putting all their eggs in one "straw man" basket, which Bush will conveniently knock down at the time of his own choosing. Public support for a war against Iraq will spike upward. Then, before Bush's opponents can assimilate the newly-revealed data and try to rebut it, the war will have started (and probably ended).

Those who think otherwise are again misunderestimating Bush.

Wednesday, January 15, 2003

posted 1/15/2003 04:57:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Russia is putting the heat on Europe over Kyoto.

This is hilarious. According a Reuters news article, Russia Delays Global Warming Pact, May Wreck Deal. Russia's inaction seems to really puzzle Clara Ferreira-Marques, the Reuters reporter, since "The delay could cost Moscow billions of dollars." And why exactly is that?

Pollution quotas for the protocol are based on 1990 levels, and because of the post-Soviet industrial downturn, Russia will not be able to use its full share in the medium term. It can sell its excess share under a mechanism fixed by the protocol.

According to Greenpeace, Russia could make $20 billion annually from quotas, about a quarter of 2003 budget revenues.

Here's the joke: The whole point for Russia of signing the Kyoto Treaty was so that it could rake in a windfall fortune by selling carbon dioxide emission credits. But obviously the only source of funds of that magnitude would have been from the United States. Since the U.S. refuses to sign Kyoto, the $20 billion per year in wealth transfer to Russia goes out the window, and Russia is left with nothing.

So why doesn't Russia sign it anyway? After all, even if that windfall fails to materialize, at least Russia won't be hurt economically by having to restrict its industries like many other countries.

The answer is that Russia wants to squeeze that money from other sources, i.e., European nations. Obviously Europe is a poorer target than the wealthy United States. The European Union and its member nations have much bigger economic and budgetary problems than the U.S. does. But the EU still has some financial resources, and there are other geopolitical concessions that Russia may be able to wring from them.

The dogma of Global Warming has become an obsession and a holy cause to Europeans. Their leaders and elites have so much political capital invested in Kyoto that it would be a catastrophe for them to let the Treaty go down the drain. After all, how will the European chattering classes damn and demonize Bush if it turns out that Russia is the country that actually pulls the plug? That threat gives Russia a lot of leverage.

Even aside from the questionable science behind global warming fears, Europe knows that the Kyoto Treaty is mostly a political and symbolic gesture which would have little real impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. That's pretty obvious just from the fact that Russia could sell $20 billion per year in emission credits without effecting a single molecule of CO2. The real motivation behind Kyoto was envy, fear, and an inability to compete with the dynamic U.S. economy. Europe wanted to level the playing field with its own socialistic and moribund economy, by forcing the U.S. to artificially restrict its growth. Sure Kyoto would also damage Europe economically, but it would cripple the U.S. even worse. And in the current anti-American climate, that's far more important to Europe.

But Bush refused to play that game. He cavalierly unsigned the Kyto Treaty. He wouldn't even give it lip service, the way Clinton did. The European chattering classes are consequently in a huge huff, and they keep trying to beat America over the head for this "unilateral" and politically incorrect act. If they have to pay off Russia in order to keep Kyoto intact, they'll find a way to do so.

The final irony is that the U.S. economy remains unaffected by Kyoto, while Europe will have to implement its restrictions. In addition, Europe will have to ante up a substantial bribe to Russia.

So instead of leveling the playing field, the Kyoto Treaty is tilting the field further in our favor.