slate has been on lately. The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld is just classic.

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

Those of you who live in the valley probably remember former Intel worker Ken Hamidi and his angry website. Now his email case has made its way to the CA supreme court. The limits of free speech and its application to email should make for an interesting ruling.

I am always shocked and awed by the amount of amazing work some people are able to produce. Chris Hitchens does it again in this piece from the Atlantic. He discusses the literary critics of Islam, the Good (Rushdie, Houllebecq), the Bad (V.S. Naipaul), and the Ugly (Oriana Fallaci). He reasserts the importance of the notions that some of us in liberal democracies take for granted, critical assement and open engagement. Of those who offer trite observations of Islam and gentle, non-offensive rebukes he chides, "This and other lapses are to be regretted, because Islam needs criticism more stringent than what it has been receiving from these writers"

Robert Wright asks the million dollar question, "Can the folks mismanging this war manage the peace". Again, this works from the premise that the war is being mismanaged. That may or may not be the case, but it's increasingly clear that our public relations efforts (read: diplomacy) are misguided.

Interesting story about which wireless standard to use in post-war Iraq. GSM is the standard in Europe (and will offer substantial profit potential for German and French telecom firms Alcatel and Siemens) A US congressman (from San Diego, home of Qualcomm) wants CDMS to be used instead.

Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall in a blog fight. It's not Ali-Frazier, but its pretty damn good.

How do Westerners view situations and ultimately think vs. Easterners? This is the subject of a new book “The Geography of Thought” which is discussed by the WSJ. This is important since it not only addresses the “inherent differences” in groups throughout the world it also undermines the notion that thinking is basically the same the world over. Good read.

U.S. News with the answer to a question I (and a lot of Americans) have had lately. Why do choppers go down so often?

Interesting read about the relationship between high-stakes, no-limit poker and the advent of game theory, and how both ultimately impacted war strategy.

Saddam gave copies of "Black Hawk Down" as a training and inspirational guide. I should insert a pithy or snarky comment here, but won't. Let's hope this is over soon.

And while we are talking about women's response to war, a big thanks to ninjagirl for pointing me to this "Feminist Take on War". Since Sundays should always start with a chuckle, here is the money 'graph:

Iraq, the religious and historical cradle of civilization, is a potent metaphor for femininity. It is the Fertile Crescent, the great mother womb which gave birth to inventions like the wheel, the art of writing and three of the world's far-reaching religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity which share a common Abrahamic lineage. It is the home of archaeological treasures buried deep in the vast desert sands. It is the home of unheard weeping, suffering borne disproportionately by grandmothers, mothers and children.

The invasion of Iraq is a crime against all women, against all that is feminine and sacred.

Uh, yeah. And Saddam having women raped in front of their families is a crime against whom?

Know your source. A guide to Fox New's Blonde Bombshell Brigade.

Anthony Swofford the author of Jarhead chimes in with his view of embedded reporters.

Its nice to see some folks still remember our erstwhile friends at Suck.com

How well did the Pentagon anticipate the tactics of the Iraqi's? Slate offers one take and the New Yorker reports that Rummy ignored the Pentagon's advice.

As we have heard a thousand times this week, we can't win The War and lose The Peace. The Pentagon is responsible for the war. Rumsfeld is responsible for both.

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for point us towards the 7 Habits of the Effective Blogger.

Almost everybody wants to get high, and almost everybody does. It’s just a matter of degree. Words to live by. The Phoenix reviews recent books that deal with our desire to get high. It’s interesting to note that the level of government irrationality towards drugs seems to have little to do with the actual threat they present.

Charles Schwab Corp. said co-chief executives Charles Schwab and David Pottruck gave up 2.6 million stock options in 2002 worth up to $55.6 million and canceled others from 2000 and 2001. They also refused bonuses for last year.


That is responsible corporate leadership. My favorite is the subhead in the Chron. to this article says that some people complain because the gesture is "symbolic" and more so since the valuations on the stock is so low. First off, it’s clearly symbolic, that’s its intention. The idea is that management and the rank and file are in the same boat. While Schwab and Pottruck will always have their mansions to go home to, they at least are acknowledging the harsh economic realities affecting their employees. And secondly, how much heat would the Chronicle be giving them if they didn’t forgo their options? My guess, about as much as they gave to the CEO of PG&E for accepting his bonus. Hats off to Chuck and David, they get it.

The horrific mess that is the DMCA still hasn't deterred some lawmakers. Now the states want to get in on the act.

Aspargirl with some nice notes about gays in the military.

Will Femia at msnbc.com assesses how blogs are doing re: War Coverage. His summary:
It’s clear that Weblogs can contribute to the fog of war as easily as they can help clear it (Unless you read Ted the Dog, we only clear it)


And a wonderful rebutt from the Truth Laid Bear.


The crucial aspect of weblogs is that they are independent. They represent one individual (or a self-selected collection of individuals) viewpoint. Their thoughts, their ideas, hopes, fears, experiences, whatever. Uncut, uncensored, and unfiltered.

Embedded reporters, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. In the first place, they are Professional Journalists, which doesn't mean they are evil (or even necessarily incompetent) --- but it does mean that they are edited, filtered, distilled, and otherwise limited by their own organizations. Yes, that on-the-battlefield report might be streamed live. But the choice to stream that reporter's account at that particular moment wasn't made by the reporter --- it was made by some editor sitting in Atlanta. "Embeds" are tactically uncut --- but strategically neutered.

OK, how about some nice, noodle-nose, news for a change? Apparently the new dating craze in New York is "Dinner in the Dark" A bunch of singles do a meet, greet, and eat in total darkness. Only the waiters wear night google glasses. The other diners are free to grope each other and throw bread. The first event was described thusly: As soon as the diners were seated with the lights out, unable to see anyone or anything, the supposedly sophisticated New Yorkers somehow became anything but.

The dinner erupted into a melee of shouting patrons, crashing glassware and flying slices of bread. As plates shattered, diners burst into rounds of adolescent cheering.

A loud splash was followed by a woman's shriek. "Ow. You spilled that all over me. I am so wet," she said somewhere in the dark, obviously the victim of a misplaced, or misfired, drink
------------------------

In local news, an Oakland woman just won the Rock Paper Scissor title.

OK, that's all the fun news for the week, back to your regularly scheduled doom and gloom.

The war in Iraq is just a week old, but it is clear that Saddam Hussein has learned a lot since his forces were routed in the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Like other leaders facing larger, technologically superior forces, he has found ways to improvise and to take advantage of the fact that the fighting is taking place on his home ground. He is waging a campaign of harassment and delay. It is not likely to change the outcome of the war, but it will prolong the fighting, make it more costly for his adversaries and profoundly affect the way it is seen in other Arab countries and around the world. R. W. APPLE Jr. in the NY Times today. Its ironic but the tactics Saddam appears to be using aren't so much from the Vietcong playbook, but rather our own revolutionary war.

The difference between this nation, its values and those of our enemies can be summed up by this image of former prisoners being released from Guantanamo Bay. No bullets to the back of the head. We don't make our mistakes "disappear" in order to avoid the embarassment. A liberal, secular, democracy isn't always pretty, but it is head and shoulders above the alternatives.

Paul Krugman writes about the failed promise (and promises) of the energy task force led by Cheney.

They considered themselves tough-minded realists, and regarded doubters as fuzzy-minded whiners. They silenced those who questioned their premises, even though the skeptics included many of the government's own analysts. They were supremely confident — and yet with shocking speed everything they had said was proved awesomely wrong.

SFgate with an article about the FBI questioning Iraqi immigrants. The Feds were on top of things with questios like "Do you know Osama Bin Laden?". Gonna get those bad guys that way.

Thanks to TalkingPointsMemo for point us to this WaPo article about our missteps in Turkey. Obviously the foreign policy failings in Turkey are having real world and real war consequences. Its discomforting to say the least that negotiations with our allies are fumbled this badly and yet we are suppossed to have faith in their ability to manage the entire Middle East domino process.

Gary Hart has a blog. Its light now but it will be interesting to see how it grows.

A sober and insightful piece on Moynihan from Mickey Kaus.

Moynihan was right -- OK, prophetic -- about the decline of the black family, and its importance, but wrong about the solution. (He persistently refused to see no-strings welfare payments as a cause of family breakup, and never was comfortable with requiring single welfare mothers to go to work.) That's my main beef with him -- Washingtonians treated Moynihan as a god on the welfare issue, but it was only when Washington finally ignored him and passed the 1996 welfare reform that we began to make real progress on that front.


And I love the political epigram of Moynihan's he relates:
The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.

"You have the jewel of Africa in your hands," said President Samora Machel of Mozambique and President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania to Robert Mugabe, at the moment of independence, in 1980. "Now look after it."

Twenty-three years later, the "jewel" is ruined, dishonored, disgraced.

so begins Doris Lessing's amazing piece on Mugabe.

What worries me about what Lessing describes is that somehow the newest way to get U.S. attention, dollars, and all that brings with it, is to cause enough trouble to be "worth it" (i.e. terrorism) We have long ignored Africa and I am sure there is some resentment on that matter. If I was an enterprising young upstart tyrant, it might make sense to loosely and distantly support terrorist factions within my struggling nation. After the US comes to clean up the mess, they'll build infrastructure, put in a form of democracy, and pay my nation the money and attention I feel it deserves. It just seems like the countries that fuck with us (Afghanistan, Iraq) are the ones we have dedicated billions for restoring. Simplistic I know, but aren't we in a weird way rewarding very, very bad behaviors?

Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo has some sobering words for those of us who believe regime change is the start.

Once America begins the process of remaking the Middle East in the way the hawks have in mind it will be extremely difficult for any president to pull back. Vietnam analogies have long been overused, and used inappropriately, but this may be one case where the comparison is apt.

Richard Perle quits. hmm....

Now we are literally walking out on the UN.

Nice write up from CNN about soldiers blogging from the Gulf.

I've been getting lots of emails about the Tejada piece below. Many of them with fixes for baseball almost all of them centered around one "problem". Speed the game up.

This is the number one complaint of "fans" today. And its totally wrong. (OK, get out your seersucker suits and Jim Crowe Laws, I'm going all nostalgic) Baseball is a game without a clock. It has a different flow. It is meant to be played and enjoyed without the hurried pace of Playstation 2 games, Jerry Bruckheimer movies, and CNN war coverage. That is why people are losing interest in it, because its so out of tune with modern sensibilities. But that's why it's so great and even more important these days, its an antidote to today's hectic pace. (OK, I will stop channeling George Will now)

It reminds me of the great Ghandhi quote: "There is more to life than increasing its speed"

Have another beer and a dog, laugh with your neighbor, smile at the pretty girl in the bleachers, and leave your cell phone at home. (God I am fired up for opening Day!)

As always, Dahlia Lithwick with the first good reporting from the Supreme Court. Her latest dispatch from the sodomy trial is classic. She talks about what lead to the men being arrestted for engaging in "deviant" acts and then reminds us:

Pause here to consider that bestiality is not considered "deviate" under Texas law. Read it for the absurd laughs and mind boggling "logic".

Monkeys from Morocco Meet Mines

This is a few days old, but in light of the Supreme Court's handling of the Texas law its informative to revisit Andrew Sullivan's essay titled "We Are All Sodomites Now"

In honor of Women's History Month, Cato gives us Three Women who launched a movement.

Nothing like the eloquent slams of cat-fighting conservatives for a good chuckle.

A proud, storied baseball team with a dynasty in its past, a roster full of young stars, and last year’s MVP, should be the envy of the league. One problem, they are a “small market team”. The Oakland Athletics recently announced that they couldn’t afford to keep Miguel Tejada the reigning AL MVP. The A’s owners announced this at the beginning of the season claiming they didn’t want to “offend” him with a lowball offer.

General manager Billy Beane said that even though offers were never exchanged, he has a fair idea what an MVP shortstop would bring on the market, and the A's would not be in the ballpark.

Baseball fans notice the similarity to Jason Giambi, another farm-raised Athletic turned MVP, and eventual New York Yankee. Frankly, many people consider this a Yankee “problem” with a severe competitive imbalance created by the outsized revenues the NY teams receive due mostly to their TV contracts. The big market teams argue that money isn’t the only key to success. Smart decisions , good management, and money are factors.

Last year baseball, against the stern objections of Yankee’s owner George Steinbrenner and the player’s union, implemented a salary cap similar to the one used in the other major sports. There is a penalty tax in the agreement that is a forced revenue sharing trigger once a team exceeds the cap. So far the only two teams projected to be over the cap this year are the New York Yankees and the New York Mets.

Interesting twist in the Dear Raed blog. Even Reason is chiming in on his veracity.

FBI releases wiretapping records and The Founding Fathers turn over in their graves. All from WaPo.

The Supremes will be looking at the sodomy law again. It will be interesting to say the least.

No more Iraq TV.

Speaking of the Freedoms We Take For Granted (FWTFG), Privacy International has just announced their 2003 Big Brother Awards.

The bombs have begun to fall on Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers have shot their officers and are giving themselves up to the Americans and the British in droves. Others, as in Nasiriyah and Umm Qasr, are fighting back, and civilians have already come under fire. Yet I find myself dismissing contemptuously all the e-mails and phone calls I get from antiwar friends who think they are commiserating with me because "their" country is bombing "mine." To be sure, I am worried. Like every other Iraqi I know, I have friends and relatives in Baghdad. I am nauseous with anxiety for their safety. But still those bombs are music to my ears. They are like bells tolling for liberation in a country that has been turned into a gigantic concentration camp. One is not supposed to say such things in the kind of liberal, pacifist, and deeply anti-American circles of academia, in which I normally live and work. The truth is jarring even to my own ears. Kanan Mikiya writes in The New Republic. War is a horrible response to the worst failings of man but it isn't always the worst possible condition. As voices speak up from and within Iraq you understand how utterly naive much of the anti-war left is. You begin to grasp the notion that those ideas we take for granted, those small liberties we swim in without so much a second thought, the abscence of terror, isn't enjoyed by many on this planet. Hopefully war will always remain the option of last resort, but these things are worth fighting for.

No one is safe under his rule. Sports Illustrated with a story about an Iraqi Olympian and the torture and terror used by the first family to "motivate" athletes.

An ex-human shield comes back sharing tales of the Iraqi people. He was "schocked" to find that people in Iraq were pro-war. (golly, I wonder why anyone would support a change of the tyrannical regime that rules your land with terror and injustice)

The Supremes have ruled that the Patriot Act stands up to one of its first tests.

We all have fun beating on Clear Channel, and rightfully so. But their efforts at creating an astro-turf campaign of pro-war rallies strikes me as dangerous as well as dumb. Its one thing to use your monolithic influence to jam horrific pop music down our gullets, its another to surreptitiously use it to drive public opinion on such an important issue. Take a stand and have the balls to show your face in public.

Lawrence Lessig advocates that the wireless spectrum should be opened up as a commons. Interestingly enough he belives Chairman Powell may be leaning in that direction as well. He says that Powell may be remembered (if he does open the spectrum) as telecom's Gorbachev, the "father of the most importan revolution that technology could begin."

Lessig waxes that if Powell is the "counter-revolutionary" he hopes, "then count on a networked future that is wildly better than our past. Imagine then a world of innovation and growth when anywhere and everywhere you could always be on—connected via wireless. With a few simple rules, and the space to play, wireless innovators would give us the second great Internet revolution. And our children would speak not of how only Nixon could have gone to China, but of how only Powell could have given us the spectrum commons."

OK, I am officially back! I'll be working through the emails this week and posting regularly again from here on out. Let's get a bloggin'

The blindness of the so-called Anti-war left further revealed from Andrew Sullivan this morning:

"You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious... I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." - the words of a liberated Iraqi, reported by the Guardian. Sorry, guys, you see, twelve years ago, we got cold feet and abandoned you, and then there are these people called the French, and you see, they ... oh never mind. Welcome back to humanity. Welcome back from the grave.

and in the same, "Better Late Than Never" vein, Salon chimes in with the horror that is Saddam. (suck it up and get the day pass)

Great news on the War front. That is all that needs to be said. It is clearly too early to predict complete and total victory (in the matter of the War) but that's our job, to prematurely call things. The naysayers may be correct about the reconstruction of Iraq but its clear the peace protesters (we do need to find another term for them, they actually "stood" for many things none of which was peace) were wrong about the manner in which the war was waged and the realities of the Iraqi people. Tipping Point opines that the new version of warfare that is being waged should alter the anti-war left's strategies. (imagine that, a play book that is more updated than dusty 60's tactics with email added). He claims that the generals in our armies have the abiltiy to prevent wholesale slaughter like never before and this should inform the protests.

If you're an anti-war protester or politician, this theory of warfare should change the way you think and act. Your efforts to generate resistance to the war before there is any evidence of killing, much less atrocities, contribute to the political strength of the enemy regime. You encourage uncertainty about the war's outcome, increasing the likelihood that the regime's soldiers will fight and die. You make it more difficult to separate the regime from its people. You frustrate the tipping and bring on the crushing.

If you want to minimize the killing, stop resisting the war. Instead, do what you can to make the war transparent and to hold your government accountable for unnecessary deaths. Help the media and human rights organizations monitor the battlefield. Help them get reports and pictures to the people of your country and the world. Build an incentive system that will strengthen your government's will to spare lives. Its ability will do the rest.

It's one thing to disagree with U.S. foreign policy, its another to denegrate our anthem at a sporting event. We can respectfully disagree on issues but when we reach the point where French Fries are renamed and our anthem is booed at hockey games you realize that the idiots have far too loud of a voice. Keep your eye on the ball people, this isn't a TV show.

SFgate with a piece on bloggers on the front.

That is a danger inherent in the medium, warns Paul Grabowicz, new media program director at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. "We're getting into some treacherous waters here," he said. "If there's not an editor reading it before it goes up, it's taking away a safeguard that's a sensible one in journalism -- to make sure you get it right before it's published."

Scott Rosenberg of Salon has a different take, "Most blogging is a kind of armchair commentary kind of thing rather than field reporting, but that may change," Rosenberg said. A blog, he said, explodes the traditional concept of carefully working on a story with an editor.

"It puts you in a position where you're just streaming information at a reader," he said. "That can be creative and exciting. I can see someone doing innovative and valuable things with that, and I can see it being a waste of time."

Rich, oh so rich. Not only is the New York Times wrong about the War, they don't even have a clue about what's going in California. Kudos to Heather Havrilesky for (as always) nailing it.

Oh, it's true! All we Californians can think about right now is the Oscars! LA is absolutely abuzz with talk of impeaching Bush, on the grounds that he's, like, totally messing with Joan Rivers' red carpet coverage!

Follow the Money-details emerge about France's business dealings with Iraq.

Light updates for the next few days. I am travelling. It's encouraging to know that the war to liberate Iraq is progressing well. We all pray that the Madman is dead and we can end this quickly and with little loss of life. As many have opined, this war will justify itself ex post facto. There are early indications of what we all knew and suspected, the Madman was a butcher hated by the people subjected to his tyranny. The difference between the real, dire circumstances that the Iraqi people live in and the vapid, self-obsessed, irrelevance of many in the streets of San Francisco are accentuated by this protest.

according to this report, the fighting has begun in earnest.

In these days of bombast it's always important to remember that war, ultimately reflects on, and affects people. Nice story from an Oregan paper about a group of infantrymen lead by an experienced soldier full of dread, and dreams, and hope for the future.

And on the other side (actually, if you think about it, these soldiers are on the same side as we are) its good to see that desertions of Iraqi soldiers is beginning before we've even started.

what is Bush thinking in regards to N.Korea? Jonathan Rauch throws out a theory.

Sean Gallagher proposes fighting Spam with Spam.

I just reread Blair's speechto the House of Commons and am awestruck by how reasoned yet impassioned it is. How wonderfully succinct and at the same time eloquent it is. It is, to me, is a moment as poetic, important, grave, and strangely wonderful as any I have seen in politics. As disgusted as I am by the capitulation of Chirac and crew, I am emboldened by Blair's words.

We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.
Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action....The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam...
And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life.

Prior to rereading his speech I read a letter to the editor in the San Francisco newspaper lamenting the lack of eloquent voices (his letter referencing the ant-war side). We have found that voice, powerfully, concisely, accurately voicing the hopes, fears, and aspirations of those who thirst for a just and safe peace. Churchill is proud.

Another day another Ashcroft protest. San Francisco doing it our way.

Interesting read, "Open Letter to President Bush" by Vladimir Bukovsky and Elena Bonner. While bordering at times on hyperbole makes a strong claim for the notion that the U.S. must do a better job of picking its allies in the War on Terror. Mostly speaking from their experiences in Soviet Russia their words ring true, "There is nothing more dangerous in the war of ideas than the 'realpolitik' approach which brought us so many disasters in the past," they write. "After all, was not Osama bin Laden a byproduct of a similar 'marriage of convenience' at one point? Was it not true also in the case of Saddam Hussein? ... Will the United States ever learn this lesson, or will it continue forever to build up new enemies while fighting present ones?"

Tony Blair made a knockout speech to the house of Commons today and won an important and historical vote. For those of you who haven't read the speech, its worth it. Gotta go with Bushies on this one, its apparent that Iraq wasn't disarming, had no intentions to, and was clearly focusing on obstruction and deception. The sadder and possibly more tragic subtext is that the French were clearly being duplicitous.

Ah yes, once again. The 101 Dumbest moments in business for 2002.

Daniel Kruger offers a defense of neo-colonialism and an interesting parallel between Britian's fight against slavery and ours against religion-fueled terror.

A new doctrine of international order is emerging, of which the imminent war is a crucial outing. It is the doctrine of humanitarian intervention — or, to give it its proper name, neo-colonialism. This doctrine is driven by the firm belief — uncluttered by relativist self-loathing — in the universal principles of liberty and justice. It gives expression to our sense that everyone, not just the West, has a right to live in a decent country — and that the West has a duty to help them do so. In particular, it gives substance to the vacuities of the ‘ethical foreign policy’.

Clinton again comes out in support of the war.

As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

David Friedman joins the world of blogging.

Interesting ideas about media bias. Wired writes that foreign websites are seeing an influx of US visitors, presumably because they can read ideas, reporting, and commentary through a lens other than the American media's. But in the "give us what we want to hear not what we need to know" category, the man charged with ensuring NPR's "balance" acknowledges that they lean heavily to one side. Even going so far as to say that when NPR interviewed Colin Powell they received e-mails by the score, all asking: "NPR! How could you?" towards the end of his mea culpa he states, As an audio companion, NPR needs to remain recognizable to its listeners; but as a news service, it needs to present a range of opinions that reflects reality -- no matter how uncomfortable that reality may be.

Good piece from MSNBC about why America is so feared, distrusted, and often disliked by "the World".

From mandatory seatbelt laws to the Patriot Act...Eugene Volokh & David Newman offer a reasoned defense of the slippery slope.

Today the SF Chronicle reports on a new philosophy class at U.C. Berkeley, "Simpsons and Philosophy". While not the first school to offer courses of this sort, its certainly one of the most prestigious.

A word of advice to all of those doubting academic highbrows out there.... This actually is an academically rigorous class, not a dumbing down of either philosophy or "The Simpsons."

Obviously the relationship between the Simpsons and pop-culture is well established, and the deeper meanings of the show have been plumbed. ("Can Nietzsche's rejection of traditional morality justify Bart's bad behavior?") I wonder, what insights have you gained from this show? Has it enlightened you? Made you reaffirm or question your faith ? Or is this all po-mo crap fueled by slackers looking for an excuse to get stoned and watch TV? Or maybe the weary nihilism of Homer Simpson sums it up best, "How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?"

That's the tricky thing about free will vs. determinism on the layman front (make that the secular-layman front). On the one hand, we believe scientific and material causes play out in predictable and usually necessary ways. On the other hand, we believe - and almost all the world's diverse systems of moral and legal responsibility assume - that people remain free to make both deeply deliberative and quirky, spontaneous decisions, and bear responsibility for them unless acting under "compulsion" - i.e., stripped of their freedom.

A discussion of free will and Daniel Dennett's new book, Freedom Evolves, from the Philly Inquirer.

Dennett, by contrast, argues that despite living in a deterministic world, humans enjoy cerebral freedom, an "evolved creation of human activity and beliefs," that amounts to a back-formation from human language and its unique communicative capacities. It's generated by our adaptive ability to bring self-reflective, deliberative attention to options before us, to talk with ourselves, and that's a perfectly respectable definition of free will in a scientific age. To Dennett's evolved mind, a definition of freedom as "the capacity to achieve what is of value in a range of circumstances" is "as good a short definition of freedom as could be."

As the enormity of what path we are about to embark upon (or more correctly, have already been thrust towards) I take some solace and a certain amount dread in the notion of free will. The choices we make today seem magnified by their significance. Let’s hope that free will turns out to be a gift rather than a curse.

Invading terrorism-sponsoring states, before they have formally attacked us - violates the basic principles of the international order we have understandably come to cherish. So we have a profound - and new - conflict between security and sovereignty, between a catastrophe-free world and international law.--The uneasy words of Andrew Sullivan after reading Lee Harris' essay on Our World-Historical Gamble. I've linked to it before, but the feedback has been so amazing that I'd point my readers to it again.

Slate offers a snarky but insightful guide to the pundits who chime in regularily on Iraq.

Christopher Allbritton is going directly to Iraq and reporting on the war via his blog. They always claim bloggers don't have reporters on the ground. We've got at least one following the kurds.

Recently there has been a great deal of lip service paid to accounting irregularities and the importance of transparency to a healthy democracy and functioning economy. A few months ago our President said "It is time to reaffirm the basic principles and rules that make capitalism work: truthful books and honest people".

There is little doubt that an erosion of trust in corporate accounting practices is a major factor in the continued decline of the US economy. Our first President with an MBA, Bush has promised to run government like a business. Apparently his drug czar didn’t get the memo.

After Sept. 11th we were told that law enforcement, most notably the FBI, would be shifting resources to focus on the War on Terror. At first glance it appears that this change in priorities is reflected in the numbers. Last year congress spent $19 billion fighting drugs, and this year just over $11 billion. Paul Armentano explains that this is mostly due to accounting changes that were hardly noticed but widely felt.

In a little publicized announcement last year, officials from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (a.k.a. the Drug Czar's office) revealed that they had developed a "new methodology" for reporting the federal drug budget—which had grown from less than $2 billion annually in 1982 to $18.8 billion last year. Under this scheme, only funding for agencies involved in so-called "primary" drug war activities is now tabulated in the national anti-drug budget. As a result, more than two-thirds of the agencies included in past years' budgets are conspicuously missing from this year's financial totals...To make matters even more confusing, the 2003 "National Drug Control Strategy" makes virtually no reference to the White House's new accounting procedures, and manipulates past years' budgets to retroactively reflect the Feds' latest "fuzzy math". As a result, the White House is now claiming that America's war on drugs has never cost more than $11 billion per year, even though the office itself previously recorded surpassing that spending milestone in 1991!

There are many possible explanations for this Eronesque maneuver. The War on Drugs has steadily been losing support in America. It's a policy that has had diminishing results under a number of administrations and dwindling support of the American people. This may be a way to continue to throw good money after bad while avoiding the growing dismay of the people. Perhaps the administration thinks no one is paying attention to the spending and growing deficit . Perhaps the ethics of business accounting don’t apply to the White House. Regardless, it’s shameful coming from the “CEO” of an administration that a few months ago proclaimed, “We're moving corporate accounting out of the shadows, so the investing public will have a true and fair and timely picture of assets and liabilities and income of publicly traded companies.” Some shadows linger longer than others.

Interesting read about the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Big time money, Echelon, and the work of the Pakistani intelligence agency.

The SFPD is having a rough few weeks . The obstruction of justice case against high level police officers seems to be unravelling but they now have another PR problem. Documents obtained from the Sunshine Ordinance has shown that the police have been spying on anti-war protestors.

They've been monitoring sf.indymedia.org, a leftist web site that advocates radical "black bloc" tactics. Furthermore, they've had undercover officers videotaping protestors. Apparently the order to surveil the protestors wasn't authorized by the Chief of Police, which is mandated by a decades-old guidelines.

The videotaped surveillance conducted at the anti-war demonstrations Oct. 26, Jan. 18 and Feb. 16 was done by five plainclothes officers -- including one wearing a pin of the Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara in his hat.

The police claim this is standard procedure for large events where the threat of violence exists. Others see it as an ominous indication that dissent is frowned upon and possibly even an intimidation tactic.

The Violent Crimes Task Force usually investigates gang killings but now is working the protests. The head of the task force, Lt. Kit Crenshaw described "First Amendment activities" as a "guise" used by some radical groups to "conduct their contemptuous acts against corporate and government structures."

Standard operating procedure for the police, or a chilling sign of another erosion of our rights? Either way the Boys in Blue in San Francisco are losing the PR battle.

Chris Pirillo has pics from the Google Blooger party.

I can't handle it. So if you make your own power (i.e. solar) you may get charged by the California PUC. They are considering the fees in order to recoup some of the losses they've suffered the past few years. I swear, you think you've heard every stupid idea and they just keep coming.

Lee Harris writes about the "historical gamble" facing us today. Its long, nerve-racking, but worth reading every word.

The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world. It is, to use the language of Hegel, an event that is world-historical in its significance and scope. And it will be world-historical, no matter what the outcome may be.

Pacific Gas and Electric, one of the largest combination natural gas and electric utilities in the United States, is currently under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Their frontline workers, which make up roughly 2/3 of all employees, are currently operating without a contract, California just suffered through a summer of rolling black-outs, and the general perception of the utility is one of mistrust. A company in deep trouble and with no cash. David Lazarus of the San Franciso Chronicle found out they may have more cash than thought.

(PG&E) paid $57.4 million in bonuses to managers and other nonunion employees as part of its "performance incentive plan."

"Even Enron would be jealous of such brazen behavior," said Ross Mirkarimi, who served as spokesman for the Yes on Prop. D (Public Power) campaign.

Lazarus acquired the internal document of bonus payouts that including $323,250 for CEO Gordon Smith, the man who lead the company into Chapter 11. It makes one wonder if anyone believes in compensation in line with performance anymore? Is there a model for utilities that actually works? In the end it seems the rate payers are the real losers.

Andrew Sullivan faces the grim truth (e.g. super-empowered individuals, radical hatred for Western ideas and ideals). The new set of world realities leaves us between a rock and a hard place.
Which leaves us with very few good options. But the obvious one is pro-active pre-emption: going in and getting rid of such regimes and entities, destroying them, or occupying them. But doing so - invading terrorism-sponsoring states, before they have formally attacked us - violates the basic principles of the international order we have understandably come to cherish. So we have a profound - and new - conflict between security and sovereignty, between a catastrophe-free world and international law.

So the White House Office of Management and Budget wants to do cost/benefit analysis on new anti-civil rights legislation. Interesting idea but I believe the biggest obstacle is mentioned in the article, how do you quantify the value of "liberty"? Frankly, you can't. Its the most subjective of notions and they would be best served by keeping it a purely dollars and sense exercise. I don't know if I am heartened by the idea that they are seriously considering doing this or disgusted by the apparent fact that they didn't do this before they passed Patriot Act I.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey ruled today that Jose Padilla can meet with his lawyers.

"Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct a further `dialogue' about whether he will be permitted to do so. It is a ruling -- a determination -- that he will be permitted to do so," the judge said.

Damn that Constitution, always trying to endanger good Americans.

More from Bush Sr. Tuft's speech, this time from the London Times. In regards to the France/Germany/Conflict, “You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity”

"One of the tests of a leader is to convince your allies what's right and what's wrong. And that's what a leader does. A leader builds up alliances."-George Bush Jr. This quote from Bush the candidate highlights the difference between then and now, and between father and son. Very interesting piece describing the multilateralist Bush Sr.’s views vs. his son's apparent willingness to go it alone. Salon puts a pop-psychology spin on the alleged rift calling it the "ultimate act of rebellion". Really its nothing more than celebrity-f-ing (of the political sort) since Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. are two separate men, entitled to fully formed separate opinions. Interesting read nonetheless. The more brutal assessment from the piece with stark implications for Bush Sr. and the world at large comes (again, implicitly) from the neo-cons advisors who disapproved of the father. "Thus, his son is doing what needs to be done because his father was a fey anachronism with skewed priorities, a president who put too much stock in discredited ideals." Of course Salon is premium, but click through the ads and read this interesting piece.

An amazing tale about a Cuban delegation sent by Castro to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq on the eve of the first Gulf War. They aimed for a "Third World Solution" based on international law to head of an era of American dominance in geopolitics. History is full of missed opportunities, false starts, misguided intent, and simple bad luck. As we head into another war the more we know about the past, the better.

What are minds, exactly? Most of us, when first confronted with this question, find ourselves quickly drawn to a traditional philosophical picture. The picture represents the mind as a sort of private room: a hidden inner sanctum within which our mental lives are played out and to which others are necessarily denied access. Because these inner rooms are hermetically sealed off from each other, the only clue as to what's going on inside the mind of another must be provided by their outward behaviour


More in Stephen Law's review of "The Philospher's Dog" were we find out just what Wittgenstein's dog was thinking.

Bobby Knight gives up his $250,000 salary because he felt his Texas Tech team didn't live up to his expectations. Man, that guy is crazy but sometimes you have to love him.

Hmm...man on the lam from California for pot charges, goes to Candana and claims political asylum, sounds like a job for Ashcroft.

Sara Rimensnyder advocates pragmatism for the UN security council.

What criteria is used to elect the President of the United States? A new article from U.S. News and World Report claims it all comes down to "likability".

The likability of presidential candidates has been a big issue ever since 1987, when Maureen Dowd wrote on the front page of the New York Times: "Everywhere you look, the men who would be President are, as the poet Rod McKuen once put it, `listening to the warm.' " Dowd quoted pollsters, consultants, and academics about how Americans now wanted likable presidents

Stuart Rothenbeg, a political analyst, differentiates voters into two camps: "Issue voters are mostly ideological voters, but the voters in the center think first not about a candidate's stand on trade or abortion, but is he a windbag? Is he arrogant? How is his bearing? How does he carry himself?"

The piece profiles John Kerry and his ability to vibe with common folk and comes away surprised at how well he connects. Irish or not, Kerry seems to have the gift.

But is a glamorized popularity contest really the best way to chose the leader of one of the largest nations on the planet? Some maintain that issues still matter, and matter a great deal. Maybe a strong jawline and the ability to quip on cue isn't the hallmark of great leadership.

Time profiles Gen. Tommy Franks, seems like he's that rarest of Washington D.C. creatures, a high-level official who isn't self-obsessed, or a self promoter, and genuinely a man of decency.

Jacob Sullum decries "neoprohibitionist censorship" in regards to wine labeling laws.