Thursday, July 28, 2005

When justices refuse to retire - The Boston Globe - Boston.com - Op-ed - News

When justices refuse to retire - The Boston Globe - Boston.com - Op-ed - News

Mr. Jacoby brings up an interesting analysis. My father was one of Justice William O. Douglas's treating physicians at Bethesda Naval Hospital. When you mention justices retiring, he belly laughs. Due to doctor-patient privilege, he does not say much. He just laughs when anybody says that Douglas retired. He says, "I saw that man. He retired? Yeah, right!"

One of my least favorite presidents for domestic policy was FDR, yet the one failure of his administration was the "court packing plan." As any high school history student would tell you, it was a terrible idea to pack the Court with one's cronies to change the Court's balance. Yet, if you look at the proposed approach, it would solve the complaint that Mr. Jacoby makes.

I don't remember the details of FDR's plan, but he essentially wanted to be able to appoint a new justice for every sitting justice over the age of, say 75. Using this method, Clinton would have been able to make a few more appointments during his term, and W. would have a few. This takes a lot of politics out of the Court's appointments because it would nearly guarantee that every president would make a court appointment yet it would leave the Constitution unchanged.

Is this the best solution? No, I would prefer an amendment to the Constitution that would either resemble that 25th Amendment by systemizing the removal of an infirm justice from voting status and making him capable of reinstatement, maybe with the Chief Judge of the Circuits in numerically rotating order (with the DC Circuit and Federal Circuits as numbers 1 and 2) as the temporary stand-ins. The chief judges, if I am not mistaken, have an interesting selection process by being selected by their bi-partisan peers on their respective Circuits. They have already been confirmed by the Senate. They have appellate experience of some years.

This could even be done under the Congressional authority to regulate the Supreme Court.

London attacks: turning point for US Islamic community | csmonitor.com

London attacks: turning point for US Islamic community | csmonitor.com

These are the types of articles that I wish we saw more often.

The Heaviest Element

The Heaviest Element

I have seen this before, but I just love it.

Heaviest Element discovered

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium". Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an Atomic mass of 311.

These 311 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but, instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the Assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". When catalyzed with money Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element which radiates just as much energy, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Judith Miller Coerced?

The phrase "Words mean things" comes to my mind often when I hear liberals argue with conservatives.

The latest version is that the NY Times and Judith Miller claim that her source was "coerced" to sign a general release of that person's confidentiality with reporters.

This is the latest attempt by the MSM to treat journalism as an extension of the justice system. Journalism is not part of the justice system, and cannot ever be yet function.

Part of this problem arises by the number of attorneys entering journalism. They use legal terms and logic (by and large better than J-school graduates). J-school grads then want to look like they are acquainted with the rules of logic and syllogisms. (I know, I know. Everyone's favorite media huckster Geraldo Rivera fits this bill, too.) Here is where the fun begins.

Miller's argument for ignoring her source's release is that the source was coerced. She and the Times claim that the Administration insisted that everyone inside it sign a general release for this investigation. The coercion is what? That failing to sign the release would cause the source to lose his/her job? Is that coercion?

To coerce is defined by lay dictionaries as, " To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel."

This coercion defense is brought up by many non-lawyers in court. Here are some questions to consider: is it coercion that a woman on the side of the road with a broken down car is required to pay for having her car towed? The towing company may "threaten" not to move her car unless she agrees to pay. The woman feels "compelled" to agree.

Is it coercion when I go to the hardware store and I want to buy material to buildout my basement but I don't want to pay what the store wants me to pay. If I start carrying out material without paying the store's list price, the store manager will surely threaten to have me arrested if I do not "act . . . in a certain way": pay first, carry out second.

This definition of coerce just does not make any sense in determining a person's moral obligations. Since we have no "moral dictionary" (yes, the Bible provides guidance, but I am not doing an exegesis on the Bible here).

The key definition that we need to consider is that in one edition of Black's Law Dictionary. Black's works better since its definitions, as revised over the decades, are actually tested for functionality in real world situations. Black's defines "coercion" as,
1. Compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force. An act such as signing a will is not legally valid if done under coercion. 2. Conduct that constitutes the improper use of economic power to compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it."
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., p. 252 (West Group 1999). Note that the first definition is interested in physical threats. While loss of a job does not automatically disqualify from falling within the second definition, we must look deeper. The key is that the conduct (e.g., firing a non-compliant employee) is "improper."

Certainly the Times is not claiming that its source has been physically threatened. The Times is claiming that it is improper for a president to tell his staffers in the White House to cooperate with a criminal investigation or risk losing his/her job?

Miller's defense is completely unsupportable in a legal sense. Even after attempting to use the lay dictionary definition, we find that, while the behavior in question may fit the definition, the definition is impractical to provide any guidance.

This is a perfect example of what the MSM does every day in blurring definitions of legal terms and trying to apply them outside of courts. They use legal terms that sound very damaging to the subject of the MSM's attack. Yet, they fail to properly apply the terms in a legalistic manner. If a critic point this out to the MSM, the MSM would claim literary license and claim that the MSM doesn't intend to use the legal version.

I would suggest that the MSM should be held strictly accountable by bloggers and other critics for using legal terms by analyzing the MSM's statements and headlines using Black's Law Dictionary. If the MSM wants to have more freedom to express themselves in a non-legal context, they have plenty of room to maneuver. As I understand it, the English language has the largest vocabulary of any language. Every middle school English teacher would tell you that there are many synonyms in English. Use them. The MSM could have used "compel" or "forced" or "strong armed." Each has a similar meaning without the legalistic baggage.

They won't though. They want to bluff the layman into believing their storyline because "coercion" sounds legalistic and, therefore, justifiable reason to ignore Miller's source's release.

If they want to use the law as a cover, they should have to justify their actions strictly within the law. No changing contexts as the whim strikes them.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

The MSM Makes OBL!

Austin Bay suggests that OBL is made by the MSM (and by inference Al-Jazeera). So once again the liberal modus operandi is what creates the success of OBL's war on America.

The aspects that can make any liberal or conservative a great American is villified by OBL: equality of women, freedom of speech, freedom of religion (including but not limited to Islam), respect for differences of opinion, respect for the rule of law, democratic republican administration and creation of laws, equality before the law, investigation of criminal behavior based on probable cause, etc.

Yet one is the image cast to the world about America's ideals? The images in gut rot movies, poorly sourced and reported news reports (let alone knee-jerk, anti-American reporting: condemnation in the press without probable cause), elevation to rights' status of behaviour historically condemned in America even if tolerated, etc. These are the images that are OBL's stock in trade.

The lack of these images and poor reporting would make America much more difficult to use as the strawman in OBL's publicity campaigns.

Imagine a self-motivated MSM that would participate on the American side of the war on Islamofacism! This same media that justifies local news stories of missing women as national news only because it generates ratings but that won't cover national news advantageous to conservatives, even though it generates huge ratings, too (see Limbaugh, FNC, blogs, etc.).

The MSM is already selective on what ratings interest them. Why is it that they always tend to choose in a way that helps OBL?

Friday, July 08, 2005

TCS: Tech Central Station - War in Pieces: The Blood Feud

TCS: Tech Central Station - War in Pieces: The Blood Feud">This article suggests that the Global War on Terror should be retitled something like the Global Blood Feud with Terror. If you study the economics of war, this tactic makes some sense. The goal in a partisan or guerilla war is to keep the cost of each attack high enough to get attention but not so high that the victim society wishes to fight back. But can it be a blood feud with just one side acting consistent with the blood-feud model?

What are the economics to each side? So if a terrorist attack against the American population or the London population a few million to clean up and investigate, that makes no sense to START a trillion dollar hunt internationally. It is more economically efficient for the Americans or Brits to ramp up efforts a bit for political gain or at least political-loss prevention.

That is where the attack on the US on 9/11 changes the economic equation. America lost billions from those attacks. The world economy lost trillions. Now it is more economically efficient to seek out terrorists and break the back of terror supporters of Saddam and Iran. The fear of having multiple WTO-type attacks makes taking the war to the terrorists much more efficient then allowing the world economy to collapse in fear of WTO attacks.

The attack in Madrid and London falls back into the more economically efficient attacks on the West. These attacks cost very little to produce and cost the victim societies far less in economic loss, particularly costs directly attributable to the attack. The insurers paying to repair building facades will be small. The cost of life insurance carriers will be in the millions, but probably not much over $100 million, if I had to guess without any evidence -- which I do. London's economy (and therefore largely Great Britain's economy) lost a day of valuable production. Unfortunately, this may not be enough to mean much in long-term political will for Brits.

The WTO collapses cost insurers billions in real estate casualty coverage -- about $4 billion, I believe. The American Congress paid out about $1 million per victim in after-the-fact life insurance amounting to over $2 billion. Business losses were nationwide as the aircraft landed and people waited several days for the next attack. Fear of air travel continued for over a year.

Since then we attacked the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and more than decimated (note: decimate means "deci-" tenth + "mate" to kill; the Romans would punish a poor performing by killing every tenth legionnaire standing in formation) those organizations' leadership and membership. According to President Bush, we have killed far more than a tenth of those organizations leadership.

The blood-feud model is fitting for a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda using modified guerilla tactics. American Revolutionary War General Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion won in South Carolina using guerilla tactics. The difference between American guerilla tactics and Al-Queda's terror tactics is the target. General Marion targeted the Red Coats, i.e., British soldiers in uniform. Al-Qaeda targets innocent civilians at home.

The classic examples of blood feuds are the Hatfields & McCoys and the Sicilian vendettas. Each had small, surprise attacks because of individuals being members of particular groups or individuals having committed previous "crimes" against the attacker.

While the blood feud model seems to describe Al Qaeda's current and most effective tactics, the same cannot be said of the Western response. Unlike a blood feud, the Western Powers are not reacting in a blood feud approach. This is where the blood feud model fails. In blood feuds there is no attempt to avoid collateral damage, reconstruct societies, spread democracy, build economies, or withdrawal from conquered lands.

So can this one-way blood-feud model work? Al Qaeda and its sympathizers have a huge problem in their military theory. Traditionally guerilla tactics are used by small forces not interested in holding territory to cause occupying forces to withdraw or to cause the government forces to loose credibility in the eyes of the public. General Marion did this well. He made the British occupation of South Carolina prohibitively expensive to maintain. This had the effect of building the American patriots at home believe that Independence could be accomplished. It pointed out the weakness of British control being projected across the Atlantic from London.

Mao Zedong converted these methods against military targets to civilian targets to undermine all sorts of governments in different countries to look shaky. Mao's approach was used by General Giap in Vietnam against the American forces. These guerilla tactics are mostly designed to create a political result. John Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971 is what these tactics sought to accomplish.

Al Qaeda's attacks on the US, Spain, and Great Britain fail to achieve strategic goals that Mao and Giap demonstrated can work. These were indigenous efforts to cause political wills to change among the indigenous population. Al Qaeda's attacks are not indigenous.

Terroristic attacks tends to cause a rally around the flag. The duration of the rally depends on the effect on the pocketbook of citizens.

In the American sense, the rally has waned since 9/11. However, recruiting to the Army's infantry has never waned. The Army's recent recruiting difficulties are in the support positions. Who wants to go to Iraq to provide support to the infantry but get shot at? Americans want to carry guns and shoot. Passing guns up to the front is not nearly as inviting.

What does Al Qaeda strategically envision accomplishing? If this is jihad for conquest, do they really expect the US to collapse and submit to Islam or accept dhimmi status to an Islamic government? How do terror attacks lead to this goal? The logic of this strategy has failed. "Blackhawk Down" as the evidence of American suseptibility to accepting dhimmi status is a dubious source.

Al Qaeda seems to think that the West is as suseptible to spiritual collapse like Vietnam and Mogadishu just like Constantinople collapsed to the Turks. The story goes that the Eastern Roman Empire's (i.e., Byzantine Empire's) Senate debated meaningless theologic issues while the Turks were knocking at the gates of Constantinople. Al Qaeda seems to perceive all of the West through this six hundred year old prism.

Blood feuds have little strategic vision. Blood feuds usually are mirror-image affairs: each sides strategic goals are mostly about vengence and not about larger issues. Al Qaeda's understanding of the West seems to suggest blood feud should work. In the short term, we can see that it is not growing stronger. What about in the long term?

The West wants immediate, clear results. If that is not possible, our basic attitude is not to start. Much of Europe has chosen not to start on several fronts. While Bush and the Republicans remain in power and Blair remains Prime Minister, we have not only started but can see clear to continue. Our problem is that Blair and Bush will be leaving soon. Gordon Brown in Great Britain is not likely to be as strong. Who follows Bush?

This fall Germany's Schroeder may be leaving. Will Germany step up? The Dutch are still reeling from the murder of a director by an Islamicist.

The West's focus after 2008 is not clear. If the next round of Western leaders stay focused, Al Qaeda may be sunk. That will get us between 5-10 more years of focus. That may not solve the problem, but it will make it very difficult for the West to change when the out-of-power parties do come into power as Al Qaeda wishes we would.

What happens if an anti-Bush Democrat takes power with a Democratic Congress (both Senate and House)? Showing signs of change will re-invigorate the Blackhawk Down as the model. If a strong Democrat comes to power with Democratic Congressional support? Al Qaeda is doomed. They won't have a crack to develop in American politics. I don't imagine that Al Qaeda can fight us for 25 years without completely re-writing their theory and philosophy.

American success may depend on the next Democrat president not being from the Carter Administration mold, as was Clinton on Blackhawk Down.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

All Four Stanzas

All Four Stanzas: " All Four Stanzas

By Isaac Asimov

Introductory Note. Unless you're already well acquainted with our 'national anthem,' this interesting piece by the late Isaac Asimov will be an eye-opener. It was for me. It's especially appropriate at a time when there is much talk of tossing out this difficult-to-sing and difficult-to-comprehend old song in favor of something that better suits Ray Charles' voice. You'll understand the song much better after you read Mr. Asimov's explanation.--Hardly Waite, Gazette Senior Editor.



I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.

The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.

This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. 'Thanks, Herb,' I said.

'That's all right,' he said. 'It was at the request of the kitchen staff.'

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.

Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England. The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
W hat so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!



"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.

In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.

During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.



The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.

And don't let them ever take it away.

--Isaac Asimov, March 1991

Friday, July 01, 2005

Krauthammer on Foreign Policy

A very good analysis of the current foreign policy debate and the history of its predecessors.