In case you haven't heard, the big news today is that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

I know, it's a shock.

The language of the decision is so out of step with the type of wishy-washy "living document" bullshit theory of Constitutional interpretation I've become resigned to, I want someone to pinch me to make sure I'm not dreaming.

We start by considering the competing claims about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s operative clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Appellants contend that “the right of the people” clearly contemplates an individual right and that “keep and bear Arms” necessarily implies private use and ownership. The District’s primary argument is that “keep and bear Arms” is best read in a military sense, and, as a consequence, the entire operative clause should be understood as granting only a collective right. The District also argues that “the right of the people” is ambiguous as to whether the right protects civic or private ownership and use of weapons.

In determining whether the Second AmendmentÂ’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right Â— “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment Â— “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” Â— indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

The DistrictÂ’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all Â— e.g., “the states.” . . . These strained interpretations of “the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently endorsed a uniform reading of “the people” across the Bill of Rights. . . .

. . .

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would have lumped these provisions together without comment if it were of the view that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right. The CourtÂ’s discussion certainly indicates Â— if it does not definitively determine Â— that we should not regard “the people” in the Second Amendment as somehow restricted to a small subset of “the people” meriting protection under the other AmendmentsÂ’ use of that same term.

In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.

Parker v. District of Columbia at 18-19.

The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. . . . Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech.” Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government . . . the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be infringed.”

Id at 20-21.

"People" means people, people. That's what originalism is all about. First you determine what the Constitution says (not what you wish it said), then you determine if the law in question departs from the Constitution. If it does, then there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution, specified within the Constitution. You don't simply disregard the Founding Document and make up a lie about what it really means.

This decision will make its way to the Supreme Court, and thank George W. Bush, we'll have Roberts and Alito on our side hopefully.

Posted by: annika at 08:37 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 836 words, total size 5 kb.

Why are the Democrats so afraid of Fox News? It's a live debate, what do they think will happen? It's not like Fox News might superimpose an X over John Edwards' face while she's talking. Nobody would do that.

Posted by: annika at 07:55 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

People are making a big deal about Bronco Bomber's recent surge in the polls against Hillary, most notably among black voters. Hillary made a fool of herself in Selma, and Bomber is clearly making her scramble earlier than anyone thought she would. But she'll survive that embarrassment.

I still don't see Bronco's insurgent campaign winning the nomination in the long run. I like Bronco Bomber, I'm reading his book. I don't like his politics, but for me, he represents the end of the baby boomer stranglehold on American political leadership, which can only be a good thing. Too bad he's going up against the Clinton machine.

I'm sure that Hillary and her staff have been behind the growing list of thinly veiled attacks on the Bronco Bomber campaign. The list includes:

• Claiming that he attended a radical Islamic school in Indonesia.
• Trying to hold him accountable for the (well taken) anti-Clinton comments of David Geffen.
• The brouhaha over Bronco's pastor being dis-invited from his announcement ceremony.
• The so far unfounded allegation of a quid pro quo stock transaction.

That's just crazy. Republicans need Bronco Bomber to mount a strong campaign. It doesn't make sense to knock him down. Every serious political observer knows that Bronco won't win the nomination unless something catastrophic happens between now and the beginning of next year. Given a choice between an establishment front-runner and a populist challenger, Democrats will always nominate the establishment candidate. I think the only modern exception to that rule was McGovern, so you can see why they wouldn't want to make that mistake again.

From my long range vantage point — almost 20 months from election day — I'm beggining to see two general strategies that each party should use to ensure victory.

For the Democrats, it's easy. Hillary will be the nominee, and she will have a fight on her hands if she goes against Giuliani. That's because she won't be able to take the big blue states for granted. But Giuliani's weakness among social conservatives can be Hillary's secret weapon if she practices a bit of political judo. All she needs is a far right third party candidate, and she will cruise back into the White House. Some say the Republicans were behind Ralph Nader's candidacy back in 2000. I don't know, but it's obvious that Gore would have been president if he'd had Nader's 2% in Florida. I think a Republican Nader, like Pat Buchanan or someone of his ilk, would be just what the doctor ordered for Hillary's ailing campaign. She needs to stop worrying about Bronco and start looking for a social conservative to funnel money to.

For the Republicans, the key is in preparing the general election battlefield by defining Hillary now. She's giving them all the help they need, as she stupidly attacks Bronco through her surrogates. Every time another sneaky negative story appears in the New York Times or some other pro-Clinton organ, the Republicans should take note and tie it to her campaign. The key is to define Hillary as a female Nixon. Devious, sneaky, mean, and unlikeable. You want people thinking these things when the general election comes around.

She'll do anything to win.

That Obama guy seemed nice, and look what she did to him.

You don't want to cross her.

She has an enemies list, just like Nixon.

Her past history fits in well with this narrative. Remember Travelgate?

I had thought that Hillary's left flank might be her undoing, but now I don't think so. Other than a few scattered hecklers, I haven't seen the unhinged protesters that I expected to follow her around. I think even the true believers know that she's their best chance if they want to avoid repeating the humiliations of 2000 and 2004. That may change as Bronco gets stronger, though. Another reason why I'd like to see him continue the charge.

Posted by: annika at 04:54 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 701 words, total size 5 kb.

A USC free speech group was fined by the university for posting flyers outside USC's free speech zone, which say "This is not a free speech zone."

Story at LAist.

Posted by: annika at 09:46 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

[What the hell is a carbon offset?]

Buy carbon offsets from me.

Even though I don't know what a carbon offset is, I know a moneymaker when I see one.

You, guilt ridden Annika's Journal reader that you are, can save the world! One book at a time. One DVD at a time. One moderately priced cheese sampler at a time.

First, a description of the problem.

All scientists agree that:

1. The Earth is warming.


2. It's your fault.


3. You can do something about it.


4. If you don't do something about it, the animals will die.


5. If you don't do something about it, the good rich people will have to move away from Malibu, Palm Beach and the Upper East Side.


6. Doing something about it should somehow involve penalizing the bad rich people like those evil corporation men.


7. Doing something about it will make you feel good, even if the world ends up getting destroyed anyway. Or not.

Now that you understand the problem (animals dying, good people moving), I'm sure you want to know how to help. After all, Al Gore recently said that all we need in order to solve the problem is in our very own hands, except for the will to act, which we also have. Which means that we have everything we need.

But although we have everything we need, we don't have everything we want. This might seem unrelated at first but if you keep reading you'll see that the two points are very related.

When I say we don't have everything we want, what I really mean is I don't have everything I want. For instance, I don't have:

• Hawaii Five-0 - The Complete First Season. I love this show, and I've been waiting for the DVD set to come out for years! Coincidentally, Hawaii is another place that will probably be destroyed because of you and your decadent lifestyle.


• A Storm of Swords by George R. R. Martin. I've been working my way through Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" series, and I'm halfway through it. This is the next book in the series and I want it. By the way, a song of fire and ice is what you'll be singing if you don't get off your ass and do something to stop global warming.


• Two pounds of Spanish cheese. This item doesn't necessarily have anything to do with global warming, but who doesn't love Manchego cheese? I know I do. It's great with just a sprinkle of olive oil on it. Of course, if we don't stop global warming, all the olive trees will die.

To sum up what I'm trying to say, we have everything we need to stop global warming but I don't have everything I want.

So here's the deal. You can save the world and help stop global warming by buying me shit. Your purchases will help pay for carbon offsets that I will do, or make, or whatever. For every dollar you spend on me, I promise to reduce the carbon footprint of my apartment by turning off all non-essential electrical devices for one hour.* This could add up to some serious non-electrical usage depending on how many offsets you buy.

So save the planet — buy me stuff. If they knew how much you cared, I'm sure the polar bears would thank you. (Assuming they could talk, and wouldn't eat you first, which they probably would, but you get my point — it's for the animals.)
_______________

* Up to a maximum of 8 hours per day, weekends excluded. Non-essential electrical devices does not include refrigerators, clock radios, and any device that uses a clock or would be a hassle to unplug like my cable box.

Posted by: annika at 03:01 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 640 words, total size 6 kb.

I have already publicly pledged that I will not vote for John McCain in the unlikely event that he gets the Republican nomination. I stand by that pledge, but I'm adding this addendum: If the Republican Party is stupid enough to nominate McCain, I plan to write in "Preston Taylor Holmes."

Posted by: annika at 12:49 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Presidential politics just might be my favorite spectator sport. And the Democrat league, like the AFL, is inevitably where you'll find the most action. Damn I love the Democrats.

I hope you've heard about the latest Clinton-Bomber skirmish. It's a sure sign of the even worse backbiting to come.

The latest row was sparked by music mogul and former Clinton toady David Geffen, now a Bomber groupie, whose comments were a knife in the back of Mrs. Clinton. He said:

Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling.

The gossip passed around by those who follow Hollywood and politics holds that Geffen fell out with Bill Clinton much later over the then-president's refusal to pardon Leonard Peltier and over Clinton's subsequent allusion to Geffen's thwarted lobbying effort to demonstrate that he didn't dole out pardons as favors to certain friends.

At a candidate forum in Nevada today, Hillary played the "politics of personal destruction" card, which I think Bill invented:

I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

I'm fascinated by Bronco Bomber. If I was a liberal, I'd totally jump on his bandwagon, and not just because I love making fun of his name. He's got a lot of strengths. He's very personable and yes, I hear he's articulate and clean too. I think we all want a candidate who bathes regularly, regardless of our party affiliation.

I'm not yet convinced however, that Bronco Bomber is not this season's Howard Dean. Being a media darling means nothing to the Iowa caucusers. Serious political junkies have to admit that raising a ton of money means nothing if your organization doesn't know how to use it.

People like David Geffen may represent the vocal face of the Democratic party. But they don't represent the majority of voting Democrats, who are more centrist than the press corps realizes. That's why Dean came in third in Iowa last time, even though the media kept treating him like he was the front runner. Rank and file Democrats were rightly suspicious of Dean's electability, and they went for the safer bet, John Kerry. The trouble was, they didn't inspect the goods well enough before switching to Kerry, and they got burned.

Not that I place much stock in the "Hawkeye Cauci," as Rush calls it. I don't. New Hampshire has always been a more reliable indicator of party preference, historically. And Bronco Bomber is no Howard Dean; they don't share the same negatives. That's good for Bronco. Unfortunately his poll numbers are not in a range where he should be getting the kind of press he's getting right now. The latest polls have him losing to Hillary by an average of 18.2 points. That's a lot of ground to make up, even for a media darling.

For now, Bomber's just not a credible challenger, though I love watching him make Hillary sweat.

Posted by: annika at 08:13 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Pretty well said, I'd only add the simplification that Bronco is a lightweight. He's running for veep, so he'd better play nice with Dykarella.

Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2007 09:33 PM (2gORp)

2 Kære Annika, vær så venlig, slutt ikke journalen din!

Posted by: Arik at February 21, 2007 11:20 PM (bACRg)

3 i think someone just called me a slutt?

Posted by: annika at February 21, 2007 11:53 PM (JBltT)

4 Worse than that, an icky slut journalist.

Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2007 07:30 AM (Y7t14)

5 I once knew an executive who had tremendous enthusiasm and competitiveness, but little content. She was always talking about her big plans to kick competitive ass, but never was able to identify quite what these plans *were*. I hadn't thought about her for years, but Obama reminded me of her...

Posted by: david foster at February 22, 2007 12:58 PM (ZD/CA)

6 Selv om jeres imødegå er på dansk , jeg mene jer forstod mig besked

Posted by: Arik at February 22, 2007 04:22 PM (bACRg)

7 For all the talk of the primaries being dominated by the extremes of the political parties, it's interesting to note that the Democrats have nominated both Carter and Bill Clinton, who are more centrist than others in the party. Hard to tell whether Obama is this cycle's Howard Dean. Or perhaps Hillary is this cycle's Ted Kennedy (the anointed heir who doesn't get the crown).

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 22, 2007 05:53 PM (GT9eg)

8 Hey, Arik: I need some help with the Ikea catalog.***My 16-year-old daughter suggested the other day that Barak Obama might be the Anti-Christ. We'll just have to keep an eye on him, won't we?

Posted by: Joules at February 22, 2007 06:30 PM (u4CYb)

9 Hey Annie, this is a great idea for a money making web site. Icky Journalist Sluts web cam!

Posted by: kyle8 at February 22, 2007 07:22 PM (z86sf)

10 Annie, you aren't icky, but the web cam is a great idea. Think how exciting it will be to watch you studying for the Bar later in the year!

Posted by: shelly at February 24, 2007 08:49 AM (SLFj+)

11 > People like David Geffen may represent the vocal face of the Democratic party. But they don't represent the majority of voting Democrats, who are more centrist than the press corps realizes. Interesting observation. Most of the reader comments I see on these pages would suggest otherwise. Of course, Gorbachev once thought that the US was populated primarily by Nazis and drug addicts, because the news sources he focused on told him just that. It's unfortunate that Tom Vilsack left the race, as he was one of the few voices of moderation in the Dem candidate list (though too far back in the pack in name-recognition and funding). Of course, that strengthens McCain's and Guliani's positions as centrists and makes a Republican ticket more likely to succeed. I'd be happy with either of the two, as they are both reasonably rational and have the ability to reach across the aisle.

Posted by: will at February 26, 2007 06:34 AM (z62e3)

12 Well Will, hopefully one of them will win, but why reach over the aisle??? The Dems sure don't reach for anything other than the money in our pockets...

Posted by: Arik at February 27, 2007 05:15 PM (bACRg)

13 "I'm a uniter, not a divider"...

Posted by: will at February 28, 2007 02:49 PM (z62e3)

14 Hey there! I randomly stumbled upon your blog out of Yahoo. Your content is filled with interesting info, and I will probably use it at some point in my career. Keep up the excellent work!

Posted by: reverse phone lookup free name results at February 02, 2013 07:31 AM (WAKEr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The BBC announced that the U.S. has a plan to attack Iran and they know the details. No shit, so do I. Anybody with a brain knows we have a plan, and that it would be negligence if our military did not have a plan.

The BBC seems overly concerned with this little bit too:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

Calm down Beeb.

Posted by: annika at 03:09 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Whatever happened to Tim Robbins's "chill wind?"

It must be yet another sign of global warming, because that "chill wind" is getting downright balmy.

Posted by: annika at 11:21 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Back in August I asked this rhetorical question:

I'm sure there's lots of guys working in thinktanks and war colleges whose job it is to figure these things out, but so far I haven't seen nor heard of any effective way to fight guerrillas other than by total unrestricted warfare — which we won't do. How do you counter the weighty advantage they've claimed for themselves by co-opting the machinery of world public opinion? How do you beat an enemy that has perfected the use of civilian deaths both offensively and defensively, if your one achilles heel is the fear of civilian deaths?

The article is New Yorker length, unfortunately. But it's Sunday Morning, so why not print it out and read it with your coffee instead of the funnies.

Lt. Col. Kilcullen and Dr. Montgomery McFate* are two people who may provide the "new way" I've been talking about. I have read about the social sciences approach to counter-insurgency before and I was very skeptical. The New Yorker article is detailed enough to be persuasive. The anthropological approach is more than just "hearts and minds" b.s. Properly implemented, it's an integrated and adaptable strategy that includes force, coersion, propaganda, and all those other fun things I've said we need to be doing. But it also recognizes that we're in a new "information age" and we need to understand and adapt to the advantage this gives our enemy.

Another very important concept, which I've not considered before, but which makes perfect sense to me, is this:

“I saw extremely similar behavior and extremely similar problems in an Islamic insurgency in West Java and a Christian-separatist insurgency in East Timor,” [Kilcullen] said. “After 9/11, when a lot of people were saying, ‘The problem is Islam,’ I was thinking, It’s something deeper than that. It’s about human social networks and the way that they operate.” In West Java, elements of the failed Darul Islam insurgency—a local separatist movement with mystical leanings—had resumed fighting as Jemaah Islamiya, whose outlook was Salafist and global. Kilcullen said, “What that told me about Jemaah Islamiya is that it’s not about theology.” He went on, “There are elements in human psychological and social makeup that drive what’s happening. The Islamic bit is secondary. This is human behavior in an Islamic setting. This is not ‘Islamic behavior.’ ” Paraphrasing the American political scientist Roger D. Petersen, he said, “People don’t get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social networks.” He noted that all fifteen Saudi hijackers in the September 11th plot had trouble with their fathers. Although radical ideas prepare the way for disaffected young men to become violent jihadists, the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates.

We need a strategy that understands and targets those social networks with a flexible and multi-faceted approach. The correct strategy should work not only in Iraq but also in the "long war," which includes Afghanistan, Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia and wherever else radical Islam is making inroads. But as the article points out, not many in government understand the problem or have the expertise to tackle it. Another obstacle is the decades long antipathy of social science academics to any endeavor that might be considered patriotic.

That needs to change.
_______________

* A fellow Cal Bear.

Posted by: annika at 12:22 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 728 words, total size 5 kb.

There's a reason why I haven't written whether I think the Surge Strategy will work or whether it's a good idea. I'm not an expert in any of the disciplines necessary for my opinion to have any value. In fact, most of my knowledge regarding the Iraq War comes from secondary sources, written by other people who are similarly ignorant, i.e. the press.

The vast majority of reporters and columnists who write about Iraq and pretend to know what they're talking about are completely incompetent to do so. Not only is their journalism degree inadequate for the task (it's a glorified general ed degree) but their undisguised bias robs their output of any credibility. Yet, from my desk chair, I'm forced to rely on these people almost exclusively for my information. So, as a result, my opinions are just about as worthless.

That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach. I do consider myself an expert on another thing, though: I'm an expert on the domestic battlefield. This is why I have said over and over again that we must achieve success in Iraq quickly, because if Americans don't see progress soon, our next president will pull the plug on the whole noble enterprise.

So I was very encouraged when the President yanked the most recent generals in charge, good men though they might be, and replaced them with guys who understand the need for a change in strategy. Today is General Petraeus's first day on the job. His resume is impressive.* He's had success before.** I wish him and his new strategy well.

Australian Lt. Col. David Kilcullen is an advisor to Gen. Petraeus and an expert on counter-insurgency strategy. He's also a Duntroon grad and a veteran of East Timor. In this post at Small Wars Journal, Kilcullen outlines the two schools of thought regarding counter-insurgency.***

An illustrative anecdote:

In Timor in 1999 I worked closely with village elders in the border districts. I sat down with several of them one afternoon to discuss their perception of how the campaign was progressing, and they complained that the Australians weren't securing them in the fields and villages, that they felt unsafe because of the militia (the local term for cross-border guerrillas) and that we needed to do more to protect them. In actual fact, we were out in large numbers, securing the border against infiltration, patrolling by night, conducting 14 to 21-day patrols in the jungle to deny the militias a chance to build sanctuaries, and working in close in the villages to maintain popular support. There had not been a single successful attack by the insurgents on the population for more than two months. So, "objectively", they were secure. But -- and this is the critical point -- because our troops were sneaking around in the jungle and at night, staying out of the villagers' way and focusing on defeating enemy attempts to target the population, they did not see us about, and hence did not feel “subjectively” secure. This was exacerbated by the fact that they had just experienced a major psychological trauma (occupation, insurgency, mass destruction and international intervention) and as a society they needed time and support for a degree of "mental reconstruction". Based on their feedback (and that of lots of other meetings and observations) we changed our operational approach, became a bit more visible to the population and focused on giving them the feeling, as well as the reality, of safety. Once we did that, it was fine.

In other words, we had to shift from a more enemy-centric approach to a more population-centric approach to adjust to the developing situation. My personal lesson from this experience was that the correct approach is situation-dependent, and the situation changes over time. Therefore the key is to develop mechanisms that allow you to read the environment, to be agile and to adapt . . .

You can see how the above example illustrates the need for more troops and contact with the population. It's more than just switching to a zone defense from man-to-man. At least in the short run, our new strategy will provide the enemy with more opportunities to kill Americans. We're not going to like that here at home, and I have no illusions that the media will understand what's happening or that a different strategy is at work. The commanders in theater, and the President must realize that the home front will not cut them any slack and they have to get it right this time.
_______________

* But so was McClellan's.

** But so did Hooker.

*** The comments are especially interesting.

Posted by: annika at 11:41 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 793 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm telling you, the secret's getting out. The latest Gallup poll reveals:

In a head-to-head matchup against McCain in a Gallup poll of Republicans and Republican "leaners" taken Jan. 25-28, Giuliani beat the Arizona senator handily in most categories: better public speaker, more likable, better chance of beating the Democratic nominee, would run a more positive campaign, would perform better in debates, would do more to unite the country, would manage the country more effectively, would be better in a crisis, better understands the problems faced by ordinary Americans, and strength of leadership.

The Monitor article from which I pulled that quote also says that Giuliani's approval ratings are at 62%. Sixty-two percent! That will change as the attack machine heats up. But I ask you, can anyone name another public figure with numbers over 60%? I can't think of one. That's unheard of in this age of hyper-negativity.

On the other hand, some analysts say that McCain's recent dip in polling is due to his more vocal support of the President's Surge plan. It's possible that not a lot of poll respondents knew Giuliani's position on the Iraq War is identical to McCain's. Or maybe they do, but they just trust Giuliani more.

That's my take. Even if I liked McCain, I would always favor a guy with executive experience over legislative experience. Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.

[How can I quit blogging this summer when Campaign '08 is already so interesting?]

Posted by: annika at 02:36 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

1 For me it's a matter of trust. I know all of Rudy's warts. They have been on the front pages repeatedly. Ditto McCain's. I trust Mr. Mayor to be able to lead in a more honest manner than McCain. McCain has done too many things (campaign finance, gang of 14, Keating 5, for and against social security reform, etc). I would vote for him against Hillary or Obama or any other dem (except Lieberman) but in Rudy vs McCain it's not even close for me and I'm a rabid right wing nut.

Posted by: chris at February 07, 2007 04:51 PM (QZTLy)

2 Just wait till the straight talk express starts flinging mud. Nobody does mean like the Senator from Arizona.

Posted by: kyle8 at February 07, 2007 06:57 PM (yB636)

3 Don't count in it, Kyle. The R's are down to their last bastion right now; they need a win, and they know it. If BOTH are on the ticket, what happens then? Well, there's your answer. I think they'll make nice in the end. Think Kennedy-Johnson. Go back in time (I assume most of you don't remember, but can read about it)to 1960. Both Kennedy and Johnson appeared at a joint caucus of the Texas and Massachusetts delegations and Johnson vowed that he would NEVER accept the Vice Presidental nomination. Twelve hours later, Bobby offered it, then withdrew the offer. Johnson was then begging for it and threatening what he'd do if he didn't get it. One heartbeat away from the presidency, in this era ain't bad. Gore and Cheney changed that.

Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 04:21 AM (SLFj+)

4 I'm completely anti-Rudy and anti-McCain. Rudy, while talking a good game, still comes out looking like a Chicago liberal when it comes to many of the rights of the people. His stance on personal ownership of firearms keeps tracking back to "display a need," "register," etc. If the (R) throw up Rudy/McCain against Hillary, we will have the floor wiped with us. It will either result in a heavy (D) win, or an independent is going to end up capturing much of the south and mountain states, but not winning the election, giving us Hillary in the end. Rudy seems to resemble British conservatives; he's all for surveillance, authoritarian law and order, etc. McCain is a no-go for a ton of reasons; he's like the (R) version of Clinton. He will say whatever, to whomever, to ensure that MTV likes him and the MSM calls him a "loose cannon," a "rebel," etc.

Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 07:40 AM (J0G4s)

5 Rudy's got a lot of skeletons in his closet and much of them aren't known nationally. His negatives will start going up when they talk about his personal life, corruption and cronyism in the mayor's office, and his mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11.

Posted by: PoliticalCritic at February 08, 2007 09:29 AM (B9HSl)

6 "his mistakes" after 9/11." That stuff is already starting: I saw a wire story on the so-called "mistakes" yesterday. They also mentioned a book taking the same position. Koch was interviewed in the wire story and said that Rudy deserved all the positives he got after 9/11, but that NYC was over him on 9/10. In other words, 9/11 rejuvinated him as a politician. So far, he hasn't taken many hits. You are right to say that it will start soon. We'll see if he can handle it. JMarsh, Please explain how the candidate with the highest negatives from either pary is going to "wipe the floor" with either McCain or Rudy, both of whom are fairly articulate and experienced men with solid GWOT credentials? I'm not saying either is the perfect Rep choice, but that Hillary has a ton of political problems to overcome. Suggesting she is going to wipe the floor with these two in a general election makes no political sense to me. Now if you were talking about somebody like Brownback, I'd probably agree.

Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 09:57 AM (duPNB)

7 Agree with Koch (and Blu). If September 11 hadn't occurred, Giuliani wouldn't even be running for dogcatcher today. I'm starting to hope for a Tancredo - Kucinich election; perhaps we'd have some discussion of issues.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 08, 2007 10:08 AM (YWsCw)

8 I agree w/Blu on Rudy, NYers & 9/10. As for a positive 60+ rating, only Obama & Rudy have them right now. However, Rudy's stuffed closet will eventually be opened. The dems are saving the salvos for when they can do the most damage. A private poll that will be released this weekend, shows that in a contest between Obama & Hillary, it's Hillary that would win by a large margin. So a Hillary/Obama might be a possibility. However on the Rep's side its still too early to tell. A lot can happen in 18 months

Posted by: michele at February 08, 2007 10:43 AM (Po6a+)

9 Blu, I have been editing this to try to make this less gun-centric, but it's not working . I'm not trying to get into a 2A debate, and hopefully what I'm getting at will be apparent. There are a fair number of folks like me that have litmus tests for firearms. I think they're reasonable and simple: 1) No registration (other than the defacto form already in place with BATFE's form 4473) and 2) You don't need to display a need for a firearm, you can buy one just because, as guaranteed by the 2A. They're articulate, and at least Rudy seems to generally believe he's doing the right thing, and he's got some convictions. No problems there, or with GWOT stances. But, there is something that looms larger, and that's freedom, as enumerated by the Constitution. Hillary wants to pillage my economic freedom, while Rudy would have no problems plastering millions of cameras throughout the US, a la the UK. Rudy seems very wedded to the anti-crime track, but there isn't a higher power (ie, the 2A) that he feels is important to respect. *That* is the problem. (McCain has issues with the 1A, among other things). The basic problem we are faced with is, for instance, Hillary vs. Guiliani, maybe with a libertarian on the ballot. We've got Clinton/Dole/Perot all over again. I, and others, cannot vote for someone that is (insert your conservative litmus test of choice here) hostile to gun ownership as Rudy, even if it's to keep the human apocalypse that is Hillary out of office. Some surely will as the "lesser of two evils" strategy, of course. When a democrat (Richardson) has a friendlier approach to gun ownership than a republican, there is a serious problem. Rudy and McCain have created negative groundswells throughout people that are pretty solidly (R) otherwise, via past documented action. How many of them will apply my version of the litmus test in 08? Don't know. But, there's not a lot of wiggle room to soften one's stance on gun control, for instance, when you've been quoted throughout your entire political career of note as solidly in one direction as he is. Expanding a bit past gun control, I think the problem that many (R) will have is that they've taken what are traditionally democratic stances on too many issues recently. Supported medicare drug benefit? Got those. Supported McCain-Feingold? Check. Support amnesty for illegals? Yep. Trashed the GWOT/Iraq/WMD/etc? Yeah, those are (R) too. Agree with CEO pay "adjustment?" Check. Complained about oil profits? Those too. Supported continued ban of offshore drilling? You see where I'm going? They're pretty indistinguishable from each other on "current events," which brings things like the support of second amendment that much more into the forefront. Frankly, Rudy, good virtuous man that he is, forces me to campaign against him (which I'm already actively doing).

Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 04:08 PM (J0G4s)

10 JMarsh, Fair enough. Well articulated position. Thanks for taking the time to put it out there. In the end, we just have different priorities, which is why you have the primary and put those priorities out there for people to debate. My priorities are free market economics and the GWOT. The Reps are not always good on either, but generally they are much better than the Dems.

Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 05:30 PM (duPNB)

11 JMarsh gets at what I think the purpose of Libertarians and true Conservatives should be, which is anchoring the right flank of the political spectrum. Meaning there should be a solid anchor to our viewpoints and policies, which is well known and unchanging. There may be people who vary from that conservative position depending on the issue, but once "Conservatism" becomes a sliding scale, all is lost because there's nowhere to go but left. Ronald Reagan understood this when he proposed that we get rid of the Energy and Education Departments. George W. Bush does not understand this when he proposed and got DHS and Prescription Drug Entitlements. What the Libertarians get right (and thank God for them, because these days they're the only ones making the case) is that there is such a thing as a slippery slope and somebody has to put the brakes on. Of course, you might ask, so how can you support Rudy. First, I didn't say I'd vote for him in a primary. I feel free to vote my conscience in all primaries, which is why I never vote for a pro-choice candidate in primaries. But when the general comes, It's always a lesser of two evils thing. I know enough about the political situation nowadays that I'm a realist. I want a Republican in the White House, and so I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, unless it's McCain. I like Rudy because he can win. In a perfect world, we could tolerate a moderate Republican president if he is counterbalanced by solid conservatives in Congress. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. But the alternative is a phony centrist Democrat like Clinton/Bomber and a bunch of whacked out communist political appointees sneaking into the beauracracy who'll take years to ferret out, and only after doing incredible damage (e.g. Jamie Gorelick). That's what really scares me about a Democrat in office. There are a million Amanda Marcottes chomping at the bit for a low level appointment and if/when the next Democrat administration comes along they are going to flock to D.C. and someone is going to find a spot for them.

Posted by: annika at February 08, 2007 07:24 PM (JBltT)

12 Well said JM. The jist of Reagan's charisma was his willingness to differentiate between who we are, and who THEY are. We wandered in the wilderness from the Depression until 1980 because the accomodationists ran the party. Rudy and the McCainiac are a return to the wilderness years. There is only one heir to Ronaldus Magnus, and we all know who he is, and whatever the CW is about him, they said worse things about Ronnie.

Posted by: Casca at February 08, 2007 07:54 PM (2gORp)

13 I'm beginning to believe that none of the current Republican candidates can go the distance. The true heir (according to Casca) has to be Newt. He says he'll run if his ideas are not being carried by some other candidate; a sure thing that he gets in when the others falter. He led us to the biggest victories we've experienced since Reagan, and he can do it again, provided they get him a suit with no zipper. But, what the Hell, it never affected Bubba, so let's all wait for Newt to come to the game.

Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 09:42 AM (SLFj+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You may have sensed that I am a fan of Rudy Giuliani. While I haven't yet decided who I'm going to support, Rudy definitely makes the short list. And it's a very short list. I've already done the math on him, and nobody has yet debunked my theory. In fact, I'm the only one I've ever heard talking about the New York factor.

In a nutshell, my theory is this: People say Rudy is vulnerable on social issues, meaning he won't win the Red States. But people forget that he has a serious shot at winning New York, even against Hillary. And if Rudy wins NY's 31 electoral votes, he can pretty much thumb his nose at the South and still win the presidency. And I say, if he wins NY, he'll probably get NJ, and possibly PA and CT, too. Let me tell you, that's a scenario that scares the hell out of a lot of people. That's why no one's talking about it.

Now that Rudy's all but announced, you're going to hear a lot of people repeating the same mantra: "He's too liberal to win the nomination." Don't you believe it. The media wants you to believe it, because they know how formidable he really is. They've seen the polling. The "three-G"* conservatives want you to believe it too, because Rudy gives them nightmares.

But before you give in to the anti-hype, read this article in City Journal, entitled "Yes, Rudy Giuliani Is a Conservative". You may not come away completely convinced, but at least you'll know he's not the antichrist, as some want you to believe.

He cleaned up New York when the rest of the world had written it off. Ask any New Yorker. Pre-Giuliani, you took your life into your hands walking in the park after dark, or just riding the subway. Broadway was a shithole. There used to be certain neighborhoods where nobody wanted to live, that are now impossible to afford. New York had a genuine Renaissance in the 1990's and it was thanks to Rudy Giuliani. New Yorkers won't forget this.

Of course Rudy led that Renaissance in the face of withering criticism from the left. He made enemies, and as his tenure was winding down, his enemies seemed to have gotten to him. The Diallo shooting didn't help, either. But then came 9/11, and people saw again that this man was a courageous, principled and born leader. Flawed yes, but that's only a reminder that he's human like all of us. Rudy's personal problems are not going to dissuade New Yorkers from supporting him. They voted overwhelmingly for Clinton too.

Don't forget also that Giuliani is an amazing speaker. He gave the best speech at the 2004 Republican Convention. His style is spontaneous, populist, and deceptively effective. While Zell Miller fired up the base and Schwarzenegger won over the pundits, Rudy's speech was the most articulate defense of the War on Terror that has ever been given to a national audience.

Giuliani has also positioned himself well, by staying out of the administration. To move forward, he will need to come up with an approach to the Iraq mess that navigates the gulf between his unequivocal support for the War and the subsequent truth that Bush and Company have fucked it all up. On that issue he may lose ground to McCain, who has also been unwavering in his belief the Iraq was the right thing to do, while at the same time he's never thought we were doing it right.

In a sense, all Republican candidates except for Hagel are hamstrung by the success or failure of the President's Surge plan. No pro-war Republican will be elected on a victory platform if victory isn't within sight. Mark my words, if the Surge fails to show progress within the next 12 months, we will have a Democratic president in 2009. I think McCain and Giuliani have the best chance of convincing independent voters to stay the course in Iraq, but ultimately I think they'd lose to a cut-and-run Democrat if we don't start winning soon.

Finally, back to Giuliani's social liberal weaknesses. To those who don't like Rudy because he's pro gay marriage, I say where have you been? Gay marriage is here. It's a reality. The only way to put that genie back in the bottle is by a Constitutional Amendment, and good luck with that one. Same goes for abortion, and I'm about as far to the right on the abortion issue as it is possible to be. Rudy does worry me about gun rights, but he made a good first step at winning my confidence two days ago when he said:

I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint - Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.

* Guns, gays and God.

Posted by: annika at 08:11 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 880 words, total size 5 kb.

The words "Global" and "Warming" were conspicuously absent from tonight's NBC Nightly News, I'm here to tell you.

The good news, if there is any, about what's being called the Midwest Cold Blast, or alternately, the Cold Snap, is that we won't be lectured about Global Warming again for at least another week.

Posted by: annika at 07:48 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

I live in the Soviet Union.

For the record, I stopped using incandescent bulbs years ago. In my case, the free market worked. But what about photographers, who can't use flourescent bulbs? Does every single thing in the universe need to be legislated?

Posted by: annika at 11:29 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

While campaigning in Iowa today, Hillary said:

The president has said [the Iraq War] is going to be left to his successor. . . . I think it's the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it. . . . This was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.

But in a way, I do agree with Hillary's statement, at least as far as the poorly executed strategy goes. We should expect President Bush to extricate our country from the Iraq War before he leaves office. My only qualification is that we should leave through the "victory" door, not the "abandonment" door the Democrats keep pushing us towards.

Finally, despite all the talk about the new "Rules of Engagement," I'm sick and tired of hearing about shit like this. Keep your ears open for more stories about the ROE's and whether or not they really have changed (I'm skeptical). That will tell you whether our leaders are serious about winning or whether they're just playing out the clock for Hillary.

Posted by: annika at 03:35 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

You may have heard recently that the United States is the world's unfriendliest nation for international travellers. I'm calling bullshit on this bogus study.

The United States is the world's most unfriendly country for international travellers, a survey suggests.

The global survey showed the US was ranked "the worst" because of rude immigration officials and long delays in processing visas.

More than half of the travellers surveyed said US immigration officials were rude and two-thirds said they feared they would be detained on arriving in the US for a simple mistake in their paper work or for saying the wrong thing to an immigration official.

Twice the percentage of travellers nominated the US as unfriendly, compared with the Middle East and the Asian subcontinent.

The survey, of 2,011 international travellers in 16 countries, was conducted by the polling firm RT Strategies for the Discover America Partnership, a business-backed group launched in September to promote travel to the US and improve the country's image abroad.

"The entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is keeping foreign visitors away," said Geoff Freeman, executive director of the Discover America Partnership.

"The survey shows there is more fear of our immigration officials than of terrorism or crime."

Complete bullshit.

Just look at the U.S. State Department's travel advisory for Saudi Arabia, just to pull one example of a worse country from the many that come to mind.

American citizens who choose to visit or remain in Saudi Arabia despite this Travel Warning are strongly urged to avoid staying in hotels or housing compounds that do not apply stringent security measures including, but not limited to, the presence of an armed guard force . . .

. . . inspection of all vehicles, and a hardened security perimeter to prevent unauthorized vehicles from approaching the facility. American citizens are further advised to exercise caution and maintain good situational awareness when visiting commercial establishments frequented by Westerners or in primarily Western environments. Keep a low profile, varying times and routes for all required travel, and ensure that travel documents and visas are valid. American citizens are also advised to exercise caution while driving, entering or exiting vehicles.

Important Instructions:

If a woman is arriving in the Kingdom alone, the sponsor or her husband must receive her at the airport.

Every woman must have confirmed accommodation for the duration of her stay in the Kingdom.

A woman is not allowed to drive a car and can therefore travel by car only if she is accompanied by her husband, a male relative, or a driver.

All visitors to the Kingdom must have a return ticket.

There are NO visitor visas. It's not even possible to have a Saudi sponsor apply for the visa on my behalf. Visitors can ONLY visit to work, or for a religious visit.

Speaking of religious visits, people who do this who are muslims, can ONLY visit Mecca and Medina, and that's it. Travel to other Saudi cities is not allowed.
Anon, Canada (Mar 03)

Back to the Lonely Planet:

WOMEN: We wear the abeyya so we get left alone. But even this doesn't work. We get stared at constantly and sometimes things are said. More so now after the September 11 disaster. I have never been barred from any establishment or had to leave because of prayer. Stealing wallets or purses out of expats handbags or backpacks as they walk around is common. We are not allowed to use the public transport.

PHOTOGRAPHY: Sure, film and cameras are everywhere. But, go and try to do a shoot around Jeddah. You will stop traffic, draw untold attention to yourself and if you are really lucky, the police will stop you and then the Matawwa [Saudi religious police] maybe will turn up which is what happened to me. You cannot take photos of people, any Palace or any government building. Now, as all three are everywhere, photography is difficult and not a delight.

. . .

MATAWWA: If they are around, they will ask all women to cover their hair and generally have the police with them, so this is enforced. I have friends who did not have their scarf with them one night in Balad and the Matawwa made them go to a shop, buy one and put it on while they waited outside until the girls did. Jeddah is not as strict as Riyadh.
Alanna Lee, Saudi Arabia (Jan 02)

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country in which Islamic law is strictly enforced.

The public practice of any form of religion other than Islam, or proselytising, is not permitted.

Islamic codes of behaviour and dress are also enforced rigorously. You should respect them fully.

Homosexual behaviour and adultery are illegal and can carry the death penalty.

The penalties for the possession of, or trade in, alcohol are severe. Both result in prison sentences. The punishment for importing drugs includes the death penalty. You should not arrive in Saudi Arabia under the influence of alcohol: the consequences could be serious. You should carry with you a doctorÂ’s prescription for any medication you have with you. The importation of pork products is also forbidden.

While the Saudi authorities say they accept the private practice of religious other than Islam, religious books (apart from the QuÂ’ran) and artefacts imported for personal use may be confiscated. Also, importing larger quantities can carry severe penalties as it will be viewed that it is your intention to convert (proselytise) others.

The possession of pornographic material, or of illustrations of scantily dressed people, especially women, is prohibited.

The Saudi legal system differs in many ways from the UK. Suspects can be held without charge and those detained have in the past not been allowed legal representation. The Saudi authorities have detained witnesses and victims of crimes. If you require consular assistance our staff will seek to visit you as soon as they are aware of the case. However, in some instances they have not been permitted to do so immediately or have had limits applied to access once granted. We have raised our concern about reports of mistreatment of some suspects during their detention.

Photography of government buildings, military installations and palaces is not allowed. You should avoid photographing local people. It is illegal for women to drive.

Anyone involved in a commercial dispute with a Saudi company or individual may be prevented from leaving the country pending resolution of the dispute.

Passports are often retained by sponsors or government bodies for official purposes. You should carry a photocopy of your passport. Make sure you have included in your passport details of those who should be contacted in an emergency.

It is illegal to hold two passports in Saudi Arabia: second passports will be confiscated by the immigration authorities if they are discovered.

. . .

On occasion, Saudi visas have been refused when passports have reflected travel to Israel or indicated an Israeli birthplace.

Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. Women travelling alone, who are not met by sponsors, have experienced delays before being allowed to enter the country or to continue on other flights.

Single parents or other adults travelling alone with children should be aware that some countries require documentary evidence of parental responsibility before allowing lone parents to enter the country, or in some cases, before permitting the children to leave the country. . . .

Foreign women married to Saudi nationals require permission from their husbands for themselves and their children to leave Saudi Arabia.

So how did the Discover America Partnership get it so wrong, when they decided that the United States is the most unfriendly nation for tourism? Simple, they didn't survey any visitors to Saudi Arabia.

Here's the list of Middle Eastern countries their survey compared to the United States:

1. United Arab Emirates

Posted by: annika at 05:01 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1605 words, total size 11 kb.

Via Jawa:

Gotta love the FFAR.

Posted by: annika at 03:23 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Bee:

A reserve Placer County sheriff's deputy was among five U.S. security contractors killed after their company's helicopter crashed in central Baghdad this week.

Art Laguna, 52, was working for the private security firm Blackwater USA when he was killed Tuesday.

Two Sunni insurgent groups claimed responsibility. One posted several identity cards on a Web site, including two belonging to Laguna.
Sell It Yourself

Laguna lived in the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova and was a reserve deputy with the Placer County Sheriff's Department.

He helped establish the department's air wing in 1995 and spent hundreds of hours volunteering to train the department's pilots. He also assisted with rescues in the Sierra Nevada, said Capt. David Harris, who commands the air unit.

"We'll definitely miss his expertise, we'll miss his flying abilities, and of course we'll miss him as a friend," Harris told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "He was a wonderful guy."

Laguna began assisting the sheriff's department while he was flying Black Hawk helicopters on medical evacuation missions with the California National Guard out of Sacramento's Mather Field. He worked with the department for nine years and visited when he was in the U.S, Harris said.

The circumstances of the helicopter crash in Baghdad remained unclear Wednesday. The Black Hawk was headed to help a U.S. Embassy ground convoy and was flying over a raging gunfight in a Sunni neighborhood at the time it went down.

An Iraqi military official said it was downed by a machine gun, but a U.S. military official in Washington said there was no indication of that. A U.S. defense official said four of the five people on board the helicopter were shot execution-style, in the back of the head.

Posted by: annika at 07:04 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

... I think she deserves a thank you from all of us, for this.

Posted by: annika at 12:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.