It doesn't take a regression analysis to know that the mainstream media ("MSM") presents, from diction to camera angle, a negative picture of the Democratic Congress. It's not all negative, but the tilt is clear. The motives are what interest me. For the MSM, it seems contrary to good sense. Most of us like to be liked, and no one likes to be liked more than those who beg to be read and watched in return for money (btw, that's the big difference from the MSM and the blogworld). Yet the MSM's general audiences aren't really sympathetic to the perspective offered by the MSM writers and TV personalities on most political issues, especially including Iraq. That's revealed by polling that shows virtually every current Democratic position is quite popular, especially including the voting on Iraq today. So why would the mainstream media continue to adopt points of view that are at odds with their audience?

Read more »

It's impossible to pay Supreme Court justices or indeed any judges at any level anything remotely approximating the value of what they produce for society, even when they make decisions I disagree with. Furthermore, there are many people who would take no money at all in return for being Supreme Court justices, just as many people engage in charitable work for the honor and service itself. What then is the theory of paying justices and judges? It can't be pay for performance. It isn't pay for value. It can't be paying a living wage, because we already do that. I have friends who are lifetime judges and the country is lucky to have them on the bench. I'd like them paid more because I know they are good people and they deserve raises. But what really is the Chief Justice's push for more pay about?

Read more »

Eventually we will arrive at this point: Either the "surge" is a success, and we can bring our troops home, or the "surge" is somewhere between fiction and failure and we should bring our troops home because that would be the next best tactic for reducing violence in Iraq.

The possibility that pulling out, or "de-imperializing" by the West, can reduce the potential for civil war or terrorism seemed to be proved in many of the withdrawals of European troops from colonial outposts in the wake of World War II. Examples included the British in Egypt and Malaya. You can even argue that the Partition of India in 1947, while tragic, bloody, and perhaps unnecessary, at least embodied the truth that the British were causing more strife by staying than by leaving. Counter-examples that seemed to prove, in retrospect, the wisdom of withdrawal were, among others, the French in Vietnam and Algeria.

I'd like to have the truly rich agree to give $25 million dollar prizes for each of the following -- with the winner being the plan that shows the optimal combination of technical feasibility and cost-benefit trade-off:

1. A way to cause the fresh water from melting ice on the Arctic and Antarctic landmasses to go not into the salt water oceans but instead into fresh water lakes or aquifers in more temperate zones. (Think of a refilled Caspian Sea or replenished underground reservoir in the Dakotas.)

2. The invention of a secure, five 9's reliable, one person = one vote, and recountable voting system that could be conducted on-line so that polling places can be an artifact of the past.

Read more »

Now this is interesting. Having litigated against Mr. Libby's lead lawyer many years ago, I know he is brilliant and cunning. What's up? Not having the defendant testify is SOP, but why no more witnesses? Why the disconnect between the opening statement and the evidence? Something's happened.