Click to Buy My Book
If you're interested in e-publishing, this is the book that tells you how to go about it:
everything from html to web sites to e-publishers and marketing, all discussed in simple,
non-technical language. Find out how easily you can become a part of what many have said
is the most revolutionary advance in publishing since Gutenberg. A Writer's Digest Book Club Main
Selection!
In Brussels, the European Union demanded "the immediate and total application" of United Nations Resolution 1402 adopted by the Security Council calling for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah. "The European Union... calls for its immediate and total application," said Cristina Gallach, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
This may indeed need no comment, but I'll make one anyway.
Will Warren writes with gut-wrenching power. Go read Not This Time, based on Victor Davis Hanson's famous observation, "There will be no second Holocaust," and see if you don't agree.
There's a brisk debate going on in a DailyPundit comment section, as well as over at Megan McArdle's Live at the WTC, about the recent Supreme Court public housing decision. Since there is a lot of bloviating (my own included) about the interpretation of the decision, or the meaning of various words and phrases therein, I thought I'd better post the decision itself, and let you make your own analysis.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER (00-1770) 237 F.3d 1113, reversed and remanded. Syllabus Opinion [ Rehnquist ] HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version
Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER et al. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Title 42 U.S. C. §1437d(l)(6) provides that each “public housing agency shall utilize leases … provid[ing] that … any drug-related criminal activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy.” Respondents are four such tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA). Paragraph 9(m) of their leases obligates them to “assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant’s control, shall not engage in … any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises.” Pursuant to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations authorizing local public housing authorities to evict for drug-related activity even if the tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control behavior by other occupants, OHA instituted state-court eviction proceedings against respondents, alleging violations of lease paragraph 9(m) by a member of each tenant’s household or a guest. Respondents filed federal actions against HUD, OHA, and OHA’s director, arguing that §1437d(l)(6) does not require lease terms authorizing the eviction of so-called “innocent” tenants, and, in the alternative, that if it does, the statute is unconstitutional. The District Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction against OHA was affirmed by the en banc Ninth Circuit, which held that HUD’s interpretation permitting the eviction of so-called “innocent” tenants is inconsistent with congressional intent and must be rejected under Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842—843.
Held: Section 1437d(l)(6)’s plain language unambiguously requires lease terms that give local public housing authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of the drug-related activity. Congress’ decision not to impose any qualification in the statute, combined with its use of the term “any” to modify “drug-related criminal activity,” precludes any knowledge requirement. See United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 609. Because “any” has an expansive meaning–i.e., “one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind ,” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5–any drug-related activity engaged in by the specified persons is grounds for termination, not just drug-related activity that the tenant knew, or should have known, about. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that “under the tenant’s control” modifies not just “other person,” but also “member of the tenant’s household” and “guest,” runs counter to basic grammar rules and would result in a nonsensical reading. Rather, HUD offers a convincing explanation for the grammatical imperative that “under the tenant’s control” modifies only “other person”: By “control,” the statute means control in the sense that the tenant has permitted access to the premises. Implicit in the terms “household member” or “guest” is that access to the premises has been granted by the tenant. Section §1437d(l)(6)’s unambiguous text is reinforced by comparing it to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), which subjects all leasehold interests to civil forfeiture when used to commit drug-related criminal activities, but expressly exempts tenants who had no knowledge of the activity, thereby demonstrating that Congress knows exactly how to provide an “innocent owner” defense. It did not provide one in §1437d(l)(6). Given that Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue, Chevron, supra, at 842, other considerations with which the Ninth Circuit attempted to bolster its holding are unavailing, including the legislative history, the erroneous conclusion that the plain reading of the statute leads to absurd results, the canon of constitutional avoidance, and reliance on inapposite decisions of this Court to cast doubt on §1437d(l)(6)’s constitutionality under the Due Process Clause. Pp. 4—11.
237 F.3d 1113, reversed and remanded. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Breyer, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
Notes *. Together with No. 00—1781, Oakland Housing Authority et al. v. Rucker et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
In my opinion, there is a fair amount of specious bullshit being bandied about concerning this decision, some of which advances the notion that being evicted from your home is "not a punishment," or that "not permitting drug-related criminal illegal activity" should encompass activity that the occupant knows nothing about, and couldn't prevent if they did, even when such activity is performed by a guest or other non-resident visitor. The Supremes agree the law allows this. I say it shouldn't. The fact that the example cases are on their face egregious is not mitigated by their being picked for appeal because they were. The fact remains they did happen, they results were vastly unfair, and the law should not have been written so as to permit those results.
The lawyers will niggle at the decision, but I attack the original law. Statute is not sacred writ. This is a bad statute and it should have been struck down, even if, as McArdle notes, it may in most cases produce desirable results. An example of what I mean: the Oakland lease written to conform with the statute limited actionable criminal activity to that performed "on or near" the premises. But the statute itself says, "on or off" the premises, which vastly expands the scope and reach of permissible leases - and would seem to permit evictions in the case of some kid smoking a joint in a McDonald's parking lot fifteen miles away, then climbing into a car with a tenant's son and going to visit the tenant's home.
I normally find Megan McArdle's positions very sound. But I fear her own support of this ridiculous set of circumstances springs from opinions colored by personal experience. I sympathize: violent gangs made many public housing establishments unlivable. But the solution isn't a moronic piece of zero-tolerance bullshit like this. It is laws aimed at specific illegal activity, and the effective enforcement of those laws. In short, instead of evicting granny because junior's pal smoked a doob at Mickey Dee and then paid a visit, (Yeah, yeah, I know that these cases weren't like that - but under the statute and this Supreme ruling, they could have been) arrest and jail Omar the crack-head dealer and user when he plies his trade on the premises.
Or you could just legalize drugs entirely, which is the optimum solution to "drug-related criminal activities" in the first place.
Zogby said the U.S. response was lacking because it demanded little from Israel. "Violence and terrorism will not end without a substantial effort from both sides," he said.
"The United States ought to be working to strengthen the Palestinian Authority so it can control extremists, and at the same time, recognize the need to restrain Israel from actions that aggravate and promote extremism," Zogby wrote.
James Zogby, brother of the pollster, delivers another pre-fab apologia for the Palestinian slaughterers, further diminishing any credibility he might once have had in the United States. He's wrong on the facts, of course: strengthening the PA won't help control extremists, not when the the leaders of the PA itself are the extremists.
Unless I completely missed it somewhere, I have not seen any statements or condemnations from CAIR. This group, who have been all over the news during the last 6 months decrying racial profiling of Muslims, claiming what a peacful religion Islam is....who wanted us to stop bombing in Afghanistan during Ramadan. Where are they now?? Why aren't they publicly denouncing yesterday's Passover massacre???
Sure, the U.S. signed it, but I expect it did so for no other reason than to provide itself with political/diplomatic cover. Nobody, least of all the U.S., expects UN resolutions like this one to have any real-world effect at all.
As Don McArthur puts it, Mark Driver over at blindwino.com "writes like Elmore Leonard with a testosterone implant."
The rock was over and the band was downing bourbons in a filthy cloud of butt-smooching music nerds, stroking long metal hair and playing their fifteen minutes well. The floor was a frozen ocean of crushed plastic cups, drink napkins and cigarette butts, the lightbulbs all had halos.
"We have chosen the path," he told al-Jazeera. "We will either be a martyr or our sons and daughters will raise the flag of Palestine over the churches and mosques of Jerusalem. We are all potential martyrs, the whole Palestinian people." Then, referring to the Netanya bomber, he added, "Oh God, give me martyrdom like this."
Arafat then noted that
the United States "could have ordered [Sharon] to end the attacks" and asked, "Why are they quiet despite all that is taking place?"
Perhaps, you old monster, they are listening to you as you beg God to be allowed, like the Netanya bomber, to viciously slaughter 22 innocents, and brutally injure tens of dozens more, and, hard as it is for you to understand, they may not like what they hear.
Andrew Olmstead offers an extremely intriguing theory about why we are suddenly seeing so many female suicide bombers from an Islamofascist milieu that mandates derogatory status for women.
Reader Randall Parker directs me to this WaPo report of President Bush's words upon signing the Campaign Finance Reform bill: Bush Statement on Campaign Finance Bill
However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with federal elections. I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.
Fine, President Bush. So you believe the bill is unconstitutional. Let me quote something to you that you said not so long ago:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution
Is that how you preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, Mr. President? By signing into law statutes you know are unconstitutional?
What awaits Mideast after Arafat's passing? In any case, Arafat is mortal and, sooner or later, by natural cause or human design, he will depart from this world. Who will be the next leader of the Palestinian national movement? Time to put my money where my mouth is. I'll wager a buck on April 19, 2002, as the day the raddled old murderer bites the bullet, as it were.
Now Steven Den Beste is agreeing with me. I may have over-estimated just a hair, though.
"But now the Web is about getting information, about buying things, about communicating..."
I think he's exactly right. I go back to an Internet that existed in a Unix world, long before there was a World Wide Web. The advent of the Web shocked some of us by the overpowering force with which it transformed the Net we had known for so long. And many of us dived right in, teaching ourselves html, getting involved in the great compatibility wars between Netscape and standard html (Remember when Netscape was evil? Remember "blink?") and building sites all over the place. I remember running a team of five that whipped together a several hundred page site to display Jack Mingo's famouw Whole Pop Catalog - and I was using weird graphics shit that would only run under OS2 to slap the thing together.
I surfed everywhere. I looked at everything. I had thousands of bookmarks. I still do. I just don't click them any more. I probably have more dead bookmarks in my favorites file than France does dead American saviors in its graveyards.
Today I use the Web for research - for my own writing, as well as DailyPundit - for email, and to buy an enormous range of crap for my computers, networks, bicycles, watches, as well as books, music, and whatever else catchs my magpie eye on E-Bay or Amazon. And I rarely surf. Now I search.
The dog's off getting his hair cut, his nails clipped and his anal gland squeezed (ouch!), Blogger is apparently hosed again (sigh), and there isn't much else going on around the manse today, so I guess I'll just gnaw on the bedraggled remains of the San Francisco Chronicle (Motto: The Worst Newspaper In the World Because Our Readers Like It That Way) for a while.
ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER Ariel Sharon dealt the Mideast peace process -- and the Bush administration -- a significant setback yesterday by blocking Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from attending the Arab summit in Beirut.
The remainder of this bile-soaked regurgitation on the Chron's famed-for-accuracy OpEd page from a couple of days ago is a predictably loathsome screed that places "Israeli repression" before "Palestinian terrorism," but no matter. That's opinion, and the OpEd page is where it rightfully belongs.
But the Chron's editorial contention that Ariel Sharon "blocked" Yasser Arafat from attending the Arab summit" is a lie. The NYT, not exactly known for it's strident anti-Palestinian views, reported that Arafat Says Fear of Exile Will Keep Him From Arab Meeting:
Yasir Arafat declared today that he would not attend an Arab summit meeting in Beirut after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel said he wanted the right to prevent Mr. Arafat from returning to the West Bank.
"To my regret, the conditions have not ripened yet for Chairman Arafat's departure for Beirut," Mr. Sharon said in an interview on the Arabic-language news program on Israeli television.
The Palestinian leadership responded in a statement that, "President Arafat and the Palestinian people refuse to submit to this threat, aggression and blackmail.
"In this dangerous situation, President Arafat and the Palestinian leadership decided that Abu Amar stay with his steadfast people in order not to give the Israeli government an opportunity to put obstacles in the way of his return." Mr. Arafat is popularly known as Abu Amar.
Get that, Chronicle? "President Arafat...decided that [he will] stay with his steadfast people..."
Gotcha, Chron. Paraphrasing Matt Welch, "Twisting the truth to support your ideology."
Editor -- James Sayre suggests (Letters, "Phase out Fido," March 25) that, because dogs left to their own devices are likely to attack other animals, they should be "phased out" in favor of cats. The problem with this suggestion is that cats too will, without provocation, attack and kill birds, mice and any other creatures small enough for them to handle. The solution: Phase out cats as well. Goldfish for everyone. DEREK MCCULLOCH Oakland
Here in SanFranciscoWorld (tm) we find the most interesting issues to concern ourselves with.
In Eric Alterman's new game of lists, he really gives the "Columnists and commentators who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without qualification" gang a big advantage - to the point he's even journalistically cloned some of its members:
Sid Zion, The New York Post, The New York Daily News,
Yossi Klein Halevi The New Republic,
Sidney Zion, The New York Post, formerly of The New York Daily News
Are there two Sid-Sidney Zions sharing the same C.V. running around Alterman's world?
That aside, the premise behind Alterman's list is that "reflexively" supporting Israel is somehow bad, something to be ashamed of. But I suggest that in 1943 he could have made a similar list of newspapers and journalists who were "reflexively" anti-Nazi and anti-Germany, and come up with the same preponderance of "reflexively pro-Allies" opinion. Journos who find themselves on Alterman's pro-Israel list should wear their inclusion with pride. It shows they have a functioning morality, and the ability to discern between good and evil, and right and wrong. It is telling that Alterman doesn't place himself in that company.
In a commented response to an earlier post I made on the subject of the "Palestinian right of return" in the agreement reached at the recent Arab League summit, Gary Farber says:
The Daily News seems to know something no one else knows: the WashPo specifically mentions that the text does not refer to any "right of return," but instead to a "just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. " And, whaddya know, here's the text and they're correct. "II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194." The devil, and god, are always said to lie in the details, but this text is not a poison pill as such.
Yes, Gary, the "devil does lie in the details," to which you (and WaPo) would do well to pay a little better attention. For instance, just as you note, the WaPo report of the text of the agreement refers to "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194."
Well, you don't know what is meant by a "just solution..." unless you read UN R194, do you? And when you do, you will find this:
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;"
In other words, "repatriation, resettlement, compensation..." Translated, this is the Right of Return and more - resettlement and compensation as well. And, because this would mean the destruction of the Jewish state, it renders the wording of the Arab agreement a true poison pill, as well as a cruel propaganda joke in all those devilish details about which you are, at least in this case, wrong.
Letter from Gotham is a fine new blog with a lot of strong commentary about the middle east, Israel, that old monster Arafat and even - we are promised - some thoughts about black holes. I won't cite any individual post, since it's all buttah. Go read.
Gary Farber offers a much more thorough analysis of the recent lunatic SCOTUS public housing decision, which I referenced as the "Burn a Village to Save It Syndrome." I described the flap, but Gary has nailed it down tight.
Here's a little something the armchair generals ought to take a look at, before their dolorous pontifications make them appear even more idiotic than they already do.
Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, right, head of Iraq's delegation to the Arab summit, and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah, embraced in a gesture of reconciliation 11 years after the Gulf War.
Our friends, the Saudis. Either "with us, or against us." Which is it, do you think?
There is more truth to this than is comfortable to contemplate:
False allies are often more troublesome for America than declared enemies. The moral and diplomatic drift on Pakistan now strongly resembles the failure of the first Bush administration on Iraq in the late 1980s. Saddam Hussein's threats to incinerate Israel and invade Kuwait were explained away by State Department experts as rhetoric. Iraq was seen as too important to confront -- or even to describe its actions truthfully. The second Bush administration is on the road to making exactly the same mistake with Pakistan.
I don't personally believe that Pakistan is quite as important as this WaPo analysis makes it out to be - we now have excellent relations with the other "stans," and bases in Afghanistan itself - but the entire approach of the Bush administration to the overall war on terror seems to be growing a bit more shaky with each passing day.
I realize there's probably a lot going on beneath the surface that I - and most others - know nothing about. At least I certainly hope there is. But as we approach seven months after 9/11, with Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders still on the loose, with Taliban and al-Qaeda elements regrouping and purportedly plotting new attacks on the West, with Yasser Arafat's strategy of terror bearing fruit for the murderous old savage, with the loathsome Saudis being given a free pass for their many sins, and now this news about Pakistan, about the only thing we can really point to with some sort of confidence is that nothing else of ours has blown up since 9/11. Although, in all fairness, that is no insignificant feat in itself.
I'm giving this quote from the same article as below its own post, because it is a separate issue:
Abdullah added a provision guaranteeing Palestinian refugees will have the "right of return" to their displaced homes in Israel — a potential "poison pill" proposal that has torpedoed some previous diplomatic efforts. Powell praised the Saudi plan as "quite helpful to our efforts," and the summit nations are expected to endorse the proposal today. In a sign of White House approval, Abdullah will be Bush's guest in late April at his country home in Crawford, Tex.
Accepting a "right of return" would mean the destruction of Israel as a Jewish homeland, and there is absolutely no chance that Israel will ever acquiesce to such a provision. Therefore the Saudi plan as amended is now absolutely dead in the water, even moreso than the earlier version trashed at the recent laughable Arab League "summit" which nobody important attended. If Powell thinks the Saudi plan is "quite helpful to our efforts," those efforts must have nothing to do with any kind of workable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Bush learned of the deadly attack while flying from South Carolina to Georgia and could not contain his anger, immediately putting the onus on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to stop the bloodshed.
Sorry, this is not enough. President Bush has been "putting the onus on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to stop the bloodshed" since Bush took office, to absolutely no effect. In fact, the terrorist violence from Arafat-controlled forces is escalating.
Bush officials privately seethed at Sharon's slap at Israel's strongest ally. "Sharon has overplayed his hand," one administration aide complained.
If all Israel's "strongest ally" can find to do is to try to force Israel into actions it would find unthinkable to apply to itself in a similar situation, then at the very least a "slap" in not only appropriate, it is justified.
It's time for the Bush administration to stop "putting the onus" on that murderous old madman, Arafat, and put some real hurt on him instead.
In 1998, the U.S. Government changed the standards by which body mass index is measured. As a result, close to 30 million Americans were shifted from a government-approved weight to the overweight and obese category, without gaining an ounce, Burrita said.
Which led to a couple of ridiculous outcomes. First,
College basketball stars Lonny Baxter of Maryland, Aaron McGhee of Oklahoma, Nick Collision of Kansas, and Tom Coverdale of Indiana exceed what the U.S. government considers a healthy weight for men of their height, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) reports.
These and 12 other stars of the National Collegiate Athletic Association are the victims of "a bizarre government weight measurement definition that gives new meaning to 'March Madness,'" said Mike Burita, a spokesman for CCF, a coalition of restaurant and tavern proprietors opposed to government taxes on foods.
The NCAA players are in good company: athletic starts Michael Jordan and Cal Ripken Jr. are overweight also, according to the standards.
And then:
Nationwide, about 13 percent of children and adolescents are overweight or obese, as are nearly 60 percent of adults, according to a report released in December by then-Surgeon General David Satcher. The numbers of overweight children and adolescents, as well as obese adults in the United States have doubled over the past two decades, according to government figures.
Well, yes, I suppose that's understandable, when you can change the definition of "obese" with the stroke of a pen.
According to an American Medical Association report, 14.5 % of Americans in 1980 were obese, a total of 32,700,000 (based on a population of 226,000,000). If, as the above article states, the numbers of obese Americans have "doubled" in the past twenty years, this would mean there are now about 66 million of them. But thirty million of those fatties were created by a change in definition, so by the standards of 1980, only 36 million of us are lardbutts (of a total of 280,000,000) - for a current true obesity percentage of 12.85 percent, an actual decrease in obesity percentage since 1980.
In other words, the entire current furor over overweight is bogus, a faux-"epidemic" ginned up by the same government agencies that propose to "treat" the non-existent problem they have themselves created. And some people wonder why libertarians don't trust their government? Ask again when they come for your double cheeseburger.
UPDATE - MORE FUN WITH FLABBY STATISTICS: The current [April 2002] issue of Reader's Digest, in an article on the new national epidemic of obesity (amazing how quickly something becomes flavor of the month, isn't it?), has this to say:
"Philadelphia Mayor John Street appointed a "fat czar" and in 2001 dared residents to lose 76 tons in 76 days...About 8000 people lost a collective six tons."
Oh, impressive! Six tons equals twelve thousand pounds. About a pound and a half per each of 8000 dieters. A pound and a half over an eleven week period, or a bit more than two ounces a week. That's not weight loss. That's statistical noise. I wonder how much the Philly city government spent of taxpayer money to accomplish such a grandiose "achievement?"
In addition, researchers at several online measurement companies have found that the rate of growth in new sites and unique visitors has slumped in recent months. And about 20 percent of public Web sites that existed nine months ago no longer exist, according to a sample studied last week by the Online Library Computer Center, a nonprofit library group in Dublin, Ohio. Separate research shows that of the sites that are still operating, a large number have been taken over by pornography.
How did the Web arrive at this juncture? Some people say that the rush to make money, in which profits mattered more than passion, was a significant driver. Mr. Davis, for instance, said he did not design Cool Site of the Day with profit in mind. The site, which was housed on servers at Infinet, the Internet service provider for whom Mr. Davis worked, was taken over by the company when he left in November 1995. In 1998, Infinet sold the site to Mike Corso, a businessman in Chappaqua, N.Y., who charges $97 to those who submit a site for "priority express" consideration, plus $19 a month if the submission is selected and added to the archives.
The Web's commercialism dismays many longtime surfers. "Everywhere you go someone is jumping on you to buy something," said John Walkenbach, an author in San Diego, who has written books about software. "It's like walking down the streets of Tijuana."
One thing this article doesn't address is that it takes time and effort to create and maintain interesting sites. Yet the typical web surfer is willing to pay absolutely nothing to obtain the fruits of this time and effort.
A decade and a half ago, there was much talk about the Internet "gift culture," where people did amazing and creative things - software, games, interesting places (yes, there were such things even before the Web existed) - simply for the fun of doing it, and for the (non-financial) appreciation they received.
But you know what? In the long run, this sort of altruism is not sustainable on any scale. The blogosphere is going through a repeat version of the cycle right now. Tens of thousands of folks are getting a charge out of creating and maintaining blogs, with absolutely no financial rewards - except for a handful of bloggers so tiny their numbers are statistically meaningless noise. The charge is enough for now, but it won't last, and the blogosphere, currently in full expansion, will shrink like a popped balloon in another year or so, as hundreds of thousands of blogs go dark and dead.
The problem is simple: it requires too much work and talent to maintain a good blog, work and talent that brings in nothing tangible for the creator. Some small minority will find their reward in intangibles like recognition and public approval, or in simply having their words read by others. But most won't, at least not in the long term.
Economically, the Web is at a confusing juncture: without universal high bandwidth, many of the killer apps that could generate huge sums are not feasible. Without some workable, transparent system of micro-payments, there is no hope that web "small business" content creators can ever thrive financially. The only small biz web industry that really makes money is porn.
The blogosphere as a whole is a money-losing proposition, if you place any value on the time and effort expended on creating and maintaining it. Altruistic "gift cultures" look good on paper. But history teaches they don't survive for long, and history is re-teaching that lesson one more time, here on the Internet, coming soon to a blog near you.
How in the hell do you lose ninety million doses of smallpox vaccine?
Sources said the company is negotiating with the Department of Health and Human Services with the goal of giving the U.S. government access to the supply. Among the issues to be worked out are how much money, if any, would change hands in the transaction, and the extent to which the company may be relieved of liability should problems with the vaccine arise.
"How much money, if any, would change hands?" I'll make a wild wager that the amount changing hands will be considerably more than "if any." Don't get me wrong. I think this is a wonderful discovery. I've been worried about a terrorist smallpox attack ever since 9/11, when it became clear that not only was such an attack possible, but that as a nation we were terribly unprepared to withstand one. This changes the equation considerably, and lowers by a couple orders of magnitude the likelihood of such an attack being attempted - even terrorists are less likely to mount assaults that have only a small chance of being successful.
I'd expect government negotiators to offer some sort of deal involving a below-market rate in exchange for a liability waver for the company. That seems fair to me.
John Cole offers a heartfelt wake-up call for those who don't, even yet, understand the real issues at stake for the United States in the Israeli/Arab confrontation.
Editor -- I read that the Israelis, in effect, did not let Yasser Arafat go to the meeting of the Arab states. It reminds me of the checkpoints that Israel has created for the Palestinians to regulate their movement around the country. Of course, they must think, "no exceptions" -- humiliate them all without exception. So, the round of bloodletting continues. The Israelis continue to humiliate and kill (yes, they do) and the Palestinian fury keeps rising to the point that they have their young people volunteering to blow up themselves to destroy anything Jewish. Why do we condemn one side and not both? Dr. JOSEPH AFTERMAN San Francisco
"Why do we condemn one side and not both?" Well, Dr. Joseph Afterman, I might ask how you've managed to miss the spectacle of much of the American commentariat, and even more of their Euro brethren, expending whole forests worth of hot air trying to create some moral equivalency between a nation attacked by crazed religious fanatics intent on murdering every one of its citizens, and the defense that nation mounts against such attacks?
David Warren comments on the "schizophrenic...farce" of the recently collapsed Arab League Summit:
The region's other regimes are just scared. The usual farce is tinged with tragedy. They see the U.S. train coming one way, the Islamist in the other, and they are tied to the track in the middle. They wonder which will hit them first.
But he also scents something far more dangerous:
The underlying reality is a tectonic movement shaking the whole Middle East. Syria, its client Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, are increasingly conspiring to shift men and materiel to Israel's northern front, and to supply powerful weaponry by all possible means to the Palestinian Intifada. This could be taken as their response to President Bush's threat of instituting "regime changes" in Baghdad and elsewhere -- a tactical diversion to a "second front". But it is more than that: for as Western intelligence has now begun to grasp, the build-up began well before 9/11, to say nothing of Mr. Bush's "axis of evil" speech. It is part and parcel of a longer term civilizational descent into madness.
You know what you have to do with mad dogs, don't you?
Even before news of the terrorist Seder slaughter, stratfor.com was characterizing [link requires subscription] the collapsed Arab League "summit" as a "disaster," and a "political nightmare for Saudi Arabia."
Why? Because the conference was convened for two reasons: first, to discuss the now-laughable Saudi "peace plan," and, second, to unofficially discuss the US campaign against Iraq. For starters, some countries didn't show up at all - Egypt being the primary example. Second, the Palestinians, primary subjects of the "peace discussions," also pulled out in a no-doubt Arafat stage-managed miff.
What this indicates is that the Saudis have far less influence on their fellow Arab leaguers than anybody supposed - including, no doubt, the Saudis themselves. Stratfor.com feels this was an enormous loss of face for the Princes. But even worse than the sandpaper facial is the fact that, with this debacle, Saudi Arabia is now back to square one in its efforts to deflect US pressure on them to root out al-Qaeda elements in their own country, and support US efforts against Iraq. The pressure on them will now intensify enormously.
Events like the Egyptian no-show also indicate that Vice President Cheney played a far stronger hand in his recent jaunt through the region than most outsiders expected or realized. The collapse of Saudi influence can only mean a rise in American influence in their place.
Stratfor feels that the Palestinians benefitted as well, but their report was written before the latest outrage. Their initial analysis said that the conference collapse will allow Arafat to tell Washington that only by negotiations with him can any peace be attained. However, they also noted that the debacle can also be considered a victory for Ariel Sharon, because while the US has been applying considerable pressure to Israel to pull back their military efforts in favor of negotiations, Sharon can now say that, with the death of the Saudi "peace plan," there is nothing on the table to negotiate, leaving the IDF as Israel's only remaining option.
This question may now be moot. Nobody with any realistic understanding of what is happening in the middle east can doubt that Yassar Arafat will never stop the Intifada until he gets what he wants - whatever that is - or until Arafat himself is destroyed, and enough real punishment inflicted on his "movement" to discredit for the next hundred years the notion that Palestinian terror can succeed in gaining them what they desire - or even that some of their desires can ever be accomodated.
If Cheney's trip was Yassar Arafat's last chance to enlist further US support, as some have suggested, then it is now safe to say that his last chance is literally blown, and Arafat is doomed.
Stephen Green expresses his outrage at the latest set of vile, bestial murders committed by a crazed Palestinian fanatic. He's sick of it. So am I. Go read.
Many Americans forgot - or didn't know in the first place - that Iraq is already a partitioned nation in some respects. But you can bet that Saddam Hussein is highly aware of it - especially of the area in which the Kurds live.
Well, at least five Supreme Court justices agreed that "illegal alien" means "illegal." What I'm trying to figure out is why the Bush administration doesn't agree:
The Bush administration had argued that penalties are needed to keep employers from wronging illegal workers, considering the estimated 7 million undocumented workers in the United States.
If someone breaks the law merely by working here in the first place, why should they be entitled to protections that are rightfully reserved for those who do obey the law?
The blast went off Wednesday evening, when the dining hall of the Park Hotel along Netanya's boardwalk was crowded with guests marking the Passover Seder. A suicide bomber entered the hotel and crossed the lobby to the dining hall, where he blew himself up, said a local police chief, Aharon Franko.
The explosion tore through the ground floor of the hotel, blowing out walls and overturning tables and chairs. Bits of rubble and wires dangled from the ceiling. Some of the wounded were seen staggering out of the lobby, which was plunged into darkness by the explosion.
One man with blood dripping from his face was covered by a blue blanket. An elderly woman, her face also bloodied, sat on the sidewalk, attended to by several people.
Witnesses said they saw five bodies lined up on the pavement, some of them dismembered, including that of a woman in festive holiday clothes.
Police said 15 people were killed and more than 100 wounded ? one of the deadliest suicide bombings in the past 18 months of Israeli-Palestinian fighting.
The article also notes:
The attack threatened to derail the latest U.S. truce mission, which survived two suicide attacks last week. An adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that while Israel was trying to reach a truce, it would have to reassess its policy in light of the latest attack.
The attack "threatened" to derail the talks? Now we know why Yassar Arafat decided not to attend this summit, after Israel suggested it might refuse him re-entry into Ramallah if terror violence continued while he was gone. He must have known his chances of getting back home were about as good as the chances that a Saudi cleric might suddenly decide to publicly advocate friendship with America.
Or the chances of Palestine ever achieving any of its goals by such vicious, destructive, and self-destructive methods.
This is precisely why the spurious "peace plan" recently offered by the Saudis is such a bad and cynical joke. The Putrid Princes offer to exchange Arab recognition and peace for Israeli withdrawal to old borders. But they can't even keep the Palestinians on board. One particularly revealing statement:
"This is an Arab summit, not a Lebanon summit," Kaddoumi added. "The summit is for all the Arabs and for the (Palestinian) Intifada and he (Lahoud) has no right not to listen to the Palestinian speech."
That's correct. The PLO head said folks "have no right not to listen" to Arafat's insane lies. The right not to listen is as much at the heart of the concept of freedom of speech as is the right to speak in the first place. Apparently the PLO doesn't believe in freedom of expression. But we knew that already, didn't we?
As a libertarian, I tend to favor a justice system based mostly on lawsuit to determine injury and financial penalties for same. Which means that, logically, I believe the people suing U.S. firms for reparations for slavery have every right to do so. I also believe the judges and juries who will hear these cases have every right to immediately throw them out of court or otherwise send the plaintiffs and their legal hordes packing.
I can't tell you how much it pleases me to discover this:
The United States warned Vietnam it had no say in the fate of 1,000 hill tribe refugees who fled a military crackdown for remote camps in Cambodia before being offered asylum by Washington. US officials offered a new home to the refugees earlier Tuesday after the United Nations pulled out of a repatriation accord with Vietnam and Cambodia, accusing both sides of violating its terms. "They (Vietnam) don't have a right of approval of any of these people," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.
For all the leftists and left-liberals who pretend to think that the US is an enemy of liberty, it must be terribly galling to watch as the US State Department tells the brutal and oppressive Communist regime in Vietnam to piss off. But I'll bet there are about 1,000 Montagnard tribesmen cheering their hearts out. Me, too.
The Bush administration sought the advice of environmental groups in drafting its energy plan, but several declined to participate or suggested that Bush officials check their Web sites for information, just-released documents show.
A month and a half before President Bush's energy plan was announced, the Energy Department contacted Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, the World Resources Institute, Resources for the Future and four other groups to discuss conservation and energy efficiency. However, an unstated number of other environmental groups rebuffed administration overtures.
How does NYT still manage to convince folks it is the Greatest Newspaper On Earth, when so many of its supposed "news" articles are little more than thinly-disguised opinion?
I wish I could hear the tape from Flight 93, the "let's roll" flight. It may not offer much in the way of answers, but it is an artifact of one of the highest and most noble moments so far in the War on Terror. The citizens of a free nation need to hear the sounds of their fellows risking all against evil. We don't need the government to "protect" us from the truth of that resistance. We're big boys and girls now. We can handle it.
Twenty-five workers who held high security clearance at two Bay Area airports have been arrested as part of a nationwide security sweep, immigration officials said Tuesday.
These are probably some of the same workers Dianne Feinstein (D-Mainland China) wishes to except from the intent of the laws which federalized airport security.
Editor -- On TV I watched President Bush's visit to Central America. Since the end of U.S. terrorist attacks, a curtain of silence has fallen on the economic conditions in that area. So far, I have learned that conditions in Nicaragua equal those in Haiti: starving children, high unemployment and an absence of free unions, health care and education. I fear that the IMF and the World Bank, largely controlled by the United States, will make sure that aid to Central America will be held to a minimum.
JOHANNES S.M. VLOEMANS San Francisco
Why, Johannes S.M. Vloemans, would you assume the IMF and World Bank, controlled largely, of course, by the evil United States, would wish to make sure that as little aid as possible reaches Central America? Do you presume that the US and its minions actually desire starving children, high unemployment, and an absense of free unions? What on earth have you been reading, watching, and thinking in order to arrive at this conclusion? The collected works of Noam Chomsky? Or do your informational tastes run more to the likes of Che Guevera?
As I've said before, the Saudis, with their refusal to allow US-built state-of-the-art Prince Sultan airbase to be used in any US effort against Iraq, were flirting with unintended consequences. Now Reuters is reporting that the U.S. May Move Gulf Base to Qatar. Which gives us one less reason to have anything to do with Saudi Arabia beyond finding some way to hand over the entire sandy wasteland to the care of its former managers, the Hashemites.
Documents Reveal Energy Head Met No Environmentalists says the hed of this NYT article. We know that reporters have little to do with the heds placed atop their work, but shouldn't an article offer at least one tiny shred of information to support the hed? This one doesn't.
Over at MCJ, editor Christopher Johnson gets it exactly right:
There has been, instead, an almost hysterical attempt to portray Muslims as the victims of September 11th, as if the real tragedy of that day was not the deaths of thousands of innocent people but the damage done to Islam's image because of those murders.
The Culture of Victimology vomits up yet another unintended consequence.
"Of the priests we've evaluated, more abuse girls than abuse boys," [emphasis mine-ed.] says Gary Schoener, a Minneapolis psychologist and expert on clergy sexual abuse.
Glenn Reynolds has already wondered about this. Now I'm wondering if this report will get much play in big media, amidst all the effort being expended to characterize this as a purely homosexual scandal.
In a The Guardian article informing of the puzzling news that Michael "Stupid White Man" Moore's latest scribble is topping the US charts, the Stupid White Man himself is quoted thusly:
"The bad guys are just a bunch of silly, stupid white men. And there's a helluva lot more of us than there are of them".
So did I miss it when Moore had a sex, ethnicity, and IQ transplant?
Ken Layne wrote this for Fox News. Everybody needs to read it - especially every other major outlet that has now, thanks to Layne and reporter Paul McGeough, been well and truly scooped.
Editor -- The demands that the United States and Israel place on Yasser Arafat to stop Palestinian violence against Israel cannot be met under the present dreadful circumstances. Arafat is under house arrest by occupying Israeli forces. The infrastructure of his security police, who are supposed to curtail violence, is being bombed out of existence. The Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is under siege. Israeli tanks, armored vehicles and soldiers are everywhere in Palestinian towns and villages. How can Arafat or anyone in his situation stop his humiliated and desperate people from attacking the occupiers in the territories or in Israel? Arafat is being asked to help the Israelis occupy and humiliate the Palestinian people. This is like disqualifying a coach and his best players and then blaming them for losing the game. ALI H. ALYAMI Kensington
Oh, I don't know, Ali H. Alyami. Perhaps Arafat could make a start by telling his people to stop murdering innocent civilians, women and children especially, and say so in both Arabic and English. And he could tell his commanders running al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade to stop sending their brainwashed dupes blow themselves up in Israeli restaurants, busses, and shopping malls. And he could actually keep in jail the terror leaders and their minions he arrests, holds for a couple of days, and then quietly releases. And he could order his own huge security apparatus to turn his lies into truth by actually enforcing the peace instead of waging a terror war themselves.
But if he did that, it would become very plain to all that the final responsibility for the terrorist slaughter was his, and his alone. So I guess he'll just have to rely on muddled apologists like you, won't he, Ali H. Alyami?
Here is a very good explication of the antecedents and definitions of the innocuous-sounding "social democrats." Given this, I'm re-thinking my use of the term left-liberal to denote Boxer-Kennedy style "liberalism." Maybe it's best to go back to calling them what they apparently are (at least according to the author) - commies - and leave the term "liberal" for us libertarian types.
Oh, great. Apparently every psycho-babbling scribbler around is trying to find some way to hang their particular schtick on 9/11. Here's a Chicago Trib effort that somehow mixes Geraldo Rivera and Chicagoland ophthalmic technicians.
Tech Central Station debuts a new regular columnist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center physicist Dr. Willie Soon, who will be writing on climate science. Here, Dr. Soon dismantles a hysterical diatribe from bird-watchers (Did you know there were sixty-three million bird-watchers in the United States? No? Dr. Soon doesn't thinks so, either) to the effect that global warming will soon remove the Baltimore Oriole from Maryland. We should be so lucky. [that's the baseball team, idiot-ed.] Oh. Sorry.
Dr. Soon does a fine job, and I'll be watching for his subsequent columns. Just one thing, though: Dr. Soon, give some thought to that pic of yourself you posted. You look as if you just got busted for shoplifting.
There's something strange about this tale of a couple of Yassar Arafat's al-Aksa boomers blowing themselves up in mid-chase. My guess is that it was an accident. Otherwise, why didn't they stop when they realized the game was up, let the cops cluster around, and then go ka-boomie?
It was probably an accident. I hear quality control is terrible in those refugee camp bomb factories. Or the boomers were just stupid. That's always a possibility, too.
The insanity of the War on Some Drugs marches on. Now the "Burn a Village to Save It" syndrome has infected the Supreme Court. Of course, if we didn't have bazillions "invested" in counter-productive public housing, the issue would never come up. And of course if we didn't have this counter-productive drug "war," it wouldn't come up either. And of course if the moon were made of green cheese, I'd have reason to buy a hell of a lot more Ritz crackers.
For all those who've been muttering about the "trivial" amount of foreign aid the U.S. hands out comes this revealing bit:
Maduro asked Bush at their meeting on Sunday to extend the special status currently enjoyed by thousands of Central American immigrants and even to permanently legalize their resident status in the United States. However, Bush "is a person who's very careful in that sense," the Honduran president told reporters, adding that the U.S. president said he did not want to "create false expectations." However, "ther
![[Powered by
Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
