Lex Libertas

Kucinich wants to create a “Department of Peace,” to “prevent violence both domestic and internationally.”

Perhaps Dennis needs to go back and take an intro Poli Sci class where he would learn about the concept of the “monopoly of violence.” This Dept. of Peace would have to use force to prevent violence, especially domestically. How does he think that the police force works. Maybe he hasn’t ever seen an episode of Cops and thinks they just talk to criminals.

Leave it to the Dems to come up with insidious labeling to confuse the purpose of an office. As if somehow it were possible to prevent violence by means other than force. Clearly, our non-violent measures over a decade persuaded Saddam to conform to our convictions.

These people have such a ridiculously naive worldview. Dems have the reputation for being more cultured, traveled individuals, but I just can’t imagine that they have ever been outside of America. Go on Dennis, create your newspeak department. Tell Kim Jong Ill how much we wish he would stop killing, imprisoning, and torturing his own people. Ask the Algerian islamofascists to stop slaughtering schoolchildren. Offer Islamic Jihad political recognition if they stop blowing up busses. Do all this, but realize that instead of securing the world for peace you only give it over to the more bestial, feral parts of humanity.

“Whatever enables us to go to war secures our peace.” - Thomas Jefferson

The Free State Project is a group of liberty minded individuals who want to have a group of at least 20,000 people all move into the same state. With this political base, they plan on influencing state policies to such a degree as to roll back gun control laws, install classical liberal economic policies, and implement a whole host of traditionally libertarian ideas.

I, while not signing up for the move due to the fact that my life is utterly chaotic and I don’t know where I’ll be in the next two years (hopefully not a merchant marine ship in Shanghai), would like to voice my support for such a move. This is the raison d’etre for federalism. Our states are supposed to be the laboritories for democracy, and this is one hell of an experiment.

Seeing as how I am greatly sympathetic to the majority of their causes, I wish the Free State Project the best of luck. By the time my life is more stable, I hope they have made some good progress, and I may just decide to move on over and help out.

As for which state to do it in, my vote is Montana.

Warning: cultural conservative ahead

Just one more reason to like Eastern Europeans. Poles protested a ship that takes women to international waters to give abortions, away from their home countries where the procedure is outlawed. The boat, run by Women on Waves, was held up by protests, violated the port’s entry orders, and was found to have on board pills that are illegal under Polish law.

Poland is a staunch Catholic country whose population still believes that abortion is wrong. I am glad to see that there are still people around the world who hold the value of human life in high regard. Abortion is such a divisive issue here in the U.S., that nobody really talks about it. I have recently, however, had conversations with a couple of people who feel like I do that a child should have their rights protected even if it inconveniences the mother or father who have already made her choices.

As a sidenote, our focus on abortion being a “woman’s right” has only served to undermine the role of male responsability for pregnancy and children. If a woman is pregnant, it is considered only in her agency to keep or terminate the child. As a result, the man is completely shut out from the decision. This had lead many men and women to assume that the child is the woman’s problem. It took two people to create it, and when we cut off one of those people, it is easy to see why males, in general, use this as an opportunity to skip out on responsability for wearing protection in the first place, and for taking care of the child if the mother decides to keep it.

I do see hope on the horizon. Apparently, though not here at the cooperative where I live, today’s generation is more conservative than the last. A newsweek cover story from the June 9, 2003 edition cited a poll showing that the majority of Americans believe that life begins at conception.

Perhaps we have finally regained a bit of our humanity that was ripped out by the selfish and responsibility-disinclined generation of the 1960’s. It is time we decided to protect the weakest and most defenseless of our society.

Vagueness and Obfuscation Trump Transparency.

The Supreme Court saw fit to denounce the undergraduate admissions criteria for diversity at U.Mich which gave points for race, but upheld the law school admissions, which is a “‘highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file’ in which race counts as a factor but is not used in a ‘mechanical way.’”

Apparently, racial diversity is a compelling interest that the state can step in to control.

“Justice O’Connor’s opinion in the law school case embraced the diversity rationale. ‘Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civil life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized,’ she said. She added that law schools, in particular, served as gateways to economic and political leadership. ‘Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.’”

This says that if somehow every shade of skin tone and every purveyor of a localized food and dance (culture) were represented at every single law school, we would have a perfect government. So if there is one Inuit candidate, they ought to be let in to fulfill diversity, no matter how unqualified. One of my main faults with this decision is the use of doublespeak. “All racial and ethnic groups,” does not mean all. There will be no exta benefit for descendents of Irish Catholics turned Protestant - even though that is a culture unto itself. What about Bretons, Basques, Normans, Romanche, Hungarians from Romania, etc. Our current leadership seems to forget that Europe has hundreds of ethnicities, yet all their descendents in America are labeled white and presumed to come from lives of privilege and wealth.

Assuming away the definition of race and ethnicity (blacks and hispanics) and assuming away a better form of diversity (thoughts and ideas), we’ll deal with the issue of how to best implement “diversity” programs in the most “fair” way possible. If this is going to exist, I want it to be done in the most transparent way possible. Sandra Day O’Connor even says as much: “‘In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.’” The undergraduate program was transparent. We knew how people got in. If we wanted we could go look at their tally sheet. That’s a visible way. The law school admissions is far more vague. The holistic review never has to justify itself or give empirics. This version of admissions is based on good feelings. If people are taking scarce spots in highly competitive programs, I want to know why, and not just because some admission counselor got warm feelings. We publish the criteria of SAT and GPA, why not race? Why make it a hidden factor, used for constructing a perfect society behind closed doors? This smacks of what Frederic Bastiat wrote about in 1850 in The Law,

“But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!
It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator’s genius. This idea � the fruit of classical education � has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.”

If these people wish to construct their perfect society, fine. I can’t do anything about it. The process should at least be transparent, with clear guidelines. Vagueness is always manipulated and invites corruption. The harms of a quota-like system, decried in the Bakke decision, are far more tolerable than a secretive junta desiring to create a racial vision.

What World Do These People Live In?

We all saw the two inch print last week declaring that hispanics have officially become the largest minority in America, and the racists have something to say about it. One of Sunday’s op-eds in the L.A. Times described how this demographic shift does not matter, and that the true dichotomy in America will always be black/white. The main thrust of the argumentation is that blacks have a distinct place in the American cultural mindset, and their ability to galvanize white guilt can not be matched by any other minority. Essentially, blacks make whites uncomfortable because of historical injustices in a way that hispanics never can. This piece suffers from several faulty assumptions.

“Even as Latinos exert growing influence on American politics and culture, blacks will continue to have a more powerful claim on America’s moral imagination.”

One of the main problems with generalizations is that you don’t know what the hell the author is talking about. First of all, he falls in the trap of positing political power as if it was a tangible zero-sum game. Latinos can claim power without threatening blacks, or whites, or asians, etc. He also places these groups in opposition to whites. If anything, as a Republican, I think hispanics and blacks can be a boon to our party. Both groups are traditionally socially conservative and very religious, with values closer to the right than the left. Democrats have a grip on these groups for irrational reasons, and as more information comes out, the tides of political alignment will change. After all, politics should be about ideas, not physical appearance. Second, what is “moral imagination” Does he mean thoughts like, “if I had the chance to steal a million dollars and not get caught, should I do it?”

Their history of slavery and segregation ensures that African Americans will not be displaced in their role as the preeminent “other” in U.S. society.

I always thought the preeminent “other” in U.S. society was government tyranny and obstruction. Apparently, this author views himself as a race warrior.

The social distance between brown and white has never been as great as that between black and white.

The author seems to think that brown only refers to hispanics. If this statement were to stand as is, we would be asked to assume that in the current political climate there is a smaller divide between whites and arabs than between whites and blacks. Clearly, the author has missed the most recent evolution in race relations.

“Cozying up to Hispanics can help whites show how tolerant they are,” says Stanford philosopher Richard Rorty. “Someone who hates the idea of hiring blacks can say, ‘Hey, look how many Hispanics I have.’ “

Really now, this is getting absurd. I just do not understand these people’s cognitive processes. Who out there hates blacks but loves hispanics??? It seems to me that racial intolerance tends to be an all or none characteristic. Most people are either ok with people of different backgrounds, or they are not. My life experience leads me to conclude that this racial substitution hypothesis is a stretch. One more reason to believe that philosophers get paid for having overactive imaginations.

Latinos may now outnumber blacks, but African Americans will remain firmly entrenched in the American psyche.

After five years at a liberal institution of higher learning and reading articles like this, I am beginning to think that maybe I am the odd one out on the issue of race. Speaking in terms of “racial/ethnic group, numbers, entrenched in psyche” is nonsensical on a fundamental level. That’s just not the way my brain is wired, and it is not because of some blanket rejection of binaries. I can think in terms of right/left, conservative/liberal, libertarian/authoritarian, but I do not think ethnic group/ethnic group. Ethnic groups are made up of people, individuals with their own thoughts and ideologies. They are not homogenous groups, why do we treat them as such? It makes more sense to groups people along lines of worldview, no matter what thier skin color may be.

Dealing with the idea of historical injustice, I am reminded of a peom by Langston Hughes, entitled “I, too, sing America.” The narrator is a servant forced to eat in the kitchen away from the white family he serves, thinking of the day when he will sit at the table with everyone else. At the end, he says, “I, too, am America.” Yes, bad things have been done to blacks, hispanics, jews, native americans, irish, italian, etc., but we have to realize that we are all Americans. What unites us is different than what unites the citizens of every other nation on earth. They were all formed more or less of the basis of the inhabitants and tribes of a region. Ours was a country founded on ideology alone. If, even given our ideological basis, we cannot look past skin color and ethnicity, how can we expect any other country to do it?

Whatever the color classification of America, the real sorting ought to be done based on our grey matter.

The court martial of the two US pilots who accidentally bombed a canadian platoon in Afghanistan has been dismissed. This is an emotionally charged issue, but I believe the right choice was made. The pilots thought they were receiving hostile surface to air fire and proceeded to bomb what they thought was the enemy position. The pilots blamed the mistake on the “fog of war,” a concept first stated by 19th Century military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz. War is a confusing place where everything goes wrong, and the consequences of incorrect action are death to you and your closest friends. Under these circumstances, we can easily see how mistakes are made. In the case of Afghanistan, the country was riddled with surface-to-air missiles that we gve to the Mujahedeen that are a clear threat to any aircraft. Beyond this threat, the pilots also outline several other mitigating factors:

“The pilots said they were never told the Canadians would be conducting live-ammunition exercises that night. Defense attorneys suggested Air Force-issued amphetamines, which were routine issued to help aviators stay awake during long missions, had clouded the pilots’ judgment. They also blamed a military communications breakdown ”

This accident was on the tail end of a 10-hour mission. I can’t stand to be in a plane for 10 hours, much less piloting it and conducting activities in hostile teritory. Is it really any wonder that they got a little jumpy when people who, as far as they knew, weren’t supposed to be there started firing. Friendly fire deaths are always a tragedy, and should be minized as much as possible. However, we simply cannot go around punishing honest mistakes like these. The consequences would be dreadful. Imagine if every soldier now hesitated to fire because it might be possible they were shooting at an ally. More often than not, they would only be helping the enemy. In a warzone, things get confusing. Let’s not tie the hands of those who are putting thier lives on the line.

Whereas we are willing to impeach a president over lying, the Continentals make their leaders untouchable by lawsuit while in office. The most recent incarnation of this principle is Silvio Berlusconi, the Prime Minister of Italy. Parliament just passed a law giving the top five members of government immunity from prosecution during their term. This is meant to stall the seven year process charging corruption and bribing by Berlusconi. Odd how it coincides with his presidency of the EU.

If this sounds familiar, it is probably because the right honorable President de La France, Jacques Chriac, also has immunity while in office, and is also awaiting trial on several charges of corruption. While he was mayor of Paris, Monsieur Chirac made many “questionable” deals involving the current majority party (RPR) which he founded.

It came as no surprise when I learned that France and Italy are considered the most corrupt and the most corrupting of industrialized nations. To quote, “graft affects every corner of life, from sport to politics. So endemic is it, they argue, that it simply represents the French way of doing business..” And we thought we had “good ol’ boys” networks.

It seems that God created sex to tempt American politicians, and money to tempt Europeans.

At my lemonade stand I used to give the first glass away free and charge five dollars for the second glass. The refill contained the antidote. - Emo Philips

Well, at least the police didn’t shut me down like this poor six year old entrepreneur.

Apparently, Senator Orin Hatch is willing to allow the recording industry to physically destroy the computers of people caught illegally downloading material. I certainly think that is a bit drastic, but I am not sure how I feel about pirating media.

Obviously, it is illegal. We are taking material that is copyrighted and we are not paying for it. Being a child of the information age, I have a radical idea that information ought to be free. I still have not reconcilled this with how authors would make a living, but it seems to me that even in such a society, people would still want to buy books to own a physical copy. Likewise, and perhaps even less vexing, if songs become public domain consumers would still want to go to concerts to see the music performed live. Artists would still have a way to make a living.

Assuming the laws do not change to meet the realities of this new era, do we have a de facto obligation to obey the law - even if we consider it unjust? I do not necessarily think so, we all violate laws every single day (speeding, to name just one instance). In fact, it seems that a lot of laws ought to be on the books just in case something bad or extreme happens; i.e. it is ok to break these laws at your own peril, but if something bad does happen, it should be known that you were clearly in the wrong. For example, seat belt laws. You should not be forced to wear a seatbelt. If, however, you are in an accident and you are not wearing a seatbelt, you should not be able to sue for damages due to the fact that you flew through the windshield.

Let’s bring this back to copyright infringement. Should people who download one or two songs from their favorite artists and who have a playlist of 1,000 songs be punished. No, the drain on money from the government for each individual prosecution does not even begin to cover the damage inflicted on the recording companies. However, if someone has one million songs, and is selling access to their library for downloads, that might be a good case to punish.

As for the legality of downloading, I do not see a real difference between pirating songs from peer-to-peer and taping songs from the radio. In both cases you are making a recording of a song that passes freely over the airwaves. Excepting obscure bands who might not be played on the radio, but who would profit from the greater publicity of filesharing. To further illustrate this similarity, I have a friend who hooked up his radio to his computer and ripped songs straight from FM radio. Would this make him a target for prosecution? Why would the medium of recording make a difference?

This new technology has made it possible for the market to react to an overpriced product. Consumers are expected to pay close to $20 for a cd that likely has only one or two good songs, and no liner notes with items of interest such as lyrics. This is far too much money, and so people are willing to make investments elsewhere. The price is so high that people are willing to invest time into searching and are willing to settle for an inferior quality of product. I have no doubt that if cds were made more affordable, people would be more willing to buy them. These artists are overpaid anyways, there are not many people who would disagree with that.

As is to be expected, new technology is forcing our laws, culture, and social norms to be reevaluated. The information revolution is still creating corpses, but it is all part of the beautiful destructive creation that is capitalism. Oligarchies are being challenged, inflated prices confronted.

Should we destroy the computers of people who want to hear the theme song from Gummy Bears beacuse it reminds them of their childhood? No, and the fruits of pirating will be a better product offered. God bless the free market.

The Bishop of Pheonix was arrested over the weekend for fleeing the scene of a fatal hit and run accident. Bishop O’Brien also allowed priests that he knew had been accused of sexual misconduct to work with minors, and he would sometimes pass these priests off to other parishes without alerting their supervisors. Sounds like good christian living to me.

As far as I remember it, the parable of the good Samaritan involves finding an already beaten man, and then helping him. I suppose if it is you who does the beating, then there is no obligation to help the man. O’Brien could have at least said the Last Rites.

This type of behaviour is unfortunately indicative of the state of the Catholic Church right now. Frank Keating, the ex-governor of Oaklahoma and devout Catholic, appointed to head the investigation of the sex abuse scandals gets shouted down for coming out and telling the truth. Keating said that it was shameful for the Church hierarchy to act with such secrecy, and reiterated that his committee must be transparent. Los Angeles Cardinal Mahony, head of America’s largest archdiocese referred to Keating’s remarks as “the last straw.”

Why is Cardinal Mahony so defensive against these accusations of obfuscation? Because he is not willing to answer a survey about the number of priests involved in sexual misconduct, nor will he release subpoenaed documents pertaining to the prosecution of several former and current priests.

When the Jayson Blair story broke, it was the New York Times, Blair’s own paper, that did the most thorough accounting of his fabrications. They did so to save what little respect and prestige they could. They wanted everyone to know they had the integrity to own to their mistakes. The Catholic Church, faced with decades of sexual molestation, refuses to take a similar action. Instead they try to keep things behind closed doors, exactly the type of activity that got them in trouble in the first place. The only attempt made at cleaning up thier image and rooting out justice is sabotaged by high-ranking officials like Mahony. Keating’s panel was a half-hearted attempt by an embarrassed Chruch. Not because they meant it, but because they had to do something. Now that Iraq and other news has eclipsed their scandal, the committee is being undermined from within.

Behaviour like Mahony and O’Brien cannot be tolerated if the Church is to retain any dignity. Beyond that, if they are to have any claim of moral superiority, any claim to bring people to “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” then must stop acting as if we live in Medieval Europe. These officials are not above the law, although by their actions they should be above reproach. It is not acceptable to kill someone in an accident and flee, or to molest little children entrusted to them as representatives of God.

In order for the Church to continue the good work that it has done, it must confess its sins. And not just in a booth, behind a curtain, to other priests - but in public, in front of cameras, to the whole world.

Matrix Reloaded was banned in Egypt on grounds that it challenges traditional religious views on “human existence, and creation.” The film discusses free will, in a somewhat sophmoric way, but it does not say anthing about the creation of human beings. As for confronting beliefs on existence, does it matter if a couple of people think they really are in the matrix? Even if that were true, I don’t see how if would affect one’s belief in God.

On a more realistic note, the censors feel that “the film has too many scenes of violence at a time when we are trying to fight this phenomenon.” Fair enough, Egyptians are concerned about violence on television. I can understand that. If that’s true, however, then why do the censors not work on stopping the shows that pass freely on television. A study on programming during the holy month of Ramadan, the most watched time for Egyptian television, showed that violence against women was highly prevalent and condoned. If they are at all worried about programming challenging the basics tenants of Islam, billed as a religion of peace and tolerance, then why do they allow such barbarism to pass nightly during the holiest month of the year?

Moral of the story: Violence against a dictatorial, tyrannical power structure trying to enslave the masses is not to be viewed. Abuse of women by the heroes of prime time television shows is normal and laudable.

PS: What do we expect from the country which aired “Horse without a Horseman” during Ramadan. A serial which drew on the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” A book forged by order of the Tsar of Russia to detail the Jewish conspiracy for world dominance.

With California’s public schools still in shambles, many attempts are being made in an attempt to increase the value of education. One such idea is the California High School Exit Exam (CHSEE).

Exit exams are a good idea in general. We always seem to talk about ‘how much smarter the Europeans are than Americans,’ and they have comprehensive exit exams to finish high school. For the Brits, it’s the A-Levels, for the French, the BAC. A-level results stay with you the rest of your life, often put on your CV; and the type of BAC taken determines what you can study at university. Mind, these tests are quite difficult. The equivalent in America would be to require that all students take AP tests for each of their subjects, and then use these results to get into college.

I’m not suggesting a change that radical, but some sort of basic knowledge needs to be garnered. People need to know why the American Revolution was fought, and who King George was. They need to understand something of the founding fathers and their ideas, Jefferson vs. Hamilton and the like. An understanding of the function and division of our government is near essential to the proper functioning of our democracy. Hemmingway, Melville, Milton, Orwell, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Laclos, Hugo, Cervantes, Goerthe, and myriad other authors should be read and remembered. Some basics about the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Counter-Reformation, and the Restoration ought be committed to memory. The ideas of Voltaire, de Tocqueville, Sir Francis Bacon, Ben Franklin, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche should be understood. Exposure to the classics goes without saying. Some basic physics and biology would help to appreciate this world. Some may call this Eurocentric, but these people and ideas form the core of modernity. I am certainly open to ideas from other cultures, but these people have so influenced society the world over that they are essential.

Perhaps this is just my wishlist of study, but I think the idea that some level of mastery should be acquired before graduating is held by many. The California exit exam only requires “scores of 60 percent correct in language arts and 55 percent correct in mathematics” in order to pass. That’s not a passing grade in any one class, why should it be passing on the comprehensive exit exam? Before people get up in arms defending this watered down exam, just take a look at an 8th grade exit exam from 1895. It is eye opening to think that what we required of 8th graders one hundred years ago would be difficult for a Ph.D. to pass today.

Richard Perle, the man appeasers love to hate, has brought up the notion of precision strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities. It’s good to know that we finally have people in positions of power, like Rumsfeld, who aren’t afraid to take action when necessary, even in the face of negative consequences.

Clinton, for all his failings, did fine for himself. He appeased several terrible regimes, and came out of office with a high approval rating, and a huge check for his memoirs. Had he confronted these problems during his tenure, Clinton would have had some tough choices to make. So instead of driving a hard bargain with the North Koreans, he let them go on their way developing weapons behind our backs. Had he taken any other action, he would have had to deal with the after effects. But now, it’s a different president who has to deal with the results of his decision. This way, Clinton’s time in office isn’t spoiled, and somebody else has to fix the problem.

A military strike on North Korea poses a certain distinct drawback in the sense that it might provoke a military response against South Korea or Japan. This isn’t so much of a problem if North Korea only has conventional weapons; but if, as rumored, they already posess one or two nuclear weapons, the consequences could be catastrophic. North Korea possibly has missiles that could reach the West Coast, but it surely has a delivery system that would extend to South Korea and Japan.

I don’t think that the response would be a military invasion of S. Korea, that would surely kill the 30+ thousand troops we have at the DMZ, and draw the United States into a full fledged war. But I wouldn’t rule out a barrage of missiles aimed at Seoul and Tokyo, potentially nuclear tipped. It seems that a strike to destroy North Korea’s nuclear technology might release that which the strike was intended to prevent. However, to counter that point, it is conceivable that if N. Korea had only a small number of nuclear weapons, and we struck, they would not strike back with those weapons, but use conventional warheads. That way they could keep the nuclear weapons on hold for deterrence against any further US military intervention.

I am in favor of destroying N. Korea’s nuclear facilities, but I’d want good evidence that N. Korea doesn’t already possess nuclear weapons. Of course, it goes without saying that if Clinton had taken care of this mess back in ‘94, we wouldn’t have to be worrying about the state of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

An opinion piece in Haaretz gives a pretty good summation of the current Iranian nuclear weapons quandary. Iran is developing nukes, we all know it. We just don’t know how quickly, or with what sort of range.

Given that, the question is, how do we deal with it? We could a) give up, b) attack, c) negotiate. I’m sure that choice a is not the best. Choice c doesn’t seem too good either. Iran is not Iraq, and there are not as many justifications for an invasion. The terrain is mountainous and much more treacherous, and the current political situation inside the country is such that an attack may well strengthen the Islamiscists and galvanize resistance.

Choice b is not very appealing because it does not work. How can we possibly negotiate when Russia is supplying the materials used to construct the nuclear reactors? How can we negotiate when there is no enforcement mechanism? We cannot trust the Iranian regime, and so the basis for any negotiation is tenuous at best. That seemingly leaves us with no options.

Perhaps if we modified b and c, we could get a viable alternative. We must show that we will not allow countries to blackmail us using nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran are examples of how attempting to gain nukes will bring a country to the big table, and will act as a form of immunity. It seems that we should negotiate, and try as hard as we can to stop the nuclear club from expanding, but use tactical strikes if necessary.

We have the technological ability to strike targets such as nuclear facilities with great precision. We should strike the plants before the come online to avoid contaminating the area with fallout, but we must remain resolved to use force if the time comes. Without the will - or perceived will - to use violence, any threat from the US looses credibility, and any negotiation becomes futile.

UPDATE: The past couple days of protesting in Iran are a wonderful sign of the weakness of the Iranian regime. The people are getting fed up with the government, and its days may be numbered. Just like last year’s protests against the death sentence for Hashem Aghajari, these manifestations are going virtually unreported. I really don’t understand why the mainstream press continues to underreport the events in Iran.

Garry South pushed Gray Davis through his last three electoral victories. We all know that Bill Simon’s campaign wasn’t super, but for a governor to get reelected with such a low approval rating does reflect well on Mr. South. Somehow, through his guidance, Davis was able to trick the same people into voting for him that two months later would start a recall, because they realized how much he sucks. Political manoeuvering at its best.

This could be good news and bad, but I think it’s good all around. First the good. With his main strategerist® gone, Davis’ chances of shooting down the recall are greatly diminished. That’s good news for everyone. A successful recall against Davis could bring in many republicans with it, especially if it’s coupled with the all new legislature that will be elected in March 2004.

The potentially bad news. Garry South could do a good job with the Lieberman campaign. I don’t think this threat will materialize. First, Lieberman isn’t popular enough with the Democratic base to get the votes needed in the primaries. His positions have just been too inconsistent, and sometimes opposed to Democratic views. Case in point, he is the closest thing the Dems have to a hawk. That’s not good at a time when the Democratic party is saying “see I told you so” about the war. Howard Dean is probably the anti-War’s hero at this point, and they’re a rather large constituency. Also, even if Lieberman did get the party nomination, I sincerely doubt he would win the presidency. South may have done wonders for Davis, but Bush’s PR machine is quite possibly the best ever seen. Bush has set the standard that will not soon be overcome.

Summary. Good riddance to someone who might have an effect on California, but who won’t at the national level. Thank you Mr. South, for making the selfish decision to advance your own career while leaving Davis to rot and fester.