JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS

Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Comments by YACCS



Listed on BlogShares
Saturday, September 21, 2002
 
Oops
A couple of corrections from the New York Times in the last two days that caught my eye. Have the Times' quality control standards slipped drastically, or have I just started noticing them more?

From Friday, September 20:
Because of an editing error, an Op-Ed article yesterday by Jessica T. Mathews and Charles G. Boyd about the need for coercive inspections in Iraq contained added language that does not represent the authors' views. They would strongly oppose the use of United Nations weapons inspectors as spies.
Added language????? Sure, why not? I mean, it's not as if op/ed pieces are supposed to reflect the views of the authors, rather than the editors.

And Saturday, September 21:
Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about the Bush administration's adoption of a doctrine of pre-emptive action against hostile countries placed a passage in quotation marks erroneously in a description of the 33-page document prepared for Congress. The comment — that the president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago — was the writer's summation of interviews with senior administration officials.
I guess when you're trying to run the government's foreign policy from the editorial offices, it's difficult to actually, you know, report the news.

Friday, September 20, 2002
 
Thought for the day
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. -- Henri Poincare


 
Handy voter's guide
In case you were wondering, Some Bay Area Democrats may oppose Iraq attack. I know -- this is about as shocking as finding Michigan lawmakers coming out in favor of automobiles.
Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland stood alone last September, casting the only "no" vote when the House gave President Bush backing for the war against terrorists. But now several of her Bay Area Democratic colleagues say they'll join her stance if Bush seeks a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
Take notes for November. Make a special effort to note this walking advertisement for term limits:
"Barbara Lee had it right," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, a 15-term congressman who voted with the president last September. "I'm sorry I voted for the resolution."
That's not war with Iraq he's discussing; that was the resolution empowering Bush to act against Al Qaeda.

Thursday, September 19, 2002
 
Timing is everything
A day after a Palestinian homicide bomber killed an Israeli police officer, another Palestinian homicide bomber struck a daring blow against the tyranny of mass transit, blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv, killing five people. Hamas expressed sympathy for the victims, calling the attack barbaric -- no, wait, I'm sorry, that was the Israeli reaction to the bombing at the Palestinian school. Hamas celebrated this latest atrocity:
A spokesman for the Islamic militant group Hamas, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, said he did not know who was behind the attack but welcomed it. "The Zionists are paying for the crimes and terrorism of their leaders and they should know that we are the real owners of this land and we would never give it up," he said.
Remember, this didn't take place in the so-called "Occupied Territories." It took place in Tel Aviv, the place that Hamas admits they "would never give... up."

Perhaps I'm just a cynic, but I find the timing of these latest atrocities very suspicious. Just as George Bush is building a case to attack Iraq, six weeks of relative quiet are broken by several Palestinian terrorist attacks. We saw this happen earlier in the year, when President Bush first began hinting that Saddam Hussein was at the top of Bush's hit list. Suddenly, a wave of bombings hit Israel, resulting in an Israeli crackdown which drove a wedge between the U.S. and, well, everyone else. And now it's happening again. Somehow I suspect that we'll soon hear of Iraqi agents handing out checks to the families of the latest series of murderers.

 
Missing the point
There's an old joke about the guy who defends himself against the charges of breaking and entering by citing his alibi: he was robbing a bank at the time. That comes to mind when reading the Washington Post's report about disputed evidence that Iraq is building nuclear weapons:
Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.
Launch tubes for artillery rockets? Well, then, no need to worry. After all, those rockets would just be used to kill mosquitos carrying the West Nile virus, right? So it's perfectly okay if Saddam builds them.

More importantly, citing the uncertainty over the use of the aluminum tubes is beside the point. We don't demand certainty because we can't achieve certainty. Given the position of Iraq, given the events of the last decade, there's no presumption of innocence here. If skeptics can show that these tubes couldn't be used in the development of nuclear weapons, that's one thing. But we can't afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt, to interpret ambiguous evidence in his favor. Ambiguity is not a reasonable argument here.

 
It takes two to fight?
Speaking of the Senate debate over the Homeland Security Department reorganization bill, the New York Times explains what the holdup is in getting the law passed:
President Bush's demand for unusual latitude in managing the department has shattered any hopes for a consensus on its creation, which was once hailed by members of both parties. Questions of union rights tend to reduce each party to its most elemental positions, and members of each side will now consider themselves lucky to get the 51 votes necessary to move the bill off the floor.
So the two sides disagree strongly, but only one side is responsible for that disagreement. (And coincidentally, that one side is the Republican side. The Times just can't help itself, can it?)

 
The buck stops... somewhere
The New York Times is happy with the Bush administration's decision to apply the Clean Air Act to off-road vehicles such as snowmobiles. They just can't quite bring themselves to say so:
Christie Whitman is to be commended for bringing the nation's growing army of off-road vehicles under the regulatory umbrella of the Clean Air Act.
See, when the Bush administration makes a decision approved of by the Times, Christie Whitman gets the credit -- Bush's name is mentioned nowhere in relation to this decision.

When the Times is annoyed, though, suddenly Bush's name pops up:
Numbers like these persuaded the Clinton administration to order a three-year phaseout of all snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. But the Bush administration quickly caved in to industry and property rights advocates who see any limitation on their ability to abuse the public lands as an abridgment of individual freedoms.
I wonder if the Times would talk about politicians "caving in to" civil rights groups, and sneer at "individual freedoms" in those contexts.

But note that after the Times attempts to minimize the infringement that's going on, they then say:
One of Ms. Norton's main arguments for reversing the ban is that snowmobiles in the future will be much cleaner. Indeed, under the new rules, the snowmobiles that today churn up 100,000 cars' worth of pollution will, by 2012, produce only 50,000 cars' worth. That's still 50,000 too many.
In short, the Times is calling for a total ban on all snowmobiles, regardless of the amount of pollution they emit. And yet, they attack those who oppose this ban as unreasonable people who can't accept "any limitation" on their freedoms.

I don't have a good sense as to whether snowmobiles belong in national parks -- though I suspect opposition arises primarily from ideological, rather than practical, considerations -- but it always raises a red flag for me when activists demand a total ban while pretending they're only proposing modest restrictions.

 
Survey says...
Eugene Volokh has spent a lot of time debunking surveys that purport to be meaningful but aren't. (See also here, here, and here, among others.) Eugene has identified many cases where a self-selected, nonrandom sample is used -- but I'll bet he's never come across a poll which uses Tom Friedman's trick: simply making up stuff. It's breathtaking in its brazenness:
Recently, I've had the chance to travel around the country and do some call-in radio shows, during which the question of Iraq has come up often. And here's what I can report from a totally unscientific sample: Don't believe the polls that a majority of Americans favor a military strike against Iraq. It's just not true.
Ah. Well, Gallup could certainly save time if they used the "Follow Tom Friedman around the country" methodology.

That's one thing I love about the New York Times -- they take their role as "opinionmakers" seriously. Not only do they tell us what we should think, but they tell us what we do think.

Tuesday, September 17, 2002
 
Yeah, right. And Al Gore invented the internet
Saddam Hussein has unconditionally agreed to the return of weapons inspectors. At least, if you listen to what Iraq says they said, rather than what they actually said:
This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of the other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 687 (1991).

To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.
In short, Hussein is ready to "discuss" the arrangements. Uh, I'm no lawyer -- oh, wait, I am -- but I think there's a small chasm between "discussing" conditions for acceptance and accepting without conditions. Not to mention the fact that Hussein still tries to pretend that lifting sanctions is part of the quid pro quo for accepting inspections. This is just another stalling tactic, an attempt to split the growing international acceptance of the Bush administration's view that something needs to be done.

There's a much more important problem, though, which Bush's response demonstrates he clearly understands: inspections are not the goal here. Inspections are the means to an end. The goal is to eliminate Iraq's weapons capability. (That's the official goal, I mean; the unofficial one is regime change.)

The French don't get this:
Mr. Hussein's move seemed likely to deepen the dispute over tactics between the United States and France. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, forcefully arguing France's position at a midday news conference, outlined a plan for an initial Council resolution that would only require Iraq to allow the weapons inspections without spelling out any consequences if Baghdad does not comply.

France, one of the five permanent, veto-bearing members of the Council, wants to hold off until later a resolution to authorize the use of military force, depending on how the weapons inspections proceed.
In short, the French are playing right into Hussein's hands. They want to warn Hussein that he should let inspections resume, or else we'll call a committee meeting to decide what to do about it.

Which means that -- if Bush were dumb enough to believe Hussein and the French -- Iraq could diddle around, finally let inspectors in, eventually, and then interfere with their work. Then the UN would bluster about how Hussein needs to stop hindering the inspectors. Then Iraq would agree to back down, they'd negotiate some more conditions, some less Ineffective inspections would continue, and Iraq would continue to make life difficult. Eventually, inspectors would issue a partial report of findings, Iraq would demand that sanctions end, and the U.N. would pat itself on the back for averting a crisis. Of course, Iraq would still retain its weapons. And Saddam would still be in power. And would be free to restart his attempts to develop these weapons. And the message would be sent to other third world thugs: if the whole world is against you, just stall for a decade until people get tired of the issue, and you'll get away with it.

Fortunately, Bush isn't that gullible.
 
 

I note that Stephen Den Beste had substantially the same reaction as I did:
Which, in fact, is exactly the position they held last Saturday. The only thing they've done is to say that they unconditionally accept negotiations to determine the conditions under which inspections would take place and what else would be done at the same time for Iraq to pay it for this indignity.

They haven't change anything. There was no concession here, no alteration of policy in the slightest. They're still trying to get paid to do something they already promised to do, and they're still trying to delay and play for time.

The big question is going to be how many people fall for it, and part of that will be whether they want to. Those who are looking for a reason to believe that this actually represented a major step will start screaming when the US rightfully declares this as being totally phony. What will be needed is some sort of clear statement, by someone, that explains exactly what the word "unconditional" means, to try to make clear that it doesn't include negotiations or lifting of the sanctions or any kind of deal.
The only question is whether Bush's opponents, in the world community and the U.S., will effectively seize on this ploy or not.

Sunday, September 15, 2002
 
G'mar Chatimah Tova


 
No such thing as bad publicity?
Gary Copeland, the Libertarian candidate for governor of California took that theory to extremes last week, spitting on a radio talk show host because the host "deserved to be spat upon." While possibly locking up Roberto Alomar's endorsement, this probably won't do much for his overall chances. Not that the Libertarian candidate was going to win anyway, of course.

Yet another example of why I'm libertarian-with-a-small-l, rather than a member of the Libertarian Party. I may agree with the philosophy of the party, but the members are mostly loons.