The Interocitor

UN Reorganization

The New York Times reports that a new plan has the UN Security Council expanding to include more "No" votes against US policy. The leading proposal seems to be adding 6 more permanent* members to the Council, without a veto. These new members would include Egypt, Germany and maybe Nigeria. I guess Sudan and Iran didn't make the cut this time. And why not the Saudis if you're going to include Egypt. Or Israel. Heck, if Germany can join the other two EU members, I want California to have a seat. Sixth biggest economy, etc.

Seriously, though, there needs to be reform, and adding some members is probably a good idea. India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa make sense, as does Australia (who else contributes troops more often?). But no more dictatorships, please -- that should also disqualify a state from rotating membership.

One big change I'd make is that it would take two "No" votes from among the (expanded) permanent members to effect a Veto. And if the US can't drum up a second vote for something that matters, tough. Narrow-interest vetoes need to become a thing of the past.

Oh, and can we get rid of the General Assembly? Not to mention Kofi Annan? Hey! How about we appoint Bill Clinton, and have him form "the most ethical [UN] administration in history."

-----------
* see China, Republic of

Bathroom Blogging? I Think Not

Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw's alleged successor, recently equated Election Night bloggers to "someone in a bathroom with a modem."

As you can see here, the Bear Flag League was in the family room the whole time.

Disinformation on Roe

The AP published another Supreme Court/Abortion poll today. It is noteworthy because it shows that nearly 60% of respondents both don't know who Rehnquist is, and seem to support Roe. Not necessarily the same folks, of course.

But as usual, the Roe question was phrased in a way that is at best misleading.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?

Which is not what Roe did. Or rather, it's not all that Roe did. Abortion in the second and third trimesters is also legalized by Roe if the life or health of the mother is threatened. This last part is a loophole that allows everything -- who is to say which perceptions of "a threat to health" are valid and which are not? The abortion doctor, of course.

So the AP question is valid only if you are gauging support for first trimester abortions. To measure support for Roe itself, you really need to ask the following:

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion by any means at any point during pregnancy legal, for adults as well as minors (with or without their parents permission or knowledge). Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold this decision, justices that would limit some of these rights, or justices who would return all these questions to the states?

In any case the AP question does not measure support for what Roe actually did.

Justice Breyer Prefers Bureaucracy to Democracy

How else do you read this quote (from Reuters) during today's Raich argument:

"Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum."

I sure hope Professor Barnett suggested that such an opinion might be debatable in a self-governing society.

UPDATE: Extensive argument reporting at Legal Theory Blog

Wrongful Termination?

While the 1st Amendment doesn't protect against private retaliation for speech, many states have legal restrictions on firing people for their opinions, especially when the opinion does not impact the employer in any way.

According to a Chicago Sun-Times article linked by the Powerline blog, Millennium Information Services fired one Steve Gardner because he said that John Kerry was a poor commander in Viet-Nam, having served under him for Kerry's entire four-month tour of duty.

Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back.

Hope to see Steve get the legal help he needs. Millenium Information Services is headquartered in Illinois.

UPDATE: Several readers have sent me this response from Millenium Information Services

Fry's Sales Just Fine, Thanks

I hear a lot of whining about Wal-Mart's post-Thanksgiving sales being down. Maybe. I don't know as I live in a town (Los Angeles) that has outlawed Wal-Mart. But Fry's Electronics seems to be doing just fine.

After swearing not to do any shopping this weekend, I made the mistake of reading Fry's ad on, um, Friday. So I found myself in the Manhattan Beach store at 8AM, two hours after it opened. Took me a while to park as the overflow lot was full; never seen that before. I quickly picked out about $400 of needful things (e.g. 1GB USB flash, $47), all on sale, and then stood in the store-spanning check-out line for about 50 minutes. Most people around me had far more booty than myself.

Not all stores are equal -- drove past CompUSA on Saturday, and their tiny lot had open spaces. So, if Wal-Mart is having problems, it might just be Wal-Mart's fault. Or Amazon's.

California Growing Republican?

According to new research by California Insider's Dan Weintraub, California's fastest growing counties are Republican. Or at least 20 out of the fastest growing 23.

Bush beat Kerry in California’s six fastest growing counties. They were:

Placer 63-37
Riverside 58-41
San Joaquin 54-36
Merced 57-42
Stanislaus 59-41
San Bernardino 56-44

Kerry won the next two fastest growing counties – Sacramento (49.7-49.5) and Yolo (60-39). Yolo, by the way, is home to University of California, Davis.

Bush won 14 of the next 15 fastest growing counties.

So overall in California, Bush won 20 of the 23 fastest growing counties.

The slowest growing counties in California? Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo (plus tiny Sierra county). People seem to be voting with their feet.

Support the 9th Circuit!!!

At least as far as tomorrow's Ashcroft v. Raich case.

Volokh blogger Randy Barnett argues his first case before the high court in defense of a 9th Circuit decision. The case, simply put, involves the extension of the commerce clause to home-grown marijuana used solely for personal medical use as allowed under California state law. The federal government argues that such marijuana affects interstate commerce, and can therefore be regulated by Congress. Barnett argues that the commerce power has limitations and medical regulation has largely been left to the states.

The most important federalism case in several years. Which way do they jump?

Overturning Roe? Not as good an idea as you might think

Patterico correctly points out that, should a Bush-appointed Supreme Court majority overturn Roe (and Casey), it would not automatically make abortion illegal. What it would do is toss the issue back to the states, or, arguably*, to Congress.

I think Roe was one of the least principled decisions ever to come from the US Supreme Court, and that includes such charmers as Dred Scott, Plessey and the still-applicable Slaughter-House Cases (which invalidated part of the 14th Amendment). However, I think overturning Roe at this point would be a bad idea.

Part of this rests on stare decisis, the idea that it may be a bad decision, but it's too late to change it. But most of my reasons rest on the politics of the issue, which are nearly all bad for Republicans. First, overturning Roe gains the Republicans not a single vote. No one who votes "pro-life" needs this to be convinced to vote Republican. All Republicans can do by overturning Roe is retain this base. To be fair, those who vote "pro-choice" haven't voted Republican in decades, so this camp will also not be affected. The problem is that the middle may bolt.

While overturning Roe does not criminalize abortion generally, it will criminalize abortions in some states immediately, and these will be the cases that the mainstream media plays up. Back-alleys, coat-hangers and other forgotten horrors will be the meme.

But that's not even the bad part. In Roe's absence Republicans will be forced to fight a losing battle in many of the state legislatures. On the one hand will be their core constituents who expect the effort, on the other will be the 60% (or more) of the state's voters who want some abortions legal. Lose-lose. Republicans in those states will get slaughtered at the next election, as people in the middle vote an issue they've ignored for 20 years.

Overturning Roe is one of the worst things Republicans can do politically. Yet ignoring it is also not possible, as their core pro-life constituents will feel, rightly, betrayed. What to do? I offered one solution a while back -- a compromise Constitutional Amendment. I still think that this is best, as it both removes the blot of Roe from the Constitution, and it avoids the political chaos of overturning Roe directly.

Here's another solution which is maybe simpler and the Supreme's can do by themselves but stops short of overturning Roe: Remove the two words "or health" from the Roe mandate.

_____________

* abortion could be considered a matter of interstate commerce. Ask me again after Raich is decided.

CNN: Call Your Ukraine Office

First, go here, read this.

You must tell the world what is happening. Otherwise, this counts for nothing.
  --Student in Tiananmen Square, June 4, 1989

Damage Control

So, Dan Rather steps down, but not out. According to Drudge, this was announced now to separate it from the investigation report, whatever that might be.

I'm pretty sure that Rather knows what the report says, and I'm pretty sure it's been handed in. The report is scathing. I believe CBS' brass is sitting on it until they can either get it toned down, or at least can get their spin going.

So, in hopes that he can cut his losses, Rather steps down ahead of the bombshell. It won't work. This whole thing has been too little, too late, and this is more of the same. Look for Sumner Redstone to react badly to the report when issued and drop the other boot.

November 22nd

Forty one years, and the date still triggers the same memories.

Cretinism Defined

It's rare when one gets concentrated political stupidity all at one shot, but the City of Davis seems to have a fine entry in the Cretin Awards for 2004. From the Sacramento Bee comes this report about central planning gone wild:

Hoping to get a leg up on rising home prices, Davis is climbing the economic ladder to reach the next rung of families who need help finding affordable housing: those earning nearly $100,000.

The City Council has approved a plan requiring builders to make 25 percent of homes in new developments affordable for middle-income buyers, defined as families of four who earn $72,240 to $96,320 annually. The rule is on top of an existing 25 percent requirement for low-and moderate-income buyers, who earn $30,100 to $72,240 for a four-member household.

In addition, officials want folks who work in Davis to get first dibs on the affordable homes. Some who don't work, however - including retirees and those with disabilities - also would get preferences. Meanwhile, the city is studying a cap that would limit residential growth to 250 units annually.

Boy, I sure hope I know someone on the Housing Subsidy Preference Commission.

UPDATE: The consensus here at work is that all the available subsidized housing will go to city employees and retirees.

(via California Insider)

California Death Penalty -- A Sick Joke

The California death penalty is a joke. Drastic action needs to be taken, either by initiative or by the legislature to reform the system. As it stands the death penalty process is a waste of time, money and emotion -- of the 45 condemned who have died since 1978, only 10 have died at the hands of the State.

Some statistics: Since the death penalty was reauthorized in California in 1978, 717 people have been sentenced to death. Of these, 60 have had their sentence reduced or their conviction overturned. Two have been sent to another state. Forty-five inmates under sentence of death have died -- 22 naturally, 13 by suicide, and 10 by execution.

As of April 2003, there were 610 people under death sentence in California [PDF]. Of these 181 had had their sentences affirmed by the CA Supreme Court, 8 were awaiting retrial and 4 were serving time in another state. Sixty-two people have been on death row for more than 20 years.

Among these people are Richard Ramirez (the "Night Stalker") whose sentence has not yet been affirmed by the CA Supreme Court. He is currently appealing again on the basis that his lawyers were ineffective in not pleading insanity.

Another is Ricardo Rene Sanders, who gunned down over a dozen people during a robbery of a Big Boy restaurant in 1980. Although he was convicted in 1983, the CA Supremes did not get around to ruling on the case until 1995. Why so long? From the opinion (People v. Sanders, 11 Cal. 4th 475):

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in this automatic appeal in October 1983. After repeated failures to perform the duties of a court-appointed attorney, he was relieved as counsel in November 1987. The State Public Defender was appointed as appellate counsel for defendant in December 1987. Briefing on the merits was completed in mid-1995.

Apparently there are no effective time limits on appeals -- counsel dithered in this case for over a decade -- making dithering an effective defense. The case has now moved on to the morass of the federal system and the 9th Circuit, which should be good for another decade or two of delay.

A quite perfect example of this dithering and delay can be found in the case of Richard Dean Turner, a parolee who shot an elederly couple to death in their home (supported by confession of accomplice and by physical evidence). The sentence was overturned by the Bird Court in 1984 and the casae has been dragging on since then. While the sentence was reimposed in 1988, Turner's attorneys had been requesting (and getting) extensions on their appeal. As of 2002, they still had not done so, but the Court was finally taking action, fining the lead counsel $1000 for contempt (In re Sanger, 27 Cal. 4th 762), and ordering him to file the appeal real soon now:

On October 19, 1988, in San Bernardino County Superior Court, defendant Richard Dean Turner was sentenced to death. On September 12, 1991, Attorney Thomas L. Riordan was appointed as lead counsel to represent defendant Turner in his automatic appeal and any related habeas corpus proceedings; on June 26, 1992, Attorney Robert M. Sanger was appointed as associate counsel to represent defendant Turner in the same capacity. The record on appeal was certified on July 6, 1999, and includes a reporter's transcript of 4,675 pages and a clerk's transcript of 3,303 pages, including approximately 1,755 pages of juror questionnaires. By letter on that same date, the court informed Riordan and Sanger that the appellant's opening brief was due on August 16, 1999. The court thereafter granted requests for extensions of time to file appellant's opening brief on August 20, 1999, October 21, 1999, December 23, 1999, February 28, 2000, April 18, 2000, and July 3, 2000.

On August 25, 2000, we granted Riordan and Sanger's seventh request for an extension of time to file the opening brief "to and including October 13, 2000," but stated in our order: "No further extensions of time are contemplated."

On October 24, 2000, we granted an eighth request for extension of time to file the opening brief "to and including December 12, 2000," but stated in our order: "No further extensions of time will be granted." On December 12, 2000, Riordan and Sanger filed a ninth request for extension of time to file the opening brief, which the court denied on December 20....

The court finds Robert M. Sanger guilty of contempt of this court. Having been adjudged in contempt of the California Supreme Court, Robert M. Sanger is ordered to pay a fine of $ 1,000.

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, the clerk is directed to notify the State Bar of this action by forwarding to the State Bar a copy of this judgment of contempt.

Robert M. Sanger is ordered to complete a full draft of appellant's opening brief in this case and submit it to the California Appellate Project on or before April 5, 2002. He is further ordered to complete appellant's opening brief in this case and lodge it with the court on or before May 6, 2002, along with a request for relief from default and for permission to file the brief. If the completed brief is not lodged with the court on or before May 6, 2002, the court will consider issuing an order directing Robert M. Sanger to show cause before this court, when the matter is ordered on calendar, why he should not be held in contempt of court a second time and sanction imposed, including the possibility of incarceration, for his continuing delay of the appellate process. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a).)

Co-counsel was subsequently also cited for contempt in a similar order. As of yet, the CA Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Mr. Turner's appeal. It is not clear whether the appeal has been filed. Turner has been on death row for 24 years.

Clearly this system is broken. To spend time and money and torture the families of victims year after year in pursuit of a chimera is cruel indeed. It is time to start disbarring lawyers who game the system, sanction judges who sit on appeals, and force the timely operation of the death penalty. If this cannot be done, then abolish it. Of course, the voters might be upset if that's the best that can be done. And rightly so.

Blogger in trouble

Zayad of Healing Iraq reports that insurgents have taken up position in his immediate neighborhood in Baghdad. One group right outside his door. Not good.

Letter to Chirac

Iraq the Model has some words for Mr. Chirac.

The world is certainly not a better place after the war Mr. Chirac, but that’s your world, while our world, Iraqis as well as tens of millions of oppressed people everywhere who are dying for some help, is certainly MUCH better now, and I’m sure the Americans and the British world as well as most countries (including yours) is better and safer and will keep getting better. However I agree with you, as your world, your own personal world, the world of your fellow corrupt politicians in France, Russia, Germany, China and the stinking UN, your fortune and your influence is definitely suffering. I’m even surprised that you ‘saw’ that Saddam’s departure was positive “to a certain extent”, and I can’t wonder why is that! Is it because it left you with some bills you don’t have to pay?

He goes on to suggest that Chirac & Co pay reparations to Iraq, and that Chirac's government is best compared with Vichy.

I'd have shot him, too

Glenn links to a Powerline post about the Marine who shot a "prisoner" in Iraq, and maybe it's silly for me to link to it too, but given the mainstream media's aversion to facts when it comes to our side in Iraq, I think that every blogger who cares about fair reporting should link to this, if only for Google's sake. Excerpt:

A young Marine and his fire team cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insugent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded. Suddenly, he pulls from under his bloody clothes a grenade, without the pin. The explosion rocks the room, killing one Marine, wounding the others. The young Marine catches shrapnel in the face.

The next day, same Marine, same type of situation, a different story. The young Marine and his cover man enter a room with two wounded insurgents. One lies on the floor in puddle of blood, another against the wall. A reporter and his camera survey the wreckage inside, and in the background can be heard the voice of a Marine, "He's moving, he's moving!"

The pop of a rifle is heard, and the insurgent against the wall is now dead. Minutes, hours later, the scene is aired on national television, and the Marine is being held for commiting a war crime. Unlawful killing.

Update: Once again, blogs are leading the MSM in actual reporting. I'll be interested to see how deep in the Times their eventual story on this is. My bet is page 26 on Saturday.

Update 2: slight edit to put quotes around the word "prisoner" as his status was wounded and presumed dead, rather than "surrendered".

Update 3: The Wall Street Journal mentions the above report in an editorial called "Semper Fi"

Does your car have a "black box"?

If it's a recent GM or Saturn model, it likely does. While GM isn't widely advertising the program, they have been putting these Event Data Recorders on most of their cars beginning in 1996. Evidence from these data recorders is available to insurance companies, police, courts and may be used against the driver in civil proceedings. This may put the affected driver at a legal disadvantage if the other driver's car is not similarly equipped.

Information recorded includes:

• Vehicle speed (five seconds before impact)
• Engine speed (five seconds before impact)
• Brake status (five seconds before impact)
• Throttle position (five seconds before impact)
• State of driver's seat belt switch (On/Off)
• Passenger's airbag (On/Off)
• IR Warning Lamp status (On/Off)
• Time from vehicle impact to airbag deployment
• Ignition cycle count at event time
• Ignition cycle count at investigation
• Maximum velocity for near-deployment event
• Velocity vs. time for frontal airbag deployment event
• Time from vehicle impact to time of maximum velocity
• Time between near-deploy and deploy event (if within five seconds)

UPDATE: From a comment, here is a company that specializes in accessing GM Black Box data, along with technical info on the boxes themselves.

A list of affected GM models for 2002 follows:

• Buick Century
• Buick LeSabre
• Buick Park Avenue
• Buick Regal
• Buick Rendezvous
• Cadillac Commercial Special
• Cadillac Deville
• Cadillac Eldorado
• Cadillac Escalade
• Cadillac Seville
• Chevrolet Avalanche
• Chevrolet Astro
• Chevrolet Blazer
• Chevrolet Camaro
• Chevrolet Cavalier
• Chevrolet Corvette
• Chevrolet Express
• Chevrolet Impala
• Chevrolet Lumina
• Chevrolet Malibu
• Chevrolet S10
• Chevrolet Silverado
• Chevrolet Suburban
• Chevrolet Tahoe
• Chevrolet TrailBlazer
• GMC Envoy
• GMC Safari
• GMC Savana
• GMC Sierra
• GMC Sonoma
• GMC Yukon
• Isuzu Hombre
• Oldsmobile Alero
• Oldsmobile Aurora
• Oldsmobile Bravada
• Oldsmobile Intrigue
• Pontiac Aztec
• Pontiac Bonneville
• Pontiac Firebird
• Pontiac Grand Am
• Pontiac Grand Prix
• Pontiac Sunfire
• All Saturns except the LS

What "Angers Muslims"

Apparently, shooting an insurgent who was playing dead makes Muslims angry. Or at least so the AP reports.

But the cold blooded terrorist execution of an aid worker who spent her life helping Muslims does not. Or maybe AP just forgot to mention that part.

UPDATE: Guess which story the LA Times runs on Page 1, and which story runs on page 12. I really don't know how Muslims feel about all this, but it's pretty clear what angers the press.

Insurgent Trials Needed

The people who killed Margaret Hassan should hang. The people who beheaded truck drivers and engineers should hang. The people who executed captured policemen should hang. Insurgents who used tactics such as false white flags and phony surrenders shoud be shot out of hand when cornered -- you get one chance at surrender -- and if they were captured by some fluke, hang them too.

This is not because I like executions. It is not becuase I am blood-thirsty. No. Not at all. It is becuase the longer we go on pretending that we are not at war to the death in Iraq, scuffing over the atrocities committed by our foes -- playing by the rules they ignore and not holding them accountable when we can -- the longer we will face them, and the greater their numbers will grow. It is not decisive action that attracts people to their cause -- it is its lack. We've tried good cop for over a year. It's time for bad cop.

So, for the al Qaedas who behead hostages, for the Saddamites who kill civillians at whim, for guerillas who blow up school buses and policemen -- all of which are forbidden by the Geneva Convention and capital crimes by the Articles of War -- for them a quick trial and a quick hanging, and may Allah have mercy on their souls.

The next week will tell us whether the resolve at Fallouja signals a new policy in Iraq, or if the old policy of arrest and containment will return as the norm. As President Bush said last September:

We cannot show weakness in this world today, because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.

Alternative Road Taxes

The new DMV director, not yet engaged with restoring the proud DMV tradition of obsequious customer service, has a plan to replace the gas tax with a mileage tax. Of course, we'd need to track every car from satellites to do this, but that's a mere technical difficulty, soon resolved. As far as intrusion, it's no more intrusive than, say, the federal income tax, so what's the problem?

As the above link suggests, congestion pricing makes more sense than mileage pricing, especially if it can be done with minimal intrusion and a much simpler technical infrastructure. One simple thing to do would be use the devices used for toll roads, but charge for each entry to a freeway, or each entry at peak periods, or some sliding-rate combination of such. The fee might only be a quarter, but even that would reduce causual short-distance freeway use and much of the congestion caused by entry/exit merging.

A MPG-based registration fee might serve the same purposes as the MPG-based gas tax if one really wanted to do away with that.

Admittedly these are half-baked notions, but I'm not a senior official, so I'm entitled. Ms. DMV needs to spend more time fixing her own agency before brainstorming everything else.

Condi, Clarence and Janice

So, Condoleezza Rice becomes Secretary of State and, one expects, Clarence Thomas becomes Chief Justice. What to do for an encore? I humbly suggest Jancie Rogers Brown for the then-vacant Associate Justice seat. Her nomination to the DC circuit has been filibustered for over a year -- let's see how they do that in the broad daylight a Supreme Court nomination brings.

Both Bush and his father have been working a long-term plan to pry African-Americans out of the Democrat fold. After all, theirs is the Party of Lincoln. And what, exactly, have Democrats done for blacks, lately?

Look for the administration to force the issue on vouchers and inner city economics as well, now that they can push more things through the Senate and the Court isn't going to side with the forces of darkness.

The next Democrat President is going to have a very tough act to follow.

Bush to Colin

"You're not a wartime Consiglieri, Colin. Things may get rough with the move we're trying."

Norman Mineta

Does anyone find it ironic that people like Powell and Ashcroft are resigning, but the worst of Bush's cabinet appointments (Democrat Norman Mineta) seems to linger on? Glenn wanted to impeach Norm Mineta in 2002:

Mineta isn't the whole problem, of course. He's a symptom as much as a cause, a symptom of a bureaucratic mindset in which -- it must be said -- he participates fully. (And according to Gary Leff, who is all over this story, James Loy, the new TSA chief, is no better).

But since everyone knows that Mineta personifies the very mindset that is causing the problem, and since "Impeach Norm Mineta" makes that point nicely, it's not a bad slogan. And judging by the glee with which a colleague of mine grabbed one of those bumperstickers, it reflects a widely shared sentiment.

Mineta will probably withstand the blogosphere-generated juggernaut, of course -- especially as Republicans won't want to attack a member of the Administration, and Democrats won't want to attack one of their own. (Yeah, Mineta's a Democrat, actually). But there's nothing like bumperstickers calling for impeachment to bring home the unpopularity of a politician's actions. So get one, and display it proudly!

Peggy Noonen isn't a fan either. Yet Norm is still on the job, making sure that elderly ladies have the same chance of being searched at airports as young Arab men.

Time for Norm to go.

"Peterson Faces Death"

Drudge headline: "Peterson faces death"

Maybe that's the sentence he'll get, but in California they mean "death by old age." Barring either prison violence or a wholesale change in the makeup of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, there is almost zero chance that Peterson will be executed by the State of California, even if he "loses" every appeal.

What a sick joke.

Firefox 1.0

Once apon a time (circa the intro of Windows 95), my web tools were Netscape and Eudora. I actually paid for Netscape even though it could be had for free, as I wanted to support the authors. Still have the T-shirt and cap.

But there were problems, mostly involving email. Eudora was single-tasking, so you couldn't read mail and download more at the same time. It seemed more a legacy Windows 3.1 program than Windows 95. Netscape couldn't deal with more than one email account at a time -- you had to close it and run a front-end account switcher to access a second account. Worse, Netscape did not use the Windows registry; it had no idea how to open a Word file unless you told it, even though Windows knew. This was probably due to the Netscape goal of replacing the Windows desktop, but it was a rather madding policy. Causal Netscape users were forever saying they couldn't open attachments, when the problem was that Netscape was intentionally broken.

Near the end of 1995, Bill Gates told his people to transform Windows into a full-fledged Internet OS to compete with Netscape. The next year, Microsoft totally revamped Windows 95, adding Internet Explorer 3.0, and shortly later the watershed 4.0 suite, including the new Outlook Express. These were stunning improvements for Microsoft. Outlook Express not only multi-tasked, but could natively handle multiple email addresses. It also seamlessly integrated into Explorer and the Windows Registry. Internet Explorer, a ground-up rewrite, solved all the many problems of the former Spyglass-based Internet Explorer 2, which was, well, a slow pig compared to Netscape.

Within 3 weeks of the Internet Explorer 4.0 release, I removed both Netscape and Eudora from all my machines and have never looked back. For some reason Netscape never responded with anything more than a few tweaks and gloss -- as late as 1999, you still had to close and repoen Netscape mail in order to download from a second account, and the suite still couldn't open a Word document until you told it how.

Suddenly, things have changed

I've been experimenting with Mozilla Firefox since the 0.8 beta and have been fairly happy with the 1.0PR preview. Now that 1.0 is officially released, I'm removing Internet Explorer from my desktop. I'll keep the program around for a while (it's hard to actually remove and there are still sites that Firefox won't open gladly), but I don't use it much anymore.

I'm still using Outlook Express, however -- it works fine and until Mozilla at least gets to 1.0 with their email program and convinces me that they are willing to use the Windows Registry for opening attachments, I'll not yet trust my email to something new. But give it time.

Microsoft's monopoly on browsers (which was Netscape's own damn fault) is breaking. Email may follow soon. You owe it to yourself to check out Firefox, as just the tabbed bowsing concept makes it a superior product.

Then again, never misunderestimate Microsoft's ability to meet the competition.

More here.

Nuclear Instability

Jay Tea over at Wizbang! has a post up regarding the conditions under which the US might use nukes. Jay seems to think that the US would never use nukes except in retaliation, even though we've never signed on to the "no first use" idea. One thing he missed, though is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its side agreements. These are important to any understanding of the issue.

The US and other nuclear powers actually have agreed, as a codacil to the NPT, not to use nuclear weapons against any country that 1) is a signatory to the NPT, 2) does not have nuclear weapons (or certain other WMDs) and 3) is not closely allied in war with one that does. This is the carrot for the NPT. Note that first use against a nation with nukes is not ruled out in any way.

There is a flip side of this, naturally. North Korea by quitting the NPT and by developing nuclear weapons is no longer covered by this assurance. Iran, until the day they lock out the inspectors and/or is proven to have the Bomb, is covered.

What needs to be done is demonstrate the value of the NPT to those nations now considering, investigating, or pursuing nuclear weapons. Or rather, the significant detriment to their national security that possesssion of nukes brings to them. Failure to do so will lead to a very unstable world, as international stability seems to follow the inverse square of the number of nations with nukes.

If push comes to shove in North Korea, the demonstration of nuclear futility will likely be made there. There's really no way around it.

Response to John Perry Barlow

What he said. JPB's confession is here.

SCHRÖDINGER'S CAT, Part 2

Yassir Arafat is still maybe dead.

Update: Not that the outcome is in doubt....

LA Times' Spam Mail

The LA Times now feels that, by registering to see their content (even if you are a dead-tree subscriber), you are automatically opting in to receive certain "non-commerical" emails from the Times. These non-commercial emails may have a commercial purporse, however -- the current one announces an LA Times shopping service. If you don't want these spams, you need to unregister from their site. Here is the fine print on their email:

You are receiving this e-mail because you are a registered user of latimes.com or calendarlive.com. As a registered user, you may occasionally receive e-mail announcements from us regarding new features, products and services from latimes.com, calendarlive.com, our affiliates and select third party advertisers. For more information on how we protect your information, please read our privacy policy.

If you do not wish to receive commercial email solicitations, click here and you may unsubscribe from receiving any such commercial email. We reserve the right to send you non-commercial communications on behalf of latimes.com, calendarlive.com and our affiliates (e.g., CareerBuilder.com), when consistent with our Privacy Policy.

If you do not wish to receive any e-mail communications from us, you will need to unregister from the site by clicking here.

My registration has all boxes unchecked, of course.

Trivia: Senators and Presidents

Trivia question: Many senators run for President, but few are elected. How many sitting senators have been elected President? Name them.

Answer: Warren G Harding and John F Kennedy.

Kerry is only the latest sitting Senator who failed in this pursuit. Recent failures have been Bob Dole (1996), George McGovern (1972) and Barry Goldwater (1964). While nearly every Senator thinks that s/he should be President, only 2 have actually won the office while still serving in the Senate.

Democrat Delusion

I am amazed. The Democrat party seems to think that they lost the election because a raft of low-IQ, unwashed, high-school dropout, crazy Christian couch-potato homophobes -- in short, their view of fly-over America -- turned out to support Chimpy McDeath because he's stupid like them.

Oddly, according to the LA Time's exit poll, nothing could be further from the truth:

• College-educated voters for Bush: 49%; non-college: 54%
• Under 30 years old for Bush: 43%; over 30: 53% (!)
• First-time voters for Bush: 43%; voted before: 53% (!!)
• Income under $40K for Bush: 47%, over $40K: 53%

Bush's share of educated votes wasn't much different from Kerry's, and the older and better off people got, the more likely they were to vote for Bush. Older and/or better off people are not stupider than average.

Where did the Democrats fail? What groups do they need to attract if they hope to recover?

• Marrieds for Bush: 58%, Singles: 38%
• Union households for Bush: 43%, non-union: 53%
• Catholics for Bush: 55% (against a Catholic opponent)
• Church-goers for Bush: 65%, others: 42%

A party that cannot attract married people is in real trouble. A party that attacks and belittles the 40% of Americans who regularly attend church is in way-serious trouble. And a working-class party that gets only half the working-class vote (either by union status or by income) is nearly bankrupt. This cannot be made up with the 20% of Americans who identify as "minorities", especially as even there the Democrat numbers were down.

What was the real issue? Of those who feel the country is at war, Kerry didn't pass muster. Coupled with his anti-war, anti-military history was a backdrop of al Qaeda apologists, professional America-haters and tie-dyed Hippy-wannabes. In the end, America found Kerry's attempts to claim national security credentials unconvincing. Of the 50% of voters who thought that removing Saddam was a good thing, and the price acceptable, Bush got 88%.

This decision was about the war, pure and simple. And the Democrat candidate lost because he wasn't the guy for the job.

Suddenly, the economy improves

Now that the election is over, the MSM seems to have a different take on economic news. Instead of "Unemployment Rate Rises in October", we get "Economy Added Far More Jobs Than Expected in October" from the NY Times, "October Job Growth Stronger Than Expected" from the Washington Post, and "Employers Go on Hiring Binge" from the folks at the LA Times.

Instead of "Rich Have More to Spend", the LA Times says "Retail Sales Increase 4.1% in October" and further that "some experts see a bright holiday season."

Will wonders never cease?

Election Night Party Photos

Clockwise from lower left: PrestoPundit, The Pirate, The Angry Clam and Patterico

Clockwise from lower left: Baldilocks, DeoDuce, Tonecluster and Presto Pundit again.

Front center: Armed Liberal with wife and friend. Rear: Little Miss Attila and husband.

xrlq and Master of None on the left.

Only Nixon Could Go To China

This week's meme of "a country divided" is probably overstated, but it is not without basis. There are a few issues over which the country is sharply divided, or more correctly, is offered sharply divided choices. Some of these are transitory (e.g. Iraq), others are persistant and seemingly intractable. The most prominant of these is abortion. Ever since the Roe decision of 1973, which over time established abortion as a nearly absolute constitutional right, much of the political landscape has revolved around this one issue.

Roe failed. It was intended to settle the argument over abortion, but instead the argument rages unabated -- yet strangely frozen. As long as Roe stands, resolution is impossible, and the division we hear about this week will remain. Further, this cannot be settled by judicial process. First, the Senate is unwilling to allow Roe opponents to serve on the Court. Second, even if the Senate's intransigence is overcome, a different Supreme Court, with a different fiat, will not resolve anything. It will just gore a different ox.

The only possible way out of this box is a Constitutional Amendment. The Court has made it clear that it does not intend to overturn Roe or even nibble at it much, nor will it allow Congress or legislatures to do so either. Congress has the added difficulty that its authority over the issue is suspect even in the absense of Roe. Despite the federal Court's usurpation of the issue, as a legislative matter it is ironically a state concern. Enter a Constitutional Amendment.

One has been proposed -- the Right to Life Amendment -- but it has utterly no chance of passing either Congress or the states, and no conceivable electoral triumph will make it so. The position of the other side (that even a 15-year-old has a right to a late-term, intact-dilation-and-extraction, government-funded abortion without the consent or notification of her parents (i.e. the current regime)) is, if possible, less likely to pass muster as an amendment.

When asked, the majority of Americans stand firmly in the center, avoiding absolute positions of any kind. About 20% oppose all abortions, another 20% support abortions under any circumstance. The vast middle thinks there should be a compromise and probably thinks the whole thing rather tiring. Yet the politicians and advocates ignore them, resulting in a political polarization that is wholely unnecessary.

If you don't believe this, ask yourself: "Would your vote Tuesday have changed if abortion was a settled issue? Would your previous votes for president have changed? Would you thank or damn the president who resolved this issue? Are you willing to compromise to get past this?" Even if you, yourself, would not change your vote, and/or care nothing about abortion one way or the other, most everyone knows people who vote primarily on the politics of abortion.

Therefore a modest proposal: As only Nixon could go to China, only George W Bush can resolve the abortion issue. Only Bush has the political capital to propose a constitutional change that allows abortions under the limited circumstances that the 60% of folks in the middle can abide, yet avoids either of the untenable extremes. Something like:

An adult woman's right to an abortion in the first four months of pregnancy shall not be infringed. States may limit, regulate or ban abortions in all other cases, and may regulate all abortions for safety and efficacy. No state may prevent travel to another state for abortions locally illegal. No state may be required by Congress or this Constitution to subsidize any abortion.

Solving this issue is a necessary condition to uniting America. Polls show that the issue has not, and probably will not, go away of itself. It has metastisized into the body politic and only radical surgery can resolve it.

The only question is whether George W Bush has the courage to go to China.

UPDATE: To see how deep the abortion issue hits, and what level of harm it has done and is doing, go here. And that's just today.

Kerry Concedes!!!

According to this one-line notice from AP, Kerry has called Bush to concede.

Update: Castor has conceded the Florida Senate race, bringing the net GOP gain to 4 seats. If Murkowski holds on to her 4% lead in Alaska, this will bring the Senate split to 55-44-1.

Hopefully, the Senate can break some of these judicial filibusters with the extra four votes and the President's clear victory.

Spot On, Maybe

If Bush does pick up Iowa and New Mexico, where he leads, along with his go-ahead win in Ohio, he'll have 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252. Barring any sudden reservoir of votes, he will win the popular vote 51-48 (with all others taking the other 1%).

I called it yesterday with the same electoral vote and the popular vote at 50-47-2. I got the spread right, but gave too much to Nader and the rest. Oh ,well.

And yes, I got that 286 with exactly those states.

p.s. I seem to have got these right, too.

Ed Bradley Calls Election for Bush on CBS, Rather Objects

In a rather testy on-air exchange, circa 12:30am PST, between Dan Rather, CBS anchor, and Ed Bradley, long-time corresponent for CBS's 60 Minutes and an election night commentator, Bradley rather roundly criticized both Kerry and his own network for not accepting the obvious mathematics and calling the election for Bush.

Bradley pointed out that Bush leads Kerry by 145,000 votes in Ohio, and even if 250,000 provisional ballots remain (which he considered a high estimate), and that even if all the provisional ballots are valid, Kerry would need 79% of them in order to tie. A result Bradley considered impossible. Rather's reply was basically that "it was the position of CBS News to not call the race." Rather made no attempt to refute Bradley on the facts, except to state and restate that this is what CBS was going to do.

I'd love to see the transcript of the exchange. I do wonder how much Rather's trashing of 60 Minute's reputation had to do with Bradley's willingness to challenge Rather and CBS on the air.

BTW, does anyone know how that Rathergate investigation is going?

In the back room

Somewhere, possibly in some Senate office, a group of Democrats is looking at the returns and coming to the unpleasant conclusion that Kerry is out of his flipping mind if he contests an election he lost by some 4 million votes. As Goldwater led a delegation to Nixon to tell him the jig was up, Kennedy or Leahy is going to have to do Kerry the same service.

There are only two things that an extended fight to overturn a clear result can bring the country: unnecessary division in a time of war, and ridicule to the Democrat party. I have to think that the Democrats seek neither.

That. Was. Fun.

I had the great pleasure of watching Bush's re-election in the company of many of the finest bloggers in Southern Cal. When I'm awake, I'll check the list and add anyone I forgot, but they included Patterico, xrlq, Baldilocks, Armed Liberal of Winds of Change, Tonecluster, The Pirate, DeoDuce of The Daily Spork, PrestoPundit, Master of None, Little Miss Attila, and the not-so-Angry Clam.

What a great idea, whoever had it. Pictures soon above.

UPDATE: [Mrs. Interocitor] I also wish to thank each of you folks for the pleasure of your company on a most amazing evening.

Banana Republic?

Is the US becoming a Banana Republic? THe level of election irregularities and dirty tricks is astonishing, and we're just a few hours into voting. In Chicago, Republicans have been summmarily removed from the voter rolls. In Milwaukee, GOTV vans have had their tires slashed. In Pennsylvania, ballot machines come pre-loaded with cast votes. More to come.

There is really only one solution for this: no matter who wins, the FBI and Justice Department need to seriously jail some folks. Very, very publicly. Even if they have to toss the mayor of Chicago in Leavenworth for 10 years. (OK, but I can dream).

This isn't just arguing about how to count ballots, this are active civil rights crimes, and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Bush or Kerry doesn't matter, if this goes on elections will be a total joke, and that's the end of self-government.

This crap makes me very, very angry, indeed.

SCHRÖDINGER'S CAT

For those who've always wanted a good real life example of Schrödinger's Cat, this election is it. In this case, the "cat" is currently half Bush and half Kerry. The box is the collective mind of the American voter. What will we find when we open the box?

Undecideds: Avoid a Tie -- Vote for Bush

The final polls are in. Bush has about 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader and Badnarik splitting maybe another 1% between them, leaving 5% still flipping coins. History says that undecideds break towards the challenger, but if that happens this time, we'll be looking at another cliffhanger election.

This is bad for America

Therefore, I have a suggestion: If you are undecided, vote For Bush. Never mind all the policy arguments -- you've heard them all -- vote to avoid a tie. Since Bush is slightly ahead, only a vote for Bush will produce a clear margin.

It could even mean the difference between war and peace, expansion or recession.

If we are divided and go though another "Florida", our enemies will take heart, and may miscalculate our resolve. Certainly Osama though we'd cave after 9/11, and our division was part of it.

A month of uncertainty over who will be President will also cost jobs. Business plans will be on hold, people will stop spending, and the economy will contract. This isn't just idle speculation -- the December 2000 stalemate in Florida pushed the business slowdown of that summer over the edge. No one talked about it -- way politically incorrect -- but by the end of the month, the Fed was panicking and dropped rates drastically to try (unsuccessfully) to head off a stock market collapse. Then came 9/11 and all bets were off. As the economy is still struggling to recover, we don't need another month-long hit to the nation's psyche -- there's no telling where that could lead.

So, if you are truly flipping coins: Vote for America. Vote for the guy in the lead. Vote for Bush.

Help America make a decision, even if you can't.

Now to link to Wizbang's Pre-Election Linkfest

Election Prediction

Popular vote
Bush	50%
Kerry	47%
Nader	2%

Electoral vote
Bush	286
Kerry	252

LA County Judges

For some reason, I'm getting spam mail from the LA County Democrat Party. Die spammer die. Today I got their official endorsements: democrats all, wouldn't you know.

But one part is useful: I never know which judges to vote for, and now I know who the Democrats want:

Office No. 18 Millie Escobedo
Office No. 29 Lori Jones
Office No. 52 John Gutierrez
Office No. 53 D. Zeke Zeidler
Office No. 69 Donna Groman

So at least now I know who to vote against.

UPDATE: In a comment, Betty points out that the LA County Democrat Party might be breaking the law in endorsing judges. I'm not sure that law still operates. I seem to recall that the CA Supremes opened this up on Free Speech grounds, but my memory can be flaky. The full list of LA County Democrat endorsements are on their site.