chessart's retirement diaries

The Most Interesting 24 Hours in U.S. Political History

2012-01-20T10:19:00.000-08:00

What a last 24 hours this has been! Yesterday morning we had the official Iowa caucus results, showing that Santorum actually won, and not Romney. While this changes no delegates, and certainly is not statistically significant, it certainly is hugely significant psychologically, and changes the whole dynamics of the race. We now have the prospect that for the first time ever, the first 3 Republican battles will have 3 different winners. If Gingrich wins tomorrow in South Carolina, as now seems likely, the race will go on.

Then later yesterday morning, we had the amazing news that Perry is dropping out, and endorsing Gingrich. MSNBC this morning had a montage of Perry campaign moments, which had the numerous gaffes and silly moments that have characterized his ill-fated campaign.

But last night's debate really takes the cake. John King led off with a question to Gingrich about his 2nd wife's allegations which were broadcast on ABC lat night. Gingrich absolutely assailed King for leading off a Presidential debate with "this garbage", and called it "despicable". He got a standing ovation from the crowd. In fact, commentators are saying that Newt won the debate in the first 5 minutes, based on his powerful response to this question.

In analysis after the debate, CNN commentators agreed that the question had to be asked, since it was dominating the airwaves all day leading up to the debate. Only 1 out of the 6 commentators had any qualms, and that was only that it didn't have to be the 1st question. But King responded that he wanted to get it out of the way, so as to be able to get on to the more substantive issues.

Had King been able to engage Newt in a more intimate setting, like a one-on-one Q&A session, there were obvious follow-up questions that would have been asked. Newt said it was totally false, and that their friends all knew it was false. But since his ex-wife was recounting an intimate conversation between husband and wife, how would any of their friends know anything about this? Another good question would be, "Are you denying that you had a 6-year affair with your mistress while you were still married to your second wife?" In other words, the basic truth of the story cannot be denied, yet Newt gets away with his categorical denial in the "debate" format, because follow-ups were not be had in that format.

Another significant moment in last night's debate is when Santorum went after Gingrich for his leadership style in the House. Many have spoken out about this, and Santorum was not particularly articulate about it last night, but enough have spoken out that the issue is clear to anybody who has been paying attention. The fact is that nobody who worked with Newt in his House days has endorsed him, and everyone who has spoken out about those days has had nothing but negative things to say about his totally inept leadership style. He was arrogant, overbearing, unfocused, and unable to listen to others, and this led to the palace revolt which ousted him from his leadership position.

Then we had Romney again being unable to give a straight answer about releasing his tax returns. MSNBC had a montage of his answers to this question over the past month, and he is all over the map about it. This is something so basic in this day and age that it is inconceivable that he would not have a prepared answer for this. Ironically, it was his dad who initiated the modern custom of releasing returns when, in 1967, he released 12 years of returns. When asked if he would be releasing 12 years worth of returns, Romney hedged and the audience heckled him about it.

This morning we had the wonderful segment on "Morning Joe" in which Stephen Colbert came on the set and interacted with all the panel members. What a wonderful show this was! As I am writing, Colbert is having a joint appearance with Heman Cain in South Carolina, and I can't wait to see what happened there.

How Significant Are the Iowa Caucuses?

2012-01-01T12:44:00.000-08:00

Some point to the fact that Iowa voters vote in the general elections quite similarly to the national results. Mark Shields had a column in today's paper pointing out how closely the two parallel each other.

However, this completely misses the point. The relevant inquiry is whether the voters of each party in Iowa mirror their national counterparts accurately. On this score, it appears they don't.

Here is a list of times the Iowa voters have favored somebody other than the eventual nominee:

1992 Dems -- Tom Harkin 1st with 76%, Bill Clinton a sorry 4th with only 3%.

1988 Dems -- Gebhardt 1st with 31%, Dukakis 3rd with 22%.

1976 & 1972 Dems -- "Uncommitted" finishing ahead of eventual winners Carter & McGovern.

2008 Reps -- Huckabee 1st with 34%, McCain 4th with 13%.

1988 Reps -- Dole 1st with 37%, Bush 3rd with 19%, behind even Pat Robertson!!

1980 Reps -- Bush beats Reagan, though barely.

Iowa does not seem all that relevant, upon careful analysis.

Seven Lessons of Leadership

2011-11-09T10:16:00.000-08:00

David Gergen's 2000 book, "Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership, Nixon to Clinton", describes his inside knowledge of how the four presidents who he worked for operated and used presidential power. The book is not a memoir, but rather it attempts to compare and contrast the leadership styles of these four presidents. In the last chapter, Gergen then summarizes his findings in a list of seven core principles which he deems important.

The bulk of the book is rather dull, and frankly, I think a personal memoir wold have been more interesting. However, the last chapter gives this book lasting value. I will list his 7 principles.

1. Leadership starts from within. Gergen says that "the inner soul of a president flows into every aspect of his leadership far more than is generally recognized". Personal integrity is the most important quality for a president to have.

2. A central, compelling purpose. The great presidents all had this, and poor ones have often lacked it. When talking about the great ones, we can usually say in a single sentence what each presidency was all about. And it is apparent that this is Obama's greatest failing as a leader, in that he has not articulated a clear, central purpose for his presidency.

Gergen goes on to say that a president's central purpose must be rooted in the nation's core values. He quotes Chesterton as observing that "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed." The great presidents have always operated with our founding documents uppermost in mind, and based their central purposes on these documents.

3. A capacity to persuade.

4. An ability to work within the system.

5. A sure, quick start.

6. Strong, prudent advisers.

7. Inspiring others to carry on the mission.

The Supreme Court and Eyewitness Testimony

2011-11-04T12:59:00.000-07:00

Study after study has demonstrated beyond any doubt that eyewitness identification of strangers is inherently unreliable. In light of that, it was particularly distressing to me to learn that the Supreme Court this week was completely hostile to an advocate who was pressing for a rule limiting the use of this unreliable evidence. Accounts of oral arguments in the case of Perry v. New Hampshire show that every Justice, liberal and conservative, seemed hostile to the idea.

There is ample language in past Supreme Court decisions about how unreliable such testimony is. But the current Court seems to think that it would be too much of a burden to impose on the judicial system to establish a new evidentiary standard. One Justice spoke of having a "trial within a trial", as if this does not happen already. I have two examples of this from my limited criminal trial experience. A young boy was examined to determine whether he could testify, i.e., whether he knew the difference between a lie and the truth. When it was determined he did not, then the statute giving an exception to the hearsay rule kicked in and the jury was allowed to hear his statement to his mother about what had allegedly happened to him while she was gone.

Another case involved the DA's attempt to use evidence of prior similar crimes. The Judge, who was pretty dim, disallowed it. Then during the trial the detective testified that when he heard the report of the burglary, he dispatched a unit to the defendant's house, so closely did the MO match that of his prior acts. I suppose the DA should have brought that out during the "trial within a trial", but the defendant got convicted anyway.

The court system continues to deny admissibility of polygraph evidence while allowing fallible eyewitness testimony in, even though the former is many times more reliable than the latter. I just wonder how many innocent defendants have to be convicted, and, in many instances sent to death row, before the justice system wakes up.

On Class Warfare

2011-11-01T13:06:00.001-07:00

The right wing seems to take such delight in carelessly throwing around this term, that I have to share this from Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell them".

"In her book 'A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century', Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after 10 or 12 peasants violated the lady, with the children still watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of her husband and then killed her. *That* is class warfare. Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top 1% is not."

Sexual Harassment and Herman Cain

2011-11-01T06:10:00.000-07:00

It seems that sexual harassment, like beauty and obscenity, often lies in the eye of the beholder. I will elaborate on this.

20 years ago we had the spectacle of the Anita Hill allegations against Clarence Thomas. These allegations seemed to be specious, as illustrated by an attorney I knew who said, incredulously, that "He never even touched her." The allegations involved silly comments, the one most often repeated being when Thomas supposedly said that "somebody put a public hair in my Coke".

Hill obviously has an "eggshell personality", and is not suited for any high-powered job. The most intelligent thing I have heard on this whole fiasco is from the actress Angie Dickinson, who said that "Clarence Thomas has to be able to say to Anita Hill, 'Hey Anita, nice boobs', and Anita Hill has to be able to say 'You'll never know' and walk away."

A guy I knew in my later law practice years, who did some para-legal work for me, had been a bank officer, and near the end of his career was working for the FDIC in its role of taking over failed banks and trying to convert the assets to cash. He says he lost a quarter of a million dollars because of something he said while he and a group of his fellow employees were going out to lunch together. Walking behind some women ahead of him, he noticed one had a run in her stocking and told her that. He was accused of sexual harassment, had to go to sensitivity training, and lost bonuses and promotions he would otherwise have been in line for, and ultimately was forced to take early retirement.

And now we have Herman Cain. Hopefully we will find out more of what this man was accused of doing. His reactions to the whole mess have been hopelessly inept, and shows his incompetence to lead the country. But if it was, as he states, that he made a comment in an elevator about a woman's height, it seems similar to my friend's case.

Like I said initially, these examples show that it all comes down to the eye of the beholder in these kinds of situations. I am not, of course, referring to true sexual harassment, just to comments that some might construe as innocent, but others who are overly sensitive react to with uneasiness.

Letter to George Will

2011-10-15T11:06:00.000-07:00

You are usually quite perceptive, but you really dropped the ball on your recent Electoral College column.

It is true that there are plans afoot which would subvert the intent of the Founders with respect to the Electoral College, but the Pa. plan is not one of them. The Pa. plan allocates the EC votes on a winner-take-all basis by Congressional District; hence, it is quite in line with the intent of the Founders. Bear in mind that the population of the average Congressional District today is larger than any state was in 1790, except for Virginia.

Please re-think this and comment more intelligently. Thank you.

The Amanda Knox Case and the Search for Truth

2011-10-06T06:45:00.000-07:00

In the Amanda Knox case in Italy, two things stand out about the recent acquittal. First, the court appointed its own experts to analyze the questionable DNA evidence which was used to convict her on the first go-round. This seems an idea the US should use more. Certainly there are instances in which a court will appoint what is called a "special master", who is someone assigned to look into the facts and report back to the court on his or her findings. But in the context of a criminal trial, it is unheard of as far as I'm aware.

Second, the appeal saw a jury seated and evidence presented, just as in the original trial. In the US the appellate court would never be allowed to examine the facts and reach a different conclusion, as was done in the Knox case. Rather, the appellate court would have to rely on the trial court's factfinding, and limit itself to determining whether any questions of law were wrongly decided in the lower court.

It seems that in certain situations, where there is genuine doubt about the fact-finding in the lower court, that an appellate court *should* be free to conduct a full-scale re-examination of the facts, in order to reach a just result.

Probably many Americans are bashing the Italian justice system about now, but let's remember that in the end they got it right and achieved justice. Given the sorry performance of US courts in recent death penalty cases, we might learn something from the Italians.

Assume vs. presume

2011-10-03T11:47:00.000-07:00

I always have to stop and think about which of these is the best word to use in a particular context. While the respective meanings of these words do overlap somewhat, there is still, I think, an important distinction to recognize.

The meaning of "assume" can best be kept in mind with the phrase, "assuming for the sake of argument." We make an assumption, and proceed from there with what flows from that assumption. When studying the proof of math theorems years ago I would often encounter the phrase, "It is intuitively obvious that" such-and-such is true. What the writer is saying here is that he is not going to be bothered with proving something that seems evident, but rather he is going to assume it is true and then go on from there. The rest of the proof depends on the truth of that assumption.

"Presume" is a little harder to nail down. One thinks of the "presumption of innocence" in a criminal trial. This doesn't mean we think the defendant is actually innocent, but it means we presume he is until it is shown otherwise. My hunch is that people don't use "presume" as often as they should, and the reasons are understandable. It sounds a bit pretentious, and the related adjective, "presumptuous", has quite a negative connotation attached to it.

The inimitable Bill Bryson comments: "Assume, in the sense of 'to suppose', normally means to put forth a realistic hypothesis, something that can be taken as probable...Presume has more of an air of sticking one's neck out, of making an assertion that may be arguable or wrong."

The Lessons of "Hardball"

2011-09-30T07:43:00.000-07:00

1. It's not who you know, it's who you get to know.

2. All politics is local.

3. It's better to receive than to give.

My favorite story from this chapter is when Tip O/Neill was still in college and ran for the Cambridge City Council. On the day of the election, he ran into a neighbor who said she was going to vote for him even though he hadn't asked her to. O'Neill was flabbergasted, saying "I've lived across the street from you for 18 years, I shovel your walk in the winter and mow your grass in the summer. I didn't think I had to ask you for your vote." The neighbor responded, "Tom I want you to know something: people like to be asked." The lesson here is that people don't mind being used; what they mind is being taken for granted.

Matthews quotes the sage advice from the sage himself, Ben Franklin: "If you want to make a friend, let someone do you a favor."

4. Dance with the one that brung ya

5. Keep your enemies in front of you

6. Don't get mad, don't get even, get ahead

7. Leave no shot unanswered.

The big example here is the inept campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988. He let Bush paint him as a liberal who was out of touch with mainstream America, and refused to respond to the scurrilous attacks.

Four years later Bill Clinton took the exact opposite approach. His campaign had a "war room" whose job it was to immediately respond to any attacks. The results were spectacular. Clinton had way more negatives (draft-dodging, womanizing, etc.) than Dukakis ever had, but he was able to neutralize them with his skillful responses.

There is a principle of evidence in the law called "admission by silence". When someone says something negative about you in your presence and you remain silent, this can be taken as an admission that what was said about you is true. In other words, "leave no shot unanswered.

8. Only talk when it improves the silence

9. Always concede on principle

This one seems counter-intuitive, but Matthews explains it with detailed examples. He quotes Edward Bulwer-Lytton as saying, "Yield to a man's tastes, and he will yield to your interests". Reagan's support of the MX missile is given as the major example. Reagan deftly acknowledged all the flaws in his proposal, and thereby got Congress and the country to go along with a plan that had seemed dead.

An example some of us may be more familiar with is Reagan's support of the Contras in Nicaragua. After the hard sell failed miserably in the spring of 1986, he went to the soft-sell. He acknowledged the concerns, and said he shared them. These included: the sorry history of the U.S. in the region, the brutality by the rebels, the need to end the Somoza connection, and that his critics were patriotic. Matthews concludes by observing that the smart politicians focus on the objective, and not on the principle.

10. Hang a lantern on your problem

11. Spin

12. The press is the enemy

13. The reputation of power

The idea here is that leaders in a democracy rarely have any real power. Rather, they have to create the illusion that they have power. Mathews discusses a number of techniques politicians use to do this: play your strengths, lowballing, sandbagging, creating new commandments, passing the buck, and Inchon landings.

14. Positioning

On Palestinian Statehood

2011-09-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

I am a strong supporter of Israel, as my previous post of 5/24/11 makes clear. However, this business of Obama putting the US out front by vetoing Palestine's application for statehood in the UN is completely out of line.

Anybody who has analyzed the history of terrorism can readily see that terrorism is a tactic used by those who feel so powerless, so helpless, so oppressed, that they see no other avenue to make their grievances heard. If Palestine is granted statehood, it stands to reason that the Palestinian people will have less need to resort to terrorism because they are more likely to feel that they finally have a voice, and are no longer completely powerless.

Obama risks being isolated in the realm of public opinion. Already the Republican candidates on the right are assailing him for not being supportive enough of Israel. And if he exercises the veto as he is threatening to do, he will subject the US to additional hatred and isolation in the realm of world opinion, which of course means additional terrorist attracks. Obama is again showing his lack of leadership here.

How Sick Is Our Politics?

2011-09-16T07:43:00.001-07:00

Audience reactions at the last two Republican debates gives insight into just how sick our politics has become. Four instances stand out.

First, Brian Williams prefaced a question to Rick Perry by saying "Texas has executed 234 death row inmates while you were governor". The audience started applauding at the mention of this.

Second, Ron Paul attempted to answer a question about 9/11 by saying the terrorists did this because they didn't like our policies. He got booed, even though he spoke the truth.

Third, Ron Paul was asked whether someone without health insurance who had been badly injured should just be left outside of the hospital to die. Several in the audience yelled out "yes".

Fourth, Rick Perry attempted to defend his policy in Texas of offering in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants, and got roundly booed.

One could look at all this as showing how far right the Republican party has become, and see it as a hopeful sign for success next year for the Democratic candidate. However, a more realistic view is that it represents the coarsening of our politics, and a trend towards a genuine lack of compassion in our country, and, quite honestly, a rejection of Christian values.

Rick Perry and the Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party

2011-09-05T06:34:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry has jumped into the race for the Republican nomination and promptly shot to the top in the Gallup Poll of likely voters, beating Mitt Romney by a tidy margin. This sets up yet another battle between the moderate and right wings of the party.

It is fascinating to consider the history of these battles. It all started 100 years ago, when Teddy Roosevelt challenged WH Taft for the nomination in 1912. TR was favored by most Republicans, but the convention machinery was stacked against him. The Rules Committee was dominated by Taft people, and the disputed delegates in several states all went to Taft. When it came to a floor vote challenging the Rules Committee decision, the disputed delegates chosen by the Rules Committee were allowed to vote on their own cases, causing the Taft delegates to be seated, and he then got the nomination. The irony of all this is that the machinery which caused TR to lose the nomination was put in place for years earlier by TR himself, to ensure the nomination of his hand-picked successor, Taft!

Now fast-forward 40 years to 1952, and we had the exact same scenario unfolding, with the conservative Robert Taft (WH's son) challenging the mdoerate Eisenhower for the nomination. Again, several states had disputed sets of delegates, and the convention was called upon to vote on which delegates were to be seated. But this time, the delegates whose seats were in dispute were *not* allowed to vote on their own cases, and the Eisenhower delegates got seated, giving him the nomination in a close vote.

The 1964 race saw another interesting battle. Goldwater was the clear frontrunner, and when the liberal Nelson Rockefeller faded, moderate forces made a last-minute effort to draft the moderate PA governor, William Scranton. Scranton finally allowed his name to be put into the race (on 6-12-64, an unheard-of late entry by today's standards, when multi-year campaigns are the rule), but the conservative Goldwater prevailed.

1976 saw the conservative Reagan challenging the unelected incumbent, Jerry Ford, for the GOP nomination. In fact, it was so even that the result was in doubt until the actual balloting, the last time this has happened in US convention history. Despite being weakened by Reagan's strong challenge, Ford almost prevailed in the general election against Carter.

In 1980 Reagan became the frontrunner after his famous "I paid for this microphone" comment. George H.W. Bush represented the moderate challenger, but lost out to the Gipper. The other moderate challenger was John Anderson, who ran in the general election as an independent after finishing third to Bush and Reagan for the GOP nomination.

The point of all this is to show that the battle between these two wings of the party has been an ongoing struggle over these past 100 years. The problem for the moderate wing, which has often been based in the Northeast, is that the New England Republicans have almost all disappeared. Some have changed parties, as did Vermont senator Jim Jeffords, who famously stated, "I didn't leave my party; my party left me." Others have been defeated by conservative primary challengers. Only the two Maine senators remain of the many New England moderate Republicans.

Another problem for the moderate wing is the growth of Republicanism in the south. The south used to be solidly Democratic, but in the past 50 years has grown to be just as solidly Republican. Hence, the South now has the largest say in who the nominee will be, which does not bode well for Mitt Romney.

The Risk of Terrorism

2011-09-01T07:33:00.000-07:00

A great article came to my attention, discussing what constitutes "acceptable" and "unacceptable" risks. It is found at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66186/john-mueller-and-mark-g-stewart/hardly-existential?page=show

Professor Mueller surveys the regulatory practices of developed countries and finds there is general agreement on what constitutes an unacceptable risk. A death rate of 1 in 10,000 per year is generally considered unacceptable, as in a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the death rate from workers inhaling gasoline vapors was deemed to be unacceptable at 1 in 40,000.

Similarly, a death rate of less than 1 in a million is considered acceptable.

The risk from terrorism is way lower than what is considered in other areas as acceptable, so obviously the vast funds spent are out of line. Mueller states: "Compared with dying at the hands of a terrorist, Americans are twice as likely to perish in a natural disaster and nearly a thousand times more likely to be killed in some type of accident."

To get up to the upper border of what is unacceptable, which is 1 in 100,00 deaths, even after accepting the dubious DHS proposition that lives lost to terrorism are twice as valuable as lives lost otherwise, Mueller states that "the number of fatalities from terrorist attacks in the United States and Canada would have to increase 35-fold; in Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland), more than 50-fold; and in Australia, more than 70-fold. For the United States, this would mean experiencing attacks on the scale of 9/11 at least once a year, or 18 Oklahoma City bombings every year."

"We don't need more people with guns telling us what to do."

2011-08-22T07:55:00.001-07:00

Tom Brokaw, who surely is one of the most credible commentators around these days, following in the footsteps of Cronkite and then Brinkley as elder statesmen of the media, related recently on "Morning Joe" an experience he had with an army unit in Afghanistan. The unit was working on gaining control of a particular area of the countryside, and Brokaw managed to break away and ask a local merchant what he thought of the operation. The merchant said, "We don't need more people with guns telling us what to do."

A succinct commentary on the folly of the US operation in Afghanistan, and in any other sovereign country where we try to impose our will by force. It well illustrates that the myth of redemptive violence is just that, a myth.

Michelle Bachmann

2011-08-17T06:13:00.000-07:00

My conservative friends are all excited about Bachmann, who I will admit has done a great job so far in her campaign. (OK, in the interests of full disclosure I will admit that I have just one "conservative friend", but he is real smart and articulate, and so is as good as several would be.)

A review of the 43 men who have served as president shows that we have never elected anybody with as little executive experience as Bachmann. If you take out those in just 3 categories--state governors, secretaries of state, and army generals, you are left with only 14. And if you eliminate the 4 of those 14 who became president only because they were VP's when the Prez either died or resigned, that leaves only 10. Now take out Taft, Bush 1 and Hoover, all of whom had substantial executive experience though not one of the 3 positions stated, and you have only 7. If you count being Pres. of a major university, then Wilson goes out too. That leaves only Adams, Lincoln, Harding, JFK, Nixon, and Obama. Hardly an endorsement for the idea of electing somebody with no executive experience.

How the News Media Caters to Dummies

2011-07-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

Three stories yesterday got me aroused about the media. The first was the story that the guy who caught Derek Jeter's 3,000th hit was gong to have to pay taxes on what he had received in exchange for the ball. MSNBC acted like this was an outrage, and invited comment, in an obvious attempt to stir up controversy where no real controversy existed.

Since when is it news that we have an income tax in this coutnry? The 16th amendment has been around almost 100 years, and surely is no longer news! And any dummy surely knows that you cannot legaly avoid income tax by taking payment in goods and services rather than in money. Shame on MSNBC, specifically Tamron Hall on Newsnation, for stirring up this non-issue.

No sooner had I got back from going to the library to respond to this issue, then I saw Cafferty on CNN bring up a news item about a restuarant banning kids under 6. Again, he asked for comment and seemd to be stirring up an issue where no real issue existed. CNN could have taken the opportunity to educate viewers about the difference bewtween legal and non-legal discrimination, but instead they took the low road. Any restaurant has an absolute right to do this, there is no issue here.

On the third issue the media did better. There was a news item yesterday about obese children being taken away from their parents. On the face of it this sounds like it might be worthy of discussion, but the news report I saw did a commendable job in enlightening viewers that it was only extremeley obese children whose lives were in danger that were involved, and the foster care was temporary, with no permanent severance of parental rights taking place.

But with millions of dollars being paid these high-prcied anchors, many of whom have law degrees, one out of three is not good enough!

The Casey Anthony Verdict

2011-07-06T11:02:00.000-07:00

After saturation coverage of the Casey Anthony trial for the past several months, the verdict came down yesterday, after less than 11 hours of deliberations. Several aspects of this case merit commentary.

First, it was announced 35 minutes ahead of time that a verdict was forthcoming, and I knew immediately that such a quick verdict meant it must be not guilty. Why, then, did all the commentators overlook this obvious fact? The rule of thumb is that a quick verdict is good for the prosecution. However, that is in a case, which most are, that is strong for the prosecution. Lack of prolonged deliberations indicates no juror had problems, hence a quick verdict results. However, this case was just the opposite. Here the prosecution had a laughably weak case, so here a quick verdict had to mean the prosecution's case was summarily rejected. All the so-called expert commentators seemed to be surprised at the verdict; nobody seemed to realize what was obvious to me. Amazing.

Another point worth mentioning is Casey's defense attorney, Jose Baez, who took a lot of verbal abuse for his perceived ineptness in handling the case. Jose showed that in the end it is the facts that determine the outcome, not the skill of the lawyers, as the general public so often mistakenly believes. Jose worked his butt off and can justifiably be proud of the job he did. Jose, you gave your all. Well done!

Another point is the use of what has been called "junk science". Barry Scheck and his colleagues at the Innocence Project have written a great book, "Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right", in which they document the various reasons innocent people get convicted. One of those reasons is the use of what he calls "junk science". These are people who purport to be "experts" and testify about something which is not accepted in the scientific community as valid. In the Anthony case, the junk science was taking a sample of air from the trunk of the Anthony car, and supposedly analyzing it and coming to the conclusion that a dead body had been in there. This, if you'll pardon the pun, doesn't pass the smell test. It is ludicrous on the face of it. The defense expert refuted this, but it is hard for a jury to sort out this contradictory testimony, and the Anthony jury is to be praised for having the guts to do it. This type of testimony had never before been used in a criminal trial, and shouldn't have been allowed here.

Another example of junk science from American history is the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case. In his book, "The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnapping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann", the author discussed the so-called expert who testified that the wood from the ladder used to take the baby was made from wood taken from the attic of Hauptmann's house. That anybody would make a ladder from wood in his attic, dismantling beams in the attic to do so, is ludicrous on the face of it, and the analysis purporting to establish this is shown to be completely bogus. Yet, this "expert" was allowed to testify and Hauptmann went to the electric chair as a result.

As a side note, Hauptmann had the chance to save his life by confessing, which he steadfastly refused to do. I think this sort of situation explains why so many innocent people get convicted and put onto death row. The guilty accept plea bargains to save their lives, while the not guilty refuse to plea bargain and get death.

Famous Cover-ups

2011-06-09T13:30:00.001-07:00

Ever since Watergate, it has become commonplace to see situations in which the cover-up gets people in worse trouble than the original transgression. Two recent situations come to mind. The first is OSU football coach Jim Tressel. All of the ESPN commentators agree that had he reported it like he should have when he first learned that his players were violating NCAA rules, he could have kept his job. But instead he did nothing (except alert Terrell Pryor's mentor and consult an FBI agent friend), and then when the NCAA eventually got wind of it and investigated, he lied to the NCAA investigator. That put him in an untenable situation, and he did the only honorable thing possible at that point and resigned.

Now we have the pathetic case of Anthony Wiener. Wiener spent a week denying he had sent the lurid picture of himself to a female internet friend, claiming he had been hacked or punked, whatever term you want to use here. When asked if it was a picture of him, he said he could not deny that it was, because pictures can be doctored and "who knows what all is out there". This convoluted gobbledygook of an answer made it obvious he wasn't coming clean, and Monday he called a press conference and said he had indeed sent the original photo, and he apologized repeatedly and profusely. In the three days since then, more photos have emerged, and some of the Twitter interactions between himself and his female "friends" have come to light; in one, he coached her on how to deny if asked. In others, he uses sexually explicit language in every tweet, like when the woman says she saw him on a TV show yesterday, and he asks if she was watching naked, stuff like that.

Wiener could have saved himself (and his wife) a lot of grief had he come clean from the beginning, but, as he says, he was too embarrassed.

Politicians and others in the public eye should follow the example of Grover Cleveland during the 1884 presidential campaign. In the biography of Cleveland by Henry F. Graff, the author describes how the headline on July 21st blared out: "A TERRIBLE TALE, A Dark Chapter in a Public man's History, The Pitiful Story of Maria Halpin and Grover Cleveland's Son". The story alleged that Cleveland had seduced Halpin and then forced her to commit the baby to an orphan asylum. The author says that the actual facts were vastly different; he asserts that it was possibly Halpin who had seduced Cleveland, and that after the birth she began drinking heavily and neglecting the baby, which caused a concerned Cleveland to ask a judge friend of his to look into it, leading to the woman being committed for treatment and the baby going to the orphan asylum.

The original report was largely ignored, because it was published by a paper known as a scandal sheet. But then a respected Boston paper sent a reporter to Buffalo to check the story out, and this follow-up story quoted a Buffalo pastor as saying Cleveland was a "noted whoremonger", and made other accusations against Cleveland. Cleveland's response when asked how the campaign should respond to the allegations was simple and to the point: he said "tell the truth".

As we know, Cleveland got elected twice despite these scurrilous allegations against him. The author says that Cleveland never returned to Buffalo for the rest of his life, except for three ceremonial events which he could not avoid. Cleveland's forthright response helped to cement the reputation for honesty and integrity that he had for the rest of his life.

Israel-Palestine Issues

2011-05-24T06:56:00.001-07:00

Obama comes out and says a peace between the two must involve Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders. PM Netanyahu meets with Obama and in the ending part shown on TV, he seems to lecture Obama, as Obama sits stone-faced staring at him. I thought it was an extraordinarily clear and precise explanation of the problems the old borders posed for Israel. However, others say he was being rude to the president by appearing to lecture him.

I say, if your ideas are so simple-minded as to be of first-grade caliber, then you deserve to be lectured like a first-grader. Netanyahu clearly explained why Israel can never go back to the pre-1967 borders, because at one point the country would be only 9 miles wide! I looked on a map and see what he was talking about. These borders would clearly be indefensible, as Netanyahu states.

It should be noted that giving back the West Bank is a wholly different proposition than giving back the Sinai. If you look at a map the difference is obvious. Giving up the Sinai did not compromise Israel's borders; in fact, it in essence gave Israel a nice buffer zone between itself and Egypt proper. However, having an indefensible border with Palestine would be unthinkable. It is the Palestinaians who refused to accept the partition in 1948 and vowed to "drive the Jews into the sea". Their actions since then have been in keeping with this solemn vow they made years ago.

Some may argue that it is not proper to assess "collective responsibility" to the Palestinians, a phrase I first heard from a Bethel professor years ago. After giving this considerable thought, I say it *is* proper to assign such responsibility. After all, these people revere the suicide bombers as martyrs, take care of their families, and put their pictures up in the town square as heroes. Their twisted concept of "family honor" requires that each family have a "martyr" in the family to maintain the family honor. It is sick, sick, sick, and those who ignore this do so at their peril.

And don't even get me started on this idiotic "right of return" the Palestinians keep whining about. Most people are sensible and mature enough to go with life instead of living in the past, as Mennonites have done over the centuries when driven from one land to another. And, come to think of it, as the Jews themselves have had to do over the years. Get over it and get a life already!

The Hall of Shame

2011-05-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

I hope to collect in this thread examples of hypocrites or other moral failings or character flaws on the part of famous people. Just to clarify, I am not talking about failings or flaws by themselves, because we all have those. I am looking for flaws or failings *coupled* with gross hypocrisy and/or lame excuses. (Thus, Arnold does not qualify, because he has taken full responsibility for his actions and makes no excuses.)

I first nominate Newt Gingrich, who espouses "family values" but has been married three times, and once demanded that his first wife sign divorce papers while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. To make it worse, he recently blamed his personal failings in the women area on caring too much about his country!

After he announced for the Presidency and appeared on Meet the Press, a firestorm of protest erupted because he dared to criticize Paul Ryan's budget plan. The hypocrite Newt blamed David Gregory, who is as middle-of-the-road with his questions as a journalist could ever get. He further said that any candidate who uses his own words against him in an ad will be "guilty of a falsehood"!

Newt was also asked about a $500,000 bill he had run up at Tiffany's. He refused to answer, as if we the voters are not entitled to know what kind of person we are being asked to vote for. Here is Newt, passing himself off as a fiscal conservative, who cannot keep his own spending under control and buys luxury items he cannot afford. Boooo.

Political Correctness Run Amok

2011-05-15T04:18:00.000-07:00

LeBron James got in trouble for saying under his breath "that's retarded" to his teammate who had been asked a stupid question. The headline said he was in trouble, and my first thought was that he was in trouble for bad-mouthing the reporter. Then upon reading the story, I find out that he is in trouble for supposedly insulting retarded people (oops, I mean "mentally challenged").

I hope in this thread to collect examples of similarly ridiculous examples of p.c. run amok.

Immigration Policy

2011-05-15T04:09:00.001-07:00

CNN had a story yesterday on the new Georgia law, apparently styled after the infamous Arizona law. The anchor interviewed a representative of the Georgia restaurant association, who said restaurants were unable to find people to work as dishwashers without hiring illegals. She refused to back off even under the hostile questioning of the skeptical anchor.

The governor used the same rhetoric about people breaking the law. You know the routine, about how we all have to follow rules. But here is what occurs to me. The parenting class I took stressed that kids do not obey a rule simply because you make one. They immediately break it to see what will happen, because that is how they find out if it is really a rule or not. If consequences get consistently imposed for breaking it, then it is a rule.

But with immigration, consequences do not get regularly or consistently applied, so it is not really a rule. If we protected our borders properly, then we could stem the immigration tide. But we are too busy policing the world to police our own borders.

Impressions of Grand Rapids

2011-05-11T05:01:00.000-07:00

1. Gerald Ford Museum. Nice chronological account of Ford's life. The Hayes museum wasn't so chronologically ordered, IIRC.

2. Big river flowing right past downtown, just like in Wichita and Portland. Ford museum is right on the river, and along the river are bike paths and boardwalks.

3. Decaying downtown. Some new, mod-looking buildings downtown, but the overall impression is one of extreme decay.

4. Memorials honoring the war dead dominate the courthouse area. Every war dead is mentioned by name, like in the Vietnam Wall, and there is a special memorial park for civil war dead, including detailed biographies of significant civil war figures from the area. Seems odd that people in the north were so enthusiastic to support Lincoln's war on the south. Also is curious that, while in the north the civil war is celebrated, southern states get chastised whenever they try to memorialize their civil war heritage. Just yesterday there was an article in USA Today about states being prevented from using the confederate flag on license plates or elsewhere.

5. Very little parking. I had to pay a quarter per 15 minutes downtown, and a dollar per half-hour to visit the Ford Museum. To the extent this reflects an emphasis on other than private motorized transportation, I suppose it's a good thing. But a bad thing for the out-of-town visitor trying to get around in a car.

6. History of furniture manufacturing. One figure I saw said that at one time there were 70 furniture manufacturing companies here! A little park by the river described the strike in 1911 in which workers all struck. It was resolved peacefully when strike money from national unions ran out and the strikers returned to work, but the owners took the lesson to heart and raised wages, and the voters took the lessons to heart and elected more progressive leaders.

7. Calvin College. A huge private college, Christian Reformed, and plaque describes how this denomination was formed in Michigan by Dutch immigrants in 1857. Nice nature preserve on the huge campus. Great library hours, 7:30 A.M. to 2 P.M.

Was Slavery the Cause of the Civil War?

2011-05-08T15:29:00.001-07:00

Controversy has been brewing on this issue on the editorial pages of The Lima News. It started a month ago when we had two columns on the same day, commemorating the upcoming 150th anniversary of the war's start. The columns were long and will not be reproduced here, as the titles tell the story. Leonard Pitts had the column "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more", while Tom Lucente's column was "Power the cause of American Civil War".

My response, published only in part because of its length, was:

"I am writing on the 150th anniversary of the American Civil war. This is not an event to be celebrated, but it certainly should be remembered and learned from, and in that vein I was glad to see two columns on this topic in Sunday's Lima News. One of those columns accurately described the issues causing the war, while the other was abysmally inaccurate and needs to be corrected.

Leonard Pitts ascribes the causes of the Civil War to slavery, which is totally false. Lincoln made this quite clear in his first inaugural address, saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Then in July, when he submitted his message to Congress in support of his request for appropriations to fund the war, he never mentioned slavery at all!

Rather than being about slavery, Lincoln's war on the southern states was fueled by his belief that they had no right to secede, and that it was therefore his duty to keep the union intact. Lincoln repeatedly characterized the secession movement as a "rebellion", his purpose being to cast Southerners as traitors. How an action designed to peacefully separate yourself from a partnership is a "rebellion" is a bit of over-the-top sophistry which Lincoln could never justify.

Lincoln never did offer any decent legal analysis to support his view that secession was illegal, an amazing fact in light of his supposed competence as a lawyer. Study of the Constitution reveals that it says nothing one way or the other on the issue of whether a state has a right to secede. However, when read as a whole, it is obvious the intent of the founders was to delegate only certain limited powers to the federal government, with all other powers reserved to the states and/or the people. By implication, therefore, Lincoln was wrong in his view. Why people in the North blindly followed him, instead of challenging him on this, is hard to fathom.

The extreme irony here is that our country was founded by an act of secession. Further, during the Civil War the western counties of Virginia were allowed to secede from that state and form their own separate state.

In his Sunday column, Thomas Lucente correctly described the cause of the Civil War as being a dispute over the distribution of power in our federalist system. It is regrettable that American history books do not analyze the Civil War properly; however, what is really inexplicable is the fact that historians, who should know better, continue to rank Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents. If more people like Mr. Lucente speak out, perhaps a more accurate evaluation will eventually be made. "

Then this guest clumn from one Bob Brenneman"

"As I enter the final months of my 35 years spent teaching social studies at St. Marys Memorial High School, I found the opposing April 10 viewpoints of columnists Leonard Pitts Jr. and Thomas J. Lucente Jr. concerning the origins of the American Civil War quite interesting.

While I do not teach the Civil War, I did some checking to see which arguments had the most validity. In an age where people deny the Holocaust and the state board of education in Texas voted to remove the term “slave trade” from all its textbooks last year, it is important to know what actually happened before we begin to give our interpretations.

After a little checking, I would give Pitts an A and Lucente an F in terms of historical accuracy.

In Pitts' column (“Civil War was about slavery”), nothing more, he refers to the Declaration of Causes of Secession of the state of South Carolina. As each state seceded, it drew up a statement explaining why it was leaving the union. These make for some very interesting reading and would provide anyone honestly seeking the causes of the Civil War the best primary source available. I would suggest Lucente consult them before he pretends to speak on behalf of the seceding Southerners again (“Power the cause of American Civil War”).

Here is what they actually said when they spoke for themselves. Mississippi began its articles with the following paragraph:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching consummation. There was no choice left us by submission to the mandates of abolition, or dissolution of the union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

Texas strikes a similar chord referring to the North having developed “an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irresponsive of race or color — a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.”

If one reads these any of these articles with an open mind, it is difficult to find anything that does not directly or indirectly point to slavery as the reason for secession. No Southern state in 1861 was the least bit apologetic about fighting a war to maintain slavery. The way to deal with this fact is not to pretend that it does not exist.

Pitts speaks wisely when he encourages us to “listen to the hard things the past has to say-and learn from them."

Then a letter from one Drew Cady:

"Jerry Weaver said in a recent letter that columnist Thomas J. Lucente Jr. was right describing the cause of the Civil War as being a dispute over the distribution of power in our federalist system, and Leonard Pitts Jr. was wrong to ascribe the causes to slavery.

Weaver cited Abraham Lincoln's words and actions to preserve the union and not directly attempt to end slavery at the beginning of his presidency as proof. Weaver further said historians who rank Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents should know better.

I believe Lincoln's choice of words, actions and timing were what led our nation toward reunification and the end of legalized slavery in the U.S. For this alone, he deserves to be recognized as one of our greatest presidents.

As for slavery, I would suggest readers access the “Declaration of Causes of Secession” given by the leaders of the Southern states. A reading of these justifies both Lucente and Pitts in their statements regarding the causes of the Civil War."

My response to the column, submitted yesterday:

"Guest columnist Brice Brenneman recently wrote that slavery was indeed the cause of the Civil War. However, all he establishes is that slavery was the cause of the secession of the southern states, a proposition which is not in question.

The issue being discussed is not the cause for secession, but rather the cause of the Civil War. This cause was clearly Lincoln's decision to make war on the southern states, rather than allow them to go in peace.

Almost immediately after taking office, Lincoln faced the crucial decision of whether to re-provision Fort Sumter. He chose to do so, against the almost unanimous advice of his Cabinet members, and knowing it would most likely lead to war. His reasons for going to war are well-documented, and did not involve slavery. Rather, he went to war because he was convinced that the south had no right to secede, and had to be stopped at all costs. As we know, the cost was horrendous, including 620,000 Americans killed."

The Changing of the Seasons

2011-05-04T12:32:00.000-07:00

We had an extra cold and snowy winter, followed by one of the rainiest Aprils on record. As a result, blossoms were quite late in getting here. Only now are trees beginning to get leaves in any great number. We have had magnolia blossoms for a couple of weeks, pretty pale purple blossoms. And pear blossoms have been around for most of this time also, nice white blossoms with the five petals.

But we are still waiting for real spring weather. It has been rainy almost every day, and no really bright sunny days have come yet. Once the sun comes out for a few days, things should really start to grow.

The Problem of Violence

2011-05-03T09:13:00.000-07:00

I am going to present an exchange of letters between myself and two right-wing nuts in northwestern Ohio. The appeared in recent months in The Bluffton News.

The letters deal with the problem of violence on a personal level, but as I pondered this issue it struck me that the problem of violence is essentially the same on a national and international level as it is on a personal level. This therefore ties together several issues I have been interested in in recent times.

Relevant here is the groundbreaking research done by Robert Axelrod on the problem of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Axelrod set up a simple game illustrating the Prisoner's Dilemma paradox, and invited people to submit computer programs to play it on an iterated basis. He got many varied programs submitted, but when the tournament was over the clear winner was a very simple program, called "Tit for Tat", which offered cooperation the first time, and then every time after that it did whatever the other player had done the round before (i.e., either cooperate or defect).

This is much like our interactions in real life; when we meet someone, or encounter any sort of new situation, we initially offer cooperation, assuming the other will cooperate also. If he or she "defects" instead, then we modify our own behavior accordingly. The whole Cold War came about because the Truman administration failed to offer cooperation initially to the Soviet Union. Instead, it "defected", by assuming the worst and proceeding accordingly. Information that has become available more recently has verified that the Truman assumptions were wrong, in that the goals of the Soviet Union were political and not military. This makes sense when you consider how horribly the two world wars impacted Russia. The last thing they wanted was another war. But once the US defected the Soviets felt they had to follow suit and we had the horrible arms race. Both sides would have been better off spending all that money on making a better life for its people, but it went the other way. Axelrod's book "The Evolution of Cooperation" explores the issues involved with cooperation in society, and his follow-up books elaborate on his original 1984 work.

With that introduction, here is the first letter, from someone calling himself "Pastor Bob Wood":

“No guns allowed,” is a sign you often see or a symbol you observe on the doors of various establishments. I wish people would stop to think about what this says to the individual who is about to use a weapon to commit a crime, to kill someone, or to terrorize a group of people..... This sign says this: “NOTICE TO THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS OF OUR SOCIETY....This establishment wants you to know that it's safe for you to go ahead and commit your crime of passion. We're guaranteeing your safety by letting you know that all of the law-abiding citizens who have taken and passed a course and been certified as capable of responsibly owning and using a fire-arm, and then have been finger-printed, gone through a background check and been carefully scrutinized by our local sheriff and the F.B.I. …. all of these people have now left their firearm locked up at home or in their vehicle, and you don't have to worry about any retaliatory action on their part. Just go right ahead and kill, rob, or shoot. You're safe in our establishment. The worst thing you can expect is that some law-abiding citizen will use his cell phone to call 9-1-1, and you'll have plenty of time to escape.”

Now, if the above possible scenario makes you a bit ill, it really bothers me too. It disgusts me that the liberal element of our society begins to push for greater gun control laws almost before the crazed idiot in Tucson has been handcuffed and put in the police cruiser. I have just a couple of questions to ask: “Does anyone think that if hand-guns were outlawed and/or confiscated, that the criminal element would turn theirs in?” “Does anyone really believe that it would become impossible for the wrong people to obtain fire-arms if 'gun shows' and 'gun shops' were made illegal and shut down?” "Does anyone really think that the worst elements of our society would pay the least bit of attention to any gun control changes?" "Are we so naive that we think that tougher laws would really cut down on such "crimes of passion?" I remember seeing a large sign, years ago, that said, “When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.” There is so much truth in that statement that a liberal can't even understand what it means. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has proposed to ban possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or federal judges. Does anyone really think that a person intending to harm a government official would stop and say, “Well, you know, it's against the law to have a gun within 1,000 feet of this person. I'd better take my tape-measure with me, for I certainly wouldn't want to break the law while I'm attempting to assassinate this person.” If I sound a “bit” sarcastic, please forgive me. This is just how ridiculous most of these gun law proposals are. The Bill of Rights gives us the right to “keep and bear arms.” Please, let's not tamper with one of our most basic rights. Let's not put ourselves in the position of other countries who have been taken over by whatever dictators or political systems because the citizenry was unarmed. Let's treasure our 2nd Amendment rights. While I agree that there are places where guns should not be allowed (such as in the presence of high-ranking government officials, etc) I still understand that we can never guarantee that warped and/or crazed individuals won't try to harm others. Let's not throw away our rights and freedoms in a useless attempt to do the impossible."

My response:

A recent letter-writer spouted a bunch of right-wing rhetoric on the issue of gun control.

Unfortunately for the writer, his rhetoric does not stand up to careful analysis. The writer talks about the issue of personal safety, and also the advantage he supposes dictators have when the citizenry is unarmed. Let us examine these propositions in turn.

Regarding personal safety, I simply ask this question: would you feel safer in a room full of people if everybody was carrying a firearm, or if nobody was? I submit that the answer to this question is obvious.

Looking at it on a national level, I point to the following list of successful nonviolent revolutions which have occurred in my lifetime: 1947 Satyagraha movement in India, 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal, 1986 People Power revolution in the Philippines, Singing Revolution in the late ‘80’s in the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, 1989 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, 1990 Golaniad Revolution in Romania, 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, 2005 Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and of course the recent nonviolent revolutions which toppled the governments of Tunisia and Egypt. Anyone examining what happened in these revolutions cannot help but conclude that guns and violence are not the key to political reform, as the writer intimates.

Rather than heaping scorn on those who seek to limit guns and violence in our society, we should be asking ourselves why the homicide rate in this country is several times higher than that of every other developed country in the world. I submit that part of the solution has to be ending our love affair with guns.

A response from Bob Amstutz:

I would like to offer some common sense advice to the “Letter to the Editor” sent to the Bluffton News, March 17, 2011. Mr. Weaver seems to think that the second Amendment the United States Constitution means nothing. The left wing progressives are implying that their ideas are sound and better than what our forefathers put in our great United States Constitution. They seem to think they know what is good for everybody else. If we would honor are Constitution we would not be in the trouble we are in today.

The answer to Mr. Weaver’s question is not obvious. His question was, “Would you feel safer in a room full of people if everyone was carrying a firearm, or if nobody was?” That is a terrible question. How would it be if you were in a room full of people and one nut case had a firearm? How would you know that no one else had a firearm? When you enter a public place that has a no firearm sign on the door, you can be almost sure there are no legal firearms. Most people that have been schooled on concealed weapons obey the law. That is why they went to the trouble of obtaining a permit. What you don’t know is that there could be any number of illegal weapons.

Mr. Weaver’s analysis does not stand up to common sense. The purpose of a concealed weapon permit is to prevent the problem. If the nut case knows that no one else has a weapon he has no fear. If he thinks one person may be carrying a concealed weapon he would not be so intent on causing harm. It is the person that is carrying a concealed firearm that has not been through the training, may be unbalanced, have a felony record, which would have restricted him or her from having the permit to carry. I would feel very safe in a room full of people with concealed weapons permits and each having a firearm. I would feel unsafe in a room with a nut concealing a firearm, but then, I would not know would I?

To answer Mr. Weaver’s so called non-violent revolutions abroad; this is one to think about. During the war years, the NRA magazine, The Rifleman, regularly included pleas for American sportsmen to "send a gun to defend a British home”. {American Rifleman, Nov. 1940} British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." Indeed, the New York Times carried the same solicitations. After two decades of gun control, British citizens now desperately needed rifles and pistols in their homes, and they received the gifts with great appreciation. Organized into the Home Guard, armed citizens were now ready to resist the expected Nazi onslaught.

Meanwhile Hitler unleashed killing squads called the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe and Russia. As Raul Hilberg observes, "The killers were well armed . . . . The victims were unarmed."^{Raul Hilberg, {The Destruction of the European Jews (New York: Homes and Meir, 1985), 341, 318, 297}.The Einsatzgruppen executed two million people between fall 1939 and summer 1942. Their tasks included arrest of the politically unreliable, confiscation of weapons, and extermination. {Yitzhak Arad et al. eds., The Einsatzgruppen Reports (New York: Holocaust Library, 1989), ii.}

It is easy to look at our way of life in America because we do have our Constitution and we do not worry so much that our Government will take us over by anarchy. We will be safe from that as long as our Constitution is adhered to. The progressives, note I did not say democrats, in our country, are working hard to weaken the greatest country in the world by weakening the greatest Constitution. I apologize to no one for being an American.

I have one more observation; if a restrictive gun law would become law, it is naivё to think that everyone would register or turn in their weapons. A law like that would let the Mafia and others make millions of dollars by selling guns on the black market as they now do drugs and did booze during prohibition. Criminals will always find a way to steal or buy guns. Law abiding Americans would be defenseless and would not able to hunt or participate in other shooting sports.

And finally, my response:

I feel compelled to respond to the letter from Bob Amstutz in the March 24 issue. Mr. Amstutz presupposes a black-and-white world in which everyone is either law-abiding or a criminal. Unfortunately for his simplistic analysis, the world comes to us more often in shades of gray, not in black and white. Most of us are not entirely law-abiding or law-breaking, but rather we area combination of the two. And most of us are subject to getting angry, losing our temper and doing things which we regret later.

Is Mr. Amstutz proposing we all carry loaded firearms around with us every day of our lives because of the infinitesimal change that we will find ourselves in the same vicinity as some nut case who undertakes to shoot innocent victims? If so, this is a pretty pathetic way to live.

As to the idea advanced by the writer that those with concealed carry permits are law-abiding and not to be feared, I suggest that he look the families of Cameron Justus and William Stiltner in the eye and tell them that concealed carry permit holders are not dangerous. Mr. Justus and Mr. Stiltner are the two Virginia Sheriff’s Deputies who were killed in March of this year by a concealed carry permit holder. They are the 10^th and 11^th law enforcement officers killed since May of 2007 by concealed carry permit holders, and the total of police and civilians killed by concealed carry holders since then now stand at 194.

I agree with Mr. Amstutz that America is a great place. And I think we are at our greatest when we eschew violence and adhere to good, strong Christian values.

An Analysis of Terrorism

2011-04-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

Pat Buchanan's 2004 book "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency" contains a wonderful analysis of the history and causes of terrorism.

Buchanan makes a general assertion that the neocons were originally "Cold War liberals" who became disaffected with the Democratic party when McGovern was nominated in 1972, and gravitated to the Republican party. I see no specifics in his book supporting this assertion, but otherwise the book is, as usual for Buchanan, very well researched and documented. He describes how conservatives in the '70's came to see "detente" as a dirty word, and began disregarding George Washington's sage advice to stay out of foreign entanglements. Buchanan says that "Intervention, wars for democracy, and a passionate attachment to Israel are what neoconservatism is all about."

Buchanan examines how the neocons captured the presidency. Bush 2 was particularly vulnerable since he knew nothing about foreign policy and really had no interest in it when he assumed the presidency in 2001.In his campaign he was skeptical of nation-building and seemed to have the instincts of a true conservative. However, once he put his foreign policy team together after being appointed president by the Supreme Court, he peopled it with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others. Buchanan documents how all of these had been beating the drums for intervention in Iraq for ten years prior to 9/11, ever since Bush 1 failed to get rid of Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.

Buchanan documents how Bush's rhetoric changed after his election. In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil", and issued threats against these countries. Buchanan says that "the Bush threat of war upon nations that had not attacked us was unprecedented". He goes on to say that "Bush had no authority to issue those threats. The Constitution does not empower the president to launch preventive wars."

Buchanan then discusses a speech Bush made in June at West Point, in which Bush "rejected as obsolete the doctrines of containment and deterrence that had won the Cold War". Buchanan notes that "in dealing with nations, containment and deterrence had never failed us". The Bush concept that we will never brook any rival, and that the future is one of permanent American hegemony, is decried as ludicrous. Buchanan notes that "Prudence is the mark of the conservative. Where was the prudence in the president's address at West Point?"

In analyzing the feelings in the Arab world, Buchanan observes that "Interventionism is not the solution to America's problems in the Middle East. Interventionism is the problem. America's huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia led straight to 9/11. The terrorists were over here because we were over there. Terrorism is the price of empire. If you do not wish to pay the price, you must give up the empire."

Buchanan undertakes an account of the history of terrorism, introduced by the quote that "Terrorism is the war of the poor and War is the terrorism of the rich." He quotes Thomas Walkom as saying that "History demonstrates two dirty little secrets about terrorism, neither of which governments are anxious to admit. The first is that terrorism is almost impossible to prevent--unless its root causes are seriously and systematically addressed. The second is that, quite often, terrorists get what they want."

Buchanan's account of the history of terrorism starts with the French revolution, goes into czarist Russia, and then really becomes powerful when he writes of the 1916 Irish rebellion against Britain. He writes that 15 of the Irish rebels were executed, and by creating these 15 martyrs Britain sealed its doom in Ireland. The cause was successful when in the early 1920's Irish independence was achieved. Buchanan says that "This would be the pattern for wars of liberation in the 20th century." He later says that "Terrorism often succeeded in the 20th century, and when it did, the ex-terrorists achieved power, glory, and immortality, with streets, towns, and cities named for them. And America today recognized every regime to come out of these wars where terrorism was a common tactic."

Buchanan's forthright conclusion is that "We must give up the empire, bring the troops home, let lapse the old treaty commitments dating to a Cold War ended 15 years ago. As the greatest republic in history, America has never been and can never be an isolationist nation. But we must cease to be a compulsively interventionist one." While Buchanan's observations on domestic policy are somewhat dubious, and frankly weaken the overall quality of his book, his foreign policy judgments are right on, and the U.S. must heed them if it is to remain a strong country.

Early Take on the 2012 Election

2011-04-28T07:28:00.001-07:00

News recently is full of Donald Trump, who is full of himself every time he opens his mouth. He kept harping on the long-form birth certificate "issue" for Obama, who released it yesterday. Trump of course claimed huge credit for getting him to "do what he should have done a long time ago". Now Trump is talking of bullying other countries of the world to get our way. Biggest examples he talks about are China and Libya (he says that if we go in, we should seize their oil for ourselves).

The question is how could a nut case like this be at the top of the polls for the Republican nomination? A column by Thomas Sewell provides the answer. Sewell says that "What Trump has that so many other Republicans are so painfully lacking is the ability and the willingness to articulate his positions clearly, forcefully and in plain English". It doesn't seem to matter that he is so often wrong, like last night being interviewed by CNN's John King, when Trump said a CNN poll had him in a dead-heat with Obama, and King countered that CNN had never done such a poll. Trump never got back to King on this, because CNN checked and confirmed that no such poll existed.

It seems people relate to someone, like Palin in the last election, who speaks clearly and unequivocally. People do not relate to someone who, like Breslin said of Dukakis in 1988, talks like a "busted computer". Romney is the Dukakis of 2011, talking in a carefully programmed, pre-packaged way that people have trouble relating to.

The Republican field contains many flawed candidates. I still say that someone like Tim Pawlenty will have to end up getting the nomination, as nobody else can overcome their negatives. Or Gary Johnson, a recent entry who is a strong libertarian. Ron Paul is also a strong candidate based on his clear and principled positions, but lacks a broad enough base. The libertarians really need to have their own party, as the Republican Party has gotten so far away from true conservative principles that a true conservative has no chance anymore. Paul talks more than anybody else in either party about getting away from this fixation on militarism, and bringing our troops home. He and Johnson are probably the only principled candidates in the race.

The same analysis can explain the troubles Obama has in connecting with voters. An insightful piece in the Christian Science Monitor of 1-24-12 explains this. The thesis for the piece is that "no matter how you feel about Obama, his lack of clear philosophical principles is not only a political problem for Democrats but a moral problem for America". His "principles" of change, bipartisanship, pragmatism, etc., are not really principles at all, as they are "so general that they provide little analytical or moral traction." Again, the author states that "there is no well of enduring principle upon which he seems to draw".

The conclusion is that "a nation built on common principle, not common blood, requires its leaders to have a coherent political theory". An article in The New Yorker of 3-15-10 similarly discusses Obama's failure to connect with the average voter, because nobody knows where he stands on anything of importance.

Letter to Tom Usher

2011-04-22T08:23:00.001-07:00

Two points about your column. First, part of the Hall's entrance requirements involve sportsmanship and respecting the game. It is not just about numbers. Seen in that light, Manny should not expect induction, regardless of any steroid issues.

Second, how in the world can you mention Manny, Barry, Mark, Rafael and Sammy without mentioning Roger Clemens?? Clemens is right near the top of the list of no-good SOB's who should be denied despite their numbers.

The NFL Labor Impasse

2011-04-12T09:46:00.001-07:00

My first impulse is to enjoy the NFL labor impasse, because I have heard so many people complain about the baseball strike, and how they were not going to follow baseball anymore because of it. In point of fact, the other major sports have all had labor disputes at least as serious as the baseball one, yet nobody ever complains about them. Let these fair-weather fans now eschew football!

The dispute has been characterized as how to divide up a $9.3 billion pie, for that is the yearly revenue generated by football. This is basically an accurate characterization, as the other issues are minor. Thus, it is like a divorce case in which the only issue is division of property. I had one like that (which still required over 70 hours of my time to resolve), but most divorces are much more complicated, involving division of debts, spousal support, child support, and child custody issues in addition to the relatively simple division of property issue.

With division of this huge pie being the only issue, one would think a resolution could be had, but both sides have dug in their heels for a fight. As with any labor stoppage, both sides will sacrifice huge sums of money due to their intransigence. But it is hard to feel sorry for either side, as it is billionaires fighting against millionaires.

That football is so popular is a sad commentary on the American culture, for it is a game of violence. Besides that, it is unwatchable, unlike baseball and most other sports. One simply cannot follow 22 players moving in 22 different directions for a few seconds. At least with baseball the actions come linearly, one after another, and you can actually watch it and enjoy it. My conclusion is that the country would be better off without football. Let us put our efforts into non-violent pursuits, and forget football. My hope is that the labor dispute is never settled.

MLB Predictions for 2011

2011-03-29T11:40:00.000-07:00

Once again it's time for the annual predictions.

AL East. Red Sox, Yankees, Rays, Orioles, Blue Jays.

Red Sox are improved over last year, while the Yanks struck out, for a change, in the free agent market. An easy choice for first place. Idiosyncratic pick here for the O's over the Jays, as I'm banking on Showalter getting the O's in shape to play much better.

AL Central. Twins, Tigers, White Sox, Indians, Royals.

I decided last year that it was folly to pick against the Twins, as they always exceed expectations. One of my favorite cities, in one of my favorite ballparks, with one of my favorite managers. I was tempted to go with the improved Tigers, but in the end I decided to stick with my Twins. Sox and Indians also improved, but they rate only 3rd & 4th. Royals need to move to a more supportive part of the country--census data shows the trend continues towards the Southwest.

AL West. Rangers, Angels, A's, Mariners.

Usually I expect a team to drop back after a season like the Rangers had last year. But they got to the WS, which has to be considered. Angels are one of my favorite teams, but I'm going with only 2nd for them.

NL East. Philolies, Braves, Mariners, Mets, Natrinals.

Philies are a lock with their 4 great starters. Even if one goes down, they should win the World Series, and I am picking them over the Red Sox in the WS. Mariners are still young and hungry, so they rate the nod over the Mets for 3rd palce. Mets are old and breaking down and over-paid.

NL Central. Brewers, Reds, Cards, Cubs, Astros, Pirates.

Card are another one of those teams, like the Twins and Angels, that I hate to ever pick against, because they always seem to defy expectations. But with Wainwright going down, and the Brewers being so improved, I can't put the Cards higher than 3rd. The loveable Cubs will extend their 102-year losing streak. Pirates, like the Royals, need to relocate.

NL West. Giants, Rockies, Dodgers, Padres, Diamondbacks.

Dodgers are another team I always like to go with, but I can't go against the defending champs here.

The Westboro Case

2011-03-09T09:09:00.000-08:00

Mitch Albom had a great column the other day entitled "Westboro case sounds right but feels wrong". It can be read at http://www.freep.com/article/20110306/COL01/103060439/Mitch-Albom-Westboro-case-sounds-right-feels-wrong?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

Albom is absolutely right. How to reconcile the fact the case sounds legally right but morally wrong? To do this one must understand that the Westboro protesters were in compliance with all local laws when they picketed the funeral of the plaintiff's son. Therefore, the issue was not really joined in this case. When local govenrments enact more restrictive laws against picketing funerals, as I think they should, and the Westboro folks violate those laws and are charged with a crime, then the issue will be truly joined.

Free speech, like all other rights, has never been absolute. Reasonable restrictions are always in place. Certainly a family has the right to bury a child without being subjected to these despicable protests. The Westboro loonies can get their message out without invading the privacy of a grieving family.

An Analysis of U.S. Wars

2011-02-06T11:08:00.000-08:00

Here is my letter to The Lima News, which precipitated my investigation of the above topic:

"Your Monday editorial, "Jordan, friends off to a good start" correctly concludes that in order to address the deficit problem in any meaningful way, all spending needs to be "on the table".

However, buried within the editorial is a misuse of language which is the kind of thing that makes intelligent discussion of this issue so difficult. You define discretionary spending as "anything other than defense and entitlement programs".

Why in the world is defense spending any less "discretionary" than any other items in the federal budget? The fact is, it is highly discretionary, and we could save many billions of dollars each year by closing our bases on foreign soil and bringing our troops home to this country, where they belong. Only then will the Department of "Defense" no longer be a misnomer."

**********************

I propose to expand on this last sentence. Until 1947 the U.S. used the term "Department of War" to refer to the military. The name change to the current "Department of Defense" was completed in 1949. What is strikingly ironic is the prevalence of "wars of choice" since this name change, a change which implied that we were going to use our military only for defensive purposes from then on. I will attempt an analysis of our country's wars, both before and after the name change.

Barbary War. In the early 1800's our shipping was being regularly attacked by Barbary pirates, and Jefferson had every right and the duty, even, to do what he could to put an end to this barbaric practice.

War of 1812. The British were guilty of impressment of our sailors into their navy. This is a relatively innocuous-sounding term, but a more accurate description would be that the British were forcibly kidnapping our citizens and forcing them into involuntary service on their navy ships. This is obviously intolerable for any sovereign country, and the U.S. was justified into going to war, though Madison's handling of it is highly questionable and showed a singular lack of leadership.

Mexican-American War. This one is a little trickier. I think a fair examination of the historical record shows that Polk provoked the Mexicans into attacking our troops, by sending them onto land he knew was being claimed by Mexico. Mexico viewed the border as the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande, and a glance at a map shows that the Nueces boundary would have made a lot more sense geographically. As it is, the south end of Texas juts into Mexico, and the triangle of land that does this is logically more a part of Mexico than the U.S.

Pat Buchanan, in "How the Right Went Wrong", says that preventive wars are alien to the American tradition, which is a central theme in many of his post-9/11 writings. Buchanan says that "Polk waited until the Mexican army shed 'American blood on American soil' before asking Congress to declare war." This is an atypically weak point by Buchanan, whose recent books are otherwise well-researched and argued. A better analysis is to recognize that yes, Polk did make that argument for going to war, but the rest of the story is that Polk deliberately provoked this, knowing that that was the only way to convince Congress to satisfy his demand for war. And many in Congress were still unconvinced and did not support Polk's war, including a Congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln who demanded that Polk "show me the spot" where such blood had allegedly been shed.

Polk's war had widespread opposition in the U.S., and certainly the invasion of Mexico was not necessary or legitimate. Polk got his territory, but at the price of tarnishing the American reputation.

Civil War. Another unnecessary war. What is so incredible about this whole fiasco in American history is that Lincoln assumed the South had no right to secede, without ever offering any rationale that would stand up to analysis. Yet, people from the North followed him like lemmings over the cliff. Amazing, and so sad.

Let us analyze the legal issues which Lincoln refused to discuss. One must first understand that the Constitution sets out a limited set of powers granted to the federal government by the states and the people. Among these was *not* the right to prevent a state from seceding, and certainly not the right to use military force to do so.

The next step is to recognize that the Constitution says nothing one way or the other about the right of a state to secede. It doesn't say it is permissible, and neither does it prohibit it. One must thus read the document as a whole to infer what the legalities of secession are.

The most relevant portions for this analysis are the 9th and 1oth amendments. The 9th says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people." The 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Also pertinent is the 2nd amendment, which gives citizens the right to bear arms, one obvious purpose of which is to protect the people against the tyranny of an overbearing federal government.

Although Lincoln himself didn't stress this, some have made much of the Preamble, which starts "We, the People of the United States..." This could be read as emphasizing the larger union, to the detriment of the individual states. However, this argument fails when one understands that the wording is an accident. The original wording was "That the people of the States of New Hampshire...." (naming all 13 original states). The naming of the states was taken out because the constitutional convention could not tell in advance which states would ratify the new constitution. Only 9 were needed for ratification, so there would have been as many as 4 left out. Thus, the constitution really was a compact among the several states, with federal powers limited to those specifically granted under the document.

Lincoln, supposedly a great lawyer, would have flunked had this been a final exam. He offered nothing convincing to support his assumption that secession was illegal, and in fact he engaged in despicable sophistry in his insistence on calling it a "rebellion", so as to bring it under the definition of treason and therefore justify his violent reaction to it. In fact, it was not a rebellion in any normal sense of the word, but rather it was an attempt to peaceably secede. Lincoln should have let them go in peace.

One of the most despicable things Lincoln did was suspend habeas corpus and imprison 13,000 people without trial, simply because they were suspected of being "Southern sympathizers." If one travels through southern Indiana or southern Ohio and talks to the people, it is apparent that many folks in these areas consider themselves southerners. Surely they can't be blamed for having some sympathy for their brothers and cousins and aunts and uncles in the South, yet these are the people Lincoln threw into jail for the duration of the war!

In "The Book of America", authors Neal R. Peirce and Jerry Hagstrom give a wonderful account of the political, cultural and economic dynamics at work in each of the 50 states. Writing about Indiana, they say that "Indiana had its own Mason-Dixon line, dividing the state--and its politics and accents--roughly in half along the course of the old National Road, now U.S. 40 (paralleled by Interstate 70). These people who live between rote 40 and the Ohio River are more southern than midwstern in outlook, and yet Lincoln unlawfuly imprisoned 13,000 of them for having this outlook. It is so ironic that today we castigate regimes around the world which imprison their political opponents, and yet we continue to idolize Lincoln for doing exactly the same thing! Historians, wake up and smell the coffee!

In making war on the South, Lincoln went against the advice of almost his entire Cabinet. In her award-winning book, "Team of Rivals", Doris Kearns Goodwin writes about how Lincoln was confronted with the issue of whether to re-provision For Sumter on his very first day in office. On his desk was a letter from Major Anderson at Fort Sumter, quoting General Scott as saying "I see no alternative but a surrender".

Lincoln then put the issue to his Cabinet. Kearns details the responses, and then concludes, "In the end, five cabinet members strongly opposed the resupply and reinforcement of Fort Sumter; one remained ambiguous; one was in favor." Despite having the advantage of all of these voices of reason, Lincoln pondered the issue for two weeks and then made the fateful decision to reprovision the fort. Alarmed and angered by this decision, Lincoln's Secretary of State, Seward, wrote a scathing letter to Lincoln expressing his concerns, and telling Lincoln that the administration was "without a policy, either domestic or foreign". At least George W. Bush has the excuse that his advisors led him astray. Lincoln has no such excuse.

It should be noted that the union likely would have lost only the original 7 states which seceded. The other 4--Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia--joined only after Lincoln started his unjust war, and those states were then faced with the prospect of their young men being drafted into Lincoln's army to fight against their brothers and cousins in the South. Rather than endure that, they joined the Confederacy.

It is interesting to ponder how things might have been different had the 7 states been allowed to go in peace. One small example: in the 2004 presidential election, Bush beat Kerry by 286-251 in the electoral college. Take away those 7 right-wing states and Kerry wins 251-178! Just think how much better off this country would be without the right-wing dominance caused by Lincoln's misguided attempts to hold all the states together.

Spanish-American War. Recent analysis has verified that the Maine was not blown up by the Spanish. McKinley went to war based on yellow journalists arousing the populace and he was wrong to do so.

World War I. It has been suggested that Wilson's war was an unnecessary one, but I don't agree. The historical record hows that Wilson made every attempt to mediate a peace in the European war prior to 1917, but the parties just would not cooperate. We got involved only after the Germans started sinking our ships, doing so to the tune of 5 in the single month of March, 1917.

World War II. FDR actually is more blameworthy than Wilson for getting us into war. The record shows that he was pushing the country to war well before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. His propaganda machine was working full-time to prepare the country for war and to "sell" the idea to the populace. He provided U.S. escorts to British shipping, apparently hoping that the Germans would attack our ships so that he could enter the war as he wanted to. Once into the war, his incarceration of Japanese-Americans was despicable, and a diligent inquiry would reveal, I submit, many other atrocities that FDR was willing to, and did, engage in. Nevertheless, one must conclude that as between war of choice and war of necessity (i.e., response to being attacked), this was the latter.

Korean War. Here is where it really gets dicey. The whole post-WW2 scenario leading up to the Cold War is problematic. In George Kennan's memoirs, he recounts how he strenuously objected to the proposed speech by Pres. Truman laying out the Truman doctrine. Kennan, our #1 expert at the time on Russia/Soviet Union, believed the Soviet goal was not war and/or military conquest, but rather was political and economic in nature. Yet, as usual, we ignored our experts and plunged ahead with no moral or factual compass. Truman in fact promulgated his Truman Doctrine, announcing to the world that the Soviets intended military domination, a blatantly false allegation, as documents which have come to light since the fall of the Soviet Union have verified, and the Cold War ensued.

The Korean War was a result of this faulty world view by the Truman administration. Certainly the U.S. was not attacked, and we shed American blood for no good reason, and certainly not on American soil!

Kennan explains in his memoirs why he took exception to Pres. Truman's speech announcing the Truman Policy of aid to Greece and Turkey. He cites the overly-broad pronouncement of Truman that "I believe it must be the policy of the U.S. to support free peoples who are resisting subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Kennan states that "This passage, and others as well, placed our aid to Greece in the framework of a universal policy rather than in that of a specific decision addressed to a specific set of circumstances. It implied that what we had decided to do in the case of Greece was something we would be prepared to do in the case of any other country..."

Kennan goes on to state that "I would also take exception to the repeated suggestions, in the text of that message, that what we were concerned to defend in Greece was the democratic quality of the country's institutions." Kennan concludes that "I have been struck by the congenital aversion of Americans to taking specific decisions on specific problems, and by their persistent urge to seek universal formulae or doctrines in which to clothe and justify particular actions."

Certainly this overly-broad rendition of American policy has been repeated many times since Truman's time, but blame Truman for starting it. Since then we had the outrageous statement in JFK's inauguration speech that we would "pay any price" to defend freedom around the world, and then after 9/11, Bush's enunciation of his policy to the same effect. Kennan states clearly that "it was important, in my view, that the Soviet threat be recognized for what it was--primarily a political one and not a threat of military attack." Truman was wrong not to listen to his Russian expert, a man who had spent his whole adult life learning about Russia and faithfully serving the U.S. as a diplomat in Russian affairs.

By misrepresenting the Soviet threat as a military one, rather than a political one, Truman started the ball rolling toward the Cold War, and committed the U.S. to military adventures all around the world. All a country had to do was cry "Communist infiltrators", and we were there with our aid. The fact that most of these regimes with their hands out were hardly democratic didn't seem to bother anybody, despite the pronouncement of our supposed goals of promoting democracy. We face the same dilemma today in Egypt, as any more democratic government will surely be more hostile to the U.S. than the old one was.

The whole mentality started by Truman can be seen in the accusation that Truman "lost China" when it went Communist. As if we owned China, and it was ours to "lose"! This was the mentality of the Cold War, an ugly time created by Truman and his staff and totally unnecessary. This same "domino" mentality got us into the Korean War, and shame on Truman for doing so.

Vietnam War. Johnson was similarly in the grip of the Cold War hysteria, which as we have seen was false and detrimental to our national interests and well-being. Again, we were not attacked and Johnson had ample time to reverse course, including advice from his VP Humphrey, which he ignored. Shame on him.

Gulf War. Again, we were not attacked. The whole lie involved in these wars of choice is that "American interests" are involved, hence we must go to war. If the applicable dept. is the "Dept. of Defense", not the "Dept. of Offense", then why are we undertaking these costly adventures all around the world?

Iraq War. Again, George W. Bush involves us in an unnecessary war based on false intelligence. But let us look at his rationale beyond the question of faulty intelligence. This is what has caused Pat Buchanan to adopt our misguided foreign policy as his #1 issue, and he has written incessantly about this since then, in both his books and his columns.

In his book "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency", Buchanan analyzes the speeches of President Bush and explains how wrongheaded he was in his worldview. 9 days after 9/11, Bush couched the battle in either/or terms, with no nuance at all allowed into his thinking. Buchanan says the rhetoric hearkened back to Christ ("He who is not with me is against me") when Bush said, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". Bush began to describe the war on terror in moral terms, calling our enemies "evildoers" and saying "This war is a struggle between good and evil".

Then came Bush's State of the Union address, with his infamous "axis of evil" statement. He was clearly threatening war against Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, none of which had anything to do with 9/11. Buchanan says that "the Bush threat of war upon nations that had not attacked us was unprecedented". He goes on to say that "President Bush had no authority to issue those threats. The constitution does not empower the president to launch preventive wars."

Next comes Bush's speech at West Point on June 2nd, 2002. In analyzing this speech, Buchanan says that "Bush now rejected as obsolete the doctrines of containment and deterrence that had won the Cold War, and advocated anew an American policy of preemptive wars." Bush's ideological confusion here is that he applied principles for dealing with individuals to his dealing with what he termed "rogue nations". Buchanan says that Bush was right in his approach to dealing with individual terrorists, but that "in dealing with nations, containment and deterrence had never failed us."

Buchanan says that "This Bush declaration--that we will brook no rival, ever again, that the future is one of permanent American hegemony--is a gauntlet thrown down to every rival and would-be world power and a challenge to lesser powers to unite against us." Buchanan asks the question, "What support is there in history for the view that by meddling in the internal politics of foreign nations we advance our security?" He concludes with the observation that "Terrorism is the price of empire. If you do not wish to pay the price, you must give up the empire."

Rather than meddling in the affairs of other countries, we should bring our troops home to our own soil. However, Bush's approach is just the opposite of this, and, if not corrected by future presidents, will result in America's prestige around the world continuing to decline and America sinking into the trash heap of history.

Afghanistan War. This goes on Obama's doorstep. Bush's action was in response to an occasion on which we actually *were* attacked. Obama widened the war to engage in a futile venture of nation-building which is doomed to failure, as any mediocre student of history can easily see.

So, the scorecard turns out to be: 3 wars of choice prior to 1949, and 5 since. A sorry record indeed. "Dept. of War" turns out to be a better title than "Dept. of Defense", which truly is a misnomer.

Obama and Egypt

2011-02-03T15:12:00.000-08:00

I saw Hillary Clinton on two different Sunday morning talk shows this past Sunday. She was asked by both which side the United States is on, "Mubarak or the demonstrators in the streets". She replied there is a third choice, which is the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people. She went on to say that the U.S. for more than 30 years has been urging Egypt to be more democratic.

What galls me is that nobody has followed up and asked the obvious question, which is "Why do we give so much aid to a regime which we claim needs to change?" Egypt receives the second-most aid of any country, behind only Israel, and over a billion dollars a year goes for military aid. If we were serious these last 30 years about urging change on Egypt, as Hillary says we have been, why didn't we condition the aid on the needed changes being made?

And with a peace treaty with Israel in place, and not being attacked by any foreign country, why has Egypt needed this outrageous amount of military aid? During the cold war we justified it because we were competing with the Soviet Union for Egypt's affection. But wake up, U.S., in case you haven't heard, the Cold War is over!!

It seems we are always reacting, and never acting in a proactive way. We react to events, usually ignoring our experts who have seen trouble coming a mile away. And when we do react, it is a pussy-footing, middle-of-the-road response like Obama gave the other night, urging everybody to stay peaceful. Obama might as well have stayed silent as to deliver that namby-pamby, say-nothing excuse for a speech.

This leads me into what is one of the best analyses of the Presidency I have ever read. It was an article in the Christian Science Monitor for 1/24/11, entitled "What does Obama really believe?". Following are portions I have highlighted, and they are fairly self-explanatory.

"Obama surfed into the White House on a wave of seeming principle: change, bipartisanship, reason, deliberation, pragmatism. What we didn't realize is that all these concepts are methodological. They concern the process of forming public policy. But they are not bedrock principles upon which we can orient the ends of government. They are so general that they provide little analytical or moral traction."

"When he compromises, when he reaches policy conclusions, there's no sense that it derives from anything other than ad hoc balancing. There is no well of enduring principle upon which he seems to draw. Even if he's a pragmatist, eschewing universal principles in favor of context-specific values and concerns, we still don't know what those temporal values and concerns are, or why he believes in them."

"A president with a weak sense of his own principles weakens our sense of our principles. We begin to lose our national identity, and our political system loses legitimacy. If we are a community that merely aggregates narrow, sectarian interests or simply maximizes "what works" in a pragmatic fashion, we aren't much of a community at all....Obama's presidency is still young. Its success depends on 'Obamanism' meaning something clear, bold, and convincing for future generations. For a nation built on common principle, not common blood, requires its leaders to have a coherent political theory."

Never has the problem with Obama been articulated so well. His speeches don't resonate or inspire because there is no passion behind his words, only an "on the one hand, on the other hand" sort of wishy-washy quality, and his speech on Egypt is only the latest example of this.

Progress on the Death Penalty

2011-01-04T07:34:00.000-08:00

Columnist Steve Chapman points out a number of indicators which show that the death penalty is on the wane in the U.S. Here are these indicators:

1. In the recent Connecticut governor's race, an opponent of the death penalty beat a proponent, even though a trial for a horrific crime was going on in the state during the campaign.

2. Executions are only a third of what they were at their 1996 peak.

3. Death sentences in Texas are down by 80%.

4. 138 death row inmates have now been exonerated.

5. Maryland has spent $186 million on capital cases over the past 30 years, a total of $37 million per execution.

6. A 2005 study pointed out that "New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one."

Death penalty proponents sometimes argue that no innocent person has been executed that we know of. However, that is no longer true because the conviction of the man in Texas who was executed for setting a house fire which killed his family has now been totally discredited. A long article in The New Yorker some months back recounts this sordid tale, which involved a Texas arson investigator who reached the wrong conclusion from the evidence. With the execution imminent, national experts were consulted who said unequivocally that the conclusion presented at the trial by this so-called "expert" was wrong, yet the Texas governor refused to consider this new evidence and stay the execution. Typical Texas "justice".

Analyzing the Main Line of the Dragon

2010-12-21T08:03:00.000-08:00

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Bc4 Nc6 9. Qd2 Bd7 10. O-O-O Qa5 11. h4

11 Kb1 is probably the most often-played move, but it is not the most challenging or interesting move. With 11 h4 White announces that he is going to attack at every opportunity, and challenge Black to repel the attack with accurate play.

Rfc8 12. Bb3 Ne5 13. h5

Proceeding in standard fashion, White sacrifices his h-Pawn to open up the h-file for attack against the Black King.

Nxh5 14. g4 Nf6 15. Bh6 Bxh6

White was threatening 16 BxB KxB 17 Qh6ch followed by 18 Nd5, forcing the removal of Black's King Knight which is guarding h7. Theory recommends the immediate 16...Rxc3, eliminating the White Queen Knight which was the threat agianst the Black Knight on f6, but I prefer the Bishop trade first. This induces the Black Queen to go to h6, whereas after 16...Rxc3 17 bxc3 Bxh6, theory holds that White should recapture on h6 with the rook, as Black gets the better game with White's Queen on h6. Therefore, why not induce the Queen to h6 a move earlier, while White has the hope that perhaps Black will ignore the threat and fail to take on c3, giving White a winning attack due to his h-file pressure. In chess, as in life, conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong!

16 Qxh6 Rxc3 17 bxc3 Qxc3

Sometimes Black will delay this capture, but I see no point to this. Black now has a Knight and 2 Pawns for his Rook, whihc is plenty of compensation in this position. In fact, the endgame, if Black should get to it, greatly favors Black as White's Rook has no open files to operate on.

18 Kb1

Black was threatening the check on a1 followed by taking the Knight on d4 with check. Other White tries here have involved moving the Knight, either to e2 or f5, but these tries have turned out badly for White. His best move is clearly the Kb1 try.

18...Rc8

Out of 10 games in the database, 18...Nc4 was plaed an equal number of times to this. But I see no reason to play ...Nc4 now, as White has no threat yet which requires this. At such time as the Bishop on b3 presents a credible threat to Black's Pawn on f7, certainly Black should then play ...Nc4 to block off the Bishop. By bringing the rook into play, Black opens up the option of taking with the rook on c4 when White plays BxN.

Also, by delaying ...Nc4 and playing ...Qxc3 immediately, Black opens up a threat againt White's Pawn on f3, which gives White an additional worry to ponder. The Pawn on f3 is the only thing holding White's fragile King-side Pawn structure together, and when it falls, White's position is in serious danger of structural collapse.

Sometimes Black has also played 18...b5 here, which seems like a pointless waste of time to me.

After 18...Rc8, Black has placed White at a crossroads. White has entered into this position in attacking mode, but now there is no good way to continue his attack. f4 and Nf5 are the only attacking moves available, but these have proved futile. In fact, of 6 games in the database, the only move which produced a White win was Qd2, a defensive move which most White's would be loathe to play. (And that win only came as a result of a tactical trick at the end.) Attempts by White to guard the Pawn on f3 by Rhf1 or Rh3 also were not effective.

So, the conclusion is that Black has more than equalized, and the Dragon has served Black well. If it gets to an ending, Black's Knight and 2 Pawns will have a clear advantage over White's Rook which has nowhere to go. There is also the basic question of whether White is up to the challenge of losing his Pawn on f3, which Qd2 does.

Health Care and the Constitution

2010-12-20T10:09:00.000-08:00

Libertariians are falling all over themselves with glee at the ruling by the Virginia federal judge who ruled the mandate in the health care bill unconstitutional. There were no less than four columns about this in the paper this week.

Two of the columns mentioned the question asked of Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings, about whether it would be constitutional to require people to eat fruits and vegetables. Apparently she responded it would be a "dumb law", but she stopped short of saying it would be unconstitutional.

The whole issue is whether the federal government can mandate that you "do something" under the commerce clause. Previously the court OK'd a penalty against a farmer who grew wheat in excess of the quota, even though the wheat was for his own consumption. But the distinction all the libertarians are making is that never has the court ruled that *inaction* can constitutionally be found to be a violation of federal law under the commerce clause.

The only commentator who has commented in detail on how the Supreme Court might rule opined that it will come down to Justice Kennedy, and he pointed out that Kennedy's biography, entitled "The Tie Goes To Freedom", suggests that he will rule "on the side of liberty".

I suspect this is true, that the court will rule against the mandate. Perhaps then the federal government will do what is right and adopt real reform including a public option like the other developed countries have, at half the cost of health care in the U.S.

On Prisons

2010-12-18T07:01:00.000-08:00

Two related items in this week's news. The first describes the Stanford Law School's "Three Strikes Project", which has overturned 14 life prison terms handed out under
California's ridiculous 3-strikes law, which provides for life imprisonment for a third felony, even when all offenses were non-violent.

The current case they are working on is interesting because both the judge and the prosecutor have joined the Project in urging a modification of the harsh penalty imposed on a poor bastard who got life in prison for 2 burglaries committed at age 19, plus a conviction for possessing $10 worth of drugs. Details are at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121101556_2.html

The second item describes how the number of inmates 55 and older in U.S. prisons are 71% higher than in 1999. The cost for housing older inmates is $70,000 a year. The cost for younger inmates is said to be less than half of that, although I have seen a figure that the average cost in California is $50,000 per year.

All during the recent campaign Republicans who whined about the deficit were asked what they would cut, and not one would give a straight answer. Here is how you can tell a real conservative: he or she will answer that they will close half the prisons and free the non-violent offenders, and close down all of our military bases on foreign soil. All the other mumb0-jumbo is just that.

Obama and Passion (Or Lack Thereof)

2010-12-17T11:10:00.000-08:00

Shortly after Obama took office, a friend of mine asked if I had watched his speech the night before. I had to admit I had not, and felt like there must be something wrong with me that I wasn't that interested in listening to him.

But now I have come to understand what the problem is. Obama talks to us like he is talking to a college class, or perhaps to a grouop of fellow academics. There is no passion in his voice, nothing that is compelling enough to make us want to listen to him.

Related to this is an interview I read recently with historian Forrest McDonald, whose thesis is that there are two important functions of the President. One is the head of state, the other the CEO of the country. Were Obama only a CEO, he would perhaps be considered extremely competent. But the job entails more than that, you are also the leader of the people.

But McDonald goes further and says that the ceremonial function is often more important than the CEO part. As an example he says that "Jimmy Carter came across as a wimp, and the country was ashamed of itself. We felt weak. Ronald Reagan came in and made the country feel good about itself. We were no longer ashamed of ourselves, no longer afraid to take chances."

McDonald goes on to explain the importance of having a good ceremonial leader, saying "It's a basic, deep-seated, genetically rooted human craving to have a leader with whom one can identify and for whom one is willing to fight and die, to have a leader who symbolizes and personifies the aspirations, hopes, and values of the country."

Many inexplicable results throughout U.S. electoral history can be explained by taking this basic concept into account.

Some Good News

2010-12-16T03:44:00.000-08:00

It is hard not to become hopelessly depressed when one follows national and international news. Hence a few positive items from today's paper give one reason for hope. All are environmental:

1) The bald eagle is rebounding from near-extinction. A Pa. sanctuary recorded 407 this year, smashing the old record of 245.

2) Two studies were released yesterday showing that the polar bear may not be facing extinction as previously feared.

3) A Japanese salmon thought to be extinct for 70 years was found alive and well in a lake near Mt. Fuji.

Letter to Mitch Albom

2010-12-15T10:38:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Albom:

I usually enjoy your columns, which is why yesterday's column entitled "tax cut debate missing the point" was such a disappointment to me.

Your example of a couple making $250,000 talked about their tax burden being 40% under the Democratic proposal. This is blatantly false, and such falsehoods are hard to fathom coming from a person of your stature. Do you not have any editors?

The fact is that, under the Democratic proposal, taxes would only go up to the 40% vicinity on income *above* $250,000. The cuts would remain in place for all income under that amount. (And under an alternative proposal, the increase would only apply to income over a million. Do you oppose this too?)

I worked through the tax laws based on the 2009 rules. Your hypothetical family with 4 kids and $250,000 income would pay a total of $50,054 in income taxes. This is within the 25% which you say is reasonable. (And it assumes no itemization of deductions; i.e., the standard deduction was used.)

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Letter on Ron Santo

2010-12-11T08:37:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Usher:

I appreciated your recent column on Ron Santo, and also the one a month ago on Sparky Anderson. I think it is helpful to be reminded every so often that not all athletes are prima donnas.

I do have to take issue with your statement that as a player, Santo was a "border-line Hall of Famer". I think a fair examination of his record reveals he is absolutely a Hall-of-Famer, despite the failure of the writers ot vote him in.

"Total Baseball" gives him the NL's highest player rating for the years '64, '66, and '67. Had he been voted these 3 MVP's like he should have been, his HOF induction would be a no-brainer. And considering he was 2nd in TPR in 1965, he surely had one of the best 4-year runs in MLB history.

I agree with you that a person's total contribution to the game should be considered, and were that possible Santo would surely be in the HOF, considering his broadcasting career in combination with his playing career. But unfortunately, the HOF rules require that one must be inducted in a particular category, and total contributions are therefore not considered.

The same writers who snubbed Santo by voting him 8th, 18th(!), 12th, and 4th, respectively, for the MVP in the years 1964 through 1967, continued to snub him after his retirement by denying him his rightful place in the Hall of Fame. What a shame.

On Political Rhetoric

2010-12-09T05:01:00.000-08:00

Thomas Sewell had a column yesterday entitled "Rhetoric rides over reason in tax debate". His purpose is to show how deceptive rhetoric is being used in the tax debate. He states that "political rhetoric is largely the art of misstating issues".

Interesting, then, to see how Mr. Sewell himself used the very type of rhetoric he so strongly denounces. He says it is wrong to talk about a tax cut, because nobody's taxes are going to be "cut". But if existing law says they will go up on January 1st, then it *is* a cut to knock them back down from what they would have been absent Congressional action.

Then he says that a second reason it is wrong to talk about "tax cuts for the rich" is that the "rich" aren't really rich. He gives the example of a family making $250,000 a year and paying $30,000 for tuition for one year. I say that anybody who can afford to pay that kind of tuition is, in fact, rich. There are billions of people on this planet who would consider themselves rich if they had a small fraction of the $250,00 a year which Sewell says is not rich. This is just American arrogance at work here.

He objects to using "giving", as in "giving the rich a tax cut", saying that the government letting people keep more of their money is not "giving" them anything. But if you accept that taxes are necessary in a society then why not use that word. It is not like the government is stealing from people, which is how Sewell paints it.

But then he goes on to say that "giving" is appropriate to use in connection with unemployment benefits. This ignores that these benefits are not welfare, but are *insurance*, i.e., employers have paid into a fund to create a safety net for the involuntarily unemployed should employees get laid off. Sewell says studies show that people stay unemployed longer when benefits are extended. Yes, there likely is some correlation there, but studies would also show that the overwhelming majority of the unemployed would rather be working.

An item Sewell does not even mention is that one of the votes would have axed the tax cut for those making over a million a year. If $250,000 is not rich, would Sewell consider a million a year rich? The Republicans voted even against this, and they should be held accountable for their pandering to the rich in this shameless manner.

Sewell again missteps when he says that it is "liberals" who want to raise taxes on the rich. I say that any true conservative would agree that cutting taxes on the rich is not adviseable when the deficit is so huge. Nobody is more conservative than David Stockman, who served in the Reagan administration. And Stockman recently spoke out and said it is totally irresponsible to talk about cutting taxes when the deficit is out of control like it is. We are, in fact, careening toward bankruptcy, and our once-great country is on the ropes.

It is interesting to go back and read the writings and speeches by the founders and the early presidents. What you find is that they used the word "posterity" over and over. These people cared about the future, and took pains to leave their children a better country than they themselves had experienced. Now anybody who cares about posterity is a voice crying in the wilderness, with nobody listening. Instant gratification right now, and to hell with the consequences. That attitude is leading us right into the toilet.

On Deficit Reduction

2010-12-02T04:22:00.000-08:00

The bipartisan commission is meeting and news reports today reported dissension among commission members. The two co-chairs released some preliminary ideas a few weeks ago, but the problem is that among the members themselves there are active politicians, and politicians these days lack the political courage to do anything meaningful about runaway spending. Just think back to the recent campaign; every time a journalist asked a Republican what he proposed to cut, the politician would never give a straight answer. Now that is true cowardice.

The rules are that any proposal needs 14 votes (out of 18 total) to be issued. This will never happen, but it's irrelevant anyway since Congress never will find the will to enact legislation involving tough choices.

The good news is that the ideas from the co-chairs made it clear that the "sacred cows" previously deemed untouchable are on the table for discussion. (I swear, I am going to puke if I ever again hear the words "non-defense discretionary spending" as the only things on the table. Everyone knows true savings cannot be achieved if the cuts are limited to that relatively small category of spending.) The four sacred cows are social security, Medicare, defense, and the interest deduction for mortgages. I don't know much about Medicare, but I will deal with the others.

First defense. Having our military personnel stationed in over 100 countries around the world is just ludicrous. It engenders much resentment toward the U.S., and on balance probably makes us less safe rather than more. We should close all our bases on foreign soil and bring the troops home to the U.S. If the military wants bases on U.S. soil, like Guam and American Samoa, this is acceptable, but we should not have bases on foreign soil, any more than we would allow foreign countries to have bases on our soil. (For an example of the resentment caused by our presence, look at the Japanese Prime Minister having to resign because he couldn't get rid of our base on Okinawa as he had promised.)

Certainly our navy should retain the right to operate in international waters, and by so doing the U.S. could retain a significant presence around the world, without violating other countries' sovereign space.

We should also call a halt to the runaway spending on new weapons systems, which are being bought as if there still was a cold war going on. We have plenty of weapons already.

Next social security. Obviously changes must be made to keep it viable. Politicians get asked "would you cut social security?", and are afraid to even bring up raising the retirement age because they are afraid that journalists will paint this as a "cut", even though it really is not. Ideally the retirement age shoud be pegged to life expectancy, just like the monthly checks are now pegged to the cost of living. As life expectancy goes up, obviously the retirement age should go up as well. This seems so obvious that it is inexplicable why the resistance to this is so high.

Next the interest deduction. This is bad public policy in the first place. It is based on the myth that every family should live in a single-famly house with the yard and picket fence, etc. Because of the interest deduction, people spend more for houses than they are worth, artifically propping up the housing market from where it should be based on normal economic realitites. The housing market should be allowed to function free of this artificial stimulus, and then maybe homes would become affordable for first-time buyers with young families. But also, people would be more encouraged to live in alternative settings, like apartments where utilities are lower and energy usage is conserved. Perhaps people would realize they don't need to live miles and miles away from where they work, thereby wasting hours a day in commutes, and polluting the atmosphere with their vehicles. Perhaps liveable communities would arise.

Tax cuts on the rich need to be allowed to lapse as scheduled. Much savings can be had here.

It's not that any of this is rocket science, it's just that we don't have Congressmen with guts and vision like we used to have. Initially Congress was supposed to be the main branch of goverment, and in the 1800's it contained great men like Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, who were better known and more respected than many Presidents. But now, a Congressman is little more than an errand boy for his constituents, doing them favors and doing his best to "bring home the bacon" for his district. This is one instance where the "good old days" really were the good old days.

Letter on Smoking Ban

2010-11-29T11:32:00.000-08:00

To the editor:

I appreciate Ron Lederman's consistent advocacy for libertarian principles. However, his column on the public smoking law is, I believe, misguided.

It is indeed ironic that Mr. Lederman's argument against the public smoking ban comes only days after a study was released showing that second-hand smoke accounts for over 600,000 deaths a year, amounting to 1% of the world's deaths. Certainly property rights are important, but so is the right to life, and that right should have priority over property rights.

No right is absolute, a principle Mr. Lederman seems not to understand. In fact, we have many restrictions on property rights in this country. Zoning laws, for example. These laws dictate what you can and cannot do with your property. They have been around for almost a century, and there is a good reason for them.

Another example of restrictions on property rights would be the laws which require us to keep our properties free of trash and debris, so as to keep our neighborhoods liveable. I could cite many other examples, but I believe the point has been made.

What the TSA Needs is a Good Mathematician

2010-11-29T04:20:00.000-08:00

There are two extremes to airport security. One is the full body cavity search of every single flier, an extreme which is so unpopular as to be unsustainable. The other is to search only those fliers who meet a particular profile, e.g., Middle Eastern man, age range 18-30, paying cash and purchasing only a one-way ticket. If this latter is used, the terorists will simply send someone who does not fit the profile.

The obvious conclusion is that an intermediate policy is needed. This is where the mathematician comes in. The mathematician can devise a middle ground between the two extermes, by devising a formula for random searches which nobody can predict. Parameters can be given to a computer, which will print out daily schedules for searches. The formula itself can be changed periodically, since apparently our government is no longer able to keep any secrets.

I say that anybody meeting the above profile should be searched 100% of the time. Little old ladies and young kids should be searched only a small fraction of the time. Those in between would be searched a certain percentage of the time based on the formula. The completeness of the search would also be randomized.

On full-body Frisks

2010-11-22T06:15:00.000-08:00

Much controversy these days over the new rules on full-body scans or full-body frisks, take your pick as a traveler. Apparently this all stems from one unsuccessful attempt by a traveler to conceal explosives in his underwear.

I've been pondering the obvious innumeracy of all of this nonsense. What would our lives look like if there were such draconian rules governing our daily lives in an attempt to make them totally risk-free? One commentator suggested there would be a rule banning left turns. But on analysis this is way mild, as the risk from left turns is higher by several orders of magnitude than the underwear-on-the-airlines risk. Certainly there would be no two-lane highways. Many other products which we use safely every day would be banned.

Perhaps readers can come up with some other examples?

Top Ten Reasons to be Disappointed in Obama

2010-11-10T04:17:00.000-08:00

1. Failure to end "don't ask, don't tell".

2. Failure to close Guantanamo.

3. Failure to end the Bush tax cuts for the very rich.

4. Failure to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

5. Failure to bring home U.S. troops from all around the world.

6. Failure to end the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba (and actually extending the embargo to Sept. of next year).

7. Failure to enact meaningful health care reform (the weak bill enacted leaves power in the hands of the private insurance industry).

8. Failure to enact immigration reform.

9. Failure to reform our drug laws.

10. Failure to effectively use his office as a "bully pulpit" by taking his case on the above items directly to the American people.

Keith Olbermann Gets Suspended

2010-11-07T04:30:00.001-08:00

First Juan Williams, and now Keith Olbermann. What in the world is going on here?

MSNBC pays Olbermann big money to be an overtly partisan political commentator, and then they suspend him without pay for contributing to several campaigns. WTF?

More Innumeracy in the Popular Culture

2010-11-06T08:37:00.000-07:00

Just heard CNN twice say that I-Phone users will have to manually reset their times because otherwise they would be an hour *late* to work tomorrow! Uh, CNN, don't you know it's "fall back", meaning you would actually be an hour early, not an hour late??

Review of Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

2010-11-06T04:45:00.000-07:00

I have wanted this book ever since I first heard about it, and recently was able to purchase it from Amazon. Pat Buchanan does an amazing job of researching how the two world wars came about, and based on that he explores how they could have been avoided. The research is meticulous and exhausting--his bibliography runs to 13 pages, and there are a whopping total of 1,319 footnotes.

Buchanan starts with the run-up to WW1, and it is obvious that he sees the two world wars as basically one 30-year long war. And he also sees it as a civil war among members of the Western world, the Western world trying to commit suicide in a sense.

I will try to summarize and discuss the book in parts, as there would be no way to do justice to the material otherwise. So the first query is, how did WW1 come about?

The roots of WW1 lie in the decision of Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm to build a world-class navy. He, like other leaders of that time, was greatly influenced by the 1890 book "The Influence of Sea Power upon History", written by U.S. naval captain A.T. Mahan. This offended Britain, which for generations had had an iron-clad rule that the British navy had to be 10% stronger than the combined fleets of the next two strongest sea powers.

The British navy at this time was headed by Winston Churchill, who as we will see was primarily responsible for WW1. When asked why he was so anti-German, Churchill responded:

"British policy for 400 years has been to oppose the strongest power in Europe by weaving together a combination of other countries strong enough to face the bully. Sometimes it is Spain, sometimes the French monarchy, sometimes the French Empire, sometimes Germany. I have no doubt about who it is now. But if France set up to claim the over-lordship of Europe, I would equally endeavor to oppose them. It is thus through the centuries we have kept our liberties and maintained our life and power."

It is this policy and this attitude that got Britain into both world wars against Germany.

When the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914 and things threatened to boil over, the British cabinet met in an all-day session and only Churchill was enthusiastic about going to war. In fact, Churchill's enthusiasm reminds me very much of Patton's attitude in the movie "Patton". The movie has him looking at the movement of his troops and saying, "God, I love it so."

Churchill wrote to his wife while the deliberations were proceeding in the cabinet, saying, "Everything tends toward catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?"

But what could be the justification for Britain's going to war against Germany? Had not Germany accepted an arrangement called the 60% plan, wherein it agreed to maintain a navy only 60% as strong as Britain's? The justification lay in the SchlieffenPlan, which was a longstanding plan in German circles that if war broke out Germany would invade France by way of Belgium. This gave Churchill the leverage to demand that Britain go to war, for Britain had signed an 1839 pact guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality. But interestingly, the pact gave Britain the *right* to go to war if Belgium's neutrality were violated, but not the *duty* to do so. In the 1870 war Germany had been careful not to bother Belgium, and Britain had stayed out of that war (as it should have done when history repeated itself in 1914).

After another all-day Cabinet session on August 2nd, PM Asquith's daughter wrote that when they broke for lunch "All those I saw looked racked with anxiety and some stricken with grief. Winston alone was buoyant." Churchill simply pressed and pressed, based on the violation of Belgium's neutrality, which all knew was coming, and eventually won over Lloyd George, who as the heir apparent to Liberal party leadership didn't want to jeopardize his political future by appearing weak.

As to who wanted war, Buchanan quotes from a wire the Kaiser sent to the Russian czar and the British King, both of whom were his cousins, all 3 being grandsons of that great British monarch, Queen Victoria. The Kaiser wrote:

"It is not I who bears responsibility for the disaster which now threatens the entire civilized world. Even at this moment the decision to stave it off lies with you. No one threatens the honour and power of Russia,. The friendship for you and your empire which I have borne from the deathbed of my grandfather has always been totally sacred to me...The peace of Europe can still be maintained by you, if Russia decides to halt the military measures which threaten Germany and Austro-Hungary."

The contrast between this and Churchill's constant demands that Britain go to war is striking. As further evidence of who the war-mongers really were, Buchanan lists the number of wars each country was involved in during the prior 100-year period: Britain--10, Russia--7, France--5, Austria--3, Germany--3.

Because Britain entered the war, it turned into a horrible catastrophe as we all know only too well. And what if Britain had declared neutrality and stayed out? Buchanan asserts the result would likely be similar to what happened in 1971. Germany would have triumphed in France, and then gone home. Germany would have become the dominant power in Europe, with Britain still dominant on the oceans. Lenin would have likely died unmourned in Geneva; but had the Bolsheviks come to power, Germany would have "marched in and made short work of them". There would have been no Hitler and no Stalin.

The Versailles Peace Conference was a complete disaster. For a nice account of the conference, I recommend "The End of Order: Versailles 1919", by Charles L. Mee, Jr. Mee gives a great day-to-day account of the conference, which gives the reader a good understanding of how the final product was arrived at. He says the mid-level professionals who accompanied the various leaders of the allied states had assumed that at some point the Germans would be brought into the negotiations. As month after month went on and no Germans, they realized to their horror and chagrin that the leaders had no intention of letting the Germans negotiate. The allies simply put together a proposed treaty, and then called the Germans in and demanded that they sign it.

The Germans looked at it and in the limited time available, they were able to go through and show that almost every provision violated President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which was the basis for their agreeing to the armistice of 11/11/18. Of course in hindsight it is easy to see what a disaster this treaty was. But many spoke out at the time, including John Maynard Keynes, one of Britain's mid-level professionals at the conference. Keynes went home in disgust and wrote a whole book about it, called "The Economic Consequences of the Peace". He demonstrated in great detail how the allied policies were sure to lead to disaster. Another leader stated that this was no peace, but merely "a 20-year armistice". How prescient!

So what did the treaty do? It stripped Germany of all of her overseas colonies. Here is the list:

--Cameroon and Togoland, mandate divided between Britain and France
--German South-West Africa, South African mandate
--German East Africa--British mandate
--Marianas, Carolines and Marshall Islands, Japanese mandate
--German Samoa, New Zealand mandate
--Nauru, British mandate
--German New Guinea and Bismarck Archipelago, Australian mandate

Not only were all of these colonies seized, but also the private property in them was seized and confiscated by the allies and divided among them as the spoils of war.

As for Germany itself, much of it was cut off and given to other countries. Here is that list:

--Northern Schliswig, to Denmark
--Eupen and Malmedy--to Belgium
--Saar--under League of Nations control until 1935
--Alsace-Lorraine, returned to France after 47 years of German rule
--Rhineland, administered by Germany, but demilitarized until 1936
--Danzig, made a free city under League of Nations control
--Polish Corridor & Poznania, transferred to Poland
--Memel, seized by Lithuania

The Austro-Hungarian empire was similarly carved up and distributed among neighboring countries.

One of the most despicable things the allies did was the "starvation blockade" of Germany. This was responsible for about 800,000 civilian deaths in Germany between 1915 and 1918. But even worse, Churchill insisted that the blockade continue even after the armistice, and he bragged in March of 1918, four months after the armistice, that "We are enforcing the blockade with rigour, and Germany is near starvation."

Buchanan details a series of blunders which Britain made in the inter-war period, leading up to the final colossal blunder. The first such blunder was Britain's failure to renew its Anglo-Japanese treaty in 1921. This was done under pressure from the U.S., which demanded that the treaty be scrapped. The U.S. won the argument, but Buchanan writes that the US diplomatic victory "would prove a disaster for the British Empire. With the termination of the Japanese alliance, Australia and New Zealand ceased to be strategic assets and became liabilities, as Britain now lacked the naval power to defend two Pacific Dominions."

Historian Arthur Herman called Britain's decision "an act of breathtaking stupidity." Now, Japan no longer had an incentive for good behavior. Treated as a pariah, Japan began to play the part.

The US also took the lead in the next blunder, which was its plan to slash the size of all the great navies of the world. This affected Britain first and foremost, since sea power was the key to Britain's survival.

I will skip over many other blunders and jump ahead to 1936, when the Germans sent troops into the Rhineland. This was a small contingent of troops and Buchanan documents that Hitler left instructions to retreat back across the border if they met any resistance. Buchanan says Hitler could have been crushed right then and there, but France did not lift a finger.

The final and fatal blunder took place on March 31, 1939, when PM Chamberlain rose in the British House of Commons and declared that Britain had committed to coming to Poland's defense if that country were to be attacked. It is easy to see the folly of this in hindsight, but many protested mightily at the time. One MP said that "This is the maddest single action this country has ever taken." Lloyd George said that if the British army general staff approved this, they "ought to be confined to a lunatic asylum."

Liddell Hart called the guarantee "foolish, futile and provocative...an ill-considered gesture that placed Britain's destiny in the hands of Polish rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment." Hart was so disgusted with this folly that he resigned as military correspondent for the "Times".

Duff Cooper wrote in his diary that "Never before in our history have we left in the hands of one of the smaller powers the decision whether or not Britain goes to war."

With this guarantee in hand, the Poles refused to negotiate with Germany over the return of Danzig, a German city, despite reasonable proposals put forth by the Germans which would have preserved Polish influence in the region. The world war ensued.

In his last chapter Buchanan reveals why he wrote this book. He writes of how the U.S. came out of the second world war as the greatest power in the world, and through intelligent foreign policy contained the Soviet Union without going to war with the Soviets.

However, that policy was thrown overboard with George W. Bush, who Buchanan calls "a president disinterested and untutored in foreign policy". As a result, the U.S. is now repeating all the same mistakes made by Britain in losing its empire. He says that now "the world of 1989 has disappeared and America has begun to resemble the Britain of Salisbury and Balfour, a superpower past her prime, with enemies rising everywhere."

Buchanan writes: "Rather than follow the wisdom of conservative men like Kennan, Eisenhower, and Reagan, we began to emulate every folly of imperial Britain in her plunge from power." He says "we exhibited an imperial hubris the whole world came to detest".

The parallels are numerous and very depressing to anybody who cares about this country. Just as Grey and Churchill used the German violation of Belgium neutrality as an excuse to go to war, so the Bush crowd used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war in Iraq. Just as Chamberlain gave a war guarantee to Poland he could not honor, so has the U.S. handed out NATO war guarantees to six Warsaw Pact nations and the three Baltic republics.

Just as Britain had a "balance-of-power" policy not to permit any nation to become dominant in Europe, so has the U.S. adopted a policy of trying to become the dominant power on every continent. Buchanan writes that "Ours is a peculiarly American blindness. Under the Monroe Doctrine, foreign powers are to stay out of our hemisphere. Yet no other great power is permitted to have its own sphere of influence. We bellow self-righteously when foreigners funnel cash into our elections, yet intrude massively with tax dollars in the elections of other nations."

I have no doubt Buchanan is 100% correct, and in fact I have written in the past about the decline of the American empire which is going on now right before our eyes. This book was written just before the financial collapse, so Buchanan does not mention the financial hardship of all of our commitments, but it is obvious that fighting two wars, having bases all over the world, and making commitments to everybody and his uncle all over the world, will contribute heavily to the coming bankruptcy of this country.

The website http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564 discusses a study showing the U.S. has military personnel in 156 countries. We have bases in 63 countries. Do we really need 40,000 troops in South Korea, six decades after the armistice? Do we really need 40,000 troops in Japan, 65 years after WW2 ended? We should follow Buchanan's advice and bring all of these troops home.

The Election

2010-11-04T04:08:00.000-07:00

The results Tuesday were better than one feared, and about what one could expect. The worst of the "Tea Party" candidates" lost. O'Donnell in Delaware, Angle in Nevada, and Buck in Colorado all lost; the victory of any one of them would have given one cause to sink into complete depair about the future of this country.

At this writing two interesting races continue. Patty Murray in Washington is clinging to a slim lead as write-in ballots are counted. The most interesting race is in Alaska. There Lisa Murkowski appears to have won, but at this time the "winner" is simply designated as "write-in ballots". Until these write-in ballots are opened and counted, we will not know if she was able to overcome the horrible candidate Joe Miller who ousted her in the Republican primary.

An interesting sidelight of this race is the court ruling that election poll workers were ordered to do their job and assist voters in making write-in votes; in other words, a voter who wanted help writing in "Murkowski" was entitled to help doing that. As a respoonse to this, a right-wing radio talk-show host encouraged his listeners to present themselves as write-in candidates, so that their names would have to go on the list of write-in candidates which the court ordered to be made available to voters. As a result, this list was in the hundreds, and according to one commentator I heard actually in the thousands.

So, the results of the vote of write-in candidates is up in the air. One thinks of the Florida race in 2000 when the Republicans poked so much fun at the election workers holding the balltos up to the light to determine the intent of the voter. But this is precisely what election workers are supposed to do--determine the intent of the voter. So, we will likely see a big to-do about whether ballots mispelling "Murkowski" are to be counted or not. Stay tuned.

The Juan Williams Firing

2010-10-29T03:14:00.001-07:00

I think NPR really blundered by firing Juan Williams for an offhand comment made on FOX News. First, there is the way he was fired--by phone rather than in person. This is incredibly shabby treatment of a valued employee who has enhanced the reputation of NPR with his insightful commentary over the years.

Juan has said that NPR has wanted to get rid of him for a long time because they didn't like his being on FOX news. If that is the case, why not call him in and say, "Look, we have a problem with your being on both networks. We need you to choose where your loyalties lie." Juan could then have chosen, and the problem could have been worked out on a cooperative basis, which is the proper way to handle employee problems.

The comment that he gets nervous when Muslims are on his plane should not have been a problem for anybody. It simply states what the vast majority of Americans no doubt feel. We seem to be unable in this country to even mention race without being accused of having nasty prejudices. Juan went on to state that stereotyping is wrong, so his comment could not have been fairly misinterpreted as carrying any kind of bigotry with it.

Shame on you, NPR. You are better than that!

The World Series in Context

2010-10-27T11:44:00.000-07:00

There are two things which can make a World Series memorable or noteworthy. One is an exciting 7-game Series, and the other is the appearance of teams which have never been to the Series, or have not been there for a very long time.

In terms of the first category, the decade of the 2000's has not been very memorable. While we did see exciting 7-game series in both 2001 and 2002, there have been none in the seven Series since than, and only two that have even gone 6 games.

However, in terms of the second category the past decade has been quite memorable indeed. 2001 saw the first appearance by the Diamondbacks, followed by the first appearance by the Angels in 2002. Then in 2004 the Red Sox broke their drought and won their first series since 1918. The following year the White Sox did the same, wining their first Series since 1917. Then in 2007 the Rockies made their first-ever WS appearance.

Now we come to 2010, featuring the Giants, who have not won since defeating my beloved Indians in 1954, and the Rangers, who have never been to the Series but finally made it in the 50th year of the franchise. Whoever wins, the result will be monumental for the franchise and city involved. Now if we can just get the Cubs vs. the Indians for nest year's Series!

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, Part Two, The Peace of Versailles

2010-10-14T06:34:00.000-07:00

The Versailles Peace Conference was a complete disaster. For a nice account of the conference, I recommend "The End of Order: Versailles 1919", by Charles L. Mee, Jr. Mee gives a great day-to-day account of the conference, which gives the reader a good understanding of how the final product was arrived at. He says the mid-level professionals who accompanied the various leaders of the allied states had assumed that at some point the Germans would be brought into the negotiations. As month after month went on and no Germans, they realized to their horror and chagrin that the leaders had no intention of letting the Germans negotiate. The allies simply put together a proposed treaty, and then called the Germans in and demanded that they sign it.

The Germans looked at it and in the limited time available, they were able to go through and show that almost every provision violated President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which was the basis for their agreeing to the armistice of 11/11/18. Of course in hindsight it is easy to see what a disaster this treaty was. But many spoke out at the time, including John Maynard Keynes, one of Britain's mid-level professionals at the conference. Keynes went home in disgust and wrote a whole book about it, called "The Economic Consequences of the Peace". He demonstrated in great detail how the allied policies were sure to lead to disaster. Another leader stated that this was no peace, but merely "a 20-year armistice". How prescient!

So what did the treaty do? It stripped Germany of all of her overseas colonies. Here is the list:

--Cameroon and Togoland, mandate divided between Britain and France
--German South-West Africa, South African mandate
--German East Africa--British mandate
--Marianas, Carolines and Marshall Islands, Japanese mandate
--German Samoa, New Zealand mandate
--Nauru, British mandate
--German New Guinea and Bismarck Archipelago, Australian mandate

Not only were all of these colonies seized, but also the private property in them was seized and confiscated by the allies and divided among them as the spoils of war.

As for Germany itself, much of it was cut off and given to other countries. Here is that list:

--Northern Schliswig, to Denmark
--Eupen and Malmedy--to Belgium
--Saar--under League of Nations control until 1935
--Alsace-Lorraine, returned to France after 47 years of German rule
--Rhineland, administered by Germany, but demilitarized until 1936
--Danzig, made a free city under League of Nations control
--Polish Corridor & Poznania, transferred to Poland
--Memel, seized by Lithuania

The Austro-Hungarian empire was similarly carved up and distributed among neighboring countries.

One of the most despicable things the allies did was the "starvation blockade" of Germany. This was responsible for about 800,000 civilian deaths in Germany between 1915 and 1918. But even worse, Churchill insisted that the blockade continue even after the armistice, and he bragged in March of 1918, four months after the armistice, that "We are enforcing the blockade with rigour, and Germany is near starvation."

Top Five GOP Wacko Candidates

2010-10-13T10:02:00.000-07:00

1. Christine O'Donnell. Candidate for Senate from Delaware. Has stated she used to "dabble in witchcraft". Has been accused by her former campaign manager of paying her rent with campaign donations. Has made anti-masturbation comments in the past.

2. John Raese. Candidate for governor of West Virginia. Wants to abolish minimum wage.

3. Ken Buck. Candidate for Senate in Colorado. Opposes abortion rights even in the cases of rape and incest. Infamously refused to prosecute a rape case, claiming it was a case of "buyer's remorse".

4. Sharron Angle. Opposes Harry Reid in Nevade Senate race. Opposes abortion rights even in cases of rape and incest.

5. Carl Paladino. New York governor candidate. Caught on camera threatening to "take out" a reporter who was asking an embarrassing question of him. Had to be separateed from the reporter by his handlers/bodyguards. Has made anti-homosexual comments.

Thinking Through a Bridge Bidding Decision

2010-10-07T06:00:00.000-07:00

The last hand at men's bridge club Tuesdya night was interesting. I picked up a hand with 22 high card points, and since I had balanced distribution I bid 2 no trump. My partner, a solid player named Rich Geiger, thought a bit and then bid 3 no trump. When he laid down his hand he laid down an Ace, and I said, "that's enough for your bid right there." Then I was surprised to see him lay down 5 more points!

I have been wondering whether he should have bid 5 no trump, the idea being that if I have 24 points (the range for my bid is 22-24), then we have the 33 points needed to bid a small slam. Faced with a 5 no trump response by my partner, I would bid 6 with 24 points, pass with 22, and with 23 evaluate it based on 9's and 10's, and on whether I had a solid 5-card suit which I could expect to run.

On the surface, it would seem that Rich's failure to bid 5 NT would cause us to miss a small slam a third of the time. But upon further analysis his bid makes sense.

First, having the 33 points does not guarantee the slam will be made. Tired players, who aren't that good to begin with, could easily mess up a slam, especially at the end of the session when fatigue is strongest. So, let's say it gets botched half the time, dropping the instances of losing out down from 1/3 to 1/6.

The adage of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush applies. A vulnerable game gets you 500 points, which would be assured if you bid only 3 NT with 31+ points. The bonus for making a vulnerable small slam is 750 points. So, you are risking 500 sure points in an attempt to garner an extra 750 points. The math on this is that you would have to make the small slam 40% of the time to break even on taking the risk. (40% of 1,250 is 500.)

But here is the real kicker. Pondering this it occurred to me that a 22-point hand seems much more likely to get than a 24-point hand. If so, then it is not 1/3 each, but some other number. After some initial brick walls, I was able to find some odds on the internet. It turns out that there are 1334 million hands with 22 points, to 711M with 23, and only 355M with 24. So, given that a hand contains 22-24 points, it will have 22 points 55.6% of the time, 23 points 29.6% of the time, and 24 points only 14.8% of the time.

This lends further support for Rich's decision, as the odds of me having 24 points were not a third, but only about 15%. This is further lowered if you assume, as in our situation, that you have 9 points in your hand. In other words, given that A has a 9-point hand, the odds that his partner B would have 24 when he opens 2NT go down.

The conclusion: Rich probably should have bid 5NT, but it wasn't a blatant error.

Letter on Tax Policy

2010-10-06T06:12:00.001-07:00

Recently the Lima News has published a series of editorials complaining about a "soak the rich" attitude which the paper perceives is now prevalent in the U.S. The News has even gone so far as to rail against a "confiscate the wealth" attitude toward the rich.

In reality there is no such movement afoot, and the News is simply way off-base in thinking otherwise. Rather than proposing any "confiscation of wealth", the current issue is simply whether to return to the top tax rate of 39.6% which was in effect during the 1990's, which by the way happened to be an era of unprecedented prosperity in this country.

I submit that a top tax rate of 39.6% is good tax policy and does not indicate any "hate the rich" attitude as the News has repeatedly suggested. Some of us are old enough to remember the 1950's, when the top tax rate was a whopping 91%. Now that *was* a soak the rich tax structure. Fortunately we have gotten away from that misguided policy and we now have a sensible tax structure, or at least we did have one until the disastrous economic policies of Reagan and George W. Bush wrecked the economy.

Teddy Roosevelt once said that "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government." I agree with TR, and I urge everyone to keep this thought in mind the next time you here somebody rant about our taxes being too high.

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, Part 1

2010-10-05T12:47:00.000-07:00

To All You Israel-Bashers

2010-09-30T11:29:00.000-07:00

I noticed this item on Jonathan Turley's website:

"In Ramallah, West Bank, Palestinian police say that a family hanged a 15-year-old boy because they believed that he might be a collaborator with Israel. The police doubt that he was a collaborator due to his young age.

Police report that the boy was hanged by his own father, uncle, and cousin. One account says that the boy was tortured before being hanged."

This is in line with other incidents I have heard about where Palestinian authorities charged people with treason and then executed them for "collaboration" with Israel.

I am reminded of an article I read recently, about a journalist who spent months living in an Arab town, getting to know the people, and writing about their life there. She wrote of one family with ten kids, in which the mother was chagrined that none of her children had become a "martyr". The mother lamented, "We need a martyr to uphold the family honor". (Yes, I know this is incredible, but this is how these people think.) Then one of her sons went to Iraq to fight in the "insurgency", and was killed. The mother mourned for an hour, then changed into white and started celebrating.

I suggest that any of you bleeding hearts mourning about "the plight of the Palestinians" keep in mind that this is a group which has waged war on Israel since the day the partition was decreed in 1948. Israel accepted the partition, but Palestine did not, and vowed to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. They have been waging war on Israel every day since, up to and including today, and their methods involve killing as many innocent Israeli people as they can, however they can.

And I don't want to hear any bullshit about "collective responsibility". The suicide bombers are revered as heroes in their hometowns, their pictures get put up in the town square, and their families get taken care of for life. If this isn't sufficient to assign "collective responsibility", I don't know what is.

On Instant Gratification

2010-09-30T06:48:00.000-07:00

A conservative friend of mine, never known for his reticence, recently asked me "how's that hope and change working out for you"? My response is that it will take *way* more than two years to undo all the damage done by the Bush administration in 8 years of blundering and mismanagement.

Upon pondering why anybody in their right mind would think otherwise, I got to thinking about how the need for instant gratification permeates our politics as well as everything else. It seems voters have no ability to think in terms of what is best for our long-term interest. They focus on short-term only, and worse than that, it's not even the short-term interest of the country, but of their own personal lives. Reagan got elected by asking "are you better off now that you were four years ago", and that has set the stage for the degeneration of our politics where voters vote their narrow self-interest, as they (usually mistakenly) perceive it, rather than who would be the best person for the job.

The childhood obesity epidemic in this country certainly reflects the need for instant gratification, to the exclusion of any thought of longer-term self-interest.

I think an interesting study would be to look at lottery winners. I've heard enough to know that a fair number of them go through their winnings rapidly and end up back in poverty. People used to spending everything they have, don't lose that habit simply because they win the lottery.

On the other hand, people like Ken Jennings, the big Jeopardy winner, are used to thinking long-term, and I seriously doubt that Ken has spent a penny of his winnings. It is being saved for his kids' college educations. Ken's Morman background has prepared him to think long-term, and eschew the temptation to gratify today. Would that there were more like him.

On Throwing Stones

2010-09-07T09:06:00.000-07:00

There is a poker saying that it takes a better hand to call a bet than it does to make a bet. This is similar to politics where the apostles of negativism constantly criticize but offer no solutions. In other words, it is a lot easier to sit back and throw stones than it is to try to actually solve problems.

In this regard, it was heartwarming to see Obama yesterday delivering a greats stump speech on Labor Day in Wisconsin. He departed from his prepared text to deliver the line that "They treat me like a dog". If he will do this between now and election day, a la Truman in 1948, the Democrats might have a chance to hold onto the Congress.

The lesson learned in the 1988 debacle, when George H.W. Bush ran his despicable campaign against Michael Dukakis, and Dukakis declined to respond forthrightly and promptly to the allegations, was that allegations need to be met head-on. Clinton took this lesson to heart and in the 1992 campaign his staff had responses ready even before the allegations were made, understanding the Hitler maxim that a lie repeated often enough will be accepted by people as the truth.

These thoughts came to mind yesterday as I was working on organizing my chess materials from past decades. I came across a newsletter sent me by Don Schultz in 1988 about his dispute with the right-wing, represented by GM Larry Evans.

To set the stage, the 1980's were a horrible time in U.S. chess politics. In fact, "chess politician" became a disparaging way of referring to those who had decision-making power in U.S. chess. I argued that "chess volunteer" was a better term, as we were talking here about those who donated their time and energies to chess, not paid staff people.

Don Schultz was one of these people, a distinguished gentleman who I encountered at the 1984 U.S. Open in Ft. Worth. He served for over 30 years as a chess volunteer, and for much of that time served as a USCF delegate to the world chess federation (FIDE). Larry Evans was an American GM who had a Q&A column in "Chess Life" for many years, but who never held any office. His thing was to sit back and criticize the powers that be, and he sure did plenty of that.

The ugly politicization of American chess had been going on for many hears, probably dating back to an Interzonal in the '60's when Bobby Fisher played and accused the Sovets participants of throwing games to each other to ensure that Americans would be excluded from the list of qualifiers for the next stage of the world championship cycle.

To set the stage, I quote from a mailing I received from Evans, dated 2/13/87: "It is no secret that FIDE president Campomanes has exerted intense pressure on American officials to fire the current editor. He has been trying to get the job done for 2 years. But we all believe American chess policy should be made in America--not in the murky intrigues of faraway places like Dubai, where Campomanes virtually bought an election with Arab money behind him, This was revealed in Chess Life, March 1987, page 23. Don't be fooled. If Larry Parr goes, we won't be getting this kind of honest chess journalism anymore in Chess Life."

The actual facts are these: Campomanes worked night and day to make chess a truly worldwide sport, and he did everything he could to reach out to Third World counties in this regard. The fact that he didn't cater to American wishes is taken by people like Evans to be a sign of weakness, when in actuality it was an asset.

The Chess Life editor in question, Larry Parr, was blatantly political in his reporting and editing, and in the worst way, in that everything was tainted with a right-wing bias. For example, he published an article alleging that Karpov was a member of the KGB. This was blatantly false, and is a pretty good example of how low USCF sunk during those dark days. Karpov's "crime" was that he was declared world champion when Bobby Fischer refused to take part in the 1975 world championship match, for reasons to be discussed shortly. His further crime was that he was a Soviet citizen, anathema to folks like Parr and Evans. Evans writes that "Larry Parr is the best editor Chess Life has had since I started writing for it six editors ago". This is totally ludicrous; Parr created more enemies for US chess and published more false and libelous articles than the others put together.

Another issue complained of by Evans is the FIDE decision to raise all women's ratings by 100 points. He writes: "The USSR was embarrassed to discover that their women's world champ Maya Chiburdanidze was rated behind Hungarian prodigy Susan Polgar. How to solve the problem? Simple. Vote to raise all women's ratings by 100 points--all except Polgar, who was frozen at 2495 while the Soviet star surged past her." He then compared this to the action stripping Bobby Fischer of his crown in 1975.

The "Great Debate", as it was called, took place in early 1988 over the Leisure LINC, apparently an electronic town meeting type of thing which pre-dated the Internet as we know it today. In his opening statement, Evans repeats the same garbage he had been spouting for years, stating, "I'm concerned about America's lax moral leadership and puppet role in FIDE....I submit that our editor was fired for reporting facts instead of suppressing them. His ouster is another victory for Campomanes, another ignoble surrender to he Soviet-dominated world body that stripped away Fischer's title." Rather than reporting further, suffice it to say the dialogue is a really dreary give-and-take with previous false assertions being made again by Evans, and Don trying manfully to set the facts straight. But like the Tea Party folks today, these people really do not care about getting the facts right, it is a certain emotional state which drives them.

When Eisenhower was asked why he did not respond to McCarthy's allegtaions, he responded, "I refuse to get into the gutter with that guy." So which is best, responding, which Ike certianly could have effectively done and ended McCarthy's reign of terror much sooner, or ignoring? I doubt there are any easy answers here.

There have been long, mathematical analyses published of the title match issues surrounding Fischer's abandonment of his title. I'll try to give a thumbnail sketch. Until 1963, a world champion who lost his title had the right to a rematch the following year. In addition, he kept his title in the event of a drawn match. This meant the challenger had to win two matches to wrest the title away, a huge advantage for the champion. (One of my favorite chess trivia questions is, "of the five title matches which Botvinnik played while world champion, how many did he win?" The surprisng answer is none of them. He drew two matches, keeping his title, lost two and then regained it each time in the rematch, and then finally lost to Petrosian after the rematch provision was eliminated.)

When Fischer won the title from Spassky in 1972, the match consisted of 24 games. Fischer insisted that a better system was to play untl one player won a certain number of games; he preferred 10, though precedent was for 6. FIDE went along with this and voted in the 10-win condition Fischer wanted, but what they didn't go along with was Fischer's proposal that the champion would keep his title in the case of a 9-9 tie. This meant that the challenger had to actually win by 2 games, 10-8, and seemed too much of an advantage. Fischer abdicated his crown over this issue.

For 1978 the 6 win provision was enacted, but the rematch clause was reinstated, allegedly giving Karpov "a bigger edge than anything Fischer had sought", according to Evans. This system blew up in FIDE's face when in 1984 neither Karpov nor Kasparov could win 6 games, and Campomanes stoped the match after 48 games, as the match had turned into a bad joke. FIDE then went back to the 24-game match system, which provided good drama in succeeding matches.

A "review of the bidding", as we say in bridge, shows that FIDE made many concessions to Fischer to accommodate him. He did not even qualify for the 1972 world championship cycle, as he had not participated in his Zonal, which was the U.S. Championship. FIDE ruled he could still play in the Interzonal if one of the three American qualifiers would give up his spot, which Pal Benko magnanimously did. Then when the match with Spassky came about, Fischer made numerous demands which were accommodated. The most noteworthy is that after Fischer forfeited the second game becuase he felt the cameras were making noise, FIDE could have declared the match forfeited then and there; noise meters were put in the playing room and registerd zero--there was no noise whatsoever from the cameras. Yet, the cameras were removed and the match was able to be continued. These are examples of many concessions made to Fischer, both before and after he became world champion.

Despite all this, the American mindset is to blame the Soviets and worship Fischer as a hero. He is anything but a hero, though certainly was a great player, and neither the Soviets nor FIDE is to blame for Fischer's peccadilloes. It is time the US stops playing "the ugly American" role and starts respecting other points of view. This is what our FIDe representatives tried to do, at that time Don Schultz and the highy respected Arnold Denker, and what did they get for it? Nothing but stones thrown at them. For shame.

Best football game I've ever seen

2010-09-04T07:12:00.000-07:00

Awesome Bluffton High game last night. Playing Carey, a team which went to the playoffs last year while BHS struggled through a losing season, both sides had trouble running into the line. First two touchdowns for b oth teams were on long pass plays. Carey missed the 2nd extra point, after the first just barely squibbed through the goalposts, so on their third touchdon they went for 2 and made it, to go up 21-14.

BHS then scored but the extra point was blocked to make it 21-20. Then Carey went up 28-20, and it looked bleak for the Pirates. But the Bluffton quarterback put up a long pass, which I just knew was going to be dropped by the receiver, but the receiver made a great catch, and faked first one way and then the other, and then went down the sidelines for the score. A beautiful 2-point conversion tied it. The offense faked going left, then the q-back rolled out right and all of a sudden there was a receiver open to the right and he shoveled it in for the tieing score.

On another Pirate pass play the ball was off, and this time two defenders were covering the reciever, J.D. Stratton, but Stratton alertly banged into the receivers just as they were about to catch the ball and it fell incomplete. Stratton was shaken up on the play but I think is OK.

The Pirates had the ball with 4 minutes left and if they had any kind of ground game, they had a chance to grind it out and score with too little time left for Carey to retaliate. But with no ground game they gave up the ball and Carey got it but went 4 and out and the Pirates had it with less than a minute to go. They ran it into field goal position and alertly lined up and spiked the ball, showing good coaching IMO. With 6.5 seconds left, they tried the field goal and missed woefully short, but the Carey end crossed the line of scrimmage early trying to block the kick, and the offsides penalty gave the Pirates another chance 5 yards closer. This time the kicker nailed it with a beautiful kick, and the Pirate bench swarmed onto the field and created a dog pile congratulating the kicker. However, there was still 1.4 seconds left, and, sitting near the press box, I could hear the Pirate assistant in the press box screaming into his headphones saying "Get them off the field, get them off the field. We haven't won anything yet!"

Fortunately the refs called no penalty on the Pirates, choosing to motion them off the field instead, and on the ensuing kickoff the kicker aptly kicked a line drive kick, instead of a long kick which would have risked a return, and the Carey player who fielded it was tackled immediately and the celebration now could take place unimpeded.

Worth mentioning is the Pirtae punter, who kicked high, booming kicks ever chance he got, the best high school punter I've ever seen by far. All in all, a memorable game.

Analyzing the duc-chessart Endgame

2010-08-31T07:13:00.000-07:00

Now I'm ready to go on this, from the position: White: K on b1, R on f7, P's on a2 and c2; Black: K on g4, R on a8.

1...Rb8ch 2 Kc1 Ra8?

The principle both sides need to keep in mind here is that White should seek to jettison his a-Pawn in exchange for obtaining a winning position with his remaining c-Pawn. The reason for this is that the ending of Rook and Rook's Pawn vs. Rook is notoriously drawn. (For White to win the Black Rook needs to be cut off half a board or more away from the Queening square. Here, I will surely be able to get my King closer than this before White is ready to Queen his a-Pawn.) Therefore, I should play 2...Rc8 rather than Ra8, as I should seek to limit the advance of his c-Pawn, and not worry so much about the a-Pawn.

3 Kb2?

Following the principle just articulated, White should play 3 c3! Note that 3 c4 doesn't work because I then simply win the c-Pawn with 3...Rc8. However, after 3 c3 he has a Pawn on the 3rd and my King cut off by 3 files, which the book says is a win. White's most straightforward win would now be 3...Rc8 4 Kd2 Rd8ch 5 Ke3 Re8ch 6 Kd4 Rd8ch 7 Ke4! Rc8 (If 7...Re8ch 8 Kd5 Rd8ch 9 Kc6 Rc8ch 10 Rc7 1-0) 8 Rg7ch! (Forcing Black's King another file away. Strictly speaking this may not be necessary, but this gives White a margin of error, so that he can now win even if he doesn't know the intricacies involved in the "3 files away" win.) K-h file 9 Kd3 Rd8ch 10 Kc2 Rc8 11 Rg1! K moves 12 Kb3 Rb8ch 13 Ka4 Ra8ch 14 Kb5 Rb8ch 15 Ka6 Rc8 16 Rc1! Rc4 17 Kb5 and the Pawn will advance. Or, 13...Rc8 14 Rc1 K-g file 15 c4 Kf6 16 Kb5 Rb8ch 17 Kc6 Ke7 18 Re1ch Kd8 19 Rd1ch Ke7 (19...Kc8 20 Rh1 1-0) 20 c5 and White has the Lucena Position.

Rb8ch 4 Kc3 Ra8 5 Kb3 Rb8ch 6 Ka4 Rc8 7 Rf2 Ra8ch 8 Kb3 Rb8ch 9 Kc3 Rc8ch 10 Kd2 Ra8 11 Rg2ch??

White completely loses his way here. There is no reason in the world for this move, other than that White simply is at a loss for a productive plan on how to proceed. This move lets my King out of his prison, for no good reason. It accomplishes nothing positive for White.

Kf3 12 Rg1

This is where his Rook should have gone in the first place, preparing to move behind his c-Pawn at the proper time.

Ke4

My King will now get in front of his c-Pawn, and my drawing chances just shot up immensely. I do not take the a-Pawn, feeling it is more important to get my King into play.

13 Ra1 Kd4 14 a4 Kc4 15 a5 Kb5 16 c3?

This is wrong on principle. White should keep his Pawn back so that he will have a tempo move with the Pawn if he needs it to achieve the opposition.

Rxa5 17 Rxa5ch Kxa5 18 Kd3 Kb5 19 Kd4 Kc6 20 Kc4 Kb6 21 Kd5 Kb7 22 c4?

Another ill-considered Pawn push. Simply 22 Kc5 keeps the opposition for White. However, White still has the win.

Kc7 23 Kc5 Kb7 24 Kd6 Kc8 25 Kc6 Kb8 26 c5??

The final blunder for White. Now I have an easy draw. He should have played 26 Kd7 and his King escorts his Pawn to the Queening square. Perhaps White had the old adage "passed pawns should be pushed" drilled into his head at some point in his chess career. But, like any rule of thumb, it has exceptions!

Kc8 27 Kb6 Kb8 28 Kc6 Kc8 29 Kd6 Kd8 30 c6 Kc8 31 Ke5 Kc7 32 Kd5 Kc8

Not 32...Kd8?? 33 Kd6 Kc8 34 c7 1-0. You always go straight back in these situations.

33 Kd6 Kd8 34 Kd5 Kc7 35 Kc5 Kc8

Again, straight back.

36 Kb6 Kb8 37 Kc5 Kc7 38 Kd5 Kc8 39 Ke6 Kc7 40 Kd5

This repeats the same position for the third time, with the same player to move. Thus, I could have claimed the draw. When I started playing on the Internet I assumed the system would automatically declare a draw when a three-time repetition came up. In time I learned that you have to claim the draw, the idea being that in an over-the-board tournament you have to claim the draw, so the same should hold true in Internet play. I recommend clicking on the "draw" button as often as possible in these situations. You may not always have time to do it after every move, but the more often you can do it the more chance to end the game.

Why is White playing on here? One reason might be frustration at not being able to convert his position to a win. It is hard psychologically to admit you have blown a won game. The other reason might be more insidious. In a sudden death time control, as this was, White literally has nothing to lose playing on and hoping to run Black out of time. If he himself runs out, he still has the draw as Black does not have mating material; whereas, if Black runs out White has mating material with the Pawn and can get the win.

This illustrates the folly of the sudden death time controls which have proliferated in American chess in the last 20 years. It is really a sad trend in my opinion, because it converts what should be a beautiful game of mental acuity into a game of physical dexterity, as time scrambles are inevitable in which each player seeks to move and punch his clock as fast as possible. Also, it opens the door to all kinds of disputes--illegal moves and what should be done about them, punching the clock with one hand and moving the piece with the other, et al.

I don't know what the time was in my game, as my game score does not have the times recorded, but it is possible that I was down to a few seconds and he was trying to run me out of time. Fortunately, the draw was so easy at this point that I didn't need much time to make the moves.

Kc8 41 Kd6 Kd8 42 c7ch Kc8 43 Kc6 Stalemate

The Ending of Rook, Rook's Pawn, and Bishop's Pawn vs. Rook

2010-08-30T07:10:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend I was going over some of my Internet Dragon games and I came to a five-minute game played on 3-2-08 vs. "duc". After 39 Rf7, we got to the following position: White: K on b1, R on f7, P's on a2 and c2; Black: K on g4, R on a8. Being two Pawns up, one would think White would win handily, but the game continued 1...Rb8ch 2 Kc1 Ra8 3 Kb2 Rb8ch 4 Kc3 Ra8 5 Kb3 Rb8ch 6 Ka4 Rc8 7 Rf2 Ra8ch 8 Kb3 Rb8ch 9 Kc3 Rc8ch 10 Kd2 Ra8 11 Rg2ch Kf3 12 Rg1 Ke4 13 Ra1 Kd4 14 a4 Kc4 15 a5 Kb5 16 c3 Rxa5 17 Rxa5ch Kxa5 18 Kd3 Kb5 and drawn in 25 more moves as he played it out to the bitter end.

When I first annotated this I made the comment that "White should have an easy win". After playing around with the position awhile, I crossed out the "n" and the "easy", and said simply that "White should win".

Then I decided to check my ending books, and found that all three said this ending was a book draw, although one commentator stressed that in practice White often wins because of imprecise play by Black. It bothered me, though, that all of the positions given had Black's King near the Pawns, and in none was the Black King cut off as in my game.

After stewing about this all Saturday night (literally, as I tend to wake up during the night and study chess positions in my head), I woke up yesterday morning and got the idea of ignoring the a-Pawn and treating it as Rook plus c-Pawn vs. Rook. The book learning on this is that it is a draw when the Black King can reach the Queening square, and a loss if it cannot. When the Black King is in front of the Pawn, it is called Philidor's Position, and when the Black King is cut off by a file from the Pawn, it is called the Lucena Position.

In the latter position, the White Rook does duty cutting off the Black King, while the White King attempts to escort the Pawn to the promised land. When the Pawn is on the 5th rank, this is easy. But when the Pawn is not yet on the 5th rank, it becomes quite tricky. If you play with the position you will see that the Black Rook stays in front of the Pawn, on its back rank if possible, i.e., he sets up camp on White's Queening square. Just as in my game, he then checks the White King whenever the King attempts to slide up the board beside the Pawn, hoping to support its advance.

It is therefore apparent that to achieve the Pawn's advance from the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rank, the assistance of the Rook will be necessary. The Rook can assist either from the rank or from the file, behind the Pawn. When the Rook does this the Black King will then have time to come closer to the action, hence it must initially be cut off by *more* than the single file required when the Pawn is on the 5th rank. Fine, in "Basic Chess Endings", gives the rule as follows: "If the P is on the 3rd or 4th rank and its K is near it, White can always force a win if and only if the Black King is cut off at a distance of 3 files from the Pawn (NP), or 2 files from the Pawn (BP or center P). If the P is on the 2nd rank, and Black's K is on the 4th or 5th, White wins if and only if the K is cut off at a distance of 5 files from the Pawn."

It is obvious that with the c-Pawn it is impossible for the Black King to be cut off by 5 files. It is possible with the b-Pawn, and Fine gives this example, position 317: White: K on b1, R on f1, P on b2; Black K on h4 and R on b8. This illustrates the principle well, because (according to Fine) White to play wins, while Black to play draws; i.e., White to play can play 1 Rg1, cutting off the Black King by the required 5 files, while if it's Black's turn he plays 1...Kg4, getting one file closer to the action. The winning method with White to play runs 1 Rg1 Kh5 2 Kc2 Rc8ch 3 Kd3 Rb8 4 Kc3 Rc8ch 5 Kd4 Rb8 6 Rb1 (the Rook slides over behind the Pawn) Kg6 7 b4 (White gets the Pawn pushed finally) Kf7 (Black gets another file closer) 8 Kc5! Ke7 (8...Rb8 does not help, as 9 Kd6 Rb8 10 Kc7 Rb5 11 Kc6 allows the Pawn to advance next move, where it will be on the 5th with an easy win) 9 Kc6! winning. If 9 b5? Kd7 and the Black King will get to the Queening square and draw. But after 9 Kc6!, White keeps the King out with a little trick: 9...Kd8 10 b5 Kf8? 11 Rh1! and Black either gets mated or loses his Rook.

Euwe and Hooper, in "A Guide to Chess Endings", give the exact same position as the Fine position just discussed, but they give it a little different treatment. Their winning line with White to move is 1 Kc2 Rc8ch 2 Kd3 Rb8 3 Kc3 Rc8ch 4 Kd4 Rd8ch 5 Kc5 Rc8ch 6 Kd6 Rb8 7 Rb1 (The White Rook slides over behind his Pawn) Rb3 8 Kc5 Kg5 9 Kc4 Rb8 10 b4 winning.

Euwe and Hooper point out that in the initial position White's simplest win is to cut off Black's King on the rank with 1 Rf5 Kg4 2 Rc5 Kf4 3 Kc2 Ke4 4 Kc3 winning as b4 follows.

Euwe and Hooper's discovered that Fine was wrong in saying Black draws if he moves first in the initial position. They give 1...Kg5 (Not 1...Kg3 2 Rf5, and not 1...Kg4 2 Rf6 Rh8 3 Ra6 ) 2 Rf2 Kg4 3 Kc1!! This discovery they atribute to Kopaiev, the idea being it puts Black into zugzwang. Both Black's King and Rook are on their best squares, and Black loses because he must move one of them!! Now if 3...Rc8ch 4 Rc2 Rh8 5 Rc5 Rh2 and White wins by moving his K to a3 and then advancing the Pawn to b4. After 3 Kc1!! Euwe and Hooper's main line goes 3...Rh8 4 b3 Kg3 5 Rf6 Rh2 6 b4 Kg4 7 b5 Kg5 8 Rf8 Rh7 9 Rb8 Kf6 10 b6 Ke6 11 b7 and they say wins though I don't understand why Black's King can't simply move in for the draw.

But now Euwe and Hooper give an example with the c-Pawn. Position is White: K on c1 R on g1, and Pawn on c2; Black: K on h5 and R on c8. Very similar to the last position but on the c-file rather than the b-file. They say White wins, contradicting Fine on the number of files the Black King needs to be cut off (only 4 here). Here the White King moves up on the short side, which wasn't there for the b-Pawn as there was only one file on the "short side" there. The main line runs 1 Kb2 Rb8ch 2 Ka3 Rc8 3 Kb3 Rb8ch 4 Ka4 Rc8 5 Rc1 (the usual "sliding over" of the White rook to support his Pawn's advance) Kg6 6 c4 Kf6 7 Kb5 Rb8ch 8 Kc6 Ke7 9 Re1ch Kd8 10 Rd1ch Ke7 (10...Kc8? 11 Rh1 threatening Rh8) 11 c5.

In my game,. however, the King is cut off by "only" 3 files, so White cannot win using this method. However, there has to be a way to win using fact that he has the extra pawn on the a-file. This requires further study.

The So-Called "Housing Crisis"

2010-08-26T10:15:00.000-07:00

An NPR story today states that: "Many people can't afford to sell their homes; as many as one-third of homeowners owe more than their home is now worth, and there are few buyers. Americans who once expected mobility now find themselves grounded, with their careers and lives fixed in place. They can't move to better job markets without taking a huge financial hit."

This dorp in home prices has been painted by many as a "crisis", when in reality it is simply a normal and expected adjustment to abnormally high rises in prices during the past decade. The proof of this lies in an amazing chart contained in the following website: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/08/24/129397321/in-the-long-view-home-prices-are-still-high

This site has a chart which shows that the rise in prices since 1890 closely parallels the inflation rate: i.e., there has been little or no rise in the real price of a home. Instead, the rise has been due to inflation, and people have conned themselves into believing that their homes have actually risen in price, due to a lack of understanding of inflation. The chart in question shows that the real value of homes has been in the neighborhood of 100 ever since 1890, until about 2005, when there is a *huge* spike in prices raising them to about 200!!

The drop-off since then has brought prices down to about 125, which is still a bit higher than at any time in the period of 1890-2000. The conclusion is that prices are still high and will fall further to get into line with historic trends.

Baseball Salaries

2010-08-25T11:39:00.000-07:00

The old adage tells us that money cannot buy happiness, but the question here is, can it buy a pennant? I will look at the correlation on this date between the MLB standings and team payroll.

The 8 teams above $100M in annual payroll find themselves in these slots (teams listed in order starting at highest payroll):

Yankees -- lst (tied)
Red Sox -- 3rd
Cubs -- 5th
Phillies -- 2nd
Mets -- 3rd
Tigers -- 3rd
White Sox- 2nd
Angels -- 3rd

Now the 8 lowest payrolls, starting with the lowest:

Pirates -- 6th
Padres -- 1st
Athletics -- 2nd
Rangers -- 1st
Marlins -- 4th
Diamondbacks -- 5th
Indians -- 5th
Nationals -- 5th

We see that there are twice as many first place teams (2) in bottom 8 as there are (1) in top 8. The other 3 first place teams rank as follows in payroll: Minnesota (11th), Atlanta (15th), and Cincinnati (19th). It is obvious from examining this data that this year there is no correlation between chances of being in first place and total payroll.

There is, however, a correlation with being in last place and smallness of payroll. 4 of the last-place teams are in the bottom 8 in payroll, and the other two are Orioles (17th) and Mariners (9th).

Booby prize is thus shared by Mariners (last place despite $98M payroll), and Cubs (next-to-last despite $146M payroll). Overachieving prize shared by Rangers and Padres, both in first despite being in bottom 8 of payroll.

On Tax Policy

2010-08-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

Letter to The Lima News:

Your editorial "Reagan's Wisdom on Cutting Taxes" really missed the boat. You failed to mention that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with his military spending, resulted in massive budget deficits which tripled our national debt.

Alan Greenspan recently spoke to this issue, saying "I don't agree with paying for tax cuts with borrowed money". Greenspan concluded that "At the end of the day, that proves disastrous."

I agree with Greenspan.

The Clemens Indictment

2010-08-21T03:33:00.000-07:00

A number of observations come to mind concerning the indictment of pitching great Roger Clemens for lying to Congress about using steroids.

First, the news accounts say he was indicted for "allegedly lying to Congress". No, he was indicted for "lying to Congress", not for "allegedly lying to Congress". When someone is indicted for murder we don't say he was indicted for "allegedly committing murder", we say he was "indicted for murder". Just another example of the media being afraid to speak plainly.

Second, Clemens has been known to be an arrogant jerk for many years, going back to when he was thrown out of a playoff game in the late '80's and denied cursing the umpire. It was only many years later that the umpire spoke up and said that yes, Clemens had indeed cursed him. And then there was the beaning of Piazza and throwing the broken bat at Piazza, in two separate incidents.

Third, I have seen in the practice of law for three decades that people can be mistaken about something, without necessarily being guilty of "lying". People seem able to actually convince themselves something did or did not happen, even though all evidence is to the contrary. Here, Clemens just cannot accept that he used steroids, so he denies it to himself and to others.

Fourth, it should be remembered that Clemens did not have to testify to Congress. He insisted on testifying after his name came up prominently in the Mitchell report on steroid use in baseball. He insisted on the opportunity to clear his name; instead, he only dug himself a deep hole.

Fifth, Clemens was offered a plea deal and turned it down, so nobody should feel sorry for him when he gets convicted and goes to prison. He still insists he never took steroids and arrogantly thinks he can prove it in court, even though any rational person can see that he will lose. His arrogance simply knows no bounds. Perhaps a year in prison will give him the personal character which he now lacks.

Erik Kratz

2010-08-20T10:55:00.000-07:00

One of the baseball stories I love so much is the player who knocks around in the minor leagues for many years and finally, at age 30 or more, gets his shot at the majors. Now comes the story of Erik Kratz, who has special interest as he is a graduate of EMU and a member of the Souderton, Pennsylvania, Mennonite Church. After 8+ years in the minors, he got called up in July by the Pirates. Apparently he got sent back down after 21 days (just like Crash in "Bull Durham"), but at least he got a taste of it. His loyal wife and their two young sons were also spotlighted in the story in a recent "Mennonite Weekly Review".

Bethel Gets a New President

2010-08-20T10:48:00.000-07:00

News is that Bethel College has named Perry D. White as its new president. What is surprising and perhaps alarming is that he has no background in the Anabaptist tradition or the peace tradition. His credentials seem to be that he has attracted increased donations in his past positions.

So convoluted was the attempt to create Mennonite roots by the writer of the article in "The Mennonite" that she sees fit to remark that White's wife has a degree from the University of Kansas. This pathetic attempt to demonstrate some rationale for the appointment just illustrates that Bethel has sold out to the larger culture and has really fallen on hard times. Unfortunately.

Kagan's Confirmation

2010-08-13T03:03:00.000-07:00

The vote was 63-37 to confirm Kagan. One Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against Kagan. Nelson is a complete joke. His stated reason, that his constituents oppose her, is totally lame. We elect leaders to lead, not to follow. Surely he does not really believe that his constituents have an informed opinion on what kind of justice Kagan will make. Think for yourself, Nelson!

The five Republicans who voted for her deserve credit, these being the two Maine senators, SC's Lindsay Graham, NH's Judd Gregg, and IN's Richard Lugar. MA's Scott Brown came down against her just before the vote.

To put this into proper context, here are the votes against confirmation for recent Republican nominees to the Court: Kennedy (0), Scalia (0), Alito (42), Roberts (22), and Thomas (48). Votes against for Democratic nominees are Breyer (9), Ginsburg (3), and Sotomayor (31).

Ranking the Presidents, The Horrible Ones

2010-08-09T06:50:00.000-07:00

42. George W. Bush. Just as Monroe ranks as "great" because everything he did of significance he did well, so W ranks as "horrible" because everything he did of significance he did poorly. He left us with two wars, a horrible national debt, declining prestige around the world, and the worst recession since the great depression. Some of his appointees were among the most inept ever in their jobs.

43. Ulysses S. Grant. Presidential historian Richard Shenkman, in "Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power, and Got Things Done", observes that Grant's is the first administraion "filled with people who wanted to use government connections to become rich". The corruption was so pervasive that the final count was 230 indictments and 110 convictions. His chief of staff (in today's vernacular) was put on trial for corruption in St. Louis, based on his involvement in the "whiskey ring", and Grant wanted to take a train there to testify on his behalf. When his cabinet talked him out of that, he gave a deposition in the White House saying that if Babcock is guilty, then he, Grant, is guilty also. When Babcock was acquitted, Grant wanted to hire him back and his cabinet again had to talk him out of it, so Grant gave him another job and let him stay on the federal payroll! Incredible.

Ranking the Presidents, Part Five, The Poor Ones

2010-07-30T06:33:00.000-07:00

35. John Adams. Adams rates this low because of his use of the Sedition Act to imprison newspaper editors who disagreed with his policies. This sounds so unAmerican in retrospect that it is hard to believe that this was once standard policy. And it might have continued to be standard policy had Adams and the Federalists remained in power. Thank God for Jefferson!

Adams stays out of the "horrible" category by virtue of avoiding the war with France which seemed imminent during his administration. For a more detailed analysis of the Adams administration, see my essay at http://knol.google.com/k/evaluating-the-john-adams-presidency#

36. Jimmy Carter. It is fine to campaign as an outsider, but once you achieve power you have to know how to use it. This Carter never figured out how to do. He started out on the wrong foot when Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill could not even get a seat at the Inauguration, but rather had to stand in the back! And he ended on a horribly wrong foot when he ignored the advice of his intelligence people and let the Shah of Iran into the U.S. He had been told our embassy in Iran would be in jeopardy if he did this, and the embassy ended up getting overrun and the hostages taken. Carter's excuse was that the Shah needed medical treatment he could only get in the U.S. I accepted this at the tine, but later it came out that the Shah could have received the same treatment in Mexico City, as the doctors were willing to go there to treat him. So, the President who promised he would never lie to us had lied to us.

37. Ronald Reagan. Reagan made one of the most despicable comments ever when he said that "Government is not the solution to the problem, it *is* the problem." This attitude led to greed becoming fashionable, and regulation unfashionable, which in turn led directly to the financial meltdown of the 2000's. Reagan saddled us with a huge debt due to his fiscally irresponsible budgets, and he spent many billions in unnecessary defense expenditures.

It is common in some circles to credit Reagan with the demise of the Soviet Union. However, this thesis does not stand up to analysis. In their book "The Missing Peace", Juhnke and Hunter summarize the situation like this: "The 'Reagan victory' thesis will continue to be popular among right wing militarists, but it suffers from its limiting assumption that great world events must have their primary origin in the United States. It also ignores the Soviet historical inclination to respond to external military pressure with new repression and military escalation. The end of the Cold War was triggered not by an American military buildup, but by the economic failings of the Soviet Union, by the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev, and by the timely witness of international scientists who wanted to protect the world from nuclear holocaust."

In his memoir "Deadline", veteran journalist James Reston offers candid assessments of each of the many presidents he has covered in his long career. Two passages about Reagan: "Most people liked his carefree style. He announced when he arrived that it was morning in America, but he didn't like to get out of bed. Unfortunately, when he wasn't looking, which was not unusual, some of his own officials assumed that they had a license to steal or break the law. It wasn't only that he was absent from Washington more than nost presidents but that he was often so absentminded when he was in the capital that he had the msot expensive banking and housing scandals on record and didn't even notice them."

Alos, "He arrived in Washington full of fairy tales and nursery stories, but the movie moguls never ventured to produce a story as fantastic as Reagan's. He not only proved that nice guys finish first--Hollywood's favorite theme--but he also made government popular. He thought that government was 'too big' but presided over the biggest government in the nation's history. He recommended religion, but seldom went to church. He was divorced and not close to his children, but preached family values. If it hadn't been for his indolence, his ignorance would have been intolerable..."

38. Andrew Jackson. Jackson's forcible removal of Native Americans to Oklahoma is one of the sorriest chapters in U.S. history, violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. After that opinion was rendered Jackson is reported to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Whether Jackson actually said this or not is not the point--the point is that this accurately represented his viewpoint. Quite a conflict between the judicial and the executive branches of government could have ensued had other Presidents been as nasty and full of ill will as Jackson was.

39. Warren G. Harding. It is customary to put Harding at or near the bottom, but new research by John Dean sheds a different light on this president. History books tell us that Harding got the 1920 Republican nomination by virtue of party leaders gathering in a "smoke-filled room", putting Harding under a cloud right from the get-go. Dean disputes this, saying Harding had a well thought out plan going into the convention, of letting the leaders knock each other out, and then he would gradually pick up steam which is what actually happened.

Dean says Harding was very popular, and would have been re-elected in a landslide had he lived. The scandals among his people came to light later, and did not involve Harding personally.

Harding deserves credit for commuting the sentence of Eugene Debs so that Debs could be released from prison, and then inviting him to the White House. This was a humanitarian gesture which his predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, had repeatedly refused to do despite the repeated recommendations of his Attorney General that Debs be pardoned.

40. Lyndon B. Johnson. Because of his ego, Johnson refused to admit that the Vietnam War was a mistake, and tens of thousands of young Americans died as a result. Many more came back badly damaged, either physically or psychologically, and the country is still dealing with the after-effects of this horrible war which divided the country and was totally unnecessary, based as it was on a false domino premise. Civil rights advances and the war on poverty are positive achievements which keep him out of the "horrible" category.

41. Richard Nixon. Used the power of the federal government to persecute his political enemies; misused the FBI and CIA and IRS to further his personal agenda. Did have a good grasp of foreign affairs, and deserves credit for opening the doors to Russia and China, which raises him above the "horrible" category.

Ranking the Presidents, Part Four, Lincoln

2010-07-29T09:11:00.000-07:00

Th average presidents are not very interesting to write about, and I will skip those. Thrown into this category will be the four presidents (counting Obama) who served less than two years. Thus we come to the "poor" ones, starting with Lincoln.

34. Abraham Lincoln. It is customary to place Lincoln at or near the top, but how can that be justified when he has the blood of 620,000 dead Americans on his hands? Historians seem to accept without questioning that the Civil War was a good thing for the country, when careful scrutiny reveals just the opposite!

Lincoln was just plain wrong on so many levels, it is hard to know where to begin. Let us start on a basic issue--the legality of secession. First, let us note that the Constitution says nothing about secession, either pro or con. Thus, we need to read the document as a whole and infer what the founders intended.

When we do this we see that the founders intended that the federal government would have only those powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, and the states (or the people) would have all remaining powers. Any fair reading of the Constitution as a whole thus leads to the conclusion that secession is not illegal, and Lincoln was therefore wrong in assuming as such.

James Ostrowski has undertaken a detailed scholarly analysis of this issue, and his conclusion is: "In 1861, the Constitution did not authorize the federal government to use military force to prevent a state from seceding from the Union. The Constitution established a federal government of limited powers delegated to it by the people, acting through their respective states. There is no express grant to the federal government of a power to use armed force to prevent a secession and there is no clause which does so by implication. To the contrary, the notion of the use of armed force against the states and the subsequent military occupation and rule of the states by the federal government does violence to the overall structure and purpose of the Constitution by turning the servant of the states into their master. Any doubts about whether the federal government had such a power must be resolved in favor of the states since the Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly reserve the vast residue of powers and rights to the states and to the people of those states."

Lincoln in his July 4, 1861, message to Congress seeking support for his war effort, complains bitterly about the South's use of the term "secession". Lincoln insisted throughout the conflict that "rebellion" was a more appropriate term. He accused the South of "an insidious debauching of the public mind". The irony here is that it was Lincoln himself doing the debauchery, for the term "rebellion" does not at all describe the peaceful act of seceding, which was what the south was trying to do. The word "rebellion" refers to an armed conflict. It is derived from the Latin "rebellio", meaning as such. By casting it in terms of what the Constitution defines as treason, Lincoln deliberately inflamed this issue and pushed the North into a war, while engaging in the sort of abuse of language that tyrants the world over have done throughout history. The old saying which comes to mind is, "If you tell a lie often enough, people will start believing it." Well, Lincoln told this lie repeatedly.

Our country was started by an act of secession, wherein the colonies split from England. There are numerous examples in recent history where acts of secession have taken place, without any question being raised as to their propriety. Rather than belaboring this, I will end with a plea that folks think for themselves about things like this, without being brainwashed by the slanted history books.

Ranking the Presidents, Part Three, FDR

2010-07-28T04:30:00.000-07:00

9. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Historians rank FDR second, but the more I learn about FDR the less I like him. I suppose his high esteem among historians could be attributable to three general reasons: 1) His oratorical skills; 2) His New Deal policies; and 3) Turning a blind eye to his many negatives. His oratorical skills are obvious, but surely it takes more than that to be great. I will examine the other two factors.

The New Deal was a valiant effort, but the evidence discloses that it did not pull us out of the great depression, so in that sense it can be regarded as a failure. David M. Kennedy, in his great book "Freedom from Fear", sums it up like this: "It might be well to begin by recognizing what the New Deal did not do, in addition to its conspicuous failure to produce economic recovery. Much mythology and New Deal rhetoric notwithstanding, it did not substantially redistribute the national income. America's income profile in 1940 closely resembled that of 1930, and for that matter 1920....Nor, with essentially minor exceptions like the TVA's electric-power business, did the New Deal challenge the fundamental tenet of capitalism: private ownership of the means of production. In contrast with the pattern in virtually all other industrial societies, whether Communist, socialist, or capitalist, no significant state-owned enterprises emerged in New Deal America."

My own research reveals that unemployment peaked at 24.9% in 1933, and by 1938 it had fallen only to 19.0%. Surely this is not a significant improvement after five years of strenuous efforts, so one must conclude that the New Deal did not deliver. What got us out of the depression was an armaments buildup starting in 1939, which in two years increased U.S. manufacturing output by 50%!

Now we come to all the negatives. If FDR was interested in real change, he would have supported Upton Sinclair for governor of California in 1934. Sinclair traveled to Washington to meet with FDR and left thinking he had his endorsement, but it turned out FDR had no intention of endorsing him (but wasn't man enough to tell him this to his face). The reason is that Sinclair was an advocate of real change, not the phony change FDR was pushing.

Another advocate of real change became FDR's implacable foe. This guy was Huey Long of Louisiana. FDR was so afraid of a challenge from Long in 1936 that he sent 50 FBI agents to Louisiana to try to dig up dirt on him! This represents a shocking abuse of power, but is revealing in the way FDR was more worried about perpetuating his own power than he was about doing the right thing. It was a precursor to the abuses of power another president, Richard Nixon, later inflicted on the nation.

A few years later we have the boatload of Jews fleeing the Holocaust, which FDR refused to let into the country. The shocking insensitivity of this is mind-boggling. The Jews were returned to Europe where most perished in the Holocaust.

And then there is the concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during World War Two. Completely unjustified and opposed to our principles as a country. Similarly, FDR refused to desegregate the armed forces, which he could have easily done, and in fact Truman did do a few years later. If Truman could do it, why didn't FDR?

FDR's running again in 1944 was his final insult to the American people. Jim Bishop, in his book "FDR's Last Year", relates how during his entire last year FDR would get a complete physical exam every morning and every evening. The doctors would constantly be telling him to get more rest, even though he was already spending most of every day in bed. Bishop says that the doctors never told him how sick he was, and FDR never asked. But he had to have known it, anybody would have known under these circumstances!

Despite this, in a shocking display of hubris, FDR ran again in 1944. According to Bishop, his constant comment was that he was not going to desert the troops serving under him as Commander of Chief during a war, any more than he would expect any other soldier to desert his post. This analogy is bogus, it just does not hold water. In point of fact, FDR was dead less than three months of his fourth inauguration, and he died without telling his new Vice-President, Harry Truman, about the atomic bomb! The fact that he did not bring Truman into the information loop, especially given the likelihood of his dying, is inexcusable. Again, unforgivable hubris.

A great President? I think not. But worthy of being at the bottom of the "good" category based on his accomplishments.

Ranking the Presidents, Part Two, The Good Ones

2010-07-26T05:03:00.000-07:00

4. Harry Truman. Truman left office with a horrendously low approval rating. However, his ranking in the eyes of historians has risen steadily and in the most recent such ranking he was at #5.

The more we learn about Truman the better he looks. David McCullough, in his fine biography of Truman, relates how Truman made a point to learn the first name of every member of the White House staff. He would regularly greet them by name and ask about their families. One guy said, with tears in his eyes, that he had worked at the White House for 40 years and no previous President had ever bothered to ask him for his name.

The Marshall Plan is instructive. Polls at the time showed that only 18% of the American people favored massive aid to rebuild Europe. Yet, Truman forged ahead, knowing it was the right thing to do. And history has proved him right in this. This is a welcome contrast to current approaches of taking actions based on the latest poll. (And it's not just politicians that are among the guilty; journalists, to their eternal discredit, play into this by constantly citing polls and asking politicians about the polls.)

I would put Truman among the great Presidents except that his Cold War policies do not stand up under the scrutiny of history. Jim Juhnke and Carol Hunter, in their book "The Missing Peace", document how the Soviets viewed the race as a political and economic one, but the Truman Administration mistakenly saw it as a military conflict and thus we had the Cold War. George Kennan, architect of the post-WW2 policy of containment, later disavowed the way the policy had been carried out. Kennan's view was that "a post-war political struggle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was inevitable. The runaway arms race and global militarization were not." Juhnke and Hunter state that official documents released since the breakup of the Soviet Union confirm the accuracy of Kennan's view.

My sixth-grade teacher told us that we would all perish from nuclear annihilation before we reached adulthood. This was the sort of cloud that my generation grew up under, and it is directly traceable to Truman's misguided policies.

5. Rutherford B. Hayes. Hayes always did what he felt was best for the country, rather than for his party. His integrity was unquestioned, which was a welcome switch from the scandal-ridden Grant era.

6. Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower is another President whose stock has risen since he left office. I recall an analysis at that time that predicted that future historians would paint him negatively as a hands-off President who preferred to spend his time on the golf course rather than dealing with the affairs of state.

However, we now know that Ike was a firm and steady advocate for peace. He ended the Korean War. In 1955 he single-handedly prevented war in the Middle East, by pressuring British PM Anthony Eden to back away from military intervention. It is well-known that when he left office he famously warned against the "military-industrial complex"; less well-known are other similar warnings he gave throughout his tenure as President.

In Bob Considine's memoirs, "It's All News to Me", he recalls a reporter asking Ike in 1951 whether he believed in "socialized medicine". Ike's response was that he didn't like that term, but he felt that "everyone should have free medical care". This reflects Ike's true sensibilities. What is striking is how far Republicanism today has strayed from Republicanism of the 1950's. Today the party has degenerated into "the party of no", and it is common for measures to have the support of, at best, a small handful of liberal Republicans and that's it.

But in the past it was not so, as demonstrated by an analysis of past votes on innovative social programs. In an article in a recent "Christian Science Monitor", Robert S. McElvaine gives the following analysis of Senate Republican votes (House numbers are similar): Social Security Act of 1935--76% for; Civil Rights Act of 1964, 80% for; Voting rights Act of 1967, a whopping 97% for!; Medicare in 1965, 43% for. Then we fast-forward to 1993, and find a grand total of *zero* Republicans voting for Clinton's budget, because it included a modest increase in the top marginal tax rate. Republicans predicted the tax increase would cause the economy to collapse. What resulted, instead, was the longest stretch of economic growth in US history, and eventually a budget surplus by the time Clinton left office. And of course we know none voted for Obama's health care reform bill. It has been said that Obama's positions are quite similar to those of Republicans in the '50's, and I think this is a fairly accurate appraisal.

7. Bill Clinton. Another President who is likely to rise in the eyes of historians as time goes on. He took a deficit which had ballooned under the disastrous 12 years of Reagan and the first Bush, and turned it into a surplus by the time he left office. He was a master politician, something essential in dealing Congress and with the American people. Nobody did it better.

8. John F. Kennedy. Great motivator of people and a great leader. His speech taking responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco should be studied and emulated, but rarely is. Although it was under Eisenhower that the foray into Cuba was planned, he manned up and took full responsibility, in a way that subsequent Presidents have seemed unable to do.

The Shirley Sherrod Mess

2010-07-21T15:53:00.000-07:00

There are many lessons to be learned from the Shirley Sherrod mess. Among these might be that we are indeed a "nation of cowards" when it comes to talking about race, as Attorney General Holder has said; that the right-wing bloggers have become even more hateful and despicable than ever, in posting an edited video which purports to show just the opposite of what Ms. Sherrod was actually saying; that FOX news is even more despicable than we thought, in disseminating the false video and calling for Ms. Sherrod's resignation or firing; that this then piggbybacks to the Obama administration and the NAACP in jumping on this phony bandwagon and castigating her, when the facts were easily ascertainable and showed just the opposite--that she was describing how it is poor people who need help, not just Blacks.

But, having just watched the Secretary of Agriculture two hours ago giving an abject apology for firing her without learning all the facts, I have to comment on this aspect of it, since I have special expertise here by virtue of doing literally hundreds of unemployment compensation hearings in my law practice. The issue in these hearings was always why the "separation from employment" occurred. That is, if it was a discharge, why was the emploiee discharged; if it was a quit, why did the employee quit. In the instance of a discharge, as we have here (quitting under threat of being fired is the same legally as a discharge), the issue was always, why was the employee fired? If because of misconduct connected with the work, then the employee does not get the benefits, and the employers account does not get charged.

I have seen many instances of employers messing up in the way a discharge is handled, as the Ag Sec did here. The one which sticks in my mind is that a nursing supervisor in a care home heard that a nurse's aide had slammed the door to a resident's room and left in anger, which is considered resident abuse and clearly misconduct. What the suprevisor did is call the aide into her office, and as she entered simply said, "You're outta here."

Well, at the hearing the aide denied slamming the door and presented a completely different picture of things. The employer witness who was there did not even back up the version which had reached the supervisor. The coup de grace for the employer's case was that the door had the standard gadget on it preventing it from being slammed, so it was not even possible it happened as reported.

The lessen here is that an employer should never act precipitously, as the Ag sec did. It costs nothing to first get the facts, deliberate on them, and then act. In my case, the supervisor should have asked the aide what happend and gotten her version of events. If the two versions differed, then other witnesses could be talked to and a proper investigation undertaken before any firing decision was made.

The larger lessen here is the proper relationship between an employer and employee. There has been, since the '60's, a lot of management training info about communication being a two-way street, about open-door policies by employers, about "theory X vs. theory Y", and so on. A lot of this has been talk and not much else. When I started at a law firm my boss said if I ever had a problem just come talk to him, his door was always open and he would help. When I did seek his help some months into my tenure, he said he didn't have time to deal with it and I should carry on the best I could. So much for the "open door policy". I think in many cases the open door policy is not a reality.

But I think the best approach goes further than just an open-door policy. The best employer develops a solid relationship with employees, in other words, is proactive in taking steps to develop a rapport. I think of Attorsney-General Robert F. Kennedy, who would pop into offices in the Justice Department and ask the person what he/she was working on. This sort of taking an interest in your people can't help but lead to an important rapport. And if you have this sort of rapport, how would you ever fire them based on some hearsay account of something they supposedly did? It would be inconceivable. Of course you would immediately get with your person and discuss it, ask for their version. The Ag Sec did not do this, to his eternal discredit, but he has acknowledged his mistake and I think he will be allowed to move on with the important business of his department.

My 237 Favorite Movies

2010-07-21T07:36:00.000-07:00

First 10

Casablanca (1942) (Michael Curtiz)(Julius Epstein)
The Third Man (1949) (Carol Reed)(Graham Greene)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959) (Otto Preminger)(John D. Voelker)
The Godfather (1972) (Francis Ford Coppola)(Mario Puzo)
Bull Durham (1988) (Ron Shelton)
Goodfellas (1990) (Martin Scorsese)(Nicholas Pileggi)
Basic Instinct (1992) (Paul Verhoeven)(Joe Eszterhas)
Groundhog Day (1995) (Harold Ramis)
The Usual Suspects (1995) (Bryan Singer)(Christopher McQuarrie)
Jackie Brown (1997) (Quentin Tarantino)

Second 10

The Maltese Falcon (1941) (John Huston)(Dashiell Hammett)
Inherit the Wind (1960) (Stanley Kramer)(Jerome Lawrence)
Cool Hand Luke (1967) (Stuart Rosenberg)(Donn Pearce)
In the Heat of the Night (1967) (Norman Jewison)(John Ball)
Patton (1970) (Franklin Schaffner)(Ladaslas Farago)
American Graffiti (1973) (George Lucas)
Body Heat (1981) (Lawrence Kasdan)
Field of Dreams (1989) (Phil Alden Robinson)(W. P. Kinsella)
A Few Good Men (1992) (Rob Reiner)(Aaron Sorkin)
Fargo (1996) (Coen brothers)

Third 10

Duck Soup (1933) (Leo McCarey)
To Have and Have Not (1944) (Howard Hawks)
The Court Jester (1956) (Melvin Frank)
The Graduate (1967) (Mike Nichols)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967) (Arthur Penn)
Five Easy Pieces (1970) (Bob Rafelson)
The Sting (1973) (George Roy Hill)
Godfather 2 (1974) (Francis Ford Coppola)
Beautiful Girls (1996) (Ted Demme)
LA Confidential (1997) (Curtis Hanson)

Fourth 10

The Great Escape (1963) (John Sturges)
The Last Picture Show (1971) (Peter Bogdanovich)
Carnal Knowledge (1971) (Mike Nichols)
Jaws (1975) (Steven Spielberg)
Diner (1982) (Barry Levinson)
Stand by Me (1986) (Rob Reiner)
When Harry Met Sally (1989) (Rob Reiner)
Red Rock West (1992) (John Dahl)
Out of Time (2003) (Carl Franklin)
No Country for Old Men (2007) (Coen brothers)

Fifth 10

Marty (1955) (Delbert Mann)
Touch of Evil (1958) (Orson Welles)
Badlands (1974) (Terrence Malick)
California Split (1974) (Robert Altman)
Ten (1979) (Blake Edwards)
My Dinner with Andre (1981) (Louis Malle)
Rain Man (1988) (Barry Levinson)
My Cousin Vinny (1992) (Jonathan Lynn)
The Pianist (2002) (Roman Polanski) (Wladyslaw Szpilman)
The Departed (2006) (Martin Scorsese)

Sixth 10

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) (Frank Lloyd)
Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) (Stanley Kramer)
The Hustler (1961) (Robert Rossen)
Goldfinger (1964) (Guy Hamilton)
Charade (1963) (Stanley Donen)
To Live and Die in LA (1985) (William Friedkin)
Something Wild (1986) (Jonathan Demme)
Mystic Pizza (1988) (Donald Petrie)
Pulp Fiction (1994) (Quentin Tarantino)
Donnie Brasco (1997) (Mike Newell)

Seventh 10

The Great Waltz (1938) (Julien Duvivier)(Gottfried Reinhardt)
White Heat (1949) (Raoul Walsh)
North by Northwest (1959) (Alfred Hitchcock)
A Shot in the Dark (1964) (Blake Edwards)
Chinatown (1974) (Roman Polanski)
Amadeus (1984) (Milos Forman)
Back to the Future (1985) (Robert Zemeckis)
Eight Men Out (1988) (John Sayles)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) (Jonathan Demme)
Bowling for Columbine (2002) (Michael Moore)

Eighth 10

The Big Sleep (1946) (Howard Hawks)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) (Robert Hamer)
The Paper Chase (1973) (James Bridges)
Manhattan (1979) (Woody Allen)
Eye of the Needle (1981) (Richard Marquand)
White Nights (1985) (Taylor Hackford)
Barfly (1987) (Barbet Schroeder)
Midnight Run (1988) (Martin Brest)
Back to the Future 3 (1990) (Robert Zemeckis)
Reservoir Dogs (1992) (Quentin Tarantino)

Ninth 10

All the King's Men (1949) (Robert Rossen)
In Cold Blood (1967) (Richard Brooks)
Goodbye Columbus (1969) (Larry Peerce)
Fiddler on the Roof (1971) (Norman Jewison)
All the President's Men (1976) (Alan J. Pakula)
Raging Bull (1980) (Martin Scorcese)
Breaker Morant (1980) (Bruce Bereford)
Hannah and her Sisters (1986) (Woody Allen)
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) (Frank Oz)
Working Girl (1988) (Mike Nichols)

Tenth 10

Notorious (1946) (Alfred Hitchcock)
Rear Window (1954) (Alfred Hitchcock)
On the Waterfront (1954) (Elia Kazan)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) (David Lean)
Vertigo (1958) (Alfred Hitchcock)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) (Robert Mulligan)
Moonstruck (1987) (Norman Jewison)
Liberty Heights (1999) (Barry Levinson)
A Beautiful Mind (2001) (Ron Howard)
Sideways (2004) (Alexander Payne)

Honorable Mention

A Night at the Opera (1935) (Sam Wood)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) (Michael Curtiz) (Seton Miller)

Murder, My Sweet (1944) (Edward Dmytryk)
The Killers (1946)(Robert Sidmak)(Ernest Hemingway)
Out of the Past (1947) (Jacques Tournier)
Boomerang (1947) (Elia Kazan)
Kiss of Death (1947) (Henry Hathaway)
The Naked City (1948)(Jules Dassin)(Malvin Wald)
Romance on the High Seas (1948) (Michael Curtiz) (Julius Epstein)
The Inspector General (1949) (Henry Kostel) (Nikolai Gogol)

D.O.A. (1950) (Rudolph Mate)(Russell Rouse)
In a Lonely Place (1950) (Nicholas Ray)(Dorothy B. Hughes)
The Big Heat (1953)(Fritz Lang)
Niagara (1953) (Henry Hathaway)
The Caine Mutiny (1954) (Edward Dmytryk)
The Glenn Miller Story (1954) (Anthony Mann)
Kiss Me Deadly (1955) (Robert Aldrich)
The Ten Commandments (1956) (Cecil B. DeMille)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957) (Billy Wilder)
Ben-Hur (1959) (William Wyler)

Psycho (1960) (Alfred Hitchcock)
Birdman of Alcatraz (1962) (John Frankenheimer) (Thomas Gaddis)
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966) (Mike Nichols)(Edward Albee)
Alice's Restaurant (1969) (Arthur Penn)
Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice (1969)(Paul Mazursky)

Summer of '42 (1971) (Robert Mulligan)
The Anderson Tapes (1971) (Sidney Lumet)
Harold and Maude (1971) (Hal Ashby)
Play Misty for Me (1971) (Clint Eastwood)
Klute (1971) (Alan J. Pakula) (Andy Lewis)
The Getaway (1972) (Sam Peckinpah)
Frenzy (1972) (Alfred Hitchcock)
Play it Again, Sam (1972) (Woody Allen)
The Long Goodbye (1973) (Robert Altman) (Raymond Chandler)
Brannigan (1975) (Douglas Hickox)
Smokey and the Bandit (1977)
Meatballs (1979) (Ivan Reitman)

Airplane (1980) (Jim Abrahams)
Private Benjamin (1980) (Howard Zeiff)
The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980)
Prince of the City (1981) (Sidney Lumet)(Robert Daley)
Arthur (1981) (Steve Gordon)
Stripes (1981) (Ivan Reitman)
Absence of Malice (1981)
Gandhi (1982) (Richard Attenborough)
Missing (1982) (Costa-Gavras)
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan) (1982) (Nicholas Meyer)
Tootsie (1982) (Sydney Pollack)
The Right Stuff (1983) (Philip Kaufman)
A Soldier's Story (1984) (Norman Jewison) (Charles Fuller)
A Christmas Carol (1984) (Clive Donner)
The Breakfast Club (1985) (John Hughes)
The Falcon and the Snowman (1985) (John Schlesinger)
Out of Africa (1985) (Sydney Pollack)
Witness (1985) (Peter Weir)
Back to School (1986) (Alan Metter)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) (John Hughes)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Radio Days (1987) (Woody Allen)
House of Games (1987) (David Mamet)
Tin Men (1987) (Barry Levinson)
Crossing Delancey (1988) (Joan Micklin Silver)
The Naked Gun (1988) (David Zucker)
Gorillas in the Mist (1988) (Michael Apted)
Road House (1989) (Rowdy Herrington)
Sex, Lies and Videotape (1989) (Steven Soderbergh)
Major League (1989) (David S. Ward--w&d)

The Two Jakes (1990) (Jack Nicholson)
Avalon (1990) (Barry Levinson)
Thelma and Louise (1991) (Ridley Scott) (Callie Khouri)
The Naked Gun 2 and 1/2 (1991) (David Zucker)
Mr. Saturday Night (1992) (Billy Crystal)
Wayne's World (1992) (Penelope Spheeris)
Malcolm X (1992)(Spike Lee)
Medicine Man (1992) (John McTierman)
The Sandlot (1993) (David M. Evans)
Sleepless in Seattle (1993) (Nora Ephron)
In the Line of Fire (1993) (Wolfgang Petersen)
Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993)
Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) (Chris Columbus)
Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) (Mel Brooks)
Forrest Gump (1994) (Robert Zemeckis)
Clerks (1994)(Kevin Smith)
The Chase (1994) (Adam Rifkin)
Speed (1994) (Jan de Bont)
While You Were Sleeping (1995) (John Turteltalb)
GoldenEye (1995) (Martin Campbell)
Get Shorty (1995) (Barry Sonnenfeld)
Murder in the First (1995) (Marc Rocco)
Apollo 13 (1995)
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
A Time to Kill (1996)(Joel Schumacher)(John Grisham)
Trial and Error (1997) (Jonathan Lynn)
Liar, Liar (1997) (Tom Shadyac)
Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
Gattaca (1997)(Andrew Niccol)
Chasing Amy (1997)(Kevin Smith)
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997) (Clint Eastwood)
Kissing a Fool (1998) (Doug Ellin)
The Wedding Singer (1998) (Frank Coraci)
Wild Things (1998) (John McNaughton)
Rounders (1998) (John Dahl)
Out of Sight (1998) (Steven Soderbergh)
Simon Birch (1998)(Mark Steven Johnson)
Ever After (1998) (Andy Tennant)
A Perfect Murder (1998) (Andrew Davis) (Frederick Knott)
Office Space (1999) (Mike Judge)
The Green Mile (1999) (Frank Darabont)
10 Things I Hate about You (1999)(Gil Junger)(Karen McCullah Lutz)
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)(Anthomny Minghella)(Patricia Highsmith)
Man on the Moon (1999)(Milos Forman)(Scott Alexander)

High Fidelity (2000) (Stephen Frears)
Pay It Forward (2000)(Mimi Leder)
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) (Coen brothers)
A Knight's Tale (2001)(Brian Helgeland)
Attila (2001) (Dick Lowry)
Catch Me If You Can (2002)(Steven Speilberg)
The Good Girl (2002)(Miguel Arteta)(Mike White)
Mystic River (2003) (Clint Eastwood)
Matchstick Men (2003) (Ridley Scott)
Blue Collar Comedy Tour: The Movie (2003)
Out of Time (2003) (Carl Franklin)
The Reckoning (2003) (Paul McGuigan)
The Notebook (2004) (Nick Cassavetes)
The Terminal (2004) (Steven Spielberg)
Garden State (2004)(Zach Braff)
The Aviator (2004) (Martin Scorsese) (John Logan)
Wedding Crashers (2005) (David Dobkin)(Steve Faber)
Borat (2006) (Larry Charles)
Pete Seeger: The Power of Song (2007)(Jim Brown)
Gran Torino (2008)(Clint Eastwood)(Nick Schenk)
Elegy (2008)(Isabel Coixet)(Philip Roth)
Adam Resurrected (2008) (Paul Shrader)
Valkyrie (2008) (Bryan Singer)
Public Enemies (2009) (Michael Mann)
He's Just Not that Into You (2009)(Ken Kwapis)(Abby Kohn)
Chloe (2009) (Adam Egoyan)

Ranking the Presidents, Part One, The Great Ones

2010-07-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite pastimes is ranking the Presidents. Since it has been some years since my last ranking, it's time for an update.

1. George Washington. This one is a complete no-brainer.

2. Thomas Jefferson. Washington was above party politics, but his successor, John Adams, took the country deep into party politics to very dangerous levels. To John Adams and the Federalists, anybody who disagreed with them was a traitor and needed to be prosecuted as such under the Sedition Act. This led to many opposition newspapermen being jailed under the odious Sedition Act during the Adams administration.

Jefferson, to his great and everlasting credit, recognized the evil of this, and respected and understood the Constitution enough to understand that this was contrary to what America was all about. He freed all the imprisoned newspapermen, the Federalist party died out, and Jefferson's concept of our government prevailed. We owe him more thanks than we can ever give him. Just think what kind of country we might have ended up with had Adams beat Jefferson in 1800 and the Federalists remained in power. One shudders at the thought.

3. Teddy Roosevelt. I take seriously the concerns that people have for TR's bullying attitude toward Latin America. However, this was normal for his day. It does not detract from the great good he did to put this country on the right direction in so many areas--trust-busting, starting the FDA, environmentalism, brokering peace between Russia and Japan, and on and on. He is truly one of the great ones.

4. James Monroe. Historians seem unable to rank any President as "great"unless there was some great crisis that he had to confront during his Presidency. Hence, they rank Monroe only 14th. However, a closer examination of his Presidency shows he was a great President. He tried hard to be President of all the country, appointing Cabinet members from each sector, and visiting each sector while in office. His Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, served for the entire 8 years, and is widely regarded as the best Secretary of State ever. Similarly, his Vice-President, Daniel D. Tompkins, gets less recognition but as governor of New York was widely recognized as making important progressive reforms in such things as humane treatment of prisoners, and humane treatment of native Americans. In short, Monroe has no negatives and huge positives, and deserves a place among the great ones.

This concludes the great ones. Next installment will be the good ones.

Kagan Surmounts First Hurdle, or, A Tale of Two Lindsa(e)ys

2010-07-20T09:30:00.000-07:00

I just found out from scotusblog.com that Elena Kagan's confirmation vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee was 13-6 to confirm. All Democrats voted for her, and all Republicans against except for Lindsey Graham, who gave a passionate speech outlining reasons to vote yea and nay and concluded that she was qualified and that Obama has the right as the election winner to have his own nominee confirmed.

I was following this at the library on scotusblog this morning as they had a running account. I then went back to my apartment to watch the hearing live on TV. Much to my chagrin it was not on C-SPAN (apparently it was on C-SPAN2 which I don't get). So I turned to the other cable news channels, feeling certain one would have the hearings. You'll never guess what they had rather than the hearings. Give up? It was Lindsay Lohan being taken into custody to do her 90-day sentence for violating her probation! Nothing about the Judiciary Committee hearings, not even on NPR. So, I'm back at the library, even more depressed than ever at the quality of American "journalism".

The Kansas Senate Race

2010-07-20T07:28:00.000-07:00

National attention has been focused recently on the race for the Republican nomination for the Kansas Senate seat being vacated by Sam Brownback. C-SPAN carried a debate between the contestants, Representatives Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, and CNN also has spotlighted the race.

This race illustrates just how low politics in this coutnry can sink. Each of the two candidates is doing nothing but trying to argue he is more conservative than his rival. And it is not true conservatism they are speaking of, but the anti-tax, anti-immigrant garbage which passes for conservatism these days. Tiahrt's latest attack ad accuses Moran of voting "to provide taxpayer-funded health care coverage for illegal immigrants", because he supported a children's health bill! This is the sort of nonsense Kansas votes have had to listen to. The story is at http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/19/2093797/new-tiahrt-ad-in-us-senate-race.html

This business of taking a few votes and damning your opponent for it is what ousted Senator Bob Bennett from the primary for his Utah Senate seat. He was damned for reaching across the aisle and working with a Democratic Senator on a piece of legislation. This should be what we want our elected officials to do, but in the eyes of the ultra right-wing tea party folks this is a no-no. As a result, the Republicans have lost a long-time Senator who was one of the good guys.

The irony of the Kansas race is that both candidates are conservatives, and this splitting of hairs is just ludicrous. In the debate all either one did was make accusations that his opponent wasn't conservative enough, and each talked about specific votes--who voted to raise taxes most often, etc. Neither presented any sort of vision of where he wanted his country or his party to go in the future.

Baseball Is Baseball Again

2010-07-20T07:03:00.000-07:00

A recent item in the paper about the Cincinnati Reds caught my eye. The story said the Reds led the league in going first to third, referring to a runner on first getting to third on a single to the outfield, rather than stopping at second. This is something the Reds pride themselves on doing, and it illustrates just how far baseball has come in getting past the steroids era.

In the steroids era baseball became too much like a slow pitch softball game, with runners waiting on bases for a batter to hit a home run, and everybody trying to hit a home run every time at bat. It was very dull and uninteresting, and so much of the beauty of the game was lost in the process.

Sunday there were two inside-the-park home runs, and listening to the excitement of the announcers it was obvious this was much more exciting than a blast over the fence. Another recent morsel was David Ortiz getting thrown out in the 9th inning of the All-Star game, thereby virtually ruining the AL's chance to come back agint the NL. A single to the right fielder was fielded and Ortiz was forced at second by the right fielder! Ortiz had to wait to see if the ball would be caught, and he just didn't have the speed to get to the base after that. The AL manager would, of course, have liked to have pinch run for him, but the only position player left on the bench had to be kept back in case he was needed in the field. (The All-Star game does count these days, as we are continually reminded, but the managers still manage too much like they are trying to get everybody into the game instead of to win.) Again, this example shows the importance of speed.

The stats are quite clear on home runs. The last two years in the American League the home run leader has had less than 40. The last time this happened in the AL was 1982-83. In the interim period Babe Ruth's long-standing standard of 60 was exceeded six times--three times by Sosa, twice by McGwire, and once by Bonds. To put it another way, prior to 1995 a player had hit 50 homers in a season only 16 times. From 1995 on, this has happened 25 times. Thankfully, we seem to be getting back to baseball as it's meant to be played and enjoyed.

Finally A Real Conservative

2010-07-07T04:14:00.000-07:00

The 4th of July holiday was hot, but the morning paper contained a breath of fresh air. A column on our eroding freedoms was actually written by a real conservative! What a welcome development to find one, after these past decades of listening to the right-wing crap that passes for conservatism these days.

His name is Thomas J. Lucente, Jr., and here are some of his observations: 1) We are waging illegal wars around the globe and here at home; 2) The greatest threat to our national security today is not terrorism, Islamic extremism or some other nation. The greatest security threat is our national debt; 3) The Congress, in cahoots with the Supreme Court, have destroyed the idea of federalism and states' rights by reinterpreting the Constitution in such a fashion that gives the federal government unlimited power; 4) Perhaps more than any other sign of the decay of American liberty is the fact that the United States imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other country in the world. Nearly 1 percent of the American population is in a prison or jail; 5) Beyond that, the government has imprisoned hundreds, possibly thousands, of people here and abroad without criminal charges being filed. You can find these prisoners in immigration jails and our concentration camp in Cuba.

Kudos to Mr. Lucente!

Diversity on the Supreme Court

2010-06-28T07:59:00.000-07:00

Much cosmetic diversity on the Supreme Court has been created starting in the '60's with the first Black being appointed by LBJ, and then continuing with the women starting in the '80's. But where has this left us? If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will have 3 Jews and 6 Catholics, surely the most non-diverse Court in history! Also, they will all be heterosexual, another slap in the face at true diversity.

The real issue is whether any of this really matters. If you endorse the idea that the Supreme Court should make social policy, then of course it does matter. But if you believe that the Court should be interpreting the law and not making policy, then it doesn't matter.

The Constitution Triumphs Again

2010-06-26T06:29:00.001-07:00

Faithful readers will know of my view that the U.S. is disintegrating much faster than most people realize. However, this reality in no way diminishes my deep respect for the Constitution, which seems to always come out the winner every time there is a crisis.

It triumphed again this week when President Obama did the only thing he could, and relieved General McChrystal of command in Afghanistan. This is a tribute to the wisdom of the Founders who provided for civilian control of the military. One need only look around the world at all the countries in which civilian control is not able to be exercised, and see the problems. How many of the 195 countries in this world have experienced military coups? My guess is a lot, but a survey of this magnitude is beyond my energy level at this time.

Anyway, here's to our Founders, whose wisdom has again been demonstrated.

The Hardball Challenge

2010-06-25T11:28:00.000-07:00

The House member's idiotic statement that BP was shaken down is a subject other Republican politicians have been asked about. Even though the Republican leadership has disavowed itself of the idiocies of this particular Representative, Rush Limbaugh has endorsed it so no Republican wants to say Rush is wrong.

Christ Matthews of "Hardball" is so amazed by this reticence that he has offered a standing invitation to any Republican who is willing to come forward and say Rush is wrong, not just about this, but about anything!! It is just incredible to watch all the Republicans twist and squirm to avoid saying simply that Rush is wrong, about anything!

Whatever happened to the once-great movement of conservatism? Time was when there were princpled conservatives, people like Barry Goldwater, whose shining moments included speaking out for abortion rights, and speaking out for Nixon's resignation in light of the rampant corruption in his administration. These were the actions of a real conseravtive, not the lamebrain crap that passes for conservatism today. They were the actions of a movement fashioned after the great Edmund Burke, who spoke out against the war against the American colonies, and pursued the impeachment of Warren Hastings on principle.

On Limiting Miranda

2010-06-16T08:53:00.000-07:00

I see some liberals bemoaning the Supreme Court's decision in Berghius v. Thompkins, in that it cuts back on a suspect's Miranda protections. I think this concern is misplaced.

First, as a longtime liberal I have generally supported the trend started in the '60's. However, after a careful review of the major decisions this year, I now understand what conservatives are referring to when they complain about the Court making social policy, "legislating from the bench" as its often called. It is clear to me that this is what the Court often does, at least used to often do.

Take the Court's recent decision in the Florida case involving a life without parole sentence for a juvenile. The dissent by Thomas clearly identifies that the Court is here making social policy, not rendering a legal decision. After all, when 31 jurisdictions have such a law, it can hardly be said to be "unusual". And how can life without parole be considered "cruel", when we routinely do it for adults. If it is indeed cruel, then it should not be done for either adults or children. Consequently, simple logic dictates that one cnanot with integrity conclude it is "cruel and unusual" as a matter of law. Thonas wins this arugment hands down.

Turning then to Miranda, it is clear the Court was making social policy here also. In his book "Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice", Judge Harold J. Rothwax examines the cases involving police coercion of confessions which led up to the Miranda decision. Clearly we don't want confessions being forced, but Rothwax says that this decision throws the baby out with the bath water. He argues that Miranda was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

Given the shaky background of the decision itself, it is hardly surprisingly that any subsequent decisions would limit it rather than expand it. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how it could ever be expanded. The burden it placed on the police to affirmatively show a waiver of rights by the defendant was a huge one, and what the Thompkins decision does is merely to cut back on that unhealthy burden.

The genera rule is that rights must be affirmatively asserted to be invoked, they are not invoked automatically. The Thompkins decision merely restores this principle to the category of admissions. If being advised of one's rights is so damned important, why are the police not required to do so in the case of searches? The vast majority of police searches are conducted under the guise of "consent". But people do not have to be advised that they have the right not to consent, and many surely feel they have no choice when the cops show up and ask if they can search the place, or simply *say* they are going to search the place.

The other side of this issue is the "right to a lawyer". Here, too, Rothwax feels the law has gone way overobard. He points out that the Sixth Amendment gives the right to a lawyer "in all criminal prosecutions". Thus, the right kicks in once a case is filed against the defendant. Until then, the case is in the investigative phase and is in the hands of the police. When it is turned over to the DA, then the legal process starts.

This, too, maks eminently good sense. What role is there for a lawyer before there is any prosecution? All he can do is tell the defendant not to talk to the police. In a small number of cases it might be possible to arrange to avoid prosecution, if the client wants to go to work for the police as a snitch.

It is in this general area that the show "Law and Order" screws things up so badly, giving people wrong ideas of the lawyer's role. The show routinely has the prosecutors getting involved in the investigation, going out and interviewing witnesses and rounding up evidence, not as preparation for trial, but as part of the investigation. Similalry, defense attonreys constantly are magically appearing in an interview room while police investigative work is going on. The idea that defense attorneys have the run of a police station like this is something happening only on TV shows.

Conversely, once the case is filed the worst procedural errors occur, these being the meetings which always take place between the prosecutors and the defendant on "Law and Order". Yes, the defendant's attorney is present, but in real life this sort of meeting would never happen. If the prosecutors had in inquiry to make of the defendant in real life, they would go through the defense attorney, who would consult with the client and come back with an answer for the DA. But on the show, prosecutors are allowed to badger and berate the defendants, and even surprise them with witnesses or family members at these meetings, anything designed to bludgeon the defendant into confessing. No defense attorney would ever allow this sort of thing to go on.

I say let's go back to where everybody has a particular job to do, and the rest of us stay out of their way and let them do it. Let's let the police do their investigative job, and everybody else stay out of their way. Let's let defense attorneys do their job, once a case is filed, and everybody stay out of their way. Let's let Judges go back to their job of deciding if a confession is voluntarily made, based on the totality of the circumstances in a given case. Let's let the Supreme Court go back to making legal decisions, not making policy. And let's let legislators go back to writing laws, which after all is what we elect them to do.

Letter to Mennonite Weekly Review

2010-06-03T06:05:00.001-07:00

I appreciated the May 10th column by Elaine Sommers Rich on the rise and fall of civilizations. She is of course correct in her observation that all civilizations rise and fall, and keeping this in mind is helpful for those of us who are given to despair at the direction our country seems to be going.

What is perhaps shocking is how fast the U.S. is disintegrating. The signs are everywhere. In the last ten years we have dropped from producing 32% of the world's gross domestic product, down to 24%. Over one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs have disappeared during this ten-year period. Our national debt is now more than fifteen times what it was in 1980, and is increasing at an unsustainable pace.

Our childhood obesity epidemic shows no signs of abating. With our fitness and our productivity spiraling downhill, the end is far closer than any of us would care to acknowledge.

Of some comfort is the thought that centuries from now the U.S. will at least be remembered for three lasting contributions to the world's culture--baseball, jazz music, and the Constitution.

Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

2010-06-02T11:52:00.000-07:00

There have been some calls to change the 14th Amendment provision that any child born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen. Frankly, this provision has always seemed odd to me, that a child whose mother crosses the border to give birth should be a citizen just for being born north of the Rio Grande, even if the mother is here illegally.

Upon looking into this, it is apparent that the 14th Amendment provision in question was designed to overturn the Dred Scott decision and give citizenship to former slaves, and to children of former slaves. There has never (apparently) been any judicial opinion extending this to the children of those here illegally, although this extension has been assumed.

I think liberals would be wise to not toss this proposed amendment into the scrap heap with all the other looney proposals the right wing has come up with over the years, like the balanced budget amendment, outlawing abortion, etc. This one actually makes sense, and would correct what is obviously an unintended flaw in our Constitution.

Grading Justices from a Conservative Viewpoint

2010-05-20T07:59:00.001-07:00

Conservatives complain of judges who are "activist", and say they want "strict constructionists" on the court, justices who are willing to interpret the constitution as written. Consequently, I thought it would be interesting to examine the four major Supreme Court decisions so far in 2010 and see who the activists and the strict constructionists have been this year.

The first case was the campaign finance case, striking down Congress' ban on political advertising by corporations. The activists here were the conservatives; in fact, Justice Stevens in dissent specifically accused the majority of "political activism".

The second case was the cross on public land in California. The breakdown here was quite interesting. Scalia and Thomas felt the plaintiff had no standing to pursue the lawsuit, since he was not alleging any personal harm to himself. This would be the non-activist approach. The four liberals would have let the lower court order stand, requiring the removal of the cross. The middle opinion, which was the controlling one, was by Justice Kennedy, saying the case should be sent back to the lower court for a determination as to whether the proposed land transfer to private hands looked like a government endorsement of religion. Alito issued a concurring opinion stating his belief that the factual record was sufficiently developed that the court should have simply ruled the land transfer could proceed.

The there is the sex offender opinion just announced. Again, we have Scalia and Thomas with the strict constructionist position, holding that nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to run the sex offender civil commitment program it had instituted. Justice Breyer's majority opinion found the authority in the "necessary and proper" clause. Alito and Kennedy concurred in the result but did not like the sweeping language Breyer used.

Another just-announced decision is the fourth in a decade-long series of decisions on the cruel and unusual punishment clause. It found that life without possibility of parole for juveniles who have not committed murder is cruel and unusual. As is so often the case, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote and wrote the majority opinion in this 5-4 decision. He found it was cruel and unusual, with the four conservatives in the minority (although Roberts concurred in the result).

In grading the Justices on their activist element, a definition is in order. I think the definition conservatives use when they complain about it is that the will of the people is thwarted, i.e., valid laws passed by Congress or by a state legislature are not upheld. Being a strict constructionist is a different matter, as one often must strike down a law if one were seeking to uphold the Constitution.

Because the cases had as many as four different positions to be graded, I will give 0 for least activist, up to 3 for most activist. Breakdown is:

Thomas and Scalia -- 3, 0, 3, 0 = 6

4 liberals -- 0, 3, 1, 3 = 7

Kennedy -- 3, 2, 0, 3 = 8

Alito -- 3, 1, 0, 0 = 4

Roberts -- 3, 2, 1 , 2 = 8

The other criterion is the one of "strict constructionist". This is a term used more often in President Nixon's time than today, but we still see it around. After the activism of the Warren Court years, Nixon was adamant that the court contain more of what he called "strict constructionists", people who will interpret the constitution as written without reading into it things that aren't there. The grade card here, with 0 for strictest and 3 for least strict:

Thomas & Scalia -- 0, 0, 0, 0 = 0

4 liberals -- 3, 3, 3, 3 = 12

Kennedy -- 0, 2, 2, 3 = 7

Alito -- 0, 1, 2, 0 = 3

Roberts -- 0, 2, 3, 2 = 7

It is clear that the "strict constructionist" scorecard more accurately portrays what the conservatives are after than does the "activist" standard. The conservatives would achieve more authenticity for their viewpoint if they would avoid using the "activist" language, since conservatives are "activist" as often as liberals, and stick to the "strict constructionist" standard.

The contrast here between Thomas/Scalia and the liberals is striking. In every case they were at opposite ends of the strict constructionist ranking. Kennedy is a well-known middle-of-the-roader, so his middle ranking is not surprising. Roberts' middle ranking is perhaps more surprising. The 7-point difference between Roberts and Thomas/Scalia comes about from the last three cases. In the cross case, T/S held the plaintiff had no standing, which I rate as the strict constructionist position. The majority opinion found that the standing issue had already been settled earlier in the litigation, and the ruling granting standing was upheld on appeal and not appealed further to the Supreme Court, so it had become final. This might at first glance seem to cast the T/S position into disrepute, but one must remember that most of the argument in the briefs and at oral argument centered on the standing issue, so it's not like T/S was making this up. Apparently everyone else involved in the case thought it was a significant issue, and I tend to agree with the T/S position because the plaintiff testified that he was not personally offended by the Christian cross, he just didn't like seeing it on federal land. Hence no personal harm to him.

Roberts gets a 2 here because he joined in the majority opinion, which would have sent back the case for further action, thereby prolonging the agony for all concerned. Alito gets a 1, because he would have decided the case then and there on the record, which is the least interventionist position after T/S.

One can argue that the liberals here qualify as "strict constructionist", because they were strictly applying the prohibition against government "establishment of religion". However, their position was so beyond the pale that I rate it as a stretch of the constitution, not an application of it. This cross had been there since 1934 as a memorial to WWI war dead, not as a statement about religion. It was in a remote area of the Mojave Desert, out of the way and surely not a bother to anybody. Further, the land swap with the VFW took care of the matter of it being on public land. The liberals just had their heads up their asses on this one.

Another divergence among the conservatives was in the sex offender case. Here Roberts gets a 3 for joining in Breyer's majority opinion, which used sweeping language to seemingly give the OK for Congress to do anything it wants under the "necessary and proper" clause. Alito gets only a 2 because he rejected this sweeping language.

In the cruel and unusual case Roberts rejected the sweeping rule announced by the majority, but he concurred in the result because he felt the sentence was disproportionate to the crime in this particular case. Hence he gets a 2 here.

The issue mentioned above of "stretching" came clearly into focus in the cruel and unusual case. Thomas wrote a stinging dissent attacking the Court's role in determining what society's "evolving standards of decency" are. Thomas repeatedly drives home the point that when the federal government, the District of Columbia, and 37 states have such a law on the books, how in the world can it be said to be against society's current standards? Hard to argue with that logic.

Stevens wrote a concurring opinion for the sole purpose of getting into a pissing contest with Thomas. He writes: "Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time....While Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old, the court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so."

This sets the stage for an honest evaluation of the strict constructionist approach. Certainly if I were a legislator, I would never support a law which precluded a juvenile offender from ever being granted parole, whether the offense was murder or otherwise. To do so would ignore the basic realities that first, a juvenile is different than an adult; and second, that there is the possibility of rehabilitation. The life expectancy for a 17-year-old in this day and age is into the 80's; to say that a juvenile offender at the age of 70, or 60, or 50, can never be considered to be fit for return to society is ludicrous.

But the constitutional issue is different, and this is what Thomas and the strict constructionists can rightly harp on. Stevens is right to say that our standards do evolve over time, but Thomas is also right in saying that the fact that 37 states, PLUS the federal govt., PLUS the D.C. have seen fit to enact such a law shows that the standards have *not* evolved to the extent that the majority feels they have.

The approach used by the majority is more suited for a law that a renegade state, say Arizona, has enacted and which has been rejected by all other jurisdictions. Then it can be said with a modicum of intellectual honesty that the law under review is contrary to existing standards of decency.

U.S. Federalism

2010-04-30T12:43:00.000-07:00

Serious issues of federalism have been in the news lately, like the new Arizona anti-immigration law in which the state of Arizona seeks to usurp what is a function of the national government, or the health care bill in which the national government seeks to usurp what many feel is a state function. But sometimes the most interesting issues tend to fly under the radar.

Thus we have an article in the latest issue of the Christian Science Monitor about Utah, which has passed a law authorizing the state to use eminent domain to seize federal lands in the state, and has set aside $3 million for legal fees to defend the controversial law from the inevitable legal challenges it will face. It is an important issue in Utah and other western states--over 60% of Utah's land is owned by the federal government. Court challenges will likely succeed in overturning this law, but the key point is that the states are fed up with the overreaching federal power and they want to determine their own destinies.

British Politics

2010-04-30T09:42:00.000-07:00

I admit it, I love British politics. I watch "Prime Ministers Questions" avidly on C-SPAN. I don't know how many seats the Liberal Democrats have had lately, but I always assumed it was a minimal amount. Their leader, Nick Clegg, does get a chance to ask questions, and gets a follow-up as a party leader should, but his party is clearly not a large group.

Now I see in the latest issue of The Christian Science Monitor that there have been two debates among the three candidates recently and it is thought that Clegg won! As a result, the LD's are now tied with the conservatives with 32%, with Labour trailing at 28%! We think of the parliamentary system as being about ideas and policies rather than personalities, but this British election seems to be different. Clegg and Cameron come across as young and attractive, while Gordon Brown just seems like an old fuddy-duddy. And this article was written before Brown's recent gaffe, where he makes private remarks in a car not realizing his mike is still on.

With the three parties all hovering around the one-third mark, it seems inconceivable that any party will win a majority of seats in parliament. Thus, a coalition government seems inevitable. Surely it won't be the LD's with the tories, so will it be LD's with Labour, pulling the government to the left, or Labour with Tories, pulling it to the right? I can't wait to see what the election, coming up next week, will hold, and what the aftermath will be.

A blip on the screen is the British National Party. It has never won any seats, but its leader, Nick Griffin, is seen to have a chance this time, with his far-right, anti-immigrant message. and if not this time, they will surely be a force in future elections. Stay tuned!

Findlay High Bans Hugs

2010-04-23T13:55:00.000-07:00

Findlay High School has adopted a policy banning what it calls PDA's (public displays of affection). The policy bans anything beyond holding hands. A student who organized a protest against this absurd policy was suspended for five days, even though the protest was completely non-violent and non-disruptive.

I really don't know what to comment about this. Sometimes just the facts are sufficient.

Republican Obstructionism Continues

2010-04-17T04:51:00.000-07:00

Last night on C-SPAN I watched some of the hearings to confirm Goodwin Liu for the Court of Appeals. A summary can be found here: http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/16/a-rough-day-for-an-obama-judiciary-nominee-echoes-of-a-supreme-court-fight/

Republicans, who had earlier delayed the hearing twice, jumped on Liu for several things. One was his failure to provide a complete record of his past writings and speeches. Democrats responded by using their time not to ask questions, but to give examples of past instances when Republican nominees also failed to provide these items upon request. In particular, neither Justices Alito or Roberts provided complete records, and tens of thousands of pages of documents were only provided a few days before the hearing, just what the Republicans were complaining about so vehemently here.

Similarly, Republicans were whining about the fact that Liu has never tried a case. Democrats responded by providing detailed examples of past Republican nominees with less experience than Liu, nominees who nevertheless sailed through to confirmation. A double standard here? I think so.

As with the Sotomayor confirmation, this nominee was hammered with quotes taken out of context. His criticism of Alito was especially troublesome to Republicans. Liu had written that "Judge Alito's record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse; where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance; where the FBI may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they won't turn it on unless an informant is in the room; where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man." When asked about this, Liu explained that this referred to a series of decisions Alito had rendered, and that it was preceded in his (Liu's) book by a detailed analysis of those decisions.

How this nomination process unfolds will give us a clue as to whether the Republicans are going to be at all constructive, or whether our democracy is on the ropes.

MLB Predictions for 2010

2010-03-30T11:06:00.000-07:00

Here goes with this season's predictions. I start by noting that I am adopting a rule of never underestimating the Twins or the Cardinals. Both of those teams always seem to do better than it seems they should. So they get the nod in the Central divisions. In the east the Phillies and the Yankees have both shown the will to do whatever it takes to get better. They both get the nod. Then in the west the Dodgers and Angels are two teams one should never bet against. So that settles first place.

Perennial last place teams are the Royals, Pirates, and Nationals. So, the only real decisions are the places in between first and last. Here are my predictions:

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Blue Jays, Orioles.
NL East: Phillies, Mets, Braves, Marlins, Nationals.

AL Central: Twins, Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Royals
NL Central: Cardinals, Cubs, Brewers, Reds, Astros, Pirates

AL West: Angels, Rangers, Mariners, A's
NL West: Dodgers, Rockies, Giants, Diamondbacks, Padres

I put the Ohio teams a notch higher than I otherwise would have, for home state rooting puropses. The Tigers look to bounce back with Bonderman and Zamaya seemingly healthy again.

On Libel Law, Part Four, Approaches of Other Countries

2010-03-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

In Australia, the court adopted an analysis and standard very close to that of the U.S. court in the Sullivan case. In Theophanus v. The Herald, the court concluded that the law"requires no more than that the person who publishes defamatory matter in the course of political discussion does not know that it is false, does not publish recklessly, and does not publish unreasonably, in the sense earlier explained." The court had earlier explained reasonableness as "Whether a publisher has acted reasonably must be a question of fact in every case. It will depend upon the standards and expectations of the community as to whether the allegations needed to be investigated."

The facts of the case were very good for the newspaper defendant. It had published a letter to the editor stating: "If reports coming out of Canberra are true about the alleged behaviour of Dr. Andrew Theophanous, then it is high time he was thrown off Parliament's immigration committee. I have read reports that he stands for most things Australians are against. He appears to want a bias shown towards Greeks as migrants...."

Just as with the ad in the Sullivan case, it doesn't seem that a newspaper would have much of a duty to fact-check things mentioned in a letter to the editor. Further, it appears that the statements complained of were expressions of opinion only. Anyway, the Australian court correctly saw the need to protect political expression from libel suits. The court favorably mentioned the Sullivan case from the U.S.

The English case of Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers involved allegations of bribery and corruption against a town council. The court concluded that "under the common law of England a local authority does not have the right to maintain an action of damages for defamation." Much of the opinion discussed the right of a corporation to sue for libel. In general a corporation does have such a right in England, but a governmental body is different because of the public interest involved. This opinion does not discuss the Sullivan case, but adopts similar reasoning.

Finally we have from Canada the case of Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. the church's attorney held a press conference on the Courthouse steps making allegations against Hill, a crown attorney, allegations which the church's attorney intended to file in a contempt proceeding the next day. At the contempt hearing, the allegations were found to be false and with no merit whatsoever, and Hill then filed a libel action.

The Canadian Supreme Court first found that this was a dispute between "private litigants", and therefore no "actual malice" standard need apply. It was an attack upon a lawyer in the employ of the crown, true, but the attack was on the person's personal character, thereby removing any protection the statements might otherwise have enjoyed.

The court next discussed the "qualified privilege" issue. Discussion of pleadings filed with the court enjoys such a privilege, and the court rejected the idea that just because the pleadings had not yet been filed there was no privilege, as the attorney had every intention of filing them when the court opened up the next day.

However, in looking at the defendant's conduct, the court found it went far beyond any legitimate purpose and therefore defeated the privilege. The court concluded: "While it is not necessary to characterize M's conduct as amounting to actual malice, it was certainly high‑handed and careless and exceeded any legitimate purpose the press conference may have served. His conduct therefore defeated the qualified privilege that attached to the occasion."

Finally the court looked at whether the damages were excessive. It concluded the damages were justified, saying "The circumstances presented in this exceptional case demonstrate that there was such insidious, pernicious and persistent malice that the award for punitive damages cannot be said to be excessive." Interestingly the court looked at all aspects of the case to ascertain the defendants' state of mind, including "a prolonged and hostile cross‑examination of the plaintiff" during the trial.

The Canada case is troubling unless one can properly distinguish it from the others. It was treated as essentially a squabble between two private citizens, removing it from the category of the other cases which involved government conduct. Further, the actual malice of the defendants (both church and attorney for the church were sued), stuck out like a sore thumb all the way through. No apology, no retraction, not anything to indicate any remorse for the damage done to this man's reputation.

This really calls into question the analysis of the U.S. court in Sullivan. It seems that the real distinction should be between governmental and private conduct, not between whether one is a public figure or not. Thus we have the successful suits of Carol Burnett and Tom Cruise, where the allegations complained of involved their private conduct, not anything havig to do with what makes them public figures.

On Libel Law, Part Three, NY Times v. Sullivan

2010-03-18T06:21:00.000-07:00

In this 1964 case the Supreme Court set forth the "actual malice" standard, holding that actual malice is required for a public figure to prevail in a libel suit. Actual malice means the publisher "knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity."

The necessity for this new more stringent standard is seen by examining the situation that existed at the time regarding the civil rights movement. At the time of the decision, there were over $300 million worth of libel suits outstanding against news organizations in the South for how they were reporting on civil rights protests. This was having a tremendous chilling effect on reporting.

The plaintff Sulllivan was the Police Commissioner for Montgomery, Alabama. He compained of an ad in the NY Times whivh contained some inaccuracies. Evne though Sulivan was not even mentioned in the ad, he won a $500,000 judgment in an Alabama court. The Times had not printed a retraction, which would have insulated it from punitive damages under Alabama law, because it didn't see how Sullivan was at all affected by the ad.

It should be noted that the facts of the case made it a good one for the news organization side of the case, as the case involved criticism of a public official for his official conduct. Further, the fact that the statements complained of were in an ad rather than in a news story, surely reduces the duty of the Times to check the accuracy of those facts before publication.

Three justices concurred in the result, but would go farther than the majority opinion did. Their position was that "the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution afford to the citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official conduct despite the harm which may flow from excesses and abuses." It was mentioned that criticism of the *private* conduct of a public figure would not enjoy this blanket protection.

It seems that there perhaps should be a three-tiered or even four-tiered approach to this issue, rather than the two-tiered one set up by the majority opinion (i.e., either the plaintff is a public figure or he isn't). The court doesn't define what is meant by a "public figure". I have to agree with the concurring justices, hwoever, that the ability to criticize one's government deserves absolute protection, while lesser protections should be in place for criticism of private conduct.

- Which country was the first to extend diplomatic recognition to the United States?	Played 69 times Difficulty: 0% got it correct. User rating (0.39): good
- The flag of which country contains a picture of two men, one white and one black?	Played 70 times Difficulty: 21% got it correct. User rating (0.24): good
- Which is the only state of the United States to be named after a French monarch?	Played 394 times Difficulty: 90% got it correct. User rating (0.34): good
- Which are the only two countries in the world whose flags contain pictures of buildings?	Played 370 times Difficulty: 39% got it correct. User rating (0.37): good
- Which of the following cities is NOT located next to the Mississippi River?	Played 412 times Difficulty: 71% got it correct. User rating (0.24): good
- Golfers from the same small country of less than two million people dominated the world of professional golf in 2010 and 2011, with Graeme McDowell winning the 2010 U.S. Open, Rory McIlroy winning the 2011 U.S. Open, and Darren Clarke winning the 2011 British Open. These three great golfers are all natives of which country?	Played 406 times Difficulty: 58% got it correct. User rating (0.23): good
- The symbol of three golden balls is traditionally found outside which type of business?	Played 393 times Difficulty: 83% got it correct. User rating (0.34): good
- Swahili is an official language of three African countries. Which is the exception?	Played 218 times Difficulty: 52% got it correct. User rating (0.29): good
- "Novena" is a term used in which religion?	Played 202 times Difficulty: 59% got it correct. User rating (0.24): good
- The Pugwash Conferences have been taking place since 1957. Which problem is this group mainly concerned with?	Played 236 times Difficulty: 34% got it correct. User rating (0.26): good
- A crampon is a device most commonly used in which of the following activities?	Played 232 times Difficulty: 81% got it correct. User rating (0.31): good
- Lake Victoria is Africa's largest lake by surface area. However, which other African lake is the continent's largest by volume?	Played 240 times Difficulty: 54% got it correct. User rating (0.31): good
- Which animal lacks eyelids?	Played 203 times Difficulty: 52% got it correct. User rating (0.27): good
- Which country became the first to formally abolish military forces, when it adopted a constitution in 1949 forbidding a standing military?	Played 165 times Difficulty: 25% got it correct. User rating (0.36): good
- Which author started a novel with the line "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking Thirteen"?	Played 251 times Difficulty: 66% got it correct. User rating (0.31): good
- The Gulf of Sidra (or Sirte) borders which country?	Played 226 times Difficulty: 41% got it correct. User rating (0.26): good
- The word "heretic" comes to us from the Greek "hairetikos", which means what?	Played 170 times Difficulty: 15% got it correct. User rating (0.27): good
- The Kuril Islands lie between which two countries?	Played 204 times Difficulty: 64% got it correct. User rating (0.31): good
- The Orteig Prize was a $25,000 reward offered in 1919 to the first person to do what?	Played 199 times Difficulty: 61% got it correct. User rating (0.3): good
- Which Hollywood actress was married five times, but never for longer than five years at a time, and once explained her unsuccessful love life by saying, "Men go to bed with Gilda, but they wake up with me"?	Played 233 times Difficulty: 62% got it correct. User rating (0.28): good
- The characters of Benedick and Beatrice get married to each other at the end of which Shakespearean play?	Played 183 times Difficulty: 29% got it correct. User rating (0.26): good
- The Soviet Union launched the first man-made satellite, which it called Sputnik, into space in 1957. What does the word "Sputnik" mean?	Played 162 times Difficulty: 22% got it correct. User rating (0.27): good
- Who was the first player to win nine regular season Most Valuable Player awards in any of the four major North American team sports of baseball, football, basketball and hockey?	Played 221 times Difficulty: 54% got it correct. User rating (0.27): good
- Mirror writing is a form of writing in reverse, so that the writing appears normal when reflected in a mirror. Which famous person wrote his personal notes using mirror writing?	Played 225 times Difficulty: 84% got it correct. User rating (0.35): good
- Which American Civil War general, when asked if he would run for president, made the famous statement, "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."?	Played 241 times Difficulty: 48% got it correct. User rating (0.27): good
- Birling is a sport more commonly called what?	Played 247 times Difficulty: 60% got it correct. User rating (0.27): good
- Many British ships, like the Titanic, have "RMS" in front of their name. What does the "M" stand for?	Played 181 times Difficulty: 11% got it correct. User rating (0.23): good
- Soca, a musical style whose name was derived from a combination of soul and calypso, was developed in the 1970s in which country?	Played 279 times Difficulty: 58% got it correct. User rating (0.28): good
- The Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Churches merged in 1957 to form which Protestant denomination?	Played 278 times Difficulty: 38% got it correct. User rating (0.16): average
- Which is the northernmost city in Africa?	Played 187 times Difficulty: 26% got it correct. User rating (0.28): good
- The 1987 film "Barfly" starred Mickey Rourke as an alcoholic writer. His role was based on which real-life writer?	Played 159 times Difficulty: 22% got it correct. User rating (0.18): average
- Aqaba is the only seaport for which Middle Eastern country?	Played 237 times Difficulty: 39% got it correct. User rating (0.23): good
- Woody Allen's 1977 Oscar-winning film "Annie Hall" was made with the working title "Anhedonia". What does this Greek word mean?	Played 248 times Difficulty: 51% got it correct. User rating (0.38): good
- The great artist Pablo Picasso had three periods of his career which were described by different colors. Which is not one of those three periods?	Played 185 times Difficulty: 28% got it correct. User rating (0.34): good
- The great mare Zenyatta, winner of nineteen straight horse races until losing in her twentieth and last race, was named after the album "Zenyatta Mondatta", which was the third album for which rock group?	Played 267 times Difficulty: 53% got it correct. User rating (0.24): good
- Which territory narrowly rejected independence in votes held, under United Nations auspices, in both 2006 and 2007?	Played 178 times Difficulty: 8% got it correct. User rating (0.17): average
- The first meeting in combat of ironclad warships took place in March of 1862 when the Monitor and the Merrimack did battle during the U.S. Civil War. What was the result of this memorable battle?	Played 177 times Difficulty: 30% got it correct. User rating (0.31): good
- Completed in 1825, the Erie Canal connects which two bodies of water?	Played 269 times Difficulty: 71% got it correct. User rating (0.29): good
- Which was the last of the former Soviet republics to declare its independence?	Played 223 times Difficulty: 61% got it correct. User rating (0.31): good
- "The Hurt Locker", winner of the Oscar for best picture in 2010, portrayed United States soldiers operating in which country?	Played 216 times Difficulty: 44% got it correct. User rating (0.23): good
- Which country contains the world's first jaguar preserve?	Played 167 times Difficulty: 20% got it correct. User rating (0.29): good
- Pentecost, sometimes called the birthday of the Christian church, literally means what?	Played 238 times Difficulty: 62% got it correct. User rating (0.32): good
- "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" is a phrase which originated in which war?	Played 172 times Difficulty: 8% got it correct. User rating (0.31): good
- Lorena Ochoa dominated her sport for three years and then in 2010 announced her retirement. In which sport did Ochoa participate?	Played 260 times Difficulty: 47% got it correct. User rating (0.19): average
- Three of the following economists won the Nobel Prize in Economics in the twentieth century. Which one is the exception?	Played 191 times Difficulty: 27% got it correct. User rating (0.29): good
- Only one of the following great writers ever won a Nobel Prize. Which one?	Played 186 times Difficulty: 17% got it correct. User rating (0.24): good
- Dag Hammarskjöld, the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, was a native of which Scandinavian country?	Played 247 times Difficulty: 34% got it correct. User rating (0.33): good
- The famous scene in which Jimmy Cagney smashed a half grapefruit into the face of Mae Clark took place in which film?	Played 210 times Difficulty: 35% got it correct. User rating (0.25): good
- A woman washing Jesus with expensive oil is a story found in all four of the Christian gospels, and in all four accounts it is mentioned that there was an objection to using money for this purpose. Which gospel names a specific person who objected?	Played 194 times Difficulty: 26% got it correct. User rating (0.22): good
- The Danube River flows through Budapest, and was the boundary between the cities of Buda and Pest prior to their unification in 1873. The Danube also flows through three other European capital cities. Which is not one of these three cities?