"No, I'm Not Getting Fatter"

It's cosmic expansion.

That "Why The Party Failed" Thing

In taking on Ross Douthat's tendentious piece on abortion, I didn't address his headline, ostensibly the thesis of his piece, that "Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the G.O.P." Of course not. If the GOP's approach to abortion politics were to doom it, it would not be by driving away people like Kathleen Parker and Max Boot. It will be when the religious right gets tired of promises, promises, promises and no delivery, and the single issue anti-abortion voters either vote for a third party candidate or stay home. What doomed the Republican Party in the 2008 election was the Bush Administration's top-to-bottom, back-to-front incompetence, coupled with a dozen or so too many corruption scandals.

Which isn't to say that, within the foreseeable future, I won't be writing pretty much the same thing about a future Democratic administration....

Pushing For A False Center On Abortion

Ross Douthat is not a stupid man, so what am I supposed to make of this? Is there any way to assume that this is offered in good faith?

His editorial starts with a false premise - that factions within the Republican Party are blaming the pro-life movement for its election failure. Initially, it should be noted that when Republican stalwarts such as Kathleen Parker reach the point of being uncomfortable with "The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the G.O.P.," it is a sign of trouble. Parker doesn't represent the center - she's considerably to the right - but appears concerned about a faction of the party that is unwelcoming to her.

It was one thing, during the election campaign, to turn a blind eye to Sarah Palin's version of campaigning and sneer that anybody who criticized her was "elitist". (Incredibly, Douthat suggests that "post-feminist realities" of Palin's lifestyle make it surprising that she was embraced by the religious right, as if Palin weren't a Pentacostal Christian, and as if he hasn't hear a single word she has ever said.) But now some of those within the Republican party who recognize science, accept evolution, want access to birth control, and see room for a certain level of abortion freedom - and perhaps even want people who are openly pro-choice to be comfortable as members of the Republican Party - are questioning their own fit. As Steven Waldman, co-founder of Beliefnet.com, stated,

More problematic, Waldman tells Fresh Air host Terry Gross, were Palin's comments about God's will and the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline.

"That's exactly the kind of religion and politics-mixing that the founding fathers were terrified of — and with good cause," Waldman says. "The slippery slope is when politicians claim to know what God's plan is, and try to figure out the policy in order to match it up to God's plan."

No surprises here - Republicans like Parker see the factions that reject science and call for a complete ban on abortion rights as "the other" who doesn't really fit with the party, while Douthat seeks those like Parker as "the other". It's silly and dishonest to caricature their concerns as suggesting that "If the Republican Party would only jettison its position on abortion, it would be back on its feet in no time".

Douthat later addresses anti-science factions associated with the pro-life movement,

As for the movement’s supposed antipathy to science and social change - well, no doubt you’ll find more believers in young-earth creationism or divinely ordained patriarchy at a pro-life rally than you would at the Harvard Faculty Club. But here, too, the easy stereotypes are increasingly detached from reality.

How does a factual description of people Douthat concedes actually exist become an "easy stereotype"? Douthat presents the following argument to suggest that it's unfair to view pro-lifers as anti-science:

For example, we’re coming off a decade in which pro-lifers responded to the embryonic stem-cell controversy by becoming better versed in the relevant science than their miracle-cure-promising opponents. They insisted, presciently, that scientific advances with non-fetal stem cells, rather than legal restrictions, would eventually offer a way forward.

Except for the fact that their early arguments, parroted by President Bush, were false and held back scientific research. And the subsequent arguments have been variations on a theme - that if we wait long enough we'll see alternatives to fetal stem cell research that are just as good as fetal stem cell research - something that's every bit as "miracle-cure-promising" as believing that stem cell research will bring about immediate miracle cures. Douthat sees every headline suggesting an alternative source of stem cells as vindication for obstructing science; but he neglects to mention that "we're not there yet".

Further, people who hope for miracle cures from stem cell research are not necessarily pro-choice or pro-life. Often they're people who are hoping for a miracle cure for themselves or a loved one. They're egged on by sensational media coverage of potential developments in medicine, just as Douthat is egged on by every article that suggests we will eventually be able to perform unimpeded stem cell research with stem cells derived from non-fetal sources. But neither side is giving any real heed to the science.

But beyond that, Douthat has changed the subject from the anti-science pro-lifers he admits exist, to another group that uses a lay understanding (and oversimplification, and often misunderstanding) of science to argue against stem cell research, without showing that there's any overlap. He presents no evidence that the anti-scientific factions of the pro-life movement have shifted even slightly in favor of science. There's also a maxim he has surely heard, "Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." It's one thing to learn to recite "scientific arguments" in favor of limiting stem cell research (or opposing the theory of evolution, or arguing that men and dinosaurs simultaneously walked the Earth), and quite another to actually understand and argue from science.

Douthat whinges that the pro-life movement is familiar with the criticisms of Parker and others:

Most abortion opponents can recite the litany by heart. Their movement should focus on changing hearts and minds, rather than the law. It should be more consistently pro-life, by helping human beings outside the womb as well as those within it. It should cease trying to roll back the sexual revolution and standing athwart science yelling “stop!” And above all, it should be less absolutist, and more amenable to compromise.

But Douthat next attempts a sleight of hand, claiming "pro-lifers have already taken much of it to heart"

Compromise, rather than absolutism, has been the watchword of anti-abortion efforts for some time now. Since the early 1990s, advocates have focused on pushing largely modest state-level restrictions, from parental notification laws to waiting periods to bans on what we see as the grisliest forms of abortion.

That's false, and Douthat writes about these issues with sufficient frequency that he has to know it's false. While there are unquestionably people within the pro-life movement that have embraced goals that fall well short of a reversal of Roe and a national ban on abortion, the largest pro-life organizations and their leaders unabashedly advocate for a 100% ban on abortion. How did Operation Rescue, for example, describe its goals in South Dakota?

Let there be no mistake. The Abortion Bill is an incremental approach to a ban on abortion. It does not represent the total ban sought by many for the sake of the unborn child, but it creates a prohibition of those abortions we can achieve at this time while laying the foundation for the long term goal of an abortion-free America.

So, basically, a law that came close to banning abortion and required doctors to make a highly misleading and inflammatory statement to women in order to discourage abortions, even if they believed it to be medically, factually and legally wrong, was part of a larger scheme to effect a complete ban. And this, to Douthat, represents "largely modest state-level restrictions"? Would he respond that it's an "exception" that is somehow beneath his notice?

Douthat makes no mention of contraception rights, and opposition to contraception and "the morning after pill" within the pro-life movement. Doctors should have the right to choose not to provide accurate, valuable medical information to their patients, without warning them up-front, "I'm pro-life and I won't fully inform you in relation to your legal choices"? And that "right" may even extend to informing patients about birth control? Again, where's the compromise? For that matter, does Douthat support broad contraception rights, given that in his book he is scornful of contraception and its effect on society? What's his level of "compromise" on that issue?

Douthat also describes the conflagration over "partial birth abortion" as "bans on what we see as the grisliest forms of abortion". I recognize that this was sold to the public on the basis of gore, but what sort of basis is that for public policy? Have you ever seen a cesarean section? The surgeries to treat severe craniofacial disorders such as Crouzon Syndrome? A pneumonectomy to remove a cancerous lung? When a doctor devises a treatment that he considers to be the best for his patient, the concern should never be whether somebody might pop into the surgery from the street and find it "grisly".

As for Douthat's claim that efforts have largely shifted from a "culture of (sometimes violent) protest" to "pro-life energy is being channeled into grassroots efforts, from crisis pregnancy centers to post-abortion counseling", how exactly do those "crisis pregnancy centers" typically work? Mostly, it seems, by masquerading as objective providers of information and assistance, then attempting to indoctrinate pregnant women with pro-life propaganda. You don't believe that they're out to lie and deceive? Then tell me, why of all names did pro-life propagandists start publishing under the name "ProChoice.com":

Abortion... When is it safe?

No medical procedure is 100% safe so the answer is never Completely,
and less safe than many procedures. To be 100% safe don't have one.
Risks are:

• Severe Bleeding
• Having problems in future pregnancy
• Becoming sterile
• Needing a Hysterectomy
• Not completing the job
• Severe infection
• Developing Breast cancer
• Psychological issues
• Death

Is there truly a moral high ground in spreading falsehoods and using dishonest scare tactics? Also, as Steven Waldman suggests, those of faith who argue for abortion reduction over anti-abortion absolutism are, in many pro-life circles, viewed as allied with the enemy. Where can I find Douthat putting in their place those of his pro-life peers who accuse Obama of supporting infanticide?

In relation to the Supreme Court, Douthat questions whether the pro-life movement can stop attempting to impose "an abortion litmus test for Republican presidential nominees", and then suggests that the real problem is "the inflexibility of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence." He argues that there are many alternatives to the U.S. model of abortion rights, an argument he's made before:

The trouble with seeking common ground on abortion is that the legal regime enacted by Roe and reaffirmed in Casey permits only the most minimal regulation of the practice, which means that any plausible "compromise" that leaves Roe in place will offer almost nothing to pro-lifers. Even the modest restrictions that prevail in many European countries (and that, not coincidentally, coincide with lower abortion rates) are out of the question under the current legal dispensation.

Did you catch that? Things coincide with each other, but not by coincidence? He's an editor, and he didn't catch that? Or was that the best alternative word he could find for "correlate", and he wished to avoid telegraphing that he is arguing that correlation equals causation. Douthat seems predisposed to present sweeping claims as fact, without any indication that he's actually tried to find out if what he's saying is true. Another consistency? If he has evidence to support his sweeping claims, he is consistent in his failure to present it. Perhaps somebody whispered a few facts in his ear, as European policies don't merit mention in his Times editorial.

Douthat next feigns interest in compromise:

The public is amenable to compromise: majorities support keeping abortion legal in some cases, but polling by CBS News and The Times during the presidential campaign showed that more Americans supported new restrictions on abortion than said it should be available on demand. And while some pro-lifers would reject any bargain, many more would be delighted to strike a deal that extends legal protection to more of the unborn, even if it stopped short of achieving the movement’s ultimate goals.

But no such compromise is possible so long as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey remain on the books. These decisions are monuments to pro-choice absolutism, and for pro-lifers to accept them means accepting that no serious legal restrictions on abortion will ever be possible - no matter what the polls say, and no matter how many hearts and minds pro-lifers change.

Unless I assume that Douthat has absolutely no familiarity with the court rulings in Roe and Casey, how can I regard that as anything less than intentional dishonesty? Roe gives broad protection to first trimester abortion rights, but allows for significant state regulation beyond 12 weeks. Casey reviewed several state restrictions on abortion rights - parental consent, "informed consent" with 24-hour waiting periods, spousal notification, and certain reporting requirements on abortion providers - and found only the spousal notification requirement to be impermissible. There's obviously a lot of room for regulation that makes it difficult for many women and girls to obtain abortions, even as the basic right is upheld. Fundamentally, Roe isn't much broader a protection than exists under the "modest restrictions" Douthat describes as being in effect with Europe, where abortion is generally available during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy (although a woman may have to recite a talismanic phrase, such as "I'm in a state of distress", in order to trigger that right).

There's really only one reason to wish to overturn those cases - to open the possibility to a complete ban on abortions. That, of course, is Douthat's personal goal, so it should be no surprise that it's his conclusion. But what a treacherous web he weaves in trying to make his maximalist position consistent with "compromise". Was he chuckling when he wrote "that if Americans want laws that better reflect their muddled sentiments on abortion, it is pro-choice maximalism, not the pro-life movement, that’s really standing in the way"?

There are highly principled people on both sides of the abortion debate, presenting cogent arguments. The majority of Americans are torn on the issue, respecting that there should be some basic right to abortion but being uncomfortable articulating what that right should be or what restrictions should be allowed. Women who face abortion still face stigma, and thus even in largely pro-choice communities it's often kept secret. Within this context, it is a shame that Douthat is choosing to be disingenuous, as his brand of faking moderation while working for an abortion ban makes it much harder from those who are trying to reach honest compromise.

Argh, No!

Thomas Friedman again announces how the auto industry must design future products if it is to be rescued:

You want my tax dollars? Then I want to see the precise production plans and timetables for the hybridization of all your cars and trucks within 36 months. I want every bailed-out car company to move to hybrid electric drive trains, because nothing would both improve mileage and emissions more - and also stimulate a whole new 21st-century, job-creating industry: batteries.

Hybrids represent a tiny percentage of the domestic auto market, and represented a tiny percentage even when gas prices peaked. Hybrid technology is expensive. The cheaper, more efficient batteries Friedman wants? They're still vaporware - they don't exist. And there aren't factories lined up to manufacture millions of batteries for new hybrids - with the increased demand for the Prius this past year, Toyota had to disappoint prospective purchasers with long waits because the supply of batteries is limited.

If anything has been vindicated by the fall of the Big Three, it's Friedman's long-standing (and sometimes peculiar) call for higher gas taxes. What happened when gas prices hit $4/gallon? Friedman's dreams came true - the conspiracy between the Big 3 and Congress to carve enormous exceptions to CAFE standards collapsed, and the market for gas guzzling vehicles plummeted. That is to say, until Congress grows a backbone, the better approach to trying to change the vehicles that Americans buy is by hitting them in the pocketbook.

If Friedman's ideas are adopted, domestic autos may be modestly more fuel efficient than imports, but due to the cost of the hybrid technology it will cost about $2,000 more for a roughly equivalent car. People already have the choice of paying a premium for hybrid technology and, in overwhelming numbers, they're keeping that $2,000 in their pockets and buying more fuel efficient, conventionally powered vehicles.

Set an even floor. If it makes sense that every vehicle on the road be a hybrid (and, as the owner of a hybrid, in my opinion it does not make sense), then require that of every car manufacturer serving the U.S. market. Don't handicap the domestic manufacturers at a point in time when they're struggling to stay alive by pricing them into a segment of the market that, even as gas prices peaked, couldn't get more than 3% market penetration. Given Friedman's concern for emissions, it's worth noting that battery technology is pretty dirty - mining and smelting nickel is dirty enough, but Friedman's demand for instant hybrid gratification will probably lead to the wide use of lead-based batteries.

Meanwhile, perhaps Friedman should take a step back and ask, which car company is it that's trying to use breakthrough, cleaner battery technology in a future generation of hybrids. Not that I want to diminish the advances Toyota has made with its NiCad hybrids, but, could it be... GM with the LIon-powered Chevy Volt?

Friedman also presupposes that nothing better will come along. Forcing the domestic auto makers to spend tens of billions locking themselves into a 100% hybrid fleet, and to do it so quickly that they really have no other room for R&D (even assuming Friedman's proposed law permits them to explore other technologies), may make Friedman feel better, but it puts them at a disadvantage in developing other forms of clean, fuel efficient vehicles.

Yes, the Big 3 need to change their ways. Yes, their past contempt for fuel efficiency is part of why they're in so deep a hole. Yes, their past contempt for environmental concerns is reproachable. (And is it ancient history to bring up how they helped destroy public transportation?) But for all of their faults, dictating the details of their future products has the potential to impair their future competitiveness, preventing them from developing fuel-efficient gasoline and flex fuel vehicles, while impeding the development of cleaner, more fuel-efficient non-hybrid vehicles.

At the end of the day, it's a bit like calling on Congress to legislate that the New York Times overcome its financial struggles and create a newspaper for a new century by publishing entirely through Twitter. It's one thing to know enough about something to be dangerous; Friedman's not even quite to the point of knowing that much about cars.

The Scary Part Is, It Was Close

Louisiana voters have booted William "Cold Cash" Jefferson out of office.

Well, There You Go....

Rumor has it, Cerberus sees Chrysler as being worth more as a write-off than as an investment:

Meanwhile, Chrysler is understood to have retained a law firm that specialises in bankruptcy proceedings to begin a liquidation process if Congress does not agree to lend the money it needs to survive.

Cerberus doesn't need government money to keep Chrysler afloat. It needs government money to avoid taking a loss on what turned out to be a bad investment.

I reiterate:

I would offer Chrysler loans on one of two conditions:

1. Cerberus first sells Chrysler to a publicly traded firm, divesting itself of any and all interest in Chrysler (and yes, this still works as a subsidy to Cerberus, as it will increase the selling price); or

2. Cerberus guarantees the money Chrysler borrows, putting up its portfolio of investments as security.

If they are asking that this money be loaned to Chrysler Holdings LLC, with no recourse against Cerberus itself, I would tell them to kiss off.

That, of course, is exactly what they're asking.

Bush Didn't Make Any Mistakes, But Obama Should Learn From Them

As part of his continuing series of columns in which he demonstrates his eagerness to be invited to Bush's new Dallas home for supper, Michael Gerson shares more thoughts on the incoming Obama Administration.

Part of the appearance of security is rooted in seven years without additional terrorist attacks in America - itself a triumph against violence. It is difficult for a leader to take credit for a negative achievement - for the absence of failure. But here credit is due.

Apparently we're talking about international terrorism, in which case the seven years Gerson sees as warranting credit to Bush represent almost as much time as the eight year period between the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center. Gerson's correct that the passage of seven years doesn't justify complacency, but so far Bush's track record isn't better than Clinton's. If a terrorist attack were to occur in 2009, is Gerson more likely to pen a column describing the failure of Bush's policies, or to accuse Obama of taking his eye off the ball? As if Obama had warnings from the outgoing administration about the threat of al-Qaeda, and a memo on his desk declaring that they intended to attack within the United States, but focused on other priorities?

But there's another way to look at this: After supposedly ramping up to deal with large-scale terrorist attacks, the consequence of which could mirror the effects of a natural disaster, how did the Bush Administration perform? If anything should move us away from complacency, it's that track record.

Gerson sees the Congressionally approved tools used to combat terrorism as non-controversial, but finds room to learn from Bush's excesses:

Yet some methods designed for exceptional cases, such as waterboarding, were ethically disturbing and eventually counterproductive - causing self-inflicted ideological wounds in a largely ideological struggle.

I had almost forgotten that torturing people is "ethically disturbing". It's good to have a "compassionate Christian" around to remind us of that.

And there is little doubt that some administration claims of executive power invited a judicial backlash and undermined the power of future presidents.

Others might argue that the level of judicial deference to Bush is more problematic than the few cases that went against him. Gerson's right that future Presidents will have to remember that their office has limits, and those limits will at times be enforced by the courts. But he's confused about the source of those limits, as they in fact arise from a document the President is sworn to uphold, the Constitution. Gerson continues to explain the consequence of Bush's extra-constitutional actions:

If the administration had sought congressional backing for military commissions in 2001, and later for rules to hold combatants, the resulting legal framework would probably have been upheld by the courts - and would probably have been closer to administration goals than the eventual result.

So had Bush respected the Constitution and separation of powers, and acted accordingly, there would have been less litigation and the outcome would have been closer to what he wanted? That's the consequence Gerson sees from a "judicial backlash [that] undermined the power of future presidents"? The horror!

Gerson is apparently concerned that "enhanced" forms of interrogation won't be available to the CIA:

Or should the CIA be allowed to employ still-classified "enhanced" techniques short of torture? During his campaign, Obama promised the universal application of the Defense Department approach - but that is easier for a candidate than a president to pledge.

Sure, and Obama will have access to classified information that will help him make that assessment. But if we look at the interrogation techniques that worked in finding and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, not only was torture unnecessary, by all appearances it would have been counter-productive. If one is needed, the fact that the result of the investigation was a bombing run intended to kill al-Zarqawi is a reminder that warfare carries a very different set of ethical balances than peace. But it's one thing when you are forced to make tough decisions that challenge your values due to the realities of war, and quite another to repeatedly make ethical concessions out of loyalty to a particular politician or administration without examining the reasoning behind those policies or considering their efficacy.

The hardest issues concern detained terrorists. Guantanamo will and should be closed as a public diplomacy nightmare. Perhaps half of the detainees will be sent home, leaving about 100 exceptionally dangerous men.

Well, so far that doesn't sound very hard. Why, though, do we still have 250 detainees at Guantanamo if it's so easy to sort out the "really bad ones" from the rest, and to send the others home?

The Obama administration will need to decide on a format for trials - much improved but politically discredited military commissions, ordinary civilian courts or some kind of national security courts created by Congress and supervised by the federal judiciary.

But the administration will not be able to try everyone. Some detainees will be too dangerous to release but too difficult to convict in a normal court setting using unclassified evidence. And any president will need the ability to hold and question newly captured terrorists outside the procedures designed for American criminals.

The reality is that you're unlikely to find any of that 100 who cannot be convicted and sentenced to life in prison based upon less sensational charges that don't require public disclosure of classified evidence or investigative technique. Remember John Walker Lindh, who if convicted at trial could have received up to three life sentences plus an additional 90 years in prison? There are many charges that can be brought against those defendants that will prevent them from ever again stepping outside the walls of a federal prison.

But let's assume for a moment that there are a few whose trials would somehow require public disclosure of material that would undermine our continuing efforts to fight wars and combat terrorism. That no number of court orders or protective measures could allow a fair trial without disclosure of that information. What would Gerson suggest then?

Unless Obama returns to a simple exertion of executive authority, he will require congressional authorization to detain people.

So Gerson is suggesting that Obama can spare himself a lot of headaches and better protect the nation by eschewing Bush's unilateralism in favor of constitutional process?

And this will expose a major tension between the new president's military responsibilities and the views of supporters who believe that detainees should be held only in preparation for trial.

Assuming, in fact, it's necessary for Obama to request extraordinary power in relation to some of the detainees. But you know what? There aren't many Obama supporters who actually fit the description Gerson provides - there may not even be any. The vast majority of Obama's supporters have always acknowledged the reality of the situation. Extending habeas corpus rights to detainees held in U.S. prisons is not the same thing as saying "detainees should be held only in preparation for trial" - it relates to whether or not detention is justified. It's a check on abuses and the potential for abuses. You shouldn't have to be much of a student of history to understand why the Founding Fathers were sufficiently concerned about that potential that they inserted habeas corpus rights into the body of the Constitution.

Friedman's Constant Call for Muslim Protests

It's one of those days when Thomas Friedman phones in his column. Yes, again (and again, and again) it's "if only the Muslim world would take to the streets to protest Muslim terrorism" columns. It's not that in a larger sense he doesn't have a point - it would be nice if there were a greater outcry against terrorism within the Muslim world. But it's just plain silly for Friedman - a man whom I doubt has ever participated in the public protest of anything - to keep returning to this notion that the only meaningful Muslim reaction to terrorism would be their taking to the streets with torches and pitchforks.

Friedman complains that if Muslims take to the streets to protest offenses against other Muslims and their religion, they should take to the streets with the same vigor over crimes committed by other Muslims. We'll leave aside for the moment that nobody seems to actually do that - people sometimes take to the streets to protest the actions of their own government, but I can't recall a single instance, anywhere, of people of any religion taking to the streets to protest the actions of terrorists merely because they happen to share their faith or ethnicity. But let's pretend for the moment that Muslims are unique in that respect. Perhaps we should look at how somebody described protests in the Muslim world:

Where Islam is imbedded in authoritarian societies it tends to become the vehicle of angry protest, because religion and the mosque are the only places people can organize against autocratic leaders. And when those leaders are seen as being propped up by America, America also becomes the target of Muslim rage.

It's also worthy of note that those authoritarian regimes take advantage of what one might deem "fake issues" - things they don't really care about, but which stir up the people - as an opportunity to let the people take to the streets and vent rage that might otherwise be directed at the government.

But where Islam is imbedded in a pluralistic, democratic society, it thrives like any other religion.

That, apparently, is why Friedman doesn't call upon the Muslims of India to protest acts of terror by other Muslims. Although it would be easier for them to do so.

What would be the goals of the protests Friedman wants to see? Somebody once suggested,

Throughout history, successful social protest movements have had one thing in common - a clear, simple message and objective. Whether it was the women's rights movement or the anti-Vietnam-War movement, the mere uttering of the name immediately conjured up who the protesters were and what their objective was.

Friedman takes note of Pakistani expressions of concern, anguish and solidarity, but that's not enough for him:

But while the Pakistani government’s sober response is important, and the sincere expressions of outrage by individual Pakistanis are critical, I am still hoping for more. I am still hoping — just once — for that mass demonstration of “ordinary people” against the Mumbai bombers, not for my sake, not for India’s sake, but for Pakistan’s sake.

Why? Because it takes a village. The best defense against this kind of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers - and not amplify, ignore, glorify, justify or “explain” their activities.

What's the simple message that Friedman expects the protest to convey? "Hey, hey, ho ho, Lashkar-e-Toiba has got to go"? How many Lashkar-e-Toiba members does Friedman believe hang out in Islamabad? How many members of that group do you think care about the opinion of anybody in Pakistan who is not on board with their cause? A protest is going to change that?

The recurrent theme to Friedman's columns is his professed belief that, "Muslim protests against terrorism by Muslims would dry up the pool of recruits." The first problem is, Lashkar-e-Toiba isn't focused on the "three rivers of rage" that somebody sees as the basis of al-Qaeda-type terrorism. Its primary goals are territorial - ejecting India from Jammu and Kashmir. So in this context it's much less like the analogy Friedman makes, to protests against cartoons about Mohammed, and is more akin to the IRA - a conflict that was nominally "Catholic versus Protestant", but was in fact grounded in a territorial dispute. (Need it be said that Friedman never called for the world's Catholics to rise up in mass protest of IRA bombings in London, let alone argued that such protests would dry up the IRA's ability to recruit members?)

The second problem is that Friedman's calls for mass protest within the Muslim world is an assignment of collective guilt. He apparently sees all Muslims, whatever their sect or nationality - and perhaps especially those who live under autocratic regimes - as having essentially the same values, beliefs, and sympathies toward terrorism. Despite arguing that the roots of Muslim terror emerge predominantly from living under autocratic governments that keep their people "voiceless and powerless and prevent them from achieving their full aspirations in a world where they know how everyone else is living" and that Islam will peacefully thrive as part of a "Multi-ethnic, pluralistic, free-market democracy", his taking to the streets "solution" does nothing to address what he, himself, has declared to be the cause of the problem.

This leaves the question, does Friedman truly believe that the Islamic world is monolithic, such that a terrorist act by a Muslim is attributable to all Muslims unless it is denounced by a "mass demonstration of 'ordinary'" Muslims? That we should assume in relation to Islam (and only Islam) that if there is not a mass protest then there must be mass acceptance?

But at the end of the day, terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say.

Is this a dodge, "I don't believe that to be true of Islam, but the terrorists do?" If so, it's a distinction that gets past the biggest fans of this type of column. Oh, I know, it's not Friedman's fault if people misunderstand his columns and use them to advance anti-Islamic bigotry - but it's not something he's going to, you know, protest.

In short, Friedman is correct to call on the Muslim world, and perhaps particularly Muslim communities in the free world, to be much more vocal in deploring terrorism that is committed in the name of Islam. If you oppose terrorism that is being committed in your name, quietude is not the answer. If the Muslim communities of the world can take to the streets over blasphemy against Islam from outside of their faith, there's room for demonstration (in not in the form of protests, then at least in the form of public vigils) protesting blasphemy from within - the acts and attitudes of certain Muslims that suggest that terrorism and violence against civilians and "infidels" is legitimate under Islam. When it comes to condemning terrorism, the words of the Islamic community should be loud and sincere. And Friedman is correct that actions often speak louder than words.

At the same time, I disagree with Friedman's implication all terrorist acts committed by Muslims are rooted in religion and are attributable to the collective attitudes of all Muslims. He's also far too simplistic in his suggestion that the type of mass protest movement he demands would have any appreciable impact on terrorist groups, or that even if some protests occurred there would emerge a coherent, sustainable movement.

The type of attitude shift Friedman wants will have to start with the opinion leaders and religious leaders, particularly those within the Islamic communities that are most inclined to spawn terrorists. And it must be facilitated by the political leaders of Arab states - the same autocratic, non-democratic leaders who facilitate and benefit from the status quo that Friedman deplores and describes as the principal cause of Islamic terrorism. It really wouldn't hurt if the U.S. and the regimes of the Arab world started working to dry up the "three rivers of rage" that Friedman sees as the principal causes of Islamic terrorism.

Bailing Out Chrysler

When Cerberus Capital Management, LP, comes to Washington D.C. to ask taxpayers to bail out its failed investment, I can't help but think, "No!"

My objection doesn't arise from a lack of concern for the workers. I know some Chrysler workers who are likely to be laid off whether or not there is a bailout. Hate unions if you will, but auto industry job losses will cause extreme hardship for a lot of good people.

But here's the wrinkle. Unlike GM and Ford, Chrysler is not a public company. It's in the portfolio of a wealthy private equity firm:

Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the world's leading private investment firms. Cerberus specializes in providing both financial resources and operational expertise to help transform undervalued companies into industry leaders for long-term success and value creation....

Cerberus holds controlling or significant minority interests in companies around the world. In aggregate, these companies currently generate over $100 billion in annual revenues.

That's right - a company that is supposedly a leader in providing financial resources and operating expertise to failing companies wants U.S. taxpayers to paper over its losses.

As a private company, Chrysler doesn't have to publish financial statements and it doesn't appear that Cerberus is going to open its books. We're told that CEO Bob Nardelli gets a salary of only $1, with no benefits, but he receives other income that's not disclosed - what is it, and why is it a secret? Given his glorious golden parachute from Home Depot, he doesn't actually need to be paid, but let's not pretend he's actually earning a mere dollar. Chrysler has told Congress that it expects an operating profit of $2.6 billion in 2010, with slightly lower profits in 2011 and 2001. If that's what they truly believe, why isn't Cerberus happily financing its own bail-out? Why is it suggesting that absent an infusion of taxpayer money, Chrysler is likely to enter bankruptcy?

If Chrysler is going to fail without additional working capital, it's not because Cerberus can't afford to pay. If it wished, it could sell part or all of one or more of its other holdings or borrow money against those holdings to keep Chrysler running. If it won't, it's safe to conclude that it doesn't think Chrysler is a safe or worthy investment. And if that's what it thinks, why should taxpayers subsidize their billionaire's version of "flip this house"?

Further, there's cause to question whether Chrysler can survive as an independent company. If it cannot, why should taxpayers bear part or all of the loss Cerberus faces as it carves up the company and sells off its viable parts? From what I can see of its present cost-cutting measures, it is not planning to remain independent - given the manner in which it has reduced its professional workforce, it's not even clear that it still has the capacity to develop a new generation of vehicles. At the same time, the announced round of job cuts will save a suitor a lot of trouble, as there will be a much lower level of redundancy if Chrysler is acquired by another auto company.

I would offer Chrysler loans on one of two conditions:

1. Cerberus first sells Chrysler to a publicly traded firm, divesting itself of any and all interest in Chrysler (and yes, this still works as a subsidy to Cerberus, as it will increase the selling price); or
2. Cerberus guarantees the money Chrysler borrows, putting up its portfolio of investments as security.

If they are asking that this money be loaned to Chrysler Holdings LLC, with no recourse against Cerberus itself, I would tell them to kiss off.

Governing Like Bush?

Michael Gerson's the latest to pen an "OMG! He's Just Like Bush!" column about Barack Obama - the type of column that suggests that his only sources of information about Obama are party memos and McCain's campaign ads.

Conservatives have generally feared that Obama is a closet radical. He has uniformly voted with liberal interests and done nothing to justify a reputation for centrism.

Until now.

Because there is no evidence that Obama is a cautious politician with a history of working from consensus and not making waves. Oh, wait. I guess there is plenty of evidence if you base your analysis of Obama's record on, you know, his record. I believe Larison overstates his case in respect to the implications of this:

Most people in the broad “middle” seem to be relieved by Obama’s moves in the last few weeks, so I have to conclude that they don’t have much of a problem with conventional Washington thinking, either. The majority is not just getting the government they deserve, but apparently it is also the government they want. When it fails them, as it is going to do, I don’t want to hear them complaining about the problems of the status quo.

Our system is constructed to impede radical change. If you want disappointment, elect your ideological hero in the form of a Dennis Kucinich or a Ron Paul, and see how his agenda for reform never even gets out of the starting blocks. But that aside, it's always been readily apparent that Obama's far from being the socialist revolutionary the McCain campaign, and portions of the right-wing punditocracy, attempted to argue. But back to Gerson:

Obama's appointments reveal not just moderation but maturity - magnanimity to past opponents, a concern for continuity in a time of war and economic crisis, a self-confidence that allows him to fill gaps in his own experience with outsize personalities, and a serious commitment to incarnate his rhetoric of unity.

Again, which part of this wasn't apparent from Obama's record?

Obama is benefiting from being the only player on the stage - all his pretensions of moderation could be quickly undermined by a liberal Congress, unhinged by its expanded majority. And Obama's social liberalism could still turn Washington into a culture-war battlefield.

I suspect that Gerson means this as a caution, or as a distinction from G.W. - But if you look at the history of G.W.'s administration, perhaps instead he's warning us that Obama's first term could look like G.W.'s administration, during his first eight months and starting again with his reelection, where his popularity plummeted and he ran both his administration and (with their active complicity) his party into the ground.

Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy - Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach.

This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies - without getting much bipartisan support.

Good grief, does Gerson pay attention to anything? When Obama launched his campaign, we were told of the superiority of Bush's war policy, and that Obama's call for ending the war and fixing a date for withdrawal of the troops was defeatism that would reward terrorists. Around that same time, Bush brought in Gates to replace the disastrous leadership of Donald Rumsfeld and within months "every single one of the top commanders running the war ha[d] been replaced." Bush has since negotiated a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. That is, in the face of significant public opposition to his war and his policies, Bush shifted his position from his prior (failed) partisan policies to something to what he would formerly have described as letting the terrorists win.

Gates was appointed by the Senate in a 95-2 vote. When Bush started moving from partisanship toward the positions shared by the majority of Congress and the majority of the American people, he got plenty of support. It isn't Obama who has shifted on these issues - it's Bush.

In terms of treasury, Gerson is apparently talking about Timothy Geithner. There's good reason to believe that Geithner has worked with Henry Paulson to fashion the response to the present crisis in the financial industry, but... you know, funny thing, you would expect the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be involved in this sort of crisis. Although I am not at all impressed with Paulson's inconsistent approach to this crisis, or his tendency to indiscriminately and unconditionally throw money at banks while refusing to hold bank executives responsible for their incompetence, he's clearly been given a lot of discretion to respond to this crisis. To some degree you have to credit Bush with giving him that discretion, but Bush's desperation is hardly reflective of centrist policy. In normal times, the political center would be horrified by what Paulson has been doing - actually, it's hard to imagine any segment of the political spectrum that wouldn't be horrified. So again, this is a horrible example of Bush's supposed centrism.

Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.

I'm not sure what Bush has been "on the economy", other than a failure by the measure of the political left, political right, job market, stock market, housing market.... But I'll grant, he's no libertarian.

Third, Obama is finding the limits of leading a "movement" that never had much ideological content.

This notion of a "movement" seems to emerge from two separate phenomena - the fact that some individuals and loose-knit groups projected their own political goals onto Obama (as, frankly, happens with pretty much any new, charismatic political leader who builds a coalition sufficient to win a national election), and the caricature advanced by people like Gerson. But you know, there's one person whom I've not once heard speak of Obama as a leader of a cohesive "movement" - Barack Obama. And there's a guy who has been willing to disappoint large groups of his supporters on issues such as Iraq policy and FISA, even before he was elected. (Can Gerson guess his name?) But then, Gerson was apparently taken surprise that Obama reappointed Gates, despite, you know, Obama promising to reach across the aisle when composing his cabinet.

Reappointing Gates is also politically savvy, as it makes it harder for Republicans to blame Obama if the Iraq phase-down goes poorly. But whatever Obama's motivations, take a step back and think about what it means for Gates to be accepting this reappointment. He had the alternative of cashing in, big time with a book deal, private sector jobs... think Cheney at Halliburton. It's a testament to his character that he's continuing in the job, and a testament to Obama that he's again willing to disappoint supporters who wanted a clean break from past war policy in order to retain somebody who may in fact be the best available choice for the job. So with regard to Gates, although my reasoning is different, I'll accede to Gerson's conclusion - That's centrism we can believe in.

As for Gerson's having his hopes raised by Obama's "disappointing the ideologues", he may be onto something. After all, had Bush been more willing to stand up to factions exemplified by PNAC, the Club for Growth, the domestic energy industry, etc., his administration might not have been such a miserable failure.

Doorbuster Sales

Following the death of a Wal-Mart worker, NYC appears poised to require additional security during "major sales". Despite the tragedy, given that security measures appeared to be at least adequate at all stores except the one where the death occurred, it's reasonable to question the necessity of the law.

But if you want to be sure that this won't happen again, is security really the problem? Or is it that the concept of a "doorbuster" sale became too literal. The fact is, when you offer an array of loss leaders designed to attract huge crowds to stores, and offer an additional array of discounts that are only valid for the first few hours of the shopping day, bargain hunters must mass at the doorways at opening time in order to even have a chance for the best deals.

Loss leaders are, of course, quantity limited discounts meant to bring in those big crowds. The idea is that, although few shoppers will be able to take advantage of those discounts, people attracted by the possibility will buy other merchandise. The only thing that differentiates a loss leader from "bait and switch" is that your ads specify that quantities are limited (e.g., "Only 200 available at this price).

If you want to keep crowds from massing at the doorway, classify the advertisement of limited quantity loss leaders as a form of "bait and switch", require issuance of rain checks when quantities run short, and require all specials to be offered through the entire business day. Stores would object, as you would be removing elements that help create the frenzied atmosphere that allows them to clear their shelves of stuff that a calmer crowd would probably leave behind. But you won't have people trampling store clerks, beating up other shoppers, or shooting each other over the possibility of missing that "doorbuster" deal.

Alternatives to the War on Drugs - The (Uncomfortable) Third Way

CrimProf blog tells us what anybody should already know - the "war on drugs" as presently fought is an extraordinarily costly failure, and the drug situation is not likely to improve unless we focus on demand instead of supply. But it's simplistic to suggest that treatment programs are the key to winning the drug war. Unless you're going to expand the meaning of "treatment" beyond the comfort zone of a lot of Americans.

Drug treatment is remarkably ineffective, not because we don't now have some pretty good programs and models for treating addicts, but because until an addict is ready for sobriety the odds of successful treatment are close to zero. If you're not an addict, this is really hard to grasp. I still can't quite fathom why somebody would spend time in a jail or prison, be completely broken from any physiological addiction to cigarettes, but then light up the moment they get out. It doesn't make sense, but that's addiction at work.

In a "war on drugs" parallel, a couple of years ago I met an addict who was in the process of detoxing from heroin, who described how he had previously spent a full year in a very expensive residential treatment center - about $30,000 per month. He had agreed to drug treatment as part of a one year drug diversion sentence for possession. His dad had picked up the tab to keep him out of jail. He indicated that although he was "clean" for the full year and passed all of his drug tests, he spent the entire year waiting for the moment his year was up. Within an hour of the court appearance at which he was discharged as having "successfully" completed the diversion program, he had a needle in his arm. He was back in treatment because he had been arrested again. My guess is that he's since again relapsed.

Meanwhile in Switzerland, they're experimenting with prescription heroin, administered in a clinical setting for a class of addicts for whom all else has failed. It's a bit jarring, but in fact if you want to reduce the demand for street drugs, sometimes you have to make their equivalent available in a clinical setting. This approach offers some benefits that may not be immediately apparent, including providing the addict with pharmaceutically pure drugs (the poisons and toxins in street drugs can carry serious health consequences), and opening the door to drug education, counseling, and the possibility of treatment. The U.S. has moved uncomfortably into the drug substitution and maintenance model, through methadone clinics, but an addict's participation in that type of program is often a result of desperation - they've reached a point in their addiction where their need for drugs exceeds their supply - and not about recovery.

Like it or not (and I don't), addiction is a part of human nature, and a consequence of human biology. There's not a country in this world that doesn't have a "drug problem", and there never will be. It makes sense to move into a model of a "war on drugs" that involves a sensible use of resources, and as much as possible removes the criminal element from the drug trade while treating addiction as a public health problem. But if the only tools we apply to the problem are "drug treatment" and "cutting off supply", we should not expect the situation to improve.

More On The Financial Mess

The AP covers how, in 2005, the Bush Administration's contemptuousness of regulation and deference to lobbyists led to its rejecting regulations that could have helped diminish the bad lending practices that contributed to the housing bubble.

The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

Also, CJR covers a Wall Street Journal article observing that, while the financial industry is presently being given a free pass for the incompetence of its management, it has a lot more in common with the auto industry than Congress has so far acknowledged:

For their part, banks have found lots of causes for their predicament aside from their own failings. The crisis, they have argued, is down to an impossible-to-predict perfect storm, predatory hedge funds, panicked investors, unrealistic accounting rules and economic changes that emerged so quickly there was no way to be prepared for them.

If only. The reality is the crisis is due to bad lending and investment decisions. And those, after all, form the core of the banking business. In auto terms, it’s as if banks designed cars that suffer from catastrophic mechanical failures, or can’t be driven during snow storms.

CJR concludes that the author is "right to point out there’s more urgency with fixing the banking system, and right to point out that doesn’t mean they should come out looking the same."Bush

The Lori Drew Case and Prosecutorial Grandstanding

Reactions to the Lori Drew verdict seem to come primarily in two forms:

• Lori Drew is such a horrible person that even if the law is bent to the point of breaking, or even if it sets a really bad precedent, the verdict should stand so that she is punished for her bad acts (see, e.g., news articles that cover the actual charges, yet still describe this as a "cyber-bullying case"); or

• It's really bad public policy and a distortion of the law (18 USC § 1030) to criminalize the violation of a website's terms of service, even if you really want to punish the person who committed the violation. (i.e., "Bad facts make bad law.")

There's another side to this: If the verdict does not stand, and there's a good chance that it will not, the shameless grandstanding by U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien will have expanded the injustice. It will have given Megan Meier's family the false sense that Lori Drew would go to prison for crimes that should never have been charged. Oh, probably O'Brien will harrumph about how he was right, about how Drew is evil incarnate, and how either the trial court or appellate court has unreasonably second-guessed the good men and women of the jury. Such a reaction would be consistent with what this prosecution is about - the furtherance of Mr. O'Brien's personal and political goals.

Seriously.

Had Mr. O'Brien gone to MySpace and said, "I want to set an example for the nation by prosecuting somebody for violating your terms of service", what are the odds they would have picked this case? If they wished to go after people who create accounts to harass or annoy other users, there are people they can document as having created scores of fake accounts for that purpose. If they wished to go after the misconduct that most affects their bottom line, they would have directed Mr. O'Brien to professional spammers who create hundreds or thousands of fake MySpace accounts to spam MySpace users. You want evidence of MySpace's priorities? If you look at where MySpace expends its own money, it's in the pursuit of spammers.

Further, if MySpace were to go to Mr. O'Brien with it's latest stack of TOS violators - no doubt many thousands per day - and ask Mr. O'Brien to prosecute them, he would reject their proposal as ridiculously burdensome. Prior to seeing the opportunity to grandstand in the Lori Drew case, he most likely would have told them to pursue the violations by terminating accounts, or through the civil courts. Realistically, MySpace wouldn't have even asked.

Right now, Megan Meier's family would have the right to feel underserved by the legal system. Her local prosecutor didn't find that any crime was committed, and Missouri's federal prosecutor passed on the case. Mr. O'Brien was able to produce convictions only on a number of misdemeanors. Meier's mother is, predictably, calling for the maximum sentence, apparently out of recognition that this case is really about what happened to her daughter and not what was prosecuted - an offense against MySpace. Assuming that the sentencing occurs, and that the trial judge is not as interested in self-aggrandizement and grandstanding as Mr. O'Brien, her first disappointment will be that Ms. Drew's sentence is far more lenient. A bigger disappointment is probably forthcoming - If the trial court or appellate courts do their job, it is likely that Ms. Drew will end up having her convictions reversed.

Assuming the verdict is upheld, what's the lesson? That we'll see selective prosecution based upon the outcome to a third party, without regard to the magnitude of harm to the ostensible victim (the online service)? That we're going to be held to an absolute standard of knowing the current terms of service of every Internet service we use (hours of reading per day for an active Internet users), at risk of criminal prosecution if we violate those terms? Are we supposed to be reassured that, although far more egregious violations of the statute occur every minute of every day, that a federal prosecutor is not likely to act unless he gets an opportunity for self-aggrandizement? And the only cost is that an occasional, possibly unpleasant person will be dragged across the country for a show trial, at considerable public and private expense, principally for the benefit of that prosecutor? How... comforting.

Pumpkin Pie, Reinvented

The recipe highlighted here is quite good - it really does garner, "I don't like pumpkin pie, but I like this" reactions - and it's easier to make than it initially might appear. I might try a graham cracker crust instead of a regular pie crust next time. But really, if you're gathering recipes for next Thanksgiving, it's one for the file.

Conrad Black's Lament

You know, for many years Conrad Black and his wife were positioned to do a lot to bring attention to the flaws in the criminal justice system, the manner in which the cards are stacked against a defendant, the dismal state of prisons and the limited chance that they'll inspire an inmate to reform.... And if they were now addressing the problems from an insider's perspective - an inmate and his wife, waiting on the outside - their words might still have some resonance. But their words are lost in a sea of self-pity.

Here's Conrad Black - "From my cell I scent the reeking soul of US justice ". Oh, smell that smell. No really, it sounds like he's in a rather nice prison:

Many of the other co-residents are quite interesting and affable, often in a Damon Runyon way, and the regime is not uncivilised. In eight months here there has not been the slightest unpleasantness with anyone. It is a little like going back to boarding school, which I somewhat enjoyed nearly 50 years ago (before being expelled for insubordination) and is a sharp change of pace after 16 years as chairman of The Daily Telegraph.

Black complains,

US federal prosecutors, almost all of whom would be disbarred for their antics if they were in Britain or Canada, win more than 90% of their cases thanks to the withering of the constitutional guarantees of due process – that is, the grand jury as an assurance against capricious prosecution, no seizure of property without just compensation, access to counsel, an impartial jury, speedy justice and reasonable bail.

He seems to have crossed his constitutional protections - the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure with the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. But he gets at some of the complaints against the system, particularly the manner in which the grand jury has been transformed from what was intended to be a safeguard against prosecutorial abuse, into what often amounts to an investigative arm of the prosecutor's office, to the point that Judge Wachtler's observation that a Grand Jury can be easily persuaded to "indict a ham sandwich" is met not with surprise, but with a shrug.

The problem with Conrad Black's laments is that they turn from broad statement to personal lament. Does he share the experiences of other inmates or their families? People far less fortunate than him, with far fewer resources to throw into their defense? No, and from his tone he probably hasn't even taken the time to ask. It's not even apparent that he regards his broad statements against the justice system as being particularly true or salient, except in relation to his own case and his own circumstances. It's all about him.

The US is now a carceral state that imprisons eight to 12 times more people (2.5m) per capita than the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. US justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers’ unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences. The entire “war on drugs”, by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered and 1m small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved.

Black rattles off these complaints and statistics without relating them to his own case. It wouldn't necessarily be that hard to do - a weakening of civil liberties and protections offered to criminal defendants in the name of looking "tough on crime" or fighting the unwinnable "war on drugs", but alas, Black isn't offering this out of concern for its having been the wrong path to take. Was there any time during his career, when he could have directed scores of investigative reporters to delve into the flaws of the criminal justice system or hired editorial columnists who would have directed scorn and scrutiny at its flaws and excesses, that he had anything to say about these issues? The argument's still about him; he's tossing in the kitchen sink.

A few months back, I read a similar column by Barbara Amiel, Conrad Black's wife. I created a draft blog post, but let it go unpublished.

Writing about Conrad Black's prison sentence, his wife Barbara Amiel has is concerned about the little people:

So what, you ask. What does it matter if one well-off, elderly white woman with too many pairs of expensive shoes now finds her social life largely limited to visiting her dearly missed husband in a US federal correctional institution? Should be interesting material for her as a writer.

But if the rich and well-connected cannot get justice, what chance for anyone else — a question I asked in columns about the law long before I married Conrad. What chance for the orange jump-suited, marginalised young men I saw shuffling in front of the judge in Chicago, silent while their court-appointed attorneys negotiated their freedom away in that tight little legal world, where a client’s fate never disturbs the bonhomie between lawyers.

I would love to see one of those columns... anybody have a piece of yellow, crumbling newsprint where Amiel set aside her typically right-wing views to fret about the quality of criminal defense services?

If ostensibly privileged defendants like us can be baselessly smeared, wrongfully deprived, falsely accused, shamelessly persecuted, innocently convicted and grotesquely punished, it doesn’t take much to figure out what happens to the vulnerable and the powerless: they land, finally, in the 8:45am courtroom parade that takes place all over “America the Free” — the country that “wins” 90% of cases and imprisons more people than any other in the world.

Ostensibly.... That would mean "seemingly" or "apparently". There's no "ostensibly" about it - people with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in wealth are privileged. And Amiel's over-the-top comparisons only serve to highlight how she elevates her own situation over that of the jump-suited little people:

In any event, were I a clothes-crazy predator and were my husband the arrogant and pompous caricature of the books and films depicting him, what then? ... If Dreyfus had been a loud and vulgar Jew instead of an officer and a gentleman, would his case have been any the less important or his persecution less unjust?

I'm sorry - she just compared Conrad Black's conviction to the Dreyfus Affair? No, wait....

Conrad had no idea, and one could not convince him, that he was in Salem, in the middle of an American witch-hunt. There is no defence against false accusations in Salem.

He's a witch being burned at the stake after a trial by ordeal!

I'm not sure that responding to this level of self-pity and self-righteousness serves to advance any cause, and it seems to me that if anything, it's probably counterproductive to Black's cause. Black now makes it clear that he and his wife are on the same page.

Are Law Degrees Versatile?

The National Law Journal recently asked, Is the Versatility of a Law Degree Just a Myth? Well, yes and no. If you go to law school without any real desire to practice law, and with no concept of where your career might go afterward, you're probably going to find out that there are many degrees that are far more versatile than law. If you then try to enter a field outside of law, what employer wouldn't be curious as to why you sought the law degree, or how your law degree better qualifies you for the job than the degree of a more typical applicant?

And then there's often the question of why you're choosing a career path that pays less than legal practice. Is your explanation that you're looking for greater job satisfaction, and are willing to take a pay cut for a job you love? Is it, "Legal practice (or at least the practice I was in) doesn't pay what you think"?

When you look around and see lawyers in a wide range of fields, ask yourself how they got there? If they're older, and entered a business field back before the MBA was created, there's no direct comparison. When the degree of preference in a field has changed, the easiest way to enter that field is with the preferred degree. But what of the others? Are they truly there because of their law degree and its versatility, or because they found a way into a field by virtue of their personal interests and skills and, assuming their legal background remains relevant to their job duties, found a way to make their law degrees work for their employer.

I would not suggest to somebody who simply can't decide what they want to do "when they grow up", that they go to law school. For that matter, I would have words of caution for somebody who understands what legal practice entails and wants to join the legal profession. But really, if you're meandering, an MBA is generally going to be cheaper and will likely provide more flexibility (save for getting you a license to practice law). The flexibility I see in a law degree often has more to do with the person holding the degree than the degree itself.

Still, if you're from a modest background and are willing to put in the effort it takes to get through law school, position yourself to get into a well-paid legal position, and work yourself ragged for enough years to build up some capital, it's a slow, tedious way to get to the point that you can afford to truly follow your dreams.

An Ineffective Protest?

As we were driving to my in-laws' house for Thanksgiving dinner, we had to brake to avoid a wild turkey that suddenly flew in front of our car. It had been at the side of the road with a second turkey that, one would hope, had been clucking the equivalent of "Don't do it. Not only is it dangerous, what self-respecting turkey plays chicken?"

Strangely, if you tell people that you stopped on the way to a family gathering for wild turkey, some of them get the wrong idea.

Heads Should Be Rolling

Thomas Friedman, following up on this New York Times article, makes the case that the leaders of the financial industry, now reaping the benefits of the gargantuan, taxpayer-funded bailout, are incompetent or worse:

Why? Because in searing detail it exposed - using Citigroup as Exhibit A - how some of our country’s best-paid bankers were overrated dopes who had no idea what they were selling, or greedy cynics who did know and turned a blind eye. But it wasn’t only the bankers. This financial meltdown involved a broad national breakdown in personal responsibility, government regulation and financial ethics.

With due respect to Friedman's acknowledgement that responsibility spreads well beyond those financial institutions, and duly acknowledging his focus on the leaders of finance and that he's not defending Paulson's decision to treat them with kid gloves, how can you argue but that those at the top of the financial industry who were either too stupid or too greedy to put on the brakes should be keeping their jobs, even as they get tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money and guarantees for their junk securities?

Also check out Michael Lewis’s superb essay, “The End of Wall Street’s Boom,” on Portfolio.com. Lewis, who first chronicled Wall Street’s excesses in “Liar’s Poker,” profiles some of the decent people on Wall Street who tried to expose the credit binge — including Meredith Whitney, a little known banking analyst who declared, over a year ago, that “Citigroup had so mismanaged its affairs that it would need to slash its dividend or go bust,” wrote Lewis.

“This woman wasn’t saying that Wall Street bankers were corrupt,” he added. “She was saying they were stupid. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of borrowed money, and imagine what they’d fetch in a fire sale... For better than a year now, Whitney has responded to the claims by bankers and brokers that they had put their problems behind them with this write-down or that capital raise with a claim of her own: You’re wrong. You’re still not facing up to how badly you have mismanaged your business.”

Corrupt? Stupid? Or is it that they are so used to being lionized by a nation captivated by wealth, despite their limited knowledge and skills, and so immersed in a culture where almost anything goes in the name of profits, that they weren't aware that they should even try to look past their greed?

A few months ago, with this crisis looming, Friedman wrote,

Come August, though, I predict both men will be looking for a financial wizard as their running mates to help them steer America out of what could become a serious economic tailspin.

I wish he had "named names", as I am curious as to whether the reputations of the "financial wizards" he had in mind would have survived the past five months.

Coordinated Bankruptcy for the Auto Industry

The Times offers an interesting editorial proposing that the federal government facilitate the simultaneous bankruptcy of the "Big Three" auto makers, accompanied by extension of sufficient credit to sustain their operations through that process. This beats the current congressional proposal of, "Come to us with a business plan we like and maybe we'll lend you money," as it would allow the auto companies to address problems they cannot discuss as part of such a business plan - for example, how to eliminate failing brands and close hundreds of auto dealerships. If Ford announces, "We're going to close down Mercury," or even more modestly, "We're going to close it down as an independent line, while making select Mercury models available through Lincoln dealerships", they would create immediate consumer concern about Mercury vehicles, and would be immediately sued by Mercury dealers. If they say, "To control expenses, we need to cut the number of dealerships by a third," again they would be facing lawsuits by car dealers afraid of being among that third.

Meanwhile, the fact is that the manner in which cars are sold and distributed in this country is out-of-date, excessively costly, and anything but consumer friendly. At this point if you want to buy an iPod and only an iPod, you can go online to the Apple Store and buy one. But if you want to price shop or compare the iPod to other brands, you can choose from thousands of online and retail vendors who carry multiple brands of MP3 players. While iPhone sales are more constrained, once again you can find stores that offer contracts through multiple services, so you can go in and choose between an iPhone and a variety of service plans, and similar products from other vendors and service providers.

Try that with a car.

What if you're interested in offering a new type of dealership - a concierge type service that caters to professionals at their offices, allows them to arrange to drive a car model of their choice on their schedule, and offers the full range of makes and models they are apt to want to buy? Good luck with that.

What if an auto maker wishes to take the Saturn model to its next logical level, and build a Dell-style website where customers can pick a model - any model they offer - customize it, and have it delivered in days to a dealership with them with no haggling, no surprises, no post-sale pressure for "paint protection" or similar add-ons, no concern about financing (you've already been approved online) or confusing over rates. Get a good price, don't worry that you're paying more than the next guy or being otherwise hoodwinked, and show up at the dealership to inspect your vehicle, go over any special features, and drive away. The manufacturers are already about 90% of the way there with their "design your own vehicle" features on their websites. But do you think there's any chance that the crucial remaining 10% will get past NADA?

Bankruptcy only touches on these issues - facilitating the dropping of brands and closure of dealerships - but it doesn't do anything to overcome anachronistic, protectionist state laws that prevent innovation in vehicle distribution and sales, reduce manufacturer and customer cost, and increase customer convenience. But really, you're unlikely to hear anything about this from the CEO's of the Big Three.

I continue to favor something similar to bankruptcy but legislated by Congress, as opposed to Chapter 11, as being a possible path to reforming the auto industry with a much lower risk of failure. For those who complain, "Foreign auto makers will think it's unfair," I say, "They're not complaining about protectionism in their own nations, and you know what else - they're welcome to join in." If Congress is unwilling to act, cannot act with sufficient speed (as the authors of the editorial surmise), or forces bankruptcy upon the domestic auto industry, I think it's fair to say that it will be the result of a failure of leadership - in Congress, the auto industry, the UAW, and the nation's auto dealers and their "union", NADA (who are strangely omitted from most discussions of the industry's problems).