The conventional wisdom says President Bush has an 18-month window to enact any of his important initiatives, because then the focus will turn to the mid-term elections, and following that the 2008 presidential race, and as everyone knows the machinery of the state grinds to a halt whenever political considerations are on the horizon.

I'm not sure I follow the conventional wisdom in this case, because of the decision by both Bush and Cheney not to run again. I think that is going to open up the final 24 months of Bush II; although Congress may be more gun shy, of course, as 2008 gets closer.

But what if the GOP wins five more Senate seats in 2006? In that case, I think the Bush administration keeps the throttle on full forward till the end of its term, and is able to achieve some big legislative victories.

So how does this happen? First, as the recent polls are showing, Bush administration policies are striking a chord with portions of the Democratic constituency, by

appealing especially to many Hispanics, blacks and Asians who make up a large part of the Democrats' political base of support.

'Democrats are missing the boat on a number of issues that can be of appeal to their own base. On Social Security reform, you are looking at younger voters, union members and minorities that find this idea popular,' said pollster John Zogby, who has done numerous polls on private Social Security investment plans over the past several years.

'The Democrats are very busy turning 48 percent of the vote into a free fall, and that's not easy to do. They are not talking to their own base, let alone to the rest of middle America,' he said.

Next, the Democrats allow this fellow to keep working that ol' 2004 magic:

MR. RUSSERT: You'll release those photographs?

SEN. KERRY: I think they were shown. I gave them to the campaign, but...

MR. RUSSERT: And you have a hat that the CIA agent gave you?

SEN. KERRY: I still have the hat that he gave me, and I hope the guy would come out of the woodwork and say, 'I'm the guy who went up with John Kerry. We delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge on the coastline of Cambodia.' We went out of Ha Tien, which is right in Vietnam. We went north up into the border. And I have some photographs of that, and that's what we did. So, you know, the two were jumbled together, but we were on the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Nixon was president-elect, not president, at that particular time. He wasn't sworn in until...

SEN. KERRY: In 1968, he wasn't sworn in yet.

MR. RUSSERT: But he was president-elect, not president.

SEN. KERRY: That's correct.

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians...

SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim--everything we put in--I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports. And I'd call on those who have challenged me, let's see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them, and it hasn't been appropriate...

Finally, and most obviously, if Iraq turns out to be a clear success Bush may get the additional five senators on that basis alone. If the political process in Iraq continues to build on yesterday's positive developments the key argument against the President for the past two years will be neutralized. It's a big 'if' of course. But it seems the insurgency could have just been dealt the mother of all slapdowns:

But even on a day where as many as 44 people were killed, including nine suicide bombers, and 100 wounded in insurgent attacks, Pentagon officials and military officers said they had expected much worse. And they pondered whether their major offensive push over recent weeks had, in fact, knocked the insurgency back on its heels.

Some even cautiously ventured that election day had been a test for the insurgency, too, and it had been found unable to press a sustained, timed attack in the face of a concerted defense. And perhaps more important, it seemed unable to keep Iraqi voters at home through intimidation. The American military pushed its presence in Iraq from 138,000 to 150,000, the highest level since Baghdad fell, and one senior officer involved in the planning said insurgents had blundered in waiting too long to mount their own pre-election offensive.

Bush and Cheney are both going home after 2008; Karl Rove is a shoo-in on the first ballot to the Political Strategists' Hall of Fame; Afghanistan has not returned to the Taliban; Iraq has a future; and the Democratic Party appears to have no future unless some type of catastrophic event takes place. The Democrats are on a more rapid descent than on Nov 3 - 48% and falling, indeed. (Now even their 'rising stars' are reduced to arguing that Social Security is in fine shape - how weird is that?)

And if it is unfortunately the case that the Bush administration cannot do the things that need to be done to ensure a successful outcome in Iraq, then it is better they DON'T have an insurmountable majority in the Senate. We only want them to have the full four years if they are good at what they have been hired to do. Yesterday was a pretty positive milestone.

Posted by John Climacus at 02:21 | Permalink

AKA 'hooch', 'dried greenies', 'mull', 'spice', 'dope', 'doobie', 'roach', 'devil weed', 'vegetation', 'herb', 'reefer', 'Acapulco gold', 'toke-n-tarry', 'sickly sweet'...

Far, far be it from me to get on any bandwagon on this topic. The purpose here is merely to make a couple comments based on a recently revised opinion.

For starters, let me state that my overall opinion has not changed on the fact that the 'war on drugs' has probably been not the best-conceived government campaign. Probably, especially with regard to marijuana, it has resulted in diverting the criminal justice system from more serious threats to the public good.

On the other hand, maybe if you're going to err in the public policy arena, it's better to err on the side of caution.

I could never get behind an effort to turn otherwise law-abiding pot smokers into criminals, but I have sympathy for those who want to further the educational effort to discourage marijuana use, especially such use by those under the age of 18.

A British health charity called on Saturday for an investigation into evidence that smoking cannabis may cause psychosis in people at risk of mental illness...

'There is strong evidence from a wide range of sources that long term and short-term use of cannabis can 'trigger' a psychotic episode of schizophrenia in people who are at high risk of developing schizophrenia --- for instance, people who have close family members who have schizophrenia,' it said in a statement.

This essay in First Things, responding to a piece in National Review, dealt with a different angle and one that had an impact on me, at just the time when my longtime libertarian perspective on the subject was getting a second look:

While most people believe that pleasure is a good thing, they also categorize and rank its different types. Some pleasures are subtle, others are intense. Some are best experienced alone, others can be enjoyed only in community. Some are base, others noble. Some are purely physical, while others are inextricably bound up with our higher powers. And then there are those most fulfilling pleasures�the ones that follow from the completion of the highest human endeavors. The late Allan Bloom noted the occasions that tend to elicit such feelings: 'victory in a just war, consummated love, artistic creation, religious devotion, and the discovery of truth.'

The pleasure of smoking marijuana differs from the kind of pleasure that accompanies smoking a fine cigar or sipping a well-brewed cup of coffee, and more pertinently, it also differs from the pleasure of mild drunkenness. Whereas alcohol primarily diminishes one�s inhibitions and clarity of thought, marijuana inspires a euphoria that resembles nothing so much as the pleasure that normally arises only in response to the accomplish� ment of the noblest human deeds. Marijuana, like the designer drug Ecstasy, whose legalization Sullivan also, revealingly, supports, provides its users with a means to enjoy the rewards of excellence without possessing it themselves. Bloom again: 'Without effort, without talent, without virtue, without exercise of the faculties, anyone and everyone is accorded the equal right to the enjoyment of their fruits...'

This is why such actions as a just military victory can produce happiness, while inhaling marijuana smoke, however pleasurable, can lead only to an ersatz satisfaction�because it involves nothing praiseworthy. Thus it is that, after its effects have worn off, marijuana leaves its users with little more than a feeling of emptiness and a craving for another high to fill it. Hence also the unproductive stupor into which �potheads� frequently fall.

Lowry and Sullivan may be right to claim that marijuana does not lead to physical harm. But it does produce a pathology of the soul.

That last sentence, to be precise, really did hit home. It started a gradual personal reappraisal which within a year or so became a 180 degree shift of opinion. FOR MYSELF - I should quickly add. I was not the least bit inclined to take the 'reformed smoker' tack and immediately demand that everyone else share my opinion. But the change of personal viewpoint was a dramatic one...we'll just leave it at that.

Now, I'm pretty sure a good argument could be made that a nice cabernet isn't going to do your soul any huge favors either, especially when consumption is at the high end of moderate. But for me there's a difference. Alcohol is shorter-lasting, and the after effect - should there be one - is rather immediate and devastating. And then it's over.

Cannabis seems to stay in the system longer. The erosion of mental acuity is more prolonged. And the 'pathology' - which I now see as a form of the government-advertised 'false sense of security' symptom which caused my buddies and I to giggle endlessly in the 1970s - can be a real one. A guy I knew in college once said simply 'pot kills my will' which tells part of the story. Beyond the complacency is the other side of the same coin: Something is substituted for that happiness we were designed to achieve via effort.

This reflection obviously bears more on the question of frequent marijuana use than on occasional use. From my experience in years past, and I believe this still applies, dope smoking can become a central element of one's lifestyle. Even among those who lead productive lives and maintain stable family existence, it can be THE central lifestyle feature.

Medically speaking, I would not be surprised to learn marijuana is hazardous. It's hard to believe the smoke has no ill effects. It's the spiritual aspect that caused the nagging discomfort for me, though: Pot indeed may be dangerous, but in a more certain sense it's too good. I don't want to see more people locked up because of it. I just think it would be better if more regular users rethought their position. Quitting is not that hard when you recognize the pleasant effects as false consciousness, and see that your life slips by sort of unnoticed while you're under the influence.

Posted by John Climacus at 11:58 | Permalink

That is, Social Security benefits are snake oil.

You'll generally get precious little posting on this site on economic or financial issues, mainly because we don't understand most of them. That being said, the Social Security mess definitely strikes us as a gyp waiting to happen (those of us under 50 being the ones on the block to be gypped).

A take that seems pretty reality-based is here, on The New Federalist, addressing 'The sad state of our national Ponzi Scheme known as 'Social Security''

Also, we recomment reading all of this post from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute:

Robbing Peter to Pay Peter

...As with the first catastrophic decision to implement Social Security, its reform could yield unexpectedly bad consequences for generations to come. Such is the nature of a reform agenda that depends on spreading and not reducing the coercion inherent in the system.

Nonetheless, forced savings is not always a bad idea. It is a practice I impose on my son several times a year. But what might work well for one time and place may not work in others. It is the fatal conceit, inherent in socialism, to take what might be a good idea for one person and force it on the rest of society, with the help of the government's monopoly on the right to use force.

Policies that depend on this monopoly - whether they are Social Security plans hatched in the 1930s or privatization plans today - all share a socialist core. The goal of a free society demands that onerous, centrally-managed systems are not replaced with new, more modern-sounding ones, but repealed outright...

I think President Bush is courageous for even attempting to address the issue. I have spoken with others who think any change short of tearing the system down is a cop out. I can accept that point of view as well. I'm 44 and I'm not expecting to ever collect any Social Security. I expect I'll be an even angrier old man, shaking my fist and railing at the heavens, cursing the old men who came before.

Posted by John Climacus at 01:11 | Permalink

Interesting! I'd heard that there really was some natural phenomenon behind the biblical legend. This, apparently, is it:

LUMPY, dirt-caked, leaf-encrusted, a raw block of Iraqi Kurdistan's much-prized gazo looks more like contraband than divine gift. But this rarest of sweet essences, made from a concentrate of honeydew, is the manna of the Bible and Koran - God's own food.

In these fallen times, though, gazo can no longer be harvested in the Sinai desert, where it was first showered from heaven as sustenance for the starving Israelites.

In fact, it only forms on the leaves and surface roots of young mountain oaks in the high ranges along the Iran-Iraq border, after spring rains...

"The word of God in the Koran is clear," says Noori. "This is a heavenly substance, and as a devout Muslim man I accept this fact.

"But there is a scientific explanation for gazo as well: it is made from honeydew, the secretion of aphids on the mountain oaks, and as I am an educated man, I also accept this scientific explanation...

Swedish and British customers brought to Suleimaniyah for duties with international aid and humanitarian agencies have also proved partial to its haunting, other-worldly taste, and overseas orders are common.

That would be something to try before one dies.

Posted by John Climacus at 12:39 | Permalink

Oliver Willis - whoever the hell this goober is - is always humorous and one of the more enjoyable ELDs (Election-Losing Democrats) on the Web. But more than this, he is a Redskins fan, which makes every visit to his site absolutely delectable.

Let's get this straight from the beginning: The Washington Redskins suck. They may have some decent players - in fact, they have always had some fine human beings on the roster - but as an organization they are absolutely pitiful AND HAVE BEEN PITIFUL FOR YEARS AND YEARS. They sucked when Joe Gibbs quit in 1992, when Joe saw the writing on the wall. This was an organization built on free agent acquisitions and in the era of free agency w/cap such a strategy is doomed to fail. You can't make the numbers work with a salary cap when you aren't growing talent from within.

Joe Gibbs left when the leavin' was good. The Skins' record since then proved him right. And then the offer of $5 million per year brought him back last year, as it would for pretty much anyone on the planet. For $5 million a year, I'd iron Oliver Willis' T-shirts and vacuum his efficiency. So I can't blame Joe G. for doing the right thing for his family.

The sad upshot of Oliver's pitiful, misplaced loyalty is, like with all Redskins fans, merely a mark of humiliation, a blemish on the persona, a signal of bad taste in sports allegience.

We can take this discussion beyond this 'Oliver' character. Let's make some politically incorrect (since I live in the DC area) points about the Redskins constituency as a whole:

They define themselves in contradistinction to the Dallas Cowboys, but their team pretty much always LOSES to the Dallas Cowboys. In fact, if there's anything that's a sure thing in sports, it's that Dallas will kick Washington's ass on any given Sunday.

But the Washington fans can be counted on to, year after year, erupt in their truly sad chant of 'We Want Dallas' after almost any victory during the season. This defines the Washington Redskins fan at his worst. This defines the Washington Redskins fan.

I think Oliver recognizes that his Redskins loyalty is a kitchy liability - well, he must if he has any intelligence whatsoever, and obviously he does - but just because he trumpets his fealty to a suck-wad sports institution, which admittedly is one of the earmarks of a true fan, is no reason to give him a pass as one of the good guys. If he was Red Sox or Cubs fan, his long-suffering nature would win him some sympathy. If he was a hockey guy, we'd all feel bad about his plight. If he followed soccer, we'd view him in an appropriately patronizing manner. But because his achilles' heel is the Washington Redskins - well, we have to wonder.

Hey Ollie, have you ever wondered what those pretty ladies are thinking when they decide to do the incontinence commercials? Or the calculus when they agree to do the hemorrhoids ads? I'm thinking it's not much different than that of the 'sharp' liberal blogger who goes on record as an irrepressible Redskins fan. We're mildly interested, but mostly we're embarrassed for you.

Ollie, you need a lead-lined rubber suit to repel that kryptonite, because you're rolling in the stuff.

Posted by John Climacus at 03:14 | Permalink

I say tomato, you say to-mah-to, but we still got a ways to go to get along:

A tribal jirga in Sindh has decided to kill a woman doctor who was allegedly gang raped in Sui to restore the 'lost honour' of her tribe, a Pakistan Medical Association (PMA) official told a press conference on Wednesday. PMA President Dr Umer Ayub said the husband and in-laws of the doctor had told him of the jirga or local council's decision in Gumbat Khairpur.

But wait, there's more. Wipe off those tears you may have been shedding for our own hemisphere's innocent native inhabitants; the white conquerors may have been onto something:

Aztecs Cooked, Skinned, Ate Humans

New finds from an archaeological site near Mexico City support certain written and pictorial evidence concerning Aztec human sacrifice that historians previously doubted because the accounts seemed too exaggerated to be true.

The discovery adds to the growing collection of evidence supporting human sacrifice and cannibalism among the founders of the Mexican empire. It also suggests that researchers might now be able to verify some 16th century Spanish accounts on the subject...

Of course, the 16th century was a barbaric, subhuman era all over the globe. For goodness sakes, while the noble savages were roasting children, the Europeans were certainly committing horrors, outrages, and a veritable bevy of disgusting, uncivilized show-pieces which only further prove that Western Civilization has been the cultural equivalent of tortoise poop.

As a friend, and fellow rube, said after we toured the Vatican: 'I'm not nearly as impressed anymore with the American Indian.'

But who are we to judge. When it comes to fair treatment of each other and especially of women, we 'moderns' are not perfect, either, not by a long shot.

Posted by John Climacus at 01:19 | Permalink

[Thanks to IsraPundit - Joseph Alexander Norland.]

January 27, 2005, marks the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz in 1945. On January 20th, we marked the anniversary of the 1942 Wannsee Conference. In the course of that Conference, the top figures of the Nazi hierarchy institutionalized and formalized the Nazi plan to annihilate the Jewish people. Understanding the horrors of Auschwitz requires that one be aware of the premeditated mass-murder planned at Wannsee.

Auschwitz: Children, victims of Mengele's 'medical' experiments on twins

The Holocaust, symbolized by Auschwitz, the worst of the death camps, occurred in the wake of consistent, systematic, unrelenting anti-Jewish propaganda campaign. As a result, the elimination of the Jews from German society was accepted as axiomatic, leaving open only two questions: when and how.

As Germany expanded its domination and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Poland, parts of the USSR, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Italy and others countries, the way was open for Hitler to realize his well-publicized plan of destroying the Jewish people.

After experimentation, the use of Zyklon B on unsuspecting victim was adopted by the Nazis as the means of choice, and Auschwitz was selected as the main factory of death (more accurately, one should refer to the �Auschwitz-Birkenau complex�). The green light for mass annihilation was given at the Wannsee Conference, January 20, 1942, and the mass gassings took place in Auschwitz between 1942 and the end of 1944, when the Nazis retreated before the advancing Red Army. Jews were transported to Auschwitz from all over Nazi-occupied or Nazi-dominated Europe and most were slaughtered in Auschwitz upon arrival, sometimes as many as 12,000 in one day. Some victims were selected for slave labour or �medical� experimentation. All were subject to brutal treatment.

In all, between three and four million people, mostly Jews, but also Poles and Red Army POWs, were slaughtered in Auschwitz alone (though some authors put the number at 1.3 million). Other death camps were located at Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec (Belzek), Majdanek and Treblinka.

Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army on 27 January 1945, sixty years ago, after most of the prisoners were forced into a Death March westwards. The Red Army found in Auschwitz about 7,600 survivors, but not all could be saved.

For a long time, the Allies were well aware of the mass murder, but deliberately refused to bomb the camp or the railways leading to it. Ironically, during the Polish uprising, the Allies had no hesitation in flying aid to Warsaw, sometimes flying right over Auschwitz.

There are troubling parallels between the systematic vilification of Jews before the Holocaust and the current vilification of the Jewish people and Israel. Suffice it to note the annual flood of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN; or the public opinion polls taken in Europe, which single out Israel as a danger to world peace; or the divestment campaigns being waged in the US against Israel; or the attempts to delegitimize Israel�s very existence. The complicity of the Allies in WW II is mirrored by the support the PLO has been receiving from Europe, China and Russia to this very day.

If remembering Auschwitz should teach us anything, it is that we must all support Israel and the Jewish people against the vilification and the complicity we are witnessing, knowing where it inevitably leads.

More here.

Posted by John Climacus at 01:18 | Permalink

Not exactly a secret I guess, but a weapon nonetheless?

It just may be the case. From MEMRI:

Iranian Leader Khamenei: Iran's Enemies Want to Destroy it with Miniskirts

Khamenei: More than Iran's enemies need artillery, guns and so forth, they need to spread cultural values that lead to moral corruption. They have said this many times. I recently read in the news that one of them, a senior official in an important American political center, said: "Instead of bombs, send them miniskirts." He is right. If they arouse sexual desires in any given country, if they spread unrestrained mixing of men and women, and if they lead youth to behavior to which they are naturally inclined by instincts, there will no longer be any need for artillery and guns against that nation.

The obvious conclusion, that the apparently fragile Islamofascist psyche is susceptible to outside interference and should therefore be PELTED with same, may or may not hold true. We could quickly determine this, I would think, by initiating a massive satellite-beamed psy-ops campaign featuring racy stuff and weird stuff - and then just wait to see if the mullahs run screaming out into the streets.

But even if there is little realistic hope for an immediate impact, maybe something along these lines could be employed to help foment the fomentable Iranian populace. The answer to the eternal 'guns or butter' debate may actually be - thongs. Airdropped. Millions of thongs, varieties of other dainty unmentionables, cases of personal lubricants, and 10,000 copies of The Naked Lunch. It would be cheaper than an invasion or even a cruise missile strike, that's for sure.

Oh, needless to say, our military guys would be excoriated in the Arab press, the New York Times, and among the bitter, sniping, election-losing Democrats. Of course. But hey, war is hell.

UPDATE: Ah, I should have known - they are way ahead of me on this topic.

Posted by John Climacus at 07:31 | Permalink

Blogging is easy, especially if you follow the recommended formula of hosting your own blog: configuring the software, owning the domain, having no pride based on hits or renown, and accepting no advertising or other required measures of traffic or participation. You are as free as any goober sitting under a tree, scribbling on his jeans. Pure artistic liberation.

But if you think that is easy, let me tell you, NOT blogging is even easier. It's almost magical.

You set up the site, configure the various extremities, and then do nothing. PIECE OF CAKE, MAN! It's like drawing on your jeans - and then never even wearing the jeans in public. Sheer brilliance! Stickin' it to the Man!

So I'm sitting here in non-blogging heaven, and to be honest, I don't know if I ever want to leave.

I don't have to worry about hunting for LINKS, for god's sake; I can practically ignore html considerations; I can surf the Web with nary a speck of obligation to share my findings; and I can safely assume the role of consumer, rather than creator, of information.

It's like watching TV, baby, I'm Peter Sellers. Like Chauncey, I just like to watch.

And as far as the various indulgences are concerned, non blogging has a huge advantage: You can drink your ass off and do non-blogging just as pretty as you please. Blogging, you can make yourself look like a major league idiot if you're cozying up to a liter of the red stuff.

The question inevitably will arise: Hey, John, if non-blogging is supposedly so cool, then why are you presently blogging?

To which I would answer: It's a fine line, buddy boy, a real fine line.

Posted by John Climacus at 01:43 | Permalink

We aren't inclined to go on about this, but the issue needs to be highlighted:

In case you haven't noticed, or if you have been living in an underground mine shaft the last few years, the next World War has begun...

Look around the world; see who is waging terror against humanity. Wake up to reality. We either fight them to the finish now or our kids will have to; your kids and mine.

More here.

There must be a positive approach to this.

Posted by John Climacus at 04:45 | Permalink

Back from New Orleans - yay.

Five days in a hotel with broken wireless access - shucks!

Food poisoning - shucks!

More later.

Posted by John Climacus at 11:52 | Permalink

Just now tuning back in. Whoo doggy, how the world continues on its way. (Thanks to MonkeyWatch.) Let's just start out by repeating the obvious: Monkeys no make good house pet!

Jeff Doolittle is in a similar situation as that of your humble narrators: balancing the blog with the life. We're crawling back and hope he will be soon.

Eric, who is the source of so much personal amusement, comes up with another stellar link. Female Muslim bombers getting the shaft, once again. Click, laugh, and say thanks.

Speaking of funny, this guy is just funny as sh!t, and has become our primary source of Internet humor since Allah went into the poor house and Frank J. got hitched (and, subsequently, had his comic-creative-virility sapped Yoko-Ono-style).

I'm going to be in New Orleans on business for a few days, and the trip may be the perfect diversion at a time when this whole sick enterprise needs a fresh orientation. Since I had to cut back on drinking beer the Big Easy became a more difficult place to appreciate, because you can't just grab a 32 oz. cup and wander the streets and lap up the goodness of life when you are limited to the typical cabernet-sized serving. But there are few experiences in life that compare to walking up to the counter at Felix's, and beer or not I will be there multiple times this week. Many, many dozens of fresh shucked oysters and more than a few bowls of turtle soup will go under the bridge. Naked women and high-octane beverages be damned: Just set me up with some shellfish, horseradish and lemon and I'll be just fine.

Posted by John Climacus at 12:31 | Permalink