Starting for the National League

If my math is correct, the National League career record for games started is 677, by Steve Carlton. Greg Maddux started number 673 today, notching his 333rd victory and reaching 15 wins for the 18th time.
Will Maddux return next year? Hard to say. As more than one reader has pointed out to me, I was premature in declaring Maddux done this summer after consecutive months of 1-4 with a 5.94 ERA, 1-4 with a 6.25 ERA, and 2-3 with a 5.21 ERA before reviving with the Dodgers (as an aside, one reason I was skeptical that Maddux would get better in LA was that he had actually pitched much better at Wrigley this year than on the road, so the “get to a better park” theory seemed strained).
Even if he doesn’t, you have to ask at this point a question I intend to address in more detail at a later date: whether Maddux is, in fact, the best pitcher in the National League’s history, surpassing – when you adjust for the context of his time, including levels of offense as well as the difference in pitcher workloads over time – the National League careers of such luminaries as Carlton, Christy Mathewson, Grover Alexander, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn, Kid Nichols, John Clarkson, Bob Gibson, and Sandy Koufax.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Pedro done even longer:

Already ruled out of the playoffs because of a bad left leg, the three-time Cy Young Award winner will have right rotator cuff surgery next week and won’t resume throwing off a mound until June, Mets general manager Omar Minaya said Saturday.

Now, the truth comes out. The Pedro contract was a crucial step towards credibility for the Mets, and put a lot of extra fans in the seats in 2005, but it now looks like they will definitely not get their money’s worth on the field.

The Tides Recede

Soccer Dad has a great post on a subject I hadn’t followed at all – apparently the Mets’ long affiliation with the Norfolk (formerly Tidewater) Tides is coming to an end, as is the Yankees’ affiliation with the Columbus Clippers – the Tides will become an Orioles affiliate, the Clippers a Nationals affiliate, the Mets’ new AAA team will likely be the former Milwaukee franchise in New Orleans (the Zephyrs) and the Yankees will apparently take over the Scranton market, being abandoned by the Phillies’ affiliate . . . well, go read the whole thing. It’s not just the end of an era but the simultaneous end of several eras for different franchises.
Reading between the lines, Norfolk wasn’t happy with Omar Minaya’s use of the New York-Norfolk shuttle to expand his pitching staff at the expense of the AAA club.
I remember in 1981 during the strike, Channel 11 (then the Yankee station) showed the Clippers games, and they had this amazingly hokey theme song, the hokiness of which can only be partly captured with the lyrics:
Col-um-bus Clippers, our team is Number One!
Col-um-bus Clippers, our fans are having fun!

(Repeat ad nauseum – there must have been more but that’s the part I remember).

Card Star Crashing

I linked last fall to a Baseball Prospectus analysis of the biggest pennant races collapses of all time, ranked by the team’s statistical odds of making the postseason. As of September 19, 2006, the Cardinals were estimated by Coolstandings.com to have a 99.9% chance of making the postseason, which if they blow it would tie them with the 1995 Angels for the biggest choke ever.

A (Very) Modest Proposal

Shouldn’t Congress bar federal funds from being spent on any project named after a current elected official? I mean, I realize that legislating against the self-interest of the legislators isn’t the most likely thing, so maybe let’s rephrase that – shouldn’t challengers pick up this suggestion? One of the enduring temptations for the Robert C. Byrds of the world, after all, is to seek out federal funds for projects in their states and districts that will be named in their honor. How does this not horrify anyone who even pretends that these folks are guardians of our money? What possible argument could be made, openly, for opposing such a proposal?

Party Like It’s 1964

It remains too early to panic, but Cardinals and A’s fans are starting to get that sinking 1964 Phillies pheeling just about now; the A’s have lost 3 straight and, despite a magic number of 2 to KO the Angels, have 4 of their last six games against them (the other two against the Mariners) and all six on the road; after a 6-game losing streak, the Cards’ lead is down to 2.5 over the long-given-up-for-dead Astros and 3.5 over the Reds, although St. Louis has its final six games at home and four of them against the Brewers after two more against the West-leading Padres.

How Wrong Was Josh Marshall?

Plenty Wrong.

Now that it has been revealed that the main source for Bob Novak’s column “outing” Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s right-hand man at the State Department and (like Novak) no fan of the Iraq War, with Karl Rove and a CIA spokesman merely confirming what Novak had already been told by Armitage – and that the White House was kept in the dark for many months, at a minimum, about Armitage’s role – it is clear that there was never any validity to the notion that Novak’s column was the result of some neo-conservative cabal seeking retaliation against Wilson and his wife for Wilson’s publication of a NY Times Op-Ed detailing what should have been a classified intelligence-gathering mission to Niger. This “neocon retaliation” theory was, as you will recall, the central and original theory of why the Plame story was a scandal at all, rather than a one-day story of a run-of-the-mill imprudent leak, and not even in the top ten as far as the most damaging leaks of the past five years.

Joe Wilson himself, of course, was the original source of this theory. But I thought it would be instructive to look back at one of the main blogospheric advocates of that theory – Josh Marshall – to get a full sense of how long and hard he pushed this notion, and thus how badly he ended up leading his readers astray. (I may get to look back at some of the other top Plame-ologists of the Left, but Marshall was perhaps the most visible and this post is long enough as it is). In Marshall’s case, the conspiracy theory was particularly attractive because it fit in with his broader attack on Vice President Cheney and the “neocon” advisers in the Vice President’s office and the Defense Department – indeed, Marshall repeatedly tried to retail a particularly baroque explanation in which the “outing” of Mrs. Wilson was tied to forged documents passed through Italy relating to Niger.

I should start by noting that re-reading Marshall’s archives reminds me how slippery he is – he truly is a master of implying things without coming out and saying them. But the sheer volume of his posts on this story has, unsurprisingly, yielded up more than a few instances of Marshall actually saying what he intended his readers to believe:

Continue reading How Wrong Was Josh Marshall?

Clinton and bin Laden

I’m really not so interested in rehashing, yet again, what Clinton did or did not do to get bin Laden. I’ve said my piece on that, and I still think blaming Americans in either party for September 11 is deeply misguided. (Although for those who want to head down memory lane, Jake Tapper has a great roundup on Clinton’s efforts to blame 1990s Republicans for making the “Wag the Dog” argument, and Patterico looks at Chris Wallace’s record asking Don Rumsfeld about this sort of thing).
If Clinton really wants to go on the offensive on this question, all that needs be said is that he didn’t get bin Laden and he didn’t stop what was coming; history will regard the rest as details.

Great Moments in Public Education

X-rated handouts and teachers demanding a constitutional right to sex with their students.
On the latter, the people who mocked the slippery slope arguments yet again owe Justice Scalia and Senator Santorum an apology:

Emanuel relies heavily on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Lawrence vs. Texas, that struck down as unconstitutional a state law prohibiting “deviate sexual conduct” between same-sex adults. The nation’s highest court in that ruling took note of the “emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”
The legal ramifications of the Lawrence ruling are still a matter of considerable debate. Emanuel, in his brief and oral arguments, quoted noted constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, stating in a 2004 Harvard Law Review article that Lawrence’s “full reach should prove expansive.”
Thursday, Senior Justice David M. Borden asked just how expansive: “Has any court put blinders on and said you can’t look at the relationship” between the sexual partners?
“I think Lawrence comes close,” Emanuel replied. “I have no illusions. This is a difficult claim we’ve brought before the court. But Lawrence provides a basis for a good-faith claim. This is not a frivolous case.
“As of today, no court has yet adopted the position we’re advocating, that Lawrence represents a fundamental right to sexual freedom,” Emanuel said.

As I said at the time, I hold no brief for anti-sodomy laws, but the erosion of the principle that laws grounded in community moral standards are a rational and permissible basis for democratic lawmaking is a dangerously intrusive and anti-democratic, as well as irredeemably inconsistent with two centuries of constitutional tradition.

Some Guys Have All The Luck

And some, like Nick the Stick Johnson, don’t. Given the angle of his collision with Austin Kearns today, I thought he had broken a collarbone or perhaps a cheekbone or something; I was surprised when the carted him off with his leg in a splint, and now it’s broken. The impact in 2006 is negligible, but in addition to being painful it’s discouraging nonetheless to a guy with a terrible injury history. Best of luck to Johnson in making it back in 2007; he really is a tremendous talent with the bat. My take on Johnson in April:

Nick Johnson is entering the “is that all there is” stage of his career, and I no longer expect sustained greatness, but it still would not surprise me to see him rip off one healthy year in the next year or two where he slugs .550 with a .450 OBP and drives in 110 runs.

Well, he got partway there this year – .292/.520/.428 with 46 doubles, 23 HR and 110 walks, resulting in 100 runs scored but just 77 RBI on the flailing Nationals – but I have a feeling we’ve just seen the best year he’s going to have.

OBL RIH?

I want you to get this **** where he breathes! …I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!

– Al Capone, “The Untouchables”
Well, the rumors have been swirling that Osama bin Laden may have shuffled off this mortal coil recently at the tender age of 49 (the age George W. Bush was in his first year as Texas governor), dead of typhoid fever, an illness rarely seen these days in the civilized West but harder to evade or treat when one is cowering in a cave surrounded by primitives and religious fanatics.
Is this true? We have heard such rumors before, and have as yet no confirmation, though Ace considers several reasons why a flurry of recent events would make more sense if bin Laden had died. If it is true, I would have preferred a more violent or more protracted and agonizing death – sorry folks, I take this one very personally – but this will do. Bin Laden has, after September 11, seen his movements restricted, his men decimated, his income throttled, his open allies smashed or cowed, his bases destroyed – and he has never again emerged with a victory to crow about. His one functional ally against the U.S., Zarqawi’s organization in Iraq, has been beheaded and essentially run to ground. It is altogether fitting if he has died in obscurity, uncelebrated and unmartyred, felled by an adversary that is microscopic and no threat to his enemies, yet utterly uninterested in fame or ideology, regarding the would-be caliph merely as food.
If it’s not true, well, a bin Laden in hiding in a primitive region of the Pakistani-Afghan border isn’t all that immediately dangerous, and pursuing him shouldn’t be regarded as a substitute for crushing his organization and tearing up his ideology by the roots, but we should be after him implacably nonetheless for the same reason why the Israelis executed Eichmann and pursued Mengele decades after the fall of the Third Reich. If poor hygeine did not get bin Laden, American justice will, sooner or later. We will not forget. And we will laugh last.

Of Dancing Angels and Heads of Pins

Now, I likes me a good technical argument as much as the next lawyer, but this strikes me as going a bit far. A federal statute says the court can punish as contempt “[m]isbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.” A plaintiff (the husband of an ex-con, I should note, suing over a beating at the hands of a fellow inmate) attempted to tamper with a witness, during jury deliberations, in the courthouse cafeteria. The Second Circuit, in its opinion in United States v. Rangolan, reverses her contempt conviction:

Rangolan’s misbehavior occurred not in court, but in a cafeteria ten floors below the court room. Unlike jury rooms, witness rooms, or immediately adjacent hallways, the cafeteria is not a place “set apart” for official court business, or for the use of jurors or other trial participants. The juror was not on official business but was simply having breakfast. Moreover, Rangolan’s misbehavior took place at 9:15 a.m., before the court was in session. …
Deeming the court “present” in a public cafeteria ten floors below the courtroom and not shown to have been separated out for court business, at a time when court is not in session, distorts the important geographical and temporal limitations Congress intended when it passed the predecessor to [Section] 401(1) to, in part, limit the contempt power.
For many of the same reasons, we also conclude that Rangolan’s misbehavior does not qualify as conduct “so near to” the court . . . Suppose, for example, that instead of confronting the juror in the cafeteria, Rangolan had driven several miles to the juror’s home and handed him the stack of papers, or that Rangolan confronted the juror in a coffee shop across the street from the courthouse. Under the government’s theory, Rangolan would still have violated [Sec.] 401(1) because the trial judge would have been forced to turn his attention away from the trial to address the misconduct and a delay would have resulted. This result, of course, ignores [a 1941 Supreme Court case] which requires us to focus on the geographic proximity of the misbehavior, not simply on whatever obstruction may have occurred. In other words, the degree of obstruction would have been largely identical if the misbehavior occurred in either the cafeteria or the juror’s home or the coffee shop, yet it could not be seriously argued that the misconduct in the latter locations occurred geographically “so near” to the court as to obstruct justice. While it may have occurred in the same building, we nonetheless conclude that Rangolan’s misbehavior in the cafeteria is geographically and conceptually more akin to misbehavior across town at the juror’s home or in the coffee shop, than it is to misbehavior in a jury room, witness room, or hallway adjacent to the courtroom.

I really fail to see why it is so difficult to conclude that the contempt statute covers jury tampering on federal property, in a cafeteria no juror would ferquent but for the fact that they were at the courthouse on court business. After all, while a determined litigant could visit a juror’s home, that takes hard work; approaching the jurors when they are within the courthouse walls is a temptation to the unscrupulous litigant precisely because the inside of the courthouse is “so near” – and the ease of reaching jurors on the grounds of the court itself, when they have appeared on court business, is precisely what makes such tampering uniquely likely “to obstruct the administration of justice.”

Perspective

Libertarian Megan McArdle isn’t too happy with a lot of the Bush Administration’s moves on detainees and surveillance, but at least she has perspective:

[I]f you think that the things the Bush administration is doing could, in the future, help less benign governments to seize horrifying power — well, I’ll agree with you, but only if you also acknowlege that the same could be said for every president since Hoover, and that in fact FDR takes the gold prize for Doing Things That Could Be Used to Install a Dictator. Indeed, FDR is probably the closest thing this country ever came to having a dictator, and we can thank a lot of fast tap-dancing by the Supreme Court and the Senate for not getting us closer still. If FDR doesn’t terrify you, then you will have a very stiff uphill battle explaining to me why Bush does.

Graymail

The court in the Libby case rejects Patrick Fitzgerald’s argument that the court should weigh the risks of disclosing classified information as part of the process of determining what classified documents are admissible in evidence in the Libby trial. Instead, the court concludes that it is ultimately the Executive Branch’s responsibility, not the court’s, to decide whether the risks of revealing classified information outweigh the benefits of continuing with the prosecution. The court cites the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in the Zacarias Moussaoui case.
Now, Libby – as a man who took an oath as a public servant and was zealous in defense of national security – shouldn’t threaten to reveal damaging classified information as a “graymail” tactic against the Government. Then again, if such information is genuinely critical to the ability to give Libby a fair trial, perhaps the prioritization of prosecuting him needs to be re-evaluated. But the citation to the Moussaoui case also reminds us yet again of the fact that the legal system’s need to evaluate all the relevant and admissible evidence is one reason why defendants who mean to make war on the nation should not be tried under that system at all.

Gut Check

We’ll see if Pedro is ready for the postseason, but ready or not, he’s Pedro; he’ll be the #1 starter. And I feel pretty solid right now about Glavine, El Duque and Maine, all things considered. But while (correct me if I’m wrong) there doesn’t seem to have been a formal announcement, it seems unlikely that the Mets are going with Maine instead of Steve Trachsel.
The Maine/Trachsel decision is a major test of what Willie Randolph and Omar Minaya are made of. Starting Trachsel, who is the longest-tenured Met and has been in the rotation all year, is the sentimental move, the “he’s one of my guys” move, the Joe Torre move. Starting Maine, the better pitcher, is the Casey Stengel move, the John McGraw, Earl Weaver, Connie Mack move. (In 1929, Mack sent his ace, Lefty Grove, to the bullpen because he thought Grove matched up poorly against the Cubs and started the aging Howard Ehmke instead).
Fact: if you look at Trachsel’s starts 3 at a time, he has just two, overlapping three-start stretches this season (August 2-13 and August 8-18) where he posted an ERA below 3.44 – while Maine’s ERA for the season is 3.42.
Bill James’ “Game Score” method provides a quick shorthand for how well a pitcher has pitched in a particular game – let’s look at the year’s game scores for Trachsel and Maine from best to worst:

Date P Opp. IP ER Game ERA Gscore
7.21.06 Maine vs. HOU 9 0 0.00 86
7.26.06 Maine vs. CHN 7 0 0.00 78
9.18.06 Trachsel vs. FLA 6 1/3 0 0.00 73
4.7.06 Trachsel vs. FLA 6 1 1.50 70
8.6.06 Maine vs. PHI 6 0 0.00 70
8.13.06 Trachsel At WSH 6 2/3 1 1.35 69
6.4.06 Trachsel vs. SF 7 1 1.29 69
5.17.06 Trachsel At STL 7 1 1.29 68
9.2.06 Maine At HOU 6 1/3 2 2.84 66
4.25.06 Trachsel At SF 6 1 1.50 65
8.18.06 Trachsel vs. COL 7 3 3.86 61
9.17.06 Maine At PIT 6 2 3.00 61
8.28.06 Maine vs. PHI 6 1/3 2 2.84 61
7.14.06 Trachsel At CHN 6 2 3.00 60
8.17.06 Maine At PHI 6 2 3.00 60
4.20.06 Trachsel At SD 6 2 3.00 59
8.8.06 Trachsel vs. SD 5 2/3 2 3.18 58
7.08.06a Maine vs. FLA 6 3 4.50 57
6.20.06 Trachsel vs. CIN 6 2 3.00 57
7.3.06 Maine vs. PIT 4 2/3 2 3.86 56
8.29.06 Trachsel At COL 6 3 4.50 56
7.1.06 Trachsel At NYA 6 2 3.00 56
7.6.06 Trachsel vs. PIT 6 1/3 3 4.26 55
8.12.06 Maine At WSH 5 1/3 4 6.75 54
5.29.06 Trachsel vs. ARI 6 4 6.00 52
8.2.06 Trachsel At FLA 5 2/3 3 4.76 51
5.2.06 Maine vs. WSH 5 1/3 4 6.75 51
5.5.06 Trachsel vs. ATL 6 4 6.00 50
9.8.06 Maine vs. LAD 5 2 3.60 50
5.11.06 Trachsel At PHI 4 2 4.50 49
6.15.06 Trachsel At PHI 6 4 6.00 48
4.15.06 Trachsel vs. MIL 5 4 7.20 45
6.25.06 Trachsel At TOR 5 4 7.20 44
6.9.06 Trachsel At ARI 5 1/3 3 5.06 41
7.19.06 Trachsel At CIN 3 1/3 3 8.10 40
9.4.06 Trachsel vs. ATL 4 1/3 3 6.23 40
9.10.06 Trachsel vs. LAD 2 2/3 4 13.50 36
8.22.06 Maine vs. STL 5 7 12.60 36
8.23.06 Trachsel vs. STL 5 6 10.80 35
5.23.06 Trachsel vs. PHI 5 6 10.80 34
4.30.06 Trachsel At ATL 3 2/3 6 14.73 25
7.24.06 Trachsel vs. CHN 4 2/3 8 15.43 23

You tell me – who’s more likely to throw a good or at least an acceptable start in the postseason? And isn’t that, not seniority or salary or sentiment, the only question Randolph and Minaya need to be asking?

Bombs Away, George

Will the U.S. send troops to Pakistan if we can pinpoint bin Laden’s location there? Of course, the question assumes we’re not already fighting there and don’t already at least strongly suspect what general region he’s in.
Going openly into Waziristan is diplomatically sensitive, so it’s not surprising that it’s taken a long time and a protracted dance of demonstrated futility before we go there. But sooner or later it’s going to be necessary, and the past few months’ events there seem to say sooner.

Don’t Mess With Mama

There is, it is true, something creepily anti-Semitic (given the history of what anti-Semitism sounds like) about asking a candidate, in a televised debate, the following:

It has been reported, your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?

I mean, wouldn’t you expect the next question to be a request for his papers?
For all of that, though, it seems to me that the larger lesson of this flap about the question and George Allen’s response, when combined with earlier questions about whether Allen had learned the word “macaca” from his mother, is that you don’t mess with a man’s mother, ever. I’m guessing that voters in Virginia who watched that debate understood that without having to have the newspapers explain what it all means.

Pay-Rod

For once, Mike Lupica is right on calling out Jason Giambi for having the gall to criticize anybody (in this case A-Rod). Then again, I didn’t realize A-Rod was now playing the race card (hasn’t he ever heard of Derek Jeter?). Face it, when people look at A-Rod, the only color they see is green; the man had few energetic detractors in Seattle, and he is hated today almost entirely because of the money he makes. Everything else that gets thrown at him is rationalization for that hatred. But that doesn’t make calling his detractors racists is at all justifiable.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs

A Republican tidal wave isn’t going to emerge from nowhere, but Jim Geraghty sees signs that may point to better tidings by Election Day. This may, as Howard Fineman suggests, be a “dead cat bounce,” but falling gas prices in particular are yet again robbing the Democrats of a crucial talking point down the home stretch (as job growth did in 2004).
Geraghty’s been right before, of course, with his pep talks in 2004. While I remember 1996 and 1998 quite well, the fact is that the elections of 2002 and 2004 are the only ones that have really been blogged (with the flood of timely information that entails), and that have taken place after September 11. Which means that it may be hard for Republicans like me who saw almost everything break right in those elections to correctly identify the signs of a true strong home stretch versus the dead cat bounces that Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush enjoyed in the late Octobers of their races against Clinton.

Democrats Finally Identify Iraq Policy: Hold Hearings

Because, you know, the one thing we haven’t had is a debate about the war.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that participates in hearings with me
Shall be my brother

Yes, Harry Reid has figured out the answer in Iraq:

Accusing Republicans of failing to adequately monitor the conduct of the war in Iraq, Senate Democrats on Wednesday announced their own series of hearings into what they called a failed policy.
“Three years into war, the American people still don’t have a clear picture of what’s gone wrong in Iraq — or how to set it right,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
“We’ve been going backward for too long,” he said.
Democrats said they had invited Republicans to attend the hearings, which will start in Washington on Monday and move across the country in October and November — before and after the November 7 congressional elections in which control of both houses are at stake.
Reid and other top Democrats told a news conference the current Congress had conducted fewer oversight hearings than previous wartime Congresses. They said lawmakers held 152 days of hearings on the Korean War and 328 days on Vietnam.


A moment of silence, please, for all those who courageously held hearings in past wars. History may little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that chairs a hearing now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Job Creation, Granholm Style

Cut taxes? Nope. Reduce red tape? Nah. How about building prisons instead of factories:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm announced Monday she has signed a bill designed to give more options toward possibly reopening a former youth prison in Baldwin.
The prison now could be used for out-of-state prisoners, a Michigan prison population, county prisoners or federal detainees.
The measure is designed to help the local economy by possibly rejuvenating one of the area’s largest employers.


Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with opening prisons – but the state that was once the engine of the world’s auto industry deserves better than aspiring to be America’s Jailer.

You Never Can Tell

There are few things more frustrating and uncertain in the game than when a young pitcher – whether or not he appears to be talented – is suddenly going to “get it”. Witness the case of Cubs starter Rich Hill. Hill had a 9.13 ERA in 2005 and picked up where he left off (in fact, incredibly, he was even worse) in 2006; entering his start on August 1, his career record stood at 0-6, 9.32. Since then: 6-2, 2.23. And it’s been a complete turnaround in every aspect of his pitching line:

IP ERA H/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/9
46.1 9.32 10.49 1.75 6.80 6.41
64.2 2.23 6.12 0.84 2.37 8.49

Everyone who saw that coming at that precise moment, raise your hands. Time will tell if he keeps this up.

Hugo Chavez Joins the Jihad

What, you have a better way to describe this declaration of solidarity from Venezuela’s fascist leader?
As always: the best guide to our enemies’ intentions is their own words. Take them seriously. Like when Saddam cheered the September 11 attacks. Chavez has the means to cause us great harm, and he has declared himself aligned with those who actively seek to do so. He bears very close watching.

Quick Links 9/20/06

Yeah, another bunch of links and quick hits, heavy on politics and war.
*First of all, for my own purposes I should note here that as of this week I have been at my law firm for 10 years. A milestone, of a sort.
*This putatively hostile profile of Mitch McConnell makes him sound like the ideal leader for a legislative majority – a guy who’s a brilliant master of parliamentary rules and techniques, a workhorse rather than a showhorse who has a keen understanding of how to hold his caucus together and has been an instrumental player in some of Bill Frist’s biggest successes. The authors criticize him for not writing “landmark legislation” or taking to the airwaves, but they have to concede that McConnell has done, in his fight against campaign finance regulation, the very thing the Framers most hoped a a Senator would do – wage an unpopular one-man battle against landmark legislation that is simultaneously self-interested (by protecting incumbents) and hostile to our constitutional guarantees of free speech. And as for his partisanship, (1) the authors don’t really even pretend that Tom Daschle wasn’t an arch-partisan and (2) “bipartisan” legislation is usually a warning to watch your wallet anyway.
*While I share David Frum’s frustration that Bush didn’t spend more of his UN speech pressing the case against Iran, I thought this passage in the speech was one of the best articulations yet of why the battle against tyranny in the region is so important to the battle against terrorism – as Bush’s predecessor would say to himself, “it’s the propaganda, stupid”:

Imagine what it’s like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You’re 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country’s shortcomings. And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom. For many across the broader Middle East, this is the dismal choice presented every day.

This is, by the way, a signal difference from the Cold War – the Communist bloc may have fed its citizens propaganda, but at least they were literate and educated, and thus easier to reach with a contrary message. Illiteracy is a particular problem in Egypt and one of the reasons why Egyptian society presents a greater danger than, say, Iraq or Iran of the populace embracing Islamist nutcases if given the vote.
*Links on the continuing saga of the threats of violence against the Pope for implying that Islam preaches violence: was Pope Benedict trying to build pressure for Christians to receive the treatment in Muslim lands that Muslims receive in Christian lands?; the archbishop of Sydney isn’t backing down; David Warren on the BBC; and Fr. Neuhaus at First Things has some reflections. More detail on the violence and threats of violence here, here, here and here. Josh Trevino offers trenchant analysis, especially this parallel:

There’s an illuminating historical incident from the tenth century that deserves wider dissemination, and that the Pope might have used in lieu of Manuel II Paleologue’s quote. That Emperor was the last to enjoy a full reign in a free Empire; but nearly four hundred years before, the Empire was enjoying a resurgence. Manuel II Paleologue ruled barely more than Constantinople itself – but Nikephoros II Fokas ruled from Italy to the Caucasus, and from Bulgaria to Syria. He was a longtime foe of the Muslim Caliphate, and he observed that a signal advantage of the Muslims was their jihad doctrine. The Orthodox Church then – as now – regarded war as a regrettable necessity, with emphasis on the regrettable part, and soldiers returning from war would be made to perform some manner of penance before again receiving communion. By contrast, Nikephoros II Fokas observed that the Muslims who went to war were directly fulfilling the commandments of their faith, and were accordingly more motivated, violent, and relentless. The Emperor decided that the Christians needed a similar spiritual edge, and so he asked the Patriarch Polyeuktos in Constantinople to declare that any Christian who fell in battle was automatically a martyr. In effect, he requested a Christian version of jihad. The Patriarch and the entire Church hierarchy, so often in that era mere tools of Imperial policy, refused. The Emperor was forced to back down, and within a few short centuries, the Empire was overrun by the Muslims.

Trevino also points out something else. While the founder of Christianity was martyred by the State and the Church endured three centuries of persecution from its founding, Islam began as, and has for most of its existence been, the religion of power and the powerful, united with the State. There are examples of Muslims living under both the culturally light yoke of colonialism (in British India and the brief Western mandates over the former Ottoman territories from 1918 until just after WW2) and Communist opression (mainly in Kazakhstan and the other southern republics that left Russia at the collapse of the Soviet Union), but Islam for the most part does not share the heritage of other faiths in surviving separate from and in opposition to the State. None of this suggests that Islam is necessarily or by nature bad or dangerous, but it does underline why Islamic doctrines have been such potent and hard-to-defuse weapons in the hands of actual and would-be tyrants.
*I had hoped to get to the issue of the Senate Intelligence Committee reports on pre-Iraq-War intelligence sooner and in more detail, but I have only thus far had the chance to read parts of the reports. Critics of the reports have been out in full force on the Right – Stephen Hayes says the report glosses over Saddam’s history with jihadist extremists, as does Deroy Murdock, Byron York looks at the fact that Chuck Hagel, a Republican on the committee, had a former Kerry campaign staffer on the committee staff, Wizbang has a link here to a piece that appears to rehash some of Hayes’ reporting, and here to a CNN report from 1999 (quoted by Hayes in his book) claiming that Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden. Read and judge for yourself – like I said, I haven’t had time to digest all of this yet.
*From the National Law Journal on the Supreme Court’s new term:

“There are some stand-out cases and each of them will test whether this is a ‘restrained’ Court,” said constitutional law scholar Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University School of Law, referring to the abortion, affirmative action and punitive damages challenges.

+++

Kmiec concedes that it is “very difficult at first blush” to see why a conservative, restrained court would take the [partial-birth] abortion challenges, since there is no circuit split and there is a recent precedent.
“Maybe the answer is: It’s not a fully restrained court, especially in this case where Justice Kennedy has been waiting to prevail, and justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Antonin] Scalia have not fully signed on yet to the Roberts-Alito method of decision-making,” said Kmiec.

Um, the Executive Branch has asked the Court to reverse lower court rulings that struck down an Act of Congress. I don’t care what your judicial philosophy is in deciding a case like that, the Court is almost always going to take a case in those circumstances; it would be a serious dereliction of its institutional role not to.
*A female Supreme Court justice in Yemen? Baby steps.
*Lawrence of India: funny how this statute didn’t get mentioned in Justice Kennedy’s discussion of international precedents in Lawrence v Texas. Remember, foreign law only counts if it helps one side.
*Jane Galt has more on the illnesses of Ground Zero workers.
*Correction: Hekmyatar wasn’t actually captured.
*Ricky West on Keith Olbermann’s guest list.

In Honor of “Talk Like A Pirate Day”

Ahoy! A few thoughts, mateys, from Captain Blood:

If a man conceal any treasure captured or fail to place it in the general fund, he shall be marooned. Set ashore on a deserted isle, and there left with a bottle of water, a loaf of bread and a pistol with one load. If a man shall be drunk on duty he shall recieve the same fate. And if a man shall molest a woman captive against her will… he, too, shall receive the same punishment.


+++

Dr. Peter Blood: Nuttall, me lad, there’s just one other little thing. Do you think you could find me a good stout piece of timber? About so thick and so long?
Honesty Nuttall: Yes, I think so.
Dr. Peter Blood: Then do so and lash it to your spine – it needs stiffening. Courage! We’ll join you at midnight.


+++

Crewman: [Captain Blood’s ship has just received a terrible broadside from the one remaining French warship] We’re sinking! What should we do?
Dr. Peter Blood: Do? We’ll board a ship that’s not sinking!

The Hangover

Tonight’s Mets starting lineup:
A. Hernandez, SS
E. Chavez, CF
L. Milledge, LF
J. Franco, 3B
M. Tucker, 1B
C. Woodward, 2B
R. Ledee, RF
M. DiFelice, C
T. Glavine, P
This looks like a World War II lineup – the very young, the very old, and the lame.
UPDATE: That is, if you’re keeping score at home, a career .099 hitter leading off, a 21-year-old batting third, a 48-year-old man making his first start at third base in 24 years batting cleanup, a .208 hitter batting sixth, and three other guys who were basically picked off the scrap heap. Yet Anderson Hernandez homers, and the Mets at last check trail just 2-1.
Here is the box score from Julio Franco’s last start at 3B. Starting pitchers: Marty Bystrom and Scott Holman. Pete Rose played in the game, as did Rusty Staub and the late Bo Diaz. George Foster stole a base. It was the last major league appearance for Stan Bahnsen and Willie Montanez. Five players in tonight’s starting lineups hadn’t been born yet (Hernandez, Milledge, Miguel Cabrera, Scott Olsen and Hanley Ramirez), and Marlins manager Joe Girardi was still four years away from being drafted by the Cubs.
SECOND UPDATE: And the Mets win with that lineup, 3-2, thus driving that fork deeper into a Marlins team that has imploded over the past week or so and miraculously salvaging Tom Glavine’s 289th win.

Two Down, Sixteen to Go

The second of Iraq’s 18 provinces is ready for the full transfer of responsibility for security, the last step in the process that began with the transfer of civil sovereignty in June 2004 and has continued through two elections, a new constitution and the formation of a representative government:

With all its history in tow, Dhi Qar province in southern Iraq is looking toward the future. It’s scheduled later this month to become the second of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be transferred to provincial Iraqi control.
This means Coalition security forces will pull back and let the local provincial police and Iraqi military handle security of the province, a key step for the eventual withdrawal of Coalition forces from the country.
Both Coalition officials and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have said they hope to have all 18 of the country’s provinces under Iraqi control by the end of next year.
Dhi Qar province is an archeologist’s dreamland. It contains the site of the ancient city of Ur, purported to be the hometown of the biblical figure Abraham. Near the ruins of the ancient city stands the Ziggurat of Ur, a towering ancient temple dating back more than 4,000 years.
Iraqis and tourists are now able to freely visit this area, something they could not do under the oppression of Saddam Hussein, said Maj. Gen. Kurt A. Cichowski, Multi-National Force – Iraq,Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Plans and Assessment.

Note, by the way, that the Coalition and the al-Maliki government do have an aspirational timetable for this process; it’s just not a cast-in-stone deadline for the removal of Coalition forces. This is the result of the “unilateral” effort in Iraq:

The responsibility for getting Dhi Qar ready to transfer has been shouldered mostly by members of the Italian contingent there, led by Brig. Gen. Carmine De Pascale, commander of the Italian Joint Task Force – Iraq.
“This result was attained by Dhi Qar provincial authorities and Coalition forces through a long and intense period of sacrifices and efforts,” De Pascale said.
About 1,500 Italian troops, along with Romanian, Australian and some British Soldiers, have been based out of Camp Mittica, just outside Ali Base, near Ur. The task force has worked closely with the local government in the province – training and equipping the local Police and Army, mentoring government officials, and organizing construction projects like schools and clinics.

Naturally, and logically, the two provinces selected to go first are the easiest nuts to crack, the rural equivalent of our “red states” – Baghdad, conspicuously, remains in need of pacification – but as has been true of Iraq all along, the further we get down the road, the more momentum works in our favor.