Thursday, March 31, 2005

How does the man do it?

Mark Steyn: the man is a first-class column machine-gun stud. I can't imagine how any single human could produce stuff of this quality day in and day out.

And I didn't think anybody was going to be able to make me smile today, much less laugh. But Mark did:

Do you remember a fellow called Robert Wendland? No reason why you should. I wrote about him in this space in 1998, and had intended to return to the subject but something else always intervened — usually Bill Clinton’s penis, which loomed large, at least metaphorically, over the entire era. Mr Wendland lived in Stockton, California. He was injured in an automobile accident in 1993 and went into a coma. Under state law, he could have been starved to death at any time had his wife requested the removal of his feeding tube. But Rose Wendland was busy with this and that, as one is, and assumed there was no particular urgency.

Then one day, a year later, Robert woke up. He wasn’t exactly his old self, but he could catch and throw a ball and wheel his chair up and down the hospital corridors, and both activities gave him pleasure. Nevertheless Mrs Wendland decided that she now wished to exercise her right to have him dehydrated to death. Her justification was that, while the actual living Robert — the Robert of the mid-1990s — might enjoy a simple life of ball-catching and chair-rolling, the old Robert — the pre-1993 Robert — would have considered it a crashing bore and would have wanted no part of it.

You'll be sorry if you don't read the whole thing.

Tell me it ain't so!

Would you believe that 11 illegal aliens could board an U.S. airliner with minimal ID? Bryan Preston posts this scary report on Michelle Malkin's great new Immigration Blog.

The good news is that an air marshal's vigilence led to the capture of these illegal aliens, and they are now detained pending a deportation hearing (and after they're deported they'll probably bounce right back in, but that's another story). The bad news is that they got on that plane in the first place. As Bryan reports it:

Good for the air marshalls on this one, but bad for airline security. Read that second paragraph again--how did the illegals get on that plane? By presenting a "Mexican voter registration card that contained a name, age and photo." That should not be sufficient ID to board a plane in the post-911 United States. And yet it is.

Chances are, by the way, that the "voter registration card" in this story is actually a matricula consular card. Those cards are issued by the Mexican government to...well...just about anyone:

Management of Chaos

Nice report, TigerHawk. A teaser excerpt:

So where does the war stand now, according to al Qaeda? A leading al Qaeda operative has written a book, the title of which translates loosely to “The Management of Chaos.” According to al Qaeda, the current stage of revolution is the stage of “vexation and exhaustion” of the enemy. They have a notion of how to do this to the Americans and to their 'puppets'.

You vex and exhaust the Americans, according to al Qaeda, by making them spend a lot of money. The United States is a materialist society, and if forced to spend too much money it will “cut and run.”

The means to this end is to force the Americans to spread themselves thinly. Al Qaeda wants to strike everywhere, not just spectacular high value attacks. This will cause the Americans to defend a lot of places at high cost.

In addition, al Qaeda wants to force Americans to carry the war into the heartland of the Middle East [We have obliged them in this. - ed.] There are two reasons why al Qaeda sought an American invasion in the Middle East. First, it will be very costly for the United States and will therefore drain our treasury. Second, bringing the war to the heartland will have a polarizing effect within Muslim society. Doran believes that they borrowed this “polarization” idea from Palestinian organizations of the 60s and 70s. Americans striking back “without precision” will polarize Muslim society between supporters and proponents of jihad.

It is not necessary, according to al Qaeda, that they get the great masses on their side. The goal is to win over “an important segment of the youth.” Their propaganda is directed to young men. One of their propagandists says that “if we can win over only 5% of one billion Muslims, we will have an unbeatable army.”

Now go read the whole thing. There will be a test afterward. The lecture was by Professor Michael Doran.

That Lance

The Lance in Iraq blog of 1st LT Lance Frizzell has become a regular part of my blog-reading routine. Read it for a few days and I suspect you'll be hooked as well. Today he posted some commentary about the importance of winning over the Iraqi teens, along with a selection of endearing pictures like the one I've reproduced here. Don't miss it!

Hat tip to Lance for the pointer to this article on the significance of the Iraqi teens...

A big prize

Dr. Boyle is a radiologist who also happens to have an excellent blog. He's not happy about what he's heard on the media about the interpretation of Terri Schiavo's CT scans. His central points are:

-- The TV talking head docs pontificating on the CT scans are neurologists, not radiologists...and neurologists don't interpret CT brain scans, radiologists do.

-- He does not believe it is possible to reliably diagnose persistent vegetative state from CT scans.

And he's willing to put his money where his mouth is:

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

To prove my point I am offering $100,000 on a $25,000 wager for ANY neurologist (and $125,000 for any neurologist/bioethicist) involved in Terri Schiavo's case--including all the neurologists reviewed on television and in the newspapers who can accurately single out PVS patients from functioning patients with better than 60% accuracy on CT scans.

I will provide 100 single cuts from 100 different patient's brain CT's. All the neurologist has to do is say which ones represent patients with PVS and which do not.

If the neurologist can be right 6 out of 10 times he wins the $100,000.

I Said What I Meant, And I Meant What I Said

My points are what I first said about the image from Terri Schiavo's CT scan:

1) It is NOT as bad as the neurologists and bioethicists play it up to be; and,

2) There are many elderly patients with various levels of mental functioning who have severe atrophy that is difficult to distinguish from Terri Schiavo's atrophy

I stand by what I said. And I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

First, I can't help but applaud Dr. Boyle's activism here. Whether he's right or wrong, good for him for standing up and so forcefully making his case.

But on a different level, I find this quite troubling. Dr. Boyle is making a credible case (and standing behind it with his personal fortune!) that Terri's 'diagnosis' is even more flawed than I had heretofore believed. Making it even more likely that Terri has (had?) some hope of partial recovery through appropriate (but untried) therapy. And making it even more horrible that the courts have condemned her to die by starvation and dehydration. How could we let this happen in the U.S.? This is a series of actions of the type I'd expect to find in a place like North Korea or Yemen, not here...

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the pointer to this story...

We should worry

Peggy Noonan, writing in today's Opinion Journal, warns Republicans not to be dismissive of Hillary's run:

Republicans--I have been among many--are now in the stage of the Hillary Conversation in which they are beginning to grouse about those who keep warning that Mrs. Clinton will be a formidable candidate for president in 2008. She won't be so tough, they say. America will never elect a woman like her, with such a sketchy history--financial scandals, political pardons, the whole mess that took place between 1980 and 2000.

I tell them they are wrong. First, it is good to be concerned about Mrs. Clinton, for she is coming down the pike. It is pointless to be afraid, but good to be concerned. Why? Because we live in a more or less 50-50 nation; because Mrs. Clinton is smarter than her husband and has become a better campaigner on the ground; because her warmth and humor seem less oily; because she has struck out a new rhetorically (though not legislatively) moderate course; because you don't play every card right the way she's been playing every card right the past five years unless you have real talent; because unlike her husband she has found it possible to grow more emotionally mature; because the presidency is the bright sharp focus of everything she does each day; because she is not going to get seriously dinged in the 2008 primaries but will likely face challengers who make her look even more moderate and stable; and because in 2008 we will have millions of 18- to 24-year-old voters who have no memory of her as the harridan of the East Wing and the nutty professor of HillaryCare.

The Hillary those young adults remember will be the senator--chuckling with a throaty chuckle, bantering amiably with Lindsey Graham, maternal and moderate and strong. Add to that this: Half the MSM will be for her, and the other half will be afraid of the half that is for her. (You think journalists are afraid of the right? Journalists are afraid of each other.) And on top of all that, It's time for a woman. Almost every young woman in America, every tough old suburban momma, every unmarried urban high-heel-wearing, briefcase-toting corporate lawyer will be saying it. They'll be working for, rooting for, giving to the woman.

I am of course exaggerating, but not by much.

Of course underestimation of a political opponent is an absolutely classic mistake to make. I dismiss Hillary's opinions and world view (as expressed through the prism of her overriding ambition) all the time; 'tis but a small step from there to being dismissive of her political skills. I can easily see this happening -- much as happened to Mr. Bush in 2000. I'm with Peggy; I hope the Republican powers-that-be don't make the mistake of 'misunderestimating' Hillary Clinton.

Because the consequences would be very hard to bear...

Quote for the day

# It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

   Alexander Hamilton