Bad news, good news

The bad news is that a handful of unidentified Leipzig residents have filed a lawsuit to stop a planned Jewish community center on the grounds that it poses a security risk due to the likelihood of attacks.

The good news is that the citizens of Leipzig have rallied broadly in support of the community center since the lawsuit became known, with hundreds of supporters at a community meeting and more than a thousand signatures on a petition in support of the community center. "It's scandalous to argue that the Jewish community is a security risk," says Pastor Christian Wolff of the Thomaskirche. "We've had 'Jews are a danger' before," he notes.

If only the EU were as clear-headed and straightforward as Pastor Wolff and the citizens of Leipzig.

Update: Here's another straightforward denunciation of terrorism. German bishops used Easter sermons to denounce any attempt to justify terror acts in God's name, describing such acts as "absolutely perverse."

Sorry to just disappear like that, but work and life both got suddenly hectic in a big way. I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel and will be back soon.

In the meantime, keep an eye on the German media with Medienkritik, read Belmont Club or Intel Dump for great coverage of all things military and the ongoing turmoil in Iraq, or go help Michele help the Marines help Iraq.

Ur Tax � @ Work

A European MEP with too much time and too few clues has translated part of the draft constitution into "SMS" language, in a horribly misguided attempt to make it more accessible to youth.

Leaving aside the fact that he's misappropriating a jargon that he's mistaken for slang, this guy sounds like an aging hipster making a desperate and embarassing effort to prove he's still cool and in touch with todays youth.

Update: No, this doesn't appear to be an April Fools joke. At the very least, the EU Observer article and the Lib�ration article it references are dated 7 April.

If you're intent on handicapping the Presidential election at this early stage, it helps to consider the Feiler Faster Thesis and the effects of campaign finance reform.

The good news is that we won't have to face "seven more months of this." The bad news is that we'll be facing something much, much uglier starting in August.

The first thing to keep in mind is that it's still very early in the cycle. Nobody is actually even trying for a knockout blow yet; both campaigns are trying to harden their own defenses and soften up the other guy in preparation for the real attacks that will come later in the cycle.

That's not to say that the polls are irrelevent. Neither campaign can afford the perception of a sustained large decline, so both campaigns intervene as necessary to kill the other guys momentum. The end result of all of this manuvering is the back-and-forth seesawing we've seen for the past month or two.

The Bush campaign has more money than the Kerry campaign, but the Democrats have a lot more money in "527 organizations" like MoveOn. The 527's are much less constrained than the Kerry campaign itself, since they can go negative with a lot less blowback onto the candidate. The downside to the 527's is that their activities are extremely restricted within 60 days of the election.

There's all kinds of manuvering in the courts to change the rules governing 527's but, assuming nothing changes and there are no dramatic surprises elsewhere, here's what we have to look forward to:

Another couple of months of sniping and mudslinging. Both sides are doing better on offense than defense right now, so they're likely to keep hammering at the same targets. The Bush campaign will drive home the message that Kerry waffles and panders, is a big spender and is weak on defense. Kerry will keep grinding away at the perception tha Bush is stronger on defense and will push "Bush lied" for all that it's worth.

Starting sometime in August, the assorted 527's will empty their coffers (use it or lose it) and we'll be treated to a huge, extremely negative anti-Bush blitz. The handful of Republican 527's will respond in kind, but Bush himself is likely to hunker down and try to ride out the storm. He'll fight back if things get too far out of hand, but September should see a low point in the polls for Bush.

Once the 527's are out of the game, the dynamics change (mostly) to Bush's advantage. Probably most important is the fact that the Bush campaign has more money. The fact that the candidates will have to personally affirm the contents of their ads is also significant, as it means that both candidates will have to choose their attacks carefully. Bush has more latitude here since he usually comes across as folksy and genuine when he delivers a smackdown while Kerry mostly sounds strident, condescending and/or fake.

Washington will shut down as neither side will want to give the other ammunition or a free stage. High profile Democrats like Teddy Kennedy will continue go on the attack on behalf of Kerry, but I'm not sure how effective they'll be.

From September on, it's a (probably mostly tactical) slugfest, the details of which depend largely on what happens to the economy and in Iraq. If the economy clearly improves and Iraq is under control (not unlikely in November, despite the chaos right now), Bush has a strong advantage -- Kerry's only hope is to go extremely negative, and that is not his strength. If the economy is still mixed, or if Iraq is still a mess, Kerry's job is a lot easier.

In short, I expect the race to stay close and ugly right up until the end, with a low point for Bush in September followed by a gradual and uneven climb until election day.

All of this assumes no dramatic surprises. If a convincing stash of WMD's turns up somewhere (e.g. in a suddenly cooperative Syria), a lot of Bush negatives disappear. Another major terrorist attack in the US could theoretically go, but I expect that the press would turn it to Kerry's advantage (as they did with the Clarke book and the 9-11 hearings). Thwarted major attacks, or successful major attacks in Europe would probably work to Bush's advantage. And so on...

We're in for some interesting times and, given that I'm already sick of this campaign, I mean that in the worst possible way.

FWIW, I suspect that Bush actually does have something up his sleeve. His defense has been so weak on both the 9-11 hearings and the question of WMD's, that his opponents are piling on ever harder. Every time he's seemed this beleaguered in the past, he's executed a perfect political judo move that sends his opponents sprawling under the weight of their own assumptions. That's purely a gut feeling at this point, though, so don't ask where it'll come from or what form it'll take.

Dick Clarke, Man of Action

Spiegel descends (further) into parody, and drags the New York Times along. Here's their description of the events of September 11:

The entire capital seems to be on the run. Government departments, offices and official agencies are cleared, and emergency response centers are activated throughout the country. In the center of the eye of the hurricane, in the White House situation room, a room bristling with monitors, Richard Clarke, a hero and the President's special counter-terrorism advisor, takes control of the situation.

Throw in a square jaw and steely glare, a couple of heaving bosoms and a bag of popcorn and we're set for the evening. Dick Clarke action figures will no doubt be appearing in toy stores across Germany very soon now.

Despite having a rough month, President Bush's odds are holding up well on the Iowa Electronic Markets and Ideosphere's FX (an idea futures game that doesn't use real money). Glenn Reynolds wonders what information the market participants have that the conventional wisdom does not.

I think we're seeing a difference in focus rather than information. The futures markets focus on the eventual outcome, while day to day jostling drives the conventional wisdom.

If we accept the Feiler Faster Thesis, frequent reversals of fortune are par for the course these days, which means that any one setback is largely irrelevant. Barring an unlikely knockout punch (e.g. the Dean scream), this back-and-forth will continue right up to election day.

The markets have taken that into account, and they're discounting the tactical advances and setbacks as largely irrelevant. Unless a clear longer term trend emerges, they'll continue to reflect the underlying economic reality (pretty good, actually) and projections for the situation in Iraq (which I for one expect to be a lot calmer 6 months from now).

Post-Madrid, this kind of statement is reckless. However Romano Prodi intends it to play, the terrorists will hear a practical invitation to "intervene" bloodily on his behalf in the upcoming Italian elections.

Keep his day job?

It's entirely possible that President Bush just didn't anticipate the negative reaction his "where are the WMD" routine would get from the chattering classes opinion leaders, but it could well be that his detractors are misunderestimating him once again. It sure looks to me like Bush is happy to keep the issue of WMD's alive without really addressing it. Yet.

I have no idea what form it will take, but I suspect there's another rope-a-dope coming. After all, Bush has a long history of suckering his opponents into overcommitting on shaky ground, even if doing so makes his supporters really nervous.

Note: This is not a paranoid conspiracy theory and I don't think anyone is sitting on a hoard of WMD's (or bin Laden) and waiting for the right moment to announce them.

As his critics work themselves into a frenzy, they lower the bar for Bush. Six months ago finding "only" small stockpiles would have been a disaster, two months ago they would have been a victory. Today, finding anything at all would be a triumph.

In fact, his critics have since made so much noise about his "silence" on the issue (and, now, about "not taking it seriously") that a convincing and straightforward explanation of what went wrong (and right) on the subject of WMD's would end up being enough of a win for the President to take the issue off of the table.

Update: Hmmmm.

Update: Dean Esmay thinks there's a rope-a-dope coming on Condoleeza Rice and the 9-11 commission, too.

Update: Donald Sensing wonders too.

Wolfowitz on Clarke, from the Washington Post transcript of Tuesday's 9-11 hearing:

By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark's creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, "When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month," unquote.

In fact, the attempted assassination of President Bush happened two months later.

It just seems to be another instance where Mr. Clarke's memory is playing tricks...

I don't think the administration is covering themselves with glory in this whole process, but apart from his carefully scripted "mea culpa but they-a more culpa" Clarke hasn't been doing any better -- when he isn't actively contradicting himself or making statements that are verifiably false, he's going way out on a speculative limb, based on his memory of intangibles like body language. We have ample reason to suspect his memory is less than 100% reliable.

Perhaps that's not fair. Maybe his memory is just 100% reliably guided by whatever narrative he's settled on at any particular point in time.

You wouldn't get that from most of the press coverage, though. Wolfowitz's comment seemed to me like a pretty solid hit on Clarke's credibility, and the folks in the room seem to have had the same reaction. Here's the next questioner:

LEHMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I hesitate to cite Mr. Clarke as an authority after the last exchange.


(LAUGHTER)

But it seems to have gone completely unreported. I went looking for this snippet because I happened to hear it and was a little surprised (okay, not really) that it didn't even rate a mention amidst the breathless accounts of how "Clarke KO's the Bushies"

.
Update: Here's a clue: Fred Kaplan (the author of the hit piece cited above) and about 15 other well-known journalists have actively helped Kerry refine his message during the campaign. Is it any wonder that "his" media-crafted message finds purchase with the media?

The Daily Stern

Sure, it's fun to wear the mantle of the politically oppressed, especially when you get to do it on hundreds of radio stations in front of millions of listeners.

But if you want to see real political suppression of a Stern, you'll have to go to Brussels, where the Bureau chief for the German news magazine was arrested last week, held incommunicado, and questioned without a lawyer present (all legal under Belgian law). I'm sure that it's the merest coincidence that the Mr. Tillack is best known for reporting on corruption in the EU.

Stern's own article (in German) about the arrest of their Bureau chief is here.

Economic indicators?

We went to a local mall (Bellevue Square) this weekend for the first time since last year, and were stunned to discover how much it has changed.

Last year, store fronts were empty and remaining stores were closing. Parking wasn't a problem, even at Christmas, and the Teddy Bear statue in front of the shuttered FAO Schwartz loomed over empty halls. It was palpably downbeat and a little depressing.

Yesterday, we had to hunt for a parking spot. The sad and looming teddy bear is gone - replaced with a shiny and well-trafficked new "Express" - and the other empty store fronts have all been filled (though some are still under construction). There were a lot more people about than I've seen in a long time.

Anecdotes aren't worth much, but it certainly didn't feel like hard times at the mall this weekend.

One Year Later...

A look at the photo retrospectives out there, one year after the start of the war.

It's... interesting... to compare the photos selected by Iraqi bloggers:

Sarmad

Zeyad

To those chosen by the mainstream media:

Tagesspiegel

International Herald Tribune.

If you come across photo galleries from other sources, please send links and I'll put them up.

If Poland wasn't next on the terrorist hitlist before, it is now.

This is just the wrong time to be saying things like this. Regardless of the merit of the underlying sentiment, this looks like is wavering resolve in the face of terror.

Facing an enemy who now seems to be thinking much more strategically, Poland has just advertised itself as the next weakest link in the chain.

How to train a dog

If he misbehaves, whack him on the snout.

Patiently explain what is expected of him.

If he behaves, give him a treat.

Now we'll see if Zapatero earns his obedience school diploma.

Much as I'd like to see him say "In that case, we'll leave our troops in Iraq," it isn't going to happen. The best thing he can realistically do is point out that he's been talking about pulling out of Iraq during the whole election and the fact that the terrorists got what they want is an unfortunate accident, rather than a direct effect of the bombing.

If he's as dumb as I think, Zapatero will use this letter as yet another excuse to rant about Bush and Blair. If he's even dumber than I think, he'll use it to pat himself on the back for "making Spain safer" or some such, thus strengthening the notion that countries can, and should, accomodate themselves to terror.

Update: The authorities are skeptical of the letter. Maybe Zapatero will just ignore it, which would at least not make things worse.

Threat level Scarlet?!
Tucked in this report about the love threatening letters France is receiving from their Islamist buddies is a tidbit I found amusing:

Berthomet said France had already hiked its security precautions up to "red" level, the highest it could do without unleashing draconian measures in the top "scarlet" level.

What are the other levels? Chartreuse? Puce?

As disappointed as I am about the results of the Spanish election, I think we should cut the Spanish Electorate some slack. A large minority voted for the PP and that the vast majority of the people who voted for Zapatero were already planning to vote do so before the attack. In the end a relatively small portion of the electorate -- perhaps enough to sway the election, but still a small percentage -- were affected by the bombing in one way or another. The number that were actually voting for appeasement or out of fear is unknown (and probably unknowable) but likely rather small.

Every voter takes a personal constellation of priorities into the booth with them, and most votes are a compromise and inherently ambiguous. To label the entire Spanish electorate or population as cowards or appeasers is an unfortunate slur.

To call Jose Luis Zapatero a fool and an appeaser is, on the other hand, completely appropriate.

The election result itself was ambiguous, and had Zapatero just focused on domestic policies until the wounds from the 3-11 attacks weren't so raw, he could have softened the connection between the bombings and changes to Spanish policy. Even if he later chose to remove the troops in Iraq the link to the bombings would have been tenuous enough that some doubt would always have remained.

Instead, Zapatero wasted no time resolving any ambiguity with his short-sighted and disastrous grandstanding. By immediately promising to remove troops from Iraq and very publicly spewing bile at Bush, Blair and Aznar, Zapatero made it crystal clear that he would dance to the terrorists tune and that his victory in the election was a triumph for the murderers who carried out the attacks and for terrorism in general.

The people of Spain did not choose appeasement, but Jose Luis Zapatero did.

Innocent victims around the world will be paying the price for his choice for years to come.

Update: This is what I mean. Don't blame all Spaniards for the folly of a few.

It seems to me that the underreported rest of Kerry's "foreign leaders" quote is actually more damning (though less entertaining) than the part that's getting all the play. The way I read this, John Kerry is openly and actively encouraging foreigners (worse yet, foreign "leaders") to launder donations to the Kerry campaign through expat intermediaries.

From the Opinion Journal:

Kerry: "I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute," a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd.

Having lived in Europe for years I have no doubt that there are plenty of expats who would happily "pass along" donations from locals who want to unseat Bush, but that doesn't make it legal or right.

"Support me, I'm Gullible"
Glenn's suggested slogan for John Kerry ties in nicely with something I've been thinking for the past couple of days.

It's fun to speculate about Kerry's imaginary friend the "World Leader," but to me it's at least as bad if his claims are actually true.

What exactly does Kerry think that world leaders are telling President Bush in their "private conversations"? That they hate him and hope he loses?! I'm sure that any world leader that talks to either of the candidates is schmoozing for all he's worth, just to keep the bases covered (except maybe Zapatero, who seems to be channeling Chavez and who wasn't a leader yet when Kerry made his claim).

Is Senator Kerry naive enough to genuinely accept statements like that at face value, without considering the possibility that he's being schmoozed? Or is he politician enough to know better and just assuming that the American people are dumb enough to blindly accept that sort of assertion?

If he's coming to a "town hall" near you, could you do me a favor and ask him for me? It doesn't look like he'll be in my neck of the woods (greater Seattle) any time soon, or I'd ask him myself.

Slowly coming back to life...
Sorry for the unannounced long hiatus. I had a near-job death experience in June, followed by an intense job search that ended in a great new position that's also a lot more demanding (read: time consuming) than the previous one was. Add a new baby to the mix (she's adorable!), and more than six months of "no time to post" passed in the blink of an eye...

I've been getting that itch again, though, and time is loosening up enough that I should be able to sneak in a few hours here and there.

"Send In Your Dead..."

The Guardian is collecting obituaries of people who died in Iraq for a "Memorial" page. I suggest that anyone who has stories about Saddam's pre-war victims send those in as well so the "memorial" isn't so one-sided.

I spent two hours arguing more-or-less this topic with four Europeans today (Spanish, German, Italian and Ukrainian - there just has to be a joke in there somewhere), and they seem to be constitutionally incapable of considering in any way, shape or form any harm that isn't caused by war. In their world, "Not War" is always better than war, even if "Not War" leads to far more death and suffering or even mass graves full of children.

It's a point of view I find incomprehensible and it was a disheartening experience -- these are genuinely nice, intelligent people who I like a lot, but they have blind spots you could sail an aircraft carrier through. Including Saddam's victims in the Guardian's "memorial" is one small way to make it harder for them to ignore the suffering caused by inaction.