John Cox?

Haven't heard of him?

I hadn't either, until I read an article about him in the Weekly Standard.  The article, titled, "The sane fringe candidate", presents one of the problems with our selection of presidential candidates: to be invited to debates, while being a fringe candidate, one needs to be nutty, like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

John Cox is virtually everything conservatives claim to want in a candidate.  For one thing, he's not Sen McCain, Gov Romney, or Mayor Guilliani.  He supports the war, and has done so from the start, but criticizes the abysmal management of the war.  He opposes the profligate Republican spending and proposes abolishing the IRS and the current Byzantine tax code.  He once ran for office in Illinois proposing to abolish the tax dollar wasting position that he was running for.  He opposes abortion and points to his very existence as the reason: his mother was raped by his father.  Mr. Cox points to the need to control our borders and crack down on businesses that hire illegals, but claims to not be an immigrant basher (so he merely opposes illegal immigration, like most of the rest of us). 

And here is his campaign web site.  Pay close attention to the thumbnail sketches of his views on the issues.

Ordinarily I tend to dislike candidates who announce early.  Elections ought to be held every two years (Presidential elections every four): not held continuously.  That said, even though Mr. Cox announced his candidacy March 2006, I'll have to let it slide.  I'd never heard of him prior to the Labash article in the Weekly Standard.  There's small chance he'll grow stale because there's virtually no chance he'll be nominated. 

Which is a shame.

In property law, one who exercises authority over a piece of property as though it were his, assumes obligations related to the property, and is, effectively, the "owner" of that property for a set period of time, usually 21 years, becomes the legal owner of the property.  For example, two persons own adjacent plots of land.  One person makes an entry to his property on the other's land.  This person puts in a culvert and some class 13 gravel and makes a driveway to his property on the land of the other.  This person pays his property taxes as though the land were his.  This person also excludes the rightful owner from the use of the property, or more likely, the rightful owner does nothing because he has a driveway to his property elsewhere and has no need of that specific piece of land.  After 21 years, the rightful ownership of the property is transferred to the squatter.

That is what the present amnesty bill before Congress does, but with a much shorter statutory period: as few as several months, rather than 21 years.

Persons who enter the country, pay their taxes, and generally behave as though they were legal citizens will be given the right to at least remain the the country under the "z" temporary worker's permit (there's already an unskilled labor temporary worker's visa, why would anyone think that this one will encourage compliance with the law, any more than the existing one does?).  Admonishments to assimilate and learn the language are meaningless, unenforceable red herrings.

If our laws are to mean nothing, why do we have them on the books?

If someone would like to enter the country legally under an agricultural worker's temporary visa, he can already.  This new "z" visa is, at best, redundant, and, at worst, an invitation to enter illegally and exploit those who do enter the country illegally.

To return to the adverse possession bit: if the true owner of the property takes no action to evict the squatter, then the squatter faces no difficulties in assuming control of the land.  Likewise, if we do not control our borders and enforce our laws, then we will forfeit our country to those who seek to take adverse possession of it. 

We need not round up every illegal alien and boot him or her out of the country.  We need merely enforce the laws which make employing illegal aliens a crime and deport those who are captured.  States and jurisdictions which refuse to co-operate with federal law enforcement ought to have their attorneys general arrested and charged with assessory after the fact.  The extent to which States may be "little laboratories" is limited by those areas in which the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to act: citizenship is one of those areas.  Vigorous enforcement of the law will increase the risk and decrease the reward for remaining illegally and many will voluntarily deport themselves.

At least in the 1980s, when the fear was that the Japanese were buying all sorts of real estate, the land was being paid for.

I racked my brain, thinking back to the brief time I spent in law school, trying to come up with the relevant term and decided the term was easement.  It is not.  I was looking forward to a terminal play on words regarding a related issue: easement appeasement (esp. Sudetenland).  "Adverse possession appeasement" does not quite flow off the tongue as well and I am forced to relate the non-sensical joke in italics (or not at all, but I cannot have that).

I remember once waiting five hours for an Amtrak train (not surprisingly, that's the only time I've ventured onto that waste of tax-payer dollars).  I'm proud to say that I did not riot.

Too bad the same cannot be said for some Argentinian commuters.  

For some reason they decided that late trains were an excuse to loot nearby shops, set fire to parts of the railway station (that'll speed things up, no doubt), and clash with riot police.

What, do they think they're unemployed French "youth"?

"The fighting led to cancellation of all train services and threw the rush hour into chaos."

That is, of course, the greatest line of the story.  Just desserts.  Tasty. 

First off, we have the story of a Swedish Lt Commander who passed intel concerning Kosovo to her Serb lover.  And, surprise, surprise, the Serb spy was a UN employee.

"When questioned by MUST [Militära underrättelse- och säkerhetstjänsten, Sweden's military intelligence] late last month, the lieutenant commander said that she didn't realize that she had revealed secret information." 

B.S., but that's to be expected.

Couple things from this bit: the UN remains a haven for the spies of illiberal regimes (liberal regimes tend to regard the UN as a noble ideal, rather than as a tool to be exploited in the war against the West); the honey trap still works; and Serbia is dedicated to undermining the NATO mission in Kosovo.  Regarding the latter, we can expect Serbia to treat Kosovo as Russia treats the former Soviet republics.

The second story is mildly amusing.  The title, "Egyptian charged with nuclear espionage praises Israel at trial", is the first oddity.  I'm not going to lie to you: I'm shocked Israel would want Egyptian nuclear technology.

Apparently Mohammed Sayed Saber is a big fan of Israel.  He is very impressed with Israel's technological advances and states that the information that he passed to Israel was so outdated it was useless.  Mr Saber made a speech defending himself that was rather pro-Israel.  This was unusual, apparently:

"Saber's pro-Israeli speech was so unusual that Judge Mohammed Reda Shwakat, presiding over the three-judge panel at south Cairo state security court, called him from the defendant's cage to the bench where he then questioned him for almost four hours in the presence of three defense lawyers."

(As an aside, the fact that they have a "defendant's cage" is pretty strong evidence that Egypt is an illiberal regime, in case further evidence were needed).

Israel, not surprisingly, denies that Mr Saber was spying for them.

Engineer Chi Mak was found guilty of espionage 10 May 2007.

"Chi Mak, 66, was found guilty of helping provide China unclassified but export-controlled information, including data on a submarine electronic system and a quiet electronic propulsion system planned for future warships".

Discuss amongst yourselves.  (That page, when I first saw it, had an advert from Zango concerning the lovely Jessica Alba and I was unable to do any thinking or discussing myself).

Those Palestinians, aggressively dedicated to Peace, celebrated al Naqba today.

Al Naqba, by the way, means "catastrophe".  Celebrated is not the right word.  Commemorated would be better.

What happened on May 14th?

The establishment of Israel 59 years ago.

Iran takes three more hostages.

Perhaps if the U.S. were willing to stand up for its citizens, its national interest (defined as denying irresponsible regimes access to WMD), or its word, then irresponsible regimes wouldn't feel the need to push us and push us, to see how far they could go.  This is an open invitation for attack.   

I'd go on, but I hate to repeat myself continually.

Must have no compunction about dealing with a terrorist state that threatens to commit genocide.  Must be willing to thumb nose at responsible behavior.  Anti-Americanism a plus. 

Contact: Iranian permanent UN mission, Vienna, Austria.
 
Saw this linked at NRO.  It is an article by the inestimable Claudia Rosett concerning an Iranian advert soliciting bids for two new nuclear power plants.

Oooh.  The UN is obviously highly respected among the mullahs of Tehran.

Does anyone else think that this presents a bit of a problem with the EU-3 engagement policy concerning Iran?

We haven't heard from UBL in roughly five years (and yet the threat has not disappeared...gee).  I am really starting to think that he's hiding in the bottom of a well in Qom with the Twelfth Imam waiting for the Mahdi. 

Now that is some serious sectarian co-operation (assuming it's true): the Wahhabi warrior (terrorist financier is more accurate, but I like the alliteration) and the awaited leader of Twelver Shi'aism waiting together.

The Sheik is not referenced much any longer (except by those on the left and Buchananite right who invoke UBL as a symbol of our defeat--either imminent or already extant) and yet the movement (that predates UBL, incidentally) terrorists on (soldiering on would be rather violently inaccurate).

UBL will recede as a symbol if only the left and the Buchananite right would permit it.  These are people who are able to reference the slaughter of Ali and the sack of Jerusalem as though they happened yesterday: we hardly need provide yet another motivation.  Granted, one more motivation is hardly going to make a whit of difference.

Endgame: al-Banna, al-Wahhab, and their ideological descendants need to be marginalized.  Their failures need to be made evident.  Their inability to provide comfort, either temporally or eternally, needs to be explicated.  This cannot be accomplished if they are seen to be victorious.  People are attracted to strength: they will reject weak ideologies.

Their intellectual descendants need to be pursued as hounds after the hare.  They need to be run to ground and denied refuge (this entails eliminating Iran and Syria--and others--as terrorist havens).  Their milieu must be turned against them so that they find no succor.

Great Britain has only been able to assuage (in the sense of lessen) the troubles of Northern Ireland when the good people of Northern Ireland started to turn against the violence of both the Greens and the Oranges.  (Why didn't I just say lessen, if that was what I'd intended?  I have no idea and very likely no good reason.)

In February 2003, most people I knew thought that Iraq would be a minimum 15 year commitment (we were promised multiple trips to the beach).  We are now at year four and it has proven ugly--apparently uglier than Congressmen and women could ever imagine (one is reminded of Gen. Sherman's axiom: it is good that war is hell, or we should grow to enjoy it).  To create a civil society and a professional military and police--the minimum requirements to depart Iraq without it immediately becoming a haven for terrorists and a client state of various tyrannical terrorist states of the region--is the task of years, not months.

And Iraq is but one segment of the inaccurately named "Global War on Terror". 

We have miles to go before we sleep soundly.  Granted, many of us are able to sleep soundly because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.  God bless them and keep them.  Let us not abandon them, for they will not abandon us.

(The title references where I was going with this).

Luckily fire cannot melt steel, otherwise, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge might be out of service.

Wait...

Nevermind.

Sorry.  I just wanted to be the last sentient being to make that observation.

Well, it's been two months.  Time for me to belabor the painfully obvious yet again.

Ignoring Afghanistan after the withdrawal of Soviet troops created a power vacuum that Pakistan was more than able to fill with the Taliban, which in turn, invited AQ to stay.

Abandoning Somalia ensured a power vacuum there and limited U.S. ability to project power in East Africa and the Red Sea.

The latter allowed the embassy bombings of 1998, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, and weakened our hand against the Sudan.

The former provided the conditions which led to 9/11/01.

Abandoning Iraq will lead to a similar result.

Additionally, at a time when the U.S. is trying to convince such bad actors as Kim and Ahmadinejad to behave, withdrawal would demonstrate weakness, which would make armed conflict with these nations more likely, rather than less.  Perhaps armed conflict is inevitable.  Keeping troops in Iraq will, at least, keep them locally based should an armed conflict become necessary.

One cannot demonstrate strength by tucking tail and running.  At least when we abandoned the South Vietnamese to the communists, there were half a million VC and the NVA, as well as Soviet sponsors.  Now, we've got roughly 10,000 disorganized butchers.

Over at the New Republic, there is an interesting exchange concerning the "lying us into war" canard.  The comments, where the interesting exchanges occur, are in response to an article by Eric Rauchway where Rauchway discusses President Wilson's war against the Bolsheviks.  (An interesting bit: Rauchway suggests that there were valid reasons for the war against the Bolsheviks, and implies the same for Iraq, while at the same time saying that both shouldn't have been waged).

An individual named Robert Powell has, in my opinion, the best end of the debate, but that's only because his opponents don't get bogged down in logical reasoning or consistency.

Powell's first post:

I'm sure it's safe to assume that most of those who call  Seung-Hui Cho  insane do not intend to excuse his behavior, but legally, that is what insanity is.  Insanity is not a psychological determination; it is a legal determination.  It means, usually, either that a person suffered from an "irresistable impulse" or was unable to distinguish right from wrong.   The latter definition, known as the M'Naughten rule (after a famous case in England), is the more common definition.  (Reading through the Virginia Code of Laws to determine what standard Virginia uses I was reminded of why I dropped out of law school.  Also, I failed).

There can be little doubt that Seung-Hui was disturbed--this morning I heard on the radio about his space-traveling imaginary girlfriend (I question the source of the information, however; anyone who could let me know if they've heard this as well, I'd appreciate it; that said, there is more than enough evidence--poetry, scaring classmates, etc--that he was disturbed)--but does it necessarily follow that he did not comprehend right and wrong, or was compelled to commit his heinous acts?

Not a chance.

He knew very well what he was doing and was able to stop: he mailed his manifesto during the two hour break in his murderous rampage.

I hate to pick nits, but language is important.  Seung-Hui was not insane.  He knew what he was doing and did so deliberately and with malice aforethought.  To dismiss him as insane is to diminish his culpability.

(Additionally, I'd say Yates was legally insane to the exact same point that I am a three-legged mule.)

 This is couple weeks old now (I've been away), but this is a potentially disturbing article from JTA.  

A quote: 

"Nevertheless, most Jews in Caracas do not feel that anti-Israel sentiment will provoke physical attacks.

"They're not burning synagogues or persecuting people on the streets, but there is officially sanctioned anti-Semitism," Eppel said. "The Venezuelan people aren't anti-Semitic. This is being directed by a few activists.""

When has this been heard before?

John Derbyshire, the resident "rubble don't make trouble" conservative of the National Review, recently wrote an article discussing "race week".

The dichotomy he discusses regarding racial differences is between folk biology and social science.  This is reminiscent of (and more complex than) the old "nature v nurture" debate: whether one's biology is determinative or whether one's upbringing is.  Note the convenient disregarding of free will as an option.

While studying criminology (years ago) we discussed correlatives of crime: what variables are positively or negatively related (correlated) to criminal offending.  For social factors, poverty and summer are positively correlated with criminal behavior and crimes of violence are primarily intra-racial (whites typically kill whites, et cetera).  For biological factors, being male is positively correlated with criminal behavior, as are lower levels of intelligence and extra chromosomes (XXY or XYY).

Criminological theory allowed for the possibility of free will in criminality, but from strain theory to radical criminology, the study of criminology and criminological theory gave me my deepest contact with unmitigated Marxism within the Criminal Justice field.

The point?  Both social and biological factors play into predicting and understanding criminal behavior, but the person who ignores the impact of "free will" has blindfolded himself. 

To the extent that biological factors play a role, they can only play a role in individual behavior, whereas social factors can be represented in (criminal) sub-cultures, which can be visited across broad spectrums of humanity. 

The make or break point is free will.  One may have all the worst circumstances--IQ of 85 to 90, from a single parent family, living in poverty, from a racial minority, et cetera--but this is not determinative.  People are not predestined to succeed or fail; they may transcend their circumstances, embrace them, or wallow in them, but what a person chooses to do is the determinative factor.

Bill Cosby and Juan Williams discuss this when they talk about the breakdown of the family and the embrace of a culture of victimhood.

(Incidentally, on a tri-partite breakdown of the importance of each of the factors, I think I went 50% free will, 35% social, 15% biological).