"A wire-to-wire victory for the Lakers"
Predictions of the demise of the Lake Show have been greatly exaggerated.

Ahem
The Lakers are spanking the Kings right now. For an online update of the game in progress, go here.

True story?
I received this email forward, and I was wondering if it's true. It's certainly entertaining either way. Check it out:

"A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires.' The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be 'unacceptable fire' and was obligated to pay the claim."

"Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars in the 'fires.' After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!! With his own insurance claim, and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced him to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine."

"This is a true story and was the 1st place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest."

Overlawyered, Instapundit--over to you guys. Is this even possible?

What's the deal
A few days after Pyra announces a major partnership to improve the site is on the horizon, I keep experiencing repeated delays and technical difficulties while trying to post stuff. What's the deal guys?

Kashmir and Kurdistan
A couple posts ago, I referred to the Turkish fear of a Kashmir-like situation developing in the mostly Kurdish region in southeast Turkey if an autonomous Kurdish authority was formed out of northern Iraq. It's not a cut-and-dry comparison, but the basic similarity is that Kashmir is a majority Muslim-populated part of India that borders on an Islamic state (Pakistan) which funds insurgencies and causes India (a multiethnic, multireligious state) a giant headache trying to control. Turkey doesn't want the same thing, the legitimacy of the Kurds' complaints that they got screwed out of their own state way back after WWI aside (there are some 30 million Kurds in the Middle East, all divided between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran). For more information on the Kashmir tensions, check out Joe Katzman's post. He provides tons of links to relevant sources, so go there and be educated.

The important thing to remember is that, just as India fears the loss of Kashmir would be the unravelling of the entire Indian state (see Katzman), so Turkey also has fears that Kurdish autonomy would mean massive destabilizing problems.

By the way, I took a class in college titled "Global Ethnic Politics," taught by the immortal (long may he live!) Dr. Dekmejian, and I can tell you firsthand (well, secondhand actually) that if you think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only major world problem, you've got another thing coming. Northern Ireland is still not fixed, neither are the Balkans.... Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other over the Ngorno-Karabakh (sp.) issue. There's Kashmir, and Sri Lanka has her own infighting problems. Don't forget Chechnya and Cyprus. Last time I checked, the ETA was still blowing stuff up in Madrid over the Basque issue. I won't even touch Africa, because this post would end up going on forever. South America has a few problems of its own, while Mexico has never quite dealt with the Zapatistas' demands. And to top it off, those pasty whities to the north of us--yeah, up there, the Great White North, the Maple Leaf State--keep demanding something called "respect" from her neighbors to the south. Whatever that's aboot, eh?

I hate Islam
If this is true to the teachings of the Quran, then I hate Islam. Read:

"The man Ms. Zafran accused, Jamal Khan, was set free without charges. A case against him would have been a waste of the court's time. Under the laws of zina, four male witnesses, all Muslims and all citizens of upright character, must testify to having seen a rape take place. The testimony of women or non-Muslims is not admissible. The victim's accusation also carries little weight; the only significant testimony she can give is an admission of guilt."

"'The proof is totally impossible,' said Ms. Naz. 'If a woman brings a charge of rape, she puts herself in grave danger.' If, on the other hand, the woman does not report the rape and becomes pregnant out of wedlock, her silence can be taken as proof of guilt."

"It is not only women but also young girls who are at risk, Aurat says. If girls report a rape, they face the same prospects of punishment as women."

"A man can deflect an accusation of rape by claiming that his victim, of any age, consented. If the victim has reached puberty, she is considered to be an adult and is then subject to prosecution for zina. As a result, the Aurat report says, girls as young as 12 or 13 have been convicted of having forbidden sexual relations and have been punished with imprisonment and a public whipping."

This, from the Muslim religious culture that brings us honor killings, female genital mutilation, acid attacks, the burqa (or whatever it's called), and virtual domestic enslavement of women. Sick sick sick sick sick!

I'm sorry, but not all religions are good until proven bad, and even if that's the case, this is all the proof I need.

So why don't we fire anybody?
That is Michael Ledeen's question on the current flap concerning intelligence failures pre-9/11. I have heard Ledeen speak numerous times in person, and each time he's been very clear that we can't pretend we're demanding responsibility from government agents when we're afraid to fire people for incompetence.

Think again
I like Rich Lowry's take on what could be a current anti-Iraq coalition, but I have just one major beef: his inclusion of Turkey.

Yes, reasonable people might think Turkey, a reliable NATO ally and friend of Israel, would be on the anti-Saddam ticket, come hell or high water. Plus, it is vital we have Turkey in the coalition for many reasons--some covered by Lowry, some not. Lowry cites this as proof of why Turkey will want to side with us:

"Turkey should want to secure its southeastern border with a peaceful and prosperous Kurdish autonomous area in Northern Iraq, and with a decent government in Baghdad."

Lowry continues,

"The Turks, meanwhile, continue to pay the price for the economic sanctions on Iraq, which have cut it off from what had been its biggest export-import partner...."

"Joining the coalition will allow Turkey to step up into the (well-deserved) leadership role in the region that the U.S. has in mind for it. An indication of this new role is Turkey's impending takeover of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan."

A few observations:

First, Turkey is a reliable ally and will be with us when we take out Saddam, no question, but she will no doubt push for some concessions. One of them may very well be on the touchy Armenian genocide issue, which is a sometime favorite for Western peacenik activists to harp on and has been a point of friction between Turkey and the European states.

Second, Turkey is in fact scared to death of Kurdish autonomy; she fears above all else that if the Kurds gain autonomy in Iraq, that the ethnic group will demand greater autonomy within Turkey's borders, too. This may not seem a big deal, but think Kashmir and you have an idea of what the Turks are afraid might happen. (Incidentally, Iran is also afraid of this because she, too, as a sizable Kurdish population.)

Third, although Turkey is Muslim, it is not Arab, and the Arabs and Turks have a long history of enmity going back to the days of the Ottoman Empire (the Turks think Arabs are backward, and the Arabs think the Turks are bad Muslims--among other things). So, any talk of Turkey as a token Muslim country to appease surrounding Arab countries (and Iran) who aren't too thrilled with the idea of the US taking over Iraq is foolishness.

Finally, even though Turkey has had its problems with Saddam, it has been more than willing to trade with him. Iraq and Turkey were strong trading partners before the sanctions, and they still do a lot of dealing under the table now.

In sum, getting Turkey on board--well, it will definitely happen sooner or later, but expect a lot of negotiations and eventually some key concessions on the part of Bush. Turkey is not quite Britain yet; she'll expect some quid pro quo.

Great legal coverage
I applaud Roger Clegg's coverage of the Sixth Circuit's decision on racial preferences, and what the future holds for further litigation/appeals on that case. The Bush administration will have to step up to bat soon on affirmative action and take one side or the other.

[Picking myself up off the floor]
Sorry about that--I was knocked unconscious reading this NY Times editorial. I mean, how often do I agree with Times editorials? Um, just about never. The money shot (yes I am aware of the porn entendre there):

"Until someone produces evidence that the Bush administration received and ignored information pointing directly to the suicide hijackings, the country will have to live with the much messier and no less disturbing fact that the government as a whole dropped the ball and even now is not doing nearly enough to ensure that it doesn't happen again."

Daschle, Gephardt, McCain, Lieberman, Leahy--are you guys listening? Brendan, are you?

Oops
Sometimes in life, there are no second chances.

The real worrisome conflict
No, it's not in the Middle East, and it has nothing to do with Jews or holy sites. I'm talking about Kashmir, which, if it interrupts into a full-scale war, could lead to a nuclear showdown between India and Pakistan.

Bush was prepared
To defend the president, the White House now has released new information that Bush was in the midst of approving a plan to go after bin Laden before September 11.

Hey Clinton, where were you on that one huh?

Reader response
My friend Brendan writes in to chide me for my illegitimate ire over the Democrats' "partisan maneuver:

"Of *course* it's a partisan maneuver on the part of the Democrats... but it's no less 'sick' or partisan than those ads the GOP ran a while back in South Dakota and other key states, surrounding Bush with American flags and firefighters and condemning those gosh-darn obstructionist Democrats for supporting Al Qaed....uh....I mean, opposing Bush's DOMESTIC policies. Ah yes. Not to mention the sale of that Sept. 11 photograph as a party fundraising tool, and various other incidents where the Bush Administration has blatantly used the war on terrorism for partisan, political gain. Both types of partisanship are equally cynical. The last time I raised this point, you said I was being a sore loser, that the Democrats were just saying 'boo hoo' because their opponent is so damn popular, and is using his popularity against them. Well, by that logic, you're just being a crybaby now. 'Don't attack my popular president! He is unassailable!' Sorry. I *wish* there was a moral high ground on this point, but there isn't. The Republicans sacrificed it months and months ago."

I see a big difference between the GOP using the Bush ads in South Dakota and what the Dems are doing now.

There was nothing inherently nonfactual about those ads; they may have used patriotic imagery to capitalize on Bush's popularity, but the message was nevertheless accurate that the Democrats were obstructing Bush's agenda. This is becoming especially the case with his judicial nominees, to an unprecedented degree. And what is wrong with the Bush picture? I think that's much ado about nothing. I mean, what if the picture was taken September 10 and Bush was actually saying into the telephone, "Look, I want a Large, with pepperoni and sausage, and it better be hot and ready when I get there, got it?!? No Dick, you can't have any, you have that heart condition! Alright, well I'll tell Rummy that two slices are reserved for Condi. Okay, bye Karl." The image is still of the president talking into the phone--it's not one of him standing with firefighters at Ground Zero (and that wouldn't bother me either, but at least then I'd say you have a case).

The Democrats latest demagoguery though is ridiculous because it's pure posturing, as they are misconstruing the facts to make themselves appear righteously indignant. As we found out yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee got the same report and saw the same information that Bush did, and both the Dems and the Republicans on the committee said, "Gee, this isn't really helpful, and we can't really do anything with this info. I mean, what are we going to do, shut down the entire aviation system because Al Qaeda might be planning a hijacking? Still, thanks for sharing." For the Democrats to now act like they've been betrayed and kept in the dark is hokey baloney.

I would have no problem with the Democrats trying to assail Bush's popularity by running ads attacking his handling of the war or other issues, but when you are making shit up or pretending you didn't know something that you already did, then I get peeved.

Mr. Loy continues,

“None of which means that I like this current controversy. It's mostly bull. The only legitimate question I see is, why didn't the Bush Administration talk about this warning a long time ago, without a CBS News scoop and a Clintonesque dragged-kicking-and-screaming sort of admission? It all would have seemed far less sleazy if Condy or Karen Hughes or somebody had said something about what they knew on Sept. 11 or 12... or Sept. 21, or Oct. 30, or Dec. 31 even!! Whenever!! But May 16? A major P.R. blunder. The press will *always* jump on a story (whether the target is a liberal or a conservative) if it has even the slightest whiff of a cover-up.”

It might have been a slight PR blunder, but I don't think the White House counted on the Democrats pretending that they didn't know what the report said when they were briefed on the same information around the same time that Bush was. And obviously, this information barely even newsworthy--once you see all the details and read them in context. Hence, if the White House legitimately saw no reason to warn the public before 9/11, and furthermore had no preference one way or the other on when to release the documents, which is why it took so long to come out.

Incidentally, I don't blame the press for making a big flap out of this because for one, that's there job, and two, they didn't know, so to them it was a big deal. The rest is just Democratic manipulation of the press to paint the president in a bad light.

A while later, Brendan sends me this qualification:

"I disagree with the level of implied indignation over all this. But I don't disagree with the idea of having a Congressional investigation. Isn't it Congress's job to investigate things, to find out what works and what doesn't, to deal with matters of grave importance to the nation, just like this? I realize that in the post-Sept. 11 world, it's tempting to say, 'Oh, we don't need to investigate this -- Rummy and Condy said it's okay, so it must be okay.' But I don't buy it, and I don't think you would have bought it under the Clinton Administration. Congress *should* investigate -- in an even-handed, reasonable way -- to find out what was known, by whom, when, to find out what improvements could and should be made."

A Congressional investigation wouldn't bother me if it happened like this: Daschle and Lott announce that the American people are demanding that Congress look into it; Congress investigates; Congress determines that the information wasn't much helpful at the time and was not worthy of a public notification; Congress reveals that its own intelligence committees were briefed on the information back in August; Congress closes the investigation by concluding the president did nothing wrong. Cut out the posturing, cut out the righteous indignation, and Congress is doing its job. But when Daschle, Gephardt, et al stand in front of the cameras and announce with superfluous sanctimony, "What did the president know, when did he know it, and why didn't he tell us and the American people about it? Tsk Tsk!", that just pisses me off.

Breaking news!
Congressional Republicans are launching an investigation into why the Democrats are not asking for a Congressional investigation concerning a 1999 report that revealed suicide terrorists may try to hijack planes and crash them into federal buildings!

Oh wait, I was dreaming there for a second...nevermind.

Good advice for graduates...sorta
My commencement speech was good (David Halberstam spoke), but Dave Shiflett's is even better.

It used to be called New Amsterdam ya know
The comparison between Fortuyn and Giuliani is an interesting one:

"Rudolph Giuliani was a social liberal but a reformist, law-and-order Republican for whom many New York Democrats voted because they were sick and tired of the urban, welfare liberalism that had turned their city into a dirty, crime-ridden, ungovernable mess. Quality-of-life issues mattered more to them than Giuliani's personality or party affiliation. He delivered, and he was reelected in a landslide. What few traditional conservatives there are in the city may not have approved of Giuliani's adultery, his pro-gay views, and his pro-abortion policies, but Giuliani was making New York a safe place to live one's life, which is what ultimately mattered."

"So: If I were living in Holland, and I paid 50 percent of my income in taxes, welfare abuse was rampant, large parts of the cities were turning into "no-go" zones ruled by immigrant Islamic gangs, at a time when Muslim radicals worldwide were making war on the West — and it was unofficially forbidden to discuss this in public — you'd better believe I would vote for the only candidate who stood alone against these things. Wouldn't you?"

Yes actually, but mostly because I can't stand leaving the elephant in the room untouched, and I'll throw my support behind the first person who will bring up the subject, even if I disagree with him on lots of other issues. That's why I'm such a fan of guys like Matt Welch and Andrew Sullivan--because in certain areas, they get it, and I'm right there with them.

On a related note, I saw this quote somewhere (I forget the author, so somebody can email me and remind me): "I can always recognize a well-informed man because he has the same opinions as me."

Late-night feline entertainment
I don't know why my cats choose to get all feisty and playful at 4:30 in the morning, but it sure is fun to watch them antagonize each other.

Useful but tardy
I could have used this information back when I was a teenager looking for excuses to goof off. Something tells me the adolescent in me will rear it's playful, immature head real soon and I'll end up doing this Ninja stuff at a party--much to the dismay/amusement (take your pick) of whoever I am with.

Preach the Word--Lego style!
One wiseguy has found a unique way to illustrate the Gospel and other biblical stories using Legos. For those of you not amused by Bible stories reconstructed in little plastic pieces, there are some other great Lego sites. Check out Lego Death and this site, where you can fashion your own Lego humanoid to look just like you (or as close to you as is possible with pictures of plastic in cyberspace).