Rep. James Moran (D-Riyadh, well, actually Virginia, I'm ashamed to say), made some comments at an anti-war rally the other day to the effect that Jewish leaders were dragging the country into the war, and could stop it if they wanted to.

Didn't Moran (how does he pronounce his last name?) head up the Democratic House Campaign Committee recently?

All right, two mitigating circumstances. First, he was targeting his answer. The woman asking the question was Jewish, so he was speaking to her. Jews need to take responsibility for the positions of their community leaders, just like blacks need to find someone other than Sharpton and Jackson to speak for them. Secondly, Moran's daughter is converting to Judaism to get married. So the man's not an anti-Semite, although I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the next family dinner at that household.

Still, he didn't preface his remarks with anything conciliatory, like, "look, if you oppose the war, fine, and you need to go to your community and political leaders, your pressure groups and PACs, and get them to make it in issue." He just rattled off, as though he were on a Sunday morning talk show, that Jewish leaders were pushing Bush into this thing.

I think this is easily as irresponsible as whatever Trent Lott said. And the fact that he was even able to formulate this sentence in public is a sign of these ideas becoming common currency in respectable public debate.

It's an indirect result of the Democratic party refusing to purge its ranks of avowed anti-Semites, or, indeed, do anything that might smack of looking past the next election cycle to the actual national interest.

This aside from the fact that an important US Representative was speaking at a meeting whose avowed purpose was the undermining of US foreign policy on the brink of war.

In today's Washington Post, Anne-Marie Slaughter has an analysis of the UN that only an academic attorney could love. Her essential point is that the UN was hijacked by the Cold War and that now, with the return of "normal" foreign relations, the Security Council and the UN are behaving as intended, in a multi-polar world. God forbid that she's right.

She argues that "what is striking...is just how relevant the United Nations has become." And then goes on to argue that this will be true even if it turns out to be irrelevant in this conflict with Iraq. Well, only if we let it. She fails to realize that, without actual military force to back it up, the UN's only authority is moral, and it only has what moral authority that we choose to invest in it.

We read that:

The United Nations, by contrast, was built on a foundation of realism. In the spirit of the League, all nations were to be represented and to have an equal vote in the General Assembly, but the U.N. Security Council was designed to reflect the realities of power -- that is, the power structure as it stood in 1945. The United States, Britain, France, China and the Soviet Union would agree to join an institution with teeth only if they could prevent it from acting against their interests. Hence, each was given a veto. On the positive side, the vote of a majority of the 15-member Security Council, absent a veto, was deemed to express the will of the international community sufficiently to establish the existence of a threat to international security and to authorize the use of force in response.

The founders may have thought they were being realistic compares to the Wilson. But it's hard to argue that France was of major importance in the "power structure" in 1945. Ravaged by war, having folded like tin foil, in possession of a colonial empire yearning to breathe, well, not in French, anyway, France was given a permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the fiction that they were part of the power structure. Likewise, I'm not quite sure I understand the presence of China as a permanent member at that point, either, unless it was with an eye to the future. The Japanese still occupied parts of the country, some controlled by the Communists, some controlled by the Nationalists. For years, we were taught in school that the Five Permanent Members were also the five nuclear powers, but this was only true after China exploded their bomb, and ceased being true when Israel developed hers.

The second sentence is the most telling. They would only join an organization that could be counted on not to cut too close to the quick for any of them. The Soviets got caught out when the Council okayed using its flag to defend South Korea. But she rightly places the blame for the initial polarization on the Soviets' use of the veto to prevent the Council from going after it.
But a nation defines its own interests, and the French and Russians have defined it to be in their interest to oppose the US over Iraq, and to protect Saddam Hussein. How this differs from the Cold War dynamic is anyone's guess.

In fact, the UN is not rising to a threat to civilization, it's ignoring one. It only gains relevance if we decide to let it dictate that we should do the same.

Last night, we attended the Colorado Symphony with some friends of ours. The program consisted of a suprisingly unoffensive Richard Strauss serenade, an unsurprisngly grating Strauss tone-poem, and Beethoven's 5th. The Strauss tone-poem was his Don Quixote, and we all agreed that we would rather have heard selections from Man of La Mancha. But the real concert was Ludwig.

While I spend a lot of time listening to classical music, I'm not traditionally a big symphony goer, figuring that it's primarily a listening, rather than a visual, experience. But seeing a symphony performed really is a different experience from hearing it on a CD. For one thing, the sound from different sections attracts your attention. While on TV, the camera does the work for you, at the hall, you get to swing round, seeing a physical interplay among the sections. I hadn't realized how much time the cellos spend carrying the main theme, or how much it was batted back and forth between the violins and the cellos. The fact that the oboe, who interrupts the storm for a moment of calm solo work, is placed spot-between the two sections also seems symbolic.

The opening 4 notes are a cliche, but the whole movement is phenomenal, and that rhythm repeats through all four movements, something I hadn't noticed before. And the oboe gets a little solo cadenza in each of the four movements, something that is also more apparent in concert than on CD.

The guest conductor, a hyper man named En Shao, pushed the tempo along at a gallop, which was a little new to me. Tempos seem to vary not only from conductor to conductor, but also from era to era. There was a time when the last of the first four notes would have been allowed to decay away before starting up. Here, it barely got played before the piece was off an running. I've also heard recordings from the 30s and 50s where the tempo within a movement was related to the volume - louder parts got played faster. I don't know what any of this means, except that we're probably not hearing whatever it was that Beethoven debuted.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 today against using RICO to punish political groups for political activities, sort of. The Court ruled that aggressive anti-abortion protests didn't "obtain property" for themselves, so they weren't extorting anythng when they got out of hand. This is excellent news, overturning another piece of the wretched Reno legacy. Now if we can only get Elian back...

The Court's lone dissenter was...John Paul Stevens, ever willing to put personal preference over the law.

The Court may or may not have had to be technical in this decision - I'm not certain what arguments were put forth before it. But the purpose of the law was to convict criminal conpiracies, specifically mafia-type operations, not political protesters, no matter what the criminal effect of their activities. If individuals assaulted women trying to enter clinics, they should be tried for that, but to shut down an entire political movement because of that, and no other, was to try to place a specific political issue beyond the realm of discussion. It was political correctness given the force of law, and it was wrong.

It's worth noting the specific application of this law as the Clintons grasped for a means to make political opposition on this issue illegal. Violence has dogged anti-war,anti-IMF, anti-World Bank protests for years, well back into the Clinton era, but it was never, never suggested that International Not The ANSWER, or any of the other organizing bodies, should face RICO prosecution for their routine property damage and assaults on the police. Thank goodness we elected an administration that elected to refrain from this sort of abuse altogether rather than try to turn it on its enemies.

This is an old lesson, and one that the Democrats seem to have forgotten - the distinction between ends and means, and the notion than if you make certain means legitimate, they will, not maybe, but certainly, eventually be turned against you, so better not to bring them into polite society in the first place. I've been reading Bruce Catton & William Catton's fine history of the colonial and early national era, The Bold and Magnificent Dream. They note that when the Puritans in England seized power and killed the King, they offered all sorts of help to the Massachusetts Puritans. The colonials turned them down, realizing that one day, the Cavaliers would be back in power, and they didn't want to be punished then. Indeed, when Charles II and William III did turn their attention to the colonies, they rewarded their friends with land grants, but notably avoided punishing the Puritan colonies.

The Denver City Council voted 7-3 last night for a resolution opposing war with Saddam. The thing is a laundry list of nonsense arguments and half-truths. It is a harvest of self-contradiction.

It actually cites an opinion poll as the basis for support.

It notes, without irony, that Iraqi citizens (especially, of course, "the children," who don't vote here, either, see the Constitution) have no control over the actions of their government. Um, isn't that the point? Of course, they don't have any control - the country's a dictatorship. The resolution explicity supports keeping a dictator in power.

It cites the cost of going to war; no mention, naturally, of the cost of further attacks.

It repeats the nonsense of a "unilateral war," and holds Gulf War I up as the gold standard for a coalition. I could list the countries on our side, but you already know them.

We should lead by example, not emulation of our enemies? Who, exactly, are we expecting to follow this example? They admit that our enemies are everything they say we are: bellicose, warlike, dangerous, lawless, and, ahem, "unilateral."

It calls for a vote of Congress, while admitting that they've already debated and voted. Evidently, they didn't like the vote the first time.

Nobody outside the loop even knew this thing was coming up for debate before 6:00 last night. If they're so eager for "full public debate," why did this need to be scheduled in secret?
Good Grief! Even Charlie Brown abstained. This wasn't "grass-roots democracy at work," as one activist-without-a-life put it. It was the hijacking of a public body for purposes well beyond its charter.

The only thing I'm sorry about is that only two of the supporters of this monstrosity are up for re-election, the others having been term-limited out of office. And one of them is running unopposed. The other is in a seat so safe you need to be registered Democrat to be drawn into the district.

posted by Joshua |  permalink | 6:50 PM | |

In another legal development, the Rocky reports that, under very limited circumstances, juries in criminal cases will be allowed to ask questions of witnesses. They already could in civil cases. This is not as radical a development as I had thought. Evidently, most states allow questions in civil cases, but the article only lists Arizona as allowing juror questions in cirminal trials.

The DAs seem to be in favor, the defense attorneys against. The reports seems to undermine defense fears that juries will talk themselves into a conviction. First of all, most juries, from people I've talked to, take their work seriously. If they don't habitually get wedded to their own theories in the deliberation room, why would they do so just because they can ask written, judge-approved questions in court? Secondly, the jurors in some high-profile cases that were quoted seem to display an appropriate respect for the ability of the attorneys to present the evidence. I doubt they're going to jump in and start advocating openly there in court, unless one side has a major problem with its case. On the whole, this seems like a positive development.

The article did mention that most juries in the 35 states that allow questions in civil trials don't know they're allowed to ask questions. This needs to be remedied. Juries need to be informed clearly of this fact, and the procedural rules surrounding it, as the trial starts. This isn't a question of telling them about "jury nullification," controversial about 10 years back. The attorneys probably hate it, and most judges probably are suspicious of it. But the legal system, after all, is for us, not them.

The Denver Post carries some very cheerful news this morning about the Colorado Senate and concealed-carry permits. The lead and second paragraph, in what the editor and reporter no doubt think is cute repartee, liken to debate to an old-west shootout, conjuring up images of inert bodies. But once we get to the actual facts, the news is good indeed.

The Senate passed a shall-issue law, and rescinded the rights of local communities to defy it. These are two separate bills, and the governor may or may not sign them. This may seem unfair to Minturn and Vail, but it's really intended to prevent Denver and Aurora from setting up another barrier. The thing died last year in the Senate, when the Democrats controlled the chamber, but the party leadership supported the bill. This year, the Republicans, with an 18-17 majority, were able to pass it, 18-16, despite two defections. That means that two Democrats also crossed party lines, but they aren't named in the article.

It's also possible that we here in Denver have started something, or, at least, have given heart to those elsewhere in the US who want to silent majority to speak up. While the International (Doesn't Have an) ANSWER is marching in DC, the DC Chapter of FreeRepublic.Com is organizing a counter-demonstration at the Sylvan Theatre.

This Saturday, both Houston and San Antonio ware planning Rallies for America, and on Sunday, Tulsa, Oklahoma is planning one, as well. Thanks to reader Cory Skluzak for pointing these out to me.

Meanwhile, the Denver Post is following the United story carefully, and the pilots seem ready to prove again why unions shouldn't run businesses. UAL wants to start a lower-cost regional carrier, something that's worked well for the other airlines, and which may allow them to compete with the Frontiers and the ATAs of the world. Naturally - the pilot's union, which is responsible for much of the lopsided labor structure to begin with - opposes it. Most pilots I know love to fly, but somehow, I don't think they're going to be able to afford their own 737s, even when they go on the auction block.

The Washington Post has two interesting articles on Democratic strategy and policy for the 2004 campaign, and Republicans should be encouraged by them both. First, the Democrats plan to spend the next two years attacking the President's credibility. This worked so well for the Republicans against Clinton, ahem, I'm surprised they didn't come up with it sooner. The fact is, people trust the President, have bonded with him, and don't care about te policy details and compromises that every leader has to make. They consider him a man of principle, which he is, and watching people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Tom Daschle try to sound like to soul of credibility for the next two years should be entertaining.

The second was about one of the candidate beauty contests that they go through, trying to appeal to the rank-and-file. The gist of it seemed to be that the anti-war message is likely to be popular among party activists, and may propel one of the second-tier candidates into the first-tier. There's nothing wrong with his analysis as far as it goes, but I don't think it goes nearly far enough.

A longer-term analysis, based on the notion of a short war, happening soon, would look somewhat different. First of all, I'm not sure about the reporter's claim that there is "hardening opposition to a military strike among the party rank-and-file," unless it's a different Party he's talking about. In the polls, even most Democrats support the President on this one, and if it helps a candidate in the early going, he's still going to have to face the voters as a whole. Secondly, anyone who has opposed the war, or is now apologizing for having voted for it (as the Senatorial Presidential candidates seem to be doing), is going to look damn foolish when this thing is over. They'll still be able to carp about the cost of the occupation, but I don't think they'll be able to complain about the war's popularity in Iraq, Iran, or anyplace else we care about. Iraq, properly handled, shouldn't be any more of a quagmire than Afghanistan, and the anti-war candidates will have to look elsewhere for support in a couple of months.

One of my favorite movies, Defending Your Life, was on last night. It stars the fabulous Meryl Streep, and the then-brilliant Albert Brooks. (I saw the trailer for Brooks's newest film, co-starring Michael Douglas, Saturday night, and I'm a little concerned he's turning into a parody of himself. He was never a nebbish; he was always a guy just a little out of his depth.) The whole overcoming fear part of it is terrific, although the metaphysics aren't as neatly worked out as one might think. Still, the basic premise is workable, and the notion that we spend a lifetime trying to work ourselves out of harmful patterns into healthy ones is refreshingly presented. Rent it.

The Washington Post is reporting that Has Blix may ask for a deadline for the destruction of those Iraqi missiles. I think the Post's emphasis on the missiles and a proximate causus belli is misguided. The Administration hasn't looked for anything that specific to hang its hat on so far, and it is unlikely to start doing so now. The bill of indictment against Hussein is far broader than a few missiles.

On the other hand, if an excessive focus on those missiles is allowed to develop, it could be the next thing that drags out this mess. The wait for war is dragging the markets and the economy, and is far more wearying than actual fighting of the same duration would have been. The Bush people are smart tacticians, and even strategists, but sometimes they don't seem to have a handle on the psychological effects of their policies on Americans.

Good News! In the battle for public opinion, Israel is winning, reports Gallup. What's intersting is the Israel vs. Palestinian sympathies. The Palestinians never get very high - despite all the ups and downs, they've barely budged. All the variation is between the pro-Israel feeling and the don't care. And the don't care seems to get a boost under two circumstance: nothing happens for a while, and Israel seems weak. After all, if you're not willing to stand up for yourselves, why should we stand up for you? But when there's a real threat, the Americans swing round to the side of justice and honor.

It also points out just how out of touch academia and the mainstream media are from the US as a whole.

The Rocky is reporting that Sports Authority and local Gart Sports are going to merge in a stock-swap. The combined Sports Authority will be headquartered in Englewood, just south of Denver. The deal valued the companies equally, which is about right, according to the closing market cap.

This is of some interest to the Jewish community, since the Gart family has historically been both active and generous. While control of the company passed from their hands some time ago, I'm sure they retained some substantial level of influence. One hopes that this continues.

Some good news: it looks like the travelling and somewhat adventurous public will be able to see Yellowstone by Winter, after all. Bloomberg News is reporting that the administration is set to allow cleaner snowmobiles, and fewer of them, but the Park wil stay open to those who aren't Olympic-quality athletes.

Three years ago, I went to Yellowstone in January, and it was a sight. The thermal features were a bit of a disappointment, since they had so much more steam, but the wildlife was abundant, and the Buffalo didn't seem to mind the snowmobiles at all. Maybe because they outweighed us all combined.

Another note about the consular offices. Denver's are listed on the http://www.denvergov.org website (don't ask me why it's .org and not denver.gov). At the bottom, there are a number of options for foreign-language translations of the site. For some reason, "Simplified Chinese" is flying the ChiCom flag, and "Traditional Chinese" is flying the flag of Taiwan. What's up with that?

France has trade consular offices all over the country. There's one here in downtown Denver. Why aren't these offices ripe targets for protest. We can make it clear that we're not against foreign trade, just boycotting the French. We have steadfast allies, starting with Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, you know, the rest of Europe and the Anglosphere. We could send them bouquets at the same time we're outside demonstrating against the Cheese.

The President gave a fine speech this morning at a Georgia High School, carried live on Fox News. It was mostly about the economic plan and tax cut plan, and it showed a fine understanding of basic business and economics, and the importance of sound tax policy. He spelled out very nicely why his plan isn't for "the rich," and why it affects business decisions we all make. It was clear, precise, sound, and easy to understand. Almost the sort of thing you would expect from a Harvard MBA.

Also, he lavished praise on Zell Miller, and, if I heard him correctly, said that Sen. Miller would be introducing his tax plan in the Senate. Tom Daschle must be having a fit.

But one of my favorite lines was about the impending war. Quoth the President: "Freedom is not America's gift to the world - it's God's gift to humanity."

I've mentioned before this notion of business "stakeholders," which is au courant in business schools now. Today, the finance professor discussed why the principle of maximizing shareholder wealth is a misunderstood and misapplied concept among those who deride it. God, it's nice to be studying with people who understand economics as well as business.

Voluntary stakeholders include customers, suppliers, employees, debt holders, and shareholders. Involuntary stakeholders include the Government and the Community, meaning anyone who is affected by company decisions. The Government will certainly take care of itself. Among voluntary stakeholders, every one of them is in line before the shareholders, and our obligations to them are more or less fixed. Customers should get a safe product that they want at a fair price. Suppliers should get paid on time. Employees should get paid what we agree when we agree. (We're talking about financial costs here, not the other responsibilities that people have towards each other.) And debt holders want their interest and their principal.

The community is the squishy one. We're all familiar with basic torts involved: don't poison my water and make sure your pizza delivery guys know where the brakes are. But obligations may go beyond that, may not be strictly reciprocal, and may eventually be enshrined in law rather than in ethics or morals. Thus, could "community" be a trojan horse for socialist ideas, spirited into our bastions of free enterprise and innovation - our business schools.

My hope is, naturally, that this doesn't happen. Instead, it's entirely possible that this will promote a more rigorous intellectual debate, forcing proponents on each side to sharpen and clarify their ideas before selling them to a public or to the legislatures. Appropriate suggestions for corporate responsibility may make it through, while the wacky ones get rejected. My sense is that most (but not all) business school students are politically conservative, or classically liberal, and want to preserve their own freedom to act once they get out. Much like the American public as a whole, which doesn't like class warfare since they see themselves as the future rich.

According to Fox News, Hollywood is counting on your inability to distinguish between fact and fantasy. Martin Sheen is filiming a TV commercial for Win Without War, a group of actors who want you to call Washington on the 26th, deluge the phone lines, and effect an old-fashioned denial-of-service attack on their telephones. Fortunately, the people with the Win Without War website have more sense.

For our MBA, we need to take a career development and leadership class. While the career development part is geared more to the day students, the leadership part is interesting, and even useful. For class, we needed to present a profile of a leader of our choice. I chose George Washington. To anyone who thinks they know this guy, I would highly recommend Richard Brookheiser's Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington.

The guy who followed me picked, I'm not making this up, Jimmah Carter. Of course, he focused primarily on his post-presidency, there not being much to grab onto before that. It was interesting to see the list of conflicts into which Carter has stumbled, as published by the Carter Center. Virtually none of them has actually been resolved, and yet this has done nothing to damage either Jimmah's faith, or that of his followers, in negotiation as the best means of international conflict resolution. It may be fine for border disputes that stand on their own, or fishing rights. But the guy's been to Venezuela, what, 3 times?

The International House here is having an "informational" dinner this Sunday. It's about three "countries." Lebanon, which is being less Finlandized than anschlussed by Syria. Saudi Arabia, which, in George Will's words, "isn't so much a country as a family with a flag," and something called "Palestine," which is recognized by no civilized government and appears on no US maps. Now, guess what kind of information they're going to present.

The left always talks about how the Iraqi people will suffer in a war. I saw Stephen Ambrose speak here in Denver, shortly before he died, plugging his then-newest book, The Wild Blue. It's about the less-glamorous B-17 crews in WWII, in particular, one brave pilot and commander, George McGovern. McGovern used to get asked if he regretted any of the bombs he dropped, and he said no, he didn't, given the cause, except for one. The bomb bay door had gotten stuck during a run over Austria, and since you can't land the plane that way, they had to release the thing wherever they could. It was just about noon, when he heard that the bomb was away, and looked down to see it strike a farmhouse. McGovern was from South Dakota, and knew just whan farm families do around noon. He always said that if he could have one back, that would be it.

Flash forward about 40 years, and McGovern is in Europe as a guest on a radio talk show. He tells that story, and then takes a call. It turns out that it's from someone who, given the time and location, figured it was his farmhouse that got hit by that bomb. They heard it coming, were able to get out of the house, and while it was destroyed, everyone had lived. Here's what he told the man who destroyed his family home: he said that if the loss of his house had ended the war one day, or one hour, or one minute sooner, then it was worth it.

Now, why would anyone think that the Iraqis would react differently? "End Racism," indeed.

Maybe Bush is looking to face down the French, the America-hating left, and the Iraqis all at once. Today's Washington Post is reporting that he's going to wait two more weeks before going to war. On Feb. 28, Inspector Clouseau, er, Blix, reports to the UN again, giving the French another chance to rail against the world, and on March 1, International (not the) ANSWER is planning a protest rally in Lafayette Park (if it's still open) across from the White House. If, in the absence of another resolution, and in the face of another set of street demos, the President goes ahead and sends in the troops, it should douse all three enemies at once. But it's a big gamble.

I'm afraid that the President, by allowing this to go on months more than necessary, has made a tactical error that could grow, in time, into a strategic one. He's allowed a misguided left to coalesce and seem more powerful than it is. It's not that they're changing anyone's mind. But they're "rallying their base," and eventually will end up with some issue where they have a majority.

Normally, in the weeks leading up to, say, a Congressional vote, the nerves get frayed, the voices shriller, the rhetoric nastier. Then there's a vote, someone wins, and says it's time to move on, someone loses, calls a press conference and vows to fight on, but knows that this battle is over. There's an element of that in this travelling freak show that ANSWER has put together. But I'm not sure, ad hoc as they are, that they're going to go away after the war's over. And if Saddam has more surprises up his sleeve, Bush has cut our margin for error dangerously close.

You know, we've seen something like this before. Remember the way the campaign reacted to the last-minute DUI revelation. It almost cost Bush the election, since he didn't react quickly. "Best laid plans" and all that, still have to be flexible enough to deal with the unexpected. I hope we're not seeing the same thing at work here politically and diplomatically, and I certainly hope that kind of thinking hasn't trickled down to our military planning. "Battle plans never survive first contact with the enemy."

CNN quotes a Reuters report about the financial effect of global climate change on businesses. Sort of. Like most global warming stories, it's really about politics. And what isn't about politics is about bad science, and bad statistics.

The report claims that agriculture and tourism are vulnerable to increasingly violent weather, and that weather-related insurance claims are doubling every 10 years. Countries are preparing to implement new regulations. But businesses can, by changing their practices, make sure that we don't all drown, or fry, or freeze. Put together, this looks pretty imposing. Investors should be worried. But it pulls apart easily.

First of all, legislation is not, strictly speaking, a matter of global warming. It's a matter of policy, which may or may not have anything to do with reality. In fact, the science doesn't support any sort of radical legislation, and the costs here are almost completely divorced from the reality of climate change.

But even leaving aside the notion that our activities here have something to do with climate change, there are enough logical disconnects to power the average left-wing op-ed, or freshman term paper. The one hard statistic, not projected into the future, is about the doubling of weather-related claims. How long have they followed the trend? How much is a result of stricter building codes, economic development, or the movement into previously uninhabited areas? They either don't know, or they're not saying.

It's been notes elsewhere that "increasingly violent weather" may also be a part of a natural cycle, having nothing to do with climate change, and that agriculture stands to benefit, if it adapts to longer growing seasons. That last point contains a more subtle objection to the Reuters article, and the mindset behind it, poised to produce bad laws. The successful businesses, the ones that investors should be looking for, are not those that adapt by being more "green." As an investor, I look for a business that can adapt to these changes. So I'd look for an agricultural company that can grow warmer-weather crops, or one that's buying up large swaths of Alberta. I would look for a tourism company that's figured out how to market mountain resorts with a shorter ski season, and so forth. What companies use the by-products of these crops?

A successful business isn't necessarily one that adapts to the legislative climate alone.

The Industrial Workers of the World, once a potent socialist-anarchist force (but, like the Cubs, they've had a bad century), have joined the WWP in opposing the war. Now, more than ever, Don't Go Wobbly!

For those who didn't know -- A.N.S.W.E.R, the communist (really) front group that's organizing the anti-war protests, is planning a Convergence on the White House on Saturday, March 1. Now, look, I don't like giving free press to the opposition. These guys are well-organized,. well-funded, and well-off-their-rockers. But this time, since we know about it, how about organizing a counter-demo? If TV has 2 minutes to devote to them, how about stealing 15 or 20 seconds of their precious airtime?

We started it out here in Denver. Get going, DC!

Here's what we got from the AP, in a story about the San Fran Demo:

In Denver, about 300 people waving American Flags and holding signs proclaiming "war is bad, evil is worse" also gathered Sunday in support of using force against Iraq.

"I support our president and I support my sons. This is the only option," said Pam Pearson, 49, who has two sons in the Navy. "I'd rather force Sadaam out than have to play by his rules."

I have no idea where they got 300. Maybe their only standard of comparison was their high school gym. Or maybe they can only count to 3, but they knew there were more than 30 and fewer than 3000. This isn't bias, it's fabrication, and it calls into question, by at least a factor of 2, Saturday's and Sunday's anti-war crowd estimates.

Rally Coverage

For the moment, just links to coverage. We report, you decide.

Denver Post

Rocky Mountain News

Rocky Mountain News II

Channel 9 (NBC)

A couple of notes. The Post story is pretty fair, although it probably gives more ink to the 50 sloganeering anti-war types who showed up across the street than is necessary. While it's pretty reprehensible that one of our guys yelled out "Bomb Islam," it shows how important it is not to get into shouting matches with these guys. I was pleased that the wrap-up speaker specifically asked us to ignore them. There are a lot of emotions involved here, as well as reason, and when you get too emotional, you say dumb things.

The News concentrated on the variety of people who showed up, and how far they came to get there. A lot of immigrants, from India, Russia, and Mexico. The News also has a second story about the parents of soldiers who have shipped out. The rally meant a lot to them, too.

Channel 9's Web report was written by a "web producer," who evidently didn't attend. She, too, uncritically quotes the 300 number (see above), and gives about 1/3 of the ink to about 1/30 of the people in attendance.

posted by Joshua |  permalink | 6:46 AM | |

Rally Report

The first-of-its-kind Rally for America, somewhat mistakenly called a pro-War rally, went off today in Denver, and we were very pleased with the turnout. The Serious Side is pro-War, and it's difficult to get serious people to turn out for a rally. We got about 2000 people, and they were all in good spirits, they cleaned up after themselves, ignored the few naysayers gathered across the street to chant mindless slogans. (One of the local news reports claimed that some people had shown up thinking we were an anti-war rally. Oops.)

The speakers were generally brief and on point, the singing was good, the cheering was frequently punctuated with "U-S-A, U-S-A," and a good time was had by all.

The color guard has performed at a number of Presidential inaugurations. They wear military uniforms from each of the conflicts we've had to endure in our history.


Notice the sign highlighted in red. Yes, it's anti-war. And you know something? Nobody pushed, shoved, kicked, shouted at, harrassed, or attacked the guy holding it. Imagine that.


Thanks to Neil Dobro, Bill Eigles, Anne Freeman, and the rest of the steering committee who made this thing happen. Links to newspaper and TV stories as they appear.