I Get a No-Prize - Everyone complains about the scene at the beginning of Daredevil where defense attorney Matt Murdock is "prosecuting" a rape case. By everyone, I mean Franklin Harris. Probably others, too, but I haven't been obsessive about reading the reviews.

The problem vanishes, though, if you assume that the rape trial is a civil case Murdock is bringing on behalf of the victim. (He refers to her as "my client" in the courtroom.) The only minor difficulty is afterwards, on the steps of the courthouse, when Matt and Foggy regret that another rapist is still on the streets. But you can put that down to loose talk. Really. You can. I just did.

More on the movie later. Mrs. Offering wanted to know how Matt could afford a fancy isolation tank and all the equipment if none of his clients ever pay him. I promised to tell her when she's older. For my part, I was distracted by the conviction that Ben Affleck looks remarkably like a cross between NEA head Dana Gioia and Adam Sandler. But I suppose everybody felt that way.

Imitation Tech Blog Post III - More from PC World's twentieth anniversary issue.

"Americans spent an average of 157 hours (6.5 days) using the Internet at home in 2002."

157 hours a year??? Some of you are not holding up your end.

Internet sales taxes creep closer.

Step One, the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, is near completion. In itself, that wouldn't compel retailer compliance because the states can't regulate interstate commerce. So step two involves Uncle Sugar:

Once ten states representing 20 percent of the U.S. population pass the tax rules, the governors and state legislatures of all the states participating in the SSTP will ask Capitol Hill for laws to make seller compliance mandatory, says Diane Hardt, cochair of the SSTP. In the states' most optimistic scenario, federal laws enforcing collection could appear as soon as 2004.

Appeasement Watch:

As of this writing, a group of at least five national retailers has approached state offices about voluntarily collecting sales taxes by February 1, independent of the SSTP. These vendors have negotiated with the various states amnesty deals that grant them immunity from liability for missed or improperly collected taxes on previous sales. The SSTP proposes a similar deal for vendors that voluntarily comply within a year of SSTP law enactment in their state.

Of PC World's Five Free Tips, I especially appreciated the fourth one. All sorts of programs want to set themselves to launch on startup, including some that have no business doing so. The fourth tip explains how to get them off the Startup list.

Non-PC World Item. I'm using Opera a lot more lately. The unwanted popup suppression is wonderful. I'm not fond of its insistence on running full screen. And I haven't convinced myself to switch over to its mail client, M2, which a lot of people really like. But I'm moving more and more toward using IE only for Movable Type and Opera for everything else. (The formatting buttons in the edit window don't appear in Opera or Mozilla/Netscape.) Strangely, I'm using the free, ad-supported version of Opera rather than the $39 ad-free version. But I'm getting no ads.

Hosting Matters. In the for what it's worth department, here's how I feel about my first month on the new host. Reliability has been excellent. Blog posting goes much faster and I haven't lost a post yet. On the other hand, the statistics available suck. You can't set the date range you want in any of the available stat engines. Referrer stats accrue on a month-to-date basis only. Consequently it's essentially impossible for me to spot new referrers after the first week of the month. The bright side is I'm less obsessed with what others are saying about the blog (assuming they're saying anything). The downside is that I feel less connected to "the weblogging community" and have a harder time being a good blog citizen than before.

Historical Spam - PC World also reproduces the first known unsolicited commercial e-mail. "Early Internet users say that a marketing rep at Digital Equipment Corporation sent the first unsolicited commercial e-mail on May 1, 1978. The message invited all 594 people with Arpanet accounts to product demonstrations. This is one innovator who's probably happy to go unremembered: Only the offender's e-mail address, THUERK at DEC-MARLBORO, still appears in the online record. "

Remember, as the poet said, the mighty oak was once a nut like you. (The actual e-mail image is hard to read.)

Spam Mail From Some Flounder? - For PC World's twentieth anniversary, the magazine assigned writer Scott Spanbauer to go computer-free for twenty days. The experiment resulted in a somewhat predictible article (computer-free life has good points! Bad points too!) but what struck me was the passage on what happened when he checked his e-mail for the first time in 21 days:

The time has come to reenter the 21st century. I take the Sony out of the safe, boot it up, and start downloading mail. I find more than 2000 messages--including 1571 pieces of unsolicited commercial e-mail. Hallelujah, baby, this is productivity.

Three-quarters of his e-mails are spam? This dumbfounds me. I hear people complain about spam all the time, but I never give it much thought. I don't pay by the message, it's usually pretty easy to delete unread and the ones I'm not quite sure of take about a second to figure out once I open them. My in-box strategy is, generally, to do a pre-read delete pass, then read new unread messages in order as received. I have no use for spam, but I've never found it the bother that others seem to.

But I'm pretty sure that three-quarters of my e-mails aren't spam, either. I'd guess that one out of ten, perhaps as many as one out of five, e-mails I get qualify as spam. But now I'm wondering. So starting tomorrow, I'm going to keep count for a week.

By No Means Duty-Free - Apparently the Bush Administration has finally succeeded in buying Turkey's cooperation in the conquest of Iraq. Cost we know about, $6 billion in direct aid "with the idea that this financing could be leveraged into an additional $20 billion in loans from international institutions.

The haggling also reached into such details as to which side should pay the cost of the plastic identification badges American troops stationed here would be required to wear, how much American soldiers would pay for gasoline at Turkish pumps and whether U.S. soldiers would have to pay Turkey's value-added taxes, according to Turkish officials close to or familiar with the talks.

Costs we don't know about yet:

These officials insisted, however, that the argument was not all about money. They said equally important were issues such as the role and command of Turkish troops who would participate in a U.S. operation in northern Iraq and guarantees that Iraqi Kurds would not come over the border into Turkey as happened in 1991.

In other words, what news for the War of the Kurdish Suppression? Answer: mixed news.

Another outstanding issue was American plans to give more weapons to Iraqi Kurds, with Turkey concerned about its own Kurdish minority and fearful of a revival of the PKK Kurdish independence group. Foreign Minister Yakis told Turkish NTV television tonight: "The Kurdish groups will need light weapons to defend themselves. Negotiations with the U.S. about how we can collect them, can we collect them, are continuing."

What the Kurds might think of the hated Turks "collecting" their weapons is left as an exercise to the reader - not a hard exercise, mind you. Also, are "light weapons" enough for the Kurds to fulfill their planned offensive role of providing the bulk of the manpower for the drive south on Baghdad?

"In 1991, these weapons fell into the hands of the PKK," he said. "In order to avoid a similar situation this time, we prefer that these weapons are taken back."

Because there can be no "safe zone" for the Kurds of Turkey.

A senior U.S. official said the American side will continue to insist that Turkish troops inside Iraq must report to U.S. commanders. But Yakis said on NTV, "The Turkish troops in Northern Iraq will have their own commander. However, this does not mean that the Turkish troops and American troops will act totally separate without any coordination."

A U.S. official in Washington also said no Turkish troops will be permitted a role in the Iraqi oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.

It's not about oil. Kirkul and Mosul just kind of keep coming up, is all. It's a train wreck waiting to happen, with the Turks saying the Kurds mustn't take Kirkuk and Mosul, the US saying the Turks mustn't take Kirkuk and Mosul and the Kurds saying, "They're ours, baby." Meanwhile all parties know that the Northern Alliance proved with the capture of Kabul that Who dares, wins.

Something that occurs to me this morning, though - there's an outside chance that we're not going to shaft the Kurds at all. Maybe we're going to shaft the Turks. What if the plan is to let the Kurds keep their autonomy against Turkey's insistence? Once the invasion has been concluded and the US no longer needs Turkey to provide the logistical tail, what could they do? This administration has shown that they do not appreciate demurrals even from allies, and they hold grudges. They may wish to punish Turkey for holding them up so long.

Odds: damned low. If the idea is to turn next to Iran and Syria, as it surely is, Turkey remains too useful. So continue to place your bets on the Kurds taking it in the shorts at the end of this process.

Could It Happen Watch - The conservative and generally pro-war Capitol Hill Blue reports White House advisors looking for a "way out" of war with Iraq:

Some strategists within the Bush Administration are urging the President to look for an "exit strategy" on Iraq, warning the tough stance on war with the Arab country has left the country in a "no win" situation.

Why? The UN problems, for one. And, interestingly, this:

In addition, Republican leaders in both the House and Senate are telling the Presidently privately that he is losing support in Congress for a "go it alone war" against Iraq.

"The President's war plans are in trouble, there's no doubt about that," says an advisor to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert. "Some Republican members want a vote on military action and some of those say they would, at this point, vote against such action."

Have no fear, though, or hope depending on your inclinations:

President Bush, however, is reported to be "hanging tough" on plans to invade Iraq, even though his closest advisors tell him such a move could be "disasterous" politically.

Your usual interpretive options are available, from pure charade through meaningless jitters to watch this space. I wouldn't give much chance of Republican lawmakers actually carrying out what would be a colossal rebuke to a sitting president of their own party, but the rumblings, combined with the uncertainties in Britain and Turkey, are interesting.

Hawks Unclear on the Concept - Washington Post columnist David Ignatius is shocked, shocked to discover that French politicians act in . . . French interests:

So France in recent decades has chosen to express its power negatively -- by opposing actions that it believes are not in France's interest.

and

The United States has been the principal target of French negativism, but it is hardly the only one. Many of France's European allies have felt the sting of its refusal to compromise on what it regards as its interests.

Zut alors! as Batroc zee Leepair might put it.

A Slough of Subsidizers - The Institute for Justice has opened a North Carolina chapter. First target: that state government's policy of giving its citizens money to wealthy out-of-state movie studios:

The IJ-NC represents Raleigh small businessman Edward Jones and the Wake County Taxpayers’ Association in the lawsuit.

“As a small businessman who built a company, pays taxes and provides jobs to North Carolinians, I say handing over our tax money like this brings no benefit to the public and is just wrong,” said Jones, a remodeling contractor whose Eastern Surfa-Shield and Facelifters employs a crew of six. “I never expected or received a $200,000 check from the State to build my business. My business relies on hard work and good service to our customers to survive, not on government handouts. The North Carolina Constitution is supposed to prevent that kind of giveaway.”

Article V, Section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution states that the taxing power shall be exercised “for public purposes only . . . .” Although the North Carolina courts traditionally enforced this provision as a barrier to state subsidies of private businesses, the General Assembly in recent years has eroded that constitutional protection. Recent so-called “incentive” programs—passed under the guise of “economic development”—result in private businesses being subsidized by the public purse for purposes unconnected to traditional public matters. Moreover, the North Carolina courts have given more leeway to the General Assembly’s actions in this area—a trend the plaintiffs in this lawsuit hope to help change.

In Maryland we have a similar policy: keep corporate taxes high; then, when a large company threatens to move out of state (like Marriott did a few years ago), negotiate a tax incentive package directly with them. Doing so concedes the essential point: high taxes tend to drive employers away, low taxes tend to retain them. But you can't just lower taxes for everyone because that would leave less for the state's own employees to do. A general policy of low taxes provides few opportunities for public officials to hold press conferences announcing that they've "saved" a particular business. (No press conferences are held to commemorate the departing employers that they don't even try to save.) Plus, official favoritism drives campaign contributions from corporations who stand to benefit.

It's a win-win for everyone but, you know, almost everybody.

Gioa Division - This San Francisco Chronicle profile of new NEA head Dana Gioia is, all in all, not so bad. It gets off to a very rocky start, implying that Gioia was still in the corporate world at the time of his nomination and talking about what it might mean if Gioia is confirmed. (The Chronicle piece ran February 16. Gioia was confirmed two weeks prior. Later in the article the author notes that Gioia left his business career in 1992.)

Other cavils: The article is correct that Gioia identifies himself as a member and supporter of the New Formalist movement, but overstates when it continues

Gioia's own work exemplifies New Formalism. Along with three published volumes of poetry - "Daily Horoscope" (1986), "The Gods of Winter" (1991) and "Interrogations at Noon" (2001), which won the American Book Award - he has published translations, essays, literary anthologies and reviews. And he has founded two poetry conferences, one at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, and "Teaching Poetry" in Santa Rosa.

But Gioia's own collections probably contain less metrical verse, proportionally, than any other new formalist. Compare one of Gioia's volumes to a book by Timothy Steele or R.S. Gwynn, to name two poets I admire, and the distinction is obvious. Publishing "translations, essays, literary anthologies and reviews" is not a sign of "new formalism." It's the sort of thing many poets do. The two (poorly-formatted) poems the article reprints at the end, "Money" and "Planting a Sequoia," are probably Gioia's best-known poems. (Garrison Keillor read "Money" on the radio.) Neither one is formal verse.

But the profile gets some important things right. It correctly identifies Gioia's origins as working class. He spent much of his youth in the corporate world, but he didn't start there. It identifies Wallace Stevens as his career inspiration. It doesn't (quite) convey the energy Gioia has brought to supporting poets and fostering interconnecting cells of sympathetically-minded writers, but the full force of Gioia the instigator may be beyond description, something you just have to experience.

His appointment doesn't give me any more faith in the NEA than I had previously, but the Bush Administration had to appoint someone, and I doubt they could have done better.

You Like Me! You Really Like Me! - Wow. Your Talking Dog undertook the herculean task of actually providing a capsule description for every link in "the Dog Run," aka "The Best Damn Links Section on the Internet." One of his tricks was to pick a breed of dog for each blog. And I'm honored to report that instead of assigning a breed to Unqualified Offerings, he awarded it "Best in Show." Given my admiration for TD's own writing, this means a lot. I haven't felt this swell-headed since I realized I was the top blog on Gene Healy's link list.

Axis of Tryptophan - So is Turkey in or out? Right now the alleged sticking point is cash, because, as you know, our supporters are morally superior in every way to our (weasel) antagonists, and moral superiority costs good money.

Rights to Iraqi oil in Kirkuk and the future of a Turkish military presence in northern Iraq also were part of the negotiations, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

Keep in mind that it's possible that this is all mummery, that the deal is done and the public proceedings are an attempt to achieve tactical surprise on the northern front. To return to our ur-text, William Kristol's Washington Post column of October 12, 2002:

The president's audience is no longer the American public, or even our allies. It is Hussein. Deceiving him as to the timing of the war and the manner of attack is crucial to success. We obviously cannot achieve real strategic surprise; Hussein knows an attack is likely. But tactical surprise remains possible and, especially given Hussein's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, very much desirable, if we are to minimize casualties and risks.

When it comes to "minimiz[ing] casualties and risks," the northern front would seem to be crucial. That's certainly true if the plan really is to hit Baghdad with airmobile troops early on in a race to kill Saddam, as the London Times maintained earlier in the month:

AMERICAN war planners believe that they have little more than 48 hours from the start of a ground war to kill President Saddam Hussein if they are to avoid a protracted conflict and a complicated peace.

What the Times calls a "rush to Baghdad" carries at least the risk of becoming "Arnhem II." The more directions the US hits Iraq from, the less chance, one would think, that Saddam can successfully concentrate his defenses.

So, is the Bush administration 1) that reckless or 2) do they secretly have the Turks sewn up already or 3) is this one more snafu that may stop the conquest entirely? (Can't say "stop the war." As the Times notes, "US special forces and CIA teams are already operating on the ground in Iraq." In quainter times, "operating" military forces in the territory of an adversary was called, you know, war.) My considered opinion: hey, who can tell with these people. But my bets are on 2, 3 and 1 in that order. But one is last because I still, despite everything, would like to think the Administration wouldn't blithely launch "Operation Market Souk."

A Rorschach of Regulators - Congressmen have to take classes in McCain-Feingold, notes the New York Times, and even then many of them say they can't follow it. Robert Matsui, who voted for the thing, told a reporter after his class, "I didn't realize what all was in it." Radley Balko writes

Now, if Rep. Matsui votes for and vigorously endorses legislation directly affecting him, without reading or really understanding said piece of legislation, imagine how much attention he gives legislation that affects only you, or me -- or minutia-laden OHSA or HIPAA regulations -- before he blindly casts his vote.

Well I'm sure he has people for that. Whee.

This Land is not Your Land - Ramesh Ponnuru gives props to the Institute for Justice, which has been, among its many good works, fighting abuses of "eminent domain." Often cities condemn the property of small businesses, homeowners and even churches, not to build roads or parks or even government buildings, but to give it to much bigger businesses. Ponnuru:

The economic-development justification for property seizure is a license for abuse. It will always be possible to dress up the appeasement of powerful financial interests in an area in this fashion. The best economic-development strategy for cities, in any case, is not to attack property rights but to maintain their roads, apprehend and punish criminals, keep taxes low, and fix the schools.

The IJ donations page is here. It gets 4 stars out of 4 from Charity Navigator.

Crazy Talk - Matt Hogan e-mails about this morning's item on war skepticism in the US military:

American arrogance? peacenik talk indeed! What true military guy would use such leftyspeak? Next thing they'll tell me is that Dwight Eisenhower made up "military-industrial complex"!! They'll stop at nothing, I tell ya.

In further comments on his now active weblog, Matt writes

What is most scary is that it appears that our military status and political risks in invading Iraq match what can be called the “Bin-Laden doctrine."

He then explains how. Worth reading. Be even more worth reading when he discovers the wonders of the BLOCKQUOTE tag.

How Many Chances? - Jeff Taylor of Reason Express asks:

Let's pretend that the Federal Bureau of Investigation came into being on September 12, 2001. How long would it be reasonable to wait before it got its anti-terror act together? How many utterly absurd blunders would we tolerate before top-level FBI managers were fired and replaced with non-FBI talent?

Taylor thinks the FBI is missing something basic:

When a terrorist in FBI custody makes claims about future attacks, and those claims result in police with fully-automatic weapons deployed to street corners and cabinet officials advising Americans to construct safe rooms with duct tape and plastic sheeting, that terrorist has successfully committed an act of terror. And the FBI was his unwitting accomplice.

A captured terrorist has no conceivable interest in supplying the FBI with accurate information on future attacks. He does, however, have an interest in diverting resources from actual attack plots, scrambling security assets so his cohorts still in the field can observe how they operate, and inducing general panic via grand claims about a "dirty bomb" set to explode in New York or Washington.

Taylor puts more faith in polygraphs than I do, but he's surely right that the principle - captured terrorists are not your friend - is essential, and basic. Hell, even I figured it out. (See Paging George Smiley at this link.)

Department of Just Not Being Cynical Enough - I've realized this evening that my "War of the Kurdish Suppression" pieces have been far too sunny and far too kind to official policy. Even Mr. Jimmy's dismantling of the so-called humanitarian case for the no-fly zones has been letting the government slide. How can that be, you ask? Let's ask the Providence Journal:

Topping a list of other embarrassments the Pentagon refuses to talk about is the contradiction between the official reason for the no-fly missions in northern Iraq and way the Turkish Air Force is allowed to make a mockery of them.

Basile and other pilots interviewed by The Providence Journal have confirmed that they have had to make way, from time to time, for what other U.S. pilots flying out of Incirlik Air Field in Turkey euphemistically call a TSM -- a Turkish Special Mission.

Although the Air Force officially denies any knowledge of them, the Turkish missions became an open secret among U.S. flight crews after American pilots, returning from their patrols over northern Iraq, noticed Turkish jets -- laden with bombs and missiles -- streaking past in the opposite direction.

Within a half hour or so, the once-heavily armed Turkish jets would fly out of Iraq empty, leaving behind smoldering ruins where Kurdish villages once stood.

In 1999, Turkish and U.S. military authorities established separate air corridors so that U.S. aircraft would no longer have to cross paths with the Turkish jets heading in to bomb villages that the Turks suspected were being used as bases by a Turkish faction of Kurdish separatists.

Perhaps the folks at Samizdata can find pictures of the dead to post.

The same Providence Journal author apparently wrote an earlier article on the subject, dated March 25, 2001 and reproduced here. Excerpt:

At Otis Air Force Base, where more than 200 members of the Air National Guard returned last December after a two-week deployment in the no-fly zone, Major Marty Richard is slightly more guarded.

Asked if the no-fly missions over northern Iraq are still geared toward protecting the Kurds, Richard concedes, "The focus of that mission has changed drastically."

Shortly after the Gulf War, during Operation Provide Comfort, he says, the goal was to protect the Kurds, "but what we're doing now is no-fly-zone enforcement. The subtle nuance," he says, "I will leave to you."

Asked directly if U.S. patrols over northern Iraq get cancelled or cut short in advance of Turkish incursions into the no-fly zone, Richard says they do.

"Suffice it to say," he adds, "that when the Turks are involved with the Kurds well, we've got a political football."

And a bunch of dead Kurds:

Last August, a spokesman in Dubai for one Kurdish faction the Kurdish Democratic Party told Agence France- Presse News Service that in one such raid, 38 Kurdish civilians were killed and 11 were wounded.

Like I said before, war in the name of the Kurds, but not for the sake of the Kurds.

On the Sharp End - There's a pretty good article in, of all places, the Nation about war and empire doubts among the US officer corps. One of the things that makes it good is that it acknowledges that there's a sector of the officer corps that is as enthusiastic about Pax Americana as the civilian leadership, in addition to two groups of skeptics. We might justly term these skeptical camps "conservative" and "liberal." Here are your three groups in order:

Within military ranks, according to one midlevel officer, "one group believes that our Constitution is the right way to go for everyone and that we have a moral imperative to give everyone the world over the opportunity to have that device. You have another group that sees our military as a defensive weapon to use in the face of an actual threat to the nation, which means in this context enthusiasm about taking on Al Qaeda but not Iraq. Then there's a smaller group that believes political leaders, instead of really addressing problems and resource issues, are going to go out and empire-grab and disguise it as something else so we can feed a warped version of the American dream, in which we continue to consume more resources and produce more waste, rather than really struggle with what it takes to keep the American dream viable and inspirational in a world of 6 billion people."

A big concern for all the skeptics is resources. For one thing, as usual, they're lying to us about official estimates of the size and duration of the occupation. (Students of ancient history may recall that we were only going to be in Bosnia for "a year." Same with Kosovo. And Haiti. But you get the idea.)

Despite the wishing-will-make-it-so qualities of some in the pundit class (perhaps best summed up in one Slate contributor's declaration that "a condition of the new imperialism" is that troops "will not stay too long"), the most conservative estimate for the number of troops required in a post-Saddam Iraq is 50,000 for at least one year. Many military officers and civilian analysts--including some leading hawks--privately acknowledge that the number and time requirement will be vastly greater, perhaps lasting years and requiring forces that run to six digits. British troops have been told to anticipate at least three years of post-Saddam occupation duty.

Count on it: "at least" is more significant than "three years" in that advice. Meanwhile, what else is going on?

Officers also have real concerns about anti-US backlashes or acts of terrorism down the road--not just against occupation forces in Iraq but against Americans all over the world. These situations may require the dispatch of anything from small special operations detachments to scores of smaller expeditionary forces.

Yet today, infantry forces--to take just one part of the military--are less than half their Vietnam-era strength. An August 2002 Army conference found that two-thirds of the Army's Special Forces are currently spread out over eighty-five countries, and that "the rate of increased employment since 9/11 cannot be sustained within current structures." The conclave also concluded that "many military occupational specialties and organizations that are important...for winning the global war on terrorism, are of low density," and that the current force structure does not meet "the exigencies of the global war on terrorism," let alone long-term operations in Iraq.

One possible solution? Janissaries:

Indeed, the manpower situation is so tenuous that in a recent issue of the Army War College's journal Parameters, one officer essentially called for accelerated outsourcing of war to entities that some refer to as "private military corporations" (PMCs) and that others less charitably characterize as mercenaries.

Well, what's wrong with that?

Given the dubious track record of PMCs (for example, DynCorp's women-trafficking in the Balkans; Airscan's involvement in the Colombian Army's bombing of civilians), this is the type of suggestion that cries out for more debate and consideration. "Is this really the direction we want to be going in, philosophically and practically?" asks one Special Forces captain who's seen service in the Balkans and Afghanistan. "Speaking from experience, locals can be hostile to or alienated by the sight of American troops. Put people in who are seen as America's Hessians, and it adds another dimension to perceptions of American arrogance.

That's peacenik talk, "American arrogance." But that's the military for you. There's a lot more in the article - well worth reading.

This is London - More on the British situation from the UK tabloid, the Mirror:

Jack Straw today conceded that the enormity of the anti-war protests at the weekend made it "very difficult" to launch an invasion of Iraq.

The Foreign Secretary acknowledged the sheer size and strength of feeling against a potentially devastating new Gulf war.

He told the BBC: "It was a very, very large demonstration, probably the largest one we've seen in our recent democratic history in London. We have to take account of public opinion."

When asked if the government could start a war without public backing, Straw said it would be "very difficult indeed in those circumstances".

Will it be Straw who leads the revolt? Will there be a revolt? Will the loss of Britain really kill the invasion (if Britain is lost)? All of a sudden things are interesting again.

I Got Your Smoking Gun Right Here - Australia's The Age has the definitive case on the Bin Laden-Saddam "nexus."

Doves of the Bourse - From CNNMoney:

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Global investors aren't the likeliest group of peaceniks you'll come across. But Monday they appeared to have joined the millions who protested this past weekend in hoping that war with Iraq would be avoided.

U.S. markets were closed for Presidents Day -- just as well considering the snow drifts piling up on Wall Street -- but markets around the world suggested that traders have come to feel that war is less imminent.

The major international stock exchanges saw big rallies. Gold -- traditionally a safe haven for skittish investors -- saw its price tumble, as did oil. The dollar strengthened.

Analysts credit both the relatively soft line of the Blix report and the turnout at the weekend's peace rallies.

These were not the protesters who ran amuck in Seattle in the fall of 2000. They may not represent the consensus, but they represent something more than the fringe.

"I'm astonished how many people I knew, Labor and Tory, who went," said Lehman Brothers global economist John Llewellyn, who works in London. "I don't think you would have a million people out in the street just to say war is bad. What tipped it toward such big numbers is this idea that the U.S.'s approach is such a misdiagnosis."

"Not the consensus but more than the fringe" sounds about right. The article also sounds a familiar theme to readers of Unqualified Offerings:

The strength of the anti-war rally in London, in particular, may have some effect, forcing Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has thus far been the United States' staunchest ally, to soften his stance.

As Foreign Exchange Analytics currency strategist Dave Gilmore pointed out in a morning note on Monday, "In the U.K. in particular, the notion of Blair leading Britain to war with Iraq alongside the U.S. without U.N. backing is political suicide."

Not everyone agrees, though:

"I see no officials saying a war is less likely," said HSBC currency strategist Marc Chandler. "I don't think the protesters in Western Europe and the U.S. are enough to change policy makers' minds."

Nor did Chandler put much stock in the general interpretation most observers were gleaning from market movements Monday, believing that they said little about what was going on in the world.

"Lower gold prices and a lower euro means there's less likely to be a war with Iraq? That's politically naive," he said.

I think Chandler has it backwards - a marginally smaller chance for war means lower gold prices and a lower euro, not the other way around. But we'll see.

Fun if you are Unqualified Dog, is had thusly:

Wait for snow.

Go out with the pack leader when it's time to shovel snow.

Have the pack leader toss shovels full of snow right at you.

Leap into the spray like a dolphin breasting a wave.

Alternately . . .

Have someone throw snowballs at you.

Try to catch the snowballs in your mouth.

Tip for dogs and would-be dogs among the readership . . .

If the snow is powdery, by romping across the barrier between shoveled and unshoveled parts, you can knock significant amounts of snow back where the pack leader already shoveled.

Bonus tip, which apparently needs to be re-learned with every snowfall:

Do NOT try to bite the moving shovel! It hurts!

The Awful Truth - MSN has one of those "Why Men Won't Commit" articles. It offers four typical reasons, but, speaking as a guy, who knows guys, I haev to tell you ladies that the last one is the only one that matters:

4. They feel they aren't with the right woman Ouch! This could be for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they see something about a person they don't like, or they may just feel they aren't compatible. Maybe they're too set in their single ways, or maybe they just don't love the woman enough (ouch again!).

As Tony Kornheiser would say, "That's it! That's the list!" Everything else is men being polite. Sorry.

Update - You should be reading John Smith's Lincoln Plawg every day. I would go so far as to say that he is the best antiwar blogger going. I wouldn't append "except for me of course" to that either.

Here he tackles Tony Blair's "morality."

Don't Get Huffy - Jane Galt does a nice job of setting Arianna Huffington straight about tax policy. Money quote:

As long as there are different rates on different kinds of income, people will spend time and money trying to take their income in the form that has the lower tax rates.

Actually, there are two money quotes. Here's the second:

Unless she is making sure that all her income comes as highly taxed wages and salaries, refusing to take more than the standard deduction, and otherwise making sure that she pays what I consider to be her "fair share", I'm not really interested in hearing her carp about how people even richer than she is are getting away with something.

Given that Arianna is a woman who complains about SUVs while flying charter planes and driving an enhanced light truck of her own, I suspect the odds against her tax purity are pretty long.

War of the Kurdish Suppression Update - Newsweek reports on the latest horse-trading among the "coalition of the willing":

        BUT NOW, NEWSWEEK has learned, Turkey is demanding that it send 60,000 to 80,000 of its own troops into northern Iraq to establish “strategic positions” across a “security arc” as much as 140 to 170 miles deep in Iraq. That would take Turkish troops almost halfway to Baghdad. These troops would not be under U.S. command, according to Turkish sources, who say Turkey has agreed only to “coordination” between U.S. and Turkish forces. Ankara fears the Iraqi Kurds might use Saddam’s fall to declare independence. Kurdish leaders have not yet been told of this new plan, according to Kurdish spokesmen in Washington, who say the Kurds rejected even the earlier notion of a narrow buffer zone. Farhad Barzani, the U.S. representative of the main Kurdish party in Iraq, the KDP, says, “We have told them: American troops will come as liberators. But Turkish troops will be seen as invaders.”

        The White House did not respond to requests for comment; officials elsewhere in the administration played down the Turkish demands as bargaining tactics: “We told them flat out, no.” But independent diplomatic sources in Ankara and Washington with knowledge of the U.S.-Turkey talks say that while the precise depth of the “security zone” has still to be agreed, the concept is “pretty much a done deal,” as one observer put it. These sources add that the main U.S. concern has been that U.S., not Turkish, troops occupy the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, and that Turkish troops merely surround but not enter the heavily Kurdish cities of Erbil and Sulemaniye. To get Turkey’s assent to this, these sources say, the United States had to “cave” on its demand that Turkish troops be under U.S. control.

Once the war is under way, of course, the Turks can occupy Mosul and Kirkuk anyway, much as the Northern Alliance occupied Kabul during the early part of the Afghan war.

Stray thoughts:

There are pictures of Kurdish dead over on Samizdata. I wonder how quick they'll be to post the next batch.

In the "Cross-blog debate" on the war, one of the pro-war questions is

3) American and British military force has allowed Northern Iraq to develop a society which, while imperfect, is clearly a freer and more open society than existed under Saddam Hussein's direct rule. Do you agree that the no-fly zones have been beneficial to Northern Iraq --- and if so, why should this concept not be extended to remove Hussein's regime entirely and spread those freedoms to all Iraqis?

Apparently the questioners never heard of Erbil. (See also Mr. Jimmy on the topic.) But our message to the Kurds seems to be Enjoy it while it lasts, fellas!

The Winter We Had Winter is all I can think to call it so far. The Washington area ought by rights to come up with a better name for this extraordinary season when we recall it in after years. We've had a sizable snowfall every month since November, a rarity, and occasions where the last snow hasn't melted by the time the next snow came, also a rarity. Now the biggest single storm since at least 1996 - about 18 inches through yesterday evening, followed by a nice coating of sleet, and now another 3 to 6 inches on top of that before the day is out.

Say it with me now: It's good for the fish.

A quick tour of Delaware and Maryland trout streams for spring, from Midatlantic Game and Fish magazine.

If bass are more your thing, here's an analogous list of hotspots for them.

Back to trout: In-Fisherman suggests that what works in the high waters we can expect in the next couple of months are big lures. Same magazine warns, however, against rigging that larger lure on a heavy line in "Downsizing for Spring Trout." And while I usually haven't got the patience to fish live bait, if you do, you might profit from their tips on bait fishing for trout in spring.

Violent Protesters - The hawks take it to the streets:

As the parade of local protesters wound around the downtown sidewalks of Athens [GA], pedestrians stopped and stared, motorists blasted their car horns in support and passengers waved the V-shaped peace sign through their car windows. A few drivers seemed annoyed by the delay and an occasional passer flashed a vulgar hand gesture.

Witnesses said a passenger of a white car threw a piece of cinder block into the crowd gathered in the median of Broad Street, striking the 10-year-old. The car then looped around the block and another piece of brick was thrown. That piece struck a protest organizer, but he also wasn't injured.

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, guys. (Link via Antiwar.com.)

Reading Around - Stuff I seen lately:

Matt Hogan has a new economic model for blogging.

Orifice World considers British politics and the war. Doing so, he sounds a theme, "I wish they'd get on with it," also taken up by

Under a Blackened Sky, who says the whole inspections thing has been a sham in a different way than hawks mean when they say it. Also, and this will shock you, spendthrift Canadian politicians.

Eve Tushnet on forced sterilization in Mexico. Plus, a Valentine's Day soundtrack.

Through the Looking Glass - A bunch of liberal stuff. (Why did Charles Dodgson never become the liberal alpha blogger? Yeah, I know, he doesn't post enough. But that's a feature with liberals!) Plus NATO and political retaliation, and John Poindexter holds the football while Congress comes running up and kicks it.

The Illuminated Donkey offers Great Events in Romantic History, plus a cryptic reprint of the lyrics to an old David and David song.

Listen, Missy has a Winter of '02 report from downtown DC and a dance item.

Seablogger reports from his sailing vacation. Those of us enjoying the biggest single snowfall in years should head to Seablogger quick.

Perverse Access Memory moderately disses Shrek, as well it should. Plus, sex in roleplaying games. (NOT roleplaying games in sex.)

Sara Rimensnyder thinks happy thoughts for V-Day. Really.

Julian Sanchez looks into the Abyss of Operation Northwoods, and it looks also into him. Plus, the history of the claque and its relevance to Austin Powers.

Jerry Brito advises the French on how to honorably oppose the US/British push for war.

Glenn Reynolds comes out in favor of war with Iraq.

Have Conflict Will Travel says you never forget your first - Nigerian spam e-mail. He's apparently too young to remember when they came by fax, though. (He also doesn't do item-specific anchors.)

Flit suggests that Canada's Iraq policy may be . . . smart. Wise, even.

Colby Cosh takes on the CBC

March (Doesn't) Matters - Salam Pax deconstructs the Baghdad march:

Actually most of the people in Baghdad were stuck in the streets waiting for any kind of public transport. This is the first sign of a big organized demonstration. All buses, state and privately run lines, are grouped in various spots in the city to transport the "demonstrators" from their work places to where the show is supposed to take place.

Drop them at point "A" and pick them up at point "B", school kids would just disappear between these two points. There are a couple of excellent ice-cream places in al-manusr where one of the "demonstrations" took place.

This is what it looks like when you are in one of these affairs: you get out of the bus, wait for a mind-numbing couple of hours until they tell to march, you start walking until you see the guy in the front of your group (usually an eager party member) start jumping and try to pump some life into the bored group of people behind him, you shout the obligatory things, pass the stand where the officials and press are waiting then you get back to whatever you were discussing with the person next to you.

Now an attempt to put two-and-two together. This Telegraph story (link via Instapundit) notes that only 3,000 demonstrators turned out. Since demos in Iraq are compulsory and, per Salam, rely on public transportation, a theory: Iraq's transportation infrastructure is otherwise engaged. Moving troops, basically. Your dictator-under-the-gun perspective on the world is surely Demonstrators nice, rifle companies nicer.