WARBLOGGING: Here’s a blog by a reservist who’s on his way to war. Check it out.

THE VICTIMS OF THE GREAT WHITE CLUB FIRE deserved to die, and weren’t good people, according to a rather unpleasant religious site.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, I think every good Christian ought to kick their ass. In a figurative sense, anyway.

UPDATE: A reader writes:

While I think the advert was wrong, I think you may be misinterpreting what they said (or meant – but what do I know of what they meant). The orthodox Christian position is that deserving death *is part of the human condition* (that is to say, it applies equally to the authors of the advert). The fundies would argue Mother Theresa was not good enough, in herself, to deserve salvation – and no monster has sunk so low that, after repentance, and trusting in the saving work of Christ, they are beyond salvation. They would argue that, since you must get right with God (which is not something you acheive yourself, ask God to do on your behalf) before you die, and you don’t know the day or the hour of your death, then act now – or a tragedy like the fire, awful as it is, will be infinitely more awful. Again, from the Christian perspective, death is far from the biggest deal in eternity. Being separated from God is the ultimate tragedy.

As a Christian, I’m inclined to be very careful how one draws spiritual conclusions from current events – even if your perspective is right (and how often is that the case), when emotions are running high, who is going to be in a position to respond to what you are actually saying (as opposed to what they though they heard). Especially if you are going to misspeak as grossly as some did right after 911.

Yes, well, I’m familiar with the doctrine — the whole tiniest-leak-can-sink-the-greatest-ship rule (which, by the way, is actually wrong as applied to ships, or none of them would float) — but I’m not prepared to cut them much slack. Sure, you can explain this away, just as you can explain away Marcy Kaptur’s recent idiocy. But you can explain away anything. They said this the way they said it in order to attract attention. Well, they’ve got it.

MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT: HERE’S AN A.P. PHOTOGRAPH of an antiwar protester assaulting a pro-liberation protester at UCLA.

This was reported earlier at The Volokh Conspiracy, which advises people to take video cameras to protests to document this sort of thing.

Good advice. Video cameras are cheap, and compact nowadays, and you can’t count on there being an A.P. photographer around all the time. I suspect, too, that the mere presence of cameras encourages better behavior.

JIMMY CARTER HAS AN OPED IN TOMORROW’S NEW YORK TIMES — and it’s already been Fisked by Josh Chafetz.

I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE showed up for this pro-liberation rally in Milwaukee (the report estimates 600-700, but that’s just an amateur eyeball estimate) but it was a lot more than showed up at Knoxville’s anti-war rally today. Here are some pictures.

UPDATE: And a crowd estimated at between 2,000 (authorities) and 5,000 (organizers) assembled in “>Omaha as well:

People waving flags and singing “God Bless America” covered a downtown Omaha hillside Saturday afternoon in a show of support for the U.S. military and President Bush.

Talk show host Gary Sadlemyer and other organizers from Omaha radio station KFAB stressed the rally was “pro-America,” not pro-war. But signs in the crowd and interviews with participants indicated strong support for using force if Bush deems it necessary. . . .

Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and former U.S. senator from Nebraska, spoke at the event. So did Omahan Charles Lane, one of the famed Tuskegee Airmen of World War II.

Kerrey, now president of the New School University in New York City, said war is likely, unless “dictator Saddam Hussein” does in the next 12 days what he has refused to do in the last 12 years – disarm.

If war becomes necessary, America will come together to support its troops, Kerrey said.

“It is not for oil,” he said. “It is not for property. It is not for glory. It is for the freedom of others who have suffered mightily.”

You don’t see a lot of university presidents taking that kind of position. My wife, an alumna of the New School, is proud of him.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s more rally information, including plans for rallies in Atlanta and Philadelphia next weekend. Talk radio definitely seems to be providing the organizational infrastructure for these.

MY EARLIER POST ABOUT THE RETURN OF “THE SPONGE” produced this email from Dr. Wendy Kroi:

Dear Professor Reynolds,

In response to your comment “Somebody needs to work on that.”–oh, but I am!

I have put together a book listing ALL the contraceptive options available. At the very least, American women deserve to know how few methods they have access to. Here is a link to the Table of Contents (Link. ) For more background on the lack of options see (Link).

Here are just a few of the facts:

1) the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where women don’t have access to hormonal implants or combination injections

2) the only hormonal Intrauterine device (IUD) available in the U.S. is Mirena, an older type of IUD (more prone to causing side effects)

3) although a step in the right direction, the Today sponge is the only brand which contains the highest amount of the spermicide Nonoxynol 9 (N-9). N-9 has been clearly linked to an increased risk of HIV transmission (relevant articles: http://www.g-h-o.co.uk/id49.htm)

4) between 2000 and 2002 only 3 birth control books aimed at a general audience have been published in the U.S. None cover all the available contraceptive options. Any book published before 2000 is obsolete because new methods have become available and because of the N-9 research.

And just one quick example to personalize all the statistics: there are 199,613 active duty women in the military. For these women, avoiding an unintended pregnancy and maintaining top physical form are essential work requirements. However, a survey* of 158 female freshman cadets at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, found that 60% of respondents experienced premenstrual and menstrual symptoms (various birth control methods can be used to control these symptoms) that interfered with their activities–physical more than academic. If the West Point cadets experience these problems, imagine what those brave women soldiers have to put up with in the middle of the desert!

*Schneider MB, Fisher M, Friedman SB, et al. Menstrual and premenstrual issues in female military cadets: a unique population with significant concerns. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol.1999;12:195-201.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I am quite passionate about this subject. And, after all, you did bring it up :-).

Once the book is published, I plan to use blog ads. . . . Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure: I am an Ob/Gyn, I am the medical advisor for the Global Health Options site ( http://www.g-h-o.co.uk/index.htm) and I have no connections (financial or otherwise) with any of the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture contraceptives.

Best Regards,

Wendy Kroi

Well, it really is a problem, and I’m glad somebody’s addressing it. I suspect, however, that the fallout from the Dalkon Shield litigation, coupled with political opposition from “social” conservatives, has chilled pharmaceutical companies’ interest in investing in this area, which is unfortunate.

UPDATE: Dr. Mark Littlehale emails:

I too am an OB/gyn. Here are a couple of points worth adding about birth control.

1) Norplant an implantable contraceptive is primarily off the market because of a large number of lawsuits associated with its use….too hard to get out too many side effects etc. It is widely available around the world but here we are too lawsuit happy…

2) Lunelle, a monthly injectable combination hormone, is available in the U.S.

3) Mirena is actually associated with fewer side effects than the Copper T IUD. Less bleeding, less cramping and less pelvic pain particularly in people with endometriosis

4) “Contraceptive technology” by Dr. Robert Hatcher (Emory U) is updated every couple of years and is available to the general public.

Interesting.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Medpundit Sydney Smith has further observations and corrections.

SPEAKING OF MALLS AND PROTESTS, there was another one at my local mall. I drove by about noon, and was stuck at a traffic light long enough to count the protesters. They were arranged around the corner of Kingston Pike and Morrell Road. I counted 32 on the Kingston Pike side. There looked to be roughly the same number on the Morrell road side (I couldn’t count them precisely because of the angle), plus a few scattered on the hillside. Call it more than 50, but fewer than a hundred. The weather was gorgeous — sunny and in the 60s.

They claimed 500 last time when it was cold and rainy, and probably actually got 200. This was less than half that, despite better weather. No obvious sign of growing momentum here.

GUESS WHO GOT FIRED OVER THE CROSSGATES MALL INCIDENT:

The security officer at Crossgates Mall who signed a trespassing complaint against a war protester was fired Friday.

Robert Williams said he was called into the mall security office about four hours into his shift and told he was fired because of Monday’s incident and for signing the complaint against Steve Downs, 60, of Selkirk.

Downs’ arrest brought Crossgates national notoriety and sparked a protest march against the facility’s policies. He was arrested for trespassing when mall officials told him to leave or remove an anti-war T-shirt he had purchased there.

Williams, who has worked in security at the mall for more than nine years, said he signed the complaint on the orders of his boss, assistant director of security Fred Tallman. Those orders came after Tallman told the Guilderland police officer working the case that he (Tallman) was too busy to come to the police station and that Williams represented the company and should sign.

“I just followed directions of management of that mall to the letter,” Williams said Friday evening. “And I get fired for doing my job.”

I don’t think this makes Crossgates Mall look any better.

DEAN ESMAY says that Bush’s critics (especially those on the right) aren’t giving him enough credit:

As for offending people, alienating people, losing public support: I frankly am not sure that any of that has happened, or will happen.

A year ago, support for invading Iraq among Americans was varying from about 50% to about 70%. It’s now pretty consistently on the high end of that range. Despite the anti-war protests, the polling still shows that a majority are still basically on board with the President if we invade.

Further, Bush was able to strongarm the Congress into giving him the authority he wanted over six months ago. Which means the domestic debate is essentially over, no matter what the protesters do. Furthermore, there’s even evidence that the peace protests are helping President Bush domestically far more than they’re hurting him. And that the only thing that’s really hurting him is that people are sick of waiting for him to decide.

On the other hand, despite widespread anti-war sentiment in Germany, Schroeder is being punished regularly by voters, which tells me that many Germans may disagree with war but don’t feel all that strongly about it–and possibly value their relationship with America more than they value avoiding war. France is increasingly a laughingstock. With every report, Hans Blix says nice things but admits openly that the Iraqis are still not complying with the non-negotiable demands. More Americans than at any time in history view the U.N. with suspicion and wonder why we even bother with the organization.

Meanwhile, in the last year, literally dozens of nations have stepped forward to offer their support. In the last six months, that number has grown substantially. We have, inarguably, far more allies today than we did in March 2002. Most remarkably, Arab countries are spending most of their time bickering with each other, and doing their best to talk Saddam into leaving the country.

Hmm. That may be the answer to the question I asked below, about why Bush took this route.

THE NEW YORK TIMES has angered the Australian Street. Tim Blair notes:

THE NEW YORK TIMES describes America’s allies as “powerless” and “motley and ad hoc”.

That’s Australia and Great Britain the Times is talking about, among others. Remember when the Times was worried about George W. Bush insulting and alienating friendly nations? Now the Times is doing the same.

It’s interesting to contrast Bush’s careful courtesy toward nations who don’t deserve it, with the language that the antiwar folks — who are supposedly the internationalists — use to describe the rather large coalition that Bush has put together. Remind me again — who is supposed to be blundering and insensitive here?

WILLIAM SALETAN WRITES that France and Germany are running a “con game:”

In Friday’s council debate, they made two arguments against a U.S. invasion of Iraq. First, they said it was unnecessary because Iraq has begun to comply with U.N. inspections. Second, they warned that an attack on Iraq without U.N. approval would ruin the credibility of the United Nations, on which the security of every nation, including ours, depends.

Are inspections more effective than force? Is the United Nations a better guarantor of U.S. security than American power is? Both questions are fraudulent. Inspections depend on force, and the United Nations depends on the United States. The French and Germans are telling us not to mess with the status quo, when the status quo is us. . . .

Should the United States yield to the United Nations? The question makes no sense. The United States practically invented the United Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt coined its name. The U.N. charter was drafted and debated here. We host the organization’s headquarters and fund the lion’s share of its budget. Other members are important, but the United Nations needs us a lot more than we need it. Fischer is asking us not to put our national interests ahead of an organization we built to advance our national interests.

Nice try, Joschka and Dominique. We aren’t fooled. We’re touched by your pleas for relevance. And we’re flattered that the only rival you can put up against us is ourselves.

I really don’t think that these guys realize how much damage they’re doing, mostly to themselves and to institutions that they need.

ABUSE OF POWER:

WASHINGTON, March 7 (UPI) — The president of a California college is sending a letter to President Bush apologizing for an instructor who gave students extra credit for writing anti-war missives to the White House.

Citrus College President Louis E. Zellers wrote that Professor Rosalyn Kahn “did abuse her authority” in assigning students in her Speech 106 class to write letters to Bush protesting the possible war with Iraq.

“Students were clear in their understanding that they would only receive credit if they wrote ‘protest’ letters,” Zellers said in a letter of thanks to FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education — a Philadelphia-based campus watchdog group.

FIRE’s Chief Executive Officer, Thor L. Halvorssen, praised the school. “When fully informed of a frightening violation of freedom of conscience, the college administration responded swiftly and boldly to restore liberty and to undo the harm already done,” he said.

An apology to Bush? How about an apology to the academic community, for making it look like a bunch of politically-driven weasels?

PERSPECTIVE, from Walter Russell Mead:

The sad truth is, the Security Council doesn’t count for much when nations contemplate war. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, since 1945 there have been 26 international wars, with total deaths estimated at 3.5 million. Only three of those wars had Security Council authorization, including the recent conflict in Afghanistan; the largest, the 1950-53 Korean conflict, was only a U.N. operation because Josef Stalin was in a snit and had ordered his Soviet representative to boycott council meetings. . . .

The United States may be a diplomatic cowboy, but we aren’t riding the only horse on the range. Every permanent member of the U.N. Security Council has

undertaken at least one war without the council’s permission or endorsement. . . .

The plain if slightly sad fact is that from the day the U.N. Security Council first met in 1946, no great power has ever stayed out of a war because the council voted against it, and no great military power ever got into a war because the Security Council ordered it to.

Read the whole thing.

MY DAUGHTER HAS STREP THROAT, and I’ve been busy with her. Sorry for the lack of posts. But there’s new stuff over at GlennReynolds.com for your amusement.

UPDATE: And there’s a lot of new stuff over at Virginia Postrel’s page, too.

HERE’S A LINK to a webcast of a Duke University panel on the Korematsu case, featuring law-blogger Eric Muller and Prof. Peter Irons.

ELAINE WILL BE HAPPY: The Sponge is back! And here’s a sad-but-true comment:

“You can get affordable, safe contraceptives better in Bangladesh than you can in New York City,” Ms. Bell said, “and that’s wrong.”

Somebody needs to work on that.

SADDAM IS LOSING POPULARITY among the Arab masses:

Saddam once was applauded as a hero who stood up to the United States when no other Arab leader would. Today, Arabs increasingly portray him as a reckless despot who is not doing enough to save his people or his neighbors from a conflagration, and who has taken the region to war twice before.

Sadly, it’s not really because of stories like this:

As she stepped up to the Iraqi checkpoint, a military policeman suddenly pulled a knife, slashed open the flimsy plastic containers and splashed petrol all over her.

Then the head of the Iraqi border guard casually walked up to her, pulled a lighter from his pocket and set her ablaze. Soaked in fuel, she began to burn like a torch. That was on Monday afternoon. Yesterday Nazif lay in Sulaimania emergency hospital, on the Iraqi side, whimpering with pain. She had third degree burns and doctors said she was lucky to be alive. . . .

In a faltering voice, she said: “They said absolutely nothing, just looked at me with hatred. Then they set me alight. My whole body was in flames. I can’t describe the pain.

“If it wasn’t for an old man who smothered me with his coat I would have burnt alive.

“The border guards just stood and watched. Even after the flames were out they refused to let me return to the hospital in Kirkuk.”

Get their names.

THE “CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT” has been struck down. Here’s a link to the opinion, styled ACLU v. Ashcroft, in PDF format.

MICHAEL MORAN writes that France is seeking paybacks for Suez.

I think that Eisenhower was wrong to do what he did then, though I regret it a lot less when I reflect on the consistent pattern of French fecklessness over the past century. But France’s efforts here — which have everything to do with parochial concerns and nothing to do with promoting “world peace” — merely serve to demonstrate even more clearly that the United Nations is a purely political body with no moral component whatsoever.

JACK VALENTI’S NIGHTMARE: Except that the movies they’re making these days mostly aren’t worth stealing anyway.

ARAB LIBERALS seem supportive of a U.S. invasion, which might create a “window of opportunity” for democratizing the region.

NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME — the FBI is in trouble for dishonesty in search warrant applications. But meanwhile it seems to be covering up failures in anti-terror investigations.

And nobody’s being fired for either lapse. But then, nobody ever is. Except, sometimes, the people who call attention to the lapses.

FRANCE IS ARMING IRAQ:

A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.

The spare parts included goods for Iraq’s French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. . . .

Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said. . . .

An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. “No wonder the French are opposing us,” this official said. . . .

France has been Iraq’s best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a “personal friend.”

More support for the Den Beste theory that the French and Germans are blocking the war to conceal evidence that they’ve been violating sanctions. Of course, the French government may not have known about this — but even if that’s true, it’s going to make it rather hard for them to credibly claim that the current “containment” regime is working.

UPDATE: “Treachery of the lowest order.”

THE PAK TRIBUNE IS REPORTING THE ARREST OF OSAMA BIN LADEN (“or his son”) — and I have no idea how much credence to give this. I’ve been of the opinion that he’s dead; I could be wrong, though, of course.

The problem is that this report could be wrong, or it could be disinformation. Or it could be true, and the government could want it kept quiet for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons. We’ll know soon enough, I imagine, if it’s true.

UPDATE: It’s two of his sons, according to a Pakistani official. But U.S. officials say it’s not true. Well, kind of.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Austin Bay emails:

Our offensive action in the MIddle East –the build up to strike Saddam– intentionally provokes Al Qaeda. They stir and we watch for the stir. A terrorist’s ace is surprise. AQ is now operating on our timeline, the one we create by action against Iraq. I see you hit that point again in a post. It’s an important one.

Indeed.

A LOT OF PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK that Bush’s comments last night about Iraq being a threat to the United States and its neighbors were merely policy justifications.

But they’re also laying the groundwork for justifying an attack on Iraq, even without Security Council approval, as self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Many among the international-law professoriate will opine that this isn’t enough — but that’s only one opinion, and one that has little credibility given that the organizing principle of the international-law professoriate and commentariat sometimes seems to be “whatever the United States wants to do is against the law.”

Bush seems to be trying very hard — harder, I think, than I would in his place — to preserve the viability of the United Nations. I’m not sure why, but I am sure that he will get scant credit for it.