ROBERT MUSIL is casting doubt upon the Den Beste Theory. On the other hand, he’s uncovered still more information on the economic interests that France, Germany, Russia, and China have in keeping Saddam in power.

OKAY, HERE’S ANOTHER ONE: Whenever I write about Knoxville, or post pictures from Knoxville, I get email from homesick Knoxville expats in New York, Los Angeles, Bangalore, etc.

So here’s another picture. I took this from the Indian Mound on Cherokee Boulevard on the way home from work. It had just rained, and — in the large version, at least, which you can get to by clicking the photo — you can see the mist rising from the lake. The pears are starting to bloom, and I actually saw a cluster of dogwoods blooming early today. They were on a southward-facing slope, and it must be warmer there, because mine aren’t even close.

The actual Dogwood Festival is still weeks away, so that’s a good thing. But my daffodils are blooming, and spring is definitely here. I’m ready.

To all you folks along the Great Lakes, where things are reportedly freezing solid, well — you’ve got my sympathy. Unless, like Sari Stein, you just love the snow, in which case I guess I’ve got your sympathy.

IS RESOLUTION 1441 AN AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR? In Bush v. Doe, the First Circuit notes that: “In diplomatic parlance, the phrase ‘serious consequences’ generally refers to military action.”

(Reader Bert Wolff noticed this.)

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has more from that case.

JAMES ZOGBY’S POTEMKIN DIALOGUE: Zach Barbera is deeply unimpressed with a program that lets American college students talk via satellite with “typical” Iraqi students — who, of course, are vetted by the Iraqi government and whose every word is watched.

ME, A GREEN? HEY — THESE INTERNET QUIZZES DON’T LIE!

(Picture of Nader removed because it was taking forever to load, if it loaded at all.)

Green – You believe that small economic units
should control the goods, and that the
government should be permissive of
“victimless crimes,” respectful of
civil liberties and very strict towards big
business. You also believe in either a
socialist tax structure or more power to local
communities. You think that environmental
policies should be written into law. Your
historical role model is Ralf Nader.

Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Er, do they? And is “Ralf” Nader any relation to the guy in the picture?

SAMIZDATA POINTS to this story on corruption in the EU and observes:

But whereas businessmen at Enron and elsewhere were swiftly brought before the courts, it seems that corruption in the bureaucracy of the EU is proving much tougher to clean up.

To which I would add, why is anyone surprised?

Somehow, these scandals never lead people to question government, the way that scandals like Enron lead to dark warnings about the “dark side of capitalism.”

I’M QUITE HAPPY TO BE MARRIED, but if I were still single, how could I not be interested in a billionairess who made her money from brewing beer?

(Via Aaron Bailey, who also points out that McDonald’s new wi-fi will be better for your wallet and your waistline than Starbucks’ — and he’s got the numbers to prove it!)

UPDATE: Conrad emails that I’ve inspired this profession of undying love. Hey, she could do worse!

EUGENE VOLOKH OFFERS ADVICE on choosing titles for law review articles. I wonder how he’d feel about an article entitled Is Democracy Like Sex?

CHRIS BERTRAM has an interesting observation on Algeria, and the French government’s role in perpetuating the bloodletting there.

LA HABRA UPDATE: The vandalized 9/11 memorial has been rebuilt, bigger than before.

Not everyone is happy, though, as “peace” activist Jennifer Quintana makes clear:

“It’s an American flag, obviously it has everything to do with the war,” she told the crowd. “There should be no war, just peace and togetherness.”

According to this story, she then demonstrated her commitment to peace and togetherness by assaulting one of the people who reconstructed the memorial. Sheesh.

HERE’S AN INTERVIEW WITH JEFF JARVIS about his new syndicated warblog, and about blogs and Big Media in general.

Meanwhile, here’s a story on weblogs that quotes a lot of D.C.-area bloggers. And here’s an interesting story on vloggging that I just noticed.

I ALMOST DIDN’T LINK THIS, because the basic argument is old news in the blogosphere. But on reflection, I think it’s pretty big news that William Safire is endorsing the Steven Den Beste theory that the nations opposing war against Saddam are doing so largely to cover up their own violation of sanctions:

France, China and Syria all have a common reason for keeping American and British troops out of Iraq: the three nations may not want the world to discover that their nationals have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface missiles.

We’re not talking about short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles, which Saddam is ostentatiously destroying to help his protectors avert an invasion, nor his old mobile Scuds. The delivery system for mass destruction warheads requires a much more sophisticated propulsion system and fuels.

He seems to have done some research, too, as he’s got details. And it sounds like more are on the way.

MY TAKE ON WEBLOGS AND EMPLOYERS, as quoted in this article:

He advises company officials to ignore the Web logs of employees as long as they don’t waste company time, don’t attempt to speak for the company and don’t break the law.

“Besides,” he says, “this is America, where free speech is valued. That should matter, even in circumstances where there’s no actual legal protection. … Obviously, an employee who spills trade secrets via a blog should be fired, just as one who spills trade secrets via other means should be fired. But that hardly calls for a special Web log ‘policy.’ The last thing anybody needs is some ‘Dilbert-esque’ Web log policy.”

Not everyone agrees, however.

SUSANNAH BRESLIN has been looking into those “controversial” Puma ads.

ARTHUR SILBER thinks that Bush is being stupid to push the partial-birth abortion ban. I’m inclined to agree. Yeah, I know, shore up the base, etc. But is it really doing that? Maybe.

JANES.COM has an interesting piece on France vs. the United States:

France used to have large oil interests in Iraq, and a reasonable expectation of retaining some influence in the region. Chirac’s current policy has put all this at risk. The French attitude has also split Europe, with Britain, Spain, Italy and the former communist countries in eastern Europe now deeply suspicious of Paris. The French leader always knew that, ultimately, he could not stop the USA from resorting to war. So why is he persisting?

Mainly because he believes that all the disadvantages pale into insignificance in comparison with the ultimate prize: a France that leads all those willing to stand up to US ‘arrogance’ around the world, a France that articulates Europe’s distinct opinion and enjoys a good reputation in the Arab world as well.

Is the new French global policy impregnable? There are two snags. First, the USA is now determined to foil Chirac’s policies; President George W Bush will do everything possible to make sure that France ultimately emerges the loser; until now the French were considered in Washington as just a nuisance, but now they are widely regarded as a real menace.

Second, Chirac assumes that Germany is now wedded to an anti-US policy. Yet Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s coalition government in Berlin is teetering, and may well collapse in a year or so.

I think that Chirac also underestimates the extent to which he is breeding long-term hostility among ordinary Americans — and hence, among American politicians long after Bush is gone — as a result of what is widely seen as betrayal, not simple opposition. Chirac may not care: it was another French leader who said apres moi, le deluge, after all. But the French people should care, and so should any French politicians with ambition to succeed him.

FROM THE SPECTATOR:

Those Europeans, including British people, who attack American policy have not seen thousands of their own citizens killed before their eyes in a single act. And they are not prepared to do anything about it themselves.

This surely is the crucial point. Americans are not warlike people, but they will now go after rogue states and terrorists because, if they don’t, no one else will. All over the world, America takes on responsibilities because others shirk them. They got involved in Kosovo because Europeans had neither the means nor the ability to sort it out. They pursue a ‘one-sided’ policy on Israel because without it the Jews would be driven into the sea. They need a huge increase in military spending partly because France, Germany and others are not prepared to spend a penny more themselves.

What the present crisis underlines is that Western Europe is losing its influence. In the coming decades, the greatest growth of manufacturing will be in China, the fastest growth of population in the Middle East and India, and the strongest enterprise culture and greatest military power will remain in America. The sound we can hear from Paris and Berlin is not the march of ever closer union, but the rage of ever closer impotence. Once again, when the world gets dangerous, it is the Americans, British and Australians who respond. The vacuum left by others leaves us no choice.

Yes, Jim Bennett’s “anglosphere” concept is looking more prescient every day.

UGLY LOSERS: Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan, Jim Moran, and others come in for a pounding over antisemitism:

And that’s why Moran, Buchanan, Matthews, Novak — and more leftists than I can count — should be ashamed. They’ve lost an argument. They lost it on the merits and they don’t like it. In their arrogance or bitterness, they assume they couldn’t have lost the fight fairly, and so they look for whispering neocons and clever Jews (or, in other contexts, nefarious oil traders).

Ugly indeed, especially in the cases of Buchanan and Moran.

JACK BALKIN WRITES about the Padilla case:

No one is going to mistake Padilla for a choirboy. He is a member of a Chicago street gang. He may well be up to no good, and if he violated the law, he should be punished for his crimes. But he is also a United States citizen. The rights of citizens include the rights in our Bill of Rights, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Those rights apply whether one is good or bad, whether one is guilty or innocent, and whether one is a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian.

The Justice Department was wrong to insist that by simply designating some one an enemy combatant, the Executive can strip away the basic constitutional protections that all citizens enjoy. If the government can strip away Padilla’s rights at will, it can strip away yours and mine. When you give government arbitrary power, eventually it will use that power arbitrarily.

I agree. I have no problem with the detention of illegal combatants from Al Qaeda. But we need a firewall where U.S. citizens are concerned, because without it, there’s a risk that such power will be used against political opponents, something that is deeply corrupting.

AMITAI ETZIONI REFLECTS:

If you are worried about the quality of our top-line intellectual magazines, the following quote might reassure you: Harpers found in its December 2002 issue that “the minimum number of neutered pets worldwide that have been implanted with fake testicles stands at 100,000.”

But what’s really impressive is that he then discusses some other articles about politics, and doesn’t work in a fake-testicles joke.

CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES is over at Jay Caruso’s this week. Check out posts from all over the Blogosphere.

FORWARD TO THE PAST! I agree with Ellen Goodman on a lot of this. And who’d’ve thought she’d quote me on paper ballots?

IF YOU MISSED IT YESTERDAY, check out Day by Day, and this interview with its creator, Chris Muir. I think this could be the next Doonesbury.

STUPID JOURNALIST TRICKS: A lot of people are upset about this story, misleadingly headlined PENTAGON THREATENS TO KILL INDEPENDENT REPORTERS IN IRAQ.

What the story is really about, though, is the Pentagon warning people who operate satellite uplinks in Iraq that they might be targeted during an attack.

Well, yeah. What makes these people think that they’re entitled to immunity from what’s going on around them in a battle zone? To an anti-radiation missile, a journalist’s satellite uplink looks just like a military communications facility. Saying that the Pentagon is “threatening to kill independent journalists” who insist on operating one during a war is like saying the Pentagon is “threatening to kill” people by warning them that if they drive around in tanks, wearing Iraqi uniforms, they might be shot at during an attack. Duh.

My question is, do people who don’t know the difference, or who know it and deliberately obscure it, deserve to be called “journalists” at all? Even if they work for the BBC?

And my answer is “no.”