Third Party Speculation

I've watched various attempts at third parties in this country start out quite hopefully. Unfortunately, they seem to have all ended badly in one way or another. Now Peggy Noonan, writing in the Opinion Journal speculates on whether the time is right, finally.

Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began.

All my adult life, people have been saying that the two-party system is ending, that the Democrats' and Republicans' control of political power in America is winding down. According to the traditional critique, the two parties no longer offer the people the choice they want and deserve. Sometimes it's said they are too much alike–Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Sometimes it's said they're too polarizing–too red and too blue for a nation in which many see things through purple glasses.

In 1992 Ross Perot looked like the breakthrough, the man who would make third parties a reality. He destabilized the Republicans and then destabilized himself. By the end of his campaign he seemed to be the crazy old aunt in the attic.

The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it's coming back, I think it's going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history.

The history of the third party has been that it acted as a spoiler. Having no real chance to be elected themselves, they only succeeded in denying office to someone else. Noonan may have hit on something with her observation of why the third party approach is so far missing the mark. It is in the way the third party has framed itself.

The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people–between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

On the ground in America, people worry terribly–really, there are people who actually worry about it every day–about endless, weird, gushing government spending. But in Washington, those in power–Republicans and Democrats–stand arm in arm as they spend and spend. (Part of the reason is that they think they can buy off your unhappiness one way or another. After all, it's worked in the past. A hunch: It's not going to work forever or much longer. They've really run that trick into the ground.)

On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation. Americans worry about the myriad implications of the collapse of the American border. But Washington doesn't. Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican George W. Bush see things pretty much eye to eye. They are going to educate the American people out of their low concerns.

There is a widespread sense in America–a conviction, actually–that we are not safe in the age of terror. That the port, the local power plant, even the local school, are not protected. Is Washington worried about this? Not so you'd notice. They're only worried about seeming unconcerned.

More to the point, people see the Republicans as incapable of managing the monster they've helped create–this big Homeland Security/Intelligence apparatus that is like some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can't even put on his T-shirt without help because he's so muscle-bound. As for the Democrats, who co-created Homeland Security, no one–no one–thinks they would be more managerially competent. Nor does anyone expect the Democrats to be more visionary as to what needs to be done. The best they can hope is the Democrats competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down.

Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They're in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.

She may have really nailed it here. The two existing parties are so closely aligned these days that the people on the ground really can't tell them apart anymore. Tax and spend Democrats morph seamlessly into tax and spend Republicans. I still don't know if a third party can succeed, but there is certainly some food for thought here for both parties right now.

Big Surprise

A new poll shows Americans fully support the searching of Congressional offices when authorities obtain a warrant.

 June 1, 2006 —  In the rift between Congress and the Justice Department, Americans side overwhelmingly with law enforcement: Regardless of precedent and the separation of powers, 86 percent say the FBI should be allowed to search a Congress member's office if it has a warrant.

That view is broadly bipartisan, this ABC News poll finds, ranging from 78 percent among Democrats to 94 percent of Republicans.

Is ANYONE on Capitol hill listening to the people anymore? This issue will hurt all incumbents if the theatrics continue and Congress keeps throwing a temper tantrum. All this posturing about Congressional privilege will hurt everyone.

Politically, the Democrats have a small edge in perceived honesty, but there's not much advantage for either party on this issue. Sixteen percent of Americans think Democrats are generally more ethical and honest than Republicans; nine percent think the opposite. But most by far — 72 percent — say there isn't much difference between them.

ABC tries hard to spin the tiny difference hopefully for the Democrats, but the bottom line here is that Congress pretty much looks equally bad whether you're talking about Republicans or Democrats. This one is radioactive, someone should maybe wake up, don't you think?

A Whole New Twist On Rustling

There have been cattle rustlers for probably about as long as there have been cattle. It was a hanging offense in some places in this country not really all that long ago. But this story, from Ogdensburg, New York is a whole new twist on the crime.

Victor R. Gardner, 22, is accused of squeezing seven of the young cattle into the back seat and trunk of a 2000 Dodge Neon. He is charged with third-degree burglary and third-degree grand larceny.

Gardner had the help of an accomplice when he allegedly drove the calves to a barn in DeKalb, St. Lawrence County Sheriff's deputies said.

I have heard of truck rustlers and I have even heard of chainsaw rustlers, but I have never, ever heard of a Dodge Neon rustler. Will wonders never cease? But just think of what Detroit could do with this!

"Dodge Neon, with the largest cattle carrying capacity in it's class!" Hey - I want to copyright that idea!

The BAD Humor Man

The ice cream truck is always a sign of summer for me. When I was growing up we used to listen for those bells ringing in the distance. When we heard them, we'd rush inside and beg Mom for money, then hurry out to meet the truck when it reached our street. It was one of the high points of any summer day.

Things aren't so innocent these days, I guess.

Police say they found a nearly empty pint bottle of vodka between the front seats of an ice cream truck after they pulled over the driver for swerving into the wrong lane.

Goshen Police Patrolman Jared Baer spotted the yellow-and-white van in a subdivision, after several motorists called Saturday to report the swerving vehicle in the city about 25 miles southeast of South Bend, police said.

The van was stopped, and the driver was selling ice cream to children, so Baer waited until Dennis D. Cogburn, 51, of Bowie, Texas, started up again.

Baer said he followed the van and pulled it over after Cogburn failed to signal turns and swerved into the wrong lane.

Cogburn failed field sobriety tests and was arrested on a preliminary charge of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Cogburn's blood alcohol level was three times the state limit. I'm glad they got him off the street before he killed someone.

Can You Copyright Nature

That's what this case reported in the New York Times appears to be asking. It seems that Mr. Dale Chihuly, a famous glass artist, is suing two people for infringing his copyright on "lopsided creations" inspired by the sea.

But now Mr. Chihuly is in the midst of a hard-edged legal fight in federal court here over the distinctiveness of his creations and, more fundamentally, who owns artistic expression in the glass art world.

Mr. Chihuly has sued two glass blowers, including a longtime collaborator, for copyright infringement, accusing them of imitating his signature lopsided creations, and other designs inspired by the sea.

"About 99 percent of the ocean would be wide open," Mr. Chihuly said in an interview. "Look, all I'm trying to do is to prevent somebody from copying me directly."

The glass blowers say that Mr. Chihuly is trying to control entire forms, shapes and colors and that his brand does not extend to ancient and evolving techniques derived from the natural world.

"Just because he was inspired by the sea does not mean that no one else can use the sea to make glass art," said Bryan Rubino, the former acolyte named in the suit who worked for Mr. Chihuly as a contractor or employee for 14 years. "If anything, Mother Nature should be suing Dale Chihuly."

The suit, rare in art circles, offers a sometimes unflattering glimpse at how high-powered commercial artists like Mr. Chihuly work. The two glass blowers say that he has very little to do with much of the art, and that he sometimes buys objects and puts the Chihuly name on them, a contention that Mr. Chihuly strongly denies.

He acknowledges that he has not blown glass for 27 years, dating from a surfing accident that cost him the full range of shoulder motion, an injury that struck three years after he had lost sight in his left eye in a traffic accident.

Still, Mr. Chihuly said, he works with sketches, faxes and through exhortation. Nothing with his name on it ever came from anyone but himself, he said.

Andrew Page, editor of Glass: The Urban Glass Art Quarterly, which is published in New York, said that Mr. Chihuly deserved a high place in the pantheon of glass artists, but that the suit could hurt his reputation by igniting countercharges and opening a window into how a celebrity artist works on a mass scale.

"I think Dale Chihuly is a pure original," Mr. Page said. "He has a tremendous sense of color and composition. And he has done a tremendous amount for the field. But this lawsuit may have been the worst thing he could have done."

And it very well may be that Chihuly will manage to damage himself in the long run with this. Can someone - or even more importantly, should one - be able to copyright nature? I suspect that's somewhat arrogant. Later in the article some case law is mentioned that a different case involving other artists was thrown out because the judge ruled that nature could not be copyrighted. I suspect that's going to be the outcome here. We'll see, I guess. The article does give an interesting glance into the world of people like Mr. Chihuly, a glass artist who hasn't actually blown any glass in 27 years. Fascinating.

Kabul Riots

Bill Roggio reports from Afghanistan. The rioting that occurred there after an accident involving a military truck in which civilians were killed may not be quite what the US media reported.

The rioting occurred one of the more socially liberal and less secure neighborhoods in the city. The neighborhood includes Western expatriots, Non-Government Organizations, numerous businesses, restaurants, bars (yes, they exist in Afghanistan) and even a brothel. The Afghan Attorney General resides in the neighborhood. Rioters attacked several Afghan businesses and restaurants, and looted and torched the NGOs CARE Afghanistan and ACTED. The brothel was also set ablaze, and the owner died later that day of a heart attack.

The violence was not Taliban-inspired, but composed mainly of Hazaris. The Haziris are an ethnic group that fought the Taliban under the banner of the Northern Alliance and followers of Ahmad Shah Masood , who was killed by al-Qaeda two days prior to 9-11. Masood's image is prevalent in Kabul. The Hazaris have recently been marginalized by the Karzai administration after they lost their last cabinet post. The rioters were largely young, unemployed males, and there was a significant criminal element involved.

Roggio talked to people who believe the rioting was actually planned in advance and just needed a spark which the accident provided. At least part of what we are seeing in the media these days are events which are specifically being orchestrated for the media. We really have to keep that in mind when we're reading reports on"spontaneous" demonstrations.

United 93

If anyone is interested, United 93 is still in the top 10 at Box Office Mojo and continues to make money. It's earned twice it's production cost in five weeks. Mission Impossible 3 has yet to cover it's costs.

SOS From An Egyptian Blogger

The Ranting Sandmonkey writes in the Christian Science Monitor. At least there is some media pressure now. Not enough, but some.

CAIRO – As I write this, I am watching Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak give his speech at the World Economic Forum, being held in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. The usually pro-US Mubarak has just delivered what can only be described as a fiery anti-US speech, criticizing the American push for democratic reforms in Egypt. He informed the world that he was confident his government was "on the right path" when it comes to democratic reforms, but he cautioned that changes should be gradual to avoid "chaos and setbacks."

Obviously, Mubarak is feeling some heat. Maybe it's time to start withholding aid to Egypt to increase the pressure.

Blame Game

Despite the fact that the US has been trying for years now to work through it's European allies to resolve the situation in Iran, the latest cacophony from the media is that the US must negotiate with Iran. The media informs us in sonorous terms that only direct negotiations will solve the impasse.

So the administration surprises them and agrees to direct negotiations. And the press notes it and informs us that the administration simply had no choice but to negotiate. Of course, no matter that the Iranians rejected the offer out of hand. It's still painted all in terms of the US.

The problem here is that the media seems intent on ignoring the obvious. Iran has never been serious about these or any other negotiations. It is not the US that has been intransigent here. The more the media refuses to acknowledge that, the less the pressure on Iran to actually negotiate in good faith. It's time to stop blaming the US and it's allies and start pointing out who is really at fault here.

Tha Appearance Of Impropriety

Harry Reid, after a couple of days of bobbing and weaving - and a heated defense from the left blogosphere - has finally admitted that his taking of free boxing tickets won't be repeated. As I said when I first posted on this, the appearance of impropriety costs you the moral high ground.

Reversing course, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.

The Nevada senator still believes it was "entirely permissible" for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.

"In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," spokesman Jim Manley said.

The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.

It may or may not have been permissible under the applicable ethics rules. By now the water is so muddy it's a bit hard to see the bottom. But by trying to use the double-edged sword, the Democrats should have realized it would come back on them. Which is why I have always maintained this was a really bad strategy to try.