Dope

The end of Sir Thomas Browne�s Garden of Cyrus, a meditation on the forms and meaning of the quincunx, is one of the most gorgeous ringings down of the curtain in all literature:

Night which Pagan Theology could make the daughter of Chaos, affords no other advantage to the description of order: Although no lower then that Masse can we derive its Genealogy. All things began in order, so shall they end, and so shall they begin again; according to the ordainer of order and mystical Mathematicks of the City of Heaven.

Though Somnus in Homer be sent to rowse up Agamemnon, I finde no such effects in these drowsy approaches of sleep. To keep our eyes open longer were but to act our Antipodes. The Huntsmen are up in America, and they are already past their first sleep in Persia. But who can be drowsie at that howr which freed us from everlasting sleep? Or have slumbring thoughts at that time, when sleep it self must end, as some conjecture all shall awake again?

LI is impressed by this on a number of levels (let me not count the ways). Take, for instance, the tacit opposition between the hunters in America and the writer and his audience in the Old World. The page that is ended is also, for the reader, the page that is turned. But the page turned in the Old World will not be turned back in the New � in the New, they hunt. In the New, action, not contemplation, occurs over the hills and dales; the old violence is renewed, the old energy revived, and who knows if the hunters will not one day set up an X on those hills again, and nail a man to it.

Opposition, the antipodes, for Browne, and for all educated Europeans, was not a thing of the mind, but in the very grain of nature, operating there much as the opponents in a chess game operate, moving pieces against each other, creating the patterns that appear and disappear on the board. This sense of opposition as a living principle, the foundation of alchemy, magic, and natural philosophy in general, was weakened by the Enlightenment and overthrown entirely by Darwinism. Opposition has retreated to a mere mode of cognition, and not, probably, a very respectable one.

All this folderol to tell you, readers, that LI has been reading Hayek's much touted and little read summa, The Constitution of Liberty -- and we have found our opposite. It is a book with whose premises we agree vehemently, and with whose conclusions we disagree with equal vehemence. More in our next post.

Remora

After a night of disturbing dreams, LI awoke to find ourselves transformed into a crab... No. It isn't the dreams that have been disturbing, but the news. Merely the news. Every day, showered with evidences of universal imbecility, LI gets more crab-like -- with a crustacean's melancholy, or what we imagine to be the melancholy of an imperfectly armored creature. Yesterday, we were putting out a claw and an antenna, testing the air, and we stumbled upon, of all things, good news. Let's modify that as -- less than catastrophic news. News of the type: dam holds. Building does not collapse. Type news. Good news, in short, from, of all places, the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling, the S.C. actually built a levee, at least a temporary one, against takings madness.



"The Supreme Court ruled today that a government-imposed moratorium on property development, even one that lasts for years, does not automatically amount to a "taking" of private property for which taxpayers must compensate the landowners.The 6-to-3 decision was a sharp setback for the property rights movement, which has scored many recent successes in the Supreme Court. The ruling came in a case that sought millions of dollars in compensation for a prolonged restriction on development along the shores of Lake Tahoe."

The takings movement, which is the child of the University of Chicago Law and Economics movement, has become the right's battering ram against environmental and, in general, corporate management. It is an attempt to hotwire a coup against the New Deal behind the backs of the electorate. The coup is rather funny -- these are the same people who want to reduce social costs, which is a real cost against third parties, i.e., property-holders, into a vaguely distributed "externality." But their ardor for property is really an ardor for large property holders... Far be it from us to evoke that dread and discredited phrase, class warfare, for this instance of class warfare. But one needs an analytic category to explain systematic discrepencies in the application of a theory, and class, pace the neo-liberal crowd, certainly seems to fit the bill.

Scalia, the right's Quasimodo on the court, suffered a setback with the ruling. NYT, again:

"For Justice Scalia, the decision today in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, No. 00-1167, must have been a particularly bitter defeat in two respects.

First, the majority rejected an expansive ruling of one of his most important opinions, a 10-year-old decision called Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in which the court announced for the first time that a land-use regulation that, while leaving the property in the owner's hands, permanently deprived it of all economic use was a "categorical taking" that must be compensated.The Lucas decision breached what had been a doctrinal wall between a physical taking, in which the government actually takes possession of private property and for which compensation has always been required, and a "regulatory taking," in which the government restricts the owner's use of the property."

The second defeat is more technical. To paraphrase the NYT, Scalia had advocated a flat rule regarding the application of regulatory taking, which claimed that no pre-existing regulation should be considered when considering individual cases that might constitute such takings. Thus, the size of the taking would be calculated without regard to previous restrictions on the property -- an absurd attempt to inflate the cost of regulatory taking, the importance of which lies less in the individual cases to which it might apply than in scaring legislatures from considering measures that might, conceivably, be construed as regulatory takings -- measures such as protecting wetlands.

Private property is not, in itself, theft, contra Proudhon -- the phrase is in the nature of a sorites. However, given the wild eyed ideology of the Law and Economics movement, property functions as theft. The "takings" movement goes back to a case, Pennsylvania Coal Company vs. Mahon, from 1922. The Community Rights Org website has a nice summary of the case:

"Mahon sold the surface rights to land, but he reserved the right to remove the coal from under the land. The state then enacted a statute that prohibited coal mining if it threatened subsidence and damage to structures on the surface. The Court ruled that the restriction constituted a taking of Mahon's coal because the law made it commercially impractical for Mahon to mine the coal and thus had the same effect as destroying or appropriating the coal. In the first decision to hold that a land use restriction constituted a taking, the Court noted that "property may be regulated to a certain extent, [but] if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."

Holmes wrote the following in his opinion:

"The question of whether a regulation is a valid exercise of the police power or an unconstitutional taking depends on the particular facts. The property being protected here is private property belonging to a single citizen, in which there is no public nuisance if it is destroyed. The law is not justified as a protection of personal safety. The contract itself provided notice of the risks, and the grantee still contracted. Since coal rights are worthless if the coal can not be mined, preventing their mining is a taking because it is tantamount to destroying it. If the police power of the states is allowed to abridge the contract rights of parties, it will continue until private property disappears completely. In general, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.The loss should not fall on the coal company who provided for this very risk contractually. If the state wants more protection for its citizens,it can pay for it."

How Holmes logically juggled his argument that the slippery slope was inevitable, but that "property may be regulated to a certain extent," I leave to the psychologists. If, indeed, there are gradiants of regulation such that we can understand the phrase "a certain extent," then the force of the idea that abridging contract rights, i.e., regulation of property use, is such that "it will continue until private property disappears completely," is, to say the least, weakened.

Brandeis dissented in this case. Here's his dissent

"A restriction imposed to protect the public health, safety or morals from danger is not a taking. The restriction here is merely the prohibition of a noxious use. Just because a few private citizens are enriched does not make the law non-public. If the mining were to set free noxious gas, there would be noquestion that the state could prohibit it for the safety of the citizens, without paying the miner."

In LI's opinion, the Brandeis dissent is obvious. LI's opinion has been the opinion of the Federal Government, and of state governments, since the 1930s. The throwback position reminds us of why, originally, FDR tried to pack the court -- since the Court periodically feels called upon to play the avant garde for the reactionary cenacle among the ruling classs. Let's sum up: the robbery of the commons isn't justified by the enrichment of the property owner. And this isn't inessential robbery -- we are interested, as a society, in punishing individual robbery (instead of letting that duty devolve upon the victims as it may) because, theoretically, any robbery is an assault against a common good.

So, the court didn't do anything particularly lunatic yesterday. Good news. We are waggling our claws for joy. Dance dance dance.

Correspondence

LI has received, by way of a friend of a friend, a reply to our last post. Here it is:

"Where to begin...

First of all, the cretin in France would find no home in mainstream American conservative politics. Remember: today's right in America is for less government involvement and control over citizens. When confronted with a choice of citizens overcoming corporations and citizens overcoming governments (with police and armies...) they overwhelmingly choose to take their chances with corporations. A unilateralist, big government socialist like Jospin in an anethma to the mainstream American right. Quite frankly,
Gore and Daschle are the closest equivalents available in mainstream American politics. Their issues are not Jospin's (and I don't mean to slander them in that way) - but they are the politicians practicing
minority rule in America on their big issues (Environment and Taxation).

As for why The 3rd Way buried traditional leftist politics: that's easy. Their politics impoverished all who submitted to them. It happened 100% of the time to 100% of those afflicted (usually by force perpetrated by a small minority of people who chose themselves to be the government of the people afflicted...). The only variation was the rate and pace of the economic decay in the afflicted societies. France and many of EU-niks felt really good about their socialist tilt of the past 30 years while it was happening - but as a result they've (collectively) gone from the premier power on earth to an afterthought begging for attention and a voice on the world stage.

Finally: all the Enron comments are just tripe. Enron owns as many Democrats as Republicans. That's why the Dem's aren't (can't actually...) making a big issue out of it..."

Dope

In a decade, the Third Way has effectually buried every left wing party that embraced it, except for Tony Blair's Labour Party -- and for Mr. Blair, the hens, or is it the vultures, are coming home to roost. Especially in the aftermath of his poodle act for Mr. Bush. The British have traditionally, and inexplicably, imagined themselves collectively as a bull-dog -- but even the British don't necessarily want to see their leader flaunt a fetch it boy attitude, which Mr. Blair displayed in his pow-wow with his master in Crawford, Texas (not exactly Yalta. More like, Y'allta).

And now Jospin. A socialist leader who couldn't find one single issue that would distinguish him from his conservative opponent. Not that the French socialist party has accrued a lot of credit since Mitterand was elected on the promise of breaking with the logic of capitalism, and was promptly broken by the logic of capitalism. Still, there is the 35 hour working week; there is the social service sector, embattled but still funtioning; and there is the rhetorical opposition to the avatar of the logic of capitalism in our time, the USA. Not that LI approves of that rhetoric very much -- in fact, its inhuman consequence in Rwanda remains to be explored. We'd like nothing better than to see the Mitterandish clique that encouraged the genocide in Rwanda marched into court in the Hague. Still, in the Middle East, and in Russia, and in Latin America, the French hesitancy about the American model has served as a hopeful corrective to those of us who think unleashing a pure market economy upon the helpless multitudes is a recipe for disaster.

The point is this, though: even as the leaders of the left were dismantling it, they were assuring us that they were merely modernizing it. The new face of the left, for the new millenium. In the film, Brazil, there is a recurring comic gag concerning older women getting their faces lifted. The face lifts involved swathing their heads in plastic sheeting for a period, and then cutting the sheeting off. The result was an ephemeral, goggly youthfulness, a grotesque contrast with their aging bodies, followed by a period in which the face would "leak." Meanwhile, the plastic surgeon would insist on the beauty of the warped faces, the drooping cheeks, the flacid noses and weird lips -- a congery of impressively hag-like features -- he'd produced.

That plastic surgeon is Jospin. He is Blair. He is Clinton. He is Schroeder. The collective direction of the lefty parties in the West has been lost not because the rank and file are suffering a crisis of faith. No, it is because the leadership longed for that respectability that comes from betraying every one of labor's ideals to Capital. In exchange, the leadership got touted by the editorialists of the world's leading newspapers. The leaders got to hang out at Davos. And they lost all credibility with their followers. It is a nightmarish situation. How can you vote for a liberal, in the United States, for instance, when your choice is between George Bush and Al Gore? Between a man owned lock stock and oil barrel by energy companies, and a man who shilled for the defense industry in the Arabian Peninsula, and never met a corporate contributor he wouldn't do a favor for. The choice is no choice. In the end, the policy of accomodation to the right serves only ... the right.

This is from Michelet's Le Peuple


Ce qu' on remarque le mieux sur une personne
qui est nue, c' est telle ou telle partie, qui sera
d�fectueuse. Le d�faut d' abord saute aux yeux.
Que serait-ce, si une main obligeante pla�ait sur
ce d�faut m�me un verre grossissant qui le rendrait
colossal, qui l' illuminerait d' un jour terrible,
impitoyable, au point que les accidents les plus
naturels de la peau ressortiraient � l' oeil
effray� !

Voil� pr�cis�ment ce qui est arriv� � la France.
Ses d�fauts incontestables, que l' activit�
croissante, le choc des int�r�ts, des id�es,
expliquent suffisamment, ont grossi sous la main de
ses puissants �crivains, et sont devenus des
monstres. Et voil� que l' Europe tout � l' heure la
voit comme un monstre elle-m�me...
Le peuple qu' on peint ainsi, n' est-ce pas l' effroi
du monde ? Y a-t-il assez d' arm�es, de forteresses,
pour le cerner, le surveiller, jusqu' � ce qu' un
moment favorable se pr�sente pour l' accabler ?

"What one sees first about a person who is nude is that such and such a part is defective. The faults leap immediately to the eye. But when over the faulty spot, someone obligingly places a magnifying glass to make it even more colossal, illuminating it with the pitiless, terrible light of day, to the point that the most natural accidents of the skin jump out at the terrified eye, how do you think you'd feel about that?

This is precisely what has happened to France. Its incontestable faults, which economic growth, the shock of interests, of ideas, sufficiently explains, have been enlarged under the hands of its most powerful writers and have become monsters. And thus, Europe soon sees it as a monster. The people that are so depicted, aren't they the horror of the world. Are there enough armies, fortresses, to surround them and watch them up to the favorable moment for destroying them?"

Michelet is employing reactionary tropes that will later come to political fruition under Stalin -- the idea of the critic as traitor, and the people as monstrously traduced. But the Le Pen vs. Chirac contest coming up is a product of Michelet's Peuple. And guess what? That series of writers -- Voltaire, Balzac, Flaubert, Zola -- they were right, they were a thousand times right: there's a monster in France, and it is stirring, stirring...

Remora

Washington Post headlines the Italian strike that brought a million people into the street. NYT story about the Italian paralysis...

No, just joking.

Not that there wasn't a general strike -- a magical phrase to the IWW lefties among us -- in Italy. Not that it didn't paralyse Italy. Not that it didn't bring a million people into the street. But a fact like that is much too inconvenient for American papers.

Liberation, yesterday, had the story (which has spilled into the French election, today -- Jospin accusing Chirac of being a French Berlusconi):

Here's what it looks like in French:


Contre le projet de r�forme gouvernemental de l'article 18 du statut des travailleurs, qui r�glemente les licenciements abusifs, plusieurs millions d'Italiens ont r�pondu hier � l'appel � la gr�ve g�n�rale lanc� par les syndicats. Selon les chiffres des trois grandes conf�d�rations italiennes (CGIL, CISL et UIL), plus de 13 millions de personnes ont cess� le travail, le taux de participation atteignant pr�s de 100 % dans certains secteurs.
Paralysie. A Florence, pr�s de 400 000 travailleurs sont descendus dans la rue derri�re le leader de la CGIL, Sergio Cofferati (lire ci-contre), tandis que de nombreux cort�ges ont envahi les rues de Milan (300 000 personnes), Bologne (350 000), Rome (200 000) ou Palerme (100 000).

Translation:
Against the proposed governmental "reform"[ LI Note -- we have grown tired of the abuse of "reform" to mean corrupting the old Keynsian system of protecting the countervailing power of labor by acceeding to the most outrageous demands of capital. So we are putting the scare quotes into play. And if you don't like it, find your own translator] of article 18 of the labor code concerning abusive layoffs, more than a million Italians responded to the appeal for a general strike broadcast by the unions. According to the numbers of the three big unions (CGIL, CISL, and UIL), more than 13 million people stopped working, the level of participation attaining nearly 100% in certain sectors.

Paralysis

In Florence, nearly 400,000 workers descended in the streets behind the leader of the CGIL, Sergio Cofferati, while numerous groups invaded the streets of Milan (300,000 people), Bologna (350,00), Rome (200,000) and Palermo (100,000)

The NYT did have an article on the strike yesterday, and with typical Times hauteur , (the hauteur of the true globalist), surveyed the scene and asked what the fuss was about:


"Though the actual changes he has proposed are considered minor, labor leaders see this as the first step in a government plan to undermine job security. Then, too, Mr. Cofferati, who leads the largest Italian union, is considered a rising star on the left.The unions did succeed well enough that there was no television coverage of today's demonstrations � since journalists, too, were on strike.

Much of the center of Rome became a street carnival as protesters waved huge puppets of Mr. Berlusconi dressed as Napoleon and as the pope. Roberto Benigni, the actor and film maker, told a crowd in the Piazza del Popolo that he would not speak because he, too, was on strike."

Of course, to the Times, Berlusconi's labor law is only common sense. LI searched Gibbons Decline and Fall of the R.E. for a phrase evocative of the neo-liberal attitude in these fair States. Gibbon, he never fails us! Here is his description of the foreign policy, as we'd call it now, of the Roman Empire: "Those princes [of their outer dependencies], whom the ostentation of gratitude or generosity permitted for a while to hold a precarious sceptre, were dismissed from their thrones, as soon as they had per formed their appointed task of fashioning to the yoke the vanquished nations. The free states and cities which had embraced the cause of Rome were rewarded with a nominal alliance, and insensibly sunk into real servitude."

Quite.

Finally, since LI is in a hormonally lefty mood this morning -- there is good news from France, where the Trotskyist candidate, Arlette Languiller, a typist, is getting 10 percent in the polls -- ahead of the Greens and the Commies. Hooray!


This year, she has turned out to be a surprisingly sharp thorn in the side of the left-wing political establishment. Polls show that this retired, Trotskyist typist may get as much as 10 percent of the votes in the first round of the presidential elections set for Sunday.

That could mean third or fourth place in a field of 16 candidates � ahead of both the candidates for the Communist Party and the Greens, the two left-wing parties that have been junior partners in the ruling government coalition for the last five years. The likely winners of the Sunday vote, President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, are expected to garner just 18 to 22 percent each."

Apparently Arlette -- as she is known -- has come under the gun, since her numbers rose. The trotskyists have been accused of being cultists. Well, duh. Of course they are cultists. Trotsky's critique of bureaucracy preceeded the irresistable plunge into roccoco parlimentarian excess, factionalism, and distemper that has been the mark of every Trotskyist part every since. Who cares? Arlette isn't going to win -- she is simply going to make the powers that be nervous. That's her job.

Remora

Hail Freedonia.

The Washington Post piece on the failure to kill or capture Osama would make a nice script for a latter day Marx brothers film. You have the man directing the battle of Tora Bora from Tampa, Florida, no doubt operating on intelligence that Tampa was in imminent danger. You have Jethro Bodine as president. You have the escape of the Great Satan, Osama himself, from a redoubt of caves built in the 80s, no doubt with the aid of the always generous Freedonian Intelligence Agency. And you have an absence of suggestions as to where Satan flew to -- although perhaps we should check with our hundred percent ally in the war on terror, Pakistan, for that one:

"Another change since Tora Bora, with no immediate prospect of finding bin Laden, is that President Bush has stopped proclaiming the goal of taking him "dead or alive" and now avoids previous references to the al Qaeda founder as public enemy number one.

In an interview with The Washington Post in late December, Bush displayed a scorecard of al Qaeda leaders on which he had drawn the letter X through the faces of those thought dead. By last month, Bush began saying that continued public focus on individual terrorists, including bin Laden, meant that "people don't understand the scope of the mission."

"Terror is bigger than one person," Bush said March 14. "He's a person that's now been marginalized." The president said bin Laden had "met his match" and "may even be dead," and added: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Top advisers now assert that the al Qaeda leader's fate should be no measure of U.S. success in the war."

Limited Inc has been quoting all the greats recently -- Burke, Spencer. The appropriate quote, here, is obviously from Duck Soup. This is Trentino, the wily ambassador from Sylvania, asking his henchmen about their progress in overthrowing the new president of Freedonia, Rufus T. Firefly:

Chicolini: Well, you remember you gave us a picture of this man and said, 'Follow him?'...Well, we get on-a the job right away and in-a one hour - even-a less than one hour...
Trentino (excitedly and expectantly): Yes?
Chicolini: We losa-a the picture. That's-a pretty quick work, eh?


Do they watch Duck Soup in the Pentagon? LI can't help but wonder about the scorecard in the delicious scene painted by the Post. Did some flunky get it as a historic souvenir? In any case, it is nice that the war against terrorism, our rulers have decided, isn't about anything so mundane as terrorists. This is a confidence builder. This is a lifter upper. This is a shot in the arm. Man, for a while Limited Inc was entertaining paranoid fantasies. LI is obviously unable to comprehend the sublime plan. LI is obviously not rolling. He should roll. Let's all roll is the slogan. Our war against the Shadow, LI misunderstood as a war against the guy who organized the group that attacked the World Trade Center. Damn, that is such short sighted thinking! Obviously, the Shadow is Saddam Hussein, who might not have had anything to do with the WTC, but was soooo disrespectful to Bush's father! Now of course, after the true enemy of all mankind -- Mullah Omar, I believe his name was -- has fallen, we can get serious.

Let's point out the obvious. This is an administration that performed dismally before 9/11, and they seem to be reverting to a mindset that would allow another 9/11. An inability, for one thing, to understand that an illorganized group of 19 dissatisfied Saudis can do more damage to the Heimat than S Hussein has ever done.

But LI imagines the scene in the DoD.

I mean, look what-a we got, boss! We got a missile defense, we got a great ally in this Sharon, we got a war with Saddam coming up, as soon as we can find a reason for it, and a place to launch it from! Plus Tom Ridge personally working on our security problem. Boss! Boss!

Remora

King Gall

According to the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, gall is a "secretion of the liver known as � bile,� the term being also used of the pear-shaped diverliculum of the bile-duct, which forms a reservoir for the bile, more generally known as the� gall-bladder �. From the extreme bitterness of the secretion, � gall,� like the Lat. fel, is used for anything extremely bitter, whether actually or metaphorically. From the idea that the gall-bladder was the dominating organ of a bitter, sharp temperament, �gall� was formerly used in English for such a spirit, and also for one very ready to resent injuries. It thus survives in American slang, with the meaning �impudence � or � assurance.��


The older use of gall -- to mean bitterness, not presumption -- is illustrated in this quote from Thoreau's letter on John Brown:


"On the whole, my respect for my fellow-men, except as one may outweigh a million, is not being increased these days. I have noticed the cold- blooded way in which newspaper writers and men generally speak of this event, as if an ordinary malefactor, though one of unusual "pluck"- as the Governor of Virginia is reported to have said, using the language of the cockpit, "the gamest man be ever saw"- had been caught, and were about to be hung. He was not dreaming of his foes when the governor thought he looked so brave. It turns what sweetness I have to gall, to hear, or hear of, the remarks of some of my neighbors. When we heard at first that he was dead, one of my townsmen observed that "he died as the fool dieth"; which, pardon me, for an instant suggested a likeness in him dying to my neighbor living. Others, craven-hearted, said disparagingly, that "he threw his life away," because he resisted the government. Which way have they thrown their lives, pray?- such as would praise a man for attacking singly an ordinary band of thieves or murderers."

Limited Inc's sweetness readily turns to gall -- every morning, about 9:30, when we finish reading the papers. The meaning bodied forth in American slang is well illustrated today, reader, in this quote from today's NYT's article about the rise and fall and rise of President Chavez of Venezuala:

"Asked whether the administration now recognizes Mr. Ch�vez as Venezuela's legitimate president, one administration official replied, "He was democratically elected," then added, "Legitimacy is something that is conferred not just by a majority of the voters, however."

One feels, reading this, like Keat's Cortez, or one of his men: "when with eagle eyes/He star'd at the Pacific- and all his men/Look'd at each other with a wild surmise -/Silent, upon a peak in Darien.
Silence, though, is perhaps not LI's best exercized talent. Wild surmise soon dissolved into wild laughter. Talk about a smoking gun! Isn't this the very attitude one always suspected? Isn't this too much? If only we had heard more of this in December, 2000, as the corrupt current POTUS and his crew were overthrowing the democratic election of Al Gore. As the current administration massaged the leaders of the coup against Chavez, did they assured them that time and custom will take care of any problems the seizure of power might cause in the consciousness of the people?

Ah! It all brings back the judicially "corrected" election of 2000. LI, nostalgically, looked up a pre 9/11 issue of Newsweek -- remember the era before 9/11? Before we declared war on Osama bin Laden, and brought down, with our slingshot, the wrong bird? Before the war on terrorism increasingly became a mere machination to disguise the essential corruption of the Bush administration, from its Power company powered Energy plan to its absurd tax giveaway to the top 5 percentile. Here's the beginning of the Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas article on the stolen election:

" Sandra Day O'Connor and her husband, John, a Washington lawyer, have long been comfortable on the cocktail and charity-ball circuit. So at an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois. Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years.

O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to NEWSWEEK. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment. O'Connor had no way of knowing, as she watched the early returns, that election night would end in deadlock and confusion--or that five weeks later she would play a direct and decisive role in the election of George W. Bush. O'Connor could not possibly have foreseen that she would be one of two swing votes in the court's 5-4 decision ending the manual recount in Florida and forcing Al Gore to finally concede defeat. But her remarks will fuel criticism that the justices not only "follow the election returns," as the old saying goes, but, in the case of George W. Bush v. Albert Gore, Jr., sought to influence them."

Did Bush's advisors tell the anti-Chavez people to get the courts in their pocket before they proceeded? It is important advice.

King Gall's foreign policy favors more legitimate rulers than the neo-Peronist Chavez -- such as Equatorial Guinea's Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. Obiang has suddenly become rich with the discovery of oil in his country. The man is a friend of all that is beautiful and true -- if you don't believe LI, look at the terms of the oil contracts: 75 percent for the oil companies, 25 for Obiang and his cronies. Or, as they will call themselves, the sovereign nation of Equatorial Guinea. The Nation has a very nice report, by Ken Silverstein, on this obscure country. It is not obscure to Triton Energy, however. And Triton Energy is run by an old friend of GWBII:

"Perhaps best connected of all is Triton, whose chairman, Tom Hicks, made Bush a millionaire fifteen times over when he bought the Texas Rangers in 1998. Hicks's leveraged buyout firm, Hicks Muse, is Bush's fourth-largest career financial patron, according to the Center for Public Integrity."

Oil, money, blood, and a leader who, unlike Chavez, is thoroughly democratic -- which is how he gained his 92 percent of the vote in the last election. Life is so good.

However, Silverstein's story interests LI less as another tawdry adventure of the Bush administration than for the tergiversation of Equatorial Guinea's pr man in D.C., Bruce McColm. Bruce's upward and onward career really caught our eye:

"In addition to direct lobbying, the oil industry sought to improve Obiang's image by hiring the services of Bruce McColm, a former head of Freedom House who now runs the Institute for Democratic Strategies (IDS), a Virginia-based nonprofit whose stated mission is "strengthening democratic institutions." The Obiang regime's most tireless champion, McColm works closely with the government, which now pays him directly. (According to its latest nonprofit tax form, the IDS spent $223,000 in 2000, of which all but $10,000 went toward its Equatorial Guinea work.) In 2000 McColm sent a team of observers to monitor Equatorial Guinea's municipal elections, which it reported to be basically free and fair. "Electoral officials should be recognized for discharging their responsibilities in an effective and transparent manner," said an IDS press release at the time. "Observers generally felt that the positives of this election far outweighed the negatives." This was in marked contrast to a UN report that said the electoral campaign "was characterized by the omnipresence of the [ruling] party, voting in public and the intimidating presence of the armed forces."

Go to the Freedom House site and you get this slogan:

"Freedom House, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization, is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Through a vast array of international programs and publications, Freedom House is working to advance the remarkable worldwide expansion of political and economic freedom."

An admirable stance, n'est-ce pas? Don't think that Equatorial Guinea has become a much better country recently -- at least according to Freedom house, it rates a 7.7 in terms of freedom. According to FH's explanation of its rating system, "those whose ratings average 1-2.5 are generally considered "Free," 3-5.5 "Partly Free," and 5.5-7 "Not Free." This does not give the Bruce McColm's of the world pause, of course. Far from it. When someone like Bruce McColm acquires the moral capital that accrues from taking the honorable position that people should have a say in the government that has the power to incarcerate them, the goal is to leave, and then to gleefully squander your conscience as you defend the dictators whose money helps you dine out in Georgetown. Because in D.C., as we know, the NGO post is only a first step on the ladder. Shedding your entire moral character, and revealing yourself as a devil in human skin, is the process. Not of course that we wish to slander a man of McColm's sterling character, we only wish on him what, well, what King Lear wished on Goneril and Reagen. In the mean time, LI thinks he should take on a few of Rwanda's past rulers as his next clients. Or perhaps he already has.