Author: N.Z. Bear

It’s worth noting that seems to have called this one pretty well — only missed two picks overall! I think I know who I’ll be going to for my market advice from here on in.
And Scott Koenig has the ultimate in short, sweet summaries of what this election meant.

Prompted by a question raised during radio appearance this afternoon, I popped over to eBay for some Election Day shopping and found that not only can you buy voting machines there, you can actually buy an official Palm Beach Bush v. Gore voting machine!
Well, that solves my problem of what to get Al for Christmas this year…

So doesn’t mean that the Republicans technically could take control of the Senate today?
49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two independents, with Cheney deciding a tie. Help me out here folks; where am I going wrong?

Quote of the Day (Election 2002 Edition):
“If we don’t change direction, we’ll end up where we are going.”
– Jeanne-Marie Rosenmeier, Green Party candidate for California Treasurer, in her candidate statement. (

If you’re looking for new stuff, I’ve just posted an essay entitled 21st Century Militia over at the Action Center.

Folks –
As promised, I give you Weblog Action Center.
Check it out …
-NZB

Folks –
You may recall last week, I proposed addendum to Eric Raymond’s Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto which was focused on the idea that we should be practical about what it is we, as weblog authors and readers, can actually accomplish to make the world a better place.
Well, come Monday, I’m going to “put my blog where my mouth is”, so to speak, and launch a new weblog project here at TTLB called The Weblog Action Center.
The idea is to provide a forum for folks to share information and opinions on what actions people can take to make the world a better place. Actions can be anything, as long as they are legal: an argument for why to vote for a certain candidate or ballot measure; a request for donations to a charity or cause you feel worthy; a suggestion to write letters to Congress in support of a pending bill.
The idea, in short, is to provide a focal point for weblog writing that strives to bridge the gap between words on a monitor and actions in the real world.
The site will be set up as a massively collaborative weblog, in the same style as Blogcritics, the successful arts and entertainment review site. Folks will post their entries at the Weblog Action site and, if they choose, can also post the same entries back at their own weblogs.
The public launch is most likely going to be this coming Monday, and I’m interested in getting as many posts up in advance before then as possible. In particular, I’m very interested in collecting as many posts as possible that will help folks make intelligent decisions in the coming election.
So think about it: posted a commentary on a politician lately? Have a favorite NGO or charity you think deserves support? Ballot measure coming up that you think must be defeated at all costs? Or is there just some other burning issue you want folks to take action on?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to any of these and you’re interested in broadening your audience, drop me a line, and I’ll set you up with a posting account and send instructions on how to get started. As with Blogcritics, contributors will get a nice free permalink on the Weblog Action Center home page.
I hope you’ll join in, and thanks for the support…

Senator Paul Wellstone dead, along with his wife and daughter.
Their plane crashed early this morning in Minnesota, apparently. Reports are extremely light on information as yet; I have not seen anything to indicate the cause of the accident.
First and for the record, my condolences to the families of those on board, both of the Wellstones, their travelling party, and the pilot and crew.
At a more base level, however, there is obviously the question of who will succeed Wellstone. My understanding of Minnesota law says that the governor has the power to appoint a successor to Wellstone’s seat.
But the question is, for how long? I’ve been unable to determine the rules by a quick read of the Minnesota State Constitution (oddly, it seems only to refer to state legislators, not to the state’s federal representatives at all. But perhaps I am reading it wrong). This biography of a former governor, however, contains with in it a statement that the governor may appoint anyone to a vacant Senate seat but himself.
If a new election must be called in the immediate future, this changes little.
But if the appointed senator is permitted to serve out even a two-year term (until the next election; barring the one that is presumably too-near in the future to count).
Well then, Jesse Ventura, irony of ironies, has just become a rather powerful man. Is it possible that this has-been wrestler turned has-been ‘independent’ governor now gets to decide all by himself which party will fill a hotly contested Senate seat for the next few years?
Update: Did a bit more research. It appears that the Democrats will be able to nominate a candidate to continue in Wellstone’s place in the election; I’m reading this part of Minnesota election law right now, which says:
“A major political party may provide in its governing rules a procedure, including designation of an appropriate committee, to fill vacancies in nomination for all offices elected statewide… If the vacancy in nomination occurs through the candidate’s death or catastrophic illness, the nomination certificate must be filed within seven days after the vacancy in nomination occurs but no later than four days before the general election.”
It would appear that Wellstone’s death fits into this definition, which means the Democrats still have time to run a candidate in his place.
My assumption now is that Ventura will have to nominate someone to fill Wellstone’s seat; the Democrats will put up a new candidate, but then whoever wins the general election will take the seat from the Ventura’s appointee early next year.
Update 2: A Blogger-crippled blogger sent InstaPundit a link to this statute, which provides additional detail on the process to be followed to replace Wellstone on the ballot.
Update 3: Scott Koenig is also following the story, and has additional information, including a biography of Wellstone.
Update 4: Martin points us to James Lileks’ thoughts on Senator Wellstone. And while I cannot in truth say I knew Wellstone’s record or person well even through the media, I suspect that if I did, Lileks’ summary of his view of Wellstone would serve for my own as well. As it likely would for many in this corner of the Blogosphere. Political opponents who possess honesty and integrity are to be cherished, and this one will be missed.
Update 5: I would like to provide a link to any site or organization where condolences can be sent to the families of the crash victims, but have not yet found any (obviously a little early). If anyone sees such a link (or address, or phone #) please pass it on and I’ll post it here. Until then, I would assume that messages of condolence sent via his official web page would be routed appropriately by his staff; his main page is here and his contact form is here.

David Frum is getting a bit of attention these days, for some allegedly well-written essays in the (haven’t had time to read them yet myself) and for citing John Hawkins’ splendid Confessions of an Isolationist Wannabe.
The news of the day is that Frum has corrected his earlier error of not mentioning John as the source by name.
Anyway, thought I’d note that if you enjoy Frum, you can catch him weekly on KCRW radio’s half-hour discussion show, Left Right and Center. It’s broadcast on Friday afternoons if you’re in the LA area, but even better, is available for streaming on demand via RealAudio from KCRW’s web site.
Frum represents the conservative point of view on the show (natch), and faces off against traditionally lefty moron Bob Scheer (or is that traditionally moronic lefty?) and occasionally-bright-but-mostly-flaky Arianna Huffington. “Holding down the center”, as he says, is the show’s moderator, Matt Miller, who I don’t always agree with, but is clearly an intelligent and rational fellow.
I’ve yet to truly sample Frum’s writing, but he generally comes off quite well in live discussion, so check it out…

OK, probably hates me by now, as she sent me the idea for this in email many, many weeks ago. But better late than never!
I’m now accepting applications for the Coalition of Ursine Bloggers (CUB). Founded for no reason other than our own amusement, CUB is open to all bloggers of an ursine sort.
Once we gather our initial membership, we will turn our attention to the burning Bear Rights issues of the day, whatever they may prove to be, and will strictly enforce a zero-tolerance policy on all anti-bear discrimination.
Membership is free and open to all bears; associate membership will be considered for furry creatures of any other sort, with particular favor given to rodents.
Bear bloggers, unite!
-NZB
PS – No, I don’t mean this kind of bear. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

Much discussion of Kissinger post in the comments section, almost universally negative, to my surprise. As I noted there, where are all the lefties who generally bother me in my comments when I need ’em? (I actually think I figured it out: they all took U.N. Day off).
And now Stephen Green has weighed in, with what he described to me in e-mail as “a backhanded defense” of my post. And indeed it is that.
So, time for a few responses that are too long to stuff in a comment.
First, many folks have called for a recap of the U.S. laws Kissinger is accused of breaking. In a nutshell, the Logan Act, which prohibits private diplomacy, is probably the biggest and clearest example: Kissinger’s collaboration with Nixon in sabotaging the 1968 Paris peace talks almost certainly meets the standard. Another key example is the prohibitions against allowing U.S.-supplied weaponry to be used for wars of aggression, which was clearly violated by Kissinger’s active role in supporting Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor. In addition, Kissinger is implicated by Hitchens as a co-conspirator or at least a complicit party in the murder of several individuals, the most prominent of which being General Renee Schneider of Chile. And while I don’t believe Hitchens mentions it directly, I’m fairly sure the secret bombing campaign against Cambodia was a violation of U.S. law, if only in the sense that it involved the executive branch deliberately lying to Congress.
If you’re looking for a concise recap of the legal aspects of Hitchens case (in both U.S. law and international law), then jump right to the conclusion of his Harper’s piece.
Next, Stephen’s comments. They can be summed up in his key paragraph:
Kissinger kissed up to China, spearheaded a duplicitous policy in Vietnam, blazed the trail for selling out Taiwan, negotiated bad-faith nuclear arms deals (on their side, not ours, but he knew it) with the Soviets, excused illegal bombings in Cambodia, and personally sabotaged the 1968 peace talks. We might disagree over whether these actions were good or bad, but there