Conventional wisdom has unpopular Gov. Gray “SkyBox Liberal” Davis in a lock for this election over his stiff and inexperienced (but wealthy) opponent Bill “Daddy’s Money” Simon Jr. in the election for Governor of California. Could the CW be wrong? Today’s S.F. Chronicle suggests that an election could break out in California this fall.
At this point I can’t in any conscience vote for Simon; but in opposition, I’d rather get my hands chewed off by a woodchipper than vote for Davis, who is a corrupt, small-minded, visionless functionary. Fun decision, no? Is Mel Brooks running?? Gov. LePetomaine, anyone?

…sorry, Professors Reynolds and Vokoloh…
Check out my neighbor, Little green Football: EU shuts off the money.
I’m off looking for confirmation.

TAP backs up Lou Dobb’s assesment that the Islamists are the threat.
They also set out a pretty good agenda for the Democrats, if the Democrats had anyone bold enough to stake out a position.
Thanks to Instapundit for the lead.

Gene Expression, written by three scientists and a venture capitalist.

that has nothing to do with the post, but I couldn’t help the pun.
Eric Raymond, author of ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar’ (and of the cool blog ‘Armed and Dangerous’) dings me a bit:
I find it interesting that, in that article, you imply a strong critique of the top-down “single massive project” approach to social change. Yet in explaining ‘liberalism’ you still champion centralization and state intervention.
There is a contradiction there with which I do not think you are yet dealing.
Actually, no. I may not yet have expressed it clearly, but here’s my chance to start.
Bazaars don’t spontaneously appear, and most important, don’t spontaneously thrive. There are a host of conditions which control their presence and growth – geographic, cultural, seasonal, legal, and political. We can either simply assume that they appear spontaneously, according some arbitrary ‘hand of God’, or we can study the preconditions and, if we want to encourage successful bazaars, attempt to replicate them, or manage the success of the bazaar.
I do not imagine that the sponsors of open-source software projects do so with no intentionality or direction; they are often surprised by the direction the project takes, but they reserve the right to prune unsuitable branches.
I believe that we need to replace the Stalinist (hyperbole alert) ‘large footprint’ liberal programs that we are familiar with much finer-grained, dynamic programs in which the participants participate, rather than simply stand in line and receive.
The machine-tool program I mention earlier, the Grameen Bank programs, and I am sure, other programs which I don’t yet know about are excellent examples of what I’m talking about.
There are other government programs and tax structures which could encourage this kind of thinking, and which I’ll address over the next few days as time and attention allow.
But to summarize as simply as I can: I don’t believe that the bazaar, or spontaneously organized social or economic activity is directionless. I believe that when you read the classic ‘I, a pencil’, that we were better at making them than they were in the Soviet Union.
And I believe that it is possible to design and have a hand in organizing self-organizing systems such as markets. That what we do here in the U.S. Anyone who believes that the market here is not created by and reflects political and social organizations is just ignorant. Why do homeowners get tax relief and not renters? What is DMCA?
And I believe that it is possible to design and influence a better market; one that improves on the things which I and other liberals hold important while at the same time preserving the freedom and dignity, and individual energy of the free actors who participate in it.
Dinner calls.

It looks like this is working again. Buy a pizza and soda or ice cream for an IDF patrol.
If there was one to buy for Palestinian peace activists, I’d post it as well.

Owens suggests that I need to cut the apron strings. It’s a good post, and I think I can use it to elucidate some of our differences, but a) I want to take some time and respond thoughtfully; and b) there are chores to do before I can blog much more today.
Check this space soon.

I got an email from a John Lott Jr., who turns out to be that John Lott Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. A terrific and interesting book, and one that has not, as far as I know, been effectively answered by the anti-gun folks. He corrects me on the issue of state monopoly on violence, as I mention here, by pointing out that I probably meant “state monopoly on legal violence.” Uh, of course I did!!
I can only compare being corrected in an issue like this by Lott to the time Arnold Schwarzenegger stopped by the gym I belonged to and explained to me that I was doing my situps wrong. I trust that this correction will have a more lasting effect.

Steve Cohen writes, in conclusion:
Yes, yes, if only all Palestinians would adopt Gandhian non-violence strategies. It would be a wise move. I hope they do it. Maybe Jesse Jackson can convince them of that. Until that happens, however, we must continue to live in the real world.
I think the right position is still that America must use its power to force peace. The Israelis bear a significant piece of responsibility for the current situation and they couldn’t do what they do without the uncritical aid check from the United States.
Do you believe that the 2000 peace plan was generous? (The tactical question of whether the Palestinians should have accepted it is a different question). What can Arafat actually do to stop the violence now that the Palestinian Authority has had all of its authority taken away? If he stopped talking out of both sides of his mouth would anyone notice? Or care? Isn’t the demand for all terrorist acts to cease before talks begin a call for unconditional surrender? Aren’t the Israelis acting as allies of the extremists by giving them what they want at the expense of whatever moderates are out there?
In short I am not willing to say that the behavior of the Palestinians must change without making a similar demand on the Israelis.
Look, here we get down to the nub of the matter.
First, ask yourself why aren’t you willing to hold the Palestinians to some acceptable standard of behavior? I can’t speak for you, but believe that most people don’t in part because of the Romantic attachment to outsider behavior, a fascination with expressive violence, and a built-in disdain for the bourgeois virtues of compromise and cooperation, as I’ve discussed elsewhere.
I think that the Palestinian powers-that-be have fundamentally miscalculated by choosing terrorism over guerilla warfare, and until they have the political capability and social will to renounce terrorism, they will never get a fair hearing from the U.S., nor from Israel.
I agree that we need to use our power to force peace, but how? We tried in it Beirut, and you may have noticed that it didn’t work so well. There is no central government that we can attack, threaten, or neutralize. There really isn’t a central government or group that we can negotiate with, because every time we start with a group, the more rejectionist elements either kill the negotiators or split off into a new group.
You say “Isn’t the demand for all terrorist acts to cease before talks begin a call for unconditional surrender?”, and that’s the key point. No, it wouldn’t be.
The PA could act politically and economically (nonviolent action, general strikes, boycotts). They could even act militarily, but within the accepted confines of guerilla warfare (as noted by that damn idea-front-runner Owens) by attacking Israeli military targets. But these actions would require a level of social and political cohesion that I don’t think exist today in Palestine.
Sadly.