Have none of you heard of the famed legal reformer Franz Sacher? Without his heroic efforts we wouldn't even have heard of the Sacher Torte.

Note: Don't ask me, look it up.

Must be moonlighting:

Missing Smoke Detectors Cause 70% of Home Fires

On Mars.

Via the Speculist - and the Instapundit who is, ludicrously, blaming Halliburton. As everyone knows, it is the Martians' unilateral failure to ratify Kyoto that is to blame.

I’m a Vietnam vet—like Senator Kerry, I served in country only briefly, in my case six months—today will be my best Veteran’s Day ever. In about three hours I will pick up my son at the airport; he’s home for Thanksgiving from Iraq. Back to Camp Liberty on the 27th; he tells me that he was treated royally in the Dallas Airport—AA sent him to the first class lounge. I’m so happy for him and all the other servicemen and women today—I believe they are beloved by everyone but Ted Rall.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan praised Arafat's struggle to win international recognition for the Palestinian cause, as he ordered flags to fly at half-mast at the United Nations.

From a reader:

Isn't life interesting?

George W. Bush removed Saddam Hussein, who funded the murderous suicide bombers of the PLO, a group headed by Yassir Arafat, who recently died in France, a country that also sheltered murderer Ira Einhorn (they do seem to be good at that sort of thing), who was allowed to escape in part because of a ridiculously low bail negotiated by his attorney Arlen Specter, to whom Bush can deny chairmanship.

Where's Kevin Bacon when you need him?

This reader pinch-hits for Ramesh:

Jonah --

I was interested to see your recent comment in the
Corner:

"But it seems to me as a matter of both politics and
theory that raising tax rates in exchange for tax
simplification shouldn't be ideologically verboten.
The obvious argument is that by closing loopholes,
reducing the corrupting power of politics in tax
policy, eradicating inefficiencies and rationalizing
the whole system you will make the economy more
efficient and productive. Therefore if the price of
achieving this comes in the form of marginally raising
rates, it might well be worth it. For example, I would
gladly pay, say, $500 dollars more a year -- even
above what I might save from firing my accountant --
in exchange for removing the worry and hassle of tax
time."

I agree with you in theory. Here's the problem,
though -- Reagan agreed to just such a deal in 1986,
with the result that lots of deductions were
eliminated to broaden the tax base and rates were
significantly reduced. Unfortunately, when the wheel
turns and the politicians (usually the Ds, but not
always) want to raise taxes, they'll jack the rates
back up but won't restore the lost deductions -- which
is exactly what happened in 1990 (aka the tax bill
that probably lost GHW Bush the 1992 election).

Broadening the tax base in order to reduce rates would
truly be a wonderful thing, but since base-broadening
tends to be a one-way ratchet (at least as far as the
middle class taxpayer is concerned), the merits of the
strategy could be seriously questioned on a practical
level.

Love your stuff!

Best regards,

Keith

From a reader:

Jonah, Your column about how the interests of conservatives and the those of the Republican party are sometimes not congruent is on target. But the Arlen Specter controversy represents more than a conservatives versus Republicans food fight. Elevating Specter to chairman might damage the political fortunes of the Republican party if Specter wants to play the role of the heroic moderate who saved America from an extremist right-wing President and US Senate in his final years as a US Senator. It's hard to get inside the mind of a US Senator who voted against Bork but came to the defense of an embattled Clarence Thomas. But consider that Specter's vote against Bork (fall of 1987) was soon after Specter was reelected in 1986, while the Thomas vote was just before Specter's 1992 reelection effort (fall of 1991). Thus, even a Republican party hack might fear a Specter chairmanship where Specter would be given a louder megaphone to chastise the Republican party's "turn to the far right."

From

Page Six (link via Drudge):

November 11, 2004 -- VINCENT D'Onofrio, the star of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent," passed out while shooting the hit TV series yesterday morning — prompting insiders to gossip that the actor is "losing it."

"Ever since John Kerry lost the election, [D'Onofrio] has lost his [bleep,]" said our on-set insider.

"He has been getting into fistfights with people, and when he passed out today, we all thought he was faking it. But then he insisted they call 911."

An ambulance raced to the Queens studio, where paramedics found nothing wrong with the gifted actor, who became a star in 1987 with his searing performance as a misfit Marine in "Full Metal Jacket."

Tensions on the "Criminal Intent" set are running high. "No one thinks Vincent will last for much longer," the insider said.

"He is so hard to work with — a total freak. He constantly complains about the scripts and has held up production a lot."

D'Onofrio, a big Kerry supporter, was said to be devastated over President Bush's re-election. "When PAGE SIX [last week] wrote about 'Law & Order' putting up signs forbidding political discussions on set, it was funny," our source said. "Those signs were put up because of [D'Onofrio]."

About a month before the election, D'Onofrio "insisted" on putting up anti-Bush posters and fliers, "and would attack anyone who disagreed with him," the spy added.

In response, "Law & Order" producers posted signs banning political discussions or anything else that would impede work on set, implying that D'Onofrio had held up taping of the show with his political zealotry.

D'Onofrio's co-stars, Kathryn Erbe, Jamey Sheridan and Courtney B. Vance, are said to be fed up with his antics.

"No one — and I do mean no one — talks to him anymore," the insider added.

A rep for the show insisted there had been no "fistfights."

D'Onofrio does not have a rep. But show creator Dick Wolf said via a rep: "The stress of being the first among equals on a one-hour television drama is the most exhausting job in show business. Hours are long and stress levels are high.

"Any actor who has been in Vincent's position knows how tough it is. It is unfortunate that Vincent's health has become the topic of gossip and speculation under these circumstances."

Iris Chang -- who Ramesh and I got to know on a junket a few years ago -- has apparently killed herself.

She was an impressive and decent person and I'm grateful to have gotten to know her. Really just awful news. Prayers and best wishes to her family.

Ramesh (and other econ policy guys): I understand that raising taxes is bad in most cases according to "conservative" economics (I use quotation marks so as to include all of the various subgroups on the right when it comes to economic theory).

But it seems to me as a matter of both politics and theory that raising tax rates in exchange for tax simplification shouldn't be ideologically verboten. The obvious argument is that by closing loopholes, reducing the corrupting power of politics in tax policy, eradicating inefficiencies and rationalizing the whole system you will make the economy more efficient and productive. Therefore if the price of achieving this comes in the form of marginally raising rates, it might well be worth it. For example, I would gladly pay, say, $500 dollars more a year -- even above what I might save from firing my accountant -- in exchange for removing the worry and hassle of tax time.

I do understand that since tax simplification would -- in theory -- boost economic productivity and therefore boost tax revenues it wouldn't necessarily be, uh, necessary to raise taxes in exchange for simplification. But politically it might be. In order to get some Democrats to agree, they might demand a hike in tax rates for the top 1% or some such.

Anyway, I guess the question is, is there an accepted answer about where the tradeoff point lies? What's the conventional wisdom on the cost-benefits? What say you Ponnuru?

Note: For the record, I think Ramesh hates it when I ask him these questions publicly in the Corner. But I'm just trying to create a dialogue as the college administrators say.

Kathryn -- A bunch of readers have made the same observation. Again, I don't have a big dog in this Specter fight and I like and respect Hugh Hewitt but it does seem that he's making his arguments from a Republican perspective more than a conservative one (Recall during the debates his certainty that Bush won the day). It would be better for Republicans not to feed on a pro-choice moderate, says Hewitt. Better for who? Ask conservatives.

This in itself opens an interesting point about the discussion of all this outside our own internecine battlefield. For example, Josh Marshall's reading of all this, last time I checked, seemed to be that the White House had clamped down on Specter. But from the folks I've talked to around the Bush administration, none of those guys want Specter to go and basically wanted to give him a free pass. Or at least they didn't want to make a big fuss. If they ordered Specter to recant it was so he could keep his Chairmanship.

Further on the left, there seems to be a real inability to differentiate different segments of the right, inside and out, of the Republican Party. Every Christian conservative who says something impolitic is speaking the language of George Bush's true self and everything that happens in the Republican Party is done deliberately and with foresight by Karl Rove. It just doesn't work that way. Lots of conservatives -- including many I disagree with -- have adversarial relationships with the Republican Party. People seem to forget how much Poppa Bush resented the conservative base of the GOP.

ARAFAT'S LEGACY IS PALESTINIANS' ACCEPTANCE OF PRINCIPLE OF COEXISTENCE WITH ISRAEL -- ANNAN

New York, Nov 11 2004 1:00AM

Reacting to the death of President Yasser Arafat, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today said President Arafat will always be remembered for having led the Palestinians, back in 1988, to accept the principle of peaceful coexistence between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

"By signing the Oslo accords in 1993 he took a giant step towards the realization of this vision," a spokesman for Mr. Annan said in a statement issued in New York. "It is tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled."

"Now that he has gone, both Israelis and Palestinians, and the friends of both peoples throughout the world, must make even greater efforts to bring about the peaceful realization of the Palestinian right of self-determination," the statement said.

"Deeply moved" by the news of the Palestinian leader's death, the Secretary-General conveyed his condolences to President Arafat's wife Suha and his young daughter Zahwa, and to the Palestinian people.

For nearly four decades, the statement stressed, President Arafat had "expressed and symbolized in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people."

2004-11-11 00:00:00.000

From a reader:

Hi Jonah,

I agree that Arafat was a bad man, and when I heard he was dying,
I was glad. But that fact in itself causes grief: that there would
be someone so bad that I would wish him dead. I'm a Christian, and
I believe Arafat's in hell right now, and that also makes me sad.
He could have chosen differently and he and the world would have
been better off.

Obviously, my remorse knows bounds. My sadness has a bottom. Words are more than adequate to express my grief.

He was a gangster and a terrorist, as I'm sure we'll hear countless times here and elsewhere in the days to come.

Nothing wrong with all of that. The world is a better place without that carbunkle on humanity and it is fine to say so. I think Palestinians can have a bit of free pass this week as they express remorse because, right or wrong, Arafat was a symbol of hope for many of them. All's the greater the tragedy.

But no one else really deserves anything like a free-pass. It will be interesting to see how the news of Arafat's death serves as a dye-marker (die marker?) for others around the world and here in America. How someone with even a scintilla of objectivity could grieve for this man is beyond me. Sure, you can be misinformed and grieve for the Palestinian people if you think this is bad news for them (it's not). But to grieve for the man, to mourn his passing, is an act of staggering ignorance and moral surrender. Shed no tears for this man if you care about mankind.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041111.html

Office of the Press Secretary
November 11, 2004

Statement by the President

November 10, 2004

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

The death of Yasser Arafat is a significant moment in Palestinian history. We express our condolences to the Palestinian people. For the Palestinian people, we hope that the future will bring peace and the fulfillment of their aspirations for an independent, democratic Palestine that is at peace with its neighbors. During the period of transition that is ahead, we urge all in the region and throughout the world to join in helping make progress toward these goals and toward the ultimate goal of peace.

In subsequent years, guerrillas from various Palestinian factions hit the headlines with hijackings, bombings and assassinations, most notably the kidnapping and killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Arafat refused to discuss such attacks, though he has always denounced terrorism as a tactic. Whether or not he was personally involved remains a matter of conjecture.