White Ships-Hawaii

I was in Hawaii in the late '60s and early '70s and saw these ships. I later saw them around the Pacific as my travels took me out to the "Far away places with strange sounding names". The romance of the old movies plus the ships themselves struck a chord that still stirs...

Matson's "White Ships" and the ports they visited were vividly promoted in a series of print advertisements and other promotional materials, beginning in 1927 with the launching of the Malolo and its unprecedented 4 1/2 day service from California to the "stately palms of fair Hawaii."

A stunning variety of ads and promotions continued for the duration of the ships' American passenger service, until the mid 1970s. Below is a chronological sampling of some of the ads, from various American publications

1961

1967

1969

1971

Now that boomers are aging and airplane travel is annoying, irritating, insulting etc...Maybe-Maybe-Maybe.... Cross fingers, click heels, whatever else is supposed to make a wish come true...

I sure would love to have coastal travel by ship San Diego, LA, Monterey, SF, Portland (Astoria) Seattle, Vancouver, Juneau, Anchorage and back... I'd really like to travel to Hawaii by ship .... That would be wonderful... A new design that would allow automobiles to be taken onboard... Or maybe just smaller vessels... Would they find a niche like the boutique hotels? Would small passenger liners that carry only a few hundred people vs the thousands of the cruise liners be attractive and economically viable?

Lots of money has gone down the gurgler trying to resurrect American shipping... Dotcom/High Tech gazillionaires are building multi-hundred million dollar vessels.... The same tax laws apply to them that apply to aircraft...

There once were federal funds available for US built ships (built at union ship yards) and laws regulating ships sailing between US ports (only US Union crews).. Could a compromise be reached?

By the late 1960s, Matson was confronted by rising costs (including expensive, unionized American labor and costlier fuel), as well as insurmountable competition from airlines and resorts in Hawai'i and elsewhere. Matson's parent company, Alexander & Baldwin, was losing money on its shipping business. Although the White Ships were often full, and despite subsidies provided by the US government, increased operational costs could not be offset. After selling the last of the original four White Ships, the Lurline, to Chandris in 1970, Matson's ran its last advertisements for passenger service. They were suitably dreary and sad in comparison to the "good old days". The Mariposa and Monterey were sold to Pacific Far East Line in 1971.

Changing markets, changing times, changing demographics.... 80 million boomers retiring soon.... Travel to Europe.... Scandinavia,... Business travel vs Cruise travel? Yes, the cruise lines are the natural providers and competitors. They have the super large vessels and fixed overheads. But the laws regulating US crews and US manufacture of the ships would limit their response, at least in domestic waters.

I think this is another "Opportunity Knocking" ..... If it could be costed and priced right... The economy of scale probably comes from frequency and ease of use as opposed to the resort theme of the cruise lines. i.e. a hotel that travels vs a resort that entertains... Frequent sailings with reasonably fast ships might hit the right numbers.....

UPDATE: Word from friends in Hawaii that Norwegian Cruise Lines have four ships sailing between the islands. They have received a exception to the Jones Act that allows them to hire non-American citizens as staff on ships sailing between American ports. They will be pulling out their largest vessel for economic reasons. They are expected to add some RoRo (Roll On Roll Off) or ferrys to the trade in the near future... Still, its the tourist resort style cruise business...

One of the biggest problems of tourism over the years is the disposition of the used rental vehicles. New cars are shipped in for rental. The used vehicles overwhelm the local market. The price offered locally is substantially less that the price for similar vehicle on US west Coast. Seattle and Portland are preferred destinations as that avoids the unique California emissions equipment, requirements, testing... There is always an opportunity knocking.... "Open the door. Let em in" as the Beattles sang.

Lubbock, Texas 79401

Last time I was thru Lubbock, I stayed at the La Quinta near the Buddy Holly memorial.

We ate dinner in the Denny's and listened to some guys in the next booth discuss the ins and outs of irrigation, pipes, fertilizers, pumps, aquifer, and crops... I was fascinated. The kids were bored...

I am always amazed (Yes, Really Amazed ) at how much specialized knowledge goes into our many occupations and industries... The olde saying "To Be Is To Be Specialized" was never more true... The amount of specialized stuff average guys have to know to succeed is a TRUE American Miracle... The nonchalant, "so what? Everybody does it" attitude is also very American.

What is also interesting is the disconnect between those who are working in one industry and their fellow workers in other industries. Everyone has an industry or job that they look at and think "Oh, That's easy. That doesn't take much knowledge." Yet, the more you learn about it, the more details surface and more specialized the work becomes... i.e. Truck driving, farming, package delivery, auto mechanic, etc. It's not merely the efficiencies and short cuts of doing that particular service. It's the skills to turn it into a business that can make a profit and hire others... We are quietly proud of the knowledge it takes to be good at what we do and dismissive of what it takes for others to be good at what they do. We also pay attention so that we can start our own business and avoid the mistakes of others.

Another trait the average working person in America possesses that is seldom written about or acknowledged is how many people have read books on history, art, architecture, design, collecting, woodworking, etc. and can talk to them in detail as an interest, a hobby and or as a business... They don't bring it up quickly in a first conversation. You usually have to admit to being a reader before someone else will... One of my best friends was a delivery guy, who started his own company. He spends a few weeks every year attending conferences on Colonial American History at Williamsburg VA. He is often the only one in the room without an advanced college degree. He enjoys speaking his opinions and being accepted as one of the crowd for the validity of his views. He truly relishes telling, when asked, that he's "just a truck driver"... What is unsung-unreported-mostly ignored is that across America there are many people who do similar feats of intellectual magic purely to satisfy their curiosity and for the joy of learning.

Why is this interesting?

Working overseas, Europe-Asia-Australasia, as an American I am usually quizzed and questioned about America... What makes us so different?... I've had to learn to look for the subtle differences. I have tried to seek the foundation differences that separate us from them... What I found is that education and approach to life are key determinants. With education its not so much what each citizen knows but HOW each citizen learns... Americans teach ourselves and each other,. We read books. We teach on the job. Then we hire someone and teach them. We encourage college and night school as a constant way of life... Most other country's citizens view their certificates of competence as passports to the secure life. As employees they went to schools to be taught what to do. Then at work they wait to be told what to do. They work for the boss, not the customer. They don't respond to requests out of the predetermined instructions... Americans usually seek to understand the whole business cycle so that they can anticipate the next series events and help the customer along to the next junction. By understand how things work, its easier to see why the problems may grow and dissatisfaction will increase as well. These are blatant generalities and are true only as far as a blatant generality can be true... They are also based on my observations and conversations.

The Future of the Future

The world has changed. We are in an age where our economy is more service than manufacturing. Our work is more knowledge related than action related. We are frequently told and daily faced with the need for "constant ongoing education"... We have to keep learning. As Americans we'll take up the challenge and get on with it. We'll listen to customers and figure out a solution. We expect that of ourselves. It is simply unAmerican to whine about training or wait for a solution whenthere is someone with a problem and money seeking a solution.

Our overseas competitors will wait to be told what they need to learn. They'll seek governmental assistance in training or re-training. They'll wait to be certified. Overseas, they'll take their certificate of accomplishment and retire in place. They'll hear a customer ask for something and look only for the approved solution closest to the request. They will not care if the customer ever returns... They work for the boss, not the customer.... They almost never consider establishing their own business. They definitely don't look at the business being turned away and see an opportunity for their own personal success.

In both worlds, some people have jobs and others are working a career. Some serve the customer and others follow procedure. Most of the time things don't look that different, until a disruptive force arrives. The computer and then the Internet increased productivity and change the nature of work, Now we have challenges from the latest low cost competitor. We are outsourcing and in sourcing old jobs and new ones. Jobs move to where the highest quality can be obtained at the lowest price. There are new technologies and new economies of scale seeming to arrive every day..... When faced with a dilemma those having a career and following procedure will wait to be told what to do.... They usually continue to draw a paycheck...They then whine to the politicians when the company goes under.... it never occurs that they could have had more fun, earned more rewards and a bit of adventure by being involved in their customers solutions...

The Past of the Past

Which brings me back to Lubbock...... Why did Buddy Holly , Waylon Jennings and others come from such a quiet town, well off the beaten path to disrupt the entire world of music with two quite different revolutions? Buddy Holly was a big influence on the Beatles and Rock and Roll. Waylon got Willie and Tompall to come to Luckenbach and made some history changing Country and Western.... Both of their music shifts hold up and sound fresh with my morning coffee.. (Yes, Waylon played with Buddy Holly, but the sound and genre are quite different)

Ordinary Americans, Ordinary towns.

What intriguing new things will come forth to challenge and change the established order?.

What happens next? Isn't that the great American Adventure?

What do you see happening? What's the next great revolution?

Holding My Breath

Michele Malkin reports on those still holding their breath over internet blogging bullies. This topic has gotten lots more coverage than I would have thought. It seems that everyone has an opinion and an pinion about everyone elses opinion... Her are some of Michele's

The techblogging elite, liberal femme bloggers, and their friends in the MSM are still yammering amongst themselves about the Kathy Sierra incident. Bloggers' code of conduct. Civility badges. Blah blah blah.

Big props to Mary Katharine Ham for calling out the one-eyed, left-wing women bloggers (who still won't admit their blind spot) and for demonstrating tough, but civil disagreement by example. Brava.

Salon's Joan Walsh argued on Howard Kurtz's TV show that it didn't really matter that she failed to mention female hate-mongers like "Sandpaper sn**ch" Jane Hamsher or the racist, sexist ping-pong ball jokers at Wonkette because I received "plenty of attention" when I've pointed out vulgarity aimed at conservative women.

Really? I don't remember The Guardian asking Kate O'Beirne to pen an op-ed for them about Hamsher's filthy attack on her. No one put our pictures in the NYTimes for weathering epithets, sexist putdowns and death threats--many of which, unlike Sierra's, were signed and endorsed by major bloggers--and not just random, obscure, anonymous commenters.

Walsh also argued that the reason she decided to pay attention to misogyny in the blogosphere now is because Sierra is a "techblogger" trying to "make the web a better community."

As opposed to us Christofascist wingnut women bloggers who deserve what we get because we're just trying to use the web to spread poisonous conservative ideas...

***

Here's a review of my "code of conduct" on how to cope with Internet threats:

1) Report the serious threats to law enforcement.
2) Keep blogging.

***

Previous:

A message to the techblogging elite

Everybody has got to take a deep breath and relax.... This ain't the end of the world nor is it even THAT important. We all grew up in a blog-less world. They aren't gonna regulate us out of existence. It's only about the undisciplined, untrained and rude who would be bullies.

UPDATE: Cory Doctorow shows us how everone wants to be a lawyer or play one...

Permission to Breathe

The NYTimes continues the saga of benighted bloggers beset by beasties and what they propose to do about it.... For those who are fans of "Red Dwarf" the discussion is familiar. For the fans of Douglas Adams and "Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy" the needs only Zaphod to leaven it.... As usual with all exerpts, the highlights and comments are mine...

The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.

Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.

Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship. (What next a secret blacklist to identify scurrilous scribes? Alliteration is running deep today-AJ)

A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.(Go-! Comment- Speak your bit. Please do.-AJ)

Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about. (Gee... One would think that honesty and common sense would prevail. However, holding bloggers to a higher standard than the NYTimes, WAPost, Reuters or AP seems a bit unfair. At least the blogging community polices itself and most bloggers will correct shortly after being notified. The same cannot be said for the larger Media-O-Sphere-AJ )

Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself. ( When the BIG guys do it, then the little will follow.-AJ )

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive. (Why does this deserve a loud "Duh"... "No Sheep Sherlock" as we said about the Blinding Flash of the Obvious in grade school-AJ)

That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting. ()I wonder where these same folks stand on the War With No Name? Will these dhimmies seek permission to live and breathe-? How do they choose to shop, dine, travel? AJ)

Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”

The Rules At This Lemonade Stand:

1) Be polite.
2) I will try not to be boring.
3) I am responsible for goes up here.
4) If you don't like the rules go set up your own stand.
5) Nothing is free. See #1 and #2 above. When in doubt see #3 & #4

Yale Law Professors have a wordy discussion about the similar issues of AutoAdmit and related scurrilous blog commentators. Prof Althouse adds some thoughts

Here's a big write-up on the codification efforts in the NYT:

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors.

This is a terribly damaging idea that would stultify debate. But I do think bloggers need to respond and delete when they are notified about certain things, like threats of violence, clear libel, and the fraudulent appropriation of a person's name.

[The codifiers] say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

Should? Obviously, we do have this right! I think the point must be that other people don't have the right to criticize a blogger who deletes something if it's whatever The Code ends up saying is deletable. But that is absurd. If there is a code defining deletability, people will argue about whether the standard of deletability is met and also -- not everyone will subscribe to The Code -- about how deleting is repressive. And, of course, there will be assertions of selective deletion -- that is, people will accuse the blogger of only deleting the profane/abusive comments that go against the blogger's ideology. And these accusations will probably be correct. But we'll have to argue about whether they are correct.

Won't that be fascinating?

She then cites some familiar voices:

As you can see from Memeorandum (and as you would predict), a lot of bloggers are writing about the NYT article. Here's Captain Ed:

This is one of those well-intentioned but doomed reform efforts that sound reasonable but will have no chance of changing anything. Before the reform leaves the dock, it has already split into several "standards", which will cause confusion on which logo means what rules and under which circumstances. Bloggers and commenters will have to look for logos, and then will endlessly argue over each individual post or comment as to whether it meets the guidelines....

Most of us came into the blogosphere to get away from editorial restrictions imposed by others. We allow our own judgments and values to guide our publications. That may result in some bruised feelings from time to time, but our readers make the decision as to whether we have met their editorial guidelines, and that should be good enough in a free market.

Ntodd -- who is always saying mean things about me! -- says:

Why do we need any "recommendations" from the leading lights of Web2.0? The whole point of blogging is to bring personal styles and thoughts to bear, not to follow some guidelines that wicked smart people who earn money doing consulting think up.

Oh yeah, sure, they're soliciting comments, like this will be some big Come To Blogger Jesus thing and we'll all talk about our feelings, sing Kumbaya, tearfully hug each other at the end of camp and promise to write each other. Then as soon as Mom and Dad pick up us, we'll promptly go back to our old lives and friends and forget about Tim and Jimmy and the cute girl--you know, whatsername--in Tent #4 and the camp mascot dog, Sadie.

Virgil Libertas calls the NYT "Miss Blog-o-Manners" and tells it to "go piss up a rope."

It is nice to see the Times has its eyes firmly on the important issues of our day, rather than unpleasant shit like Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Darfur....

Now that I think about it, the NYT really has an interest in siding with the blog-o-niceness movement. Bloggers are a threat to the Times in part because we can do so many things that a mainstream newspaper can't. So wouldn't it be great if we were stuck with their standards? Stop being vicious and wild! Write like the NYT, and maybe people will just read the NYT. (Anything to get some readers-AJ)

Here's Dan Drezner:

I hereby predict it will go nowhere...

The one fascinating thing about [NYT writer Brad] Stone's story is what's not in it. Despite endless complaints about rising partisanship in the blogosphere, no example was given of declining civility in the poliitical [sic] blogosphere. That doesn't mean it's not happening, of course, but it's still surpring that Stone failed to offer up such an example.

I hope people wake up and notice how the Kathy Sierra story is being leveraged (something I talked about here). A woman received real threats of violence. Those threats are criminal, and Sierra's case is being handled by the police, as well it should be. Nasty, cruel, ugly, unfair, mocking, abusive speech is a completely different matter. Anyone who blends the two subjects is selling out free speech and should be called on it right away. This repressive movement is gaining momentum. Be alarmed now, before it digs in any further.

Anyone who wants to write a nice, well-mannered blog with a kindly, benevolent comments section is welcome to do it. But if they also want to stigmatize cutting, mocking, aggressive speech, I'm going to aggressively cut and mock them. Of course, they have the freedom to try to stigmatize the bloggers like me who don't want to be nice, but all they can really do is be nice, nice, nice themselves. And readers will decide for themselves who they want to read.

If you've followed the discussion this far, I'll toss back in a reminder about the Rules .

The Rules At This Lemonade Stand:

1) Be polite.
2) I will try not to be boring.
3) I am responsible for goes up here.
4) If you don't like the rules go set up your own stand.
5) Nothing is free. See #1 and #2 above. When in doubt see #3 & #4

Getting "wrapped around the axel" over the rights of commentators vs the rights of the blog owner vs threats of violence vs Free Speech is just spinning readers in circles. People who will not defend their ownership rights will lose them. Those who will defend their rights find the strength to help others in their struggle. This dynamic is a foundation for civilization. That this needs explaining, clarification, expansion and defending shows why we have many enemies who doubt our willingness to be strong enough to survive a test or ten. Yes, it does relate to the "War With No Name". This is ultimately a war about our civilization

If the blog owner is not responsible for is posted the audience will flee. If the blog owner surrenders to abuse and trash, the audience will flee. If the blog owner chooses to publish abuse and trash, the audience will flee.

The marketplace of ideas like any other marketable commodity will go to those who provide value for expenditure. Abuse and trash are common. People will not seek it out and will shun places where it grows wild.

UPDATE: I LOVE THE INTERNET-!

Scrappleface offers civility offsets for those who absolutely positively feel they must abuse and trash others.... Send em money via Paypal.....
I Love this country. Every problem is a profit opportunity

UPDATE:
LGF shows what happens when the abusers slip thru the screen. He reasonably asks if you would want this on your blog. I ask, would you bother to read it?

Slashdot.com weighs in with a report. I guess everyone has an opinion about the cnsorship-civility divide.

Day-by-Day

Don't know if you have seen this strip.... I enjoy it. They cut thru a lot of clutter.... Much funnier than Trudeau was in his pre-Samoa days and now his Hampton/Jane Pauley- Darling-Days have made him boring...No smiles in his direction in decades... Falling for the Bush-Derangement-Syndrome Hoax was almost funny. When you hate it's hard to have share perspective... D-b-D, OTOH has cracked me up within the last week....

A conservative comic strip?..... Conservatives are really the underground now. We have to find each other in the ether of the internet, read each other, listen to our own music and laugh at our cartoons..... GEE-! It's just like 1965 with the roles reversed and new technology... Now if we could only get an explosion of decent music... The grocery store plays some great 1958-1968 music... Its hard not to dance in the aisles... Will we ever have Diddy in the elevator? Blenderized Beyonce and background 50cent?..... I doan think I'll make it that long..... Shifting gears... I've had Pete Fountain playing clarinet around the house for the last 2-3 days... If you don't know him, you should. If you do, you should get reacquainted...

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

War With no Name Cont'd

Correction received:

First of all, the Eagles didn't do "A Horse With No Name," that was America, and if you're going to mix that song up with the wrong group, the song was really a clone of Neil Young's "Harvest" soundscape and not an imitation of the Eagles early work at all. It's a stupid-ass song, but the chord trick is pretty neat: switching from an E minor to some mystery chord (a 13th? I can't remember...) by moving each finger of the Em outwards one string (same fret, though). It's a cool progression, but a stupid-ass song. The ocean is a desert, my ass. The ocean is WATER, you dumb-ass hippies! Thank g*d punk rock came along and turned the world day-glo, is all I can say.

And Then

Suffice to say: you will fight them now, or you will fight them later....but you WILL fight them. Even if the USA returns to a 9/10 mindset, our enemies will NOT. Read OBL's fatwas: this mook means what he says. When high-level Iranian government meetings begin and end with chants of "Death to America, death to Israel," what, exactly, do you think that they mean by that? Do you think they mean it IRONICALLY? Or that there's some post-modernist Derridian subtext wherein "death" means something else entirely, or "America" is to be interpreted as emblematic of post-World War II European philosophical malaise?

Hotel Tango: Draftervoi

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong..... Not so sure bout that "hippie" bit... But otherwise...

War Without End: Prisoners Without Rights

The ongoing debate about what to do with the detainees boiled over in the pages of the WSJ Opinion Journal. Specifically, between James Taranto and Anthony D'Amato. The following is from the Opinion Journal... Emphasis and comments are mine...

Do Terrorists Deserve Special Rights?
Our item yesterday on law professor Anthony D'Amato's opposition to treating al Qaeda detainees pursuant to the Geneva Conventions, prompted this response from reader Jonathan Hawkins, who defends D'Amato's position:

What Bush is doing at Guantanamo is abhorrent to democracy and abhorrent to classically liberal values. It is more in line with the values shown by courts in the Middle East. We need to be better than they are, not equal to. (How so? Why? No support for this position. Just a summation-AJ)

You mention that Mr. Mohammed is "merely" undergoing an Article 5 tribunal. But Article 5 tribunals were designed in the context of wars which had a conceivable end. This one does not. How, then, can you miss that the declaration of Mr. Mohammed as an enemy combatant allows the administration to lock him up for as long as it is convenient for them to do so? And doesn't that create an extrajudicial detention, something more in common with autocracy than with the republican democracy we strive for? (What is the solution?-AJ)

To put it another way, if we have such great intel on what he was responsible for, why can't we just try him in a legitimate court and win? (Rules of evidence-soldiers are not police officers nor vice versa-AJ) Is the government that scared of their case's inadequacies? Is the government so incapable of protecting its sources and methods that it cannot suffer them to be even hinted at in publicly available parts of the trial? Or, as both conservatives and liberals should fear, does the government believe itself to be above the law?

Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Taranto, in such a world of military tribunals and never-ending "conflicts," what's to stop a similar Democratic administration from declaring you an enemy combatant and locking you up forever? This sword cuts both ways, and Mr. Bush, of whom you are apparently a fan, won't always be in office. We hope.

The central argument here is that the Geneva Conventions' provision allowing enemy combatants to be detained for the duration of the conflict is unjust if the war does not have "a conceivable end." This is perverse. (The alternative is to "Take-No-Prisoners" which is an option only in a video game. Not taking prisoners would go against everything that is American. we could ot do that and still have American Soldiers as the world knows and loves-AJ)

Hawkins is claiming that because al Qaeda has declared what appears to be a war without end (a war in which combatants on its side adhere to no rules of civliized conduct), those combatants are entitled to more rights than soldiers in a legitimate war: namely, all the rights enjoyed by defendants in the civilian criminal-justice system, including the right to go free unless criminal culpability is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Back to the terrorism-as-crime mentality. This brings about rules of evidence, chain of custody, rights of the accused, defense intervention, etc. No war is fought with those restrictions. The enemy does not offer these-AJ)

Hawkins then raises the specter of a future Democratic administration declaring this columnist an enemy combatant. To say the least, this is a remote and theoretical concern, and it does not trouble us at all. The Bush administration has never designated a domestic critic an enemy combatant, and we find implausible the suggestion that even an administration inclined to do so could get away with it.

On the other hand, we can think of quite a few cases in which overzealous prosecutors have abused the criminal-justice system, prosecuting innocent people for political ends, and sometimes winning convictions. Hawkins's faith in the criminal-justice system seems naive in light of his irrational objections to the treatment of enemy combatants in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Homer nods: We accidentally cut off the end of Anthony D'Amato's email in yesterday's column. We quickly corrected it, but for the benefit of our email subscribers, his conclusion should have read: "Mr. Taranto might wish to explain to his readers the difference between sentenced for life at a jury trial and sentenced for life at an administrative hearing. In the meantime, if I'm a red baiter, then Mr. Taranto is a bait and switcher."

Sadly......Nobody who opposes Guantanamo and open ended detention for enemy combatants has a solution. They offer no options. They want the police to replace soldiers. they want a CSI team to investigate each civilian atrocity they commit. They want legal protections, rights and strict rules of evidence to be given by people who are under attack or who are in the process of killing the enemy... Open ended detention is the best option. They want the rights and privileges of a civil society but reject the rule of law, laws of society and status of combatant (uniforms, not attacking civilians, no chemical weapons, etc) plus the protections of a prisoner of war... Someone would have to sign a treaty and abide by its terms... In the absence of grown-up national sovereignty to represent these killers, we are all left with the open ended detention...