Not about Jax (blogging about law professors' conference)

Went to SEALS (Southeast Association of Law Schools) conference last week.  Some highlights:

 

1. Impact of Westlaw- Access to information leveled; small firms with small libraries have more information.  Also, digest [primary system of print research, based on books of cases called “digests”]  structures inquiry, limits cases people find.  Westlaw search means more of a diversity of arguments, as people are more likely to find unpublished, obscure or moribund cases.  Generally a bit more open-endedness in law; less likely everyone will find same cases. 

 

2. Some real left wing stuff: one on juveniles as informants, asserting that they shouldn’t be police informants because (under death penalty precedent) they are too immature to be executed, thus too immature to be informants.  Then someone asked: “But aren’t 17 year olds mature enough to be sentenced as adults?”  Speaker responded “I’m against that too.”  Reminds me how far I am from the real academic Left.  Fundamentally, I really, really, really value social order.  They don’t (or perhaps just disagree with me about how we get there).

3. Property rights- A speaker critiqued “takings” legislation (requiring govt. to compensate landowners whenever regulation reduced property value by restricting development) by analogy to old property case of Pierson v. Post.  In Pierson, hunter chases fox, but is held not to have really owned it unless he killed it.  Similarly, someone trying to develop chases development, but shouldn’t be compensated for loss of opportunity until he has “captured” use by getting a building permit. 

4. Restrictive covenants and sex offenders- Some covenants ban all sex offenders.  To run with the land (i.e. bind people not parties to original covenant, as land is sold again and again) covenant must “touch and concern” land.  Does this covenant affect property values enough to touch and concern land? Law unclear.  I think so- but covenant may be against public property as unreasonable if so widespread they have no place to live.  We don’t want sex offenders to be homeless- if they are, its harder to find them if they commit additional crimes. 

5. Panel on US News rankings- Since part time students aren’t counted in schools’ LSAT (Part of rankings) schools game the system by admitting weaker students as transfers and part timers.  Some juicy examples of how schools shifted tiers merely by switching full time/part time balance.

 6.  Speech on statutes requiring government to “consider” factors (especially National Environmental Policy Act, which requires government to consider environmental impact of actions)-  all I remember is great line: “A county without a squad car has no speed limit.”

7.  Also a neat webpage on climate change litigation: www.climatecasechart.com  

 8.  Interesting article on how international treaty governing civilians in warfare is rigged in favor of terrorists: protocol (which US has not signed on) provides that civilians engaged in hostilities (e.g. terrorists) can only be targeted while actively engaged in hostilities.  Even though US hasn’t signed on, some risk it could be treated as customary international law.

9.  Interesting presentation on how web pages can be archived for posterity.  There is an archive (www.archive.org ) but it is pretty erratic – archive often down, lots of people opt out, copyright law unclear enough that it might be illegal

Interesting panel on nature of scholarship- some commenters favored “Big Tent” approach- but felt constrained at their own institutions (e.g. feeling like they had to publish only in their specialty, only long articles, etc.)  

10. Interesting presentation on bar exams- While multistate bar almost universal (48 states) as is MPRE (47), multistate performance and essay tests much less so (34 and 22 respectively). 

Memorable urban [and suburban!] experiences

Took Greyhound to the Southeastern Association and Law Schools conference in Lantana, Fla. - definitely some interesting experiences:

Began by taking bus during the day (last Sunday).  We had an hour and a half layover in Orlando, and I saw what might be the future of American suburbia (well, some of American suburbia anyhow!).  The Greyhound station is definitely in sprawl- 4 miles from downtown, with 6 lane roads, single family houses, and the usual big parking lots.  But unlike the stereotypical suburb, this area was kind of ghetto-ish.  I could see at least one boarded-up home from across the street, saw a couple of people who looked like they might be homeless, was asked for money once or twice.   On the positive side, one of the strip malls had a police precinct office; by a not-so-odd coincidence, it had a decent amount of commerce (including an interesting Jamaican restaurant and a pretty well-stocked dollar store).

On the way back, I had to get to West Palm Beach's Greyhound station (at its commuter rail station).  First I took a county bus (PalmTran) from Lantana to West Palm.  The buses had something that definitely qualifies as "Best Practices in Public Transit"- the bus had numerous copies of "Bus Books" listing every bus schedule in the county.  By contrast, in Jacksonville all you usually can find on the bus is the schedule of the route you're riding - and in most other transit systems not even that!

West Palm itself is a mixed bag: it has two very nice new urban developments downtown, chain-dominated CityPlace and funkier Clematis Street.  But between the two, and between both and the train/bus station, lies a fearsome abomination of desolation.  I walked several blocks down the western, not-so-funky part of Clematis to the station, and for some blocks saw not a single soul, not even a panhandler.  (I suppose I should have gone somewhere and waited for a cab, but it looked like the sky was about to open up in a thunderstorm so I hurried - I figured any scary person out there probably had already found shelter!)

My Folio Weekly article for this week
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/50/

my latest Folio Weekly article
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/49/

Coming home to the Republicans

I have been a Republican all my life, and even held minor party office in some of the places I've lived.

On the other hand, I've had my issues with the current Administration, and with the national Republicans generally.  (In fact, I have occasionally been known to refer to myself as a "swing voter.")

So when I was asked to run for precinct committee, I was kind of conflicted.  But I said yes anyhow.

So why would I publicly identify myself with the Republican Party, in the hour of its greatest disgrace since 1974?

1.  My economic views are pretty consistent with what Republicans used to believe: balance the budget, at least in good times.  Be a little more skeptical of government programs than the Democrats, and a little less skeptical than the Libertarians.

2.  The most successful municipal governance in my lifetime was that of a Republican, Rudy Giuliani in NYC.  And I do think I'm a social conservative in the Rudy Giuliani sense, though not in the Karl Rove sense.  That is to say: I prioritize social order over equality, and sometimes even more over liberty. 

3.  The last politician who inspired me was a Republican (Ron Paul). And I think my foreign policy views have moved in his direction, though I'm certainly not as radically noninterventionist as he.

4. Intellectually, the Republicans are where the action is in American politics; the Democrats seem to just react to Republican mistakes rather than setting the agenda themselves, even under President Clinton.  Has any Democratic presidential nominee since 1984 stood for anything to speak of? Well, maybe something, but not very much.  I don't think Obama is an exception.

5.  And where I live (in one-party Jacksonville, in basically-Republican Florida) the Republicans are basically where the action is, period.   

 

 

Bus terminal: pros and cons

Yesterday I went to a hearing on JTA's new bus terminal proposal.

JTA is planning to build a big new bus terminal on the west side of downtown, and to reroute a lot of buses there instead of having them run around downtown.

There are some positives to this idea: (1) it may include Amtrak, which really should be downtown;

2) if you are transferring from non-downtown point A to non-downtown point B, you probably want the bus to spend as little time downtown as possible.

Nevertheless, I don't like the idea in its current incarnation.  Transit's chief market, like it or not, is the suburb-to-downtown commuter.  And a suburb-to-downtown commuter doesn't want to

(a) transfer to the Skyway or trolley to get to work; or

(b) have to walk ten blocks to get to work.

Instead, JTA should try to provide these commuters with something close to door-to-door service.  If JTA has any "choice" riders (i.e. people who can drive to work but don't) it is these people.  Lose those suburb-to-downtown commuters, and you cripple your ridership base.

To learn more contact whart@jtafla.com

The Skyway actually works

Today, I rode the skyway (Jacksonville's downtown-only monorail) to a lunch on Jacksonville's South Bank (the south side of downtown).   It was actually fairly packed; I saw one or two railcars with four or so people on it- the maximum a car can have with everyone sitting down.

Evidently the common claim that "no one rides the Skyway" is not true.

Of course, this claim is not dissimilar to a common statement about our admittedly anemic transit system: "No one ever rides the [bus/Skyway/whatever]... I look at these buses and they are always empty."

In fact, sometimes they aren't.  But even when they are, it doesn't mean what you think it means: buses are constantly loading and unloading people, so if you don't see a ton of people on the bus, maybe some of the passengers have already gotten off, or haven't gotten on yet.

And of course, if the buses were full people would be complaining about how full they are.

For shame!

Jacksonville rated America's least walkable large city:

 

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Article2.aspx?cp-documentid=8673581&GT1=35000

 

Neighborhood by neighborhood stats at

 http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/Jacksonville

 

 

Greyhound more fuel-efficient than Amtrak
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363708_transit20.html

As a regular Greyhound rider (from Jax to Atlanta where my parents live) I was quite happy to learn this.

article that I was originally planning to put on Folio Weekly ...

 - but that wound up being more suitable for this blog.

 (reprinted at 

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/808/ )

NOT SO DRIVER-FRIENDLY by Michael Lewyn

Commentators on transportation policy sometimes write as if drivers and nondrivers are locked in a zero-sum game- that is to say, what benefits one group always hurts the other.   For example, I recently read a book that repeatedly referred to public transit and other pro-nondriver policies as “anti-automobile.” .
But after driving for a year here in Jacksonville, I have discovered that policies designed to speed up automobile traffic are not good for all drivers all the time, even if they are bad for nondrivers.
For example, San Jose Blvd. (the main street of my Mandarin neighborhood) is up to nine lanes wide in some spots.  Such wide streets are of course obnoxious to pedestrians, who have to cross twice (once to the median, once from the median to the other side of the street) unless they are very fleet of foot indeed.
But is this sort of road good for drivers? Yes if you are a long distance commuter, just passing through San Jose to get to their exurban home in St. John's County.
But what if you actually want to shop on San Jose? Even if you know exactly what you are looking for, you have to plan your trip by getting in the center lane (if you know your shop is on the left).  Then you have to make a left turn across several lanes of fast-moving traffic.   Even if you are lucky enough to be looking for a shop on the right lane, you have to remember to get in the right line a few minutes in advance.
If you don't know where you are going you are much worse off - for example, if you've heard about some interesting shop or restaurant on San Jose. If San Jose is uncongested, you have to drive so fast in order to keep up with the traffic that it is very difficult to find the shop you are looking for and still not be crushed by someone else's vehicle. Often, you will have overshot your intended destination by the time you know where you are.
And if the roads are congested, you face another problem: even if you do not have to drive 50 mph to keep up with the traffic, you will have a difficult time switching lanes, because the lanes to the left and the right of you will be clogged with traffic..
By contrast, if streets were narrower you might not be able to drive as fast (bad news) but you could switch lanes to get to your destination more easily (good news) since there would be fewer lanes to cross.
Jacksonville also requires many shops to be set back 20 or more feet from the street. In some ways, this policy is good for drivers; driving is obviously less of a hassle if you can park in front of a shop.  But this policy too creates problems for drivers.  The further the shop is from the street, the less visible its street number is. So if you are searching for a small restaurant at 9854 San Jose Boulevard, and that restaurant is 20 or 30 feet from the street, you might not be able to see the shop’s address in time to switch lanes.
Our city also speeds up traffic by creating large numbers of right-turn lanes. These lanes are not particularly helpful for nondrivers, because they effectively widen the road.
But separate right-turn lanes can create problems for drivers as well. Jacksonville is full of turn lanes that end in some sort of concrete barrier. If you know exactly where to turn these barriers are safe; you know enough not to get into the turn lane until right before your destination. But if you are not intimately familar with every inch of a commercial street (especially at night) the turn lanes turn driving into an adventure. Several types, I have gotten into a turn lane thinking I was in the right place to turn - but in fact I am turning one intersection too early. As a result, I almost ran into the concrete barrier.
Residential street design can also make Jacksonville driving an adventure.  In most neighborhoods built in recent decades, residential streets tend to be cul-de-sacs instead of grids- that is, no street connects with more than one or two other streets.   Even commercial streets do not always run from one end of town to another; for example, St. Augustine Road dead-ends at its intersection with San Jose Blvd. instead of running all the way from downtown to the county line.
Neighborhoods dominated by cul-de-sacs are good news for drivers in their role as homeowners: if your street only intersects with one other street, there will be fewer cars on it, and you will have less traffic noise to put up with.   
But if every homeowner lives on a cul-de-sac, drivers have a problem. Suppose you live on a residential street in Mandarin, and are trying to reach your job in Baymeadows.  If Mandarin had the same kind of grid street network as Riverside, you would have a wide variety of routes to choose from.  But because of the predominance of cul-de-sacs, there is only one way to go north if you live in Mandarin:  you have to use San Jose Blvd. for at least some of your trip.   Because virtually all neighborhood trips are forced onto one street, that street can become highly congested during rush hour.    In sum, cul-de-sacs are like tax evasion: fun if you are the only person to do it, not so good if everyone else does it.
 
So is Jacksonville a driver-friendly city or a driver-unfriendly city?  Yes and yes- depending on where you want to drive and what time of day you are driving.

Learning to cherish downtown

Dumb way to promote smart growth

I just got something in the mail from the Florida Association of Realtors about a conference on Smart Growth.  Ironically, the conference was scheduled to be at the World Golf Village, an area near St. Augustine that isn't really accessible via public transit.  Oops- not quite so smart!

(PS The conference was canceled due to lack of interest; I guess I wasn't the only person who thought the location was too remote).

What I have read so far this year (reviews on amazon.com and Facebook)
1.  Best Laid Plans, O’Toole
2. Torah Through Time, Cherry
3.  Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Yehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966, Shapiro            
4.  The Documentary Hypothesis and The Composition of the Pentateuch, Cassuto
5.  Peace not Apartheid, Carter
6.  The Absolutely Worst Places to Live in America, Dave Gilmartin
7.  Rybczynski, Last Harvest
8. Road to Ruin, Dom Nozzi
9.  The Provincials, Evans
10.  Schacht, An Introduction To Islamic Law
11.  Chabon, The Yiddish Policemen’s Union
12.  Sacks, The Dignity of Difference
13.  Angel, Foundations of Sephardic Spirituality
14.  Levi, The Periodic Table
15.  Armstrong, The Battle for God
16.  Obama, Dreams from My Father
17.  Rosenbaum, The Holocaust and Halakhah
18.  Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew
19.  Scholem, The Messianic Idea In Judaism
20.  Obama, The Audacity of Hope
21.  Kushner, Who Needs God?

CNU blog post: statistics on overregulation....

http://www.cnu.org/node/1871

Some economists have actually tried to measure whether some metro areas regulate development more than others (rather than just relying on the generalization that anyplace with high housing prices MUST have more regulation)- results linked to in the post above.

Most interesting finding- areas that regulate sprawl aren't always the most regulatory; Portland is somewhere in the middle rather than being one of the most regulation-happy regions.

Well put!

Chesterton On Progressives And Conservatives

Blogging V

10:35 Paul gets back to basics:

Republicans used to be against the Department of Education.  Now they are for it.

Republicans used to end wars.  Now they start them.

Gets off track and starts talking about big tents. Something weird about most doctrinaire candidate talking about big tents.

After debate- Am watching local media- one likes Huck better for charm and humor, another McCain.  They agree that all five Rs "nicey nice" with each other, compared to "rancorous" Ds.  (That's how a multicandidate race is ... its a lot easier to lose votes by being negative because if A and B attack each other, the votes go to C).

I didn't think anyone had a real good night tonight.  Even though I agree with Paul on some issues, he was rambling and not very coherent a lot of the time.  Because no independents vote in Florida primaries, the other four were knocking themselves out even more than usual to pander to "the base."   Big winner: the Democrats.

Blogging IV

10 Media asks Rudy inane horse race question (how come you're down to 4th place?)

Giuliani shows wit- says he's lulling other candidates into "false sense of security."

10:08 Another inane question to McCain- how do you expect to reunite Republicans?

McCain- Hollers terrorism. 

10:10 Romney accuses Clinton of being "out of step" with American people- taxes, health insurance, Iraq.  Calls Hillary "Washington to the core."  Um, Hillary's been in Washington about a decade fewer than McCain- is this an indirect hit on McCain?

Romney promises to reunite foreign policy, social and economic conservatives- the usual blather.

10:13 Russert tries to get Romney to say how much of his own money as he is spending.  Romney evades- says he's not spending as much as Steve Forbes did. 

Romney says- "I owe no one anything.  I'm by far the biggest contributor to my own campaign."

Very candid- very good point! I can see the ads now:

"Romney - Too Rich To Steal."

Emphasizes need to have something with "life in the private sector."

I get the sense that Russert et al have decided that the candidates are so preprogrammed, so desperate to appeal to the "base" on major domestic and foreign policy issues, that they might as well kill time by asking horse race questions. 

10:15 After being asked about religion, Romney says once people get to know Democrats,  they will come home to Rs.

10:16 Russert says "Do you still favor abolishing Social Security" to Paul?

Paul says eventually, yes.  Spouts usual orthodoxy about how Social Security is dying (which I think is questionable - depends on economic growth), favors privatization.  Not sure I understood all his details.

Paul isn't very good at explaining all his positions at sound bite level.

10:18 Huck on Social Security- big problem is fewer wage earners, more Americans getting wealth from investments.  Fair tax will create extra funding stream for Social Security, funding it out of general revenues.   (What's impact of severing link between funding source and Social Security?)

Russert asks- will you save Social Security as Reagan did in 80s by raising taxes?

Romney - Don't wanna raise taxes.  Don't wanna.  Don't wanna.  (Logical followup- if taxes are so bad, why not just abolish them and fund everything out of debt?)  Proposes compromise based on changing indexing formulas, raising retirement raise and privatization.  I can't imagine any Democrat going along with that.   

Russert asks Giuliani- why do Cubans automatically get to stay here, but not anyone else?

Giuliani hollers Communism.  Says Castro "longest standing dictator".  So what? Why is length of tenure more important than repressiveness?

10:28 Russert asks why NY Times opposes him.  He responds that there is a serious ideological difference between himself and NY Times.

10:32 McCain goes out of his way to praise Giuliani.

 

 

Blogging III

9:43 Romney shows flash of reality.  Mentions China raising price of oil by increasing world demand.  Asks Giuliani "What kinds of relations should we have with China economically"?  Very friendly question- seems to be showing off his understanding of China.

Giuliani sees China as "great opportunity."  Calls for rule of law, protection of intellectual property, usual business stuff.  "Be careful" about what we import from safety standpoint.  Sees China as potential customers, as Chinese come out of poverty.  Says we can sell advanced services (very vague it).  

Says we should increase size of military, attacking Clinton "peace dividend."  How much have we increased military spending under Bush?  This is what liberals must have sounded like in 1970s, complaining that social spending hadn't increased enough even after Great Society.

9:46 McCain asks Huck about fair tax.   Asks about regressiveness concern about fair tax.  Softball question says presumably Huck has been asked 100 times about it. 

Huck refers to "prebate" - each American, each month, gets part of fair tax back. Not sure I understand.  

Says underground economy will be paying taxes.  (Really?  Can't you have a black market to avoid sales taxes?)

Russert asks- aren't low income Americans already avoiding income tax?

Huck responds- income taxes passed on to low income Americans, so they pay too.  (Interesting but isn't this true of sales taxes, confusing).

Paul asks McCain- What's your opinion of President's "working group on financial markets?"  

McCain says he'd rely on Treasury Secretary.  (Not sure he understands question- I know I don't).

9:52 Huck hits Romney- how can you be for Brady and assault weapon ban and still support 2nd Amendment?

Romney- I support 2nd Amendment. Like the President, I would have supported assault weapon bill - and in my state, a similar ban actually liberalized gun laws.  But also says "I do not support any new legislation."  Confusing unless you have a L.L.M in Gun Law.  

Giuliani- Asks Romney a Florida related question about property insurance.  Emphasizes he supports a "national catastrophic fund", while McCain believes that FEMA should handle this. Pandering to Florida.

Romney and McCain basically say- bring in some experts and study it.

9:58 Russert- As level of greenhouse gases doubles, Florida in grave danger.  Yet you're against cap on greenhouse gases - what's up with that?

Giuliani- Technology, technology, technology. Nukes, hybrid cars, other "gizmo green" solutions.  Asserts that with caps, we'd "crush American industry" and China and India would keep polluting.

McCain- I'm not in favor of mandatory caps, I'm in favor of "cap and trade" which worked for acid rain.  Gradual reduction of greenhouse emissions.  No treaty without China and India, supports nukes too. 

Makes key point- if we reduce greenhouse gases and there's no global warming, we still have a cleaner world.  But if we do nothing and there turns out to be a crisis, big problem.  Well put!  

An experiment: blogging GOP debate

9:04 Romney and McCain asked about stimulus proposal.  Romney tries to outbid Bush.  So does McCain.  So does Giuliani. One thing about a recession: it brings out the borrow and spend instinct in politicians- Republicans with tax cuts, Democrats with spending.  A plague on both your houses!

9:08 Giuliani takes on Sarbanes-Oxley.  Talk about a Beltway issue!

9:09 Russert slams McCain, quoting McCain as stating that he knows much less about economics than foreign policy.  McCain denies saying it.   He points out Wall Street Journal article saying majority of economists on his side. 

Huck says "We'll just borrow the 'stimulus' money from the Chinese, and it'll all get spent on retail goods from China.'"  Good point!

9:12 Huckabee suggests stimulating the economy by building two more lanes on I-95.  Yep, just build more pork, so people can drive more miles and give more money to the Saudis.  Not so good point!  On environmental issues, this guy is a disaster - more roads, more sprawl, more government.  And he's not so good on spending either! 

9:13 Romney cites his record as governor (good) then demagogues the tax issue against McCain (not so good).  Romney runs as Bush II- let's just cut taxes and stimulate the economy, just like in 2002.  He must not have listened to Huckabee mentioning the deficit.  

9:15 McCain blames midterm losses on "bridge to nowhere."  Is he kidding?  The evidence from the poll data is, as I recall, pretty overwhelming: the Republicans didn't have any trouble holding their base, they lost independents.

9:16 Paul hits stimulus issue.  He says we should stop interfering with "market" rate of interest.  He hits old-fashioned basics- no more spending, no more borrowing.  "We're literally spending ourselves on oblivion."  Kind of free associating.  But hits key point: you can't separate domestic policy and foreign policy; you can't really say "Government spending doesn't count as long as its for war."  You can spend yourself into a hole just as easily on war as on welfare.

No one in this round was real coherent.  

9:20 Russert asks everyone: after $2 trillion increase in national debt, doubling of gas prices, increase in unemployment, why trust Republicans on economics?

McCain attacks Dems, hitting all the usual bases.  Also hits Bush on pork barrel, comes out for fiscal discipline.  "We will clean up our act and we will regain the confidence of the American people ... we will balance our budget."  

Huckabee says "I wasn't in Washington".   Points out he was the only one who saw that the economy had problems a few months ago; everyone else was saying the economy was great.

  

 

blogging II

More on economy:

Romney- I'm running on my own record, being in private sector, my record as governor of Mass.  Says "Washington is broken."  He wants it both ways- on the one hand, he's for change.  On the other, he's for four more years of tax cuts, with some nods to cutting spending.  Not real coherent.  

His record as governor was, as far as I know, fine.  The big difference: Massachusetts has to balance its budget. 

Giuliani- runs on NYC record. 

Paul- runs on "old fashioned Republican program."  Perfectly believable- but unfortunately for him, everyone else is me-tooing him.  

Then questions from audience.

9:30 Q to McCain- how can you sustain Iraq when our military is on verge of breaking, and our deficit is so ruinous?

A. McCain- no problems with military; we are succeeding in Iraq.  We have American troops and no one complains because we are "defending freedom."  I don't think he gets the difference between Iraq and Germany, or more broadly the difference between Islam and European secularism.

9:31 Russert asks Romney- how do you make counterinsurgency work without a draft?

A. In Mass, we passed a GI Bill encouraging National Guard enrollment.  Proposes updated funding level for GI Bill.  Spend and spend.   Usual rubbish about "turning Iraq over to al-Qaeda" and "finishing job."  (Um, Iraq is majority Shiite- and Shiites are the primary victims of al-Qaeda and are heavily armed). 

9:34 McCain- "the war in Iraq was justified because of the threat of Sadaam Hussein . . . we will have peace and success."  Yikes!

Giuliani- the same thing. McCain has stolen his hawkish clothing.  

9:35 Paul attacks war. "We should never be a country that starts war needlessly."

9:36 Huck says there was a potential of WMD- takes orthodox hawk line.  Says just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they were not there (dumb).  Its easy to second guess President. 

9:37 Romney (who's waffled on this issue before) seems to echo the others.  Shame! 

Says Iraq success prevents al-Qaeda from having a "safe haven."

Let me help you, Mitt. Al-Qaeda has a safe haven RIGHT NOW.  It is called PAKISTAN (or more precisely, the "tribal zone" bordering Afghanistan).  Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction too (in fact, nukes, which Sadaam never had).  

But this Administration dare not do anything about it, because the country that is harboring Bin Laden is pretending to be our ally.