Tom Carter's Notes

Please Visit Opinion Forum

2008-11-30T11:01:00.001-06:00

After an extended absence, I'm back at Opinion Forum. Please visit!

Courageous Democrats

2005-09-24T10:59:00.000-05:00

An excellent Washington Post editorial today discussed the need for Democrats to do the right thing and vote for the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice. As I discussed in Yes on Roberts, this would go a long way toward restoring a much-needed sense of integrity and seriousness in the Senate. The Washington Post said:

Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court used to be the norm, not an act of courage. Yet, set against the general opposition from Democrats to the nomination, and truly intense pressure from interest groups, the votes cast by ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Wisconsin's Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold took guts. Their votes ensure that Judge Roberts will not take the helm of the judiciary perceived as the representative of only one party, and they guarantee that at least some Democrats -- albeit sadly few -- will have the moral authority to demand Republican support for qualified liberal nominees in the future.

The larger Democratic opposition to Judge Roberts represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice. ... In refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats send a message that there is a strongly partisan component of the task of judging -- something those who believe in independent, apolitical courts must reject.

The three senators who voted yes are taking a beating from liberal groups for it. ... The liberal groups have made clear that they will oppose any nominee from this administration, regardless of qualifications.... Never mind waiting to find out who the nominee is or what he or she happens to believe.... In opposing Judge Roberts, some Democrats are following these groups off a cliff. The Judiciary Committee Democrats who refused to jump deserve credit for showing backbone.

No doubt there are diehard partisans in the Senate who can't bring themselves to act in the best interests of the country. For them, ideology is the absolute first priority. But I don't think many of them are that extreme. If Roberts is confirmed by at least 80 votes, it will mean that the majority of Democrats in the Senate had the courage to do the right thing, despite intense pressure from the far left. We'll see.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-24T10:01:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day, an oldie but a goodie, is in comments.

No on Whomever

2005-09-23T11:34:00.000-05:00

I found an odd paragraph in an AP report on fractured leadership in the Democratic Party as it tries to exploit political gains in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The paragraph said:

Katrina has overshadowed the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice. Though his confirmation is virtually assured, liberal interest groups have put the squeeze on Senate Democrats to oppose Roberts and Bush's yet-to-be-named pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Hold on a minute. Liberal interest groups are determined to oppose an unknown nominee? What if President Bush goes crazy and nominates someone they like, such as Ramsey Clark, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Jane Fonda, George Soros, or Ted Kennedy? (No, you don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.)

Maybe they ought to find out who the nominee is before they oppose him or her. It would make them look a little more rational, and who knows, they might be surprised.

Hunting Gay Priests

2005-09-22T23:04:00.000-05:00

It's being reported in the media that the Vatican is on the hunt for gay priests and plans to exclude them from the priesthood. Newsweek reported in its "Periscope" section that:

The Roman Catholic Church has embarked on a vast investigation that could push men with homosexual inclinations out of the already dwindling ranks of seminarians.

Newsweek also quotes one scholar who says, "23 to 58 percent of Catholic clerics have homosexual orientations." Strange numbers. It has also been reported that more than 80 percent of the people sexually abused by Catholic priests were young males.

All this leaves me a little confused. Since priests take a vow of celibacy, what difference does it make whether they prefer boys or girls--or for that matter, cows or sheep? Seems to me their sin, and the offense that would merit de-frocking, would be breaking that sacred vow of celibacy, regardless of the sex, species, or age of their sexual partners.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Yes on Roberts

2005-09-21T12:22:00.000-05:00

After the confirmation hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it's impossible to understand how any Senator can vote against John Roberts. However, it seems Democrats in the Senate are again taking careful aim at their own feet and wondering whether to pull the trigger. The Los Angeles Times agrees:

It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.

Beyond his sterling qualifications, John Roberts is the most moderate judicial nominee Democrats could ever expect to get from a Republican president. If they're waiting on another very liberal, ACLU-credentialed nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they would do better to focus on the 2008 presidential election and hope a Democrat wins.

In the meantime, Democrats voting in large numbers to confirm Roberts will perhaps restore some sense of integrity and seriousness to the Senate. Voting against him will not only be a wasted vote, it will reinforce the Democrats' current image of being little more than partisan hacks.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-21T12:01:00.000-05:00

If you're hunting for the Joke of the Day, it's in comments.

The Quirky Mayor

2005-09-18T23:17:00.000-05:00

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin isn't doing anything to mitigate his quirky image. And that's a very moderate way to put it. First the totally botched evacuation of his city, then his profanity-laced street-talk interviews, followed by his aborted order to evacuate the city by force, and finally his surprise announcement that he is re-opening parts of the city for up to 180,000 people to return immediately.

After Mayor Nagin made his surprise announcement, obviously without coordinating it with anyone, Vice Admiral Thad Allen, the head of federal relief efforts, spoke up and said that it's a bad idea--electricity problems, sewage problems, water problems, food problems, transportation problems, levees still weak, no evacuation plan in place, etc. VADM Allen may be worrying about another problem like the city had at the Superdome and the Convention Center.

Seems like the quirky mayor is miffed again. I just heard Mayor Nagin responding on Fox News to VADM Allen's comments. He said, "Maybe he's the new federally-crowned mayor of New Orleans, I don't know."

Remember, this is the same Mayor Nagin who was raving and cursing about the lack of federal presence. Now he's got it, but it seems he doesn't care about it.

Sounds like New Orleans could use some adult leadership.

Paying for Katrina

2005-09-17T09:21:00.000-05:00

As reported widely, President Bush plans to spend $200 billion on the federal effort to recover from Katrina. However, he plans to do that not by increasing taxes but by spending less on other things. I wonder exactly how he plans to do it?

I don't want to see taxes increased. We're already seeing the economic improvement and increase in government revenue that follow tax cuts, and increasing taxes now would be harmful. But considering that $200 billion is about 10 percent of annual government income, there are going to have to be serious spending cuts to come up with the money.

Thoughtful people have pointed out that Congress is certainly among the institutions that share blame for the slow response to the Katrina disaster. It will be interesting now to see if they can behave like adults in helping to find money to pay for it. How about, for example, the huge amount of pork now greasing the transportation bill? Will the corpulent worthies on Capitol Hill be willing to give up some of their pet projects? Or will they insist on keeping them, given that this is their principal way of buying votes?

And one more thing. Anyone who understands American politics knows that Louisiana in general and New Orleans in particular are famous for more than charm, Spanish moss, and jazz. It's one of the most corrupt political environments in the U.S. Who's going to be watching the money?

Joke of the Day

2005-09-17T08:29:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Occupied New Orleans

2005-09-16T23:23:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan, writing at MichaelMoore.com:

George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.

Occupied New Orleans?

Seems Mrs. Sheehan, beloved of the extreme left, makes a bigger fool of herself every day. No wonder most Democrats keep their distance from her.

I'm sure Republican strategists want to keep her talking as long as possible, though.

The Anthrax Investigation

2005-09-16T10:37:00.000-05:00

Many people, including me, have wondered why the person or persons behind the anthrax attacks of 2001 have never been caught. The Washington Post reported that the investigation seems to be slowing down to the point of becoming a cold case.

Apparently the investigation hasn't been stymied by a lack of effort. According to the report,

FBI agents and postal inspectors have pursued leads on four continents, conducted more than 8,000 interviews and carried out dozens of searches of houses, laboratories and other locations. They traveled to Afghanistan twice in the past 16 months to follow up on tips that proved fruitless, said law enforcement sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

The failure to find whoever committed these acts of terrorism is frustrating. The reality, however, is that law enforcement often doesn't work as smoothly and heroically as depicted in TV shows and movies. The hard-bitten, brilliant, and invariably good-looking cops don't always defeat the criminals. As The Post notes, the 18-year hunt for the Unabomber produced no results until he made a mistake and his brother turned him in.

As law enforcement statistics show, many crimes are never solved. All the criminal usually has to do is be smart enough to avoid leaving behind fingerprints and other forensic evidence, make sure there are no witnesses, and then keep his/her mouth shut. It also helps if there are no accomplices.

We can only hope that whoever the scumbag or scumbags are who perpetrated the anthrax attacks will make a mistake along the way. Otherwise, we may never know who did it.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-16T09:48:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Performance, Not Politics

2005-09-10T10:12:00.000-05:00

David Ignatius, in The Washington Post:

The immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has looked like politics as usual. The Democrats are in a paroxysm of righteous indignation -- much of it justified but in the long run counterproductive. When Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid proposes that the Senate investigate whether President's Bush's vacation contributed to the disaster, the public response is likely to be: Give me a break! When the Democrats focus all their criticism on the GOP-led federal government and ignore the appalling lapses of Democratic administrations in New Orleans and Louisiana, they lose credibility.

Ignatius quoted Newt Gingrich:

For the last week the federal government and its state and local counterparts have consistently been behind the curve. The American people overwhelmingly know that the current situation is totally unacceptable...it is a mistake to get trapped into defending the systems and processes which clearly failed.

They've got it right.

Overplaying Their Hand

2005-09-10T06:55:00.000-05:00

There are some whose intellectual life centers on intense, irrational hatred for George W. Bush and those associated with him. Expressions of their hatred are easy to find--it's in blogs, extremist pronouncements by some politicians, cockamamie statements by entertainers, and media "news" reports.

I've commented a number of times on the likelihood that these unrelenting attacks on the President, and by extension the Republican Party, could well create a backlash among fair-minded people. The Hurricane Katrina disaster has given the Bush-haters an unexpected opportunity to pour forth their venom, and they're overplaying their hand again.

As just one example, some Bush-haters almost immediately starting claiming that black people were allowed to die in New Orleans because President Bush is a racist. Kanye West, a hip-hop artist, proclaimed on TV that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." The media covered his statement extensively, of course, including numerous repeats on CNN.

According to a Boston Globe report, last Saturday at an NFL pre-game show in Boston Kanye West performed via video link:

...it was disconcerting to hear his name booed loudly by Patriots fans who evidently didn't appreciate his nationally televised comment the other night on a Hurricane Katrina benefit that President Bush "doesn't care about black people." The boos were thunderous and lasted for much of his number.

I searched without success for a report on this at The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the LA Times. I've heard nothing on CNN. The only thing I found was a brief item on The Drudge Report. Seems the same press that repeatedly showcased West's statement didn't think it was important enough to report the reaction of a large group of average Americans.

The political warfare being waged by some Bush-haters is way over the top. They've maneuvered themselves into the absurd position of dealing with tragedy and failure as victories for their side, whether it's natural disasters or set-backs in Iraq. All that matters to them is having an opportunity to attack the President.

They're overplaying their hand on every deal. As any poker player knows, that's a sure-fire prescription for losing.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-10T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Pointing the Finger

2005-09-09T08:01:00.000-05:00

Pointing the finger of blame for deficiencies in the response to Hurricane Katrina has become a full-time pursuit for some people. Who they blame, of course, depends largely on who they perceive to be their political enemies.

Charles Krauthammer addressed the issue in a way that will surprise many people. I realize that liberals rarely deign to read Krauthammer, but I hope they'll make an exception in this case. Much of the last half of the column will please them. Here's the beginning:

In less enlightened times there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews).

A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.

This kind of stupidity merits no attention whatsoever, but I'll give it a paragraph. There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period. The problem with the evacuation of New Orleans is not that National Guardsmen in Iraq could not get to New Orleans but that National Guardsmen in Louisiana did not get to New Orleans. As for the Bush tax cuts, administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed those of the five preceding Clinton years. The notion that the allegedly missing revenue would have been spent wisely by Congress, targeted precisely to the levees of New Orleans, and that the reconstruction would have been completed in time, is a threefold fallacy. The argument ends when you realize that, as The Post noted, "the levees that failed were already completed projects."

He continued, using the sparse amount of information now available to point the finger of blame at Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco, FEMA Director Brown, President Bush, Congress, and the American people. His logic is persuasive.

Dave on Gas Prices

2005-09-09T07:27:00.000-05:00

Dave Barry wrote about the high price of gasoline in April 2000, then went on to propose his own unique solutions. Note the prices he was talking about in the beginning of the column:

If you've been to a gas station lately, you have no doubt been shocked by the prices: $1.67, $1.78, even $1.92. And that's just for Hostess Twinkies. Gas prices are even worse.

Americans are ticked off about this, and with good reason: Our rights are being violated! The First Amendment clearly states: "In addition to freedom of speech, Americans shall always have low gasoline prices, so they can drive around in 'sport utility' vehicles the size of minor planets.''

And don't let any so-called ''economists'' try to tell you that foreigners pay more for gas than we do. Foreigners use metric gasoline, which is sold in foreign units called ''kilometers,'' plus they are paying for it with foreign currencies such as the ''franc,'' the ''lira'' and the ''doubloon.'' So in fact there is no mathematical way to tell WHAT they are paying.

But here in the U.S., we are definitely getting messed over, and the question is: What are we going to do about it? Step one, of course, is to file a class-action lawsuit against the cigarette companies. They have nothing to do with gasoline, but juries really hate them, so we'd probably win several hundred billion dollars.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-09T07:14:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Media Ignorance

2005-09-08T11:14:00.000-05:00

Karl Penhaul, a CNN correspondent, just reported from New Orleans on the mayor's order that everyone must be evacuated from the city, by force if necessary. He noted, with a slightly ominous tone, that the Army has said that it will not participate in evacuating people by force. The implication was that this is one more indication of disarray and dissension among American authorities.

His final, grave statement to the anchorman was, "We'll have to keep an eye on this, Jim."

This has been reported by a number of media sources, some of whom explained the situation and some of whom didn't. The fact is, the U.S. Army and other regular military forces, not including the National Guard, are forbidden by federal law to engage in law enforcement activities on U.S. territory except under very limited circumstances.

Penhaul, judging by his accent, is probably British. Not only is he ignorant of this basic fact, he wasn't corrected by the anchorman, Jim Clancy. Clancy, an American, is one of the most biased people on CNN, and he can be counted on to criticize the U.S. at every opportunity. He is either as ignorant as Penhaul, or he just liked the tone of the report.

And the beat goes on.

The Gathering Storm

2005-09-08T08:33:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some politicians and much of the media continue to vigorously criticize their favorite political enemies, while real American heroes attend to the exhausting and dangerous work of trying to save and succor victims. Democrats are attacking Republicans, and Republicans are attacking Democrats. Who was at fault seems to be based entirely on what side of the political spectrum the critic sits on. It's disgusting.

There will be all kinds of commissions and committees investigating this for years. Politicians and activists of all stripes are already trying to form them, even before all the corpses have been collected. Anywhere there's a TV camera, you see some leading political figure elbowing his or her way to the front, expressing outrage at whomever and demanding an investigation. Often, the face you see on TV spreading condemnation has neither the responsibility nor, in most cases, the talent to actually do anything. As I said, it's disgusting.

I propose a People's Commission, to be formed not less than 90 days after the last body has been recovered. Just normal people. No politicians, no presidential hopefuls, no extremist activists, no Jesse Jacksons, no Pat Robertsons, no ideologues of any kind. Just folks, with subpoena power and free rein to investigate anyone and everything.

I know it ain't possible, but it sure feels right. And I believe one of the major findings of a People's Commission would be that most of the media performed abysmally. Through gross misrepresentation and bias, intensified by ignorance, much of their reporting has painted the most negative possible picture. As a result, they've seriously misled the American people and further damaged the image of the U.S. abroad.

Jon Ham wrote an article on August 6 that captured this reality. It's worth reading in full, no matter what opinion you may have already formed. Ham said,

There is a fetid stink in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and it’s not coming just from the fouled waters flooding New Orleans. It also wafts from the putrid reporting of the disaster by the mainstream media.

From the moment Katrina made landfall the media focused on anything that could redound to the detriment of President Bush or inflame race and class tensions. Reporters and commentators ignored the dismal performance of New Orleans’ Democratic mayor and Louisiana’s Democratic governor, blaming every problem that arose on the Bush administration.

Racial demagogues accused Bush and his administration of reacting slowly because most of the victims were black. Environmental activists said Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty caused Katrina’s severity. Democratic operatives said the administration’s decision to cut funding for a long-term study of flood control caused the levees to breach.

All of this is stuff and nonsense. The tragedy is that the media know it too, but they still printed it.

I think most reasonable people understand the broad outlines of the truth. A just-released CNN/Gallup poll showed that 13 percent of Americans think President Bush is at fault in the way the disaster has been handled, 18 percent think it was other federal officials, 25 percent fault state and local officials, and 38 percent believe that officials at all levels are doing their best to cope with an unprecedented natural disaster. Furthermore, 63 percent do not believe that any federal official responsible for emergencies should be fired.

The poll also showed that the constant drumbeat of criticism directed at the President from the media and some Democratic politicians has had the intended result. Forty-two percent considered the President's performance in the disaster to be bad or terrible, and 35 percent thought it was good or great. This, before the facts are known, based on little more than media reporting and attacks from Democrats.

After the investigations, it will be clear that many reporters and editors performed in a grossly irresponsible and unprofessional manner. As Ham said,

Polls show that, unlike the media, the public does not blame Bush for the hurricane, the rioting, the looting, the stranded pets, the drowning deaths or the levee breaks. That means that the public doesn’t believe what the media are reporting. That’s the real gathering storm.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-08T07:29:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Global Warming and Hurricanes

2005-09-07T06:30:00.000-05:00

Perhaps one of the silliest criticisms leveled against President Bush and his Administration has to do with global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. Now we see some of the usual suspects using Hurricane Katrina as a further basis for that criticism.

The UN-based Kyoto Protocol, signed by Vice President Gore in 1998, was not submitted to the Senate because the Clinton Administration knew it would never be ratified. This was obvious because a resolution against it, sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), passed the Senate 95-0.

The reason the Senate opposed it, and would do so again if it was sent up for ratification, is because it's disadvantageous to the U.S. and would damage the U.S. economy. The Clinton-Gore Administration earned credit with their environmentalist constituency by signing it, even though they knew it would never go anywhere. It has served a purpose, though, as a weapon some use to bash Bush, illustrating their wacky view that he hates the environment.

It's gotten to the point that some extremists now blame just about everything bad that happens in the world, including Hurricane Katrina, at least partly on global warming. And, of course, President Bush is responsible for global warming because he (like his predecessor) hasn't submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate.

While there's scientific debate about global warming, it undoubtedly exists and is a problem. However, the extent of the problem, its effects, its causes, and practical policy responses are less clear. Even The New York Times published an article stating:

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

However, information like this won't be enough to defuse attacks against President Bush regarding the Kyoto Protocol and global warming in terms of the causes of hurricanes. After all, for some people ideology trumps facts every time.

The New York Times also published an interesting article comparing the severity and cost of past hurricanes that have hit the U.S.

Joke of the Day

2005-09-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Roberts and Religion

2005-09-05T11:02:00.000-05:00

I wrote in a comment to Catholics and Abortion that in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, his Catholic faith

...may be handled gently by some, but the issue of his Catholicism and his stance on abortion will be the single most important issue in his confirmation hearings.

The Washington Post published an article today that stated,

The degree to which Roberts' religious beliefs may inform his judicial philosophy could be a significant line of questioning....

The issue for both sides is not so much what Roberts believes is right or wrong. Rather, it is the degree to which he believes religious morality may be permitted to influence public policy. Liberals believe in a firewall between church and state, but as Christian conservatives see it, the Supreme Court should allow elected officials to restrict abortions or permit a Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on public property, if those actions have voter support. ...

Democrats who push too hard could deepen a growing impression that they are secular elitists. According to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 29 percent believe the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion, and 44 percent believe secular liberals have too much sway in the party.

I can't think of a single credible case in which a Catholic public official has been accused of permitting the dictates of Rome to override the national interest on public policy issues. Aside from my philosophical interest in the conflicts that bedevil Catholics who try to reconcile Church authority with contrary personal beliefs, I have no concern that any public official would compromise his/her duty because of his/her religious beliefs.

No nominee or candidate should be examined on personal religious convictions. That's a very slippery slope that verges on violating the Constitution, which says "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI, Clause 3). Politicians of both parties, and particularly Democrats, would be well-advised to steer clear of the issue of religion when examining Roberts.

The President has just announced that John Roberts is now his nominee to be Chief Justice, following the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. That's not likely to make much difference in the confirmation process for Roberts. However, the President must now nominate someone else for the Supreme Court, creating a rare circumstance in which two nominations are under consideration at the same time. I'm sure political junkies are ecstatic.

On a final note, the Washington Post article linked above is labeled as "analysis," and it has a decided slant. That's fine, as long as it isn't presented as "news." However, I couldn't help reflecting on the somewhat disparaging comment that "Christian conservatives" believe that in matters of public policy "the Supreme Court should allow elected officials" to act in areas of public policy "if those actions have voter support." That line speaks volumes about the anti-democratic strain in leftist thinking, not to mention regrettable ignorance about how our constitutional system of government is supposed to function.

Who Said This?

2005-09-05T09:56:00.000-05:00

Who said this? The answer is in comments.

Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.

Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.

Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.

The Gulf Coast Disaster

2005-09-02T10:59:00.000-05:00

I haven't done much the past few days other than read and watch media reports about the disaster in the Gulf Coast area. I grew up in that general area and lived there for periods as an adult. The magnitude of what's happening there is unbelievable, and it feels very personal.

On Monday we thought New Orleans had dodged the bullet, as it has many other times. We knew the coastal areas of Mississippi and Alabama might get hit fairly hard, but in general people were more upbeat than they were as the hurricane approached. This optimism was led by the professional meteorologists. Then all hell broke loose. New Orleans flooded in the aftermath of the hurricane, and the damage in other coastal areas turned out to be massive.

Aside from a few individuals and a limited number of military and civil first-responders, the early response to this disaster has been disappointing. That's because of the almost unprecedented severity of the situation and perhaps because of inadequate planning and preparation by government at all levels. Once the emergency is over, we need to take a close look at what happened and how we can better manage future disasters.

What we don't need now is the constant refrain of accusations spewing from the media. CNN, for example, is absolutely obsessed with blaming government, and particularly the federal government, for failures of every imaginable kind.

Anderson Cooper, CNN superstar, often appears to be in tears and nearly hysterical as he makes his reports. As just one example, he berated Senator Mary Landrieu in an interview, almost demanding that the federal government apologize. This pampered dilettante from limoland has never been responsible for leading large numbers of people or managing a large enterprise under stress. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he has no idea who should apologize to whom for what. Senator Landrieu, to her great credit, has been doing a good job of helping organize relief efforts and injecting a much-needed sense of calm into public discussion. She kept her cool during Cooper's tirade, tried to calm him down, and assured him there would be plenty of time later to assess blame.

As one more example of many, CNN's Miles O'Brien similarly berated Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, repeatedly interrupting him and trying to get him to say that there aren't enough National Guard troops to respond to this disaster because of Iraq. This liberal talking point has been a standard refrain at CNN. Governor Barbour finally said that he didn't know whether he was involved in an interview or an argument but that he wasn't going to be forced to say something that isn't true.

I checked a few liberal blogs, and they're also obsessed with criticizing the government, even though they, like much of the media, don't know what they're talking about. You don't need to waste time reading them--you can get the same line from media reports.

Another issue being distorted and misrepresented by some in the media and others is the looting, mostly in New Orleans. The fact is, the looters fall into two groups. One is people who are hungry and otherwise distressed and have broken into stores to take food and survival supplies. As political leaders have noted, what they're doing is understandable and no one blames them for it.

The other looters are stealing high-value items like electronics equipment, clothing, drugs--and guns. These are the same scum who are shooting at police and rescue helicopters and brutalizing and raping their fellow citizens. These are the same thugs who would have been committing violent crimes on the streets if there had been no hurricane. And you can be sure that those who survive will be committing violent crimes in the city once it recovers. Governor Barbour of Mississippi and Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana have both taken an appropriately hard line against these criminal looters.

Finally, and perhaps most disappointing, some in the media, some bloggers, and a few politicians are trying to inject race as a principal issue. That is beyond despicable.

In reality, there is no adequate response in the immediate aftermath of major disasters. No matter what resources may be available, there are practical limits to how much assistance can be pushed into an area where the infrastructure has been destroyed.

Consider the situation we'll face when there is a devastating earthquake in a major population center. We know that one is coming, too. In the first few days after the earthquake, the response will be inadequate in terms of the magnitude of the disaster. And critics in the media and others who have no responsibility and who lack the knowledge to even understand the situation will point fingers of blame again long before anyone knows who, if anyone, is at fault. Perhaps the saddest fact is that the nature and content of this criticism will be determined to some extent by which political party is in power.

There are only a few useful things those of us on the sidelines can do. Those so inclined can pray--it might even help. We can send a contribution to the Red Cross. Then we can resist the temptation to add more uninformed opinion to an already confused discussion.

Dave on Mathematics

2005-08-29T09:54:00.000-05:00

In a classic 1993 back-to-school column, Dave Barry bemoaned the poor knowledge of mathematics displayed by most high school students:

I say this in light of a recent alarming Associated Press story stating that three out of every four high-school students -- nearly 50 percent -- leave school without an adequate understanding of mathematics. Frankly, I am not surprised. "How," I am constantly asking myself, "can we expect today's young people to understand mathematics when so many of them can't even point their baseball caps in the right direction?"

I am constantly seeing young people with the bills of their baseball caps pointing backward. This makes no sense, young people! If you examine your cap closely, you will note that it has a piece sticking out the front, called a "bill." The purpose of the bill is to keep sun off your face, which, unless your parents did a great many drugs in the '60s (ask them about it!), is located on the FRONT of your head. Wearing your cap backward is like wearing sunglasses on the back of your head, or wearing a hearing aid in your nose.

The more things change, the more they stay the same....

CNN and "New Orleans"

2005-08-29T05:16:00.000-05:00

CNN International is extensively covering Hurricane Katrina. They're airing frequent reports from CNN's U.S. correspondents in the Gulf Coast area, and their meteorologists are providing frequent analyses that seem to be very competent. Like most Americans and many other people in the world, I'm following the story very closely and with great concern.

The devastation that will almost certainly be visited on the beautiful, historic city of New Orleans is particularly distressing. What makes it even sadder is we've always known this would happen, sooner or later. Like certain highly populated areas of California that will be devastated by huge earthquakes someday, it's always been a question not of if but of when.

There's no humor in the event, of course, but CNN International is lending a little unintentional humor of its own. Their anchor people are obviously chosen on some sort of quota basis. There's no other way to explain the representation among anchors of citizens of a wide variety of countries on every continent--well, maybe not Antarctica. The anchors are about half men and half women, with the women averaging at least 10 years younger than the men. The women, of course, are almost all drop-dead cute, at a minimum.

Few of the anchors seem to be journalists in any serious professional sense. Most of the women, in particular, don't appear to have been alive long enough to be real journalists. But I have to give them credit--they do a good job of reading whatever's on the teleprompter and posing canned questions to journalists in the field. Most would make good actors, in fact, which isn't far from what they are now.

CNN International has obviously made an effort to teach their anchors how to say "New Orleans." To their credit, the anchors all speak excellent English, no matter what their native language may be. Most have an accent of some sort, and most commonly it's tinged with a touch of England, undoubtedly reflecting where and how they were educated.

None of them are saying "New Orleans" with a full pronunciation of the "eans" like damn Yankees in the U.S. say it. Most are saying something like "New Orlins," which isn't too bad. Some American Yankees can even manage that. But some of them, probably as a result of CNN International's pronunciation guidance plus their own accents, are saying "Noo Awlins" just like a Cajun would say it. When it comes from some glamorous young anchor lady with obvious roots somewhere in or near Asia, it's hilarious--in a good way.

Larry King, of course, is an exception. He still says "New Orleans" like a New Yorker. I guess he didn't get the memo.

Joke of the Day - Aug 28

2005-08-28T10:17:00.000-05:00

Take a peck at the Joke of the Day, in comments.

The Sheehan PR Machine

2005-08-27T07:07:00.000-05:00

The ABC News affiliate station in San Francisco reported on the public relations campaign behind Cindy Sheehan's anti-war protest and the funding sources that support both Sheehan and some of those who oppose her.

Cindy Sheehan kneels before a cross with her son's name on it, touches his picture, wipes her tears. It's an outpouring of emotion that is part of a scheduled news event organized daily for the television, radio and print reporters who crowd in to capture a mother's grief.

CNN reported that there never seems to be more than about 200 people with Mrs. Sheehan in Crawford. Some are PR professionals, of course, and none are leading Democrats.

It's time to end this sad spectacle. Enough really is enough.

And After Gaza?

2005-08-27T06:46:00.000-05:00

Charles Krauthammer looked at the Israeli evacuation of Gaza--how it was done, images from Jewish history, world reaction to the evacuation, and what the future may hold. His view is realistic but not particularly optimistic:

What follows is the world saying, almost in unison, that the Gaza evacuation is just the beginning of a total Israeli retreat, one Dunkirk to be followed by many more. What follows is Condoleezza Rice declaring that "it cannot be Gaza only," a thrilling encouragement to the Palestinians jeering the Israeli withdrawal with chants of "Gaza today, Jerusalem tomorrow."

Is this what the Bush administration wants? More unilateral concessions to an implacable enemy whose "moderate" leader, Mahmoud Abbas, declares that "we will not rest until they leave from all our land" -- when Palestinian maps show "our land" as nothing less than all of British Palestine with Israel totally eradicated?

This is a prescription for Israel's suicide. Or rather murder, because the Israelis are not prepared to march blindly into further unrequited concessions. The final concession will be getting into boats and sailing back to where? Poland?

Krauthammer notes that in June 2002, President Bush explicitly endorsed a Palestinian state. The President said it was up to the Palestinians to take the steps necessary to get there. They've done virtually nothing. Since then, however,

...the Israelis have withdrawn from Gaza, destroyed four West Bank settlements to create geographic contiguity for Palestinian territory in the northern West Bank, and once again repeated their support of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian response has been Katyusha rockets into Sderot, promises of renewed terrorism, and chants for total victory.

I don't understand those who turn a blind eye to the murderous intentions of a large number of Palestinians. Neither do I understand their consistent criticism of Israel. The Palestinians make no secret of their final goal. How is Israel expected to react to years of murderous terrorism and the almost certain prospect of more to come no matter what they do?

I'm disappointed that the Bush Administration hasn't been more aggressive in its support of Israel. However, the situation will be much worse if American foreign policy is ever controlled by people whose ideology prevents them from seeing reality in the Middle East.

Joke of the Day- Aug 27

2005-08-27T06:02:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Puppies and Kittens

2005-08-26T06:21:00.000-05:00

Brigitte Bardot, former actress and sex kitten, is reported to be demanding prohibition of the use of live puppies and kittens as shark bait on the French island of Reunion. While I'm not normally in sympathy with PETA-type animal rights folks, I'm with la Bardot on this one. Needless to say, my friend Cat is outraged.

Reverend Al to Crawford

2005-08-26T06:00:00.000-05:00

The AP reported that Reverend Al Sharpton plans to go to Crawford on Sunday to join Cindy Sheehan's anti-war protest. I guess the ratio of TV cameras to protesters got high enough to merit Reverend Al's presence. Can Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore be far behind?

Leading Democrats, especially those in Congress and those with presidential aspirations, remain conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps they understand that this spectacle is probably going to end up hurting Democrats more than anyone else. Or maybe they have enough class to avoid further political exploitation of Mrs. Sheehan.

Joke of the Day - Aug 25

2005-08-25T09:32:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day will show you the way, in comments.

Catholics and Abortion

2005-08-25T06:24:00.000-05:00

As I've written elsewhere, I'm pro-choice. I arrived at that position reluctantly, given the moral and legal ambiguities involved. This most difficult policy choice must be even more troubling for those whose thinking is guided by certain religious doctrines.

In particular, the contradiction of Catholics who profess to be pro-choice has interested me for some time, especially since John Kerry claimed in 2004 to be pro-choice but to believe that life begins at conception. This was obviously the act of a cynical politician who hoped to present himself as an observant Catholic while pandering to a significant pro-choice constituency. Nonetheless, it illustrates the contradictory beliefs of pro-choice Catholics.

My interest was piqued again with the succession of Benedict XVI to the papacy. As I listened to expressions of dismay among some Catholics that this new pope was unlikely to be more "liberal" than his predecessors, I had to wonder about the logic of their expectations, particularly on the issue of abortion.

Let's consider the facts about the authority of the Catholic Church and its position on abortion. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,

The Church and the supreme pontiff are endowed by God with the privilege of infallibility in discharge of the duty of universal teacher in the sphere of faith and morals; hence we have an infallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by the Church are the truths contained in Divine revelation.

More specifically on papal infallibility, each pope, the successor of Peter, enjoys

...infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.

Reinforcing the 2,000 year old teachings of scripture and the Church, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church's teaching on abortion

...is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors...I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.

Not only is abortion a sin for Catholics, it's heresy punishable by excommunication. Again the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. ... [The penalty is] Excommunication...which is incurred by all apostates from the Catholic Faith, by each and all heretics...and by all who believe in them...or in any way defend them.

How, then, does one claim to be Catholic and also pro-choice? Despite shallow modernist thinking to the contrary, there can't be any such thing as a "cafeteria Catholic." It isn't possible to go down a menu of Church doctrine and say, "I'll take one of these and two of those, but I don't want any of that."

It's unclear how some Catholics manage to twist reason and logic to arrive at a position so antithetical to the teachings of their Church. Not being religious, perhaps I'm ill-equipped to understand their coping mechanisms. However, it's difficult to understand why a Catholic confronted with this dilemma wouldn't either conform to Church doctrine or find a more hospitable form of religion.

Joke of the Day - Aug 24

2005-08-24T06:25:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

The Idiot Speaks

2005-08-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

It's being widely reported that Pat Robertson said the U.S. should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Unfortunately, Robertson isn't just a nutcase walking around with a bottle of Ripple and a sign proclaiming "The End Is Near."

This idiot preacher who claims God talks to him is a fundamentalist Christian broadcaster with a huge following. He's even had presidential aspirations. More than that, he's considered to be a key leader of a not inconsiderable part of the conservative base, and some conservative Republican politicians think it's risky to cross him.

Robertson's primary soapbox is The 700 Club, a weekday TV program that claims to have a million viewers a day. Among his various loopy ideas is that followers should pray for vacancies on the Supreme Court. In practical terms, of course, that means someone has to die or at least become seriously ill. Odd sentiments for a Christian, it would seem.

Senior Administration officials and their spokesmen, along with major Christian religious leaders, have been quick to dissociate themselves from Robertson's statement. They should do more. They should say bluntly that he's a nutcase who doesn't speak for conservatives, Republicans, or the vast majority of Americans. I think that's true, and I'm sure that most of his followers are wondering if Ol' Pat has finally gone too far around the bend.

Of course, Hugo Chavez is also a nutcase, and what makes things worse is Venezuela is a significant country that provides about eight percent of the U.S. oil supply. However, Chavez and Venezuelans should rest easy. It's been illegal (by Executive Order) for the U.S. to engage in assassinations since the early 1970s, and we don't do it. Even if, as they say in Texas, someone "needs killin'."

The media, of course, is playing Robertson's idiotic statement for everything they can get out of it. This includes "thoughtful" analysis of every old incident they can dredge up in which the U.S. allegedly assassinated, attempted to assassinate, or covertly engineered the downfall of foreign leaders. Not only is this irrelevant, it undermines the government and the country at a time when we least need it. But, I guess that's the point.

Let's just step back and take a breath. Robertson is an idiot, and idiots say stupid things.

Joke of the Day - Aug 23

2005-08-23T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Fair and Balanced?

2005-08-22T15:18:00.000-05:00

According to a recent report in The New York Times, a new academic study has found that the impact of Fox News is not at all what panicked liberals seem to think. More than that, the people who watch Fox aren't all Christian redneck right-wing yahoos.

The first paragraph of the NYT report isn't at all surprising:

The share of Americans who believe that news organizations are "politically biased in their reporting" increased to 60 percent in 2005, up from 45 percent in 1985, according to polls by the Pew Research Center.

Some people, particularly liberals of the mainstream media and academia, spend a lot of time crying about the sky falling. As they see it, Fox News is providing a dangerous alternative to the dogma of the three broadcast networks, CNN, and other liberal media. In their view, that can only be bad. However, the authors of the study "found that Fox had no detectable effect on which party people voted for, or whether they voted at all."

Even more startling for some folks, the study found that:

...towns that offered Fox by 2000 increased their vote share for the Republican presidential candidate by 6 percentage points (to 54 percent, from 48 percent) from 1996 to 2000, while those that did not offer Fox increased theirs by an even larger 7 percentage points (to 54 percent, from 47 percent).

And this one will have them all staggering around with the vapors:

Fox's viewers were about equally likely to identify themselves as Democrats as Republicans, according to a poll by the Pew [Research Center] in 2000.

What does all this mean? Well, first, the great unwashed masses are a lot smarter than the self-appointed kahunas of the media and academia take them to be. Second, most Democrats (they're not all extreme liberals) and most Republicans (they're not all extreme conservatives) are very poorly understood by the ideologues of both parties. They know bullshit when they smell it, whether it comes from Dan Rather or Bill O'Reilly.

So, what it comes down to--and this is a bitter pill for extremists of both parties--Democrats and Republicans alike need to stop flinging cow patties around and start developing rational positions that tell people where they stand. Pandering only works if the voters are truly stupid, and they aren't. The Democratic Party, in particular, needs to pay attention.

Spam in Comments

2005-08-22T06:01:00.000-05:00

Well, after 10 months the comment spammers have finally caught up with me. I had to delete about 20 today alone.

I've always welcomed all kinds of comments, and I've deleted only a very few that were abusive of other readers or extremely profane. But I don't think it's too much to expect that comments come from sources with a pulse. So, I've activated the "word verification" feature for comments on this site. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I hope there's a special place in hell for spammers!

Joke of the Day - Aug 22

2005-08-22T06:00:00.000-05:00

Are you a poor speller? Read the Joke of the Day in comments.

Trashing History

2005-08-20T06:15:00.000-05:00

One thing that really irritates me is people trying to make a point or advance an agenda by trashing history.

Some people who do this are intelligent and well-informed, like revisionist historians and journalists. They have the intelligence and resources needed to find and understand historical truth, yet they bend and twist it to conform to their personal ideas and attitudes. Most people who trash history, however, are simply ignorant. They'll repeat anything they hear as long as it fits the opinions they've already formed.

Thomas Sowell recently wrote a series of three columns on trashing history. Each of the three subjects is more complicated than his brief treatment. But he got it right. Take a few minutes to read all three:

Trashing Our History: Hiroshima

Trashing Our History: Troops in Iraq

Trashing Our History: Lincoln

Trashed history is at its most dangerous when it seems logical. Remember, this is the internet age. Next time you hear or read something that sounds a bit dubious, take a few minutes to google it. Amid all the garbage in your search returns will be enough objective sources to find out what's true.

In addition to the topics Sowell wrote about, try a few others. The internment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, for example. Or the Atlantic slave trade between 1502 and 1807, including details and numbers, for another example. Or maybe the firebombing of Dresden by U.S. and British air forces (hint: as terrible and deadly as Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but far less justified).

Historical facts are only a few mouse clicks away. Try it more often, and prepare to be amazed. The truth can do that.

Joke of the Day - Aug 20

2005-08-20T05:05:00.000-05:00

Get on your way with the Joke of the Day, in comments.

The Pope in the Synagogue

2005-08-19T16:32:00.000-05:00

The Pope's trip to Germany got a lot of coverage in the media, and his reception in his home country was very positive.

Benedict XVI is being very smart about his transition, referring often to his predecessor, John Paul II, in the best possible terms. It's good to see the transition working well, given the tremendous influence of the papacy.

Benedict XVI spoke to the Jewish community of Cologne in their synagogue, becoming only the second pope in 2,000 years to visit a Jewish place of worship. The first, of course, was John Paul II, who spoke in the central synagogue in Rome in 1986. It's noteworthy that the home countries of both popes were responsible for or complicit in the deaths of huge numbers of Jews in the Holocaust. In his visit to the synagogue, Benedict XVI said:

The history of relations between the Jewish and Christian communities has been complex and often painful. There were times when the two lived together peacefully, but there was also the expulsion of the Jews from Cologne in the year 1424. And in the twentieth century, in the darkest period of German and European history, an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, gave rise to the attempt, planned and systematically carried out by the regime, to exterminate European Jewry. The result has passed into history as the Shoah. ... The holiness of God was no longer recognized, and consequently contempt was shown for the sacredness of human life.

Eventually this Pope has to openly acknowledge that the Church was passive--and in some cases collaborative--during the Holocaust. Had the universal Church been true to its own teachings during that terrible time, it would have thrown off its own history of anti-Semitism and aggressively opposed the Nazis. Many lives could have been saved, perhaps millions. The Church has yet to fully cleanse that stain from its history.

Note: For detailed discussion see Remembering the Holocaust, including the comments.

Joke of the Day - Aug 19

2005-08-19T07:05:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Cindy Sheehan's War

2005-08-18T07:31:00.000-05:00

I decided at the beginning that I wasn't going to say anything about Cindy Sheehan and her vigil near President Bush's ranch. She has suffered a grievous loss, and it's impossible not to feel sympathy for her. However, I've been moved to join the discussion because I'm so repulsed by the left's manipulation of her and the right's attacks on her.

Mrs. Sheehan says she won't leave until Bush has another meeting with her or he leaves the ranch, whichever comes first. Her goal for the meeting is to demand that Bush explain the "noble cause" for which her son died in Iraq.

I doubt very seriously that President Bush will meet her this time, even if he wants to. First, no president can meet every citizen sufficiently motivated by a cause to camp out in front of wherever he happens to be in residence. Meeting Mrs. Sheehan now would set that precedent. Second, if the President did meet her, she would verbally attack him and insult him, providing ammunition for more attacks on him by anti-war leftists and the media.

Anyone who doubts that this would happen has only to look at the current media circus that provides around-the-clock, adoring coverage of Mrs. Sheehan. Moreover, her history as an anti-war leftist is clear. Perhaps these sentiments are recent, given the tragedy of the loss of her son. In any case, her views reflect the hysteria and conspiracy mania of the far left, and that alone compromises the integrity of her crusade.

As quoted at The Drudge Report, here are some statements Mrs. Sheehan made in the past:

We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!

We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.

If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?

The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.

We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people.

For those who don't like Drudge, here are some quotes from another source:

That lying bastard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war.

You get that maniac out here to talk with me in person.

And the other thing I want him to tell me is 'just what was the noble cause Casey died for?' Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We're not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism.

There, I used the 'I' word -- imperialism. And now I'm going to use another 'I' word -- impeachment -- because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail.

My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny . . . you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial.

I agree with most of what Jim Hoagland said in a column today, especially this:

What is disturbing is that the national political discourse is increasingly detached from reality. The emotionalism and character assassination practiced by both sides -- the clamor in the echo chamber around Sheehan is only one example -- is mistaken for "politics." ...

A vigil by a war victim's mother should be an act of devotion that transcends political theater. Bush owes Sheehan the respect of the meeting she seeks -- if she demonstrates that she will show him the respect any elected president deserves.

As I said, I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan. She lost her son, most of her family opposes her current anti-war activities, and her husband is divorcing her. No one can know what her son would have thought, were he still alive, but the facts that he enlisted voluntarily in the Army and re-enlisted to stay in the Army might be an indication.

Mrs. Sheehan has the right to her beliefs, and she has the right to voice them. Everyone else, on both sides of the issue, should back off and leave her alone. Enough is enough.

Joke of the Day - Aug 18

2005-08-18T06:01:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Arab Aid to Sudan

2005-08-16T12:36:00.000-05:00

A recent editorial in The Washington Post looked at foreign aid to Sudan, including it's deadly Darfur province. The facts are interesting.

This year the U.S. has provided $468 million, about 53 percent of all aid. That's proportionally about twice our size in the global economy. Other generous countries, in terms of aid contributions relative to the size of their economies, are Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Britain.

Some nations have been much more miserly. France has given $2 million, which is statistically zero. Japan, despite its huge economy, has given only two percent of international contributions. China has contributed nothing.

The worst, however, are the Arab countries, many of which have oil money coming out of their ears. Saudia Arabia has given $3 million, and the UAE and Qatar combined have given under $1 million. That's it. The only Arab countries on the list. This, despite the fact that the victims of genocide in Darfur are Muslims, and aid to Sudan helps Muslims in general.

There isn't anything new about this. For example, Arab nations also haven't been very helpful to the Palestinians over the years. That puts the lie to much-touted concepts of Muslim solidarity and the radical concept of a new caliphate. The sorry fact is that even the filthy rich of the Muslim world won't give much help to their suffering brothers and sisters. They leave that to the Great Satan.

The editorial quotes an earlier column by Joseph Britt:

We've heard a lot since Sept. 11, 2001, about how Arabs feel humiliated, ashamed, resentful at being regarded by the West as inferior in some way. Perhaps it is time to say plainly that the way to earn respect is through deeds worthy of respect.

Indeed.

Joke of the Day - Aug 16

2005-08-16T11:24:00.000-05:00

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Situational Libertarianism

2005-08-15T16:22:00.000-05:00

Charles Krauthammer is difficult to fit into a political pigeon hole. He's a psychiatrist with an MD from Harvard Medical School. He has written highly-regarded medical papers, served as a science adviser in the Carter Administration, wrote speeches for Walter Mondale, and won a Pulitzer Prize for political commentary. Some consider him a conservative, and he often aligns himself with people who are considered to be neo-conservatives. However he's classified, though, his thoughtful opinions are worth considering.

In writing about the inherent conflict between tolerance in a democratic society and internal threats to the security of that society, Krauthammer said:

Call it situational libertarianism: Liberties should be as unlimited as possible -- unless and until there arises a real threat to the open society. Neo-Nazis are pathetic losers. Why curtail civil liberties to stop them? But when a real threat -- such as jihadism -- arises, a liberal democratic society must deploy every resource, including the repressive powers of the state, to deter and defeat those who would abolish liberal democracy.

Those are the words Krauthammer used to defend Prime Minister Tony Blair's crackdown on the UK's violence-prone radical Muslim immigrants. He continued:

Blair's proposals are progress, albeit from a very low baseline -- so low a baseline that the mere announcement of his intent to crack down had immediate effect. Within three days, the notorious Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian-born cleric who has been openly preaching jihad for 19 years, skipped the country and absconded to Beirut.

Not only had Bakri been allowed to run free the whole time, but he had collected more than 300,000 pounds in welfare, plus a 31,000-pound gift from the infidel taxpayers: a Ford Galaxy (because of a childhood leg injury).

It took 52 dead for at least the prime minister to adopt situational libertarianism. Or as Blair put it, "The rules of the game are changing," declaring his readiness, finally, to alter the status quo in the name of elementary self-defense.

The British people have tolerated and supported radical jihadist Muslims for a long time. Now they've paid the price, and more than likely they will continue to pay. The situation they find themselves in, despite their best efforts to maintain a tolerant and open society, requires them to make realistic adjustments.

Americans have paid, too, suffering attacks from Muslim jihadists and even home-grown terrorists. Despite objections from those on both the left and right who would see no freedom lost and no new government scrutiny of private affairs, the reality of these times is that we must balance those valid concerns against serious threats to our very lives.

Any erosion of the freedoms that define us bothers me. But nothing, including freedom and tolerance, can be absolute.

Joke of the Day

2005-08-15T13:24:00.000-05:00

I'm inaugurating a new feature called "Joke of the Day," just to lighten things up a little. I won't be writing many of the jokes myself. Most of them are stolen.

The Joke of the Day is in comments.

Ice Picks and Arrows

2005-08-14T07:35:00.000-05:00

It's being reported that the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is considering changes in airline passenger screening procedures and restrictions on items that can be carried onto airplanes. A TSA staff memo

...recommends reducing patdowns by giving screeners the discretion not to search those wearing tight-fitting clothes. It also suggests exempting several categories of passengers from screening, including federal judges, members of Congress, Cabinet members, state governors, high-ranking military officers and those with high-level security clearances.

That doesn't sound so bad. I know the usual zanies will whine about profiling, but we should ignore them. Members of Congress, no matter how little we may think of them, aren't nearly as likely to try to kill us as young men of middle eastern appearance carrying backpacks.

I don't know about this next part, though. The recommended changes would also permit razor blades, small knives, scissors, ice picks, and bows and arrows to be carried onto airplanes. Yes, bows and arrows. Have they lost their minds?

Look what a handful of Arab Islamists managed to do on 911 with simple boxcutters. Sure, pilots now have strong, locked doors between themselves and the passenger cabin. I wonder how long the pilots could hold out behind that locked door while passengers and crew were slaughtered just behind them amid joyous cries of "Allahu Akbar?"

TSA needs to re-think this one. As a frequent flyer, I'll feel much more secure if I know that none of my fellow passengers are carrying ice picks. And I don't mind the inconvenience of not being able to carry my bow and arrows onto the plane.

Hollywood at War

2005-08-12T18:37:00.000-05:00

Jason Apuzzo has exposed Hollywood's plans to join the war effort with their own special Tinseltown take on things. Apparently they're no longer satisfied to leave the field to the Michael Moores of the looney left, and they're rolling out the big guns. Here are a couple of examples of the dreck coming to a theater near you:

"V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner.

"Syriana." Starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, this Warner Brothers film - set during the first Bush administration - features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering. The film even depicts a handsome, 'tragic' suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company. The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on.

Adults who live in the real world no longer expect anything better from Hollywood. But there's danger here for the Democratic Party. As these leftist, anti-American Hollywood cow patties hit the theaters, Democrats would be well advised to put as much distance between themselves and the box office as possible. It's just these kinds of extremist, paranoid ideas that Democrats, especially those on the far left, have become associated with.

If Democratic leaders are prominent at the premiers of these idiotic movies, then rush to the nearest camera for some face time and a soundbite, voters are likely to remember come the next election. That can't be good for Democrats, given the vast gulf between the thinking of Hollywood airheads and most Americans.

Justice for a General

2005-08-11T08:35:00.000-05:00

According to The New York Times, Army Times, CNN/AP, and many other media reports, an Army four-star general has been relieved of command. General Kevin P. Byrnes, formerly Commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, was fired. Sacked. That's what "relieved of command" means.

General Byrnes committed the offense of adultery. He did it with a woman who isn't in the military and isn't even an employee of the government. What's more, the relationship began after his marriage failed, he was separated, and he had filed for divorce.

According to the reports I've read, his offense is limited to the relationship itself. He didn't exercise improper influence over anything or anyone, and he didn't misuse government resources in pursuing the relationship.

Adultery is punishable under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) , as detailed in the Manual for Court Martial (MCM). One of the required elements of proof to support a charge of adultery under Article 134 is that his behavior was prejudicial to good order and discipline or brought discredit to the armed forces. Usually, a good military prosecutor can prove this element against a day-old ham sandwich.

General Byrne may have lied when first confronted with an accusation of adultery, which many people do when pressed on an issue involving sexual behavior. Telling a lie is also punishable under the UCMJ in certain circumstances, either as a false official statement under Article 107 or as perjury under Article 131.

Behavior that potentially violates the UCMJ doesn't have to end up in a court martial or in administrative punishment. Sometimes it results in relief from duty and/or an official letter of reprimand. While this doesn't involve jail time or monetary fines, it's personally and professionally devastating to a career soldier. And sometimes no action is taken at all, which is an appropriate exercise of reasonable discretion.

General Byrnes is a remarkable officer who overcame astronomical odds to become one of the Army's 11 four-star generals. His was a career of service and self-sacrifice, to include risking his life in combat. Does 35 years of remarkable achievement deserve to be forever sullied by the ignominy of being relieved of command for a relatively minor offense? What he did may have been a violation of the UCMJ. But discretion is always involved, and in my opinion it was poorly exercised by the Army leadership in this case.

Let's put it in perspective. In all the recent scandals associated with prisoner abuse, as far as I know only one brigadier general was punished by relief from command and a letter of reprimand. Moreover, with all the evident failure of planning and preparation for the aftermath of the campaign to destroy the old regime in Iraq, not one general has been disciplined, as far as I know.

For more perspective, consider that the Commander-in-Chief himself, not separated from his wife and not getting a divorce, repeatedly had oral sex in the White House with a young intern over whom he exercised tremendous official influence. More than that, he committed perjury when questioned about his behavior. Yet he breezed past impeachment and remains a man of honor, at least among some Americans.

Where's the justice?

Carpetbaggers and Scandals

2005-08-11T06:01:00.000-05:00

I've been reading about the 2006 Senate election in New York with interest. Not because I give a hoot about New York, necessarily, but because their incumbent Senator in that election is more than just a, well, Senator.

Sentient readers will remember that the incumbent is a lady from Arkansas, by way of Illinois, who carpetbagged her way into the Senate from New York on her way to the presidency. At least, that was the idea. The folks up in New York fell for it, but we still don't know how gullible the rest of the country is.

Richard Cohen looked at what the incumbent and her potential opponents have in common:

Jeanine Pirro is running for the Senate from New York state. She is the Westchester County district attorney whose husband went to prison for tax evasion. If she gets the Republican nomination, Pirro will run against Hillary Clinton. She is the incumbent whose husband was impeached as president of the United States. A third candidate in the race is Edward Cox. He is a New York lawyer whose father-in-law, Richard Nixon, resigned the presidency in disgrace. I pick up the morning paper with trepidation. What will Victoria Gotti do next?

Maybe Cohen wasn't joking. Well, at least Victoria's a babe, and the people of New York have proven themselves capable of just about anything, second only to California in zaniness. Just look at how an outsider convinced them to give away a Senate seat.

And if you feel compelled to smugly remind me that Robert Kennedy, one of the heroes of my youth, also carpetbagged a New York Senate seat, don't bother. That was different for two reasons. First, he wasn't a flaming leftist with socialized medicine in his heart. Second, well, it was just different. Leave me alone.

Aid to Africa

2005-08-10T11:21:00.000-05:00

I highly recommend reading this post at No Oil for Pacifists regarding aid to Africa. It's a thorough, well-researched article on past failures and future possibilities.

Gangs and Illegal Aliens

2005-08-10T06:27:00.000-05:00

An editorial in The Washington Post discussed the alarming growth of the violent MS-13 gang in Washington, D.C. and its Virginia and Maryland suburbs. Details of how MS-13 gang members live and operate can be found in an earlier Washington Post report.

The vast majority of members of MS-13 are illegal aliens from El Salvador, other Central American countries, and Mexico. That's a highly relevant fact that goes a long way toward explaining how and why branches of this brutal gang have recently materialized in areas such as Washington, Los Angeles, and New York.

However, there was no mention in either the editorial or the earlier report that most of the gang members are illegal aliens. Not a word. Why? Because the leftist view, too often represented by The Washington Post, is that illegal immigration isn't such a bad thing. In this view, they're poor people just trying to support their families back home, they do jobs we need done, and the conditions in their countries are probably our fault anyway.

An account of the contribution of illegal immigration to the presence of these brutal thugs among us and their suspected links to al Qaeda can be found in a recent Washington Times editorial. In a discussion of federal efforts to apprehend these criminals, the editorial said:

Almost all of these gangs consist of illegal aliens from Central and Latin America.... Of the 1,000 gang members who have been arrested this year, 90 percent have been illegal aliens....

Immigration enthusiasts often argue that the majority of illegal aliens come to this country to find honest work. The problem is that while most are not associated with criminal organizations like MS-13, many are indebted to them. The influence of such gangs begins in Central and Latin America, where the strongest control the migration routes north to the United States. Honest immigrants often must cooperate with them to enter the country; young illegals who can't find work often turn to their violent benefactors. Many of Monday's suspects had prior arrests or had already been deported.

As...reported last fall in this paper, a top al Qaeda lieutenant is believed to have met with MS-13 officials to seek help infiltrating the U.S.-Mexico border. In February, former Homeland Security Deputy Secretary James Loy suggested to a Senate committee that al Qaeda may have targeted the MS-13's smuggling operations to gain entry to this country.

While admitting the need for better law enforcement efforts against MS-13, the Post is concerned that there isn't more "outreach to Hispanic teenagers." According to the Post, we need more Hispanic police officers, community programs, after-school activities, and involvement by community leaders. What this means, in effect, is throwing federal money at the problem and financing the careers of more professional agitators. We've seen how well that worked in the past. The flawed rationale is the same: Let's be more understanding, let's have more counseling, let's have more ethnic celebrations, let's have some midnight basketball, and maybe these criminal thugs won't kill us. Some people never learn.

The fact is that illegal immigration is a significant contributor to the growth of violent gangs in the U.S., and it facilitates the infiltration of other kinds of terrorists. Despite those obvious facts, neither the Bush Administration nor its liberal opponents are willing to do anything serious to secure our borders. Their reasons are different, but the effect is the same.

Border security is a fundamental responsibility of government. We must control our borders and deal with illegal aliens as the criminals they are. Until we do, our country will be less secure than it should be, and the war on terror will be seriously compromised.

The Evil Genius

2005-08-09T04:31:00.000-05:00

I've noticed that leftist conspiracy theorists have lightened up on Karl Rove recently. Could be they finally figured out that no one knows the facts yet about who mumbled what to whom regarding Mrs. Joseph Wilson's place of employment. Maybe they decided to hold their outrage in check until they know whether Rove did anything. I know, I know--that's not likely. But anything is possible.

I was beginning to miss my daily chuckle over leftie blog posts about The Evil Genius. So, I began looking for some that I may have missed. That's when I stumbled across a real gem from July 6 by Greg Gutfeld at The Huffington Post. Gutfeld posted a disturbing chronicle of the evil life and career of Rove. Samples:

Right from day one, Karl Rove cemented his link with the religious right, by being born on Dec 25, 1950, a day many on the right refer to as “Christmas," a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ (an influential leader worshiped by the religious right.) It was no surprise that Dec 25, 1950 was ALSO the same EXACT day Communist forces recrossed the 38th parallel into South Korea. Clearly, Rove was already making an impact. ...

After an unremarkable stint in high school, Rove entered the University of Utah, which currently ranks FIFTH HIGHEST among the nation's campuses for drug-related arrests. Rove dropped out after a few years. What is more interesting: when you research other individuals who have dropped out of college, two names keep coming up.

Rush Limbaugh. Tucker Carlson.

Coincidence? ...

Rove continued to work for the Republican circles in very specific, but often vague, even mysterious posts. He was made conspicuous by his deliberate inconspicuousness. In 1979, he did some work on George H. W. Bush’s 1980 vice presidential bid. During Rove's involvement, there were EIGHT major plane crashes, including a Western Air Lines DC-10, which collided with a dumpster truck, killing 72 people in Mexico City at Benito Juarez Airport. One can only wonder what Rove was having for lunch. ...

Rove is now a Senior Advisor to the President and, no surprise, is at the center of yet another controversy. A reporter has accused Rove of being the source who leaked Valerie Plame's identity to a columnist. This accusation, oddly, was quickly followed in the news by an attack on Comet Tempel 1, hit by NASA's "copper bullet" from a nearby spacecraft. The reason the government gave for destroying the comet? "To create a crater for scientific study."

Right. We know better. Couldn’t the real reason for this senseless attack on an innocent piece of space refuse be to deflect attention away from Rove - and to focus it toward something else, high in the sky?

At first I thought Gutfeld was writing tongue-in-check. But maybe not. Perhaps the reach of The Evil Genius really is unlimited. Read the whole post and decide for yourself.

Personally, I'm going to continue wearing my aluminum foil skull cap with the integrated coathanger antenna that I've been assured will protect me from The Evil Genius. I just hope it keeps working.

Africa Can't Stop Genocide

2005-08-07T05:31:00.000-05:00

In a column in The Washington Post, Susan E. Rice paints a stark portrait of genocide and death enabled by the inaction of the international community. The victims of Darfur, in the nation of Sudan, continue to suffer and die:

By some estimates, the genocide in Darfur may have already claimed as many as 400,000 lives. Almost 2 million people are internally displaced, many languishing in crude camps where they are unable to plant crops or return to their burned-out villages. The government of Sudan, along with the militia it has armed and trained, is responsible for the genocide. While the pace of the killing has diminished in recent months, since there are few villages left to burn, the Sudanese government continues to support the militias that prey on vulnerable civilians, especially women. As [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice affirmed during her recent trip to Africa: "By our accounts, it was and is genocide."

One major obstacle to saving lives in Darfur is President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. For reasons of politics and prestige, he wants the African Union to appear to be real, rather than just another example of failure in Africa. Mbeki told President Bush in June:

It's critically important that the African continent should deal with these conflict situations on the continent.... We have not asked for anybody outside of the African continent to deploy troops in Darfur. It's an African responsibility, and we can do it.

He's wrong, of course. So far the AU has deployed about 3,000 troops to Darfur, an area about the size of Texas. Logistics and other kinds of support have also been inadequate. The AU claims it will deploy up to 12,000 troops within about nine months, but there's no reason to believe that it will meet that goal or that the effort would be effective. More has to be done, for the reasons stressed by Susan Rice:

We should not lose sight of the fact that conflict and genocide are fundamentally different phenomena, even though they may occur in tandem as in Darfur and Rwanda. Genocide, as distinct from conflict, is a crime against all humanity regardless of race, religion or region, and it is the obligation of the entire world to stop it. In Rwanda, humanity -- the U.N., Americans, Europeans and Africans -- failed to halt the killing. In Darfur, despite the African Union's belated best efforts, the world's nations are still failing. This time, our failure lies in accepting the dubious proposition that halting genocide against Africans is solely "an African responsibility."

Thabo Mbeki gets more deference and respect than he deserves. He may walk in the shadow of Nelson Mandela, but he's no Mandela. South Africa may represent the hope that an African nation can succeed under majority black leadership, but it's on a downward glide path, sustained mainly by past strength. Mbeki himself hopes to be the leading light of Africa through the African Union, as re-named a few years ago to resemble the European Union, at least in name. The AU, however, is no more than the sum of its parts, and that isn't much.

Mbeki fiddled while people died in South Africa because he didn't personally believe that the HIV virus caused AIDS. Now he's fiddling again as the people of Darfur continue to die because he wants to demonstrate the effectiveness of the AU. The rest of the world must ignore him and deal with the problem.

So far, the U.S. and the international community have addressed this latest African genocide with words and humanitarian aid. Taking the forceful steps necessary to stop it would be relatively cheap and easy. Let's get on with it.

The Answer for Africa

2005-08-05T09:56:00.000-05:00

People dying from hunger in Niger. The victims of genocide in Darfur dying at the hands of murderous militias or just from starvation. Also, new tensions in the deadly north-south divide in Sudan. Starving people routed from their homes, such as they are, in Zimbabwe. People dying terrible deaths in civil strife in other African countries. And the inexorable AIDS epidemic.

Despite over four decades of massive foreign aid and development assistance in sub-Saharan Africa, little seems to change. Now leaders of many of the world's successful countries, especially the G8, abetted by the development assistance "community" and a few rock stars, want to throw more money at the problem and forgive the massive foreign debts of some African countries.

Africa may well be helpless and hopeless, and it's likely to stay that way if the rest of the world can't arrive at approaches more effective than inundating the subcontinent and it's corrupt elites with more money. A few countries are doing better than most, of course, but they are fragile, and their limited successes will inevitably be overwhelmed by continued deterioration of the rest of the subcontinent.

This is not a politically correct opinion. Many experts in international development, some of whom have "gone native" in Africa, will disagree. They're steeped in a certain mindset and co-opted by international development professionals, many of them U.S. Agency for International Development contractors and their beneficiaries, and they simply can't see the reality before them. They're also blinded by political correctness. One USAID mission director in Africa told me, in a manner clearly intended to close the conversation, that any effort to reduce the amount of money spent on aid to Africa is, by definition, racist.

One of the most common excuses for the abysmal failure of development in Africa is the long history of European colonization. Don't believe it. Despite the rhetoric, replete with atypical examples of atrocious treatment of native populations, the reality that emerges is more Africans lived better during colonization than before and after that period. Since the end of colonization, the region has been characterized by wildly corrupt leadership, tribal warfare, mass murder, the AIDS epidemic, and losses in all other measures of quality of life.

Moreover, the massive wealth of natural resources found in many parts of the subcontinent have meant virtually nothing to the average African. Where these resources are productively exploited, it's almost always done by western companies and foreign experts. The wealth this exploitation generates does little more than further enrich a handful of corrupt elites. In some other cases, "blood diamonds" being the best known, these resources are exploited in support of violent revolution, crime, and terrorism.

So, what is the answer for Africa? Is it simply more money, the failed response of the past? It's been recently reported from various sources that in Nigeria alone, corrupt leaders have stolen and squandered perhaps as much money as the total amount of foreign aid poured into Africa during the past quarter century. Throwing more aid money at Africa is unlikely to accomplish anything beyond further enabling elite kleptocrats to steal even more, while perhaps reducing the pressure for change from their starving masses.

Forgiving debts of some African nations to other nations and international institutions is also unlikely to make much difference. Part of the flawed rationale for forgiving foreign debt is the fact that much of it was caused by theft and corruption among former dictators and the elites that supported them. Where is the evidence that indicates the next generation of elites will be different? In any case, it doesn't make much difference because the debts aren't going to be paid. However, that fact should inform future decisions on massive loans to African nations.

As quoted in an article by Kathleen Millar of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, a Kenyan farmer, Peter Kanans, said:

Even if they cancel the debt, even if they give our governments aid money, ordinary Africans will not benefit. That money will only make the corrupt people richer and Africans international beggars for decades to come.

Again, what is the answer? Millar's prescription is the only logical approach:

Africa's needs are overwhelming -- money, food, education, medical supplies, infrastructure -- but there is no assurance that any of this will get to the people who need it most unless we also make sure that withholding, appropriating or misusing these resources is punishable by law.

The problem is, no one knows how to make that happen. One positive approach is the Bush Administration's Millennium Challenge initiative. It rewards countries that improve governance and economic policy with additional amounts of aid. However, few African countries have met the standards, and it seems likely that most never will.

The western world cannot sit back and do nothing, nor can it keep throwing money at the problem and hoping for a miracle. The suffering people of African have already begun moving toward the countries of Europe and the U.S., and that trickle is likely to become a flood. This kind of immigration will not enrich us. It will drag us down as the problems of Africa are exported to our shores.

Solving the problems of Africa exceeds the financial and political capabilities of any one nation, even the U.S. International gatherings of politicians and rock stars, no matter how well-meaning, have failed to produce anything meaningful. If the United Nations, founded to preserve international peace and stability, can't successfully plan and coordinate effective efforts to deal with Africa, then there may be no answer.

Rage and Handguns

2005-08-04T04:34:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe has reported twice in two days on road rage incidents in Massachusetts that resulted in handgun shootings. In the first incident, a man shot another motorist to death while the victim held his nine-month-old baby in his arms. In the second, a man shot and wounded a teenager and his mother.

In both crimes, the shooters used legally licensed handguns.

Road rage is one of the least admirable behaviors of our time. Perhaps it results from an explosion of the stresses of modern life, enabled by the impersonal nature of confrontation with an unknown person in another vehicle. After all, drivers don't normally scream curse words, shake their fists, and give the finger to friends and relatives driving another car. Whatever the explanation for road rage and other forms of irrational anger, adding handguns to the equation can have deadly results.

The purpose of a handgun is to kill people, and more often than not its intentional use against another person by a civilian is both criminal and tragic. The result is the same whether the handgun is illegal or licensed. As I wrote in Gun Control,

I think all handguns should be outlawed, except for law enforcement officers and a very small number of trained, vetted, and licensed people who have a legitimate need. Anyone else caught possessing or illegally buying, selling, or distributing handguns would be guilty of a felony and subject to mandatory jail time. If this prevents some men from strapping an ersatz phallus on their belts or inconveniences a few legitimate target shooters, so be it.

No one, neither motorist nor 7-11 clerk, is going to be safe until we overcome our wild west mentality and rid our society of handguns. There is no other answer.

Finger for the Press

2005-08-04T03:11:00.000-05:00

I keep coming across the frozen-frame image of President Bush displaying a digit to the press in response to a question about CAFTA. The image is shown here at The Huffington Post.

Jay Leno started it when he displayed the image on his show and made a joke of the President giving the press the finger. However, reporters there claimed he was giving a thumbs-up response to the CAFTA question, which is logical given the context. Personally, I doubt that he was giving them the finger. That would be atypical, given his superhuman control when being abused by reporters. I wish he had, though. They deserve it.

At the same time, Helen Thomas, one reporter who doesn't hide her leftist biases, is outraged. According to The Hill, she said “The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself. All we need is one more liar.” Drudge reported that she was upset because this was taken from a conversation she didn't expect to be reported. Talk about being hoisted by your own petard! Memo to Helen: Don't sweat it. We all know what you are.

Bolton's Recess Appointment

2005-08-02T07:03:00.000-05:00

President Bush has used a recess appointment to send Ambassador John Bolton to the UN. This is a correct use of presidential power specifically provided for in the Constitution.

As I said in Vote "No" on Bolton" I don't think he's the best man for the job. However, I understand the President's reasoning. He selected and nominated Bolton, and the Senate failed to act on the nomination. If there had been an up-or-down vote, Bolton would have been confirmed. Even though there were a majority of senators in favor, a minority determined to obstruct the President at every opportunity kept it from happening. What's worse, a weak-kneed majority leadership didn't have the nerve to force the Senate to act.

It was like a game among children. The losers threw tantrums, then took their ball and went home. They miscalculated. Turns out someone left on the field had some balls, too.

Teaching the Bible

2005-08-01T09:21:00.000-05:00

The New York Times reported today on the controversy over teaching the Bible in public schools. The report centered on a unanimous vote by the school board in Odessa, Texas to add an elective Bible study course to their 2006 high school curriculum. This is said to be another success for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which has been conducting a campaign for 12 years to get bible study into public schools.

The New York Times, of course, is against it. I'm against it, too, in a mild and general way. That's not because I'm afflicted with the standard knee-jerk liberal objection to any teaching of Christianity to impressionable youngsters. (Islamic studies, as we've seen, are not nearly as objectionable.)

I'm against it because I don't think public schools need to be in the business of teaching religion, as a matter of principle. My objection is mild, however, because the course is elective. If parents don't want their kids to take the course, they don't have to. They can continue teaching their preferred version of religion at home, where it belongs.

What really attracted my attention was this:

The critics say it [the curriculum] ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still. ... It cites supposed NASA findings to suggest that the earth stopped twice in its orbit, in support of the literal truth of the biblical text that the sun stood still in Joshua and II Kings.

I don't care much about evolution versus creationism. Seems pretty obvious, and I'd rather focus on the present without getting lathered up about how it all started. I also get bored with nit-picking debate about the influence of Christianity on the Constitution and the founding of our country. Our Founding Fathers were Christians, and that worldview, along with other influences, informed their writing of the Constitution. Plain and simple.

What struck me was that NASA supposedly supports the notion that the sun stood still and "the earth stopped twice in its orbit...." The NASA part of this is an urban myth, as reported by Snopes.com. Beyond that, the idea is so cockamamie that the curriculum should be banned just for being stupid, and the teachers who teach it should have to pay double dues to the NEA.

The issue that bothers me most about this whole thing is the principle of local control over education. That control has been steadily eroded over the past few decades by Democrats and Republicans alike. I still believe that elected local school boards should make public education decisions for their communities. If they want to teach that God brought the Earth to a screeching halt a couple of times, so be it. At least the course is elective.

Website Time Zone

2005-07-31T05:00:00.000-05:00

In the past I've changed the time zone of this blog to wherever I happened to be. That was confusing, even to me. Since most readers are in the U.S., from now on it will be set to U.S. Central Standard Time. (That's GMT-6 or, during periods when daylight savings time is in effect, GMT-5.) However, I'm likely to be in another time zone. So if you see a time stamp that shows me working at 0500, don't believe it. It's more likely closer to noon.

Fighting Terrorism

2005-07-23T00:03:00.000-05:00

Ted Lapkin, writing in National Review Online, likened extremist leftist attitudes and responses to terrorism to battered-spouse syndrome. The repeatedly battered spouse can never accept the simple reality that the abuser is evil and will continue the abuse unless forced to stop. Some leftists respond to terrorism the same way:

After each al Qaeda outrage, leftist ideologues are quick to castigate their own countrymen for a catalogue of sins, both real and imagined. With a perverse combination of self-loathing and adoration of the enemy, the radical Leftist mantra preaches that if only we were nicer, the jihadists could not fail to love us. It’s our own fault if Osama bin Laden doesn’t realize what good people we are.

And all the while, these “progressive” academics, pundits, and politicians engage in ridiculous intellectual contortions designed to mitigate the guilt of the terrorist perpetrators. When push comes to shove, some intellectuals believe that Islamism is simply an understandable reaction to what they describe as “Western imperialism.”

That got me thinking. Maybe the Arab Muslim murderers whose fondest wish is to kill us are less hysterical, stupid, and medieval than they appear. Perhaps the relative lack of serious terrorism in the U.S. since 911 is part of their strategy. They may actually be smart enough to know that if they hit us too often or too hard, their soft-headed leftist apologists might wake up and smell the coffee. That might seriously weaken or eliminate one of the most important sources of support for terrorism.

On second thought--Nah. Neither group is that smart.

The reality is that we have to fight terrorism with every weapon in our arsenal, including military power, strict control of our borders, deportation of highest-threat illegal aliens, careful monitoring and control of Arab Muslims who present the greatest threat, and enhanced security controls throughout our society. Some leftists, of course, will oppose every action taken to defend against terrorism. By their nature they're marginalized, and we must simply ignore them. As Lapkin concluded:

This is a war that we did not start, but that we dare not leave unfinished. We dare not because our foes are fanatics who strap explosives to their bodies and fly airliners into office buildings. We dare not leave it unfinished because our antagonists see the destruction of our civilization as a necessary precursor to the expansion of their own culture.

Who Said This?

2005-07-22T12:04:00.000-05:00

Who said this? (The answer is in comments.)

One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities. In my judgment, much of the problem has been brought about by the mollycoddling of criminals by some of the liberal judges who have been placed on the nation's courts in recent years.

Air America Radio

2005-07-21T11:22:00.000-05:00

I've been listening to Air America Radio. You can listen on the radio or on the internet with live streaming audio or recorded show highlights.

What I've heard has been disappointing and discouraging. Instead of reasoned discussion of liberal views, I heard wild rants, distortions of truth, disregard for or ignorance of facts, and an unsettling amount of bigotry. Added to that are crude language and personal insults of a kind rarely heard in serious media programming. A few brief examples:

During the last couple of weeks, the focus on the Karl Rove controversy has been nothing short of obsessive, well beyond the generally intense liberal focus. The discussions are repetitive, hate-filled, and full of errors. Rove called Cooper--wrong. Wilson definitively resolved the issue of whether Iraq sought to purchase yellowcake in Africa--wrong. Rove is a criminal because he violated the law protecting the identity of some CIA employees--unproven and very likely wrong.

There's an unrelenting focus on treason, and it appears that no one at Air America has ever read the clear definition provided in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Beyond that, they obviously haven't read other parts of the Constitution. Randi Rhodes said, "We have a Constitution that says we can impeach the President for treason! And here we have all this traitorous activity going on...." Wrong. No one with intact faculties can point to anything in this controversy that even comes close to meeting the constitutional test for treason.

Listeners who call in to the shows sometimes say silly and ignorant things, and they aren't corrected as long as what they say supports the Air America line. A good example, again, is treason. One woman called in and went on and on about Rove having committed treason, supporting her position by reciting what she found in a dictionary. Wrong, and not a word of correction offered.

References and comparisons to Hitler and Nazis, directed at individuals and whole groups of people, are common. So are other kinds of insults, some very profane, directed at Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and southerners. These include frequent use of words like bastard, son-of-a-bitch, asshole, and others.

And, perhaps most ironic considering that these people presume to speak for liberals, is the frequent negative reference to homosexuals. They often say that Karl Rove and Scott McClellan are homosexuals, without any proof, and charge that they had sex with Jeff Gannon. They say that Ken Mehlman is a homosexual, attributing his skill at arguing in defense of Rove to his experience of hiding his sexual orientation.

Most polls say fairly consistently that people in the U.S. identify themselves as about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican, and a bit less than a third Independent. A larger number identify themselves as moderates. In addition, the lead Democrats have enjoyed over Republicans in party identification has decreased to the point where they are almost even. A recent Harris Poll is a good example of these findings.

It's generally thought that some number of voters, maybe 20 percent, are going to vote for Democratic or Republican candidates no matter what. The remaining 60 percent, all those Independents and moderates, are up for grabs. To my hard-core Democratic friends I would say this: Don't recommend Air America Radio to anyone in that 60 percent. People are smarter than Air America gives them credit for, and the most likely result of listening is the loss of a lot of votes.

And please, no harangues about conservative talk radio. This is about Air America. I know that some conservative talkers, like Michael Savage, are also over the top. But the extremists aren't promoted as the saviors of conservatism, the voices in the wilderness delivering truth. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is moderate compared to much of what you hear on Air America. His humor, optimism, courtesy, and concern for being factually correct put Air America to shame.

Give it a try. Listen to both Rush Limbaugh and Air America's political programs for a few weeks. You'll see the difference.

Seared in His Memory

2005-07-17T12:28:00.000-05:00

Time magazine reported that Matthew Cooper has written a story at Time.com detailing his grand jury testimony. However, you can't access the story itself without paying for a subscription to Time.

Cooper reportedly wrote in Time that Rove ended the short conversation in which he referred to Mrs. Joseph Wilson's CIA employment by saying, "I’ve already said too much." Cooper said that Rove's comment "has been in my memory for two years," even though he said he doesn't know what Rove meant.

One little problem. That Rove comment is nowhere in the e-mails or notes Cooper wrote about the conversation, according to the Time report. If he thought it was that important, why didn't he at least jot it down in his notes? That's what reporters do. I guess it's just "seared, seared" in his memory. Matt Cooper, call John Kerry.

It looks like Cooper is still milking the story, getting all the personal attention he can out of it. Rove signed a written waiver a year and a half ago that released all reporters, including Cooper, from any obligation to protect his identity as a source. Nevertheless, Cooper rode the wave of publicity, and basked in the adoration of his colleagues, by refusing to identify his source up until the exact moment he was about to be sent to jail.

Cooper's excuse for holding out during all these months of public attention was, according to him, his concern that a government employee could be forced to sign a waiver. Karl Rove, the king, the antichrist himself, forced to sign a waiver? Karl Rove, second in the hated regime only to Bush himself, and perhaps not even second? Give us a break, Matt.

As Alice would say, this whole thing just gets "curiouser and curiouser."

Note: Link from The Huffington Post

Why Our Kids Are Ugly

2005-07-16T22:57:00.000-05:00

Richard Morin's column in The Washington Post discussed a recent article in a normally serious academic journal by Kenneth J. Meier, a political scientist at Texas A&M. The title of Meier's article, taken from a John Denver song, was "Get Your Tongue Out of My Mouth 'Cause I'm Kissin' You Goodbye: The Politics of Ideas." According to Morin:

Meier offers a novel argument: that many now well-established theories of social behavior appeared first in the lyrics of country and western songs even before they were proposed by scholars or policymakers.

Other scholars answered Morin, of course, with their own at least partly tongue-in-check arguments that phenomena such as Broadway musicals and TV shows were even more important in influencing social behavior.

What I found most interesting in the column was a list of actual country and western song titles that Morin proposed for use in the academic argument. Samples:

You're the Reason Our Kids Are Ugly (Loretta Lynn & Conway Twitty)

If My Nose Was Running Money, Honey, I'd Blow It All on You (Michael Carr, Michael Hammond)

Never Went to Bed With an Ugly Woman but I Sure Woke Up With a Few (Bobby Bare)

My Wife Ran Off With My Best Friend and I Sure Do Miss Him (Phil Earhart)

You Done Stomped on My Heart and Mashed That Sucker Flat (Mason Williams)

Too Dumb for New York, Too Ugly for L.A. (Waylon Jennings)

Only in America!

Soldier Helps Enemy

2005-07-15T23:43:00.000-05:00

According to an Army Times report a soldier in Iraq, PFC Stephen Tschiderer, was shot in the chest by a sniper. Although the impact knocked him down, his body armor saved his life. Tschiderer got up and pinpointed the location of the snipers. After they were engaged and wounded, Tschiderer, who is a medic, provided medical help to the sniper who shot him.

There are two interesting links in the report. One is a video taken by the enemy sniper team, complete with repeated "AllahAkhbars" after Tschiderer was shot and went down. The other is part of the Army information release describing the incident in more detail.

I searched The Washington Post and The New York Times for the story. Nothing.

Scooter Libby's Sources

2005-07-15T12:17:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reported today, as part of another story on Karl Rove:

Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury say there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson -- not the other way around.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified before the grand jury, saying he was alerted by someone in the media to Plame's identity, according to a source familiar with his account. Cooper has previously testified that he brought up the subject of Plame with Libby and that Libby responded that he had heard about her from someone else in the media, according to sources knowledgeable about Cooper's testimony.

More problems for the leftist wingnuts hysterically screaming for the head of Rove. Libby is another of their favorite bogeymen, and I'm sure they would love to go after him, too. I'm beginning to feel sorry for them--the frustration must be massive.

There really isn't much surprise in all this. Plame had been working at CIA headquarters openly for a number of years, and the fact of her employment was reportedly known to a lot of people, including the Wilsons' social friends. I'm sure even the laziest reporter could have figured it out. But let's just wait and see what the facts are. Maybe someone at the White House actually did something wrong.

Some readers who commented on the previous post referred to the case of former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who actually was caught red-handed stealing classified documents from the National Archives. There was no leftist outrage about it. Bill Clinton, when asked, chuckled and made some humorous comment about Berger. Senator Chuck Schumer, who apparently hadn't yet found his new concern for protecting classified information, made no outraged speeches in the Senate. Et cetera, ad nauseam.

Note that this story is also based in part on anonymous sources with access to secret grand jury information. Why isn't anyone worried about this kind of leaking, which is most likely criminal?

Karl Rove's Sources

2005-07-14T23:33:00.000-05:00

According to an AP report,

Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke.

Rove reportedly testified that Robert Novak, who originally broke the story of the identity of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, told him who she was. Rove, who didn't even know her name, then repeated what Novak told him to Matthew Cooper of Time in a passing reference to a story he was working on. Rove also testified that he may have heard the same thing from another reporter before he spoke to Cooper.

If this is true, then it is not possible that Rove violated the law protecting the identities of covert CIA officers, assuming Valerie Plame qualified for that designation. More than that, repeating vague information heard from one or more journalists to another journalist logically isn't even a leak.

I'm more and more amazed by the vitriol spewing from the left over this issue, especially when so few facts are publicly known. It's likely they're going to end up looking like fools by the time this is over.

And by the way, the anonymous source of this AP report "spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings." Revealing that information is probably illegal. The reporter should be forced to identify the source, and the source should be investigated and, if appropriate, charged.

The Media War

2005-07-13T11:15:00.000-05:00

As Michael Goodwin discussed in the New York Daily News, the Karl Rove controversy has highlighted the self-proclaimed war the media is waging against the President and the U.S. government:

The intense grilling that White House reporters inflicted on presidential spokesman Scott McClellan Monday over whether political guru Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA operative was no ordinary give-and-take. It was a hostile hectoring that revealed much of the mainstream press for what it has become: the opposition party.

Forget fairness, or even the pretense of it. With one of its own locked up - Judith Miller of The New York Times - much of the Beltway gang has declared war on the White House.

Reporters apparently have decided Democrats aren't up to the job. Can't blame them. With Dems reduced to Howard Dean's rants and Hillary Clinton's juvenile jab that President Bush looks like Mad magazine's Alfred E. Neuman, somebody has to offer a substantive alternative. The press has volunteered.

That the mainstream media are basically liberals with press passes has been documented by virtually every study that measures reporters' political identification and issue positions. But bias has now slopped over into blatant opposition, a stance the media will regret. Instead of providing unvarnished facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting, the media will be reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades.

As Goodwin pointed out, the media is "already held in lower esteem by the public than lawyers and Congress." It isn't hard to see why. The openly leftist bias of many in the media has caused journalists and media organizations to lose whatever trust and respect Americans may have felt for them.

I heard one network news reporter include these words in a question for the White House press secretary: "...now that Karl Rove has been caught red-handed...." The fact is, we still don't know whether Rove broke the law; it appears now that he didn't. And we don't know if what he told a Time reporter who called him was the actual leak or if his comment was made after the leak was public, even though it wouldn't be published for another few days.

Despite the fact that so little is known, liberal journalists have already convicted Rove. Would it be so unreasonable to wait until the grand jury investigation is over? At that point we will know if Rove is indicted for a crime, and we should also know if he was the leaker in this case. If the answer to those questions is yes, I'll buy the rope for the media lynch mob. Until then, I'd prefer to wait for the facts.

Who Is Sven Jaschan?

2005-07-12T13:11:00.000-05:00

Sven Jaschan is the German teenager who unleashed the Sasser worm on the internet. According to John Tierney, Jaschan's little escapade "crippled computers around the world, closing businesses, halting trains and grounding airplanes."

Sven is probably a typical pimply-faced teenaged geek, a social cripple with few friends and totally unskilled in anything resembling athletics or any other activity involving human beings. I can imagine him barricaded in his dirty, disorganized room, playing advanced computer games and using his only skill to design or pass on viruses and worms to torment unsuspecting internet users. His parents, of course, are nowhere to be seen, unwilling or unable to direct his interests and energy onto productive paths.

What got Tierney worked up was the sentence a German judge inflicted on Jaschan--a 21-month suspended sentence with 30 hours of community service. No restrictions were placed on his future use of computers or access to the internet.

Tierney speculated, mostly tongue-in-cheek, on more appropriate sentences, up to and including the death penalty. He recognizes, however, that some countries don't have the death penalty, and in the U.S. we're not allowed to execute minors. His other possible punishments included forcing Jaschan to work long hours in a chat room helping computer users fight worms and viruses, using an old computer connected to a 2400 baud dial-up connection.

Whatever the punishment, it can't be severe enough as far as I'm concerned. (OK, I don't advocate the death penalty, but it's tempting.) Having suffered a virus a couple of years ago that wiped out all the files on my laptop, I'm not inclined to leniency where punks like Jaschan are concerned. During the hours I labored trying to recover my files, I would have willingly served on a firing squad for the scumbag who created the virus.

Viruses, worms, and the like are almost always generated, refined, and spread by teenagers and young men in their early 20s with teenaged minds. As with so many problems our society suffers today, it comes back to parents. Where the hell are they when these twisted kids are growing up and becoming a threat to the rest of us?

Journalists and the Law

2005-07-09T12:08:00.000-05:00

According to a New York Times report, the editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer said that it is not publishing two "major investigative articles" because they are based on "illegally leaked documents." He said the paper is concerned about being forced to reveal the identities of the sources who illegally provided the documents.

The editor referred to the recent cases of Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Both were legally required to reveal sources to a grand jury. Miller refused and is in jail, and Cooper agreed to identify sources just before he was sent to jail.

The editor said he was surprised that there was so little public reaction to the disclosure that "real live news had been stifled." I'm not surprised. Most of the American people don't share the media's opinion of its own importance. More than that, most people don't trust the media, and they don't approve of stealing or illegally receiving stolen information.

Even though the paper has decided not to publish, the editor and his reporters said they would be willing to go to jail if necessary. No doubt. Nothing makes a journalist more famous and envied by his colleagues than to become the star of the story, and that's what most of these self-absorbed prima donnas really want.

Government at all levels possesses legally restricted information, such as classified defense information and grand jury proceedings. The government's ability to keep information like this secret is important to all of us. That's why it's against the law to steal it. Journalists who do that aren't heroes. They're criminals, and criminals belong in jail.

Torture and Death - Update

2005-07-09T11:07:00.000-05:00

The AP reported today:

A purported Taliban spokesman said Saturday that the group has beheaded a missing American commando, but he offered no proof and the U.S. military said it was still searching for the Navy SEAL.

Mullah Latif Hakimi, the purported spokesman, said:

This morning in Shagal district in Kunar province, the Taliban killed the American soldier and cut his head off. We left the body on a mountainside in this area so Afghan or U.S. soldiers there can find it. ...

We have extracted very useful information as he was an important person. He gave us details about the American military strategy, their bases and future military plans.

The U.S. military says that information from Hakimi has proven to be exaggerated or untrue in the past.

Update:

According to a Washington Post report on July 11, the body of the missing Navy SEAL has been found. By all indications, he died as a result of combat action. According to a senior U.S. Army officer, "This individual was never in custody, he was never defamed or disgraced."

Torture and Death

2005-07-08T09:56:00.000-05:00

In Afghanistan U.S. forces continue searching for a missing U.S. Navy SEAL. According to Reuters, the Taliban claims to have captured him and said "their guerrillas were interrogating the man and would kill him within days."

It's not hard to imagine what "interrogating" means, assuming you know anything at all about the subject. Those who make so much noise about "torture" at Guantanamo don't have a clue.

I wonder if the poor, misunderstood Muslims of the Taliban are feeding him better food than he's ever enjoyed before? I wonder if they've dressed him in clean clothes and ensured that he isn't covered with lice? I wonder if he's receiving better medical care than he could have imagined before his capture? Are the techniques of his "interrogation" limited to depriving him of some sleep, playing rap music in his cell, and a few cultural insults? Have they provided him with a Bible, and are they careful to ensure that neither his Bible nor his religion are in any way desecrated or disparaged? And since they've reportedly already decided to kill him, will they resist the temptation to post a video on the internet or send a tape to Al Jazeera so that the world can witness his final agony?

No? Hmmm. I wonder if we'll hear about this from the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, and ultra-liberals in Europe and the U.S.? I wonder if self-serving lawyers will start buying tickets to Afghanistan, hoping to represent him before adoring journalists and TV cameras? Has anyone checked with Senator Durbin or Senator Kennedy for a soundbite?

Don't hold your breath.

Criminal Blogger

2005-07-07T23:01:00.000-05:00

As covered widely in the media and in this AP report, Joseph Edward Duncan III is accused of kidnapping an eight-year-old girl and her nine-year-old brother. He's suspected of sexually molesting the girl and her brother and then killing him. He's also suspected of killing their older brother, their mother, and the mother's boyfriend.

Duncan was also a blogger. At Blogging the Fifth Nail he wrote openly of his life as a convicted sex offender. In one of his last posts (April 24), writing about the demons he struggles with, he wrote:

I’m afraid, very afraid. If they win then a lot of people will be badly hurt, and they’ve had their way before, so I know what they can do.

In the last post (May 13), he wrote:

As far as "taking people with me" well, I don't know if that is right or wrong. In fact, I don't know much any more what right and wrong even is.

Chilling reading.

Journalists in Jail

2005-07-06T15:55:00.000-05:00

As most everyone knows by now, a federal judge has sent Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, to jail for contempt. Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, very narrowly escaped jail by agreeing at the last minute to obey the law.

The issue was their refusal to identify anonymous sources to a grand jury, even after the judge ordered them to do so. Like so many journalists, they believe that their profession is so special that it justifies their refusing to honor the duty of every citizen to obey the law. At least Ms. Miller knows she is wrong. According to an AP report, she told the judge, "I do not view myself as above the law. You are right to send me to prison."

There is no basis in the Constitution for the superior position journalists claim. Their constant reference to the First Amendment doesn't work. All it does is prevent Congress from abridging freedom of the press. It doesn't convey to journalists a special privilege to disregard the law, or to obey it only when they deem it appropriate. Journalists also constantly harp on "the public's right to know." There is no such right, plain and simple.

Most states have "shield laws" for journalists, specifying certain conditions under which they can protect the confidentiality of sources. Ultimately, however, a judge can always order that the identity of sources be revealed in specific cases. There is no federal shield law that would have protected Miller and Cooper when they decided to ignore a federal grand jury, a federal prosecutor, and a federal judge.

Shield laws for journalists are fine with me, including one at the federal level if Congress should wish to create it. But in the final analysis journalists are citizens, and if they refuse to obey the law they should go to jail. This is particularly true at the federal level when they steal classified documents, or received stolen classified documents, and then publish them. Many journalists consider this to be the gold standard of their profession. In fact it's criminal, and they should pay for it.

The New York Times, which considers itself beyond the dictates of any earthly authority, made this idiotic assertion in one of its reports:

The case highlights a collision of the press's right to protect its sources, the government's ability to investigate a crime and even the Bush administration's justification for going to war in Iraq.

Say what?

The Mob vs Karl Rove

2005-07-03T04:06:00.000-05:00

Michael Isikoff reported in Newsweek today that Karl Rove was one of the White House officials who talked to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine at the time the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame was revealed. This will presumably be revealed in documents Time magazine has agreed to provide to the grand jury conducting the investigation of the leak.

Isikoff based his report on two anonymous sources and one identified source, Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer. Luskin told Isikoff that Rove did not divulge classified information and did not identify Plame. Isikoff's conclusion is that "it is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove."

According to The Drudge Report, Lawrence O'Donnell of NBC stated on July 1 that Karl Rove was Cooper's source. O'Donnell confirmed this at The Huffington Post and claimed he's "known this for months." The title of O'Donnell's post is "Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover."

Well. Aside from the title of O'Donnell's blog post on an anti-Administration website, which didn't suffer the scrutiny of a steely-eyed editor, none of this identifies Rove as one of the sources who outed Valerie Plame. In fact, all the sources quoted by name say Rove didn't do it.

Nevertheless, I'm sure the villagers will be outraged and will march toward King Karl's castle. Their pitchforks will reflect the light of their lanterns, and their certainty of the king's guilt will reflect the depth of their bias. No real proof will be needed--just lynch him.

Michael Isikoff, whose disastrously mistaken Newsweek report on the Qur'an desecration case was also based on an anonymous source, could be wrong again. Lawrence O'Donnell, who pipes up now and says he's known it for months, can't be taken seriously. If he knew it, why didn't he report it?

If Karl Rove committed the crimes of illegally revealing a CIA officer's identity and perjury, he should go to jail. Plain and simple. But before we join the mob that will march on King Karl's castle, let's be sure we know what we're doing.

Send a Message

2005-07-01T07:52:00.000-05:00

As Independence Day approaches we should all remember the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serving on our behalf.

If you'd like to send a message of support to American military personnel in the field, go to Thank the Troops. It's a quick-and-easy message form. You can click a link in the upper right corner of the webpage to read responses. Every message counts, and the total number of messages sent means a lot, too.

Thanks to The Word Unheard for the link.

Time Reveals Sources

2005-06-30T16:41:00.000-05:00

According to a report in The New York Times, Time magazine has agreed to provide documents that identify sources to a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of a CIA employee. Under certain circumstances, leaking such information is a serious crime. Time's action came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that two reporters and the companies they work for, Time magazine and The New York Times, are not above the law.

Time magazine's position is appropriate, although it's sad that the issue had to go all the way to the Supreme Court:

Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he made the decision after much reflection.

"I found myself really coming to the conclusion," he said, "that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do."

The NYT, which along with its reporter continues to refuse to obey the law, observed in a nearly hysterical tone:

The announcement by a major news organization that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a subpoena appears to be without precedent in living memory and suggests a turning point in the relationship between the press and the government. The news media have been under growing pressure and scrutiny over issues of accuracy, credibility and political bias.

Issues of accuracy, credibility, and political bias. Indeed.

Things You Pay For

2005-06-30T04:49:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter responded to the Supreme Court's schizophrenic rulings on displays of the Ten Commandments in part by listing some other kinds of speech your taxes pay for. Her examples, some of which you've probably already heard of, range from the silly to the outrageous. The list is interesting, particularly the numerous examples of "art" funded by taxpayers through the National Endowment for the Arts. Her conclusion:

I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion – meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. We've been through this a million times.

Why don't we leave matters like displays of the Ten Commandments to state and local governments? That's what federalism is all about.

The Duty of Correspondents

2005-06-29T05:34:00.000-05:00

I recently came across an editorial policy statement by a major New York City newspaper. It was startling in its emphasis on the duty of war correspondents not to report information that could compromise the operations of troops in the field. It was so at variance with the attitudes of correspondents and editors we see in the press every day that I thought you might like to read parts of it:

The result of newspaper correspondents [reporting] information respecting the future movements of our forces, and whatever they hear from the lips of rumor, is bad, not only for the Commander-in-Chief and his lieutenants, but the press generally, for the publication of these plans is not only annoying, but necessitates a change in them, which, of course, falsifies the statements originally put forward, and so brings the newspapers into discredit. Hence arises the multitude of false rumors of which we hear, the numerous changes in the movements of our troops, and the growing prejudice against correspondents of the press at military headquarters. It is obviously necessary that the plans of our generals should remain secret to the enemy till such time as they are put into execution, and if these plans are published by the...press in anticipation, such secrecy is impossible. Therefore we wish to discourage as much as possible our correspondents from communicating anything that they may hear respecting the future movements of the army. ... Let our correspondents, when they receive such information, however valuable they may think it, resist the temptation to [report] it.... By so doing they will be acting like good patriots. All that we want is a prompt, full and accurate report of whatever movement or actions actually has taken place. We want the actual news of today, and not what is probable to occur tomorrow. The utmost despatch in communicating unalterable facts will be far more appreciated than any quantity of rumors concerning them in advance.

This editorial policy was issued by The New York Herald on June 22, 1861. Imagine. The editors didn't want information reported that might damage the army in the field. They didn't want correspondents looked upon with disfavor in military headquarters, and they didn't want to cause false rumors. And most startling of all, they wanted their correspondents to act "like good patriots."

I don't delude myself that in 1861 all newspapers were as responsible and as concerned for the welfare of their country as The Herald was. But I think they all would be appalled if they could see the scramble by the media today to steal and publish classified information whenever possible. I think they all would be sickened by the refusal of so many in the American media today to recognize loyalty to country as an obligation or patriotism as a valid concept.

Dave on Hip-Hop

2005-06-29T04:07:00.000-05:00

In a 1999 column, Dave Barry waxed nostalgic on the music of The Beach Boys. He added this comment on a lower sub-genre of the music of today:

I saw a TV show recently wherein a group of ''hip-hop'' DJs competed to see who was the best at making sounds with a record turntable. They'd put the needle on a record, then they'd spin the turntable forward and backward violently, thereby creating unique, by which I mean ugly, noises. I used to do that when I was 7, and my mom would yell, ''STOP FOOLING WITH THE RECORD PLAYER!'' But these guys were SERIOUS; they had expressions of intense concentration on their faces, as though it took vast artistic skill to simulate the sound of deranged squirrels fighting in an amplifier. A panel of judges looked on, frowning thoughtfully, as though they were listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (actual lyric: ''Dum dum dum DUM''). I wanted to scream at the TV screen: ''A turntable is NOT A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, you morons! It's an APPLIANCE, like a toaster-oven! Or an accordion!''

I thought I was the only one who heard the squirrels.

The Nazi Insult

2005-06-28T08:26:00.000-05:00

Jeff Jacoby wondered why the absurd Nazi insult recently perpetrated by Senator Dick Durbin caused such a controversy. As Jacoby illustrates with example after example, politicians of both parties and others who should know better use the Nazi insult so often that it has become commonplace. The whole column is worth reading. Here's his conclusion:

Those who draw such insane parallels seek to damn their opponents with the most evil association they can imagine. But all they really accomplish is a kind of Holocaust-denial. After all, if congressional Republicans are "worse than Hitler," then Hitler must have been no worse than congressional Republicans. Which means that the tyrant who drenched Europe in blood, created a hellish network of concentration camps, and sent more than a million Jewish children to their deaths is roughly equal to--maybe even better than--a political party that calls for tax cuts and welfare reform. Anyone who can say (or imply) such a thing is guilty of trivializing the Nazis' crimes and of cheapening the agony of their victims.

This is where the degradation of American political discourse has brought us, but it isn't where it will end. When calling an opponent "worse than Hitler" or "another Pol Pot" has lost its sting, what new invective will the slanderers move on to? When opponents of the war can no longer whip up a frenzy by depicting Bush as Hitler or by likening US troops to the SS and KGB, what fresh venom will they come up with?

Politics ain't beanbag. But there used to be limits--including rhetorical limits--that decent men and women respected. As those limits are shredded and forgotten, our political environment is growing dirtier, uglier, and sicker.

Think about the American politician or public figure you find most distasteful. Assuming you know anything at all about World War II and the Nazis, there is no way you can intelligently characterize him or her as a Nazi or make a comparison to Hitler. Think about it. If you're guilty of doing it, you're making yourself look like an idiot. Cut it out.

Karl's Kerfuffle

2005-06-28T06:16:00.000-05:00

Karl Rove created quite a stir with his remarks comparing conservative and liberal responses to 911. As I see it, what he said was awkward, overly broad, and politically stupid. The sweep of his comments unfairly included a huge number of people, most certainly a very large majority of Democrats.

But, as Michael Barone pointed out, he wasn't exactly wrong. Rove gave at least one example of what he was talking about, a fact conveniently left out of major media reporting. Barone lists a number of other examples from sources such as MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, George Soros, and Howard Dean.

The same Michael Moore who has famously proclaimed, "Americans are the stupidest people in the world." The extremist embraced by far too many otherwise intelligent liberals, the one who sat in a place of honor beside a former President of the United States at the Democratic convention.

The same Howard Dean, who is pretty much the de facto leader of today's chaotic Democratic Party. As Barone said:

It comes naturally to Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean to proclaim Saddam should be presumed innocent pending trial but House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should be jailed for offenses with which he has not even been charged.

It's absolutely true that the vast majority of liberals and Democrats didn't deserve to be painted with Rove's broad brush. But, as countless moms and dads have warned their rebellious teenagers, you're known by the company you keep.

We all know that Rove screwed up, missing a great opportunity to keep his mouth shut. He isn't going to resign or get fired, and another sappy half-apology by a politician with hoof-and-mouth disease would be as meaningless as all the others. Let's get over it and move on. After all, he didn't compare some American soldiers to Nazis and other murderous dictators.

Thoughts for Democrats

2005-06-27T07:14:00.000-05:00

The level of political discourse in America has hit new lows. Heavy-hitters on one side make ill-considered statements, and heavy-hitters on the other side squeal like stuck pigs and demand apologies. It appears to me that Democrats have on balance been the losers. They make at least as many extremist statements as their Republican counterparts, and at the same time they can't fall back on the facts that they are the ones governing and the ones who have a program.

Talk radio isn't any better. Compared to the big kahuna, Rush Limbaugh, the talkers on Air America offer up loud extremism and foul language to compare with his humor, optimism, and willingness to criticize those on his side. However, if you go to some other talk radio personalities on the conservative side, like Michael Savage, you hear the same kind of extremism.

Speaking of Air America, a few days ago I heard Jeanne Garofolo talking to Margaret Cho on a call-in. Amid incredibly extreme statements and very foul language, they opined that Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, and Scott McClellan are gay. Senator Rick Santorum, in their view, is bisexual or at least conflicted. To top it off, they asserted that Jeff Gannon had been sleeping with Karl Rove. Randi Rhodes carries on in about the same way, and Mike Malloy is even more offensive. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish?

Please don't bombard me with criticism that I'm focusing only on extremist Democrats. I've already stipulated that both sides are guilty, to one degree or another. My purpose here is to talk about Democrats, not necessarily because they're the most extreme but because their continuing failure to offer a rational alternative serves only to further empower Republicans and the right. Our two-party system, whatever its ills, works well only when two relatively robust parties serve to balance and moderate each other. The way things are going now, the Democratic Party is going to continue to be ineffective, and that worries me.

Political parties exist to elect their members to office. That's their most vital function in every democratic political system. Reading leftist blogs, listening to Air America, and watching Democratic Party leaders perform leaves little room for optimism about the future of the Party. Democratic partisans seem to be a lot more interested in airing extremist views, criticizing and obstructing the Republican majority, and in some cases promoting their individual self-interest than they are in winning elections. The American people understand this, and they can see clearly that the Democratic Party has no coherent policy stance.

Al From and Bruce Reed wrote a thoughtful article a while back that all Democrats should read. From is Founder and CEO of The Democratic Leadership Council, and Reed is President of the DLC. For those who may not remember, or don't know, it was the DLC that provided the launching pad for Bill Clinton, the only successful Democratic national leader in recent memory. Part of what they wrote:

Here are some simple truths every Democrat needs to hear. To win back the White House in 2008, our party must change. We must be willing to discard political strategies that may make us feel good but that keep falling short. We must finally reject the false choice between exciting our base and expanding our appeal, because unless we both motivate and persuade, we'll lose every time.

But above all, Democrats must be bold and clear about what we stand for. It's time to show the millions of people who can't tell what Democrats stand for that any American who believes in security, opportunity, and responsibility has a home in the Democratic Party.

As Bill Clinton told us many times in 1992, change is never easy. Our party's greatest challenge is to offer new, innovative, and progressive ways to expand opportunity, demand responsibility, and defend freedom and American interests in the world. That will require challenging party orthodoxy and, from time to time, making some in our party uncomfortable. But during the next four years, we have to be willing to surprise people once again. If we do that, we will earn the chance to put our ideas into action; if we don't, we will not win, no matter how much money we raise or how good our party machinery may be.

...it's a delusion to think that if we just turned out our voters, we could win national elections. The 2004 election should have dispelled that myth, once and for all. With an unprecedented effort to get out our vote, Democrats far exceeded all expectations -- and we still lost. Next time, we need to mount an unprecedented effort in persuasion, not just turnout. A party that has averaged 44.5 percent of the vote in the last 10 presidential elections and has only won a majority of the popular vote for president twice in six decades needs to start winning over some of the voters it's losing. ...

If we want voters, especially those in America's heartland, to take a new look at the Democratic Party, we must have the courage to take on the great challenges of our time: making America safe; building an opportunity society; standing up for core values of responsibility and family; and reforming a political system that is broken and corrupt.

From and Reed continued with a detailed discussion of positive steps the Democratic Party needs to take. It's worth a few minutes to read the whole article.

Hell Hath No Fury

2005-06-25T15:01:00.000-05:00

According to a report in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Lena Driskell, 78, was not at all happy when boyfriend Herman Winslow, 85, dumped her for a new girlfriend. She pressed a gun to his temple and fired twice, killing him. When police arrived she told them, "I did it, and I'd do it again."

I've never doubted that Mr. Congreve had it right when he wrote, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." I just thought they eventually mellowed with age. Maybe not.

I'm sorry Mr. Winslow is dead, of course. But to be shot at 85 because you got caught cattin' around with too many women.... Maybe there's hope.

Note: Link from The Drudge Report

Lions to the Rescue

2005-06-25T10:42:00.000-05:00

Here's an amazing AP report out of Ethiopia:

A 12-year-old girl who was abducted and beaten by men trying to force her into a marriage was found being guarded by three lions who apparently had chased off her captors, a policeman said Tuesday.

The girl, missing for a week, had been taken by seven men who wanted to force her to marry one of them, said Sgt. Wondimu Wedajo, speaking by telephone from the provincial capital of Bita Genet, about 350 miles southwest of Addis Ababa.

She was beaten repeatedly before she was found June 9 by police and relatives on the outskirts of Bita Genet, Wondimu said. She had been guarded by the lions for about half a day, he said.

"They stood guard until we found her and then they just left her like a gift and went back into the forest," Wondimu said.

"If the lions had not come to her rescue, then it could have been much worse. Often these young girls are raped and severely beaten to force them to accept the marriage," he said.

Seems there's no limit to the cruelty of humans, both to their fellow humans and to animals. Ethiopia's large lions with their distinctive black manes are the country's national symbol. However, hunters continue to kill them for their skins. Only about 1,000 are left in the wild.

Presidential Influence

2005-06-23T04:22:00.000-05:00

The President of the United States has tremendous influence around the world. Perhaps the most important use of this influence is to give hope to oppressed people most in need of it.

Jeff Jacoby, writing in the Boston Globe, considered the way President Bush uses this influence. He quotes the comments a reader in Moscow sent to National Review. The reader sent a photo from a rally in Azerbaijan

...which showed a youth holding up a poster of President Bush with the words, 'We Want Freedom.' The reader commented, 'It's good to remember whom people turn to when they're desperate -- and it ain't Kofi Annan.' "

Jacoby made many telling points:

It is fashionable in some circles to invoke the United Nations as the touchstone of moral authority, but realists know better. They look to the United States, not the UN, as the great moral engine in world affairs. ...

In his recent bestseller, ''The Case for Democracy," former Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky recalled how Ronald Reagan's ''evil empire" speech electrified prisoners deep inside the Soviet gulag:

''Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's 'provocation' quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth -- a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us."

A US president's words of solidarity can powerfully encourage those who battle against the lies and intimidation of despotism. ...

Compared to the policies of his predecessors, Bush's promotion of democracy as a matter of national security, his blunt talk about dictatorships, and the honor he shows dissidents are revolutionary. ...

Every president speaks of freedom and democracy. Bush is the first to make their promotion the cornerstone of his foreign policy. His critics are legion. But from the slave camps of North Korea to that young man in Azerbaijan, so are those fervently hoping he succeeds.

I disagree with President Bush on many policy issues. However, I give him a lot of credit in important areas, to include his determination to promote core American values of freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and hope throughout the world. Imagine how much more he could accomplish without the negative influences of anti-American political elites abroad, obstructionists in the U.S. Congress, and the constant drumbeat of opposition from myopic leftist ideologues.

Rasmussen Poll Results

2005-06-22T17:13:00.000-05:00

A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 70 percent of Americans believe that detainees at Guantanamo are being treated "better than they deserve" or "about right." Just 14 percent agree that treatment of the detainees is similar to Nazi tactics, and 69 percent disagree with that comparison.

On job approval, the survey found that 49 percent approve of the way President Bush is doing his job, and 49 percent disapprove. Howard Dean has a favorable rating of just 25 percent and an unfavorable rating of 40 percent.

Note: Link from The Drudge Report

Was the War Worth It?

2005-06-22T07:08:00.000-05:00

Those who understand history know this question has been asked about almost every war the U.S. has been involved in. There's also the "what if" question--what would have happened if we hadn't become involved in a specific war?

Robert Kagan addressed these questions in regard to the war in Iraq. Serious scholars will write thoughtful books on these questions in the future. Kagan's column provides a very short summary of what I suspect many of these books will say.

Madeleine Albright, who shared President Clinton's certainty that Iraq possessed WMD and was a threat to the U.S., compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. I don't disagree with her assessment, although I think comparing him to Stalin would have been more apt. What would have happened if we had not removed him from power?

It's a useful question. For example, the horrors of World War II and the deaths of tens of millions might have been avoided if Hitler had been removed from the scene earlier. The most logical point was his 1936 re-militarization of the Rhineland, a flagrant and provocative violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler acted when Germany was still militarily very weak, with barely enough troops to make a show of marching into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. Except for the complacency and isolationism of America and the appeasement sympathies of England and France, history could have been changed immeasurably for the better.

Kagan's conclusion:

It is entirely possible, in short, that if the Bush administration had not gone to war in 2003, the United States might have faced a more dangerous and daring Saddam Hussein later on and felt compelled to act. So, in addition to whatever price might have been paid, certainly by the Iraqi people and possibly by Iraq's neighbors, for leaving Saddam in power, we might have wound up going to war anyway. There is the further question of what the entire Middle East would have looked like with a defiant, increasingly liberated Hussein still in power. To quote [former National Security Adviser Sandy] Berger again, so long as Hussein remained "in power and in confrontation with the world," Iraq would remain "a source of potential conflict in the region," and, perhaps more important, "a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender." Whether historians judge the war favorably will depend heavily on whether post-Hussein Iraq does indeed provide a different sort of inspiration, but, again, the effort to change the direction of the region was surely worth paying some price.

This may be no solace to those who have lost loved ones in this war -- and it certainly does not absolve the Bush administration from the errors that it made before and after the war and continues to make today. But these are the kinds of considerations that ought to be part of any serious debate over whether the war in Iraq was "worth it."

I realize that some may consider Kagan a "neocon" and won't read anything he writes, lest their ideological purity be compromised. They should make an exception in this case.

Genetics and Politics

2005-06-22T04:34:00.000-05:00

According to a story in The New York Times, our political beliefs may be more genetic than reasoned. This comes from a study reported on in The American Political Science Review. The study found that genetics is the predominant influence in determining our general views on social issues, while upbringing and environment determine our political party affiliation.

As the report points out, this may explain why some people with liberal views on many social issues identify themselves as conservatives or Republicans. Conversely, some with mainly conservative views consider themselves liberals or Democrats. It also may explain defections from parties, like that of Zell Miller.

When contacted for comment, Miller said that his political views haven't changed much since he was a young Marine. Instead, he says, the Democratic Party changed. "And I'm not talking about inch by inch, like a glacier.... I'm saying the thing got up and flew away." Based on my experience, I agree with Miller.

The NYT story concludes, "The researchers are not optimistic about the future of bipartisan cooperation or national unity. Because men and women tend to seek mates with a similar ideology, they say, the two gene pools are becoming, if anything, more concentrated, not less." Yikes!

Anyway, the report is interesting. After years of academic indoctrination to the effect that anything in The American Political Science Review is literal truth, I'll leave it at that.

By the way, the NYT used the word "progressive" throughout the story instead of "liberal." This never ceases to amuse. If "liberal" has become a dirty word (I don't think it has) it's because of extremists on the left. Nevertheless, thus spake the Times, so I guess that makes it so.

Note: Link from The Huffington Post

Senator Durbin Apologizes

2005-06-21T15:57:00.000-05:00

I've just seen a report that Senator Dick Durbin has tearfully apologized for his incredibly absurd remark comparing American soldiers to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, and Pol Pot. According to the report,

Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.

"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."

His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.

"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.

I think the Senator meant what he said in the first place. Words matter, and the words he used to attack American soldiers serving in the field won't be forgotten, certainly not by them. The sad fact is that many of Senator Durbin's friends and colleagues on the left share the kind of feelings he originally voiced.

Anyway, thanks for the apology, Senator Durbin. For whatever it's worth. I'm sure you and many of your colleagues will get more feedback the next time you face the voters.

Right-winged Stress

2005-06-21T11:33:00.000-05:00

Corwyn Zimbleman was an artist and designer who recently died at the age of 53. His obituary in the Arizona Daily Star is interesting. After describing his skills and accomplishments, it stated that he "never gained the recognition he deserved." The obituary continued:

As a child he was always bringing home reptiles. His friends nicknamed him "Snake." He even built a turtle pond in his backyard. An avid atheist, he studied the bible and religion with more fervor than most Christians. He had strong political opinions and followed Amy Goodman's radio broadcast "Democracy Now." Alas, the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans finally brought him to his early demise. Stress from living in this unjust country brought about several heart attacks rendering him disabled.

Alas, indeed.