| |
Monday, October 31, 2005
Searchlight's Not As Dumb As He Sounds(Welcome, fellow Ankle-Biting Pundits readers) He's dumber: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that President Bush will go down as the Millard Fillmore of our time, and said the Republican president is the best thing Democrats have going for them for the 2006 elections.
"I think our biggest cheerleader for getting back some of the votes we've lost in the last couple presidential elections and some congressional elections is George W. Bush," the Nevada Democrat said in predicting a big election year for his party.Over the next year we're going to hear about how poorly ruling parties do in midterm elections. Quite a bit of this will just be the media and the liberal bloggers fantasizing about a takeover of Congress, followed soon by an impeachment trial with Cindy Sheehan as a star witness. But this talk about mid-term corrections is misplaced in 2006. Why? Because mid-term corrections typically come because of long coattails. When a president wins reelection, he usually does so by a substantial margin--see Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984. But the problem with big wins is that they have coattails, bringing into office a lot of weaker candidates of the president's party. Nixon and Reagan swept into office large numbers of Republicans in their respective reelection campaigns, much as had LBJ with the Democrats in 1964. In all of those cases, they brought in weak candidates in marginal districts that could not be held. But interestingly, the midterm corrections have not happened since 1994. In 1998 Clinton's party did not get walloped despite an amazing presidential scandal. Why? Probably because his win in 1996 did not restore the Democrats to power in Congress, so they didn't have much to lose. And that's pretty much the same case in 2006. Bush did not substantially improve the Republicans' position there in 2004. They gained a net four seats. He did help them gain a big edge in the Senate, but those particular seats aren't up again until 2010, and 2006 doesn't play to the Democrats' strengths. So the notion that next year is going to be a big one for the Democrats is just wishful thinking.
Barone on AlitoHe brings in some very interesting political calculations on the impact of opposing an Italian-American. Italian-Americans are less defensive today and probably less ethnically conscious. The political risks of opposing an Italian-American are therefore probably less than in 1983. But they're not zero. I wonder whether Tom Carper of Delaware (where 7 percent of the population in the 2000 census said they were of Italian ancestry), Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey (14 percent), Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (11 percent), Christopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (14 percent), and Jack Reed of Rhode Island (14 percent) really want to go to the length of supporting a filibuster against an Italian-American judge with sterling credentials and majority support in the Senate.Great analysis from the professional's professional.
Standing Up for Sloppy SecondsIs our buddy the Man at GOP & The City. 
Kurtz on the Glee of the MediaI think that for the most part, the media seemed more gleeful when they could speculate on Karl Rove being "perp-walked" from the White House; now that it's just Scooter Libby they are having a tougher time channeling Bobby McFerrin. Now that an indictment has reached the highest level of the White House for the first time since Watergate, journalists face a minefield of potentially explosive questions: Are they enjoying a bit too much the spectacle of Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, having to resign over the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice? What happened to the normal journalistic skepticism toward a single-minded special prosecutor, as was on display when Ken Starr was pursuing Bill Clinton?
The hostility directed at Patrick Fitzgerald when he was threatening reporters with jail seems to have faded now that his targets are senior aides to President Bush. Perhaps most important, are reporters, commentators, bloggers and partisans using the outing of Valerie Plame as a proxy war for rehashing the decision to invade Iraq? The vitriol directed at New York Times reporter Judith Miller, whether deserved or not, seems motivated as much by her role in touting the administration's erroneous WMD claims as in her decision to be jailed, at least for a time, to protect Libby.Of course, all the questions in there are rhetorical. Yes, the Plame affair is a proxy for the war. Yes, the media are having too much fun with the indictment of Libby. And of course, the skepticism towards a single-minded prosecutor goes out the window when the target is a Republican. The anger at Miller is partially over the WMD issue, but also at the notion that she was protecting a Republican by refusing to testify. Susan McDougall was protecting a Democrat, therefor she was noble. Miller was protecting a Republican, therefor she was evil.
Although Overtaken by the Alito NominationThis list of most and least-desired Supreme Court Justices among center-right bloggers should be a good guide for the President if a third (or even fourth) vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court.
BlogoweeniversaryIn the Right Place has been around for a year now, and Mr Right's got some evil guests today to celebrate the Blogoweeniversary.
Campaign 2008 UpdatesEvan Bayh seduces 'em in New Hampshire by reconsidering his vote on Iraq. “I made a decision I thought was right at the time,” Bayh said at the Henniker forum. “It turns out that some of the most important information we relied upon at that time just was not accurate. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The administration has been proven to be terribly incompetent in the way they’ve carried this out. It turns out that Saddam’s regime was much more decrepit than we had thought to be the case at that time. So, of course, we would make different decisions based on different facts.”Meanwhile Chuckie Bagel's on the stump in Iowa: One observer in the crowd of 350 - many of whom were students or professors - noted approvingly that the speech was neither Republican nor Democrat.
"He's a centrist," said Doug Finnemore, a Democratic professor who admires Hagel's stand on the war and thinks he could "play well" in the Republican caucuses next year as the war takes center stage nationally.
Several in the audience said they knew and liked Hagel because of his harsh assessments of the war.That may help him with Democrats, but it won't do much for him in the primaries. And what's all this talk of Republican caucuses next year? The caucuses won't matter until 2008.
That Pink Locker Room AgainI've posted on this previously, but it looks like the idiot feminista is not giving up the effort. The demand for all things pink has soared after an associate law professor at the University of Iowa petitioned school officials to repaint the all-pink visitor's locker room at Kinnick Stadium.
Jill Gaulding objected to the color scheme, she said, because it sent a misogynistic message and represented "a serious obstacle to gender equity on campus." Hawkeye fans reacted by snapping up pink merchandise and sending hundreds of e-mails--some of them downright nasty.
For decades, to the annoyance of some visiting teams, players have donned cleats in a room painted the color of cotton candy.
Initially, the locker room was considered a sports oddity in this town, about 30 miles south of Cedar Rapids. But Hawkeye fans have come to regard the pink room as a treasured tradition.
When the university finished new locker rooms this year as part of an $86.8 million renovation of the stadium, the school found ways to make the visitor's side even more Barbie-esque. It didn't choose simple "pink." The school chose "Innocence" for the walls and "Dusty Rose" for the toilets and urinals.
"I teach discrimination law, and this is not a good precedent for anyone to set," said Gaulding, 39. "What I object to are sexist jokes paid for by my employer, a public institution."Once these things get started, it's very hard for a humorless feminist to give up a cause. She's stuck now.
Alito ShuffleWell, initial reaction to this pick seems quite favorable. Where's the fun in that? Come on guys, let's form the circular firing squad one more time. He's a Catholic; surely somebody wants to talk about how he'll be beholden to Rome and the whore of Babylon? An Italian from New Jersey? Surely he must be mob-connected! Hugh Hewitt supports him and thinks he's an excellent nominee. Surely that should get a rise out of the geniuses over at the Corner; perhaps someone could compare him to Caligula's cat? Forget about that, he went to Princeton and Yale; he's one of them. I've heard that he once gave a quarter to a beggar; this indicates that he's a collectivist sympathizer. He was once heard to dispute a call on a playground as "unfair"; he clearly feels a desire to use the judiciary to solve all problems. Bitter? Nah, just amused. We're going to get the fight that we wanted over this nominee from the Democrats. Let's just hope we can really win it. Also, check out Mrs Media Matters' post on this subject.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Suddenly Folks Taking Iran SeriouslySeriously as a threat that is. The most dangerous enemy faced by the British is not Iraqi insurgents, but well-organised Iranian brigades such as Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani, believed to be controlled by the Revolutionary Guard in Tehran.
The mob attack on the Royal Military Police two years ago, in which six died, is believed to have been the work of the Mujahedin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, another group which Tehran's Revolutionary Council has the power to call off.
Blair knows this but cannot openly admit it. To say in public that British forces are being killed by government-controlled cells in Iran would be a far greater step towards war than simply telling its president not to be rude about Israel.
The tragedy is that Iran has shown such promise for the last five years. The generation born after its 1979 revolution seemed ill at ease with its clerical establishment: it seemed ripe for reform and modernisation.
But the Iraq war appears to have thwarted this. Rather than undermine an authoritarian theocracy, it has fuelled a conservative backlash. This greatly helped President Ahmadinejad's landslide victory at the rigged April elections.
Pro-war columnists (like this one) can cheer the orange revolution in Ukraine and applaud Colonel Gaddafi's surrender of illegal weapons. But, in Iran, the freedom agenda has been sent into reverse by the botched Iraqi occupation.The guy raises a very interesting argument: Weakness is more provocative than strength, as Donald Rumsfeld pointed out: the Bay of Pigs disaster made John F Kennedy look so weak that the Soviets sent nuclear missiles to Cuba because they spotted such weakness in their enemy.
Clinton's humiliating retreat from Somalia in 1994 is now credited with inspiring Osama Bin Laden to start striking America. With America and Britain now stuck in the quagmire of Iraq, we may be entering weakness again.
Little wonder that Iran is testing the ground. Its ayatollahs survey the globe, and see their way of life is on the ascendant, partly thanks to an Iraq war which has helped globalise Islam and ruin America's appetite for more fighting.Terrific column. I'm not sure I accept his argument entirely, but it's not some reflexive mumbo-jumbo from the antiwar left.
McGovern Redux?I thoroughly agree with this article: The editor of "The New Republic" suggested the other day that "the new liberal political culture emerging on the Internet" looks a lot like the McGovernite revolution that descended on the Democratic Party in 1972. In a lecture at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, Peter Beinart said the mostly young Internet activists are clearly taking over the party. If so, this would be the first ray of sunshine for conservatives and Republicans in almost a year. The McGovern movement severely damaged the party, pushing it toward four presidential defeats in five tries, until Bill Clinton won by dragging the party back to the center in 1992. If the Internet people had prevailed in 2004, Howard Dean would have won the nomination and then been buried in an enormous landslide, just like George McGovern.
Steyn on FitzmasWith his usual combination of wit and analysis: Just for the record, Scooter Libby is the highest-ranking Scooter in the Bush administration, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. All last week, lefty gloaters were eagerly anticipating "Fitzmas," their designation for that happy day when federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald hands down indictments against Libby, and Rove, and maybe Cheney, and -- boy oh boy, who knows? -- maybe Chimpy Bushitlerburton himself. Pat Fitzgerald has been making his list, checking it twice, found out who's naughty or nice, and he's ready to go on a Slay Ride leaving Bush the Little Drummed-Out Boy and the Dems having a blue blue blue blue blue-state Christmas in November 2006, if not before.
Well, I enjoy the politics of personal destruction as much as the next chap, and one appreciates that it's been a long time since the heady days when Dems managed to collect the scalps of both Newt Gingrich and his short-lived successor within a few short weeks. But, as I've said before, one reason the Democratic Party is such a bunch of losers is because they're all tactics and no strategy. Suppose they succeed in destroying Libby and a bunch of other non-household names. Then what? Several analysts are suggesting that the 2006 elections are shaping up like 1994, when Newt's revolution swept the Democratic old guard from power.Then what? Why they'd pass stricter CAFE standards. It would be a happy day in liberalville indeed.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Ward Churchill Wronged?Hmmm, I dislike the cigar-store Indian's views as much as anybody, but let's castigate him for his real offenses and not imagined ones. A tape recording of a speech University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill gave in Chicago on Oct. 20 shows he did not make remarks about the Holocaust that were attributed to him in two articles in a pro-Israeli publication.The pro-Israeli publication is the American Thinker, and while I'm sure it is pro-Israeli, it would probably be more correct to refer to it as a center-right publication. I don't know anybody on the center right whom I'd call anti-Israeli.
I'm Probably the Last to NoticeBut the Iraq Pictures blog is terrific.
NY Times Slimes Hero's MemoryMichelle Malkin has the details, which should get your blood boiling.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Carnival of the Clueless is UpRick Moran's got more links than the Legend of Zelda series.
Former Bulldog Prosecutor's Take on the IndictmentOur buddy the Bulldog Pundit takes on the indictment of Scooter Libby.
Iran AmokLooks like Iran's president isn't backing down, but... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood fast behind his assertion that Israel should be wiped off the map and repeated the call during the nationwide protests Friday, the Muslim day of prayer.
But in an apparent attempt to blunt international outrage over Ahmadinejad's comments, the Iranian Embassy in Moscow issued a statement saying the Iranian leader did not want to "engage in a conflict."No, he just wants to wipe Israel off the map. Smackdown is coming.
Humor from the L-DottersCheck out this thread on Mr Sulu's announcement that he's gay. Reply 9 - Posted by: Ka Ching, 10/28/2005 8:40:58 AM
He always seemed a little too interested in the captain's log.:) Here's one I came up with in a chatroom: What's Sulu's favorite command when he controls the Enterprise? Thrusters Aft!
Merry Fitzmas!In case you're not aware, that's the name that liberals came up with for the day Fitzpatrick announced the indictments in the Plame Name Blame Game. Of course, that was assuming that Karl Rove was included; now that it's just Scooter Libby, they're going to be acting like spoiled children, saying "Is that all?" Laura Lee Donoho says it's Fitzween. Terrific photo gag.
Ohmigod, They Got Libby! How Will the Conservative Movement Survive?Just putting the probable indictment in its proper perspective.
Honest, But Not PC--UpdatedReggie Rivers chides the Air Force Academy's football coach for being honest: While discussing his team's 48-10 loss to Texas Christian University last weekend, he said: "It's very obvious that they had a lot more Afro-American players than we did and they ran a lot faster than we did. It just seems to me to be that way, that Afro-American players can run very, very well. That doesn't mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can't run, but it's very obvious to me that they run extremely well."No fooling. Anybody who looks at the field in an NCAA 100-meter dash, or the wide receivers and running backs in the NFL will immediately notice that almost all of them are black. Criticism of the coach (Fisher DeBerry) has mostly foundered on the racial issue. It's so obvious that even Reggie Rivers admits that he's right. Some others have focused on the "Afro-American" term, which is certainly outmoded, but at least at one point in time was the height of PC. So Rivers tries a different tack: If the question is, "Coach, why did your team lose 48-10?" and the response is, "Well, they had a lot more Afro-American players than we did, and they ran a lot faster than we did," then that implies that the TCU players didn't work harder than the Air Force players. They didn't practice harder, or get into better shape or execute better. They were just naturally faster.Nice try. But of course, Rivers has no idea about the training habits of the TCU players versus those of the Air Force players and whether that was the difference in the ballgame. And given the fact that Rivers admits that the top black athletes are faster than the top white athletes, it seems somewhat irrelevant. Bill James, the baseball writer and statistician, did a study a number of years ago that showed not only are black players faster, but they lose their speed at a much slower rate than white guys. The real reason DeBerry's comments are controversial is that once you acknowledge racial differences in physical ability, it becomes harder to avoid discussing racial differences in mental ability. And before I get accused of racism, let me frankly admit here that it certainly appears that whites are not the top of the brain chain either. Asians do much better on standardized tests. Let me add here that Rivers' focus may be understandable. The image of the talented but lazy black athlete versus the hard-working, but less-skilled white athlete has been a fixture of sports announcers, reporters and fans for decades. But once we acknowledge that both white and black athletes are hard-working, what are we left with to explain the vast differential in success rates at sports?
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Times Publishes HewittOn what the Right lost with Miers: The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork.As for who's reponsible, Hugh has no trouble identifying the culprits: The center of the Miers opposition was National Review's blog, The Corner, and the blog ConfirmThem.com, both with sharp-tongued, witty and relentless writers. They unleashed every argument they could find, and the pack that followed them could not be stopped. Even if a senator had a mind to urge hearings and a vote, he had to feel that it would call down on him the verbal wrath of the anti-Miers zealots.Hugh's show today was on the need to "get the band back together". A lot of Miers' critics conducted themselves well; the geniuses at the Corner are a notable exception. Sometime when you feel mean, take a gander at their posts last year on election day. They were doing the chicken little routine. So much for their political instincts.
Survivor Guatemala UpdateContinuing off last week's episode, Judd can't stop talking and getting on people's nerves. The reward challenge is rather interesting. The teams wrap themselves in straps, starting out with one person, then two people, then three and four. Once they are completely wrapped, they can reverse the process, unwrapping themselves one by one. Nukum has the lead at the halfway point, but they get tangled and eventually fall down. Yaxha stays calm and wins reward. Which turns out to be a pretty good one. They get to glide down a wire atop the jungle. Looks like a terrific view. At the bottom is a chocolate feast, which would not exactly thrill me personally, but it's obviously a delight to the women. Afterwards comes something of a surprise. The Yaxha tribe paddles across the lake and invites the Nukum members to a pool party. At first it seems unanimous that the Nukum members will not go, but when the mention of leftover chocolate comes up, the Nukum tribe hops into their own outrigger. Jamie gets some of his first notice in this episode, but it's because he keeps quiet during the pool party to see what's going on with the other tribe. Foreshadowing by Burnett? The Immunity Challenge is to dig pieces of a puzzle out of a pile of sand, then assemble the puzzle. Of course, I was yelling "Don't let Bobby Jon put the puzzle together!" and for once, they seem to have heard me. Unfortunately that was not enough to help them win, as Brandon spent a long time looking for the 11th (of 12) pieces and they never seemed to catch up after that. The next segment is the usual misdirection. Of course Amy's going home, but they give us a hint that maybe it's Bobby Jon because he doesn't deserve it; he's had his chance. And in the end the person we thought was going home did. One thing I am definitely getting tired of is the constant repetition by Probst. Every time there's a reward challenge, he has to ask the contestants, "Wanna know what you're playing for?" Couldn't they vary that just a teeny bit? When the teams come in for the reward, he says, "Nukum, getting their first look at the new Yaxha. Amy voted out at the last tribal council." And to whichever tribe loses the reward challenge, "I got nothing for you, head on back to camp." What's the story, Burnett? Can't you hire a few writers to liven Jeff's material up a bit?
Goodnight Iran, Goodnight IranI'll see you (glowing) in my dreams.  Europe condemned Iran's president on Thursday for saying Israel should be "wiped off the map," and said the call raised concerns about the aims of a country the West suspects is planning to build an atomic bomb.Raised concerns? Gee, ya think so?
Here's Some Pretty Fatheaded Analysis of the Miers' WithdrawalThis guy writes for The New Republic? It's obvious to pretty much everyone in America other than employees of the Alliance for Justice, NARAL, Planned Parenthood et al that the right bases its assessment of someone's conservatism partly on the left's reaction to them. Had these groups commenced freaking out about, say, the winks and nods given to James Dobson by the White House, or Miers's support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, this whole story might have shaken out a little differently, and the liberal interest groups might have gotten someone far better on their issues than they had any right to expect.I suppose in some ways it's an improvement over the old "They all get their talking points from Rush Limbaugh who gets them from Rove." But the idea that we sit around waiting for the Left to provide us with a reverse barometer is inane. If anything, the liberals waited to see the conservative reaction.
Another Reason I Won't Be Running for OfficeHandsome men have the edge in elections.
Congrats to Pat Hynes!Our buddy H-Bomb at Ankle-Biters is under contract to write a book! Move over, Ann Coulter!
What We Have To Do After MiersIs get ready for the real battle. Assuming Bush nominates a solid conservative this time around, expect the assault to be withering from the Left. All of us were disappointed at how personal the criticism was among the Right as Miers was debated in the blogs and opinion columns. Many in the anti-Miers crowd (especially George Will) openly questioned the motives of Miers' backers and many in the pro-Miers camp questioned the loyalty of the antis. That's nothing compared to what's going to happen. The media have set this up very well for the Democrats, playing the endgame while we concentrated on Harriet. What's the story the media concocted about opposition to Miers? That it was orchestrated by the Christian Conservatives. As I have discussed in the past, that doesn't seem to be the case. Christian Conservative leaders largely supported Miers and it was mostly the secular commentariat that opposed her nomination. But this myth puts the Democrats in good position to oppose the next nominee to come down the pike as representing the fundamentalist wing of the party. On the way into work this morning, I heard Dennis Prager playing some clips from Teddy Kennedy about how he'd never seen a candidate under assault like this from "the extremist wing" of the Republican party. That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Miers Takes One for the TeamOkay, glad that's over. Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.
President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers _ and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."Let's hope we get a Luttig or McConnell this time, and that we can muster the votes to win. GOP & the City has discovered the secret reason Harriet Miers withdrew. Buckley F. Williams finds out that Harriet Miers declined another White House offer.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Oil for GreedMore and more, it seems evident that despite the claims of the "No blood for oil" crowd, that only one side on this war profited from Iraq's war. It is the side of the supposedly noble anti-war countries, Russia and France: U.N. to Detail Kickbacks Paid for Iraq's Oil
By WARREN HOGE
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 26 - More than 4,500 companies took part in the United Nations oil-for-food program and more than half of them paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein, according to the independent committee investigating the program.
The country with the most companies involved in the program was Russia, followed by France, the committee says in a report to be released Thursday. The inquiry was led by Paul A. Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.The report, or at least this summary from the Times is startlingly blunt about the effect of this on the Security Council: Another investigator noted that in the years immediately preceding the program, smuggling of Iraqi oil in much larger amounts had been going on for years to the benefit of the economies of American allies, including Jordan and Turkey. In his last report, Mr. Volcker said this smuggling amounted to $10.99 billion.
This investigator suggested that this had a compromising effect on the Security Council's willingness to step in and stop the practice. "Three years, four years already, letting the oil flow into Jordan and Turkey, so now you're going to be very strict about this smaller volume of oil?" he asked. "Unlikely."Saddam's rigorous bookkeeping may be the undoing of all these people: The committee said some companies had complained that the evidence against them was gathered in Iraq and was therefore not trustworthy. But a lead investigator said that in those cases where corroborating evidence was available, the Iraqi information turned out to be sound.
"Everybody down the line kept very meticulous records because Saddam told them, 'You get the surcharge from everybody,' " he said. "So they all wanted to document how they got the surcharge."Hat Tip: The Astute BloggerThe Washington Post's coverage is here: The inquiry committee has also faulted Secretary General Kofi Annan, saying his son took advantage of his father's position to profit from the program, and it has criticized the U.N. Security Council for mismanaging the program.That's pretty mild. In fact, it's basically implied that the Security Council was corrupted.
These Are Pretty Bad Speeches ButI'm willing to give Miers the benefit of the doubt pending her hearings. Both of the speeches are to women's groups and the transcripts (pdf files) that are up at the WaPo are pretty bad. Keep in mind when reading them that a) they're transcripts, not her prepared speech and thus spelling and grammar errors are the fault of the transcriber and not Miers herself and b) she's composing a speech for a feminist audience. Now I gotta admit, those are pretty lousy speeches to read. But I don't see them at all as radical feminist, just celebrating women. It seems likely that she just worked from notes, not from a set speech, hitting on the bullet points, so that the speeches comes off reading disjointed. And yes, you have to wince at her mention of Ann Richards as a potential Presidential candidate, but she does hasten to add Kay Bailey Hutchison, so it was at least bipartisan. If those were the actual speeches word for word as written I'd be appalled. If she had a set of bullet points in front of her and extemporaneously delivered this speech I'd say she did a pretty good job. Some of the thinking is mushy, but she's not there to deliver a policy lecture and she is speaking to an audience that is probably pretty hostile to conservative sentiments. I still say let's hear what she has to say at the committee hearings. Hat Tip: Polipundit
Congrats to the Chicago White Sox FansThe curse of Shoeless Joe is finally over.
If I Were the Evil OverlordInspired by this terrific list: None of my Doomsday devices could be defeated by reversing the polarity. 
The Art Was Getting Paid for ItHeck, I'd do it for free.
Mother Moonbat SpeaksOver at the HuffPo. A few dozen of us held vigil at the White House yesterday. At 6 PM about 15 or 20 of us "died" to symbolize the unnecessary deaths in Iraq.
We all represented one soldier and 50 Iraqis. We are hoping that 2000 Americans come out in support of us during the next 3 days and "die" with us to show our misleaders and media what 2000 dead Americans looks like. You want to know what 3000 dead Americans looks like?  And no particular interest in showing us what 100,000 dead Iraqis (2000 times 50) looks like? Oh, that's right, we can just look at one of Saddam's mass graves to see that! If Mother Sheehan gets her way, we'll get to see another 100,000 dead Iraqis.
Franken FurterJamie Allman pointed me to this video of Al Franken on the Today Show. The clip is getting a lot of attention because of Franken's semi-joking reference to the execution of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--and isn't it refreshing to see liberals suddenly interesting in prosecuting treason and supporting the death penalty?--but there are several other remarkable moments in this video. At about 2:40 in the clip, Lauer actually asks a good question: Lauer: In Iraq last week, there was a referendum on a new constitution and about 60% of Iraqis turned out to vote. We've got a milestone coming up, almost 2000 US troops killed in Iraq. Does that progress though on the political side--this freedom to vote and this turnout by the Iraqi people--does it justify in some ways the loss of US lives? Not surprisingly, Al would prefer not to answer that question, so he doesn't: Franken: Boy I don't know. We--we have blown--first of all we shouldn't have gone in, we went in, and I was--I supported it at the time, because I believed Colin Powell and I believed, uh, Judy Miller [smirk], and I believed the administration for some reason. Uh, we've bungled it, going in. We have had political--you know when we turned over the interim government, gave them sovereignty, things were supposed to get better, they got worse. When, uh, we had the elections, uh the first set of elections, very inspiring, things have gotten worse since then. There needs to be two fronts here, and one front ain't going so good. First, I'm rather surprised to hear that Franken supported the war in Iraq (at the time). Of course he quickly gets onto another topic. Note too that Lauer goes on to point out that Franken admits in the book that he doesn't have all the answers (actually he doesn't have any of them, nor does he have the right questions). Franken comes back with a comment about how it's all a terrible mess, and all Bush's fault. But wait a minute! Didn't Franken say that he supported the war? So is it Al Franken's fault too? And what in the world is he talking about with the "two fronts" part? And later, Lauer doesn't catch Franken lying: Franken: This was about trying to smear a guy, who was saying, they didn't try to buy nuclear material from Niger. You're lying. They lied. In fact, no matter how many times liberals try to bring this up, they're wrong. The only person lying about what Joe Wilson found in Niger was Joe Wilson.
Condi Photoshopped?--Updated!Michelle Malkin has the details. For some reason this brings to mind this very foolish post over at the HuffPo. Hat Tip: Aaron at LifelikeUpdate: John Ruberry catches another incident of photoshopping involving our favorite cigar-store Indian.
This Blog Is Insensitive Fortunately our buddy The Man at GOP in the City is a metrosexual, and has some suggestions on other insensitive items that need to be removed from the culture, post-haste!
Is This a Parody?Or is Eugene Robinson just this foolish? Like a lot of African Americans, I've long wondered what the deal was with Condoleezza Rice and the issue of race. How does she work so loyally for George W. Bush, whose approval rating among blacks was measured in a recent poll at a negligible 2 percent? How did she come to a worldview so radically different from that of most black Americans? Is she blind, is she in denial, is she confused -- or what?Or could it be that she's just a heck of a lot smarter than most black Americans? Not to put too fine a point on it, but let's remember that a majority of black Americans think OJ was innocent. Are they blind, are they in denial, are they confused -- or what? When she reminisces, she talks of piano lessons and her brief attempt at ballet -- not of Connor setting his dogs loose on brave men, women and children marching for freedom, which is the Birmingham that other residents I met still remember. A friend of Rice's, Denise McNair, was one of the four girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. That would have left a deep scar on me, but Rice can speak of that atrocity without visible emotion.Well, Eugene, just because you get all doe-eyed over something that happened 42 years ago, doesn't mean that everybody does. And perhaps what Ms Rice remembers is that Bull Connor was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat? But then why are the top echelons of her State Department almost entirely white? "That's an artifact of foreign policy," she said in the interview. "It's not been a very diverse profession." In other words, there aren't enough qualified minority candidates. I wondered how many times those words have been used as a lame excuse.
One of the things she somehow missed was that in Titusville and other black middle-class enclaves, a guiding principle was that as you climbed, you were obliged to reach back and bring others along. Rice has been a foreign policy heavyweight for nearly two decades; she spent four years in the White House as the president's national security adviser. In the interview, she mentioned just one black professional she has brought with her from the National Security Council to State.I hate to be the one to point this out, but the Secretary of State before Rice was black as well. Indeed, blacks have held far more power in the Bush Administration than they ever did in the Clinton Administration. While decrying racism, Robinson seems to be saying that Rice should have promoted people solely because of their race (as long as that race was black). Of course, this just points out something that I've hammered over and over again: To liberals, it's not racism if it's anti-white, it's not sexism if it's anti-male, and it's not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if it's anti-straight. As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, "If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was."
The civil rights movement came from the inside? I always thought the Edmund Pettus Bridge was outside.Gawd, even his jokes are lame. When Rice was growing up, her father stood guard at the entrance of her neighborhood with a rifle to keep the Klan's nightriders away. But that was outside the bubble. Inside the bubble, Rice was sitting at the piano in pretty dresses to play Bach fugues. It sounds like a wonderful childhood, but one that left her able to see the impact that race has in America -- able to examine it and analyze it -- but not to feel it.He doesn't have a clue as to what Rice meant by inside.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Amazing Race UpdateDOH! I was watching the World Series and completely spaced on TAR! Fortunately Viking Pundit's wife and Kris at Dummocrats were more diligent.
Gorgeous George Galloway On the RopesVia Roger L. Simon, here's a terrific post that lays out the substance of the charges against Galloway.  Moron Galloway from Christopher Hitchens. Killer ending: Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.
Operation Soldier Continues Their Support of the TroopsWon't you consider supporting Operation Soldier? Here's an example of where your money goes: While assigned to a security detail, SSGT Walker and his crew were enroute back to the Forwarding Operating Base, in Ramadi, Iraq. As he and his crew drove back, their Humvee ran over a pressure sensitive Improvised Explosive Device. SSGT Walker took the brunt of the blast, suffering compound fractures to his tibia and fibula of his right leg, major tissue and muscle damage to his left leg, a fractured jaw and displaced chin, and a pierced ear drum.
SSGT Walker has undergone several surgeries to repair his injuries and is on the road to recovery. However, like many of the brave men and women of the United States Military, financial sacrifices are unfortunately too common of an occurrence.
His loving fiancé, Jewel Jackson, has left her job, so that she can be by SSGT Walker’s side, to do everything she possibly can to help SSGT Walker’s recovery. Needless to say, this has put a financial strain in their household.
It is without a doubt an extreme honor for Operation Soldier to assist Army SSGT Walker and his fiancé, Jewel Jackson, with a small contribution of $1000.00 dollars. SSGT Walker and his fiancée are truly remarkable individuals and we here at Operation Soldier, will keep SSGT Walker and his fiancée in our thoughts and prayers, for a rapid recovery.
Newer Blogger to IntroduceGo check out the Educated Shoprat, the blog of a college graduate working on a factory floor. I noticed that he had made a few comments on posts over here, surfed on over to his blog and discovered that he's got the habit down--regular posts, interesting links and solid commentary drawing on his own experiences. It's a promising beginning. I particularly appreciated his post on executions in China, although you might not want to click on the links because the photos are indeed quite shocking.
J-Pod Has a Good PointTalking about the Miller mess, he notes: The outraged prose on this matter from writers outside the Times — like Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher and the just-out-of-the-nuthouse cases populating the Huffington Post on the Web — suggests that if only the Times had published nothing articles more skeptical of the WMD claims, it could have kept the war from happening.Indeed, that's one of the more amusing aspects of the "Bush Lied, 2000 Died" crowd. They all insist that he duped us into supporting the war. Of course, I don't think he lied to me, and they weren't supporting the war, so the question is who was duped? Mitchell's an odious blister whom I've lanced a few times in the past. And along the same lines, check out Michael Barone's rather pithy summary of the situation: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are apparently in trouble because they told the truth about somebody who was telling lies.Also, note his prediction: Well, I don't believe there should be indictments this week, so I'll go out on a limb and I will predict there will not be indictments this week.
Roast TalibanChris at Lucky Dawg has the video of the dead Taliban being burned for hygiene reasons, which got some attention from the hand-wringers in the last few days (shown here on German--err, Dutch TV). This may take awhile to load, and you need to scroll down to video of the week. The clip includes the explanation by the cameraman that the burning was not done as a provocation, although the psy ops people then taunted the living Taliban in the area in the hopes of drawing them out.
Franken FutureAl Franken's new book comes out today (I know, I know, I should have been camping outside Borders' if I wanted to get a copy before the book sells out). In it, he does a little gazing into his crystal ball: Franken writes a letter to his grandchildren, dated 2015, reviewing how Democrats “took our country back.”
The unnamed president is a Democrat. President Bush has been impeached, convicted and “began drinking again, all in the space of a single afternoon.” And a Democratic senator from Minnesota is Al Franken.Of course, there are some potential problems with his future plans: At 54, he says his political future depends, in part, on Air America Radio, the fledgling liberal talk-show network he helped start last year. But he is laying the political groundwork.
Early next year, he plans to move from New York back to Minnesota. (He left when he was 22.) He and his wife, Franni, have bought what she calls “a city home” in Minneapolis and what he calls a “town house.” He concedes: “I'm not clear on the distinction.”
He also is planning to transplant his daily three-hour radio program, The Al Franken Show, to Minneapolis. And he plans to devote a lot of time in 2006 to campaigning and fundraising for Democratic candidates in Minnesota.It all hinges on Air America? Rotsa ruck, Al!
Whom Would You Choose to Rule the World?John Hawkins polled a bunch of center-right bloggers after seeing an article where the BBC polled 15,000 people worldwide on that question. The BBC's poll came up with some real idiots like Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan, and Noam Chomsky. John's poll came up with a more sensible list although there are certainly some surprises as well.
Is This What Dean Means by a Culture of Corruption?The Ballance scandal? Former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance, a North Carolina Democrat, was sentenced to four years in prison on Oct. 12 for conspiring to divert taxpayer money to his friends and family through the charitable organization he founded in 1985.
But almost two weeks later, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee still has not returned the thousands of dollars in "dirty money" that Ballance contributed to the DCCC, the National Republican Congressional Committee wants everyone to know.
The NRCC said based on press reports, it appears that the DCCC has no plans to return the $29,500 that Ballance contributed to its coffers.
And Ballance isn't the DCCC's only "dirty money" contributor. The NRCC noted that third-quarter Federal Election Commission reports show the DCCC has not yet returned $5,000 donated by a Chicago attorney who pled guilty to attempted extortion.Could it be the credit report scandal, where two aides to Chuckie Schumer obtained the credit report of a man planning to run for the Republican nomination to the Senate from Maryland? Could it be Jon Corzine's peculiar new investments in the form of loans and grants to black churches in New Jersey while he runs for governor? Could it be the New Mexico Treasurer's Office scandal? Gov. Bill Richardson and other Democrats are confronting their own hurricane, a political storm from the corruption scandal engulfing state Treasurer Robert Vigil and his predecessor, Michael Montoya.
Vigil and Montoya -- both Democrats -- have pleaded not guilty to federal felony charges alleging they extorted kickbacks from financial advisers in exchange for steering state investment business to them.Hat Tip: Chris at Lucky Dawg reminded us (in the comments) of the New Mexico flap.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Why I Support Harriet MiersIt's really quite simple. I cast a vote on November 2, 2004 for George W. Bush for President of the United States of America. I did not cast a vote for the conservative movement (although I support most of its goals), I did not cast a vote for conservative bloggers (although I agree with them most of the time), I did not cast a vote for David Frum or George Will (dittos). How many times did we hear in the last year or so (particularly during the discussion of the nuclear option) that Bush had been elected president and deserved to be able to nominate his choice of judges? I'd guess that every conservative blog made that point at one time or another. But what some of us meant was that only the liberals couldn't object to the president's choices. Apparently every conservative blog forgot to mention that they reserved the right to exercise a veto in the event that Bush nominated someone insufficiently acceptable to the commentariat. Bush has been terrific on judges; any objective ranking of his appointments to the federal bench would conclude that he has done an excellent job. The only clunkers were a couple holdovers from Clinton that he renominated in an effort to change the tone. Once it became obvious that would not satisfy the scorched earth partisans like Tom Daschle, he's been rock solid. He's done a terrific job as well for the party. It's well-known that the 2002 election was a solid mid-term for Republicans, and 2004 wasn't too bad either. For the first time since the 1920s the Republicans have held control of the House, Senate and Presidency for two consecutive elections (three if you ignore the Jumpin' Jim Jeffords incident which thwarted the will of the voters in 2000); not even Eisenhower was able to accomplish that feat. More than that, I see danger signs ahead. If the conservative blogs, which I'll admit are largely against the Miers nomination, win this round, then who gains power and who loses power? President Bush loses, and that power won't flow down to the blogosphere. It will go to Congress. Which will mean Denny Hastert and Bill Frist (and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) benefit. They have one thing in common with George Will; I didn't vote for them. And it fits in with the larger media story of the collapsing Bush presidency, which we all know is mostly a bogus concoction, but a least it gives the Democrats and their fans in the scribbling class something to crow about. It's easy for a party to fracture like this during the second term of a presidency; the Democrats only avoided it in 1998 because they had the specter of an impeachment and conviction of the president facing them. But second-termers are called Lame Ducks for a reason, and if the Republicans succeed in laming their own early on despite majorities in both houses they just might deserve the butt-whipping that the Left is increasingly convinced is coming in the 2006 elections. Despite the furor in the punditocracy over the Miers nomination, the rank and file of the party is largely behind President Bush and not the talking heads. This was brought home to me by reading the comments in this recent post on Polipundit. You probably are aware that the conservative blogosphere is largely hostile to Miers. What you may forget is that some of the major bloggers opposed to Miers (Instapundit, Michelle Malkin) do not allow comments. Check out the comments from some of these folks responding to Polipundit, who does: #1
Why don’t you make a sign - and stand in front of the White House until they give in to your demands?
Maybe you can share a tent with Cindy Sheehan?
Comment by Von Aras | Email | Homepage | 10/24/2005 - 4:38 pmOuch! That's gotta hurt. #4
When the anti Miers crowd depends on Time Magazine, Chuck Schumer, New York Times, and all the rest of the liberal news media for their information, it is a sad day. For 5 whole years, we have all agreed that these organizations have been so biased against us and our policies. They have produced lie after lie about us. Yet, you anti Miers guys are now making them your bible as you try to further your points and agenda. You are becoming the Moveon.org of the right.
Comment by n.c. voter | 10/24/2005 - 4:45 pm
#5
again with miers.
Comment by j.foster | Email | 10/24/2005 - 4:46 pmMy point is not that these people necessarily raise terrific arguments, just that even major blogs like Polipundit (which is a group blog much like Lifelike where there is disagreement between the bloggers on the nomination) are encountering significant resistance from their readers on throwing Miers under the bus. #11
these constant anti miers post are really annoying, I’d go to du/kos if really wanted to be annoyed.
Comment by JPNiner | 10/24/2005 - 5:02 pmAfter that the comments diverge into various debates, but any notion that the large bloggers or pundits are really swaying or even representing public opinion within the party seems overblown. What I would like is an agreement on a bet with the folks who are opposing Miers. I'll bet you a public apology in the blogosphere than if confirmed as I expect, in two years Harriet Miers will have a closer voting record to Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia than will Chief Justice Roberts. Let me specify here as well, that I am trying to distinguish between the arguments raised against Miers and those who are raising them. One of the more dismaying aspects to George Will's rant the other day was his adamant refusal to acknowledge that honest Republicans can disagree on this nomination. I'm glad that most conservative bloggers are willing to accept the integrity of both sides' arguments. For the contra opinion, read the Fatman's post on why he opposes the Miers nomination. And Paul Deignan analyzes Harriet Miers' life choices and why they indicate to him that she should be rejected. Paul makes some good arguments, but this strikes me as unfair: Miers’ fifth life decision was to idolize George Bush, a man whose philosophy on Roe is that it will only be overturned when “hearts are changed”. Since Bush has not spoken out against Roe, it is fair to assume that his heart is also among those that must be changed. Indeed, his wife Laura attests to the correctness of this observation.Actually, IIRC, Bush's comment about changing hearts was about ending abortion in general, and not about Roe. Because Roe has been the focus for decades, many forget that when Roe is overturned (as it will be), the number of abortions in this country will not decline significantly. At that point, it will be up to the individual states to decide whether to ban abortion. My read is that very few states will do so. In Arizona we had a ballot proposition about 10 years ago to ban abortion with exceptions for rape and incest. It was understood that this would be a potential test case to send up to the Supreme Court. The measure failed by a 2-1 margin. In Arizona, where the population has voted for the Republican candidate for President in every election since 1952 save one. And guess what? Abortion, which had been a constant issue down at the state house, has disappeared as a local issue. This is what President Bush meant by changing hearts on the issue. Overturning Roe may give a brief surge of energy to the pro-life movement. But it is unlikely to result in the significant reduction in abortions that they desire.
Frank N. SteynHere's a pretty scary column on the bird flu from the best in the business. Her son Tse Chi Kwai went to Scarborough Grace Hospital and, as is traditional in Canada, was left on a trolley in Emergency for 12 hours, exposed to hundreds of people. Despite all the memos warning them to be on the look-out for this new and highly contagious disease, after discovering that his patient's mother had recently died after returning from Hong Kong, the doctor concluded that, even if Tse was infectious, it was only with TB.
So Tse died, but not before infecting the man lying next to him on that ER trolley hour after hour: Joe Pollack, who was being treated for an irregular heartbeat. He was eventually isolated with symptoms of Sars, but apparently it never occurred to the hospital also to isolate Mrs Pollack. So she wandered around the wards and infected an 82-year-old man from a Catholic charismatic group. Mr Pollack, Mrs Pollack, the octogenarian charismatic and his wife all died, and their sons infected at least 30 other members of their religious group, plus a Filipina nurse, who flew back to Manila and before her death introduced Sars to a whole new country.
Hackett's In For Ohio Senate RunDamn the liberal bloggers, full speed ahead! Hackett's strong showing in a state that was a pivotal presidential battleground solidified the attorney as a likely 2006 candidate for Congress or statewide office.
After Hackett decided to oppose DeWine, Hackett was irked when Brown, with three decades of elective politics behind him, decided he also would run.
Brown, a former state legislator and Ohio secretary of state, is in his seventh congressional term, representing northeastern Ohio's 13th District. He's expected to officially launch his Senate race in early November.I kinda hope that Brown beats Hackett; I'd rather we face a liberal Democrat (lifetime ACU Rating: 9) than Hackett, who's got some good moderate credentials/positions. I'd also like to see a primary challenge to incumbent Republican Mike DeWine.
Why The Levees BrokeInvestigators are now focusing on engineering mistakes: Investigators in recent days have assembled evidence implicating design flaws in the failures of two floodwalls near Lake Pontchartrain that collapsed when weakened soils beneath them became saturated and began to slide. They also have confirmed that a little-used navigation canal helped amplify and intensify Katrina's initial surge, contributing to a third floodwall collapse on the east side of town. The walls and navigation canal were built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency responsible for defending the city against hurricane-related flooding.Katrina's storm surge put the floodwalls to the ultimate test. Hours after the storm hit, water poured into the canals from Lake Pontchartrain and added enormous strain to the walls and levees. According to a scenario developed by Bea and other investigators, the already-saturated peat was the path of least resistance, allowing the water to burst through the wall from underneath. At the 17th Street Canal, truck-size chunks of the old earthen levee were heaved 35 feet on a carpet of sliding soil.
Corps officials are not yet convinced. "It is important not to jump to conclusions," said John Grieshaber, chief of the engineering division in the Corps' New Orleans district office. "It's hard to look at the aftereffects and say with a high level of certainty, 'This is what happened.' "
The Corps' actions since the storm, however, suggest that at least some officials are worried about weaknesses in the floodwalls' design. A proposal for rebuilding the floodwalls has set far tougher standards than existed 15 years ago. And the steel pilings, which formerly reached a depth of 20 feet, must now be driven through the peat layer to 40 feet, twice as deep as before.
Statement of Support for Harriet MiersI support the Miers nomination. Per this post at NZ Bear's.
Moving On Up!Pam Meister advises us that she's moving off blogger and into the Minuvian community. Update your blogrolls and favorites/bookmarks lists.
John Hawkins Reviews Noam ChomskyYou can imagine how Uncle Noam fares.
Not-So-Smart AlecPosting over at the HuffPo, he notes: In today's NY Times, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, in reference to the Fitzgerald/CIA leak investigation, is quoted as saying that she hoped "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."
If you check the online record you will see that this is the same Kay Bailey Hutchison that voted in favor of both counts of impeachment against Bill Clinton. More disturbingly, she writes in the Congressional record dated February 17th, 1999....Typical HuffPoer, he sees the mote in Kay's eyes and doesn't notice the beam in his own. Senator Hutchison is a hypocrite because she voted in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury, but now she's decrying the possibility that perjury will be the only basis for indictments of White House staffers. Of course, it's not too hard to turn this hypocrisy argument around on not-so-smart Alec. He obviously supports the indictment of Republican White House staffers for perjury. So did he support the impeachment of Bill Clinton? It's hardly necessary to ask, right?
Where are the Heroes?This column touches on the key subject of this blog. The other day, as I watched my 8-year-old nephew play with a Star Wars action figure, I asked him, "Is Luke your hero?"
With youthful disdain, he corrected me. "This is Anakin Skywalker," he said. "He's a bad guy." Moments later he returned the question: "Who's your hero?"
Oddly, it caught me off guard. I looked into his hopeful eyes, struggling for a meaningful answer, but nothing came. Truth is, I still can't think of an answer.As the writer notes, some of this is simply due to aging. But at the same time, it's also an effect of our culture no longer celebrating the hero, the way the World War II generation celebrated an Audie Murphy, or the WWI generation with Sergeant York. Here's another writer (I'll tell you who in a moment): Very early in life, I learned from comics the difference between good and evil, honor and integrity, rational and irrational behavior. Thesse are things I picked up from comics and I think my entire generation experienced that as well, which is something you do not find in comics today. It's impossible to derive any sense of moral or ethical center from the comics today's kids are being exposed to.That is a perfect summary of my own thoughts, from somebody I never thought I would hear saying it. The writer is Harlan Ellison, best known as the enfant terrible of science fiction in the 1960s, and perhaps the most ruthless demythologizer of heroes in the last 50 years. Even Ellison realizes that something strange has happened in our society when we no longer celebrate the hero. The pushing forward of heroes into the public eye is one of my major objectives with this blog. Note: This post is a work in progress. I will add a great deal to it in the future, as the subject matter covered is very important.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
NFL Week Seven WrapupSome wild endings to the games today. San Diego was set to kick a field goal to go up by a full seven points; instead it was blocked and the Eagles ended up winning by three. Dallas was driving for the winning field goal when Drew Bledsoe was picked off, setting up Seattle for the game-ender. The lone winless team hosted the one lossless team; predictably the teams maintained their relative uniqueness.
Just Guessing Here--UpdatedBut this guy doesn't seem to like my buddies Allman and Smash in the morning. It's hard to say precisely what was the worst moment of Monday night's Right Wing Wingding at the Family Arena in St. Charles.
It might have been listening to Jamie Allman, the former TV-reporter-turned- archdiocesan-flack-turned-right-wing radio host, sing an Allman Brothers song. Even stone-cold stoned, Gregg Allman sounded better than Jamie Allman. Heck, even the late Duane Allman would sound better than Jamie Allman.
It might have been hearing Allman's radio sidekick, Asher (Smash) Benrubi, tell gynecologist jokes to an audience of 2,500 deeply conservative family value-sters. On the other hand, Smash has a great band, and vocalist Rhonda Cathey is terrific. Counting Rhonda, I spotted a total of one black person at the Wingding.But his targets aren't limited to Allman & Smash. He also bashes Sean Hannity, who apparently was the headliner at the Wingding, comparing him unfavorably to a "straight" journalist: Oh, sure. Straight journalists do the talking-for-dollars routine, but usually at stuffy symposiums or for trade associations: Ladies and gentlemen of the American Rocket Sled Association, please give a warm welcome to George Stephanopoulos.Now, calling George Steponallofus a "straight" journalist is something of a gag on both parts of the definition. But the fact of the matter is radio talk show hosts are in fact something like rock stars today. They draw crowds and command fees. Or should I amend that a bit? Conservative radio talk show hosts are the rock stars. This reviewer is of course a little jealous, because while some columnists manage to make the jump to behind the mike, it's mostly the center-right columnists. He then goes on to criticize the affair for not showing intellectual depth or thoughtful discussions of issues, which in his view would turn into a non-stop Bush bash. This is the central flaw with liberal radio, as represented by Air America. Liberals look at conservative talk radio and see propaganda. So what do they do, but come up with a propaganda network. What they don't realize is that conservatives turn to talk radio to be entertained. Yeah, we want to hear the issues discussed but we want it to be fun. Update: The column is worse than I thought; turns out that this columnist does work for a competing radio station. Clear conflict of interest here; surely he should at least have made a disclosure of that fact?
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Romanticizing Piracy?I happened to be looking up the story of a pirate captain named Sharpe and came across this little page. It gives a pretty interesting history of Sharpe that does indeed make him seem like a good character for a movie. But get this little bit of romanticism: Rediker is one of a growing band of historians who believe buccaneers of the golden age of Anglo-American piracy in the 17th and 18th centuries - the period that furnishes many of our modern ideas about the sea robber - practised a kind of brutal egalitarianism and proto-democracy that posed a serious political challenge to the authoritarian establishment of their time. Researcher Peter Linebaugh, has called pirate ships "17th-century Soviets on water".
Ballads and pamphlets describing exotic pirate utopias in which the common seaman was given a vote and a fair share of the booty abounded in the popular press during the period and there is evidence that there was reality behind these claims. Some say they helped inspire the American revolution.And: Some researchers have claimed that pirates were also a model of sexual and racial tolerance, with homosexuality widespread and black people comprising a significant and influential part of many crews. There were black pirate quartermasters and captains and, although specifically banned by many ships' constitutions, some women were known to rise to the highest ranks.
Rediker compares this egalitarianism with the "quite horrific" inequality that was the reality on conventional merchant and naval ships. While a pirate captain is thought to have typically taken only one and a half times the bounty of a crew member, the pay ratios aboard a conventional ship were more likely to be 60:1. Discipline was vicious, hunger was the norm and to the men who suffered under this system, Rediker claims, piracy was a self-conscious act of rebellion.You can tell why he compares it with the Soviet Union, right? Because the noble leaders of the worker's paradise didn't take much more than their grateful subject, right?
Tuskegee Airmen Fly AgainHere's a nice little story: Lt. Col. Herbert Carter is 86 years old and ready for deployment. More than 60 years after his World War II tour with the pioneering black pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen, Carter's new mission will be shorter, though no less courageous.
Carter is one of seven aging Tuskegee Airmen traveling this weekend to Balad, Iraq _ a city ravaged by roadside bombs and insurgent activity _ to inspire a younger generation of airmen who carry on the traditions of the storied 332nd Fighter Group.
Friday, October 21, 2005
From the Left End of the Bell CurveComes Anthony R. Roberts of Davie, FL.
OJ Still Looking for Nicole's KillerObviously JP Losman is on the short list of his suspects. "He was at the Miami game, and he was at the Jets game," said Scott Berchtold, the team's vice president for communications. "He's a fan. It had nothing to do with us."
A Public Service for the DemocratsThey're complaining about Tom Delay's mug shot not being suitable for "framing". Obviously they haven't thought yet about what a little Photoshop work can do: 
Cigar-Store Indian Speaks at DePaulJohn Ruberry has the details on Ward Churchill's appearance at discredited DePaul University. Keep scrolling, there are several excellent posts. I loved the one professor who's never heard of Thomas Klocek, but had the nerve to claim John didn't know the facts of the case.
The Plame GameBoy the libs are certainly sure that this time there's a pony underneath all the horse crap. Here's an article from the AP that starts out ominously: The evidence prosecutors have assembled in the CIA leak case suggests Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff sought out reporters in the weeks before an undercover operative's identity was compromised in the news media, casting doubt on one of the White House's main lines of defense.But as you read on, it becomes less certain: In light of all the disclosures, "it's going to be as difficult for the defense to prove the theory that the White House got the information from reporters as it is for Fitzgerald to prove that the White House leaked the information about Wilson's wife," said Washington-based white-collar defense attorney James D. Wareham.The defense doesn't have to prove "the White House" innocent; the prosecutor has to prove them guilty. And this is silly: Prosecutors must determine whether it was part of an effort to undermine the credibility of Plame's husband who was criticizing the White House.Undermining the credibility of Joe Wilson is not a crime; if it were, Joe Wilson would be in jail.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Survivor Wrap-UpA very interesting episode despite the obvious letdown of not having a team immunity challenge. Probst announces that both tribes will be going to tribal council that night. The reward challenge was for a barbecue with hot dogs, hamburgers and beer. Two-person subteams had to face each other in a contest to push a giant ball across a goal line. Not surprisingly, Danni won both of her bouts, as did Judd. Nukum wins immunity. After the reward challenge, there is an immediate challenge for individual immunity. However, this was kind of banal, with the survivors having to untie bags and rearrange letters to spell out two words. And here's where the episode gets really interesting and surprising. Judd makes a fairly careless effort at immunity, doesn't seem to be sweating it at all. Rather than working on his letters, he's looking at Rafe's and telling him, "Ancient ruin. Ancient ruin." Which of course turns out to be the solution to the puzzle. Now, an arguable conclusion is that Judd was not trying for immunity because he wanted to give it to Rafe. And why did he want to give it to Rafe? Because that way Margaret couldn't have it. But think about the logical conclusions if that's the case. First of all, Judd's a heck of a lot smarter than he lets on. To realize immediately that to get rid of Margaret it was smarter for him to help Rafe than it was to strive for immunity himself? And not only that, but to realize that the solution was "ancient ruin"? I'm sorry but that's totally out of character with Judd as we've known him. Gary might not be the only person pretending to be somebody he's not in reality. The Nukum tribal council was one of the best ever, with lots of sparks flying between Judd and Margaret. The former is definitely back in character (and perhaps a little drunk). He's gotta be pretty annoying to live with but he probably is safe for now. He's been very successful in competitions, which means he has value to his teammates. He doesn't seem to be a threat mentally for the later individual, although as noted above, that may be an act. In the end, Margaret is voted off unanimously minus her own vote. She obviously suffered the most from the tribal rearrangement as the young men she had nursed back to health in the first few days were no longer in her group. On the other hand, the Yaxha tribal council was noted for its friendliness. I had thought the vote might go against Amy, whose ankle has been injured since early in the game. She did perform gamely together with Danni to win a crucial game in the reward challenge. In an interesting twist, Rafe, who won immunity, was allowed to both sit in and have a potential veto over the proceedings. He wrote down the name of one member to have immunity, then left. Oddly Probst did not announce then who had won immunity, but allowed the tribe to vote. Brian ended up getting five votes to his sole ballot for Bobby Jon. When Jeff opened up the veto envelope, Gary's name was written on it. That was very curious. Why would Rafe assume that Gary was on the hot seat? IIRC, Rafe was in the original Yaxha with Gary, so they may have a deal going. If it had been me, I would have protected Amy, which in the end would have been as useless. It's obvious that everybody likes Gary; remember in an earlier episode, he got voted by his original tribe members to get a shower and then a picnic. One conclusion. The notion that people are sticking with their old tribemates is obviously false. Coming next week: Gary gets pressured on the NFL issue from Amy.
The Hackett Brigade May Be Minus HackettSo indicates this AP story: Some of the heaviest hitters in the world of liberal blogging, including DailyKos.com's Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and MyDD.com's Jerome Armstrong, have urged Hackett to step aside. In addition, Armstrong and SwingStateProject.com's Tim Tagaris are on Brown's campaign payroll.Interesting. Remember, many libs were bitter that Hackett didn't campaign hard down the stretch and even took the evening off before the election to attend a Bruce Springsteen concert. And despite his liberal blog-pleasing Bush-bashing, he was not a hardcore "progressive" (which actually probably helps him in red state Ohio).
Narrow-Minded Parents Won't Let Eighth Graders "Read" Sex by MadonnaThat's the way this column reads: English teacher Carole Tauber had given the same assignment last year, without objection. But this time, a few parents pronounced themselves shocked by a list that includes such children's standards as Madeleine L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time," as well as titles such as "American Psycho" and "The New Joy of Gay Sex."Some other titles: But the list also contains titles that raised eyebrows even among the most accepting parents: "Sex," by Madonna, and "Heather Has Two Mommies," the subject of innumerable political battles.But narrow-minded folks killed this wonderful idea: But this was a creative assignment, tuned perfectly to eighth-graders' desire to be let in on adult topics, yet tempered by requiring parents to help kids pick the right point of entry.
"I had to tell the children it was out of my hands," says Tauber, who "agreed to disagree with the rationale" for axing the lesson. "We're talking about getting these kids ready to think."
"The parents flunked the assignment," says parent Chris Rigaux. "I don't blame Montgomery County for trying to avoid another court battle, but this was a chance to use books like [Hinton's] 'The Outsiders' to teach about very different lifestyles than we have here in Bethesda, Maryland."Can we say the obvious here? If you want your kids to read those types of books, go ahead and let them read them. If you don't want your kids to read those types of books (and Madonna's Sex is certainly NOT age-appropriate, with hard-core photos) then the idiot school district has no business assigning them.
The Hackett Brigade?Joshua Zeitz sees promise in what Airhead America Calls "Fighting Dems"; Democrats running for office in 2006 who have served in Iraq. We might call them the Paul Hackett brigade. I can't tell you how happy I am to see this development. These Democrat veterans are not going to win, but they will get a lot of attention and money, drawing it away from other candidates who might have a chance. Proof? Well, Zeitz focuses on Bryan Lentz, who will be running next year against Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. What are his chances of knocking off Weldon? Not very good. Weldon won reelection in 2004 by about 19 percentage points, a fairly comfortable margin. While we're on the subject of next year's election, our buddy Chris at Lucky Dawg News is starting Blogs for Heather. Heather Wilson is the incumbent Republican representing District 1 in New Mexico. She holds one of the seats that smart Democrats (i.e., not Kos and Zeitz) will definitely be targeting next year. She won reelection last year by only eight percentage points, making her one of the more vulnerable Republican incumbents. She represents the central area of New Mexico, including the state capital of Santa Fe and the largest city, Albuquerque. Heather's a solid Republican, a former Rhodes Scholar, and a graduate of the US Air Force Academy. She deserves our support and I'm happy to endorse her here at Brainster's. Those of you who remember the glorious days at Kerry Haters will recall that we only endorsed one other candidate than President Bush: John Thune, who kayoed Tom Daschle. So I've got my perfect record on the line here!  She'll be running against Patricia Madrid. In case you need additional incentive to support Heather, Madrid was widely rumored to be John Kerry's pick for Attorney General had he won the presidency last year.
All Republicans Indicted in TexasMr Right has the scoop on this breaking news story.
Congrats to the 'Stros!Roy Oswalt was unhittable, the relief crew this time did not include Lidge, and Houston is headed to the World Series for the first time in their 44-year history, to face a team that hasn't gone to the World Series in 46 years. I did a little looking back through history, and it's never previously happened that both of the teams in the World Series had been waiting over 40 years for a WS appearance. Play ball!
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Freddie "Beadle" BarnesOn the reasons for the conservative revolt: One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration. Given this kindling, it took only the spark of the Miers nomination to ignite a conservative backlash.He's got that right, but I also feel that he misses one big thing. Hugh Hewitt and others have called it elitism, but the proper term is meritocracy. Harriet Miers is opposed because she is seen as someone who doesn't deserve this position. Boomers and Gen Xers have absorbed this concept of merit down in their bones. Glenn Reynolds is not opposing Miers as a proxy for the issues of domestic spending or immigration, or even the drug benefit.
Happy Birthday Nintendo!From Michele Catalano comes the word that the Nintendo Entertainment System turns 20 today. I wasted many hours playing games on that system. Some of my favorites : Dragon Warrior I-IV, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Legend of Zelda, Contra, Kid Icarus, Solstice and Ghosts & Goblins. Folks may forget it now, but video games suffered a severe downturn in 1984 or so. The Atari 2600, which many people started on, suffered from too many crummy titles. The NES rekindled the magic, with long, involving and entertaining games.
Terrific VideoOur buddy John at My Take on Things has a wonderful video up about our soldiers in Iraq. You'll love this one, but keep the hankies ready!
For A Second I Thought I Was Listening to National Review On The RadioBut no, it was Al Franken on Air America, making fun of Harriet Miers for a mistake she made in her responses to the Senate questionnaire. Discussing the lapse of her license to practice law in DC, she said it wasn't intentioned (instead of intentional, or intended). Franken noted that she was supposed to be a detail person. So now Franken concludes that she has no qualifications. And in that respect, he agrees with a lot of these people.
|
|
