Women's Rights in Iraq

Earlier I had posted about a rather ridiculous comment by Howard Dean that women would be worse off in Iraq now as opposed to under Hussein. While I believe my initial reaction was correct, it was not complete.

One fear is that given that there will be a heavy Islamic influence on the new Iraq government, women's rights in Iraq will take a step backwards. While it is unlikely they could get worse, this is a legitimate concern. NPR has recently covered this issue, and notes:

Human-rights groups are concerned the Iraqi constitution will place restrictions on women's freedom in areas such as property rights and divorce.

I don't have enough details of the Iraq constitution writing process to know how serious this concern is. One would certainly not be surprised to hear that they are well-founded. In an effort to gauge how things are going, I checked with Chrenkoff's latest "Good News From Iraq" installment, which happens to be part 25. Here is a relevant section:

The newly elected Iraqi Transitional National Authority (TNA) will write a constitution this year and it is essential that women be involved in the process in order to guarantee their rights. USAID's partner implementing the project to support the TNA and the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution hosted a meeting in late February with 26 women leaders to discuss an initiative to ensure that women's rights are included in the constitution. Over the next year, the implementing partner will work with women elected officials and civil society representatives to educate Iraqis on the importance of constituting women's rights, and to train them in the necessary advocacy and education skills they will need to promote their rights with the Iraqi Government and the society at large.

It is important to note that this is the view of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It does not represent the current state of the constitution writing process--things certainly could turn out more negative there.

Overall, it would seem that the issue is still undecided. Hopefully things will progress positively and the women of Iraq will get to share in the new found freedom that all people of Iraq deserve. It bears repeating that above all else things cannot return to the state they were in before the Iraqi people were liberated, where:

Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Feda'iyee Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday, have beheaded in public more than two hundred women all over the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' door steps. Many of the victims were innocent professional women, including some who were suspected of being dissidents.

and

Women are often raped in order to blackmail their relatives. Men who leave Iraq and join Iraqi opposition groups regularly receive videotapes showing the rape of a female relative. These tapes are intended to discourage Iraqi nationals abroad from engaging in opposition activities. Some authorities carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor.

Howard Dean: Women Will Be Worse Off In Iraq

The battle between feeling I've posted enough idiotic comments by Howard Dean versus his ability to keep toping himself rages on and Mr. Dean is winning.

The quote:

It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq.

GOPBloggers links to this state department report, which is the only response that is needed.

Alternative Approach To Cindy Sheehan's

Yesterday I blogged about this Newsweek/MSNBC article as a small ray of hope that the MSM might cover fairly the issue of Iraq and parents of soldiers. The story has been covered and commented by numerous bloggers, some of which I listed in the previous post.

Today I read a suggestion by Cal Thomas (hat tip polipundit) that President Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan again. Not in private and not alone, but with the parents of other soldiers who have been killed or wounded in Iraq. While I understood his intent, my first reaction was that it was too risky a meeting to attempt.

However, after reading Other ways to grieve by Chrenkoff, I'm now not so sure. Check out the post to read some moving comments by parents who have lost a child in Iraq and understand the sacrifice that their child made.

All Milbloggers are against the war....

...or so the MSM would have you believe.

I happened to have the radio tuned to a local newsradio station this morning, KCBS out of San Francisco. The hourly national/international segment from the network came on and I was surprised to hear an item about blogs written by servicemen in Iraq. Wow - the blogosphere is really getting big and important, right? My surprise faded as I listened. After a few words about the process of blogging they quoted from one Milblog (unidentified). Aside from a few bits of inanity (the soldier liked Metallica) the snippet naturally included the fact that Iraq was a "lesson in futility" (or something like that). It's funny isn't it, how with all of the blogs out there by soldiers who support the mission CBS found a quote that meshes perfectly with their worldview?

Michael Barone blogs this morning about a similarly biased story that appeared in the Washington Post last Friday. The MSM is nothing if not consistent. (In fairness, the blogosphere shows just as much tendency towards herd behavior.)

I've pretty much lost the ability to get worked up about this type of thing. It's just so typical, almost expected, that all I can do is shake my head sadly. It is still worth pointing out, however. Propaganda needs to be refuted, even when when it seems transparent, as long as there is still anyone who believes it.

Alternative Energy Threat To OPEC

A short but interesting article about how OPEC sees alternative energy providers as a threat.

"Our competitors, the alternative energy providers, are intensively pursuing research programs aimed at reducing the domination of oil and gas in the global energy market," Abdullah Salatt, Qatar's representative to OPEC, said.

Here's hoping that threat is realized. And soon.

Only Half Of The Cindy Sheehan Story

I've been avoiding writing about the Sheehan story in the hopes that the ridiculous stunt will end soon. But this post at LyfLines is too good to pass up. (Hat tip polipundit.)

My biggest frustration with this whole thing is that it is all so obvious. The moment you heard about a mother protesting the Iraq war outside of Bush's ranch, you knew that the situation would be exploited. You knew there would be a hidden agenda. You knew that opinion would be reported as fact, while the truth would go largely unreported. You knew that it would become a media spectacle--either due to (being generous) a desire to sell papers and get ratings or, more probably, due to desperate desire by a biased media to get its view heard.

One can only hope that with new media sources available on the internet, that the general population of the U.S. realizes the sham they are witnessing and change the channel. But sadly I tend to doubt it.

Putting my doubts aside, here are a few more posts and articles about Sheehan, for those that want to see past the smoke and mirrors.

Slate (Hat tip: anklebitingpundits)

Newsweek (with commentary by Lorie Byrd, the Anchoress, and Betsy Newmark -- whom all reference each other)

Power Line

250 MPG Hybrid?

There is an AP article (see FoxNews, for example), that has the sensational headline of, "Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Mpg."

While I've been impressed with the success of hybrid cars so far--especially the amount of energy that can be gathered via regenerative breaking--using miles-per-gallon to rate such a vehicle is highly misleading. This experimental hybrid plugs into the wall and stores extra energy in batteries. Such a concept is not new and really pushes the definition of what a hybrid car is. Would a pure electric car be rated at infinite mgp? You have to look towards the end of the article to find this admission:

Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.

Also of note is that the inventor, Ron Gremban, is getting about 80 mpg, not 250 mpg:

Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.

Overall, the engineering accomplished by Gremban seems impressive. It is unfortunate that the AP feel it necessary to sensationalize the story given the high gas prices.

NASA MRO Has Successful Liftoff

The Nasa Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, after a delay or two, was launched successfully this morning at 7:43 EDT.

The main purpose of the mission is to look for sources of water on Mars. Details of the mission are available at NASA.

Positive coverage via an AP report (imagine that) at CNN (with video) and FoxNews.

First Blue Angel Pilot Dead At Age 86

This post is more personal than political. Sad news, as the first Blue Angel pilot, Captain Roy Voris, died at the age of 86.

If you've never had the chance to see the Blue Angels in person, I highly recommend it.

Best wishes to Captain Voris' family.

George Will On Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter has made a number of unfortunate and inappropriate comments in recent time. This latest I find a little unbelievable. Mr. Carter continues to state that Reagan only defeated his reelection bid because he won the presidential debate during the campaign. Furthermore, he contends that Reagan only won because he was provided Carter's briefing book for the debate by columnist George Will. Mr. Will takes Carter to task in this editorial. He ends with this:

But to be fair: As a candidate, Carter promised only that as president he would never tell a lie, thereby leaving himself a loophole for his post-presidential career as a fabulist.

It would probably be best if Mr. Carter concentrated on efforts like Habitat for Humanity but I have little hope that he will do so, given his recent behavior.

Update: MRO Launch Delayed 24 Hours

I didn't intend for this blog to become "space watch" blog, but since I posted on this yesterday and there is new news, I figured an update was warranted.

The MRO launch has been delayed 24 hours due to a fuel sensor glitch.

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

The successful return to space of the shuttle Discovery has renewed my active interest in space missions in general. Another mission is planned for Mars, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO). The launch has been delayed for one day, now scheduled for Thursday, August 11.

I'm glad to see the mission is getting press in mainstream sources. See CNN and Yahoo News.

Religious Tests for Judges

During the past few years of battle over judicial nominations there have been a number of times when those on the right have accused the left of employing a religious litmus test. The opposition to William Pryor's appeals court nomination was met with charges of a "Catholics need not apply" policy. I had largely concluded that this was more politics than substance. The fact that there's a strong correlation between being religous and conservatism doesn't imply that the opposition to conservatives is based on religion.

But yesterday I was proved wrong (at least in regards to some on the left). The Boston Globe published an op-ed entitled "Stopping a judicial conflict of interest" in which the author, Christopher Morris, argues that Catholics cannot be trusted to rule on issues like abortion because their church instructs them to vote a particular way. His preferred solution:

If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats [to withhold communion from politicians who support abortion], the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

I find it truly amazing that someone could write this and have it published in a major newspaper. What part of Article VI, Clause 3 does Morris not understand?

...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Morris is obviously so blinded by his insistence on a particular result (maintaining Roe v. Wade) that he is willing to ignore the Constitution. Or as Opinion Journal puts it:

In other words, in order to preserve the bogus constitutional right abortion, it is necessary to disregard the actual constitutional provisions for church-state separation and against religious tests for officeholders.

Picking on Dean

Dan, by all means pick on Howard Dean. Not just because it's easy and fun. If you want the Dems to become a strong, reasonable opposition party then it's important that the faults of their current leader be highlighted for all to see. Pointing out the foolishness in his own statements is by far the best way to do this.

That said, his comments about a 50-state strategy don't really qualify. Or rather the verdict depends on his future actions in pursuing this strategy. It's the job of the DNC chairman to try to drum up support for his party. Everywhere in the country, not just in so called blue or battleground states. Yes, it would be foolish for the DNC to pour money into senate races in Idaho (Crapo won in '04 with 99% of the vote), just like the RNC shouldn't spend too much to beat Teddy Kennedy. But it is good strategy to try to develop grass root organizations in these states, in order to lay the groundwork for long term change, much the same way that Ken Mehlman is trying with the black community. He doesn't realistically expect blacks to vote 50% for Republicans anytime soon and isn't allocating tremendous financial resources, but it's a wise way to spend some human capital.

Dean's 50-State Mistake

I don't mean to pick on the man, but Howard Dean continues to show a naivete concerning politics in America that is frightening for a man that has become DNC chair.

His recently announced a new plan for the next presidential election, which he calls the 50-state strategy, is the latest example. The as-per-usual energetic Dean described it this way:

I don't believe in blue states or red states,'' the former 2004 presidential candidate said. ''I believe in purple states — and some are more purple than others.

Such a plan seems to have been negatively received from both ends of the political spectrum. Patrick Hynes has a conservative opinion piece on why the strategy will fail. Hynes notes:

There is a reason Democrats haven't spent a great deal of time, energy and resources in states like Mississippi and Utah in recent elections, just as Republicans have largely ignored, say, Vermont. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman would love to make next year's Vermont open seat Senate race competitive by dumping hundreds of operatives and millions of dollars up there. But not only would such an effort be for naught, it would also rob genuinely competitive races of those resources.

It is also clear that many Democrats also see the folly in the plan. Again from Hynes:

To many red-state elected Democrats, Dean is about as welcome as a Wal-Mart Superstore. On a recent trip to Georgia, not one of the six Democrat state officeholders appeared with Dean. Democrat governors in predominantly Republican states such as Tennessee, Kansas and South Carolina all pleaded "scheduling conflicts" when Dean headlined events in their backyards.

What does it say about Chairman Dean's vision and strategy if this is how successful Democrats in Republican states receive him?

Once again, a strong Democratic party is better for the country than a weak one; a two-party system is infinitely superior to a one-party system. But I'm still hoping against hope that the idea isn't to get the Democratic base super excited by the same (lack of) ideas. The plan should be to come up with legitimate, new, differentiated ideas and views and the excitement will come naturally.

Welcome Home, Discovery

The space shuttle Discovery landed safely at 8:11:22 a.m. EDT at Edwards Air Force base in California. Congratulations on a job well done, all.

While some hope for this to be the last venture into space, I'm encouraged that a Senate panel is in favor of Bush's space plan to return to the moon. Others have joined in support.

For an interesting read on the economics and engineering of colonizing the moon (and why the moon before Mars), see this article at the Space Review.

"Deferred Success" In Ohio

A recent proposal by a British teachers' union was to remove the concept of "failure" and replace it with "deferred" success. Such a ridiculous idea needs no commentary, but Mark Steyn used the concept to good effect in an editorial about Howard Dean's reaction to the recent Ohio Schmidt-Hackett special election.

Another quotable quote from Dean:

In nearly the biggest political upset in recent history, Democrat Paul Hackett came within just a few thousand votes of defeating Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio's Second Congressional District.

Is he really excited that the Democrats almost won? And in this case, to a candidate that Steyn describes as:

... a weak Republican candidate with a lot of problematic baggage.

I completely agree with two other observations that Steyn notes.

After the Ohio vote, Dem pollster Stan Greenberg declared that "one of the biggest doubts about Democrats is that they don't stand for anything." That might have passed muster two years ago. Alas, the party's real problem is that increasingly there's no doubt whatsoever about it.

Ouch.

Two-party systems need two parties, not just for the health of the loser but for that of the winner, too. Intellectually, philosophically, legislatively, it's hard to maintain the discipline to keep yourself in shape when the other guy just lies around the house all day.

I've said this many times in the past to friends; the only thing worse than the two-party system is a one-party system.

Peter Jennings Dead At Age 67

Sad news that I'm sure everyone is already aware of: Peter Jennings died of lung cancer at the age of 67. The news is covered everywhere, of course. See ABC, FoxNews, and CNN.

I grew up with my family watching ABC news so in a bizarre way I feel like I knew him. I remember his round the clock coverage of New Years 2000. Perhaps most of all I remember his coverage of 9/11. I listened to his reaction as the towers fell. I listened to his almost constant coverage for the rest of the week. I don't normally buy into the "anchorman as a comforting voice" line, but in this case for me there was definitely a lot of truth to that. In a world turned upside down, it somehow made it feel just a little OK to hear Peter Jennings bounce questions off experts as the tried to make sense of a senseless situation.

I hadn't considered it until now but his departure from the news desk to fight his cancer is probably one of the major reasons I get 99% of my news now from blogs and MSM internet sites.

You will be missed, Peter.

Are Soldiers Victims?

The top headline on Cnn.com right now is a story about reactions in Ohio to the recent deaths of 19 marines from a reserve unit - Grief hits home of Marine reservists. A typical piece of MSM war coverage, highlighting casualties without any context about what the unit was doing in Iraq. But the bit that jumped out at me was this description from the seventh paragraph, which made the text on CNN's front page:

A few steps away, near the gates of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, residents piled red roses, American flags, handwritten notes of condolences and white crosses for the victims.

These are Marines who were killed in the line of duty, serving their country. They are casualties of war. But victims? This strikes me as a piece of anti-war editorializing in a "news" story, which diminishes the service and sacrifice of the slain. To the reporter they are not Americans who fought for their country but simply "victims" of an unjust war.

Maybe I'm over-reacting here. Maybe fallen soldiers have often been referred to in this manner. And this is surely not any worse than some of the other biased war reporting that focuses on casualties and not the mission. But it really struck a chord.

Oh, I just noticed the byline. It's an AP story. Naturally.

The Effects of Media Bias

So Polipundit has a post (one in a string of ones in a similar theme) about the strength of the current U.S. economy.

What's interesting is that if you check current polling numbers at Rasmussen, 32% of Americans think that the economy is in a recession.

Thirty-two percent (32%) of Americans say the U.S. economy is in a recession. That's down from 33% a week ago and 38% a month ago. Since the Rasmussen Index was created in October 2001, that number has never fallen below 31%.

If you wonder how that could be the case, look no farther than the front page of CNN. If you click on the link titled "GDP misses forecast" you get to see an article with the headline "Economic growth slows in second quarter". To their credit, the subheadline is "But GDP grows above 3 percent rate for ninth straight quarter, inflation measures in check."

What media bias?

Prime Minister Howard 1, Reporter 0

This transcript from The Corner at the NRO has been posted many places. It deserves to be posted at more, so here you are. A reporter suggested to Blair and Howard that Britain's and Australia's policies and support of the war on terror are to blame for the recent bombings in London. The response:

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

Bravo.

Irresponsible Statements By Colorado Congressman Tancredo

During a radio interview, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo suggested that in response to a nuclear terrorist attack that bombing Mecca would be on the table. I hardly feel it necessary to write just how irresponsible this statement is.

I am glad to see that extreme right of the blogosphere, for example Hugh Hewitt, has taken Tancredo to task for his comments. Hugh links to another blog by Donald Sensing with more links and commentary.

I'd only like to add what a ridiculous question for someone to ask a junior congressman. While he should have had the sense not to give such an equally ridiculous answer, it should be obvious that a junior congressman would have little to say in the matter of how the U.S. responded to a nuclear terrorist attack.

Terrorist Now Targeting Children Getting Candy

I can scarcely imagine an action more despicable. U.S. soldiers in Iraq were handing out treats to children. To a sub-human terrorist, this apparently is a prime target.

27 dead, mostly children.

I've said it before; I'll say it again. If there is any justice in this world, the people who would do such a thing must find their support vanish, their causes fail, and their very existence eradicated.

Muslim Reaction To London Terrorism Attacks

I can't possible keep up with the coverage the London attacks are getting by both the MSM and the blogosphere. But I thought it was worth pointing out what the international Muslim reaction was.

Here is a CNN story: "Enough, enough."

And Global Voices has a round up of reactions from Islamic blogs. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

I can only hope this is the continuation of a trend.

Take Down Those American Flags

Having dealt with home owner associations in the past, I can testify that their decisions often defy logic, but the request by the HOA in this story is inexcusable. Short summary, a man has put up 50+ American flags to celebrate the 4th. The HOA wants him to take some/most of them down.

Ridiculous. The owner says the flags will be taken down after the holiday. The purpose of an HOA is to maintain property values. To argue that American flags displayed during the 4th of July weekend lower property values is, as I just said, ridiculous.

Hats off to Mr. Zelek for standing his ground.

O'Connor to retire

And not the Baltimore County State Attorney this time either.

Advantage Bill Kristol!

Let the fireworks begin!

Schroeder Loses Confidence Vote

CNN is reporting that Schroeder has lost a confidence vote in German parliament. Of interest is that he lost the vote on purpose:

The confidence motion garnered 151 votes, short of the 301 votes needed as members of Schroeder's own Social Democrat party obeyed his request to abstain.

There is still some doubt as to what happens next. (I can rarely understand the nuances of parliamentary-based governments.) But this information at the end of the article:

A recent poll found 71 percent of Germans favored an early election, with 24 percent opposed.

seems to indicate that Schroeder's days as Chancellor are numbered.

Republicans Make Money At Dean Fund Raiser?

Via Daily Thoughts via an open thread at the Hedgehog Report:

State DNC executive director Lachlan McIntosh says $5000 in donations had already come in for the event. The event was expected to raise at least $15,000 more. The party has sent out a note saying it will refund the money.

Dean’s absence didn’t stop state Republicans from screaming all the way to the bank. The state GOP meanwhile held a Dean scream contest in anticipation of Dean’s arrival. State GOP executive director Scott Malyerck says the party raised $22,000 in contributions in response to Dean’s planned visit.

Nothing more to say, really.

Poll Results Regarding Bush's Speech

The hedgehog report has a link to a flash poll related to Bush's speech last night, performed by Gallup. Things look generally positive, which I find interesting give my survey of ... ahem ... unbiased sources last night.

REACTION TO BUSH’s SPEECH
Very/Somewhat Positive 74%
Very/Somewhat Negative 24%

WHO IS WINNING? (Before Speech)
US/Allies 54% (44%)
Terrorists 7% (9%)
Neither 35% (44%)

TROOP WITHDRAWAL? (Before Speech)
Stay Until Things Get Better 70% (58%)
Set Timetable For Withdrawal 25% (37%)

DOES BUSH HAVE CLEAR PLAN? (Before Speech)
Yes 63% (56%)
No 35% (42%)

Does this mean, in reference to my question from yesterday, that some people are listening?

Is Anybody Really Listening?

So I conducted an experiment tonight. I purposely didn't listen to President Bush's speech regard Iraq. I didn't watch it live, I didn't read any live-blogs, I didn't read the pre-released text. Instead, I decided I'd gauge the speech by the reviews on the web. Where shall I start?

How about at polipundit.com? Alexander McClure gave his analysis, noting, among other things:

3. Did he tie the Iraq War back to the War on Terror?

Yes, in a very eloquent conclusion, the President made the strongest case yet that the War on Terror will be fought and won, or fought and lost, in Iraq.

Overall, I thought it was an excellent speech. More on it later.

Lorie Byrd also added her thoughts here, starting with:

Excellent Speech

I agree with Mort Kondracke that tonight’s was one of George Bush’s best speeches.

Wow, I guess I missed a good one. OK, lets check Kos...I'm sure the view there must be just as positive:

Fake applause; speech numbers

ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did. So even the applause was fake.

Ouch.

Did the people at Kos watch the same speech? Hmmm. Better check CNN:

Seeking to turn around sagging public support for the war in Iraq, President Bush tonight told the American people that the sacrifices being made were "vital to the future security of our country."

And right below the story are links to two polls titled "Poll: U.S. war confidence slides" and " Poll: Bush disapproval hits high".

Things look grim indeed. I bet the boys at powerline must be upset:

Excellent Speech

Clear, confident, substantive. There was nothing in it that we and our readers didn't already know, but the message is one that many rarely hear. And the networks all carried it after all. That's good; President Bush nearly always does well when people see him, instead of seeing Democrats talking about him, as they will on the evening news.

The only thing I thought was odd was the unnatural quiet in the hall. It was like the audience at a Presidential debate, which has been cautioned not to express approval or disapproval. Only at the end, apparently, were the soldiers permitted to applaud.

Or not.

Can it be any more clear that people hear what they want to hear? I'm sure you are shocked that polipundit and powerline thought it was great speech and that kos and CNN thought it was more doom and gloom? About all I learned that was interesting was that the applause wasn't allowed (and it was interesting to see kos take it and run the other direction).

So I'm left asking: Is anybody really listening?

No Bias At All

Front page, CNN:

President Bush is using the first anniversary of Iraq's sovereignty to try to ease Americans' doubts about the mission and outline a winning strategy for a violent conflict that has cost the lives of more than 1,740 U.S. troops and has no end in sight.

Contrast that with the good news series from Arthur Chrenkoff, linked yesterday. The truth, I imagine, lies somewhere in between.

You Have Been Keeping Up, Haven't You?

Good news from Iraq. Perhaps you've already read about all this on CNN. Then again, perhaps you haven't.

Private Property Rights

As Dan already pointed out, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision this morning that the city of New London, CT could use eminent domain to seize a number of homes in order to make room for private development, in particular for the Pfizer Corporation. Links to all the opinions can be found here.

The liberal wing of the court plus Justice Kennedy formed the majority in this case. Justice Steven's opinion relies heavily on precedent and provides little actual argument. It says that based on previous Court rulings we should take a broad view of the term "Public Use" in the Fifth Amendment, one that allows us to include this type of private redevelopment. The Court should defer to the CT legislatures view of what is good for the public. As is typical of many of the opinions from left, this strikes me as nothing more than declaring Constitutional anything that the judges feel is good public policy.

Private property is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by our Constitution. It is no less important than freedom of speech, or freedom from self incrimination, or any of the other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If the Government has the right to take away our property at will, simply because they feel someone else can make better use of it then we don't have any property rights. Justice Thomas' dissent makes this powerfully clear and actually provides an argument and not just a list of other cases.

Thomas also points out that this ruling from the liberal wing produces a result that is generally un-liberal. Eminent domain of this will usually be employed against the poor and possibly minorities. Thus this ruling allows the government to take away property rights of those who are generally disadvantaged in order to aid the wealthy and powerful (the developers). Such a wonderful liberal result! Though I suppose one that could be justified by some on the left who take a highly paternalistic view ("we're going to help these people by getting them out of blighted communities, whether they want to or not"). I suppose one argue that this makes the ruling one of principle and not of policy preference, but the other facts in the case argue against that interpretation.

Near the end of the majority opinion Justice Stevens says that while he doesn't believe the federal constitution prohibits this kind of taking, various state laws and constitutions do so people who would oppose this should turn to their States for a remedy. Ah, federalism! But if this is the case then why don't we return to the original (pre-Fourteenth Amendment) interpretation and say that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states? Then we can all appeal to the states without any of this pesky federal involvement, at least when it's not Congress doing the taking.

Update: The following comment on a thread at the Volokh Conspiracy discussing the case expresses my feeling perfectly:

Can someone explain to this non-lawyer how it can be that such a very basic issue about the very old concept of eminent domain can be new before the Supreme Court?

Some outrages are so outrageous, it can take a couple of centuries for someone to work up the nerve to perpetrate them, and then actually try to defend them in court.

New Supreme Court Justices Needed

I must admit I haven't had much interest in all the politics and rhetoric surrounding the appointment of judges. Part of this is born from the fact that high court judges are often so extreme to one side or the other, that I find little common ground with them. (I am frustrated by judges creating new law from the bench as opposed to interpreting existing law, but that is a different subject for a different time.) The truth is, also, that I find legal discussions dreadfully boring.

All that being said, sometimes there's a decision that makes me want to see a change in the Supreme Court, which ruled today that local governments may seize private property for private development. It's one thing for such things to happen for public development; a new highway is needed and private property much be purchased. But for private development? A free real estate market should rule here. If you want to build a resort where I have my home, offer me enough money to motivate me to move. If I value my house too much to make it economically feasible to build your resort, then find a new location.

It should be interesting to see if any privacy / libertarian groups speak out against this ruling. I suppose since it doesn't involve any references to gulags and Nazi's, it will quickly pass from national interest.

Update: Via Instapundit, a long list of reactions where people are unhappy with the decision.

Downing Street Memos Fake?

There's been a lot of press recently about the "Downing Street Memos" and the claim that President Bush had intelligence faked to justify the war with Iraq. There was even call for impeachment by some unimportant senator, I believe. Captain's Quarters blog has a great post about how the memos may actually be fake.

The story is quite amazing. The reporter "destroyed the originals" to protect his source--the supposed memos have been retyped. But where they retyped into a computer? No. An old fashioned typewriter was used, apparently in an effort to make them seem more real.

Follow the link, follow the story. Outrageous that something like this wasn't checked for authenticity. I guess to some the truth doesn't matter as long as your goals are accomplished. I hear that the case for impeachment builds.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Having often posted on bias in the MSM, I feel compelled to point out this story. I must admit I was shocked that CNN ran a positive story about four brothers serving together in Iraq. The 5th brother has just returned from Iraq and their sister would have gone, but hasn't completed her training. Even more shocking was that this was the top story for the entire day, complete with a picture on the front page.

Below the picture, was a related-story link about the recently freed hostage praising Iraqi and U.S. troops.

While I still believe that the MSM is horribly biased in its choice of stories and its language, it is only fair to point out counterexamples. Hats off to CNN for prominently running these stories.

Senate apologizes for failing to pass anti-lynching laws

Yesterday the US Senate issued a formal apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws in the first half of the 20th century. Such a law was supported by seven presidents (according to numerous stories, including this one from the NYTimes) and actually passed the House three times.

I understand the purpose of these types of resolutions. For all that it has absolutely no effect on either the past or the future, it will make some people feel better. It's just a nice gesture that doesn't cost taxpayers anything. On the other hand, it is another case of ritual prostration to atone for sins committed by those long dead, similar to the Wachovia case. At least this time there are still some living survivors of lynch mobs. None of the current members of the Senate bears any responsibility for the failure to pass these laws. While it is certainly important to admit past failures the best way to do this is to correct the mistake, which has certainly been done long since in this case.

The other noteworthy part of this story is the partisan bickering that accompanied it. John Kerry is offended that there weren't 100 co-sponsors of the resolution (there were 80) and that "there's not an up-or-down vote." It passed by unanimous consent, which means that no one objected to it (what 21st century politician would?). Why waste the time taking a vote? So we can make our little political statements, of course. I've also read griping that the resolution wasn't brought to the floor until after Senate working hours. As if it's necessary to spend time "debating" and posturing over an issue that is completely uncontroversial.

I'm often annoyed when I read about the silly, non-binding resolution that both houses of Congress issue from time to time. They commend this, recommend that, condemn a third thing, declare a national day for somethingorother. They are wasting their time and my money on things that are totally useless. But then I realize that issuing non-binding resolutions is often the least-harmful thing that Congress can be doing. When they're occupied with this, they're not raising taxes, increasing regulation or wasting money on pork barrel projects. Which is something to be glad for.

BTW - in any of the statements by Democrats on this issue was there any mention of the mechanism that was often used to stop anti-lynching laws? You know, that hallmark of democracy, which protects the rights of the minority, the filibuster. No? I'm shocked.

Peremptory challenges to prospective jurors

This week the US Supreme Court threw out the conviction of two accused murderers on the basis of racial discrimination in jury selection. The court ruled that prosecutors had used peremptory challenges to ensure an all-white juries that would be more likely to convict the black defendants. Jury selections or strikes that are based solely on race are unconstitutional. (Miller-El v. Dretke, Johnson v. California)

In a concurring opinion Justice Breyer argues that peremptory challenges should be eliminated entirely. This would eliminate the practical problem of a court determining whether an attorney's Jury strikes are based on unconstitutional grounds and avoid situations like the two cases in question. The AP reports on Breyer's opinion with some context here. One of the points made is that jury-selection has become a highly sophisticated process, essentially trying to game the system.

I have to agree with Breyer here and my reasons go beyond the practical considerations. The jury system is an important guarantee provided by the Constitution and more broadly the Anglo Saxon tradition that protects individuals from arbitrary or malicious actions of government or judges. The system makes the most sense, however, when the jury is composed of a fully random sample of the populace. Certainly screening out those perspective jurors who have a vested interest in the case or a particular bias is appropriate, since the goal is a fair, unbiased jury. These strikes are done for cause and I have no argument with them. Allowing attorneys to select who they don't want to see on a jury, however, destroys the spirit of the system. While proponents will say that they are acting to try to remove biases that they can't prove, it seems much more likely that it is employed to ensure that the jury is in fact biased, but biased to one side.

Courts of law should be about law, not gut feelings or intuition. If there is no cause to eliminate a prospective juror he or she should serve.

Voting Machine Paper Trails

I disagree with the NYT editorial board so much that I almost feel obligated to comment when they write something that I think is eminently sensible. In "An Important Election Safeguard" they support a House measure that would require electronic voting machines in a federal election to produce a paper record of each vote, which could be tallied after the fact to verify the electronic count.

Paper receipts are an obvious feature that should have been required in any electronic voting machine the first time they were used. It's a very easy step that would improve the reliability and verifiability of elections. Voting machines that produce paper output would still serve their primary purposes of easing the voting process and streamlining the vote counting process (at least for uncontested elections). The additional cost of adding printers to machines and establishing procedures for storing and counting the receipts is easily balanced by the benefits.

Certainly some of the push on this issue is fueled by moonbattery. There are some who believe that all of the Republicans' recent electoral success is based on election fraud. But that false motivation shouldn't stop us from taking reasonable steps.

Supreme speculation

Yet another story about the fight over a potential Supreme Court vacancy appeared on the AP wire today. CNN has it here. Nothing much new here. I find this rather humorous. Clearly you have a bunch of court reporters who aren't satisfied simply reporting about the court's decisions, even the significant ones like Gonzales v. Raich. They want to see the real political drama that will ensue with a court opening and are frustrated waiting for it.

Then again, maybe it's just a market based decision. The AP does have other SCOTUS stories - I just noticed this one from Monday reporting that the court rejected a case where college wrestlers contended that Title IX implementation unfairly burdened some male athletes. but this story doesn't get front page coverage on CNN's web site. They're probably right that the knockdown fight over a nomination makes a better story than the technical details and implications of an actual ruling.

So what's the deal with Dean?

Yesterday Howard Dean unleashed yet another over the top attack on Republicans. In a speech in San Francisco he said Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." (Quote here.) This coming soon after his comments that most Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives". If politics were sports one might say that Dean is producing lots of locker room bulletin board material to fire up the opposing team.

So what's the strategy here? I don't think Dean has simply gone off the deep end. He must think that this rhetoric will help his party win elections. But how? A possible explanation is that Dean has decided that a motivated base is the most important factor in winning elections. Others have drawn this same conclusion from last year's presidential campaign and Karl Rove's Republican strategy in particular. As a result, Dean may think that his job as Democratic Party chairman is first and foremost to provide red-meat to the party faithful in order to get them fired up. His comments certainly will do that when presented to the right audiences.

This explanation also seems consistent with Dena's fundraising success during his Presidential campaign. He amassed a large warchest through individual donations by appealing primarily to the left wing of the party during the run-up to the primaries. He may think that this approach will translate to fundraising for the party as a whole. To date it doesn't seem like it has been successful - the DNC is trailing the RNC in contributions so far this year.

The obvious negative of making this type of inflammatory comment is the possibility of a negative backlash among moderates. There certainly has been plenty of reaction in the blogosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if previous DNC chairmen have made similar comments in the past but with less publicity. Because of his recent presidential run Dean probably has a higher profile than most party chairmen and the diversification of media has helped to spread the word.

Not a few conservatives seem to think that Dean is shooting himself and his party in the foot with these types of statements. I'm not so sure. Regular blog readers are certainly aware of Dean's remarks, but I'm no so sure the average man on the street is or cares very much. The DNC chairman is a lot less important than the president or a senator and the average, non-political junkie citizen may not care that much. Various Democrats have felt it necessary to distance themselves from Dean, but politicians are always trying to cover themselves (and some Democrats like Harry Reid have supported Dean lately).

Apologies for slavery

Wachovia Corporation issued an apology for past connections to slavery. The bank issued a long report detailing prior practices of two southern banks that were later acquired by Wachovia in order to comply with a Chicago ordinance requiring disclosure of profits from or policies relating to slavery for any company doing business with slavery (CNN Story).

I find it completely asinine that a company is being held up to blame for 19th century slave ownership in the 21st century. Not a single soul working for the corporation has ever owned a slave or had any dealings with corporate slaves. It's unlikely that any of their parents or even grandparents ever did. The crime of slavery is over and done with. We shouldn't forget our country's history, good and bad, but we should let go of the animus and blame game. Individuals and institutions should be judged by their current practices and how they have addressed and remedied sins of those involved now. Very few human institutions can claim a spotless record, especially when hundreds of years of history are being judged.

It's very likely that ordinances of this kind (Chicago isn't the only city to have them) are designed to provide evidence for future slave reparations claims. Another wrongheaded idea - looking to solve the problems of the present by redistributing wealth based on the sins of the long dead. But that's a post for another time.

Lawyers revealing clients' lies

The state of Washington is proposing new ethics rules that would require lawyers to tell the court if they discover that their client had previously lied (story). Current rules do not allow lawyers to lie themselves or put their client on the stand if they know he will lie, but do require admission of "discovered" falsehoods; the lawyer typically is allowed to step down from the case. The proposed rule is consistent with a set of model rules put out by the American Bar Association and a similar rule is already in place in 10 other states.

The changes would "dramatically shift lawyers' duties in Washington, making their obligation to the court more important than their duty to their clients." Some defense attorneys are, not surprisingly, objecting and say that this rule would "crush the whole idea of attorney-client confidentiality".

I've always found it disturbing that our legal system focuses so much on the adversarial relationship between two sides that it neglects the higher duty to justice and the truth. To me (a non-lawyer) it only stands to reason that the truth is more important that blindly advocating a position in favor of your client.

The article cites an example:

What if an arrested man persuades a judge to release him without bail, explaining that he lives with his mother and has a full-time job, and the lawyer later learns that neither is true? The lawyer would have to tell the judge -- probably ensuring that the client gets locked up, [Seattle criminal defense lawyer] Rodriguez said.

I just don't see the problem here. In this hypothetical the man lied about the conditions that were used to justify his release. Without them he would not have been released (without bail anyway). Why should the man gain the advantage of his lie when an officer of the court (his lawyer) knows the truth? Especially since the man likely committed perjury in addition to whatever crime he has been charged with. I just don't see the ethical quandary for the lawyer.

A defendant has a right to a fair trial. The procedures and rules of our legal system exist to ensure that he receives a fair trial. But there is no right to lie under oath.

Hat tip: Howard Bashman's excellent How Appealing blog.

Korans Desecrated

Sometimes there isn't much more to do than post the link.

Polipundit

French Leaders Admit Defeat

French leaders have admitted that the upcoming vote on the EU constitution is lost (hat tip Instapundit). I've read elsewhere that this will affect the EU and I've also read that it isn't that big of a deal. I'm not knowledgeable enough of EU politics to know which view is correct.

I do think the vote is a significant failure for Chirac. He has proven very resilient as a politician, however. It will be interesting to see how he handles this new failure.

Murder charges dropped against marine

Charges have been dropped against a Marine Lieutenant, 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, who was charged with murder for shooting two Iraqis last year. CNN story here. The incident occurred when a Marine unit stopped and searched a car driven by the deceased. The defense maintained that the shootings were in self-defense. The investigating officer (the equivalent of a grand jury) had recommended the charges be dropped but some non-judicial punishment be levied for poor judgement - firing excessive rounds and leaving a sign with the slogan, "No better friend, no worse enemy" in the car. The Division commander elected to impose no punishment.

I've been following this story for several months now particularly because the exonerated Marine is a childhood friend. I'm very pleased to see how it has turned out.

I strongly feel that all of our servicemen should be given strong benefit of the doubt. Certainly not a license to commit acts of mayhem. But we need to understand that decisions made in potential life and death situations must be judged in the light of the situation. On the other hand, the fact that we are willing to investigate claims such as these to make sure that soldiers and marines are not abusing their power speaks well of us as a country. In this case due process has been served and I believe justice as well.

It Is Not 2008

I started to blog about this CNN story this morning, but deleted it before posting, deciding that I was making a big deal about nothing. But it continues to get press, and now I feel compelled to comment.

Since early this morning, CNN has had the results of this poll on the front page. The poll concerns the electability of Hillary Clinton. The original headline was something to the effect of "A majority would vote for President Hillary Clinton". Is it correct to give her that title? Wishful thinking by the folks at CNN? The data point they were pushing was the following:

The poll found 29 percent were very likely to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton for president and 24 percent said they were somewhat likely.

Seven percent were not very likely and 39 percent said they were not at all likely. The margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The headline is now changed, reading "Poll: Mixed messages for Hillary Clinton." This is a more accurate description of the poll results which include:

But those saying they are virtually certain to vote against her topped those virtually certain to support her by 10 percentage points in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

My point was that it isn't 2008 and it is irresponsible (or at least shows a blatant bias) for a major news organization to be starting the campaign already. Or should we assume that Democrats plan to bicker with Bush and try to accomplish nothing for the next three years? My hope would be that no one would give the premature poll any press, but it has been picked up by polipundit:

However, it isn’t too early for Republicans to start targeting the likely opposition. According to a new Gallup Poll, 56% of registered voters consider the New York Senator a “liberal.” 29% said that they were very likely to vote for the Senator, while 39% said they were not at all likely.

McClure may be right--it might not be too early. But for the sake of the country, let's hope that it is. Three years is much too long a time waste in gridlock.

To What Purpose?

The news is all over the web and the MSM that an al-Qaida web site has stated Zarqawi is injured. The web site calls for the prayers of Muslim people for his recovery. This is obviously a strange admission by an organization that at least attempts to use propaganda and press to its advantage.

One interesting theory is that he isn't really injured and that when he "recovers" later, al-Qaida can point to the power of Muslim prayer. If that's the plan, someone forgot to tell the people of Iraq:

On the streets of Baghdad, many like Saliha Elaibi, covered in black dress from head to toe, were praying the news of his injury was true.

"We are praying for his death. We ask God to save us from him and from his car bombs," she said.

Hats off to the AP for not spinning this story with any bias.

Judicial Filibuster Deal

There's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth going on on conservative blogs right now about the deal. Polipundit's top post right now is entitled "TREACHERY!". I ventured over to DailyKos and Democratic Underground to scope out the other side and the consensus there is that the deal means that Democrats have won this battle. So, are they right? Did the seven Republican Senators sell out their party? Did Frist lose badly?

It's far too early to tell. Both sides get something out of the deal right now. The right gets approval of three judges that give the left heartburn. The left gets to maintain the possibility of filibustering, which they desperately want for upcoming Supreme Court openings and can still stall on several of the Bush nominees. But nothing is really settled yet.

As with evaluating baseball trades you have to wait to see how things play out over time to know who "won" or "lost". Example: how will the term "extraordinary circumstances" get employed in the future? If Democrats claim that anyone "to the right of Karl Marx" is extreme and filibuster accordingly then the deal looks worse for the right. If the Pryor/Brown/Owens confirmations set a precedent for not filibustering qualified judges then it looks a lot better. Obviously a Supreme Court opening is the test here. I suspect that Democrats will call an opening on the High Court extraordinary circumstances no matter who is nominated.

The biggest thing that the deal does is avoid a dramatic showdown which would have very uncertain political fallout. If the constitutional option is executed (and it still could be in the future) and the Democrats respond by slowing down the Senate both sides would be gambling their political capital. The left has already painted such a rules change as an abuse of majority power. On the other side there's precedent (Gingrich's government shutdown) for the public looking unfavorablely on obstructionists. Most Senators are by nature conservative - in the sense of conserving their own jobs. It's not surprising at all that "moderates" from both parties would support this deal. They're the ones who are most likely to get hurt by any political fallout.

This deal marks the end of a major battle. But there's more coming and the outcome is far from certain.

And In Other News...

One of the CNN headlines this morning is 8 U.S. soldiers killed in 24 hours in Iraq. It's followed by a nice little link to all the casualties of the war so far. Truly nothing good is happening over there, right?

Once again Chrenkoff has a collection of good news from Iraq, this one being his 28th installment. As usual, it's very long, but if you have the time, I highly recommend reading it.

I still can't decide how much of the MSM's focus on negative events represents a calculated opposition to President Bush. After all, local news programs focus mainly on anything on fire or violent crimes. But it can't be argued that the nature of the coverage presents a very skewed view to the American people. I, for one, am tired of it. Maybe if enough people tire of it, ratings will drop and the MSM will be forced to rethink its approach.

Time For A Change

Redstate links to an editorial, from San Francisco no less, by a self-described "card carrying liberal" who is frustrated with the current state of what I'll call the left half of the Democratic party. The whole piece is somewhat long, but seems very genuine.

I came away from the reading with two thoughts. First, that outrageous and offensive statements, while protected under free speech, can and sometimes do have consequences. These quotes and attitudes:

Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.

were part of the reason that the author has decided to leave the current progressive movement behind.

My second reaction was one of hope. While many conservatives witness and document the seeming implosion of the Democratic party with a sense of glee, as if watching a hated sports rival choke on national television, I do not. There are many things about a two-party system that I do not like, but worse than a two-party system is a one-party system. If the current liberal thinking had gone astray and is no longer accepted, then it needs to change. I'm sure that I would disagree with a "new liberal" party on many issues--but at least it would offer me and the rest of America a rational choice.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

Some of the posts on polipundit have been a too extreme for me to recommend, but this one is spot on. The notable part is two quotes by Howard Dean:

I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

and

I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found…I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.

I must admit I was initially curious as to whether Dean's energy could be used to raise funds for Democratic candidates. It is seeming more and more like this was a silly thing to be curious about.

Rebuilding the World Trade Center

There's an article in the NY Post with an interview of Donald Trump. He says he will soon unveil a model of a proposed new trade center, in opposition to the "skeleton" that is planned now. I'm not usually a big Trump fan, but I hope he succeeds with this. This is definitely an emotional response on my part--I don't know how economically viable Trump's plan is. I especially like the attitude and spirit of the idea:

I hope the reaction from the public will cause the political establishment to do what everyone wants to be done, rebuild the World Trade Center, taller and stronger.

Absolutely.

Nebraska Gay-Marriage Amendment Ruling

A federal judge in Nebraska ruled yesterday that the state's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the US Constitution (story, decision). He cited a whole host on reasons, from the First Amendment to Equal Protection to the Bill of Attainder Clause. The rationale seemed so blatantly wrong that I intended to write something long about this.

As often happens with blogging, someone who is much more knowledgeable than me has beaten me to it. Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy has a long analysis of the decision that basically says everything I could've and much, much more (it helps that he's actually a lawyer). BTW - I think he supports gay marriage, so it's hardly a rant.

Suspension Reduced For Student

A few days ago, I blogged about a high-school student in Georgia who was suspended for 10 days for violating the schools "no cell phones except at lunchtime" policy while talking to his mom, who is stationed in Iraq. It seems that the suspension time has been reduced and the student is now back at school.

My last entry also got few comments suggesting I was overreacting to the situation. I guess what I didn't make clear was that I felt this was just another case of schools swinging too far in the other direction when it comes to discipline. I liken it to stories where students are suspended for "bring a weapon to school" and the weapon turns out to be a rubber band. Truly frightening things have happened as schools in recent memory, but not being able to distinguish between real situations and minor instances isn't going to help the problem.

"...one of the greatest wrongs of history"

Good to see President Bush willing to speak out about the Soviets' occupation of eastern Europe at the end of WWII even as he heads to Russia to participate in ceremonies to commemorate the end of the war sixty years ago (CNN story). Speaking in Latvia he emphasized the wrongs committed against the Baltic states even as Putin expressed displeasure that Bush was visiting Latvia and Georgia on this trip. Considering that Putin appears to be increasingly nostalgic about the old Soviet empire it's very important that the leader of the free world speak out about the bad old days. A speech like this is purely symbolic, but symbolism can be important.

Absurd Behavior By School Officials

School officials in Columbus, GA suspended a student for 10-days for using a cell phone after the lunch hour, which is against school rules. The catch is that the student was talking with his mother, who is serving in Iraq.

I certainly hope the family and the community fights this decision.

Why The Iraqi People Will Win

There was a link on polipundit to this story, from a blog of a U.S. soldier currently serving in Iraq. (A mild warning, as the picture in the story is a little disturbing.)

I find the story compelling because it is told first hand; not through ten layers of editors and producers at a MSM outlet and not through the eyes of some blogger 10,000 miles away. I struggle to find a quote from the story, as the entire text is quotable. Please follow the link and read it yourself. Just in case you don't, here are two sections:

He wanted her to have American surgeons and not to go to the Iraqi hospital. She didn't make it. I snapped this picture when Major Bieger ran to take her away. He kept stopping to talk with her and hug her.

and

One thing seems certain; the people in that neighborhood share our feelings about the terrorists. We are going to go back there, and if any terrorists come out, the soldiers hope to find them. Everybody is still very angry that the insurgents attacked us when the kids were around. Their day will come.

I don't know what your view on the Iraq war is. You may think prudent and necessary or you may abhor it with every fiber of your being. If it matters to you, I was highly skeptical of the U.S. plan in the beginning, but recent events have suggested to me that I may have been shortsighted. But independent of your opinion and mine, please let it be clear the forms of evil that exist in this world.

This little girl didn't die because of President Bush. She didn't die because of America. She died because some cowardly, reprehensible, pathetic excuses for humans specifically drove a car full of explosives at her. They could have waited. She wasn't an innocent bystander. She was a specific target, who was picked to engender support for an immoral cause.

I have no idea of what the future holds in Iraq, though recent events give cause for hope. But if the world is a just place, then the kinds of people who would commit such an act must fail. And they must fail utterly. I hope against hope that the Iraqi people will come to see that. When they do, they will have already won.

NYT and Saving

The NYT has an editorial today bemoaning the fact that the saving rate in the US is as low as it's been in 70 years. It covers the usual culprits, explaining how American culture is too focused on consumption. It even complains about spending driven by the increase in home prices and equity. All in all a vague picture is painted of future dire consequences. Maybe they're right and there will be serious long term consequences for the US economy.

But what's the real problem here:

The biggest culprit is the Bush administration's profligacy, with tax cuts the most glaring driver of the swing from budget surplus to budget deficit over the past four years. Currently, the deficit offsets most of the economy's net private savings.

And the solution:

The most powerful way to increase national savings is to cut the budget deficit. To do that, President Bush and his allies in Congress must defer the gratification they would derive from showering more tax cuts on the affluent.

It's all those pesky tax cuts! Wars, famine, pestilence and lack of savings can all be traced back there! If we just stopped cutting taxes everything would be better. It's not said, but the implication is also that we'd need to raise taxes again (sorry, "roll back" those cuts) to balance the budget. I wonder if it even entered their heads that maybe Congress could balance the budget by cutting back on federal spending. That way with lower taxes people oculd keep more of their own money, which would make it easier to save.

Their final suggestion: "Lawmakers should also refocus their efforts on increasing personal savings," in particular by encouraging particpation in employers retirement plans. As usual, the suggestions are all paternalistic: "including automatic enrollment upon hiring and the automatic allocation of employee contributions." The government should make you contribute however much they decide because the folks in Washington know better than you do whether you can afford it.

Let's be honest here. The federal government can't legislate and enforce a "savings" culture in this country. Attempting to will only result in lots of unintended consequences. If people want to save they will.

Disclaimer: I think people are usually foolish if they don't contribute to 401k plans (when available) at least to the max employer match, though I can imagine circumstances where someone couldn't afford it. Regardless it's still an individual's right to decide what to do with his own money, even if it's a stupid decision.

How To Save Money The John Kerry Way

As usual, truth is stranger than fiction. If someone told me that multi-multi-millionaire John Kerry would have been foolish enough to use campaign money to pay off parking tickets and buy Red Sox tickets, I would have laughed. While his behavior is, I guess, laughable, I don't find it all that humorous.

You can find this story all over the web. Here it is at the Boston Herald. Hat tip to an interesting blog called the Hedgehog Report, which you should check out if you don't already know about it.

Good policies that are unconstitutional

Instapundit has a long post about the constitutionality of the National ID bill that is working its way through Congress (in conference right now). His point: that the federal government doesn't have the power to force the States to implement the system Congress is proposing. I had this same thought a few days ago. While I am strongly in favor of requiring people to present strong proof of identity and citizenship before obtaining a drivers license, I am skeptical that this law is within the bounds of Congressional power.

Glenn also points out that Congress would have the power to make implementation of this system a condition for receipt of federal funds. I hate this power - I think it allows Congress to ignore constitional limits on its power simply through bribery - but it's certainly constitutional.

When analyzing constitutional issues I think a lot of people fall into the trap of mixing up "constitutional" with "good policy". One does not imply the other but there's a strong tendency to uncritically conclude that a law you like is constitutional and one you don't is not, at least when it's not clear cut. I'll grant that good lawyers are less apt to make this mistake than average people, but they certainly fall victim to it as well leading to charges of judicial activism.

Everyone should be able to think of plenty of "good policies" (having desireable effects) that they realize are unconstitutional as well as the opposite. If you can't then you either don't understand the Constitution or you're not thinking critically about it.

UPDATE: I should have said "proof of legal residency" and not "citizenship" as a requirement for a drivers license. I have no problem with legal aliens obtaining a license to drive. My experiences with the horrible driving of some foreign grad students didn't affect me that much...

Historical Presidential Address?

I wasn't planning on blogging about President Bush's press conference. Far more established blogs were undoubtedly going to cover it in great detail. However, after listening to his opening remarks and then reading reactions on the web, I can't find anyone who has written what I would have. Thus I now feel compelled to make my point. And my point is this...

Perhaps I've become jaded from all the mudslinging and partisan rhetoric, but I was frankly shocked at some of the things Bush said in both his address and later when answering questions. (I found a full transcript at FoxNews.) The comments were (to me) much more middle-of-the-road than I expected from a president that the left derides as a "neocon puppet".

Three moments in particular drew my attention.

To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps.

First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy.

And secondly, we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power.

Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as hydrogen, ethanol or bio-diesel.

Fourth, we must help growing energy consumers overseas, like China and India, apply new technologies to use energy more efficiently and reduce global demand of fossil fuels.

Unless I am reading this language incorrectly, three of the four bullet points reference conservation or alternative fuel sources. That's something I'd expect in a Green party speech, not a Republican one.

In the coming days and weeks I'll work with both the House and the Senate as they take the next steps in the legislative process. I'm willing to listen to any good idea from either party.

Too often the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over the other. Social Security is too important for politics as usual.

I think this was an excellent point. There's been talk, even from democratic leaders, bemoaning the fact that the Democratic party is failing to present new ideas, instead choosing to be reactionary, argumentative, and negative. This would seem to be an opening to change that behavior. After all, if Bush offered to listen to ideas from either party and none are suggested from one side, how will that be interpreted, historically?

And finally, in answer to a rather confrontational question regarding judicial confirmations, Bush said:

I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated. And some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my view of the proper role of a judge.

and

The great thing about America is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want. And if you chose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim.

In past speeches, I've felt the President Bush has stressed his own personal faith too much. These comments were much more moderate than I would have expected.

Overall, I'd have to say that the speech and responses seemed to me were written with a mind on how the current administration will be viewed historically. There was much more of an effort to appear moderate as opposed to stubbornly sticking to a few talking points. Time will tell whether the change in attitude will be followed through in action.

Social Security

Yesterday's OpinionJournal has a good article by William Voegeli about the "Cynical Idealism of Social Security". It's a little long and wanders a bit near the end. But it's a good read. He describes how FDR managed to set up the system that is widely considered untouchable.

By relying on a system that funded old age pensions through a regressive tax on wages, SS fosters the idea that everyone who has paid has a moral right to withdraw at a later date. Voegeli quotes FDR as saying:

We put those payroll taxes there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.

Further, the SS administration aggressively marketed the program in order to convince Americans that this was really an insurance program with premiums and "accounts". After selling this long enough Americans came to believe it to be so.

A perfect example of this is my father. He's pretty consistently conservative on political issues. But when it comes to SS he's one of the converted. Having lived his whole life with the program it's just part of the world that he accepts. While he agrees that there are financing problems and would be willing to raise the retirement age to address them he reflexively opposes any significant changes. It's almost a matter of faith that SS will and must continue to operate the way it has for sixty plus years.

I'm no great fan of FDR's New Deal policies. I've made the comment, somewhat hyperbolically, that the Great Depression was the worst thing that ever happened to this country because of some of the changes in our government that arose as a result. But I have to admire the tactical political genius displayed by Roosevelt and his administration in pushing through these changes and so skillfully ensconcing them in the American consciousness.

Reprehensible NY Times Behavior

Glenn over at Instapundit already said it more calmly and rationally that I am able so I'll just provide the link.

I'd say that this is the last straw and that I'm done with the NY Times as either an accurate source of news or interesting opinion. It provides neither. But I've been done with them for years now.

Syrian Troops Leave Lebannon

Some positive news--Syria has ended its 29-year occupation of Lebanon. Definitely a move the right direction, but movement like this is always slow in coming and shaky. At the end of the article, linked above, there is this quote:

He [Lebanese army commander Suleiman] pledged continued cooperation between the two countries in several fields, including the fight on terror and opposition to Israel.

"Together we shall always remain brothers in arms in the face of the Israeli enemy," Suleiman said.

Fighting terror and opposition to Israel? So does this mean bus bombings and the like will not be used against Israel anymore? Regardless I find it an amazing proof point toward just how much the "war against terror" has become integrated across the world. I am not suggesting that everyone who mentions it actually supports it (many do not) but it is amazing to me the number of people who feel compelled to mention their "opposition" to terror.

Not This Again?

Headlines like this have been the source of numerous jokes, yet people seem to keep coming up with this shocking conclusion:

Crime rate down, but prison population on the rise

Hat tip to The Corner for the link. I especially like one their reader's thoughts on the headline:

Just once I would love to read a headline that says:

"Crime Rate Soars Despite Falling Prison Population"

I want to see it to hear the potential explanations.

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

Schwarzenegger On Illegal Immigration

I've never given much thought to the so-called Schwarzenegger-Republicans. But the more I read about his thoughts, the more I think I might be one. While I'm not in favor of the Schwarzenegger amendment, I find myself agreeing with a majority of his views.

Here's a recent example of a speech he gave on Tuesday regarding the need for immigration control on the California-Mexico border. I'm most impressed with the following:

This is a very important debate. I think it's necessary that we solve the problems rather than try to run the other way.

If more politicians would be willing to actually discuss issues, I think the county's respect for politicians in general would be much greater.

Republicans already dominate the courts...

I've noticed a new theme popping up in coverage of the judicial confirmation issue. The story goes that Republicans already dominate the court system in this country. Articles that I could find quickly to verify this include the LATimes and the CS Monitor (my Google search also turned up a Salon.com article that is subscription only). Nominees of Republican presidents outnumber Democratic appointees on 10 of 13 courts and could have a majority on all but the Ninth Circuit by the time 2008 rolls around. The clear implication is that filibusters of judicial nominees isn't really a problem, because Democrats are just trying to preserve a balanced judiciary.

Obviously measuring how conservative or liberal a court is based on the numbers like this is a simplification. It ignores factors like the background of judges (intellectual hotshot who is likely to be influential on the bench or simply politically well connected) or the Senate confirmation environment (controlled by the president's party or not). Defining a court as Republican or Democrat based on who has a numerical advantage is also misleading when the the numbers are close - a 7 to 6 numerical advantage on the Sixth Circuit will not suddenly make the court right-wing. But I'm willing to accept that studies do show some correlation between the party "affiliation"of a judge and how he votes.

My question is, so what? It only stands to reason that conservatives, or at least Republican nominees, should have a numerical advantage in the federal court system. Not because conservatives are necessarily right. It's simply that Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections and as a result have gotten to make more appointments. This is democracy in action. Part of the prize in presidential elections is the right to nominate judges. Make it an issue in the next election. If the American people agree than they'll vote for your side.

The composition of the courts reflects electoral politics. The "correct" balance is not one where both sides of the political spectrum are represented equally. It's where the composition of courts reflects the electoral decisions of the American people.

(Actually, in my ideal world judges would not be controversial because everyone would know they were simply ruling based on the law, not personal policy preferences. But that's another discussion.)

Introductions

I've been introduced, so I guess it's time to chime in. Dan and I have been talking politics for some time now, so it seems kind of natural for me to start posting here. As he said, we do tend to agree a lot, but hopefully we won't about everything that shows up here. It's much more interesting and enlightening when you're not just preaching to the choir.

A few words about myself from a political perspective. I consider myself somewhere between conservative and libertarian. I believe in small government because I think the primary job of government is to preserve the rule of law. I sometimes joke that I pray at the altar of capitalism; - free markets usually lead to the best solutions.

I like to think I can vent about issues that matter to me while staying calm and rational. Time will tell if I'm right.

Bad Idea By Howard Dean

I read this post on Powerline and I'm actually somewhat speechless. The article linked in the Powerline post quotes Dean as saying:

"We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on," Dean said...

Like Powerline, I'm confused. They probably put it best:

...why is it it that when a minor Republican staffer wrote that the Schiavo case was a "great political issue," it was a scandal that was reported in every newspaper in America, whereas, when the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee says, "We're going to use Terri Schiavo" in the 2006 and 2008 elections, the response is a yawn? I'm sure there must be a reason why Dean's comment is different, but offhand I can't think what it is.

Personally I wish both sides would just let this issue go away and focus on more appropriate and more relevant things.

And Then There Were Two...

I said when I started that I didn't know where I was going with this whole "blog" thing. While it's been very rewarding so far, I've found it more difficult than I thought to post as frequently as I'd like. So, after a discussion with an old (sorry) grad school friend, I'm happy to say that Keith Kannenberg has joined the contributors list here.

Politically speaking, Keith and I agree a lot on some issues, not so much on others. But I'm confident he'll post on interesting and thought-provoking topics.

Welcome Keith!

Thoughts On The EU Constitution

I don't claim to be an expert in EU politics, but I found this post at AnkleBitingPundits interesting.

Operation FALCON

I'm not sure how something of this magnitude didn't make news until now, but I think this is fantastic. Operation FALCON was a joint federal and local effort with the goal of apprehending known fugitives. The final tally? 10,340.

Canadian Liberal Party Scandal About To Explode?

One of the blogs I frequented during the election, Captain's Quarters Blog, has been at the forefront of some interesting news brewing in Canada. There are rumors of some reported scandal involving the ruling Liberal party. However, details are scare because the Canadian government has issued a "publication ban" forbidding anyone to write about the story. (Apparently going so far as to have threatened Captain's Quarters with contempt of court. Can you imagine the outrage if the situation happened in reverse--an American court trying to shut down the media outlet in Canada?)

Captain's Quarters has ignored the ban and posted some details. His latest post on the subject indicates the publication ban may be lifted tomorrow, allowing members of the media in Canada who have much more information to start covering the story.

I must admit I would have probably glossed over the whole story if it had not for been for this publication ban element. I can't really get my head around the concept. Thank goodness, once again, for the Bill of Rights and, more specifically, the right to free speech.

Here We Go Again (Media Bias...)

So on one hand, Chrenkoff has recently posted part 11 of his good news from Afganistan series. I haven't had time to read it all--it's exceptionally long, as usual--but suffice it to say that he was able to find lots of good things happening in Afganistan.

On the other hand, I haven't really read much about Afganistan at all from mainstream media sources. That was until today, when CNN finally found a reason to cover that part of the world--because of a helicopter crash.

Media bias? What me worry?