Recent Hurricanes Not The Result Of Global Warming

For all my media bashing, I feel compelled to point out when they do exhibit the professionalism to report all sides of a story. Case in point is this article, linked from the front page of CNN, which explains that the recent string of bad hurricanes is not the result of global warming.

The meat of the article is a quote from Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center:

But don't rush to blame it on global warming, experts warn.

Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that we're in a period of heightened hurricane activity that could last another decade or two.( See scientists collect data -- 1:33)

"The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations (and) cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming," he testified

Other scientists at the center were interviewed and added:

Mayfield's colleague at the National Hurricane Center, meteorologist Chris Landsea, said two recent studies about global warming and hurricanes raise more questions than they answer. He added that the impact of global warming is "minimal for the forseeable future."

(And I'll try not to focus on the fact that a meteorologist studying hurricanes is named Landsea.)

Terrorism Prevented In Los Angeles

The AP is reporting that three men were arrested for planning "shooting rampages" at LA-area military sites. News like this rarely seems to get enough attention in the press so I thought I'd highlight it here.

In any event the above seems like a much more beneficial use of FBI resources that idiocy like this. Glenn over at Instapundit notes that Congress is requiring that the FBI devote resources to this endeavor. So I don't know if one should blame Bush, as leader of the executive branch which controls the FBI, or blame Congress, but someone should be blamed.

Good News From Iraq via Chrenkoff

In one of the lengthiest installments of the series, Chrenkoff has posted Good News From Iraq, Part 35.

Sadly this post is to be the last in his very interesting, ground-breaking series. Apparently he as accepted a position with an employer whose policies do not permit employees to maintain a blog. The series itself will continue at a new blog, with new contributors, at Good News from the Front.

So with typical warning that it is not a short read, I highly suggest you read it now.

Hurricanes And National Panic

As I sit here in Austin, TX typing this, hurricane Rita is its way to Texas. Clearly for the coastal cities near Galvestan, the storm represents a significant danger and people are wise to evacuate.

What has struck me, however, is how the recent events caused by hurricane Katrina have caused a national obsession with getting prepared for hurricanes. The effects of Rita on Austin are forecasted to be a little rain and winds approaching 25 mph. Yet there are reports on the local news of people flocking to stores, clearing the shelves of survival items such as bottled water and batteries. I happened to be in a grocery store yesterday and was confused by the long lines at every register until I got home and started reading the news stories.

Honestly, if it wasn't for the current national panic regarding hurricanes, a storm with rain and mild winds would only be newsworthy because of the disruption it might cause to this weekend's Austin City Limits music festival.

Hurricanes can be devastating, but I feel like everyone in the country needs to take a deep breath and relax.

CNN and Katrina Disbelief

I was watching CNN (NewsNight with Aaron Brown) last night and the story of the moment was how New Orleans had been declared "basically dry" months ahead of initial estimates. The story has now made it to the web, available here. Most of the time was spent with Brown trying to wrap his mind around how the initial estimates could have been so wrong. He seemed genuinely shocked that things had turned out different than first expected.

I continue to be generally shocked with the naivete of the reactions to the Katrina disaster. Thankfully, we as a country have very little experience of dealing with a category 5 hurricane striking a city built below sea level. All the experts in the world can use all of the latest models to try to predict just how the interaction of a hurricane and the costal land mass will unfold and their predictions would still be subject to huge margins of error. Therefore, one should not be surprised that the pumping was thought to take months and ended up taking just several weeks. One should not be surprised that the death toll was originally estimate to be over 10,000 and, at the moment, is currently near 1,000. Order of magnitude errors are to be expected in a situation (again thankfully) so untested as what happened to the gulf coast.

I will put aside my usual skepticism and not belabor the fact that the initial estimates (months instead of weeks, ten thousand instead of one thousand) all made the situation seem even more horrific than it already is. I can't imagine the need to exaggerate the level of devastation to attract more viewers when most of the country was already riveted to the story, but I suppose it is possible.

But everyone, the media and viewers alike, would do well to remember just how hard is to "get it right" a priori with events of this magnitude. And while initial estimates are hopefully the best educated opinion, one should always remain skeptical of their true accuracy.

Roe v. Wade History

LA Times writer David Savage has a very interesting look at the development of the Roe v. Wade decision (link via Yahoo). Worth noting is that the author of the opinion, Justice Blackmun, and other justices apparently did not intend the decision to be as far reaching as it turned out to be. It's well worth a read. It's also a good reminder that court decisions can have implications far beyond what the judge (or a pundit) may expect at the time. (H/T: Volokh Conspiracy).

Media Coverage Of President Bush's Katrina Speech

I made a point to surf the major news channels after President Bush's speech tonight. I found the variety of the reactions to be interesting, if not surprising.

ABC: They had a panel of a handful of citizens outside the Astrodome. As one might expect the responses they got were somewhat random. It was an interesting approach, but not one that I typically find particularly compelling.

(Update: I thought I'd point out that it seems I was switching channels too rapidly in an effort to get the "first reaction" from each channel. Polipundit has a round-up of the blogosphere's reaction to the comments, which were apparently--and surprisingly--pro-Bush.)

CBS: CSI, maybe the season premiere. I'll at least give them credit for not hiding their priorities.

NBC: Brian Williams was repeating the phone numbers and internet addresses that President Bush had given during the speech. Specific focus was given to helping families locate missing people. I'd have to say that this was probably the most useful of the media responses.

FoxNews: In a never ending effort to be "Fair and Balanced", FoxNews had a panel of editorial writers, presumably covering the spectrum from liberal to conservative. The most noteworthy comment was that both sides described the rebuilding portion of the speech as "if they were listening to LBJ."

CNN: Through a number of interviews was focusing solely on the "who is to blame?" angle and ignoring the rest of the speech. I suppose like CBS I should give them credit for not hiding their priorities.

MSNBC: They conducted an interview with Louisiana Lt. Governor Landrieu. Landrieu was echoing part of the speech, saying that great care had to be taken to ensure that rebuilding money didn't get wasted via fraud and political corruption.

Personally I think the biggest story will be how the rest of the country reacts to the rather ambitious rebuilding efforts that President Bush outlined in the speech. There was no mention of considering any other avenues other than rebuilding New Orleans with better hurricane and flood protection. He also spoke of using a variety of government programs to "break the cycle of poverty" in the region. Both of these goals were easy to get behind emotionally, but the cost of each will be enormous. It will be interesting to see how long the population as a whole will remain supportive of the efforts, no matter the cost.

As for the speech itself, it was fairly typical Bush fare. It was well-written, even eloquent in places. It made less than subtle references to the importance of religion to the health of the country. It was delivered sincerely by Bush with the usual number of stumblings and mutterings one has come to expect. As typical for such a speech, I doubt it will change the mind of either Bush supporters or the get-Bush-at-all-costs camp, but such is the nature of politics.

Change In Tenor Of Katrina Coverage

I've been away on vacation for over a week, thus the lack of any posts. During my return trip I had the pleasure of four hour layover in the Salt Lake City airport. Much of that time was spent under a monitor showing CNN. Of course, the coverage was almost entirely Katrina related.

Having been separated from both mainstream media coverage and the blogosphere, a change in the tenor of the coverage was immediately apparent to me. When I had left for vacation, the underlying question in every news story was how could have the government have failed so badly in responding to the storm? The coverage I witnessed at the airport was missing much of this angle.

The stories were diverse and covered both good and bad aspects of the situation along the gulf coast. The choices ranged from up-to-the-minute, breaking news stories to human interest stories depicting the courage with which some are facing the destruction wrought by Katrina. One of the most striking changes was that many stories involved coverage of the national guard efforts and in every case, the men and women of the guard were depicted in a heroic, positive light.

I cannot know for sure what caused this change in tenor. Perhaps the reporters now living in the aftermath of the storm fully understand the scope of the destruction. They are now answering the more immediate (and pertinent) question of "What is being done to survive and recover?" as opposed to "Who is to blame?" Perhaps the recovery efforts have so gripped the nation that the viewers find caustic, investigatory reporting unpalatable at the moment.

Whatever the root cause, I find the change a welcome one.

More battles to choose wisely (Roberts)

I'm going to make a prediction. When John Roberts' nomination is voted on in the Judiciary Committee, it will not be a party line vote. Roberts will receive at least a few Democratic votes. My gut feeling is it will be a 14-4 vote. Then on the floor he will receive a solid majority.

This is hardly a earth shattering prediction. I've read plenty of people opining that Roberts will get upwards up 70 votes on the floor (although I don't remember reading much speculation about the committee). But here's my reasoning. A party line vote opposing Roberts would be a strategic blunder for the Democrats. Given his impeccable credentials, strong performance at the hearings and lack of any concrete reason to oppose him, a party line vote would be a clear announcement that the left will not accept any nominee from the Republican president. This statement would in effect marginalize them. Why would President Bush pay any more attention to their "advice" when basically any nominee would get the same response? The Democrats need to able to show through their votes that a more conservative nominee, someone in the mold of Scalia, is more objectionable. Otherwise the Senate will turn into a partisan rubber stamp on judicial nominees. Barring a filibuster, of course, but I don't think Senate Democrats are eager to see how a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee would play with the American people, particularly since a number of them from Republican leaning states will be up for election in 2006.

I could be wrong in either my analysis of the strategic situation or how much the Democrats are beholden to their fund raising interest groups (who would no doubt urge complete opposition if Bush nominated a clone of Thurgood Marshall). But I wanted to on the record now, so I can take credit if I turn out to be right.

Update (9/16): Michael Barone, one of the most knowledgeable guys around when it comes to politics, writes that the committee Dems will all vote against Roberts but many other Dems will vote for the nomination. Obviously we won't know until it happens, but Barone's opinion is generally worth listening too.

Update (9/21): Floor vote prediction is 70-75 votes. I posted this in the comments thread on Polipundit so I figured I ought to put it here as well.

Choose your battles wisely (Pledge)

I've been reading various opinions about yesterday's Pledge of Allegiance decision, in particular written by atheists and secularists. (See the comment thread here at the Volokh Conspiracy for a typical discussion.) I've heard the arguments many times before from friends and acquaintances as well - that the words "under God" establish religion, are coercive when a teacher in a public school leads the pledge recitation, that they violate separation of church and state. I strongly disagree with these arguments, both from the standpoints of policy and constitutionality. But that's not the point of this post.

What would be the long term effect if in the end the Supreme Court does rule that recitation of the Pledge in schools is unconstitutional? Michael Newdow has likely undertaken his crusade on principle without much thought for the fallout. Polls clearly indicate that a vast majority of Americans do not think the words "under God" in the pledge are unconstitutional and should remain - 84-89% in this poll (scroll down). The majority is not always right - that's why we have protections in the Bill of Rights. But when the majority is as strong as it appears to be in this case it seems likely that that majority would take action to oppose a court ruling. In the case of the pledge I think it is extremely likely that a SCOTUS ruling would spark a movement to amend the constitution to explicitly allow (at a minimum) such ceremonial religious references. With support in the 80+% range, it would be likely to pass. (Such an amendment might well be very narrow in scope, but impact on interpretation of the First Amendment would be unknown.)

The concept of separation of church and state, not explicitly contained in our Constitution, has gained general acceptance in this country over the past century. Secularists have made significant strides towards removing religion from public life, in ways that would certainly surprise the drafters of the First Amendment. But the Pledge case (and related efforts such as removing "In God We Trust" from the currency) seems to me to be overreach. The backlash could well result in constitutional amendments that would set back the secularists cause. Thus the title of this post - choose your battles wisely, because some tactical victories may lead to defeat,

For the record, I do not think Newdow will prevail in his suit. I think it will be reversed by either the Ninth Circuit or the Supremes.

Here we go again - Pledge declared unconstitutional

A U.S. District Court judge in California ruled today that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools in unconstitutional. MSNBC report here. Michael Newdow, who had a similar case previously dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of standing, had filed this action on behalf of three California families.

Strangely, according to the news report the judge felt that he was bound by the precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who had ruled in favor of Newdow in 2002. The Supreme Court ruling in this case was that the case was dismissed because Newdow didn't have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter who he had no custodial rights. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of this ruling is that the Supreme Court ruling overturned the Ninth Circuit ruling. As such it has no precedential value and does not bind the District Court in any way. This seems to open up a ready avenue for the Ninth Circuit to possibly overturn this ruling upon appeal. Keep in mind that the appeal will be heard by a random panel of three appeals court judges, which might end up being significantly different in legal perspective than the panel that ruled in favor of Newdow in 2002. Thus there is no guarantee that this case will even reach the Supreme Court, even though the issue may well reach the highest court eventually.

I do think that this ruling is a gift to Republicans and President Bush at a time when there are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. It certainly will be played up by the right in an effort to emphasize that the courts have overstepped their bounds and need to be curtailed. It is not clear how much effect this will have or how it will play out, but it can not help those on the left who want to stop the president's nominees or at least to moderate his second choice.

Update: Professor Eugene Volokh, who obviously knows much more about the law than me, comes to a similar conclusion about the Ninth Circuit precedent here.

More Roberts

I watched a large portion of Day 2 of the Roberts' hearing yesterday and some of this morning's action. Some of it made good theater, particularly when the nominee sparred with several of the more combative Democrats on the committee (Kennedy, Biden). Roberts carried himself very well through it all, speaking well and showing solid knowledge of the law. As expected, Senators spent much of the time making speeches instead of asking questions. The Republicans in particular were guilty of this, but what do you expect in "questioning" a nominee when it's a foregone conclusion that you will vote for the man?

Now into the second day of questioning the nominee, it's pretty clear that the nomination will clear the committee, receive a floor vote and be confirmed. The only question is the total number of votes. This is clear both from the tenor of the questions in the hearing and the media coverage. The cable news channels have cut away repeatedly from the hearing to cover other stories, including Bush at the United Nations. From this it seems clear that the media producers realize that there is little chance of any additional newsworthy fireworks, and as a result doesn't require constant coverage. Of course, without any major bombshells, either today or from the witnesses who will testify later in the week, there is no chance that this nomination will be derailed. None of this is surprising in the least, but it is interesting to see it play out exactly how many have expected it to since John Roberts was first nominated.

Day One of the Roberts Hearings

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the confirmation of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States began today. Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog and Matt Margolis at Blogs for Bush live blogged the hearings. For my part, I attempted to listen to them via C-span.

My impression matched my expectations - a lot of blather. Today's hearing consisted simply of opening statements from the 18 Judiciary Committee members, the three senators tasked with "introducing" Roberts and the nominee himself. Nothing much of substance was said, with senators from both sides repeating talking points. I suppose someone who hasn't been paying attention might be interested to hear that Chuck Schumer thinks that Roberts must answer questions about previously decided questions, or that John Cornyn would advise him not to answer specific questions, or that Dianne Feinstein considers Roe v. Wade a most important issue (Sam Brownback too, although from the opposite side). But someone who hasn't been paying attention to the issue of judicial appointments probably wasn't watching the hearing.

John Roberts did make a very nice impression in his six minute opening statement, made without the aid of notes. But this too was completely to be expected from the accomplished Supreme Court litigator. It points to how well he is likely to perform over the next two days of questioning.

The real fireworks begin tomorrow morning.

Zogby's cognitive dissonance

Over at the Huffington Post, John Zogby posts in disbelief about the results of a new poll that has all of the president from Carter to Clinton beating George . Bush in a prospective matchup, while Bush still beats John Kerry. Zogby asks, "What am I missing here?"

It doesn't take much thought to figure it out. Past presidents have the advantage of no longer being in office. Their faults are somewhat shrouded in the mists of time. Not being in the limelight, not being the regular butt of comedian's jokes, not being blamed for current problems they can readily be viewed favorably as statesmen. Thus it's very easy to romantically assume that things would be better with the old guys than with the current officeholder. Thus Carter/Reagan/Bush Sr./Clinton have a natural advantage over G.W. Bush in such a poll.

Kerry, on the other hand, is fresh in the minds of Americans. His attributes and flaws were on display in the recent election. It stands to reason that a Kerry/Bush poll would be similar to the 2004 election results, since not much has really happened to change the relative appeal of either man.

I find it interesting that a national poll would waste it's time with irrelevant questions such as these. The cynical thought is that Zogby (a known Democratic supporter) was trying to find evidence to support a negative view of Bush. But a critical analysis of this particular line of questions shows the results to be mostly meaningless.

The comment thread on Zogby's HuffPost post was also interesting (yes, I did slog through to the end), if only to see all of the people who insist that the 2004 election was stolen and that Kerry really did win by a good margin. Not to mention the lack of critical thinking that allows one to respond to Zogby's question (about a poll taken in the summer of 2005) with accusations of stolen elections. What does one have to do with the other? I can't say I'm surprised - you can find the same kind of sentiment in comment threads on DU or Kos (and similarly partisan blinded comments on right wing sites as well).

Blame Game

I've had a hard time trying to blog over the past couple of weeks, as evidenced by the lack of posts. (Not that I'm usually very prolific anyway.) The reason is Hurricane Katrina, and specifically the maelstrom of spin and finger pointing that came in the storm's wake. Almost from the moment the levees were breached, it has seemed that the primary focus of attention from politicians, media and many bloggers has been assigning blame for what has happened or defending against such accusations.

One would hope that faced with a disaster of this magnitude the primary focus would be on saving lives and doing whatever is needed to rebuild the Gulf Coast region and the lives of the people who lived there. Unfortunately, I'm not naive enough to expect that. I understand why politicians and pundits play the blame game. In the current political environment everything is seen as an opportunity to score political points.

The government response has certainly been far from perfect. Those agencies involved (federal, state, local) should review what happened and do their utmost to learn from the experience and correct what can be corrected (some "problems" in our system are features and not bugs, as a computer programmer might say, and as such can't be corrected). There is a time for this kind of review. But it just seemed crass to me to indulge in punditry about the response while the disaster was/is unfolding.

FWIW, there has been plenty of good reporting and blogging about Katrina. In particular, I'm thinking about efforts by bloggers to suggest and collect donations for relief agencies and charities.

Roberts for Chief Justice

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died of cancer on Saturday at age 80. May he rest in peace.

Today Bush nominated John Roberts to replace Rehnquist as CJ. This means that his nomination to replace Sandra Day O’Connor has been rescinded. Bush will now nominate someone else to fill her seat.

This is a very smart move by George Bush. Roberts clearly has the professional qualifications to serve on the court. Attempts to smear him over the last two months have largely failed. He also seems to have an ideal temperament for Chief Justice – well suited to building majorities as needed, much more so than Antonin Scalia, for example. Some on the right remain concerned that Roberts is not sufficiently conservative, but the record that is emerging points to a man who is solidly conservative though not an ideologue.

Reports are that Democrats privately concede that they cannot stop the nomination. What this means is that it is very possible that Roberts will be seated as Chief Justice when the court opens its term in October. This is important, because the CJ (among other administrative duties) assigns opinions in any case in which he is in the majority. This can be a very significant power when exercised. By choosing the author of the court’s opinion the CJ can effectively strengthen or weaken the holdings. This is true even on cases with which he disagrees – a canny CJ can join the majority in a case where his vote won’t decide the case (5 other votes in favor) simply to assign the opinion to a justice that will write the least compelling or far reaching opinion. If the CJ seat remains open then this power is exercised based on seniority, meaning liberal Justice Stevens. It is clearly in GWB’s interest to place his own nominee in the CJ seat as soon as possible.

An added benefit to the choice is that with the O’Connor seat now open again, SDO may return to the court in October until her replacement is found. Her resignation in June was conditional on her replacement’s confirmation, although she could of course amend that at any time. If she does continue to serve then the court will not be faced with the prospect of having only 8 members (assuming Roberts is confirmed) evenly split between nominally liberal and conservative factions. A court that splits 4-4 simply affirms the lower court holding by default and is a recipe for an ineffectual court. Not to mention that fact that SDO is at least somewhat conservative.

Now, there is more than short term procedural moves at stake here. Elevating Roberts would be a bad idea if he were not a good candidate. But from what I have read I feel confident that he is a good choice

Police Shoot, Kill Gunmen In New Orleans

Earlier today, there was an AP report that New Orleans police had shot and killed members of the Army Core of Engineers that were working to repair one of the levees. I was horrified but (thankfully) chose to wait on confirmation before blogging about it.

As it turns out, the story has a happy ending, if you can call it that. It turns out that the police actually shot and killed at least five gunmen (scroll down for the story) that were themselves shooting at the Army engineers. Even in the fact of such horror as the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans, I can't imagine what would possess someone to shoot at people trying to repair the levee. I am thankful that in this instance the police were around to restore a little order and sanity.

I think the first AP report and then the correction can be taken as an indication of just how chaotic things are in New Orleans right now. I don't fault the AP for getting the story wrong at first. It is difficult to get a true sense of the conditions down there, no matter how much TV coverage one watches. But one can easily imagine how confusing things were after the shooting.

At least the news in this case was not horrific, but only sad.

Unused Buses In New Orleans

Glenn over at Instapundit has been following an interesting story of unused buses in New Orleans. He first noted it here. And has followed up today with a link to high resolution pictures.

From talking with friends that lived in New Orleans, the general opinion is that it would have been hard to convince some people to leave even if transportation was available. But it would be a tragedy indeed if people that wanted to leave could have if these buses had been used.

Intelligent Criticism

Dave Wissing, at the excellent Hedgehog Report, has posted his views on how different politicians have handled the Hurricane Katrina disaster. In contrast with the hideous bile coughed up by Clift at Newsweek (see this post below), this commentary by Wissing is intelligent, makes you think, and isn't dripping with talking points from the loony left.

Notice that he gives Bush a bad grade for his response so far. But also notice that his review of Bush's actions is based on Bush's actual actions themselves. There's no mention of the war in Iraq, the estate tax, long vacations or any other standard attacking point.

Everyone please enjoy the protection of the first amendment; being able to freely criticize the government is one of the things that makes this country great. But when you feel the need, please do so intelligently, as Mr. Wissing has done. The outlandish agenda journalism that is running rampant has gotten more than tiresome.

Eleanor Clift's Astoundingly Ignorant Rant

It seems that the disaster of Hurricane Katrina has untied the staff at Newsweek, but sadly not to report the truth or to somehow help the situation. No, Newsweek seems united in using the deaths of hundreds (or thousands?) of people and widespread destruction to attack President Bush. Just a few posts down, Keith commented on the appalling comments of Fineman. Fellow columnist Eleanor Clift joins the party with a shockingly ignorant editorial "A Colossal Failure of Leadership," which is labeled as a "web-exclusive commentary". If this is the quality of something that is "web-exclusive", I might just have to rethink my stance and go back to print media.

Ms. Clift starts off with this idiocy:

I didn’t see the movie “The Day After,” which depicts the desolation and desperation in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. Staring at the images from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is like watching that disaster movie in real time.

She didn't see the movie yet says the images are like watching the movie in real time? I haven't seen the movie either. Shall I suggest that Ms. Clift reminds me of that completely asinine reporter from the movie that no one could stand?
Her brainless rantings continue:

Where is Rudy Giuliani when we need him? We’ve had four years since 9/11 to prepare for a crisis with mass casualties, yet we seem totally unprepared.

This shows a shocking lack of understanding of the scope of the problem in New Orleans. Perhaps Ms. Clift should have taken a physics class just once in school instead of studying the art of the poisoned pen. An entire city was built below sea level, a category 5 hurricane brings 20 foot sea swell with waves on top of it, and she seems perplexed that everything isn't already taken care of? I noticed she continues to shine on Giuliani with:

But this was a moment for national leadership, and nobody rose to take charge the way Giuliani did in New York.

I'm sure when Giuliani announces his candidacy as a Republican next year, Ms. Clift will be first in line to help with the campaign. Oh, and by the way, Giuliani was the mayor of New York City. What does that have to do with national leadership? This next paragraph is particularly outrageous:

This has been a colossal failure of government. President Bush spent Tuesday, the day after Katrina struck, at a Medicare event in Arizona and then he made his way to a San Diego naval base for yet another anniversary tribute to the Greatest Generation. His concession to reality was adding a few words of compassion to his prepared remarks. Meanwhile, the greatest natural disaster in a century was unfolding at sickening speed with television cameras capturing footage of looting reminiscent of the days after the invasion of Iraq. Things were so bad “you almost wonder if Donald Rumsfeld is in charge,” said Marshall Wittmann, an analyst with the Democratic Leadership Council.

Wow, let's check the list. We have a snide mention of World War II veterans, a personal attack of President Bush's character, a portrayal of failure in Iraq, and a slam against Rumsfeld by a leader of the Democratic Party. That's a pretty impressive paragraph, even by loony left standards.

I don't really want to give any of Ms. Clift's writings any more press, but she ends with:

Congress had been planning to eliminate the estate tax, draining billions from a federal budget already reeling under the costs of a war. Marshall Wittmann, who used to advise John McCain, predicts that Bush’s tax-cutting days are over. “We’ve been living in la-la land,” he says. “This is a moment of sobriety when business as usual can’t continue.”

Ahh, I understand, it's the elimination of the estate tax that's causing all the problems along the gulf coast. Actually, from reading the editorial it is clear what Ms. Clift's real point is. She hates President Bush. She hated him before Katrina, she hated him after Katrina. She doesn't like his economic ideas and she doesn't like his political ideas. It seems she doesn't like any of his ideas. The hurricane and the suffering of thousands is just a convenient excuse for her to show the world just how deep her mindless hate runs.

To Ms. Clift I have this to say. This is not been a failure of leadership. You view it as that, but you weren't going to follow President Bush no matter what happened or didn't happen in New Orleans. You'll probably be disappointed to learn, if you can open you mind enough to do so, that a growing number of people are getting tired of the continual and baseless attacks on President Bush. Ask outside your tiny little sphere of fellow biased journalists and you will find that even people who never even considered voting for the man can see your slanderous, ignorant rant for what it is.

I can only hope Newsweek decided to employ different columnists in the future. Ones, perhaps, that think for themselves instead of spewing out a very tired--and false--diatribe.

Reasons To Hope In Iraq

I imagine most potential readers of this are riveted by the events in New Orleans and the gulf coast; I know I have been recently. But the combination of the horrible events that are unfolding before the eyes of the world and the shrill commentary of number of people who seem more fixated on blaming people for the disaster than reporting the news has driven me to look for more positive news elsewhere.

Surprisingly I found it in Iraq. Mark Steyn has an interesting editorial column titled, 'Why I remain an optimist," that is a must read. He comments on an excerpt from the proposed Iraqi constitution:

‘Iraq is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation.’

That first sentence alone is a remarkable declaration for this part of the world and, if the second partly qualifies it, well, hold your horses before screaming Iranian-style theocracy. It was never likely, in Iraq as in Afghanistan, that an overwhelmingly Muslim country would not give formal recognition to that reality in its constitution, but what’s important here is what’s not said. Iraq ‘is part of the Islamic world’, but it’s not an ‘Islamic republic’, as Iran is. ‘Its Arab people are part of the Arab nation’, but Iraq itself is not: it’s not the ‘Arab Republic of Iraq’, as it is the ‘Arab Republic of Egypt’ and the ‘Syrian Arab Republic’.

No one can predict with accuracy the outcome of the Iraqi constitutional vote on October 15. But I find Steyn's analysis fascinating.

Blame Democracy

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many voices have been raised to ask who is to blame? This is a completely natural human reaction in the face of tragedy - people want to know why this happened. Some of the voices are blatantly partisan, seeking to pin blame on political opponents or push their own causes. Others, such as this NY Times Op-Ed They Saw It Coming, focus on explaining the how's and why's without any obvious agenda beyond wanting a safer New Orleans. The author also discusses what could be done in the future to protect the region from future hurricanes.

But if we're looking for something beyond natural forces to blame for broken levees, flooded cities and even less than perfect response plans, I think there's one obvious answer. Blame democracy. Democratic societies habitually ignore signs of danger. They tend to be reactive rather than proactive. Governments have priorities, which in a functioning democracy are set by the will of the people. Some have complained that the federal government did not properly fund levee construction. But until there's a crisis this wasn't a priority for the people (certainly not around the country and possibly not among folks in New Orleans either). A congressman who wants votes will emphasize on popular priorities like education and give short shrift to long term problems that may or may not materialize before that politician retires.

It takes a visionary leader to push against the competing political forces to implement (and fund) something which is important but doesn't seem pressing to the public. Contrary to popular assumptions about politicians I believe that such leaders do exist. But it's no surprise to me that the natural tendencies of our system prevail in most cases. As they perhaps did in New Orleans.

As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Appalling commentary by Howard Fineman

In the midst of tragedy and devastation, isn't it nice to know that some people can only see the crass political angle? Hundreds or thousands of people have been killed because of Hurricane Katrina and hundreds of thousands are now homeless, but Howard Fineman can only focus on "a political storm brewing" in his commentary War on the Mississippi.

For years the Pentagon’s standing readiness plans required the country to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously. But no one anticipated what we face now: a war in Mesopotamia and another along the Mississippi.

In his rush to view everything through anti-Bush lens, Fineman equates the natural disaster in the Gulf region to a war which we are not prepared to handle because of the war in Iraq.

And now: the Storm and the Flood, which have inundated the Gulf Coast in deadly water. This is, literally, an invasion of the homeland, and it will require a warlike response from a nation and a military already stretched thin.

In what conceivable way is this literally an invasion of the homeland? (Yet another writer who doesn't seem to understand what the word "literal" means.) There are no foreign nationals attacking American citizens or bombs going off. Civil order has broken down in many of the ravaged areas. While I find the actions of looters who are taking advantage of the situation despicable, equating the situation to an invasion shows a serious lack of perspective and judgment, even as a rhetorical device.

National Guard officials insist that they have enough men and women on hand to do the job, but common sense tells you that they could use the others stationed abroad. The U.S. Navy is dispatching supply ships to the region, but battling the waters that cover the region will require many more resources.

From the accounts that I have read there remain thousands of National Guardsmen in the region who not yet been mobilized (information from a day or two ago, may be old). There are certainly many more in other parts of the country that have not been activated. This indicates that we do have the resources to deal with this situation regardless of the deployment of troops to the Middle East. Not to mention the fact that the majority of troops in Iraq are not Guardsmen. Does anyone think that the First Marines should be brought back to aid in New Orleans? Would Fineman really call for their deployment if they were not overseas?
As is typical, some people are never willing to trust the opinions of the professionals, at least not when they are military.

Andy Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans. Will George Bush? His poll numbers already at near-record low levels, he will have to oversee the rescue of the gulf in the midst of a changing climate in Washington. The public’s sense of where America is headed—the “right direction/wrong track” numbers—are dismal. Gas prices are high and unsettling. Congressional Democrats, reluctant since 9/11 to take on a “war president,” finally have decided to do so. And Republicans, knowing that they’ll be facing the voters a year from now, are beginning to seek ways to distance themselves from him.

This president doesn’t need Karl Rove to explain the political importance of disaster relief. It’s something Bush responds to naturally, and he knows the risks of seeming to be an insensitive, to-the-manner-born president. When hurricanes hit Florida before the last election, he and his brother, Jeb, were on the case, Big Time. Now three Red States are hit, hard, and the challenge is likely to be much greater.

Now the meat of the column. Fineman shows that his primary concern in assessing the situation is how the disaster might hurt Bush. Thousands dead? A city ravaged? It's all good as long as the president's poll numbers get worse. Red states took the damage? Even better! The satisfaction that seems to come through his writing is sickening.

And just after Labor Day, hearings will start in the Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. Expect the Democrats to drop their caution and go after him with all they’ve got. They’re coming to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose, and they are being pushed in that combative direction by a grass-roots base furious at the congressional party for not having taken a tougher line against the president months if not years ago.

Democrats are being pushed by a grass roots and media base that is so maddened by their hatred of this president that they can't see anything beyond the possibility of wounding or thwarting Bush. If the Democrats follow Fineman's lead and attempt to politicize this tragedy, turn it into nothing more than an opportunity to bash the administration, then they will certainly have plenty to lose. The Democrats are the minority party in Washington now. This path leads to a political wasteland.

But now they sense blood in the rising water.

Appalling. Howard, there is real blood in the water. That's much more important right now than politics.

Update: Peggy Noonan on makes the same comparison between the situation and a war:

Last week I said that this is the wrong time in hostory to move forward with the wholsesale closings of military bases thourought the U.S. Terrorism was on my mind, but the incredible tragedy on the Gulf Coast is giving us a new gulf war, one in which we must help an entire region get back on its feet after being leveled by an ancient foe, the hurricane, and what is happening there right now in New Orleans and Mississippi seems tragically illustrative of the fact that local military presence can be crucial in times of grave national emergency.

Another bad comparison and I disagree with using this disaster to push against base closings. At least Ms. Noonan's tone is more respectful and this is merely a small part of her column which is mostly focused appropriately on the situation.

Looters Fire On Airlift Helicopters Over The Superdome

Frankly, I'm speechless. The airlift operations removing people from the Superdome to dry land so that they can head to Texas has been suspended due to gunfire directed at the helicopters.

MSNBC seems to be the first to cover the story.

I don't think anyone can imagine just how horrific the situation in New Orleans will become over the next month. I can only hope that situations in the less populated areas along the gulf coast will be more controllable.

What Happened To Keith Olbermann's Brain?

Update: The post below is 3 years old, yet still is the result of common search terms. People are indeed curious as to what happened to Keith Olbermann and if you are reading this now then apparently you are too. For more recent posts about Olbermann please click:

Olbermann and Matthews on Obama

or

Olbermann and Matthews out at MSNBC

Thanks for reading. End Update.

Keith Olbermann spoke at convocation when I graduated from Cornell. His speech was witty and thought provoking. As an anchor on ESPN, he was definitely my favorite; though only rehashing sports scores, Olbermann came across as intelligent.

What then, I am forced ask, has happened to him?

After the election, Olbermann devoted his MSNBC show night in and night out to how the election in Ohio was fixed and how the election was stolen, unfair and invalid. His treatment of the election has been ripped apart numerous times, so I don't really feel the need to do so. Suffice it to say Mr. Olbermann was proudly wearing his tin foil hat for all to see.

His latest confounding production comes in the form of an entry on his "blog" on MSNBC. I almost didn't want to link to it, as the fewer people who read it, the better. However since MSNBC links to it on their front page, I feel compelled to do my part to point out the idiocy of his commentary.

Olbermann's post deals with Lance Armstrong and why Olbermann doesn't believe his denials of doping use. I'll post a summary of his logic here, to spare from you from reading his rants. The train of thought goes something like this:

• During an actor's strike, Armstrong "crossed the picket lines" and made commercials
  
• Armstrong is therefore a "louse" for not supporting unions
  
• Being a louse, Armstrong is untrustworthy and man of weak character
  
• Thus, he must be lying about doping and is a "juiced louse"
  

All the terms in quotes, above, are Olbermann's own. This chain of logic is unbelievably biased (not to mention moronic). He has the nerve to comment on his own rant with:

This is not a piece of pro-union dogma here. This is not a question of a guy crossing a picket line. This is a millionaire, being given a pass to work by a union full of guys making $7,000 a year, saying no, he wouldn’t do it -- and then going and doing it anyway.

While there is some legitimacy to the complaint that Armstrong said he wouldn't make commercials during the strike and then changing his mind and doing so, let's be honest here. Everything Olbermann wrote was a piece of pro-union dogma. And claiming Armstrong's behavior with the unions is related to the doping allegations is farcical.

Warning Labels for French Fries

Out here in California, the foolishness of the state government never ceases to amaze. The latest item: Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit to require that makers of french fries and potato chips put a warning label on their products because they could cause cancer (Yahoo News story). FDA studies have shown that a chemical that appears in starchy foods cooked to high temperatures (e.g. frying) causes cancer in mice subjected to high doses.

California law requires warning labels for anything that is deemed carcinogenic. The labels are ubiquitous. For example, every gas station has such a warning at the pump. Now certainly the motivation behind these warnings is a good one. The folks in Sacramento want to protect citizens from harmful chemicals. But common sense should temper this desire of legislators and regulators. When warning labels are everywhere does anyone truly pay them any mind? Is there anyone in California who worries about whether to fill up his car because there might be carcinogenic chemicals at a gas station? How many people will choose not to eat fries at McDonalds because of such a warning? Warnings should be reserved for things that actually pose a significant, immediate threat.

When the government tries too hard to protect us the results end up in the range of ridiculousness.

Update: Debra Saunders (via RealClearPolitics) writes along the same lines.

Democratic Party And The Union Vote

There is an interesting editorial on FoxNews by Martin Frost concerning the Democratic Party and the potential loss of the union vote.
The raw numbers are perhaps the most telling:

According to Dionne, Kerry won union households in Pennsylvania 62 to 37 percent while losing non-union voters 55 to 45 percent. The story in Michigan was similar. Kerry won the union vote 61 to 37 percent, while losing the non-union vote 55 to 44 percent.

Equally dramatic was the percent of votes that came from union households — 30 percent in Pennsylvania and 37 percent in Michigan.

I also agree with this commentary:

Several large unions have broken from the AFL-CIO (search), arguing that labor should concentrate more on recruiting members and less on politics. Since the bulk of labor’s money has gone to Democratic candidates in recent years, this will have an impact on Democratic campaigns.

But the impact goes far beyond dollars.

The Democratic Party has relied heavily on organized labor to provide the ground troops to run campaigns and, more importantly, the votes necessary to carry key industrial states in presidential campaigns.

The magnitude of the impact remains an interesting question. While the unions might not be paying as much to "get out the vote" how likely is it for people that voted for Democrats in prior elections to suddenly switch because of the lack of union pressure? It is more likely that they don't vote at all. Lack of union voter turn-out would definitely hurt the Democratic Party, but not as much as union voters switching sides, so this would likely lessen the political impact. The editorial also makes this comment:

Labor has a multiracial make-up and minority union members probably will continue to be solidly Democratic, but white union members — without a strong push from the top — may not be as reliably Democratic as they have been in recent years.

While this is probably generally true, I don't think it can be taken for granted. Bush made some significant inroads among African American and Hispanic voters. It is unrealistic to think that there will be earth-shattering changes in the voting patterns of these demographics; but significant changes are indeed possible.

Red Cross Donations For Victims Of Hurricane Katrina

There is not much I can add to the wealth of coverage about the impact of hurricane Katrina. I can only hope that the loss of life is kept to a minimum by the efforts of emergency and relief organizations.

The Red Cross is accepting donations to help people who have been affected by the storm.

Agenda Journalism on Gas Prices

Agenda journalism on display in this AP piece picked up by CNN. Gas prices are high. Does it surprise anyone that the presidential motorcade uses a lot of fuel? Or Air Force One? But if it makes Bush look bad (wasting your tax dollars!) and it touches on the current theme that gas prices are the fault of government (specifically Republican government) then it's worth writing...

The most amusing bit in the story is the two paragraphs on Bush's farm truck. Horrors - it only gets 13/17 mpg! Of course, "Bush actually drives the pickup very little", so it really has nothing to do with the overall story. But it makes Bush look like a gas guzzling heathen, so why not include it? Not to mention the fact that a fuel efficient little passenger car wouldn't be much use in running a ranch (not that Bush is doing much actual ranching, but still).

Gas Price Controls: Haven't we tried this once before?

Hawaii will shortly begin imposing price caps on wholesale gasoline in hopes of stopping the rise in retail prices. MSNBC reports that caps will take effect on Sept. 1 and will be tied to an index comprised of gas prices in five U.S. markets.

This story sounds somewhat familiar. Haven't price controls for gas been tried before? Oh that's right, in the 70's. And what a smashing success they were. Rationing, long lines, shortages. And prices still skyrocketed.

The likely result of the Hawaii policy will be the same as the country experienced 30 years ago. Shortages and less incentive for producers to refine oil in Hawaii.

When will people (especially but not exclusively left leaning legislators) finally realize that you can't repeal the laws of economics? Not every market is perfect or efficient, but things almost always get worse when you let bureaucrats control prices. The fact that oil companies are making money is not a good reason to interfere (and since when is is a bad thing that companies actually make a profit?)

Note: regardless of what the headlines may say we're still well below record high prices for gasoline when adjusted for inflation. Check out this chart for one person's experience (thanks to Glenn for the link).

Outright Lies By The Mainstream Media

Instapundit points to this article by Jack Kelly which tells a story of outright fabrication and lies being told by the New York Times. I'm sure you are shocked to hear of such behavior by the NYT, but if you read the details the depth of unprofessional behavior just might surprise you. Here's a summary of the real story.

The Army has been using "Interceptor" body armor in Iraq. While a superior form of protection to the previous forms of body armor used by the military, there are a few special rounds that can penetrate it. There is no evidence the terrorists in Iraq have access to such specialized rounds, but the Army wanted to be proactive. For emphasis, there is no evidence that these rounds are being used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The Army released new specs for improved body armor and let companies in the U.S. design and bid for a replacement. The improved armor has been delivered to U.S troops as early as March of this year, despite the specs only being released in January.

The New York Times interviewed Colonel Spoehr and was given all the information I just summarized, above. How did the story read?

For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents.

The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system.

Apparently, and rightful so, Spoehr is angry with the NYT for distorting the truth.

At first I was going to suggest that the New York Times in no better than a grocery store tabloid. But upon further reflection, "no better" isn't fair--to the tabloids. The New York Times is far worse than a trashy tabloid. Tabloid articles focus on topics such as alien babies, Elvis sightings, and the Loch Ness monster. They are obviously false. The articles in the Times are deviously and purposely deceitful. How many people read the lies written in the Times about the body armor story? How many people will read the real story?

Some herald the coming of blogs as the death knell of print media. If this behavior by the Times is any indication of what print media can give us, I can only hope that it happens as quickly as possible.

Iraq vs. Afghanistan Constitutions

A comparison of the Iraq and Afghanistan constitutions by Alenda Lux has been getting a lot of blog press today, see instapundit and redstate, for example.

The comparison is quite interesting if lengthy for those that have the time to read it. The two most interesting observations are that:

(1) the language of the two constitutions is quite similar, right down to the reference to Islam
(2) the media decided the Islamic references in the Afghanistan constitution were good and that the nearly identical references in the Iraq constitution were bad

I'm not normally a tinfoil hat kind of guy. But such behavior by the media smacks of conspiracy. It is as if soon after 9/11 it was inadvisable to be critical of America's success in fighting terrorism. Remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks and news ratings are little different than country music ratings. Now, after some time has passed, it seems the media feels that ability to criticize even if the results now are nearly identical to the results then.

I'm thankful the new blogosphere media exists to inform me of such things. I can't imagine such an observation being covered heavily in the mainstream media. And I'd be happy to be proven wrong...

Conflicting Economic Messages From Yahoo

I just couldn't pass this up. Here were the top 5 headlines on finance.yahoo.com.


Let's see. The number two headline is "Stocks Move Higher as Oil Prices Drop." The number three headline is "Oil Prices Rise After U.S. Supply Report."

No wonder I don't understand economics...

Islam And The Iraqi Constitution

Bill Roggio at the Fourth Rail has some encouraging interpretation of the text of the proposed Iraqi constitution. (Hat tip: Instapundit) The most encouraging section reads as follows:

Article Seven denounces terrorism and vows to fight it. Chapter Six, Article 151 grants the women one-quarter of the seats on the assembly. Article 36 grants “Freedom of expression by all means” and “Freedom of the press, printing, advertising and publishing.” Article 39 states “Iraqis are free to abide in their personal lives according to their religion, sects, beliefs or choice.” The rights of various ethnic groups are protected throughout the document. These are not the guarantees of an Islamist state such as that of the Taliban or Iran.

In light of concerns about women's rights in Iraq that I detailed in a previous post here, I find the provision granting women one-quarter of the assembly seats particularly good news.

I'm no expert in how Iraqi politics or law will work, but there are some areas that seem generic enough to cause problems. For example:

1. Islam is a main source for legislation.

* a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.

* b. No law may contradict democratic standards.

* c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.

I would think there are some Islamic standards that would be at odds with democratic standards or essential rights and freedoms. However, the inclusion of (b) and (c) would suggest that an Islamic run state is not being created. Rich Lowry at the NRO had this to say about this section:

The Iraq draft appears to be similar. In addition to the broad bill of rights, our translation of the Islam provision states that ‘no law shall be enacted that contradicts [Islam’s] established provisions, the principles of democracy, [or] the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution.’ This is actually a better formulation than Afghanistan’s model.

Lowry also adds:

The same provision also protects ‘all the religious rights of all individuals in the freedom of belief and religious practice’ – a provision consistent with international standards and identical to the widely praised Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the interim constitution signed by the Iraq Interim Governing Council in 2004.

In addition, Islam is declared to be ‘a’ – not ‘the’– source of legislation, a victory to secularists and roughly in line with the TAL formulation.

There's a wealth of additional reactions to the text of the Iraqi constitution; much of it seems positive. I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

Republicans In Trouble In 2008?

Patrick Ruffini is running a straw poll to see who is the front-runner for the 2008 Presidential nomination for the Republican party. The results at the moment are interesting.

Among serious contenders, Guiliani is leading. Among a larger list of (more unlikely) candidates, Rice and Jeb Bush do very well.

Here's the problem as I see it. Guiliani probably has the best chance to appeal to the widest group of people. But he is "liberal" on several key issues and the religious right is unlikely to support him, choosing instead to do follow their standard "stay home" voting strategy. The loss of that segment of Republican voters, the name recognition of someone like Clinton, and the unleashed anger of the loony left after eight years of W spells disaster in the 2008 election for the Republicans.

A lot could change between now and then of course. Future events could make someone new a clear choice for the nomination. Or the fringe right of the party could realize that the best chance of keeping control of the presidency is to support someone with mass appeal, such as Guiliani. But if (as I suspect) the current leaders of the Republican party become arrogant from their sustained success over the last few decades and continue to push more to the right, they will be very vulnerable to a legitimate candidate from the Democratic party. Time will tell.

George Will On Gas Prices And The Media

George Will has a Newsweek column that discusses how the media covering gas prices recently. His point is quite clear and as it is unlikely that I'll be able to communicate it better than Mr. Will, I can only suggest that you read it now.

The whole article is an essay, basically, on how one can use numbers about the economy (gas prices, deficits, unemployment rates, take your pick...) and easily tell whatever story you want to tell if you take the numbers out of context. In short, it tells of how one can lie with statistics. Perhaps it is the baseball reference, but I like how the article ends:

Still, various voices warn that parts of the economy's improvement are "temporary." Well, yes—isn't everything? During a broadcast 14 years ago, Vin Scully, voice of the Los Angeles Dodgers, said, "Andre Dawson has a bruised knee and is listed as day-to-day." (Pause) "Aren't we all?"

Seriously. What in an economy is permanent?

As I continue to blog and I continue to find reason that the media has gone of course, I also continue to wonder. The bias in the media is too pronounced to not be deliberate. But is the bias there in an effort to sell more papers or attract more viewers, or is it more malicious? Many would argue the later and at times I'm strongly attempted to agree. As a counter point, however, watch the local broadcast news wherever you may live (at least in the U.S.). Fires and car crashes get far more than their fair share of coverage. Since I refuse to believe local news is "pro fire", I have to assume that disasters equal ratings and ratings are king.

Just the other day, CNN had a story on the front page reporting a bomb in Afghanistan and the death of two U.S. soldiers. This is the first time that any news from Afghanistan has made the front page of CNN. Even Chrenkoff, who has cataloged mountains of good news from Afghanistan, hasn't done so since March 7. Is the only news worth reporting bad news? Whose fault is it that the good news goes unreported--a biased CNN or an audience who will only bother to tune in if the news is dire?

Remains Of 12 Vietnam MIAs Heading Home

The AP reports via MSNBC that the remains of 12 Vietnam MIAs are on their way home. This may or may not seem like a big deal, but to the families involved it undoubtedly is. I've attended a number of air shows and you often see people flying black MIA flags next to their umbrellas and lawn chairs. After speaking with a few families, it became clear to me just how important getting any information at all is to them. So while this may not sound like good news, I'm glad that a small group of parents, siblings and children no longer have to wonder and wait anymore.

Welcome home.

Nature Of The Enemy In Iraq

Yet one more doom-and-gloom article about Iraq at MSNBC. Three Iraqi civilians were murdered for hanging pro-democracy poster, urging people to vote. One detail of the events jumped out when I read the article:

Gunmen seized three Sunni Arabs hanging posters urging people to vote in the constitutional referendum, drove them to a mosque and shot them dead Friday, an official of their political party and witnesses said.

The emphasis is mine. Contrast this with U.S. military behavior early on in the war, as we would avoid targeting mosques in an effort to offend the general Islamic populace. A fake story about a Koran being desecrated gets circulated and there are deadly riots across the globe. Three people are driven to a mosque and murdered in cold blood--where are the riot? Where is the outrage?

Kathy Dyer, Marine Mom

Yesterday I posted a link to an article about a marine mom in Ohio that was urging support of the Iraq war as the best way to honor her fallen son.

CNN is now covering the story, and has video of the memorial service. The video doesn't cover the part of the service concerning the support for the war. Thankfully, the coverage is very respectful. She ends with this quote:

My son is not a fallen hero, but a risen one.

I figured the best way to counter the Cindy Sheehan's of the world is to let as many people as possible know about the Kathy Dyer's.

The Opposite Of Cindy Sheehan

In West Chester, OH, the mother of a marine spoke in support of the war in Iraq at her son's funeral. MSNBC carries the AP reports.

“Honor me in this way,” Kathy Dyer said during a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Christopher J. Dyer, 19, of the Cincinnati suburb of Evendale.

At the funeral at Tri-County Baptist Church, Kathy Dyer delivered what she believed would have been her son’s own message: “It has been with the greatest pride I have served ... fighting to preserve freedom.”

Quite a contrast to the false antics of Cindy Sheehan. I'm suddenly more proud than usual to hail from southern Ohio.

Car Bombers Arrested in Baghdad

CNN is reporting that Iraqi police have arrested four people connected to a string of car bombings that killed 43 earlier today.

While the loss of 43 people is horrible, I'm heartened by the speed in which the arrests have been made. A number of stories have been written, both positive and negative, about the training of Iraqi police by the U.S. military. Without being there, it is hard to judge just how effective the Iraqi police are becoming. Quick action like this is a positive sign.

Redstate.org had questioned whether the attacks would have a negative impact on the constitution discussions. Hopefully these arrests eliminate the chances that that could happen.

Captain Sherman Powell 1, Matt Lauer 0

Many have probably already seen this, as it has been covered on NRO Corner and Instapundit. But there is a story at NewsBusters that deserves to get the widest distribution possible. Follow the links for more details, but here's the best part:

LAUER: Don't get me wrong, I think you're probably telling the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that might be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks you're facing... What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high?

CAPTAIN SHERMAN POWELL: Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers I'd be pretty depressed as well.

Well done, Captain Powell, well done.

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.