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.

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