Disintegrator

New Address For Disintegrator

2005-02-19T13:22:00.000-05:00

I have given up on Blogger and switched to using Movable Type. Thus, Disintegrator can now be found at http://www.disintegrator.net. Please update your links accordingly.

This Blogspot site will remain here for some time for trackback/archival purposes.

Disintegrator Broken

2005-02-16T22:07:00.000-05:00

Blogger broke my blog on Tuesday and can't seem to fix it. Please go to the new Disintegrator page from now on.

Blogger Problems

2005-02-15T12:08:00.000-05:00

Blogger is having issues, which is why Disintegrator looks a mess. Hoping they get it fixed soon.

Blogger Bugs

2005-02-15T10:56:00.000-05:00

Blogger is having technical issues today, so blogging will be light.

Pope-a-Dope

2005-02-15T09:16:00.000-05:00

Inspired by Martini Pundit...

The Pope pulled through his recent hospitalization, much to the the chagrin of Las Vegas books...

With odds against the pope?s survival set as high as 12-1, Las Vegas? biggest sports books took a massive financial hit last weekend when the ailing pontiff pulled off a huge upset against his heavily favored archrival, death.

?No question, it?s a catastrophic loss,? said Bally?s sports book director Tony Silvestro. ?You?ve got a frail and gaunt 84-year-old man with massive health problems and he finally gets the flu. It?s like a gift from God for oddsmakers. I?ve never been more confident of a betting line.?

Death opened as a whopping 16-1 favorite, but early betting on the pope gradually lowered the line to 12-1. A few lower-tier casinos dropped the line until it began attracting equal dollars from death and pope bettors, but the normally cautious big casinos felt death?s victory was such a sure thing that they allowed themselves to become overextended.

There's something darkly humorous about people in Las Vegas betting against the Pope. How'd you like to have to answer for that at the Pearly Gates?

St. Peter: It says here that you put five large on JP2 going down early.
Me: Well, yeah, but the Pats didn't cover the spread and I was behind.
St. Peter: You will be put to the flame. E! A! G! L! E! S! EAGLES!

Anyhow, word on the street is that the Pope is in stable health, albeit very frail. The images of the Pope that are common today, slumping in his chair and mumbling inaudibly, are at odds with the images of his early papacy. John Paul was an avid skier and outdoorsman, as Lisa Ann Auerbach points out in "Pope on a Rope Tow"...

Pope John Paul II is widely known and revered by millions the world over as the spiritual guide and shepherd of the Roman Catholic Church. What is less well known is his history as a trailblazing two-planker. The Man in White ripped the Polish pow from the time the papacy was just a gleam in his eye until his mature years as the toast of the Vatican. In his younger days, JP2 was known as a megahiker, an avid kayaker, and a camper nonpareil. He preached in the woods, ate watery pudding for sustenance while surfing the backcountry, and repeatedly lost his prayer book in the wild. When asked, "Is it befitting a cardinal to ski?" his reply was, "What is unbefitting a cardinal is to ski badly."

JP2's term - twenty seven years - is the third-longest in the history of the Catholic Church, and he was the first Italian selected in over four and a half centuries. Rumors of his impending death to the contrary, he continues to defy (and impoverish) oddsmakers and has outlived just about everyone ever selected alongside him in a dead pool.

Five days after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, and while the attention of the world was focused on that tragedy, Mother Teresa quietly slipped out of life's back door. I believe that she chose that moment as a good time to go, sensing an opportunity to depart when her death would not become a spectacle. I always thought it was a classy exit, and in keeping with her character.

Part of me wonders if John Paul isn't waiting for a similar opportunity; leaning back on the ropes, letting Death punch himself out, and waiting for a moment of his own choosing. I'd like to think so. If anyone can take Death the distance, it's John Paul II.

You can bet on it.

The Most Busted Name In News

2005-02-14T08:14:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to BradBlog for spotting this one...

In a February 12^th piece entitled "North Korea rallies support for Kim", CNN ran this photo, captioned "An aerial photo of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plant outside of Pyongyang." It's the third image in the slideshow on the left side of the page.

Three days earlier, CNN ran a piece called "Kay, Carter urge caution on Iran" which featured this photo, captioned as "Satellite image of a suspected Iranian nuclear-related facility."

Now, I'm no expert on nuclear facility design, but what are the odds that nuclear facilities in two different nations would be laid out in identical fashion, down to the color of the terrain?

BradBlog looks at this and sees conspiracy...

Who is the source for these photos? Was it the same person in both instances? Were they supplied by someone who may have an interest in ginning-up fears over the two so-far unconquered players in Bush's "Axis of Evil"?

Or will it be another CNN staffer who steps forward again to take the fall for this one?

And finally, a question that has been asked all too frequently here over the past year: What the hell has happened to the media in this country? Are there simply no national media organizations left who know how to do the job of reporting accurately, responsibly and in such a way that doesn't send us to war again due to their utter failure to do their jobs correctly?! (Yes, Judith Miller of The New York Times, we're talking to you...but you're not the only one).

Now, where Brad sees government conspiracy, I see media incompetence. Brad seems to think that Bush's cronies fed these photos to the media to drum up support for the war, and CNN fell for it. I think that some CNN staffer looked at two photos that weren't identical and assumed they were of different facilities. If I put on my "I hate the media" hat, I could be convinced that some staffer intentionally cropped the photo to make one appear different from the other; perhaps because no photo of the real facility could be found.

What's funny about this is that regardless of whether Brad is correct or I am, CNN comes out looking like dopes. CNN wants to be "the most trusted name in news" but doesn't appear to spend much time fact-checking the information they're dispensing as news.

This is no scandal, to be sure, but it's an example of how sloppy the mainstream media can be.

Eason Jordan Resigns

2005-02-12T11:45:00.000-05:00

Eason Jordan's slander against the U.S. military appears to have caught up with him.

The red-faced news chief of CNN, Eason Jordan, resigned yesterday after making outrageous claims that American troops deliberately tracked down and killed certain journalists in Iraq.

Jordan put his foot in his mouth two weeks ago during a panel discussion at a world economic summit in Davos, Switzerland.

He startled his listeners when he said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been deliberately targeted.

This story's been percolating in the blogosphere ever since Mister Jordan initially made his remarks. It went under the radar of the mainstream media for quite some time until Howard Kurtz broke the silence in his Washington Post column. CNN tried to spin his statements, and the organization that hosted the event refused to release a videotape of his remarks.

Mister Jordan was probably just trying to score a few points with what he thought was an audience that would be receptive to such remarks. Indeed, some of the people who were at the event said that some members of the foreign press congratulated Mr. Jordan for his "bravery". In pandering to the audience in the room, Mister Jordan apparently never considered that someone might repeat his comments to a wider audience.

I think it's important to differentiate between what Mr. Jordan did and the dustup over Ward Churchill. It's appropriate that Mr. Jordan step down as head of CNN, because he presented his assertions as facts - he claimed to have specific knowledge of the U.S. military deliberately targeting journalists. A news organization's primary currency is credibility, and Mr. Jordan damaged his organizations credibility. Ward Churchill, on the other hand, was expressing an opinion. It was a repugnant opinion, to be sure, but I think that universities should be places where you hear opinions that don't necessarily dovetail with your own (it would be nice conservative opinions were given a warmer reception on campuses, but that is a rant for another time).

In short, Mr. Jordan lied, while Mr. Churchill merely said something that I disagree with. I don't hold either of them in high regard, but I will begrudgingly defend the latter while gleefully kicking the former down the stairs.

*boot*

World Press Photo Contest

2005-02-11T10:47:00.000-05:00

World Press Photo has announced the winners of its annual photo contest.

Some of these images are not easy to look at, but I encourage you to examine them all.

Another Bite of Sausage

2005-02-11T09:47:00.000-05:00

There is an old quote that warns against watching politics or sausage being made. The same warning should apply to opinion polls; I worked in market research for a decade and it left me with an inherent distrust of opinion polls.

Still, when The Economist publishes one, I tend to suspend my disbelief. Being the best damn magazine on the planet carries a certain weight with me.

The survey in question is on American social attitudes. It seems to suggest that America is not lurching to the right, as some folks would have us believe:

The data is graphed a bit differently from most of the other presentations of such data I have seen, and it took me a moment to get my head around the visual representation. The two most interesting points are pointed out in the Economist piece:

By a huge 42-19% margin, Americans think they are more liberal than their parents. And this is borne out by most of the questions in panel 3. Set alongside the replies to an identical set of questions asked by Gallup in 1995-97, Americans seem less supportive of the death penalty and more tolerant of both marijuana and homosexuals. On economic issues, they look less favourably on trade unions, but the number who think they pay too much tax has dropped from 66% to 56%.
...
For some conservatives, these numbers may cause a fear which coincidentally provides their movement with much of its impetus: that, though they are winning elections, they are losing at least some of the culture wars. After all, gay marriage was not even a political issue ten years ago.

If we throw caution to the wind for a moment and take these numbers at face value, it presents a vexing paradox: Americans have moved to the left in the past ten years, yet the Republicans have secured control in a majority of state legislatures, governorships, the House, the Senate, and have won the Presidency twice.

I suspect that the answer is that there will always be a group of voters who vote against their general sociopolitical preference if there is an issue of significant importance at stake. In this most recent election, national security was probably that fulcrum; I don't think that John Kerry successfully made the case that he would be as hawkish on national security as many would like him to be.

In any event, general attitudes seem to be sliding leftwards over time. This should appear as a silver lining to those liberals watching with trepidation as the Republican stormfront thunders forward. Winning hearts and minds today means winning elections tomorrow.

Just One Thing...

2005-02-11T08:06:00.000-05:00

Blogging will be light today, but I couldn't resist passing this along...

Citizens United has rented a billboard near where the Oscars will be taking place:

The billboard includes the text "4 More Years ... Thank You Hollywood!" It features pictures of Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Affleck, Chevy Chase, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn.

A Correction

2005-02-10T10:40:00.000-05:00

Several days ago, the blogosphere voiced it's dismay over the story of an unemployed woman in German who was faced with the choice of working in a brothel or losing her unemployment benefits.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners who must pay tax and employee health insurance were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

Not true, says Snopes, the internet premiere debunker of urban legends. Snopes details where the story originated and how it got mangled.

We were initially skeptical about the literal truth of the version reported in the English press, however, because the issue seemed to have received scant attention in the German press. In fact, the origin of this story was evidently an 18 December 2004 article published in the Berlin newspaper Tageszeitung (also known as TAZ) which did not report that women in Germany must accept employment in brothels or face cuts in their unemployment benefits. (Although it claimed there had been "isolated cases" of such, it did not provide any source or documentation to back up that statement.)

The Tageszeitung merely presented the concept of brothel employment as a technical possibility under current law; it did not provide any actual cases of women losing their benefits over this issue. The article also quoted representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be possible for employment agencies to offer jobs as prostitutes to "long-term unemployed" women, they (the agencies) could not require anyone to work in a brothel. (The agencies noted that brothels used "other recruitment channels" anyway.)

I'm relieved to hear that it isn't happening, but I'm disappointed that my BS filters are so poorly calibrated that I didn't immediately recognize this story as hogwash. The Telegraph was the first English-language publication to carry the story, and I made the mistake of assuming that they wouldn't run with a story about a government program that was patently and completely false.

I stand corrected.

Hat tip to Big Sexy Kyle Beckley...

Border Patrol, Shmorder Patrol

2005-02-10T08:43:00.000-05:00

The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday on President Bush's shameful retreat from the promise of 10,000 border agents required by the National Intelligence Reform Act.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

The problem is not, as the Chronicle so generously puts it, a "lack of money." Rather, it is a misplacement of priorities. Perhaps we could get more people on the borders of our country if we weren't spending $100 million on the Polish military:

President Bush told President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland on Wednesday that he would ask Congress for $100 million to modernize the Polish military, part of a program of support for a new NATO ally that has more than 2,000 soldiers in Iraq.

The $100 million for military modernization was hinted at by the new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, during a brief stopover in Warsaw a week ago. "I don't get to write the checks in the American system," Mr. Bush cautioned. "The government - the Congress does that. But I get to put out requests."

Mr. Kwasniewski said the money was not a quid pro quo for Poland's troop presence in Iraq. But clearly, returning home with financial commitments from Mr. Bush will help him in a parliamentary debate about how long to remain in Iraq, at a time when opinion polls show that a clear majority of Poles want an end to the troops presence.

Of course, rooting out ludicrous budget items like the $100,000 for the Punxsutawney Phil Groundhog Weather Museum would probably shake loose quite a bit of money for border patrol agents as well.

President Bush, never one to forget Poland, is right to do what he can to help our allies. But there are times and situations in which America and her security must come first. Immigration in general is one of the weak points of this administration, and this latest development further serves to underline just how big the President's blind spot is on this issue.

One For the Gipper

2005-02-10T08:02:00.000-05:00

RightPundit reminds us that yesterday was the first day of issue for the Ronald Reagan stamp pictured below:

I first started taking an interest in politics in the early years of Ronald Reagan's first term. Though I was far too young to have a sophisticated understanding of politics, I enjoyed listening to Ronald Reagan speak. He talked simply, directly, and confidently. In middle school, I was a fan of Ronald Reagan much in the same way that kids are fans of sports teams or rock stars.

It was Reagan that turned me on to politics, an interest that is with me to this day as this blog will attest. While I disagree with some of my conservative colleagues that Reagan's face should be on Mount Rushmore, I believe that Reagan was a very good president. I think he would not be displeased with the picture on the stamp.

Damning With Faint Praise

2005-02-09T14:19:00.000-05:00

A short piece in the Village Voice describes how Democrats are having a hard time getting...excited...about Howard Dean's impending coronation as DNC chair...

Democratic pols are trying to get it up for Howard Dean, but they are very confused when the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate says he "admires" Newt Gingrich more than Bill Clinton, and that Christian-right big Ralph Reed "created a real success" with the right, and how "Clinton led the Dems into complacency and defeat."

Check out these stellar endorsements from big names in the party.

Nancy Pelosi: "We look forward to whoever the members of the DNC choose."

Joe Lieberman: "He wasn't my first choice....if it's Howard, I'll go along."

John Kerry: "He's going to be a spokesman in certain ways. Obviously the chairman has to go to the Jefferson-Jackson dinners and other things."

Then there's this piece in The Hill, where House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggests that Dean not talk about policy matters.

“I don’t believe it is the party chair’s role to set the policy of the party. That is the role of the elected officials,” Hoyer told reporters yesterday.

“I think his job as party chairman is to ensure the party is organized well and ready to, in every district, contest the Republicans, every congressional district in America, every county and state and city in America, and that we raise sufficient finances to compete effectively.”

Acknowledging that he had some policy disagreements with the former presidential candidate, Hoyer nevertheless congratulated Dean on his impending election.

The excitement is palpable.

Empowering Parents to Snoop

2005-02-09T09:41:00.000-05:00

Via Overlawyered...

The mother of a 14-year-old girl was concerned about a phone call that the girl got from her 17-year-old boyfriend, so she listened in on another line. The boyfriend talked about a robbery he had been involved with, and the mother called the police.

In December, the Washington Supreme Court threw out the boy's conviction because the mother's eavesdropping violated her daughter's privacy.

This judicial nonsense is being addressed by the Washington legislature:

Parents would be allowed to eavesdrop on their children's phone conversations or intercept their mail under a bill that went before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday.

The law is being proposed in the wake of a recent state Supreme Court ruling that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversations.

Under House Bill 1178, a parent would not break the law by snooping on a child's phone calls and information a parent gleaned from the intercepted communications also could be used in court. Some critics have expressed concern about the bill.

Who could possibly oppose such a notion? Why, Democrats, of course.

House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Patricia Lantz (D-Gig Harbor) said that "We have a right of privacy that ought not be taken from a child unless you meet an extremely high burden, that the parents' violation of that right meets some greater good. How are we going to measure that?"

Committee Vice-Chair Brendan Williams (D-Olypmpia) questioned the need for parents to record their children's conversations, asking "Is that part of good parenting, part of a healthy family? Is it not a sign perhaps that the parent-child relationship is irretrievably broken some way?"

Then again, many Democrats oppose requiring minors to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. If nothing else, we can admire them for being consistent in their position that parents have no business raising their own children.

What strikes me as "irretrievably broken" is the notion that parents have no business prying into their children's lives. Parental snooping is a tradition as time-honored as that of teenage boys shoving Playboy under their mattresses. Kids don't always tell their parents what they're up to, and it's a parent's responsibility to know. Parents should raise their children to be honest, trustworthy, and to keep their nose out of trouble. Blindly assuming that you've been successful in this regard is naivete' that borders on negligence.

Ronald Reagan said "Trust - but verify." He was talking about nuclear arms reductions, but it's sage advice for parents as well.

A New Source of Stem Cells?

2005-02-09T08:58:00.000-05:00

Via The Corner...

The Toronto Star reports that researchers have found a new and fairly abundant source of stem cells.

The source: a region of the umbilical cord that holds an abundant supply of connective-tissue stem cells the basic building blocks for the body's bone, fat and ligament tissues.

Known as mesenchymal cells, the bone-building brand of stem cells is the progenitor of all the body's connective tissues, which also include cartilage and some muscles.

They can be found in concentrations of about one in 10,000 cells in the bone marrow of young children, and one in 100,000 in adult marrow.

But in the umbilical cord jelly now being mined by the UofT team, the concentration is one in 300. Known as Wharton's Jelly, it surrounds the three umbilical cord blood vessels connecting the fetus and mother. The jelly helps prevent the vessels from kinking much like a garden hose might as the embryo floats about the womb.

The U of T team used donated cords from full-term pregnancies.

Obviously, the potential of these cells remains to be determined. Still, it's an encouraging sign that a plentiful source of these cells appears to be available and that harvesting them won't require the destruction of embryos.

Although I can't help but wonder if Kansas State University didn't beat them to the punch.

Flight 93 Memorial Finalists

2005-02-08T08:58:00.000-05:00

Via BlackFive...

The finalists have been selected for the Flight 93 National Memorial. There are five designs online for viewing, and I agree with BlackFive that design #4, "The Crescent of Embrace", is the best of the bunch. But take a look and decide for yourself.

I still haven't been to Somerset, but I think that I should like to go there before a memorial begins construction. I'd like to be able to remember it how it is today.

Sweet Sweet Litigation

2005-02-08T08:17:00.000-05:00

I was on the Atkins diet for a while, and while I was on it I stopped using sugar in my coffee and started using Splenda. To me, and apparently to many other Americans, Splenda tastes better than sugar. Well, the sugar industry can't have that - the U.S. Sugar Association is suing Splenda's manufacturer.

This latest lawsuit, filed in December, hinges on deceptive and/or misleading representations, made by the sweetener firm in advertisements and marketing terminology to consumers, says the association.

Merisant, the US maker of tabletop sweetener Equal and NutraSweet and a competitor to Splenda, alleged in November that the products marketing slogan, made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar, had mislead consumers into thinking the artificial sweetener was natural.

But McNeil Nutritionals asserts that sucralose starts off as pure cane sugar, and is then chemically altered in the manufacturing process to create a new compound with zero calories and 600 times sweeter than sugar.

The Sugar Association's website points out that Splenda is "created with chlorine and other chemicals" without mentioning that table salt is also created with chlorine. But, since salt doesn't compete with sugar, this isn't important.

Time was that sugar substitutes only competed with each other for market share, because none of them were particularly good. Sucralose, the sweetener in Splenda, is very good; so good that it's used in over 3,500 products and is cutting into sugar's market share. Hence, the lawsuit.

A Splenda spokesperson, had this to say: "From our perspective, whatever the outcome of the litigation, sucralose will still be made from sugar, and still taste like sugar."

Senators Confirms Eason Remarks

2005-02-07T18:27:00.000-05:00

Via Michelle Malkin...

Eason Jordan's accusation that the U.S. military is assassinating journalists was heard by two people whose credibility is not in doubt: Senators Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd.

I guess we won't need that transcript after all.

Who Said It?

2005-02-07T11:33:00.000-05:00

Now here's a gem of a quote from 2002...

If you don't like privatizing Social Security and I don't like it very much, but you want to do something to try to increase the rate of return, what are your options? Well one thing you could do is to give people one or two percent of the payroll tax, with the same options that Federal employees have with their retirement accounts; where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed social security return and a hundred percent safety just like you have with Social Security.

Why, that's President Clinton, addressing the Democratic Leadership Council on December 3^rd, 2002. Not a bad idea, Bill. Maybe someone will pick it up and run with it!

The full text of President Clinton's comments are at The Clinton Foundation.

Shut Up and Shovel the Money

2005-02-07T08:29:00.000-05:00

Yahoo's political piece entitled Some Dems nervous as Dean resurges" has some interesting tidbits from ranking Democrats. Specifically, they seem to have some misgivings with regard to Howard Dean being the public face of the party:

"We're not looking for a spokesperson in the chairmanship," 2004 nominee John Kerry said on NBC.

Terry McAuliffe, current DNC chairman, says he gave Dean a two-hour presentation on what a party chairman does. "Your job is to raise money and do the mechanics," he said in an interview. "It is not your job ... to set policy."

In recent TV appearances, Dean offered his opinion on two Cabinet votes and disagreed with Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada on whether Antonin Scalia would be tolerable as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Reid later noted his constituency is "much larger" than the 447-member DNC. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, said she thinks Dean "would take his lead from us."

While any political organization would be happy to have Dean's organizing ability, fundraising credentials and zealous supporters, all of these wonderful things come at a price - Dean's mouth. It's not clear to me that Dean would be willing to play the role in the manner that folks like Pelosi and Kerry seem to want him to - behind the scenes shovelling cash into the furnace.

Dean knows that his rise to national prominence has been the result of the cult of personality that sprang up around him in the run-up to the Democratic primaries. That cult requires regular red meat in the form of policy pronouncements and withering attacks on business-as-usual. If Dean takes a back seat to Reid and Pelosi - or allows that perception to take hold - the Uruk'Hai that emerged from the bowels of the earth to wage war in his name are likely to return to the depths from whence they came, waiting for the summons of yet another white-haired old man promising to re-make the world.

Link Whorage

2005-02-07T08:12:00.000-05:00

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting "Retreat" for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Retreat

2005-02-07T07:40:00.000-05:00

Inspired by a post by RightThinkingGirl...

The International Herald Tribune revisits a notion that got a lot of play in the days immediately after the election: packing up and moving to Canada.

In the Niagara of liberal angst just after Bush's victory on Nov. 2, the Canadian government's immigration Web site reported a surge in inquiries from the United States, to about 115,000 a day from 20,000.

"The number of U.S. citizens who are actually submitting Canadian immigration papers and making concrete plans is about three or four times higher than normal," said Linda Mark, an immigration lawyer in Vancouver.

"We're still not talking about a huge movement of people," said David Cohen, an immigration lawyer in Montreal. "In 2003, the last year where full statistics are available, there were something like 6,000 U.S. citizens who received permanent resident status in Canada. So even if we do go up threefold this year, we're only talking about 18,000 people."

In the emotional days after the election, when people I consider friends were calling me a Nazi because I voted for Bush, my response to this was "Don't let the border hit you in the ass on the way out!" With the passage of time and the soothing of some of the raw nerve endings, my take on this is markedly different.

There are some on the right who seem to think that liberalism is indistinguishable in any form from socialism or communism. I don't think that's true. To me, liberalism in it's truest sense is the notion that we owe something to more than ourselves; the idea that a certain degree of sacrifice for the benefit of others is not only moral and just, but necessary for the survival of a moral and just state. This is not the sort of ethos that reasonable people can disagree with unless they've read too much Ayn Rand.

It is with this notion of liberalism in mind that I don't take any joy in seeing liberals fleeing the country, even if it is in terribly small numbers. To me, packing up and leaving the country is the height of selfishness - the very antithesis of liberalism. Where is the sacrifice for the greater good in retreat?

Now, despite what the BUSHITLER crowd would have us think, our country is not on the road to fascism. We're not rounding up people into camps, and tanks don't roll through the streets unless it's Chicago and a local team has won a championship. The people selling their Volvos and heading to the Great White North are not fleeing oppression or persecution.

So what are they running from?

To me, it looks like they're trying to escape one of the linchpin of liberalism: obligation. Proponents of liberalism will often talk of our obligation to help our fellow man. Welfare, unemployment, and affirmative action - with reasonable boundaries - are all examples of society's attempts to live up to this obligation. Funding these notions with public money spreads the obligation to every taxpayer, and rightly so; we all benefit from reductions in poverty and advances against injustice, so we should all foot part of the bill.

This idea of liberals running away to Canada is like arguing that we should split the dinner check evenly and then running out without paying. It's the notion that sacrifice for the common good is noble and just so long as it's not you doing the sacrificing. For what it's worth, I don't think that this sort hypocrisy is common among rank-and-file liberals (although some of my fellow conservative bloggers would disagree on that point). To the degree that it is happening, liberals who are taking their money and running to Canada are doing their brothers-in-arms a disservice.

Shame on them.

A Monday Morning Chuckle

2005-02-07T07:29:00.000-05:00

Of course, I'm already chuckling about the Eagles losing the Superbowl. But still...

Cookie Girl Update

2005-02-06T09:55:00.000-05:00

At this point, everyone has probably heard about the two girls who made cookies for their neighbor and got sued for their trouble. I sent an email to the family of one of the girls to express my support last week, and I received this reply today.

In regard to the outpouring of sympathy and support for my daughter Taylor and Lindsey. I want the express to you a heart felt thanks and sincere appreciation that you, and so much of America and Canada, have shown them. This alone more than makes up for the stress and worry they have experienced the past six months as well as the big disappointment of the trail ruling.

For any letters or anything else that you wish them to receive we have set up a post office box for them. It is:

Taylor Ostergaard
Lindsey Zellitti
P.O. BOX 2528
Durango, CO 81302

We're not out of the woods yet as we understand there may be another case building against our families on this.

Be sure and include your address and e-mail address as they hope to return a Thank you and I would like to send a short Bio,/History of each of these girls so that you again might understand how great they are. We so appreciate the extended gesture of friendship to each of you and truly hope that this finds you healthy. May your smiles be many and come easily. If you're ever in Durango, give us a holler.

Sincerely Yours
Richard F. and Jill Ostergaard

Another case? The email offers no details as to the particulars of what that case might be, but I'm going to speculate that is has something to do with this woman's reputation being ruined in her hometown. Never mind that she ruined it herself.

Anyhow, if anyone is interested in helping out this family, I encourage you to send a small donation ($5, $10) to their post office box:

Taylor Ostergaard
Lindsey Zellitti
P.O. BOX 2528
Durango, CO 81302

Why donate? Well, I can think of two reasons:

They've already incurred legal expenses for their good deed, and it looks as though more may be on the horizon.
This rotten woman obviously wanted to punish these girls. Nothing would circumvent that desire more than to have these girls actually reap some benefit from the entire episode.

There's no indication that these girls did anything other than try to perpretrate a random act of kindness. If the case is as it appears to be, this woman should be ashamed of herself.

And so should her lawyer.

New Layout

2005-02-04T13:05:00.000-05:00

I have gone with a new layout for Disintegrator; something that isn't one of the standard Blogger templates. This layout is derived from The Orange, a layout graciously made available for free at Open Source Web Design by its author, papab30.

Please let me know if this hurts your eyes. :)

Don't Stand So Close To Me

2005-02-04T09:54:00.000-05:00

The topic of overpopulation came up in a conversation with my wife this morning, and I thought that it would make for an interesting break from the red-meat political blogging that usually occupies this space.

First, the basic number: 6,416,705,711. This is the estimate of the current world population according to the The United States Census Bureau Population Clock. That number constantly updates, so it will be a little bit larger by the time you read it. For simplicity, we'll use 6.4 billion as our working number.

Our planet certainly has enough real estate to hold this teeming mass of humanity. In fact, you could fit the entire world's population nicely within our own borders. The United States' total land area is 9.1 million square kilometers, or 2.2 billion acres. That's three people per acre. The entire population of the world could fit - comfortably - in the United States, leaving the combined land mass of Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia available for agriculture and wildlife.

Living space is not a problem.

So, what about food production? Certainly there can't be enough food to go around to feed all of these people. According to the United Nations, there is. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is an organization whose primary goal is monitoring and working to end world hunger. In 2002, they published a report entitled "World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030". From 1990-1999, the number of people in the developing countries suffering from undernourishment went down by almost 40 million. By 2015, it is projected to drop another 160 million. The FAO report says that "there will be enough food for a growing world population by the year 2030."

Available food is not the problem.

So, what causes famine? Why do people starve? In many cases, the answer is simple: human evil. The 1984 Ethiopian famine which inspired Band Aid, USA For Africa, and Live Aid was a tragedy that was primarily caused by that country's government. Embroiled in a civil war, the Ethiopian government bombed crops, destroyed markets, and set up roadblocks to prevent the movement of food into rebel-controlled territories. It was famine as military weapon. What's worse is that 90% of all of the money raised by the international community for famine relief was given to the Ethipoian government - the same government that was starving its own people.

The Chinese famine of 1959-1961 is regarded by many as the largest famine in history, killing somewhere between ten and forty million Chinese. As part of Mao's "Great Leap Forward", all of China's farmers were collectivised into 26,000 communes, each overseeing about 25,000 people and appropriating all their land. Grain output declined from 200m tons in 1958 to 160m tons in 1960, Yet, each commune continued to over-report their grain production so as not to face retribution from the government. As a result, grain that was thought to be surplus was sold abroad, leaving little for the domestic population.

The fact of the matter is that while the Earth's population continues to grow, the rate at which it is growing is slowing down:

Year	Population (millions)	Absolute increase (millions)	Percentage increase
1950	2,556	---	----
1960	3,039	483	18.9
1970	3,707	668	22.0
1980	4,454	747	20.2
1990	5,278	824	18.4
2000	6,082	804	15.2

(source:Overpopulation.org)
So, in summary:

Global population growth is slowing.
There is enough land to go around.
There is enough food to go around, and food productivity is rising.

There is hunger and poverty and suffering in the world; there can be no argument. But, this suffering is not the result of too many people or too few resources. Sadly, it's all too often the result of incompetence, indifference, or evil intentions.

Nepal Muzzles Its Press

2005-02-03T13:58:00.000-05:00

King Gyanendra of Nepal, having sacked the civilian government and declared a state of emergency, has now imposed total censorship on the country's media.

Reports critical of the state of emergency declared on Tuesday have been banned for six months, according to a notice in the main daily newspaper.

Phone lines and internet links remain cut, so news of a strike call by Maoist rebels has not reached the public.

The Nepalese system rests upon a political tripod - a most unstable of structures:

King Gyanendra, who assumed the throne in 2001 after his brother was killed in a massacre at the palace,
The nation's political parties, who want a return of parliamentary government, and
Maoist rebels, who have been fighting a civil war since winning only 9 out of 205 seats in the parliamentary elections of 1996.

Each of the three is wary of the other two uniting against it, and equally as wary of exhausting the patience of the Nepalese people. None of the three has proven capable of imposing their own solution to the three-way struggle for power, with the result being this seemingly unending string of incidents and episodes as each of the major players tries to improve its position against the other two.

With the press muzzled and communications in and out of the country severely limited, King Gyenandra has something of a free hand for the time being. He has promised to name a new cabinet and begin reconstructing a civilian government; if he dallies, he may join his brother.

Vicarious Liability, Revisited

2005-02-03T10:09:00.000-05:00

Via Overlawyered...

I've talked about vicarious liability laws before. These are the laws that make car rental companies responsible for whatever drivers do in their vehicles. Budget Rent-A-Car is the latest victim of this nonsense:

A Manhattan pedestrian, paralyzed in an accident caused by a driver of a rental car, has been awarded a $20 million judgment against Budget Rent-A-Car, the victim's lawyers said yesterday.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling awarded 29-year-old Ethan Ruby $20.3 million after he was crippled while walking crossing Delancey Street at Orchard Street on Nov. 29, 2000.

The driver of the Budget rental car had run a light and hit a van that then careened into Ruby, leaving him crippled and in constant pain.

One of the effects of these laws has been to squeeze out smaller rental companies. According to the New York Sun, there were about 400 such companies three years ago; that number has dwindled to less than 50. Some say that the larger companies don't fight these laws too aggressively in the past because it's been an effective deterrent to competition.

Trial lawyers love it because it's a fast route to companies with deep pockets; all you need to do is prove ownership, document the rental, and prove damages. In a state where the Assembly is led by trial lawyer Sheldon Silver, the situation is not likely to improve.

Eason Down The Road

2005-02-03T08:06:00.000-05:00

This story is all over the conservative blogosphere, but I have a number of readers who won't go into that neighborhood; I won't feel too guilty about re-hashing it here.

You may remember Eason Jordan. He's the CNN honcho who confessed that CNN deliberately underreported stories of Saddam's atrocities.

Mr. Jordan is now embroiled in something of a larger dust-up. In a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum, Mr. Jordan asserted that he had specific knowledge that the U.S. military had targeted and killed 12 U.S. journalists. A second blogger who was in attendance has corroborated the story - and she is a woman who used to work for Eason and who received several promotions from the man.

CNN is on the defensive. They called the PowerLine (the blokes at the forefront of the Ra^thergate debacle) guys to try and spin the story, but wouldn't speak on the record. Requests to CNN are being met with a garden-variety "out of context" response:

Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan's remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.

Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of "collateral damage."

Jordan has a habit of accusing the U.S. military of attacking reporters. In a November 19, 2004 article in The Guardian, he had this to say:

"Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces," Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal. (emphasis mine)

No transcript or recording of the panel discussion has yet been made available. Rebecca MacKinnon, another blogger at the forum, asked Eason to clarify his comments and got an email response.

Here's what's important. First, I stressed insurgents are to blame for the vast majority of the 63 journalist deaths in Iraq. Second, when Congressman Franks said the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the unfortunate victims of "collateral damage," I felt compelled to dispute that by pointing out journalists in Iraq are being targeted -- I did not say all journalists killed were targeted, but that some were shot at on purpose and were not collateral damage victims. In response to a question about whether I believed the U.S. military meant to kill journalists in Iraq, I said, no, I did not believe the U.S. military was trying to kill journalists in Iraq. Yet, unfortunately, U.S. forces have killed several people who turned out to be journalists. In several cases, the U.S. troops who killed those people aimed and fired at them, not knowing they were shooting at journalists. However tragic and, in hindsight, by Pentagon admission, a mistake, such a killing does not fall into the "collateral damage" category. In Iraq and Washington, I have worked closely and constructively with U.S. military and civilian leaders in an effort to heighten the odds of survival for the courageous journalists in Iraq.

The solution to this problem is, of course, transparency - let's see the transcript. If Mr. Jordan's comments were, in fact, taken out of context, there will be a long line of people in the blogosphere that will owe him an apology.

Athwart the Tracks

2005-02-02T08:51:00.000-05:00

Martini Pundit cleverly invokes William Buckley as he talks about rumors that Senate Democrats might filibuster the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez.

The filibuster is well within the Senates purview as a procedural means of fulfilling its Advice and Consent function, and equally within the purview of the Senate leadership to restrict or even abolish it. Its utility as a tool which protects the minority senators can be debated, but its supra-majority requirements are not in accord with the checks and balances instituted by the Founding Fathers who used separate but equal branches of government and a bicameral legislature to accomplish those ends. The filibuster is nothing more than senatorial courtesy - which is thing as nonexistent as John Kerrys mission to run weapons to the Khmer Rouge.

Its time the business of the American people stopped being beholden to one bloviating senior Senator from Massachusetts who had the unmitigated gall to discuss drowning with Judge Gonzales. The voters have spoken in two elections now to stop Democratic obstruction - its high time the Senate Republicans listened.

I don't necessarily think that Senate Republicans should try and eliminate the filibuster - that's too much ammunition to hand to the media who would be all too willing to portray it as an "evil power grab."

Better, I think, to force the hand of Senate Democrats. If they want to filibuster, let them do it. Tom Daschle was run out of office because of his obstructionism. If more senators want to risk their seats by satisfying their infantile desires to thumb their nose at the president - let them. The voters will remember.

Did Bush Win Wisconsin?

2005-02-02T08:16:00.000-05:00

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting appalling discrepancies in the voting results for that city.

Record-keeping surrounding the Nov. 2 presidential election in Milwaukee is so flawed that in 17 wards there were at least 100 more votes recorded than people listed by the city as voting there.

In two wards, one on the south side and one on the north side, the gap is more than 500, with fewer than half the votes cast in each ward accounted for in the city's computer system, a Journal Sentinel review has found.

Such gaps were present at different levels in nearly all of the city wards and could hamper the investigation launched last week by federal and local authorities into possible voter fraud by giving an incomplete or inaccurate picture of who actually voted.

Here's the graphic from the Journal Sentinel showing the wards and the discrepancy in each:

(Sorry about the width of the graphic - I know it's wider than the well behind it.)

John Kerry won Wisconsin by 11,813 votes - because he so thoroughly thumped Bush in the city of Milwaukee. The question now is whether or not this widespread more-votes-than-voters problem is simply the result in incompetence, negligence, or if it's an indication of something more sinister.

It's entirely possible that every single overvote in Milwaukee was for George W. Bush, and that a fair an accurate count would double Kerry's margin of victory. No matter what an investigation of the discrepancies uncovers, it won't change the outcome of the election. That does not mean we should simply shrug our shoulders and forget about it.

Vote fraud hurts everyone, not just the candidate on the receiving end of the electoral shaft. It undermines faith in the process, it breeds division and polarization, and it discourages people from taking part the next time around. Why would anyone stand in line for hours to vote if they think there's a fair chance their vote won't count anyway?

Barbara Boxer's tears might have some credibility if she could shed them for every stolen vote, and not just for the ones of which she approves.

NAACP Refuses To Comply With I.R.S.

2005-02-01T13:01:00.000-05:00

In July of last year, NAACP president Julian Bond attacked President Bush in his keynote speech at the group's 95th annual convention:

NAACP Chairman Julian Bond called on members of the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization to boost voter turnout to help oust President Bush.

During his keynote speech at the group's 95th annual convention Sunday night in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Bond also assailed the Bush administration and the Republican Party, accusing the GOP of "playing the race card in election after election."

The party appeals "to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality," Bond said. "They preach neutrality and practice racial division."

At the NAACP's 2001 convention, Bond said the following:

"[President Bush] "selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

Not a big deal, really. Lots of people have criticized the president. However, as The Washington Post points out, the NAACP isn't supposed to do that.

The NAACP is organized under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, covering many charities, educational institutions and religious organizations. The IRS said the group is "prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign." The IRS said the group cannot endorse a candidate, contribute to a campaign, raise money for a candidate, "distribute statements for or against a particular candidate," or become involved in activity "beneficial or detrimental to any candidate."

So, you're the NAACP. You've broken the rules that allow you to operate with a tax-exempt status and now the IRS is asking questions. What do you do?

You refuse to cooperate:

The nation's largest civil rights group is refusing to turn over documents for an Internal Revenue Service investigation into allegedly improper political activity, claiming the probe is politically motivated.

In a letter sent to the IRS Friday, the NAACP cited what it contends is evidence that the agency launched the audit before the November election because of political pressure. The group provided a copy of the letter to USA TODAY.

IRS Commissioner Mark Everson wrote to two congressional Democrats in November, saying that his agency began investigating several dozen nonprofit groups based in part on complaints from two members of Congress, whom he did not identify. The IRS is prohibited by law from identifying the subjects of audits.

Of course, the NAACP is claiming that they are the victims of a political vendetta. What seems telling to me is that no one is trying to say that Bond's words were "misinterpreted" or "taken out of context." They don't even seem to be hiding it. search of the NAACP website reveals all sorts of organization documents opposing Bush and his policies.

If the NAACP wants to send a positive message to the millions of African-Americans it purports to represent, it could do so by playing by the rules - and by accepting responsibility for the consequences of breaking them.

Emergency in Nepal

2005-02-01T09:14:00.000-05:00

Caught this on NPR as I was driving in to work this morning, and CNN is also reporting on the state of emergency in Nepal.

King Gyanendra says he has dissolved the government of Nepal and has declared a state of emergency as he takes control of the Himalayan kingdom.

Speaking on state-run television, the king accused the government of failing to conduct parliamentary elections and restoring peace in the country.

It is the second time in three years the monarch has taken such a drastic move.

The monarch, who is also the supreme commander of the 78,000-strong Royal Nepalese Army, said security forces would be given more power to maintain law and order.

Understandably, I am suspicious when a national leader dissolves the government and more or less puts the military in control. However, the particulars of this situation bear more scrutiny.

The king has been pressing the Prime Minister to hold elections.
The PM has deferred them several times.
The Maoist rebels have promised massive violence if the elections are held at all. Some 11,000 people have already died in the Nepalese People's War.

Nepal is nestled in between India and China (map here), and thus is of strategic interest to both of those nations. It doesn't take much thought to conclude that China would like to see the rebels succeed and may even be supporting them.

As an old-school Cold Warrior, my reflex is to support any move that opposes communism; doubleplus so if it specifically opposes China's communist tyrants. However, we must take a dim view when any person declares himself "maximum leader" and sacks the civilian government, no matter the motivation.

The king appears to genuinely want elections; it remains to be seen if his actions will bear that impression out.

Trust In Action

2005-02-01T08:06:00.000-05:00

Marine Corp. photographer Cpl. Trevor Gift snapped this photo on January 30 in the Iraqi city of Nasarwasalam:

Mom goes to vote; in addition to guarding the voting station, the masked Iraqi Security Force soldier performs the new duties of holding and guarding her baby who, all bundled-up and without a care in the world, rests peacefully in his arms. You can see the full-size photo here. (Photo is HUGE).

There's something visceral about the image of a soldier carrying a baby. Perhaps it's the juxtaposition of power and vulnerability; the idea of a man (or woman) who has been trained in the business of killing being placed in the position of nurturing an infant, even if only for a moment.

This is a Russian spetsnaz trooper carrying a small child after the Beslan hostage crisis. Spetsnaz were (and are, in all likelihood) some of the most dangerous men on the planet - the Soviet Union's version of our Green Berets. Hard men trained to do the unthinkable. The soldier's face - so stoic as to be unreadable - testifies to the will of the man beneath. How do you carry a child out of the horror of Beslan and not weep?

The answer: Because you have to. Because when you put on the uniform, you tacitly accept the fact that those around you will always look to you as an icon of strength.

Even when you feel as though you have none.

The three men in these photos - Iraqi, Russian, American, - have certainly never met and discussed what it means to be a soldier. There's a very good chance that they don't even speak each other's languages. Yet, they share a common experience and a common character that makes them, well, uncommon. Extraordinary, in fact.

The next time I see one of those "God Bless Our Troops" magnets, I'll make sure I pray for all the troops - not just "ours".

Howard Dean Hates You

2005-01-31T09:47:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean, pushing hard for the chair of the Democratic Party, announced his hatred for those on the other side of the aisle this weekend.

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization," the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman.

This is the sort of thing that Democrats could get away with saying at such functions; in the past, no one really paid much attention to the process by which the parties selected their chairpersons. When one was named, there was a brief news blip, but not much more. That's different now, with the Democrats still smarting from a 3.5-million-vote thumping at the hands of George W. Bush. The race for the Democratic Party chair is news, and comments like this get some play.

It would appear that Dean didn't realize just how much attention the race was getting, or he might have softened his rhetoric a bit. If Dean wants to put the Democrats back on the road to winning national elections, he's going to have to win some hearts and minds. Specifically, he's going to have to convince more than a few people to stop voting Republican. Starting the conversation by saying "I hate you and everything you stand for" does not make for a constructive dialogue.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe's take on the weekend caucus was that a "Stop Dean" movement appeared to be taking shape.

"The issue for all of us is how to keep Howard from winning on the first ballot," said Wellington Webb, a former Denver mayor and the only African-American candidate for the DNC chair.
...
"I'm from a red state," said Tim Roemer, former congressman from Indiana and member of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "We need a chair that doesn't only represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

This is a big week in the election process - the state party chairs should release their endorsements today and some big labor endorsements are said to be following tomorrow or Wednesday.

Dean looked unstoppable early on in the Democratic primaries, and was all set to win until the voting actually started. Those of us on the right who believe that America needs a credible opposition party will be watching and hoping that someone - anyone - finds a way to beat Howard.

Kojo a Gogo

2005-01-31T07:32:00.000-05:00

In December of last year, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's son Kojo flatly denied that he ever had anything to do with the UN Oil For Food program.

Kojo Annan, in his first public comment on the subject, told CNN in a written statement: "I have never participated directly or indirectly in any business related to the United Nations."

"I feel the whole issue has been a witchhunt from day one as part of a broader Republican political agenda," Annan said in his statement to CNN.

According to Sunday's London Times, Kojo's statement to CNN may not have been entirely accurate.

The son of the United Nations secretary-general has admitted he was involved in negotiations to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil under the auspices of Saddam Hussein.

Kojo Annan has told a close friend he became involved in negotiations to sell 2m barrels of Iraqi oil to a Moroccan company in 2001. He is understood to be co-operating with UN investigators probing the discredited oil for food programme.

Sometime in February, Paul Volcker will issue his report on the Oil-For-Food program, though it is not believed to contain any smoking guns that lead back to Kofi Annan directly. Annan's had a rough stretch lately, with his bumbling mismanagement of a sexual harassment issue at the U.N. and now with further questions about his family's involvement in Oil-For-Food. If it becomes clear that there's genuine merit to the allegations about Kojo, it will be hard for Annan to maintain the little credibility he has left with the United States.

The U.N.'s record for selecting men to serve as Secretary General is spotty, at best. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar was certainly a credit to the office, personally negotiating an end to the decade-long Iran-Iraq war. His tenure, however, is a bright spot in the recent list of men to hold the post. In between Pérez de Cuéllar and Annan was Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose term was highlighted by the U.N.'s inaction during the Rwandan Machete Party.

Of course, Pérez de Cuéllar's predecessor had his own problems, but being a brownshirt comes with all sorts of political baggage.

Where Do I Sign Up?

2005-01-28T10:32:00.000-05:00

The Detroit Free Press has identified one of the reasons why the American car industry is having a problem being competitive - 10,000 employees being paid not to work.

Amid falling U.S. market share, shuttered plants and production cutbacks, Detroit's three automakers and largest auto supplier are paying about 10,000 hourly workers in the United States and Canada full wages and benefits not to work, a Free Press survey shows.

The number appears to be up from the last few years and will likely grow again this year, though it still won't be as high as a decade ago.

Most of the companies refused to say how much they are spending to pay all these workers, but it's likely well over $1 billion this year, given the number of workers and typical union wage-and-benefit packages.

This is insidious. If you're an unemployed auto worker, why on Earth would you look for another job if you're getting paid full salary to do nothing? Going out and earning a living might actually net you a pay cut. Furthermore, these aren't people who are just out of action for a month or two; typically, these people pull down their money-for-nothing for eleven months or more.

There is a long list of reasons why American car manufacturers are losing ground to foreign competition; many of the industry's problems are of their own creation. It's probably a safe bet, however, that no other nation's auto industry is paying a billion dollars a year to workers who - literally - do nothing.

Quote of the Day

2005-01-28T07:49:00.000-05:00

In a New York Times piece about the dust-up over Hillary Clinton's recent comments on abortion, Planned Parenthood spokesperson Carla M. Goldstein dropped this gem:

Reporters and the general public really need to understand the dangers of parental notification.

One-third of Planned Parenthood's income comes from performing abortions. With that in mind, the motivation for their opposition to parental notification becomes obvious - they're protecting their revenue stream. The "danger of parental notification" is that it might actually reduce the number of abortions in this country, and that would hurt Planned Parenthood's bottom line.

In Hillary Clinton's New York, a minor can't get a tattoo - even with parental consent. Yet, the Empire State considers those same minors to be capable of giving informed consent to an invasive medical procedure. Hell, in 2002, Planned Parenthood held a Roe v. Wade Poster Contest, and children under 18 couldn't even submit an entry without their parent's permission.

Whatever your stance on abortion, it is hard to argue that children should be allowed to have them without parental consent.

Update: On a somewhate-related note, Planned Parenthood president Goria Feldt has resigned after an eight-year tenure.

Alarming Traffic

2005-01-27T15:16:00.000-05:00

Welcome, Alarming News readers! I'm grateful to Karol for the link, and I'm honored that you've decided to stop by. I hope you'll find some interesting reading.

Update: Welcome, also, to those of you coming here from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler! The Emperor is too kind for linking to me.

The Black Curtain

2005-01-27T08:55:00.000-05:00

On March 5^th in 1946, Winston Churchill gave a speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, after receiving an honorary degree. It was in that speech that Churchill coined the most famous term of the Cold War: iron curtain.

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

Almost sixty years later, the power of Churchill's metaphor is not diminished. During a meeting of Israel's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, the panel's chairman invoked Churchill as he sounded a warning about Iran's nascent nuclear program.

Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said the minute Iran turns into a nuclear power, a "black curtain" will drop over Israel, the Middle East and the entire free world. But, he added, there is still time for the free world to foil the project that is threatening world peace and prevent the creation of an Iranian nuclear threat.

With regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israrel is characteristically refusing to rule out any option, including a military one. Uncharacteristically, Israel is saying that this is not a threat that they can face on their own.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that Israel will follow the US lead in dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations, but did not rule out military action if diplomatic and economic pressure fail to stop Teheran from developing nuclear weapons.

"The United States has to decide, not us," he told Army Radio. "If we go it alone, we will remain alone. Everyone knows our potential, but we also have to know our limits. As long as there is a possibility that the world will organize to fight against Iran's nuclear option, let the world organize."

...and organize it must. Iran and North Korea are often mentioned in the same breath, but Iran is far more likely to become a real problem. North Korea is an economic ruin, dependent on its Chinese patron to stave off a complete societal collapse. Iran, on the other hand, requires no such support. Her economy is the 34th largest in the world (larger than Israel's), and ran a budget surplus in 2004 of some $5 billion dollars. We can generally count on China to keep North Korea on a short leash; all we can count on in Iran is the self-restraint of the mullahs.

Still, there is reason to hope, so long as we are quick to act. If one replaces "Soviet Russia" with "Iran", there is a compelling call to action from Churchill's speech in Fulton all those years ago.

I repulse the idea that a new war is inevitable -- still more that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that our fortunes are still in our own hands and that we hold the power to save the future, that I feel the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion and the opportunity to do so.

I do not believe that Iran desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.

But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement.

What is needed is a settlement, and the longer this is delayed, the more difficult it will be and the greater our dangers will become.

We must engage the Iranian government to find a way to slow their race for the bomb, but it's folly to think that we can delay them indefinitely. The best way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs is to help the Iranian people throw off their yoke. The freedom movement in Iran needs our support, our encouragement, and almost certainly our dollars. If there is any reasonable chance that the Iranian people can take hold of their own liberty, then it our nation's specific obligation - our calling, if I may - to help them do it.

The most effective way to secure the future of every land is through this pursuit, set forward by Churchill and echoed in the inaugural address of a week ago - the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. If we tire, if we falter, if we fail, the consequences will not be a "black curtain" over the Middle East; it will look more like a black shroud.

Ignorance and AIDS

2005-01-26T16:36:00.000-05:00

Yes, ignorance perpetuates the spread of AIDS. This is a truism accepted by all reasonable people. But, that's not exactly the type of ignorance I'm talking about.

More than 20 years after the AIDS epidemic arrived in the United States, a significant proportion of African Americans embrace the theory that government scientists created the disease to control or wipe out their communities, according to a study released today by Rand Corp. and Oregon State University.

That belief markedly hurts efforts to prevent the spread of the disease among black Americans, the study's authors and activists said. African Americans represent 13 percent of the U.S. population, according to Census Bureau figures, yet they account for 50 percent of new HIV infections in the nation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.

Some of the other items in the study:

More than 25% believe that AIDS was produced in a government lab.
12% believe that it was created and spread by the CIA.
More than half believe that there is a cure for AIDS, but it is being withheld from the poor.
15% said that AIDS is a form of genocide against blacks.

This might seem like an aberration, but there is a segment of the black community that appears willing to believe even the most ludicrous conspiracy theories. One need only look to the Tropical Fantasy scandal in New York in 1991 to see further evidence of it.

Tropical Fantasy was brought onto the market in September 1990 by Brooklyn Bottling, a small family-owned soft drink manufacturer established in 1937, that was in 1990 only just getting by on its line of seltzers. Fantasy's comparably low price (49¢ per 20-ounce bottle versus Coke and Pepsi's 80¢ price tag for a 16-ouncer) led to a stunning initial success, and overnight a moribund firm became a bottler now with per-month sales of $2 million plus.

In April 1991 rumors began circulating in black neighborhoods that the beverage was laced with a secret ingredient that would cause sterility in black men, and that the Ku Klux Klan were the actual bottlers.

Sales of the beverage plummeted by 70%.

When one asks the indelicate question of why African-Americans seem so eager to believe these tales, the answer is often that it's a response to slavery, or the Tuskegee syphilis study, or racism in general. But that doesn't address the question of why an individual, presumably a person who's reasonably intelligent, would choose to believe something as patently ridiculous as the notion that America is trying to kill blacks with the AIDS virus.

It's a facet of human nature that if we believe something to be true, we tend to view the world around us as supporting that viewpoint; if someone believes that all white people are out to get him, hearing a story about a fruit drink that will make him sterile sounds plausible. The problem is not just his willingness to believe a conspiracy theory, but also the underlying view of the world that is coloring his perception.

That underlying view is perpetuated from without and within. Yes, racism is real. Yes, the syphilis study was real. But Phill Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, says that "holding on to [the syphilis study] is killing us." Wilson calls these conspiracy theories a "bogeyman" that gives people an excuse to avoid personal responsibility. Past discrimination, he says, is no longer an excuse for embracing conspiracies that allow HIV to fester.

It's a shame that Wilson's message doesn't play as well as stories about AIDS and the CIA.

DOMA Survives Court Challenge

2005-01-26T08:11:00.000-05:00

Back in November, I wrote that I did not expect the Defense of Marriage Act to survive judicial review. Much to my surprise, a Federal District Court in Florida has proven me wrong (PDF link). In its decision, the court directly addressed the question of whether or not DOMA is contrary to the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the constitution.

Congress action in adopting DOMA are exactly what the Framers envisioned when they created the Full Faith and Credit Clause. DOMA is an example of Congress exercising its powers under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to . . . regulate conflicts between the laws of two different States, in this case, conflicts over the validity of same-sex marriages.

Adopting Plaintiffs rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would create a license for a single State to create national policy.

I was surprised when I read this decision, but quickly learned that my surprise was based on some ignorance on my part. Much of the talk about DOMA has been how it's so obviously a violation of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. In most of these conversations, that clause is quoted like so:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings of every other State;

That seems fairly straightforward. However, I made the mistake of assuming that the people quoting FFAC were quoting the whole thing. Alas, they were not. It is said that "the devil is in the details," but in this case, the devil is after the semicolon. The complete text of FFAC reads as follows:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. (emphasis mine)

This complete reading of the clause puts the court's decision in a clearer light. Yes, FFAC says that legal proceedings in one state are binding in another. It goes on to say that when those proceedings are in conflict, Congress is empowered to pass law to settle the dispute.

To my eye, this would tend to give DOMA a much better chance of surviving review by the Supreme Court, although it may be a while before a DOMA case makes it that far. The plaintiffs in this case have decided not to appeal the court's decision.

"With the present Supreme Court not willing even to hear the Florida adoption case, and the possibility of newly appointed Supreme Court judges by the Bush administration being even more conservative, it would not be prudent at this time to continue this effort," said Ellis Rubin.

I can understand that the couples in question are weary of their struggle and that they face an uphill battle, but I think they are making a mistake by not pushing the case. An uncontested legal decision tends to become precedent more quickly than a contested one, because judges are more comfortable using a case as a basis for their own decisions if that case has no pending appeal. Allowing this case to stand uncontested for a period of time will increase the likelihood of similar decisions from other courts, thus creating a wider precedent - a precedent that the Supreme Court may one day decide is too firmly entrenched to reverse.

Hat-tip to RightPundit.

Stop smoking, dammit

2005-01-25T09:37:00.000-05:00

Taking the fight against smoking to a new level, some companies are firing workers for smoking - even if they don't smoke in the office.

A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or at home.

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.

I have a hard time coming down firmly on either side of the fence with regard to this issue. On one hand, I support the right of employers to decide for themselves who they choose to employ. On the other hand, it does seem unfair to punish someone for something that's legal if they don't do it in the office.

It's not hard to see where this idea got its origin: state lawsuits designed to recover costs related to the medical care of smokers. If state governments can go to court to recover these costs, it logically follows that employers should be allowed to take steps to avoid incurring those costs in the first place. After all, most employers that provide health care to their workers pay a significant portion of those insurance premiums. If a company can get lower premiums by guaranteeing a smoke-free workforce, why not do it?

My concern about this sort of thing is not for the smokers (stupid filthy disgusting obnoxious habit); it's more for what I see coming down the road. If it becomes commonly accepted to terminate smokers because of the health care costs associated with smoking, that mindset could very easily be extended to someone who falls into the category of overweight or obese. How'd you like to come back from Christmas vacation and have to worry that the family dinner may have cost you your job?

That may sound silly, but it was silly just a few years ago to think that people might sue fast-food restaurants for making them fat.

Child Porn

2005-01-25T08:42:00.000-05:00

Via Michelle Malkin...

Would you let your teenage daughter go to a prom in this dress? It sells at a Manhattan store for $495 and is a top-selling gown for the designer, according to the New York Post.

This prom dress is so skimpy, even the designer's CEO wouldn't let his teenage daughter wear it. But the dangerously revealing gown, prominently advertised in Seventeen Prom, YM Prom and Teen Prom, and on sale in a Midtown shop, is a top seller for the company this season.

"I was shocked when I first saw it, but now it's one of our top 20 dresses nationwide," says Nick Yeh, the CEO of Xcite, the Stafford, Texas, company that designed the dress and some 200 other styles this season.

"I have a 15-year-old daughter and, no, I would not recommend she wear this dress.

"As a businessman," he adds, "I'm not judging what a teenager should wear or not wear. It's up to the parents to decide for their own children."

Teenagers will always be drawn to aspects of culture - music and fashion, most notably - that are likely to annoy their parents. The process of separating from your parents and establish your own identity is a healthy and proper part of growing up, and I understand that. Still, when I look at a dress that I would expect to see (briefly) on a stripper, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I put my hands up and say "Whoa, hold on here."

The sexualization of young girls has been underway in our culture for some time. It was at a Philadelphia Soul game last year where it really leapt out at me. During a timeout for a TV commercial, the "Junior Soulmates" came on the field for a performance. Girls as young as eight years old performance a hip-hop dance routine in uniforms just like these:

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have been very surprised. Public schools now issue athletic uniforms to students that have the school's name printed across the rearend. Abercrombie & Fitch sells thongs in kid's sizes. Now that I have a daughter of my own, I'm intensely more aware of this sort of thing than I ever was before.

For me, the most depressing aspect of this phenomenon is that so much of it is taking place with parental approval. While I'm sure that there are some enterprising young women who are shelling out their own cash for dresses like the one pictured above, it's likely that most of them are being purchased with money (and approval) from their parents. The eight-year-old girls "working it" with the Junior Soulmates aren't getting themselves to the stadium - their parents are bringing them, and dressing them, and applying their ~~garish whore paint~~ stage makeup.

As a parent, it's my duty to do my best to prepare my children for life as an adult. Part of this process involves letting my children make some of their own decisions. The flipside of that is my obligation to provide them moral guidance as to what is appropriate and what is not. Sometimes, this is going to involve cliche phrases like "you are not going out of the house in THAT outfit," and tolerating the eye-rolling and foot-stomping that follows.

Parenting is not a popularity contest. A parent who strives to be their child's best friend will succeed at neither. If more parents were concerned about being parents instead of being pals, there would be fewer sixteen-year-old girls wearing prom dresses like this.

The Myth of British Islamophobia

2005-01-24T07:54:00.000-05:00

The British magazine Prospect has a piece called "Islamophobia Myth" which looks at the anti-Muslim "backlash" supposedly taking place in the U.K.

Last summer, the home office published figures that revealed a 300 per cent increase in the number of Asians being stopped and searched under Britain's anti-terror laws. Journalists, Muslim leaders and even the home office all shouted "Islamophobia." "The whole Muslim community is being targeted by the police," claimed Khalid Sofi of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The bald figure of a "300 per cent increase" suggested heavy-handed policing at the very least. But dig a little deeper and the figures show that just 3,000 Asians had been stopped and searched in the previous year under the Terrorism Act. Of these, probably half were Muslim. In other words, around 1,500 Muslims out of a population of at least 1.6m had been stopped under the terror lawshardly a case of the police targeting every Muslim.

A total of 21,577 people from all backgrounds were stopped and searched under the terror laws. The majority14,429were white. Yet when I interviewed Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, he insisted that "95-98 per cent of those stopped and searched under the anti-terror laws are Muslim." The real figure is 14 per cent (for Asians). However many times I showed him the true statistics, he refused to budge. His figures appear to have been simply plucked out of the sky.

Some unscrupulous Muslim leaders believe that talking up Islamophobia shores up their own power base. I am told that in his book "On War", Carl von Clausewitz said that "noting causes a group to galvanize as much as an external enemy."

Using the myth of an "anti-Muslim backlash" as their bogeyman, these Muslim leaders do their people a terrible disservice. The lesson of American immigration teaches that immigrant populations prosper and thrive when they successfully assimilate into their host society. When Mr. Sacranie tells his people that rank-and-file British folk hate them, those Muslims tend to sequester themselves among their own population.

This "Balkanization" plays right into the hands of those who would like to see some sort of British state governed under the law of Sharia. Once there are a significant number of Muslims concentrated geographically, a de facto state will exist, lending support to the notion that a de jure state should follow. It's not hard to see this as the intended end of tactics like those of Mr. Sacranie.

Top 40

2005-01-22T17:31:00.000-05:00

It's a wonderful evening here in Pennsylvania. Snow is piling up outside, I have a cuddly toddler sitting in my lap, and Slowplay has named Disintegrator as one of their Top 40 Blogs.

40. The Northerner
39. Up for Anything
38. Michael The Archangel
37. Blue Eyed Infidel
36. Disintegrator
35. Chrenkoff
34. INDC Journal
33. Anti-idiotarian Rottweiller
32. Right-Thinking from the Left Coast
31. Jihad Watch
30. One Hand Clapping
29. Davids Medienkritik
28. Backcountry Conservative
27. Expat Yank
26. The Diplomad
25. California Yankee
24. Political Junkie
23. The Political Teen
22. Blogs for Bush
21. Protein Wisdom
20. ScrappleFace
19. Captain’s Quarters
18. Outside the Beltway
17. In the Bullpen
16. Brad Wardell
15. Say Anything
14. HundredPercenter Newswires
13. Little Green Footballs
12. Instapundit
11. Michelle Malkin
10. The Dead Pool
9. La Shawn Barber’s Corner
8. The Media Drop
7. Dummocrats
6. Young Pundit
5. Right Wing News
4. Ace of Spades HQ
3. Alarming News
2. Powerline
1. Wizbang

Being on anyone's list of Top 40 Blogs would surprise me - being included in the above company is far more than I deserve, and I'm grateful that Slowplay thinks so highly of Disintegrator.

Like Father, Like Son

2005-01-21T10:27:00.000-05:00

CNNMoney is reporting this morning that FCC Chairman Michael Powell is resigning from the agency.

A senior government official says Powell, a member of the FCC since November 1998 and the chairman since early 2001, will announce his resignation later Friday. His term on the commission runs through 2007.

FCC spokesmen were not immediately available for comment, though one person in the press office said a new release is anticipated.

Oddly enough, it was only yesterday that The Economist ran a piece on Mr. Powell, lauding his work in protecting nascent technologies like VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) while chiding him for his agency's crusade against "Janet Jackson's errant breast".

In a way, Powell is the C. Everett Koop of the FCC. Just as Koop was the first Surgeon General whose name became a household word, It's a challenge to name any previous chairs of the FCC. Powell's tenure has been a mixed bag. His agency's focus on broadcast decency appeared to cast aside any first amendment considerations. Yet, Powell never undertook any effort to extend the regulatory reach of the FCC to subscription services like cable or satellite TV. New media has certainly flowered on his watch: cable TV, satellite radio, and the internet continue to make headway against the old media of broadcast TV and radio. On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether his efforts on deregulation will eventually prove themselves boon or boondoggle.

I tend to regard the FCC as something of an unruly watchdog; effective in what it's supposed to do so long as its leash is kept very short. Powell's hand was on the leash for four years, and I think it's fair to say that the FCC rarely did more than bark a lot and annoy the neighbors. I'm willing to call that a success.

SCOTUS Mulls Schiavo Case

2005-01-21T09:43:00.000-05:00

WorldNetDaily reports that the Supreme Court is meeting behind closed doors today to decide whether or not to take up the Terri Schiavo case. For those who don't know, Schiavo is the brain-disabled Florida woman whose right to live is at the center of an ongoing euthanasia battle in the Florida courts.

In a 27-page brief filed early last month, attorneys for Gov. Jeb Bush asked the nation’s nine top justices to review and eventually reverse the Florida Supreme Court's Sept. 23 ruling that struck down "Terri’s Law" as unconstitutional, arguing that the lower courts had denied the governor’s and Schiavo's federally protected rights to due process and equal protection.

The attorneys contend the governor was never allowed a "day in court" to defend his 11th-hour rescue of Schiavo from death by court-ordered starvation 15 months ago or the law the Legislature had passed authorizing his actions.

"[The state court's ruling] fails to allow for the governor and the legislature to afford protections that they deem necessary to provide for wards in this situation," said Ken Connor, Bush's lead attorney, during a teleconference held minutes before the papers were filed Dec. 1.

This case has been dragging on for years - the earliest CNN piece is from July of 2001 and by then the courts had been involved for over a year. Late last year, Terri's husband Michael indicated that he might be ready to give up his fight to have Terri's feeding tube removed, but still the case lumbers forward.

To me, the two most important aspects of the issue are:

Terri's Wishes - Terri Schiavo left no living will or any other documentation indicating how she would want a situation like this to be handled. Michael Schiavo insists that she told him that she would not want to be kept alive artificially, but hearsay is a tenuous justification for killing someone.
Rehabilitation - There have been doctors who have testified that Terri can never improve her quality of life, and there have been doctors who have testified that she could benefit from rehabilitative therapy. There does not appear to be a definitive answer one way or the other.

Therefore, it comes down to this: If we're not sure of someone's wishes, and we're not sure if they could benefit from therapy, we should choose to err on the side of life. We don't put criminals to death if they're "probably" guilty; we shouldn't starve a woman to death because she would "probably" want us to.

Note: WorldNetDaily is one of the few news outlets that's following this case with any regularity. CNN's last article on the case is over a month and a half old.

Update: Alarming News has a short bit on this with more on the way.

Hillary Is Right

2005-01-20T13:38:00.000-05:00

First Ted Rall and now Hillary Clinton. If any more Democrats take stances that I agree with I'm going to get kicked off all my conservative blogrolls. Damn the torpedoes!

Speaking at a dinner last night, Senator Clinton expressed strong support for faith-based initiatives.

Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square."

I find it fairly remarkable that one of the country's highest-profile Democrats is coming out in such strong support of a concept so closely identified with President Bush. Also impressive is her statement about faith and the public square. The presence of religion in the public square is not an establishment of religion, and it would appear that Senator Clinton understands this.

Of course, the cynic in me looks at this and sees the shrewd politics so often associated with the Clinton name. Many Democrats know that they need to find a way to connect with a wider spectrum of religious voters (See "The Company You Keep"), and if Senator Clinton is considering a presidential run in '08, this is a good step in that direction.

Cynical or not, I must applaud Senator Clinton for taking the right stance. Doubleplus so for taking a stance that is not playing well among the "F*ck Middle America" crowd. A brief perousal of the Democratic Underground reactions to the article shows some fairly strong feelings.

From Connie_Corleone:

I hope Democrats don't vote for her in the primaries.

From mutus_frutex

Pandering traitor..

and from MadHound

How about the Democrats growing a fucking spine and stand up and fight like the opposition party that they are supposed to be, instead of rolling over and pissing on themselves like a pup afraid of it's master?

While these voices are not representative of everyday Democrats, they have held an inordinate amount of sway over the party's direction. The end result of that sway has been defeat; Republicans control a majority in the state legislatures, the governorships, the House, the Senate, and have won the White House in seven out of the last ten elections. Moving towards the American mainstream means alienating the BUSHITLER crowd. Senator Clinton appears to be taking some initial steps in the right direction, and for that she deserves kudos.

Heads Not Yet Rolled

2005-01-20T10:38:00.000-05:00

Everyone knows that Mary Mapes was fired from CBS and three executives were asked to resign in the wake of Ra^thergate. What everyone might not know is that the three executives in question haven't left.

[CBS Chairman]The report's producer, Mary Mapes, was fired as a result of the panel's report. Three others were asked to resign. [CBS Chairman] Mr. Moonves revealed today that none of the three have done so. Asked what CBS will do if they refuse to resign, Mr. Moonves said he could not talk about that situation. "It's a legal issue," he said.

My only guess at this point is that the three executives in question have lawyered up and are fighting to keep their jobs. From my point of view, this is a delightful development.

If a civil action ensues over CBS's demand that these people resign, there will be depositions. No doubt these depositions will detail, for the record, much of what went on behind the scenes at CBS as the story was being put together. What just might come out is what the so-called "independent" Thornburgh report laughably failed to find - evidence of political bias on the part of the people behind the memo story.

CBS is in a tight spot here. If they reinstate the people in question, no one in the organization is going to take them seriously. If they press on in their demands for resignation, they risk civil proceedings and the further airing of dirty laundry. I will confess that I am desperately hoping for the latter. What I expect will happen is that CBS will offer the executives fat ~~settlements~~ severance packages attached to scary non-disclosure agreements.

Boston In The Crosshairs?

2005-01-20T09:33:00.000-05:00

The Boston Herald is reporting on a strange situation involving a potential terrorist threat against Boston.

Authorities are scouring Boston for four Chinese nationals and two Iraqi men who may pose a nuclear threat to the city based on a report from an unidentified man calling from Mexico who claims to have smuggled them over the U.S. border.

"They got a call from across the border in Mexico to the California Highway Patrol several days ago, and he said he brought two Iraqis and four Chinese (individuals) across the border and according to him, they stated soon to follow behind them would be some sort of (nuclear) material," said a law enforcement source.

"He refers to some sort of nuclear material that will follow them through New York up into Boston."

The story seems a little oddball to me - why would one of the participants in the plot alert the FBI? Nevertheless, Boston officials and Homeland Security appear to be taking it seriously.

Prior to 9/11, this sort of investigation probably would not have made the papers. In the age of increased "transparency" in investigations concerning possible terrorist threats, even thin leads like this become prominent news stories. Where some people cite these sorts of stories as fear-mongering, I tend to look at it as a good thing. Generally speaking, increased public scrutiny of governmental activities tends to bring about positive change.

Hat tip to MartiniPundit.

Washington Election Update

2005-01-20T09:06:00.000-05:00

Just as PowerLine was on point for the Ra^thergate story, so Sound Politics is taking the lead on the botched/stolen gubernatorial election in Washington. The latest update indicates that there are now three counties where there were more votes counted than there were registered voters. The narrow margin of victory combined with what appears to be a high level of skullduggery make a revote the only way for either candidate to execute the office with any sense of legitimacy. There's just no way to know who won.

I'm still waiting for Barbara Boxer to break down in tears over the injustice of it all.

Why Social Security Doesn't Add Up, Example #4,986

2005-01-19T11:35:00.000-05:00

Reader Babs Kerns of Horsham, PA pointed out something curious about Social Security benefits with regard to divorced spouses.

Last night, my aunt told me about a law that states that someone who was married to someone available for Social Security for at least 10 years is entitled to up to 50% of the value of their SS benefits. Further, it doesn't impact their earnings. And if the divorced wage-earner has died, the surviving divorcee can actually get 100% of the benefit.

Ms. Kerns provided this link to the Social Security website and sure enough - there it is.

A person who is divorced after at least 10 years of marriage may qualify for benefits on the former spouse's Social Security record. To receive benefits as a divorced spouse, the person must be at least age 62 and his/her former spouse must be entitled to retirement or disability benefits.
...
Also, the benefits paid to a divorced spouse will have no effect on the benefit amount paid to other beneficiaries on the record.

Another example of a plan that promises to pay out more than it can possibly take in. When private citizens do this, it's called a Ponzi Scheme. When government does it, it's called Social Security.

But don't worry - Democrats say there's no Social Security crisis.

Barbara Boxer Lies

2005-01-19T08:50:00.000-05:00

Via Little Green Footballs...

Condoleeza Rice has been fielding some tough questions from Democrats in the hearings to confirm her as Secretary of State. During the questioning, Barbara Boxer tells a whopper of a lie...

Rice insisted the war in Iraq was not launched solely over WMD. Deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, she said, welcomed terrorists, attacked his own neighbors and paid suicide bombers in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians.

But Boxer said the resolution that authorized Bush to launch the war in Iraq talked about "WMD, period."

Fortunately, the text of the bill that authorized the war is a matter of public record. It includes the following justifications for the war:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
...
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
...
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.

You can read the text of the resolution for yourself at the Library of Congress THOMAS site. Search on the title: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

This is the bill that was presented to Congress, and it makes Boxer's statement look pathetic. Either she doesn't read the bills that Congress debates, or she thinks that Americans are too stupid to fact-check her ridiculous prevarications.

Ted Rall Gets It Right

2005-01-19T07:44:00.000-05:00

My dislike for Ted Rall is encoded into my DNA, much like my disdain for the designated hitter and the knowledge that O.J. is guilty. Still, it's important to acknowledge when one's adversaries are on the side of the angels. In an op-ed piece called "Legal, Safe, and Common", Rall does in fact get it right:

While we encourage illegal immigration, we've made it virtually impossible for a foreigner who dreams of becoming an American to do so legally. Legal immigration is limited to people who already have relatives here, are sponsored by an employer or are seeking political asylum from a tiny list of approved countries. Had these rules been enforced since 1776, there would be more Native Americans than any other variety.

A sane immigration policy would reverse these attitudes. We should welcome legal immigrants in much larger numbers. After all, America has always become culturally richer and economically more prosperous as the result of its hard-working newcomers. Legal immigration should become safe, legal and commonplace. At the same time, no nation worthy of the name can tolerate porous borders. We can and must seal our borders to prevent economic migrants, terrorists and others with unknown motives from entering the United States.

Although Rall gives token mention to the notion that tougher immigration policy will improve homeland security, the real motivation behind his stance is clear from the article: wage increases for every American:

Most employers don't hire illegal workers. But they all benefit from the downward pressure illegal immigration puts on wages. It's simple supply and demand: if we deported every undocumented worker, companies would be forced to increase pay at the bottom from sub-minimum to minimum wage levels. This would force employers to entice those currently working for the legal minimum wage with raises, and so on up the scale.

Rall's case for tougher immigration policy is a strong one, echoed by conservative voices like Michelle Malkin and yours truly. His goal of wealth redistribution notwithstanding, Rall's right and deserves credit for being so.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Dear Sir

2005-01-18T11:18:00.000-05:00

I've written a few emails to "mainstream journalists" when I've disagreed with something that they wrote, and I've written emails to other bloggers for similar reasons. My experience has been that the "journalists" respond with snooty well-that's-your-opinion responses and the bloggers are rather receptive.

Case in point: In a December 3^rd post, Walter Olson of OverLawyered wrote that "an essential part of the task of proselytizing for one faith is convincing listeners that there is something seriously wrong with or deficient about others." I took issue with his statement and emailed him to that effect. He sent me a very polite email in response, reworded the post in question, and put my criticism on his Letters page.

This is the sort of thing that builds credibility in my book, and it's one of the reasons why I'm one of the teeming masses that regularly submits links to OverLawyered.

David Letterman Probably Skipped This One

2005-01-18T09:42:00.000-05:00

Foreign Policy Magazine has compiled a list of underreported stories from this past year entitled "The Top Ten Stories You Missed in 2004". It's a good collection:

Nous Sommes Tous Chinois - France's collusion with China in its intimidation of Taiwan
The Eurotaxman Cometh - The European Union sacks its taxation commissioner after she raises questions about financial irregularities
Not Iraqification, but Kurdification - Increasingly, the only Iraqi troops that U.S. forces trust are Kurdish
Putin to Kvashnin: Youre Fired! - Putin boots the army's chief of staff
North KoreaNot Quite Dead - North Korea has quietly introducing free-market reforms to its economy
Pakistans Musharraf Stays in Uniform - Musharraf was supposed to quit as President and head of the army at the end of the year. He didn't.
Busting the Bunker Busters - Plans for low-yield nukes die in Congress and give rogue nations an easy way to protect their assets from air power
Warding off the Oil Curse - Chad became an oil exporter and struck a deal with the World Bank requiring the nation to reinvest 80% of the revenues in improving infrastructure and fighting poverty.
Playing it Seif - Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi appears to a have a progressive son. Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammars second son, lobbied his father to end the standoff with the West and says that Libyan Jews persecuted in the past are entitled to compensation.
A Wounded Military - Wounded soldiers have a much better chance of surviving today than in the past, but the costs - financial and human - of so many debilitating injuries may be staggering

The FP piece does not offer an in-depth examination of the issues on the list; I'm looking at it as a jumping-off point for a lot of future googlewerk and perhaps the subjects of blog posts to come.

Biological Test for ADHD?

2005-01-18T09:07:00.000-05:00

NewScientist.com is reporting that a biological test for ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) has been developed.

The first biological test for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder has been developed. The researchers claim the diagnosis, based on examination of eye movements, is more than 93% accurate and could lead to earlier identification and treatment for children with the condition.

Scientists analysed the eye movements of 65 children aged between four and six in Thessaloniki, Greece. About half of the children had been diagnosed as having ADHD through the standard method of psychological assessment and the use of questionnaires.

The children were placed in front of a computer screen while wearing special goggles to monitor their eye movements and asked to use their eyes to "lock-on to" and follow spots of light that traversed the screen during a 10-minute test.

"Children with ADHD show large difference in eye movements compared with normal children. For example, those without ADHD could follow the light spot for 30 seconds to as much as five minutes, whereas the children with the disorder could only follow the stimulus for about three to five seconds," says Giorgos Pavlidis at University of Brunel, UK, who led the study.

Perhaps this is a result of my medical naivete', but when I hear the term "biological test" I think of tests that are not open to subjective analysis - pregnancy tests, HIV tests, that sort of thing. So, I was a little deflated to read that this was not a diagnostic tool of that caliber.

I'm also skeptical of putting too much faith in the results this study when the sample is so small - sixty-five chidren - and so demographically homogenous. If doctors are going to use this tool as part of a battery of tests to arrive at diagnoses of ADHD, then I support that. However, Mr. Pavlidis seems to think that his test is all that's needed for a credible diagnosis.

"Children as young as three years old could benefit from the test. It could reliably identify those children who have ADHD early on so that effective intervention could be given to reduce loss of confidence and other behavioural and psychological problems," Pavlidis told New Scientist.

I should see if MedPundit has anything to say on this...

The Fallen

2005-01-18T08:50:00.000-05:00

RightThinkingGirl visited Shanksville, PA - where Flight 93 went down on September 11, 2001 - and took photos. A small gallery worth your time.

I live in Pennsylvania, and so it would not be inconvenient for me to visit this place. Nor would it be inconvenient for me to visit Ground Zero in New York City. Yet, I have not gone to either place. I've thought about it a lot, and I do feel a certain obligation to spend some time in these places.

Yet, three years after the fact, I'm still not ready to confront the enormity of it in person. I have a Time-Life commemorative hardcover that I look at once a week or so, and the photos still move me to tears. Thankfully, no one that I know was lost on that day. Still, I carry an ache from that day that I don't expect will ever really go away.

Bush Will Not Lobby For Gay Marriage Amendment

2005-01-17T08:27:00.000-05:00

Buried on page 2 of a Washington Post story about Bush's Iraq policy comes this tidbit...

On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture. Groups such as the Family Research Council have made the marriage amendment their top priority for the next four years.

The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."

I look at this as vindication of what I've been saying all along - Bush never really intended to amend the constitution. The brouhaha over the Federal Marriage Amendment has been nothing more than a complicated political dance that both sides took part in as a means of drumming up support and donations from their bases. Neither side expected FMA to pass. With the president's political capital now earmarked for other endeavors, there's not much reason to engage in a debate of sound and fury that will result in no change to the nation's laws.

Religious conservatives will shriek with outrage over being "betrayed", but the fact of the matter is that FMA was never going to receive anything more than a token push from the president in his second term. Those who thought otherwise were naively hopeful or blinded by their abject hatred of Bush.

The Company You Keep

2005-01-17T07:26:00.000-05:00

The New York Times, in a piece called "Democrats Turn to Leader of Religious Left", reports that House Democrats are trying to find a way to reach out to religious voters.

Democrats, reeling from the Republicans' success at courting churchgoers, are focusing new attention on a religious and political anomaly: Jim Wallis, one of the few prominent left-leaning leaders among evangelical Protestants.

At the start of the Congressional session, Senate Democrats invited Mr. Wallis to address their members at a private session to discuss issues. A group of about 15 House Democrats invited him to a breakfast discussion about dispelling their party's secular image.

Mr. Wallis is the founder and editor of Soujourners, a Christian ministry "whose mission is to proclaim and practice the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice". A look at the Sojourners Action Alerts page reveals a list of causes that certainly seem very Democrat-friendly:

Bulldozers in Bethlehem? - Tell Congress to investigate the use of Caterpillar equipment in the illegal demolition of Palestinian homes.
Demand Rumsfeld's resignation, independent investigation - Abuses in U.S. military prisons are systemic, not isolated.
Stop election dirty tricks! - Organizations funded by the Republican National Committee have been caught pulling illegal dirty tricks that included voter registration workers destroying registration forms filled out by Democrats.

Sojourners doesn't appear concerned about "dirty tricks" in the Washington gubernatorial race, and also doesn't appear concerned about I.R.S. restrictions on political speech by 503(c) nonprofits. But, I digress...

Mr. Wallis is the author of God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. Publication of this book was accelerated so that it would hit bookshelves around the time of the Inauguration. In a review for Slate entitled "The Morals of the Story", Elizabeth A. Castelli sounds some cautionary notes about Mr. Wallis...

Wallis states again and again his overarching perspective: "The real question is not whether religious faith should influence a society and its politics, but how." Religious faith is no generic category here; it means biblical religion.
...
But what is more troubling is the degree to which Wallis frames "religion" as the sole source of a legitimate political vision for social change in the United States. Throughout the book, he argues that "vision" only emerges from religious conviction and that everything else is either cynicism or complaint.
...
Moreover, people without religious convictions or affiliations are largely reduced in Wallis' schema to complaining secularists with "no vision." He calls nonreligious people "secular fundamentalists" with "absolutist" views on the separation of church and state, or else he describes them as "withdrawing" from "moral lessons" and "depriving" Americans of important debate about ethical issues.

The Mike Newdow wing of the Democratic Party is not apt to take kindly to Mr. Wallis' notion that religious conviction is the only source of vision, and Democrats should take caution not to incite this segment of their base. With Howard Dean warning against the Party becoming "Republican Lite",it's easy to see how warming up to Mr. Wallis could be interpreted as exactly that - Republican Lite.

That interpretation, should it become commonplace, would only be pouring coal into the engines of Dean's campaign to take control of the party; a fate best left avoided.

Inaugural Prayer Update

2005-01-14T16:55:00.000-05:00

Michael Newdow's lawsuit to stop prayers at the Inauguration has been rejected.

On Thursday, Newdow told U.S. District Judge John Bates that having a minister invoke God in the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

But one day later, Bates ruled that Newdow wouldn't get far in his legal challenge and noted the absence of a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause."

FindLaw has a PDF of the court's decision. In addition to finding no violation of the Establishment Clause, the decision also notes that the "balance of harms" weighed strongly against Newdow.

Plans Within Plans

2005-01-14T08:51:00.000-05:00

Professional atheist Mike Newdow, perhaps sensing that his fifteen minutes were drawing to a close, has found a way to reset the fleeting-fame timer: going to court to stop President Bush from having ministers say prayers at the inauguration.

Michael Newdow, a lawyer and doctor who has fought to keep his daughter from being exposed to the Pledge of Allegiance in her public school, said the inauguration is perhaps the most public of all government-sponsored national ceremonies. It should not provide the president with an opportunity to make nonreligious citizens and non-Protestants feel like outsiders, he said.

Newdow filed suit last month and participated in yesterday's hearing via a teleconference hookup with the federal courthouse in Washington. The judge said he hopes to issue a ruling today. Bush will be sworn in at noon Thursday at the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Newdow's problem is a simple one - he ignores the parts of the constitution that he doesn't like. A look at his webpage illustrates this:

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As I understand it, this resulted from the Framers' awareness of the persecution and animosity that inevitably accompanies state religions.

Mr. Newdow, either through ignorance or a desire to manipulate the argument, inserts a period after the word "religion." Anyone who has actually read the document knows that there's a very important phrase that follows...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Newdow and others of like mind appear to believe that no public space should be utilized in any form for religious expression. According to this view, public land can't have nativity scenes, public events can't mention God, and public buildings can't hang "Merry Christmas" banners.

To my mind, having a minister offer a prayer is not "a law respecting an establishment of religion"; banning a minister from offering a prayer, on the other hand, certainly seems like "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

That argument aside, it seems clear to me that Mr. Newdow has ambitions further afield than simply eliminating "Under God" from the pledge. Now that he has made it clear that he intend to press the issue wherever opportunity presents itself, one can logically presume that he'll pursue the removal from "In God We Trust" from our national currency. After all, if we can't say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and we can't have ministers offer prayers at civic functions, it is hard to see how one can allow for the nation's currency to proclaim any such thing.

And then?

If the courts agree with Mr. Newdow that it is unconstitutional for any public property to be utilized for religious expression, the groundwork will have been laid for the elimination of all radio and television broadcasts of a religious nature. Radio and television airwaves are public property that is administered by the government; a public space. If we can't talk about God on public property, how is it constitutional for the government to allow people to talk about God on the public airwaves?

It would be imprudent to look at this as the unintended consequence of an inadvertently slippery slope. Mr. Newdow has shown that he intends to press the issue on successively wider fronts. It's not hard to see where he's going.

While it would be easy to dismiss Mr. Newdow and his intellectual kin as petulant whiners, we should welcome this opportunity to talk about the real issue. The "separation of church and state" is not a part of our constitution; it was created by the Supreme Court. The result of its implementation has been too much attention being paid to the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause at the expense of "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Not to mention "abridging the freedom of speech."

'Cos He Said So

2005-01-13T09:01:00.000-05:00

Bill Cosby has taken a lot of flak for his stiff criticisms of the black community. His op-ed in yesterday's Detroit News shows that he is unfazed.

What can the future hold for us with a 50 percent high school dropout rate in many urban areas and with a 60 percent illiteracy rate among inmates and a prison population that's 45 percent black?

Most of these ills stem from several factors, but an important one is the lack of education of too many of our young people. Studies show a correlation between inadequate schooling and a wide range of distressing outcomes, including early death, a propensity toward violence and substance abuse.

Our children are telling us something. Why are we not listening and paying attention to the messages?

Parent power! Proper education has to begin at home. We must demand that our youth have an understanding of spoken and written English, math and science. We must transform our communities with a renewed commitment to our children, and that means parents must show that they value education. We don't need another federal commission to study the problem.

What we need now is parents sitting down with children, overseeing homework, sending children off to school in the morning well fed, clothed, rested and ready to learn.

It's not unreasonable to presume that if Bill Cosby were a white entertainer, his missives on the state of Black America would be quickly dismissed as racist. That convenient pigeonhole is not available in this particular case, and puts many people in the uncomfortable position of having to respond to the content of his comments rather than the color of his skin.

The Cos is not dismissing the effects of racism in this country; he's dismissing the notion that racism gives African Americans a pass on taking any responsibility for their own circumstances. That attitude - that racism and circumstance are insurmountable obstacles that make effort pointless - is summed up perfectly in an MSNBC piece about Cosby's comments:

So many kids on the block would like nothing better than to fulfill Cosby's middle-class fantasies, but they also don't want to be seen as suckers itching to abandon childhood friends and ways for dreams that can never come true.

It's depressing to think that the idea of black parents investing time and energy in their children's education is a "fantasy" and that aspiring to a better future is "a dream that can never come true." It's the ubiquitous nature of that mindset that the Cos is railing against. It's a shame that his voice appears so solitary.

Note: More of Cosby's thoughts on education can be found in Letters to the Next President:What We Can Do About the Real Crisis in Public Education, available at Amazon.

The Tenth Item

2005-01-13T08:24:00.000-05:00

Via PrestoPundit...

The Washington Times reports today that Bush's immigration plan is running into some serious opposition among Congressional Republicans.

Last January, Mr. Bush proposed allowing foreign workers to apply for renewable three-year work permits. Illegal immigrants already in the United States would be eligible and would not have to face the deportation and waiting period before re-entering the country that the law now requires.

But soon after he made his proposal, the president's aides faced tough criticism from Republican lawmakers at a retreat in Philadelphia, and Mr. Bush seemed to put the proposal on the back burner.

Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who controls which bills reach the floor, all oppose granting legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States.

"And then you come to the rank-and-file guys," Mr. Hayworth said, "who, on nine out of 10 items agree with the administration, this is the 10th item. And now, if it goes to number one on the priority list, it is the item where there will be serious debate and discussion and ultimately rejection of this initiative."

The center of Bush's immigration plan is a guest-worker plan that would provide a way for America's estimated ten million illegal immigrants to earn a legal status that would let them stay in the country for up to six years. Once they register as temporary workers, they would be eligible to begin the long process of applying for citizenship or permanent residency.

At the core of most objections to this plan (including my own) is the notion of rewarding someone for breaking the law. Illegal immigrants have broken the law. The Bush plan not only gives these people a pass on their crimes; it rewards them by giving them exactly what they sought when they decided to break the law in the first place - permanent residency. I know of no plan that rewards shoplifters by giving them a pardon and the merchandise they stole.

The reality of immigration is that there are jobs that Americans won't do; the types of jobs that immigrants are willing to risk their lives crossing Arizona deserts for. Rather than reward these hazardous (and often fatal) journeys, we need to acknowledge the fact that our economy depends on these workers. That means allocating resource to allow more immigrants to legally enter the country, and to do it faster. It also means stepping up efforts to control illegal immigration and exercising tighter control of our borders.

One cannot reward illegal immigration while simultaneously expecting people to come to this country "by the book". All things being equal, people will follow the path of least resistance. True immigration reform (not to mention enhanced national security) will come when that path is through an Immigration office, rather than the deserts of the American Southwest.

Note: Here I am citing the Washington Times right after saying that I don't like to do so. However, the article was buttressed by a parallel piece in the Washington Post, so I felt comfortable with it.

When Life Hands You a Yemen, Make Yemenade

2005-01-12T09:14:00.000-05:00

Via Overlawyered...

On December 26^th of last year, the American Embassy in Yemen issued an advisory warning American citizens to avoid the city of Aden, and the Aden Hotel specifically.

The American Embassy cautions all American citizens to be alert and avoid travel to the city of Aden. The Embassy advises of a possible threat against the Aden Hotel in particular. The American Embassy has advised its personnel not to travel to Aden until after January 1, 2005.

The new year came and went, and thankfully there was no incident at the hotel. The hotel has filed a lawsuit against the embassy.

In a statement to the Yemen Times, Fadhl al-Hilali, General Manager at Aden Hotel said the warnings of the American Embassy sparked fear among clients and made them leave the hotel. A number of workers also left the hotel fearing the warnings from the embassy.

He mentioned that the hotel’s administration had already prepared several ceremonial programs to celebrate the occasion as other hotels all over Yemen do and that the celebration was to be sponsored by many trade companies.

"The warning period ended and nothing bad occurred, so this indicates that such rumors have no place of truth," Al-Hilali said. "According to the filed suit, we claim a compensation worth $ US500,000."

It's sad that in our quest to introduce things like freedom and democracy to the Middle East, we've also introduced the mindset of the worst of our lawyers. For every Cher, there's a Sonny, I guess.

From Hero To Zero

2005-01-12T08:28:00.000-05:00

It took all of three days for Hamas to completely undermine newly-elected Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

A top Hamas leader said Wednesday that the Islamic militant group has no plans to disarm, adding that the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has no authority to order an end to attacks against Israel.

The comments by Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, complicated Abbas' efforts to persuade militants to declare a cease-fire.

"Hamas is not planning to give the weapons of its fighters to the Palestinian Authority, but we will ask Mr. Abbas to protect the Palestinians in face of the repeated occupation incursions," Zahar said in a statement posted on a Hamas Web site.

"As long as occupation and aggression continue, and as long as occupation persists, then no one could disarm us," he added.

Zahar's use of the word occupation is an important one. When groups like Hamas speak of their fight against Israeli occupation, they're not talking about the Gaza Strip of the West Bank - they're talking about Israel. Hamas considers all Israelis to be active participants in the occupation of Palestinian land. So, when Hamas says that they will never disarm (and thus, never stop killing Israelis) so long as occupation continues, what they are saying is that they will never stop killing Israelis so long as there are Israelis to kill.

While Hamas operates freely within areas controlled by the PA, Israel's hard line towards the Palestinians is not likely to soften; nor should it. When Abbas finishes enjoying the warm tongue-bath he is receiving from international leaders leaders and the press, he will find himself between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis: If he attempts to suppress Hamas and rein them in, he will be acting in the best long-term interests of his people - and his people will hate him for it. Arab leaders are not known for bold action that threatens their hold on power. This does not inspire confidence that peace is around the corner.

When the Palestinian people are ready to reject terror, murder, and those who carry it out, Hamas will lose their de facto immunity from prosecution for their crimes. When that happens, Israel and the world will see that the Palestinian people are serious about peaceful coexistence with Israel. That's when a true Palestinian state - strong at home and respected in the world (as a certain senator from Massachusetts might say) - will come to be. Until then, the Palestinian people will live in the limbo dictated not by the Zionist occupiers, but by their own choices.

He's Running

2005-01-11T14:03:00.000-05:00

After many weeks of speculation, Howard Dean has made it official...

Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state and we must be willing to contest every race at every level. We will only win when we show up and fight for the issues important to all of us.

The statement is about a page long and mostly consists of why Dean thinks he's the right guy for the job. There is one interesting paragraph, though.

But most of all, together, we have to rebuild the American community. We will never succeed by treating our nation as a collection of separate regions or separate groups. There are no red states or blues states, only American states. And we must talk to the people in all of these states as members of one community.

I think that Dean is going to have a hard time selling this concept to his most ardent supporters, like...

Those who think that only ignorant hillbilly homophobic redneck Nazis would vote for Bush, or
Those who think that we should cut off all government programs in the red states so that those brainwashed fools will come to their senses, or
Those who think that JesusLand is funny.

Those people have made it all too clear what they think of Middle America, and I can't imagine they're going to be receptive to the idea of reaching out to people they consider morons.

More to the point, I think that a Howard Dean chairmanship would be disastrous for the party. Taking the party hard a'starboard does not strike me as a reasoned and well-thought-out response to the electoral defeat of '04. Democratic prospects for '08 look good; there will be no incumbent and Senator H. Clinton can probably crush anyone who challenges her in the primaries (not to mention the general election). Dean's isolationist pacifism is not the way to convince Americans that Democrats are credible on the topic of national security.

I'm a conservative and a Republican, and so it's understandable that I would root for Democrats to lose elections. What troubles me about a Dean chairmanship of the DNC is the possibility that the Democrats get thumped so badly in '06 and '08 that the GOP finds itself with supermajorities in one or both houses of Congress. Neither party can be trusted with that much power.

Stop Howard!

Update: SlowPlay follows up with "For Dems, Dean a new kind of poison" where he says that Dean can't compete on the national stage.

Dean has no national credentials and is from a sort of obscure place. As a state pol from Vermont, there is a good chance that Dean won’t have the national clout and experience neede to go into places like New Mexico and round up support for candidates. Some may also think that Vermont is out of touch. You may remember that it was often noted during Dean’s run for the roses that his state has almost no minorities in it. Dean was able to come up with good quips to deflect this criticism ("if number of minorities in your state had anything to do with it, Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King” or something like that), but it is a valid concern as a good chunk of the Dem base is comprised by ethnic minorities.

Give SlowPlay a visit when you get the chance.

Regime Change Redux

2005-01-11T11:36:00.000-05:00

I don't usually cite or quote the Washington Times because their reporting is often shoddy. I'm making an exception for "Risks of appeasing Iran's mullahs" by Struan Stevenson. Stevenson is a Scottish Conservative member of the European Parliament and co-chairman of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup in the European Parliament.

Stevenson makes no bones about the fact that he looks at Europe's current stances towards Iran as "spineless", and goes so far as to use the "A" word and risk invoking the spirit of Neville Chamberlain.

Appeasement is not the way to contain or change this evil regime. Nor is it the path to avoid another war. A nuclear-armed fundamentalist regime will not spare the EU, either. Iran's missiles already can reach southern Europe. The mullahs are now rushing to develop a third-generation missile system able to reach Paris, London and Brussels.

What Stevenson is not advocating is a sequel to Operation Iraqi Freedom (which would be disastrous). Rather, Stephenson calls on Europe to support the growing freedom movement inside Iran.

For once, we should side with the millions in Iran whose cry is for freedom and regime change. A modern, secular and democratic Iran would not only be the key to regional peace and security, but also a long-term ally as we try to spread democracy across the Middle East and the world.

I can't agree enough that we should be aiding the people of Iran as much as possible in their struggle to rid themselves of the yoke of the mullahs. I'd even go so far to say that it'd be acceptable to arm and train them. At the very least, we should be funding them and giving them things like communications gear. Nothing is more dangerous to a dictatorship than the free flow of information and ideas.

Docs In Socks

2005-01-11T08:42:00.000-05:00

Via The Gantelope...

One horse that appears to be making a fine recovery is the Sandy Berger story. You remember Mr. Berger, don't you? On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for allegedly taking classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration's handling of millennium terror threats. Berger maintained that the removal (and destruction) of documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his pants and jacket pockets was accidental.

Accidentally stuffed into his pants and socks.

Anyhow, the New York Post reports that the investigation has progressed.

The criminal probe into why former Bill Clinton aide Sandy Berger illegally sneaked top-secret documents out of the National Archives possibly in his socks has heated up and is now before a federal grand jury, The Post has learned.

"It may have been off the front pages, but the investigation has been active," said a source with knowledge of the probe.

"[Berger] has been interviewed several times by federal agents FBI and prosecutors."

Berger admits removing 40 to 50 top-secret documents from the archives, but claims it was an "honest mistake" made while he vetted documents for the 9/11 commission's probe into the Twin Towers attacks.

Berger has also acknowledged that he destroyed some documents he says by accident.

There's not much more to the story than that. At the time the story first broke, my response was that this was probably a non-story. I could see how someone could walk out of a building with a pile of documents they weren't supposed to take. When reports started to surface that Berger had destroyed documents, my take began to change. We're still largely in the dark here and there's not a lot of substantive information to be had. If it should be revealed that Berger destroyed some of the documents he removed, the man should rot in jail.

One Last Whack

2005-01-11T08:11:00.000-05:00

The horse that is Rathergate is all but dead, with the official report having been released and almost everyone weighing in, with the exception of PowerLine. PowerLine was the blog that took the lead in dissecting the CBS story in the hours after it aired (a period of time often referred to in the blogosphere as "the sixty-first minute"). It was PowerLine that did the most thorough fact-checking, provided a central point for sharing of information, and was on point for the hairiest days of the affair.

So, it was surprising when PowerLine was slow to post during yesterday's blogging frenzy. But now that they have made a few posts on the topic, I thought I would take one last whack at the horse because some of my readers may not regularly read PowerLine.

The first post was "The Thornburgh Report: What It Says, and What It Doesn't Say". What is says is that Mapes was maniacal in her pursuit of this story:

In fact, the report contains repeated indications that Mary Mapes, in particular, dripped with anti-Bush venom. On July 23, Michael Smith, a freelance journalist in Texas who was working on the story along with Mapes, sent her an email that began: "I am close to something that the Bushies are worried about..." Mapes responded: "I desperately want to talk to you....Do NOT underestimate how much I want this story."

On July 30, Mapes sent an email to one of her superiors at CBS in which she wrote: "...there is some very interesting Bush stuff shaking out there right now...Re...his qualification [sic] and refusal of service in Vietnam, etc. Lots of goodies."

On August 3, she emailed again: "There is a storm brewing in Austin re the Bush stuff....It is much more intense than it was four years ago and there is a strong general feeling that this time, there is blood in the water."

Finally, on August 31, only eight days before the 60 Minutes show aired, at a time when Smith and Mapes were desperately trying to persuade Bill Burkett to give them the anti-Bush documents that they had heard he possessed, Smith sent an email to Mapes proposing that they set up a book deal for Burkett so that he could be paid in exchange for turning over the documents:

Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine...

What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind that the book probably could not make it out until after the election.

Mapes replied: "that looks good, hypothetically speaking, of course."

Almost as soon as CBS admitted that the couldn't stand by the story, people were speculating that Mapes would be scapegoated for the entire affair. From what appears to be in his report, she hasn't been scapegoated; she's been justifiably terminated for an appalling absence of journalistic ethics. As to what the report does not say...

The second issue that the report fails to address is the communication and apparent coordination between 60 Minutes staff and the Kerry campaign. We now know that there was more communication than had previously been acknowledged. In addition to Mapes's famous phone call to Joe Lockhart, asking him to talk to Bill Burkett, she had several conversations with Chad Clanton, who also worked for the Kerry campaign. Clanton told the panel that Mapes asked him what information the Kerry campaign had gotten from other reporters about the National Guard story, and also told him about the story she was working on for 60 Minutes. So at a minimum, we know that the Kerry campaign knew about the 60 Minutes story while it was in preparation. And it is fair to assume that Clanton put the most benign interpretation on his several conversations with Mapes.

There is obvious circumstantial evidence for coordination as well as communication, given that the DNC launched its "Fortunate Son" ad campaign, which duplicated the themes of the 60 Minutes program, the very next morning after the program aired. The Thornburgh report raises some tantalizing questions about the timing of the 60 Minutes report, but does not try to answer them. First, it notes that early in the summer of 2004, Mapes wrote in an email that the program would air in September--a time usually devoted to reruns. At that time, the story had not yet coalesced; how could Mapes state with such assurance when it would run? Then, the program was moved at the last minute from late September to September 8. The Thornburgh panel attributes the haste with which the show was put together to this schedule change, but never asks why the change was made. An obvious possibility is that 1) the show was moved up because the information being put out by the Swift Boat Vets was killing John Kerry's candidacy, and the Kerry campaign wanted the show moved up to help stem the tide; and/or 2) the show was moved to September 8 to tie in with the DNC's "Fortunate Son" ad campaign. Unfortunately, the Thornburgh group seems not to have pursued this important question.

The relationship between the Kerry campaign and the 60 Minutes story is a subject that badly needs to be investigated, but the Thornburgh group did not pursue the issue beyond noting the communications between 60 Minutes staff and the Kerry campaign.

As I said yesterday, it was almost certainly too much to hope that this panel was going to come forward and point out what many people already believe - the segment was a hit piece specifically designed and timed to help the Kerry campaign. It's telling that the panel teases with these questions but does not follow up.

PowerLine's middle post from yesterday, "Mapes Runs to Daylight", fairly thoroughly fisks Mapes' press statement. I won't repeat it all here, but this should tell you all you need to know about Mapes' stance:

I believe the segment presented to the American people facts they were free to accept or reject, and that as those facts were presented, there was nothing that was false or misleading. I am heartened to see that the panel found no political bias on my part, as indeed I have none.

Any person claiming to "have no political bias" is a liar or a idiot, and Mapes has displayed herself to be quite intelligent.

In their last post of the day, PowerLine put the topic to bed with A Rather Sad Post Mortem", which pointed out The New York Times wrap-up piece on the whole sordid affair. Boiling the entire Rathergate brouhaha down to a short and concise paragraph, they offer this:

For some years now, the party line of the mainstream media has been: of course we're pretty much all Democrats, but that doesn't influence our news coverage. If nothing else, Rathergate should put that defense to rest once and for all.

My apologies for the long post. Barring some Really Big Development in this story, I'm putting this one to bed. I'm in awe of the PowerLiners and the other conservative blogs who were so tireless in following this story. Watching all of these fairly regular people write eloquently and convincingly about something they felt so passionately about contributed in large part to my decision to try my hand ad this daily exercise in thinking and writing. More on that later, I think.

Heads Roll at CBS

2005-01-10T10:22:00.000-05:00

Three CBS News employees were asked to resign and a fourth was fired in the wake of the report concerning the 60 Minutes National Guard memos scandal.

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howards deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.

I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report. My first impression is that this seems appropriate. Mapes had been working, by her own account, for five years to try and find something on the Bush-National Guard story and come up with nothing. Then, with the election nearly, she comes up with memos. Badly faked memos, at that. If she wasn't party to the fraud, she turned a blind eye to it.

The report does have some fairly strong words for CBS News, but it stops short of stating what many people consider to be obvious: that the segment was a politically-motivated hit piece designed to influence the outcome of an election. The report actually goes so far as to poo-poo the notion:

While the panel found that some actions taken by CBS News encouraged such suspicions, the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content.

This conclusion barely passes the laugh test from my point of view. Bill Burkett, the man who provided the memos to Mapes, had asked her to put him in touch with Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign as a condition for providing the memos - and she did it. On this, the panel will only concede that this looks bad.

The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was also faulted for calling Joe Lockhart, a senior official in the John Kerry campaign, prior to the airing of the piece, and offering to put Burkett in touch with him. The panel called Mapes action a clear conflict of interest that created the appearance of political bias.

A five-year quest to ruin George Bush, coordination with the Kerry campaign, laughably forged memos and this all present the appearance of political bias on Mapes' part? One struggles to imagine what sort of behavior would constitute actual political bias. This is probably the best that could have been hoped for. It's unrealistic to think that people appointed by CBS to investigate CBS's ethics are going to announce that CBS aired a politically-motivated hit piece based around fraudulent documents with the intent to influence the outcome of a presidential election. It's the journalistic equivalent of "does this make me look fat?"

Still, the lopping-off of the heads of some of the responsible parties will perhaps give some pause to those enemies of the president still lurking in the festering cesspool of the media. I don't think that anyone is surprised that Mapes was canned; she had long been figured to be made a scapegoat for the entire affair. The fact that three others were asked for their resignations says to me that CBS understood that a singular scapegoat wasn't going to be viewed as an appropriate response.

This brings about as much closure to this issue as anyone is ever going to see. Rather had already stepped down from the prestigious Evening News anchor chair before the report was made public; a move viewed by some (including me) as the result of a mutual decision between Rather and CBS designed to deflect some of the criticism justifiably being leveled at Rather. Mapes is out, and heads have rolled. There's not much left to do.

I'm curious to see if Ra^thergate is going to be the nadir of the mainstream media's anti-Republican/anti-conservative bias, or if this is just the shape of things to come. Whatever happens, Ra^thergate is certainly a notable moment in media history. It made "bloggers" a household word, and served notice to the media that the old days of casually slandering one's enemies are quickly drawing to a close. What remains to be seen is if they will pay attention.

Update: I expect all the big bloggers to weigh in, so I'll add links here as they surface and give props accordingly.

Michelle Malkin - "CBS WATCH: 'MYOPIC ZEAL,' 'RIGID AND BLIND'"
Instapundit - "Rathergate Update"
No Left Turns - "Independent Panel Finds That CBS Failed to Follow Journalistic Principles in Memogate"
Polipundit - "Rathergate Report Cites 'Myopic Zeal'"
Andrew Sullvian calls it "damning stuff" and also snickers at the "appearance" of political bias.
RedState says what we all understand:
Until CBS recognizes that its news division operates as a mouthpiece for liberal interests, it will continue to make the same mistakes regardless of what new procedures it implements. When you think something is the truth, you tend to act on it, even when it is a lie built on a lie preying on your sense of the truth. CBS was willingly scammed and then willingly participated in the scam to scam the voting public.

Update 2: The most serious problems with the original broadcast, from the official report:

The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;
The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly
available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;
The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;
The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents “were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files”;
The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;
The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;
The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the
production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and
The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry - a clear conflict of interest - that created the appearance of a political bias.

Hat tip to Jim Geraghty at The Kerry Spot.

Common Sense From The Bench

2005-01-10T07:36:00.000-05:00

Via Random Mentality and Overlawyered...

So, you and a couple of friends decide to rent a Chevy Blazer. You buy four bags of fireworks and begin driving around a residential neighborhood, shooting bottle rockets at pedestrians. Then, someone drops a firecracker into the back and all the fireworks explode.

What do you do?

Why, you sue the company that rented you the car! The Iowa Supreme Court should be lauded for rejecting this nonsense, summarizing their decision like so:

Viewing the facts most favorably to plaintiffs, the circumstances that caused their injuries do not create a vicarious liability under section 321.493. The fact that plaintiffs injuries occurred in the motor vehicle while it was being driven is not sufficiently related to the operation or condition of the vehicle so as to fall within the provisions of that statute.

What I find amazing is that the case made it's way to the state Supreme Court. Nevertheless, score one for common sense.

A Great Gift Idea

2005-01-10T07:18:00.000-05:00

I wish I had seen The FOXBlocker before Christmas. It would have made a great gift for a few of my friends.

FOXBlocker is an innovative new product that filters out the FOX News network. Simply screw the filter into the back of your TV and never be exposed to right wing propaganda again (at least through FOX News). Using a proprietary technology, the FOXBlocker works to filter out FOX News from your cable lineup.

It's certainly easier to stifle the ideas you oppose than to refute them.

The Fraud We're Supposed To Ignore

2005-01-10T07:06:00.000-05:00

Writing for The Wall Street Journal, John Fund points out more of the details of the stolen election in Washington state.

In Washington state, the errors by election officials have been compared to the antics of Inspector Clouseau, only clumsier. At least 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle's King County than the number of individual voters who can be accounted for. Other counties saw similar, albeit smaller, excess vote totals. More than 300 military personnel who were sent their absentee ballots too late to return them have signed affidavits saying they intended to vote for Mr. Rossi. Some 1 out of 20 ballots in King County that officials felt were marked unclearly were "enhanced" with Wite-Out or pens so that some had their original markings obliterated.

Most disturbing is the revelation last week by King County officials that at least 348 unverified provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines. "Did it happen? Yes. Unfortunately, that's part of the process in King County," elections superintendent Bill Huennekens told the Seattle Times. "It's a very human process, and in some cases that did happen."

King County elections director Dean Logan, Mr. Huennekens' boss, also concedes the discrepancy between the number of ballots cast and the list of people who are recorded as voting. Even though the gap is 1,200 votes, he says, "that does not clearly indicate that the election would have turned out differently." Are voters supposed to trust an election merely because it can't "clearly" be shown to be hopelessly tainted? Mr. Logan is certainly singing a different tune now than he was on Nov. 18, when he responded to charges of voting irregularities in an e-mail to colleagues, which read in part: "Unfortunately, I have come to expect this kind of unsubstantiated crap. It's all too convenient, if not now fashionable, to stoop to this level when there is a close race."

Fund also points out that warning signs had been raised about King County's electoral problems.

Mr. Gorton notes that Sam Reed, the Republican secretary of state who certified Ms. Gregoire's victory, issued a report in 2003 noting that King County's sloppy election procedures could lead to just this sort of election meltdown. "The county is not consistent in their ballot enhancement procedures," Mr. Reed's report concluded. "Ballot enhancement, while done in full view of political observers, did not use the procedures outlined in the Washington Administrative Code. Inconsistencies in how this procedure is handled significantly increase the possibility of a successful election contest."

Washington state law does not require conclusive evidence of fraud in order for a re-vote to take place; the courts have the legal authority to void any election where the number of illegal or mistaken votes is larger than the margin of victory. That's plainly the case in the Washington gubernatorial race.

Nor does Gregoire's impending swearing-in bring closure to the matter. Fund points out the case of Elmer Anderson in 1962:

[Gregoire] would do well to recall what happened in Minnesota after the 1962 election for governor there. Republican Elmer Anderson won a squeaker and was sworn in, but a recount of disputed ballots ground on. A hundred days into Mr. Anderson's term, a panel of three state judges ruled that Democrat Karl Rolvaag had actually won by 91 votes. To end the legal wrangling, Mr. Anderson dropped any appeals and calmly left office, allowing Mr. Rolvaag to move into the governor's mansion.

I'm not advocating the idea that Gregoire should just quit. Rather, I think that she should demonstrate her desire to effectively serve the interests of all Washingtonians by calling for a re-vote.

In Case You Were Wondering

2005-01-07T13:10:00.000-05:00

MartiniPundit provides a look at what a stolen election really looks like. What I don't understand is why Barbara Boxer didn't have any tears for the disenfranchised voters of Washington State.

Update - The dead voted in the Washington gubernatiorial race. Hat-tip to PoliticalWire.

To Russia, With Love

2005-01-07T07:59:00.000-05:00

The Telegraph of London has published a thought-provoking piece entitled "Look back at Weimar and start to worry about Russia" which starts off with a clear condemnation of Vladimir Putin:

I seldom agree with the New York Times, but Nicholas Kristof was pretty much on target the other day. ''The bottom line,'' he wrote, ''is that the West has been suckered by Mr Putin. He is not a sober version of Boris Yeltsin. Rather, he's a Russified Pinochet or Franco. And he is not guiding Russia toward free-market democracy, but into fascism.'' Correct - except that Russia is not Chile or Spain. Neither of those countries was ever in a position to pose a serious threat to our security; indeed, there were many conservatives who thought it preferable that they should be fascist rather than communist.

There's something to be said for this. Putin's renationalization of Yuganskneftegas is a display of his preference for state control over vital resources; Russia's state-owned Rosneft is merging with Gazprom, effectively giving the Russian government direct control over the world's largest gas company.

The Telegraph looks at Russia's recent history and finds a disturbing parallel from the first half of the last century:

Born in 1919 in the wake of Germany's humiliating defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic suffered hyperinflation, an illusory boom, a slump and then, starting in 1930, a slide into authoritarian rule, culminating in 1933 with Hitler's appointment as chancellor. Total life: slightly less than 14 years.

Born in 1991 in the wake of the Soviet Union's humiliating defeat in the Cold War, today's Russian Federation has suffered a slump, hyperinflation and is currently enjoying a boom on the back of high oil prices. Its slide into authoritarian rule has been gradual since Putin came to power in 1999. Is it going to culminate - 14 years on - in a full-scale dictatorship in 2005? That is beginning to look more and more likely.

Hitler's power was consolidated after 1933 by the emasculation of both parliamentary and federal institutions. Putin has already done much to weaken the Duma. His latest scheme is to replace elected regional governors with Kremlin appointees.

I'm not sure that I agree with the author's conclusion that Russia is on the brink of sliding back into full-on dictatorship this year. If we choose to think of dictatorship as the rule of a single man, the U.S.S.R. effectively ceased to be a dictatorship when Nikita Kruschev died and the Politburo named a series of increasingly-less-effective men to be the face for the Bear.

More likely, from my point of view, is a crisis of oil. As noted above, Putin has taken steps to bring ever-larger portions of the Russian oil-production machine under state control. In a system already rife with corruption, the only eventual result of these moves is a degrading of the Russian oil infrastructure. After five or seven years of such degradation, it's not hard to imagine two very cold winters stretching Russian heating oil production and delivery to the breaking point. A population of cold and hungry Russians might just welcome a handsome general in a snazzy military uniform promising to fix things quickly.

To my eye, Putin's not setting himself up for a permanent role as maximum ruler. It does seem as though Putin longs for the heady days of the hammer-and-sickle, and that is cause for concern.

Freed Non-Hostage Deserts

2005-01-06T15:02:00.000-05:00

RightThinkingGirl humorously humorously points out that the story of Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun would make a good movie:

This is one of those stories that would make really good fiction. It's got everything: a good looking Marine who you really want to believe is doing the right thing even as he's being pursued for a terrible crime, a mysterious kidnapping, a strange appearance at the US Embassy in Lebanon, the possibility of treason. I don't know if there's a love story involved, but if there is, it's even better.

Hassoun is the Marine who claimed he was abducted in Iraq, only to show up safe and sound in Jordan. After coming stateside, he refused to give interviews and no one has seen him since the 29th of December.

Unless he was kidnapped by Canadians, the good Corporal is going to find himself in a world of trouble when he resurfaces.

So Much For The Drama

2005-01-06T08:58:00.000-05:00

In "Jesse, Check your Inbox", I suggested that today's Congressional ratification could be rife with political drama. Specifically, that Representative John Conyers' announcement that he would officially protest put Senator John Kerry in the awkward position of being able to force Congressional debate over his defeat.

Well, The New York Times reports that Kerry has no intention of participating in any such protest.

"While I am deeply concerned about the issues being highlighted by my colleagues in Congress and citizens across the country and support their efforts to highlight the need to ensure voting rights," Mr. Kerry said in a statement, "I will not be joining their protest of the Ohio electors."

Senator Kerry, who is traveling in the Middle East, does not plan to be in Washington on Thursday for the formal tally of the Electoral College results, the official constitutional ending to the 2004 presidential race.

Federal law requires both a member of the House and the Senate to object for a formal challenge to be considered. The 2000 race between President Bush and former Vice President Al Gore produced objections in the House, but none in the Senate. On Wednesday, an aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said Mrs. Boxer was contemplating raising an objection.

To be honest, I think John Kerry would have had nothing to lose and everything to gain by standing up and announcing a formal objection. The election won't be overturned - Republicans control both houses of Congress. His supporters would certainly take some satisfaction in his gesture, whereas right now they're savaging him on Democratic message boards for being a "sellout".

The only downside I could see for Kerry would be the possibility of portraying the Democratic party in a bad light. But, pragmatically, so what? Is there any Democratic supporter who's going to quit the party if John Kerry stands up today and complains that he thinks he got the shaft? Not likely.

Greyhawk points out that Kerry's trip to the Middle East is a convenient excuse not to be in town for this awkward moment.

No Child Left Behind, Indeed

2005-01-05T16:37:00.000-05:00

Westminster High School in Carroll County, Maryland has an interesting policy regarding the treatment of handicapped students during evacuations: leave them in a stairwell.

When a Carroll County, Md., high school had an emergency evacuation, everyone got out except for two students who were confined to wheelchairs.

They were abandoned in the stairwell on the second floor.

WBAL-TV in Baltimore said there is a policy at Westminster High School for what to do with the two students in wheelchairs in case of a fire. The policy said because their classrooms are on the second floor, teachers are to lead them to the second-floor stairwell and leave them there and wait for the fire crews to come to their rescue while everyone else evacuates.

This isn't a case of a child getting frightened during a drill. There was an actual fire at the school, and the stairwell filled with smoke as two wheelchair-bound students wait for someone - anyone - to come to their aid.

This is apalling. The people who approved this policy should be called forward and made to explain their rationale to thile parents of the children in question. Then they should be fired.

My children aren't handicapped (although my son is a bit of klutz), but this is just another reason why I don't want to send them to public school.

Coldhearted Pragmatism

2005-01-05T08:26:00.000-05:00

In a short piece entitled "Fresh signs that Europe is ready to deal with Bush", the Houston Chronicle explains why Europe has moved past shock, denial, anger and into acceptance of Bush's re-election.

Paradoxically, the very thing that neoconservatives detest most about European diplomacy that Machiavellian willingness to cut deals with anyone is now working in Bush's favor. But there is arguably more to this sea change than just a grumpy acceptance of the status quo. From a European perspective, three things are making it easier to warm to the Bush White House.

One is the death of Yasser Arafat. No issue divides Europe and the United States more keenly than the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. For the last few years, Europeans have criticized Bush for failing to put enough pressure on Israel to get out of the occupied territories and for refusing to deal with Arafat. But since Arafat's death, Europeans and Americans have been able to find common ground: supporting Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, putting pressure on Israel to let the Palestinians hold elections and, covertly, backing Mahmoud Abbas to become the next Palestinian leader.

A second reason is Europe's growing worries about Islamic terrorism. The murder in November of Theo van Gogh, a provocative Dutch filmmaker, at the hands of an Islamic militant has been called Europe's 9/11. Though the two events are obviously not fully comparable, it is certainly true that American conservatives, such as Francis Fukuyama and Bernard Lewis, have found a wider audience recently for the idea that radical Islam is inimical to European traditions of tolerance.

The third force is the reappearance, albeit in a milder form, of the threat that kept the trans-Atlantic alliance together for half a century. The Russian bear is growling again. The Ukrainian election complete with its KGB-style poisoning of the opposition leader and heavy-handed electoral fraud has reminded European diplomats of Vladimir V. Putin's determination to control his "near abroad."

It's the last two points that are the most interesting to me.

I would argue that it was not the murder of van Gogh that was "Europe's 9/11", but rather the March 11 bombings in Madrid. The Spanish government ineptly tried to portray the attack as the work of Basque separatists, hoping to make some political hay in the nearing election. This cynical spin-doctoring was so transparent to the electorate that they swept the incumbents out of office and elected the socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Had the Spanish government not tried to so blatantly cash in on the attacks and instead proclaimed their defiance of terrorism, the election very probably would have turned out quite differently.

The third point, the re-emergence of the Russian bear, is an astute observation. Putin's nigh-interference in the Ukranian election should serve to remind Europe that Russia's idea of "secure borders" has always involved expanding those borders to include those of nearby states. While it's not likely that Russian tanks will be rolling through Eastern European capitals, Russian capital is certainly bankrolling tactics like poisoning opposition candidates. Germans may oppose U.S. policy in Iraq, but it was Russian foreign policy in Germany that enslaved half of their population for half of a century.

The article sums up Europe's attitude thusly:

In short, Europeans are getting used to the idea that it is not Bush who is the exception, but the U.S. itself that is exceptional and that if they want to deal with this exceptional superpower they need to humor it rather than rile it. Strangely enough, this has been Tony Blair's strategy all along; it is rapidly becoming the Continent's strategy, too.

Even if Europe regards as rather poorly, it's list of allies grows thin. Coldhearted pragmatism it may be, but pragmatism ("realpolitik", we used to call it) is a winning strategy.

Bush's Lost Year

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

Via BlogIran...

Writing for the Jerusalem Post, Saul Singer lays out a concise and reasoned critique of President Bush's performance in 2004.

I would like to bet that Bush has not forgotten his own post-9/11 realization that the only way to keep America safe is to keep on the offensive, a conclusion that should have been reinforced by the experience of 2004.

Let's take Bush at his word and assume that he plans to spend the political capital he has gained. If so, how should Bush regain his stride in 2005?

First, by bringing back moral clarity. Branding Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the "axis of evil" was the right thing to do. But saying that and then not having a policy, much less implementing it, toward Iran is worse than not having said it in the first place. Since then it seems that Bush has learned not to set such bold markers. That's the wrong lesson; we need more markers and more follow-up.

Bush's "Axis of Evil" is often derided by anti-war leftists, but Singer has characterized it correctly: it was a bold marker in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's declaration that the Soviet Union was an "Evil Empire". The message of Singer's piece, and one that I agree with, seems to be that we need more bold words and more bold deeds.

Bold deeds do not only come in the form of invasion and occupation, as the piece goes on the illustrate:

Bush has to show that the 82nd Airborne is not the only arrow in his quiver. Each terror state has to be made to decide: Can it hang onto its old way of doing things, or should it go the way of Libya, and renounce WMD and terror? But if the only choice the US has is to invade or not, it is not surprising that rogue states are not lining up to cry uncle.

Yet invasion or bust is not America's real choice. Bush has plenty of underutilized and underestimated levers. Imagine if the US started talking about democracy in Saudi Arabia. Or if Bush held a press conference with Iranian dissidents. Or if the US proposed sanctions against Iran and Syria in the UN Security Council.

I believe that Singer looks at such sanctions as warning shots, which strikes me as a judicious use of a bureaucratic tactic with a long history of non-success. In the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Middle Eastern dictatorships faced with U.S.-backed sanctions will be forced to give serious consideration to the consequence of non-compliance. Recent history tends to indicate that it isn't just more sanctions.

Jesse, Check Your Inbox

2005-01-04T08:59:00.000-05:00

It would appear that someone missed a memo. In an op-ed piece in the Chicago Sun Times entitled "Senators should object to Ohio vote", Jesse Jackson calls on Congress to hold off on certifying the results of the presidential election.

This Thursday in Washington Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the senior minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will formally object to the counting of the Ohio electoral vote in the 2004 presidential election. If any senator joins him, the counting of the vote is suspended and the House and the Senate must convene separately to hear the objections filed, and to vote on whether to accept them.

The grounds for the objections are clear: The irregularities in the Ohio vote and vote count are widespread and blatant. If the Ohio election were held in the Ukraine, it would not have been certified by the international community.

Systematic efforts were made to suppress and challenge the new voters in Kerry precincts, whether students or African Americans. Some precincts were certified with more votes than the number registered; others were certified with preposterously low turnouts. Voting machines, produced by a company headed by a vowed Bush supporter, provide no paper record. Ohio's secretary of state, the inappropriately partisan head of the state's Bush campaign, has resisted any systematic recount of the ballots.

Yet, last night, President Clinton was on CNN's "Larry King Live" saying that the election was "fair and square".

I don't think that the -- you know, I voted for the other fellow, but President Bush won this election fair and square. And he ought to -- he ought to be able to have his inaugural. And his supporters should be able to celebrate it, however they see fit. And I don't think that it will detract one red cent from the money that we will give privately or publicly to this relief effort.

Whenever you launch a new presidency, even if it's a reelected president, it's a moment of national reaffirmation, a dedication to our democratic process, and it's also a moment of celebration for the fellows that won and the women that won. They won it, and they ought to be able to celebrate.

This is going to play out as a particularly interesting bit of political drama. If any senator stands and echoes the objection of Conyers, it will force some level of Congressional investigation. One has to wonder what will be going through the mind of one Senator John Kerry when the chair asks if there are any objections to certifying the count.

Chik-fil-A Lays an Egg

2005-01-03T13:23:00.000-05:00

Via Michelle Malkin and LibertyBlog...

Chik-Fil-A ran an ad during the Peach Bowl that I would not have believed possible. It depicts a cow, standing in front of a line of bulldozers to prevent construction of a burger joint, as seen below:

Do you get the odd feeling you've seen this before? I did, too. Here's a hint:

Four tanks, four bulldozers, same camera angle, no denying it.

The man in that famous image from the slaughter at Tiananmen Square was almost certainly machine-gunned for his transgressions; if not, than he's probably been rotting in a Chinese prison for fifteen years. I imagine that he would find the commercial very amusing.

I eat at Chik-Fil-A once or twice a month; there's one near my office. Not another cent of my money will support this sort of repugnant advertising. It's just not funny.

Note: If you are interested in contacting Chik-Fil-A and voicing your disapproval, you can do so by contacting Regina Bryant, Public Relations Administrator at 404.765.8117. Please be polite.

Only 40?

2005-01-03T08:12:00.000-05:00

RightWingNews presents their list of The 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2004. I'm surprised they were able to whittle down to 40. However, the year's greatest hits are in there. Who could forget:

31) "Many of you are well enough off that...the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Hillary Clinton

...and that's only #31! The list just gets better:

23) "As I watched Tuesday night's network coverage of the unrelenting political propaganda hour known as the Republican National Convention, the first thought that came to mind was of old newsreels of those self-congratulatory Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler." -- Hugh Perason, Newday

The list has several of the BUSHITLER references, although they were so prevalent during the campaign as to be vaguely audible everywhere on Earth. Of course, once you get into the top ten, you start seeing the advocates for a Final Solution to the Republican Problem...

4) "Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm." -- The Village Voice's Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places

But, I don't want to spoil your reading fun. As the esteemed Instapundit would say, "Heh. Read the whole thing."

99 Problems

2005-01-03T07:25:00.000-05:00

Stanley Crouch over at the New York Daily News reports that Essence Magazine is launching a year-long editorial project called "Take Back the Music"; an effort to combat negative stereotypes of women in hip-hop.

We are mothers, sisters, daughters and lovers of hip-hop. Weve emulated the sexy confidence of Salt-N-Pepa and the toughness of MC Lyte. Weve wept over Tupac Shakurs visceral poetry and marveled at the lyrical dexterity of Notorious B.I.G. When Nas said, "The World Is Yours," we believed him. And today we stand at the forefront of popular culture: independent, talented and comfortable with the skin were in. We are really feeling ourselves. Perhaps thats why were so alarmed at the imbalance in the depiction of our sexuality and character in music. In videos we are bikini-clad sisters gyrating around fully clothed grinning brothers like Vegas strippers on meth. When we search for ourselves in music lyrics, mixtapes and DVDs and on the pages of hip-hop magazines, we only seem to find our bare breasts and butts. And when we finally get our five minutes at the mic, too many of us waste it on hypersexual braggadocio and profane one-upmanship. The damage of this imbalanced portrayal of Black women is impossible to measure. An entire generation of Black girls are being raised on these narrow images. And as the messages and images are broadcast globally, they have become the lens through which the world now sees us. This cannot continue.

This is just a "kickoff" piece, so there's not much content. There is one telling quote from Russell Simmons, cofounder of Def Jam Records and now chairman of Hip-hop Summit Action Network. He says with a straight face that the ridiculous portrayals of women in hip-hop media are actually helpful to women:

Although these records and videos are offensive, young girls can learn a lot about the mind-set of the young guys theyre going to school with. Now that the truth is out there more, young girls can learn how to deal with guys.

I'm pretty sure the only thing a young girl could "learn" about dealing with young men from a hip hop video is the proper way to shake her ass and how to debase herself for a man with a lot of money and poor spelling (Ludacris, Xzibit, Mystikal, I'm looking at youse).

Essence deserves credit for biting the hand that bitch-slaps them, but is this really any more than trying to empty the ocean with a spoon? For all of the awareness campaigns designed to combat negative portrayals of women in the media, has the base nature of it really changed at all? Suzanne Vega said many years ago that a woman who wanted to keep her clothes on had a hard road in the music business. If anything, that facet of the problem isn't getting better, it's getting worse. My hat is off to Essence for appropriate editorial hand-wringing, but I hope they're not expecting to actually make a difference.

Told Ya

2005-01-01T07:35:00.000-05:00

In my "Wictory Wednesday" post on 12/08, I warned that Washington State Democrats were trying to steal the guneratorial election. Well, now it appears that they have. The recount has been certified in favor of Democratic Attorney General Christine Gregoire on Thursday, but there's a small problem.

The Seattle times is reporting that King County, the Democratic stronghold where ballots for Gregoire were magically "found", appears to have tallied 3,500 more votes than there are registered voters.

As has been the case since Election Day, much of the attention is focused on King County. Republicans are asking questions about why the county's list of registered voters who cast valid ballots in the election shows about 3,500 fewer people than the total number of votes certified in the race.

On Wednesday, Rossi asked Gregoire to agree to a runoff election, saying the results were in doubt and voters had lost confidence in the election. She rejected that.

Republicans' work now is aimed at gathering enough evidence to challenge the validity of the election in court under the state's "contested election" law. That allows a judge to nullify an election if enough problems are found to put the true outcome of the race in doubt. The court also has the authority to call for a new election, though that has never been done in a statewide contest.

No one seems to think that the courts will order a new election. But I suppose that Republicans (and anyone else who believes in fair elections) in Washington can take some solace by being allowed to refer to Gregoire as "Governor*" for the duration of her term.

Can I Get a Butter Knife Waiver?

2004-12-30T13:06:00.000-05:00

In the wake of The Dunblane Massacre of 1997 where 16 children were killed by a gun-wielding maniac, Great Britain banned private handgun ownership. Now, the United Kingdom faces a new problem: the knife culture.

First Minister Jack McConnell has announced a five-point programme to clamp down on knife crime.

The maximum jail term for possessing an offensive weapon will be doubled from two years to four under the proposals.

He wants to ban the sale of swords and introduce a licensing scheme for retailers selling knives.

Will silverware sellers need to register with the government? Will Pier One be held liable for knife crimes committed with their simple-but-elegant Satin Finish Flatware?

Of course, banning guns doesn't stop gun crime. In 2003 in the U.K., a gun crime occurred 27 times a day - 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

If someone wants to hurt another person and he can't find a gun, he'll use a knife. Now that knives are about to come under regulatory control in the U.K., he'll have to use something else. A cricket bat, perhaps. Just try to ban those...

Wisdom From a Book Review

2004-12-30T09:38:00.000-05:00

I don't read books frequently, primarily because I have a hard time retaining what I read when I attempt consume long tracts of text. However, I did stumble across a book review today that not only made me want to read the volume in question but provided a few nuggets of wisdom as well.

"The Art of Always Being Right: Thirty Eight Ways to Win When You Are Defeated" is, according to its review in the New Statesman, a "sardonic little book, laying out 38 rhetorical tricks guaranteed to win you the argument even when you are defeated in logical discussion." The author not only lays out the tactics and strategies necessary to achieve victory on the verbal fields of Pelennor, but also provides a context for why the tactics are necessary and proper.

The melancholy aspect comes in the main premise of the book: that the point of public argument is not to be right, but to win. Truth cannot be the first casualty in our daily war of words, Schopenhauer suggests, because it was never the bone of contention in the first place. "We must regard objective truth as an accidental circumstance, and look only to the defence of our own position and the refutation of the opponent's . . . Dialectic, then, has as little to do with truth as the fencing master considers who is in the right when a quarrel leads to a duel."

The use of the fencing metaphor is really a rather disturbing one, since it attempts to draw a parallel between a life-and-death struggle and a verbal argument. Contemplating this suggestion, I found myself caught between conflicting desires; I wanted to dismiss Schopenhauer's book as a cynically satirical farce in the mold of Voltaire's Candide while simultaneously hailing him as some sort of pragmatic genius.

(Side note: I am revolted nearly to the point of vomiting at my own pretentiousness for referencing Candide in a blog as silly and inconsequential as this. Still, this is the best of all possible worlds and therefore, I could not have written this article any other way. Back to tending the garden...)

Some of the approaches put forth by the author are standard operating procedure in today's media, and my initial reaction was to dismiss Schopenhauer as a hack who simply plopped down on the sofa in front of The O'Reilly Factor or Crossfire and took notes. This became more difficult when I learned that Schopenhauer died in 1860. I'm not sure if this means that he was somewhat prescient, or that the state of discourse has not improved in the century and a half since his death. That's a depressing thought, and one that the reviewer hammers home quite effectively:

How many times have we listened to a radio or TV debate on art or politics or literature and asked ourselves, even as we are lulled by the undemanding discussion: are these the best people they can come up with? The answer is yes and no. Yes because in media terms they are the best: practised "communicators" with every crowd-pleasing response at the ready. And no because we have all read or heard or known people far more interesting and far more informed about the disciplines in question. Sadly, they tend to be folk who are not up to speed on their 38 points and who think the truth matters, and so, communication-wise, they are deemed useless. Still, they exist.

By this point, the reviewer had pretty much sold me on the book. Sadly, he could not control himself and had to finish with a cheap shot at President Bush.

The palm for rhetorical shamelessness must nevertheless go to US presidents. "There you go again," said Ronald Reagan, annihilating with a grin the very concept of rational debate, and the right loved him for it. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," Bill Clinton assured us, with his emetic sincerity, and the left - especially women - adore him still. And not even the melancholic German predicted that the world's most powerful democracy would one day be run by a president who cannot be accused of sophistry chiefly because he cannot talk at all. And they say Schopenhauer was a pessimist.

Coming from a magazine founded with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas, this is hardly surprising. Still, it was something of a downer at the end of an otherwise entertaining article. For what it's worth, Schopenhauer's book will go on my "Things I Should Read" list.

Beyond Hope?

2004-12-29T09:51:00.000-05:00

In a piece entitled "Camden's Streets Go From Mean to Meanest", the New York Times presents four pages of evidence to suggest that Camden, New Jersey may be beyond saving.

In the past 12 months, there have been 53 homicides, including a 12-year-old shot to death on his porch for his radio, more than 800 aggravated assaults, including a toddler shot in the back of the head, at least 750 robberies and 150 acts of arson, more than 10,000 arrests and one glaring nonarrest - a serial rapist on the loose downtown.

All in a city of 79,000, nine square miles small.

The state has started a $175 million bailout plan, and there's even a real estate developer starting a $1.3 billion project including McMansions and a golf course. None of those things is going to address the real problems, summed up quite nicely in this paragraph:

20 percent of the city is unemployed; per-capita income is $9,815; half of the residents did not finish high school; one out of 20 graduated from college; 46 percent of children live in poverty.

Fancy homes and country clubs don't erase slums, but it's better than nothing. Camden has been a disaster for as long as I can remember. Twelve years ago, Time Magazine ran a similar piece on Camden which included the galling statistic that fully one-half of the city's population was udner the age of 21. In 2014, which national publication will complete the hat trick and document three decades of urban despair?

Banned Bands

2004-12-29T08:37:00.000-05:00

The Young Middle Magnet School of Mathematics, Science & Technology in Tampa has decided to stand firm against the presence of dangerous weapons on school grounds.

"There have been recent incidences of students at our school using rubber bands as a method of projecting objects at other people. The students refer to some of the projectile objects as "wasps.' Occasionally, students are using their fingers to project the wasps. These activities have resulted in injured students.

"Rubber bands are not permitted at school. If students are in possession of rubber bands for any reason they will be subject to consequences that may include out of school suspension. When rubber bands are required for classroom use, they will be provided and collected."

No doubt the guerilla terrorists of the eighth grade will soon discover that a hairband ("scrunchie") can be used to launch 'wasps' almost as well as a rubber band. The school will have to ban those, as well.

Those pencils and rulers can sure raise a welt, too. Won't someone think of the children?

Abolish the Electoral College

2004-12-28T07:54:00.000-05:00

California senator Dianne Feinstein plans to kick off the next session of Congress by proposing an end to the electoral college.

In introducing the amendment, the Democrat from San Francisco is joining Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who last month introduced a similar proposal in the House, which she said she would reintroduce in the 109th Congress that convenes on Jan. 3.

The two California lawmakers say the current system makes most Americans election bystanders, pointing toward the recent campaign in which President Bush and his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, focused almost all their time, energy and campaign funds on a handful of undecided states in search of their electoral votes.

"The Electoral College is an anachronism, and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," Feinstein said in a statement. "During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states.''

In the aftermath (or should I say, afterglow) of November's election, I went in search of opinions in favor of and against the electoral college and found plenty. Convincing arguments, however, were in short supply on both sides of the argument. In the end, I have only found one argument - in favor of removing the EC - that is significantly compelling.

The Electoral College gives unequal weight to individual citizens.

Electoral votes are allocated to a state based on its number of Representatives plus Senators. But, every state has two Senators and at least one Representative. This results in unequal weighting of invidiual citizens. Here's an example of how the population compares to the electoral vote count in several states.

State	Electoral Votes	Population	Citizens per Electoral Vote
California	55	35,484,453	645,171
Texas	34	22,118,509	650,544
Wisconsin	10	5,472,299	547,229
South Dakota	3	764,309	254,666
Wyoming	3	501,242	167,080

A vote in Wyoming has almost four times the weight of a vote in California. These specific examples are not anomalies; you'll find this over-weighting of small states over big states to be the rule, rather than the exception.

Now, an argument can be made that this weighting is to protect small states from being marginalized in the electoral process. This is a fair point, but it presumes that most people in a given state vote the same way or prioritize their interests similarly. The map below illustrates the faultiness of that premise, displaying each county as a shade between red and blue based on percentage of voters.

(map by Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman
used under Creative Commons License)
The citizens of individual states are clearly not voting as one, and so the idea that we should de-value the voters of Texas to prevent them from overwhelming the voters in Wyoming is absurd.

There are several problems with the Electoral College. It focuses too much attention on "battleground states". It protects the two-party monopoly on power. It's unaccountable to the people it purports to represent. Most importantly though, it discriminates against the citizens of states with higher populations by devaluing their votes. That reason alone should warrant its removal.

An Adaptable Little Fruit

2004-12-27T09:05:00.000-05:00

One of the things that makes The Economist such a great magazine is that, every now and then, they turn their considerable fact-finding apparatus on a subject that really doesn't merit journalistic scrutiny. The results are almost always wonderfully entertaining, and this piece is no exception.

Some time between digesting Christmas dinner and putting your head back down to work, spare a thought or two for the cranberry. It is, of course, a symbol of Christmas: merry bright red, bittersweetly delicious with turkey and the very devil to get out of the tablecloth if spilled. But the cranberry is also a symbol of the modern food industry—and in the tale of its progress from colonial curiosity to business-school case study lies a deeper understanding of the opportunities and dilemmas of modern eating.

If you're looking for some light but informative reading about a topic of little importance, this is the piece for you.

All the Wrong Reasons

2004-12-27T08:32:00.000-05:00

People are called to all sorts of faiths for all sorts of reasons, and it's hard to argue the merits of those decisions. That being said, I'm a little concerned about some of the reasons behind the growing trend of American Latinas seeking refuge in Islam.

Jasmine Pinet sits on the steps outside a mosque here, tucking in strands of her burgundy hair beneath a white head scarf, and explaining why she, a young Latina, feels that she has found greater respect as a woman by converting to Islam.

"They're not gonna say, 'Hey mami, how are you?' " Ms. Pinet says of Muslim men. "Usually they say, 'Hello, sister.' And they don't look at you like a sex object."

Many of the Latina converts say that their belief that women are treated better in Islam was a significant factor in converting. Critics may protest that wearing the veil marks a woman as property, but some Latina converts say they welcome the fact that they are no longer whistled at walking down a street. "People have an innate response that I'm a religious person, and they give [me] more respect," says Jenny Yanez, another Latina Muslim. "You're not judged if you're in fashion or out of fashion."

I can't help but think that this is at least partially motivated by youthful rebellion and a desire to shock her parents. Certainly, choosing a more conservative style of dress would have achieved the desired result of fewer wolf whistles on the street. However, this almost certainly would have been met with overwhelming parental approval and thus was probably not considered.

I can't help but wonder if Ms. Pinet really knows just how much respect women receive in the faith of her choice.

Nieves, a Filipina who was working as a maid in Riyadh in 1992, was invited by a married couple to celebrate the wife's birthday at a restaurant. She and a female friend decided to go. At the restaurant they were joined by a male friend of the couple. A group of mutawa'een (religious police) entered the restaurant, saw the group and arrested them. They suspected Nieves of being there for an introduction to the male friend of the couple. Nieves denied the accusation, but was deceived into signing a confession written in Arabic which she understood was a release order. That confession was the sole basis of her conviction and sentence - 25 days' imprisonment and 60 lashes which were carried out.

In America, Ms. Pinet will never suffer the sort of oppression that women in Saudi Arabia do. Still, taking refuge in the burqa as a way of obtaining a higher measure of respect from men seems like a strategy doomed to failure.

Merry Christmas

2004-12-24T13:11:00.000-05:00

No blogging today. I'll return on Monday with more cranky observations. I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Blind Spot

2004-12-23T13:41:00.000-05:00

Tim Roemer is a Democrat and a former U.S. Representative from the state of Indiana. He is also one of the front-runners in the current race for the chair of the Democratic Party. In a L.A. Times piece entitled "Democratic Leadership Rethinking Abortion", Roemer admits what many people have long believed - that the Democrats have a "moral blind spot" on late-term abortion.

In an interview, Roemer said he would not try to change the minds of abortion rights supporters. But he also said he would encourage the party to eliminate its "moral blind spot" when it comes to late-term abortions.

"We should be talking more about adoption as an alternative, and working with our churches to sponsor some of those adoptions," Roemer said Wednesday from his Washington office. He said he was calling 40 to 50 delegates a day to make his pitch. Most of all, he said, he thinks that abortion opponents would be more comfortable if the party talked about the issue in a more open-minded manner.

The Democratic Party's moral blind spot extends beyond late-term abortion; Democrats usually oppose measures that would require parental notification before a minor could get an abortion. In most states you can't get a tattoo unless you're 18, but somehow getting an abortion without your parents' consent is acceptable.

Obstinate opposition to giving any ground on the abortion issue is part and parcel of Democratic politics. There is a growing feeling that such obstinate opposition is part of what cost John Kerry the election.

Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party's congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.

The article does include concerned quotes from abortion-rights voices, most notably that of Gloria Feldt, the president of Planned Parenthood. The fact of the matter is that these voters aren't going anywhere. The Democratic Party could re-write its plank to include support for banning late-term abortion and requiring parental consent and lose maybe a dozen votes. Abortion advocates' fealty to the DNC is second only to that of NOW feminists; you could have produced a photo of John Kerry bayoneting a pregnant Vietnamese civilian and Arianna Huffington would have said that it demonstrated Kerry's "passionate support for abortion on demand."

The Democrats are wise to consider ways to make their party more attractive to a wider spectrum of people. They should be bold in their pursuit of hearts and minds and pay no heed to the inevitable hand-wringing of their extreme left wing.

There Are Five Lights

2004-12-22T13:19:00.000-05:00

It appears clear that President Bush is going to make Social Security reform a central theme of his second term. A key facet of his plan is to allow individuals to put some of their Social Security contributions into individual retirement accounts; a plan that Democrats and the media deceptively refer to as "privatization".

Opponents of the president's plan are many, and their arguments are varied. During the campaign, John Kerry called it a "rip-off". But everyone seemed to agree that something had to be done to fix the program. That is, until now.

Now that Bush has made his intentions clear on Social Security, Democrats are claiming that there is no problem with Social Security.

President Bush's entire plan for Social Security privatization rests on the premise that the system is in severe crisis. But a careful look at the numbers suggests that the financial crisis is largely a myth.

Republicans are counting on younger voters to support privatization. Polls show that the young have been so swayed by the talk of endless crisis that many young workers doubt whether they'll ever get anything back from the current system. To them, getting some money in the form of private accounts is at least half a loaf.

In the coming debate, defenders of Social Security need to educate the public on just how solid the existing system is and just how exaggerated is its supposed crisis. If they fail to do that, and get bogged down in a debate about how to "fix" a system that isn't really broken, the privatizers will win, and Social Security will be needlessly pillaged.

"What crisis?" appears to be the new tactic of the left. CNNMoney quotes Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker as saying that "Social Security can pay full benefits as promised until 2042" without mentioning that it will have to borrow to do so. CNNMoney also didn't see fit to find any "experts" on the other side of the argument. Who are Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker? They're the authors of Social Security : The Phony Crisis, and may have some financial incentive to paint a rosy picture of Social Security.

The The 2004 OASDI Trustees Report is crystal clear on this matter:

Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2018 and will be sufficient to finance only 73 percent of scheduled annual benefits by 2042, when the combined OASDI trust fund is projected to be exhausted.

In fourteen years, the program will be in the red. In 38 years, it will be flat broke.

Anyone who argued during an election cycle that Social Security "isn't really broken" would have been laughed out of the primaries. In September of 2003, John Edwards said this about the program:

We have a train wreck coming. We have the onslaught of the baby boomers coming.

No one accused Edwards of inventing a crisis for political purposes.

First we had Michael Moore saying "there is no terrorist threat!" Now, the cult of hatred that surrounds President Bush is telling us "there is no Social Security crisis!" What's becoming increasingly clear is that there is no credible opposition party.

Red-State Generosity

2004-12-21T11:31:00.000-05:00

Via Michelle Malkin...

Richard Hamman is a retired farmer who lives in a small town in Iowa - Anthon, population 650. This Christmas, he gave his neighbors a unique gift:

The Hamanns doled out $25,000 to pay the town's electricity bills - all due on Dec. 25.

Hamann, 75, sees the gift as returning a good deed.

``The Lord has been very good to us and so have the people of this community, so I always thought we ought to be doing something in return if we could,'' he said Monday.

I spend so much time dwelling on bad news and stories about evil people that it's easy to forget that there are genuinely decent people in the world. To borrow a line from the best Christmas movie ever, Christmas is the time when we become the people we wish we could be.

Amen.

Call Me The Grinch

2004-12-20T14:00:00.000-05:00

20-odd years since Band-Aid took up the fight against world hunger, it may be somewhat Grinch-like to point out the utter failure of Band Aid and Live Aid. Yet, in a piece entitled, "What Happened To The F***ing Money?", British publication The Spectator does exactly that.

In the time of Band Aid, ‘negative angles’ were out. It would have been negative, although true, to have emphasised that [Ethipoian dictator] Mengistu was one of the most vicious African dictators of the previous quarter century, that he was fighting three wars at the time (two in the north, in Tigray and Eritrea, and one in the Oromo lands of the south), and that his troops were committing atrocities in the region where the famine was unfolding. It would have been distinctly negative to have reported that the dictator was using food as a weapon of war — bombing crops and markets while setting up roadblocks to prevent the movement of food. The methods used by Mengistu’s armies were bound to create famine, and they did.

Journalists and aid workers were not the only ones wary of confusing viewers at home with ‘negative angles’. While it was Band Aid and, later, Live Aid that caught the imagination of the world, they funded only a small proportion of the aid effort: 90 per cent or more of the aid came from Western donor governments. As the governments would only deal with a recipient government, not with rebel movements, most of the aid — again, roughly 90 per cent — was channelled through Mengistu’s hands. In a grotesque irony, we found ourselves supporting the very government that was causing the famine we were supposed to be alleviating. This was certainly a ‘negative angle’, and therefore, unsurprisingly, it received hardly any attention at all.

The famines that spurred the artists of Live-Aid and Band-Aid to action we exacerbated by the use of food (or, more accurately, the denial of food) as a weapon. Yet, 90 % of all of the international aid to Ethiopia was delivered to agencies of the very government that was using the famine to advance its own ends.

There is, of course, a paralell to draw - the U.N. Oil For Food program. It is folly to expect tyrants to take the products of international generosity and use it for anything other than solidifying their own power. We've had the lesson taught to us in two very visible episodes. Will we be any wiser the next time?