Captain's Quarters -

It appears that our skins function is down after the move to the new server. I have help-desk requests into Hosting Matters and m2webstudios for immediate attention, and hope to have the problem resolved as soon as possible. It looks like that is the only problem so far, and that all data is accessible.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

UPDATE: On the other hand, it looks like trackbacks are working again!

Egypt has stepped into the Palestinian morass with both feet today, warning Hamas that they expect the election winners to recognize Israel and adhere to previous accords -- and they have instructed Mahmoud Abbas to delay asking Hamas to form a new government until Hamas agrees:

Two top Egyptian officials called on Hamas to recognize Israel, disarm and honor past peace deals Wednesday, the latest sign Arab governments are pushing the militant group to moderate after its surprise election victory.

Separately, an Israeli Foreign Ministry official said that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has told Egyptian officials he would hold off on asking Hamas to form the next Palestinian government until Hamas renounces violence.

The Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, cited Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as saying that Abbas had made the decision after a meeting with Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.

Suleiman could not immediately be reached to verify the statement. But earlier, he told journalists in Cairo that Egypt intends to tell Hamas leaders that they must recognize Israel, disarm and honor past peace deals. Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections in a landslide last week.

This will serve as a blow to Hamas' hopes of replacing Western aid with money from Arab nations. It won't have any impact on Iran, but Egypt's demand for Palestinians to stick to their agreements will set the tone for the rest of the Arab League. No one pretends that the Palestinians have much popularity with Arab nations any more, although they still like to exploit the "Palestinian question" as a rationale for their own oppressive regimes.

Without significant assistance from Arab nations, Hamas has to be completely reliant on Iran for its funding -- and that might well disappear once economic sanctions are in place. The Quartet can put a stranglehold on that funding by freezing Iranian assets and international transfers, making the Iranians a highly unstable partner. They will go bankrupt very quickly if that happens, and it looks like it could happen at any time.

Where does that leave Hamas? They will control the government, which Fatah shrewdly refuses to join, at the very moment it stops functioning. They will fail to meet payrolls, meaning the services for which they supposedly got elected will disappear. The army they want to raise won't march on promises for long. They will find themselves in charge while their world collapses around them, and their electorate will learn a lesson about electing unrepentant terrorists as a government. Hopefully, this lesson will not be undercut by Western nations stumbling over themselves yet again to save the Palestinians from their own stupid choices.

Hamas apologists insist in the media, and in comments to this blog, that the US has it all wrong. The Palestinians didn't elect Hamas because of their stance on terror; they elected them to clean up government and start delivering services promised by Fatah. Count Richard Cohen among the unconvinced:

While it is probably true, as everyone says, that Hamas won the recent Palestinian elections not because it promised to wipe out Israel but because it promised to pick up the garbage in Gaza City (all politics is local, etc.), it is also true that the prospect of increased violence did not deter the average Palestinian from voting for Hamas. We have seen this sort of thing before, and it is not very comforting. The rule -- the only rule -- is to take zealots at their word.

History speaks on this matter. If you asked a random German in, say, 1932 whether by voting for the Nazis he was voting for the murder of Jews and a destructive European war of unimaginable scope and horror, he would have said, " Nein !" What he really wanted was an end to the brawling in the streets, a robust foreign policy and a big thumbs-up to traditional German culture -- no more of this smutty modern art and filthy plays: " Willkommen , Bienvenue , Welcome." Not any more. The cabaret is closed! ...

Unfortunately, the men who were supposed to implement one sort of Nazi program were determined to implement it all. They had made no bones about it; it was all in their bible, "Mein Kampf," and in their rallies and speeches. It took some effort to overlook it, but a considerable number of people managed to do so and later professed shock at what happened. They looked into the abyss, saw nothing that concerned them personally -- and emitted a yawn of contentment.

Zealots do not listen to reason; they do not moderate when given total power. How often do we have to learn that before these truths get accepted? Communism did not moderate; Maoists did not moderate; the Khmer Rouge did not moderate; radical Islamists won't moderate either, in or out of power. In fact, they have an outer-directed influence that none of the other zealots had that makes moderation even less likely -- they believe they are commanded by Allah to rid the land of Jews.

In the end, the Palestinians know this as well as anyone, and they elected these murderous lunatics into power. The responsibility is theirs, and so are the consequences. Issuing apologetics for Hamas in advance only enables yheir worst instincts and entrenches the danger ever deeper in Southwest Asia. Read all of Cohen's column.

After getting kudos from free-speech activists for its courage, the French magazine Soir reversed itself and sacked its managing editor for publishing Danish caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. The owner fired his editor in order to placate the rage of French Muslims:

France Soir and Germany's Die Welt were among the leading papers to reprint the cartoons, which first appeared in Denmark last September.

The caricatures include drawings of Muhammad wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers.

France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.

But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".

Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication."

The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir's publication as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France".

The BBC reports that other publications have stood firm on their decision to reprint the Danish cartoons that have started a firestorm of protest from Europe's Muslim community. The newspapers and magazines remain steadfast in their right to publish satire on any topic of interest -- and certainly the rise of militant Islam makes it an open target for just such treatment. These publishers, sans M. Lakah, have shown more backbone and resolve in facing down the radical Islamists than their governments have shown thus far. Perhaps their courage might finally fire their politicians into showing more backbone.

Some commentators wonder whether the satirical value of these cartoons really outweigh the insult to Muslims that it represents. The religion forbids depictions of humans in art or sculpture (as does Judaism), and even the most sympathetic rendition of the Prophet is considered sinful. A few people have already reminded backers of the cartoonists of Christian outrage over Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ", a picture of a crucifix dunked into a beaker of urine. Other artistic depictions of Christian iconography have also gathered vitriol from religious and conservative circles, such as Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary".

However, the two issues differ in one important aspect. The exhibitions of the two artists mentioned received federal funds for staging these pieces of "art", and the reaction to their poor taste came from the support of the National Endowment for the Arts. No one disputed the right of the artists to create their offensive displays, but what really rankled most was that their money went into funding their exhibitions. Although both artists offended me with their creations and I firmly believe that government should have no part of funding them, I would absolutely fight against any attempt to censor them or to stop them from painting or photographing what they consider art.

These cartoons have been privately drawn and published by privately-owned enterprises. That is the essential nature of free speech. The Danes understand that, and I find the European impulse in supporting them the most hopeful sign from the Continent in a long time, Soir's surrender notwithstanding.

For more on this subject, please read Judith Klinghoffer, who has followed this story much more closely than me, and Michelle Malkin for more links. In the meantime ...

Apparently last night's State of the Union speech kept the Capitol police rather busy last night. They arrested Cindy Sheehan and ejected Rep. Bill Young's wife, both for wearing t-shirts that had political messages on them. The actions had Capitol police backpedaling this evening, issuing apologies and suggesting that officers might need more training:

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

I suspect that CQ readers will disagree with me on this one, but I concur with Gainer. Neither woman should have been arrested or made to leave the gallery on the basis of their t-shirts, especially at a public event like the SOTU speech. I don't think that the two women had equivalent standing, nor do I think that Mrs. Young's t-shirt would have been as potentially distracting as Mrs. Sheehan's. However, the point is that as long as both women behaved themselves, their t-shirts would have had no disruptive effect on the speech. Yes, I know that there is a tradition of restraint in the gallery, but politicians of both parties make extensive use of those guest passes for political purposes during SOTU speeches. Every president in the television age put people up there that they used to emphasize major points of their speech, and no one barks about that exploitation of the gallery.

When I first heard that Sheehan had been arrested, the reports said that she had attempted to unfurl a banner in the gallery. That kind of action certainly would have justified the removal of Sheehan from the gallery but hardly qualified as a criminal act, especially under the amorphous terms of "unlawful conduct." Having to face charges for wearing a t-shift with a slogan on it is flat-out ridiculous. What laws does that "conduct" break? And since when have we become so fragile that the wearing of a protest t-shirt become so unsettling?

Both women should have reconsidered their wardrobe for the speech. However, a fashion crime should not equate to police action, and arresting someone for wearing a dumb t-shirt should not happen in America.

UPDATE: Capitol police, not DC police; according to CQ reader Scott Crawford, they are two different entities.

It didn't take long for Justice Samuel Alito to make news from the bench, although the news is different than either Democrats or Republicans would have predicted. Alito voted yesterday to uphold a stay of execution for a Missouri death-row inmate, aligning himself for his first vote with Ginsburg and Stevens rather than Thomas and Scalia:

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

Not being a supporter of the death penalty myself, this ruling doesn't bother me much, but I imagine that some people on the Alito's side during the hearings might already be wondering if they supported another Souter all along. I doubt that this one case will give anyone a reason to worry. This doesn't amount to a final ruling on Missouri's death penalty nor on the Taylor case itself. It allows the lower court to review the use of lethal injection as a potentially cruel and unusual punishment, a decision which the Supreme Court will undoubtedly see on appeal from either side afterwards.

It's worth noting the Justice's independence of thought and consideration of the law. This should embarrass every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as everyone who took part in anti-Alito smears. It didn't take long for Alito not only to prove them wrong but to expose them for the hysterics and McCarthyite wretches they are. Will they apologize? No way; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they take credit for expanding Alito's vision of the law with their disgraceful conduct in the hearings.

This may not be the last surprise from Justice Alito and his independent streak. One Republican Senator wondered aloud whether Alito would overturn Roe if given the chance during an off-the-record chat in Alito's confirmation week. The only prediction I can make is that Alito will rule within the law and give a lot of deference to legislatures and the executive -- and that is enough of an improvement for me.

The GOP took a step forward on tackling entitlement spending, narrowly squeaking out a victory in the House yesterday on a $40-billion cut to Medicare and other federal programs. It represents the first effort in almost a decade to reform programs that threaten to grow unchecked until they gobble up almost the entire federal budget:

House Republicans eked out a victory on a $39.5 billion budget-cutting package on Wednesday, with a handful of skittish Republicans switching their votes at the last minute in opposition to reductions in spending on health and education programs. ...

The measure represents the first major effort by lawmakers since 1997 to cut the growth of so-called entitlement programs, including student loans, crop subsidies and Medicaid, in which spending is determined by eligibility criteria. It passed 216 to 214, with 13 Republicans voting against. The Senate, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the decisive vote, approved the spending cuts in December. The bill now goes to the White House for Mr. Bush's signature.

Coming on the heels of the State of the Union address, the vote was a critical test of Mr. Bush's ability to hold his fractured party together.

Roy Blunt helped reel in the vote, counting carefully enough to release thirteen GOP moderates to cast opposing votes in order to protect their chances in the next election. His leadership on this issue may have made the difference in getting the bill passed and into Bush's hands. Bush is expected to sign off immediately on the bill.

That doesn't mean the debate will end on this. Democrats have already begun to pull out individual provisions of the budget cuts to castigate the GOP as unfeeling towards the sick and elderly. The AARP has already begun a campaign against the rollback, and it will likely continue that campaign through the election cycle. The retirement lobby has a vested interest in the status quo, and it will fight to keep every dime of entitlements it can and to expand them where possible, no matter what the fiscal projections demonstrate.

This will be the challenge for entitlement reform. When the Bush administration took on Social Security reform in the mildest way possible -- transferring payments into private accounts in order to protect contributions from being raided and to minimize the long term contrbutions needed by the federal government -- it caused such a firestorm that Congress ignored the entire problem for another critical year. Now with Medicare and other aid programs, the cuts affect the amount of services that get delivered by the federal government. The nanny-care supporters will drag out every personal anecdote they can find in order to block these cuts and the ones that must be made later in order to keep entitlement spending from careening out of control.

Porkbusting could save us $14 billion for one budget cycle. Entitlement reform requires us to cut back programs over a long period of time, and could save trillions if done properly -- but the American people have to demonstrate the will to make some hard choices about the size and reach of the federal government and the amount of handouts we can afford to give. Unfortunately, politicians do not often get elected for saying "no" to their constituents. We need to educate the voters about the danger of out-of-control entitlements so that we can avoid that problem entirely.

Jimmy Carter made another of his frequent appearances on behalf of thugs and terrorists yesterday, this time arguing for acceptance of Hamas on the Larry King show. The former President told King that Hamas has a "good chance" of becoming a non-violent organization:

Hamas deserves to be recognized by the international community, and despite the group's militant history, there is a chance the soon-to-be Palestinian leaders could turn away from violence, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday.

Carter, who monitored last week's Palestinian elections in which Hamas handily toppled the ruling Fatah, added that the United States should not cut off aid to the Palestinian people, but rather funnel it through third parties like the U.N.

"If you sponsor an election or promote democracy and freedom around the world, then when people make their own decision about their leaders, I think that all the governments should recognize that administration and let them form their government," Carter said.

Wrong! If people use democracy to elect hate-filled bigots and murderous terrorists into power, then they should suffer the consequences of that choice, not get a free pass from the world. Hamas explicitly calls for the destruction on Israel in its charter and has refused to change its position, even after its electoral victory. It has conducted attacks on Israeli citizens, both suicide bombings and quasi-military rocket attacks. It gets its funding from Iran due to its Islamofascist goals and activities, and some evidence exists that it partners with al-Qaeda.

None of this matters to Carter, the fool who first allowed Islamofascism into power with his refusal to support the Shah and his subsequent inaction after Iranians sacked our embassy in Teheran. He continues his decades-long effort to follow in the footsteps of Neville Chamberlain, only he refuses to share in Chamberlain's epiphany about appeasement after Munich. Carter also insisted that Yasser Arafat was ready to make peace, and instead we got stiffed at Oslo and at Wye and wound up with two intifadas as a result.

Carter remains America's most embarrassing and dangerous ex-President. With his apologetics for terrorists, one hopes that his credibility will finally dissipate and his advice will be recognized for the foolishness it is.

The House GOP held their leadership election today, and in a decision between staying with business as usual or embracing reform, the Republicans chose a path somewhere in between the two. John Boehner of Ohio becomes the new Majority Leader of the House, beating current Majority Whip and former front-runner Roy Blunt on the second ballot:

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio won election Thursday as House majority leader, promising a steady hand and a helping of reform for Republicans staggered by election-year scandal.

Boehner, who replaces indicted Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, said the GOP "must act swiftly to restore the trust between Congress and the American people."

He defeated Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri on a vote of 122-109 by House Republicans after trailing his rival on an inconclusive first round.

My preference would have been John Shadegg of Arizona, the true outsider in this race. He had no connection with the Abramoff scandal and has a sterling reputation among conservatives. He's a budget-cutter and a small-government activist. However, he has little experience with party leadership and some in the GOP had concerns about Shadegg's ability to help them get re-elected. Roy Blunt has plenty of experience in both areas and clearly expected those key abilities to carry the day; he bragged for two weeks that he already had the votes for election. However, after the first ballot proved inconclusive, it showed that Blunt was already out of touch with his caucus, who apparently decided that Blunt had too many connections to Tom DeLay and to Abramoff for their taste.

So in the end, they voted for John Boehner. Boehner came to Congress just before the Gingrich Revolution and has his roots in rolling back government. Boehner also has plenty of experience in helping fellow Republicans raise money and get elected. He did well among the bloggers, most of whom praised his openness while still supporting Shadegg -- including me. However, Boehner still faces some criticism over his own connections to the Abramoff scandal, including his refusal to return $30K of campaign funds from Abramoff-represented Indian tribes, all of which came to his PAC and not to his campaigns.

I like Boehner better than Blunt, although except for some tin-eared interaction with QandO, I didn't dislike any of the three candidates. However, the GOP missed an opportunity to make a bold statement on reform with this election. Shadegg had no connection to Abramoff cash despite representing a state with a large Native American population, and he represented a clean break from the past. His election as Majority Leader could have put the Democrats on the defensive and created a bullet-proof, media-friendly face to the GOP caucus. Instead, the Republicans decided on a moderate gesture towards reform, at least in terms of public relations.

My congratulations still go out to Rep. Boehner. Hopefully he will pursue reform and lead the Republican caucus towards arresting the reach of government, which causes the corruption in the first place.

Michelle Malkin, Jim Geraghty, and Debbie Schlussel note the release of a new Turkish film that depicts American soldiers as mass murderers and Jews as organ thieves. This wouldn't come as much of a surprise, except that two American actors went halfway around the world to participate in this disgraceful epoch:

In the most expensive Turkish movie ever made, American soldiers in Iraq crash a wedding and pump a little boy full of lead in front of his mother.

They kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv. ...

The movie's American stars are Billy Zane, who plays a self-professed "peacekeeper sent by God," and Gary Busey as the Jewish-American doctor.

Both actors have seen better days. Busey started off his career with a splendid portrayal of Buddy Holly in the biopic The Buddy Holly Story, performing the songs himself and practically burning up the screen with his performance. Unfortunately, it's all been downhill for Busey ever since. He almost died from driving his motorcycle without a helmet over ten years ago, recovering fully if almost miraculously, but his career has been in a coma ever since. I thought the nadir of his descent occurred with the unbelievably bad reality show, I'm With Busey, but this proves that failure can plumb ever-darker depths.

Billy Zane also showed promise in his career, if not as much initial success. He started off playing a strangely attractive psychotic in the Australian film Dead Calm, with Sam Neill and a young Nicole Kidman, and is best known as the snobbish heavy from Titanic. Apparently, the ship wasn't the only thing that sunk in the film, if Zane's appearance proves anything.

People will claim that Zane and Busey are nothing worse than working actors looking for a payday as an argument in their defense. Well, everyone needs to pay the bills, and given what we've seen of Zane and Busey lately, their needs may be more acute than some. Most people will agree, however, that any sense of citizenship should have caused them to think twice about their participation in a film designed to exploit anti-American sentiment in the Middle East by adding to the propaganda that perpetuates it. People who sell themselves out to exploitation merchants such as the producers of this film can properly be termed "whores".

Debbie calls for a boycott of both Busey and Zane. Fortunately, neither one has enough of a career left in American entertainment to make that a difficult proposition.

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip sent a message to Europeans that belies the latter's belief in the desire for freedom in the former. Gunmen forced the EU office in Gaza City to close and warned that it will remain shut until the EU apologizes for several publications running caricatures of Mohammed and Muslims this week:

Palestinian gunmen Thursday shut down the European Union's office in Gaza City, demanding an apology for German, French and Norwegian newspapers reprinting cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammad, Palestinian security sources said.

The gunmen left a notice on the EU office's door that the building would remain closed until Europeans apologize to Muslims, many of whom consider the cartoons offensive. ...

Masked members of the militant groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian's former ruling party, Fatah, fired bullets into the air, and a man read the group's demands.

Palestinian officials said the gunmen were threatening to kidnap European workers if the European Union did not apologize.

The Europeans might want to rethink the entire oppressed-Palestinian meme right about now. Israel no longer occupies Gaza, and yet the terrorism there continues to grow unabated. Now the people who they insist want nothing but peace have warned that they will kidnap Europeans until they foreswear freedom of speech.

Perhaps the Europeans could ask the Palestinians about their own issues with cartoons. For instance, if they find this offensive --

-- then maybe they can explain this, which appeared in the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on March 22, 2000:

Pope: "Peace on Earth!" Satan/Jew: "Colonies on Earth!"

And if they consider this insulting to their honor --

-- then they can explain why the same paper published this in December 1999:

Old man: "20th Century" Young man: "21st Century" Above dwarf Jew: "Disease of the Century"

Those who protest the entire idea of satire and derision should not themselves indulge in it. Their actions reveal themselves as the terrorist thugs that they have always been.

And I note, as does Michelle Malkin and Judith Klinghoffer, that none of the major American media outlets have bothered to display these controversial cartoons. So much for the protectors of free speech and the people's right to know.

Another day brings yet another statement from Hamas that they will never recognize the "Zionist state that was established on our land," making it ever more difficult to insist that the terrorist group will moderate their position. The good news? They've offered Israel a hudna:

Defying international pressure, the militant Islamic group Hamas said on Friday it will never recognize Israel but might be willing to negotiate terms for a temporary truce with the Jewish state.

Khaled Meshaal, the top leader of Hamas which won last week's Palestinian parliamentary election by a landslide, made the offer to Israel via a column titled "To whom it may concern," published in the al-Hayat al-Jadida newspaper.

"We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state that was established on our land," Meshaal, the Damascus-based head of the political and military wings of the militant Islamic group, wrote in the column. ...

They have said they might heed a truce with Israel as an interim measure that could include the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and occupied West Bank, but would not abandon a long-term goal to destroy Israel.

"If you (Israel) are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce then we will be ready to negotiate with you over the conditions of such a truce," Meshaal wrote.

I see this as the Dread Pirate Roberts offer of peace. Fans of the movie The Princess Bride will recall that Wesley tells Buttercup about his uneasy relationship with his captor after being made the pirate's valet. Every night as Wesley went to bed, the pirate told him, "Good night, Wesley. Fine job. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."

The Hamas offer is the most honest attempt at a hudna that Muslims have recently made. The truce only lasts while the Muslim can take advantage of it and strengthens his position at the expense of his enemy. It does not lead to peace, but only postpones conflict until the time of the Islamist's choosing. Hamas insists that they will eventually destroy Israel, but wants to offer peace as long as Hamas can consolidate its power in Gaza and the West Bank.

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that the US will probably start releasing funds so that Hamas does not turn to Iran for funding. That's almost as dumb as accepting a hudna. The point isn't to co-opt Iran as a bankroller of terrorist groups -- the point is to stop terrorist groups from getting funding at all. Hamas already gets money from Iran anyway. Receiving American dollars on top of that won't lead to moderation on the part of Hamas, but embolden them towards more aggression, and give them the means to pay for it as well.

Cut off the funds to Palestine. Make the people there understand that with democracy comes responsibility for the choices made -- and that choosing a terrorist group to run one's country brings severe consequences to one's global standing.

Muslims around the world have banded together to violently protest the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed and other aspects of Islam, threatening attacks on Europeans and their newspapers if apologies do not come soon, the Guardian (UK) reports. European leaders have taken their normal stance in defence of Western freedoms; they're apologizing for them:

Europe's political elite were scrambling last night to contain the furore across the Arab world at the publication of caricatures of Muhammad, with leaders stressing that freedom of the press did not mean freedom to cause offence.

With newspaper editors in half a dozen countries unrepentant at the decision to republish cartoons depicting the prophet, EU commissioners stepped in to berate the press and try to calm Muslim anger.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark, where the cartoons were first published last autumn, said in an interview with al-Arabiya television that there had been no intention to offend. "We deeply respect all religions, including Islam, and it is important for me to tell you that the Danish people have no intention to offend Muslims," he said.

The EU also entered the fray. Peter Mandelson, the trade commissioner, said that newspapers had been deliberately provocative in republishing the drawings. Franco Frattini, the EU justice commissioner, said that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had been "imprudent" to publish the 12 cartoons on September 30. Publication was wrong, he said, "even if the satire used was aimed at a distorted interpretation of religion, such as that used by terrorists to recruit young people, sometimes to the point of sending them into action as suicide bombers".

Even Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, was drawn into the debate, saying that freedom of the press should not be an excuse for insulting religions.

But not everyone was acquiescent. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said he preferred "an excess of caricature to an excess of censure".

I'm no fan of excessive offense against religion, but the civilized method of protest is boycott and debate, not threats of violence, kidnapping, and murder. In the Palestinian territories, bands of armed thugs raided hotels looking for Europeans to hold hostage. Iran demanded explanations from the Austrian ambassador (Austria holds the EU presidency). In Indonesia and Pakistan, the protestors demanded violence against Denmark and France, and Muslim nations around the world spent their legislative time condemning the cartoons.

It is beyond disappointing that the EU and national leaders in Europe do not show the same courage as the editors of these publications. How difficult is it to defend free speech? If the Muslims don't like it, let them use the same freedom of speech to protest the publication by arguing against it on its merits, not by threatening death to anyone who breaks the tenets of their faith.

And while we're at it, let's ask our Exempt Media why they suddenly have too much "respect" to show images that might provide religious offense. Where were they when Chris Ofili created his dung-filled portrait of the Virgin Mary, or when Andres Serrano dunked a cruficix into a beaker of his own urine and called it art? They spent their efforts on publishing those images and praising the courage of the artists. Oh, but wait, there was one difference: Christians called for boycotts, not kidnappings and murders for the editors.

Perhaps the Exempt Media could at least publish this one cartoon that portrays Mohammed as smarter than most of his followers:

Too bad the protestors can't take this advice. Too bad that EU leadership and the American media show such reluctance to defend free speech and the people's right to know when it needs defending most. Too bad that these bastions of Western thought could be so cowed by the Cartoon Network.

The State Department has decided to give its opinion of free speech as it applies to the publication of cartoons satirizing Islam and Mohammed in Europe. Surprisingly, the department that represents America and its ideals of freedom abroad has decided to take this opportunity to scold the publishers rather than the angry mobs calling for violence:

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

Is that how free speech works? We have the right to say and print whatever we want ... until it offends someone, and then it's unacceptable? I'm not advocating that the State Department should have endorsed the cartoons themselves, but one would expect America to at least stand for the right of publication and the necessity of sometimes offending people in order to produce the necessary change for progress.

Would the State Department have apologized to Nazis in 1938 for depictions of Hitler as a lunatic? It would have offended millions of German fascists. Have they demanded an end to artists' depictions of Jesus and Mary in elephant dung and urine? No, and they shouldn't. Let the Christians protest these artists and boycott those who exhibit their wares, but America should at least acknowledge the rights of the artists to produce and others to privately publish these images.

If this is some sort of lame attempt to win credibility among Muslims, it's pathetic on two counts. First, it simply won't work -- we've interceded on their behalf before (in the Balkans, for instance) and it didn't win us any brownie points at all. More importantly, it sells out a critical component of what makes America and its freedoms so compelling. Volunteering for dhimmitude does nothing but encourage the Islamist lunatics, something we'd hoped that the State Department had learned by now.

Iran threatened to walk away from a potential deal with Russia that would have supposedly kept Teheran from enriching its own uranium if the EU and the US force the IAEA to refer its case to the UN. However, it does not appear that the latest Iranian gambit will have much play with the IAEA board, which looks to overwhelmingly support the referral:

Javad Vaeidi, the deputy head of Iran's National Security Council, said "there will be no way we can continue with the Russian proposal" if the Security Council becomes involved.

Mr Vaeidi acknowledged that referral seemed unavoidable, telling reporters: "This is an adopted draft. It means that the US and the EU-3 [Britain, France and Germany] are intending to kill two issues: first to stop diplomacy and second to kill the Russian proposal," he said.

Iranian officials are due in Moscow on 16 February for talks on the Kremlin's proposal to enrich uranium for Iran's nuclear programme on Russian soil. The offer, backed by the United States and the EU, is intended to make it more difficult for Tehran to develop weapons. Iran has welcomed the proposal but says it needs work, leading to suspicions that it is stalling.

Mr Vaeidi also reiterated earlier threats that Iran will resume full-scale work on uranium enrichment and stop honouring an agreement giving IAEA inspectors broad powers to conduct short-notice inspections of his country's nuclear programme if there is a referral to the Security Council.

China also did its best to undermine the effort to contain Iran, announcing that it will oppose economic sanctions against Iran "on principal". No one really expected an oil-hungry China to go the distance on containing Iran, but this early exit from the unified front exposes their lack of farsightedness on the threat that Iranian nuclear power constitutes. Iran doesn't just threaten the West, nor does it just threaten Israel; it threatens the entire region, including southern Russia, and therefore threatens the entire Southwest Asian oil supply and its exportation to all oil-hungry nations, including China.

The bigger news is that almost all of the rest of the IAEA board has thrown their lot in against Iran. Only the incorrigibles still hold out in opposition to a referral: Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria appear to lead the small contingent that wants to leave Iran to its own devices. The Western alliance that wants the referral asked for a one-day extension to get more of the board members to vote "yes" rather than abstain on the motion, but its passage looks like a lock at this point.

Will the Security Council do anything significant to stop Iran -- impose economic sanctions at least? China would probably use its veto to stop it. However, the exercise might give Tony Blair and George Bush enough political cover to justify other action against the Iranians, especially a stepped-up covert campaign to push Iranian democracy activists to rise up against the mullahs. The presence of the Coalition forces in Iraq will shortly start declining, and with them will go a significant amount of Anglo-American leverage. If such action will take place, it should do so very quickly, while we have the necessary elements for pressure at hand.

Tomorrow we will discuss this topic with Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute on the Northern Alliance Radio Network. He will be on between 2 and 3 pm, the last hour of our four-hour show, which begins at 11 am CT on AM 1280 The Patriot. If you're not in the Twin Cities, you can listen on the web stream at the link, and join the conversation with Michael and all of us by calling 651-289-4488.

One of the more inspiring stories of the two teams vying for the Super Bowl win has been the relationship between the teams and their home-town fans. Everyone knows that Pittsburgh lives and dies each week with their beloved Steelers, more so than with any of their other professional teams, and that the character of the team itself reflects the character of its home town: gritty, hard-nosed, blue-collar, sometimes down but never out. For the Seahawks, the team doesn't necessarily share in the same qualities as its setting, but this season the team forged a special bond with its fans at home. The 12th Man flag, raised at every home game and its logo sold on towels, t-shirts, and other merchandise, reflected the team's appreciation for fan support making them almost invincible at home.

However, Texas A&M now says that the Seahawks are the ultimate Stealers, er, thieves -- because the 12th Man has been an Aggie tradition for over 80 years, and a trademarked one at that:

Here at Texas A&M University, a school obsessed with tradition, there's no more sacred a ritual than standing during an entire football game, just in case you're needed on the field as the 12th Man.

So when the Super Bowl-bound Seattle Seahawks embraced the "12th Man" theme this season, the school moved decisively: A&M took the Seahawks to court, arguing that the 84-year-old Aggie tradition is so central to the school's identity that the phrase has been trademarked — twice. ...

The 12th Man tradition at A&M dates to 1922, when a student was pulled from the stands to suit up for a game in case the injury-plagued Aggies needed an assist.

The idea has evolved into a seriously regarded commitment by fans to stand ready to support the team. The school sells 12th Man merchandise, a 12th Man Foundation supports the athletic program, and the stands at Kyle Field are adorned with giant letters that read "Home of the 12th Man."

The Seahawks' history with the 12th Man dates to the mid-1980s, when raucous fans raised the roof at the now-demolished Kingdome. In honor of fans, the team retired the number 12 in 1984.

Ironically, this story appears in the Los Angeles Times, a city so inept that it managed to lose two NFL franchises within a decade because only 12 people would pay to see the Rams and Raiders play football. But I digress.

The Aggies have little choice but to pursue this legally if the Seahawks continue to use their trademarked phrase without gaining a license from the university. Trademarks have to be defended when infringed, or else the owner can lose them and they pass into the public domain. Coca-Cola used to threaten lawsuits every time a restaurant called any of their non-Coca Cola products "Coke". Xerox did the same when publications used its name as a generic term for photocopying. Cellophane used to be a trademark, but has long since passed into the public domain thanks to careless maintenance of the trademark.

Not too surprisingly, the Aggies got a Texas court to issue an injunction, one which the Seahawks have roundly ignored. The 'Hawks got the case moved to federal court this week but did not get the injunction vacated, so technically the Aggies could ask to have all Seahawks merchandise with a "12th Man" mention confiscated tomorrow in Detroit. It's rather hard to imagine that a federal court will uphold this trademark, despite the Aggie's tradition; the phrase has long been used by sports announcers to describe boisterous home fans, and I doubt even longtime football fans have any idea about A&M's claim on the phrase. Still, until a federal court rules that the phrase has passed into the public domain, the trademark remains in force -- and the Seahawks technically have stolen it.

My prediction for tomorrow: Watch the Steelers -- the Pittsburgh Steelers, that is -- jump out to a 14-point lead quickly, perhaps on an opening drive and a Seattle turnover, and then ride that to a 27-14 win over the Seahawks. Shaun Alexander will get held to under a hundred yards and maybe one touchdown, while the Steelers' bigger offensive line will set up a rushing attack for its two featured backs (Bettis, Parker) that will result in almost 200 yards on the ground. Roethlisberger goes 20-28 and two TDs, while Hasselbeck goes 24-36 with a TD and two picks. Seattle's a great home team, but only average on the road, while the Steelers have thrived on travel. Detroit will be a Pittsburgh-friendly venue, and the Steelers have already knocked off one team that went unbeaten at home (Denver).

And I'd better be right. I made a bet with Hugh Hewitt last night, on the air. If the Steelers lose, on Monday you'll read a Hugh Hewitt post here at CQ rubbing salt in my wounds and probably talking about how great the Cleveland Browns really are despite not having won a championship in half a century. If I win, I'll be posting my picture of Hugh wearing my Steeler's cap. (He's not letting me on his blog if I win, which should tell you how confident he is in his selection of Seattle as the winner tomorrow!)

Today is the First Mate's birthday, and unfortunately, we'll be spending the morning celebrating at the Fairview University transplant clinic. She's still not improving, but we're trying one more round of IV treatments before the doctors give up entirely on the transplanted kidney. We also found out that her anemia flared up again, and now she needs two units of blood to get her oxygenation back to normal levels.

Fun way to spend a birthday, huh?

I'm blogging from the clinic while she gets her IV and keeping her company. The nurses always ask me whether I'm working when I pull out the computer, which gets a laugh from the First Mate and a tortured explanation from me. "Yes ... well, no, it's more fun than work ... but sort of, I guess ..."

On a happier note, I plan on taking the FM out to a big steak dinner later tonight -- have to fight that anemia, and what better way than filet Mignon at Axel's? After that, we may take in a movie if there's anything out worth paying money to watch. Tomorrow we'll go to Khoury's for their excellent and elegant brunch, with the rest of the family joining us. She may not be chipper enough to join in the Super Bowl festivities later on, but knowing how she feels about football (except for Notre Dame football, natch!), it won't put a dent in her day to miss it.

A big happy birthday to Mitch's son Zam, who turns 13 today. Now Mitch has two teenagers at home, God help him.

The Guardian reports that American crops have been left to rot in the fields, thanks to a sudden dearth of migrant workers for farm work. Is this the result of better border enforcement? No -- it turns out that the illegal immigrants that do the work Americans don't want have decided they don't want them either:

After 15 years working in the fields of California for American farmers, Mr Camacho has found a new life: two months ago he started working at the Golden Acorn Casino.

"It pays better," he says. "In the fields you work all hours, it's cold and hard and you don't get more than $7 [about £4] an hour. With this job I have regular hours, I know when I'm going to work and I know what I'm going to earn."

Mr Camacho is not unique. Agricultural labourers, almost exclusively Latinos and at least two-thirds of them undocumented, are moving into more stable, less harsh employment.

The migration from agriculture is taking its toll on one of the largest industries in the US - and particularly on California's $32bn a year sector. Faced with an exodus of labour to the construction industry as well as to the leisure and retail sectors, farmers are struggling to get their crops in. Ten percent of the cauliflower and broccoli harvest has been left to rot this year, and some estimates put the likely loss of the winter harvest as high as 50%. ...

Mr Lopez - known to admirers and detractors as The Dog - has been working in the Imperial Valley around Calexico for 39 years. Each day he hires 600 to 800 workers, but this year he's been unable to meet the farmers' demands. "There's lots of work and very few people," he says. "We never make up our teams. You could pay them $10 an hour and it wouldn't make any difference." Most of the workers are paid $7.25 an hour, above the minimum wage of $6.75.

This has not been widely reported in the United States and rebuts the Bush Administration's argument that the migrant workers take jobs that Americans are unwilling to do. It also undermines the union allegations that the migrants depress wages -- it looks like salaries have jumped considerably regardless of the influx of labor. That also has been reflected in the labor statistics, where the jobless rate has dropped to its lowest in almost five years, 4.7%.

So what does this mean? It shows that illegal immigrants aren't just interested in working the farms, nobly putting food on our tables and keeping its cost low. They share the same goals as American workers: less work for more pay. American businesses want greater efficiency at less cost, and so continue to employ these workers, even while their salary demands start to rise. It also shows the silliness of raising the minimum wage; in a healthy economy, labor gets its market-based value. Cutting off the flow of extra workers over our southern border would do more to increase the base wages for Americans than any artificial controls imposed by government anyway.

Economic justifications for guest-worker programs do not appear very credible. At some point, we have to wonder why Americans wouldn't choose to work at casinos for anything north of minimum wage. The immigrants have indeed put themselves between legal residents and paying jobs, and we're still not getting the crops harvested. Why would we want to make this a permanent condition?

It appears that the controversy over the Prophet cartoons has been somewhat artificially enhanced by Muslim imams in Denmark, according to the London Telegraph. Numerous readers and commenters have pointed towards this article by Charles Moore, who reports that not only did these cartoons appear months ago, but the Danish imams included a few more than European newspapers never printed in order to fuel the outrage of their followers:

The complained-of cartoons first appeared in October; they have provoked such fury only now. As reported in this newspaper yesterday, it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had.

It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.

Now the BBC announces that the head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars has called for an "international day of anger" about the cartoons. It did not name this scholar, or tell us who he is. He is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. According to Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, Qaradawi is like Pope John XXIII for Catholics, "the most progressive force for change" in the Muslim world.

Yet if you look up Qaradawi's pronouncements, you find that he sympathises with the judicial killing of homosexuals, and wants the rejection of dialogue with Jews in favour of "the sword and the rifle". He is very keen on suicide bombing, especially if the people who blow themselves up are children - "we have the children bomb". This is a man for whom a single "day of anger" is surely little different from the other 364 days of the year.

Hugh Hewitt has posted thought-provoking comments today on how he imagines Winston Churchill would have reacted. Hugh has argued for the past two days that we should uphold the right of European newspapers to print the cartoons, but not endorse their publication in a knee-jerk reaction to the violent Muslim protests worldwide. He asks us to recall how we Christians feel about negative depictions of Jesus and how often we've protested anti-Christian media portrayals. And he has a point, for which I recommend CQ readers review his posts over the last couple of days to consider.

However, the point is not the offense to religious sensibilities, especially in light of the gasoline poured on this fire by Muslims themselves. It isn't the restriction of idolatry, either; as Moore points out, plenty of artwork depicting the Prophet exists in the ummah. Muslims are angry because these cartoons criticize followers of Islam and the actions of the Prophet.

Editorial cartoons exist to challenge political thought and expose hypocrisy. Among religions, Islam should be the least protected from this form of speech, as it insists on involving itself in temporal political matters wherever it is practiced. Indeed, it insists on dictating political and legal matters, usually in the most extreme terms, and it uses the life of Mohammed as its claim on political and legal supremacy. Christianity hasn't taken that position in centuries, focusing on the spiritual and individual rather than group diktat. Judaism hasn't had the means to develop that kind of theocratic position for over two millenia until the establishment of Israel, and even then the Chosen have chosen a liberal democracy for themselves rather than rule by the high-priest descendants of Aaron.

That insistence on dictating terms of temporal power makes criticism, by cartoonists or editorialists, absolutely necessary in order to combat the stultifying reach of sharia. Islam sets the terms of debate. It cannot insist on temporal rule based on Mohammed and the Qu'ran and then expect people to refrain from criticizing either one. Christians understand this, even if they don't pursue the thought intellectually to its end. If we Christians insisted on basing all government and laws explicitly on the four Gospels, we would necessarily be forced to intellectually defend each and every passage, as well as the life and actions of Jesus and his disciples and their assumed infallibility to rule on human activity.

For this reason, we must support the publication of the cartoons by European news organizations. Islam wants to impose its tenets on us, and if we give up the option of political criticism, we have moved more than halfway towards surrender to the Islamists. For those individuals who cross the line into unnecessary offense, the option to use free debate to argue the point will remain open as long as we defend free speech.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin worked all night on a video presentation that connects a few dots. Be sure to watch it.

Iran got the expected referral to the United Nations Security Council over its intransigence on nuclear power today, with only three of the 35 board members supporting the mullahcracy:

The United Nations nuclear watchdog has voted 27 to three to report Iran to the UN Security Council over its resumption of nuclear activities.

Teheran immediately reacted to the vote, saying it would curb UN inspections of its nuclear plants and pursue full-scale uranium enrichment.

Today's decision by the board of the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) marks a significant step on the road towards possible economic and political sanctions against Iran.

But no further action is expected until March, when Mohamed El Baradei, the IAEA chief, delivers a formal report on his inspectors' inquiries in Iran to the Security Council.

The delay came at the request of Russia and China, both of whom want to give Iran a few weeks to cool off and start acting rationally. The three no votes came from the further reaches of the lunatics, and five abstentions from the appeasers: Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela voted no, and Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa all decided not to decide.

Does this mean sanctions and isolation will come soon from the UNSC? Doubtful. As I said yesterday, the Chinese appear not to care about a nuclear-armed Teheran on its border. A CQ reader pointed out that it would just be the fourth nuclear power on China's border -- but it would be the first with an Islamist government that celebrates suicide and martyrdom, not exactly a rational actor on the world stage. Russia may or may not participate in sanctions. It would like to keep Iran as a client state in Putin's attempt to restart the Great Game, but Iran also funds and supplies the Islamists in the Caucasus that bedevil Russian rule in its southern territories.

What the referral does is provide a replay of the Iraq debate for this year. The US and UK, this time joined by the French and Germans, will insist on action against Iran. If the UNSC passes such a resolution and actually enforces it, it will prove a significant victory for the US/UK alliance. If not, it will provide another example of UN uselessness on terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and give the US/EU partners an opening to accelerate their efforts to topple the mullahcracy from within.

We'll discuss this development with Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute on the Northern Alliance Radio Network. He will be on between 2 and 3 pm, the last hour of our four-hour show, which begins at 11 am CT on AM 1280 The Patriot. If you're not in the Twin Cities, you can listen on the web stream at the link, and join the conversation with Michael and all of us by calling 651-289-4488.

Europe may not have the opportunity to impose economic sanctions and isolation on Iran -- because its president has decided to inflict it on his own country instead. Mahmoud Ahmedinjad has decreed the cancellation of all economic contracts in nations where the Prophet cartoons have been published:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the cancellation of economic contracts with countries where the media have carried cartoons of the prophet, the ISNA news agency reported.

The report said the hardline president had ordered the creation of an official body to respond to the cartoons, saying the regime "must revise and cancel economic contracts with the countries that started this repulsive act and those that followed them." ...

The list, which already included Denmark, where the 12 caricatures first appeared last year, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain, expanded Saturday to take in New Zealand and Poland.

The mullahcracy should be proud of their accomplishments since they arranged the election of the former mayor of Teheran to the presidency. In a few short months, the Iranians have all but declared war on Israel and the US, forced a showdown over their nuclear plans, and now face almost complete isolation from their former European economic partners.

One hopes that Iranians will see the coming collapse of their standard of living, as well as the foolishness of generating so many enemies all at once, and act to remove the mullahs and their mouthpiece from power.

The AP covers the inner working of Hamas and inadvertently shows the folly of recognizing Hamas as a political party instead of the terrorist group that it is. In a piece titled "How Hamas Works," the wire service explains the management process of the new Palestinian majority in Parliament. In the first two sections, titled Who Makes Decisions and Supreme Leader, the AP reviews the Hamas by-laws and their command structure.

It's the third section that grabs the reader's attention:

WHO DIRECTS ATTACKS:

The general guidelines and policy on attacks are first approved by the political leadership, but the military wings then have autonomy in carrying them out. The overall commander of Hamas forces in the West Bank and Gaza is Mohammed Deif. Subordinate to him are district and local commanders. Hamas units are organized into cells with a maximum of seven members. That, and the fact that local commanders have the authority to decide when and how to launch attacks, are meant to reduce the chances of security leaks, which might enable the Israelis to stop an operation.

The Hamas by-laws control the direction of attacks? Is that something one sees in the Democratic or Republican by-laws as well?

Perhaps when Hamas wants to get serious consideration as a political party, they'll at least have the good sense to remove the regulations for conducting terrorist attacks from their charter.

If you haven't been listening to the Northern Alliance Radio Network on our Internet stream Saturdays, then you have missed some terrific original broadcasts. Not only have we had great guests, such as Michael Ledeen today or Victor Davis Hanson last week, but we regularly offer original and entertaining political commentary.

I'm not kidding ... Where else will you find this kind of rebuttal to Harry Belafonte's latest lunacies? I've added this to the CQ podcast, which can be accessed through I-Tunes now or through any RSS feed reader. It's blessedly brief, and it explains why I never made a career out of my high-school musical training.

Be sure to catch the NARN show on Saturdays, from 11 am to 3 pm CT, and replayed again in its entirety on the same Internet stream starting Sunday evening at 9 pm CT.

Tonight, CNN and the AP report that Al "Grandpa" Lewis, who appeared on The Munsters in his signature role, died yesterday at the age of 83:

Al Lewis, the cigar-chomping patriarch of "The Munsters" whose work as a basketball scout, restaurateur and political candidate never eclipsed his role as Grandpa from the television sitcom, died after years of failing health. He was 83.

Lewis, with his wife at his bedside, passed away Friday night, said Bernard White, program director at WBAI-FM, where the actor hosted a weekly radio program. White made the announcement on the air during the Saturday slot where Lewis usually appeared.

"To say that we will miss his generous, cantankerous, engaging spirit is a profound understatement," White said.

Apparently, AP and CNN have a mathematics problem, because Lewis was born in 1910 -- making him 95 years old, not 83. Had he been 83, he would have only been 41 when he started appearing as Grandpa Munster on the TV show in 1964. It really didn't take much research to come up with the correct date of his birth and therefore his correct age, although it did create some confusion at Wikipedia. They resolved it by finding a 1997 interview in which Lewis himself gives his birth year as 1910, and explains that he went into show business in 1923. That took me ten minutes on the Internet to resolve after finding this story on CNN; I had heard the news earlier on the radio, along with his correct age.

Why couldn't the reporter at the AP and all the editorial checks and balances