Get SWLiP Blogrolled on LGF

Brant at Strange Women Lying in Ponds, a most excellent blog, would like to get blogrolled at Little Green Footballs:

Let's talk turkey. The reader who gets SWLiP blogrolled on LGF will win a special prize: The Al Jarreau CD of his or her choice.

So if anyone reading this has any influence with the guys at LGF, let's see if we can't help Brant out. And while we're at it, maybe someone can get me a mention there too, or a link over at Instapundit. I'll cough up a Jim Croce double-CD album for anyone who can get me blogrolled at either place. Between Brant and I, we'll rescue the RIAA singlehandedly. Well, doublehandedly, at least.

Howard Dean, Confederate Racist?

It's an old story for acclaimed "metrosexual" candidate Howard Dean -- Open Mouth, Insert Foot:

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," the former Vermont governor was quoted as saying in Saturday's Des Moines Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

Say, Yankee boy, don't you know them's fightin' words, at least among the Northeastern-elite-style Democrats?

"I don't want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Gephardt said in a statement. "I will win the Democratic nomination because I will be the candidate for guys with American flags in their pickup trucks."

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts contended that Dean's "pandering" to the National Rifle Association gave him an inroad to "pander to lovers of the Confederate flag."

Will the Democrats be as quick with the BUSH = NAZI attack if their frontrunner has to face the DEAN = KLAN counterprotest? What will that clever governor of Vermont come up with next? Maybe he'll appeal to all of the bomb-throwers of the sixties ... oh, wait, he's already doing that. Never mind.

We're Still Answering

I don't know how I missed this, but this is just another outstanding entry by Chris Muir. The sickos called 9-11, and we're still answering. Way to go, Chris!

Why Would They Blow Up My House with My Own Explosives?

In my mind, this Palestinian woman is lucky to be alive:

A Palestinian woman expresses her anger after Israeli Defence Forces detonated an explosive belt they found in her house, destroying the ground and first floor of the building, in the village of Hizmeh near Jerusalem(AFP/Atta Hussein).

The link will take you to the picture; there is no corresponding story, just the caption, which I've quoted in full. Power Line has a few pertinent thoughts on this, and I'll add my own: I think the Israelis need to detonate ALL confiscated explosives in the dwellings they find them. Perhaps that will send a message to the 75% of Palestinians who think that bombing Israeli civilians is a peachy idea. Maybe that will impress upon them that they have a personal stake in stopping the terrorism and getting rid of the leadership that's keeping them destitute and dislocated.

One last thought on this picture -- take a look at the woman's hands, especially her fingers. Either she has a great future as a pianist or the photographer is one really strange dude.

Confess, Heretic

As I've posted before, I'm a practicing Catholic, which is one who hopes to improve through repetition. (ba-dum-ting! Thank you, and don't forget to tip the waitress.) This morning, the First Mate informs me that it's that time again .... confession time.

Belonging to any religion requires sacrifice of one kind or another. For Catholics, we have an obligation to go to confession -- now called Reconciliation, sort of how "problems" started to become "opportunities" at the office -- at least once a year, or whenever we have a mortal sin that has not been confessed. (Please note that I am no expert on Catholicism, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.) You are not supposed to receive the Holy Eucharist until you've confessed your sins and receive absolution. However, a large number of Catholics are uncomfortable with confession, myself included, and resist engaging in this particular sacrament. I've expressed this before to the First Mate, but she simply orders me to go. In my house, the First Mate outranks the Captain. Maybe it's different at your house.

Why the hesitancy? Sin is shameful, and one does not bare shame easily in front of anyone, least of all the parish priest -- though why that's more difficult than calling a talk-radio host or appearing on Jerry Springer, I'm not quite sure. Other Christian denominations eliminated confession as a public act of contrition, believing that the status of one's soul was between the penitent and God, and I admit that this view is attractive. However, sin by its nature is public, whether practiced as such or not. Sin pushes us away from God and his children. Indeed, separation is the nature of sin, and separation cannot be addressed by further separation. Atoning for sin should therefore involve an acknowledgement of the harm done to the entire Body of Christ, not just your own soul.

All of that ran through my mind today while waiting for my turn with the priest. Once I was inside the room -- this church doesn't have confessionals and so uses a curtain for privacy -- the priest made me feel comfortable, warmly greeting me and waiting for me to start. I went through my sins and discussed how they made me feel and how they affected my life, and it occurred to me that Catholics were about 1800 years ahead of Sigmund Freud. The only differences are that it doesn't take an hour (usually), there's no charge, and you're cured at the end of one session, at least theoretically.

Once I was done, I felt much better, as I always do. I wondered why I make such a big deal about this every time, and I think it's not because I have to sit in a room and discuss my shortcomings with a priest, or a therapist, or Jerry Springer on national TV. It's because I have to face my shortcomings at all, and without the mechanism of Reconciliation, I might never do it. Saying "I'm sorry and God forgives me" is just too easy to do without overt action showing a commitment to my own forgiveness.

But don't tell the First Mate, because then she'll start lording it over me, and I don't want to be responsible for her soul being imperiled by excess pride and vanity. (I'm such a giver.)

The Pot Calls The Kettle Black

The LA Times features an article today on how Fox News intentionally skews its news writing to support a conservative bias:

A veteran producer this week alleged that Fox News executives issue a daily memorandum to staff on news coverage to bend the network's reporting into conformity with management's political views, refocusing attention on the partisan bias of America's most watched cable news operation.

The charges by Charlie Reina, 55, whose six-year tenure at Fox ended April 9, first surfaced Wednesday in a letter he posted on an influential Web site maintained by Jim Romenesko for the Poynter Institute, an organization that promotes journalistic education and ethics.

(Romanesko's site, BTW, is on my blogroll to the left.) Read on for a taste of delicious irony:

The corporate boards and family investors who control most of the American news media generally feel obliged to maintain a wall of separation between news and editorial opinion. Murdoch, by contrast, operates in the style of the traditional Fleet Street proprietors, who dismiss such distinctions as inconvenient fictions.

Fictions -- an excellent choice of words, as the LA Times well knows, from incidents such as this, and this, as well as this, all of which have occurred during the one month that I've been blogging. The rest of the article contains various whining and crying about Rupert Murdoch's politics, the people he's hired and their political backgrounds, but never once talks about John Carroll's politics, the people he's hired and their political backgrounds (William Arkin, a Greenpeace activist who they employ as a military affairs specialist), or his behavior in the recall election, where he sicced dozens of reporters on Schwarzenegger to dig up salacious dirt without doing the same thing to either Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante.

There is no wall between newsgathering and editorial direction, as anyone who reads more than one newspaper knows; it's all an elegant fiction, designed to set readers at ease while stories are punched up or pushed out to remote pages according to whether they fit the philosophical direction of the publisher and/or managing editor. CNN reflected Ted Turner's politics (and still does) in the exact same way that Fox reflects Murdoch's. For the LA Times, of all news outlets, to squeal like a schoolgirl at this practice is both hilarious and maddening.

Ain't Got Time for Green

Too bad this didn't work out -- at least MS-NBC could mercifully kill his weekly TV show:

Former Gov. Jesse Ventura was approached recently by Green Party officials about running for president, but he declined, Ventura said Friday during the taping of his cable talk show, "Jesse Ventura's America." ... According to Jacobs, Ventura said he was not planning a bid at present but was leaving the door open for reconsideration. In the course of the discussion, Ventura said that the Greens had asked him to run and that he had declined because he doesn't agree with some of the Green's positions on issues.

Has anyone asked Ralph Nader how it feels to be potentially replaced by Jesse Ventura? Do you suppose Nader may be a bit reluctant to spend a year campaigning on behalf of a party of environmentalists who wanted to throw him overboard for a pro-hunting, pro-snowmobiling, pro-boating candidate? Will he be able to represent the Greens as a serious third party after they tried to put Minnesota's Clod Savant at the top of the ticket? People wonder why I follow politics, and I tell them it's the closest thing to free stand-up comedy you get.

UPDATE: Power Line has a quick post on this topic, pointing out that the Greens' interest in Jesse tends to prove that the feather-boa wearing loudmouth isn't truly conservative. That's not breaking news in Minnesota, but people around the country have an odd view of Jesse, so it bears pointing out.

Bam-Bam Lives

In a unique and, shall we say, fantastic defense, a father on trial for the beating death of his infant daughter claims that the real cuplrit is his 2-year-old son:

A jealous 2-year-old battered his infant sister so badly that it left her vulnerable to death when her father tripped in their St. Paul apartment and dropped her last November, Said Moussa Gouleed's lawyer said Friday, the first day of Gouleed's murder trial.

Six-week-old Faduma Moussa Gouleed died from the accidental fall, not from a beating by her father, lawyer Eric Olson said.

They're not called the "terrible twos" for nothing, I guess. Let's see what this brawny baby managed to inflict on Sis:

An autopsy disclosed evidence that the baby had been repeatedly injured before her death, including several broken bones and a previous skull fracture. Olson said pre-existing injuries inflicted by her brother, coupled with the accidental fall by her father, resulted in her death.

Now, everyone's entitled to a defense, but trying to pin a murder on your own 2-year-old son seems just tad bit craven to me, a little out of the ordinary weaseling you usually find in these cases. I suppose that there's an infinitessimally small chance it could be true, but if it were, what did they do about the boy? Did they just figure he'd grow out of it, or maybe that the girl would raise her six-week-old arms and learn how to defend herself? Or (and here's a radical thought) maybe watch the infant at all times to make sure she was safe and that their little Cain didn't have access to her?

Unbelievable.

Julie Burchill: Mind the gap

A big thank you to Glenn for pointing out this gem of a column in the Guardian, regarding the hypocrisy of the hip. You absolutely must read the whole thing; that is an order. It's impossible to excerpt this without violating all sorts of "fair use" restrictions, but I'll try:

But unenlightened, repressed people have an excuse for being hypocrites - that they are unenlightened and repressed, and so presumably don't know any better. No, it's the hipocrites who fascinate and repel me; the enlightened, unrepressed, liberal thinkers whose deepest governing belief would appear to be "Do what I say, not what I do", and who seem to believe that the rest of us are too thick to notice the yawning credibility gap opening up between their feet as they pontificate. ...

You expect Ms Dynamite and Justin Timberlake to mouth off against American war in Iraq/US cultural imperialism just before signing massive deals with Pepsi and McDonald's. You expect Catherine Zeta-Jones to say stuff like, "I find divorces repulsive. I grew up in a small, strictly Catholic fishing village on the coast of Wales. The people there have a different attitude to life than those in Hollywood - people stick together" - having left said Eden at 15 in order to fulfil a destiny that included going to Hollywood and marrying a divorced ex-sex addict. Was his divorce repulsive? Or just everyone else's?

If that's not enough to make you read this column, how about this ... the next target is Sean Penn.

Aha. Made you look.

Thanks, Glenn. Now if you'd just mention me, just once, dammit ... Good night, everyone.

Defector: N. Korea's Kim Is World Problem

In keeping with Roger Simon's challenge, here's what North Korea's highest-ranking defector says:

The only way to combat North Korea's dictator is for the world to unite against him as it has against terrorism, North Korean's top-ranking defector said in an interview with The Associated Press on Friday. ... On his first trip to the United States, Hwang Jang Yop also said he believes North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is fully prepared to start a war and that there's no telling whether Kim will ever give up his nuclear program.

"It's like ... asking whether a venomous snake will bite or not," Hwang said in the interview.

Roger feels, and I agree, that the pledge made in 1945 -- never again -- has transformed definition from 'never allowing genocide to happen again' to 'never recognizing genocide again'. We missed it completely in Cambodia after the much-derided "domino theory" came to pass. We missed it in Rwanda, and we're missing it in the Congo. We stopped it, eventually, in the Balkans, and we deposed Saddam but only years after his massive slaughters had begun, and even at that we're still learning just how extensive they were. Kim Jong-Il may not be killing an ethnic minority, but he is starving his own people to death in a country that is little more than a concentration camp writ large.

"Kim Jong Il has sacrificed a lot — the economy, the people," Hwang said, referring to a famine that has killed estimated millions. "And all the sacrifices were for the expansion of his military. I don't believe he was (just) trying to display them and brag about the fact that he has these things. He really intends to start a war," Hwang said.

I believe Bush can concentrate more on North Korea now that he isn't pinned down in a diplomatic stalemate with Saddam Hussein any longer. We need to pressure Russia and China, who seem open to cooperation with us, into understanding that a nutbar like Kim Jong-Il threatens their stability at least as much as Japan's, and to take action to ensure North Korea never goes nuclear. But, regarding that, we are rapidly approaching the time when we won't have the luxury of allowing possession of nuclear weapons to stalemate us. We can't let the Irans and North Koreas of the world continue to wreak havoc and support terrorism just because they have a nuke or two. We faced down the Soviets; surely we can face down a tinhorn dictator and a few mad mullahs.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

The Republican National Commitee appears ready for a public-relations disaster in demanding that CBS allow them to preview the Reagan miniseries prior to broadcast:

The Republican National Committee Friday asked CBS to allow a team of historians and friends of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife to review a miniseries about the couple before it airs. ... Gillespie said that if CBS denies the request, he will ask the network to run a note across the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the program's presentation informing viewers that the miniseries is not accurate.

Well, ouch, won't that hurt! Is the RNC the last group of people on Earth that hasn't figured out that Hollywood is almost never historically accurate? Here's a list of educational items if they've just stumbled onto this:

* The British did not burn down churches full of people during the American Revolution (that was WWII Nazis), and free blacks were illegal in South Carolina during that era, let alone them having beach villages full of laughter, dancing, and carefree moments for lovestruck lead actors. (The Patriot)
* The Americans did not secretly capture an Enigma device from a German submarine during WWII; that was the British. (U-571)
* Bobby DeLaughter did not singlehandedly convict Byron De La Beckwith of Medgar Evers' murder. (Ghosts of Mississippi)
* In JFK, ... nah, way too easy.
* Pocohantas married, traveled to London, where she died as a young woman. (Pocohantas)
* And in The Untouchables, an otherwise entertaining film is marred by the fact that Eliot Ness wasn't the man who put Al Capone away (it was an entirely different group of people), none of his men were ever killed during the duration of their task force, Frank Nitti took over for Capone instead of being tossed off the courthouse roof, and of course Kevin Costner stunk, which if you see enough of his films, qualifies as a certain sort of historical accuracy.

No one in their right mind would expect Hollywood to turn out a historically accurate film on anything -- if Warner Brothers produced a film on the Boston Red Sox, they'd show them winning the 1986 World Series. The only practical result of this RNC grandstanding is to generate a hell of a lot of publicity for what promised to be a mediocre and thoroughly forgettable effort (c'mon, it stars James Brolin, for Pete's sake), and to allow the left-wing elements associated with the film to argue that Republicans stifle free speech ... which certainly seems to be the case here. The notion that CBS will run a crawl every ten minutes explaining that the film is not historically accurate stretches the limits of credulity. What's next, a demand for equal time whenever The American President or The Contender is shown on broadcast TV?

Perhaps someone at the RNC can fill us in on the Grand Strategy at play here. Because unless the idea is to depict Republicans as tight-assed, self-defeating paranoids, they've gone off the rails. Wouldn't their time be better spent on generating support for Justice Brown and thereby promoting free speech?

UPDATE: Check out this post at Jessica's Well, a great blog, if you want information on contacting CBS to express your views on this subject. CBS management, and stockholders, will be much more impressed with howls of outrage from millions of viewers than petty and unlikely demands from the RNC.

This Accident Brought To You By ...

As Warren Brown says in this column, I'm a free-market kind of guy, but there are limits:

Some Internet entrepreneurs, apparently more interested in cash than in road rage, or the possibility of a fatal crash, have been offering MIRT and MIRT knockoffs for $300. Their pitches are quite tempting: "Never wait for a red light again!" and "Tired of Waiting for Red Lights?" and "Changes Stop Lights From Red to Green in Seconds." Of course, there are buyers; and at the moment, the commerce is legal.

MIRT transmits an infrared beam, instead of a radio wave. The Federal Communications Commission regulates the use of radio waves. Infrared transmission falls outside of the agency's purview. As a result, currently, there are no federal laws restricting civilian use of MIRT technology.

Federal regulation would help keep these off the market, but individual states can and should make sale, possession, or use of these devices illegal for anyone except public-safety personnel, such as police or fire departments. Another option would be to convert existing systems to radio-wave technology, but the change would be costly, and the wider transmission pattern could set off other traffic lights accidentally.

Private use for selfish purposes causes unnecessary danger to all drivers, as Brown illustrates:

It is rush hour. Cars are stacked up waiting for traffic signals to change. Someone gets tired of waiting. He pushes a button on his dashboard-mounted MIRT transmitter, which is plugged into his car's 12-volt outlet. The device, using 15 watts of energy, sends an infrared beam 1,500 feet to a traffic-light receiver installed at the intersection. The red light facing his line of traffic instantly turns green, much to the surprise of motorists already moving through the intersection on an opposing green signal.

At best, there'd be one heck of a case of gridlock. At worst, someone gets killed or injured.

Actually, it doesn't turn it instantly to green; it forces the other direction to red quickly first, but it's the same effect, and it's still very dangerous in high-volume traffic areas.

There will, of course, be a contingent of people who claim that regulating this equipment will be tantamount to government oppression and start talking about black helicopters, the UN and one-world government, and blah blah blah, but they will be few and entertaining. States shouldn't wait for Congress to act -- they should take action on their own ahead of federal regulation.

Crime-Fighting Captain

By day, a mild-mannered blogger ... by night, a legendary crime-fighter ...

The Definition of Insanity ...

... is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result:

Senate Democrats yesterday blocked President Bush's selection of Charles W. Pickering Sr. for a federal appeals court after a two-year struggle that evoked conflicting interpretations of the past, present and future of race relations in Mississippi and Pickering's role in them.

It's far past the time that Senate Republicans should have forced the Democrats to really filibuster a nominee, instead of the Filibuster Lite that they've allowed so far. Force the Democrats to shut the Senate by continuous speechifying, all the while on C-SPAN, preferably with that political cartoon of Justice Brown on the dais behind them. If the Democrats choose obstructionism, force them to do it for real. Let the country see what they are.

Either that, or dump the nominees and find new ones, because this process has been grossly unfair to them.

Video cell phones causing unforseen issues, pardon the pun

Quite frankly, this issue never occurred to me until I read this article:

It's a health club patron's nightmare: Someone surreptitiously snaps a digital photo of said patron in a shower or locker room, then shares the snapshot far and wide via e-mail or by posting the picture on a Web site.

The likelihood of this happening has dramatically increased in the past year or two as digital cameras have shrunk in size and become inconspicuous parts of everyday devices such as mobile phones.

Now, local health-club chains are scrambling to preempt such mischief. The latest is Eden Prairie-based Life Time Fitness, which has just banned any cell-phone use in locker room areas. Northwest Athletic Clubs and the YWCA of Minneapolis also have instituted similar bans, according to a check of area clubs by the Pioneer Press.

Health clubs have banned film and video cameras in the past for these reasons, but cell phones have become so ubiquitous, and so necessary for those of us on 24-hour call. Pagers are nowhere near as convenient, and being out of touch for an hour or two may not be an option.

Death Penalty: Reason Has Nothing to Do With It

Power Line posts a provocative essay on the death penalty, using a column by George Will as a springboard:

He reaches this conclusion after juxtaposing the views of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (pro death penalty) and attorney-novelist Scott Turow (against it). Romney cites three reasons why the death penalty should be used in some instances -- its deterrent effect will prevent some murders; it expresses and reinforces society's "proportionate revulsion" against the most heinous crimes; and its presence can induce criminals to turn state's evidence in order to avoid execution.

Deacon argues, in a dispassionate and intelligent manner, that the death penalty saves lives overall. After all, murderers kill in prison, and have been known to kill when released from prison. The death penalty removes that oportunity. In Will's column, Governor Mitt Romney argues that the death penalty is a deterrent, which may have been true at one point but doesn't seem like much of one in the past twenty years. Will goes back and forth but finally decides that since the system is imperfect, he cannot support the death penalty. Deacon decides that the death penalty is the lesser of two evils and supports it, but makes an excellent point when he says:

What I meant, though, is that there are reasonable policy and moral arguments on both sides of the death penalty debate, and that neither side can demonstrate that the other is morally or pragmatically wrong. Where one ends up on this issue depends on what one thinks society should look like. Reason can take us only so far in this debate.

I'm not going to make an argument stating categorically that anyone is morally wrong, but I will tell you why I believe the death penalty is wrong -- not ineffective, not arbitrary, but wrong. As I've posted in the past, it's my belief that life is holy and sacred and that most of the problems of the past century have followed from a general decline of this belief. Once we stop treating life as holy and sacred, we open ourselves up to all manner of life-disposal mechanisms: abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, pulling the plug on people like Terri Schiavo where people like the New York Times lecture us on "meaningful" lives as opposed to those not worth living, and the death penalty.

The reason people have trouble understanding the death penalty in the same context is because the people executed deserve to die for their crimes. Assuming that the system is perfect -- which it demonstrably is not -- and that the death penalty is equitably applied -- which it also is not -- these people would deserve to die for their crimes. But life isn't given by the state, and therefore should not be taken by it either. Taking on the prerogative that the state can decide whose life is worth living, no matter what the circumstances, puts the state and individual humans in that position. It opens the door to allowing individuals to decide which other lives are worth living, in other circumstances. Life isn't sacred or holy anymore; we start valuing life for its practical use only. It's like the old joke about the guy who asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million dollars, and she says she will. He then offers her a hundred dollars for the night. She says, "What do you think I am?" He replies, "We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over price."

Lock them away for life, throw away the key; I have no problem with that. In those cases, we've properly judged people for their actions. Don't let them back out, build better prisons; I think incarceration is one of the few functions that governments rightly have. But if we expect society to treat life as sacred and holy in certain circumstances, then we'd better treat it that way under all circumstances. Otherwise, we've already established what we are, and now we're just haggling over preferences.

Next up, we'll ask if he had a lawnmower

Does this qualify as breaking news at ABC?

ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, "The DaVinci Code," which claims to be partly grounded on historical fact. The book asserts that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife — not a prostitute, as in some teachings — and that she fled Jerusalem with his child following his crucifixion. ... The show unravels like a mystery perpetuated by secondhand gossip. Vargas said ABC found no proof that Jesus had a wife, but couldn't completely discount it, either.

Here's a list of other things they couldn't prove as well:

* Did Jesus have an Easy-Saver card?
* Did Jesus have a black-velvet painting of Elphaes ben-Presley?
* Did Jesus have the heartbreak of psoriasis?
* Did Jesus have a good singing voice?
* Did Jesus have a wristband that said WWMD? (What Would Moses Do?)

C'mon ... you can't prove that he didn't have any of these either. In fact, you can't prove a negative, so it's a colossal waste of time and effort to debate such things. If ABC News has time for this stuff, why does their war coverage suck so much?

UPDATE: Check out Amy Wellborn's post on this topic, too.

Wait ... Michael Moore tells lies?

Quite frankly, I'm having a little trouble deciding for whom to root:

James Nichols, the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, says he was tricked into appearing in the documentary "Bowling for Columbine," according to a federal lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore. Nichols also alleges in the lawsuit, filed Monday in Detroit, that Moore libeled him by linking him to the terrorist act.

Nichols accuses Moore of libel, defamation of character, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His lawyer is asking for a jury trial and damages ranging from $10 million to $20 million on each of nine counts, the Detroit Free Press reported.

It's sort of like trying to figure out, at a Oakland Raiders - St. Louis Rams game, who you want to see lose more: Al Davis or Georgia Frontiere.

Carnival Of The Vanities

I've decided to enter the Carnival Of The Vanities for next week, being hosted by Wizbang of the Axis of Naughty. I'm submitting my post on the Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston peace movement, as it's one of my favorites so far.

This week's Carnival is up at Blogger Rabbit, with a special introduction offering readers a unique opportunity -- unique, that is, unless you have an e-mail address, in which case you've probably had this opportunity come your way once a month for a year.

Here are a few I liked from this week's Carnival ... Catfish 'n Cod waxes poetic about the Rumsfeld memo ... The Smallest Minority contributes a well-written broadside against the war on drugs ... Kiril at Sneakeasyjoint explains why he's crossing the picket line in Southern California to get his shopping done ... Blogfriend DC at Brainstorming cajoles the Republicans into getting active in supporting Justice Brown's nomination ... Another blogfriend, Jon at QandO, fisks ANSWER, which I'd already linked (but happy to do it again!) ... Porphyrogenitus unspins the Clinton assertion that his administration gave a terrorism plan to Bush ... Liberty Blog reveals the true quagmire in Iraq (in a very funny way) ... over at IMAO, it was all just a dream ... but hey, read them all!

Well, that didn't take long

Remember that post I wrote about ten hours ago or so about the discretionary fund available to American commanders in Iraq? Well, fugeddaboutit. Instapundit reports that the program has been canceled:

Yes, it was the most powerful tool commanders have had. But as of now, it has been cut off. LTG Sanchez has informed all the resource managers this past week that the funding is done and there will be no more. All of our humanitarian projects we had going are now stopped and some projects (including those in the troubled Sadr City) are put on hold.

Given the utter disorganization of CPA, the battalion commanders here were making a significant impact. We fixed schools, sewage, markets, and got trash picked up. We put thousands of people to work. Now it's over, at one of the most critical times in this fight. Everyone on the line is dumbfounded over this decision.

This is utter foolishness. It's Murphy's Law writ large. At the very least, we should get an explanation of why it was canceled and what's to be its replacement.

Even A Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day

Normally, I'd say that anyone who has to make a public statement like this has a blinding grasp of the obvious ... but seeing as how he's French:

A U.S. pullout from Iraq (news - web sites) would be "catastrophic," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Thursday, urging countries to take a strong united stance to stabilize Iraq. ... When asked whether he could envision the United States pulling out of Iraq, de Villepin responded, "Obviously, a pullout from Iraq today would be catastrophic and would absolutely not correspond to the demands of the situation.["]

De Villepin managed to say all this without his characteristic statements about unilateralism or demands that the UN be put in charge. Seeing as how the UN is high-tailing it out of Baghdad, that may be too ridiculous even for the French. (Hard to believe.)

Bad News for Democrats

The headline in today's Washington Post: Economy Grows at 7.2 Percent Rate in Third Quarter:

The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence. The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

Could it be that the tax cuts, designed to put more cash into the hands of middle-class consumers, may be working as intended?

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush's third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists say.

Next quarter, economists are predicting 4% growth, a very good number, and job growth should start appearing next quarter or the quarter after. Barring any devastating terror attacks, Bush should be riding a solid economic expansion -- one that isn't relying on a stock-market bubble -- into next year's elections. The sackcloth-and-ashes contingent on the other side of the aisle will have their legs cut out from underneath them unless they can adjust their message. Look for a renewed focus on the budget deficit, and a renewed effort by the Bush administration to force cuts to counter it, as this is one area where they are justly vulnerable to attack.

Let's see how long this will last

American military commanders are using confiscated Hussein funds to speed the reconstruction of Iraq:

The speed and ease with which reconstruction money is being handed out by the military here contrasts sharply with the delays and controversy surrounding the handling of major reconstruction funds by the Pentagon and U.S. Agency for International Development.

The fact that the money comes from seized Iraqi assets, the Saddam Hussein regime's overseas bank accounts and cash stockpiles found in palaces and the walls of government buildings in Iraq has provided a fortuitous loophole. Since the money was not appropriated by Congress, officials of the U.S.-led occupation government in Iraq believe that it does not have to be disbursed under the usual contracting regulations.

The money for most military projects in Iraq goes through something called the commander's emergency response program. About $100 million has been allocated so far and the 101st Airborne Division, which oversees northern Iraq, has spent about $31 million of it. It has been used, officials said, for more than 11,000 projects such as hiring a civil defense corps, patching roads and fixing an oil refinery and a sulfur plant.

So far, according to the Post, this program has been a fabulous success, both in the speed of the reconstruction and in showing that the US military presence is intended to be helpful to ordinary Iraqis. While there is risk in this process of misdirected funds or inefficiency in effort, this is a small distribution channel and shouldn't be closed down in favor of a single, large bureaucracy. A combination of efforts will hasten the return to normalcy for Iraqis and ensure the broadest benefit of US aid. Hats off to the Post for featuring this good news from Iraq. (via Instapundit)

Andrew Sullivan: The Myth of the Easy Aftermath

Read this post from Andrew Sullivan on the latest meme from the media -- that Bush promised us an easy aftermath in Iraq. For those of us who paid attention to what Bush said, this is a ridiculous idea, but it's getting play lately. I won't excerpt Sullivan's post, as it's just easier to read the whole thing there. It's good.

Colskee's blog: Phone Jacking in London?

Colskee, a Londoner blog, mentions the latest crime wave in urban Britain: phone jacking?

People pedalling up on bikes to relive unsuspecting folk of their mobile phones. This has been an increasing problem in London, especially amoungst younger teenagers (don't even ask me why a schoolkid would need a mobile phone).

It's a short post, and Colskee wonders if the cell-phone manufacturers aren't encouraging this by including a lot of teenager-friendly options on the phones. Anyone hear of this in the US?

U.S. Slowly Scaling Back Role in Israel

The above headline is quite misleading; the US isn't pulling away from Israel, they're telling the Palestinians to start meeting their obligations before expecting anything else from us:

Call us when you're serious about disarming militants — that's the message Palestinians are getting from U.S. mediators who have scaled back their presence in the region. The apparent disengagement comes amid a deadlock in the U.S.-led "road map" peace plan, Washington's growing troubles in Iraq, and the distractions of the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Unless the AP defines Israel as inclusive of the West Bank an Gaza Strip. Now that would be news!

Israeli and Palestinian critics warn that reduced U.S. involvement will likely lead to more bloodshed, further harm America's image in the Arab world, and in the end bring on another round of U.S. mediation.

With the sides here so far apart on the issues, many previous peace moves have required active U.S. mediation — or pressure — to move forward.

But an ambitious effort by the former Clinton administration to broker a comprehensive peace settlement collapsed three years ago, and the Bush administration was initially reluctant to involve itself, fearing a quagmire.

Well, for those who don't know the difference, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a quagmire, and for one reason: the Palestinians want the annihilation of the state of Israel, if not all the Israelis themselves. You cannot expect Israel to negotiate a peace with Palestinians until they get serious about recognizing Israel's right to exist and start taking forceful action against those groups who attack Israeli citizens. After six years of Intifada -- which resulted from the Clinton Administration's "ambitious effort", putting Arafat back into the center of negotiations -- the Palestinians still haven't taken even the basic steps of organizing their security functions under civilian control.

At this point, the only positive steps the Bush administration can take is to stay in contact with the Palestinians and let Israel defend itself aggressively in order to motivate the Palestinians to do something. Bush could force Qureia back to the negotiating table, but to do what? More promises that they won't keep? And while everyone sits at the table and the AP gets to feel good about "ambitious efforts", the terrorists will still be blowing up buses and pizzerias. If anything, Oslo proves that negotiating with fanatical terrorists is a waste of time. The only way to stop them is to kill them and cut off their funding and state support. Anything less is Munich all over again.

UN Bugs Out of Baghdad

The UN ... the organization that supposedly holds all international prestige in dealing with terrorism and liberation ... is bugging out of Baghdad:

International organizations continued their exodus from Iraq, with the United Nations announcing it was withdrawing staff from Baghdad following this week's string of car bombings in the capital and attacks against coalition troops. ... The U.N. decision to pull its remaining international staff out of Baghdad was announced on Wednesday, two days after a deadly suicide car bombing at the Baghdad headquarters of the Red Cross. "We have asked our staff in Baghdad to come out temporarily for consultations with a team from headquarters on the future of our operations, in particular security arrangements that we would need to take to operate in Iraq," U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said. She said it was not an "evacuation" and staff in the north would remain.

Saddam's Fedayeen have scored a major victory in chasing out the UN and the Red Cross from Baghdad, and I'm sure that the news will portray this as a failure on the part of the Coalition, and specifically the US as we're the ones in charge of Baghdad. But what this proves is the folly of entrusting security matters to the UN in the first place. Just as in Rwanda, the UN is worse than useless: they take up space and do nothing to improve the situation, and when any setbacks occur, they either do nothing and watch it happen (Rwanda) or leave entirely. There is no worse message to send to terrorists. A few car bombings and the UN runs squealing. A few more, they are no doubt thinking, and the Americans will be next.

The UN has become a nest of vipers and cowards. Any notion that the US should entrust its national security to an organization that allows Libya to chair its Human Rights committee and Syria to sit on the Counter-Terrorism Committee is suicidal.

300 Posts, and Some Thoughts

Tonight I'm finishing up with my 300th post in just under 4 weeks, and instead of posting on current events, I'm going to just talk a little bit about why I blog and some of the experience of Captain's Quarters and the people I've "met" as a result.

Like most bloggers, I suspect, I love to write and have written for years, in several different formats. I've written short stories and three novels (all unsold), as well as quite a bit of technical documentation when I worked in the defense industry in the 80s. What I hadn't written on a regular basis was commentary, unless I was worked up enough on an issue or about a particular article to fire something off. I've written several letters to local papers, about half of which wound up being published, and even had a couple of longer-form commentaries published in the Star Tribune. While completing a novel is immensely gratifying, even if it won't sell, there's something different about writing a quick, pointed commentary that has its own charm.

Another aspect of blogging I find appealing is the ability to express my political views in a somewhat less personal manner than arguing with friends and family. I grew up talking politics. My dad and I would get into redfaced arguments about politics, which is odd, because we're in 90% agreement on most issues. I loved debating current events with friends. But as I got older, I found it easier to keep my mouth shut; it caused less problems, even when others insisted on sharing their views (or maybe especially when that happened). Blogging allows me to make my arguments in a sane, and safe, way. It's like rediscovering my voice all over again. It also forces me to pay closer attention to the news and commentary around me.

But maybe best of all, it's allowed me to converse and interact with some really nice people. First and foremost, because she was the first to comment and the first to link to my blog, is Alicia from the Twilight Cafe. Alicia, on her own, provided the excellent graphic for the top of this page. Steve at Meaningful Media, Jon at QandO, and DC at Brainstorming have all given me encouragement and kind words about how I'm doing so far. Brant at Strange Women Lying in Ponds has a great blog and keeps linking to me -- thanks, Brant! Rick at Independents for Clark keeps checking back in and posting great comments, even if I haven't been terribly kind to General Wesley Clark (I'm looking for that Clarkbot again, Rick). I've been fortunate enough to be linked to a number of blogs, all of them terrific,and even have been mentioned on Hugh Hewitt's blog, and Power Line as well. Lucky me!

Thanks to all of you, and to everyone who's been by the site and took the time to read my posts. I've had a blast. And I thought, when I started this, that I'd probably post once and forget all about it.

See you tomorrow.

Don't make me pull this car over!

Seems like a squabble has erupted between the Dean and Gephardt campaigns:

The incident occurred during a Gephardt speech at a Des Moines, Iowa, senior center Tuesday. A Dean campaign worker got into an altercation with members of the Gephardt staff and was escorted from the event, according to Rod Boshart, a reporter for The Gazette, of Cedar Rapids.

In a letter to the Gephardt campaign late Tuesday, Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi said, "I urge you to find the staff member responsible and fire him, and send a strong signal to the rest of your staff that behavior of this kind will not be tolerated."

Erik Smith, spokesman for the Gephardt campaign, said Wednesday, "this guy was belligerent and we escorted him out." He referred to the incident as political dirty tricks.

Now, now, boys ... Late word out of the Dean camp says that the Gephardt people started it, while Gephardt's staff say Dean's staff won't stop looking at them.

The Politburo Diktat

Captain's Quarters has been blogrolled by The Politburo Diktat, a very clever and humorous blog with tongue impaled in cheek. Stephen, aka "The Commissar", manages to sound like a [mild?] version of International ANSWER, which in less capable hands would be frightening. Check it out!

Just a reminder ...

If you haven't yet had a chance to read it, I highly recommend this post from 10/28. It's an e-mail from a friend of mine serving in Iraq. It's long and detailed but highlights the successes of our mission there, as opposed to the litany of the real setbacks we hear about in the media to the exclusion of anything else.

Zell Miller Endorses Bush

Retiring Georgia Senator Zell Miller endorses George Bush for the presidential election in 2004:

Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country. The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."

Fred Barnes writes about Miller's discontent with the Democrats, both in the Senate and as a national political party. Miller's dissatisfaction has been known for some time and was recently vented in his new book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, in which, among other items, he dismisses Howard Dean as "shallow". Miller's endorsement is certain to cause problems for the eventual Democratic nominee, especially in the South. (via Power Line)

But does he wear boxers or briefs?

Governor Dean apparently struggles with some confusion issues:

Dean declared himself a "metrosexual," the buzz phrase for straight men in touch with their feminine sides, as he touted his accomplishments in "equal justice" for gay and lesbian couples.

But then he waffled.

"I'm a square," Dean declared, after professing his metrosexuality to a Boulder breakfast audience with an anecdote about being called handsome by a gay man. "I like (rapper) Wyclef Jean and everybody thinks I'm very hip, but I am really a square, as my kids will tell you. I don't even get to watch television. I've heard the term (metrosexual), but I don't know what it means."

Okay, so what this supposedly razor-sharp genius says is that he hears words he doesn't understand and then likes to use them in campaign speeches to impress voters. People talk about Bushisms -- is anyone keeping track of Dean's hoof-in-mouth disease?

Any suggestions for new vocabulary words you'd like to see Dean use to describe himself without knowing what they mean first?

CNN Can't Understand Linear Time

In an article on a proposed new cease-fire, CNN doesn't seem to understand simple concepts of time and causality:

In a previous cease-fire -- declared unilaterally by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- the militant offshoot of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement -- ended August 21. The groups, all of three of which have been declared terrorist groups by the U.S. State Department, declared the seven-week-old cease-fire over after a senior Hamas leader was killed in an Israeli missile attack. The Israeli attack followed a terrorist bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 20 people. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bus bombing.

So Hamas and Islamic Jihad declared the cease-fire over after the Israelis killed a senior Hamas leader. But the Israelis killed him after the bus bombing that killed 20 Israeli civilians, and that bombing was done by ... Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Why does CNN twist itself into knots trying to explain the time sequence? Because if they didn't, it would read like this:

"The previous cease-fire, initiated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad and honored by the Israelis, was shattered by Hamas and Islamic Jihad when they blew up a bus in Jerusalem, killing 20 Israelis. The Israelis responded by killing a senior Hamas leader, after which Hamas and Islamic Jihad publicly stated that they had no intention of honoring the cease-fire."

Why is that so hard to write? Oh, because it doesn't make it look like the failure of the previous cease-fire was Israel's fault. Silly me, I forget that CNN must stay true to its meme. Of course, with the media twisting event sequences like this, Israel would have to be insane to blithely enter a cease-fire without some solid assurances of weapons removal. Otherwise, when Hamas blows up a pizzeria with 50 people in it the next time, the bombing will be Israel's fault for defending themselves by attacking the attackers. Why bother? Just keep attacking them anyway -- it seems to be working.

And on the other side ...

After an attack by Al Sharpton, calling Dean's agenda 'anti-black', how can Dean respond affirmatively?

Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's [National Rifle Association's] agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country," Sharpton said in a statement.

Can this be a tripwire to the Dean campaign? After all:

Until now, the Dean campaign's brushes with racial issues have been less vitriolic. Earlier this year, some critics, noting that Dean comes from a heavily white state and campaigns extensively via the Internet, questioned his ability to reach low-income and minority voters.

Taking a page from my previous post, would the Dean campaign consider Carol Mosely-Braun as a potential VP choice? She's obviously not going to be a factor in the primaries and is running primarily to rebuild her reputation after some embarrassing incidents over the past year. She's been quietly impressive in that she hasn't been a far-left presence on the stump, unlike Sharpton, who makes speeches on behalf of unreconstructed Stalinists like ANSWER. She'd be an asset in all the same ways Condi Rice would for Bush -- a professional, electable African-American woman on a major party ticket for the first time. Maybe ....

Why Condi? Why Not Condi?

Instapundit pointed out a new web site pushing Condoleeza Rice as Bush's running mate in 2004. In the Why Condi? page, the site explains its zeal to dump the current Vice President:

Conventional wisdom has long held that the first woman, or first African-American in the White House, would be a Democrat. It would be the ultimate double-whammy to beat the Democrats at their own game. The beauty of it all is that she would not be not chosen because of her merely being a woman or an African-American, but rather because of her intelligence, qualifications, talents, experience and confidence of the president.

I'm actually a fan of this idea, but this explanation sort of boggles the mind. On one hand, we want to "beat the Democrats at their own game", by electing a female African-American on a Presidential ticket, but, ah, not because she's a woman or an African-American. Riiiiiiight. I think it's a smart move and that Rice is the right woman, but let's not kid ourselves -- dumping Cheney, who I believe is a political liability as VP, is a drastic step, and the only reason you'd do that to pick Rice is precisely to appeal to women and African-Americans, as the site's previous paragraph explicitly states:

Among the numerous things National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice does to ensure a 2004 Bush victory, two stand out as paramount: she eradicates the gender gap, possibly the biggest liability for Republicans; and, she increases the chances of garnering more African-American votes for the ticket than Bush's scant 10% in 2000.

Why be so coy? It's no secret that the Republicans would like to appeal more to the African-American community, although I think the "gender gap" has been overblown. Republicans won't appeal to African-Americans any more by not promoting prominent African-Americans to important positions in the GOP. Putting her at #2 would be a strong statement. Don't be embarrassed by that! Here's another good reason:

The Republican Party needs to groom a presidential candidate who is able to meet the challenge against expected Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2008. Who would fare better, one of the old Republican guard, or Vice-President Rice? It would not even be a contest with Condi!

Condi also doesn't have a chronic heart condition, but she's also not the President's brother, who probably would like a shot at the title in '08. Republicans ought to take this idea seriously: Condi as VP would give a tremendous boost in prestige to this presidency, and besides, she's up to the task. I'm not sure Cheney is up to another four years.

Army files charges regarding interrogation tactics

The Army charged a colonel with assault during an interrogation of an Iraqi detainee:

Lt. Col. Allen B. West says he did not physically abuse the detainee, but used psychological pressure by twice firing his service weapon away from the Iraqi. After the shots were fired, the detainee, an Iraqi police officer, gave up the information on a planned attack around the northern Iraqi town of Saba al Boor.

But the Army is taking a dim view of the interrogation tactic. An Army official at the Pentagon confirmed to The Washington Times yesterday that Col. West has been charged with one count of aggravated assault. A military source said an Article 32 hearing has been scheduled in Iraq that could lead to the Army court-martialing Col. West and sending him to prison for a maximum term of eight years.

Col. West's defense is that the Iraqi was never in any physical danger; West put his body between the Iraqi and the gun, but intended the Iraqi to fear that he was going to be shot unless he complied. It would appear that West's actions were against the UCMJ, but I wonder if this isn't the "sausage factor" at work. There's a proverb that warns, "Those who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either being made." I suspect that those of us who appreciate the results of intelligence interrogations -- American lives saved and Baathists rounded up -- would quail a bit at seeing how they are conducted. Thankfully, West's actions seem to be outside the norm ... or are they?

Some soldiers are privately questioning the Army's drive to punish the officer for an interrogation technique that likely is used regularly to get information from terrorists. Col. West's unit in Iraq operates amid extreme danger. Fighters loyal to ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein are poised at any moment to kill the soldiers in ambushes using explosive devices, guns and rocket-propelled grenades. Col. West, 42, says he pressured the Iraqi after taking into account the dangerous environment and the risk to his soldiers' lives.

Colonel West's version of events is reviewed in the article, so be sure to read it through. It still seems to me that the Army is blowing this out of proportion, if Colonel West's description of events is accurate, and I acknowledge that's yet to be seen. If so, the Iraqi was never in physical danger, and West's action saved lives. If the Army feels he went overboard, then reassign or retire him; what justice would there be in a court-martial that may put him in jail for eight years?

Most importantly: will this prosecution result in diminished interrogations that will put American lives needlessly at risk? Because if the price of saving American lives is a couple of frightened Baathists, then I don't see what the problem is.

Second guesses follow Wellstone memorial

As part of a fortnight-long retrospective on Paul Wellstone's death, the Star Tribune today features a story about the controversial Wellstone memorial and its impact on state and national politics. Unfortunately, it's also the cause of some blame-shifting as well:

In a gathering counterattack aimed at revising the conventional views of the memorial, liberal commentator and comedian Al Franken in his recent book castigates state and national conservatives for their take on the memorial.

Franken blasts Republicans from Rush Limbaugh to Peggy Noonan to former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber for claiming that a Jumbotron screen prompted the audience (the words on the screen were closed captioning for the hearing impaired); claiming that "20,000 people" booed Majority Leader Trent Lott (only some jeered), and constantly alleging that the event was scripted. ... Nonsense, responds Weber, a key adviser to Coleman whose immediate denunciation of the event as a "complete, total, absolute sham" set the tone for negative reaction.

Broad public disapproval of the event, on the street and in the media, was heard from independents, moderates and even some Democrats, Weber noted. "Franken would have us believe that what we all saw never really happened. . . . The phone lines were jammed with spontaneous, massive outcry."

Franken's attempt to rewrite history aside, the organizers of the event all say that they were alarmed almost from the very start of the memorial when portions of the crowd started booing Republicans who arrived to pay their respects:

Democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson and Edward Kennedy were greeted by thunderous ovations. Republicans, especially Mississippi Sen. Lott, were met with silence or boos. "When you put 20,000 people into a room, it's pretty hard to tell them how to react to things," Richman said.

It's a good article, one that tends to accept too quickly the notion that Rick Kahn's and Tom Harkin's speeches were wholly unanticipated, but places the blame for the political debacle on the naivete of the memorial organizers, who failed to put safeguards on content to avoid exactly the kind of thing that happened.

The Left is Dazed and confused about Iraq

Michelle Goldberg tweaks the noses of her compatriots on the left for absolute incoherence and foolishness on Iraq:

"We've made a giant mess," said Johnson, a handsome man who wore his long snowy hair in a ponytail and had a sparkling stud in one ear. "I would hate for the Bush administration to halfway fix things and then leave, and then blame the Iraqis if things go wrong. Once you go to somebody's house and break all the windows, don't you owe them new windows?" Why, then, was he marching at an End the Occupation rally? "I don't agree with all the people here, believe you me," he said. But his own sign? He glanced at it, startled, and explained that someone had handed it to him. "I didn't even look at it," he said. "I was just waving it."

If there is a more damning anecdote regarding the knee-jerk protest class, I'd find it hard to believe. In some ways, I'm surprised these events aren't attracting more nuts and mouthbreathers of this sort; they tend to be fun social events where you can vent hatred at a common enemy and feel good about it, because everyone around you gives you affirmations in direct ratio to how fanatical you get. Most people who choose as their common enemy those who threaten, attack, or kill their fellow countrymen, but these folks choose George Bush. Not surprising; the protests are sponsored by ANSWER, as well known, the last of the Stalin apologists.

The End the Occupation rally, co-sponsored by ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist Workers' World Party, and the more moderate United for Peace and Justice, seemed the only game in town. Many apparently decided to pretend that "end the occupation" really means "bring in the U.N.," despite ANSWER's blunt and repeated avowals that it means nothing of the sort.

It was a day full of purposeful misunderstandings. Members of Military Families Speak Out, a group of soldiers' relatives who oppose the war their loved ones are fighting, shared the stage with members of ANSWER, a group that's aligned itself with the guerrillas who are killing American troops and those Iraqis who cooperate with them. Both want to end the occupation, but for quite different reasons.

Don't forget that this isn't coming from the pages of the Weekly Standard, although I'm sure you can find the information there -- this is from Salon, which normally positions itself to the left of the New York Times editorial page. It gets worse:

Right now, though, there's no liberal message that separates the welfare of the Iraqi people from that of the Bush administration. In a New Republic article this week, Michael Crowley quotes Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., complaining that his colleagues' Iraq stances are driven by blind rage. "In trying to pin them down, I say, 'At the end of the day, we have to have a policy to cope with what to do now,'" he told Crowley. "And they say, 'Well, we're just pissed off.' They don't really even attempt to argue the policy of it."

The Democrats have abandoned principled opposition to incoherent rage, forgetting that the first rule of politics requires you to have a realistic alternative to what you oppose. "Bring in the UN"? Just who would be providing the troops for that? Hint: It's not going to be the French. It'll be the same people who are there now, with different commanders wearing blue berets. And we'd still need the $87 billion, because no one else is going to pony up. Most of them want to see us fail miserably so we don't ever try eliminating threats against Western democracy abroad again. Which is what the terrorists want, and what ANSWER wants. Read the whole article, although you'll either need to subscribe or watch a 30-second commercial. Goldberg writes exceptionally well and sharpens her claws mercilessly on the vacuous fringe-lefties. (via Instapundit)

Munich in 2003?

DEBKAfile postulates that certain European government officials are considering sacrificing Israel to appease the Arabs:

Nineteen days before the New York article appeared, a DEBKAfile informant dining at a Knightsbridge restaurant with a highly-placed British intelligence official heard him drop this remark: “Some people in the West have come to the conclusion that the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 was a mistake.” When asked to explain whether this meant that the Jews were to be evicted from the Middle East, he replied: “Certainly. Israel has a little more than 5 million Jews. If the United States and NATO were to finance their relocation in other countries, that would solve many Middle East problems.” ...

In October 2003, the same British intelligence officer once again dropped a warning of schemes being spun in secret in Brussels to de-legitimize the Israeli democracy, whittle away its independence and eventually bring the state into eclipse.

The DEBKAfile report coincides with the strange Thomas Friedman assertion this past weekend that NATO was considering adding Iraq, Egypt, and Israel, and then using the mostly idle Egyptian Army for deployment as peacekeepers in the Middle East. DEBKAfile's source claims the destination is Israel and the West Bank. Putting a few hundred thousand Egyptians into Israel, if Israel even allowed it, would be the equivalent of a bloodless coup.

I don't know DEBKAfile, but Strange Women Lying in Ponds links to Melanie Phillips, who describes it thusly: "the investigative Jersualem-based website with apparently extensive intelligence connections." If this is true and some European governments (I wonder which ones? Hmm) are planning on sacrificing Israel, then we no longer have anything in common with them, and should recalculate our foreign policy to isolate them. Like we did with France and Germany ... say, you don't think it could be them... nahhh.

I've heard that people don't learn from history, but damn, Munich was only 65 years ago!

How to Prove You're Not Vegetative?

Mickey Kaus describes a chilling story he heard on NPR's Day to Day:

I heard an eye-opening interview on NPR's Day to Day with a woman who says she was near to being diagnosed as being in a "persistent vegetative state" and was trying desperately to signal her doctors and nurses while they debated the most convenient time to kill her--sorry, I mean, exercise her "right to die."

Kaus then asks a very pertinent question:

How does a) the number of innocent people who will be executed under death penalty procedures compare with b) the number of innocent, live patients who will be killed under a tendentious diagnosis of PVS? I'd guess the ratio is probably one to 100, maybe 1 to 1,000. But the American left makes a huge (and legitimate) fuss about the former while it actually promotes the latter.

I doubt many will get to the heart of this like Mickey Kaus. Just as the results of the Innocence Project on death rows across the nation have cast doubt on the death penalty, cases like this should give anyone pause who agitates for killing people based on the judgment of imperfect people.

The inevitable results of socialized medicine

How would you feel if the government-controlled medical care -- for which you've paid -- decides to deny you medicine based on where you live? If that sounds good, then by all means keep pushing for "universal" health coverage:

The government has vowed to end so-called "postcode prescriptions" which result in some patients being denied potentially life-saving cancer drugs because of where they live. Health Secretary John Reid said on Monday he had ordered an inquiry into why some local health authorities are prescribing new drugs to combat cancer while others are not -- even though the drugs have been approved nationally.

Yes, I know, the British government has vowed to end the practice of denying cancer medication based on patient location, but it's creepy that the practice exists in the first place.

A Message from the Front

I am lucky enough to know an individual who has given service to his country for decades, and is now putting his life on the line for us in Iraq. He's included me along with several of his friends and family on a broadcast e-mail list, where he periodically updates us on progress from his perspective. I'm going to modify just a couple of items in here to protect his privacy, but otherwise leave this unedited. Because of its length, you'll need to click the link below to read it.

I find his courage and his faith humbling in the extreme, especially since I know what a fine human being he is. May we have faith in him and his comrades in the same measure.

Dear Family & Friends,

I am alive, well and leading a very purpose driven life.

Your messages, prayers and warm wishes continue to be a source of comfort for me over here. I have to restrict my personal communications to my immediate family for the moment, who are all doing great and also appreciate the support from many of you. I am now at a very remote and austere site. We do have a satellite modem but we can only use it for personal messages on a very limited basis which works out to about 15 minutes every several days for each of us. It is the same with our satellite phone time. This situation will improve in coming weeks as we are supposed to be getting some very expensive communications equipment for personal use.

Our mission is going very well and we have already accomplished several gratifying things. As with my deployment last year, it is enriching and inspiring to work with coalition forces that help us in the Global War on Terrorism. Many new countries have sent their best into the fray and some of our old friends have increased their commitment. I can’t speak to the underlying motives of the numerous countries that are sending their troops, but I can tell you what motivates the coalition friends I have come to know … pure patriotism and a love for the freedom they have only recently gained after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe or dictatorships in other countries.

While prepping to go into the field, we spent 3 nights at one of the more elaborate palaces in Baghdad. Most of the furniture and some of the gold-plated fixtures had been looted from the place but the structure is being maintained in as near pristine form as before the Liberation (minus a few rooms in one wing that were JDAMed reportedly while Oudai was on the third level…he apparently emerged injured but alive reinforcing his fleeting notions of immortality). Although not the largest of more than 70 palaces built for Hussein, it is considerably more expansive and opulent than Hearst Castle which is America’s most obscene monument than any one man built for himself. On a brief stop in Babylon we saw some of the original ruins and a near-complete recreation of, you guessed it, the ancient City of Babylon. Locals say that SH thinks (thought?) he is (was?) the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar.

It is well-known that the Kurdish people of Iraq strongly support what we have and are doing here. What has been a stark surprise to me is that the vast majority of Shia as well as Suni are also extremely happy with their Liberation and the overthrow of the Bathe Party that plundered and tortured and murdered for so many years. The only exception to this seems to be the town of Tikrit which of course is where Saddam came from. As reported, there are still terrorists and common thugs who commit random and planned acts of violence both against us and their own people. Our convoys must continue to travel rapidly with rifles loaded and pointed out the windows for immediate response. However most Iraqis seem desensitized to these precautions and greet us with waves and smiles.

Many indigenous former English teachers are working as translators. Our translator told me that under Hussein rule, he made about 5,000 Dinar per month, which is the equivalent of $2.50 US. Since the Liberation he says that teachers now start at the equivalent of $60 US per month and their scale now goes to the equivalent of $120 per month and that scale is continuing to rise. Other Iraqis we work with confirm that the wages for more than 90% of the jobs in Iraq have gone up considerably. The 10% who took a reduction in pay (or lost their jobs) were ‘government’ employees who were making many times more than the rest and of course the less than 1% of Hussein favorites who were continuing to build palaces and elite resorts with the blood of their destitute people.

I used to think that the “fertile crescent” described in the Old Testament had long since dried up into a barren desert. I was wrong. Although much of Iraq is very desolate, any place I’ve been within 20 miles of the Tigris or Euphrates Rivers is lush and green. There are dense groves of date palms as far as the eye can see. Thick crops of corn and wheat and barley and spelt abound.

In other Arab countries I’ve been like Kuwait and Bahrain and the UAE, only the disparaged Bedouins raise any kind of animals as a means to live. About half the Iraqi people live outside the squalid towns and cities and have beasts of burden rather than automobiles and tractors. Large herds of sheep and camels and goats can be seen roaming with their shepherds. Donkey karts are a common form of family transportation. Ox and water buffalo are still used to plow fields. These old world people seem to be among the happiest judging by their constant smiles. As the lead medic in my team I have to stay abreast of a few other animals. We have daily encounters with several species of scorpions and vipers that abound in the deserts of Iraq (good picture taking for my boys).

Why are we still here?

Any confidential orders or information I am privy to is directly related to my team mission and we are just one piece of the big picture. So what follows is nothing more than my interpretation of public directives from our President and his Cabinet and information that can easily be verified by reliable (?) media sources. I believe our first priority is the security of our homeland against foreign and domestic enemies. Our second priority is the preservation of the freedoms pioneered by the founders of our Democratic Republic. Our third priority is to maintain and promote free trade with other nations of the Free World. Our fourth priority is to aid people in countries that are not free. I do not believe that any of these priorities can be mutually exclusive anymore given the current state of our planet. Let’s see how these priorities relate to the intensely publicized operations in Iraq.

Here are the (unclassified) general missions that are being prosecuted since the inception of the latest permutation of OIF, Operation Desert Scorpion:

1. Arresting Terrorists. Apprehension of suspected terrorists and other criminals is happening every day. It is done in a most efficient and ethical way. With the technology and intelligence available to U.S. and coalition troops there is significantly less killing on either side than during any conflict of this scale to date. I know that much of the media harps on the fact that Iraq was not a hub of terrorism until after we invaded. It is true that terrorists from other countries have been identified in Iraq and their express intention is to make us fail. So what? Like flies to the fire, if they have evil intent then so much the better that we deal with them here rather than on our own soil later.

2. WMD – The much publicized search for weapons of mass destruction… I believe that some form/s of weaponized nuclear, biological or chemical agents still exist in Iraq today and will be found. If that doesn’t happen; so what? It is a matter of irrefutable record that Saadam possessed and used nerve agents and was seeking to develop nuclear and biological weapons. If we find any, they will be destroyed which should be the main point. If not, great…I never thought WMD was the main reason for the Liberation of Iraq anyway.

3. UXO – Unexploded Ordinance. It is interesting that so much focus is placed on unconventional weapons like WMD when all of the terrorist killing is being done with conventional weapons. Almost all of the Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) you hear about around here uses some part of Saddam’s arsenal as the base charge. There are literally billions of tons of land mines, bombs, rockets, missiles, grenades and ammunition that were stored not just in military magazines but schools, hospitals and mosques. It is quite possible that the world has never seen an arsenal as large as the UXO that is lying around this country. It is being confiscated, accounted for and disposed of as quickly as possible and what political party could be against that?

4. Reconstruction of Iraq. After getting rid of one gang of bad guys, it is only proper that we help these people rebuild and get a chance to actually determine their own destiny before some other despot or gang torments them again. Everyone knows that oil is huge around here. I hope we are smart enough to finance the reconstruction of this place with the existing oil. I am only involved in the Reconstruction end of the game in very indirect ways. However, from what I have seen, Iraq could be more than just another fossil fuel football. With some technical assistance, these people who are already proud of their agrarian heritage could take the former Garden of Eden (?) and turn it into the Bread Basket of the World.

I respectfully ask that you pray for the people of Iraq that they will stay free from oppression from outside their own borders or from within their own cultures. Pray for the leaders of our country that they will stay the course in continuing to empower our intelligence and defense forces in prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism. Pray for the leaders of a minority of other countries that they have the discernment to see that financing or harboring terrorists is not in their long-term interests. Pray for the families of the coalition forces of the free world who have given their loved ones temporarily or permanently for the cause of World Freedom.

As you can tell I am keeping motivated for the mission. It is easy for me to do so as I am very blessed in my role. I can see tangible evidence of our progress almost every day. I get to meet with my family every 3 months or so in a safe place. [My wife] no longer has problems paying the bills while I am gone. Active duty military men and women here who are not part of “special units” are not so blessed. They are not adequately paid. They have no assurance of when (if ever) they will return. They get less credit than “special units” and yet the US infantryman, both Marine and Army saw more combat during the invasion, sustained more casualties; and the “regular” Army continues to lose more personnel while holding the line than any of us “special” people. Thankfully, none of the casualties we see now compare to the sacrifices made in our father’s wars in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.

“Honor, Courage, Commitment”

Gangs Won't Let You Rest in Peace

Despicable behavior by gangs is nothing new, but this has to be a new low:

A shootout at a mausoleum during a funeral Monday sent hundreds of mourners and visitors at Inglewood Park Cemetery crouching or running for cover as bullets were fired by suspected gang members and police. At least two men were hit, but both appeared stable and conscious, paramedics said. Police, who were investigating the crime scene six hours later, said they had no information on the men's conditions and only sketchy details about what happened. ...

The 27-year-old mourner said Bailey's chrome casket was being put into a wall in the mausoleum at the end of the burial service, and the words "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" were being recited when gunfire broke out and people began screaming. She ran outside and saw police firing their weapons, she said.

Another witness, a 19-year-old man, also fearful of being identified, said that the shooting involved men from rival gangs who happened to cross paths in the mausoleum, possibly because two funerals were happening at the same time. He said he was in a group outside the mausoleum and that one of his companions was shot in the chest.

Clark waning, liberals waxing in primaries

Oh so predictable: supposed White Knight General Wesley Clark is sliding in the polls, while support for liberal candidates is increasing:

The small boom of support for retired Gen. Wesley Clark, which pushed him to the front of national polls in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, appears to be ebbing, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. ... Among registered Democrats queried about their 2004 choices, 15 percent chose Clark, down from 21 percent who expressed support for him in early October, when he led the field less than a month after joining the race. In the latest poll, Dean was in first place, with 16 percent support, just a whisker ahead of Clark and within the poll's margin of error.

Clark, pushed into the race by the Clintons and staffed with a number of Clinton supporters, has been an embarrassment on the stump. Either he can't come up with a position or he comes up with six different versions on an issue. On the $87 billion request for continuing military operations in Iraq, a subject that should be right in his strike zone, he refused to give an opinion, famously declaring that he was running for President, not Congress. On Iraq, numerous speeches show him supporting Bush's actions, prior to his actually deciding to replace him, and since then, he hasn't been able to keep his stories straight. Either he has opposed it completely, or opposed it without UN approval, or approved it but disapproved of the way it was done. (Oh, man, here comes the Clarkbot again!) He also had problems understanding election law, accepting money for giving political speeches after declaring himself a candidate, which a competent staff should have been able to avoid. His campaign manager quit three weeks into his campaign, citing the usual irreconcilable differences, but Las Vegas weddings last longer than that. In short, he's stumbled from the word go, and the whole appeal of a general is calm competence. Without that, he's meaningless.

It also showed that the Democratic mood may be swinging to the left, with 39 percent of registered Democrats now saying they would prefer a liberal nominee. Back in August, just 27 percent wanted a liberal standard-bearer to face President Bush next November. Support for a moderate nominee rather than a liberal among Democrats is down to 53 percent, compared to more than two-thirds in August.

In the post-9/11 world, a liberal nominee may make the leftists happy (and they drive the primaries), but the center wins presidential elections. Going left will not only lose the Democrats the White House (which may be a given anyway, with a recovering economy), it will likely lose them more seats in the Senate and House. An anti-war candidate is not going to get elected in the first Presidential election cycle after 9/11: security will continue to be a strong impetus for voting, and no one will trust a candidate whose best response to terrorism is negotiation with suicide bombers.

In case you thought City Journal is biased

Either this is the meme of the moment, or we are truly seeing a striking social phenomenom. From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

While the liberalism of young adults has long been taken for granted, there is accumulating evidence that conservatism is making inroads. Recent polls and election results show that, at the least, this group of potential voters is up for grabs, prompting Republican and Democratic strategists to scramble to win their loyalty.

Apparently this has been the dirty secret of Academia, at least up to now. As I said yesterday, this threatens the leftist (as opposed to liberal) hegemony that currently exists on university campuses, as these students will eventually replace existing faculty and curriculum management. In fact, that's what they're specifically aiming to do.

What reason do they give for this sea change?

"As far as the baby boom generation is concerned, Vietnam demonstrated that the United States is the largest source of evil, violence and destructiveness in the world. With the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11, it's become clear to most people that the United States is the great source of good in the world. The brave guys -- the cops, the firefighters -- are the good guys. And younger folks have seen conservative policies working."

This may just be the final victory of the Cold War: the discrediting of socialism, and with it, the end of demonizing capitalism and free markets.

Yo! Yasser, Ariel -- Let's Do Lunch

I originally thought to categorize this as Current Affairs, but it's just too damn funny to put in any other category than Humor:

Where presidents and prime ministers have failed, Hollywood hunk Brad Pitt and wife Jennifer Anniston hope their star power will work wonders in new roles as Middle East peace envoys. They will team up with other actors such as Edward Norton, Jason Alexander and Danny DeVito on a private mission to help resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The problem with Hollywood stars is that they don't understand that their popularity comes from speaking words written by other people while being filmed by other people on projects that are financed by other people. Playing a doctor on television does not qualify one to perform brain surgery, even if you can say, "I need that Fleeber retracter stat!" Even DeVito, who produces and directs and therefore understands a bit more about the illusory nature of the entertainment industry (and thus should really know better) gets into the act. And when I say "gets into the act," I mean that quite literally.

And how will these constellations beam their little rays of sunshine into the drab and dreary lives of Israelis and Palestinians and achieve peace?

London's Sunday Telegraph said it was not clear how the stars intended to stop the escalating violence but their strategy was to appeal to the man in the street. Pitt and Aniston believe the region's war-weary inhabitants want a negotiated settlement and they think direct appeals to 'ordinary folk' can bring the warring parties together, the paper said.

One problem Aniston & Co may encounter is that 75% of 'ordinary' Palestinians like seeing 'ordinary' Israelis blown up in restaurants and on buses. Aniston's smile might melt hearts in America, but they've likely never heard of her:

For some, the prospect of DeVito talking peace with Hamas militants over a cup of tea, or Pitt breaking bread at a Sabbath dinner with hardline Jewish settlers, is ridiculous, the Telegraph said.

Israeli sociologist Oz Almog told the paper: 'Many Palestinians do not even have television sets. What's more, for the past three years here, no one has listened to anyone. So what makes these people think they will listen to Danny DeVito?'

Well, Oz, come on ... I mean, this is Danny DeVito. Dude. For real.

While organisers admit that none of the actors has any experience of the Middle East or of conflict resolution, they say this may help as they will be considered non-partisan.

Or it may indicate that they're really unqualified to speak on the subject. I don't know a damned thing about directing a movie, but I'd like DeVito to let me helm his next $80 million film. How do you think that'll work out?

Mr Mohammed Darawse, the Palestinian regional coordinator of the project, is convinced they can make a difference. He told the Telegraph: 'They asked intelligent questions when we met and they clearly know the big picture.'

Uh, let's see. Israel exists on territory that the Palestinians think belongs to them, and they want to push the Israelis into the Mediterranean, sans lifejackets. The Israelis don't want that, and would like to be able to eat pizza or ride buses without teenagers wearing bomb bras blowing them up. How's that for the big picture? Or, from Mr Darawse's point of view, the Palestinians' land was stolen by the evil Zionists who are descended from apes and pigs, and since these yahoods refuse to go away, the Palestinians have the right to attack them until they leave. Any better? No?

How about this, then: the Palestinians, who had possession of half of the territory known collectively as Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip in 1948, refused to recognize Israel's right to exist and allowed five Arab armies to pass through their territory to annihilate the Israelis. The Israelis won. The Palestinians did the same thing in 1967, and the Israelis won again, and this time decided that they were tired of Palestinians attacking them from the east, and took over the territories. The Palestinians are pissed off because they've had the world's worst leadership; this was confirmed after Oslo, when after being offered 95% of what they claim to want, decided instead to launch the intifada instead of accepting. Better? No?

Okay, I give up -- apparently, it takes someone with the genius of Jason Alexander to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I suppose he could force both sides to watch "Bob Patterson" episodes until they crack. Oh, the horror! (via Strange Women Lying in Ponds)

Well, geez ... would he lie?

Bill Clinton's idea of helping Tony Blair with his heart problem doesn't ease the angina one bit:

Downing Street says it is "mystified" by reports that Tony Blair discussed his health problems several years ago with Bill Clinton. Mr Blair's spokesman insisted that his irregular heart beat, which caused him to be hospitalised briefly last week, had never happened before.

But ex-US President Clinton was quoted in the Sunday Mirror as saying: "I've known about this for a long time. He told me about it quite a few years ago. As soon as I heard what happened, I called to check he was OK. We had a talk and he sounded in good shape."

Excuse me for having a memory and a brain, but if anyone remembers, Mr. Clinton has a reputation for being a bit loose with the truth, and while we're at it, does anyone think this sounds awfully familiar to the "I Gave Bush a Plan to Defeat Bin Laden" story Clinton pushed a couple of weeks ago? (via Drudge Report)

The Power of Modern Fads

Robert Bartley has written an excellent essay in today's OpinionJournal about instant cultural obsessions and the price paid for them:

In an age of instant communications, we become members of a huge world-wide tribe, in constant contact with the thoughts and emotions of our fellow members everywhere. This carries many blessings, not least in undermining of local totalitarian regimes. But like tribal societies throughout the ages, it's vulnerable to sudden surges of emotions, to shared if unexamined assumptions that harden into instant fads.

Bartley reviews two cases championed by the Wall Street Journal: the Amirault child-abuse conviction and the forced bankruptcy of Dow Corning caused by pseudoscientific hysteria about silicone breast implants. In the Amirault case, the best that Bartley can claim is a draw; Gerald Amirault is getting paroled without ever acknowledging any kind of confession in the supposed child-abuse cases for which he was convicted. Amirault and Bartley can claim with some good reason that this is an acknowledgement by Massachussets that there was no substance to the case, but still, Amirault served 17 years and has not yet been formally exonerated. The Amirault case was eerily similar to the discredited McMartin Preschool case in Southern California, where ultimately juries threw out badly-manipulated testimony and freed the defendants accused of child abuse.

Likewise, the vindication Bartley expresses for the silicone-implant trial "fad" is similarly Pyrrhic. While science eventually proved that silicone implants are physiologically inert (IOW, cause none of the problems claimed by attorneys), that came far too late to save Dow Corning, its stockholders, and its employees. We all may be wiser now -- at least until the next Alar-like scare rolls around -- but the attorneys still have their money, and the people hurt have received no recompense.

To his credit, Bartley recognizes the nature of their "victories", and part of his message is how bittersweet eventual vindication becomes. His essay is a much-needed reminder of how important it is to never give up the concept of assuming innocence until guilt is proven, and how quickly a seemingly rational society can re-enact the Salem Witch Trials all over again.

South Park Republicans

In the Autumn 2003 edition of City Journal, Brian Anderson asserts that the right is no longer losing the culture wars:

The Left’s near monopoly over the institutions of opinion and information—which long allowed liberal opinion makers to sweep aside ideas and beliefs they disagreed with, as if they were beneath argument—is skidding to a startlingly swift halt. The transformation has gone far beyond the rise of conservative talk radio, that, ever since Rush Limbaugh’s debut 15 years ago, has chipped away at the power of the New York Times, the networks, and the rest of the elite media to set the terms of the nation’s political and cultural debate. Almost overnight, three huge changes in communications have injected conservative ideas right into the heart of that debate. Though commentators have noted each of these changes separately, they haven’t sufficiently grasped how, taken together, they add up to a revolution: no longer can the Left keep conservative views out of the mainstream or dismiss them with bromide instead of argument. Everything has changed.

What has changed is the advent of Fox News, cable entertainment, book publishing, and the Internet, but read the entire article, of course. Andrew Sullivan has been talking about "South Park Republicans (and again in today's Daily Dish), and this article gives extensive support for the concept:

Andrew Sullivan dubs the fans of all this cable-nurtured satire “South Park Republicans”—people who “believe we need a hard-ass foreign policy and are extremely skeptical of political correctness” but also are socially liberal on many issues, Sullivan explains. Such South Park Republicanism is a real trend among younger Americans, he observes: South Park’s typical viewer, for instance, is an advertiser-ideal 28.

Talk to right-leaning college students, and it’s clear that Sullivan is onto something. Arizona State undergrad Eric Spratling says the definition fits him and his Republican pals perfectly. “The label is really about rejecting the image of conservatives as uptight squares—crusty old men or nerdy kids in blue blazers. We might have long hair, smoke cigarettes, get drunk on weekends, have sex before marriage, watch R-rated movies, cuss like sailors—and also happen to be conservative, or at least libertarian.” Recent Stanford grad Craig Albrecht says most of his young Bush-supporter friends “absolutely cherish” South Park–style comedy “for its illumination of hypocrisy and stupidity in all spheres of life.” It just so happens, he adds, “that most hypocrisy and stupidity take place within the liberal camp.”

Anyone familiar with the television show South Park will not be surprised by these reactions, and the fact that today's high-school and college students seem to identify with these positions means trouble for Democrats, who rely on younger-skewing demographics as swing voters. These are tomorrow's academics; the far-left tilt at the nation's universities will soon be under assault. The sixties and its decades-long love affair with socialism may finally be over in Academia.

What surprised me was how much more conservative/libertarian entertainment was found beyond South Park. The success of such shows may finally embolden conservative/libertarian elements in the entertainment industry to come out from their shells and create a balance in Hollywood's product, which has been lamentably one-sided where politics are involved. And balanced is all we ask for.

Hezbollah Shells Israeli Positions

Iran and Syria cranked up the proxy war in Lebanon again as Hezbollah attacked Israeli positions for the first time in two months:

Lebanese security officials said Hezbollah forces unleashed a volley of rockets and mortar shells at the Israeli military outposts of Roueissat el-Alam, al-Samaka and Ramtha inside the Chebaa Farms area. Hezbollah said in a statement in Beirut that its guerrillas attacked the three Israeli positions with rockets, scoring "direct hits." ... Israeli military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Israeli fighter jets attacked Hezbollah targets in response to the attacks on the Chebaa Farms army outposts. "The jets hit several Hezbollah points," the officials said.

Western nations talk about asymmetrical warfare as if the concept has just been realized in the past couple of years. Israel has been fighting asymmetrical warfare like this for decades. Note when the pious Hezbollah militants chose to stage this attack:

Monday's Hezbollah attack came on the first day of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan, during which Hezbollah guerrillas often stepped up attacks against Israeli forces during their 18-year occupation of a border zone in southern Lebanon that ended in May 2000. In its statement, Hezbollah highlighted the Ramadan occasion, saying the attack occurred on "the first day of blessed Ramadan."

Only when the sources of funding and support for terrorist groups have dried up will this stop. That won't happen until the oppressive regimes of the Middle East are replaced by truly representative governments that give their citizens a real stake in policy and their future. Iran and Syria should be targeted for pressure to change, or support given to those groups who would change them from within. This is the only way to truly safeguard Western civilization -- to spread democracy across the region.

Who's Laughing Now?

New Yorkers who had a great time poking fun at the California recall have discovered that direct democracy isn't even an option in their city:

It started during the summer when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican in a heavily Democratic town, placed an initiative on the city's Nov. 4 ballot that would ban partisan local elections. The mayor has contributed $2 million of his own money to pass the measure, which would reduce the traditional clout of the Democratic Party in New York City politics.

He also took steps to block voters from considering an initiative signed by 115,000 residents that would compel the city to form a commission on chronic overcrowding in public schools. Bloomberg, like other mayors before him, invoked a little-known state law that bars other initiatives from appearing on a municipal ballot once a charter-reform measure is placed on it.

The Mayor of New York can veto referendums simply by forming a City Charter Commission and producing a ballot initiative from it, despite how many signatures have been gathered. The governing law on this is decades old and is often used by New York Mayors for this very purpose. Regardless of the merits of Bloomberg's proposal -- and it does seem to have some serious merit -- this process denies voters any mechanism for bypassing ossified political structures in order to address issues important to the electorate.

"It's as if we have no right to direct democracy here, and some people think we're probably too stupid to focus on more than one issue at once," said Wayne Barrett, a New York historian and journalist. "Those of us who believe in real democracy would have to say Californians are now way ahead of us. At least they're alive out there."

It gets messy in California, but at least they have that option of making their voices heard.

Why we fight, part 42d

Over 40 people died in four separate attacks overnight in Baghdad, including one particularly despicable attack using a Red Crescent vehicle:

Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling of the U.S. Army confirmed that the attack on the Red Cross compound was a suicide bombing.

"Initial indicators, and we're trying to confirm this, but we have eyewitnesses that say that the truck was, in fact, a Red Cross-Red Crescent truck, carrying the explosives -- like a panel van, a little bit larger," Hertling said. ... Red Cross officials vowed to continue their work in Iraq despite the attack.

Good for them -- they do good work and are neutral in all conflicts. Normally this would keep them from being targeted in armed conflict, but as the UN has learned, no respect is given for neutrality:

"Maybe it was an illusion to think people would understand after 23 years that we are unbiased. I can't understand why we've been targeted," Doumani said. The ICRC has been providing humanitarian assistance in Iraq since 1980.

The answer is that the people who do things like this have no respect for neutrals, the assistance they give, nor the people the Red Cross serve, which are the Iraqis themselves. At least the Red Cross has more balls than the UN -- they're not bugging out at the first setback.

Updated 8:00 am CST to correct death count and some minor grammar errors.

Nancy Pelosi: Enforcing Immigration Laws "Terrorizes" People

According to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the INS and FBI are terrorist organizations for enforcing immigration laws:

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday police raids on dozens of U.S. Wal-Mart stores in the search for illegal immigrants this week amounted to "terrorizing" workers. "It instills a great deal of fear in people who are only trying to earn a living and put food on the table for their family," Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters on a Congressional visit to Mexico.

I believe that we need to create a mechanism that will allow us to track migrant workers and still allow them to work in the US. Despite what reactionaries on the right proclaim, such workers fill a vital need in the agricultural industry, as well as some service industries. However, until Congress develops such a program, it's still illegal to come into the US without a visa and without registering. Illegal immigration is a huge potential security issue, especially post-9/11. Yet here is a member of Congress, while traveling to Mexico, who feels the need to equate law-enforcement professionals to terrorists simply for enforcing the law. It's reprehensible, and even though I know it won't happen, her district ought to vote her out of office in the next election cycle for it. (via Drudge Report)

Hamas Says It's Ready to Renew Talks

I'll bet they are:

Hamas said Sunday it is ready to talk to the Palestinian prime minister about halting attacks on Israelis, even though the Islamic militant group participated in a deadly attack on a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip two days earlier. ... Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, who took office on Oct. 5, has repeatedly said that he wants to reach a cease-fire in hopes of ending more than three years of fighting between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel has said, however, it will not begin negotiations until all Palestinian security forces are placed under one command and begin cracking down on militants.

Until the Palestinian Authority agrees to consolidate all security forces under a single government control -- in other words, no Fatah, no al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc -- and start taking police and/or military action against terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Israel won't benefit from any cease-fire. I especially noted this strange sentence from the AP:

A unilateral truce declared by militants on June 29 was negotiated through back channels, without the involvement of Abbas, and broke down several weeks later in a burst of violence.

It was a truce that the Israelis honored until Hamas blew up 21 people on a bus, not in a generic "burst of violence". Why can't the AP and Reuters report specific facts?

Welcome to Power Line Readers

A cordial welcome to all Power Line readers! I hope you enjoy Captain's Quarters, and I look forward to your comments. If you like what you read, I hope you'll blogroll Captain's Quarters.

Big thanks to Big Trunk for the mention!

The Myth Of David Broder's "Myth"

David Broder gets ridiculous in his op-ed piece in today's Post:

When the Democracy Corps team asked whether voters in those three states wanted a Democratic nominee "who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning" or one "who supported military action against Saddam Hussein but was critical of Bush for failing to win international support for the war," voters in all three states chose the second alternative. Dean's position was preferred by only 35 percent of the likely voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary -- fewer than supported it in Iowa or South Carolina -- while 58 percent chose the alternative.

The myth behind this poll is that there is absolutely no practical difference between these two positions; the first is equal to the second. France (and Germany) would never have supported military action against its client-state, Saddam's Iraq. Chirac explicitly said so in February, sticking a knife into Colin Powell's back by reneging on a promise given him when the French induced the US to back one more Security Council resolution calling for compliance with the previous 16. Since France holds veto power in the Security Council, the US could not possibly get its endorsement. Bush did line up a number of nations, including several who contributed troops, and especially Britain, who contributed a major military presence and partnered in the Coalition of the Willing.

What this poll tells us is that 93% of Democrats favor handing over our foreign policy, security, and sovereignty to France, Germany, and Russia, and that Democratic Presidential candidates (with the exception of Joe Lieberman) are tripping over themselves to deliver just that. As long as that remains the case, don't expect to see Bush out of a job in 2005.

Big Trunk on TV in the Twin Cities

Scott Johnson, Big Trunk of Power Line, appeared on Face to Face this morning. Face to Face is the "Crossfire" of local PBS television, except that my impression is that it's far more intelligent -- less stridency, more discussion, and no yelling, buíochas le Dia.

I feel that Big Trunk came across well, although he appeared more nervous than Myron Oldfield. The critical issue involved a question that was buried in Appendix 6 of the study, where officers reported that they did not know the race of the driver before pulling them over in 90% of all stops. When Oldfield stated that the question was improperly asked and relegated as a footnote, and the moderator on the left disparaged the question as foolishly relying on self-reporting, Big Trunk pointed out that the entire study relied on self-reporting by traffic officers. If self-reporting invalidates that question, he said, then the entire study is flawed.

In a common-sense way, we can view the 90% level to test its reliability. How often does a police officer pull abreast of you before pulling you over? In my experience, unfortunately in multiple experiences, never. At least half of all stops occur in night conditions, where it's impossible to see the skin color or race of a driver until you are already stopped or have lit up the interior of the vehicle with door-mounted spotlights, and that only happens when you've committed to stopping the vehicle. Even in daylight, high seat backs and a lack of interior lighting make it difficult to see the gender of drivers from behind the vehicle, let alone race. So reasonably, you could say in 75% of all cases it's impossible to know the race of the driver until you've decided to pull them over. Try testing this out when you're driving on the freeway, especially at night, or even on city streets, and you'll see how difficult it is to do that.

As Big Trunk said, you can't negate people's individual experiences. I've been pulled over a couple of times for technical violations when I wondered why the officer wasn't doing something more productive (although I'm smart enough not to say that to the officer); if I was inclined to believe in discrimination and I belonged to a historically persecuted minority, and there's no question that African-Americans have been historically persecuted in this country, then I would assign that experience to discrimination without question. I'm sure that there have been cases where it's true. But to say it's a systematic problem goes against common sense and, really, against the findings of this study.

Meaningful Media Relaunched

If you get a chance, check out Meaningful Media MediaBlog, v 2.0. Steve's doing a nice job in his redesign.

UPDATE: It's also in the Comments here, but don't forget to check out Steve's other blog, Indypundit, which "is more or less what Meaningful Media used to be, except with more of a cultural/newsy focus".

Graduating to Land

I've managed to graduate to a land-based animal in the TTLB ecosystem. Thanks to everyone who's linking to my blog or my posts! It appears that Irreconcilable Musings and Demosophia are going to be competing for the win at the New Blog Showcase, where my post on Fareed Zakaria's column trails significantly. Both blogs are terrific and have excellent posts. Make sure you read them, and the rest of the blog entries too.

Rocket Penguins Fisk ANSWER

I got this one from Jon over at QandO. You have to read the whole thing, but here's a couple of great ones:

1. The fact that Iraq isn't a military threat to anyone. "There is no record to support this claim. During the Gulf War of 1991, while the United States bombed Iraq with a barrage that included 110,000 sorties, Iraq did not destroy even one U.S. tank or plane." Huh guess those pilots that I saw in the first gulf war must have beaten the shit out of them selves and turned themselves in. I thought our ground troops out fought them but I guess they weren't fighting back. That certainly explains why we won so easily.

2. Sanctions have been more devastating than the Gulf War itself. "UNICEF confirms that five to six thousand Iraqi children are dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of the sanctions, and that figure is probably modest,"
I guess that means that even if we have collateral damage of a thousand children every month we are still saving four or five [thousand] children a month.

Enjoy, and remember these statements the next time you see International ANSWER staging a protest. They're unrepentant Stalinists, and the fact that a Democratic candidate for President speaks at their functions (Al Sharpton) reveals the lengths Democrats will go to generate votes. Why doesn't the media hold him accountable for supporting an organization where protesters hold signs calling for the destruction of the United States?

Poor Eating Habits Start Early

It's all about the carbs, I keep telling people. Who feeds pizza and hamburgers to two-year-olds as a regular diet anyway? It's a brief story, so I won't excerpt it here, but it just shows that American health problems are ingrained at an early age. If we could put off the crapola until at least school age, we'd have healtheir kids and less disease later in life.

North Korea Joins Iran in Acquiescing

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick." That was Theodore Roosevelt's foreign-policy philosophy, and it's paying off for George Bush in North Korea, at least so far:

In its first concession after months of hostility, North Korea on Saturday signaled that it would consider President Bush's offer of written security assurances in return for dismantling its nuclear program.

The conciliatory statement, first reported by the North Korean news agency, marked an abrupt about-face for the government in Pyongyang, which days earlier had ridiculed Bush's offer as "laughable" and "not worth considering." ... Iran also bowed to international pressure several days ago, saying it would suspend its uranium enrichment program and sign an agreement permitting international inspections.

China put more pressure on North Korea to consider the Bush Administration's offer of written security assurances in lieu of a formal non-agression pact (which would undermine the military alliance with South Korea). Iran fell into line a few days ago. Of course, we need to have strong verification programs in place to ensure that these regimes really have given up on their nuclear programs, but until it became clear that Bush was willing to act forcefully to back up his diplomacy, we'd still be passing meaningless resolutions in the Security Council.

In business, it's often said that you only have to fire one person to get a group into line. After that, everyone else gets the message. Despite their posturing, the week's events show that Roosevelt's philosophy still works best, and that you don't have to go to war with everyone -- sometimes you only have to topple the first tyrant before the others wise up. And for a man who keeps getting reviled as a unilateralist, he seems to be working well with China and Russia to confront both Iran and North Korea, which shows that the same demonstration of power works well in gathering allies. No one wants to be on the losing side of anything. Just ask France and Germany.