Oh Yeah, That's Useful

One of my favorite blogs, Second Nature, has a post on what may be the weirdest idea in agriculture (from the Sun-Times):

An Oregon scientist inspired by Homer Simpson has successfully created "tomacco" -- a tomato plant that contains nicotine.

I remember that episode! But, ah, I think Matt Groening was joking around, dude.

Baur grew the plants again, this time hollowing a portion of each out and grafting them together. The plant took form, and after weeks of pruning, he now has a large tobacco root that has sprouted a tomato branch. The branch has yielded one ripe fruit, and tests have shown the leaves contain nicotine -- the fruit will be tested for nicotine today. The scientist says he expects the fruit will contain much higher levels of the addictive ingredient. ... But Baur is having a Dr. Frankenstein moment, noting that nicotine, when ingested orally, can be fatal to humans at levels higher than 150 milligrams. He fears his tomacco plant contains "multiple fatal doses."

"I grew this thing, and then I thought, 'Now what am I going to do with it?'"

Perhaps it would have been better to have thought of that before spending four years attempting to develop the long-awaited "Tomacco", or perhaps better, "Homer's Folly". Steve at Second Nature has a suggestion, but you'll have to check his blog out to see it.

No More Justice Moore (washingtonpost.com)

The Washington Post hs an excellent editorial wrapping up the removal of Justice Moore in Alabama yesterday:

But civil disobedience is not the province of judges, who are not in any event supposed to serve as generals in the culture wars. When the federal courts say what the Constitution means, the duty of every state court judge in the nation is to obey.

This is the crux of the matter, in my mind. As I said before, I wasn't unsympathetic to Justice Moore's rather ostentatious display, nor did I feel that the court order removing the monument (all three tons of it) was critical to the safety of the republic. Once ordered, though, Moore was duty-bound to obey it, and his refusal to do so unequivocally disqualifies him for the bench. That's what lunatic-fringe pundits like Michael Savage don't understand.

Opus Returns! Garbo Speaks!

After 10 years, Berkeley Breathed and Opus return to the comics pages, if only on Sundays (for now).

I know, I know ... Breathed's Bloom County was not just liberal, but leftist, although with healthy doses of common sense and cynicism, but it was still the most intelligent entry in the comics pages in the 80's. In fact, for the first half of its run, it was far more of a social commentary than a political soapbox. Even its quadrennial "presidential campaigns" of Bill and Opus were less about specific policy than the manner in which campaigns were run. It was great fun. If it got strident towards the end of its run, if it introduced stupid characters like that *&^%^%$ cockroach, if it couldn't handle female characters -- we forgave all that.

It was Bloom friggin' County, man. Until it became Outland, which became inexplicable, and then became extinct.

And now, maybe, just maybe ... Breathed can capture that lightning in a bottle again. It's almost enough for me to get a paper subscription again, although I'd be more likely to just sign up for a subscription to Comics.com, where I believe the strip will be available. (Thanks to Alicia at Twilight Cafe for the news!!)

So Many Links, So Little Time

A few thank-yous to some very nice people in the blogosphere today ...

First off, thank you to Venomous Kate at Electric Venom (a daily read for me) for including me on both the Snark Hunt and The Letter Of The Day Is H

Big Trunk over at Power Line included me in today's excellent posts by linking back to my comments about Zell Miller and the end of the civil-rights movement.

Merde in France has been sending readers over to me all day long. If you want a window on Europe, especially France, MiF is a stylish must-read. Sometimes I try reading the posts in French, but my high-school French hasn't been able to keep up ...

Thanks again, folks!

Case Closed: The Most Important Story of the War, So Far

The Senate Intelligence Commitee has evidence, much of it developed during the Clinton administration, that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been working together for over a decade. I'm not going to excerpt it; read the whole thing.

Then, ask yourself this: When did Rockefeller's staff write that partisan memo, and if it was after October 27, why do you think the Democrats are suddenly desperate to make the Bush administration look like it's lying? Maybe because this information (and more on its way from the Iraqi Intelligence Service's files) will pull the rug out from under anti-war candidates like Howard Dean and John Kerry?

Diversity in Athletics

No matter how good an athlete you were, no matter how important an executive you are -- it's never too late to make a complete ass out of yourself, as former Dodgers and Angels pitcher Bill Singer demonstrated:

New York Met official Bill Singer, a former All-Star pitcher with the Dodgers and Angels, directed racially insensitive remarks at Dodger executive Kim Ng in deriding her Chinese heritage this week, baseball officials who witnessed the incident said Friday.

What were the comments anyway, you ask? Some critique of current Chinese political philosophy? A crack about Confucius? Mocking Mao?

According to witnesses, Singer approached Ng in the bar of the hotel where the meetings occurred. After asking Ng, the highest-ranking Asian American in the major leagues, questions about her background in a sarcastic tone, Singer began speaking nonsensically in mock Chinese before eventually leaving. ... Two officials within earshot described the exchange.

Singer: What are you doing here?

Ng: I'm working.

Singer: What are you doing here?

Ng: I'm working. I'm the Dodger assistant general manager.

Singer: Where are you from?

Ng: I was born in Indiana and grew up in New York.

Singer: Where are you from?

Ng: My family's from China.

Singer: (Nonsensically mock Chinese). What country in China?

Oh, yeah, that's certainly demonstrating maturity, not to mention a stupendous lack of geographical knowledge. (China is a country, one of many in Asia.) Singer won 20 games twice and threw a no-hitter, but apparently his brains are mostly in his pitching arm. His team, the New York Mets, are not amused:

"We learned of the matter recently and have addressed it with Bill Singer directly," Duquette said in a statement read by Horwitz. "While I cannot share the particulars of that discussion with you, suffice it to say, his comments were entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the values and standards of our organization. We have extended our apologies to Kim Ng and the Dodger organization."

Responding to a reporter's question about Singer's job status, Duquette said that Singer is still "employed by us at the moment. However, this entire matter continues to be under review by the organization. We are reserving judgment on this."

Translation: If this story starts to really embarrass us, we'll dump him like John Rocker. If not, guess who'll be our next liaison to Japan?

CNN.com - Car bombs rock Istanbul - Nov. 15, 2003

Terrorists struck against Jewish synagogues again with car bombs, this time in Istanbul:

At least 15 people were killed and 146 injured Saturday morning when two cars laden with explosives simultaneously detonated near two Jewish synagogues in Istanbul, according to the Turkish interior minister.

Turkish officials believe the explosions -- which took place early Saturday morning on the Jewish Sabbath -- were a coordinated terror attack.

Apparently the dead and injured were passers-by, as the synagogues were mostly empty.

Turkish media reported the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front had claimed responsibility for the attacks, but government officials in Ankara suspect the attacks were carried out by terrorists outside the country, possibly al Qaeda.

If it is al-Qaeda, they seem to be killing more Muslims than anyone else these days. It would appear that their ability to mount attacks has become greatly reduced to the Middle East area. Hopefully, all those idiots who thought that bin Laden was a great Islamic hero are understanding that psychotic fanatics like him strike anywhere, perhaps especially where his own people don't meet his expectations of purity.

And You Thought a 40-Hour Talk Marathon Was Stupid

Do you want to know how ridiculous this Senate nomination debate has become? Then check out the flap over the comments made by Sen. Zell Miller regarding Justice Janice Rogers Brown:

"The Democrats in this chamber refuse to stand and let her do it. They're standing in the doorway, and they've got a sign: Conservative African-American women need not apply. And if you have the temerity to do so your reputation will be shattered and your dignity will be shredded. Gal, you will be lynched," Miller said.

Well, Zell's fellow Democrats were aghast at Zell's choice of analogies, as you might imagine, and all of the rhetorical cannons were fired:

"I was offended. I think it was unfortunate," Daschle said. "I think those within the civil rights leadership who have commented and have asked for an apology are right." ... "Either Senator Miller has conveniently forgotten a frightening period of American history, or he is willfully demeaning all those African-Americans who were hung from trees throughout the period of racial segregation in the South," said Wade Henderson, the director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Oh, the irony! The leadership of the Democrats and the civil rights movement are enraged and demanding a retraction and an apology from a Southern conservative ... because he wants to put an African-American woman on a federal appellate court ... and the civil rights groups and Democratic leadership want her kept off the bench. Combined with the comments from the NAACP about Condoleezza Rice being a murderer, and it's obvious that the civil rights movement is over, done, finished. The vestigial remnants exist only to keep African-Americans in the Democratic political ghetto, and to smear African-Americans who dare to escape from the intellectual plantation. And if you think those analogies are too strong, then all you need to do is look at this cartoon from the Black Commentator that was used in the campaign against Brown by the NAACP:

Image courtesy Power Line, which ran a good post on Brown's nomination and the use of this cartoon.

Update: Strange Women Lying in Ponds has some background on previous use of the word "lynching", where Democrats didn't seem nearly as concerned with historical perspective as they are today. And Liberty Lover has Ted Kennedy calling Justice Brown a Neanderthal; apparently, calling African-Americans cavemen is A-OK with "civil-rights" groups as long as you're a Democrat.

Like I said, the civil-rights movement is officially over. (Update links via Instapundit)

Goodness Gracious: G!

Electric Venom has posted the Letter of the Day, and today has been brought to you by G! Venomous Kate has been kind enough to include a selection by yours truly, regarding Aaron McGruder, but (since you've already read that one, right?) make sure you check out the rest of the collection.

When you're done with that, check out the rest of Kate's blog. It's a daily read for me, while I sit here in Minnesota's cool weather and get jealous of Kate's Hawaiian locale ...

And now for some CQ-G links:

Twilight Café gags on some Vogon poetry. (Hitchhiker fans, rejoice!)

Jon at QandO reminds indignant Deanies that their big moneyman sees dead Germans.

Meanwhile, over at Strange Women Lying in Ponds, Brant is keeping an eye on geriatrics, but ain't too happy with a Googler.

DC at Brainstorming gauges the rationality of the Daily Kos and its readership, and finds it lacking.

Guess that's it for now!

Lileks Is On Fire

Today's Bleat is unbelievably good; go read it now.

Need convincing?

Then Ted Rall wrote a column called “Why We Fight” in the voice of an Iraqi “resistance” fighter. I suppose it’s intended to help us understand the mindset of the enemy. Eh. The French have a saying: his head, it is filled with urine. Or they should have such a saying; I’m sure it would sound elegant and dismissive. These people aren’t the loyal opposition anymore; they’re just the opposition. They may say they love America, but they love some idealized nonexistent America that can never exist as long as there’s individuality and free will. They’re like people who say they love women and beat their wife because she doesn’t look like the Playboy centerfold. I’m sick of the lot of them. As for Rall, who cares about him? He’ll get his reward: the great yawning indifference of history. If people barely remember Kelly and Capp nowadays, what are the chances that they’ll remember someone who appeared to draw with his thumb?

Go. Read. It. Now. (via QandO)

But Mumia Is a Martyr

Aaron McGruder, who draws the "Boondocks" comic strip, considers Condoleezza Rice a "murderer", and apparently the NAACP agrees:

NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said over the weekend that he agreed with political cartoonist Aaron McGruder's characterization of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as "a murderer." ... "I don't like her because she's a murderer," the cartoonist announced.

The charged drew immediate condemnation from Armstrong Williams, who complained, "That is totally out of line to say she's a murderer."

Unfazed, McGruder repeated the accusation, stretching out his words, "S-h-e'-s a m-u-r-d-e-r-e-r."

What did Julian Bond, longtime civil rights activist and now the chairman of the NAACP, have to say about McGruder's accusation? Certainly not words of temperance or support for a successful African-American woman in high government office:

"I generally agree with his politics 100 percent and I think he explained himself well," the NAACP chief said.

The NAACP's message is clear -- African-American success will only be celebrated and supported as long as said African-Americans remember their place and kowtow to the leftist political goals of Bond, Jesse Jackson, and I suppose McGruder as well. Otherwise, be prepared to be slandered and vilified by those who claim to be working for the right to be free, including the freedom to choose your own politics. Three cheers to Armstrong Williams for immediately challenging these disgusting attacks. (via Andrew Sullivan)

Our Greatest Ally

Tony Blair gives an interview to the muscularly-named Stryker McGuire and demonstrates why America is blessed to count Blair and the British as our friends and allies. MS-NBC published some excerpts:

Blair on leadership in the face of popular dissent: Firstly, on the really big issues, you owe people your leadership. There is no point in doing a job like this unless you do that. I believe passionately in the cause to which I have committed myself. ... There is a resurgent anti-Americanism. Now I happen to think that is wrong and misguided, but it is our job to go out there and show it is misguided, which is why I think it is important that President Bush is coming.

Blair on progress and the seeming lack of it against terror: There is a stage at which when you begin to fight back, the conflict can sometimes seem even more dark because you are fighting back … Look at what is happening in Iraq now. This is what I think is so bizarre about some of the coverage. What is happening in Iraq now is that we are trying to make the place better, and the small rump of Saddam supporters, those terrorists, are trying to stop us. Now I think that is incontestable. I mean you can contest the wisdom of the conflict, but that is an incontestable statement. So what does that say about the nature of these people? It says that their battle is not to do with Iraq per se; their battle is to do with the notion that the values of freedom and democracy, and justice and the rule of law, and freedom of worship for people.

Blair on Bush's unpopularity in Europe: I think it is in part to do with—a failure of understanding is putting it too high, but it is not a complete understanding on this side of the water … throughout [Continental] Europe … of the fundamental significance of September 11 in terms of American policy and how it developed. And I know this very well from my own experience with President Bush. People have a view that he was determined on this action in Iraq way before September 11—it was something he had just come into office determined to do. I can assure you that was not the case. I remember at our first meeting back in February 2001, at Camp David—if anything I was raising weapons of mass destruction more than he was. But September 11 was a fundamental change.

I must admit that Tony Blair has surprised me. When he first took office as Prime Minister, I feared that we had lost the key strategic alliance against socialism and statism that we had enjoyed with Margaret Thatcher and her Tory successor, John Major. But if anything, Blair has been equally resolute in defending Western values of democracy and individual freedom, especially after 9/11. I think he understands the lessons of 9/11 better than anyone else in Europe, and better than some in America, for that matter. This is not a struggle for ideological supremacy of the type we experienced in the Cold War; it is a struggle for the survival of the idea of individual freedom and secular government. It is at once both less and more of a war than the Cold War ever was.

We are fighting a form of extortion with a foe that has no fixed points to target. That doesn't mean they're not vulnerable, and it doesn't mean that those who support them cannot be held accountable. But the only way we are going to destroy them in the long run is to remove their pillars of support: Arab kleptocracies, and the oppression of the Middle East which breeds the rage that fuels groups like al-Qaeda. It's not about poverty, as the middle-class backgrounds of the 9/11 perpetrators demonstrated. It's about the hopelessness of having no say in the law and the government, where simple debate is punishable by torture and death. For decades, the dictators of these countries have used Israel and the West as a safety valve, promoting massive demonstrations against the US and Israel as a means of lowering the pressure.

After 9/11, Bush and Blair have determined that the only long-term way to prevent al-Qaeda or groups like it to become deadly is to make sweeping changes in the environment in which terrorism grows. The war in Afghanistan specifically targeted al-Qaeda bases and the Taliban, which openly supported and sponsored al-Qaeda. Iraq, long a symbol in the Middle East of Western vacillation and lack of commitment (remembering the Shi'a uprising of 1991 that the US and UN failed to support), had to be the starting point for the new policy. Saddam was arguably the worst of the area's rulers, he had flaunted his defiance of the UN on sixteen separate resolutions and the terms of the 1991 truce, and he indisputably had committed genocide against his people in order to terrorize them into inaction. Also, a large military force was tied to Iraq's pacification and sanctions enforcement, and this flank had to be secured or abandoned altogether if action was to take place elsewhere.

It's apparently too much to hope that people understand that 9/11 was not a singular event. Islamofascist attacks against the US go all the way back to Teheran in 1979, and the US response in each case has been either to run away, negotiate with the terrorists, or treat the attacks as a law-enforcement problem. These approaches have all failed, and 9/11 was the signal that a radically new policy was needed to eliminate this threat. Bush and Blair, fortunately, understood the lesson and have seen eye-to-eye on the solution.

UPDATE: Power Line has an excellent post about Bush's pool interview with British media representatives, which left the Brits equally impressed with Bush. Read the whole thing.

When Dreams Come True ...

Either this guy was having a flashback to a fraternity hazing stunt, or he really likes the casual look:

Despite the rain and wind, a man decided to visit a Marshall [MN] convenience store wearing nothing but his ``birthday suit.'' The 38-year-old man was staying at a local motel. He ran from his room about a half-block and across one of Marshall's busiest streets to the store on Wednesday.

Did you ever have one of those dreams where you are doing routine tasks when you suddenly discover you're naked? I don't think they're much fun, but to each his own. He's living the dream, all right! But what did he expect to do at the convenience store?

A store worker said the man appeared to be trying to steal things. The manager was backing out of the parking lot, noticed the naked man entering the store and went in to chase him out.

Uh ... where was he going to hide the stuff? [Rule #1: Never ask questions for which you really don't want to hear the answers ...]

A police spokeswoman says the man appeared to be under the influence of either drugs or alcohol.

What a shocker!

By the way, today's weather in Marshall, MN: 45 degrees and windy. Brrr.

Deuling Dodos

German environmentalists face a difficult choice -- can you sacrifice one species to save another?

A protected species of bird is devouring rare fish in the German state of Bavaria and creating a dilemma for local officials who now want federal permission to kill birds that once appeared headed for extinction. ... "The problem is that a protected bird is eating protected fish," a spokesman for the Bavarian environment ministry said this week. Eager to save the fish from extinction in the wild, Bavaria has asked the federal government for permission to reduce the bird population, for example by shooting them or taking their eggs.

It's fairly obvious that one of these endangered critters is going to have to be scaled back, either through intervention (the birds) or through inaction (the fish). Careful management of the cormorant population may save the fish. Is that approach likely to be followed? Well ...

But some say the government action is misguided. "Their plan will not get us anywhere," said Andreas von Lindeiner of the Bavarian bird protection group. "We cannot destroy the bird colonies," he said.

This may come down to which species has the most fans. What a wonderful way to manage endangered species! Does there exist no middle ground? Because if a compromise can't be reached, the fish are going to disappear completely.

Moore No More: Alabama Chief Justice Removed

Chief Justice Roy Moore, who installed a monument to the 10 Commandments and then defied a federal court order to remove it, was removed from office today:

The nine-member Court of the Judiciary issued its unanimous decision after a one-day trial Wednesday. ... "In defying that order, the chief justice placed himself above the law," said Judge William Thompson, head of the Court of the Judiciary.

The panel also found that Moore "showed no signs of contrition for his actions."

The last is a bit of an understatement. Moore has promoted himself as a martyr for God during these past months, and the act is wearing thin. I do not believe that any great harm is done to the establishment clause by placing a monument to the Decalogue in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court. After all, it is represented in the US Supreme Court's chambers, but not anywhere near as ostentatiously. I also believe that the federal court order to remove the monument is as silly as installing the monument was in the first place.

But -- but -- that order was a lawful order, given by a superior court with proper jurisdiction, and Moore was bound by his oath as an officer of the court to obey it. An oath, by the way, invoking the same God he claims to defend! His mutinous behavior brought disrepute to the Alabama Supreme Court and certainly cast doubt on whether Moore was more interested in interpreting Alabama and US law than in delivering his own version of God's law unto his people ... which makes the 10 Commandments symbolism fairly compelling, if you think about it. The Judicial Ethics Panel did the right thing in removing Moore, and perhaps the state Bar association should look into some sort of moderate penalty for his refusal to submit to a proper court order.

To all the Moores of the nation who think they are saving America by pulling these stunts: God doesn't count monuments to judge our faith. If you truly believe that the strength of faith, or our nation, is based on whether one can build monuments on public lands, then you have fallen into idolatry. (via A Small Victory)

Generalissimo Franco Is Still Dead

I noticed this morning that the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times still have not put Bush's rising poll numbers anywhere on their main web pages. The Minneapolis Star Tribune doesn't even carry the story on its Politics section. MS-NBC has a prominent link on their main web page, but since NBC sponsored the poll, that makes sense.

CNN? Nothing on its main page, nothing on its Politics page.

Seattle Times? Nothing, not even on its wire service.

AP wire on Yahoo? It's right there, in time order.

Remember when Bush's numbers were falling? Did you have to search all over the place for that story, or was it headline news?

But there's no such thing as a left-wing bias in the media. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

We're From the Government, We're Here to Help

A Minneapolis couple who called for medical advice after a home birth nearly lost custody of their children -- and now they're suing the city and the police:

As they had with many of their eight other children, Daniel and Karen Mathias chose for Karen to give birth to Gabriel in their Minneapolis home last Christmas.

Their call to a hospital the next day seeking advice on the newborn's eating behavior ended with child protection workers phoning, police knocking on their door and what the couple contend was a forced trip to a hospital. ... A hospital staff member who called back that evening "became agitated" on learning the baby had been born at home and insisted that he be brought in immediately and examined.

Karen Mathias didn't believe it was necessary. The baby appeared happy and healthy. She said in an interview that she intended to take the child in the next day. Hours later, a child protection worker left a message at their house, and then police arrived with an ambulance following, the suit said. Police said they had been told that the Mathiases were "not feeding their children."

After paramedics responded, the police demanded that the couple bring their newborn to Hennepin County Medical Center. Once at the hospital, the doctors found no problem with the baby, but the police still tried to take the baby to a foster home anyway. Apparently, social workers and law enforcement feel that it's appropriate to take away a one-day-old baby with no medical issues and no evidence of neglect.

As Karen Mathias said, "I wouldn't be calling a lactation consultant if I were really intending on starving my child to death." Think about that; she calls up the hospital the day after the birth and tries to talk to two lactation consultants wanting to get her baby to eat. If she intended to starve the newborn, why would she call the hospital looking for lactation advice? The social worker started the entire string of events by hysterically jumping to an illogic conclusion, and the police, instead of using some common sense, compounded the travesty by treating the Mathias' as if they were the first couple to neglect children by seeking medical advice.

What does the county say?

Hennepin County Public Affairs Director Carolyn Marinan said, "We get thousands of calls each year [from] people who suspect [child neglect or abuse], and we are mandated to look into those. I would hope that people understand that," she said. "There's nothing more vulnerable than a child."

But do they get these calls from the abusers themselves? Asking for medical advice?

There is no doubt that many children are endangered, neglected, and abused; it's a sad and tragic fact that a small percentage of adults think that children only exist to absorb their hate, rage, or indifference. That doesn't excuse what happened here. Note that last comment from Marinan: "There's nothing more vulnerable than a child." This truth is often used by people who want to bypass due process and parental authority in order to impose their agenda and their belief system onto others. In this case, the Mathiases took the unconventional, but legal, route of home birth, as they had in most cases with their previous children. That would not be my choice, but it hardly qualifies as endangerment if done properly. And when Mathias acted responsibly and sought advice for her child, the city and the police validated her original choice by punishing her with the threat of confiscating her one-day-old child.

They weren't acting on behalf of a singularly vulnerable child. They were sending a message that in their world, children are property of the state and remain with parents only at the pleasure of the government.

UPDATE: According to KSTP-TV, the local ABC affiliate, the reason the Mathiases home-birth is that they don't have medical insurance. That could also explain their reluctance to incur the costs of an emergency-room visit when nothing was wrong.

One More Time

If you haven't yet done so, be sure to drop by Electric Venom and let Venomous Kate know how much you appreciate the sacrifice that her and her husband are making for his defense of our freedoms. Her husband is about to be shipped out but is in limbo at the moment, and Kate's feeling the stress. Multiply that by all of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who put their lives on the line every day for us, and think about how awe-inspiring it is that the best of our young men and women are compelled to sacrifice so much to keep us from harm.

Just drop by and say thank you. She can use the support.

Poll: Bush Approval Rating on Economy Up

I haven't seen too much of these poll numbers today -- it's enough to make one believe in that mythical left-wing media bias:

Public approval of President Bush's handling of the economy has increased amid signs that the economy is recovering, according to a poll out Wednesday.

Half in the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 50 percent, approved of Bush's handling of the economy, up from 43 percent who approved two months ago. Bush's overall job approval was at 51 percent, with 44 percent not approving. That's largely unchanged from that same poll two months ago - when he was at 49 percent.

Despite the relentless carping Bush has endured, his polling continues to improve on the economy. Since his economic packages were passed by Congress, we've had growth in every quarter, and now the employment numbers are falling into line, too. The AP released this story at 7:32 pm today. Let's see where the major newspapers show this story tomorrow. So far, the WaPo, NY Times, and LA Times haven't updated their main web pages to feature the story.

Filibuster: Your Remedy for Insomnia

I'm not linking to anything specific here, but just a couple of bipartisan thoughts on tonight's debate in the well of the Senate. I've been flipping back and forth (I can't miss a new episode of South Park, after all), and my insistence on watching the marathon debate claimed its first victim: my wife. She fell asleep at 7 pm and went to bed. My insomnia seems to be more resistant to the blathering, but it's getting to be a close-run thing.

Right now, I'm watching Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who had a clever moment earlier. He claimed he had a chart showing the administration's efforts to create jobs, and put up a blank white board. He then said, "If you turn it around, it shows the exact same data." Despite everything, he's pretty entertaining.

Now, Charles Schumer, D-NY, keeps pointing at the score, 168-4, saying that the 4 were rejected, when truly they weren't considered at all. Rejection would indicate a vote, which they're not receiving. Schumer is also a good speaker, and makes the distinction that there has only been one successful filibuster of a judicial nominee, but several have been attempted. They've been defeated because Republicans didn't back them in lockstep. Good point, and Schumer, as always, is a very effective speaker, probably most effective when asking for input into the nomination process.

Larry Craig, R-ID, is reading a letter from a senator that participated in the Fortas debate (Robert Griffin), that blows up the notion that Fortas was filibustered. I'm sure there will be a contradictory arguments, but that casts some doubt on the other "filibuster" examples from Schumer's speech. The debate on Fortas went four days, with normal debate instead of blockading speeches. Craig is also a good speaker, somewhat passionate, but good.

In fact, every senator I've seen so far has spoken pretty well. It's just that the issues involved are so arcane that it's hard to see any real drama in it. Here's the problem: this process has been broken since the Bork nomination in 1987, and both parties are guilty of gaming the system. After the 30 hours is up, let's hope all heads cool off a bit and come up with a way to live with each other. That wasn't going to happen, though, without some public demonstration of frustration by the Republicans.

Consumerism in Baby Names, or Dipsticks On Parade

Another sign of the impending Apocalypse -- American parents are naming their offspring after commercial products:

According to Social Security Administration research, out of the 4 million babies born nationwide in 2000, 55 Chevys, six Timberlands and seven DelMontes are about to enter preschool.

And that's just the boys. Let's not forget the girls. Consider the 25 Infinitis, five Celicas, 164 Nauticas, 298 Armanis and 21 L'Oreals who turn 3 this year.

Can our obsession with consumerism get any more crass? Can we possibly exhibit any more of American materialism than to name our own children after automobiles, cosmetics, and -- unbelievably -- cable television sports networks?

So much for the little boy in Texas whose parents named their son ESPN (pronounced Espen). As far as Evans knows, only two babies in 2000 were named after a sports network. The other ESPN was reportedly born in Michigan a few months before.

"What a lovely baby you have! What's her name?"

"Comedy Channel!"

"Ah .. uh ... why such a ... unique name?"

"She makes us laugh sometimes, but mostly she just regurgitates."

I don't know if these people ever read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but folks, the Ford Prefect character was supposed to be ironic. If you ever introduce me to your child, and his name is Ramses or Trojan, don't be offended if I laugh in your face.

Dead Ends: HOYA SAXA CARNIVAL!

Dead Ends has the new Carnival of the Vanities up and running, with a distinct Georgetown flavor: HOYA SAXA CARNIVAL!

My entry on the overwhelming police response to raid a swinger's party is posted there, although I put my real name to it, instead of the blog name. I'll update this post later tonight on my faves from this week.

UPDATE: As promised, here are my votes for the Carnival winners:

Mark Pierce at Earthly Passions fisks it up on Newsweek's article on Dick Cheney. (He's on my blogroll now!)

Porphyrogenitus has a lengthy, detailed deconstruction of the Clark plan on Iraq, and how it flies in the face of historical precedent and common sense.

Blackfive posts a letter describing the inspiring events surrounding the memorial and burial of American heroes lost in battle. Bring a Kleenex.

Outside the Beltway discusses why we all can't get along, refuting Matthew Yglesias, in a shorter but pointed post.

Sara Fitz-Claridge tests the limits of Libertarianism and discovers a passive attitude towards, of all things, authoritarianism, in a post from a speech to the Libertarian Party. Oh, yeah, and she's hot, too.

More later, perhaps!

Kristof: Hold the Vitriol

Some words of warning to the left (and the right), courtesy of Nicholas Kristof in today's NY Times:

Liberals have now become as intemperate as conservatives, and the result — everybody shouting at everybody else — corrodes the body politic and is counterproductive for Democrats themselves. My guess is that if the Democrats stay angry, then they'll offend Southern white guys, with or without pickups and flags, and lose again.

We could argue about the origins of this polarity or who was angrier earlier, but at this point, both sides are equally guilty of irrational political hatred and it needs to stop, or at least those who indulge in this sort of behavior need to be marginalized. We are all Americans, and most of us come to our beliefs through heartfelt experiences, observations, and philosophy. We can learn from one another and we can compromise where necessary so that we can all feel as though we are part of the system. What drives the lunacy is the increasing suspicion that we are not.

Why do we have seemingly exclusive trends towards political apathy and heightened quasi-hatred? These could be contributing factors:

* Increasing federal jurisdiction over local and state matters
* Gerrymandered political districts that create no partisan tension, practically guaranteeing a specific district for one political party
* Closed primary systems excluding centrist candidates in state elections
* Useless primary elections in 80% of states for presidential elections

It is no coincidence, I think, that as the federal government claims more and more jurisdiction over local and state matters, such as crime, education, and transportation, that individuals feel a loss of political power and as a result become angrier at policies they have little hope of changing. One prime example of this is education, where unfunded mandates for social programs of questionable worth eat up significant portions of school budgets. Instead of local control over school curricula and districting, parents discover that many issues aren't even open for debate. Even when control is exercised by the state, policy decisions can cause a storm of outrage. In the early 90s, California attempted to replace their standard, multiple-choice comprehensive tests -- which had been ruled discriminatory by a federal court -- with a complicated essay test that California blocked from parental review, or even from state legislators. The result: massive numbers of children were withheld from the test, and California was forced to withdraw it.

Electoral structure contributes to this same sense of hopelessness. Conservatives in one district find out that redistricting has left them with only a 30% constituency, guaranteeing that they will be unable to present any meaningful opposition to the policies of a string of liberal candidates, and vice versa. Often, minority political groups won't even bother to put an opposing candidate on the ballot, preferring to focus time, energy, and money on those few races still seen as competitive. I posted about this phenomenon earlier, in response to an excellent Washington Post editorial. It leaves significant portions of the populace stripped of their voice for purely partisan reasons, fueling outrage and dooming civility.

Under these conditions, all of the mystery is in the primaries, and in closed-primary systems candidates are forced to sway to the extremes in order to captured the voters still motivated to vote at all. In California again, the result is a general election choice between the evil of two lessers, neither of which can remotely be said to accurately represent the majority of the constituency (in those constituencies that have not yet been completely radicalized or polarized). Voters who tend toward the center see no good choices and shrug their shoulders. The rabid partisans comprise most of the vote, and therefore drive the political debate as a result.

Presidential primaries sit at the top of this political food chain and amplify the hatred just as surely as mercury does in the sea's food chain. Not only have we abandoned the majority of the political process to the rabid poles, we now stage primaries in a marathon fashion, inexplicably starting in states with the lowest population. By the time 25% of the electorate has a chance at voting, the nominee is almost assured of victory from attrition. The primaries in New York, California, Texas, and Florida rarely feature more than one active presidential candidate on each party's ballot. This is a massive disenfranchisement of the electorate, and one that creates more hopelessness about the political process than any other. I would have loved to vote for John McCain in the 2000 primary, but he had dropped out of the race by the time Minnesota held its primary. I like George Bush, but I also was stuck with George Bush.

The only way to combat the incivility and the lunacy presently dominating the political landscape is to rebuild our political structures in a way that allows people to have a real and effective voice in government. Force redistricting to respect community boundaries, open up primaries to all voters, schedule the presidential primaries on a single day across the nation, and reduce federal involvement in local matters. When that happens, the sanity will return, and the constructive passion will increase.

Executive Life, Now Dead, May Come Back to Haunt the French

Forbes has an update on the fallout of the Executive Life scandal, which may ensnare prominent French politicians (via Zonotics and Instapundit) :

In April 1991 a California insurance company called Executive Life, having gone bust, became the object of an investigation by the state of California. In 1992 what had once been France's most successful bank, Crédit Lyonnais (now a decrepit institution), put together a deal whereby the bank would buy Executive Life's junk bond portfolio, and a new French insurance company would take over Executive Life's insurance business. At the time of the deal, Crédit Lyonnais was owned by the French state. Under U.S. federal law banks could not own insurance companies; under California law state-owned companies could not own insurance companies. The deal was agreed to because U.S. insurance regulators were assured that the new insurance company was independent of Crédit Lyonnais.

...

The clash of cultures evidenced by the Executive Life mess has led to a decade of legal and diplomatic negotiations. These culminated in September with an agreement by U.S. federal prosecutors to drop the criminal charges, provided the French state hand over $585 million. This was humiliating for France but, in the opinion of many experts, cheap considering the circumstances. However, it later emerged that, because of the separation of powers in America, the agreement did not cover civil suits being brought by California's Insurance Commissioner and could not guarantee the legal immunity of certain French individuals closely connected with the Élysée Palace, where President Chirac lives in splendor. On Oct. 15, following a long, angry and secret debate within the highest ruling group in France, the agreement was repudiated. Chirac, it is said, made the final decision to slap U.S. justice in the face and challenge it to do its worst.

Besides my reflexive happiness at seeing the French get nervous, I lost money in Executive Life when it went under; it was part of my retirement folio. The amount of money I lost was pretty small, under a thousand dollars, about 15% of which I recovered through the settlement. But I would like to see someone be held accountable for the fraud that took place, and it's encouraging to see that the case hasn't been abandoned all these years.

Best of Veteran's Day

In honor of my father (Korea), father-in-law (WWII, Korea, d. 1991), paternal uncles (WWII, Korea, peacetime), maternal uncles (Vietnam, peacetime), and cousins (peacetime, current), here are a few posts around the blogosphere that represent the best of the blogosphere's remembrances of Veteran's Day...

Power Line has the best veteran's story, one of an unrecognized hero: Capt. Harry Hornbuckle.

Venomous Kate reminds us of the everyday sacrifices of military families. Leave her a message telling her how much we appreciate both her and her husband.

Michelle at A Small Victory has two notable posts about Veteran's Day. In the first, she talks about how much of our lives we take for granted, and how much of that is possible only due to the sacrifice of our military. In the second, she notes how a few mouthbreathers spent their Veteran's Day disrespecting that sacrifice.

To our soldiers, past and present: thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Note: I'd like to add other posts to this message -- if you have any suggestions, drop me a comment or an e-mail with the information.

It's The Diva in All of Us

Syl Jones, a writer I don't normally recommend, has a good column in today's Strib about the growing sense of uncivility in today's society:

At twilight a few weeks ago, on I-394 East, I witnessed yet another sign of our impending demise as a species. A young man held a "Howard Dean for President" sign on an overpass, waving at the passing cars. Directly in front of me, a bull-necked idiot driving a Jeep Wagoneer leaned out of his window and violently thrust his middle finger in the air, causing a temporary loss of vehicle stability that put me and several other drivers at risk of injury.

To say that some people are angry these days is an understatement. The streets are boiling with unhappy, impatient and selfish people just spoiling for a fight. Sometimes, it's hard not to give them one.

Jones presents a new theory of Divalution; if you're a fan of Devo, you may think that Jones is engaging in a bit of borrowing, but his point is that the inner diva in all of us is pushing humanity to de-evolve:

It's a dispiriting combination of devolution -- moving backward toward Cro-Magnon Man -- and the relatively recent phenomenon of diva worship.

In pop music, divas used to be considered spoiled brats. Now, the term is heartily embraced by the likes of Whitney Houston, Cher, and even the talent-free Britney Spears. But apparently, strutting one's stuff isn't just for the runway or the stage anymore, nor is it limited to women, because many nonmusical men also believe they have the "right" to disrupt public events by imposing on others.

Like any good scientist, Jones supports his theory with several examples of Diva sightings in everyday life, and you know, he sure does seem to have a point. Read the whole column -- even if you don't agree, it's still pretty entertaining.

Meryl Yourish Fisks Michael Moore

Meryl Yourish, another excellent blogger, fisks Michael Moore, albeit reluctantly:

I almost never write about Michael Moore, because I find him a tiresome windbag. I saw him on The View a few weeks ago, and even the ladies of the ABC morning were fed up with his lying and dodging of questions. I have never seen a harsher interview on that show. They don't have transcripts available, but CNN's Kara Henderson asked the tough questions.

But once she gets started, she gets rather enthusiastic. A sample:

Let's think about why so many Europeans would have passports, and why so many Americans do not. Let's go look at a map of Europe. Okay, now let's go look at a map of America. Do you see something similar about the two maps? Right! Many European nations are the size of American states! Why, if you're German and you want to vacation in France, it's a short trip, depending on how close to the border you live. But it's another country. If you live in Georgia and want to vacation in Florida, you don't need to show your passport. It's basically a no-brainer, which explains why Michael Moore couldn't figure out why 82% of Americans do not have passports. Oh, that, and the fact that you don't need them to go to Canada and Mexico.

It's getting to be similar to fisking Ted Rall. If you thought that reality had any meaning for Rall and Moore, stuff like this would hurt, but they're so disconnected from reality you may as well be speaking a different language. However, the easy targets exist for Yourish and others to keep their skills sharp, and to provide some entertainment for people whose heads aren't firmly inserted in their backsides.

The Calico Cat Confesses

Michael Kantor over at The Calico Cat confesses to his secret vice of late:

Despite the name of the show, Average Joe, these guys range from a little below average to downright ugly.

I expected to hate the show like I've hated all other reality shows I've seen. But I was surprised to discover that I actually enjoyed the show and I'm looking forward to the second episode on Monday night. What's going on here? Have my tastes in entertainment sunk to the lowest common denominator? Will I take up bowling and hunting next week?

Michael's post is, as always, well-written and entertaining. More so than the television show, I suspect, but then again I'm no fan of reality TV. He suspects that the guys are the butt of the joke despite the advertisements we've seen, depicting the show as a karmic payback to a pretty woman with overweening hubris.

John Nerdahl, You're My Hero

The Strib published a counterpoint to its one-note, relentless campaign targeting President Bush from West Point graduateJohn Nerdahl:

So the reasons for confronting Iraq was never just about WMD, Saddam's threat to the United States or his tyrannical regime. It's almost laughable that Saddam's overthrow is somehow illegitimate because, as the Star Tribune editorial noted, our nation is not equally willing to invade other tyrannical countries like Zimbabwe or Burma. Or that being in Iraq is somehow not about combating terrorism. Or that we are witnessing another Vietnam.

Where is your intellectual honesty, objectivity and reasoned perspective? Your underlying motivation to get President Bush becomes obvious as you continue to obsess and "wring your hands" over such irrelevant and absurd analogies.

Three cheers for Nerdahl for taking his argument directly to the source -- and at least one cheer for the Strib for printing it. As much as I disagree with the Strib's editorial policy and its biased news reporting, I have to credit them for consistently giving space to locals with opposing viewpoints.

Latrell Sprewell: Old-School?

You have to love the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. This is the headline on a story about multi-millionaire basketball player Latrell Sprewell playing through an Achille's heel injury:

Timberwolves: Old-school Sprewell plays with pain

Old school?

It turns out Sprewell also is a distinguished professor from the Old School. He plays in pain, as was evident in Saturday's 88-79 victory over the Heat, when the Wolves played the second of back-to-back games. Sprewell was having a hard time moving, but he wouldn't budge from the lineup. Every time he limped upcourt, dragging that left foot, he was making a statement.

Okay. Let's cast our minds back to 1997, when Sprewell played for the Golden State Warriors and P.J. Carlesimo was the coach. The Constitutional Rights Foundation describes the "old-school" outlook of Latrell Sprewell in this Spring 1998 issue of Sports & The Law:

Early in the season, the Warriors were losing a game by 30 points. Carlesimo expressed disapproval at Sprewell when he saw the player sitting on the bench, laughing and joking with other players during the embarrassing loss. Soon after, Carlesimo threw Sprewell out of a team practice. The following night Carlesimo replaced Sprewell in the Warriors' starting lineup. Two weeks later, Sprewell missed the team's flight and was late for an out-of-town game. He was fined by the team.

The conflict between the Sprewell and his coach exploded on December 1. During practice that day, Sprewell and Carlesimo engaged in a heated argument. According to several players, Carlesimo charged the length of the court to confront Sprewell about his attitude in a practice drill. When Carlesimo ordered Sprewell off the court, the player grabbed the coach and began to strangle him. The two were separated and Sprewell finally left the practice. Fifteen minutes later Sprewell returned to the court and charged toward Carlesimo a second time. The player also shouted death threats at the coach. Warrior players once again separated the coach and his star.

I firmly believe that people can change and improve themselves, and Sprewell has mostly conducted himself well since this incident (which happened less than six years ago, BTW). I think it's good that he's made himself successful, and I hope he takes the T-wolves to their first championship. But a guy who tries to strangle his coach for benching him because he was dogging it is clearly not "old-school", and the Strib's headline just points out how laughably parochial the newspaper is.

Why the UN Can't Handle Iraq

Blackfive (The Paratrooper of Love) has a good post about the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 and why putting the UN in charge of Iraq is suicidal. He excerpts two articles from the Chicago Sun-Times and the Sydney Morning Herald, detailing the lawsuit being filed against the UN and the Dutch. He titles it, "Clark Would Bring In the UN," but in fairness it should be titled, "Every Democrat Running for President Would Bring In the UN."

Blackfive has a good blog, too -- check it out. (via Instapundit)

Kerry Campaign Turmoil Deepens

The turmoil in the Kerry campaign deepened as two key officials quit in protest over Jim Jordan's firing:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s press secretary and deputy finance director quit Tuesday, adding to the bitter turmoil on Kerry's team after the dismissal of his campaign manager. Robert Gibbs, chief spokesman for the Massachusetts lawmaker, and deputy finance director Carl Chidlow quit in reaction to the firing of Jim Jordan, abruptly let go by Kerry Sunday night. Both expressed dissatisfaction with the campaign, according to officials.

Kerry initiated the shake-up by firing Jordan, his campaign manager, to demonstrate that he intended to reverse the poor showing of his campaign against Howard Dean. Some Democrats feel that Kerry was the problem more than the people in his campaign, acting as if the nomination was his "entitlement". and allowing Dean's energy to blow him off of the stage. But IMHO, Kerry's problems started when he decided to run against his own record on the war, coming with contrived explanations that his vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq somehow communicated a requirement for unanimous international support. General Clark is running into the same buzz saw, especially now that he's tried to compare action in Iraq unfavorably to Kosovo. Andrew Sullivan writes in The New Republic (via Instapundit):

In a speech at the University of Iowa College of Law, on September 19th, Clark had declared that chief among America's mistakes was that it had gone to war in Iraq without "the mantle of authority" bestowed by United Nations approval. But hadn't the Kosovo war also been conducted without the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council? Yes, Clark allowed, and in that regard the Kosovo war was "technically illegal." He went on, "The Russians and the Chinese said they would both veto it. There was never a chance that it would be authorized." That situation did not seem entirely dissimilar from the prewar maneuverings regarding Iraq, when France and Germany said that they would oppose any Security Council resolution authorizing an immediate war; Bush bypassed the U.N. and resorted to an alliance with Prime Minister Tony Blair's Britain and sundry lesser members of the "coalition of the willing."

Sullivan tears into Clark for his explanation that Kososvo was legitimized by the threat of genocide, and that action against Iraq lacked any such legitimacy:

There are an estimated 300,000 mass graves in Iraq today. Saddam's genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the Shia and the Marsh Arabs are and were no different than the monstrosities of Milosevic--except in scale and viciousness. Does Clark believe that leaving Saddam in power would have removed the "imminent threat" of further genocide and mass murder against the peoples of Iraq? Who is he kidding? Does he think that Uday and Qusay Hussein represented the hope of a more humane future? Of course not. If your criterion for intervention is the "imminent threat" of genocide, then Clark's defense of the Kosovo war necessitates an identical defense of the Iraq war. One more obvious distinction: Milosevic hadn't actually used gas or chemical weapons to kill civilians. Saddam did. Moreover, Milosevic had restricted his murderous military campaigns to the territories of the former Yugoslavia. Saddam had already launched wars against two neighboring states, Iran and Kuwait. A final point: Milosevic hadn't threatened the United States and hadn't attempted to assassinate the president of the United States. Saddam had. On humanitarian and realist grounds, toppling Saddam was far more legitimate than toppling Milosevic.

Both Kerry and Clark are twisting themselves into pretzels to discredit the war in Iraq, Kerry because of his vote to authorize force, and Clark in his clumsy attempts to claim that war against Milosevic was more legitimate than against Saddam Hussein. Not coincidentally, their contortions and lack of consistency are not playing well against Dean's wrongheaded but consistent opposition to the war, and the Democrat base has rewarded him with their support. In contrast, Dick Gephardt has stuck by his support of the war (while criticizing its prosecution), and has also received a bump in support, even surpassing Dean in Iowa in a recent poll. Kerry and Clark can fire all of the aides they want, but even a parade of campaign managers won't distract voters from the lack of intellectual honesty by both candidates.

You (and Bush) are likely too dumb for this

MS-NBC published a funny column on how lucky we Americans are to have celebrities to inform us how stupid we are:

If you’re an American, chances are there’s a celebrity who thinks you’re dumb. Maybe even stupid. Or an idiot. Or something worse, which we can’t print here. ... Jane Fonda was in Canada this past April and said: “I don’t know if a country where the people are so ignorant of reality and of history, if you can call that a free world.” ... Also in Canada, Martin Sheen said recently: “Every time I cross this border, I feel like I’ve left the land of lunatics. You are not armed and dangerous. You do not shoot each other. I always feel a bit more human when I come here.”

Lunatics, ignorant people, dummies — even dumb puppies. Yes, we got ’em all here.

And then they wonder why all of us ignorant, dumb-puppy lunatics start organizing boycotts of their entertainment products. If I spent my time insulting my customers and sneering at them with disdain, especially while abroad so that I could suck up to the anti-American elite, I'd either be unemployed ... or French.

Hosting Matters Down: Another DoS Attack?

Instapundit, Power Line, and Little Green Footballs all are off-line this morning -- could this be another deliberate DoS attack on Hosting Matters? It could simply be a technical problem, but this is happening quite a bit lately.

Don't forget that Instapundit's backup site is here; if this is a DoS attack, Glenn will probably post a message there soon. I don't know of any backup site for Power Line or LGF.

UPDATE: Although I can't access Instapundit or the other Hosting Matters sites, they do seem to be up and running, as I am getting a lot of referrals from Instapundit this morning about the Rock the Vote story. Welcome to all of Glenn's faithful readers (which includes me), and I hope you enjoy your visit.

CNN: Creating the News as We See Fit

CNN reportedly wrote and distributed questions for the Rock the Vote debate and required audience members to ask them, according to an LA Times report:

CNN, which has marketed itself as an outlet for serious news, planted a question about computer preferences at last week's debate of the Democratic presidential candidates, according to the student who posed the query and on Monday wrote about it in an online forum of Brown University's Daily Herald. During the debate, cosponsored by the nonprofit Rock the Vote organization, Alexandra Trustman asked the candidates whether they preferred the PC or Mac format for their computers.

Despite uncertainty about the relevance of the question, Trustman was told that she could not ask her own question:

But when she arrived in Boston for the debate, she wrote, she was "handed a note card" with the question and told she couldn't ask her alternative "because it wasn't lighthearted enough and they wanted to modulate the event with various types of questions."

CNN, who is the first to complain about Fox News' bias in news reporting, covered the Rock the Vote debate as if questions were spontaneous and unrehearsed, as if they were the issues really on voters' minds. Now CNN's debates seem to bear as much relation to reality as pro wrestling. Remember all the softball questions, such as the one above, or another about who each candidate would like to "party" with? Do you suppose there's a reason that CNN would not only create the questions ahead of time and use strawmen to stage them, but deliberately craft such softballs?

First we find out that CNN deliberately withheld information about Saddam's reign of terror to maintain access in Iraq, without ever asking itself if reporting lies was worth access at all. Now we find out that CNN deliberately misleads its viewers in order to "modulate" political debate. Quite simply and literally, CNN is unbelievable.

UPDATE: CNN admitted that it staged the question, according to AP:

The news network on Tuesday acknowledged that a producer went "too far" in telling Brown University student Alexandra Trustman what to ask. ... "In an attempt to encourage a lighthearted moment in this debate, a CNN producer working with Ms. Trustman clearly went too far," she said. All of the other questions from the audience originated from the person asking them, she said.

I suppose that CNN wishes this to be the last word on the subject, but of course this depends on CNN's credibility. Will anyone believe that CNN only made up the one question? I certainly don't. If that was the case, then why did the producer insist that Trustman ask this question instead of her own? After all, if only one question was planted, then it could have been easily planted with another audience member and Trustman then could have asked her own question.

Either way, this incident just reinforces what I wrote earlier regarding the uselessness of these debates. Whether you accept CNN's explanation or not, they're more interested in making these into entertaining talk shows than in true political debate, and even at that more Jerry Springer than Nightline. It's the political equivalent of roller derby or the WWF, and CNN has made itself the news media equivalent of Vince McMahon.

Tommy Franks Rejects Wes Clark as Presidential Material

The Clark campaign took another broadside from a former senior military commander:

Gen. Tommy Franks, who retired after leading the first stage of this year's war against Iraq, says in a new report that Wesley Clark, another former general, would make a lousy president. "Absolutely not," said Franks, when asked if Clark, who recently joined the pack of presidential wannabes, would make a good commander-in-chief.

This follows the comments previously made made by General Hugh Shelton, which alluded to integrity and character issues. That two former senior military peers would openly disparage General Clark's presidential campaign is unprecedented; in the military, normally great care is taken to support former comrades-in-arms, at least in terms of their leadership and their service.

Nor is this the only odd thing about the Post story. He insinuates that his termination as commander during the Kosovo conflict was engineered by Secretary of Defense William Cohen and forced past an uncomprehending Bill Clinton:

Clark so infuriated then-Defense Secretary William Cohen and other top Pentagon officials with his ego that he was pushed from his job prematurely after President Bill Clinton was "hornswoggled" into signing off on the dismissal, according to this week's The New Yorker.

Clinton signed the papers that fired Clark without ever understanding what he was signing, the report says. "He was hornswoggled," insisted Clark.

Whatever else one may think of Bill Clinton, naivete is not one of his primary characteristics, and the notion that Defense would be able to decapitate the commander of this singular military project without him demanding a reason why stretches belief. The more I see of Clark, the less capable he seems. (via Power Line)

Cori Dauber Returns to Rantingprofs

For those of us who enjoyed Cori Dauber's prolific and excellent posts while guest-blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy, she's back at her home blog now. I've blogrolled Rantingprofs; be sure to add her to yours.

The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways

This is just too weird to leave alone:

A Chilean trapeze artist survived a dramatic plunge after he landed on a fat spectator who broke his fall.

It's like something from a Fellini film, or maybe David Lynch. Nah, for David Lynch, you'd have to have a Little Person speaking backwards as well. (via Drudge Report)

Dowd Watch x2 at the Daily Dish

Andrew Sullivan hits Maureen Dowd with two blasts today from his blog. I won't excerpt; just go read both, especially the second, where Andrew discovers the source of the "imminent" claim that's been obsessing Maureen of late.

Even If It Succeeds, It Fails

It's difficult to understand Israel's thinking when it commits to lopsided prisoner swaps with terrorist groups:

About 400 Palestinians and several dozen prisoners from Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Sudan and Libya would be released in exchange for Israeli businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers, all captured in October 2000.

I have always believed that negotiating with terrorists on this basis is a sure way to incentivize them to continue their operations, especially in 400-1 ratios. The plan may fail anyway, as there is strong disagreement over terms:

However, Nasrallah has said the deal would not go through without Samir Kantar, a Palestinian from Lebanon. Kantar stormed an apartment in the northern Israeli city of Nahariya in 1979, killing a man and his daughter. Another daughter died when her mother smothered her while trying to hide. ... Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah legislator, said the group would try to kidnap more Israelis if the deal breaks down. "If the pressure cards we have ... are not sufficient to convince the Israeli enemy's government to respect the freedom of our detainees ..., the Hezbollah command will definitely search for means to force the Israeli enemy's government to release our detainees," he told Al Manar TV.

How successful has negotiation with Hezb' Allah been for Israel? Israel has carried out these swaps before; as the article concludes, they've released "thousands" of prisoners for the return of a handful of Israelis. We tried negotiating with terrorists in Lebanon in the 80s; it didn't work for us, and when we stopped negotiating, they got bored and stopped kidnapping Americans. Hezb' Allah is unlikely to become bored with terrorizing Israelis, to be sure, but Israel at least can keep it from being profitable.

But they were doing so well!

Not a great shock: CNN is reporting that Senator John Kerry has fired the manager of his struggling campaign:

Democratic candidate John Kerry fired his campaign manager Sunday night in an attempt shake up his beleaguered presidential bid, The Associated Press learned. ... [Jim] Jordan will be replaced by longtime Democratic operative Mary Beth Cahill. Cahill has worked for Emily's List, a lobbying group on behalf of women's political issues and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Kerry was supposed to be the front runner, but as events unfolded, it appears that both Kerry and Howard Dean have been surprised by Dean's pole vault to the front of the pack, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. I think Dean expected to be able to sit around #2 or #3 until the primaries, snipe at Kerry and maybe Lieberman from behind and keep expectations low, and then claim momentum from a strong showing in New Hampshire. Instead, the entire pack is snipping at Dean's heels, and he's managed to slow his own momentum by speaking without thinking on two recent occasions. Gephardt has pushed into the lead in Iowa, and Kerry is fading to the back. The surprise isn't that Kerry fired Jim Jordan, the surprise is that it took this long.

Welcome to Sacramento, Mr. Governator

It didn't take long to indoctrinate Governor-elect Schwarzenegger into backstabbing, Sacramento style:

The mystery began a month ago, when Lockyer revealed to a crowd of consultants, political scientists and journalists that he had broken ranks with the Democratic Party and voted for Schwarzenegger in the Oct. 7 recall election. Lockyer also seemed to trivialize allegations that Schwarzenegger mistreated and groped women over the span of three decades, dismissing the conduct as "frat boy" antics.

But last week, Lockyer said in a news conference that the allegations aren't about to fade and deserve to be investigated — and he shared a few nuggets from a conversation with Schwarzenegger on the topic the day before. That infuriated Schwarzenegger's transition team, whose spokesman a few hours later accused Lockyer of betraying a confidence, in violation of attorney-client privilege.

The battle escalated the next day. Lockyer told San Francisco radio station KGO that he had heard — not first-hand — of another alleged incident within the last year, and he suggested setting up an 800 number for women to report accusations against the incoming governor.

Read the whole thing to see just what kind of snake Lockyer is. He's Gray Davis with a better bedside manner, although his expressed desire to see Ken Lay gang-raped in prison caused a lot of national protest a couple of years ago. But Ah-nold's team should have known better than to let this guy get close in the first place. And what do experts think of Lockyer's idea of a toll-free number? Not much:

"If there were anything to these stories, it's up to these people to come forward on their own — not to have the attorney general promoting it," said Harland Braun, a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles and a Democratic activist. ... Jan Handzlik, a former federal prosecutor and past chair of the American Bar Assn.'s national white-collar crime committee, said: "Instead of proposing a toll-free number to locate possible victims of possible crimes that may or may not have taken place, he should be seeking advice from the experienced prosecutors in his office about sensible investigative steps and appropriate prosecutorial practices."

It's widely known that Lockyer covets the Governor's office in 2006; maybe he wants the 800 number to double as a campaign line.

Drug War Insanity

This one is all over the blogosphere today, and I hesitated to link to it, but it's just too outrageous to ignore:

Gun-toting police burst into a South Carolina high school, ordering students to lie down in hall ways as they searched for drugs. The commando-style raid has parents questioning the wisdom of police tactics. The raid occurred Wednesday at Stratford High School in Goose Creek, S.C. Surveillance video obtained by CBS Affiliate WCSC in Charleston shows the police waving their guns and searching lockers as students lie flat on their stomachs or sides.

Police officers burst in on a bunch of high-school kids, waving automatic weapons around and acting much like you'd expect from takeover-style bank robbers, and for what?

"We received reports from staff members and students that there was a lot of drug activity. Recently we busted a student for having over 300 plus prescription pills. The volume and the amount of marijuana coming into the school is unacceptable," said principal George McCrackin.

No reports of bandits, armed to the teeth? No students arming themselves up, Columbine style? So what the hell were the police and school administration thinking? Is this the kind of police state that we're willing to accept in order to enforce a failed prohibition? As Samizdata says:

I am sorry, but some square headed jerks in a blue shirts start waving guns around a bunch of children who are just going about their business at school, and it is reported that parents are "questioning the wisdom of police tactics"? Questioning the wisdom of police tactics? To quote that wit and sage Eddy Murphy, get the fuck outa here. I would be looking for some heads-on-spikes if a child of mine was subjected to that sort of treatment. How this incident has not resulted in angry mobs in the streets throwing rocks is beyond me. What does it take to really piss these people off?

People talk about abuses of authority under the Patriot Act, and I scoff, and it's because you don't need a Patriot Act in order to abuse power. These insane drug prohibitions that have caused nothing but enormous costs and erosion of civil liberties have done nothing to either stem demand or eliminate supply. But now, the government can confiscate and keep your property without a trial, and local police can terrorize your kids as long as some school principal smelled a doobie at one time.

A couple of my previous posts speak to this topic in different ways. First off, read this post, in which police conduct another overblown drug raid under more humorous conditions. This post was about a previous -- and slanted -- CBS news story attacking home schooling, in part claiming that home-schooled children are less safe than those who attend public schools. Interestingly enough, one of the states it mentions is North Carolina.

Critiquing Irish Music

I'm a huge fan of Irish folk music, as well as a student of Irish Gaelic, but I have to admit that this post by Bill had me laughing out loud yesterday. You can't excerpt this stuff -- you just have to go read it. Oh, and sorry for the cryptic post in Irish, Bill; I had meant to go back and post the translation and completely forgot about it.

The System is Broken

The continuous front-loading and jockeying of state primaries has led several states to cancel presidential primaries as a waste of time and money:

Several states have moved to drop their presidential primaries next year, worried about costs in still-tight financial times and wondering if the political exercise would serve any purpose.

Some say they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to put on an election. Others say the decisions reflect the lopsided nature of modern primaries: The front-runner gets anointed by the media and campaign donors after the first few state primaries and the rest of the primaries are formalities.

Quite frankly, it's well past time for Congress to take a hand in this process. What happens now is that presidential campaigns start up to eighteen months prior to the election, a lot of money and time gets spent, only to have candidates fall by the wayside early in the process after facing voters in a handful of low-population states (no offense, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina). By the time most of the voters get a chance to have a say, the race has been narrowed down to usually one, or in rare cases two, viable candidates. In order to combat this, states keep pushing their primary dates earlier and earlier, extending the campaign season and making the conventions two big anticlimaxes. How is democracy served by eliminating all choice for 80% of the voters?

Instead of pushing primaries earlier and earlier, Congress should set presidential primaries on a fixed date, preferably in June or July, which will then force candidates to present their visions to voters in all states. If a clear winner hasn't been selected, then the delegates at the convention can debate and eventually decide the winner. (This, by the way, is how most presidential candidates were nominated before the Media Age.) This would shorten the presidential campaign season a little, and force candidates to speak to everyone and, I hope, campaign on policy rather than sound bite.

What are the disadvantages? Here's a few I can see:

* Federal control of what is usually considered state elections
* Nominees chosen in the proverbial "smoke-filled back rooms"
* Increased cost of campaigning
* Favor incumbent presidents, when applicable
* Too much power will be consolidated into the most populous states

To me, the only real issues of the five are the first and the last, especially since I'm usually a federalist by nature. In the case of presidential elections, though, I think there is an overriding necessity of control in order to assure equal treatment of voters depending on location. (The structure wouldn't apply to other state elections, such as Congressional or Senate primaries, but there wouldn't be any reason for states not to consolidate those primaries into the same election, so there would be no additional cost, except to those states who don't have any primary at all.) For the last issue, a nationwide primary on a state-by-state basis would exactly duplicate the national election in November, and that seems to work well enough. If these states get more weight, it's because they represent more voters. You can solve that problem by not allowing winner-take-all rules for electors in the primaries, and that is up to the political parties to decide.

The fourth argument probably has some merit, although I would argue that incumbent presidents rarely face significant challenges regardless (Carter was the last one, and he wasn't going to beat Reagan whether Kennedy challenged him or not). As far as the "smoke-filled room" fear goes, that's happening now, at least in terms of funding. The money right now is lining up behind Dean, and we're still a year away from the election and months away from the primaries. Campaigning across 50 states will get expensive, no doubt, but there are options for candidates who do not get the lion's share of the early funding. Howard Dean was a dark-horse candidate who raised funds on the Internet, and now he's replaced John Kerry as the Anointed One (if he can keep his foot out of his mouth). Regional candidates could then have an impact on the nomination and therefore policy formation during the convention and afterwards, something that would probably interest the Democrats in the South.

In short, this remedy provides a broader choice of candidates to a larger share of voters and restores order and process to the nomination system, as well as infuse enthusiasm into what has been a fairly apathetic process outside of the first ten states to hold primaries. If Primary Day were set far enough into the year, it could shorten up the main presidential campaign and force the eventual nominees to become more efficient. It has to be an improvement over what we have now.

Demosophia on John Edwards

John Edwards is increasingly irrelevant, except as a Quayle-like VP candidate, but that doesn't stop Demosophia from one of the best political skewerings I've heard this election cycle:

He's the kind of guy who would try to make a horse out of parts from a zebra, a hippo, and a giraffe, and then blame the resulting bloody mess on the poor quality of the animals.

The actual post is not too much longer than that -- go read and enjoy.

Further thoughts on the very quiet MI-5 scandal

I've updated my post on the MI-5 scandal in Britain that's been handled very, very quietly. I hope I'm just being paranoid. I don't think so.

Losing Faith?

The US government appears to be losing faith in the Iraqi Governing Council and may be considering alternatives:

Increasingly alarmed by the failure of Iraq's Governing Council to take decisive action, the Bush administration is developing possible alternatives to the council to ensure that the United States can turn over political power at the same time and pace that troops are withdrawn, according to senior U.S. officials here and in Baghdad.

The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future, especially selecting a committee to write a new constitution, the officials added. "We're unhappy with all of them. They're not acting as a legislative or governing body, and we need to get moving," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They just don't make decisions when they need to."

Read on. Not entirely encouraging, and I get more than a hint of impatience. The Afghanistan model may be workable as well, but I think we need to give the IRC more than 90 days to get organized; otherwise, we look so impatient to get out that we undermine the entire philosophy of our mission. This is going to be a long and frustrating experience, but that doesn't mean it won't be ultimately rewarding. Of course, it doesn't mean we shouldn't adjust when required either, but expecting a fully-functioning transitional government to coalesce in 90 days, after 35 years of Stalinism, is expecting too much.

North Korea Has the Bomb: CIA

You can thank the obstructive diplomacy of Jimmy Carter for this new analysis:

The CIA has told Congress that it believes North Korea has mastered the technology of turning its nuclear fuel into functioning weapons, without having to prove their effectiveness through nuclear tests. The report goes beyond previous public CIA statements that North Korea built one or two weapons in the early 1990s -- a figure many intelligence experts believe has risen in the past few months.

Carter insisted on a diplomatic solution that allowed North Korea simply to affirm that it wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons in exchange for all sorts of technical assistance. Even at the time when he was pursuing that fruitless policy, Kim Jong-Il already had a device or two and now can build as many as they like, while starving their people or herding them into labor camps. It's yet another reminder of the feckless foreign policy that the US had prior to 9/11. Appeasing mad dictators never brings peace -- it only puts off paying the bill, and the delay always favors the dictator.