Steyn: Good Thing Kerry's No Leader

Thanks to reader Cybrludite, I found this interesting article by Mark Steyn, telling stories about how soldiers, sailors, and airmen were kept secure and completed imported missions using the weapons systems John Kerry voted to kill. Make sure you read the whole thing.

Airheads, Continued

We are seven days away from the launch of the Northern Alliance Radio "Network" show here in Minnesota, and we're all gathering at the studio for a dry run today, as almost all of us have never worked in radio before. The folks at AM 1280 The Patriot have been very hospitable in allowing us to descend on them today and will be teaching us the equiment and the timing of hosting a talk show. Next Saturday, we will be going live on the air here in the Twin Cities (pray for their inhabitants, the poor souls) from noon to 3 PM.

The group of us, who can be found in my blogroll on the left -- the only place you'll find them on the left, by the way -- are still ironing out format and scheduling. We hope to eventually have a live streaming Internet link through The Patriot's website so that all of you can listen in on what happens when bloggers try radio. Mitch Berg of Shot In The Dark has been working on a central website for the group, too, so that you can check for updates there as well as on our individual blogs. You'll hear more about this as we move forward with the program.

Stay tuned!

David Almasi: Even Family Shows Push The Envelope

In the furor over the FCC's decision to put more effort into enforcing its own regulations on decency, NCPPR exec David Almasi speaks out against a more subtle but pervasive issue, published in Amy Ridenour's excellent NCPPR blog:

While listening to the radio on the way into work Friday morning, I heard a real concern that so far seems to be flying under the radar. Tonight's "George Lopez" on ABC (a Disney-owned company) features a guest starring role by socialite/heiress/amatuer porn actress Paris Hilton as "a beautiful tutor for [George's son] Max." The clip they played in the radio commercial had Max learning algebra, with Paris's character telling him he needs to "find her X." Max responds that he felt a chill when she said that, and laughter ensues. Upon reaching the office and cracking open the paper, I saw a photo of the same scene -- and Max appears to be 10-12 years old.

"George Lopez" is marketed as a family show. It airs at 8pm. There's no doubt in my mind that Hilton got the job because she is provocative. Stern was booted from Clear Channel, by the way, for statements made while he was interviewing the man who is selling a video of himself and Hilton having sex. She is there to titillate. And her foil is a young boy.

I watch "George Lopez" regularly (7 PM in the Midwest) as the First Mate is a big fan of the show, but I missed this particular episode. No doubt, ABC chose Hilton for her, ah, notoriety and not her acting chops. I also find it appalling that in what's billed as a family show -- it's part of the ABC "TGIF" lineup targeted at kids and their parents -- the producers saw fit to put leering sexual innuendo involving one of the young children in the show. In all of that, I agree with Amy and David, as I usually do.

However, I don't think this falls under an "indecency" umbrella at all. [Full disclosure: the Captain is related to an employee of Disney, and that's as specific as I'll get.] From the description, it appears to me that no indecent words were said, nor any "wardrobe malfunctions" aired. There's a difference between bad taste and indecency. It's not the job of the FCC to police for taste. Specifically, it's not in their charter nor in their mandate from Congress, nor should it be. "Indecent" incidents should be specific and as objectively judged as possible, and the rest should be left to the market.

I do agree with Amy and David that the producers of the "George Lopez" show should not have used the character of a prepubescent boy for sexual innuendo, at least not in a prime-time show marketed at young families. I would encourage those who feel strongly about it to make their objections known to the producers and their sponsors and to tune to another show if it continues. I'd prefer that the FCC focus on the plethora of examples of prima facie obscenity that airs on broadcast TV and radio instead of becoming the taste police.

Remember This When Hollywood Speaks Out

In an election year -- and are we having any other kind of years lately? -- we regularly get a large dose of insufferable condescension and demagoguery from our entertainers in Hollywood about how we should think, vote, and live our lives. Luminaries such as Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Sean Penn instruct and scold us on issues such as foreign policy and law enforcement without a whit of common sense or personal experience. Sean Penn travels to Iraq as a guest of the genocidal government and wonders why we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

For those still inclined to see Hollywood as a place where people go to become enlightened, a sort of Taos On The Sea, this article from today's Telegraph should disabuse you of any notion of intelligence among the power brokers and talent elite:

Few seemed dulled by the alcohol they had already consumed and it was clear why. Little plastic bags were being thrown on top of table tops, their contents dirty white crystals, the flakes far bulkier than the powdered cocaine that had become an all too familiar sight at any LA event with its inevitable gaggle of talkative coke addicts.

This was crystal meth, the latest drug to sweep through Hollywood's entertainment industry and draw with it an ever-expanding band of adherents loving its long-lasting high, weight-losing side-effects and - most depressingly of all - the knowledge that they were doing the latest cool thing, whatever the catastrophic effect it would have on their bodies. ... It was suddenly available everywhere and it is the fashionista who have embraced it - producers, agents, writers, actors - many for the most base of reasons: that it is something new.

Oliver Poole writes about his personal experiences with the people in Hollywood and their patterns of drug use, noting that the trends at the industry parties get reflected on the silver screen. When heroin was chic, Leonardo DiCaprio starred in The Basketball Diaries, and before that, it was cocaine in Bright Lights, Big City and Less Than Zero. The past few years, Ecstasy was the drug du jour and played out in films like Groove, Bad Boys II, and Millenium. Now crystal meth has swept through the entertainment industry, and we're seeing it in films like Mickey Rourke's Spun and The Salton Sea.

Poole quotes a mother who has tried an intervention with her 22-year-old daughter that explains the issue succinctly:

"It destroys lives," she said. "It destroyed my family and now it's infected Hollywood. And Hollywood creates trends. It determines what is cool. They will be smoking meth across the country soon. Then watch out for London because it's going to start being seen as cool there too. That's fashion for you and trends start here."

I love movies; I watch all kinds, and I enjoy most of them. I appreciate artistry in cinema. But I don't take the mainstream entertainment industry seriously when it comes to anything else except the example they provide, and by any measure that is nothing but failure. Keep this in mind when you are watching the Oscars and the few who are lucky enough to win an award for their talent put their ignorance on display during their acceptance speeches.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds suggests more reading along these same lines, a new book called Hollywood, Interrupted. I may add that to my ever-growing reading list. Publisher's Weekly didn't think too highly of it, but Amazon's readers give it five stars...

Iranians: Great Candidates for MoveOn.Org

The new hard-line Iranian government apparently wants to play a role in the Presidential election by emulating the global-conspiracy nuts at MoveOn.org and International Answer. Iranian state radio claims that the US and Pakistan captured Osama bin Laden "a long time ago," and is holding him secretly until the right moment for the Bush campaign:

Pentagon and Pakistani officials on Saturday denied an Iranian state radio report that Osama bin Laden was captured in Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan "a long time ago." ... The report was carried by Iran radio's external Pashtun service, which is designed for listeners in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the language is widely spoken.

Iran state radio's main news channel — the Farsi-language service for Iranian listeners — did not carry the bin Laden report. Iran state television also did not carry the report. ...

The director of Iran radio's Pashtun service, Asheq Hossein, said he had two sources for the report. The radio quoted its reporter as saying bin Laden had been in custody for a period of time, but a U.S. announcement of the capture was being withheld by President Bush until closer to the November election.

Unfortunately, although the Iranians claimed that they had two sources for this report, the only one they named publicly denied that he had told them any such thing:

"I never said this," Shahed said in a telephone interview with the AP's Islamabad bureau. "But I have for the last year been saying that he is not far away. He is within their (the Americans') reach, and they can declare him arrested any time."

This description falls into line with reports from the Telegraph and the Washington Times earlier this week, that bin Laden had been corraled into a 100-square-mile area, and that special forces task group 121 (who captured Saddam Hussein) were being transferred there to wait for a spring offensive. Assuming all that is true -- still a rather risky assumption -- Shahed overstates the situation, as 100 square miles hardly qualifies as confinement. It's certainly not custody, either.

Now that the hardliners have taken control of Iran, it looks like they want to play games in our election process again. It didn't work out too well for them in 1980; does anyone else remember the Iranian threats of doom in the event we elected Ronald Reagan? So far, in the past two weeks, the Iranians have sent out an e-mail purportedly from the Kerry campaign, attempting to claim that they would work better with the Democrats than the Republicans, and now they're trying their best to create a conspiracy theory about Bush rigging the election.

One has to ask -- why do the Iranians fear an extended Bush presidency? Could it be because our new, muscular foreign policy has forced the Iranians to comply with nuclear disarmament, and discovered their repeated treaty violations? Could it be because the younger generation of Iranians see America and the Bush Administration as protectors of liberty and a hope for their salvation from the hardliners?

One also has to ask: given the nature of the Iranian hard-liners and their continuing support of terror worldwide, what does their opposition to Bush mean to American voters? Do you really think they prefer Kerry and try to undermine Bush because Kerry will make America more secure against Islamofascist terror?

UPDATE: A big welcome to all Instapundit readers!

UPDATE: I see Pandagon has gotten its panties in a bunch over the notion that the Iranians would like to see Bush out of office, translating that into an attack on John Kerry's patriotism. No one doubts that John Kerry loves America, although he sometimes doesn't seem too fond of Americans. But his inconsistent stands on the war and his track record of opposing military spending reflects bad judgement, not a lack of patriotism. Why do Kerry supporters screech about his patriotism every time his voting record and policies get debated? What are they afraid of?

Also, in the very next post, I note that Pandagon accuses Rick Santorum of drug abuse for supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment. Intellectual consistency and honesty seem to be in short supply at Pandagon.

I've also updated to link back to the MEMRI source on the purported e-mail to the Iranian news agency, which says in part:

The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election.

Note that I'm claiming the Iranians faked this -- that's what purportedly implies. I doubt that Kerry's staff would be that foolish.

UPDATE III: I respond to the commenters and actually admit I'm wrong (on one point) in this post.

Add Captain's Quarters to My Yahoo!

Via Buzz Machine and Hoder, Yahoo now offers an RSS reader for members to display the latest headlines on their My Yahoo page. All that is required is a Yahoo membership (free) and an RSS feed from your favorite blogs. Users can set up the function to display up to 10 posts as far back as a week, and it will display either the headlines or an excerpt of each post, along with the timestamp of the last update.

How does this help you? For one thing, rather than loading up each blog individually, you can just check a single site to determine if anything has been updated. You can also check to see if you'd be interested in the new posts. If you're working with access restrictions, My Yahoo at least gives you an idea of what's going on with your favorite blogs.

I've already set my Yahoo membership to display Instapundit, Blogs for Bush, Power Line, Andrew Sullivan, and Captain's Quarters. The URL for my RSS feed is in the right column at the end of the links, if you'd like to do the same. Give it a whirl and see what you think.

Kerry's Number One!

Drudge reports that the National Journal has ranked John Kerry's 2003 Senate voting record as the most liberal of all, outdistancing Hillary Clinton and even Ted Kennedy:

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. "To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

For the fourth time in 19 years, Kerry's record reflected the most radical agenda in the Senate, in this instance while he knew he would be running for President -- and he calls George Bush extreme?

Hugh Hewitt Interviews Condoleezza Rice

If you didn't get a chance to listen to Hugh Hewitt's excellent interview with Dr. Condoleezza Rice on his show last night, Hugh thoughtfully has provided the transcript. I highly recommend reading it all the way through. It's short but informative. For me, here's the money quote:

Dr. Rice: Yes, well we have had to rebuild the intelligence capabilities of the United States. They went through a very difficult period of time after the collapse of the Soviet Union where a number of people were not foresightful enough to see that we were going to continue to need really strong intelligence services, even if the Soviet Union had been defeated. There were important cuts in the infrastructure of the Central Intelligence Agency in their activities that they are still trying to rebuild.

As I've said before, national security policy is the central issue of this campaign. Do we want to return to the 1990s, when the philosophy was that we were "at the end of history" and could afford to chop out funding for intelligence and defense to fund more social engineering, and terrorism was merely a reactive law-enforcement problem? Or do we stick with policies that prevent attacks by enhancing our intelligence capabilities and forcing our enemies to fight us on their turf instead of ours?

Dean Flacks For The Party

Howard Dean, who built his doomed Presidential campaign on being a firebrand outsider to the Democratic establishment, went out on the road to make sure no one took him too seriously:

In his first public appearance since dropping out of the presidential race last week, Howard Dean thanked his supporters Thursday night and urged them to stay with the Democratic Party and "not to be tempted by independent or third-party candidates." ... [H]e urged his supporters to back the eventual Democratic nominee and described his plans to continue influencing the race from the outside.

Go inside while I go outside? It almost sounds like a covert operation; perhaps Dean is cooking up something for the convention? If anyone still cared about Dean, it might make an interesting story.

How does this message go down with the True Believers? Overall, they accept reality at the official Dean blog, but they're not happy about it, and some still talk of leaving the party altogether:

Ithacamom:But I'm with Patricia C. above. This whole experience has given me such a disgust for the party I've faithfully supported for 20 years. After the March 2 primary, I fulled planned on switching to Independent. As I suspicioned, Howard made the personal appeal to stay in the party. I'm really going to have to think about that, Guv. Even for you, I'm really going to have to think about it.

Darrell in Iowa: I voted for McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinto and Gore...... BUT I WILL NOT vote for Kerry!!!

ellen in orlando: Kerry's position on gay marriage is clearly not progressive. How can Howard ask us to support Kerry? How will he make Kerry run as a progressive when Kerry is clearly not a progressive?

Dean may have been correct late last year when he said that his base may not pay attention to any endorsement he would give if his run failed.

Edwards Refuses to Release Contributor List

At least John Kerry released the names and contribution levels of his biggest fundraisers; John Edwards refuses to do so, making the Los Angeles Times question where he gets his money:

A campaign finance watchdog group on Thursday called on North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to release the names of his top presidential fundraisers before Super Tuesday — a request the Edwards campaign said it would decline. ... "We're not releasing any names. That's our policy," said Edwards' campaign spokesperson Kim Rubey.

Edwards' reluctance to disclose his contributor list stands in stark contrast to bot Kerry and President Bush, who have released the names and contribution levels of all those who have raised more than $50,000 for their campaigns. Early on, the Edwards campaign was rumored to be existing on a higher percentage of maxed-out contributors -- those who donated $2,000 dollars -- than any other candidate. Dean, for instance, averaged less than $100 per contributor. It indicated to some analysts that money from lobbyists and trial lawyers may have comprised the bulk of Edwards' contributions, but until Edwards releases the records, no one will know for sure. Certainly his reluctance speaks volumes.

It also demonstrates that we have gone too far in the wrong direction for campaign finance reform. Despite all of the well-meaning efforts to "get the money out of politics", money plays a more important role than ever, and the new campaign-finance legislation forces it underground in a variety of dodges. The result is that voters can't clearly know from where candidates got their money. It's hypocritical and it's dangerous.

Instead, we should take the labels off of all the different kinds of money there are in the political system -- "soft", "hard", "PAC", "bundled" -- and go back to calling it money. Take the limits off, but require every candidate to list the name and money of every single contribution made to a campaign. Have that data readily available on the Internet for everyone to see. As my friends at SCSU Scholars say, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Eggs Benedict

John Kerry storms around the country with a populist message of righteous anger at those companies who incorporate offshore in order to take advantage of legal tax shelters. Continuing his theme of irrelevant patriotic qualifications, he's called the CEOs of such corporations "Benedict Arnolds", after the Revolutionary War general who tried to give West Point to the British. Yesterday, the Washington Post and MS-NBC reported that some of Kerry's biggest donors were the CEOs of such companies, leaving the candidate with some egg on his face:

Executives and employees at such companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign, a review of his donor records show. Additionally, two of Kerry's biggest fundraisers, who together have raised more than $400,000 for the candidate, are top executives at investment firms that helped set up companies in the world's best-known offshore tax havens, federal records show. Kerry has raised nearly $30 million overall for his White House run. ...

[Kerry] sought to clarify his position: "What I've said is not that people don't have the right to go overseas and form a company if they want to avoid the tax. I don't believe the American taxpayer ought to be giving them a benefit. That's what I object to. I don't object to global commerce. I don't object to companies deciding they want to compete somewhere else.''

Anyone else notice that Kerry has had to do a lot of "clarification" on the campaign trail the past few weeks?

Here's a list of the Little Benedicts that are part of the Kerry team:

* David Roux, co-founder of Seagate Technology, which the State Dept. has listed as a tax-flight Cayman Islands corporation: Raised $250,000.

* Stephen J. Luczo, CEO of Seagate: Donated $4,000 (maximum allowed) for presidential campaign, $2000 for campaign legal defense fund

* Thomas F. Steyer, partner at Hellman and Friedman LLC, an investment firm that put an insurance company in Bermuda and in an SEC filing explicitly stated it was for tax-shelter reasons: Raised $200,000.

Steyer and Roux also raised an additional $100,000 each in "bundled" contributions, which means they went out and flacked for individual contributions and bundled them back to the campaign.

How does the Kerry campaign respond to the appearance of hypocrisy on the Benedict Arnold issue? Not terribly well; in fact, their spokesperson manages to only make the situation worse:

When asked for the definition of a "Benedict Arnold" company or CEO, Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's spokeswoman, said: "Companies that take advantage of tax loopholes to set up bank accounts or move jobs abroad simply to avoid taxes." She pointed to a list compiled by Citizen Works, a tax-exempt nonprofit group that monitors corporate influence, as a source of the companies that fit the candidate's definition.

According to federal election records, Kerry has received $119,285 from donors employed at what Citizen Works described as the "25 Fortune 500 Corporations With the Most Offshore Tax-Haven Subsidiaries." The list does not include nearly all of the companies that shave their tax bill by moving jobs and operations overseas, so Kerry has actually raised substantially more from firms qualifying as "Benedict Arnolds."

Once again, Kerry wants you to believe that he's fighting the "special interests" while stuffing their money in his pockets. He's practically writing new Bush campaign commercials all on his own each week. Every time he opens his mouth, Kerry puts a new angle on his hypocrisy on display.

Kerry Flips and Flops In One Day

This has to be a record -- I don't think that even Howard Dean reversed himself this quickly. Here's John Kerry during tonight's debate:

Democrats debating each other Thursday night accused President Bush of proposing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage to distract voters from more important issues such as the economy.

"He's trying to divide America," said Sen. John Kerry . "This is a president who always tries to create a cultural war and seek the lowest common denominator of American politics because he can't come to America and talk about jobs, he can't talk to America about health care because he doesn't have a plan."

Here's John Kerry yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe:

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

Now one can argue that there is a difference between backing a federal Constitutional amendment and one at a state level, but that's not what Kerry argued during the debate. Instead, he accused Bush of opposing gay marriage as a way to "create a cultural war" to distract Americans ... while he opposes it too, but for altruistic reasons, one supposes. After all, it's all about motivation.

Kerry should base his entire campaign in this fashion. He can argue that he'll take exactly the same actions as Bush, but he just won't be eeeeeevillll. He might have a better shot at winning in November.

"You Only Lose People You Thought Were Friends"

When I was younger (I'm almost 41 now), I liked debating politics with friends, as we didn't take ourselves very seriously, or politics, for that matter. We argued politics like others argued baseball or football. Only later on, when I started to discover that people had difficulty separating politics and personal affection, did I become more circumspect about my politics and my values. The experience of silencing myself directly led to this blog, as I found that I could not remain completely silent, especially after war was thrust upon us after 9/11. While I found other ways to express myself, I rarely did so amongst anyone except my closest and longest friends for fear of rejection. Sometimes I wondered if I sold my friends, co-workers, and acquaintances a bit short in doing so; I had a couple of experiences of being rejected for my politics, but it wasn't widespread and didn't involve really close friends.

After reading Michele's experience today at A Small Victory, I feel like I may have been right all along:

Chris - and many others - can't understand how I can be a one issue voter, yet they want me to not vote for Bush based on one issue.

But if you know me, and consider yourself my friend, and appreciate me as a person, and you still vote for George W. Bush this coming November, then let me tell you something right now: Don't ever let me know that you did. Because I will never speak to you again.

Further down, he says, on the same subject:

then I am sorry, but I do not ever want to see your face or hear your voice in my presence. It's a done deal.

My apologies if that offends anyone, but guess what? If that's you, you've been offending me for a long, long time. And I'm just a little bit angry about what you would allow to be done to me, and to our country.

Chris and Michelle went back 15 years. Chris had been to Michele's house and had been invited to her wedding. But Chris is gay, and he intends on being a single-issue voter in November and expects his friends to do the same. If not, then Chris wants Michele and anyone else to take a hike and never darken his door again.

Besides the notion that abrupt personal rejection is supposed to convince people of your exquisite judgment in politics, the self-destructiveness of such people makes a disinterested observer wonder what true value there ever was in having a relationship with them. But that doesn't mitigate the pain of finding out that the friend you thought you had values his/her politics more than they do you. They value their undisturbed environment of outrage and victimization than they do your love and support. And that hurts.

For my part -- and Michele's, as she makes clear -- I have friends who are my political opposites. I have a link to one, Haddayr, who writes beautifully about her life and her point of view but who couldn't provide a clearer contrast to my politics if either one of us tried, but even though we don't agree, we still respect each other. Unfortunately, I suspect I may have a few who might do the same thing Chris did to Michele ... and so I express myself here instead.

A question for you: Under these circumstances, is it possible to have a true and honest debate about important issues? Because I'm wondering if this means that we are so caught up in making politics a zero-sum game that we forget that we all still need to live with each other at the end of that game. Do we only lose those who we thought were friends?

Stern and Limbaugh, Together Again For The First Time

Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh -- not exactly the Bobbsey Twins of radio -- have both blasted what they see as government infringement on free speech on their shows today. First, Stern said this:

"They are so afraid of me and what this show represents ... I could blow my stack, but ... ," Stern said, trailing off. "A caller used the N word, and I hung up on him."

"Janet Jackson is now forgotten and I'm on the front page of every newspaper," said Stern.

The only thing surprising about Stern's reaction is how mild it appears to be. He's known for loudly proclaiming his victimization whenever he's disciplined for on-air stunts. His autobiographical movie, Private Parts, is about almost nothing else (and is rather funny, in its own way). Surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh supports Howard Stern and complains that the government intrudes too far into talk radio (all in caps, via Drudge):

IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE?

I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.

Rush, of course, is being ludicrous. The FCC does not and cannot 'censor' anyone, nor do they fine people for political speech -- only for indecency. Bill Clinton (and, I suppose, Terry McAuliffe) had control of the White House for eight years, and as I recall, Rush Limbaugh did all right during that time. Also, the White House does not control the FCC, although the President nominates the commissioners. The FCC receives its funding and its authority from Congress, who can also revoke or modify that authority at any time.

My response to both is: cry me a river. Both men have made fortunes exploiting public resources and then complain when they're held responsible for their use. Neither of them has a "right" to the airwaves. If they don't want to abide by the regulations controlling the use of this public resource, then let them publish their speech using private resources instead.

Broadcast Channels, Government Monopolies, and Responsibility

After updating my original post on Howard Stern's suspension from Clear Channel stations this morning about a dozen times and staying abreast of the feedback from Jeff Jarvis' diatribe from yesterday, I want to restate my entire perspective on broadcast responsibilities, just to eliminate some gaps caused by what I thought were basic assumptions regarding their nature.

In 1934, after commercial radio expanded rapidly as a medium, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act which created the FCC to control commercial broadcast stations. Control was necessary because up to then, radio stations could step on each others' signals, creating an environment where the most watts won. Instead, Congress gave the FCC the authority to require commercial broadcast licenses, which were government-granted local monopolies on the broadcast frequency and protection from any potential interference from nearby frequencies. In return for the monopoly and its enforcement from the FCC, private-enterprise broadcasters agreed to air material in the public interest and abide by guidelines for decency. The result is that people cannot just build a transmitter and begin broadcasting commercial TV signals on their own; they must rely on licensed stations and broadcasters for their local TV service.

Desipte what some are claiming, entertainment producers that distribute exclusively over cable and satellite systems are not broadcasters. Their signals are sent to satellites at much higher frequencies that require a line-of-sight transmission method, rather than a widespread broadcast method. Usually they're encrypted as well, although not always; C-band satellite owners can tune in the downlink of unencrypted channels, if they've spent the $2000 for the equipment. Cable and subscription satellite distributors don't have a practical limit on channels they can carry, and uplink frequencies are so narrow that there is no need to grant and enforce monopolies on them, either. This means that anyone who wants to invest the necessary capital can create or purchase entertainment, lease satellite transponder space, and sell their product to the distributors, regardless of where their signal originates, because it doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to do the same.

That's why the FCC regulates content for decency and why they fine those individuals and broadcasters who use their government-protected monopoly to broadcast indecent material. (Lest anyone think that this is a Bush Administration innovation, Clear Channel and Infinity were fined $1.7M in 1995 for indecent broadcasts because of Stern, and the President's last name wasn't Bush when that happened.) They don't hold subscription-only channels to the same standard because:

1. The customer pays for the service and should be aware of the content;
2. The distribution is such that the content must be watched through means other than broadcasting;
3. The subscription channels do not force other potential content providers out of the market.

For Jeff Jarvis and others to argue that enforcing rules and oversight that Congress clearly entrusted to the FCC means the end of free speech is hysterical demagoguery. These rules have been enforced on broadcasts for decades, and even if the threshold of indecency has receded, clearly they still exist, and even more clearly Stern and CBS's Super Bowl show violated them. Nor does FCC enforcement preclude free speech. The FCC has not said that Stern isn't allowed to be on the air, which would be a true free-speech issue; they are holding Stern and the broadcasters responsible for his exercise of speech, which is completely valid. Stern can't slander or libel people either. There are limits to free speech under certain circumstances, and speech over government-protected monopolies is one of those circumstances.

Clear Channel suspended Stern for violating their internal broadcast standards, which of course leaves them open to charges of hypocrisy. Anyone who's heard Stern for ten minutes knows what kind of show he has. However, it's still their right to select their on-air talent -- they are under no obligation to air Stern's show if they don't want to. It can be argued, with some merit, that renewed Congressional outrage and FCC enforcement over recent incidents of indecency drove their decision, but all that means is that Clear Channel is making a business decision about profitability. As Joe Carter said in his post, Clear Channel would probably be promoting Stern as a radio pioneer if they thought the cost of the fines would be outweighed by a commensurate increase in ad revenue.

Even if, as I suspect, Clear Channel wants Stern out regardless of the money just because they find him embarassing, it's still a business decision and not a First Amendment martyrdom. Howard Stern can still talk all he wants and say whatever he wants, but if he wants to get paid to do so, he'll need to convince people that he's worth all the hassle. Subscription radio may be a better market for Stern's repertoire, because it falls into the same categories as cable and satellite TV and doesn't require FCC oversight. He could also start a web site and produce live-streaming audio and sell to advertisers directly, thus becoming both an entertainer and a distributor, keep all the money, and say whatever crosses his mind. No one is silencing Howard Stern; Clear Channel is merely exercising control over their own distribution system.

Free speech only requires a speaker, after all, and is not a guarantee of an audience. Howard Stern does not have a right to Clear Channel's distribution, nor does Clear Channel or CBS have a right to their broadcast frequencies except as granted by the FCC under their rules and regulations. If they choose to operate through government licenses, they need to abide by those rules and regulations. If not, there are plenty of other options in the marketplace. Let's not confuse free speech with freedom from consequences, or Howard Stern with Jesus Christ.

Blast From The Past

Just when you thought it was safe to go to Orange County, he's back:

Now, eight years out of office and with a stint as a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host under his belt, the 70-year-old [Robert] Dornan attempts a return to the political stage by seeking the GOP nomination in next week's primary for the 46th Congressional District, which stretches from Palos Verdes Estates to Newport Beach.

His opponent: veteran incumbent Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), a former friend whose views on defense, the economy and social issues are very similar to his own.

B-1 Bob, as he once insisted on calling himself during his nine terms in the House, spent 18 years as an embarassment to Orange County Republicans. Dornan's schtick was wearing mortally thin when Loretta Sanchez challenged him in 1994. While it's true that his district had morphed demographically over the years, Dornan still could have won his district had it not been for Proposition 187, which would have denied government services such as education and vaccinations to undocumented workers and which energized the Latino community to come to the polls, and Dornan's personality.

The thin margin of loss in the race drove Dornan to take his challenge to the House floor, demanding that Sanchez be denied a seat and a special election be called due to what Dornan saw as election fraud. And his son Marc, who alleges that Republicans turned their back on his father, may be right; Republicans had taken control of the House for the first time in decades and could have stuck to a party-line vote and refused to seat Sanchez.

However, as someone who was on the periphery of Orange County politics at the time, I can assure you that B-1 Bob had burned most of his bridges with the Republicans, dancing arrogantly to his own tune and missing few opportunities to embarass their leadership. My father and I used to argue about Dornan at every election, but not because Dad liked him -- he just thought there was no alternative. I argued that the Republican establishment should have been grooming a more serious candidate, i.e., one who didn't assault other Congressmen on the House floor and who didn't sneeringly deride other Republicans, in order to provide that alternative. No one liked the guy when he won election -- his arrogance and high-handedness were well known and experienced often within the party. Losing to a first-time amateur like Sanchez didn't make Republicans any more fond of him. There's no denying that Republicans deserved to lose that seat by holding their noses and enabling Dornan to stay in office.

And now B-1 Bob wants back in, taking on another Republican instead of running against Sanchez, and he wonders why Republicans dislike him. Dornan learned nothing from his years in Congress or his years in exile, it seems.

Correction: Dornan lost in 1996, not 1994, as was his Presidential run, although I could have sworn he ran the first time in 1988. Thanks to Simon for the correction and the background (see comments).

Probably Not Eligible For Early Release

The Telegraph has an exclusive interview with a female Palestinian terrorist, a wanna-be suicide bomber who got caught by Israeli security forces before she detonated her explosives. To say she's not remorseful is an understatement:

"Yes, I will do it again if I can," said Obeida Khalil, 27. "When I put the suicide explosives belt on I felt very happy, very content. I was angry when they caught me because I was not able to be a martyr. I wanted to be the first female martyr and to kill as many Israeli soldiers as possible. I chose the bus station because my brother blew himself up there."

Khalil claimed that she became a suicide bomber to avenge the death of her fiance, who was killed by an Israeli helicopter attack earlier. However, it's not as though his death put that thought into her head, as she says in the very next breath:

"Four days before our wedding, he went up on the roof and he was shot dead by an Israeli helicopter. If we had been married, then I would have had children. I would have done other things for the jihad besides being a martyr. But before he died we had discussed being martyrs by blowing ourselves up together. With the help of God, we said, maybe both of us would do it and then we would be together forever."

And what about children? Does she have any qualms about killing children in her quest to die in a bombing attack on civilians?

Although Khalil wanted to blow up soldiers in her planned attack in Tel Aviv she said it was legitimate to kill Jewish children because one day they would serve in the Israeli army. "The children of the first intifada [1987-1993] are the soldiers killing innocent Palestinian children now."

So by the same logic, one would suppose that she would condone the massive slaughter of Palestinian children as they grow up to be suicide bombers. Fortunately for her -- and this is a point that anti-Israeli protesters always miss -- Israelis don't think the same way.

Despite her protestations, she didn't set out to kill Israelis because her fiance was killed. Khalil is driven by hate and is egged on by a Palestinian Authority that cares not one whit for true negotiation. Khalil is serving a 5-year sentence since the bomb did not go off, a curious but common sentencing problem that rewards incompetence with enough time to allow the would-be murderers another chance to kill. Expect her to rejoin the effort to destroy Israel shortly after her release.

Top to bottom, the Palestinian end goal remains the same: to push the Israelis into the Mediterranean or to dance on their dead bodies in the streets of Tel Aviv. The US and EU should support the Israeli defense wall and quit negotiating on behalf of a people who represent only the nexus of bomb-throwers. I can't believe that anyone in the West thinks that granting sovereignty to Yasser Arafat and his gang of terrorists will make anything more secure. Let the Palestinians be cut off from Israel and think about where their leadership has taken them for a while. Perhaps that exercise will produce more rational strategic goals and a new generation of leaders to espouse them. The result could hardly be worse than what we have now.

Blogopoly: Captain's Quarters, Literally!

Aaron's Rantblog has started a wildfire in the blogosphere with his Blogopoly game, and he's kind enough to cut Captain's Quarters in on the action. Any relation between the Captain and the rapper 50 Cent is strictly coincidental, of course ...

Even Eating Organic Has Its Risks

Oh, the irony ... French researchers have found a link between oral sex and oral cancer:

Although the risk is small and it is more likely to result from heavy drinking and smoking, scientists have uncovered evidence that oral sex can cause mouth cancer. Researchers had suspected that a sexually transmitted infection that is linked to cervical cancer could also be associated with tumors in the mouth.

Now a study by researchers working for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France seems to have confirmed it.

The culprit appears to be the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is also suspected to be a factor in cervical cancer. The findings indicate no difference in risk between genders. Oral sex, though, represents a much smaller (but still significant) risk than tobacco and alcohol.

Having information on health risks does empower us to make better choices with our lives. However, I highly doubt that the results of this study will have much impact on current sexual practices. The notion of a Surgeon General's warning on genitalia should keep Photoshoppers busy for the next couple of weeks, though.

Howard Stern Goes Silent After Racist Caller

Howard Stern, long the bad boy of radio, lost all of his Clear Channel outlets today after a caller asked Stern on the air if he had ever slept with a "n****r chick":

"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," said John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio. "It was vulgar, offensive, and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency. We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting," Hogan said.

The Drudge Report's blurb on this story reads as follows:

The action comes after CC executives reviewed comment made on Stern's Tuesday broadcast, including an on-air caller's comments: 'Ever bang a famous n****r chick? What do they smell like? Watermelons?'

The incident could not have come at a worse time, as Hogan is scheduled to testify before a House telecommunications subcommittee about broadcast indecency. So far, no one knows how long Clear Channel intends on keeping Stern off of its outlets. It probably won't be long before CC claims a "new understanding" with Stern and puts him back on the air.

While it seems a bit harsh to punish Stern for the actions of a live caller, I suspect that Howard probably didn't express outrage at the sentiment and instead played off of it. If so, a suspension seems reasonable to me, especially since the stations belong to Clear Channel and they have the right to set boundaries for their use. It also seems a bit hypocritical to me at the same time, since everyone who's ever listened to or watched Howard Stern knows that offensive material is a staple of the show. If Clear Channel wants to dump Stern, then fine, but do it up front and honestly. Using this incident -- even as disgusting as it was -- sounds somewhat akin to Louis proclaiming himself shocked that gambling was going on at Rick's.

I intended on getting Stern's side of the issue and checked out his website. Unfortunately, the only item on the site is a Photoshopped image of Janet Jackson and Howard Dean, which under other circumstances would have been funny.

UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis is upset with Clear Channel's suspension of Howard Stern, and he's urging his readers to file protests with the FCC:

The more I think about this, the more enraged I get. One tit flopped out and the government -- the Bush administration -- can't wait to play to its far-right fringe and censor speech and intimidate speech and chill speech. How dare they? This is not the role we expect of our government. We don't need a nanny. ...

I don't give a damn whether you like or despise Howard Stern; that's beside the point. If you're American, you cherish free speech and you should be appalled at what is happening to it. This is not coming from media consolidation. This is coming from government intimidation.
F Michael Powell. F the FCC. F Clear Channel.
Defend Howard Stern. Or lose your own rights to say what you want where and when you want to say it.

This is nonsense. Howard Stern can say whatever he likes, whenever he likes -- but if he says it while broadcasting on Clear Channel's government-licensed stations, then Clear Channel has the right to take him off the air. And since broadcast licenses are public monopolies, the government does have the right to set conditions on those licenses regarding how they are used. The right to free speech does not mean that people are free from the consequences of exercising that speech.

Don't weep too much for Stern; Clear Channel will put him back on soon enough, and even if they don't, plenty of other people will want to contract his services.

UPDATE II: Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost sees this as a commercial, market-driven decision, which is a lot closer to reality than Jarvis' hysteria.

UPDATE III: Instapundit weighs in, with this comment: "And if Rush Limbaugh had been canned over the kind of racial comments Stern made, and allowed on the air, nobody would be crying "censorship." Instead they'd be saying that it showed the inherent racism of his show and his audience."

But Limbaugh was canned (from ESPN) over controversial remarks he made about Philadelphia Eagles QB Donovan McNabb, opining that McNabb got an easy ride from the media because he's African-American. I note that a search of articles on Buzz Machine containing Rush and McNabb turn up nothing. Jarvis's outrage is pretty selective ...

UPDATE IV, EWOK'S REVENGE: Okay, I'm pretty sure Glenn was engaging in irony, and here I was with my irony detector turned off. Sorry, Glenn. In the immortal words of Emily Litella, "Never mind!"

This Week's Carnival Is All Up Front

Da Goddess hosts this week's Carnival of the Vanities, and the blogosphere turned out in force! Goddess' Carnival definitely lifts and supports all of us who entered, including my entry on the jealousy of Jacques Chirac. Make sure you visit Joanie's artistic presentation -- and certainly it will keep you abreast of the best in the blogosphere ...

Next week's host: American Digest.

Count TNR Among the Clueless

While I don't have a subscription to The New Republic, the short blurb on their headline article on gay marriage is enough to demonstrate TNR's complete cluelessness on the issues involved in the amendment proposal:

Opponents of gay marriage have sought to frame the debate over their proposed constitutional amendment as a matter of shielding voters and their elected representatives--that is, state politicians and local officials--from the whims of allegedly activist judges. But by allowing city officials to issue wedding permits to same-sex couples, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has thrown a major wrench into this strategy. Newsom, after all, is an elected official, and he is therefore part of the very group gay marriage opponents have long claimed they are trying to protect.

All Joseph Landau proves in this statement is that he has never read the Constitution and has no familiarity with the law-making process in the United States. Legislatures make law, not the executive or the judiciary; the executive enforces law. Saying that the legal process is satisfied when any old elected official creates a law is to argue for the abolition of Congress. Otherwise, one man could both make law and enforce law without any checks or balances on his power. Landau, in other words, argues for dictatorship. I'm assuming that Landau would find it equally acceptable for George Bush to amend the Constitution on his own, without a vote in Congress or ratification by the states, because that's the process Newsom used and Landau endorses.

Perhaps in the future, Peter Beinart could hire reporters who passed high-school civics and who research stories before reporting on them.

Kerry Sweeps 'Obscure Tuesday' States

John Kerry won all three Democratic contests last night in Hawaii, Idaho, and Utah, which together represent less than two percent of all delegates going to the Democratic Convention in July:

Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts added three more wins to his victory column Tuesday, sweeping contests in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii over his remaining major rival, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

The trio of small-state contests, which have been largely overshadowed by next week's Super Tuesday delegate bonanza, were the first since the Democratic race narrowed to essentially a battle between Kerry and Edwards.

Both Kerry and Edwards treated this as a bye week, but for Edwards, that may have proved a bit of a mistake; Dennis Kucinich outclassed Edwards in Hawaii, finishing second with 30% to Edwards' 13%. That momentum-killer is the last thing Edwards needs while he's getting stomped in California, New York, and every other state in next week's Super Tuesday primaries. Edwards is only polling above 20% in two of the states involved, and in none of the Southern states. By this time next week, Kerry will be the nominee.

No Sex Please, We're British

The Telegraph in the UK features an article on their web site about a "self-styled aristocrat" and glass-fortune heiress who will be doing time for entertaining the Lords and Squires in the hot tub:

A self-styled aristocrat who was convicted of harassing her neighbours by having sex in her outdoor Jacuzzi has been jailed for refusing to wear overalls to do her community service.

Julia Pilkington, 39, a member of the Pilkington glass family who calls herself "Lady", wore a miniskirt, low-cut top and gold flip-flops to carry out her community service clearing up litter from Forestry Commission land, a court heard.

'Lady' Pilkington claimed that the weather was too warm for overalls, although it's hard to imagine that any day in Britain would be too warm for a simple jumpsuit. I've seen a lot of people picking up roadside litter here in the States, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone doing it in a miniskirt and gold flip-flops. It might make for a good speed-reduction program if we could get some to start, however.

Nor wass this Pilkington's first run-in with her probationary officers. They've assigned her to different tasks, but she refuses to cooperate. For instance, they assigned her to work in a charity shop instead of litter patrol, but she refused to touch clothing that other people had worn. On another occasion, she failed to show up for her community service because she claimed her dog was sick, but the veterinarian refused to back up the story.

Pilkington originally got into hot water with the law by getting it on in hot water with her male friends, to the dismay and embarassment of her neighbors:

Witnesses said that Pilkington would appear naked in her garden and engage in sex acts in the Jacuzzi with male visitors. Neighbours complained that they could hear her experiencing orgasms. ...

At her 2002 trial Portsmouth magistrates were told that she used derogatory names to insult her neighbours, including The Pervert, The Slag and The Purchased Wife.

Well, here's another difference between the States and the Mother Country. Here, having sex in your Jacuzzi would make you the next Super Bowl halftime show headliner ...

Watchers Council Selections

Once again, I have been honored with a nomination in the weekly Watcher of Weasels' Watchers Council contest, this time for my post on the LA Times poll and its meaning for Kerry, Edwards, and Schwarzenegger. They've selected a lot of good posts this week. In fact, as I commented on their site, I look around and get an idea of what it's like to be Dennis Kucinich.

[shudder]

Oh, let's not do that again ...

Caption Contest: The Winners!

After long consultations between the Captain and the Commissar, with liberal quantities of Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum and Stolichnaya to assist in deliberations, we're ready to announce the results of the CQ Caption Contest for this classic John Kerry pin-up (suitable for framing):

We both were impressed by the number and quality of the entries, and we thank you all. But we had to narrow it down, and so ...

To start, we'll let the Commissar cover the Caption category:

"The Party has determined that the following winning contest entrant has
been awarded Hero of Soviet Union. Three other entrants have earned Hero
of Socialist Labor - 2nd Class. All other entrants will be shot. Losing
entrants may appeal the Politburo decision after their execution."

Hmmm ... let me know if you want the appeal form, 'k?

Hero of Soviet Union: Pile On.

"Put that lighter back in your pocket you stupid redneck, I DON'T EFFIN KNOW FREEBIRD!"

Hero of Socialist Labor, 2nd Class: Mary

"Hang down your head, John Kerry,..."

Hero of Socialist Labor, 2nd Class: Brian

"You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out, you put your right foot in, and you shake it all about.

You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out, you put your left foot in, and you shake it all about."

Hero of Socialist Labor, 2nd Class: Greyhawk

"Well it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn...
Next stop is V-8-Nam..."

For the Lyrics Award, I decided to focus on original lyrics, although the Commissar considered all entries for the Caption Award. (Several of you have obviously seen Animal House, and that song cracked me up -- thanks for the flashback.) I won't reprint all of the lyrics here or this would get way too long, but they're in the comments on the original post.

Captain's Favorite: Trainwreck, "Kerryville"

You Have The Conn #1: JarheadDad, "Mekong Cowboy"
You Have The Conn #2: Cassandra, "Turn Turn Turn (And Keep Turning)"
You Have The Conn #3: Bryan, "Long-Faced, Wafflin', Ketchup-Covered Blues"

There's one more award I have to give, as one entry required it:

Report to Sick Bay (On the Double): Jon Henke, "Kerry On My Wayward Run"

Here's why:

"Kerry on my Wayward Run. There'll be peace when I am done. Lay this weary war to rest We won't fight no more. No!

Take it, Cleland! Drum solo!

....What? Oh. Uh, sorry about that, big guy.

Duuuuude ....

Thanks again for joining in the fun! The comments will be open on this post for your appeals (if you dare), disagreements, new contributions for general fun, and so on.

UPDATE: You should check out this entry at Aaron's Rantblog, who I just added to the blogroll. Those Sponge Monkeys get around, man ...

What If They Held a Primary and No One Came?

Did you know that three states hold primaries or caucuses today? Apparently, neither did the presidential candidates:

In contests that largely have been overlooked by the candidates, voters in three states decide Tuesday who they want to see as the Democratic presidential nominee. ... Hawaii and Idaho are holding caucuses and Utah is holding a primary. A total of 61 delegates are at stake, just 3 percent of the total needed to win the nomination at the Democratic nominating convention in July.

In a sign of how little attention these contests are getting, not one of the major Democratic presidential hopefuls were in any of those three states Tuesday.

If these contests are so inconsequential, why did the Democrats schedule them so far up the calendar? Wouldn't it make more sense to put California and a couple of the other states from next week to this week? I'm sure that more populous states locked far down the schedule wouldn't mind playing a more decisive role in selecting their nominee.

Caption Contest -- Special Captain's Award

The trouble with running a contest like this now-closed Caption Contest is that you just can't plan for the creativity of such an intelligent readership as I'm fortunate to have. Just before the comments closed on this contest, reader Jim Styczinski sent me the following separated-at-birth graphic. On the left is Pablo Picasso's "The Old Guitarist" and on the right ... well, Jim's title is below the graphic:

The Old Guitarist and The Botox Guitarist

This submission deserves a special Captain's Award! ... er, whatever the heck that would be. Thanks, Jim!

Electric Venom: 50 Ways To Leave Your Lover

Venomous Kate is back at Electric Venom -- and a mere three weeks from her first blogiversary, too -- and she shares with her readers a poignant and pointed Dear John letter she has sent to her significant other:

When we first got together, I adored the way you made me feel: giddy, energized. You thrilled me. The mere sight of you sent my pulse racing. When we were apart, I held just one thought: when could we be together again? There were times when I shrugged off sleep, lost interest in food, all because I only wanted more of you. But that was years ago. You've long since lost your ability to make me shiver. You no longer make me feel special or important. I don't remember what I ever saw in you.

Go pay Kate a visit and give her your support ... believe me, once you read the whole thing, you'll be happy she made this decision.

No One to Blame But Themselves

As I have often predicted, the radical activism of the judiciary in imposing changes in the basic social unit in opposition to the will of the electorate has resulted in an equally radical reaction -- a full-fledged mainstream constitutional amendment process to permanently define marriage:

President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever." ... "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."

He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as the union of a "husband and wife."

Despite the passage, by wide margins, of laws defining marriage as "one man and one woman" in states such as California, judges and municipal officials have continued to act in defiance of the law, preferring to legislate from the bench or from the executive instead. Such corrosive practice only serves to further damage the democratic processes upon which this nation was built, and the danger is so patently obvious that it seems to be escaping those who can't see the forest for the trees.

For the record, as I've repeatedly stated, I don't have an issue with gay marriage. Personally, I think that the institution of civil marriage has been damaged to pointlessness; it remains the only contractual relationship I know where one party can abrogate the contract with no penalty. I believe that arguments surrounding the "sanctity" of marriage are based on religious beliefs and therefore only apply to those who voluntarily practice those religions. Since any unmarried adult hetero couple without close blood relation can get a marriage license, in some jurisdictions with less thought and safeguards than a driver's license, and that marriage can be dissolved with only slightly more effort, government oversight is already so lax as to make the "sanctity" argument useless.

However, it still should be left to the people to determine the laws under which they will be governed. The Constitution was crafted to require this process, and judges only reviewed the laws to make sure that they did not directly contradict the Constitution itself. Since the 1950s, for better and for worse, the American judiciary has taken it upon itself to craft its own legislation from the bench in the guise of intellectually murky "interpretations" of Constitutional provisions, invoking emanations from penumbras in order to create what the justices saw as a greater social good. But that's not their job -- that's the job of the Legislature. Judicial activism is an arrogation of power away from elected representatives, who are held responsible to the people on a regular basis, and into the hands of those who hold lifetime appointments, and whose decisions cannot be overruled except by other judges.

Because this activism takes power away from the people, any attempt to reach a nuanced, rational position is eliminated, and the only way the people can take the power back is to amend the Constitution to repair the damage the judiciary has caused. Constitutional amendments are not subtle items; they are legal sledgehammers. It effectively forbids each state from reaching a position which reflects their public mood.

Gavin Newsom and an arrogant judiciary will do far more damage to the idea of gay marriage than any momentary relief their actions provided. They will have lost the centrists and libertarians on this issue who, like me, didn't have a problem with the concept of gay marriage but who will not allow legislative power to be tranferred to star chambers. In a representative democracy, issues should be debated and decided by our representatives, not by a few men and women in black robes. Otherwise, we risk turning our Congress into the Iranian Parliament and our federal judiciary into the Supreme Governing Council.

UPDATE: While most people seem to be crying in their beer about Bush being anti-gay or kowtowing to religious zealotry, Hugh Hewitt gets the issue correct even though we don't agree on gay marriage:

When courts dictate law, as has happened in Massachusetts, or when low-ranking, publicity-grabbing officials make up the law, as is happening in San Francisco and may soon happen elsewhere, then freedom is diminished because the rule of a few is substituted for the rule of elected legislatures. There is no covering up this most basic of issues: Who runs America? Shall it be the people or shall it be the courts and a host of petty officials from micro-climates on the political map?

Exactly.

Kerry About to Deliver Knockout Blow

The LA Times reports that their most recent poll shows John Kerry handily beating John Edwards, 56%-24%, in the upcoming California primary on Tuesday, March 2nd:

A week before California's Democratic presidential primary, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry leads North Carolina Sen. John Edwards by a lopsided 56% to 24% among the state's likely voters in the race, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll. ... Following the pattern set in other states, Kerry's support in the primary cuts across a broad range of demographic groups. He wins majorities of men, women, liberals, moderates, Latinos, union members and senior citizens, among others.

Even primary voters who cite the economy or jobs as their No. 1 issue — a group that has tilted toward Edwards in other states — prefer Kerry to his main rival, 69% to 26%, the poll found.

These numbers spell doom for the Edwards campaign, unless he can take New York at the same time Kerry takes California. Without at least one of the two main prizes on Super Tuesday, Edwards falls so far short that his mathematical possibilities for stopping Kerry prior to the convention mostly disappear. On the other hand, it's worth remembering that the LA Times conducted some of the most egregiously biased polling in recent memory during the gubernatorial recall election last year, and its forecasting credibility was well-nigh destroyed in the debacle.

One wonders, though, why John Edwards still hasn't taken Hugh Hewitt up on his offer to allow him to co-host his radio show. It's broadcast extensively throughout California, and while Hugh's regular listeners hardly fit the profile of an Edwards voter, the resultant publicity would drive Democrats to the radio dial in droves just to hear Edwards tilt at the Hewitt windmill. Imagine if he held his own during the debates (and I believe that Hugh would be very fair in allowing him to speak his mind) -- how far would that go to demonstrating Edwards' seriousness as a candidate? Perhaps that's the problem; Edwards isn't that serious, and in a hours-long format, that would be quickly discovered.

In other interesting data from the same poll -- and this leads me to believe that the LA Times is playing this poll more or less straight -- Arnold Schwarzenegger's twin referendums intended on creating bond issues to relieve the massive California shortfall are surprisingly leading by large majorities, 51% and 58% to 34% and 23% opposed, respectively. Just two days ago, Tim Russert of Meet the Press described these as in danger of being defeated, but this kind of win would greatly increase the Governator's prestige on the eve of a national election. It's good news for the rookie politician, who seems to have delivered on his promise to break the gridlock in Sacramento and get the state government focused on accomplishments rather than recriminations.

Caption Contest!

Note: The winners can be found on this post!

Here's something for a bit of fun -- take a look at the picture below of a soulful John Kerry singalong, and come up with your best caption. The prize? How about a tape of the Captain singing "Margaritaville"? Er, no ... better just be the fame and glory of winning this contest.

Put your entries in the comments to this post. I'll announce the winner next Tuesday night.

UPDATE: I'll bump this entry up each day to keep it near the top. There's been a terrific response -- I may have to bring in a guest judge to make the final decision here! Keep 'em coming ...

UPDATE II: This contest has been wildly successful -- and instead of one winner, I'll be announcing two: one for best caption and another for best song lyrics, because you all have just been too creative for one award. A mystery guest judge will select one of the winners after the contest closes at 6 pm CST Tuesday night, when comments will be closed. Stay tuned!

UPDATE III: I will be closing comments off around 6 pm CST tonight (Tuesday), so if you're waffling, make sure you get your entry in. Our Mystery Judge is the Commissar himself from the Politburo Diktat -- so, beware all of you bourgeois capitalists that have made too much fun of Comrade Kerry! The Commissar will make the selection for Best Caption, and I will select Best Lyrics. The winners will be announced Wednesday morning at the latest ...

UPDATE IV, THE DOUBLE ALBUM: Comments will be closed at 6:30 pm CST, or about an hour from now, as posted in Hugh Hewitt's blog. Anything later than that and it gets too dark for my wood-fired generator up here in Minnesota ...

6:32 PM CST: Comments are closed! We'll have the results for you tomorrow morning at the latest. Big thanks to everyone who entered, and to Hugh Hewitt and The Mudville Gazette for sending their readers over. I got 109 comments, by far the most I've received on any one post. Thanks for all the fun, everyone!

Libya Backtracking on Lockerbie Responsibility

With all of the recent good news coming from Tripoli's cooperation in eliminating its WMD programs, it's a bit disappointing to see them retreating from the positions that allowed them entry to the West in the first place:

Libya's prime minister, Shokri Ghanem, appeared to backtrack today over the country's admissions of responsibility for the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and the Lockerbie bombing.

In a switch from the more concilatory tone of the country's foreign minister earlier this month, Dr Ghanem said that the police officer's death was now "settled" and that Libya had paid compensation to the Lockerbie relatives to "buy peace" and an end to sanctions. "We thought it was easier for us to buy peace and this is why we agreed to compensation," he told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Last year, Libya had finally concluded a two-decade battle for compensation and justice for the victims of the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie bombing, in which almost 300 people were murdered. Libya turned over two agents that had been implicated in the terrorist attack and agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation to the families of the victims. In another case, a British citizen protesting outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984 was killed by a gunman believed to have fired from within the embassy itself. In 1999, Libya accepted responsibility for the murder, paid compensation and agreed to pursue the investigation.

Now, however, the Libyans seem content to have paid out the money and expect that the British would be satisfied as well. Perhaps, if Gaddafi actually gets rid of his WMDs and cooperates fully in the war on terror, the British may consider it unpleasant but overall a positive outcome. But it will be hard to trust that Libya, absent the strong pressure that the Anglo-American coalition has provided through its action in Iraq and Afghanistan, will stay that particular course. It's another good reason that American policy on terror has to remain focused on it being a war rather than a law-enforcement problem. Otherwise we will hear from Dr. Ghanem tell us that paying off Lockerbie victims was a great bargain compared to the boon of lifting the sanctions, and we shouldn't worry about their continued trade with Middle Eastern "freedom fighters".

Ringham: Nader, Meet Kucinich

Star Tribune Commentary editor Eric Ringham writes another column denunciating Ralph Nader in tomorrow's edition, blaming Nader for George Bush -- again -- and insisting that Nader has overlooked Dennis Kucinich:

To hear Ralph Nader dismiss the Democratic field, as he did in announcing his presidential candidacy Sunday, you'd think he'd never heard of Dennis Kucinich. The Kucinich camp would blame the media for that. Campaign workers accuse the major media of "censoring" Kucinich, and it's true enough that he doesn't get much coverage.

Kucinich doesn't get much coverage because he doesn't attract that many votes, and the reason is readily apparent from Kucinich's website. Serious candidates don't post endorsements from fictional childrens-book characters. They also don't propose to create an Orwellian Department of Peace that would corrupt basic education and completely disarm the US.

Besides, if Ringham's exercised about Kucinich's lack of coverage, why doesn't Ringham publish more about Kucinich in the Star Tribune?

Ringham then finds one voter who supported Nader last election and now says he'll stick with Kucinich. One. That's the best he can do to support his thesis that Nader = Kucinich and vice versa. Readers familiar with Ringham's earlier screed on Nader will not be surprised at his research running the gamut from A to B. For instance, while he claimed that Nader had blood on his hands in the January piece, he neglected to mention that his Commentary section was gung-ho for action back in 1998 ... but of course that was when a Democrat was in the White House.

Oh, and that voter who has supposedly turned his back on Nader? He won't commit to voting for the eventual Democratic nominee this time, either. It sounds like Ringham just has no luck with that research thing at all. On the other hand, he explains it perfectly:

Nader is running, Nader says, because none of the Democrats are doing what Kucinich, one of the Democrats, is doing. Maybe you have to have an I.Q. like Nader's to get that one.

So what will Kolstad do if, somehow, Kucinich fails to win the nomination? "I don't really know," he said.

I think he may be onto something with the IQ explanation. After all, expecting fools like Nader and Kucinich to act rationally indicates some cognitive issues on Ringham's part as well.

Washington Times and UK Telegraph: We're Closing In

The UK Telegraph and the Washington Times report that Task Force 121 is on its way to Afghanistan to hunt for "high-value targets":

Telegraph: The top-secret US commando team that spearheaded the capture of Saddam Hussein is heading for Afghanistan in the latest sign that the hunt for Osama bin Laden is coming to a head. Battle-hardened units from Task Force 121 are being shifted as intelligence reports increase on the possible whereabouts of the terrorist leader, according to an article in the Washington Times by a reporter known for his access to the special forces.

Most of the "high-value targets" from Saddam's regime have been caught or killed, Pentagon officials told the paper. "Iraq has become more of a policing problem than a hunt for high-value Iraqis. Afghanistan is the place where 121 can do more."

Times: The new task force to hunt bin Laden in the Afghanistan area likely will be led by a Navy SEAL who was toasted in Washington while working antiterrorism issues in the Bush administration. The Washington Times is withholding his name because of the secret nature of the operation.

Military sources said reports of bin Laden's movements are becoming more numerous as the fugitive Saudi, leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network, hides in the mountainous terrain straddling the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

British tabloids have reported earlier this week that US and Pakistani forces have Osama bin Laden locked into a 100-square-mile area of rugged terrain and caves. While the US initially denied those reports, the redeployment of 121 certainly would make sense only if those reports were true. After all, we have Saddam, but we haven't found all of the high-value targets associated with the insurgency or even all of the Hussein regime Deck of Cards. And since Iraq's insurgency is a political hot potato during this election year, only something very urgent would convince the Pentagon to shift that squad.

The Afghan winter should be clearing up a bit soon, allowing for better reconaissance and more latitude for military action. If they really have bin Laden and his henchmen trapped in the hills, we should know in the next couple of months. While the article stresses that the US would like bin Laden taken alive, I doubt that we'll be all that picky. I know I won't.

UPDATE: CNN reports that this operation may have gone hot on the Pakistani side:

Pakistan has launched a military operation against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the tribal regions along the Afghan border, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan has said.

According to Pakistani intelligence sources, helicopter gunships are part of the force that has been deployed. They also reported exchanges of rocket fire.

CBS Decries Exploitation? Oh, Please!

CBS's Andy Rooney apparently doesn't like Mel Gibson or his latest movie, The Passion of the Christ. How Rooney has made up his mind without actually seeing the film may strike some as odd, but Rooney has it from a good source that it stinks -- God is Andy's stringer, you see:

I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.

"Andrew," God said to me. He always calls me "Andrew." I like that. ... “As far as Mel Gibson goes, I haven't seen his movie, 'The Passion of the Christ,' because it hasn't opened up here yet. But I did catch Gibson being interviewed by Diane Sawyer. I did something right when I came up with her, didn't I,” added God. “Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? Listen, we all make mistakes."

Rooney takes God's advice and closes his mind, or what's left of it, and then challenges Gibson to answer this question: "How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?"

Well, gee, I don't know, Andy. How many million dollars do you suppose CBS made off of:

* A made-for-TV movie about Hitler?

* Flacking the career of an entertainer who's been repeatedly accused of child molestation?

* The death of Jon-Benet Ramsey?

* The kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart?

* The utter depravity of the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Bondage Festival (with boob or without)?

Perhaps next time you have one of your conversations with Yahweh, you could ask him to explain to you -- in really small words so you understand -- the meaning of the New Testament passage that reads, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

BIA Officials Attempt to Cash In

The Washington Post reports that dozens of Bureau of Indian Affairs officials and their relatives have made themselves members of a tribe under their jurisdiction and now want to establish a casino on new land:

A once-tiny, nearly destitute American Indian tribe is pushing hard to build a $100 million casino, but traditional tribal members are not the ones seeking the riches. Hundreds of people have been newly added to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians' membership rolls, which were opened by regional Bureau of Indian Affairs officials. Among the new members are several BIA employees and dozens of their relatives. ...

Amy Dutschke, a member of another Indian group whose family has roots in the Ione area, was the BIA's acting regional director in June 2002 when she authorized the Ione Band's last leadership election, documents show. Now Dutschke and 68 of her relatives are on the tribe's official list of registered voters. They include her uncle and a niece, who also work for the BIA, according to tribal rolls, a BIA employee list and opposition members.

The election was overseen by BIA employee Carol Rogers-Davis, whom the BIA named to lead the elections board. She now has three relatives on the tribal roll, records show. The election produced five new tribal leaders, four of whom are related to Dutschke.

The BIA regional director responsible for the region, Amy Dutschke, authorized the last leadership election for the Ione Band and then, shortly afterward, joined the tribe, along with several of her co-workers and their families. Not terribly coincidentally, the Ione Band now wants to purchase 208 acres for a reservation near the small town of Plymouth for a casino, hoping to rake in some big bucks from California gamblers. None of the new members, over 400 in all, are related to the original 70 members of the Ione Band.

For good measure, the tribe is now also eligible for millions of dollars in federal aid. And yet, Congress doesn't feel that this is a big enough conflict of interest to investigate. The BIA has repeatedly blown off Congressional inquiries into the shady dealings of its employees, and the Sacramento regional office of the BIA won't even respond to the Interior Department. It looks like the BIA has lost control of its field offices and its employees, and if Congress is reluctant to take action, then the Justice Department should be looking into it as a matter of fraud.

It's difficult to understand why this hasn't gotten more attention, from either the governments involved or from the press; this story was buried in the back of the Post's website. At least on the surface, it appears to be a particularly egregious example of bureaucratic corruption and an exploitation of the Native American community in Northern California. This situation needs to be addressed immediately.

Bear With Us

There appears to be a problem with Blogrolling.com this morning, which is keeping the blog from loading quickly. I assume that Blogrolling will get the problem solved quickly. Sorry for the inconvenience!

UPDATE: The problem seems to be resolved now ...

Inappropriate

Cathy Young, contributing editor to Reason magazine, writes an op-ed in today's Boston Globe about the stunning decision of Amherst Regional High School to stage The Vagina Monologues, a sexually explicit and controversial play that's gained recent status as a feminist icon:

The idea of teenage girls performing Ensler's monologues -- complete with graphic sexual descriptions, in-your-face vulgar language, and reenactments of orgasmic moans -- in front of an adult audience is rather freaky. ... One particularly questionable monologue deals with a 16-year-old girl who learns to love her genitals and, by extension, herself after a sexual encounter with a 24-year-old woman. In the original version of the play, the girl was 13 and the monologue included the statement, "If it was rape, it was a good rape." This segment has repeatedly caused controversy, and Ensler has toned it down in response to criticism.

Yet even with the changes, we are talking about a 24-year-old seducing a 16-year-old after plying her with alcohol.

One question that springs to mind is what brilliant high-school drama teacher thought it would be a great idea for 14- and 15-year-old girls to stand up on stage and talk about their vaginas and unusual sexual encounters in front of their parents and their schoolmates -- the 'target audience' of all high-school productions? I've seen a production of this play by Eve Ensler on HBO and I would be embarassed to be in the audience if my adult daughter-in-law performed it, let alone a girl I'd be hard-pressed to allow to go out on dates. In the case of Amherst RHS, assumably that brilliance extended to the administration as well, demonstrating that perhaps Massachussetts has too much money in its school systems if they have the time and resources to stage plays like this.

In my high-school days (long, long ago, I'm afraid), during my sophomore year we staged a series of controversial plays, or rather controversial staging of plays such as You Can't Take It With You and The Prisoner of Second Avenue, as well as an original called Dudley Do-Right Rides Again, or the Last Joke That Killed Vaudeville. In the first play, the controversy merely resulted from the use of fireworks and a lit cigar on stage, but the second, a minor Neil Simon play, was laced with profanity from start to finish that the school administration tried too late to water down. The third started off as a children's play, but the drama teacher allowed us to improvise characters for the tabula rasa Mounties, and one of us decided to portray a flamingly gay Mountie. By the time the end-of-year school musical rolled around, we had alcohol on stage and kids were smoking joints backstage during the production, one of which accidentally doubled as a cigarette.

My experience tells me that when school leadership allows high-school theater to become experimental and undisciplined, they send a very clear message to the students both in the program and outside of it condoning the actions of the plays and the laxity of the administration. While Young then goes on to attack the play itself, and there's certainly room for criticism, when it's staged by adults in a normal theater setting the play itself tends to draw those who have enough life experience to put it in the proper context.

Amherst RHS, on the other hand, foisted this on adolescent girls who not only lack the proper context for this, but as one person noted, wouldn't even be able to get in to see an R-rated film on their own. It's hard to see this as anything but an attempted indoctrination of the children of Amherst RHS into a feminist-victimist ideology.

All You Need Is Link-Love

Another Sunday-night tour through the blogosphere, looking for link-love in all the right places ...

The Mudville Gazette, who's sending lots of people over for my caption contest, also has a great post on a young man who styles himself a conscientious objector -- who volunteered for the regular Army, for Pete's sake! Greyhawk calls it desertion, and I agree ...

Tim Blair notes that Islamic Jihad is griping about the evil Zionists who hacked into their web site. Of course, the Jihadists prefer an entirely different kind of hacking ...

My friend and colleague-to-be, the Big Trunk at Power Line, recounts his experiences bringing Winston Churchill to life in front of an enthusiastic audience at St. Olaf. Since Churchill is perhaps my favorite historical figure, I'll have to buy Trunk a cafe latte when I bring one for Hindrocket and pick his brain during commercial breaks ...

Michael Kantor at the Calico Cat expresses my sentiments on the Iraq war precisely. Why is this so difficult to understand? ... Donald at The Back of the Envelope (another good blog, BTW) expands on the same thought ...

Speaking of Iraq (and Iran), Brant at SWLiP makes a great point about the inevitability of the Iranian question for the same reasons Iraq was inevitable...

Rammer at Electric Venom notes that al-Qaeda seems to be their own worst enemy -- after two failed assassination attempts on Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistanis now seem a lot more motivated to allow the Americans to operate more freely along the Afghan border in order to capture what's left of al-Qaeda leadership. Imagine that! ...

Even the Commissar at the Politburo Diktat is focused on Iraq, although in this case the good Comrade has something of a scoop: the letter Saddam asked the Red Cross (Red??) to give to his daughter. Seems like Uncle Saddy's in fine spirits indeed!

Nader Reaction On The Campaign Blogs

Ralph Nader may present his campaign as a populist attempt to wrest control of national politics from corporate control, but he seems to be an unpopular populist amongst the progressives in the Democratic campaigns. A review of their blogs shows the anger and resentment Nader provoked with his unusual go-it-alone Presidential campaign announcement this morning.

From the Dean for America blog:

"Parker": I really wish Nader was more vocal about the Democratic party. Because most people aren't going to put the pieces together that he is only running because Dean dropped out.

"Kevin": Ralph Nader is the Ted Kazinski of the presidential candidates. He should grow a beard and go live in a shack in the woods. He is the Unibomber Candidate.

"Candyce" [engaging in some oddball conspiracy theories]: and Bush... I am a nice person thinking bad thoughts about Bush. I dislike him so much, I at first thought he put the dog down for sympathy...

"Conspiracy Secretary" [apparently not listening very carefully, considering Nader's announcement a Dean endorsement]: Nader already said that he wouldn't have to run if Dean is. Take your anger down to the street and start screaming at people in BMW's. Nader is a strong endorcement. Now if we could just get the rest of the third party candidates to endorce Dean.

"beck_hen" [clearest thinker on the blog]: There are reasons people weren't satisfied in 2000 and reasons they're not satisfied now. Dems were so lucky that our campaign advocated change within the party, instead of abandonment of it. By crushing it, they paved the way for Nader's run. Terry McAuliffe and the DNC just don't get it: they'll have to change, now or four years from now.

Look, this blog has been very critical of Howard Dean, and for good reason, but beck_hen is correct -- Dean did offer the Democrats a way to engage the Naderites of 2000. Dean's demise, to some extent at the hands of the Democratic establishment, enraged and disaffected a large section of that base. At the same time, as I posted last night, Terry McAuliffe has done nothing to harness Ralph Nader in order to protect the Dem's flank in this election. Either McAuliffe isn't buying the PR line that Nader cost them the last election, or he didn't think Nader would give it another go. In other words, McAuliffe was asleep at the switch.

Over at John Kerry's blog:

"frankly0": It's a wonder and a tragedy that a man like Nader, who began his career as a brave crusader for the welfare of the common man should choose to end it as a narcisistic, destructive, bitter crackpot.

"peter": Nader is a complete lunatic. I'm ashamed that I ever respected the man.

"Maryscott": Ralph Nader is a Republican mole. Everything he says is utterly disingenuous. He is too smart not to know what his candidacy means, so I can only conclude that he has been in collusion with the Republicans from 2000 on.

"KerryOn62": Yeah, I noticed the lack of Blog on Nader's website when I went there to verbally build him a new anal orafice. Right wing funded scumbag. And I hate the 7 people who will vote for him, too.

Overall, the Kerry supporters seem a lot less exercised over Nader than the Deaniacs, probably because most of the Kerry supporters aren't all that close to Nader's politics and don't see Nader as much of a threat. Part of the Deaniac anger has to spring from an understandable resentment of seeing their message hijacked out of the party by a late-coming Nader.

At John Edwards blog, a mixed bag:

"jokerman": I watched Nader on MTP this morning where he announced he is running! I was A Dean supporter that switched to Edwards, Nader actually implied that he likes Edwards as acandidate! What I want to say is I will vote for Edwards I will NOT vote for Kerry! If Kerry is in I will vote for Nader! Let's make sure the democratic party knows that if they don't what droves of voter going for Nader they better not nominate Kerr!

"Carolina Girl": It's happening again. Damn media. Focus turning to Nader, a sure loser. Fox talking heads saying Deaniacs throwing their support behind Nader. Bull!
Let's keep our focus on STOPPING KERRY. Nothing else matters if we can't STOP KERRY NOW! The only way to do this is to pull together.

"wolf-wolf" [easily the funniest commenter on this topic]: Ralph Nader was an important crusader for automobile safety in the 1950's and 60's. Since then he has become increasingly irrelevant and egomaniacal. There are lots of people who just love to listen to themselves talk. Ralph Nader is currently the #2 American on that list. Since #1, Rush Limbaugh disagrees with him on all the issues, he can't be the Vice Presidential nominee. So Nader will reach out to #3, Boxing promoter Don King.

Predictably, we see a lot of stoicism from the Kerry campaign, but there seems to be a lot of hostility to Kerry in the Dean camp -- predictably -- but also surprisingly from the Edwards camp, too. In both campaigns, there seems to be some resonance for a Nader challenge, at least for now. This could be a problem for McAuliffe and the Democratic establishment.

Hindrocket on Face to Face

Hindrocket of Power Line appeared this morning on Face to Face, a local PBS show that owes its format to CNN's Crossfire. Today's topic: credibility issues with politicians, focusing on Bush and Kerry. Joining Hindrocket was Buck Humphrey, a Kerry campaign activist.

I may be biased -- hell, I am biased -- but Hindrocket came across extremely well, while Buck Humphrey couldn't look anyone in the eye during most of his answers, looking askance or downward almost the entire time. Hindrocket had excellent answers at the ready -- his answer to co-host David Lillehaug about the cyanide-salts find in Baghdad shut that thread down immediately. Hindrocket scored a direct hit on Kerry's hypocrisy, using the Majumder corruption case as an example, and Humphrey stumbled trying to change the subject to an irrelevant assertion that Kerry never took PAC money. (I'd like to think that John used the entry from my blog for his source material, but I don't think he needed my help.)

Overall, Hindrocket showed a remarkable ability to drive the debate despite facing two dynamic co-hosts (Rick Morgan on the right). I'm starting to get a little nervous about being in the same radio booth with him in less than two weeks. Maybe I'll bring him a cafe latte in order to get on his good side ...

Meet the Press: Schwarzenegger and Nader, Together Again For The First Time

Tim Russert gave Meet the Press viewers a spectacular one-two punch this morning, interviewing both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and potential independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Shortly before air time, CNN anticipated Nader's decision and announced he was indeed throwing his hat into the ring.

But first, Russert interviewed the Governator, who performed impressively in his segment. Despite Russert's attempts to put Arnold in the position of abandoning children and blind people for lower car taxes, Arnold turned it around and told Russert that the problem wasn't the car tax, it was that the legislature increased spending at a 43% clip over the last five years, far outstripping the 24% increase in tax revenues over the same period. He acknowledged that he would raise taxes in an emergency, but only then, and his implication was that he did not consider undisciplined legislators an emergency condition.

Russert touched on the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco, and Arnold answered that he wants the Attorney General to take action to stop it. He refused to be brought into a hypothetical debate, saying that if he went down that road, it would occupy "50% of my time" for no good purpose. Later, Russert went a little softer, allowing Arnold to wax a bit more philosophical, and Arnold took the opportunity.

He did an excellent job projecting a highly engaged and thoughtful image; Arnold obviously not only knows the broad strokes of his position but the details as well, and thinks constantly about leadership. He would be a star on the national stage if he was a natural-born citizen, and Russert brought up Orrin Hatch's proposed Constitutional amendment which would remove that barrier, playing a possibly prescient clip from Sylvester Stallone's Demolition Man, in which Arnold is mentioned as a past President. While obviously amused, Arnold would only say that he favored the amendment, but he was too busy to worry about any other job than the one he already has. Good answer, and a terrific appearance.

CNN now has the release from NBC on Nader's announcement, just as he's appearing on my TV. Hmmm. Nader explains that Washington is now "corporate-occupied territory", and staked out the Deaniac territory pretty well, even to the extreme of Dean. The Nation warns that Nader risks alienating progressives, "perhaps irrevocably," and Russert played a video from RalphDontRun.net explaining that with just a fraction of Nader votes in Florida and New Hampshire, Gore would be President. (They don't mention, of course, that Gore never would have been Vice President without Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992.) Nader struck back harshly, claiming that the "liberal intelligentsia" wants to suppress choice, possibly the first time I've ever agreed with Nader. Nader pointed out that there wasn't just three candidates in Florida and New Hampshire, and all of them had an effect on the outcome.

He completely lost me when he asserted that the US had no "major enemy" left in the world. No major enemy left in the world? How did those gaping holes at the World Trade Center come to be? What about China, for crying out loud? What color is the sky in Nader's world, anyway? The very thought of someone this clueless in the White House is laughable as long as it's impossible. He was all over the place on Iraq, blaming Bush I for not invading Iraq proper in 1991 and Bush II for getting rid of Saddam, as he felt Bush I should have done.

Nader, oddly, spoke rather poorly, allowing his emotion to get the best of him when he excoriated the Democrats for not bragging about Social Security, Medicare, and environmental laws, and other social programs. He sounded close to shouting throughout most of his interview. For a man who litigated significant court cases and has been in the public eye for so long, he doesn't demonstrate any talent for public speaking; he comes across as an angry Ross Perot with better education, and not much more. That firebrand anger may appeal to the Howard Dean/Al Gore die-hard enthusiasts, but will turn off a lot of people ... and Nader, it would seem, can't really afford to lose one potential voter at all.

Ironically, the "amateur" came across far better than the experienced political veteran today. It may be a vignette of two political careers going in opposite directions.

Minnesota Finally Gets Tough With Sexual Predators

A bipartisan panel recommended a long-overdue get-tough policy for sexual predators in Minnesota on Friday, proposing a mandatory life sentence without parole for first-degree sexual assaults and a discretionary LWOP sentencing option for other sexual offenses: