Bush Coming Back To DC For Terri

President Bush has changed his schedule to return from his Crawford, TX ranch to Washington DC in order to sign any legislation produced tomorrow that will restore nutrition and hydration to Terri Schiavo:

President Bush is changing his schedule to return to the White House on Sunday to be in place to sign emergency legislation that would shift the case of a brain-damaged Florida woman to federal courts, the White House said Saturday.

"Everyone recognizes that time is important here," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "This is about defending life." ...

During previous travels, Bush has had legislation flown to him overnight by military plane for his signature. But in this case, McClellan said that the fact that a woman's life is at stake made it necessary for him to travel to the bill.

Bush had a full schedule set up for this week, traveling on Monday and Tuesday to campaign for his Social Security reform efforts before returning to the ranch on Wednesday to meet with Mexican president Vicente Fox. The White House says those plans won't change, although Bush will depart from DC for those appearances rather than Texas. That indicates that Bush expects to have a bill to sign tomorrow, probably in the late afternoon. It also demonstrates Bush's commitment to seeing this case resolved by a federal court rather than the Florida state courts, at least for a fresh look at the evidence.

It's possible that an emergency injunction request could be filed by the Schindlers in federal court on Sunday night, if a judge can be found. If so, the doctors could restore food and water to Terri as soon as tomorrow evening, if the timing and the courts cooperate.

UN: American Security To Be Priority

The United Nations will recast its priorities to make the security of Western nations a key goal in its mission, according to the London Telegraph:

The security of America and other wealthy countries will for the first time be declared a key priority for the United Nations under reforms designed to restore confidence in the crisis-ridden international body.

The reforms, to be announced tomorrow by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, will be seen as a concession to Washington after repeated clashes with President George W Bush over US foreign policy, including the war in Iraq.

The UN Secretariat promises a "real re-launch … a fundamental manifesto" after criticism of its performance since the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.

This move surprises me only because I wouldn't have given Kofi Annan enough credit for coming to this conclusion. Prior to 9/11, the UN managed to only make itself a nuisance to the US, or at least that's all we saw of it. It refused to take any action that changed the status quo, preferring to pass resolution after resolution demanding change that it would never enforce. That inaction and vacillation only emboldened the tyrannies while encouraging others to plunder its programs for their own enrichment.

The UN's incompetence and corruption remained hidden from Western eyes, at least until 9/11 came along and changed all of the calculations, especially in the US. Suddenly we found we could no longer afford the impotent debate society that the UN provided. We knew we faced more attacks if we allowed the UN to dictate its usual status quo as a reply. Unfortunately, the UN didn't recognize that the American security situation had changed -- and that we could no longer afford to play the status quo game.

In fact, it continued to act as a petulant child, refusing to cooperate with American insistence that the UN start enforcing its own resolutions, leading to the bypassing of Turtle Bay in removing Saddam Hussein and the discovery of massive corruption in the Oil-For-Food program. Had we followed the lead of Annan, Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder, that corruption would still be hidden and Saddam would continue to collect his billions.

Now that George Bush has won his re-election bid, though, the UN understands that America has lost its affection for the emasculated debating society the UN has become. Western nations have reacted with horror to the sexual abuses that UN peacekeeping missions have inflicted on the victims of genocide. They will refuse to further fund the unmitigated disaster that the UN has become until Turtle Bay starts reflecting their priorities -- which means a focus on terrorism and security, especially since their money and troops have proven the only reliable resources for the UN.

John Bolton's appointment underscores this new seriousness. Bush intended on sending a message to Annan: you have one last chance to make the UN relevant to Western needs. We will no longer underwrite the anti-Americanism and the kowtowing to the petty tyrannies that comprise Annan's mandate. Either Annan needs to get on the side of the democracies and start working on making the Western nations more secure, allowing them to help spread freedom, or the UN can consider itself a permanent footnote to history.

Not surprisingly, some of the anti-American hysterics in the global community decry this strategic shift. Too bad. If they want American resources and American cash to flow into Turtle Bay, then the UN needs to quit making itself as hostile as possible to American interests. After discovering their treachery with Saddam, they're lucky we don't toss them aside altogether.

Live Blog: US Senate

5:19 PM CT: Senator Frist gets up to introduce the compromise legislation which will allow a federal district judge to hear Terri's case as a civil-rights case.

5:20 - Asking for the adjournment procedure which will call the House into session.

5:22 - That's interesting. The adjournment just involved Rick Santorum and Bill Frist. It seems like an anticlimax for such a moment ... but if it keeps the ball rolling, great.

Trey Jackson has the video of the Tom DeLay news conference announcing the compromise.

NARN Discussing Schiavo Now

Catch us on our stream now and call in at 651-289-4488...

UPDATE: We will be returning to this topic in our third hour, but right now we're talking with Cheri Pierson Yecke, who's running for Congress in 2006. Keep tuned in!

UPDATE II: Thanks to everyone who called in. Please use this link to find the phone number for your Senator to urge them to pass the bill under debate at 4:00 PM CT that will allow the Schindlers to access the federal courts on behalf of Terri.

UPDATE III: A couple of days ago, in a moment of frustration, I deleted a trackback ping from Cao's Blog. It was wrong, it didn't even fit my own trackback policy, and I apologize to Cao for doing it. (I confused Cao with someone who had written to me accusing me of killing Terri for not posting about the case, and it wasn't Cao.) I'm blogrolling Cao and you should as well. I'll also send her an e-mail apologizing for my error.

Iraq Insurgency Fading, General Reports

The top-ranking Marine in Iraq tells the New York Times that the insurgency has tailed off to its lowest level in months, evidence that the Ba'athist remnants and the foreign jihadists have lost the momentum and any popular support they might have had:

The top Marine officer in Iraq said Friday that the number of attacks against American troops in Sunni-dominated western Iraq and death tolls had dropped sharply over the last four months, a development that he called evidence that the insurgency was weakening in one of the most violent areas of the country.

The officer, Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, head of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, said that insurgents were averaging about 10 attacks a day, and that fewer than two of those attacks killed or wounded American forces or damaged equipment. That compared with 25 attacks a day, five of them with casualties or damage, in the weeks leading up to the pivotal battle of Falluja in November, he said. ...

He said that several hundred hard-core jihadists and former members of Saddam Hussein's government and security services were still operating in Anbar Province, but that the declining frequency of the attacks indicated that the rebels' influence was waning.

"They're way down on their attempts, and even more on their effectiveness," General Sattler said.

Sattler and other American military brass still say that they have plenty of work to do to bring an end to the terrorist activity in Iraq. However, the fact that the New York Times even printed this shows the clear progress that has been made against Zarqawi and the former Saddam loyalists that want to impose their tyranny over Iraq again.

Part of that success comes from re-establishing Iraqi civilian authority in Fallujah, which has started coming back from ghost-town status. Prior to the American reduction of the terrorist stronghold in November, the entire town was under the thumb of Zarqawi's minions, and reportedly Zarqawi himself, although he bugged out when the Americans showed up. Now a force of 5,000 trained Iraqi police and troops patrol Fallujah, Ramadi, and outlying areas, encouraging those who fled the fighting to return. About 90,000 have done so, around a third of those who lived there before November.

The increasing control by Iraqis of Iraq has changed the tenor of both the terrorist campaign and the regard with which Iraqis hold for it. In the beginning, the romanticism of insurgents allowing Iraqis -- any Iraqis -- to take control of Iraq attracted some support. However, as the US has stood fast to its commitments for sovereignty and elections and the rebuilding of domestic security forces, the Iraqis have seen the distinction between home-grown tyrannists and liberation. The terrorists then had to switch tactics to kill Iraqis, which confirmed their status in the eyes of Iraqis.

Democratization, as we have seen, provides the only long-term solution to terrorism. When given a choice, people want freedom, not tyrannies. Even the New York Times appears to be learning this lesson ... slowly. (I do note, however, that this hardly leads their International section.)

Supreme Court Turns Congress, Schiavo Away

The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Congress to restart Terri Schiavo's feeding tube while lower courts rule on the legality of the subpoenas issued for her appearance on March 28th:

The U.S. Supreme Court late Friday denied without comment a House committee emergency request to have Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted. The decision came after the committee requested the court's ruling in order to buy time as lower court appeals on subpoenas issued by the committee are considered.

The severely brain-damaged Florida woman had depended on the feeding tube for the past 15 years before it was removed Friday afternoon. Without the tube, she will likely starve to death within a week or two. In a statement, Republican congressional leaders vowed to work through the weekend in order to save Schiavo's life.

The SCOTUS appeal would have given Terri's supporters the most direct and quick route to a restart of her nutrition and hydration. It's possible that one of the lower courts could rule over the weekend, but more likely that Congress will act first to reconcile differences between the Senate and House bills passed last week. The earliest we can expect that kind of action will be Monday morning, almost 72 hours after Terri's food and water were withdrawn.

Barbara Boxer: Ex-Klansman "Love Of My Life"

One would think that after watching Trent Lott self-destruct while toasting former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, politicians would take care with their public statements supporting fellow party members with shady pasts. Barbara Boxer apparently didn't take any lessons from Lott's fall from grace, as she described former Klan member fellow Democrat Robert Byrd as "the love of my life" at yesterday's MoveOn appearance:

Finally, Boxer made a strong effort to address the uncomfortable fact that she once, in 1994, opposed the filibuster, back when Democrats controlled the Senate and were less concerned about minority power. Now, like Byrd — whom she called "the love of my life" — she has had a change of heart and believes the filibuster is vitally important. "I thought I knew everything," Boxer confessed. "I didn't get it."

"I'm here to say I was wrong," she continued. "I'm here to say I was totally wrong."

I understand that colleagues want to express support for each other, especially in public venues. However, the incongruity of a liberal Californian describing an ex-Klan recruiter -- a man who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- as the "love of her life" goes way past polite respect to a butt-kissing gush that Californians should find repulsive. That filibuster came when Boxer was 24 years old, certainly old enough to have heard about this. Did Boxer oppose civil rights then as well? When exactly did Byrd become the "love of her life"? Could it have been in 1977, or 1979, or 1980, or 1987, when Byrd himself changed the filibuster rules in the Senate when he was in charge?

Boxer, of course, has no leadership position in the Senate to lose. However, she continues to compete for the dubious honor of being the most foolish Senator. With remarks like this, she's starting to lap the competition.

UPDATE: Peter Cook at Slublog was inspired by the MoveOn spectacle to channel his inner Warren Zevon. Check it out if you need a laugh today, which I think we all could use.

Sweetheart Deals For Politically Correct University Presidents In California

While Lawrence Summers gets grilled for daring to ask politically-incorrect questions about the nature of talent and how to compensate for possible gender differences, one of his critics has learned to rake in the dough, reports Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer. Denice Denton, the new chancellor at the University of California Santa Cruz, received a lot of press coverage for her outspoken criticism of Summers' remarks in January. Now she appears to be reaping the rewards in her new position with UCSC, as a series of sweetheart deals -- one rather literal -- has contributed to windfall for Denton.

First, Denton's hiring as UCSC chancellor created a small controversy when the regents revealed her new compensation package. Not only did they offer Denton $275,000 per year (just from the UC system, not including any private contributions), they gave her a moving allowance of $68,750. Bear in mind that Denton will live in a mansion on campus, which we'll get to in a moment. For $68,750, one could almost physically relocate a house from Seattle to Santa Cruz. Included in the deal, however, was a tenured professorship for her live-in partner, Gretchen Kalonji, at an annual salary of $192,000. In an era of rising tuition and staffing cutbacks, this caused considerable issue with the unions and students:

Mary Higgins, president of the Coalition of University Employees, which represents 16,000 clerical employees, said she was concerned that UC would make such a hire at a time of cutbacks.

"If you’re sitting there at the regents’ meeting, and you’re hearing the students talk about how difficult it is to make ends meet and then they turn around and do something like this, it’s just so arrogant. It’s so unethical," Higgins said. ...

The state’s ongoing budget crisis has prompted fee increases throughout California’s higher education system. In the 10-campus UC system, student fees rose 29 percent in the last year — from about $5,200 (including miscellaneous campus fees) in 2002-03 to the present total of about $6,700 for a student with a full-time class load.

So the Denton-Kalonji household will earn almost a half-million per year in state salary alone, let alone whatever private subsidies Denton can negotiate, as is customary at both public and private universities these days. As Monty Hall used to say, "But wait -- there's more!" After giving Denton a $68,750 moving allowance, the school has decided to do some touch-up work at the chancellor's mansion. In fact, they plan on spending $600,000 to renovate it, using endowment money to pay for the work:

A $600,000 upgrade planned at the chancellor’s house at UC Santa Cruz is raising eyebrows among some campus employees. The funding will come from the UC Office of the President. UC spokesman Paul Schwartz emphasized that no state money will be spent at the house, where the chancellor frequently hosts university meetings and fund-raising events. The location gives guests a breath-taking view of Monterey Bay.

The money for the project comes from an endowment established in 1919 by Edward F. Searles to "finance the general purposes of the university which cannot be covered by state funds."

It seems to me that the endowment money could have gone to a number of purposes, including paying down some of UCSC's operating expenses, academic scholarships for lower-income students, better facilities for the student body and/or faculty, or simply paying down some debt. It's not as if the house has been falling into disrepair. It was built in the mid-1960s and last renovated ten years ago. UCSC spent $228,000 in 2001-2 to upgrade the kitchen and dining room used for public events (read: fundraising) and an additional $89,000 on repaving the driveway.

That must be one hell of a driveway, don't you think?

So now we have Denton and Kalonji earning a half-million between their salaries and their moving allowance and reaping the benefit of free housing, on which UCSC will spend $600,000 to renovate ten years after the last renovation. I had no idea that one could get so well-heeled in academia. Perhaps the taxpayers in California have been unaware of it as well. Instead of campaigning for the presidency of the University of Colorado, Hugh Hewitt should think about getting onto the Board of Regents for the UC system. I think his help is needed more in California than Colorado, Ward Churchill not withstanding.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Florida Judge Issues Stay (Updated)

A Florida circuit court has issued an injunction prohibiting the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, the AP reports:

A state judge on Friday temporarily blocked the removal of the feeding tube for severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo as legal wrangling continued over efforts by congressional Republicans to keep her alive.

Pinellas Circuit Court Chief Judge David Demers ordered that the feeding tube remain in place past a 1 p.m. EST deadline while fellow Judge George Greer, who is presiding over the Schiavo case, deals with conflicting legal issues.

This sounds pretty temporary; the legal issues, though, certainly involve the federal subpoena, which Greer cannot overrule. It should keep Terri alive until at least the 28th. More as it comes through.

UPDATE: Judge Greer has ordered the tube removed anyway, countering the Congressional subpoenas. This may create a jurisdictional issue that will allow the case to be heard in federal court, as a Congressional subpoena should, in theory, overrule a state court's order when that order will make a federal witness unavailable to Congress.

UPDATE, 3:24 PM: The AP reports that the tube has been removed:

Doctors removed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube Friday despite an extraordinary, last-minute push by Republicans on Capitol Hill to use the subpoena powers of Congress to save the severely brain-damaged woman.

Schiavo's family issued a statement on their Web site confirming that the tube had been disconnected. It is expected that it will take one to two weeks for Schiavo to die, provided no one intercedes and gets the tube reinserted.

I doubt this will be the last development today. I'll keep checking in as often as I can. Keep checking in at Blogs for Terri for comprehensive coverage.

UN Fired Whistleblower In UNSCAM Scandal

Testifying yesterday in front of a House subcommittee, a former UN monitor for the Oil-For-Food program testified that he saw numerous acts of corruption while working on it, and that as much as 25% of the funds intended on helping Iraqi citizens never reached them as a result. When he tried to call attention to the corruption, the UN rewarded him by firing him from his job:

A former United Nations monitor of the organization's oil-for-food program in Iraq told a congressional committee Thursday that the program had "gaping holes" and that large amounts of aid never reached the Iraqi people.

Rehan Mullick testified that by his estimate more than 20 percent of the shipments to Iraq, worth $1 billion a year, were not distributed properly, with many goods pilfered by the Iraqi military.

"A fourth or fifth of the supplies were not distributed," he said. ...

Mullick told the subcommittee that he repeatedly alerted U.N. officials of problems he observed but was rebuffed.

"Each suggestion resulted in my supervisors reducing my job responsibilities," Mullick said. "This continued to occur until my only job was to run the slide projector at staff meetings."

Mullick said he eventually submitted a 10-page report to U.N. headquarters in 2002 reporting that 22 percent of supplies imported under the program never reached Iraq's 27 million people.

"I heard nothing," Mullick said. "Finally I was contacted and told my contract was not being renewed."

The problem with OFF was never that upper UN management didn't know what happened to the funding. The problem was that they knew all too well where the money went: into their own pockets, and Saddam's as well. The last person they needed was one who kept pointing it out to them, apparently. This is how the UN handles aid money and management of humanitarian programs, which is the reason we should avoid using the UN to do this kind of work in the future.

The media appears aghast at the nomination of John Bolton as the new US ambassador to the UN, but the testimony of Dr. Mullick shows that a skeptic is precisely what this organization needs. The UN will not recover from its ethical and intellectual slide by having nothing but cheerleaders at Turtle Bay. UN executive management needs more accountability and a hell of a lot more skepticism from the entire membership. Since it's doubtful most of the rest of the globe will provide it, it is our duty to do so.

Powerful Thing, A Subpoena (Updated!)

According to The Corner, Congressional panels have issued subpoenas to the health-care providers for Terri Schiavo -- and more importantly, one for Terri herself to testify before Congress on her state:

Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA), released the following statement regarding the Committee on Government Reform's inquiry into the long-term care of incapacitated or non-ambulatory adults: "The Committee on Government Reform has initiated an inquiry into the long term care of incapacitated adults, an issue of growing importance to the federal government and federal healthcare policy. The committee's inquiry arises out of the case of Terri Schiavo, who is currently being kept alive in a hospice in Florida. Later this morning, we will issue a subpoena, which will require hospice administrators and attending physicians to preserve nutrition and hydration for Terri Schiavo to allow Congress to fully understand the procedures and practices that are currently keeping her alive. The subpoena will be joined by a Senate investigation as well.

"This inquiry should give hope to Terri, her parents and friends, and the millions of people throughout the world who are praying for her safety. This fight is not over."

If Drudge is correct and Terri herself will be subpoenaed, then it amounts to an open-ended stay for the removal of her feeding tube. If Terri is under subpoena, then the law states that nothing can be done to her which will prevent her testimony. That means the tube stays in until Congress calls her to testify.

As Wilford Brimley notes in Absence of Malice, subpoenas are powerful things indeed.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Pekin Prattles gets Dr. Cranford to reply to the NRO piece by Father Robert Johansen:

An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri's brain. A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG's were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty ...

The Duke accepts this answer as definitive, and I'm no medical expert. However, if the two tests that so far have been refused would confirm the diagnosis, what's the harm in performing them? I had an MRI done when I had my first significant migraine (up to then, I had no idea what my brief dizziness spells were), and neither test are particularly intrusive. Why not satisfy everyone and allow them to be the last word?

UPDATE II: Congress has indeed issued subpoenas to both Terri and Michael Schiavo:

As a deadline loomed, U.S. Senate Republicans sought to keep severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo alive Friday with an invitation to bring her to Washington, and an attorney for her parents said they hoped the move would buy them more time.

The Senate Health Committee has requested that Terri Schiavo and her husband, Michael, appear at an official committee hearing on March 28. Earlier Friday, a House committee was issuing congressional subpoenas to stop doctors from disconnecting the tube. ...

"It is a contempt of Congress to prevent or discourage someone from following the subpoena that's been issued," David Gibbs, the attorney for her parents, said. "What the U.S. Congress is saying is, 'We want to see Terri Schiavo.'"

"The family is prayerfully excited about their daughter going before the United States Congress for the whole world to see how alive she is."

He said that despite her brain damage, she would be able to travel. A statement from the office of House Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., on Friday said the purpose of the hearing was to review health care policies and practices relevant to the care of non-ambulatory people.

Frist's statement noted that it is a federal crime to harm or obstruct a person called to testify before Congress.

That should effectively block the starvation of Terri Schiavo until Congress reconvenes, giving them plenty of time for further intervention and a forum to air all of the issues and clear up any misunderstandings about Terri's condition and diagnosis. I fail to see the harm in waiting a couple of more weeks to determine what her status is and what the best and most humane course of action would be. Congress has done the right thing.

Also, as Doc Weasel notes in the comments, I misquoted Brimley. It should read, "Wonderful thing, a subpoena."

Bloggers Have Been Heard

I haven't had a lot of praise for Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), but I'm making an exception today. Reid shows the first sign that the Senate may have heard the outcry from the blogosphere about the BCRA, the FEC capitulation on Shays, Meehan v. FEC, and the coming limitations on blogging. Pennywit, Demosthenes, Right-Wing Nuthouse, and Daily Kos point out a bill which Reid introduced to the Senate which exempts Internet communications from FEC regulation altogether:

Paragraph 22 of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

Expect a howl to arise from the people who have paid good money -- lots of it -- to ensure that campaign finance and speech limits get applied to everyone except the Exempt Media. However, with Reid pushing the bill, it may have a good chance of passing the Senate, especially if enough GOP senators sign on. Get the word out to your Senators as soon as possible to support this bill.

Reid has also written to Scott Thomas, chairman of the FEC, telling him that legislation affecting bloggers will not be received with favor by Congress:

Regulation of the Internet at this time, with its blogs and other novel features, would blunt its tremendous potential, discourage broad political involvement in our nation and diminish our representative democracy.

While I have a quibble with the qualifying phrase "at this time" -- as if it would be better to wait a while longer -- his accompanying legislation demonstrates his sincerity in addressing the issue. Harry Reid deserves our thanks for acting to protect free speech and open political debate on the Internet.

Don't forget to join the Online Coalition, whether you blog or just read blogs. Supporters of free speech across the political spectrum have joined by the thousands -- add your voice to those who refused to be silenced. I'd also like to thank all of you who took the time to write to your representatives to demand a free blogosphere and political debate. Your voices, as we see, have not gone unnoticed.

UPDATE: Cam Edwards warns against settling for half-measures:

McCain/Feingold is an abomination. It's a perversion of the 1st Amendment, and most bloggers know it. Sooare bloggers going to be satisfied as long as they don't have to be directly affected.

With all due respect to Captain Ed... this bill is an attempt to buy off the blogs. If you want to support legislation, try the 527 Fairness Act or the First Amendment Restoration Act.

The media didn't speak out against McCain/Feingold because they were bribed with the exemption (and millions of dollars in funding... depending on the media outlet). Will the bloggers fall silent if they get their bribe as well?

Well, only if I get millions of dollars, too. Seriously, though, Cam has a point, but that doesn't mean we can't attack this in stages. If we have to secure the freedom of the Internet first, it gives us time to continue to attack the BCRA from here. The BCRA deserves defeat, not just for its capacity to stifle bloggers, but for its insane treatment of political speech as corruption and the unconscionable erosion of the First Amendment.

Senator Reid's actions shows that he at least understands the power that we can bring to bear when we unite for a cause. We need to make sure that all of our representatives start to learn what the Exempt Media has found out the hard way: we can hold them accountable for their actions.

NYT Gets Hysterical About "Un-Volunteering"

It's difficult to fathom what constitutes news to the New York Times. For instance, the head of a major American news network makes repeated and unsubstantiated allegations of American servicemen assassinating and torturing journalists, and the Paper of Record doesn't bother to report it until two weeks later, hours before the executive resigns in disgrace. However, when a handful of American servicemen attempt to evade the service for which they volunteered, they splash that all over the paper:

One by one, a trickle of soldiers and marines - some just back from duty in Iraq, others facing a trip there soon - are seeking ways out.

Soldiers, their advocates and lawyers who specialize in military law say they have watched a few service members try ever more unlikely and desperate routes: taking drugs in the hope that they will be kept home after positive urine tests, for example; or seeking psychological or medical reasons to be declared nondeployable, including last-minute pregnancies. Specialist Marquise J. Roberts is accused of asking a relative in Philadelphia to shoot him in the leg so he would not have to return to war.

And when the Times says "a few", they're not kidding. They come up with three or four examples of servicement who applied for conscientious-objector status, including one who claimed that he deserved it because war not only went against his religion, but that he has an open marriage and is actively bisexual. I'd love to attend services at that church. The Times uses a photograph of one recently-released soldier, but pictured him behind a chain-link fence despite his current status in order to emphasize the prison-like culture that they want to cast onto military service.

The military in the United States has been volunteer for thirty years now. People who sign up for this duty understand exactly what the military does and what they will be called to do if deployed to battle. Almost without exception, these men and women fulfill their duty honorably and courageously. There have always been exceptions, those who sign up for the money and bug out when actually called to perform the job they volunteered to do. Those people do not deserve our sympathy; they have left their comrades high and dry, the people in their units who depended on them to do the specific tasks for which they were trained.

Besides, at the end of the article, the Times makes clear that this phenomenon hardly even rates as a blip. In 2002, 31 CO status applications were received. In 2003, that number went to 92, and last year it dropped to 75. This is the emergency on which the Times spends at least 2,000 words reporting? It's a damned good thing the Exempt Media has all those editors acting as checks on the reporting process.

Look Who Gets Social Security Choice

Ben Smith reports in today's New York Observer that while the Empire State's two Democratic Senators remain staunch foes of President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, other Democrats in NYC have already transferred all of their funds into private accounts. Not only have they seen their investments grow, but at least one of them plans to demand full Social Security benefits despite not having paid into the system:

The New York City program, which replaces Social Security entirely, goes much further than the "personal accounts" that President Bush has been pushing, which would be only a partial substitute for Social Security. New York’s program has existed for more than a decade without attention or controversy, despite offering a useful counterpoint to the deeply polarized national debate. It is available to about 20,000 city government managers, political appointees and elected officials, although relatively few take advantage of it.

Mr. Bush’s proposal to overhaul Social Security has been blocked by a united front of Senate Democrats, with New York’s Hillary Clinton recently denouncing the plan as a "risky privatization plan."

Here in Mrs. Clinton’s back yard, however, the experiment with private accounts is hidden in plain sight at City Hall. The experimental subjects include four Democrats in the firmly anti-privatization City Council, including Brooklyn’s David Yassky and Oliver Koppell of the Bronx. Many other participants are younger political appointees like Robert Capano, until recently an aide to Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz.

David Yassky makes no apologies for participating in the program he opposes for the rest of the country. In fact, he is so unapologetic that he has decided to stick it to the US when it comes time to retire, since he feels that the rest of the country is so "unfair" to New Yorkers:

Mr. Yassky said that between the Social Security tax he’d paid in previous jobs, and the tax he will pay in the future, he expects to receive the maximum Social Security benefit despite not paying in during his time in the City Council.

"It’s a free ride," he said, adding that he wouldn’t criticize a plan that effectively increased the income of New York City workers in his position. "The federal government is so unfair to New York in so many other ways, when there’s something that is a disproportionate benefit to New York, I’m not going to get too outraged about it."

As Smith notes, none of these workers enrolled in the completely-privatized plan have experienced poverty as a result. In fact, their rate of return has been significantly higher than anything possible with Social Security, plus they own their investments and can pass them to family after their death. That flies in the face of doomsayers who claim that Bush's private accounts will create mass poverty among the elderly in twenty years -- as if Social Security alone keeps people above the poverty line now.

Nor is NYC alone. Galveston, Texas has much the same system, which produces much the same results, as the GAO discovered. Lower-income workers tended to do better under Social Security, as the amount of their investments were smaller and the return was not substantially better. However, they have the choice to stay with Social Security, whereas now no one outside of these two programs have that choice.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer can explain why they want to deny Americans across the country the same choice given to political officials in their power base. I'd be very interested in hearing that explanation on the floor of the Senate when the privatization bill comes up for debate.

UN: We're In The Mood For Stasis

The Washington Times reports today that the United Nations has declared itself "not in the mood" for more change, despite the revelations of multiple sex scandals in some or all of their peacekeeping efforts and the Oil-for-Food corruption that put billions in the pocket of a genocidal tyrant:

The senior aide to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he does not expect additional firings of key personnel as the organization struggles to defend itself from multiple scandals.

"We're not in the mood for more wholesale change," said Mark Malloch Brown, who became Mr. Annan's chief of staff and primary adviser three months ago.

"Senior appointments will not stop, but there is no wholesale change," he told The Washington Times in an interview earlier this week.

One wonders exactly what it takes to put Kofi Annan in the mood for change. The disappearance of over $10 billion (the Senate estimates $21 billion) in aid to the Iraqi people doesn't seem to move him to change. The rape and sexual exploitation of women and little girls by armed men representing the UN hasn't changed his outlook. The complete lack of progress in Kosovo and the Congo in reaching final political resolutions apparently disinterests him. And the deaths of 180,000 people in the ongoing sectarian strife in the Sudan, which Annan resists calling a genocide, has left him unmoved.

Of course, George Bush has indicated his mood by selecting John Bolton as the next US ambassador to the UN, where he is expected to demand change, whether Annan and the Turtle Bay bureaucracy likes it or not. Perhaps Annan can start regarding Bolton as diplomatic Viagra. Once Bolton arrives, I expect the mood to change rather quickly.

Ryan Sager Updates The Money Trail

I received several e-mails yesterday regarding this excellent Ryan Sager follow-up on the shenanigans behind the BCRA and the general push for campaign finance reform, but I ran out of time to post about it. Sager has video and transcripts of a talk given by Sean Traglia, formerly of the Pew Charitable Trusts, admitting to staging a fraud on Congress to convince them that a popular groundswell of demand for the BCRA existed:

Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when he joined Pew in the mid-1990s, Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of "experts" all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform.

"The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington," Treglia says — 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot — that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.["]

It's the baldest statement yet of exactly how the BCRA and its ridiculous First Amendment restrictions got bought by the same mechanism that it supposedly prevents, and a pretty good accounting of who bought it, too. Sager restates the money trail that he revealed in his TCS column earlier this week for the benefit of the NY Post's readers:

That cash, it turns out, was the one thing about the "movement" that was masssive: From 1994 to 2004, almost $140 million was spent to lobby for changes to our country's campaign-finance laws.

But this money didn't come from little old ladies making do with cat food so they could send a $20 check to Common Cause. The vast majority of this money — $123 million, 88 percent of the total — came from just eight liberal foundations.

These foundations were: the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros' Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).

Not exactly all household names, but the left-wing groups that these foundations support may be more familiar: the Earth Action Network, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, the Public Citizen Foundation, the Feminist Majority Foundation . . .

Where did that money go? It bought coverage at places like NPR, and even an entire issue of The American Prospect, which failed to disclose that its "Checkbook Democracy" issue had been sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation, which has spent millions pushing the BCRA.

All of this caught Chris Muir's eye at Day by Day, who stays on top of the issue:

The stink of the BCRA continues to grow. It now appears obvious that some very powerful interests bought and paid for McCain-Feingold as a means to counter the coming political realignment by restricting political debate to the Exempt Media and incumbents. Which party does that favor? Take a look at the endorsements in the Exempt Media from the last election and you'll see who had the edge.

Boxer Tells The Truth (Accidentally)

Duane at Radioblogger has the audio clip and transcript from Barbara Boxer's appearance at the MoveOn rally in support of Senate Democrats and their unprecedented filibusters of judicial nominees. After such luminaries as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd railed on interminably about the evils of majority rule (in America!) and the need to preserve the Constitution, they committed the fatal blunder of allowing Boxer to speak:

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

This flies in the face of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

In other words, the Democrats want to pervert the Constitution to require a supermajority to confirm Presidential appointees, which the framers specifically did not require. As anyone with eyes can see, it's not as if the concept of supermajorities didn't occur to the founding fathers, as they specifically require it for ratification of treaties. The entire Constitution contains only four requirements for supermajorities: treaties, impeachment, veto overrides, and amendments. Only those types of actions, the framers foresaw, would change the nature of the government itself.

It now becomes clear that it's the Democrats who want to change the nature of the balance of power by adding a supermajority requirement for Presidential appointments, and that the filibuster is their back-door strategy to do so. The blather about protecting debate is ridiculous. Limiting the debate does not equate to eliminating it, and besides, the filibuster does not exist as a Constitutional construct. Debate, in fact, only gets a mention in Section 6, Clause 2 of Article 1, and only to ensure that Congressmen cannot get arrested while Congress is in session.

Boxer screwed up and blew their cover.

Is Terri The Next Elian?

As I drove home today, I spent a while thinking about Terri Schiavo, who faces death by starvation and dehydration by court order unless either Congress or the Florida state legislature intervenes in time. A parallel sprang to mind, one that I don't know that I've seen before -- but it seems to me that Terri has become the new Elian Gonzalez.

Gonzalez, as most will recall, was a small boy rescued from the seas that claimed his mother as the two of them fled Fidel Castro's oppressive regime. Since his mother died, he had no obvious guardian to make decisions for his welfare, only some extended family living in Florida. The helplessness of the little boy grabbed the nation's imagination, and when the Cuban government demanded the return of Elian to his father in Cuba, Americans divided passionately on the subject.

One side could not imagine the government -- the federal government -- returning a little boy to the Communist regime and argued that the willingness of his extended family to care for him gave Elian a better chance at a good life. Others demanded that the wishes of his next of kin be honored, even if that meant Elian would grow up in poverty and oppression. People argued endlessly and accusations about the motives of all concerned flew faster than a Florida hurricane. In the end, the courts kept ruling that the next of kin's wishes overruled the opportunity of Elian to grow up in freedom, and the Department of Justice took Elian away by force in a disgraceful show of force that embarassed everyone on all sides of the debate. The US government packed him off to Fidel shortly afterwards.

This case may not be an exact analogy, but it comes close. Terri cannot make the decision for herself, and the two families have essentially taken mutually exclusive positions. The court has weighed in to take the extreme position, the one that cannot be reversed if carried out in full, despite the existence of other family members willing to take care of her. Despite pleas for mercy and a rehearing on the factual basis of the case, as it turns out that Terri did not have the proper tests done to reach the diagnosis accepted by the court, the judge has essentially closed off the debate and appellate courts don't usually take up findings of fact, only matters of procedure. Just as with Elian, when the government abdicated its responsibility to determine what was best in favor of the knee-jerk reaction to abide by the wishes of the next of kin, the Florida court appears ready to do the same thing with Terri.

And it will lead to an even more shameless denouement: the starvation of a helpless woman under the eyes of two parents who desperately want her to live, which may take as long as two weeks to kill her.

Perhaps it may just be me, but this sense of deja-vu became almost inescapable for me. I don't think it's necessary to get into the various accusations flying around about the Schiavos and the Schindlers, some of which can be found in the comments of my posts on this subject, to see that any process that ends with that kind of resolution is inherently flawed. Handing a four-year-old boy back to Fidel after his mother sacrified her life to get him out of Cuba's nightmare may have satisfied some arcanity in the law but defied justice. Following the wishes of Terri's next of kin may meet the Florida legal code, but starving her of food and water expressly to kill her while others beg to support her defies all reason, especially given the information we read yesterday in National Review.

Can we be this heartless ... twice?

UPDATE: It's looking poorly for Terri, as Congress stalemated on two different bills:

A brain-damaged Florida woman at the heart of a prolonged and emotional end-of-life case appeared set to have her feeding tube removed on Friday after state and federal lawmakers failed to agree on how to intervene and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in.

The House late Wednesday night and the Senate on Thursday passed legislation aimed at prolonging the life of Terri Schiavo, 41, by allowing federal courts to review the case. Such cases have traditionally been the province of state courts, state legislatures and families.

The two bills were vastly different in scope and the day ended with harsh political recrimination instead of compromise on the fate of Schiavo, who has been fed through a tube since she suffered a heart attack in 1990.

I could see that result coming a mile away, as soon as the Senate dropped the House bill and concentrated of the Martinez bill instead. With the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case, the last hope will be the Florida Senate tomorrow morning.

Lá Fhéile Phádraig Sona Dhaoibh!

The title says, 'Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all of you,' and as a celebration of the event today, I'm listening to a new set of CDs sent to me by the Irish band Poitín. The one spinning at the moment, Winter Brew, has a good mix of traditional Irish instrumental music along with pub songs and even a bit of sean-nós, for true traditionalists. Right now, I'm listening to "Ó Sullivan's March", a lively instrumental. After this CD finishes, I'll be listening to Barley Mash, which I think is actually the better of the two CDs. If you love Irish music and haven't heard Poitín, be sure to pick up these two worthy and entertaining albums.

I may or may not get much of a chance to celebrate tonight; in the Twin Cities, St. Patrick's Day gets an insane turnout at the local pubs, especially at places like Keegan's, which sponsors the NARN. If I'm not there in body, boys, I'll be there in spirit. I've stocked up on Guinness at home, just in case. I may spin up a good Irish movie with the First Mate, like The Secret of Roan Inish, one of the finest family films I've seen about Ireland that has any connection to the true nature of the country. (You can read my IMDB review, written in July 2002.)

But of course, I digress from the saint himself. Many legends and myths have attached themselves to the name of Saint Patrick, which unfortunately detract from the true nature of an extraordinarily remarkable man. I found an excellent biography of Patrick at American Catholic written by Anita McSorley, based partly on an interview with Thomas Cahill, who wrote How The Irish Saved Civilization, an excellent and eminently readable history of the Dark Ages. McSorley captures the historical impact Patrick had on Christianity and Western civilization:

And although almost any other qualification pales by comparison to Patrick's zeal for his mission, he must have set off equipped with an intellect both subtle and supple. For he not only decided, unilaterally, to do what no man in 400 years of Christian history had done before him—to carry the gospel message to the ends of the earth—but he also found a way to do it.

It's hard to grasp just what an accomplishment that was, says Cahill. When Patrick decided to "willingly go back to the barbarians with the gospel," Cahill explains, "he had to figure out how to bring the values of the gospel he loved to such people. These were people who still practiced human sacrifice, who warred with each other constantly and who were renowned as the great slave traders of the day.

"That was not a simple thing. This was before courses were given to missionaries in what is now called inculturation—how to plant the gospel in such a culture," Cahill says. "No one had ever even thought about how to do it; Patrick had to work his way through it himself.

"I know that Paul is referred to as the first missionary," Cahill says, "but Paul never got out of the Greco-Roman world, nor did any of the apostles. And here we are, five centuries after Jesus, who had urged his disciples to preach to all nations. They just didn't do that. And the reason they didn't is because they did not consider the barbarians to be human."

That ability to do what we would call 'thinking outside the box' today led to the mechanism by which we have many of the great writings of our ancient cultures. As McSorley relates, Patrick's conversion of the Irish almost completely and permanently within his lifetime created a Western monastic movement that had great consequences centuries later. The monks of Ireland would make copies of all these works while Europe descended into darkness, and only the reverse missionary work of the Irish into Europe centuries later would restore these works to greater Europe. Without Patrick and his remarkable mission to the barbarians of the wilds of Ireland, those works may have been forever lost, and Western civilization along with it.

If you have a few moments, take the time to read about the man we celebrate today, in addition to the merry myths we bandy about for fun. After all, even Patrick would object to getting too terribly serious about St. Patrick's Day, I think.

Torturing Terri

National Review has another excellent article about the Terri Schiavo controversy, as Andrew McCarthy weighs in on the court's plan to remove Terri's feeding tube. McCarthy took a lot of flack early in the war on terror for questioning our outright ban on torturing terror suspects. His e-mail overflowed with indignation from people who lectured him on descending to the level of the savages we oppose.

If so, McCarthy asks today, how do we explain the treatment Florida has in mind for Terri Schiavo?

On Friday afternoon, unless humanity intervenes, the state of Florida is scheduled to begin its court-ordered torture-murder of Terri Schiavo, whose only crime is that she is an inconvenience. ... It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a morally culpable person — the torture-victim is herself as innocent as she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim. ...

In this instance, though, deafening is the only word for the silence of my former interlocutors — -civil-liberties activists characteristically set on hysteria auto-pilot the moment an al Qaeda terrorist is rumored to have been sent to bed without supper by Don Rumsfeld or Al Gonzales (something that would, of course, be rank rumor since, if you kill or try to kill enough Americans, you can be certain our government will get you three halal squares a day).

Not so Terri Schiavo. She will be starved and dehydrated. Until she is dead. By court order.

As McCarthy states, not a single life will be saved by this torture, nor a single threat to our nation neutralized. Instead of being done to protect the lives of all Americans, it has only one purpose -- to kill someone guilty of nothing more than remaining stubbornly and inconveniently alive. I had not considered this position before McCarthy's essay, but he captures a gross dichotomy in our approach to justice. Be sure to read the entire essay.

Investing in Realignment

In a recent Opinion Journal column, pollster John Zogby presents intriguing stats on the election pattern of the so-called "investor class." The participants were asked two questions "Do you consider yourself to be a member of the investor class" and "Who did you vote for?" According to Zogby, self-identified investors comprised 46% of the total vote in November 2004, and 61% of those individuals voted for President Bush.

The "investors" Zogby refers to does not simply mean day traders on Wall Street, rather the term includes individuals who are simply saving money for retirement or a college education for their offspring. Zogby therefore predicts that regardless of whether the president wins regarding Social Security reform, his vision of an "ownership society" could spark a significant realignment in favor of the GOP. He concludes:

To the president and Republicans: You may lose the battle over Social Security personal accounts, but ultimately you may very well win the war over party realignment. To the Democrats: Just saying no is not a policy and demographics are not destiny. Ignore the "ownership society" at your own peril.

While it's certainly tempting to think the conservative party can boost its numbers by offering new investment opportunities, i.e. personal accounts, I think we come back to the age old chicken or the egg conundrum. Do people begin to vote Republican because of their investment experiences or are those inclinations to vote Republican present before the voter enters the stock market? I think it’s the latter. Some people are simply inclined to preserve their resources for the future and believe they can build wealth through their own efforts and careful planning. Others are more inclined to spend their money on the latest fashions and let the government take care of them in their old age. It would be no surprise if they voted according to a similar pattern.

Investors will love personal accounts. They may even love them enough to continue voting Republican. But the mere opportunity to invest will not turn spenders into savers, and it’s the mental attitude about money that is related to voting. The Democrats can just keep ignoring the “ownership society” because the spenders aren’t paying attention either. It’s the wishy-washy Republicans who need to get on board and fast.

More Highlights Of High School Politics

CQ reader Angry TO points out yet another fiasco of outsiders coming into a high school to raise consciousness among the student body. After a speech by New Jersey's Secretary of State on racism, students walked out of classes yesterday at a South Jersey Catholic school to protest the accusatory tone of her appearance:

Some white students at a South Jersey Catholic school walked out of classes Tuesday in protest over a speech by the New Jersey Secretary of State Regina Thomas.

Tensions have been building up at Paul VI High School since Thomas' speech on racial justice last week.

Many students and faculty members walked out of the speech offended. They said that she lambasted one student for not knowing his black history and that she insinuated that the students were racist.

"It's, like, really crazy right now. Teachers are just standing by the doors. Kids are trying to get out. Kids are in the hallway, they won't go to class," one female student said.

The story originally appeared yesterday, when students first complained about the speech. Thomas' appearance resulted in creating the racial divisions she supposedly wanted to address, with black students receiving a backlash from a handful of immature white students for Thomas' "preacher-style" speech:

"You're watching your back every second because you're scared," said Kristen Minoh, an African-American student.

"(My friend) had a crumpled piece of paper in her locker that said, 'KKK all the way,'" said another African-American female student.

Stupid. That's why speakers at high schools should be well advised to temper their rhetoric around teenagers; they're not politically or emotionally developed enough to understand the preacher-style stemwinder that Thomas used. (Hell, neither are some adults.) In this case, even the faculty took exception to her style:

Even faculty members were taken aback by what they called an overly confrontational and disrespectful approach.

"It's unfortunate, because I don't think many people would argue with the fundamentals of the speech. It's just that the approach and the manner might have served, unfortunately, to undermine the key point," said Andrew Walton, of the Diocese of Camden.

Now we have a school that finds itself with inflamed racial strife just because a politician decided to use the opportunity to vent at and humiliate students for not agreeing with her politics. As with West Seattle High School (see below), the adults in charge should have controlled the situation better and Thomas, who should know better, should have thought more about her intended audience.

The Al-Qaeda Bund Of West Seattle High

Michelle Malkin notices this disturbing story of political indoctrination gone awry at West Seattle High School. Susan Paynter reveals an attempt to hijack a legitimate panel discussion about the Iraq War and the broader war on terror among those, as Paynter notes, who may soon fight it by radical elements more intent on slandering the US military than an actual debate:

Three invited pro-military speakers were shocked last Friday when they arrived for a West Seattle High student assembly to confront a theater stage strewn with figures costumed as Iraqi men, women and children splashed with blood.

It was a warm-up for the "Iraq Awareness Assembly" so no students except the actual actors saw the skit before the military guests complained to principal Susan Derse and she put a stop to it. And here comes the crucial part: no teachers or advisers were on hand or evidently even aware of the content although that part is one of several things still under investigation. ...

Stage right were students in orange Abu Ghraib-style prison jumpsuits, hoods over heads, pounding on plates with spoons. Next, a student dressed as a grieving Iraqi woman knelt near a bloody body while, over a microphone, a narrator wailed the story of civilians shot, kicked and beaten by American soldiers.

The school could provide no explanation for the skits prepared and enacted by the students, and could not determine if any adult supervision had been involved. However, as anyone who survived public school knows, students don't just disappear into the theater for any period of time without having some cooperation from teachers. This wasn't an improvisation; they had costumes, effects, and at least a rudimentary set built for this play. Combined with the access given the students to the assembly, it's clear that teachers set this ambush up -- and that's exactly what this was intended to be:

Apparently the plan was for students to file into the auditorium as the play was going on. But, when she got wind of the content of the skit, Derse issued an announcement that all students be detained in their rooms until after the stage could be cleared. "The only folks who saw it were the students putting it on and, unfortunately, the guest speakers," Spencer said.

So no one was supposed to find out about the play until they walked in on it, which is exactly how West Seattle High's guests discovered it. Two of these guests were veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, who hopefully gave these students a quick and pointed lesson in the history of the conflict and what liberation meant to both countries.

We can thank the Eason Jordans and Pinch Sulzbergers of our national media for this disgrace. Due to their efforts, the American military has been defined by a handful of miscreants at Abu Ghraib, instead of the tens of thousands that brought democracy to over 50 million people suffering under two of the worst tyrannies of the past generation. Even as the remnants of both tyrannies continue to target and kill civilians for their own political purposes and the people defy them to organize their own representative governments -- and others in the region demand the same for themselves -- the leftists in Seattle education circles insist on painting Americans as baby-killers and bloodthirsty monsters.

Shame on West Seattle High and those who encourage and teach this to the students entrusted to their care.

Two Clueless Editorials On Wolfowitz, And NYT Tears Down That Wall!

The New York Times and the Washington Post both editorialize on the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. The Times, following its reporting that trumpets the controversial nature of both Wolfowitz' move and the nomination of John Bolton to the UN, declares that the nomination disrespects the bruised feelings of the international community:

When asked why he had nominated Paul Wolfowitz, a chief architect of the Iraq invasion, as the next president of the World Bank, President Bush repeatedly pointed out that as deputy defense secretary, Mr. Wolfowitz had managed a large organization. Even he seemed slightly flummoxed about why a job that is all about international cooperation should go to a man whose work has so outraged many of the nations with which he will be expected to work.

Even those who supported the goals of the invasion must remember Mr. Wolfowitz's scathing contempt for estimates that the occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and his serene conviction that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers. Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it.

This follows the ludicrously loaded question asked by Times news reported Elizabeth Bumiller at Bush's press conference, when she asked the President to justify nominating the "architect of one of the most unpopular wars in history". Elizabeth Becker then wrote about the "quiet anguish" in diplomatic circles, as Hugh Hewitt points out, without ever naming a single source. If that gives the impression that the NYT's two Elizabeths act in this case, at least, as an extension of the Gray Lady's editorial board, that appears exactly correct. Despite all claims of an unassailable wall between the Times' news and editorial departments, I think we have a clear case of coordination here.

What really rankles the Times is that events have proven the so-called neocon vision correct. Democracy has proven to have worked in Afghanistan and Iraq and started a wave of popular demand for democratization instead of terrorism in the Middle East. Paul Wolfowitz believes in the power of democracy instead of Scowcroftian realpolitik and so-called stability.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post doesn't do much better in its endorsement of Wolfowitz. The Post recalls, as does the Times, Wolfowitz' work in Indonesia as an excellent track record of using aid to actually improve a situation. However, it makes the same mistake that the Times does:

Moreover, Mr. Wolfowitz will have to modulate his admirable passion for democratization, the idea that has animated his thinking since his experience, as a State Department official, of the people-power uprising against Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The World Bank is a poverty-fighting institution, not a democracy-spreading one, and in the short term the link between development and democracy is tenuous: Some of the greatest recent advances against poverty have come in autocracies such as China and Vietnam. To be true to its mission, and to survive as a financial institution, the World Bank needs to stay active in these undemocratic development success stories.

The Post acts as if it has slept through the past two years, or perhaps longer than that. Why should the World Bank put its efforts into propping up regimes that oppress and starve people for political purposes? Both of the examples given only made progress when they allowed for more political expression, and only to the extent they allowed it. Both countries have committed genocides in the past few decades under the same governments that run the countries now, and China's policies starved millions to death in the name of an iron-clad central control that proved so inept that some of the world's greatest arable land could not feed its own people.

The only way to eliminate massive starvation and to keep aid from flowing into the hands of a select few is to ensure a representative, democratic government for its reception. From Somalia to Ethiopia to Sudan and Iraq, we have seen billions in global aid disappear into tyrannical corruption and redirection while the people which the funds meant to help continue to starve to death. Simply put, aid missions such as those do nothing but ensure starvation and the continuation of tyrannies. The only cure for world hunger is world freedom, where open systems and accountability can force the aid to the right people and allow them to build their own opportunities for success.

That is why Paul Wolfowitz is the right man for the World Bank. Wolfowitz understands this lesson and as the leader of the World Bank will be in the right position to assist the US in creating the conditions for it.

UPDATE: Corrected post to show that Elizabeth Becker wrote the news article this morning, not Elizabeth Bumiller. Thanks go to CQ reader Anachondra for the correction.

Did Terri Ever Receive A Fair Examination?

Hugh Hewitt links to a shocking article on the Terri Schiavo case in National Review today that calls into question the entire premise of her husband's case to remove her feeding tube. According to a number of board-certified neurologists, Terri never got the requisite testing to certify her as suffering from persistent vegetative state (PVS), and the doctor who has testified to her diagnosis has a long track record of right-to-die activism.

Father Robert Johansen, a Catholic priest working on behalf of the Schindlers, explains:

I have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri. In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools. ...

Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?”

Terri had a CT scan done, which Morin says is analogous to a poorly-focused photograph. It only has use as a diagnostic tool when dealing with major acute trauma to the brain, not in determining chronic brain death, and does not reveal the hydrocephaly that Schiavo and his doctors claim Terri has.

Why would a doctor get up on the stand and claim a diagnosis using tests that aren't designed to support it? Perhaps the doctor has an axe to grind and sees Schiavo's case as a way to promote his personal views. That appears to be at least likely, as Dr. Ronald Cranford has testified in a number of such cases, always on the side of PVS and the removal of care. It turns out that Cranford, who works at the same university hospital where the First Mate got her pancreas transplant, also has a long history of advocating euthanasia for a variety of other causes:

Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS. Judge Greer was obviously impressed by Cranford’s résumé: Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS. His clinical judgment has carried the day in many cases, so it is relevant to examine the manner in which he arrived at his judgment in Terri’s case. But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.

In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.

In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn.

In cases where other doctors don’t see it, Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could operate and maneuver an ordinary wheelchair with his left hand and foot, and an electric wheelchair with a joystick, of the kind that many disabled persons (most famously Dr. Stephen Hawking) use. Dr. Cranford dismissed these abilities as meaningless. Fortunately for Wendland, the California supreme court was not persuaded by Cranford’s assessment.

Up to now, my inclination was to consider this an unfortunate case of dueling experts and bitter family feuding. Now I think this is something more. The people who want the feeding tube pulled all seem to have vested interests outside of Terri's well-being -- Cranford wants to push an agenda for euthanazing people who he finds inconvenient, and Michael Schiavo appears to have a long history of neglect, or at least disinterest in pursuing the proper testing for his wife's condition.

As I wrote earlier, when in doubt, we should err on the side of life rather than death. As Father Johansen points out, grave doubts exist about Terri's true condition. It seems almost perverse to insist on pulling out her feeding tube until the proper testing can be done, and if Schiavo won't allow it, the court should demand it. A few more weeks to determine the real diagnosis of Terri Schiavo won't hurt anyone, and might just save a life. Read the entire article -- it's lengthy but fascinating and horrifying. Don't forget to check out the Schindlers' web site, Terri's Fight, for further updates.

South Park Takes On UCB Hippies

I'm watching South Park on the Comedy Channel right now, and Cartman is fighting an infestation of hippies in the town. They've convinced Stan, Kyle, and Kenny to hate corporate America and the "little Eichmanns" of capitalism. Guess where they go to college?

This is a laugh riot ...

UPDATE: Well, you should catch the rerun later tonight. They don't take on Ward Churchill, but it's still pretty damned funny.

Lebanon Rejoices In Freedom, Hezbollah Cowers

Two wire stories reflect the different directions that freedom and tyranny have taken in the Middle East since the free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. After Syrian intelligence personnel abandoned their stations in all but the easternmost part of Lebanon today, the Lebanese can now give voice to the frustrations and degradations of living under the Syrian thumb for decades:

Syrian intelligence agents ended their 18-year presence in Beirut on Wednesday, and emboldened residents of the capital came forward to celebrate. Some kissed the ground and others wept, wandering the basement cellblock at the headquarters and describing torture there. ...

Others were forthright. "It's a feast and great joy for me today because they're gone. I consider that Lebanon was born today with its liberation from Syrian forces," said Imad Seifeddine, a 47-year-old blacksmith.

Seifeddine said he was imprisoned by the Syrians for four years in the 1990s. "They tortured me with beatings, electric shock," he said. ...

Ali Abdullah Tayeh, a 54-year-old Palestinian taxi driver, knelt in the compound and kissed the ground. The thin, unshaven man has been passing the compound every day for a week in hopes of seeing the withdrawal.

"It is a great moment for me. I am for independence and freedom," said Tayeh, standing a few yards from the basement where he said he was jailed and tortured.

Remember, this is what Reuters yesterday called Syrian "tutelage." Western realists have long written off the Lebanese, figuring that any removal of Syrian forces would only result in an eruption of sectarian violence. Better to have stability and oppression than touch off a civil war, as the Scowcroftians thought. Of course, no one asked the Lebanese if they minded the imposition of a foreign Ba'athist dictatorship or the institutionalized torture and oppression it meant.

Not everyone in Lebanon sheds tears of joy at the exit of Syrian intelligence. Hezbollah has decided that it needs its guns more than it needs to participate legitimately in a democratic Lebanon:

Pro-Syrian Hizbollah guerrillas will keep their weapons despite U.S. pressure and the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, the group's chief said on Wednesday.

"I'm holding on to the weapons of the resistance because I think the resistance ... is the best formula to protect Lebanon and to deter any Israeli aggression," Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said in a live television interview with Hizbollah's al-Manar station.

Asked for how long the group would keep its weapons, he said:

"As long as Lebanon is threatened, even if we remain threatened for a million years, our will to our children, grand children and great grand children is that their national, human, moral and religious holy duty is to protect their people."

They need their weapons now, because they know what fate awaits collaborators with a foreign enemy. The Lebanese Army will not view kindly their attempted continuation of the Syrian dictatorship, and the Lebanese people will remember that stab in the back for years to come. In short time, a membership in Hezbollah will make life dangerous enough to reduce the group to a shadow of itself as the Lebanese will grow impatient to shake off the attempted influence of Syria and Iran.

Tyranny dies hard, but it dies eventually. Freedom is rooted in hope -- and as the Arabs have begun to prove, that hope exists in all human hearts, no matter the culture or the history involved.

AP To Offer Even More Biased And Bad Writing To Subscribers

Editor & Publisher reports on a new program from the Associated Press which gives its clients an option on fast-breaking news stories: an article with a traditional lead, or one with a more creative introduction to draw the reader to the story:

In a break with tradition at the 156-year-old news cooperative, the AP will now offer two different leads for many of its news stories, the organization confirmed Wednesday.

"The concept is simple: On major spot stories -- especially when events happen early in the day -- we will provide you with two versions to choose between," the AP said in an advisory to members. "One will be the traditional 'straight lead' that leads with the main facts of what took place. The other will be the 'optional,' an alternative approach that attempts to draw in the reader through imagery, narrative devices, perspective or other creative means."

Thomas Lipscomb will have plenty to say about this, I suspect. Just when he argues -- correctly -- that news reporting should stick to the facts and serve the truth, the most basic journalistic source plans on offering "imagery" instead of hard facts. AP intends on using this option only on the hottest news stories, not on analysis of older or more in-depth issues, which seems to me to be backwards. The AP thinks this will attract more readers to newspapers, but I think they're completely wrong. It's silliness like this that drove people away from the broadsheets.

To see how this would work, here's the example given by AP:

Traditional

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) A suicide attacker set off a bomb that tore through a funeral tent jammed with Shiite mourners Thursday, splattering blood and body parts over rows of overturned white plastic chairs. The attack, which killed 47 and wounded more than 100, came as Shiite and Kurdish politicians in Baghdad said they overcame a major stumbling block to forming a new coalition government.

Optional

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) Yet again, almost as if scripted, a day of hope for a new, democratic Iraq turned into a day of tears as a bloody insurgent attack undercut a political step forward.

On Thursday, just as Shiite and Kurdish politicians in Baghdad were telling reporters that they overcame a major stumbling block to forming a new coalition government, a suicide attacker set off a bomb that tore through a funeral tent jammed with Shiite mourners in the northern city of Mosul.

Neither lead appears particularly well written. The so-called traditional version uses some questionable imagery of its own, but looks positively Dragnet-like next to the new and improved AP version. Sadly, some newspapers will prefer the second and use it as their reporting method to their readers. Those of us on the Internet will continue to see only the traditional leads, at least for now.

Why does the business case of New Coke v. Classic Coke suddenly spring to mind? The only major difference I can see is that neither version of the AP is particularly attractive. The best that can be said is that the traditional AP formula doesn't repel me as much as New AP will.

Democrats Get More Hysterical On Judiciary

Just when we thought Harry Reid's incoherent analysis of the Constitution had lowered the bar as far as possible on judicial nominations and filibusters, along comes Old Reliable -- Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, who himself authored four changes to the filibuster rule as Senate Majority Leader to favor the majority, told The Hill that the proposed rule change equated to an assassination. I'm not kidding:

Today at noon, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) will address MoveOn PAC members about the nuclear option.

Byrd (D-W.Va.), the chamber’s longest-serving member, used the Ides of March anniversary to invoke Julius Caesar’s murder and told The Hill that “freedom of speech in the Senate is about to be assassinated.”

“Let’s don’t let it happen,” he added. “Fight.”

Byrd hasn't posted this speech to his website as yet, and if he's equating Bill Frist with Brutus, there may be a reason. Let's not forget that the Ides of March relate to the murder of a tyrant who suppressed the will of the Roman Senate by force. If Byrd wants to cast himself or the Democrats in the role of Julius Caesar, it sounds fine to me -- but the old fool should check in with his handlers before doing so publicly. The Democrats have subverted the will of the majority by hijacking the debate on a matter for which they have a specific Constitutional duty to complete: advise and consent (or deny) the Executive on nominations.

Now we have gone from Reid's ramblings depicting a majority vote as at attempt to grab "absolute power" to Byrd's blatherings about an up-or-down vote requirement amounting to an assassination of free speech. What's next -- a Democratic white paper describing democracy as the equivalent of the Soviet gulag? The degradation of intellect and reason from the Left has become simply astounding to experience.

Whiskey Returns

Greetings! It is I, Ed's long lost partner, finally back at home at CQ. For those who might actually remember me, here's a brief update on where I've been and what I've been doing:

- I'm engaged! I met a wonderful man while working abroad and we are getting married in November. (Yes mom, he's an American.)

- I'm moving. Again. Because Mr. Perfect lives in Oklahoma and is professionally obligated to stay there for the time being, I'm leaving my job here in Texas and will be joining him in the fall. This brings me to the reason for my recent leave of absence:

- Bar exam hell. Since I'm just a baby lawyer and don't qualify for reciprocity, I had to take the Oklahoma Bar Exam. All my fellow attorneys how miserable this was, and no, it is not better the second time around. I never realized how great I had it the summer I sat for the Tennessee bar; all I did was go to morning classes, do a few practice questions, and hang out by the pool the rest of the day. Not so when you have a full time job as a prosecutor! I spent all of my "free" time for the last three months listening to lecture tapes and answering questions about the legal ramifications of selling/buying widgets and who has title to Blackacre. Never again! Results come back 15 April and if I don't pass I'm going into the catering business or maybe bounty hunting. Anything but another bar exam!

That's brings us up-to-date. I'll be blogging as much as possible given the time constraints caused by job hunting and wedding planning. Will also be traveling quite a bit for my current job and unfortunately will be headed to places w/out internet or even running water in some cases.

Bleg alert! I will be doing a little wedlogging, seeking advice on the logistics of matrimony. Some little girls grow up dreaming of the puffy white princess dress and how many bridesmaids they will sentence to wearing horrid pink dresses with really big bows. I played with GI Joe and dreamed of expeditions to China, so I don't have all these preconceived wedding plans. I'll try to label these posts accordingly, so if you have no interest and no pity, you can spare yourself!

Moonbat Lemmings, Leftward March

Michelle Malkin has an excellent column today on plans by anti-war protestors to mark the second anniversary of the liberation of Iraq by staging protests all over the country this weekend. As Michelle notes, reality has no application for people who can't see a purple-stained finger for the victory it represents for freedom -- the same freedom that allows them to march in irresponsible protests such as these:

With freedom on the move across the Middle East and beyond, aggrieved anti-war protesters here in the United States have nothing better to do this weekend than what they have always done: stand in the way.

The most unhinged of left-wing activists, from breast-exposing pacifists to the conspiracy-mongers of MoveOn.org, will descend on New York, Washington and other major media markets to "mark the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq." They will do so by clogging the streets, tying up police resources and leaving behind a trail of anti-Bush propaganda litter.

Who says the Left doesn't know how to create jobs?

We'll have our share of clueless fools clogging traffic on Saturday here in the Twin Cities. In fact, we may provide some live coverage of the event during our Northern Alliance Radio Network, which can be heard over our Internet stream here. Be sure to read all of Michelle's column as preparation for the idiocy to come.

Democrats And Kristof Still Don't Get It

The latest fad sweeping the Left, the magic bean that supposedly will grow the Great Electoral Beanstalk, is "re-branding". Fittingly, John Kerry started this notion in post-election strategy sessions, where he correctly noted that the Democrats appeared to have lost the mainstream of American thought. However, instead of finding candidates who consistently represent that mainstream, re-branding just means having the same people who pushed the party out of the mainstream suddenly shift their positions back. In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof heartily endorses this strategy and nominates Hillary Clinton as the movement's avatar:

If the Democratic Party wants to figure out how to win national elections again, it has an unexpected guide: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Senator Clinton, much more than most in her party, understands how the national Democratic Party needs to rebrand itself. She gets it - perhaps that's what 17 years in socially conservative Arkansas does to you.

And yet, after seventeen years in socially conservative Arkansas, the first thing she and Bill tried to do after getting themselves elected was to nationalize health care. People won't buy that again, nor will anyone outside of New York trust a politician who treats voters as if they were amnesiacs. Kristof uses abortion as the primary issue for Democrats and urges them to follow Hillary's example of paying lip service to pro-lifers. What he wants from Democrats amounts to the worst kind of cynical doublespeak, as his tortured explanation of Hillary's new position unintentionally reveals:

Mrs. Clinton took a hugely important step in January when she sought common ground and described abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

The Democratic Party commits seppuku in the heartland by coming across as indifferent to people's doubts about abortions or even as pro-abortion. A Times poll in January found that 61 percent of Americans favor tighter restrictions on abortion, or even a ban, while only 36 percent agree with the Democratic Party position backing current abortion law. ...

What has been lethal for Democrats has not been their pro-choice position as such, but the perception that they don't even share public qualms about abortion. Mrs. Clinton has helped turn the debate around by emerging as both pro-choice and anti-abortion (emphasis mine).

That is potentially a winning position for Democrats. Abortions fell steadily under Bill Clinton, who espoused that position, and have increased significantly during President Bush's presidency. (One theory is that economic difficulties have left more pregnant women feeling that they cannot afford a baby.)

First, as with any Kristof column, I checked this dubious statistical reference and could find no support for it. The CDC only has abortion-rate data through 2000 on its site, and the NCHS didn't have anything either. The CDC's data shows that the abortion rate started falling in 1991, not 1993, the first of the Clinton years. Since that year had a significant recession (Gulf War I), Kristof's claim of causality should be treated with significant skepticism.

More to the point, Kristof wants Democrats to change their rhetoric while keeping to the same core values that marginalized them in the first place. In other words, he wants Democrats to lie; does anyone expect Hillary to press for abortion limitations? Has she voted against NARAL positions since being elected to the Senate? Not according to her NARAL rating -- 100%.

One would think that after all the flip-flopping their presidential candidate did in the last election and the result he got at the ballot box, Kristof and the DNC would learn that "re-branding" won't fly. It allows the opposition to rip Democrats apart on the stump and "brand" them as untrustworthy and dishonest. Telling Democrats to lie about their political beliefs in order to get elected isn't a strategy -- it's a recipe for eternal minority status.

UPDATE: Bloggers across the spectrum seem to all agree that Kristof has written nonsense with this column, but for different reasons. Gerald at American Digest says the Strong Woman handicap doesn't exist, pointing out the popularity of Condi Rice on the right. Kristof offended Jesse Taylor at Pandagon with his reference to Hillary's coffee-making abilities, something I'd noticed but skipped in my analysis. (Remember Hillary's "cookies" put-down?) Avedon Carol also notices that Kristof seems to overvalue Hillary's wait-staff sensibilities. Orrin Judd thinks that Kristof encourages Democrats to ignore secularists at their peril.

Back to the drawing board, Nicholas. Re-branding won't fly.

UPDATE II: In case you missed it, City Journal did a great takedown of Maureen Dowd yesterday as well. The New York Times seems to have hit the skids on its op-ed pages.

UPDATE III: The Anchoress weighed in on MoDo and her uterus here, too.

Perhaps He's Just Doing Something Wrong

The Guardian reports that a Dutch researcher has theorized a link between yawning and sex. Wolter Seuntjens released his thesis on The Hidden Sexuality of the Human Yawn, which promises to be an encyclopedic look at yawning in science, art, and history:

"The yawn has not received its due attention," argues Seuntjens, of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, who set out to provide an encyclopaedic overview of all available knowledge about yawning, drawing on linguistics (semantics, etymology), sociology, psychology, the medical sciences (anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology), and the arts (literature, film, visual arts).

He then explores whether yawning has an erotic side.

Not all readers will agree he has really proved his point about the erotic yawn , despite citing a passage from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie as an example, but it is a good try. ...

But the yawn and the associated stretch of the 'stretch-yawn syndrome' have been linked to desire and even of being in love, figuring in the courtship process both in the West and in passages in ancient Indian literature.

Perhaps in the Netherlands, a yawn is a desired response in human courtship, but unless one is attempting the movie-theater move depicted so memorably in Summer of '42, most people would take it as a less-than-positive commentary. Of course, if Seuntjens proves correct, it puts a completely different spin on my dating life (pre-First Mate, of course!). I may have been one of the sexiest men in California and never realized it.

Maybe Seuntjens is onto something after all ...

We're Rubber And You're Glue

The North Korean government issued one of its silly contradictions today, backing away from multilateral talks after agreeing to them earlier because Condoleezza Rice won't take back her description of the Kim regime as an "outpost of tyranny":

"It is quite illogical for the U.S. to intend to negotiate with the DPRK without retracting its remarks listing its dialogue partner as an outpost of tyranny," the spokesman said in comments published by the North's official KCNA news agency. ...

"This is, in the final analysis, little short of indicating it will not to hold the six-party talks. She can make nothing but such outcries as she is no more than an official of the most tyrannical dictatorial state in the world," he added.

Yes, when we have multiparty elections, the Dictatorial Party always ensures the same outcome. This schizophrenic break from reality typifies the response one gets from tyrannies once they get challenged by democracies willing to stand up to their thugs-in-chief. Plain speaking inevitably leads to shaming the tyrants and exposing the weak-kneed among ourselves and our allies. We saw it when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire," a description that caused the Western Left to moan and gnash their teeth but gave hope to the victims of Soviet oppression that America meant to do something to help, after forty years.

The same has held true for plain speaking in the Bush administration. Bush called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the "axis of evil" early in his first term, and moral relativists the world over professed their scorn for such simple-minded terms like "evil". They would rather avoid such terminology, because evil identified becomes either evil opposed or evil embraced. In Kim's case, after having starved ten percent of his country's population to death, the shoe fits, and the world needs to choose whether it embraces Kim's rule or opposes it.

Words matter, and tyranny means something rather specific. Kim's playground games with Rice only shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the DPRK. Her statements reflect the reality of Pyongyang and the need for North Korea's neighbors to hold the Kim regime to account.

Harry's Hysterics

Senator Harry Reid released a statement on the Capitol steps this afternoon that completely destroys any pretense that the Senate Minority Leader ever intended to work towards any reasonable accommodation with the GOP majority. Not only did Reid overreact to the ongoing debate over the proposed rule change for judicial nominations by threatening to shut the entire Senate down while the nation is at war and threatened by attack, but the statement itself is so inaccurate and historically bankrupt that it removes whatever confidence remained in his ability to lead in a rational manner.

Reid starts off by completely misinterpreting the intent of the Constitution's framers:

Our Constitution provides for checks and balances so that no one person in power, so that no one political party can hold total control over the course of our nation.

Absolutely untrue, at least in terms of political parties. First, the founders didn't give much thought to parties at all, and they didn't necessarily presume that national politics would evolve into a two-party system. In any case, the Constitution guarantees that no one branch of government will hold total control over the government. If the people choose to elect people of mostly one party for the two electoral branches, then it should be obvious to even Harry Reid that the party will control the two branches.

If any Senator has such a poor understanding of the Constitution, his state should be ashamed to have sent him to Washington. That the Senate Democrats made such man their leader either demonstrates their lack of talent or their lack of discretion.

But now, in order to break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch, President Bush and the Republican leadership want to eliminate a two-hundred-year-old American rule saying that every member of the Senate can rise to say their piece and speak on behalf of the people that sent them here.

At least Reid knew better than to claim that filibusters have a Constitutional basis. They don't; unrestricted debate and cloture simply exist as self-imposed rules, and have been changed many times in the past. Robert Byrd changed the filibuster rules four times over twenty years, as John Cornyn pointed out last week. It has nothing to do with separation of powers for the Senate majority to change the Senate's rules. The change also doesn't eliminate debate on judicial nominations -- it removes the ability for 40 Senators to extend the debate into eternity. Claiming otherwise is nothing short of hysterical.

The fact is that this President has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any President in the past twenty-five years. Only ten of 214 nominations have been turned down.

They have not been "turned down"; the Democrats refused to allow a vote, knowing that they would get confirmed. If they had been at risk of getting turned down, the Democrats would have loved to allowed an up-or-down vote. The Democrats, led by Reid's predecessor Tom Daschle, successfully filibustered judicial nominations for the first time in American history.

So it is clear that this attempt to strip away these important checks and balances is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power.

Since when has majority rule amounted to "absolute power"? Only since Democrats lost their absolute grip on Congress twelve years ago.

Presidents and parties have grown drunk with power before. Two Presidents of my own party --Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt-- began their second terms of office with majorities in Congress and then tried to change the rules governing judges so that they could stack the court with those who would do their bidding. They were wrong to try to change our basic American rules -- and Americans, and Senators of both parties, stood up to tell them so.

They stood up and voted the attempts down, Senator. They represented the majority view which you just got done disparaging. Presidents nominating judges for open positions or new positions approved by Congress doesn't amount to "court stacking" in the FDR sense, who tried to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices in order to bypass a hostile court. Bush won the presidency, and with that election comes the responsibility and the privilege of nominating judges. It's right in the same Constitution that Reid claims to defend and obviously has studied as well as Justice Clarence Thomas' written opinions over the past decade.

It would mean that the U.S. Senate becomes merely a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch. It would mean that one political party --be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow-- gets to have all the say. It would mean that one man, sitting in the White House, has the practical ability to personally hand out lifetime jobs to judges whose rulings can last forever.

That's not how America works.

It doesn't make the Senate a rubber stamp. It means that the majority in the Senate can approve or deny confirmation to judges nominated by the executive -- which is exactly what the Constitution demands.

Here, in America, the people rule -- and all the people have a voice.

We pledge allegiance to one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. Not liberty and justice for whoever may be in the majority of the moment Liberty and justice for all . In America, everyone gets their say and their due.

All the people used their voice in the election, and they elected a Republican president and a Republican majority in the Senate. That would indicate that the Republicans have a mandate from the people to approve Bush's nominees to the judiciary, not that Democrats have a mandate to clog the works with unprecedented filibusters. Given that the Senate only requires a simple majority to change its rules and that judicial filibusters played a major role in the election, it can also be argued that the people gave a mandate to the GOP to change the filibuster rule regarding judicial nominations.

Today, we say to the American people: if you believe in liberty and in limited government, set aside your partisan views and oppose this arrogant abuse of power.

If we believe in representative democracy and the Constitution, then we understand that this is no abuse of power -- it's an end to an abuse of parliamentary procedure by a minority intent on thwarting the clearly expressed will of the people at the ballot box. If Harry Reid doesn't believe in the Constitution and representative democracy, then he should find another line of work.

UPDATE and BUMP, 22:35 CT: For a more light-hearted take on this subject, be sure to check out Radioblogger's poll on Harry Reid's voice. I voted for Underdog ...

The Military Perspective On Iraq

A CQ reader who wishes to remain anonymous forwarded me an e-mail from military sources regarding an unclassified presentation given by Major General Pete Chiarelli, the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division. The New York Times featured Gen. Chiarelli in a Roger Cohen column that managed to capture the general's feeling of optimism only in vague terms. The presentation described by the e-mailer sounds much more hopeful than Cohen's otherwise serviceable column did.

I'll excerpt the highlights and put the entire message (minus the identifying headers) in the extended entry.

3. He showed a graph of attacks in Sadr City by month. Last Aug-Sep they were getting up to 160 attacks per week. During the last three months, the graph had flatlined at below 5 to zero per week.

4. His big point was not that they were "winning battles" to do this but that cleaning the place up, electricity, sewage, water were the key factors. He said yes they fought but after they started delivering services that the Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16 year olds came up empty. ...

8. Said bin Laden and Zarqawi made a HUGE mistake when bin laden went public with naming Zarqawi the "prince" of al Quaeda in Iraq. Said that what the Iraqis saw and heard was a Saudi telling a Jordainan that his job was to kill Iraqis. HUGE mistake. It was one of the biggest factors in getting Iraqis who were on the "fence" to jump off on the side of the coalition and the new gov't.

9. Said the MSM was making a big, and wrong, deal out of the religious sects. Said Iraqis are incredibly nationalistic. They are Iraqis first and then say they are Muslum but the Shi'a - Sunni thing is just not that big a deal to them.

10. After the election the Mayor of Baghdad told him that the people of the region (Middle East) are joyous and the governments are nervous. ...

12. Said one of the biggest problems was money and regs. There was a $77 million gap between the supplemental budget and what he needed in cash on the ground to get projects started. Said he spent most of his time trying to get money. Said he didn't do much as a "combat commander" because the the war he was fighting was a war at the squad and platoon level. Said that his NCOs were winning the war and it was a sight to behold. ...

14. Said he could hire hundreds of Iraqis daily for $7 to $10 a day to work on sewer, electric, water projects, etc. but that the contracting rules from CONUS applied so he had to have $500,000 insurance policies in place in case the workers got hurt.

The Exempt Media hasn't done much reporting about this, and Cohen's column mentions almost none of it. Why do you suppose that might be?

Went to an AUSA dinner last night at the Ft. Hood Officers' Club to hear a speech by MG Pete Chiarelli, CG of the 1st Cav Div. He and most of the Div. have just returned from Iraq. Very informative and, surprise, the Mainstream Media (MSM) isn't telling the story.

I was not there as a reporter, didn't take notes but I'll make some the points I remember that were interesting, surprising or generally stuff I had not heard before. It was not a speech per se. He just walked and talked, showed some slides and answered questions. Very impressive guy.

1. While units of the Cav served all over Iraq, he spoke mostly of Baghdad and more specifically Sadr City, the big slum on the eastern side of the Tigris River. He pointed out that Baghdad is, in geography, is about the size of Austin. Austin has 600,000 to 700,000 people. Baghdad has 6 to7 million people.

2. The Cav lost 28 main battle tanks. He said one of the big lessons learned is that, contrary to docterine going in, M1-A2s and Bradleys are needed, preferred and devastating in urban combat and he is going to make that point to the JCS next week while they are considering downsizing armor.

3. He showed a graph of attacks in Sadr City by month. Last Aug-Sep they were getting up to 160 attacks per week. During the last three months, the graph had flatlined at below 5 to zero per week.

4. His big point was not that they were "winning battles" to do this but that cleaning the place up, electricity, sewage, water were the key factors. He said yes they fought but after they started delivering services that the Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16 year olds came up empty.

5. The electrical "grid" is a bad, deadly joke. Said that driving down the street in a Hummv with an antenna would short out a whole block of apt. buildings. People do their own wiring and it was not uncommon for early morning patrols would find one or two people lying dead in the street, having been electrocuted trying to re-wire their own homes.

6. Said that not tending to a dead body in the Muslim culture never happens. On election day, after suicide bombers blew themselves up trying to take out polling places, voters would step up to the body lying there, spit on it, and move up in the line to vote.

7. Pointed out that we all heard from the media about the 100 Iraqis killed as they were lined up to enlist in the police and security service. What the media didn't point out was that the next day there 300 lined up in the same place.

8. Said bin Laden and Zarqawi made a HUGE mistake when bin laden went public with naming Zarqawi the "prince" of al Qaeda in Iraq. Said that what the Iraqis saw and heard was a Saudi telling a Jordanian that his job was to kill Iraqis. HUGE mistake. It was one of the biggest factors in getting Iraqis who were on the "fence" to jump off on the side of the coalition and the new gov't.

9. Said the MSM was making a big, and wrong, deal out of the religious sects. Said Iraqis are incredibly nationalistic. They are Iraqis first and then say they are Muslim but the Shi'a - Sunni thing is just not that big a deal to them.

10. After the election the Mayor of Baghdad told him that the people of the region (Middle East) are joyous and the governments are nervous.

11. Said that he did not lose a single tanker truck carrying oil and gas over the roads of Iraq. Think about that. All the attacks we saw on TV with IEDs hitting trucks but he didn't lose one. Why? Army Aviation. Praised his air units and said they made the decision early on that every convoy would have helicopter air cover. Said aviators in that unit were hitting the 1,000 hour mark (sound familiar?). Said a convoy was supposed to head out but stopped at the gates of a compound on the command of an E6. He asked the SSG what the hold up was. E6 said, "Air , sir." He wondered what was wrong with the air, not realizing what the kid was talking about. Then the AH-64s showed up and the E6 said, "That air sir." And then moved out.

12. Said one of the biggest problems was money and regs. There was a $77 million gap between the supplemental budget and what he needed in cash on the ground to get projects started. Said he spent most of his time trying to get money. Said he didn't do much as a "combat commander" because the the war he was fighting was a war at the squad and platoon level. Said that his NCOs were winning the war and it was a sight to behold.

13. Said that of all the money appropriated for Iraq, not a cent was earmarked for agriculture. Said that Iraq could feed itself completely and still have food for export but no one thought about it. Said the Cav started working with Texas A&M on ag projects and had special hybrid seeds sent to them through Jordan. TAM analyzed soil samples and worked out how and what to plant. Said he had an E7 from Belton, TX (just down the road from Ft. Hood) who was almost single-handedly rebuilding the ag industry in the Baghdad area.

14. Said he could hire hundreds of Iraqis daily for $7 to $10 a day to work on sewer, electric, water projects, etc. but that the contracting rules from CONUS applied so he had to have $500,000 insurance policies in place in case the workers got hurt. Not kidding. The CONUS peacetime regs slowed everything down, even if they could eventually get waivers for the regs.

There was more, lots more, but the idea is that you haven't heard any of this from anyone, at least I hadn't and I pay more attention than most. Great stuff. We should be proud. Said the Cav troops said it was ALL worth it on Jan. 30 when they saw how the Iraqis handled election day. Made them very proud of their service and what they had accomplished.

Texas A Signatory To Groningen Protocol?

CNN reports that a Texas court allowed doctors to override a mother's wishes and euthanize a severely afflicted five-month-old baby from a withdrawal of medical care:

A critically ill 5-month-old was taken off life support and died Tuesday, a day after a judge cleared the way for doctors to halt care they believed to be futile. The infant's mother had fought to keep him alive.

Sun Hudson had been diagnosed with a fatal genetic disorder called thanatophoric dysplasia, a condition characterized by a tiny chest and lungs too small to support life. He had been on a ventilator since birth.

Thanatophoric dysplasia is an unpleasant and rare form of dwarfism that occurs once in about 35,000 births in the US. CNN does not properly describe the prognosis of the disease, however. It is not always fatal, although nearly so in the neonatal stage. Usually, thanataphoric dwarves (the name is Greek for "death bearing") only live for hours, or days at the most. Once a baby gets past the neonatal stage, survival is possible, although the child will never have hope for a normal life. The limbs usually have significant deformities and the spinal column as well.

What makes this case significant is that Sun Hudson had lived for five months, which presumably meant that he could have survived longer and perhaps even overcome some of the difficulties of his affliction, although that was a long shot. The mother clearly wanted to continue the treatment, but Texas law allows doctors to pull the plug over the objections of the next of kin by refusing treatment. Wanda Hudson had the option of moving Sun to another hospital, but all refused to accept him. The state had him put to death on the wishes of the medical establishment.

That surpasses even the Groningen Protocol, which specifically calls for parental approval before euthanizing infants. Understandably, this case has its share of difficult decisions, but it's hard to understand how the court can overrule the wishes of the next of kin in making a determination to kill a child, simply because the doctors didn't want to go on treating him. Something tells me that we've stumbled over a line here, and what's on the other side has little purchase and a long fall. (via The Corner and CQ reader Meryl)

UPDATE: Thanks to CQ reader Mark, we have more of the story:

In what medical ethicists say is a first in the United States, a hospital acting under state law, with the concurrence of a judge, disconnected a critically ill baby from life support Tuesday over his mother's objections.

Here's an indication why the court may have decided to overrule the mother:

In the Hudson case, the hospital encouraged the mother to go to court and agreed to pay her lawyer after concern arose about her mental state. She said "the sun that shines in the sky," not a man, fathered her child and would decide its fate. She repeated her belief Tuesday. ... Ms. Hudson said she'd made no funeral plans and would not attend if one were held. She said her parents, who did not talk to the news media and disapproved "of my talking about the sun," might be present.

But perhaps this may not be the last time we see a case like this:

Ms. Hudson's lawyer, Mr. Caballero, is also involved in another Houston case, that of 68-year-old Spiro Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital wants to remove him from life support, but the patient's wife, Jannette, has gone to court to force continued care.

Like Mark, this case has its arguments on both sides, but I fear a very bad precedent has been set. The next one to pay may well be Jannette Nikolouzos.

Syrian Intelligence Starts Packing

The latest demonstrations of people power in Beirut may have convinced the Syrians to keep packing. Military intelligence units around the city began dismantling outposts and packing to leave under the careful watch of Lebanese security officers, the AP reports this morning:

A day after the country's biggest opposition demonstration, Syrian military intelligence on Tuesday was vacating an office in Beirut, moving furniture into trucks protected by Lebanese police.

Police blocked the road in the Hamra district of Beirut in the morning as three trucks started loading the furniture from the office. Two agents sat at the entrance of the building amid the chairs and tables. A policeman at the scene said some Syrian agents had already left and others were on their way out.

However, Syrian agents remained at their main office for the Lebanese capital, located at Ramlet el-Baida on the edge of the city.

Despite Syria's troop withdrawal last week from northern and central Lebanon to positions in eastern Lebanon closer to their country's border, most intelligence offices, the widely resented arm through which Syria has controlled many aspects of Lebanese life, remained. But intelligence agents closed offices in two northern towns and dismantled two checkpoints in the area.

The Syrian Army had the highest profile of the occupation, but the secret police generated the most resentment among the Lebanese. The question of withdrawal always centered on whether these mukhabarat would follow the army out of Lebanon or stay behind to help prop up a pro-Syrian government, or even work with Hezbollah to foment another civil war for a pretense of extending the military occupation. It appears that Assad realizes that notion won't fly, and since the Lebanese know full well who the mukhabarat are, they won't be safe without the army to protect them.

Most of Assad's army has now pulled back to Bekaa, and the rest have gone all the way back to Syria. The latest word has the complete withdrawal completed by June, after the Lebanese elections in May, where Assad hopes to reach an accommodation with a new government. His secret police probably also hoped to determine the outcome of those elections, but the spontaneous demonstrations for freedom since the assassination of Rafik Hariri have made Assad see the writing on the wall.

The days of economic exploitation and political domination of Lebanon are over for Assad, and the loss of both -- especually the economic loss -- will threaten his own survival. He might need that army to keep his domestic enemies from seizing power, or even worse, to deal with a Syrian uproar for democracy to match that of their eastern and western neighbors.

UPDATE and BUMP, 17:00 CT: Reuters now reports that all Syrian mukhabarat offices in Beirut have been evacuated:

Syrian intelligence agents moved out of their Beirut headquarters early on Wednesday, witnesses said ... The witnesses said a bulldozer demolished two guard posts, trucks loaded with office equipment drove away and the last intelligence officers left the headquarters in the seafront Ramlet al-Baida district.

The Syrians had also removed pictures of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his late father Hafez from around the building before driving away.

Apparently, the Syrians understand that the portraits of the Dear Leaders won't be terribly popular after the Syrian exit. And note that Nadim Ladki's poor writing makes it into this report as well.

It's Time For Action, Senator McConnell

Hugh Hewitt links to a Boston Globe article on the debate over filibustering judicial nominations which reports that Senator Mitch McConnell may not have much enthusiasm for a rule change which would eliminate them. Called interchangeably the "nuclear" or "Constitutional" option, the rule change could pass on a straight majority vote and end the recent practice of Democrats to block floor votes on judicial nominations.

I understand that the majority whip may not want to create more trouble than already exists in the Senate, but the antics of the Democrats in this session already demonstrate their intransigence. First Senator Harry Reid allowed Barbara Boxer to hijack the Electoral College vote to grandstand about non-existent voter fraud in Ohio, which the Democrats lost by over a hundred thousand votes in 2004 while winning Wisconsin with less than a tenth of that and real voter fraud in their powerbase of Milwaukee. Then the Democrats turned the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State into a name-calling debacle, demanding a masturbatory debate where intellectual luminaries such as Brave Sir Dayton from my state could pontificate on Rice's honesty.

Reid has threatened to bring the Senate to a halt if the GOP passes the rule change by demanding full readings of every bill and forcing votes on every item of business. This is what the Republicans fear? Gingrich wanted to teach the Democrats a lesson by shutting down government, too, and look where it got him. So far, the Reid-led Democrats have acted like whiners and spoiled children for his entire tenure, and after a month or so of this, the Democrats will either tire themselves out or their constituents. They're already the Party of No, and more than a few weeks of that strategy and they may as well pay David Spade to become their mascot.

The rule change will put grown-ups back in charge of Senate business and ensure votes for all judicial nominees. It will still allow for filibusters on bills and policy, where it has some application, but judicial nominees deserve respect and an up-or-down vote once they come out of committee. If Democrats want to influence that process, then they need to start winning more elections, and acting like crybabies on the floor of the Senate will not help them at all.

Call the bluff and call the vote, Senator.

UPDATE: McConnell says that the Globe article got it wrong, and issued this statement today:

"The President’s judicial nominations deserve a simple up or down vote. For more than 200 years, that simple proposition has been recognized as one of the ways the Constitution balances power among our three branches of government. Even if one strongly disagrees with a nomination, the proper course of action is not to obstruct a potential judge through the filibuster but to vote against him or her. Unfortunately, this obstruction necessitates that we restore these norms and traditions, and that includes through the use of the so-called "constitutional" option.

"If our Democratic colleagues make good on their threat to shut down the government, they place at risk funding for child care, education, highway projects, an energy bill and other important programs that impact the lives of every American. I urge them not to shut down the government."

Good. Let's get on with it, then. (via CQ reader Harold H)

The Other Italian Ransom Payment

Italy retreats:

Italy will start to withdraw its troops from Iraq this September, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Tuesday.

"We will begin to reduce our contingent even before the end of the year, starting in September, in agreement with our allies," he said in an interview on state television RAI.

One wonders if this wasn't a negotiated commitment between Italy and Giuliana Sgrena's kidnappers. It certainly looks that way, or else it appears to be a reaction to American demands to stop paying ransoms to terrorists. Italy had been a reliable ally in liberating Iraq and bringing democracy to the Iraqis, but if all they can do is pay off the people killing American soldiers and Iraqis by the score, then we're probably better off seeing them depart.

Al-Reuters Strikes Again

Sometimes reading Reuters amounts to an extensive lesson in accidental satire. Take as an example their coverage of the Syrian mukhabarat's retreat from Beirut. Here's how Reuters describes the pullout (emphases mine):

Syrian intelligence agents began evacuating their headquarters in Beirut Tuesday, partially meeting a key U.S. and Lebanese opposition demand for an end to three decades of Syria's tutelage over its neighbor.

Syria's tutelage? Reuters wants us to believe that the Syrians have spent the better part of three decades having its army and spies controlling every aspect of Lebanon's administration in order to act as a mentor. What exactly was Lebanon to learn? I can imagine this only as a bad episode of Kung Fu, as if there were any other kind:

Kwai-Chiang Lebanon: When will I be ready to go out into the world on my own, Master?

Master Po-Assad: When you can snatch your stones from my iron-clad grasp, Grasshopper.

Nadim Ladki's writing doesn't improve much as it goes along, either. Ladki appears unable to report the truth of Syria's relationship as an occupier and dictator of Lebanon, one of the reasons that a million Lebanese showed up in the streets of Beirut yesterday to demand their exit. Ladki instead uses more weasel words:

Syria's often feared intelligence presence has been a key element in its political and military influence on Lebanon since its troops first intervened early in the 1975-90 civil war.

How "often" were they feared -- daily, weekly, hourly? Every other Tuesday from noon to 4 pm? And as far as Syria's "influence" on Lebanese politics and life is concerned, calling the occupation of a country with a couple of divisions of heavily-armed soldiers "influential" amounts to a vast if not obscene understatement.

I thought the Exempt Media had editors and internal checks to catch this kind of bad writing. Good thing Reuters isn't a blog.

Sinn Féin: Well, They're Our Thugs, Though

Gerry Adams finds himself in the unusual position of facing hostility from Irish-American groups and politicians that have normally supported Sinn Féin, especially after the Good Friday accord that brought Northern Ireland to an unsteady cease-fire. Two major crimes committed by their IRA partners, a murder and a spectacular armed robbery, have stripped the blinders off of naive Irish descendants here about the general nature of today's IRA and the role of Adams as a Mafia-style mouthpiece. Adams attempted to get ahead of American public opinion and salvage some of his fundraising efforts (the kind that doesn't involve robbing armored cars) by branding the IRA murderers of Robert McCartney "thugs":

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams has condemned the killing of a Northern Ireland man and blasted the "rogue" members of the Irish Republican Army blamed for the man's death.

The January slaying of Robert McCartney in a fight outside a Belfast pub has sparked widespread criticism and calls from both sides of the Atlantic for the IRA to disband.

Adams, whose party is the political ally of the IRA, said the perpetrators have tarnished the Irish republican movement and should be "man enough" to turn themselves in.

"The people -- apart from Robert McCartney's immediate family -- who've been most angry, frustrated by this man's death, are people like myself," Adams told the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday.

If Adams really meant what he said, then he should be "man enough" to turn them in himself. Why wait for the killers to confess if he and the IRA know who they are, which they apparently do? After all, they offered -- by their own admission -- to shoot those responsible. If they don't want to do that, why not encourage the other people in the bar to come forward and tell police what they know? The witnesses understand the crime-syndicate mentality that grips both sides of the gangster war in Northern Ireland. They operate under Irish omerta, a code of silence for which violation brings immediate retribution to one's self and one's family.

It seems that the killers aren't the only "thugs" in the IRA and its Sinn Féin partnership. We know that because a two Sinn Féin political candidates happened to be in the bar at the time of McCartney's murder, and claim not to have seen a thing:

The IRA-linked Sinn Fein, which has already suspended seven members linked to McCartney's death in January but identified none of them, admitted that a Sinn Fein candidate for May's election to Belfast City Council was in the bar at the time of the killing.

The candidate, 23-year-old Deirdre Hargey, issued a statement Monday. "I did not witness the fracas in the bar, or the incident outside the bar," she said.

On Saturday, Sinn Fein said a candidate in Northern Ireland's 2003 legislative elections, Cora Groogan, 23, was also in the bar. Groogan issued a statement claiming she heard "commotion" but saw nothing.

The IRA has admitted that two of its members slashed McCartney's neck and stomach after he intervened in a dispute at the pub January 30. The 33-year-old man died hours later.

Two SF politicians just happened to be in the bar at the same time a man got his neck and stomach slashed wide open and they didn't see anything? Doesn't that seem just too much of a coincidence to anyone? Imagine if your local Congressman and mayor happened to be in a bar when a fight broke out, and members of their political party just happened to have killed the man who tried to break it up. Perhaps these men may have even been there to provide security for the politicians. Regardless of what American political party was involved, do you think for a moment that Americans would sit still while that political party stonewalled a police investigation?

Of course not; it would be a national disgrace and everyone involved in stonewalling would be run out of town faster than one can say, "I wish Strom would have won in 1948." That's the point that Americans need to understand. Sinn Féin (in Northern Ireland) isn't a political party; it's a political front for a terrorist organization, and a pretty damned inept one at that. Sticking money in their pockets amounts to the same thing as donating to Hamas and Hezbollah. We Americans of Irish descent need to remember that when the stirring anthems of Irish freedom start playing and the Guinness begins to flow.

Pro-Syrian Demonstrators Short On Math

Apparently, Syrian education does not include mathematics. Around 2,000 pro-Syrian demonstrators converged on the American embassy in Beirut to protest American support for democracy activists in Beirut, demanding the expulsion of the ambassador to make Lebanon "free":

At least 2,000 pro-Syria demonstrators denouncing what they said was U.S. interference in Lebanon marched toward the U.S. Embassy in a Beirut suburb Tuesday, and scores of riot police and soldiers used barbed wire to block the approaches to the compound.

The protesters, waving Lebanese flags and chanting, "Ambassador get out! Leave my country free!" stopped at the barbed wire blocking the road about 500 yards from the fortified hilltop compound. The crowd did not attempt to break through.

We're Americans, however, so we can actually use math to solve problems. Let's see ... we have one American ambassador in Beirut, who probably has a staff of around 200 or so people, including security. Syria, on the other hand, has 14,000 armed troops and thousands more in military intelligence, plus its Hezbollah auxiliary.

One man, an American ambassador, can beat the Syrian army?

Man, have these guys backed the losing horse.

Iran: Thanks, But We're Still Going Nuclear

The change in direction for US policy towards Iran announced last week in support of European strategy seems to have made little difference in the Iranian position. Iran's foreign minister told reporters this morning that while American offers of incentives could improve relations between Teheran and Washington, the Iranians would not be deterred from exercising their "right" to the nuclear cycle:

Iran on Tuesday said economic incentives may help improve foreign relations but won't permanently stop Tehran from pursuing a nuclear program it says is for generating electricity but Washington believes is for weapons.

The United States agreed last week to drop opposition to Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization and to allow some sales of spare parts for civilian aircraft as part of a European plan that offers economic incentives for Iran to permanently freeze its nuclear activities. ...

"Economic incentives can't replace our rights. Our legitimate rights can't be compensated through economic incentives," Kharrazi told a news conference Tuesday.

"That America corrects part of its past mistakes is not incentive," he said of Washington dropping its opposition, but offered: "(That) may be effective to help improve relations between Iran and the U.S."

None of this comes as a surprise. The EU-3 has pursued the carrot-without-a-stick strategy for two years or more with Iran on nuclear disarmament, to little avail. The US has acted as a vague "bad cop" but deliberately deferred to the UK, France, and Germany after we took the lead in dealing with Iraq. George Bush's move to join the EU-3 strategy caused some shock, both in Europe and in the US, but Bush wants to see some movement, and clearly the Iranians had stalled the process.

Bush wants what Clinton failed to get in North Korea -- a verification regimen akin to the Soviet disarmament agreements in the late 1980s that allow for true inspections and complete access before allowing the Islamists to exercise the nuclear cycle. (Preferably, we'd keep them from doing it at all, but the Russians have screwed that up.) Such a regimen would take time to set up and would delay Iranian ability to develop a nuclear warhead. That delay would hopefully give the energetic democracy movement time to unleash itself and overthrow the mullahcracy, the only sure way to keep nuclear fuel out of the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, at least from Iranian sources.

Failing that, Bush's agreement has the leeway to force the issue to the UN Security Council, and soon. The Russians would probably veto any sanctions, and if not them, the Chinese. But again, the debate and the deliberation may give the democrats a chance to assert themselves; at least it would put Iran under a spotlight which thus far has benefitted Lebanon and its demands for democracy.

These strategies do not hold tremendous promise, but at the least, it gets Europe to break out of the Iranian stalemate. Left as it was, the Iranian stall only benefitted the mullahs.

Federal Shield Law For Exempt Media?

The AP reports that bills granting reporters a shield from revealing their sources has gained Congressional support and may soon come up for debate. The prosecution of several journalists with national media outlets have given the issue some momentum and a sense of urgency, although it appears that debate will be all that's scheduled for this year:

Legislation to require prosecutors and judges to meet strict national standards and exhaust other remedies before they could subpoena reporters has both Republicans and Democrats as sponsors in the House and Senate.

Support is building now that several reporters are closer to facing jail, but the Bush administration is silent on the issue and Congress isn't likely to vote on it this year. ...

So far, a dozen House members have signed on to Pence's "free flow of information act," which in general would prohibit federal entities from forcing reporters to disclose the identity of a confidential source. A similar measure has four co-sponsors in the Senate.

Does a federal shield law really make sense? In some senses, yes. It allows for government and corporate malfeasance to come to light when other channels do not exist or refuse to address it. While we always suspect the motives of whistleblowers, their existence keeps us informed and aware of abuses, hopefully limiting the damage they can do to us. On the other hand, they often act as Trojan horses for petty revenges and even misinformation on their own. The most notorious case, the one pressing the bill forward, is the Plame outing. Originally the whistleblower was suspected of committing a crime, but after Joseph Wilson was found to have lied about his assignment and how he got it, it turned more into a whistleblower case.

A number of states already have shield laws protecting reporters from subpoenas issued in state courts. The concern is that these do not cover federal courts even within the states that have shield laws and a federal law is needed to ensure blanket application, but prosecutors worry that giving the press a free pass allows too many witnesses to hide behind the headlines instead of giving evidence in an orderly manner. The proposed law tries to split the difference by giving the judge some leeway in compelling testimony if all other options fail (Section 2):

(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure- No Federal entity may compel a covered person to testify or produce any document in any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law unless a court determines by clear and convincing evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to the covered person--

(1) that the entity has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain such testimony or document from all persons from which such testimony or document could reasonably be obtained other than a covered person; and

(2) that--

(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than a covered person--

(i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred; and
(ii) the testimony or document sought is essential to the investigation, prosecution, or defense; or

(B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than a covered person, the testimony or document sought is essential to a dispositive issue of substantial importance to that matter.

I would tend to support this, with the limitation clear that prosecutors must establish a crime had been committed and that all other options had been exhausted. However, I do note that once again, Congress has taken care to limit the privilege to the Exempt Media (Section 7-1a):

an entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that --

(i) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(ii) operates a radio or television broadcast station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or

(iii) operates a news agency or wire service

Looks like bloggers get left out in the cold again.

Lipscomb: No Trust For MSM Until They Police Themselves

Thomas Lipscomb delivers a scolding to the mainstream media (or, as I've begun to think of them in the BCRA era, the Exempt Media) for its inability to hold each other accountable for the egregious failures, let alone the more minor errors. Editor and Publisher runs his latest column, which sounds the same themes as his debate this weekend with Alex Jones on James Goodale's PBS show, and it certainly belongs there where his colleagues will read it.

Lipscomb gives competent, if necessarily brief, reviews of the Memogate debacle at CBS and CNN's reaction to Eason Jordan's remarks. In the case of both, Lipscomb eschews the controversies themselves and focuses on the reaction from both news organizations. In both cases, he finds them less interested in the truth than in engaging in cover-ups:

When CBS took a corporate look at the disaster, it hired a law firm. Why? Not to determine the truth or falsehood of the reporting, but to rather to evaluate the procedures by which it was carried out, as lead attorney Michael J. Missal, at the Kirkpatrick and Lockhart firm, recently clarified for me. But the Tiffany Network didn’t even trust its own news division sufficiently to let it dig out the story. ...

Not only was there a tape, but CNN admits it never asked for it, as CNN spokeswoman Megan Mahoney has revealed to me. There was no problem with getting a copy of the notorious “off the record” tape from the World Economic Forum. When I asked WEF’s Klaus Schwab whether he would have made a tape available, cut to just Eason Jordan’s remarks, and give it to Jordan and CNN, he replied: “Of course. And they could make any distribution of it they wished.”

CNN had the power and the obligation to release the tape as a news organization. That responsibility was its bond to the public trust. If the head of its news department had gone off his head, firing him and getting back to basics would help to keep that trust intact. Why wouldn’t CNN, like Dan Rather, want to “break that story?”

As he told Jones and Goodale, this wagon-circling and stonewalling goes completely against the traditional mission of the media -- to find and publish the truth. That mission got corrupted forty or so years ago, when reporters and editors decided that their mission had changed to "making the world a better place", using the value systems they took from college and j-schools. The popularity of the late, lamented Hunter S. Thompson had an influence on this, too. Instead of sticking with the 5 Ws, reporters started performing analysis and inserting opinion on news pieces, and editors allowed that to flourish.

The same reporters who started these trends now run the media organizations that perpetuate them. CBS producers and executives just believe that George Bush cheated his way in and out of the National Guard, all evidence to the contrary, and wind up being saps when obviously and demonstrably fraudulent documents surface supporting their pre-existing biases. CNN's top man just believes that Western militaries are evil and want to kill journalists and starts spouting off in foreign venues without providing an ounce of substantiation, or even having his news organization try reporting it. And when these fall apart, the impulse to find the truth has so long since atrophied in the newsrooms that the only action contemplated by the editors and executives is to circle wagons and start firing people.

Now we in the blogosphere have begun to make the news business a conversation instead of a broadcast, and the media find themselves in the uncomfortable position of accountability to their readers. Understandably, the change has disconcerted them, but as Lipscomb writes, the wake-up call is their last chance to salvage what's left of their credibility and return to real reporting:

If it takes “salivating morons” to get major news organizations to clean up their acts and remember Journalism 101, may they slobber on -- before the American people stop paying any attention to big media at all. In the end, as The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz points out, Jordan only resigned “following a relentless campaign by online critics but scant coverage in the mainstream press.” Those of us in mainstream media had better ask why we didn’t do a better job ourselves.

If that is to happen, news organizations need to recommit to reporting objectively at all levels and quit playing social-engineering games with the news. A commitment to truth would have resulted in much different responses from CBS and CNN to the scandals they provoked, and would have resulted in repaired relations with their customers.

The Mythology Of Cuban Medical Care

For those who support or sympathize with Fidel Castro and his dictatorship of Cuba, no argument comes up more frequently than the supposedly marvelous health-care system that Castro has created for the Cubans. They routinely credit him with managing to deliver world-class facilities and treatment, equally for all Cubans, far surpassing even the United States in egalitarianism and effectiveness. For some people, that level of medical care outweighs Castro's oppression, which would be ludicrous even if they were right about the medical system they espouse.

Unfortunately, that system is a myth, as Val Prieto points out in Babalublog. Val points out a March 6th article in Gentunio, translated partially here, which has a number of pictures of Clínico Quirúrgico in Havana. Here's what Fidel Castro said about Clínico Quirúrgico in 1989:

"Now, the old hospital has turned into one of the most modern and best ones in the capital. I should explain that this hospital provided services to a large number of people who live at the other side of the Almendares River." ... "Not only did the number of beds increase, with blocks and civil construction spreading throughout almost 30,000 square meters of construction, but the power unit is totally new-boilers, electric power generators, etc.["]

Reporters from Gentiuno managed to get into the actual hospital with a camera, and they found a much different situation. For example, this is what they found in the emergency room:

Yes, those are cockroaches, at least the Darwin Award winners that got caught under the feet of patients, doctors, and staff. Lord knows how many smarter ones have managed to stay alive. They may come from the restrooms for the emergency room:

If one manages to survive surgical treatment in the emergency room, then they have plenty of time for infection, er, reflection in the recovery room. Take a look at that area and tell me if you'd feel healed by resting a while in here, first the ceiling and then the floor:

Remember the new power system that Castro had installed in 1989? It looks like he skipped a few items on the checklist. Either that, or the hospital wants to drum up more business through electrocution of patients and staff:

When leftists tell you that Castro may have his faults but he provides for the Cuban people with his marvelous health system, try to remember these pictures. I wouldn't send a stray dog to a facility like this to get put to sleep, let alone receive treatment. And this is what Castro considers a jewel in the crown of the Cuban HMO program. Be sure to read Val's entire post, and if you read Spanish, check out Gentiuno's article for more details.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Lebanon Answers Hezbollah In One Voice: Freedom!

In response to the massive, organized rally by Hezbollah last week that had significant Syrian support, the Lebanese have flocked to Martyrs Square again today in the hundreds of thousands, according to Reuters, demanding an end to Syrian occupation. Unlike the Hezbollah protests for continued foreign domination, today's demonstration crosses sectarian lines:

Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in central Beirut on Monday in the largest anti-Syrian protest in Lebanon since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri exactly a month ago. ...

Unlike previous anti-Syrian opposition protests since a bomb blast killed Hariri on Feb. 14, many Sunni Muslims joined Druze and Christians in taking to the streets. Hariri was a Sunni.

The opposition rally came a day after huge crowds turned out in the south for a anti-U.S. demonstration organized by Lebanon's Shi'ite Muslim Hizbollah group, an ally of Syria.

Westerners worried that the massive show by Hezbollah would intimidate the democrats in Lebanon, and in fact it appeared initially to stun them. In the momentary respite, Assad got Omar Karami back in charge of the Lebanese government through the efforts of pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud. Even with Syrian troops streaming eastward, it looked like Assad had reversed momentum.

Now, however, it looks like the democrats have more strength than ever, so much so that the Lebanese collaborationists have asked both sides to stop holding street demonstrations and use Parliament to make their demands known. They may have miscalculated by putting Karami back in charge. It tipped their hand, showing their loyalty to Damascus over Beirut, and the protestors in the streets tell them that without Damascus, their days in power are numbered.

The Syrians are leaving. So will Lahoud, Karami, and the rest of Assad's toadies. The only question is when, and if Lebanon continues to rise up for its independence, that question will get answered soon.

UPDATE and BUMP: Added photographs.

AOL Wants Your Business (Literally)

I have never been a big fan of America On Line, but part of that comes from the ability to understand and navigate the Internet without having the clunky AOL interface to deliver content for me. From time to time, I use their Instant Messenger product to communicate in real time with friends and family, and I like it better than most of the alternatives.

Now, however, that may have to change. AOL has started heavily promoting AIM as a business tool for improving office communications as well as a replacement for professional e-mail communications. Users can upgrade to a client that supports voice conferencing and web meetings. Kevin McCullough points out a new clause in AIM's user agreement that will make its users think twice before implementing AIM for either purpose:

"You waive any right to privacy. You waive the right to inspect or approve uses of content or to be compensated for any such uses."

"In addition, by posting content on an AIM product, you grant AOL, its parent affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt, and promote this content in any medium."

In other words, if you discuss any aspect of your business that you need to keep to yourself -- say, human-resources issues or product development details -- AOL reserves the right to post it to the Internet. Let's use a different example. If a radio show uses AIM to discuss its guest list or content with its studio staff, any remarks made by the staff about the guests or the callers could very well end up in the hands of competing radio hosts or political opponents. Voice conferences between journalists in the field and their editors back home could wind up as MP3 files on AOL's site.

Talk about Big Brother! And you all worried about Bill Gates!

AOL will probably argue that they need this flexibility to undermine the ability of terrorists and child pornographers to utilize this technology for their own ends. If so, then AOL should limit itself and its language to illegal actions committed with their servers and technologies, and not the confiscation of all communication as fair game for their promotions department. These new terms of service should encourage everyone to dump AIM and AOL until AOL comes to its senses.

UPDATE: AOL claims it won't hijack user-to-user messaging in AIM, but it hasn't changed its rather broad TOS language to reflect that.

Scalia The Prophet

Scott Johnson of Power Line writes a powerful argument about the true intent of the BCRA and its carefully selected targets in today's Daily Standard. Titled "Dream Palace of the Goo Goos," Johnson's article points out the hypocrisy of sanitizing political speech in an era where the courts have permitted all kinds of activity to act as speech, therefore granting them the protection of the First Amendment umbrella:

Even if the McCain-Feingold law and the "press exemption" are unclear on the extent of their application, wouldn't the First Amendment protect freedom of speech on the Internet? The Supreme Court's modern First Amendment jurisprudence has afforded Constitutional protection to such vital speech as nude dancing, flag burning, simulated online child pornography, and sexually explicit cable programming. Surely the First Amendment protects the rights of bloggers to express themselves on the Internet as they see fit in connection with elections to federal office?

The First Amendment itself speaks to the point with great clarity: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . " And there is no gainsaying that the core purpose of the First Amendment is the protection of political speech. Yet the Supreme Court has beat a remarkable retreat in the face of the congressional onslaught on political speech in the name of campaign-finance reform. In its decision affirming the constitutionality of the basic provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill, the Supreme Court has already demonstrated that it cannot be counted on to protect the right of free speech in the context of campaign-finance law. In affirming the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill's key provisions, the court cut Congress substantial slack to regulate otherwise protected speech in the name of "preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption."

But Scott finds his most devastating argument in the dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose words in opposition to the BCRA sound as those of a true seer. Scalia went through the Congressional debates of both McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan which created the BCRA, and had much more of a grasp on the true intent of the BCRA's muzzle than his colleagues (emphases mine):

[L]et us not be deceived. While the Government's briefs and arguments before this Court focused on the horrible "appearance of corruption," the most passionate floor statements during the debates on this legislation pertained to so-called attack ads, which the Constitution surely protects, but which Members of Congress analogized to "crack cocaine," 144 Cong. Rec. S868 (Feb. 24, 1998) (remarks of Sen. Daschle), "drive-by shooting[s]," id., at S879 (remarks of Sen. Durbin), and "air pollution," 143 Cong. Rec. 20505 (1997) (remarks of Sen. Dorgan). There is good reason to believe that the ending of negative campaign ads was the principal attraction of the legislation. A Senate sponsor said, "I hope that we will not allow our attention to be distracted from the real issues at hand-how to raise the tenor of the debate in our elections and give people real choices. No one benefits from negative ads. They don't aid our Nation's political dialog." Id., at 20521--20522 (remarks of Sen. McCain). He assured the body that "[y]ou cut off the soft money, you are going to see a lot less of that [attack ads]. Prohibit unions and corporations, and you will see a lot less of that. If you demand full disclosure for those who pay for those ads, you are going to see a lot less of that . . . ." 147 Cong. Rec. S3116 (Mar. 29, 2001) (remarks of Sen. McCain). See also, e.g., 148 Cong. Rec. S2117 (Mar. 20, 2002) (remarks of Sen. Cantwell) ("This bill is about slowing the ad war. . . . It is about slowing political advertising and making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves"); 143 Cong. Rec. 20746 (1997) (remarks of Sen. Boxer) ("These so-called issues ads are not regulated at all and mention candidates by name. They directly attack candidates without any accountability. It is brutal . . . . We have an opportunity in the McCain-Feingold bill to stop that . . ."); 145 Cong. Rec. S12606--S12607 (Oct. 14, 1999) (remarks of Sen. Wellstone) ("I think these issue advocacy ads are a nightmare. I think all of us should hate them . . . . [By passing the legislation], [w]e could get some of this poison politics off television").

So what are all of these Senators decrying? The ads used by outside interest groups to highlight real and perceived deficiencies in an incumbent's voting record. Why did outside groups run these ads? Thanks to earlier, misdirected attempts to "reform" campaign financing, candidates and political parties couldn't raise enough money to do that themselves. Instead, the money flowed to PACs, which then worked with the campaigns, allowing a reduced if still open responsibility on the candidates for the message. (Now, with coordination completely outlawed, the money flows to groups which spout messages with no responsibility whatsoever.)

In other words, as Scalia pointed out to the Supreme Court, BCRA never amounted to anything more or less than an attempt by the entrenched political class to stifle criticism and protect their incumbencies.

Does this mean that the attacks will go away now? Hardly, and that's where the FEC comes in. With readership soaring on the blogosphere, the campaigns and the partisans will find ways to get the information needed to independent voices, such as bloggers, to report to their readers. Once that happens, the FEC will come under Congressional pressure to enforce an ever-widening net of legislation ostensibly to protect virgin American eyes and ears from "poison politics", but truly to save these pork-barrel incumbents' bacon.

Make sure you read all of Scott's analysis.

Free Speech Threatened: Augusta Free Press

Living up to its name, the Augusta Free Press runs a guest column this morning by Bruce Kesler that details the the threat to free speech that the pending FEC regulation of the Internet portends. He notes the same problem that I have:

Under McCain-Feingold, complaints are brought by the public, to which the accused must respond. The complaints of partisans against potent bloggers, almost all being one or a few individuals, can only burden them to end blogging or to restrain their ability to freely blog. It is difficult, at best, to define and to delineate "paid." Is it being paid to accept political ads or to also work for the wide range of organizations considered political entities under McCain-Feingold and similar laws? Are the mainstream media's reporters and commentators to also be so measured, piercing the current media exemption?

Of course not; the media exemption got written into the BCRA itself in order to appeal to the statist media and garner their support. Had the BCRA targeted the relaying of campaign materials and references by so-called legitimate media outlets in the same manner that the FEC now has license to do with the blogosphere, they would have hounded John McCain and Russ Feingold out of office at the first possible moment. In fact, the BCRA would have never passed Congress, let alone get signed by George Bush. The media exemption allowed the MSM to cheerfully support the most significant dimunition of the First Amendment, which they have traditionally fought to protect, in exchange for a privileged seat in the final days of elections. For now.

That retreat has been self-serving, and shameless.

World Magazine also covers the BCRA threat in its lastest issue. Mark Bergin interviewed a few bloggers, including me, for his report on the threat and the reaction it has received from the blogosphere:

Edward Morrissey, known as Captain Ed on the popular conservative blog "Captain's Quarters," told WORLD that such restrictions could prove fatal for his blog and others: "If we had to start accounting for our time and defending ourselves every time we got accused of coordination—say by simply excerpting from a candidate's position paper in order to make a point—we'd incur legal fees that would intimidate most people into shutting down."

When President Bush first signed McCain-Feingold into law, the six-member FEC granted a blanket exemption to the internet by a 4-2 vote. Last year, however, a federal judge ruled the commission must reexamine that exemption. Mr. Smith and his two fellow Republican commissioners sought to appeal the ruling, but the three Democrats blocked that from happening.

Read all of the two articles. Both are well-written and cover the salient points of debate, and both demonstrate that even some in the exempt media have reservations about regulating speech. Perhaps they might foresee where the courts could, at some point, challenge the MSM exemption on the basis of FEC regulations on the Internet and the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Irish-American Politicians Drop Sinn Féin, Finally

Americans of Irish descent have always had a soft spot for the old IRA and Ireland's struggle for freedom. Not only do they see the Irish as a parallel to the American revolutionaries, but most of their ancestors fled Ireland as a result of British colonalialism, maladministration, and outright oppression. This has led us to keep blinders on to the nature of the modern conflict in Northern Ireland. American politicians of Irish descent have proven to have a soft spot in their head for supporting the modern IRA's political wing, Sinn Féin, despite the IRA being little more than an American-style street gang -- opposing Loyalist groups of exactly the same timbre -- more reminiscent of a Baader-Meinhof without the discipline.

Those days have come to an end, at least for now. CNN reports that Gerry Adams has finally been shunned by the American government, even those politicians he once counted on for influence and power in Northern Ireland:

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy has called off talks with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams set for St. Patrick's Day. ...

Adams has already been refused a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House and will not be attending the St. Patrick's Day lunch hosted by U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert. ...

One of Sinn Fein's top supporters in the U.S. Congress, New York Republican Sen. Peter King, also has called on the IRA to disband. King said the IRA had made a series of poor decisions that had sparked anger in Irish-American circles.

I'd say it has. First, the IRA engineers one of the largest armed robberies in UK history, making off with £22 million ($50 million US) with which to fund itself. Given the nature of the IRA, which had promised to disarm itself and go legitimate but never actually complied, this sudden influx of funding portends more violence and illegal operation. Shortly after that, a number of IRA operatives killed a man who tried to stop a bar fight in a Catholic neighborhood in NI. Some of these murderers are rumored to have a high rank in the IRA.

Instead of turning these geniuses over to the police, the IRA and Sinn Féin stonewalled, and then the IRA offered the family a deal which sounded like someone had watched The Godfather too often. They met with the family of the victim and offered to shoot the men responsible, although it remains unclear whether that meant killing them or merely kneecapping them, a favorite IRA method of disciplining its members. Horrified, the family declined the offer and instead told the world about it. Sinn Féin defended the offer, proving to the world that they would forever remain apologists for terror and gangsterism.

Most Americans of Irish descent know better than to involve themselves in The Troubles. We understand that Northern Ireland isn't 1922 all over again and that the only solution to NI's problems will be found with the people of Ulster, the Republic of Ireland, and the UK. If nothing else, 9/11 taught us not to deal with terrorists. However, some among us continued to celebrate Adams, Sinn Féin, and pour money into their coffers, and politicians like Kennedy and King lent that credibility. Shame on them for not stopping it before, but at least give them credit for doing the right thing now.

But the best credit should go to the White House and George Bush, who had to put up with Adams for the first four years thanks to Bill Clinton's useless entanglements with Sinn Féin. This year, Adams will find himself outside the White House on St. Patrick's Day while Bush hosts the family of the IRA's latest victim instead. Now that's a move for which I can raise a pint of Guinness in support.

UPDATE: Some American politicians still don't get it, as Large Bill points out. Is mór an trua é.

Blogosphere Created, Women & Minorities Hardest Hit

An old joke about media bias has the New York Times running a headline on the last day of time that reads, "World Ends: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit". Somehow that joke immediately came to mind when I read Steven Levy's truly clueless piece for tomorrow's Newsweek that claims the blogosphere is a club for white men only:

At a recent Harvard conference on bloggers and the media, the most pungent statement came from cyberspace. Rebecca MacKinnon, writing about the conference as it happened, got a response on the "comments" space of her blog from someone concerned that if the voices of bloggers overwhelm those of traditional media, "we will throw out some of the best ... journalism of the 21st century." The comment was from Keith Jenkins, an African-American blogger who is also an editor at The Washington Post Magazine [a sister publication of NEWSWEEK]. "It has taken 'mainstream media' a very long time to get to [the] point of inclusion," Jenkins wrote. "My fear is that the overwhelmingly white and male American blogosphere ... will return us to a day where the dialogue about issues was a predominantly white-only one." ...

Does the blogosphere have a diversity problem?

In an endeavor where everyone works for themselves -- no hiring barriers, no potentially discriminatory prerequisites -- this has to be one of the dumbest premises I've yet read about the blogosphere. Anyone with access to the Internet, including the local library, can start a blog, for free. The value of the blog gets determined by two governing mechanisms, neither of which has anything to do with race or gender. Primarily, the quality and timeliness of the writing gives most of the value, and what's left can generally be chalked up to marketing.

Every successful blog I know outside of those written by established authors (ie, Michelle Malkin), including mine, started with one reader. In my first month, I sent e-mails out to a number of bloggers asking for reciprocal links, most of which went ignored. After that, I started paying more attention to what the other bloggers wrote, extended the conversation by linking back to them and providing a substantial response, and more bloggers got interested. I posted comments on their sites to get better known. I got a couple of huge breaks, especially from the guys at Power Line and Hugh Hewitt after that, which made it much easier to break out of the pack. I wrote lots of e-mails to a number of other bloggers, not just saying "Read this!", but explaining why my post might be interesting. I spent time learning what might interest one blogger and not another, I learned not to send broadcast e-mails, and as my readership increased, I found out who read me and didn't need to get e-mails from me.

In short, I took the time to learn my market and adapt accordingly. I haven't stopped marketing the blog, either, and don't plan to anytime soon.

Anyone who wants to be successful at blogging can achieve it, as long as they're willing to write well and often and market themselves effectively. Even established authors don't automatically transfer their success to the blogosphere. Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt have because they understand the blog market -- literally, Hugh wrote the book on it -- and are willing to put effort into building networks of friends and collaborators. La Shawn Barber got me interested by sending me a couple of well-reasoned and persuasive e-mails, not just her URL and a request for a link back.

Now we have Keith Jenkins, who might have a legitimate gripe about corporate media, complaining that an all-volunteer effort somehow lacks diversity. All Jenkins needs to do to address that is to start his own blog and plan for its success and encourage others to do the same. Even siller is the suggestion for established bloggers to link to non-English-language sites in order to promote diversity. If I can't read it, why would I link to it?

Right or left, WASP or not, no barriers exist for entrants except for quality and desire. The solution to a perceived lack of diversity isn't charity links, but for simply more bloggers to start writing about what interests them in an interesting way and to make themselves known in the blogging community. E-mail knows no race and good writing knows no cultural or gender boundaries.

Join The Online Coalition For Free Speech!

I am proud to be an original signatory to the Online Coalition, a group of bloggers from across the political spectrum which intends on fighting any encroachment on our right to free and unfettered political debate. Today members of our group presented FEC chairman Scott Thomas with our concerns over the direction the FEC will take in regulating Internet speech, as regards the lawsuit brought by Shays-Meehan. Here is our letter:

We are concerned about the potential impact that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Shays v. FEC, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004) and the FEC’s upcoming rulemaking process may have on political communication on the Internet.

One area of great concern is the potential regulation of bloggers and other online journalists who distribute political news and commentary exclusively over the web. While paid political advertising on the Internet should remain subject to FEC rules and regulations, curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the web for original, insightful political commentary.

Under the current rules, “any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,” is exempt from reporting and coordination requirements. It is not clear, however, that the FEC’s “media exemption” provides sufficient protection for those of us in the online journalism community.

As bipartisan members of the online journalism, blogging, and advertising community, we ask that you grant blogs and online publications the same consideration and protection as broadcast media, newspapers, or periodicals by clearly including them under the Federal Election Commission’s “media exemption” rule.

In order to ensure that there are sufficient measures taken, we also request that the FEC promulgate a rule exempting unpaid political activity on the Internet from regulation, thereby guaranteeing every American’s right to speak freely and participate in our democratic process.

Finally, we ask that you clarify the rules and definitions related to “coordinated activity” to protect bloggers and journalists from running afoul of Commission rules regarding the republication of campaign materials.

The Internet is a fundamental tool in the American political process. Just this week, we learned that 75 million Americans used the Internet to gather news, read commentary, discuss issues, register to vote, and generally join in the democratic process during the last election cycle. We believe the Internet is the primary driving force behind increased participation among traditionally under-represented groups of voters, and we applaud the Federal Election Committee for crafting rules that have allowed the Internet to flourish as a political communications medium.

Like the town hall meeting, online political activism is a vital part of American civic life. We encourage the FEC to provide bloggers, online journalists, and everyday cyber-citizens with the same freedoms that individuals and traditional journalists are free to exercise elsewhere. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 was intended to prevent unlimited soft money contributions and regulate electioneering advertising, not to stifle free speech or grassroots activities on the Internet that serve the common good.

Bloggers as diverse as MyDD and Daily Kos as well as CQ, Michelle Malkin, and Kevin McCullough comprise the original signatories. When we have unity among bloggers this diverse, I guarantee you that Congress will take some notice, even if the FEC does not.

You can also sign onto the Online Coalition. Go to the website and register to add your voices in defense of the blogosphere and the First Amendment. We may be conservatives and liberals, centrists and radicals, but we're all Americans -- and no one tells us that we have to keep our mouths shut about politics. We'll be glad to have you on board.

UPDATE and BUMP, 7:41 PM CT: Glenn Reynolds posts about the forum in which he participated on the FEC and campaign regulation. Previously, Professor Reynolds remained skeptical that the Shays-Meehan v. FEC decision would have any real impact on blogging, but hearing FEC chairman Scott Thomas changed his mind:

Scott Thomas, chairman of the FEC, spoke before me. He opened with some rather uncharitable remarks regarding fellow commissioner Brad Smith's comments on FEC regulation of blogs, but followed up with a discussion of FEC intent that, although it was supposed to be reassuring, actually left me thinking that the FEC was thinking more seriously about regulating blogs than I had previously believed. I wasn't reassured at all, and the complexity of the reasoning he outlined just illustrated how much discretion -- and how little real guidance -- the FEC has on these kinds of questions.

That led me to open by saying that Thomas's remarks were the most cogent argument I've heard for the abolition of the FEC. And they were. If you think that there can be objective, predictable, and unintrusive regulation of political speech, well -- read the transcript of his remarks and see if you still think so.

Wizbang will be posting the transcript shortly. In the meantime, read all of Glenn's comments on the speech.

UPDATE and BUMP: Redstate has the transcript, and I have a new link to the Online Coalition in the sidebar. In answer to some comments, anyone can sign onto the Online Coalition, regardless of whether you have a blog. Be sure to sign and support First Amendment rights to free and unfettered political speech!

A Good Laugh Now And Then

I don't spend a lot of time on entertainment sites when surfing the Internet except for IMDB when researching data on movies. I prefer to spend my time reading and writing about weightier topics, which gives me plenty of entertainment all on its own. However, my son and his friends have a favorite website called Homestar Runner, which really has so much fun packed into one spot that I could spend all day there.

The site has a complex series of running cartoon characters, none of which I really understand (I think that one has to have a Star Trek-like devotion to it to really understand it all), but my favorite is StrongBad. If you want a taste of the silly, satirical, and devastating humor, try going to Strongbad's e-mail page. This one in particular skewers radio and is so funny that I had tears rolling down my cheeks. Make sure your sound is turned up. And when Strongbad talks about college radio, just try telling me that it doesn't sound like Al Franken on Air America.

I will be checking my son's college grades very closely now to make sure this site doesn't eat up his "research" time. I'll get to that, um, right after Strongbad's next e-mail ...

Sgrena Flip-Flops Again

In an otherwise unremarkable interview with John Follain for the Times of London, Giuliana Sgrena has changed her mind again about the American motivation for attacking the vehicle which was to take her to the Baghdad airport:

A joint American-Italian investigation is due to report within a month on the shooting, but Sgrena refuses to accept that it might have been simply a blunder. “This was an ambush. No sign was given for us to stop. We were going at a normal speed and we were fired at,” she insists.

American and Italian authorities have branded as absurd the suggestion this was no accident but Sgrena remains undaunted: “The Americans don’t approve of the Italian policy on hostages, because of ransom payments, and the thing I want to know is whether the Americans tried to put a stop to this policy by preventing one of these operations from being completed,” she says. “The most important person on board was not me, it was Nicola. I don’t know what happened, but it’s impossible to classify this as just an accident,” she says — adding that she doesn’t give a damn whether a ransom was paid for her or not.

Note that now, instead of slowing down or stopping before getting shot, she now says that they were traveling at "normal speed" when the shooting began. Of course, this differs entirely from what we heard yesterday, when she and her "life partner", Pier Scolari, said that such an allegation would be "stupid":

The Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who was wounded by American fire last Friday soon after being released by kidnappers in Baghdad, has said that she does not think that the Americans were trying to kill her. "I never said that they wanted to kill me," she said on a television talk show, "but the mechanics of what happened were those of an attack."

In an interview with The Independent, her partner, Pier Scolari, said: "None of us is so stupid as to think the Americans did it on purpose. But the dynamic was that of an ambush and we want a convincing explanation of what happened, because the first American explanation was totally false."

Aaaaaand this is Scolari being "so stupid" in an interview with Il Manifesto after the initial reports came out:

Pier Scolari, Sgrena's partner who flew to Baghdad to collect her, put an even more sinister construction on the events, suggesting in a television interview that Sgrena was the victim of a deliberate ambush. 'Giuliana may have received information which led to the soldiers not wanting her to leave Iraq alive,' he claimed.

Oh, those wacky Communist journalists -- always something new every day!

Hubris

Jack Kelly writes today about the Giuliana Sgrena affair, taking the longer-view perspective of Sgrena's motivations and naiveté. He remains mostly neutral, if skeptical, on her assassination claims, but instead demolishes her credibility by pointing out her monumental hubris:

Sgrena went to Iraq to report on the heroic resistance to the American imperialists. Dutch journalist Harald Doornbos rode in the airplane to Baghdad with her.

"Be careful not to get kidnapped," Doornbos warned Sgrena.

"You don't understand the situation," she responded, according to Doornbos' account last week in Nederlands Dagblad. (Excerpts were translated into English and posted on a Dutch writer's Web blog.) "The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers. The enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear."

Sgrena left her hotel the morning of Feb. 4 to interview refugees from Fallujah, the resistance stronghold captured by U.S. Marines in November. The interviews didn't go well.

"The refugees ... would not listen to me," she said. "I had in front of me the accurate confirmation of the analysis of what the Iraqi society had become as a result of the war and they would throw their truth in my face."

Perhaps everything Sgrena represents can be captured in seven words and an ellipsis: The refugees ... would not listen to me. In fact, as a reporter, Sgrena should have listened to the refugees, not the other way around. Sgrena didn't go to Iraq to report for the Communist newspaper Il Manifesto, she went to proselytize -- first the Iraqis, and the Italians afterward. She went to Iraq to discredit the Americans and the Italian government that allies itself with us, and she would only entertain those who agreed with her.

How fortunate, then, for her to run into precisely those people who do while in Iraq. In fact, it appears more and more that the kidnaping may not have been all that random, and the tearful pleas for her life -- which even Sgrena now says she exaggerated -- designed to extract the maximum cash for the factions she supports. Nicola Calipari may have died to free a woman who never was in danger in the first place. Small wonder that the Italians have now told their citizens in Iraq that if they stay there outside of their military protection, they're completely on their own.

Read all of Jack's column. As usual, it's a winner.

UN Sexual Abuses Pandemic

The Washington Post reports that United Nations peacekeepers now face numerous and substantial allegations of sexual abuse in several of their peacekeeping efforts, belying the notion that the Congo provided just a fluke or an exception to the lax oversight and inherent lack of central discipline for UN troops. These allegations include forced prostitution, sexual extortion for food and water, and exploiting pre-teen girls for sex. Turtle Bay now wants internal reviews of all seventeen peacekeeping missions around the world to determine how bad it gets:

The United Nations is facing new allegations of sexual misconduct by U.N. personnel in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere, which is complicating the organization's efforts to contain a sexual abuse scandal that has tarnished its Nobel Prize-winning peacekeepers in Congo.

The allegations indicate that a series of measures the United Nations has taken in recent years have failed to eliminate a culture of sexual permissiveness that has plagued its far-flung peacekeeping operations over the last 12 years. But senior U.N. officials say they have signaled their seriousness by imposing new reforms and forcing senior U.N. military commanders and officials to step down if they do not curb such practices. ...

The reports of sexual abuse have come from U.N. officials, internal U.N. documents, and local and international human rights organizations that have tracked the issue. Some U.N. officials and outside observers say there have been cases of abuse in almost every U.N. mission, including operations in Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Kosovo.

"This is a problem in every mission around the world," said Sarah Martin, an expert on the subject at Refugees International who recently conducted investigations into misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia. "If you don't have a strict code of discipline, accountability and transparency in the process, then you're going to continue to have a problem."

The problem springs from the UN's insistence on using poorly-disciplined troops from countries that hardly represent the best settings for training professional troops. They have used African Union troops for most of the African deployments, which only sounds good on paper. Troops with poor discipline that come from countries with internal instabilities of their own will not follow orders in the field, especially when it comes to the kinds of temptation that power imbalances present. That's why professional armies drill the hell out of their troops -- to establish the discipline and the respect for rank that has to exist in order to keep an army from turning into a criminal gang.

The UN has no track record of imposing such discipline, and in fact has no mechanism for it. Their use of such troops disqualifies them as serious candidates for the role of peacekeepers and demonstrates the necessity of the Western democracies to provide for policing and enforcing UN policies and resolutions. Until we learn that lesson -- that the use of force entails more than just political correctness and a blue helmet for legitimacy -- then we doom women and girls to this kind of rapine and exploitation wherever the UN is given control.

Race-Baiting At The City Pages Reveals Babelogue's Character

The Twin Cities freebie tabloid City Pages and its blog Babelogue has long harbored the worst of Twin Cities reporting, even surpassing the bloviation and pomposity of Nick Coleman -- which represents a fairly high threshold. Their primary means of financial support appears to come from selling scads of classified advertising to local sex workers, which as a more libertarian sort doesn't bother me but does point out the fringe appeal of the publication. The tone always tends towards the hysterical and overwrought, which is why I almost always avoid it, even at the price offered.

Unfortunately, someone pointed out a Babelogue post which goes too far even for the ethics-challenged staff of the City Pages. Molly Priesmeyer attended the Center for the American Experiment's sendoff of Dan Rather Wednesday night, hosted by Power Line's John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson, and attended by Mitch Berg and the Fraters Libertas fellows. (I couldn't make it due to work and family considerations.) Understandably, Priesmeyer may have found the celebration not to her taste, but instead of defending CBS or Dan Rather with coherent arguments, she instead decided to smear the entire event and its participants as racist:

Is it really white in here, or is it just me? En route to the Power Line/Center of the American Experiment Dan Rather retirement party, I rode in an elevator filled with white men in suits who made observations like "I can’t wait" and "This oughtta be good." These were received with hale-fellow-well-met white-guy laughter that abruptly stopped when the elevator doors opened to reveal a group of young black men in Roc-A-Wear gear who were apparently not attending the same event. Then the elevator doors closed and took the bunch of us back to 1952 for an event that felt like a dinner at a segregated country club in the days when Perry Como ruled the airwaves.

That’s not exactly correct: Inside, I spotted a total of three non-caucasians, and one of them was hunched behind a television camera recording the event for history's sake.

She also manages to toss in a not-so-subtle McCarthy reference in as well, practically a requirement for publication in the City Pages these days:

Apparently, "hero" now means anyone who savages the president’s many detractors. Then again, this is 1952, and those commie bastards deserve it.

Here we have an event that was open to anyone who wanted to buy a ticket, held in a public place with plenty of notice, and obviously used no particular barriers to entry other than a ticket-taker. The issue of the evening had nothing to do with race. Dan Rather, obviously, is white. So are Les Moonves, Sumner Redstone, Mary Mapes, Bill Burkett, and everyone associated with the topic. The only person talking about race in relation to the Rathergate debacle appear to be Molly Preismeyer -- which says a hell of a lot more about Molly's state of mind than anyone else's. It also reveals the character of Babelogue that they would reprint such a transparent smear, such a vulgar non-sequitur, such disgusting tripe.

As for the McCarthyism, accusing a roomful of people of being racists without providing the least bit of evidence for such except a headcount at a well-publicized event that was open to anyone with $35 (as Preismeyer's own presence demonstrates) is a sterling example of the practice. Preismeyer and City Pages prove themselves to be disciples of McCarthy in their smear of political opponents with unsubstantiated and vile allegations. If they consider themselves journalists, they are deluding themselves. The City Pages has sunk to the level of parody, except no one's laughing at their hatred.

Testing Free Speech, PC, And History In Germany

The Times of London publishes a report today on nascent Naziism in Germany that will surely provoke knee-jerk responses across the political spectrum. Roger Boyes interviewed Udo Voigt, the leader of the extremist NPD party in Germany who believes Hitler was great and wants to rise to power in order to cleanse his country of non-German elements -- all of which should make any student of history very nervous:

“ADOLF HITLER was a great German statesman,” the bête noire of the German Establishment said as he sat in a room darkened by bombproof shutters.

“If you can call Churchill a great Briton, if you can make a hero out of Alexander the Great, then you have to give that status to Hitler, too,” Udo Voigt, the leader of the far-right National Party of Germany (NPD), said. “My lawyer has told me to say no more than that.”

This rising right-wing extremist is under investigation for allegedly glorifying the Nazis. “All part of a strategy to criminalise me and marginalise the party,” he said. ... So he is careful. There are no busts of the Führer in Herr Voigt’s bunker-like office, just maps of Germany as it was, various German and neo-Nazi flags and a poster that declares: “May 1945, Nothing to Celebrate.”

This year’s 60th anniversary commemorations have rallied Germany’s usually warring right-wing organisations. They are using them to stir regret for German wartime suffering, convert it into political anger and win voters across the generations.

No doubt Voigt speaks to a despicable impulse in the extremes, thus far, of German character. Organizing skinheads with "near-military discipline" from local pubs has another historical link between this former Army captain and a past Army corporal that also appears worrisome. Their success in Dresden in capturing 9 seats in their regional Parliament gives them a toehold into the government, although still making them very much a fringe player.

However, the Germans themselves caused this underground movement of neo-Naziism by forcing it underground in the first place, through bans on free speech and thought. Instead of focusing on the formation of skinheads into paramilitary units (the Times doesn't discussed whether they're armed), Berlin wants to try Voigt for praising Hitler. That kind of dictate from the government on what one can say or think naturally leads to resentment, but also creates an appeal for whatever is banned. That kind of fear gives power to the forbidden, and in a country where the economy has tanked and unemployment has continued to grow, a lot of people have reason to resent the German government and search for ways to bring it down.

As repugnant and horrible as Naziism is, I have never understood the German position of banning speech and thought which approaches it. The cure for Naziism isn't a closed debate; rather, free speech with honest presentations of history provide the only defense. In Germany's case, I suspect that this doesn't appeal much either, because Germans have tired of their constant association with genocide and maniacal war. That impule may be understandable, but it fails to address the new threat of the return of fascist politics.

If Herr Voigt wants to make an ass of himself by Sieg Heiling up and down the square, in a free and open society, he should be allowed to do so. Ordinary Germans then need to take every opportunity to enter the debate and talk honestly about the willing abdication of the German population to the Nazis of the 1930s (and their not-so-tacit support for their racial policies) and the resultant nightmare they caused humanity, and vow to never let it happen again. Speech and thought bans merely trade one kind of fascism for another, benevolent though it may be, and legitimizes Voigt and his gang far more than they deserve.