Viking Dawg

Gutfield ... again

2006-01-25T16:11:00.000-05:00

Man, if you have to give the Huffingtonpost credit for anything (and you really, really don't), you have to give it to them for giving Greg Gutfield a spot on their blog. Today he follows up his previous abortion post (Cool New Magazine) with his Roe v. Wade Joke Page. Commenters are apopletic as you would imagine.

Here's a sampling:

knock-knock
who's there?
you'll never know!

After a couple has sex, the woman turns to the man and says, "If i get pregnant, what should we call the baby?" "A fetus!" he bellows before erratically speeding off to his home in Hyannisport, Mass.

A woman and her fetus were walking into a clinic. "I'm scared," said the fetus.
The woman replies: "How do you think I feel? I have to walk out of here alone!"

Why did the fetus cross the road?
Because they moved the dumpster.

The real "humor," however, is in the comments. Make sure you check 'em out. Why are people so emotional on this topic? We're just talking about a lump of cells, right? No one gets worked up over wart-freezing jokes. Am I missing something?

A metaphor ... once upon a time

2006-01-25T15:29:00.000-05:00

I used to think the "War on Drugs" was a metaphor. Like the "War on Poverty." Apparently, Mexico hasn't gotten the message. According to this AP report, Texas law enforcement officers engaged in a little hot war with "men dressed as Mexican Army soldiers and apparent drug suspects." Nice of the AP to sugar-coat it for us. Don't worry these are just men dressed like Mexican Army soldiers. Of course, later in the article, the AP reports on a January 15th article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin that said "the Mexican military had crossed into the United States more than 200 times since 1996."

More than 200 times in 9 years. That's more than the Germans (in WWI and WWII), the Italians, the Koreans, and the Vietnamese combined. Don't expect to hear anything out of the President or your congressman, however. They're too busy preparing amnesty disguised as "worker programs."

Outrage of the Day???

2006-01-25T09:34:00.000-05:00

The gang on Fox and Friends were trying to gin up the outrage machine this morning about the plan by the Mexican Human Rights Commission (HRC) to distribute maps of the United States to Mexicans. These maps will apparently show roads and water stations. The idea is that the boarder crossing is dangerous (approxiamately 500 people died last year attempting to cross) and the map can help save lives. Some in the United States are expressing outrage that this plan will encourage more illegal migration. Meanwhile, our Department of Homeland Security warns these maps can help create even more dangerous situations by telling predators where to find vulnerable border crossers. Are you kidding me?

I am absolutely opposed to our current approach to border "security," such as it is. I think I have made it clear in this forum that I think our porous borders are a scandal and threat to our national sovereignty and security. However, these maps aren't going to do anything to make the situation worse. How can they? We have, by some estimates, 500,000 people a year walking across the border.

A map is just a tool. But we can use tools too, right? Why doesn't DHS, instead of worrying about the poor, vulnerable criminal, use the maps themselves to identify places to, I don't know, find, arrest, and deport criminals?

Davos

2006-01-25T09:18:00.000-05:00

Maybe this will pull the Vike out of his shell. It's Davos time!!!! And Jay Nordlinger is there. The Vike turned me on to Mr. Nordlinger this time last year with Mr. Nordlinger's series on last year's Davos spectacular. For a refresher, here's a link to the last of last year's columns (he's got links to that year's previous columns in it).

Davos is an annual meeting of the World Economic Forum where the fabuously wealthy and fabuously self-important get together and discuss "What's Wrong with Amerikkka, and what's up with President Chimpy Halihitler von ChokesonPretzel?" It's a riot. And very vital.

You may also recall, it was at Davos that Eason Jordan, the former chief news executive of CNN, bravely informed the world that the U.S. military in Iraq was targeting journalists. Fun for the whole family.

Anyway, Mr. Nordlinger will help you keep track of the global do-gooding glitterati this week. Check him out, won't you?

"You've got older haven't you"

2006-01-20T10:12:00.000-05:00

Try to read this story without smiling. What an amazing thing.

Lileks on Steyn

2006-01-05T11:42:00.000-05:00

I just read James Lileks' comment on the Mark Steyn piece I posted below and agree wholeheartedly:

there’s nothing sillier than elaborating on a Steyn column, unless it’s “expanding on remarks by Mark Helprin” or complaining about anything that does not involve having a loved one in a mine.

Please read his Screedblog on Steyn's column. It seems there's a lot of pessimism going around.

And I thought I was pessimistic

2006-01-05T11:13:00.000-05:00

Good Lord, Mark Steyn (the best writer going today) delivers a stunning and depressing look at the effects multiculturalism, declining birth rates, and a "lack of civilizational confidence" may have on our society and culture in our long struggle against Islamic Fundamentalism.

In a column so long, it is too hard to provide a "money quote." No one quote or summary can do justice to such a stem-winder. No matter, you should read the whole thing.

Al Qaeda and Mexico

2005-12-20T16:10:00.000-05:00

Taking a page out of the Al-Qaeda playbook, the presidente de Mexico, Vincente Fox, has urged "Mexican workers (in the U.S. illegally) to denounce rights violations in the United States." I guess with the crappy economy of Mexico and the greed, corruption, and disfunction of their government, they couldn't afford more radio time to urge them to denounce *real* violations. Sounds like Fox has been reading bin Laden's playbook where he instructs his terrorist minions to claim torture whenever possible. Peas in a pod.

No word in the article what Americans are supposed to do to denounce our rights violations. You know, rights like to a secure border and national sovereignty.

Poor, poor Fernando Robledo. He says a proposal to put up a defensive wall will lead to a backlash. "We learned to believe in the United States. We have a binational life. ... It isn't just a feeling of rejection. It's against what we see as part of our life, our culture, our territory."

"[A] binational life." "Our territory." Sorry, pal. It's our country. I'm glad you believe in our country. Just get in line and apply like everyone else.

It would be funny if it weren't so important.

Funny to see you here

2005-12-16T10:49:00.000-05:00

Apparently a videotape of bin Laden has been dropped off at a "news agency in the Afghan city of Kandahar." The "news" organization has not released the tape and US authorities remain skeptical of its authenticity. Even the information put out by the "news" organization makes it seem unlikely OBL is still alive -- there's no reference to anything happening today like elections, Saddam on trial, the current price of tea in China. The only reference to new is that OBL has secured "new defence weapons," which the article opines could be anti-aircraft missles. Haven't we thought they had these for a while, oh, I don't know, at least since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?(HT: Jihad Watch)

As I've pointed out here and here, OBL's been one rare bird lately. In fact, it's been right at a year since last we were graced with his virtual presence.

As of this publishing, neither CNN, Fox News, the Washington Post, or the New York Times has anything on this new tape.

Not funny -- from the Religion of Peace (tm)

2005-12-16T10:18:00.000-05:00

The Middle East Research Institute TV (MEMRITV) Monitor Project brings us tidings of great joy from Lebanon and Hizbullah. Please see the transcript of the students' views on Israel. The video can be seen on their main page here. (HT: Little Green Footballs)

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer brings us a pretty good summary of the nutjob in Iran. Inch by inch we seem heading for something big there. Unfortunately it's beginning to look like the question is where will the first mushroom cloud go up -- Tehran or Tel Aviv. Pretty much makes the "War on Christmas" look even dumber. On a related note, also check out Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column from yesterday.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! If we live that long.

Stop Sitting on Santa's Lap

2005-12-16T10:12:00.000-05:00

Very funny post from Greg Gutfield at the Huffingtonpost.com about the evils of Santa. Be sure to check out the comments and his bio.

Favorite quote from the Santa's Lap post:

The last nine years have provided very little evidence to encourage me that Santa is a good person, and one whose lap I should sit on. If anything , his indifference toward minorities, and the fact that he didn't get me the Dance Maker 2 Mat Electronic Dance Machine last year makes him worse than Hitler.

Favorite quote from the Bio:

some commenters to my recent post noted that Tookie Williams was not executed for writing children's books, but for killing four people. Christ, I must have missed that small fact when i was reading about Williams on the Huffington Post. I thought all he did was write children's books! thanks for the heads up!

Pretty funny.

John Lennon, with the kung-fu grip

2005-12-16T10:03:00.000-05:00

This has to be a joke, right? Who's been clamoring for a John Lennon action figure? Who's going to buy it? This world just keeps getting weirder.

First, you drink. Then, your heart explodes.

2005-12-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

Here's some news you can use (HT: Drudge). Coke has announced plans for a coffee-infused Coke in 2006.

... and if they should bar wars

2005-12-07T08:23:00.000-05:00

Looks like a giant asteroid is heading our way and scientists are urging governments to begin planning, developing and deploying technology now to divert its path. Where's Reagan and SDI when we need them?

Sure he is

2005-12-07T08:02:00.000-05:00

Today, al-Reuters brings "news" allegedly from al-Zawahri that Osama bin Laden ain't bin dead. In fact, he is "still leading the jihad."

A few weeks ago I asked whether there was any significance in the fact that we haven't heard directly from bin Laden in almost a year (December 2004 was apparently the last time we received any communication directly from OBL). Before our wonderfully talented MSM runs off and "reports" that OBL is still alive based on this tape, I think this question is still pertinent. In fact, doesn't this tape make it even more so? Certainly if OBL was alive and well he would communicate with us directly. He's never been exactly shy before ... why now?

To my way of thinking (and I've been wrong on this before), OBL is, even now, enjoying his just rewards.

Hillary's Soulja moment

2005-12-06T13:25:00.000-05:00

Looks like Hillary is positioning herself nicely for the 2008 general election with "Angry activists set to hound Hil" (sic). By standing up to the radicals on her left, she appears more moderate and sane to the general electorate, especially those who have doubts about Mrs. Clinton's paleoliberalism. (See also her announced support for anti-flag burning legislation)

The question is whether it will hurt her in the Democrat primary. My view is that it will marginally but at the end of the day the chickens will all come back home to roost. I agree with those who think the race will break down to Hillary, the "anti-Hillary from the Right," and the "anti-Hillary from the Left." But, at the end of the day, I think it's still Hillary.

First, she's a known commodity. There is nothing that will be brought out against her that isn't already known, vetted to high Heaven, and "move(d) on" from.

Second, she's a media darling. The story lines are too compelling to be ignored by a MSM that thrives on storytelling. A former First Lady; Bill going back to the WH as the first, First Man; the first, credible Female candidate for President -- it's too much. The media loves her and will not turn their backs on her. Look at the coverage now. Nothing in the Washington Post. Nothing in the New York Times.

Third, a little success in Iraq between now and the primaries and a start of a troop draw-down, Hillary will be trumpeted with leading the debate by "staying the course but demanding accountability."

Just wait and see.

More Christmas lights

2005-12-02T17:29:00.000-05:00

To me, this column by the late, great Michael Kelly says it all about Christmas.

(Sorry about the formatting. It was the best copy I could find, not bought from the Washington Post archives.)

Christmas Lights Display

2005-12-02T17:12:00.000-05:00

I wonder if this kind of Christmas light mania begins with four little bushes lit up on the outside of your house. Mrs. Dawg hopes not.

You MUST visit this site and watch the Christmas light spectacular. I'm not kidding.

I like that a new element is added every 30-45 seconds for 3 and 1/2 minutes. I also like to turn the volume down and just watch. Since the guy broadcasts the music over a low power radio station, the neighbors "only" see the lights. Can you imagine what that's got to be like?

Movin' On

2005-11-30T12:30:00.000-05:00

I love this map at Moveon.org. It shows "[o]ver 1,200 vigils for the 2,000 killed in Iraq nationwide."

Just so we don't get off on a tangent, let's forget about the heading ... although I would have thought more than 2,000 people died in Iraq total, I mean is this 2,000 Americans, Iraqis, Martians? And who killed them? We know that just one mass grave contained up to 3,000 bodies of Saddam's victims, let alone the estimated hundreds of thousands of victims throughout Saddam's reign, so that can't be what Moveon is referring to. Oh, silly me, they are referring to "our fallen soldiers" in Iraq.

Moveon managed to get (by their own estimation) more than 100,000 people together to "remember" and ask "How many more?" Wow, 100,000 people. In fact, Moveon calls it "the largest event we've organized." Looks like a success.

But not so fast. Some interesting comparisons arise and show that's not much of a groundswell. In 2004, the SEC averaged 74,282 people attending every football game. That means almost 75,000 people came together 77 times to watch a football game.

Let's look at the numbers more locally. Here's where it gets fun. In Georgia, Moveon reports that 327 people came out for their vigils. In contrast, over 56,000 people came out to watch the Dawgs beat the Jackets last Saturday night. In a city of 416,000 (4.1 million in the metro area), Moveon mustered 149 people (or 211 people metrowide or 247 if you really stretch "metro area" to include Athens).

And, before we leave, let's look at Athens. Home of the University of Georgia. The liberal hotbead of R.E.M. and many other progressive causes. Drawing from a student body of over 33,000, Moveon got 36.

Looking at the numbers, it sure seems a stretch to say these were a success.

Congratulations, Dawgs!

2005-11-21T09:36:00.000-05:00

Congrats to the UGA Bulldogs for their SEC East title!

On to Atlanta to (1) BEAT TECH! and (2) win the SEC!

Sure it was a Stunt

2005-11-19T14:27:00.000-05:00

The vote on the Iraqi pullout was a political stunt, but so is what the democrats are doing. Trying to rewrite history to their advantage. The idea that democrats were somehow duped into voting for the Iraqi war is laughable. These guys (and gals) didn't get to capitol hill by being easily duped.

However, I agree with Larry Kudlow and Professor Reynold s that an affirmative bill would have been better. Trap the democrats into being either for or against a free and democratic Iraq as the mission of the war.

Now if conservatives could somehow trap Bush into slashing spending...

Why We Age and Die

2005-11-19T14:14:00.000-05:00

Many scientists are studying the pathways involved with the aging process, or as I like to think of it the breakdown of the “keeping-our-cells-young” process. Why do these processes break down in the first place? This is where you get the evolutionary process. There is no evolutionary benefit to an infinite lifespan in a natural setting. The environment changes all the time as continents move, the sun brightens and dims, the Earth’s rotation around the sun changes, impacts of space objects, and innumerable local condition changes such as landslides, droughts, floods, fires etc. The inability to change and adapt to a different environment would mean death. It is harder to change if you have a long lifespan, because change involves more than just rearranging the genetic bits you have but creating new ones as well. Animals don’t have the natural ability to change their DNA throughout the body. Changes in DNA can only be passed on to offspring. Depending on how fast you have to change your lifespan is adjusted accordingly.

Once one starts having offspring the only things that matter are getting them to reproductive age and having them reproduce. Natural selection breaks down after this. A few examples in humans (in caveman days):

1) A mutation that causes your death at 20. You have already likely passed on your genes to offspring but are still very important to their survival to reproductive age. This mutation has some pressure be selected out because your kids won’t survive as well without you around.

2) A mutation that causes your death at 30. You have already passed this gene onto your offspring, but a couple of them have reached or are almost at reproductive age. Less pressure for this mutation to be selected out since at least a few of your kids should get along fine without you around.

3) A mutation that cause your death at 40. Most of your offspring have started reproducing and are getting along fine. Very little pressure on this mutation since if you die most of your offspring should be fine.

4) A mutation that causes your death at 50. Some of your offspring’s offspring are reproducing. Virtually no pressure on this mutation. If you die now it is unlikely your death will affect three generations.

As one can see it’s hard to get natural selection to "care" about imortality. Eventually there will be something "wrong" with you that will manifest itself. However, the clever apes that we are can fix this. We can fix it one of two ways. We can fix the DNA either as it is broken, or fix the inherent problems with the genetic code since evolution only got us so far. The second way is to develop drugs or treatments that will either force the cells to fix their DNA or mediate the processes that lead to aging. It is just a matter of time.

We are Just Machines

2005-11-19T10:20:00.000-05:00

Humans are incredibly complex machines but machines none the less. We came without an owner’s manual but we are slowly piecing one together. None of this sort of news surprises me. For me the last surprising news from the biological sciences was the “real” cloning of sheep (I don’t consider tearing apart a blastocyst to make twins “real” cloning, but technically it is). If you would have asked me or almost any other well trained biologist a week before the announcement I doubt anyone would have said “mammalian cloning is imminent.” Now nothing is surprising to me as scientists exponentially grow our biological knowledge.

Some of you religious types out there will insist that we are not “just” machines but so irreducibly complex that we will never be able to figure out how we work. Well my friends that is just not true. On a small scale we understand how everything works, this protein is modified, that piece of DNA gets turned on and creates a protein which then binds to that protein etc. What we don’t quite understand yet is the exquisitely complex interactions between all of our different parts. There are literally thousands of different cellular bits all interacting in different ways. The same protein can be chemically modified in multiple ways, with each different modification capable of different functions. The scary part is that our knowledge of these interactions is growing at an exponential pace. When I started graduate school in 1992 there was virtually nothing known about these interactions. We knew that signals were traveling from the outside of the cell to the nucleus, but in most cases no idea how. Now we have mapped literally thousands of different signaling pathways and the challenge is figuring out the interactions between these different pathways.

The rapid advancement of our biochemical/molecular biological knowledge will have huge ramifications on our culture. How will the culture or our society change with a 25% increase in lifespan across the board? What if it was 50%, 100%, 1000%? The consequences are enormous, but I fear we have already passed the event horizon on this and it is only a matter of time.

Over to you Viking Dawg...

2005-11-18T15:43:00.000-05:00

"Deleting 'Anti-Aging' Gene From Yeast Greatly Lengthens Life Span". The money quote:

Rather than adding copies of SIR2 to yeast, Longo's research group deleted the gene altogether.

The result was a dramatically extended life span - up to six times longer than normal - when the SIR2 deletion was combined with caloric restriction and/or a mutation in one or two genes, RAS2 and SCH9, that control the storage of nutrients and resistance to cell damage.

Human cells with reduced SIR2 activity also appear to confirm that SIR2 has a pro-aging effect, Longo said, although those results are not included in the Cell paper.

Since all mammals share key aging-related genes, the paper points to a new direction for human anti-aging research.

Reminds me of one of Viking Dawg's more pessimistic posts.

HT: Instapundit

If a tree falls in the woods ...

2005-11-18T13:45:00.000-05:00

and no one is there to hear it, does that mean bin Laden is dead?

We've had a rash of Zarqawi hearings lately, with the latest being an alleged tape containing a death threat against the King of Jordan. But, where's bin Laden? When's the last time you even heard that name in any tense other than the past? A quick Google search turns up the following (I ignored reports that simply referred to bin Laden):

October 30, 2004, CNN reports on a OBL videotape.

Before that, we have an apparent audio tape in April 2004.

The Onion brings news of a 2/9/2005 tape wherein OBL wished us a "crappy Valentine's Day," but I'm pretty sure that tape was eventually discredited.

I had missed this November 4th AP article at the time but it says that "bin Laden has been publicly silent for the longest period since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." The question they ask is "why?" The question I have is "why isn't this a bigger story?"

The same article references "two audio statements in December [2004], the last known public word" of bin Laden. So, we haven't heard from bin Laden in almost a whole year and there is virtual silence and no meaningful analysis of this? I guess we'd rather focus on the past. That's where the votes lie, apparently.

The Democrats have no interest in pushing this story because if bin Laden is dead, then Bush gets to claim credit. The Republicans have no interest in pushing it because if he (or someone claiming to be him) turns up on another, the media and pro-dhimmitude fellow travelers will claim another "Bush lied, troops died" "victory."

Meanwhile, a seemingly big but at least very interesting piece of news continues to lie, rotting in the ground.

I believe them

2005-11-15T16:14:00.000-05:00

Democrats on Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Go. Watch. It. Now.

Our fates, dear Brutus

2005-11-15T16:09:00.000-05:00

A couple of interesting columns on demographics recently.

Nothing reassuring. To be sure.

THE Question

2005-11-15T09:42:00.000-05:00

Look, I love Mark Richt. I remember bad coaching. I sat in Sanford Stadium during the Ray Goff era when planes would fly overhead carrying banners that read "Fire Ray GOOF" instead of "Eat at Guthrie's." I know what it is like to be able to call every offensive play in a series: 1st and 10, off-tackle left; 2nd and 12, off-tackle right; 3rd and 15, waggle pass to the tailback in the flat; 4th and 12, punt.

Mark Richt is a great coach. I have no gripe with his decision to call a run on 3rd and long when you are going for the lead with a FG. I like that he acknowledged the fact that the Dawgs probably should've let Auburn score the TD with almost two minutes to go.

To me, the question is why not call the timeout and get the play you want for a two-point conversion? Unfortunately, that's a question the AJC didn't ask.

Impeach Bush

2005-11-14T16:59:00.000-05:00

Anonymous' comment on an unrelated post reminded me of these pictures from an "Impeach Bush" rally. They are hilarious.

Oh yeah.

2005-11-14T16:37:00.000-05:00

And not only do you not take a TO, you drop two delay of games in the CF. I know the extra yards on a PAT don't (and didn't) matter, but for me that sequence burns. It was just so amateurish. I can't remember Ray Goof even coaching a game sequence like that.

Damn

2005-11-14T16:31:00.000-05:00

How do you lose on 4th and 10 with less than 2 minutes to go? Give up a 60-yard pass play because you are in Cover 2. Unbelievable!

Don't you just let that guy score from the 1 so you get the ball back with a minute or so instead of relying on one play to go 80 yards?

Doesn't the Coach call timeout from the sideline (Auburn sure proved they could do it on critical third-down stops) when the team is in total disarray and you need the two-point conversion? Isn't that a BIG PLAY that you save TOs for?

Who cares about the SEC Championship now? Backing in only matters to keep Florida out.

Depressing.

UPDATE: I saw an AJC writer call the 4th and 10 defensive formation a 3-deep zone and not Cover 2. Who cares, the middle seam was so open it might as well have been a 3-deep well.

Reaping the Seeds of Chimpy McHitler

2005-11-11T12:30:00.000-05:00

Oh the calamity! Why did the U.S. have to reject the Kyoto Protocols and continue our sinful (it's OK to assign moral judgment to conservatives acting against liberal causes) ways of polluting. Just look what the whirlwind is reaping:

"[R]esearch by vertebrate paleontologist Jonathan Bloch and colleagues suggests land plants changed drastically during a period of sudden global warming 55 million years ago." Oh, heavens!!! Looks like the Rove-Cheney administration has screwed us again and this time we're looking at drastic climate change.

Oh, wait. That's already happened and it happened 55 MILLION YEARS AGO during a "period of sudden global warming." How could there be global warming when the earliest fossils of modern humans only date back 195,000 years? Two words ...

Karl Rove.

It has to be. Otherwise, to believe this UPI article is to believe that the global warming we're supposedly experiencing now is not unprecedented and, in fact, life-altering global warming has happened before without the help of humans. Better not to think about it.

Insurgent My Ass

2005-11-10T21:26:00.000-05:00

The opening line of the relevant Washington Post article on the Jordanian bombings:

The insurgent organization Al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility Thursday for the blasts that tore through three hotels here Wednesday night, the deadliest terror attack ever carried out in Jordan.

How the hell is Al Qaeda in Iraq an insurgent operation? The leader is a Jordanian. Can’t we all agree that Al Qaeda, at least, is a terrorist organization?

Then the writer (Jonathan Finer) contradicts himself in the first sentence. Shouldn’t an insurgent organization perform insurgent attacks? How can it be a terror attack if it is done by insurgents? If it’s not the reporter what moron editor at WP demanded that Al Qaeda not be called a terror organization?

And they wonder why the papers are loosing readership.

A moveon.org for the new millenium

2005-11-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

Talk about holding a grudge. Al-Crazy has apparently taken "credit" for the terrorist attacks in Jordan. In their statement, they said they "chose the places to carry the mission on some of the hotels, which the Jordanian dictator turned into a backyard for the enemies of the faith -- the Jews and the Crusaders."

Now according to the timeline from the History Channel's "The Crusades: Crescent & the Cross," the Third Crusade lasted from 1189-1192. The "last Christian outpost [fell] to the Muslims" in 1291. That's a long time ago.

Don't you think it's time to "Move On?" Man, they say Southerners carry a grudge for their "Lost Cause."

Weak Protest Seen by my House

2005-10-31T19:41:00.000-05:00

Apparently an antiwar protest rambled through my neighborhood on the north side of Chicago. I wish I had pictures, but I only saw it from a cab and didn't have a camera. There were at most 100 people at most marching and chanting something unintelligible, being slowly followed by a paddy wagon (yes I know some people think that phrase is insulting to the Irish, screw them I've heard dozens of drunk Irish call it that too). I'm sure the wagon was filled with cops wishing the protesters would get out of hand so they could beat some sense into them, well at lesat I was.

How did I know it was an anti-war protest you ask? I think the giant Palestinian flag is what gave it away. What Palestine has to do with protesting the Iraq war I have no idea.

Coffee Out Your Nose Watch

2005-10-26T18:00:00.000-04:00

From The Corner:

HALLMARK HARRIET [John Derbyshire]
Piling on is a thing I hate to do, and Ms. Miers is obviously a pleasant, useful, hard-working & harmless person who's been put in an impossible position by GWB's blundering. But reading her thoughts, messages & speeches is dismaying. I mean, the sheer, dreary, numbing m--e--d--i--o--c--r--i--t--y of them.

This is a person who never had an original or interesting thought in her life. Reading Miers is like suffocating under a mountain of polystyrene packing blobbles. What on earth does it say about the President that, knowing as he must have how completely and irredeemably second-rate she is, he would put her name forward?

The world, certainly in places like the Supreme Court, is a never-ending war of ideas. To ask which side of this war Ms. Miers would fight on is pointless. She doesn't know the war is under way; and if she knew, she'd probably think it could easily be brought to an end if we'd all just be nicer to each other.

This is a terrible, awful blunder by George W. Bush.
Posted at 05:32 PM

Art imitates life?

2005-10-26T11:55:00.000-04:00

The Iranians are protesting what sounds like a Kewl game. Maybe we can end this dispute by life imitating art.

Sounds of Silence

2005-10-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

Almost 2,000 words this morning from Hugh Hewitt, but not one for the most recent words from the Sphinx reported in the Washington Post. I know it's early in California but here are some questions I hope Mr. Hewitt can address when he transcribes the White House talking points later today.

Mr. Hewitt what do you think "self-determination" in the abortion question means to Ms. Miers? How about when she referred to "attempt[s] to once again criminalize abortion?" Is that what you and other pro-lifers see yourselves as doing? Does it concern you that she does? What do you think she is talking about when she says government should stay out of it "when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious beliefs?" How do you respond to Kyleen Wright's assertions that Ms. Miers' statements are "troubling?" Is she an elitist having a snit? Finally, I agree with Ms. Miers that a lot of problems with judicial activism come when the legislative branch fails to act one way or the other, but Ms. Miers doesn't seem to see another option for the Courts -- to stay out of political questions? It bothers me, how about you?.

Instead, Mr. Hewitt offers more attacks on "elites" but no defense of Ms. Miers' positions on "self-determination." Does anyone really believe Roger Pilon's quote refers to Ms. Miers' social status? Doesn't it seem more likely, especially in light of the Post article and Ms. Miers' comments on affirmative action and "goals," that the "us" Mr. Pilon refers to means "conservatives?"

Mr. Hewitt tells us "the public hasn't risen up and demanded the Senate act to defeat Miers, and the very good chance is that if that hasn't happened yet, it isn't going to happen at all."

But USA Today reports: "Support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has ebbed. By 43%-42%, those surveyed say the Senate shouldn't confirm her. That's the first time a plurality, albeit narrow, has opposed the confirmation of any high court nominee over the past two decades."

Mr. Hewitt decries "anonymous slagging" in contrast to Senator Grassley's on-the-record assessment. I'm not sure what Mr. Hewitt's been reading but the New York Times has some pretty on-the-record Senators going pretty darn far in expressing doubt (true, they are not outright hostile, but why should they be now?):

"Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, called Republican sentiment toward Ms. Miers's nomination 'a question mark.'"

. . .

"Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican in the political middle of his party, said he needed 'to get a better feel for her intellectual capacity and judicial philosophy, core competence issues.'

"'I certainly go into this with concerns,' Mr. Coleman said."

. . .

"'I am uneasy about where we are,' said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Judiciary Committee who had so far expressed only support for the president's choice. 'Some conservative people are concerned. That is pretty obvious.'"

"Of the 10 Republicans on the 18-member Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sessions joins two others who have publicly raised concerns: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has questioned her legal views on abortion rights, and the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, has said Ms. Miers could benefit from a 'crash course in constitutional law.'"

We're waiting.

UPDATE: It's 6:45 PM. Still nothing out of the epicenter of pro-Miersism. The silence begins to roar. Can you answer just three little questions, Mr. Hewitt?

What did Ms. Miers mean when she referred to "attempt[s] to once again criminalize abortion?" Is that what you and other pro-lifers see yourselves as doing? Does it concern you that she does?

Continuing to wait.

Immortal I tell you, immortal

2005-10-24T21:16:00.000-04:00

See, I'm not some crazy person thinking there is nothing to stop us from living forever. I do go farther than this guy. Thousands of years is just the beginning. There is nothing that prevents us from living forever (other than anvils dropped from above or islamist beheaders, etc.). We can replace everything that we are made of, it was made in the first place by us. Our cells can't forget the plan, it is spelled out by our DNA. We will figure this out in my lifetime...woohoo!.

Islamist Media Relations 101

2005-10-24T21:12:00.000-04:00

1. Target sites easily covered by the media (especially the media of the great satan).

Celebrate good times, come on!

2005-10-24T10:22:00.000-04:00

If you are in the Atlanta area, come join 23 of your closest friends and celebrate the 2,000th American to die in the War for Iraqi Freedom! It'll be fun. Here are some of the events they are planning.

We will hold a silent candlelight vigil there between 4:30 and 7:00 PM

The media coverage of the event will be between 5:00 and 6:00 so please try to be at the vigil within this time frame for sure.

WE will have flag-draped coffins, candles, and a few signs and banners to reflect our opposition to the war and the continuation of the presence of US troops in Iraq.

WE will read the names of Georgia soldiers, and an equal number of names of Iraqi people, who have lost their lives in this war so far, and we will also have signs with the names of both fallen Georgia soldiers and Iraqi people.

If you can't make it Atlanta, perhaps there's one close to you.

The Noodle-Headed Left, the gift that keeps on giving. (HT: LGF)

Hewitt and Ginsburg

2005-10-24T10:19:00.000-04:00

I keep hearing so much from the pro-Miers' camp about how we should "wait for the hearings" before we make up our minds about her. Mr. Hewitt has advocated that position several times:

Hugh Hewitt: So Mark Levin, why not wait until the hearing?
Mark Levin: Wait a minute. What?
HH: Why not wait until the hearings?
ML: Because it's too late. The hearings will be over. The vote will be had. I don't understand. People are arguing for the Ginsburg rule. Were you one of them?
HH: Yes.
ML: Okay. The Ginsburg rule tells me we're going to learn very little about Harriet Miers, aren't we?
HH: No. I think we learned quite a lot about John Roberts. I think we learned with a certainty, Mark Levin, that he is a man who does not believe in an overreaching Court, but believes, in fact, in a humble Court working within the coordinate branch system, so as not to be overreaching.
ML: Yeah, but you have no idea what he thinks of the right to privacy.
HH: No I don't. Nor do I want anyone...
(Link)

However, as many have already noted, there is likely very little to learn from such hearings as Ms. Miers' will likely use the Ginsburg precedent. And, surely Mr. Hewitt and her other supporters know this. They are just trying to survive one more day so that the price of opposing or forcing a withdrawal are too high (they think) to bear. It is clear from Mr. Hewitt's archives that he supports the Ginsburg precedent (assuming it helps his side) and has urged it as recent as during Chief Justice Roberts' nomination. Here are some examples. There are likely more:

Judge Roberts will use the Ginsburg precedent and refuse to answer most of Chuck Schumer's questions --as he should-- but the GOP senators will no doubt ask their version of Schumer's list, and that list will include Kelo and Goodrich and many other cases. Roberts will decline to answer those as well, but the point will not be that Roberts is consistent in his refusal to compromise the independence of the judiciary, but that the audience >watching has much more to fear from Schumer style activism than from the sort of court that Schumer appears to fear.
(Link)

The MSM will attempt to prop up the wild claims of Senators Leahy and Schumer about the duties of nominees, as the New York Times editorialists did this morning when they wrote "[t]he Senate has a duty to scrutinize his background and to question him closely at his confirmation hearings about substantive areas of the law." But when biased papers invent such "duties," or when Ted Kennedy makes the statement that "[n]o nominee, especially a nominee who is well known to have argued ideological positions on issues important to the American people, should be confirmed without full and candid disclosure and discussion of those positions and their importance to him," the Ginsburg precedent must be close at hand. (Permalink
but it's still a long post)

While he should refuse to answer, it will nevertheless be interesting to see if Judge Roberts is asked about the brandenburg "test" and/or the United Kingdom's new approach to extremist speech. (Link)

Mr. Hewitt knows there will be nothing of consequence said during the hearings and that he will attack those who decry the vacuousness with the Ginsburg sword. Mr. Hewitt has been dealt a bad hand by his blind loyalty, but by setting up this classic bait and switch he seems poised to cross the line into bad faith and become a common carnival barker.

Judicial philosophy held hostage: Day 18

2005-10-21T13:20:00.000-04:00

Well, that was short. So much for the paper trail that Hugh Hewitt trumpeted a couple of days ago (Not that a single 16-year-old questionnaire from an advocacy group should count as a "paper trail," let alone anything conclusive on a topic. But, sometimes that's all you have, I guess.)

The AP is reporting that Harriet Miers told Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), "[w]e should not read too much into that in terms of where she might be on the issue of privacy, and a woman's right to choose." Good Lord! How many rounds of flip-flop-a-doodle is this?

Let's recap:

1. James Dobson tells us that he knows "things" that will make conservatives very happy. Things he "probably shouldn't know." Wow! This sounds pretty good and convincing, right? We'll no, actually, because shortly thereafter (and following some murmurings about subpoenaing Mr. Dobson to testify at a nomination hearing) Mr. Dobson clarified that Karl Rove had NOT given him assurances about Ms. Miers' future votes on Roe v. Wade. So, we're left with ... a mere appeal to authority and nothing else.

2. But then! We learn that "Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives" were part of a call with two of Ms. Miers' close friends in the judiciary who assured the group that Ms. Miers would "[a]bsolutely" vote to overturn Roe. Another "Wow!" But ... wait for it ... the Judge who was so sure (Judge Kinkeade) would not comment for a column by John Fund and the Judge who concurred (Judge Hecht of the "I don't know Nathan Hecht from Nathan Hale" fame) doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. See here for the full story.

3. Don't forget the confusion over her favorite Justice. I'm not sure it's a flip-flop but it's something.

4. Then, there's Griswold and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Now, this. Am I missing something? Of course, there's more --

We were told one reason for selecting Ms. Miers was that she would not "grow" in the traditional sense of becoming more liberal and her views were steadfast. Then, we were told she had initially rejected the idea of being nominated but changed her mind on it within weeks. So much steadfastness. Like the Rock of Gibraltar.

Any others? Comments, corrections, and additions are welcome.

The Tyranny of Lexis-Nexis

2005-10-17T09:40:00.000-04:00

The Tyranny of Lexis-Nexis is the fact that research is easier today because electronic databases collect and store quotes so they can be easily found, analyzed, and used to beat the speaker over the head. I couldn't help but think of this when reading the post Hugh Hewitt linked to today with the helpful hint, "I like SkyePuppy's logic."

What's not to like. Skye Puppy seems to make three points in support of Ms. Miers' nomination.

1. Ms. Miers should be supported because her opponents (in this case, Laura Ingraham) don't mention the myriad people lining up to support Ms. Miers. Not sure that's a reason, but Skye Puppy thinks it's important.

2. "[T]he Constitution isn't that hard, and ... now seems like as good a time as any for some fresh blood to be introduced into the 'family.'" Hmmm. Interesting. Why don't we nominate a mechanic or a plumber? Yes, Judge Bork and all you others who have been on the front lines of the conservative movement thinking about complicated issues like abortion, gay marriage, welfare, poverty, private property rights, gun control, tax reform, school choice, stem cell research, etc. you've been wasting your time. It's easy and anyone can do it. Is that really what Mr. Hewitt thinks? And even if it is easy, is that all a Justice does? What about persuading others to your view? That should be a snap too, huh?

3. "[The Constitution] didn't give the power to nominate judges to the leading loyal members of the President's political party. The Constitution gave that power to the President alone, and he has exercised it." Since the Constitution is not that hard, I am sure that Skye Puppy has grasped the concept of "advise and consent." It's in there, just keep reading. First, the Senate must approve the President's nomination for the Justice to be seated. Second, people, including the "loyal members of the President's political party" can differ and even oppose the President's picks. It's called a debate.

Surely Skye Puppy and Mr. Hewitt aren't saying (although they come very close) that a President's pick should be confirmed just because the President "exercised" his/her nominating powers. And that's where the Tyranny of Lexis-Nexis comes in.

Senator Hillary Clinton, in my opinion, has a better than 50/50 chance of being our next President. I look forward to Mr. Hewitt trying to explain why a President Clinton's nominee should be rejected. I mean, Skye Puppy's "logic" seems to do away with any consideration of a nominee's philosophy (assuming Ms. Miers has one, which is what her opponents keep asking and Mr. Hewitt keeps ducking). The President has the power to nominate alone and, it would seem to follow from this predicate (although Skye Puppy doesn't quite take us there), once he/she has done so, everyone should sit down and shut-up.

Be careful what you wish for.

My view on the Supreme Court

2005-10-14T17:25:00.000-04:00

I want the court to give the power back to the constitution. If people want to change the constitution then they can go through the proscribed way and amend the constitution. I hate the idea of a "living constitution.” It’s not alive, it’s a piece of paper that is the foundation of our society. Foundations aren’t alive, they are solid and unmoving. Foundations secure what is above them, they hold the structure solidly. If the foundation isn’t followed the structure will collapse. Sometimes we need to repair or strengthen the foundation to hold a new structure, but you always have to fix the foundation first before building the new structure.

Unfortunately, the government has been building without a permit and our foundation is showing signs of stress. Hairline cracks are developing and water is starting to seep in. The SCOTUS needs to halt this expansion and ensure that the foundation is strengthened. The SCOTUS must force the Congress and President to build within the foundation. If the people desire it, the foundation can be changed and will support the new structure.

This is why I doubt I will support Miers. She hasn't convinced me or conservatives voices I listen too, and even those conservatives I don't listen to.

Miers isn't qualified

2005-10-14T16:48:00.000-04:00

Plain and simple. I want a conservative who has been arguing for enforcement of the 10th amendment, the diminishing the power of the commerce clause, the second amendment, “equal protection”, sadly private property rights, and many other matters of concern to me. Nothing in Miers past indicates that she has honed her arguments of persuasion with other constitutional scholars. She is out of her league. SCOTUS is not only about politics and favoritism. It is about intellectual and philosophical arguments. She will really have to wow me in her confirmation hearings to generate even neutrality out of me.

Sexist?

2005-10-13T23:50:00.000-04:00

James Taranto over at OpinionJournal.com has provided several examples of Ms. Miers' rock-ribbed, constant conservatism from her 1989 testimony in Williams v. Dallas. According to Mr. Taranto, after reading this testimony, one is left with "the impression ... of a left-leaning centrist, not a conservative." Careful Mr. Taranto, you are on dangerous grounds.

Ignoring the obvious dangers, Mr. Taranto actually presents Ms. Miers' own words as his case. Of course, we've seen Ms. Miers' aversion to the "politically charged" Federalist Society. But, there are plenty of other interesting tidbits for conservatives to mull over. Mr. Taranto ends with the idea that Ms. Miers step aside for another candidate.

Sexism Alert!! Paging Mr. Hewitt!! Unfortunately, Mr. Taranto thinks the ideal replacement would be Janice Rogers Brown, a self-avowed woman. Surely this can't be.

He must be a snob. Over to you, Mr. Hewitt.

Question about religious "leaders" backing Miers

2005-10-13T23:25:00.000-04:00

Here's something that's been puzzling me ... why does Pat Robertson give a crap about Miers? Aren't we in the End Times(tm) anyway?

Great! Where's the philosophy?

2005-10-13T17:25:00.000-04:00

Wow! We can all rest now. Hugh Hewitt has spoken to Karl Rove about Ms. Miers and Mr. Rove has proclaimed "All is well!"

Thank goodness. Seriously, is this what it has come to for Mr. Hewitt and the pro-"Trust Me" forces?

I've been a faithful reader of Mr. Hewitt's for over a year now and must say this is the most disspirited I have been about it. To read Mr. Hewitt anyone who opposes Miers is a (1) snob or a (2) sexist or (3) a pinko (OK, we haven't quite gotten there). Even though I oppose Ms. Miers based on what I have seen, I don't think I am either.

(1) Snob -- I hold a law degree from Georgia State University, the least light in the accredited law school firmament in Georgia. I know that the school can and has produced high-quality graduates that can compete with the best from Emory or the University of Georgia.

But this is tilting at strawmen the pro-Miers forces have built. The real issue is not that she only went to SMU, the real issue is that she has not done any work that one normally expects from a constitutional scholar. She's never written an article on the constitution, never given a speech on the constitution, never shared an idea on the constitution with anyone that we can tell.

My favorite quote (who made it I can't remember) is essentially "why are we concerned about elitism, it's the Supreme Court, not the Court of Regular People" or something like that.

As has been documented many places, most conservatives before the Miers pick were supporting people who went to non-elite schools. This is a red-herring that Mr. Hewitt belittles himself by pursuing, but it is awfully convenient.

(2) Sexist -- Many in the anti-Miers camp supported several women being floated. It doesn't matter because we're simply building another strawman and watching in awe as Mr. Hewitt knocks it down with the greatest of ease. I agree with K-LO -- it is the president and the pro-Miers forces that are making this about gender, not her opponents. (I can't get to National Review now but will try to link later)

To me, the lowest point for the pro-Miers' forces (and Mr. Hewitt personally) was the exchange between Mr. Hewitt and Mark Levin posted at Radioblogger. Here are the saddest moments:

ML: Yes. Okay, let me put it to you this way. Let's pretend she's the greatest, most competent attorney America has ever known. Now my question is, what's her judicial philosophy?

HH: I believe we have to infer from what her statement was, and the president's confident that it is an originalist position.

...

ML: Hugh, why don't you bring me on after the hearings...

HH: Oh, I will.

ML: Hold on, now. And we'll discuss all the great testimony that convinced us that she's an originalist. But you guys want to put things off. You want us to look to the left, look to the right, and you keep taking your eye off the ball. I'll ask you a third time. What is her judicial philosophy? And where can I find it?

HH: I will answer a third time. You can ask Nathan Hecht what her judicial philosophy is. You can ask Lino Graglia...

ML: I don't need surrogates. I want to see it. I want to hear it. I want to know about it. I don't want to hear from Nathan Hecht.

...

ML: I'm trying to understand her judicial philosophy, laymen, no laymen, elitist (sic), pedestrian. And you still haven't given it to me.

HH: Oh, I have.

ML: Go talk to Nathan Hecht.

HH: Well, I can also point to her...

ML: I don't know Nathan Hecht from Nathan Hale.

HH: He'll be on tomorrow. And then you can read the transcript.

HH: But I can also point to you the one thing I've been able to find are her statements about the 2nd Amendment being a personal and not a militia right. That's a pretty big deal, isn't it?

ML: I guess so.

HH: Does that matter?

ML: Yes. She's for the 2nd Amendment. Great. How about the other 99% of the Constitution?

HH: I'm just saying it's an indication, because to be...

ML: (laughing) all right. Let me ask you a couple of...

...

ML: Look, I'm not taking a popularity contest. If we want to go down the list of conservatives, Bob Bork says she's a disaster. Okay?

HH: Again, it's not a popularity contest. It's a question about why are, all of a sudden, the rules of evidence about people we do not know suspended?

ML: Where do I have to go to find her judicial philosophy? To a Chinese restaurant and crack open a fortune cookie? Where am I going to find her judicial philosophy?

HH: The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Does the president...Mark, let me put this in blunt terms. Does the president have a good record on judges?

...

HH: My question is, could she turn out to be as reliable and good a judge as Thomas and Scalia? Even though you don't want to gamble on it. Could it turn out?

ML: I am praying that she is. I have no personal animus toward the lady whatsoever. I don't tear down what she's accomplished. I'm just concerned about a huge gap.

HH: Okay, I agree with that. But is it possible she'll turn out okay?

ML: Is it possible she'll turn out okay??? What kind of question is that? Of course it's possible. But it's unlikely, putting her aside, but given her background, people who go to the Court who aren't well moored in these positions move left. They never move right.

It's sad. Mr. Hewitt is repeatedly asked about Ms. Miers' judicial philosophy and he never answers directly. He either makes an argument to authority ("You can ask Nathan Hecht what her judicial philosophy is..."), which Mr. Levin correctly identifies as simply a "believe my expert and not yours" argument, the "Trust Me" argument ("Does the president have a good record on judges?"), and an argument about Ms. Miers' view on the 2nd Amendment, which is consistent with every other conservative as Mr. Levin points out.

It's sad and pathetic. It does no service to conservatives and no credit to Mr. Hewitt.

Mr. Hewitt, please come home.

UPDATE: Here's a link to help with the "snob" charge.

Glad to know

2005-10-06T17:22:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan always makes me laugh. Today, he officially declares Karen Hughes ethical, at least as far as he can see. That's a relief. You learn something new every day, or sometimes two things:

1. There was a question about Karen Hughes' ethical standing
2. Andrew Sullivan was the final arbiter of such standing

Now you know. You may resume your lives.

Not the worst thing about this story

2005-10-05T18:05:00.000-04:00

The fact that police were called to break up a fight over a pacifier is not the worst thing about this story (Cops Handle Kids' Fist Fight Over Pacifier). The fact that the kids are six years old and fighting over a pacifier is. What kind of parent lets their child have a pacifier at 6? I guess the kind who raises a child to get into a fist-fight with another 6 year old.

Oy.

You can hear the fiddles playing now

2005-09-27T17:24:00.000-04:00

Our immigration system is broken. Of course. Does anyone care?

Wow! I thought she was dead...

2005-08-19T16:25:00.000-04:00

No, just still crazy after all these years. Margot Kidder is now a U.S. citizen. Her motivation? So she won't be deported for criticizing the government. Really.

This must be that "stifling of dissent" we hear so much about from the looney Left. Let's see, we'll deport you for criticizing the government, but make you a permanent citizen, at your request, so you can criticize the government. Oooooo-kay. Sure makes sense to me. (Sounds like someone's off the meds)

Where's a jack-booted thug when we need one?

Multiculti Watch

2005-07-25T08:50:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn is writing about how multiculturism allows Islamists to hide in plain view and is slowly milking western civilization of the will to live. My favorite quote:

And, in a sense, we have: multiculturalism is a kind of societal Stockholm Syndrome. Atta's meetings with Bryant are emblematic: He wasn't a genius, a master of disguise in deep cover; indeed, he was barely covered at all, he was the Leslie Nielsen of terrorist masterminds - but the more he stuck out, the more Bryant was trained not to notice, or to put it all down to his vibrant cultural tradition.

Run for your life

2005-07-25T08:40:00.000-04:00

Another rant -- I know we're supposed to feel really bad for the Brazilian shot in the London tubes the other day and condemn the cops for their rash actions.

Sorry, I don't. The media is portraying this guy as an innocent caught in anti-terrorism fervor. A guy comes out of an apartment under surveillance as a base for terrorists wearing a heavy black coat. Hmm. It's July! You know, summertime. Then, the guy, wearing a heavy black coat and coming from an apartment under surveillance, goes to a tube station and runs from cops? He jumps the turnstyle to get away and run toward a train?

He apparently spoke English very well. What part of "Stop! Police!" didn't he understand?

The cops should get a medal.

All apologies

2005-07-25T08:30:00.000-04:00

Why are Republicans and conservatives so intent on denying the conservatism of John Roberts? First, the other day I had the misfortune of hearing Sean Hannity and Mary Matlin talk about John Roberts. The long and the short of their conversation was how Roberts wasn't rabidly pro-life and recognized that Roe was the settled law of the land.

Does he really believe this? Shouldn't that be a concern to conservatives?

Now, the Post reports that Mr. Roberts has no recollection of belonging to the Federalist Society and making Clintonian distinctions about paying dues and being on a steering committee. The whole thing reeks of embarrassment and trying to assure people that Roberts isn't really a "wingnut" -- even though the Federalist Society is a mainstream conservative organization with many members in the Bush administration.

Either Roberts isn't that conservative or Republicans feel the need to apologize for conservatives. Remind me of why we support Republicans again?

RE: Islamists Have No Hope

2005-07-25T00:35:00.000-04:00

I think you are a little optimistic. I'm not sure we are moving in your direction. I don't think "one more big hit" will cause us to "lose all restraint against Muslims." I think one more big hit will lead to a lot of emotion and rattling of sabres but eventually things are what they are and people do what they always do.

We're only four years removed from September 11th and already we've forgotten. Try to find an image of that day on any MSM news site or television program. (I mean an image that isn't some white guy threatening a brown skin person or some Muslim talking about their fear that day.) You can't do it. It's verboten.

We do have power but are powerless to use it. I refer you to Victor Davis Hanson's July 22, 2005 column and would like your take. His observations about Muslims not attacking China or India are right on. Those countries don't give a flying farg about people and have power. And, the Muslims know it. Money quote:

"In other words, the Islamicists target those whom they think they can intimidate and blackmail."

I think you are wrong. I understand your frustration. It's even worse because we are powerless with power coming out of our ears.

Of course, a nuke in Des Moines and all bets are off.

Islamists Have No Hope

2005-07-15T22:27:00.000-04:00

The war against Islamist extremism is coming to a head.

The recent bombings in London underscore the inability of most of western civilization to understand what drive terrorism. The acts we are seeing are not out of frustration with politics, they are politics. We are in the middle of a blood feud and we don’t know it. The only way out is to soak the soil with enough blood of our enemy to make them realize that they cannot win. We need to break Islam of its fundamentalist streak once and for all by killing every Islamic Imam that advocates violence against infidels, followed closely by their followers. There is no other way. They think we are weak. They think we are cowards. They think we don’t have the stomach for the killing and bloodshed. They are wrong.

Obviously I don’t want or wish for us to be attacked again. I don’t want another WTC attack. I don’t want hundreds, thousands or millions of Americans killed, but I fear it is the only thing that will save us. The US must be terribly attacked again or our attention will fail. This war is far from over, and unlike our war with the Soviets this war is hot. The US will see another devastating attack. We will avenge masses of dead Americans on our shores. It will be the clarion call for the final action against Islamic extremism. We will not and cannot tolerate the cancer of Islamists to metastasize further. We must cut out the heart of the movement and destroy any remaining cells.

Do you call for the return of the Caliph? You will die. Do you call for killing non-Muslims? You will die. Do you call for the death of “infidel-Muslims”? You will die. Does your country support Islamists? Your country will be obliterated.

We had no problems slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany and Japan during WW2. We will have no compunction killing thousands of Muslims if your do not eliminate your fanatics. One more big hit and the citizens of the USA will lose all restraint against Muslims. You think the Patriot act is bad? Wait until we deport every Muslim non-citizen and implant tracking chips into Muslim citizens in the hope you will leave.

If another few thousand Americans die in a terrorist attack we will be Godzilla stomping around until your shooting stops and then we’ll keep it going for a while to be sure you understand. Nobody can stop us or even hope to contain us. You think we don’t care about civilian casualties? Wait until we really don’t care. We could devastate every Muslim country with conventional arms in weeks. We will destroy every piece of important infrastructure you have and then start the incendiary carpet-bombing of every one of your major cities, and nobody can or will try to stop us.

Right now the USA is hoping this can be avoided because we don’t like killing civilians. Notice that I didn’t say innocent. You are not innocent. You allowed this extremism to grow and spread because it didn’t affect you too much. You are wrong. It has affected you in ways you are just now beginning to comprehend. Islamism is quickly making you the pariahs of civilization. You have let the foxes control the henhouse for far too long, and now the 12 gauge is coming out. Kick the foxes out or everyone is going to get the full taste of the enmity of the USA. We carpet-bombed Tokyo and every other major Japanese and German city during WW2, and then we nuked the 2 remaining intact Japanese cities to end it. The vast majority of Americans don’t care at all that we nuked Japan. We don’t care that we killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, because it saved thousands of Americans lives. Even the Japanese and Germans don’t care much about it. Why? Nobody likes to taste the grapes of wrath.

Most of us don’t care one iota about any foreigners. Hell, most Americans don’t care about the Canadians or Mexicans and we share thousands of miles of borders with those countries. Less than half of Americans even know who the leader of Canada or Mexico is, and a good percentage couldn’t locate either country on a map. Why? We don’t give a shit about anyone but us. We care about making money and living a good life. Nothing ruins a good life more than killing the ones we love.

Woe to the country or countries that interferes with our good life, they will have no joy or life. We have power you cannot comprehend.

Rove, Chinese Oil, Kelo and the Deficit

2005-07-14T20:41:00.000-04:00

It's been a while since I posted so here goes...

There is no way the Rove gets fired. There is no popular support on this issue. We still haven’t heard all the facts in this case. When the facts come out Rove will not have broken a single law and almost everyone will have forgotten about this and moved on to the new Supreme Court, hopefully packed with conservatives.

I don't like the idea of a Chinese state owned oil company buying an American one. I don’t have a problem with a foreign privately-held company buying an American company, but I don’t think we should support socialism. We don’t allow our own government to buy up private companies, why should we allow foreign ones?

The Kelo decision is the reason we need a court packed with conservatives. I am so looking forward to the Supreme Court fight. The minority party almost never gets its way on the Supreme Court. They almost invariably look like obstructionists and the last thing the democrats need is to look more obstructionist. The shrill cry soon to be heard from the left will do nothing but convince average Americans that they aren’t Democrats. Remember, the majority of voters put Bush in the WH, he will get what he wants. I just hope that who he wants doesn’t end up being a Souter, Kennedy or Stevens.

The budget deficit continues to fall thanks to our strong economy. Bush could still do a lot more to slash federal spending, but it looks like he hasn’t met a spending bill he can veto. Secretly I hope the Democrats take back the House and the GOP holds onto the Senate and WH. I love gridlock, hard to appropriate money when nobody can agree where to spend it.

Must-Read Alert

2005-07-01T09:05:00.000-04:00

But make sure you are not drinking anything. Otherwise, it will come out your nose and end up all over your screen. With that warning and no further ado ... please make sure you check out today's (7/1) cartoon by Chris Muir.

That is all.

Torture in the Homeland

2005-06-26T08:55:00.000-04:00

Alert Mr. Sullivan! The new gulag for the excitable Right and the loony Left has been located in ... Illinois, of all places. An out of control state trooper has apparently been charged with forcing two couples to strip and "do something so embarrassing." While it's not clear how high up this scandal goes, certainly this cannot be a one-time situation. Surely someone higher up has condoned this before and created a culture where this type of abuse is tolerated and even celebrated. What did Bush know, and when did he know it? It's time to shut-down the Illinois State Police.

UPDATE: It should also be clear to anyone reasonable that charging this trooper is simply part of the cover-up to keep people from asking too many questions about the administration's involvement.

Anglophilia

2005-06-10T09:40:00.000-04:00

For all my Anglophiles.

HT: The Corner

D-Day ... Part II

2005-06-06T11:10:00.000-04:00

In my haste, I forgot Ronald Reagan's speech at Omaha Beach, marking the 40th Anniversary.

Today, the living here assembled-officials, veterans, citizens-are a tribute to what was achieved here 40 years ago. This land is secure. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for.
...

Through the words of his loving daughter, who is here with us today, a D-Day veteran has shown us the meaning of this day far better than any President can. It is enough to say about Private Zannata and all the men of honor and courage who fought beside him four decades ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

D-Day

2005-06-06T09:10:00.000-04:00

Please take a few minutes at some point today to reflect on the events of June 6, 1944. Here are some links to help you do that:

The BBC has some sound clips of D-Day participants recalling the events of the day.

They also have a collection of essays and photo galleries to occupy your time.

There's always the D-Day Museum in New Orleans.

PBS has a nice little page on D-Day that also includes a news account of the day's action and letters home.

More later if I can.

May G-d bless these brave soldiers. May G-d continue to bless our nation.

... and they used to eat it

2005-06-06T08:40:00.000-04:00

Hypocrite Alert!

It's rich when Woodward and Bernstein "publicly question[]" Mark "Deep Throat" Felt's competency to come forward and out himself. They emote concern for this man being exploited by his family for money. GASP!

I'm sure the Post has been giving away copies of their papers with Deep Throat stories on the cover for the past week. I'm sure Woodstein are going to give all the profits from their rush to press book to charity.

Aren't all the questions about competency and profit motive a little thin? All they are questioning is his outing himself (or worst case scenario, his family outing him). We all know they were only too happy to out him once he died to the tune of millions of dollars for themselves. But let us not question the Saintly Woodstein. After all, they brought down a President.

A solution to Social Security?

2005-06-06T01:10:00.000-04:00

Our Social Security Privatization heroine of the day is Vera Tursi. Ms. Tursi is an octogenarian housebound madam, or at least was until May 14th. Unfortunately, the government's anti-privatization stance led state police to shut down her rather sad business.

Krauthammer Take-Down!

2005-06-03T11:35:00.000-04:00

I once had an interview to be a researcher for Charles Krauthammer. Unfortunately, he was delayed and did not make it to the interview leaving me to settle for meeting with his then-current researcher. I did have a telephone conversation with Mr. Krauthammer later about the job and decided the pay would be too little to support my wife and me. That was a regrettable decision made by youth in a hurry.

Mr. Krauthammer is a brilliant mind and always a must read. Today is no exception.

Depravity Watch ... Part II

2005-06-02T16:15:00.000-04:00

Another story. This one from England.

Bring Back Country Joe

2005-06-02T15:30:00.000-04:00

Does anyone take this article seriously? Are we really supposed to believe the draft is coming back because a few aging hippies say it is so? Has our all-conspiracy, all the time news media really devolved into ignoring a government agency AND a 402-2 vote in Congress because somebody in Montgomery County just "knows" there will be a draft?

Oh boy. The Post goes to some lengths to convince us there is an "atmosphere of suspicion" that the Draft is really just around the corner despite "President Bush and members of Congress" "emphatic" denials. OHHH. Sounds ominous. A groundswell of citizen patriots standing up to the evil machinations of Chimpy McDumbass.

And then, the money shot:

"If there weren't such widespread concern about the possibility of the draft's return, J.E. McNeil wouldn't be so busy.

"On a recent Friday night, McNeil, executive director of the Center on Conscience and War, brought her presentation [to] ... the audience of about 25."

WOW! Stop the presses! 25 people in some DC suburb is widespread? Good Lord. Don't these people have editors?

Despite so many fears and words, the author could not provide one shred of fact or detail that would support anything our brave parents or conscientious objectors said in the article. Remind me why we should care about the MSM again?

UPDATE: Where are the poll numbers on this? The Post assures us the concern about a draft "persists" and is "widespread." Where are the numbers? We take polls on whether the Runaway Bride should be thrown in jail or on who's our favorite American Idol. We can't have a policy article in the news without referencing what some group of 1000 Americans believe. And yet, this article on the front page of the Metro section has not one poll number.

Depravity Watch

2005-06-02T09:30:00.000-04:00

What do stories about children killing other children (or anyone) tell us about our society?

Today's story comes from Florida and involves a child beating his infant sister to death. Beating with a two-by-four. Driven by jealousy over the attention his sister was receiving.

A couple of days ago, the story was of a 9-year-old stabbing a playmate to death over a ball.

Some would say we've always had these crimes and the 24/7 news cycle and Drudge are making them more publicized and apparent. Maybe that's true. But, how are we as a society going to handle these crimes? Does a 7-year-old deserve the death penalty? Life in prison?

I support the death penalty. Once you take a life you have forfeited your right to your own by violating one of civilization's most basic tenets. However, it just does not feel as clear cut when a child commits the murder. The issues are tangled -- including intent, capacity, rehabilitation -- and are not easily separated and dealt with.

But, then you get a story like Lionel Tate, where he is given a second chance and blows it with another crime. Doesn't that undercut the rehabilitation argument and butress the idea that some crimes are beyond redemption?

I will continue this thread from time to time.

Atlanta: City of Nuts, Part II

2005-05-31T08:30:00.000-04:00

The nuts continue to come out of the woodwork in Atlanta. Fortunately, this guy was just crazy and came down pretty quickly.

Atlanta: City of Nuts

2005-05-27T13:30:00.000-04:00

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Atlanta's efforts to come up with an image and a catch-phrase to appeal to the tourists. Unfortunately, we already seem to have an image: The City of Nuts Wanting and Getting Their 15 Minutes.

As someone who sat in traffic for over an hour last night to go 7 miles, I say bring him down now. Give him 5 minutes to get right with his G-d and tell him at the end of the 5 minutes he's either jumping down, walking down, or being shot and falling down. This is not that hard. It's nothing a good sniper rifle and a steady hand couldn't take care of.

Instead, we have businesses and employees being economically crippled. Traffic is being snarled as a major road in Atlanta is shut-down for days. And this guy's getting all the publicity he can handle. G-d knows what nut is out there thinking about how he'll make his cry for help in Atlanta, which is so convenient to CNN and worldwide fame.

Atlanta has had a rash of these jumpers and it's no wonder. The police are worse than ineffective. It's time to bring him down.

More Voinovich

2005-05-27T11:20:00.000-04:00

Mrs. Dawg's take on the GV Issue:

Georgie Porgie, puddin' pie
"Dissin' Bolton" makes him cry
When the votes come down today*
Little Georgie will run away.

* Yeah, I know it's been put off, but go with it.

Hillary!

2005-05-27T11:15:00.000-04:00

As I've written before, polls this early are worthless. Everyone knows it. But, we just can't help ourselves, can we? Especially when it reinforces our MSM wet dreams.

USA Today has a poll out that finds "[f]or the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008." Again, big deal. Name ID. That's all.

But, the media wants this to happen. They will do everything in their power to make it so. If you think they pulled out all the stops in 2004, you haven't seen anything yet.

Get ready. Here she comes!

It's (sob) about (sob) the children

2005-05-27T10:35:00.000-04:00

Radio Blogger has the awesome clip of George "Shoot Me Down!" Voinovich blubbering on the floor of the Senate about how that big old meanie John Bolton will threaten the security of GV's grandchildren. Follow this link and keep scrolling to the "voinovich.mp3" link. Read the Podhoretz interview too while you are there.

The Internet has Godwin's Law that says "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Perhaps we now have Voinovich's Law for Senate Debates: "When you cry on the floor during a debate and invoke 'the children' because no one cares about your position, you've lost all credibility."

(I would have thought it would be Boxer's Law, but go figure in this new era of bipartisanship)

HT: The Corner

G-d Bless Peggy Noonan

2005-05-26T09:55:00.000-04:00

Hitting the nail on the head this morning is Peggy Noonan. About the 14 Brave Souls, she writes:

You've heard the mindless braying and fruitless arguments, but I'm here to tell you the facts, no matter what brickbats and catcalls may come my way. Lindsey Graham defied the biases of his constituency to do what was right, not what was easy. Robert Byrd put aside personal gain to save our Republic. David Pryor ignored the counsels of hate to stand firm for our hopes and dreams. Mike DeWine protected our way of life. These men are uniters, not dividers.

How do I know?

Because they told me. Again and again, and at great length, as they announced The Deal. And I believed them, because I am an idiot. Or as they might put it, your basic "folk" from "back home."

Listening to them I thought of some of the great and hallowed phrases of our Republic. "The rooster who thought he brought the dawn." "The only man who can strut sitting down."

Read the whole thing.

Best Judicial Analysis Yet

2005-05-25T17:05:00.000-04:00

I remain somewhat ambivilent about the actual outcome of the judicial fight -- opposed to it on the principle that McCain, Collins, and Byrd are tools but afraid of the slippery slope and letting Democrats win. However, James Taranto reminds us that this is politics and good politics begets good outcomes with the first item in today's Best of the Web:

From where we sit, then, the actions of the Republican compromisers look like not a capitulation but a way of letting Democrats back down from a losing position without being humiliated.

Why not humiliate the Democrats? Well, here's one reason: "Democrats agreed on Tuesday to clear the way for the Senate to vote on the controversial nomination of John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, which was expected to pass mainly on party lines," Reuters reports. Had the Senate gone nuclear yesterday, Bolton's nomination would be suffering from the fallout.

Cognitive Dissonance

2005-05-25T10:45:00.000-04:00

E.J. Dionne joins in the MSM Hallelujah Chorus praising McCain and other "moderates" in beating back the conservative junta/theocracy that threatens our democratic institutions (even though an intemperate soul could argue that this conservative junta/theocracy was elected fairly recently by a pretty decisive margin). His column is a typical Dionne presentation of conventional liberal wisdom. However, he presents an interesting conundrum in the Left's argument for the filibuster.

According to Mr. Dionne the filibuster is more than a rule of the Senate, it is a "right." (His idea of rights is interesting given that this right apparently can be arbitrarily curtailed, as in 1975 to require only 60 votes rather than 67.) From where does this "right" come? Mr. Dionne doesn't tell us, but surely if it is a right, it must be constitutional. And, if it is constitutional, does it not mean that it is an 18th-century creation?

If so, why would Mr. Dionne criticize "a certain style of conservative" who wishes to "use 19th-century standards to void Washington's capacity to create rational standards for a complex 21st-century economy?" If we are going to fix some constitutional principles forever in amber, should we not fix all such principles similarly?

Who knew? E.J. Dionne -- original originalist.

Hillary Watch

2005-05-24T17:00:00.000-04:00

Buried in Warren Bell's write-up of the recent AIPAC Policy Conference in DC is his assessment of Hillary's performance.

Another highlight: Hillary Clinton. (Get up off the floor, close your gaping jaw, clean up the coffee you just spit out.) She praised our military. She praised, without qualification, the explosion of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. She reiterated Israel's right to defend itself against terror. The Hillary who hugged Arafat is gone. The new Hillary delivered a Middle East policy speech this morning that (to my ear, at least) could have been from a Republican.

Look. Out.

Here she comes.

Bush Veto

2005-05-24T14:05:00.000-04:00

I know this particular story is a few days old, but it is very relevant to the current debate in the House on stem cells. I know it is politically easy for the President to threaten a veto of a bill that will never reach his desk. I know that it plays very well with the base to threaten to veto this very easy bill that will never reach his desk. However, one question. Shouldn't the President expend a little political capital on bills that do matter? You know, like one fargin' appropriation bill or tax increases for SS reform?

Unfortunately, things like this make it hard to counter criticisms about "Big Government Conservatism."

Just a thought.

Death Watch: Harry Potter

2005-05-24T13:45:00.000-04:00

Harry Potter has been a big deal in our house for the last few years. Lil'Dawg1 dressed up as Hermione Granger a couple of years ago, including a full curly-hair wig that proved too hot to wear and too cool to throw out. Excitement ran wild earlier this Spring when Amazon sent a message that we would be receiving one of the first shipments of the new Harry Potter book this Summer.

I admit that I was reluctant about HP because of the rabid nature of the people praising it. I distrust other people's taste in things and naturally doubt any pop culture phenomenon. However, once I started reading the books, I found them to be very well-written, challenging to kids, and a very strong morality tale. Which is good, since we've read all of them to our 7 year-old and she's read them herself many times over.

The new book promises to kill off a major character and the betting has begun. My money (as is a lot of people's apparently) is on Dumbledore as the most natural and the most foreshadowed. However, I wouldn't count out one of Harry's pals. For my daughter's sake, I hope it's not Hermione. Not sure how we'd cope with that one.

(HT: Instapundit)

UPDATE: Link to odds fixed.

The Nuclear Fallout

2005-05-24T09:45:00.000-04:00

My own take is that this is not really a big deal. As it is based on good faith and comity, it will last all of about five days. There is so much wiggle room for either side the center cannot hold. However, I think it damages Frist in the eyes of the base, mainly because we've been strung along for so long that we had personalized it. This personalization led us to take a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" stance such that compromise looks like sell-out and weakness. I think it damages Republicans in general because it legitimizes the filibuster of judges and will make it that much harder to argue for the Constitutional option from a seemingly principled position. The Left and their fellow travelers in the media will throw this compromise in Frist and the GOP's face the first chance they get -- and it's looking increasingly like it will be the retirement (or death) of Rehnquist.

Other than the tactical/political, I could not stand the sanctimony of the press conference. Anything that brings McCain, Collins, Warner, Byrd, and Nelson together is BAD for the country. McCain was at his most self-satisfied and smug. Watching the GOP Senators smile and kiss the ass of the white sheeted elephant in the room was too much --

Byrd and Warner, 77, "brought a breadth of institutional experience in the United States Senate and a great deal of weight" to the talks, Snowe said.

Ugh. Anyway, here's what some other, smarter people are saying:

Hugh Hewitt: If Senator Frist can't talk Ohio's Mike DeWine and and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham off the ledge, voters will wonder how he can talk Great Britain and Italy into future coaltions of the willing. Everyone Republican who signed the document did so knowing they were betraying Frist. To recover, the Majority Leader will have to move quickly to get the blocked nominations on to the flooor and then the bench, and he will have to be the leader from day one on a Supreme Court nomination fight that is quickly and decisively won.

The Kerry Spot: Senator Frist, thy name is mud in the GOP base. (He has a good round-up of others that I won't repeat.)

John Podhoretz and Mark R. Levin at The Corner:

First
Second
Third
Fourth

Powerline: The claim by Senator Graham and others that we need to get this issue behind us in order to proceed with the Senate's business is laughable. The Democrats will be emboldened by this "compromise" and will continue to obstruct. This Congress will accomplish little beyond what it already has, and that isn't much.

Finally, and most importantly, the president probably will be unable to get a Supreme Court Justice confirmed this session unless he appoints a moderate. And barring Republican gains in 2006, he probably will be unable to appoint a conservative Justice at all.

Senator Graham and his friends have likely given away one of the president's most important powers -- the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices of his choosing and get an up-or-down vote on them. I hope they enjoy the praise they are about to get from the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Mickey Kaus: So what did the 14 moderates actually accomplish with their deal? "They kicked the can down the road," according to Ross K. Baker of Rutgers--by an eerie coincidence the very cliche kf chose for yesterday's filibuster-related recommendation! ... But the mere postponement--until, presumably, a Supreme Court seat opens up--favors the Democrats, for the reasons outlined earlier. Bush will need to nominate someone who will either avoid or win such a somewhat-less-likely filibuster battle when the stakes are high enough for the bulk of the voters to be paying attention. This effectively narrows Bush's choices, Balz notes--unless there is some hidden codicil forbidding Dems from declaring out-of-the-mainstream ideology an "extraordinary circumstance."

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge provides the conservative counter: The filibuster is a profoundly conservative tool. It slows change by allowing a resolute minority to delay - to stand athwart history shouting stop. It ensures that change is driven not "merely by temporary advantage or popularity" but by a substantial majority. Is it any wonder that it has usually been liberals who want to change or abolish the filibuster rule?

What a Shock!

2005-05-23T09:45:00.000-04:00

Apparently, putting people on the border works to stop illegal immigration. Who knew? Certainly not the "supervisors" of the U.S. Border Patrol. But, a new report by the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus is spilling the beans on one of Washington's best kept secrets.

While the official Party Line from Border Patrol Central was that the Minutemen project had no impact on illegal immigration, the CIRC's Report found that "nearly every individual Border Patrol officer who spoke off-the-record in the field to the Caucus team said that illegal immigration virtually stopped in the sector patrolled by the Minutemen as a direct result of Minutemen activity and publicity." Therefore, the Report recommends the deployment of National Guard troops or state militia members to work with the Border Patrol.

Unfortunately, neither party seems willing to do anything to stem the constant stream of illegal immigrants. This is likely the first, and last, we'll see of this report.

Part of the Problem

2005-05-23T09:20:00.000-04:00

This morning, we are getting word that Warren Beatty has broken his silence on the Schwarzenegger governorship. Wow! Finally, gentle people everywhere will now know what to think based on the ramblings of a has-been-if-he-ever-was actor.

As Mrs. Dawg said to me this morning, as we were lucky enough to catch both CNN's and Fox News' coverage of the breaking news from California, "why does anyone care about what Warren Beatty has to say about anything?" Indeed. This seems like another example of our Pop Culture echo chamber where people are famous for being famous and, when famous, are quoted on issues and matters whether they have any experience in that issue or matter. However, as we learn from this report from the Associated Press, Warren Beatty is different. After all:

"Beatty, who has been involved in politics for years, played a senator in the 1998 movie 'Bulworth' and entertained the idea of running for the presidency six years ago."

He "played a senator" and thought about "running for the presidency." With this vast experience, why hasn't he been able to bring peace to the Middle East?

Pessimism

2005-05-21T01:47:00.000-04:00

Sorry to bring you down, but I’ve been in a pessimistic mood lately, must be budget time effecting me.

Civilization is in a race to spread before the anti-civilization moieties gain the ability to destroy or delay the future. I think civilization is loosing at this point because of greed. As long as people get what they want for the most part, they ignore the long term. We are watching as Iran gains nuclear weapons. Civilization did nothing to prevent NK from getting nukes. Soon anyone who has the money and power will get nukes. Eventually one will go off in NYC or Tokyo. The people of the US will demand that any threatening nuclear power be destroyed. Who will pull the trigger on a nuclear holocaust. Any US president who pulls the trigger will be voted out of office. We can only hope that this occurs in the second term of a US president and he has the testicular fortitude to do what’s right, damn the consequences.

Episode III

2005-05-21T01:18:00.000-04:00

Disappointed.

What can I say about Revenge of the Sith?

The entire movie was poorly paced. Scenes cut in and out that should have been longer or not included at all. Herky-jerky filming with poorly shot scenes. Stolid acting and poor dialogue added to the disappointment.

Excellent SFX, but couldn’t make up for the terrible film-making effort. Worse than any of the first 3 but better than the last 2. The final battle between Obi-Won and Anikan was good but not spectacular, and ended stupidly. Much too whiny. Palpatine was OK, but not as good or seductive as I expected, too transparent. The scenes between Padame and Anakin were, in a word, terrible.

I never really believed that Anakin really turned to the dark-side. I just felt he was going with what was convenient.

Of course this is my first impression, and I’m drunk of margaritas as I write.

I would still recommend seeing it in the theater in full digital. I didn’t see it in full digital and noticed thanks to the terrible projectionist.

Honestly, I liked “Chronicles of Riddick” directors cut better as a movie.

Vike's pessimism

2005-05-20T16:25:00.000-04:00

Wow! That's quite a downer. I don't disagree with much of it, but it's still a downer to see written out.

I think the most likely scenarios in the next 10-15 years (if not much sooner) are 1 and 4.

If a nuke goes off in New York, what's the outcome? That's why I think the next season of 24 should take a break from the tried and true formula they've developed and deal with what happens when the nuke goes off. (I doubt very highly the bad guys in 24 will ultimately succeed, but isn't the fact that the bad guys caused a reactor to melt down and kill 10s of thousands of Americans the same thing for all practical purposes?) What would the U.S. response be?

There's no state sponsor at first blush, no contrails to track back to the silos -- just a mushroom cloud in Manhattan. It would take a while (days? weeks? months?) to track the path back to a state sponsor. During that time, it is easy to imagine horrible pandemonium in every major urban and suburban area in the country. Civil obedience, in my view, would completely collapse within days. Productivity, the economy, financial institutions, etc. would collapse. And these problems would deepen every day a response was not provided by the government. The fear of personal reprisals on Muslim communities in the wake of 9/11 would be nothing of the fear following a nuclear explosion -- regardless of whether it was a Muslim terrorist, a German neo-Nazi (Hollywood's favorite terrorist), or a homegrown white power group.

Articles focus on the impact of a nuclear device and our domestic preparedness for the day or moment of the attack. Others are focused on how to stop an attack. But the question is beyond that -- how do we respond to an attack?

This has been the topic on a few occasions over at The Belmont Club (here and here). Wretchard has written that "[t]he so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanactical intent; lack of centralized leadership; absence of final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore, the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset." (emphasis in the original)

But, would we choose that path? I think it would be impossible not to. In my darker hours, I am not so sure.

But, even if we do choose all out retaliation from the outset, against whom do we retaliate? Every Muslim country? Every country that harbors neo-Nazis? Idaho?

How does retaliation solve the collapsing infrastructure Kissinger hints at in this MSNBC interview (HT: The Belmont Club):

Supposing a nuclear weapon went off anywhere in the world, New Delhi, New York, Europe, and 100,000 people got killed, not 3,000. The trade center was relatively tame. People got killed in one place. The civic structure of the city was barely affected. All hospitals were operating. All social services were intact. It was a terrible tragedy, but if much of a town is wiped out and all social services collapse, two things happen: one, the impact on that society. But impact on the consciousness of people everywhere. Even today families wonder what may happen to their children under conditions of terrorism. But not yet accurately. But supposing they have to think that they really might loose everything in one minute. Totally unpredictable. You will get new demands on international relations in my view, for which we're not prepared anywhere in any country and then you might get demands that these nuclear weapons have to be brought under some international control.

Further, how does complete (and perfect) retaliation quell the civilian side of the equation. Will turning the Middle East into a parking lot help maintain the solvency of our financial system?

Well, I have a headache now. Where's my Gin and Tonic?

My Pessimism...

2005-05-20T00:26:00.000-04:00

I fear that the future many Sci-Fi writers have beaten to death will come true. Civilization will be greatly tested in the coming years. Some of the things I fear:

1) Nuclear weapons will be used in a major population center triggering a world crisis ending in a nuclear holocaust. Billions will die and human civilization will be set back hundreds to thousands of years.

2) A biological attack triggers a pandemic that threatens the very existence of the human species. Billions die with the survivors, spread thinly throughout the globe, struggling to survive in the new harsh natural world. Civilization is set back to the bronze age or earlier.

3) Immortality is achieved through somatic gene therapy. The world population explodes as routine genetic treatments extend life thousands of years. Children are shunned as parasites and laws are passed preventing procreation except to replace those killed in accidents (you get smashed flat by a piano or head cut off by a 1200 year old Japanese sword you still die, you just don’t die of old age, cancer, etc). This one is so weird that I don't like to think about the consequences.

4) Economic collapse causes massive riots resulting in massive looses of productivity which cascade into a worldwide collapse of the economic infrastructure. Banks fold, inflation explodes, looting starts to make economic sense, the government cracks down and becomes totalitarian because it works.

I’m a weird mix of short-term pessimism and long-term optimism. I know that Humans can survive anything we throw at each other, but it will be real messy in the short term. I believe the only thing that can screw us now is an astronomical event (meteorite, comet, supernova, gamma-burst).

Yet another reason to boost the NASA budget.

Closer by Committe

2005-05-19T21:42:00.000-04:00

There is a movement in the stat-head community that believes closers are overrated. It doesn’t seem right to me, but I haven’t seen the data so I won’t say.

Man you got smoked on Braves Journal today. Don’t worry. I got spanked a little bit back for claiming the Braves pitching couldn’t hold up since their WHIP and K/9 was crappy.

I'm skeptical about their skepticism

2005-05-19T15:40:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press writes to say that (surprise!) Muslims are skeptical of the Newsweek retraction and continue to believe the original story may have been fake but accurate. See if you can tell the pro-Military, pro-War blogger from the Kuwaiti parliament speaker:

"Although the magazine that published this piece of information has backed off it, we call on the American administration to investigate the incident, which we consider a major crime against more than 1.2 billion Muslims in the world." Click here for answer

"So when we have reports of an alleged desecration of the Koran, whom are we supposed to find credible? Before this war started, I wouldn't have even considered the possibility that the U.S. was guilty. But, given the enormous evidence of abuse that stares us in the face, doubt is now the only operative position to take." Click here for answer

Maybe I'm too dense, but I don't get the outrage anyway. After all, we've been told for years that one man's desecration is another man's art. Is our problem that the soldier alleged to have committed this desecration was trying to extract information from a prisoner rather than make a statement on our society? Should it be?

Dan KolBB, slow learner

2005-05-19T10:05:00.000-04:00

After apparently looking "distraught," Mr. KolBB managed to rally his defensiveness and defiance:

"Lead off walks don't bother me. I'm a ground ball pitcher; I can get double plays."

and

[After Cox suggested KolBB consider using other pitches] "I pitch the way I pitch. ... I'm a fastball guy. I'm getting ground balls now. I'm just going to try to keep going [at] guys."

Not as a closer, you aren't.

The question I have is: Do closers by committee work?

My answer: No, but I'd appreciate the feedback.

Ding Dong Dan KolBB is Gone!

2005-05-18T23:16:00.000-04:00

The human WHIP machine was finally relieved today. The guy who somehow only walked 15 guys all last season already has 16 this year, just under a walk an inning. In short he was terrible from the start and even his saves have been a high wire act.

Cox sure took his sweet time making the decision, but it’s not like the pen is brimming with talent either. Reitsma was good until recently, but after last year’s end of the season debacles I can’t say I trust him. Of Reitsma, Benero, Sosa and Colon, I think the most of Sosa’s electric stuff, but he has major control problems. I would like for the Braves to trade for some pen talent, but they don’t have any money to spend on a real closer. Plus bullpens are blowing up all around the majors (Chicago, Oakland, Giants, KC, LA, Florida, Colorado) teams will have steep demands for good relievers. Realistically, I would rather trade for a replacement level outfielder than pen help. Then we could take Mondesi for a nice ride in the country.

Take down

2005-05-18T14:15:00.000-04:00

Glenn Reynolds delivers one of the best take-downs in a while on the Internet to Mr. Sullivan.

Nut graph:

"As Mickey Kaus has noted, Andrew can be excitable. A while back he apologized to me for some of his criticisms during the election, and more recently he has apologized to his readers for his waffling and defeatism on the war last spring. Perhaps he'll apologize for this at some point in the future. But, I confess, I find the question of what Andrew thinks less pressing than I used to."

In the words of a wise man:

Heh. Indeed. Read the Whole Thing.

Riddle me a moment of silence

2005-05-18T14:01:00.000-04:00

The Riddler is dead.

Memory Lane

2005-05-18T10:25:00.000-04:00

Just finished reading The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. It's the type of book that could only be read since GWB won the election, otherwise the naivete and sanctimony of the left-wingers contained therein would be too much to take. I finished the book in time to briefly flip past a Discovery/Times documentary on the 2004 GOP Convention, specifically the Zell Miller speech. It was funny to watch Adam Nagourney and other knowledgeable people pull their chin and fret about the impact Miller's speech would have on the election. More importantly, it made me go back to the original source of all that angst. So, here it is -- your positive affirmation of the day. What a long time ago that all seems. Enjoy!

Space...The Low Orbit Frontier

2005-05-17T21:36:00.000-04:00

I agree that the ISS is boring and expensive, but I disagree that we haven’t learned much. Sure, we didn’t discover “breakfast beverage crystals” , ICMBs or anything cool like they got in the 50’s, but we are learning a lot about living and surviving in outer space. We are learning about the physiology of living in zero-g, fixing crap while wearing a space suit, etc. This is all stuff that we need to know for long term living in space.

Still, I want more and faster. I want the new space shuttle yesterday. They should have scrapped the “current” model after Challenger in 1987 and started fresh. I’d rather see a 5 year manned-trip hiatus than to pour money down the shuttle’s 1970’s rendered gullet. Ever wonder why the main fuel tank’s orange color is eerily familiar? That’s right it’s the same color as your living room carpet or beanbag chair! (No I’m not pedophile; these are the sites that come up on Goggle images…like this hideous combined orange shag-carpet beanbag chair, but I digress.) I want the government to at lest triple NASA’s budget and develop at least two different launch vehicles using modern technology and materials. I want to go back to the Moon and build a base. At the same time we should be building and testing Mars capable ships. I want to get launched into space for a few days so I proudly wear a T-shirt stating “I’ve puked in outer space”

Unfortunately, the Republicans would rather spend money on big new drug entitlements for our beloved seniors and…well…the Democrats want to spend even more money on bigger drug entitlements for everyone and put drug companies out of business to boot. Don’t forget the ~~pork~~ important infrastructure improvements including ever important federal interstate highway scenic covered bridges (well I made that last bit up, their not actually highway covered bridges, well not anymore, maybe 50-100 years ago they were considered highways but they aren’t highway highways, but I digress…again). Don’t forget the Helium and mohair subsidies, and personally I would rather take money out of the hands of agribusiness and into the hands of the aerospace industry. Agriculture is sooo yesterday and space is tomorrow.

Maybe we aren’t “stuck” in low earth orbit, maybe we are trapped. Maybe the moon landings were faked, or Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong died or went insane or became a threat to mankind and had to be killed upon return and were replaced by doubles created by the Illuminati or pentavaret. Maybe we are launching monkey after monkey from the ISS in hopes to understand what happened and PETA would go insane if they knew so NASA is all “nothing to see here folks, just boring science”. Then there are the aliens, but I digress...

Is we is or is we ain't

2005-05-17T17:10:00.000-04:00

What is there to celebrate? I thought the theocons were on the march and throwing gays off of buildings. I thought there was no difference between our theocons and their theocons.

A foolish love of consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, heh?

Chrenkoff and Lucas

2005-05-17T09:45:00.000-04:00

Interesting open letter to George Lucas by Arthur Chrenkoff.

What a waste

2005-05-17T09:35:00.000-04:00

I love space. I think space exploration is one of the coolest human endeavors ever undertaken. I wanted to be an astronaut until I realized there was little call in an overweight kid who got motion sickness riding in the backseat of a car. Plus, you had to be able to do math a little more complicated than 2+2. Still, I would gladly volunteer to be the first person on the reconstituted Space Shuttle. Send me up today, forget the risks.

We now have news that the International Space Station's oxygen generator has finally and completely broken, leaving the crew with about a five month supply. I wish them the best. But, can anyone name one thing we have learned in the ISS?

It is truly sad to me that we are stuck in Earth's orbit and have set our sights no higher than the highest satellite. If we are going to continue putting people into space and risking their lives, wouldn't it be better to risk those lives, you know, actually doing something?

When are we going to Mars?

In the crapper

2005-05-17T08:25:00.000-04:00

Here's the best summary I've seen of the NEWSWEAK debacle.