The miracles of modern science...
...have ushered in a new and glorious era.
« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
September 30, 2005
My obligatory Bill Bennett post
I confess that I find Bill Bennett annoying, obnoxious and largely insufferable. His remarks about aborting black babies were ill-conceived, to say the least. But to be fair, the man was arguing rather passionately against exactly the sort of sophistry he's being accused of. In response to a caller's argument justifying abortion on demographic grounds (involving Social Security in this case), Bennett proposed an intentionally outrageous hypothetical precisely in order to show where such a utilitarian argument can ultimately lead.
So that's all I have to say about that. I now intend to resume not giving a damn what Bill Bennett thinks or says about anything.
Surprise, surprise!
It's deja vu all over again. Cindy Sheehan met yesterday with North Carolina Senator Liddy Dole, and then promptly rushed for the nearest microphone to call her a "warmonger."
Sound familiar? I wonder if this meeting, like the one with McCain, was also scheduled under false pretenses?
Christ, when are these people going to learn? And does anyone still honestly wonder why Bush has declined to meet with her for a second time?
Because it's never too early
The handicapping of the 2008 presidential race has already begun. While everyone seems to agree hat the Republicans are in grim shape, Howard Fineman of Newsweek thinks the Democrats are in no position to exploit it.
A remarkably pessimistic assessment of the GOP's near-term prospects comes from none other than Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard. I'll be the first to admit that the Republicans are facing a strong headwind at the moment, but I seriously have to question some of Barnes' basic assumptions. First, there's this:
The field of Republican candidates is weak.... The strongest potential Republican candidates are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
What?? Is he serious? I don't know a single Republican anywhere who would cite this trio as the GOP's "strongest" candidates. Does anybody? Barnes is on crack here. He then goes on to rehash this hoary (heh, heh) canard:
Giuliani is a social liberal.
Yeah, so? Has he looked at the Ruffini straw poll lately? Rudy is running away with it. What's more, this poll is far from an outlier. It's right in line with every single GOP survey I've seen since the 2004 elections. I'm still in contact with many conservative Republicans from the South, which is territory supposedly hostile to Giuliani, and he's still enormously popular down there. It's high time we retire this fallacious bit of "conventional wisdom" about Rudy being anathema to party conservatives.
Ed Koch's piece on Cindy Sheehan
Night stalking
All right, as promised, I watched "Night Stalker" last night.
First of all, I found I really enjoyed the show. But it was next to impossible to think of Stuart Townsend as Carl Kolchak. Kolchak is a gregarious, fifty-ish newshound, pleasant and back-slappingly affable. Even though a bit sleazy, he's the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with... or seven. Last night's Kolchak, by contrast, was a brooding, sardonic, twenty-something metrosexual. (And how the hell did he afford that house?)
I'd read enough of the advance reviews to know that the original Carl Kolchak (Darren McGavin) was going to make a brief cameo appearance thanks to the wonders of digital technology. That was a nice touch, but I found it to be an almost painful reminder of how flat and uninteresting the new Kolchak is compared to McGavin's character.
All that being said, however, I thought the writing was strong and the story was decently filmed and acted. It's sort of an "X-Files" meets "The Fugitive" kind of a thing. It deftly avoids the fatal "monster of the week" flaw that plagued the original series, but I hope it also manages to avoid the "X-Files" pitfall of attempting to wrap up everything into one vast, overarching uber-conspiracy. In fact, if the writers are not careful, the entire series could easily devolve into an "X-Files" clone, especially given Kolchak's partnership with a (how's this for originality?) smart, skeptical woman who provides a reality check for some of Kolchak's more outlandish theories.
Still and all, I liked the first episode very much, and I plan to watch again. I think I'll like it better, though, when I stop trying to pretend that the protagonist is Carl Kolchak.
UPDATE: My source at ABC tells me the "Fast Nationals" for "Night Stalker" were disappointing. It got trounced by "CSI," apparently, but I guess that didn't come as a huge surprise. Hopefully, Kolchak will be given time to build an audience.
News from my old home town
This story sort of defies ready explanation. I guess it's about a guy who stole an ambulance... and had a dead deer in the back... hooked up to IV's... or something.
Defending DeLay?
Last night another of my conservative friends excoriated me for refusing to rush to DeLay's defense. Here's why I don't think that's a good idea.
First of all, I understand that the indictment against him is weak, and that he well may be innocent. He also may be guilty, but end up acquitted due to lack of evidence. I found it rather unlikely that he'll actually serve time.
But that's beside the point. We have a Democratic opposition that will oppose us at every turn. We have to choose our battles carefully. There are some very important ones coming up -- the next Supreme Court pick, for example. It is not a good idea to waste time, energy and political capital to defend Tom DeLay.
Why? The guy is a liability. He is ultimately damaging to our party and our cause. He has become emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Republican Party and with politics in general.
Look, Charles Rangel can't hurt us. Dick Durbin can't hurt us. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Howard Dean and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer can't hurt us. Every time they open their mouths, Karl Rove does the "happy dance."
But DeLay is a different story. Not only does he personify the political patronage system, and not only is he the primary author of the gerrymandering scheme that has turned 435 supposedly "elected" representatives into de facto tenureships, but he is openly hostile to the Republican ideals and principles that swept him into power in the first place. He is as careless and reckless a steward of the public fisc as we are ever likely to see. When principled fiscal conservatives (wherever such may still be found) dare to stand up for the taxpayer and oppose him, he browbeats, threatens and coerces them into compliance. And all the while, he has the stones to add insult to injury by claiming he and his Republican caucus have "trimmed" all the fat out of the federal budget.
Well screw that! He is not worth lifting out middle finger to defend. I'm sorry, but I can't see it any other way. And look, I'm not suggesting we roll over in the face of what may very well be a partisan political attack. But stay on the offensive. Don't let the Dems put us back on our heels, in the defensive posture we became accustomed to for so long -- and especially when the target in question is as indefensible as Tom DeLay.
Fight back. Stay on the offensive. Hell, start indicting their guys. Whatever. But don't get sucked into a draining political battle in which our side is guaranteed to lose even if we win.
Miller out
I guess you've heard by now, but Judy Miller is a free woman. After nearly three months in jail, standing up courageously for journalistic principles, she has decided at the last minute to do what she could have already done at any time. She has called her super-secret source (Scooter Libby) and gotten an extra-special-double-for-sure waiver of confidentiality.
So yes, I guess her whole 3-month stint in the slammer was much ado about nothing. I wonder if the New York Times feels jerked around? Why did she voluntarily choose to spend almost her whole summer in jail, only to abandon her stand on principle at the last minute? Were the kids driving her crazy at home?
Presumably Miller will talk to the Grand Jury now, but what will she say? None of us will ever know. Grand Jury proceedings are secret, you know. None of the parties involved would ever violate the law by leaking Grand Jury testimony, right? Never happen. In a million years.
September 29, 2005
One of our staffers...
...has uncovered the real reason for the California wildfires.
Chief Justice John Roberts
Looks like there are no surprises here. Roberts was just confirmed by a final vote of 78 to 22. All 55 Republicans plus Jim Jeffords voted "aye." The Democrats were split almost right down the middle. The 22 "no" votes were:
Akaka (HI)
Bayh (IN)
Biden (DE)
Boxer (CA)
Cantwell (WA)
Clinton (NY)
Corzine (NJ)
Dayton (MN)
Durbin (IL)
Feinstein (CA)
Harkin (IA)
Inouye (HI)
Kennedy (MA)
Kerry (MA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Mikulski (MD)
Obama (IL)
Reed, J. (RI)
Reid, H. (NV)
Sarbanes (MD)
Schumer (NY)
Stabenow (MI)
More on the DeLay indictment
As the old legal saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. This maxim is meant to be taken figuratively, I presume, but if any prosecutor were ever to indict an actual ham sandwich, my money would be on Ronnie Earle (Legal trivia: Is there anyone else in the history of American law who has ever indicted himself?)
Many conservatives rushed to DeLay's defense after the indictment was handed down yesterday. I held my fire, because I neither like nor trust the guy, and I've thought for a long time that the Republicans would be better off without him.
That does not mean that I believe this indictment has merit, however. It may well be politically-motivated BS -- or not. We shall see. But in the meantime, please note that it's not merely right-wing pundits and bloggers who find DeLay's indictment to be on the "thin" side -- today's Washington Post weighs in as well. The Post is no fan of DeLay, and they begin by stating the obvious -- that DeLay is no poster boy for congressional ethics. They go on, however, to express their reservations about yesterday's big bombshell:
Nonetheless, at least on the evidence presented so far, the indictment of Mr. DeLay by a state prosecutor in Texas gives us pause. The charge concerns the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay and his aides to orchestrate the GOP's takeover of the Texas legislature in 2002. The issue is whether Mr. DeLay and his political aides illegally used the group to evade the state's ban on corporate contributions to candidates. The indictment alleges that TRMPAC took $155,000 in corporate contributions and then sent a check for $190,000 to the national Republican Party's "soft money" arm. The national committee then wrote $190,000 in checks from its noncorporate accounts to seven Texas candidates. Perhaps most damning, TRMPAC dictated the precise amount and recipients of those donations.This was an obvious end run around the corporate contribution rule. The more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run -- or, to be more precise, one so blatantly illegal that it amounts to a criminal felony rather than a civil violation. For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.
Mr. DeLay's spokesman said this month that "to his knowledge all activities were properly reviewed and approved by lawyers" for TRMPAC. If so, the criminal law seems like an awfully blunt instrument to wield against Mr. DeLay. If not, we look forward to seeing the evidence. In the meantime, as required by party rules, Mr. DeLay has stepped aside as majority leader. Whatever happens in the criminal case, perhaps this latest controversy will cause his colleagues to rethink whether he is, in fact, the person they really want as their leader.
Night Stalker blogging
Regular readers know that I've been a huge Kolchak fan for thirty years now.
So of course I'll be watching the debut of Night Stalker tonight. I won't be live-blogging, because I want to pay attention, but I'll share my thoughts tomorrow. I'd been bracing for the worst ever since I heard that Stuart Townsend had been cast in the lead role. To me that's a little bit like redoing the Rockford Files with Leonardo DiCaprio or something.
But today I'm pleased to note that Linda Stasi has given it three-and-a-half stars, and pronounced it "very good." She's probably just setting me up for a fall, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
Google's "Blog Search"
Am I the only one who didn't know about this? I only discovered it when it started showing up in my referral logs. Cool.
News in doggerel
ACLU, where are you?
Michelle Malking observes that the MSM, privacy advocates, and civil libertarians are strangely silent on the "dumpster diving" escapades of Chuck Schumer's former staffers.
Gee, I wonder why that could be.
Blunt
It looks like yesterday's reports about Dreier filling DeLay's post were premature. Now it looks like Roy Blunt, or else some strange power-sharing deal between Blunt and Dreier which I don't fully understand.
Either way, it sounds like the stage is being set for DeLay's return, in the (perhaps likely) event that he's acquitted. Acquitted or not, however, I'm not sure he's going to simply bounce back from this one.
Oh, for God's sake
It's only a movie. And a bad one at that, from what I've heard. Just shut up already.
September 28, 2005
Balancing the budget...
...one idiotic remark at a time.
How's this for a method of cutting pork and paying for Katrina relief? From now on, every time a congressman utters that tired, hackneyed soundbite "turning back the clock" in the context of a judicial nominee, he or she must be forced to give up a pork project of at least $10 million or more.
"If the president sends us a nominee who is committed to an agenda of turning back the clock on civil rights, workers' rights, individual autonomy or other vital constitutional protections, there will likely be a fight," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democrats' Senate campaign committee and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Christ, people, that line was already old during the Bork hearings. Get some new writers or something, so you can at least justify your bloated staffs.
Multiple choice
Stephen Green asks which of the following will be the most popular justification floated for DeLay's indictment?
1. A sacrificial lamb to distract from Bush's low poll numbers.2. A distraction from Bush's next Supreme Court pick.
3. A chance for Hillary/Kerry/Edwards to grandstand.
4. The guy had it coming.
5. All of the above.
I vote for the anti-2: Bush's opponents will claim his next court pick is designed to distract from the DeLay indictment. Yes, I know it makes no sense. I predict it nonetheless.
By the way, I should make one thing clear. My personal dislike of Tom DeLay and my desire to see him gone do not necessarily imply that I believe this indictment to have substance. It may or may not, but I'm not closing the door on the possibility that it's politically motivated. For that, we will have to wait and see.
My own thought has always been that he was all liability and no asset. Granted, he had a near legendary ability to get the caucus to toe the party line, but when the party line is voting for pork-laden transportation bills, what's the benefit of that?
Care to place any bets?
Now that Hastert has announced that California's David Dreier will replace Tom DeLay as majority leader, how long do you think it will be before the "whisper campaign" kicks into high gear?
You know what I'm talking about: "Not that we believe there's anything wrong with that (Heavens, no!) It's simply about the hyocrisy you see? The Republican hypocrisy..."
Tom DeLay
The House Majority Leader has been indicted on a conspiracy charge, and, as a result of House rules, will be stepping down from his leadership position.
You know what? When I search this very site for references to "Tom DeLay," I notice that I've been calling for his head for almost an entire year now. But no, that didn't happen. Instead, Republicans rallied around him, once even changing the rules to protect him before thinking better of it and changing them back. And to what end? What did it buy us? Another full year of crap like this.
Great.
Senator Affleck?
Oh hell, why not? Surely he can't be as bad a legislator as he is an actor.
But what does it say about the current state of the Democratic Party, that their hottest prospect is in actively trying to recruit... Ben Affleck. Think about that, people. Ben. Fricken. Affleck.
I swear, the Republicans have one thing, and I mean only one thing going for them right now -- their opposition.
(Hat tip: Ace)
What the hell did you expect?
Both of you? I mean, seriously....
Peace mom Cindy Sheehan didn't change her opposition to the war in Iraq after meeting Tuesday with one of its supporters, Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam veteran whom she called "a warmonger."
...
McCain, R-Ariz., also seemed disappointed in the meeting, which he said had been misrepresented as including some of his constituents. Only one person in her small delegation has ties to the state, and that person no longer lives there.The two exchanged views about the war, and McCain described the conversation as "a rehash" of opinions already well known. He said he might not have met with Sheehan had he known none of his constituents was in the group.
Liberals and the word "public"
Liberals must adhere to some alternative definition of the word "public" that means, well, "private." I don't know how else to explain either the Kelo decision or NYC mayoral candidate Freddie Ferrer's recent assertion that he'd been educated in "public" shools.
Fernando Ferrer is still doing damage control Wednesday after an error on his website over where he attended school was made public.Ferrer pulled a statement on his weblog that claimed he was a product of public schools, when he actually attended Catholic School. The error was pointed out by the Bloomberg campaign.
What the hell are these people thinking? Don't they realize you just can't get away with that kind of crap anymore?
"The West Wing" it wasn't
All right, I did it. I watched "Commander in Chief" last night.
God, what is there to say? Yes, as expected, the villain was a ridiculously cartoonish parody of a staunch conservative (albeit played brilliantly by Donald Sutherland,) but what does one expect? You could see that one coming from a mile away. I also thought the overall premise of the show was howlingly unrealistic, but again, I didn't expect much in this department either.
I guess the thing that did strike me was how astonishingly un-feminist it was. We'd all heard the hype about how this groundbreaking show was going to pave the way for a real woman president, by shattering perceptions and getting America prepared to elect a female leader.
Frankly, I didn't see it. The Geena Davis character simply landed into both the vice presidential and the presidential offices through no effort of her own -- the former resulting from naked political expediency, and the latter from a simple quirk of fate. Moreover, the show led us to believe that Mackenzie Allen had been neither prepared nor qualified for either position.
And that "joke" about Moses stopping in the wilderness to ask directions? Please, people, that's just embarrassing! Any true feminists who were watching should have been insulted. They deserve better.
Next week I'm watching "House."
September 27, 2005
This seems significant
I almost missed this. I wonder why it isn't a bigger story? I guess it will be, as soon as they figure out how to blame Bush or the war in Iraq.
Reports: Plot to attack Paris subway, airportPARIS - Authorities fear that a suspected Islamic terror cell broken up in France was plotting attacks on the Paris subway, an airport and an intelligence agency's headquarters, newspapers said Tuesday.
Police arrested nine people Monday in the sweep, including an Islamic militant previously convicted on terrorism charges and freed from prison two years ago, officials said.
Le Figaro and Le Parisien newspapers said the alleged cell's suspected targets included the Metro, a Paris airport and the Paris headquarters of the Directorate for Territorial Surveillance, or DST, a police intelligence and counterterrorism agency.
For those who think I'm taking the whole SCOTUS thing too seriously
This is why now more than ever, Bush's next nomination will be so crucially important.
Ouch!
When even the Kos-heads are starting to get sick of Cindy Sheehan, it's a pretty good sign that about 14 minutes and 59 seconds of her 15 are used up.
When Cindy Sheehan complained about wall-to-wall coverage of "a little wind and a little rain" (i.e., Hurricane Rita) robbing her of media attention, even the Kos Kiddies took offense. Here are some sample quotes.
I'm in Southeast Texas with family on the coast and in Lake Jackson, LA.I'd like you to tell us it's just a little wind and rain. They've lost their homes, jobs and businesses and gone through fear and panic while you bask in your fan's adulation, party with your celebrity friends and play the star.
Shame on you, you're jealous of media coverage of other's suffering. You've become a caricature and I no longer support you. I'm ashamed I ever did.
You might also realize that the people in a hurricane's wake don't suddenly get happy and whole an hour after the eye passes over. It's still not a little wind and a little rain to them. Do you know they are still very afraid down there - right now, Cindy, trying to find 1,000 people lost in Vermillion as I type..You can find the story now on CNN's website. I'm very sorry, it's slightly above the story about you - that's just so unfair too isn't it.
...
Well Joan Baez sang for you today, and you got your smiling-happy picture taken with Jesse Jackson today, and your story is still front page on CNN.com today. So it was a very good day. Yes it was a beautiful day for Cindy wasn't it?
Sorry Cindy, but I must say that the suffering in Texas right now is quite pertinent. In fact, at a time when we have people suffering, left homeless and devastated from "a little wind and a little rain," I think you can take a break from the camera just for a moment.
I have been a staunch supporter of the Anti-War movement, but when you make statements like these, you lose the credibility and support of most rational people.
Peoples lives are being destroyed and in many case ended by Rita and Katrina before it. You of all people should understand this! Every life is important, that has been your argument!
That is damn stupid. The death toll from these hurricanes is still rising, and you really think the Iraq war doesn't get covered? What a selfish woman! I'd be downright ashamed to read anything else you have to say from here on in.
I'm beginning to doubt Cindy Sheehan's veracity. It is about HER not Bush, or his war.
Busted!
"Ashamed" Republican is Embarrassed Democrat
Heh. No telling what these dumb-nuts got away with before the internet.
(Hat tip: Glenn)
Anti-war or pro-war?
Do you wonder how many of the "100,000" "anti-war" protesters down in Washington this weekend were actually "anti-war?" Chris Hitchens does, and he points out that many of them are actually "pro-war," just on the other side. Of one of the event's co-sponsers, ANSWER, Hitchens points out...
..."International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper -- to mention only two radical left journalists -- who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.
...
To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation -- these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake -- would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)
It's pointless to try to excerpt the piece further. It's all good. Just go read the whole thing.
This may come as a shock
You may want to sit down for this one. It turns out that the MSM coverage of Hurricane Katrina was, in many cases, wildly exaggerated and, well, wrong.
Yes, friends, I know this is shocking! But difficult as it is to believe, the proof is right there in black and white.
The National Guard spokesman's accounts about rescue efforts, water supplies and first aid all but disappeared amid the roar of a 24-hour rumor mill at New Orleans' main evacuation shelter. Then a frenzied media recycled and amplified many of the unverified reports."It just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done," Bush said Monday of the Superdome.
...
The New Orleans Times-Picayune on Monday described inflated body counts, unverified "rapes," and unconfirmed sniper attacks as among examples of "scores of myths about the dome and Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials."
...
The wild rumors filled the vacuum and seemed to gain credence with each retelling -- that an infant's body had been found in a trash can, that sharks from Lake Pontchartrain were swimming through the business district, that hundreds of bodies had been stacked in the Superdome basement.
...
Follow-up reporting has discredited reports of a 7-year-old being raped and murdered at the Superdome, roving bands of armed gang members attacking the helpless, and dozens of bodies being shoved into a freezer at the Convention Center.
...Fox News, a day before the major evacuation of the Superdome began, issued an "alert" as talk show host Alan Colmes reiterated reports of "robberies, rapes, carjackings, riots and murder. Violent gangs are roaming the streets at night, hidden by the cover of darkness."
The Los Angeles Times adopted a breathless tone the next day in its lead news story, reporting that National Guard troops "took positions on rooftops, scanning for snipers and armed mobs as seething crowds of refugees milled below, desperate to flee. Gunfire crackled in the distance."
It goes on from there, but you get the idea.
Now before I say anything else, I have a question. How many of us suspected from the get-go that the initial reports of disaster were grossly exaggerated, but didn't feel permitted to say so out of fear we might be seen as trying to downplay this tragedy? I certainly fell into this category. I mean, Christ, weren't things bad enough without such rampant hyperbole?
You know what's happened? With all the pressure to provide up-to-the-minute, real-time news, 24/7, and the increasing laxity in "nailing down" stories before airing them, the MSM has finally devolved into nothing more than an elaborate rumor mill.
Hell, they might as well just replace the evening news with a bunch of anchormen sitting around in a bar having conversations like
Anchor 1: Hey, I heard "Mikey" died from eating Pop Rocks!Anchor 2: Yeah, well I heard "Beaver" died in Vietnam. And that dorky Jewish kid from "Wonder Years" is Marilyn Manson.
Anchor 3: Oh yeah? Well Rod Stewart got 50 gallons of jizz pumped from his stomach.
I mean, why the hell not? We're there already, so let's just abandon the pretense. It would be simultaneously more interesting and less dishonest.
Think I'm too harsh? I don't. I think I'm being damn charitable, in fact. Because given the media's performance during Katrina, some unsophisticated, red-state rubes might be forgiven for believing that the media actually wanted things to sound as dire and desperate as possible.
Gee, I wonder why that could be?
Leftover bits
And by now you've probably heard that Spain has sentenced an al Qaeda leader on a 9/11-related conspiracy charge. But did you know they also convicted an Al Jazeera journalist for collaborating with terrorists as well? I suppose no comment is really necessary.
And on the topic of the Roberts nomination, we have this quote from Eleanor Clift:
Here's a mind game: if the vote to confirm John Roberts were a secret ballot, would most Democrats vote for or against him? My guess is that Roberts would rack up numbers like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (96-3) and Stephen Breyer (87-9) -- both appointed by President Clinton -- if Democrats didn't have to placate party activists so angry at President Bush they believe he should be opposed at every turn.
Sounds about right.
And speaking of Ms. Clift, is anyone else going to be watching "Commander-in-Chief" tonight? I figure I'll give the premier a go, even though it's up against "House." Since Donald Sutherland usually plays slimy creeps these days, I'm guessing he's going to play the sinister, scheming Republican. Care to place any bets? I'm trying to decide if it's worth live-blogging or not. I'll probably just wait to see how I feel.
September 26, 2005
Cindy Sheehan is arrested in D.C.
I don't really know what to do
This Bob Novak column is as depressing as anything I've read of late. The few House Republicans who have any remaining desire to curb spending are getting their asses handed to them by the House leadership. And what's worse, the handful of principled Republicans in Congress typically term-limit themselves voluntarily. Jeff Flake, for example, is leaving the House next year, even though he could win re-election handily. I admire his principled stance, but there are so few voices of fiscal sanity in the Capitol now that we can scarcely afford to lose his voice.
You'd think Flake's distinguished colleagues might take a cue or two from his playbook. He was one of the only Congressmen not to request pet pork projects for his district in Arizona, and yet he was recently re-elected with more than 70% of the vote. We need a hundred Jeff Flakes in Congress, and soon we're going to have zero.
At the risk of sounding all Andrew Sullivan-y, I'm demoralized, and I don't know what to do. If I lived in Tom DeLay's or Dennis Hastert's district, I could campaign against them. If I lived in the district of one of the few "Flakes" in Congress, I would support them. But beyond that, what can I do? I can only think of one thing.
I know I've alienated some of my conservative readers with my recent positive remarks about John McCain (I alienated my liberal readers at this blog's inception.) You McCain critics have some valid points. Many of them I even agree with. But at some point, you're going to have to offer a better alternative. And believe me, I'm all ears.
For my part, I've given up on the Congress. My only hope is to elect a chief execute who has at least some stomach for controlling spending, and knows how to use a veto pen. So far I like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. If you've got somebody else who would be a better candidate, let's have 'em, by all means.
Half-assed endorsments
This had to be the most half-assed endorsement I've seen since '96, when Jack Kemp gushed on and on ad nauseum about how terrific Steve Forbes was, and then ended with something like "...but I guess you should vote Dole for president... I guess."
Actually, David Dinkins' endorsement of Ferrer for mayor was even worse than that. He essentially admitted that Bloomberg was doing a fine job, but that he was endorsing Ferrer out of a sense of obligation to the Democratic Party.
In a sane town, one might wonder why a candidate would even accept a Dinkins nomination, let alone seek one out. I can't explain it, other than to say that Ferrer is the same candidate who wants to repeal the ID requirement for welfare recipients. This is exactly the kind of indefensible, brain-dead liberalism that has helped guarantee Republican hegemony in recent decades.
For the moment, I'd say Bloomberg's job appears safe. All the less reason for him to be engaging in all the Bush-bashing he's been doing of late, in an effort to shore up his progressive base. I'm warning you, Mike Bloomberg! The Republican Party in New York is a force to be reckoned with! We will not take this lately, and we will see to it that you pay the price for your treachery!!
Ha, just kidding! We don't amount to jack shit, actually.
By the way, while I'm on the topic of the NYC mayoral race, I should point out that Dick Morris is less sanguine than most about Bloomberg's victory.
September 24, 2005
I dream of Janice
In one of those rare instances in which it becomes obvious that I've been paying too much attention to politics lately, I dreamed about Janice Rogers Brown last night. No, it wasn't one of those kinds of dreams, but still, I think it's time for me to take a step or two back.
Speaking of potential SCOTUS picks, Bob Novak is saying it's going to be Priscilla Owen. I find that encouraging, because if I know how this White House works, that almost certainly means it's going to be somebody else.
September 23, 2005
Yeah baby, YEAH!!
In an update to my earlier post, it looks like gun owners have won in New Orleans.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans."This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court's ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
Freedom is on the march!
Hat tip: Glenn
The cavalry has arrived
I'm just not sure what took them so long. After all, I was talking about illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans almost two weeks ago. Oh well, better late than never, I guess.
Two national gun rights groups yesterday joined individual Louisiana gun owners in a federal lawsuit to stop authorities from confiscating firearms from private citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the seizures of guns from law-abiding citizens. They described the confiscations as "arbitrary," "without warrant or probable cause" and thus "illegal."
New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III "completely overstepped his bounds ... when he announced two weeks ago in the New York Times that only law-enforcement personnel are allowed to have weapons," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the 3-million member NRA said in an interview yesterday.
The police superintendent's comments were echoed by the city's Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley, who told ABC News: "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb called the gun seizures "outrageous" and "illegal." He said New Orleans officials have refused to tell gun rights groups why they are now leaving citizens, already devastated by the Category 4 hurricane, "defenseless against lingering bands of looters and thugs."
Scalia being "controversial" again
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia committed an apparently unpardonable sin before a Juilliard audience yesterday. He audaciously suggested that if the government pays for art, that it should be able to, you know, choose what art it pays for.
I know, it doesn't sound especially inflammatory to me either. Still, there must be something we're missing, because it clearly touched a nerve or two over at DU. Check out the first few comments on Scalia's offense against humanity:
All I want is 45 seconds alone with Fat Tony.Fat Tony is a perfect name for that slug
i'll hold him down for you... gladly
That pretty much sets the tone for the thread, don't you think? Later we have
Any time this asswipe shows up in public we need people with cameras just to annoy this fuckwhat nut case invited that mutant worm there to speak?
Republicans like Scalia are retarded socially..