Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysInfinite Monkeys is undergoing a transformation today. After four years and five months of laboring with an anachronistic version of Movable Type, we've decided to freshen up the place. Mostly, we were tired of purging comment spam all the time.
So we're abandoning Movable Type and embracing the cult of Drupal. What does this mean for you, one of the dozen or so regular readers of Infinite Monkeys? Well, a few things.
First, we've added several user-based features. You can set up a profile and share as much (or as little) information about yourself as you like.
In order to combat spammers, we're going the registration route. All we need is your e-mail address, and you'll be automatically sent a password. Of course, you can still comment without registration. But be advised that your comment will go into an approval queue, with untold quantities of spam, and may never be seen again. Oh, it's possible that one of the monkeys might check the approval queue from time to time. Possible -- but not likely. So registration is a good thing. We promise not to use your information for any nefarious purposes.
The new site is a bit more flexible, so we're going to add new features over time. Joel Mathis and I plan to resume some version of the old RedBlueAmerica podcast. The Summer of Gin continues apace. With any luck, some of the old monkeys will blog more regularly on the new and improved site. We look forward to reading comments from our dozen or so readers on the site's usability. Message: We care. And cheers!
I've been reluctant to characterize Congressional Democrats as "pro-terrorist." But when one embraces Bush Derangement Syndrome as a daily mantra, the line is blurred. Rep. William Delahunt has gone beyond blurred.
Though he has tried to crawl back from his blatantly pro-terrorist statement in a House of Representatives hearing Thursday, his statement is on the record. In video, and indelible.
That is simply reprehensible. Delahunt is hoping al-Qaida terrorists get a good look at Vice President Cheney's chief of staff David Addington so they know who to target for throat slitting for imaginary abuses at Gitmo. Delahunt has a smirk on his face as he says it.
It is simply true that some Democrats in this country hate Bush more than they hate our vicious enemies.
Our token liberal Monkey friend Joel Mathis is at this very moment enjoying a blissful vacation road trip (I hope he saved up early for the gas). But even though he's largely out-of-pocket and having fun, I can't help but correct his misconceptions about the conservative view of the Constitution. Joel titled his "see ya soon" post "Blogging Hiatus." But I'm not on a hiatus, so here goes my relatively quick rebuttal.
Joel gave his quick take on the latest significant Supreme Court rulings. And he's a bit off the mark in places. We start here:
I thought the Supreme Court was correct to rule that the death penalty is a disproportionate -- read: "cruel and unusual" -- penalty for child rape. But I can understand how people might disagree. And even I have some problems with Justice Kennedy's reasoning that if the penalty were proportionate, there'd be more states that allowed it. It seems to me that idea strikes against the heart of federalism.
Here is where Joel is the least wrong. But it's a matter of degree. I'm glad to see that Joel has trouble with Justice Kennedy's wavering reasoning. And it's heartening to read a liberal embrace federalism. But, it should be said, Joel is an intellectually honest liberal. The trouble is that capital punishment has been linked to the idea of "cruel and unusual" measures only in modern times. We hung people for stealing cattle a century ago. We may think that is excessive now. But it wasn't in 1905. An adherent to federalism would let states determine for themselves what are especially heinous crimes warranting especially strict punishment.
Joel continues. ...
I also thought the Supreme Court was correct to rule that there is an individual right to bear arms.
Hurray! Joel is not among the liberal mainstream, if E.J. Dionne is any measure. But enough about those Beltway stuffed shirts. On to more Joel stuff!
But I've got to say: I don't really believe my conservative friends when they beat their chests over "judicial tyranny" and cases (like the death penalty ruling) where the court overturns the judgement of the elected branches ... because their love of judicial deference ends when it comes to the gun case (which overturned a D.C. law) ... .Apparently, such deference is owed only when the conservative ox is being gored.
Here's where Joel -- and a lot of liberals -- badly misunderstand the conservative view of the Constitution. Conservatives don't howl when their "ox is being gored." They howl when Supreme Court justices don't know the difference between upholding a constitutional right and inventing one.
Justice Kennedy invented a right to habeas corpus for unlawful combatants -- tossing away all Supreme Court precedent and the court's own instructions to the president and Congress. That took an extreme act of "judicial tyranny" that dismissed the will of the people's elected representatives with no legitimate constitutional justification.
Interpreting and upholding the plain language of the Second Amendment as written in the Constitution is a different and much more clear-cut matter. And it is definitely an ox being gored.
The Irish recently voted "No" on the EU constitution — something many of the people of Europe have tended to do when they actually get a say on the question. And France's European minister knows who to blame: Neo-cons in Washington:
France's Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, has said that Europe has enemies in Washington, suggesting that neo-conservatives played a significant role in the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty earlier this month. French daily Le Monde reports Mr Jouyet as saying that "Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No."
We Irish are known to be hard to rule. And usually don't need outside help to be ornery. A question, though, for M. Jouyet: Are "the stinkin' Jews!" to blame for his own countrymen rejecting the freedom-sucking EU constitution, too?
(HT: Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner)
That's the question Joel and I tackle in this week's Scripps-Howard column.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that " The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v. Heller. Check in with The Volokh Conspiracy for more learned commentary than a barrel of monkeys could provide. As Conspirator Orin Kerr observes, "In a case like this, the details of the opinion are critical; it will take a bit of time to read the decision to get a sense of what it means."
Activists warned on Olympic protests, reports the New York Times. You don't say. "In the latest sign of efforts to prevent dissent during the Beijing Olympics, political activists in Shanghai say they have been warned against expressing their opinions, speaking with foreigners or visiting Beijing until after the Games," according to our friends at the Times. This would be somewhat less of a problem for the United States is we simply boycotted the thing, but I appear to be in the minority of that view. The Chinese government understandably wants to look good in the eyes of the world. Let us have no talk of censoring news from the outside world, oppressing Tibetans, abetting genocide in Sudan, or supporting the backward regime in Burma. No, no, let us talk instead of embracing globalization and its attendant virtues. Hail Olympia!
I just watched a mountain of a man named Kevin Taylor destroy dozens of flaming bricks on America's Got Talent. Sharon Osbourne opted to vote against sending Taylor through to Vegas because, in her words, she "didn't want to see (him) get hurt."
Jeez, is she serious?
Apart from that, Sharon obviously hasn't seen Kevin Taylor's world-record breaking video. Hurt's got nothing to do with it.
My friend Regis alerted me to this post by the lovely and talented Aaron Barnhart. "Saw this and thought of you... in a good way," Regis wrote. Thanks, Regis. The headline of Barnhart's post is "Conservatives who defend O'Reilly -- talk about an elite few!"
I'm not one of those conservatives, but I am part of an elite few. I've been extremely lucky in my career. I've done a bit of good journalism in my day and I've been a low man on the vast-right-wing-conspiratorial totem pole, too. Let's put it this way: I've eaten plenty of chicken-n-sauce at lots of luncheons and dinners where famous people have spoken. Also, William F. Buckley, Jr. answered my e-mails a couple of times. Okay? Okay.
Anyway, Barnhart wrote a column the other day in which he took a shot at O'Reilly's viewers and made some point about armed soldiers on the U.S.-Mexico border. He thinks that's a bad idea, not that anyone has proposed it seriously. OK, fine. Anyway, Barnhart's piece elicited an indignant response from a "conservative" reader who felt the need to submit her cultured bona fides. "I frequently attend art house movies. I just finished reading a book by Annie Proulx, enjoy several plays a year at the Unicorn Theater and watch PBS."
I have no patience for conservative victims. Zero. So Rebecca from Lee's Summit, Mo., gets no particular sympathy from me, especially as she goes on to piss an moan about Barnhart's "liberal elitism."
I agree with Barnhart's reply, at least in part. I don't think he needed to rehearse his resume, but that's his prerogative. Will most Bill O'Reilly viewers care that he helped dole out Olin Foundation money? Will most O'Reilly viewers know who John Olin was or the great work his foundation did? I doubt it. Barnhart lost me with his choice of supposed "conservative" authors. Andrew Sullivan and Simon Schama aren't conservatives. Not even close. I can say, with absolute confidence, that I am much better read than Barnhart is. But the main thing is, Barnhart is entirely right when he says "many disillusioned conservatives... are praying for the sweet release of electoral defeat in November so they can have their movement back."
I'm not sure about the electoral defeat part, but George W. Bush's exit in January 2009 will be a great thing for conservatives, no matter who takes over the Oval Office. Bush has been to American conservatives what Pete Wilson was to California conservatives about a decade ago: Disastrous. Wilson, a disciple of Richard Nixon, sucked the oxygen out of the conservative movement in California. Bush has done the same for conservatism in the United States. Honest men -- no, not Scott McClellan -- have kept their mouths shut or pulled their punches for eight years. The war played a part. If not for the war, it's arguable that George W. Bush would have been a one-termer like his dad.
Look, conservatives need to come to grips with the hard fact that, whatever one may say about George W. Bush's administration of the war, he has not been especially friendly to conservative issues. Even excluding the military, government grew exponentially during the Bush years. Conservatives have a lot more work to do now than they did eight years ago.
I fear for our Phoenix-area friends at the Exurban League. According to KFYI radio, either "current or former" members of the Mexican Army invaded the home of an Arizonan. They were in full body armor, helmets, and wielded assault rifles, killing the homeowner.
Police reports show that three men arrested in a Phoenix home invasion and homicide Monday may have been active members of the Mexican Army.While on the J.D. Hayworth show, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association President Mark Spencer said that the men involved were hired by drug cartels to perform home invasions and assassinations.
The Monday morning incident at 8329 W. Cypress St. resulted in the death of the homeowner. Between 50 and 100 rounds were fired at the house.
Spencer said a police officer told him that one of the men captured said they were completely prepared to ambush Phoenix police, but ran out of ammunition.
He added that all were all dressed in military tactical gear and were armed with AR-15 assault rifles. Three other men involved in the invasion escaped.
(Click here, here and here for the police documents on the incident.)
Now the home in question was suspected to be that of either a drug dealer or drug holder who ran afoul of a pretty serious-minded Mexican kingpin. But still. They were prepared to turn their guns on the Phoenix police, but ran out of ammo and fled instead. Lucky day for the Phoenix Police Department.
The Phoenix PD has "not confirmed" that the culprits were active Mexican Army, but admitted that one suspect revealed that he had "prior military training."
Of course, if we were guarding our border properly — with, I dunno, a fence?— perhaps these Mexicans couldn't have just strolled into a Phoenix suburb to wreak military-type havoc.
(HT: Moonbattery)
Child rapists might be sleeping easier tonight, knowing that perhaps the worst they face for their vile crimes is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and not -- as the people of Louisiana would have had it -- death by lethal injection. I wonder, though, if today's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana is a net gain or a net loss for the country? It's not as though death for rapists is a novel idea in America. And is putting child rapists to death really so barbaric?
I don't know -- I am but a humble (unemployed) writer -- but I can't wait to read what the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post have to say on the subject. In lieu, I suggest reading Investor's Business Daily's take, which notes that "Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the sexual assault of children, along with other despicable non-homicidal crimes — torture, say, or treason — warrant the death penalty." But, as IBD's editors argue, "What is unreasonable is to dictate that the people, through their elected representatives, may not decide for themselves which of those horrific crimes deserve payment of the ultimate price." I'm not sure I could agree more. (Please do read the whole thing.)
And I do wonder how well child rapists -- or any criminal who would trespass with intent to do violence -- will sleep tomorrow night, after we learn the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller.
There are court watchers who try to divine what the justices will do on certain cases based on their opinions in other cases during the term. I do not pretend to understand the reasoning, and I'm not certain it's anything more than wild speculation dressed up as educated guessing. But Eugene Volokh suggests that an Antonin Scalia opinion may be in the offing. Here's hoping.
I won't presume to guess how the court will come down on the District of Columbia's gun ban. (Joel and I wrote about the case here.) Whatever the court says, I don't think there can be any argument that the state trumps the individual right to self-defense. Ever. Fact is, Washington D.C.'s gun ban turned law-abiding citizens into subjects cowering in their own homes. The question now is whether the Supreme Court will abide by the Bill of Rights or further amend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that a Louisiana law imposing capital punishment for child rape is unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, asserts that “When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint." Is that so? More brutal than the rape of a defenseless child?
Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos rightly describes Kennedy's 36-page opinion as "insufferable blather." Matthew Franck picks up Whelan's meme and runs with it. "These are the accents of the moralist and the legislator. They are not those of a judge adjudicating a case under the law of the Constitution," Franck writes. "But Anthony Kennedy has never known the difference."
Matter of fact, Kennedy doesn't know his history, either. "Evolving standards of decency" -- God, I hate that phrase -- "that mark the progress of a maturing society counsel us to be most hesitant before interpreting the Eighth Amendment to allow the extension of the death penalty, a hesitation that has special force where no life was taken in the commission of the crime," Kennedy writes.
Franck notes the phrase extension of the death penalty. "In truth," Franck writes, "what the Court has been doing for several decades now is arrogating to itself the right, under some alleged authorization flowing from the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to progressively restrict the imposition of the death penalty, from its historic application in many kinds of cases at the time of the founding, to just one class of cases today, the narrowest category of aggravated murders."
But when "evolving standards of decency" are involved, who needs intellectual honesty? Me, I could use a bucket.
If you want to raise an annoying lefty, you gotta start 'em early. Of course, you can dress them in onesies that yell "Stop Bush's War!" or sport the latest in Che chic. There are websites devoted to baby clothes for politically angry parents. Naturally, the tots are too young to even read when they're crapping their pants 10 times a day. But it's a good start.
Yet you've gotta be pretty dedicated to top Michelle and Randy Doyle of Salt Lake City, Utah. They've got their two daughters in the AP program for liberal annoyance.
The pre-teen girls took to the streets of one of the most conservative cities in America to fight for their rights! You see, it's just not right that they can't watch "Hannah Montana" anymore.
No, Disney did not cancel the show (the network is not that stupid). Hard as it is to believe, "Big Oil" is to blame. Their mommy canceled the family's cable subscription because her daily commute to work has just become too expensive. Something had to go. Sorry Miley Cyrus.
Sadie, 9, and her sister Pyper, 7, marched around downtown Salt Lake City chanting, "Lower the gas prices," while carrying homemade signs. ..."Gas prices are too high," Sadie said. "I just decided to come and protest so they'd go down."
Yeah. That ought to do it. While you're at it, why not protest other stuff you don't like. The signs are easy enough to make:
Don't like broccoli? "Down with Brockolie!"Don't like being grounded — "Free Sadie and Pyper!"
Don't like going to school — "Boooo! Skool!"
Let me know how that turns out for you, girls. What's that? Oh. Yeah. Didn't work for me, either.
OK. Here it comes. I'm being a too hard on the kids. But my scorn and sarcasm is really for the parents. The kids fell into being a public spectacle and fighting for their version of social justice — NO HANNAH! NO PEACE! — "after marching with their parents in several protests."
Should you really be dragging your kids into your political activism? I say, no. Politics is for grown-ups. And it's exploitative to use your kids as political props. They are not tiny adults. They are children, and should enjoy the unique innocence that exists outside political thought and activism. Mr. Doyle, obviously, feels differently.
''This is the way to get involved,'' Doyle said. ''If you see something that you don't like, stand up and say something.''
Yeah. Who's going to tell the kids that marching up and down the street yelling about the price of oil isn't going to change anything? I guess it's me.
(HT: Michelle Malkin)
My friend Tom Krannawitter of Hillsdale College and one of his recent poli sci graduates, Kaitlyn Buss, have a sharp op-ed on Obama's health care proposals in today's Investor's Business Daily. Krannawitter and Buss compare Obama's ambitious plans to FDR's expansive scheming and put the lie to this notion that the senator from Illinois is a "left-libertarian." Oh, he's left, alright.
Krannawitter and Buss want a health care debate rooted in the Constitution: "(T)he socialized medicine that Obama dreams of is unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution grant to Congress the power to cut a check for every American's medical bills. If Americans care anything about constitutional government, let us insist that every discussion of health care proposals begins with a review of what the Constitution authorizes government to do."
Sometimes, a trailer tells you too much about a movie. I think the latest "Hancock" trailer gives away entirely too much. Other times, that two-minute preview tells you everything what you need to know. When the biggest selling point of "The Happening" is that it's M. Night Shyamalan's first R-rated film, that should be reason enough to stay far from the multiplex. And indeed, despite a promising opening weekend, audiences have stayed away in droves.
Critics, however, have done us the favor of giving "The Happening" the thrashing it so obviously deserves. Joseph Rago in The Wall Street Journal calls it a "moral obscenity." The Mighty Kyle Smith simply dubbed it "The Crappening." And Christopher Orr of the New Republic doesn't review "The Happening", but offers rather -- in Orr's words -- "a spoiler-laden list of its most laughably terrible parts." (Hat tip: Lisa for the Orr link, and Dirty Harry for the Journal and Smith posts.)
What's Shyamalan's problem, anyway? I've actually liked every Shyamalan picture, with the exception of "Lady in the Water," which I haven't seen. Could be the Shyamalan "twist" has become a cliché of the thriller. Could be that Shyamalan has an overly inflated sense of his talents -- although he's clearly a clever enough screenwriter with a keen photographic eye. Maybe Shyamalan's problem is that he's too clever for his own audience? Of "The Happening," the writer-director has said he wanted to make "the best B movie you will ever see." So "The Happening" is about how trees rebel against mankind by spreading a mass-suicide-inducing toxin and nothing more.
Yeah. And I see dead people.
Much stink has been made about Obama's arrogant "seal" that presumes he's already president ... of something.
Well, the Great Seal of ObamaLand joins the seemingly endless list of embarrassments that Obama tosses aside (I have imposed an "under the bus" moratorium on myself. Enough!) Via my friend and former Washington Times colleague, Bill Sammon:
WASHINGTON — After days of media mockery, Barack Obama has decided to stop using a presidential-looking seal that his campaign designed and affixed to his podium on Friday.Journalists said the seal, which features an eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, smacks of arrogance. John McCain's camp had a field day, calling the seal “laughable, ridiculous, preposterous and revealing - all at the same time.”
The seal was conspicuously missing from Obama's lectern when he spoke to a group of women in Albuquerque on Monday. Not surprising, given how much grief Obama took from a normally laudatory press corps after unveiling the seal at an appearance in Chicago on Friday.
“What a bizarre and dumb idea,” railed NBC political director Chuck Todd. “It really feeds the arrogance narrative.”
Well, there's a reason why Obama has an arrogance narrative to feed. His campaign has been defined by an audacious arrogance from the beginning. It's good to see the MSM hip to it ... finally.
K-Lo at The Corner alerts us to a troubling story from The Hill Newspaper.
A future terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol is highly probable, and Congress’s specialized bomb squad is unlikely to be able to deal with it, according to internal U.S. Capitol Police documents obtained by The Hill.The unclassified internal letters and memos, written by Capitol Police captains, lieutenants, and sergeants between 2005 and 2007, detail more than three years of complaints to their superiors about the Hazardous Devices Unit’s lack of vehicles, its desire for more frequent training and the inadequate level of experience of bomb technicians within the specialty unit.
I find this completely unsurprising. I started covering Capitol Hill a year after the 9/11 attacks. There were little emergency kits with masks in the event of a chemical or biological attack in the press galleries above the Senate and House chambers. Trouble was, there were only a handful of them — and there are easily a couple of hundred reporters and staffers in the Capitol building at any one time. It was a running joke that only the fast — and lucky — would survive.
And, frankly, I don't get too worked up over stories like this. Not to underplay the role of first-responders in the event of a terrorist attack. But, for the most part, if you're waiting for first responders to save your bacon when a bomb goes off, you decrease your chances of survival. Living and dying has more to do with prevention. And when the inevitable happens: luck and your wits.
Here's a public service announcement in the making: Crack cocaine can turn vivacious and talented (if absurdly tattooed) young chanteuse into an oxygen-sucking invalid in just a few years. Just ask Amy Winehouse. The 24-year-old soul singer has early-stage emphysema. Her dad tells the Sunday Mirror, "With smoking the crack cocaine and the cigarettes, her lungs are all gunked up. There are nodules around the chest and dark marks. She's got 70 percent lung capacity."
The good news is, if Winehouse stays off the pipe, she can lead a "magnificent life." Perhaps. Hey, positive attitude! Some people have compared Winehouse to Billie Holiday. Given the trajectory of Winehouse's personal life, she may have Holiday beat by a decade. At least.
...but I smiled a little at Michael Ian Black's barbs at David Sedaris. A teaser: "At a cocktail party, a bottle of lousy champagne is uncorked. You take a swig, grimace, and say, 'Send this swill back to France where David Sedaris is undoubtedly enjoying a baguette.' (I admit this probably doesn't seem like much of a put down on paper, but if you say the word 'baguette' with a sneer, trust me, this will be devastating.)"
I'm not sure you can say "baguette" with a sneer -- wouldn't it be more of a grimace? -- but then I'm not a powerhouse of contemporary humor like Messrs. Black or Sedaris.
(Black carries on his one-man brawl here. It gets a little tedious. Perhaps Black has more in common with Sedaris than he realizes? I link, you decide...)
(Hat tip: Gawker via Digg.)
Disclaimer: Though I'm essentially an agnostic these days, it's not my wish to challenge or undermine anybody's faith -- I'm no Richard Dawkins.
That said: Very interesting poll from Pew today, suggesting that most Christians don't believe you have to be a Christian:
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 American, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the Father except through me."Now I happen to think this is a good thing. If you think that God-as-you-understand-him is in fact the-only-God-there-is with the only-rules-about-how-to-live there are, well, that seems to me to increase the odds that you'll resort to damaging zealotry in order to defend or spread that understanding.
A little humility, though -- a realization that none of us (me included) actually knows what goes on beyond the observable universe -- tends to blunt such radicalism. It didn't work out this way for me, but I think it's possible to possess a serious faith and that kind of humility. I would've thought Americans mostly immune to living with that kind of nuance (I, uh, haven't always had good personal counterexamples to work from) but, gladly, I admit I was wrong.
George Carlin, comedian and pillar of the Counterculture, died on Sunday. You didn't have to share his politics or his atheism to enjoy his peculiar brand of humor -- although it probably helped. He was 71.
(Check out the mainstream media coverage: WaPo obit here, NYT obit here, LAT obit here.)
Carlin's latter-day act was certainly more misanthropic than the work he did in his heyday of the 1970s, which is saying something. His last HBO special, "It's Bad for Ya," was a long riff on aging, and its attendant effects and hypocrisies. I winced more than laughed, although it wasn't always so.
Americans will remember Carlin as a footnote in the ongoing battle over free speech and indecency. The great thing about the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation is the appendix, which is a transcript of Carlin's act. Listening to the "Seven Dirty Words" bit today, however, one would necessarily conclude that indecency won. As for free speech, the jury's still out.
When I was at UC San Diego, Comedy Central held a contest in which the grand prize was to spend the day with Carlin. There was a cash prize involved, too. My apartment-mates and I entered and we were devastated when another student on campus won. Since we were all staffers on the student newspaper, we got to follow Carlin around anyway.
I can't remember the winner's name -- he was a terribly earnest fellow devoted to Democratic politics -- but I vividly recall Carlin's parting advice on what to do with his prize money: "Spend it with somebody interesting." That was such a nice line, I don't think the guy ever realized Carlin had just sliced his guts out. May he roast in peace.
From the AP:
Carlin, who had a history of heart trouble, went into St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday afternoon complaining of chest pain and died later that evening, said his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He had performed as recently as last weekend at the Orleans Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas. He was 71.
R.I.P. George. You millions of people some of the biggest laughs they've ever had. When I heard his "stuff" routine as a teenager, I almost passed out from laughing instead of breathing.
The Associated Press does its best to cheer up Americans this Sunday by headlining a story: "Everything seemingly is spinning out of control."
WASHINGTON - Is everything spinning out of control?Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault.
Yeah. Under constant assault by a cynical, defeatist, unfailingly negative mainstream media — especially the Associated Press. Wars "without end"? Ever? How the hell does the AP know that?
Prediction: If Obama wins the election, suddenly the sun will shine again. Homelessness will disappear from the headlines. Levees will fail to burst. Polar bears will enjoy comfortable lives again. And a national happiness will spread like a virus from sea to shining sea.
If McCain wins ... we're even more doomed.
There are few more pleasurable reads, at least for me, than a scathing movie review. And the reviews of Mike Myers' "The Love Guru" doesn't disappoint. This movie looked terrible to me from the get-go. And my opposition to it was only heightened by passing an enormous billboard for the movie with Myers' hamming mug every day on the way to work.
Rotten Tomatoes is always the place to go for all the good (or bad) stuff. Jessica Alba comes in for some really tough reviews, but it's Myers who bears the brunt. Here are some excerpts:
"Myers is anti-comedy. . . . that is, if one presumes comedy ought to be smart, new, surprising or, yes, funny. This isn't an accusation. It has been Myers's shtick for a long time. ... In short, Myers's oeuvre is about sympathy laughs, although it's not his onscreen persona we feel sorry for in "The Love Guru." It is, at long last, Myers himself." — John Anderson, The Washington Post"Adam Sandler can breathe a sigh of relief: Thanks to fellow SNL alumus Mike Myers' crude, bafflingly unfunny comedy, Sandler's YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN won't be remembered as the worst movie of 2008. ... A bomb like this is a career killer, and Myers' is set to blow.> — Ken Fox, TV Guide's Movie Guide
"An oh-my-God-level disaster that’ll make you wonder if Hollywood actually hates us. ... Irredeemable." — Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out New York
"... the movie goes, swiftly and mercilessly, to dimwitted gags about food that resembles genitalia, urine-soaked-mop fights, chastity belts and what elephants drop onto the people standing behind them at the end of a long day — which is, come to think of it, as good a metaphor as any for the experience of watching this movie." — Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times (Headline: How can we put this? "Guru" is doo-doo)
And, in the damning with faint praise department, we have:
"a disappointment ... but not a disaster, and at least that's something."You may find yourself "secretly snickering."
"If ... you want to see gags about boogers, elephant poop, and mano-a-mano duels with mops drenched in urine, then this is for you."
And, my favorite:
"It's not very good but it won't want to make you tear your eyes out either."
Well, then. By all means plop down your $10.
Do not click on this link. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
Watching the horror of C-level theme park performers putting on a Star Wars Dance-Off in full regalia is simply something you can't un-see.
You've been warned. Oh, and as Joel says: Damn you, George Lucas!
Via Scrubbles along our blog roll comes a fun quiz from Mental Floss: Troy McLure's Resume.
You may remember him from such hits as Christmas Ape and Christmas Ape Goes to Summer Camp, but how well do you remember Troy McClure’s other projects? Can you tell which of the following titles come from the filmography of Springfield’s favorite screen icon and which are the real-life dregs of IMDb?
Mrs. Zaius and I guessed correctly 10 out of 15 times.
Joel and I square off in this week's Scripps-Howard column.
A quick note regarding Joel's point about Nazi POWs, the Geneva Conventions, and the Bush administration's efforts to "evade" international norms. The Geneva accords clearly distinguish lawful from unlawful combatants. In fact, Geneva rules specifically exclude terrorists, despite the efforts of some countries to amend the accords. The Supreme Court's Hamdan decision made a hash of the distinction and, contrary to Joel's assertion, the Bush Administration in 2006 agreed (foolishly, in my view) to apply Geneva rules to all terrorism suspects in American custody.
It turns out that Nixon wasn't wrong, just premature. If the president does it -- or asks you to do it -- it's not illegal. Or it won't be after Congress gives you a free pass.
Still, I can't get too worked up about the new FISA "compromise" bill, which essentially gives immunity to the telecom companies for complying with and assisting the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. For one thing, civil libertarians are going after the telecom companies because they can't go after the real culprits, who are all in the Bush Administration -- it's like executing the guy who mailed in Al Capone's taxes for him. Maybe it's satisfying, but it doesn't do anything to actually solve the problem of abused executive power.
Plus, part of me feels sympathetic. If you're the head of a telecom company and the president asks you -- after 9/11 -- for help, wouldn't you be a little inclined to give it? Don't get me wrong: Dahlia Lithwick is entirely correct (in a different but very related context) that we'll have no law if people can merely violate the law because of "good intentions." But again, I think the Bush Administration is the real culprit here; the telecoms are a sideshow at best.
Still, I think Nancy Pelosi is being a bit naive about all this:
Perhaps the most important concession that Democratic leaders claimed was an affirmation that the intelligence restrictions were the “exclusive” means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts “that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi said.Well, great. But isn't that what we thought about the 1978 FISA law before the president decided to break it? And doesn't the new FISA bill more or less ensure that nobody will suffer consequences for breaking the old FISA law? At this point, why would any president take it seriously as a restraint on his actions?
I'm really looking forward to President Bush's "signing statement" on this bill. I'm almost certain there will be one, and that civil libertarians won't like it very much at all.
Nixon would be jealous.
Susan Atkins is dying, according to press reports. Atkins -- who stabbed the 8-1/2 months pregnant actress Sharon Tate multiple times and scrawled the word "pig" in blood on the door of the home Tate shared with director Roman Polanski -- is asking the state to let her die a free woman. Evidently, officials at the California Institution for Women in Corona approved the request, but state prison authorities said no. The case now goes to the state Board of Parole Hearings, which will conduct an investigation and make a recommendation next month.
Clearly, letting Atkins go would be a rotten idea. Not that she's inclined to finish the work she started at Charles Manson's behest almost 40 years ago, but Atkins needs to pay her debt in full. She needs to breathe her last breath behind prison walls.
Atkins and her pals denied Sharon Tate and three others a "compassionate release" in 1969. They similarly refused to show any compassion for Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. If not for a California Supreme Court decision invalidating death sentences imposed before 1972, Atkins would likely have been dead years ago.
Susan Atkins reportedly found God a few years after her conviction and sentencing. And she has reportedly helped many troubled women in prison. Good for her. But her noble works behind bars do not obviate her crimes -- or the righteousness of her punishment. Atkins should die in prison. Her death will certainly be far more peaceful than that of Sharon Tate or Atkins's other victims.
The guys who bring us the weekly brilliance of South Park had it right. "Blame Canada!"
The Quebec Superior Court not only thought it was a good idea to hear a case of a 12-year-old girl angry about being grounded by Daddy. They ruled in her favor.
A 12-year-old Quebec girl who felt so strongly about her end-of-year school trip that she took her father to court after he forbade her from going is at the centre of a case that challenges the authority of parental discipline.The extreme measure of taking the case to court, which the girl's lawyer defended as a necessary move to ensure the child was not denied a significant rite of passage, was upheld by the judge in a surprise ruling last week.
A little background: The child's parents are apparently going through a divorce. Dad has primary custody (for now). The girl needed permission from both parents to go on the trip. Mommy said, "yes." Daddy said, "no" — because she was grounded for violating the boundaries he put down for use of the Internet.
So the girl found a lawyer (employee of the state) to take her case.
"This was something that would never happen again in the child's life," said Lucie Fortin, the lawyer for the girl, who cannot be named.
She's 12. She's in elementary school. What "something" that happened in your elementary school experience that would "never happen again" would you be emotionally scarred for life if you missed it? Take your time ...
I hope you answer is "nothing." If not, go to law school. Join the ACLU and proceed to ruin our country.
The pre-teen's lawyer (and it pains me to even type those words) said she normally wouldn't have intervened such a seemingly insignificant episode of normally sacred parental rights, but this situation called for the intervention of the state.
"This was not a question of going to the movies or not, or going online or not — because obviously, I wouldn't have intervened in that," she said.
Obviously. This is serious business, worthy of the state playing the good parent.
A subject not raised in this incredible story is how "adults" in Canada — which includes lawyers and a judge — did not think about the long-term damage they were inflicting on a 12-year-old by even getting involved in this trivial issue. The girl does not have the capacity to realize what she is doing. Adults should know better (and yes, that includes the girl's mother, who shoulders a great deal of blame for supporting this lawsuit). But how does this girl now mend the damage this whole spectacle has inflicted on the relationship with herself and her one and only father?
The answer is: She doesn't. The gir's father, with justification (if not compassion), said he refuses to take his daughter back into his home "because he has no authority over her." How is that statement wrong in light of this?
Again, where are the adults? A mindless, hyper-litigious Canadian "system" needed to protect this girl from making an irreversible mistake, not encourage her to destroy the relationship with her father. Nothing good comes from this situation. Nothing.
I hope South Park's view of Canada doesn't come true in lawyer-crazy America. Before this, the worst things to come out of Canada were Anne Murray and Bryan Adams. I'd like it if the list stopped there.
Don't ask why I was looking at Perez Hilton's Hollywood gossip site. If I revealed such a state secret, I'd have to kill both you and my crack Black-Ops team. But the semi-literate superstar blogger seems to have stumbled upon a story that I blogged about a while back. Namely, that Al Gore — the High Priest of the Green Church — used as much energy last year as 232 average American families.
And Perez got in quite a snit. He posted on the subject not once, not twice, but three times. And Perez went through three stages of snit as he was exposed to the politics of global warming. First came shock and anger:
Talk about hypocrisy!Hardcore environmentalist and the man behind An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, is apparently not following what he preaches.
... his new and energy efficient looking house is now waisting even more power.
How is that possible????
Ummm. Gore's a fraud!!!!???? We continue.
It seems Gore's made quite a lot of money promoting for a greener environment.He made an estimated extra $100 million last year.
What do U think Al Gore should do about his extreme energy use?
Good point, Perez. Points 2 U for using Google for something other than searching for pictures of Britney Spears exposing her hoo-ha while exiting a limo.
Perez's shock, anger and confusion led to a little research: Stage Two. His search engine brought him to the name of John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel who is aghast at the global warming bunk being peddled by Gore and his disciples. And here, Perez starts getting as skeptical as if he heard Lindsay Lohan was entering a convent.
Maybe he made loads of money from the sale of the channel and just really likes weather reporting?... The 9,000 scientists he says signed a petition refuting the global warming claims — are they totally free from any influence from the oil industry?
Are there objective 'non-partisan' voices out there on the issue?
Hey, Perez. I doubt that being a weatherman for a TV station in San Diego pays as much as the $100 million Gore made from his own perpetual global warming money machine. Do U even pay attention to your previous posts? Where's your wonder about Gore's sugar daddies? And the answer to your last question is: Sadly, no. Not after the left has politicized the issue to the point that any objection to Gore's Gospel is likened to denying the Holocaust. Pretty hard to raise a "non-partisan" voice in such a poisoned environment.
The last stage of Perez' evolution was acceptance ... of Gore's lame excuse for his energy use. In short, the Gores announced that they are renovating the house to produce their own energy from solar panels and buy the rest of the energy they need through biofuels that include — no joke — methane gas.
In the end, many of Perez's commenters chimed in: Stick to worthless gossip; leave politics alone. Good advice — unless he wants to be educated on this issue and others. Then he can bookmark the Monkeys.
Leave it to Barbra Streisand to be the last celebrity to get off the Hillary bus. Maybe she wanted to make sure the caviar and champagne in the back didn't go to waste.
Regardless, she has her reasons.
Barbra Streisand, the famous singer who was being discovered by radio stations back when someone named Barack Obama was being born, confirms to The Ticket this afternoon that she's supporting Obama and has offered to help in his presidential campaign. Singer Barbra Streisand who originally endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination now is singing a different tune and supports Barack ObamaStreisand's personal spokeswoman, Marge Tabankin, says talks are underway with the campaign in Chicago to decide what exact role Streisand will play in the presumptive Democratic nominee's efforts to win the White House.
Obama’s Hollywood supporters are hopeful that she will sing for the senator, as she did for Bill Clinton during his presidential runs, at one of the many fundraisers in the works for this summer.
And we know there's nothing that says "hope," and "change" and "new politics" and "youth" than having Yentl belt out some old standards. No word, oddly enough, of this momentous news on Babs' own website. Stay tuned!
From the same people who brought you the contemptible "General Betray Us" ad comes another despicable attack. The big-pocketed political group
goes after John McCain, taking Obama's distortion of McCain's "100 years" in Iraq comment to an absurdly exploitative level.
And lest you think this is just some fringe group that should be ignored, note that American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — one of the nation's largest unions and the backbone of mainstream Democratic politics — is also funding this ad.
Let's go over that script again (and isn't it nice that government workers that we pay have their wages garnished to put out this garbage?):
Hi John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him.
Well, dearie. That won't exactly be your choice. You see, we have a volunteer armed forces in this country. And when Alex is 18, he can choose to join the military without your say-so. I doubt he'd choose such a noble path of public service judging from the upbringing he's in for. But who knows? Maybe when he's 18, he'll rebel against the hard-lefty indoctrination of his childhood and become a Marine. If he's looking for a flash-point of resentment, maybe he'll not take kindly to being used as a political prop by his moonbat mom as a toddler.
Besides, unless we amend the Constitution, McCain won't be having Alex trampsing around the world in a pointless struggle against imaginary enemies. McCain would be in the middle of his fifth term and be about to turn 90. McCain's a vigorous man, but probably not that vigorous. And the war might very well be over by the time President Chelsea Clinton takes the oath of office as the nation's second female president (following a Republican).
Allahpundit at Hot Air notes that Time's Chuck Todd is of the opinion that the ad will backfire. That would be nice — and a first. Blogmeister USA has one of my favorite takes:
Unless a future president decides to institute the draft by then, you won't have to worry that little Alex will be torn away from his Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program at college. He'll also have plenty of time to go snowboarding, mountain biking, and do all of the other fun stuff that young men in his position in life get to enjoy during vacation while mommy and daddy foot the bills. ... John McCain "can't have" her baby. Frankly, if he turns out to be anything like she is, let's thank our lucky stars.
Heh.
This ad is the perfect distillation of what the left thinks of the men and women who serve in the military. They always portray them as "children" duped into fighting Bush's stupid war, or suckered by the G.I. Bill, or left with no other career options because of the dead-end lives they live away from the enlightened metropolis. And now they have, quite literally, infantalized the troops.
Yeah. I think it might backfire.
If your yinz y'all all y'all youz guys you are interested in the latest foreign policy foolishness when it comes to Barack Obama, here are some good links where you can catch up.
At least real saints lived what they preached and suffered for their faith. Al Gore, the secular saint of the religious greenies, sins. Big Time, as Dick Cheney might say. Let's just get right to it.
NASHVILLE — In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.... In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
I'm not real good at math, but even I thought that maybe this outfit was being a little too hard on Gore. So I ran the numbers a couple of times.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research gets its dander up on Gore's home energy usage equaling 232 average homes for a month. They're comparing a month's worth of electricity use when a fair comparison would be yearly usage. Well, here's where the math gets simple. Divide 232 homes a month by 12 months in a year and you get: Gore uses as much energy at his home in a year as 19.3 average Americans.
In other words, Mr. Green's annual personal home usage of energy is as much as everyone on my block. Combined. And that's not including the amount of energy belched by Gore on his endless global tour to scold us on where we set our thermostat or how much we drive. Private jets, afterall, emit as much "planet killing" missions in one hour as the car you commute to work does in one year.
Of course, when a main (non speaking engagement) source of income comes from trading "carbon credits" through your own company, what's the harm. For Gore, it's even better than a financial wash. And it's comes with the benefit with the world ratifying your unearned and unworthy moral superiority.
As Van Helsing says, Al Gore's carbon footprint keeps getting bigger. I'd say fatter.
This classic image by Norman Rockwell is, apparently, oppressive — At least in the eyes of a Portland, Ore., elementary school principal.
(CBS) — Most children growing up in the US memorize the Pledge of Allegiance. But, in one Oregon elementary school, the kids won't be allowed to recite it at an end of the year assembly.The principal banned it that day so as not to offend Muslims. One resident of Portland, Oregon was a little surprised when she received an e-mail from her stepson's school principal.
The e-mail said that the children would not be reciting the pledge because of its reference to God.
Maybe if the Pledge had a reference to "Allah," it would be OK. The principal assures us that he "was trying to be sensitive" and and not "hurt feelings, and may foster bitterness and division within the community." For the record, the Muslim population of the Portland Metro Area at the last census was 12,912 — a number was good enough for ranking 33rd in the nation, barely edging out parochial Pittsburgh and well behind Cleveland. That's about two percent of the population of the Portland.
The irony is that one of the people quoted as being rightly offended by this sop to the politically correct destruction of America's religious tolerant culture is ... a Muslim.
At least one Muslim community leader says he feels the same way. Muhammad Najieb says that 'God' is central to the Muslim faith, and there are several references to him in every prayer.
The United States is not Great Britain yet, but a few more incidents like this ...
(HT: Moonbattery)
Speaking of e-mail exchanges, an old friend recently asked me about my self-identification as a "Paleolibertarian." From his note:
"Quick question - what is paleolibertarian?
I cannot stomach the repub/dem party and have been searching for a party I can connect with - I realize it is probably a fruitless endeavor. However, I like the Libertarian party (almost) - there are some things I'm not on board with.
I've always appreciated your thinking -so thought I'd ask."
My response included:
[snip]
Here's what I'd characterize as the chief difference between the two major schools of libertarianism. We're not talking about the party yet, but rather the set of principles. Kind of like "conservative" and "progressive" rather than Republican or Democrat. Libertarianism in general is about freedom, but just like "equality" there are different kinds of freedom. "Positive" freedom is the "freedom to..." while "Negative" freedom is the "freedom from..." - some (including controversial) examples:
Positive freedom:
Freedom to do whatever you want with your own person/body and/or another consenting person.
Freedom to enjoy the fruit of your labor.
Negative freedom:
Freedom from state intrusion into your family.
Freedom from the threat of violence.
There are obviously overlaps, and many issues you can view from both a negative and positive perspective. For example, "Freedom to enjoy the fruit of your labor" can mean that you are able to live in circumstances (economic, political, cultural) that you enjoy the benefits of your work (positive) or it can mean that you are free from someone using force to confiscate all or part of your wages (negative) but hopefully the examples convey the gist of the distinction.
So, based on that description, there are (at least) two major "schools" of libertarianism. Paleolibertarians tend to focus on negative freedom, and specifically concern themselves with freedom from force wielded by the state. They see the state as the single largest threat to our freedoms - economic, political, educational, spiritual. The big paleolibertarian "think tank" is the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Several of the Mises guys blog regularly at Mises president Lew Rockwell's weblog. Paleolibertarians can range from those who are highly skeptical of the state to full-blown Anarcho-Capitalists. Paleolibertarianism also tends to have a strong strain of cultural conservatism, with an expectation that the state is not the proper mechanism for influencing culture, but that other institutions (the church, for example) should be the primary catalysts for cultural change.
Probably the most public paleolibertarian figure over the last year has been Ron Paul. Living in Texas you probably hear more about "Dr. No" on a regular basis than I do. His issues are, for the most part, highly influenced by paleolib thought. Particularly his economics. The emphasis on "sound" currency and eliminating centralized federal manipulation of currency is straight out of the Mises playbook.
Paleolibertarians consider themselves heirs to the "classical liberal" intellectual legacy of Thomas Jefferson, etc. Skeptical of the state, focused on the principles of (particularly economic) freedom, and culturally conservative.
The "other" (and by far more dominant) school is often called "Beltway Libertarian" or "Cosmo-tarian" (usually derisively) by the Paleo school. The chief public/populist faces of this group are the Cato Institute and Reason magazine. While certainly concerned with the issue of state, generally (in my opinion) the mainstream libertarians are much more concerned with the practical issues of positive freedom. If the state is actually "benevolent" and encouraging personal freedom, they are not such a threat. For example, if the state "legalizes" drugs and "recognizes" gay marriage, and "protects" the "rights" of women, then it is an agent for "positive freedom" in the eyes of many libertarians. Likewise, if the state uses economic policy to "make the pie bigger" then it's not such a big deal that it confiscates a good chunk of our income to pay for its policies.
That may have come off as overly critical of this school, and I didn't really intend it to be. Compared with the Republican party, Cato and Reason are pillars of principle, and I do think that Cato in particular has done a lot to try to "work for the cause of freedom" within the existing political system. As an instinctive idealist, though, and as a Christian, I really find myself more at home with the paleolibertarians. The cosmos tend to be very hostile to religion and focused on being able to have sex with whoever they want, while the paleos want the government to leave them alone, stop taking their wages, stop building empires, etc.
[snip]
Monkey Ben and I had an offline e-mail exchange, where he cleverly fished for post content from me:
"P.S. What did you think of Paul's 'farewell address'?"
What with (not) blogging like a (luddite), (pretending to) work, (failing to spend) time with my (young) daughter(s) and occasionally bathing, I haven't actually taken the time to watch the video. I've gotten the e-mails and other stuff, though, and I honestly am thoroughly pleased with both the results the campaign had and the direction they are going now. I don't believe Paul ever expected (or really desired) to be President, but he certainly knew that the best way to get a guaranteed forum to espouse his views, criticize the Republican establishment, and build a formal "movement" was to run for President as a Republican. In that, he was hugely successful in my opinion. And this is the perfect time, too, because the existing party is on the ropes.
One of the things the Paul campaign and supporters started doing about three months ago was aggressively recruiting movement members to run as Republican Precinct Committeemen. I just got signed up on Thursday, as did Deuce and his mom (!) and the movement organizers are highly confident that we'll get enough committeemen to significantly influence and/or "take over" policy for our area. For an "idealist" movement, it was really clever and practical for them to start focusing on both delegate and precinct influence early - two areas that the "machine" kind of takes for granted because they're not sexy and high-profile. I'm excited to see how things turn out.
Anthony Gregory worries about Scalia's totalitarian tendencies.
Scalia as well as Roberts accuses the Court of butting into foreign policy, yet his own reasoning is informed by definite opinions on foreign affairs, including a careless deference to executive power. Bush appreciated such deference, saying the dissent “was based upon . . . serious concerns about U.S. national security. ”Scalia refers to the president as “the Nation’s Commander in Chief.” This is wrong. Under the Constitution the president is only the “Commander in Chief of the Army and . . . and of the Militia . . . when called into the actual Service” of the U.S. The president does not command the whole country, and it is frightening that a Justice would say he does.
Why such blind trust for the governmental branch that insisted after 9/11 that all the Guantanamo prisoners were the “worst of the worst” and has in six years since released hundreds and convicted only one of terrorism—a man who served nine months and is now free in Australia?
And which is it? Is the decision perilously revolutionary, as Scalia insists, or vulgarly frivolous, as Roberts maintains? If frivolous, why is Bush now considering “additional legislation,” seemingly to get around the new ruling?
Cyd Charisse, RIP.
Like most people, I suppose, I remember her mainly from "Singin' in the Rain," where she made an appearance in the dream-sequency segment of the movie that had nothing to do with the rest of the movie except to show the world that Gene Kelly was more than a hoofer -- he was an artist, dammit!*
Still, she's memorable in that scene, isn't she?
*I love Gene Kelly. And I love "Singin' in the Rain." But that doesn't make that sequence -- or the similar one in "American in Paris" -- any less bizarrely self-indulgent.
This won't do. This won't do at all.
Bananas have joined the ranks of dairy, meat and wheat products among foodstuffs whose prices are set to surge because of the sharp rise in fuel costs. Chiquita, one of the world’s biggest banana groups, said yesterday that the price of Britain’s most popular fruit had risen 36 per cent last month against the same period a year ago.
This news is certain to spark the long-awaited monkey revolution ... or will result in lots of poo being thrown. One or the other.
That's John Yoo in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal on Boumediene v. Bush. Yes, yes, I know we're all supposed to despise Yoo for his work at the Justice Department after Sept. 11, but his argument in the Journal deserves a fair hearing.
"The Boumediene majority has two hopes for getting away with its brazen power grab," Yoo writes.
It assumes that we have accepted judicial control over virtually every important policy in our society, from abortion and affirmative action to religion. Boumediene simply adds war to the list. The justices act like we are no longer really at war. Our homeland has not suffered another 9/11 attack for seven years, and our military and intelligence agencies have killed or captured much of al Qaeda's original leadership. What's left is on the run, due to the very terrorism policies under judicial attack.Justice Kennedy and his majority assume that terrorism is some long-term social problem, like crime, so the standard methods of law enforcement can be used to deal with al Qaeda. Boumediene reflects a judicial desire to return to the comfortable, business-as-usual attitude that characterized U.S. antiterrorism policy up to Sept. 10, 2001.
The only real hope of returning the Supreme Court to its normal wartime role rests in the November elections.
All of which makes sense if you believe the country is really at war. If not, then Yoo is just another neo-con looking for the quickest and easiest route to usurp the Constitution.
John McCain has said he opposes oil exploration in Alaska's National Wildlife Reserve because he wouldn't want oil companies to drill in the "pristine widerness" of Alaska "any more than I would want them to drill in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades." It's a feeble analogy, divorced from facts, as Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg show. McCain's position is especially tough to accept in the era of $4.50-a-gallon gas.
But it looks like McCain is coming to his senses: "Sen. John McCain said Monday the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling should be lifted, and individual states given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts."
McCain is scheduled to deliver a speech Tuesday on energy policy. He would do well to abandon the tired environmental pieties of the '90s and embrace exploration. If McCain is really a maverick, he'll endorse drilling, and lots of it.
Good news: The Saudis agree to pump more oil. According to The Independent, "Next month, the Saudis will be pumping an extra half-a-million barrels of oil a day compared to last month, bringing total Saudi production to 9.7 million barrels a day, their highest ever level."
Half-a-million barrels a day? What does that mean exactly? How will it affect the global market? Hard to say. "Saudi Arabia...says the energy crisis has not been caused purely by market pressures but by a speculative bubble. Saudi Arabia and Opec believe there are no shortages to justify the sudden surge in prices."
So maybe additional drilling here in the United States wouldn't matter much, given the declining value of the dollar. Or maybe it would matter a lot, given the psychology of market speculation. Victor Davis Hanson raised a pertinent question on the Corner early Monday:
I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?
Here's another question: Didn't we fight a war for oil recently? I thought I read that someplace. Oh, I guess only the big oil companies benefited. Silly me.
Jee-sus.
Hillary is gone yet sadly not forgotten. The former first lady and her husband will afflict American politics for years to come -- but perhaps never again from the Oval Office. That's a good thing. The chattering classes will debate what brought on Madam Clinton's demise for years to come, too. Was her defeat evidence of America's incorrigible sexism? Seems doubtful. Fact is, Americans don't mind electing women. We do it all the time. We've got women serving at every level of government and in every branch. We'll elect a woman president someday. God willing, her name won't be Clinton, though.
Read Christopher Hitchens' autopsy of the Clinton campaign. He doesn't buy the hooey about sexism:
People who favor Sen. Clinton are allowed to stress her gender and sex at all times and to make a gigantic point of it for its own sake. They are even allowed to proclaim that she should be the president of the United States in time of war only because she would be the first vagina-possessing person to hold the job. But — and here's the catch — people who do not favor her are not even allowed to allude to the fact that she is female and has feminine characteristics. ...How pathetic can you get?
My friend Lisa doesn't quite buy the sexism line either, although her reasons differ somewhat:
Blaming other women for refusing to vote for the chick, blaming younger women for being insufficiently grateful to their elders, blaming the patriarchy for what was, by many accounts, a stupidly-run campaign, blaming organizations for being insufficiently polite to a candidate, blaming the other candidate for being more compelling to voters ... ech.
Lisa is too kind. I reiterate: Few Americans would have reservations about voting for a woman. But many Americans had reservations about this woman. As Hitchens concludes: "Her whole self-pitying campaign... has retarded and infantilized the political process and has used the increasingly empty term sexism to mask the defeat of one of the nastiest and most bigoted candidacies in modern history."
Note how Hitchens doesn't qualify "bigoted candidacies" with "Democratic." Perhaps he's too kind.
I spent most of today watching the U.S. Open — often called the toughest test in golf (yeah, tougher than The Masters.) I like Tiger. Nay. I have a man crush on Tiger. And in any other year I'd be pulling for him to win.
But in the hunt all week has been a man named Rocco Mediate: a balding, injury-plagued, journeyman golfer from Western Pennsylvania. Born and raised in Greensburg (about an hour east of my adopted hometown of Pittsburgh) he is about the most regular, affable guy to play on tour. NBC analyst Johnny Miller quipped after one of Rocco's improbable birdie putts that "he looks like the guy who cleans Tiger's pool." Johnny is right — and Rocco, no doubt, would have laughed.
After every good shot he made, Rocco smiled, shrugged his shoulders and looked for someone to tell: "Can you believe that?" The 45-year-old is the everyman of professional golf. And he went toe-to-toe with the greatest golfer in the world today. Rocco would have his place in golf history right now if not for yet another heroic putt at the last by Tiger to force a playoff.
Monday, Rocco faces off against Tiger Woods in the round of a lifetime — a playoff for the 2008 U.S. Open championship. Whether he wins or he loses, Rocco is a winner in my book. And he has a place in golf history. The guy who chuckled and shrugged his way to ... well, let's hope it's a U.S. Open title. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Rocco (Jimmy) vs. Tiger (Superman). I hope Rocco's got a "Pocket Full of Kryptonite". Tonight, the Spin Doctors sing his song.
UPDATE: 1:30 p.m. Rocco gave it his best, falling behind Tiger, then rallying back to take the lead, then watching Tiger hit yet another birdie putt at the last to send this tournament to sudden death after 90 holes. Unbelievable. Tiger pars the first extra hole; Rocco's 20-footer barely misses and it's all over. Tiger wins his third U.S. Open and 14th major overall.
But Rocco can keep his head up. He is a legend now, even in defeat.
I've called my dad today, to wish him a Happy Father's Day — as I'm sure all of you did. Fathers are important. They imbue character upon their children. They are rocks in the storm.
So before the day is out, there is another father we should also give tribute to today: The Father of Our Country. His singular and stellar personal character made America and its freedoms possible.
Happy Father's Day, George Washington.
There is a reason why the great William F. Buckley lost his cool publicly only once, during a 1968 debate with the detestable Gore Vidal. The man is a preening, phony "intellectual" idiot with the moral bearings of a slug.
And it's fitting that the subject matter of the debate that set Buckley's off was the Vietnam War. The man born Eugene Luther Vidal Jr. — at West Point to a famous alumus, no less — still won't let it go. (For the record, it seems that Vidal rejected his father's name because he loathes the military).
The aging dope goes after John McCain's Vietnam record in today's New York Times Magazine. Among the myths of the Vietnam War, in Gore's eyes, is the fact that McCain suffered at the hands of the kindly North Vietnamese.
Q: And what about Mr. McCain?A: Disaster. Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?
Q: Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
A: That’s what he tells us.
Vidal then covers himself with the honor of his military birth — an honor he rejects — to say that since McCain is a Naval Academy grad, he's not to be trusted. You know. That's where all the shifty rich people send their kids.
I suppose McCain staged his own torture to use as a political prop if he happened to be in position to win the presidency 40 years later. Not being able to raise his arms above his shoulder? That's what McCain "tells us." He's probably faking that, too.
What a jerk. Why do people keep giving this scumbag prominent public forums?
I know you'll object, Joel. And you are on my "nice list" of lefties. But you can't argue with science.
George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. 'One sometimes gets the impression,' he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, 'that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England'.Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left.
There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.
The author of the Daily Mail piece, Peter Schweizer notes that in his "experience, [conservatives] are also more honest, friendly and well-adjusted." It's worth reading the whole thing.
Schweizer challenges Britain's lefties to prove him wrong. And the very first response ... well, it's kind of bitter:
Liberal minded people are forward thinking and open minded whereas right wing people are stubborn, stuck in the past, unwilling to change and narrow minded.
Heh. Imagine what the responses would be if Air America fans and HuffPosters chimed in.
(HT: Powerline)
I've driven a hydrogen-powered car. They are ... interesting. In short, it's like driving a souped-up golf cart: Hit the gas and the car whirrrs up to speed. And I drove GM's hydrogen test cars of nearly a decade ago. I'd hope it's a more thrilling experience today.
The GM people I talked to considered hybrids as a "stop-gap" technology — a way-station on the way to hydrogen cars, which emit only water vapor. It's a compelling future that celebrities are getting to experience first in their daily lives because, well, they are more important than us. Trouble is, having a hydrogen car is a little inconvenient today since there are few, if any, hydrogen stations to fuel up the SuperCart.
The LA Times quotes a jealous Paul Haggis — owner of four Priuses (or should that be pronounced "Pre-eye"?) — who now wants a Honda FCX Clarity, which gets 270 miles on a tank of hydrogen. Haggis is jealous of Joely Fisher, star of Fox's "'Til Death" TV show. She arranged for BMW to lend her a sleek metallic blue Hydrogen 7 Series — one of just 20 such experimental sedans in the country.
Never mind that it gets just 130 miles per tank and can be filled only by a trained professional, who takes it to Oxnard and refuels it with liquid hydrogen cooled to 423 degrees below zero, a round trip that can take three hours. The sedan comes with a feature that's worth the hassle: "Bragging rights," Fisher said, laughing.
Do you know what's not so funny? The round-trip mileage from Beverly Hills to Oxnard is 113 miles. I think it's safe to say that Fisher is not having a staffer drive her hydrogen car to and from Oxnard so she can use it. The 20 miles left in the tank for her isn't even enough to get it back to Oxnard for refueling.
So, for the sake of "bragging rights," Hollywood celebrities will have their hydrogen cars hauled by truck up to Oxnard, refueled, and hauled back — emitting more pollution than if they just stuck with their hybrid. In fact, even without towing-for-celebrities, hydrogen-powered cars right now are worse — emissions wise — than even an old clunker.
Critics say hydrogen fuel is difficult to store and, at least for now, energy inefficient. It requires more energy to produce than it provides once it's in the car's tank. Moreover, the process of making hydrogen can create greenhouse gases.
Nonetheless, the LA Times writes this:
Hollywood's must-have vehicles of the moment are green. And nothing conveys extreme exclusivity and earth-friendliness like a hydrogen car.
No. Hydrogen cars are ego-friendly. And that's what matters most in Hollywood.
UPDATE: Here's a hilarious review, from Britain's "Top Fuel" show (I'm pretty sure) of the "God-awful Toyota Prius" — or as the Brit host calls it, Preye-us, (rhymes with "eye us"). It is one of this fella's "least-favourite cars in the world."
Money quotes, including a monkey reference:
It's styling: "I'd rather look at a baboon. Come to think of it, I'd rather look at the back of a baboon."
Performance: "How about speed? Let's find out .... Nope, it doesn't have any."
The guy is also skeptical of Toyota's claim that it gets 66 miles to the gallon: "Yeah, right. You'll get 45 miles, tops."
Summary: "The only thing that a[ sucks] as much is the England cricket team."
So he sends the car to a non-Prius-loving American to give it a proper execution.
(HT: Moonbattery for the video.)
As the New York Times reports Sunday, same-sex marriage may not be all its cracked out to be:
(A)s same-sex marriage begins in California, Massachusetts’s experience may offer hints of what is to come. For example, after an initial euphoric rush to the altar, the number of gay weddings here fell sharply and has declined each year since. Of the more than 10,500 same-sex couples married here since May 17, 2004, 6,121 wed in the first six months. There were 2,060 weddings in 2005; 1,442 in 2006; and 867 in the first eight months of 2007, the most recent data show.
Whatever the numbers may show, marriage remains very much a political question. Love has very little to do with it, I'm sorry to say.
I can't quite decide just from reading this item. Political campaigns can be so confusing.
Lots of people are talking about Antonin Scalia's dissent in the Gitmo case:
The decision infuriated Scalia. It "will make the war harder on us," he asserted in dissent. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."Here's the thing: More Americans are likely to be killed -- terrorists try to kill us every now and again, after all. And we're almost certain to hear an "I told you so" from the Scalia camp next time it happens. But there's no reason to believe that Thursday's court decision will be the reason for the deaths.
Are we to believe that we would've faced more terror attacks in recent years if only terrorists knew they could've relied on a more open legal system to spring them from trouble? Um, I'm going to say that's unlikely. Or are we likely to release dangerous terrorists who will come back to haunt us? Well that doesn't have to be the case if the government proves its case in habeas hearings -- and in any event, it's not as though that very scenario hasn'tplayed out before Thursday's ruling.
Scalia can be entertaining. But his dissent was undignified and unhelpful. But that's about par for the course for him, isn't it?
I know that the dollar is weak, and thus American firms are susceptible to the current power of the Euro. But a Belgian brewer buying out Anheuser-Busch?
If I actually liked that flavorless swill the make in St. Louis, I'd spit it out. For the record, this beer drinker and once-frequent homebrewer thinks the take-over company's flagship adult beverage — Stella Artois — is the most overrated "premium beer" in the world. So I'd spit that out, too.
Regardless, there is just something wrong about foreigners taking over the quintessential American beer. How do you say "Proud to be your Bud" in whatever language they speak in Belgium?
Vice President Dick Cheney's office has acknowledged that he erred when telling an audience this week that China is drilling off the coast of Cuba.
He continued: "Nonetheless, we were correct to invade Cuba -- and we're correct to stay. If we don't, the Chinese will have won."
Drudge's headline made me think he was just "dead at NBC," but no, he's really gone. Is it just me, or does it seem like a lot of famous people are dying lately?
There are lots of other people who can provide better analysis of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling allowing Gitmo detainees to challenge their detentions, so I'm going to let them. But I do have a few disjointed thoughts to share. Bear with me:
• The court ruling seems to rely on the Constitution's provision that habeas corpus can't be suspended except in case of "invasion or rebellion." Since the Gitmo detainees are A)foreigners who were B) picked up overseas, it seems logical to me that they were neither invaders nor rebels. So score one for SCOTUS.
• Of course, one could argue that the detainees aren't Americans and they aren't held in America -- so they're undeserving of the habeas protection. But the Bush Administration has spent much of its energies since 9/11 trying to create a legal black hole -- in the form of Gitmo and those roving detention ships -- where neither the American Constitution nor international law is applicable. And while Andy McCarthy might spin that as a "loss to radical Islam," it seems to me that we're all better off if the government isn't allowed to evade the rule of law.
• On a related note, here's what happened yesterday in a second, less-noticed but very-related case:
In other words, the Bush Administration was trying to argue that American citizens can also disappear into that legal black hole -- it was arguing that American citizens under American control were not subject to American legal protections. And SCOTUS, God bless 'em, put a stop to that. But it's a sign of why the administration's legal approach needs resistance.Divided as the Supreme Court was in this case, the justices were unanimous, surprisingly so, in a second habeas corpus ruling on Thursday. Again rejecting the Bush administration’s position, the court held in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts that two civilian United States citizens being held in American military custody in Iraq were entitled to file habeas corpus petitions.
Proceeding to the merits of the petitions, the court then ruled against the two men, Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Ahmad Omar, who are facing criminal charges under Iraqi law. Their release through habeas corpus “would interfere with the sovereign authority of Iraq to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders,” Chief Justice Roberts said.
The administration had argued in the case, Munaf v. Geren, No. 06-1666, that because the men were technically held by the 26-nation multinational force in Iraq, federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear their habeas corpus petitions. Chief Justice Roberts said that, to the contrary, what mattered was that the men were held by “American soldiers subject to a United States chain of command.”
• Here's Sen. Lindsay Graham:
"The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. "Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact."But as Republicans, in particular, have been so fond of telling us in recent years: The War on Terror is a different kind of war. In World War II, for example, it was pretty easy to see a definable end game: Either Germany would completely take over Europe, having defeated Allied forces, or Berlin would fall. It was easy to see that there would be an end to the period of armed conflict, one way or the other.
So here's a question: When will we know we've won the War on Terror? When will we know it's over? We haven't actually been attacked on American soil since 2001 -- perhaps it's already over? I doubt it, but here's the problem: It's impossible to tell how -- if -- we'll ever reach the end. There's nobody to make a treaty with, no one with whom to exchange POWs. Can we really live in an unending state of emergency AND preserve a democratic rule of law?
• Which, contra McCarthy and Graham, brings me to the wisdom of one of Spencer Ackerman's friends today:
Right. Unlike McCarthy, I'm not sure why it's a "loss to radical Islam" to ask to government to prove -- in a non-kangaroo court setting -- that the people it's keeping locked up forever actually deserve to be kept locked up forever.Justice Scalia, hoisting the mantle of fearmongering,
[W]arned that some detainees will be freed and return to war against America: “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.”
No. If the government believes the detainees to be guilty of nefarious acts against the United States, then the government needs to get on their motherfrakking job and MAKE THE CASE against any habeas corpus petitions, in accordance with the law and in accordance with the Constitution. Why is this so hard to understand?
• Finally, a lot has been made of Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent:
So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court's analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit—where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to "determine—through democratic means—how best" to balance the security of the American people with the detainees' liberty interests, has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation's foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.Emphasis added. It seems as though Roberts' argument -- as it often seems in these cases -- is that the Supreme Court owes Congress deference no matter what. It's long been recognized that President Nixon was full of it when he suggested that "if the president does it, that means it's legal." (I'm paraphrasing here.) Roberts seems to believe that "if Congress does it, that means it's Constitutional." And if that is what he believes, why is he sitting on the Supreme Court? Can it ever say "no" to Congress? Even if Congress is acting unconstitutionally?
Perhaps this should've been a series of blog posts?
Zaius already linked to Investor's Business Daily's hard-hitting editorial on Boumediene v. Bush.
Here are some other major editorial responses condemning and praising Thursday's landmark decision:
Yet the court's 70-page majority opinion leaves many questions unanswered. While it took the extraordinary step of invalidating the process sanctioned by Congress and the executive to govern detention at Guantanamo, the majority offered only general and indirect guidance about what such a process would have to include to pass constitutional muster. By their own account, the justices also did not address the underlying legal basis for holding the prisoners as 'enemy combatants,' rather than as prisoners of war or suspects charged with crimes."
Farcical proceedings like this have made Guantanamo an international byword for the US government's willingness to set aside centuries-old human-rights pillars like habeas corpus."
The moral idiocy of Nicholson Baker is the reason I only half joke with my liberal friends about rounding them up into camps when I'm King of America. Hippies who have done nice things for me before my inevitable ascension — like get me a beer while on the way to the kitchen or overlook my deficiency in the six-pack abs department — I will allow to hold the clipboard while the rest are sent off to the gas chambers.
All my liberal friends (and I have many) laugh because the moral absurdity of such a joke is obvious. It plays into their joking characterization of my own conservative positions. Yet Baker would probably try to strike me with his whip made out of recycled wood and hemp. Because this guy is a Defcon 5 Moonbat.
Baker has explored the history of World War II and blames the whole thing on Great Britain, the United States and every other Western nation that gave up the best of their generation to preserve liberty. Yeah. Really.
The novelist previously almost famous for penning a dirty potboiler that Monica Lewinsky gave President Clinton, has belched out a book positing that Roosevelt and Churchill are as blameworthy as Hitler for starting World War II.
It's no surprise that novelist Nicholson Baker's latest venture into nonfiction, "Human Smoke," has stirred up strong feelings. After all, he questions the popular notion of the just war and indicates that Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt share blame with Adolf Hitler in setting the stage for the deadliest and most destructive war in history.
How does he square this unlikely circle?
According to CNN's telling:
It was while tending the British Library newspaper collection that he rescued from the shredder that Baker began reading about "the horrible period" that led to World War II and prompted him to dig deeper and try "to make some sense" of the situation.
Hmmm. By all means "make more sense" of the situation" for us wise, gray-bearded sage.
Baker said he was surprised and shocked at the way Churchill responded to Hitler's attacks on Poland and other neighboring states by launching a relentless bombing campaign against German cities as well as a blockade that was designed to starve the enemy into submission.
Yes. Surprised and shocked — at Churchill's response. Screw the Poles. They are among the many who don't count for much in Baker's moral equation. Here comes a quote where Baker explains his thinking. Brace yourself:
"He was acting like a bloodthirsty maniac during that period. That has to go back on the record in all of its unpleasantness. We can't learn from a hero like that. It's a mistake to say that because Hitler was bad, we have to clean up the image of Churchill. Churchill was also bad," Baker said.
No. Nothing to learn from a "hero" like Churchill who only, you know, saved Britain from Nazi oppression ... and stuff. I actually can't bear excerpting much more of this asshat's theory. If you want more, click the link and have at it. Here's the last bit I'll bother to cite:
Baker maintains that Churchill's bellicose actions and Roosevelt's eagerness to supply Britain with ships and planes served only to prop up Hitler's standing with Germans and strengthen his hold on the country.
Try to preserve liberty? You fools! That only strengthens the hold of despots. As for those six million Jews? Screw em. Let 'em burn.
The immorality of some prominent liberals (this guy is welcome at The New Yorker) is simply breathtaking.
I'm a big Spengler fan, but his recent column on the death of the slacker is a bit much. First of all, some martial artists need to lighten up about "Kung Fu Panda." Apart from that, as Gregg Easterbrook writes in Friday's Wall Street Journal, the American scene isn't quite as gloomy as Spengler makes it out to be:
The case that things are basically pretty good? Unemployment is 5.5%, low by historical standards; income is rising slightly ahead of inflation; housing prices are down, but the typical house is still worth a third more than in 2000; 94% of Americans do not have threatened mortgages, and of those who do, most will keep their homes.Inflation was up in 2007, but this stands out because the 16 previous years were close to inflation-free; living standards are the highest they have ever been, including living standards for the middle class and for the poor.
Spengler is certainly correct that "Americans have to work harder, save more, and defer gratification." Obviously. But I don't think the Age of Austerity and Lesser Expectations is upon us just yet.
Small world: The L.A. Times' source for its story about Alex Kozinski's web porn is related to an old friend. I don't know Cyrus Sanai, but his quarrel with Kozinski and the Ninth U.S. Circuit is obviously more complicated than press reports have reported thus far. Evidently, Sanai has been trying to drum up interest in the story for months. ("This isn’t Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy stuff, the normal guy-meets-girl in a Laundromat porn," Sanai told the L.A. Weekly blog. "It’s all deviant!" Reminds me of another essay I read a few years back: "Porn: Smut or Filth?" Can't find it online, either.)
Patterico has been all over the story. Read the comments, too.
Judge Kozinski's troubles may not just be limited to pictures of nude women painted as cows or transsexual slideshows. (This Australian website carries a headline that must even make Kozinski smile, if ruefully: "Cow porn fancier judge suspends trial.") The judge might have made the mistake of posting copyrighted MP3s. And Kozinski, of all people, should know better.
I won't pretend to guess how this story will play out, although I suspect Kozinski's tenure on the bench is secure. Clearly, though, it is a mistake to confuse intelligence -- and Kozinski is unquestionably brilliant -- with wisdom.
Ben provides a good run down of some of the smarter legal opinion out there. I, too, have not read the whole Gitmo decision. But I presume that the fine editorial writers at Investors Business Daily have. And their lead in tomorrow's top editorial cuts to the quick:
In a historic first, the right to habeas corpus has been bestowed upon prisoners of war — in wartime. Five justices gave terrorists a new weapon to kill more Americans with: our own Constitution.
Blunt, but the guys at IBD nailed it. Democrats and the ACLU are dancing tonight like the Arab Street on 9/11. But make no mistake: This is an abysmal decision that has to be dispiriting to our troops in the field. As IBD noted, the Supreme Court has just turned our troops fighting a hot war against America's enemies overseas into unwilling real-life counterparts to the cast of "Law & Order." It will change their behavior — to the detriment not only to their mission, but to the terrorists they are fighting. As Exurban League's Jon noted today, the logical next move for our troops is to shoot first so there's no need to ask questions later (let alone read Miranda rights):
Instead of rounding up a house full of crazies caught in the act of making IEDs, wouldn't soldiers just kill them all? After all, the soldier might be found guilty of a war crime if he captures a suspect without reading Miranda rights in Arabic, Pashtun and Farsi. And who has time for lengthy evidence-gathering missions at a building that might soon be found under attack from other cell members? How exactly does a sergeant in the field prove probable cause to a courtroom in Delaware? Frankly, guys in the field will probably respond by simply shooting first and asking questions later.
Seems logical to me. I'll admit that I'm not an attorney, judge or constitutional law scholar. But Justices Scalia and Roberts are. And they seem to agree that this narrow 5-4 decision is a disaster. Here are some of the juicier excerpts from Scalia's dissent, aptly described everywhere as "scathing":
The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today. ...Henceforth, as today's opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns that the subject entails. ...
Scalia's overarching point is that this was not a question that the Supreme Court need get involved with — especially after instructing the president and Congress to come up with a legal framework for military tribunals, which they did, twice. That's where Scalia's "bait-and-switch" line came from. But then he really lays into the majority for their hubris of deciding on an ad hoc basis "what the law is."
Our power "to say what the law is" is circumscribed by the limits of our statutorily and constitutionally conferred jurisdiction. And that is precisely the question in these cases: whether the Constitution confers habeas jurisdiction on federal courts to decide petitioners' claims. It is both irrational and arrogant to say that the answer must be yes, because otherwise we would not be supreme.
That's gotta hurt, but it's true. If the balance of powers means anything, Congress and the president have to have space to fulfill their constitutional duties. The Supreme Court is supposed to be judge, not parent (or "supreme" ruler). If you've stuck with me this long, let's go to the great Scalia's big finish, where he notes rightly that this will not be the end of the "extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections" for terrorists:
Most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.
That's assuming a nation that surrenders its ability to fight an existential war against an implacable enemy to the whims of unaccountable courts will live long. I've opposed to the closing of Gitmo because bringing terrorists captured on foreign battlefields trying to kill Americans could subject them to the civilian justice system. There goes that argument. It no longer matters. Sigh.
Why, oh, why are the Democrats being so stubborn on the drilling issue? Surely they realize that their own constituents -- working people, commuters -- are suffering from the effects of $4-a-gallon gasoline. And yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her wisdom, insists "We cannot drill our way out of this."
Nobody is arguing that drilling for oil in ANWR or exploring the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California will solve America's energy woes entirely. Not even close. Energy independence is probably a pipe dream. But House Republicans are arguing -- correctly, I think -- that the Democratic leadership needs to come up with a truly viable solution or be held accountable. Remember, the Democrats in 2006 promised "a commonsense plan" for lowering gas prices. And that was when gasoline was a "reasonable" $3.25 or so a gallon. Of course, you follow that link to Pelosi's website and you discover the "plan" was to put the screws to the oil companies. They might as well have vowed to repeal the law of supply and demand.
The Democrats' pig-headed energy policy -- if you can call it a policy -- is bad for the country. Period.
The Wall Street Journal on Thursday cut through the Democrats' cant:
Democrats are going to have to grow up. The oil-rich areas they want to leave untouched are accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, thanks to modern technology. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill. As for anticarbon theology, oil will be indispensable over the next half-century and probably longer, like it or not. Airplanes will never fly on woodchips, and you won't be able to charge your car with a windmill for some time, if ever.
Dan Henninger, on the same page, expounds the editorial board's sensible argument:
New world powers are coming online fast, and they need energy. We need to get back in the game.The goal shouldn't be "energy independence," a ridiculous notion in an economically integrated world. It's about admitting the need to strike a balance between the energy and security realities of the here-and-now and the potentialities of the future. Some of our best and brightest want to pursue alternative energy technologies, and they should be encouraged to do so, inside market disciplines. But let's at least stop pretending the rest of the world is going to play along with our environmentalist moralisms.
Yes, the United States needs more nuclear energy, more hydrogen power, more natural gas exploration, and cleaner alternatives to fuels that pollute the air and put America at the mercy of foreign powers. At the same time, as my old friends at Investor's Business Daily note, we're sitting atop at least 118 billion barrels of oil, which is "a bit more than Iraq's estimated reserves." It would be irresponsible not to tap into that resource.
Rather than continue to lamely point the finger at Big Oil, it's about time Americans held Congress to account for exacerbating an eminently solvable problem.
If not for the Court's horrible ruling, we'd be talking about "Baby Mama." (More here, if you care -- which you shouldn't.) Good grief. I hadn't even heard about this "controversy" until Joel mentioned it obliquely in an e-mail. If last week's absurd Obama fist-bump story (sorry, terrorist fist jab) wasn't reason enough to beg off cable news for the rest of campaign season, how about this?
It's only gonna get worse...
"Monkeys understand money," reports Nature News. Well, of course we do! Money can't buy happiness or love, but it can certainly keep the banana schnapps flowing!
No, I haven't read the decision in Boumediene v. Bush yet, so I will withhold comment for now. Instead, allow me to point to people who have followed the case a bit more closely and have actually read bits and pieces of the decision.
Finally, Chief Justice Roberts' summation of the decision (via The Corner):
So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court's analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit — where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to 'determine — through democratic means — how best' to balance the security of the American people with the detainees' liberty interests, has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation's foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.
Ron Paul's presidential bid is finally and officially over. Paul's camp says he will turn his energies where he can do some legitimate good: electing libertarian-leaning Republicans to office nationwide. As I've written elsewhere, an effort like that could be truly revolutionary.
Twenty-one years ago today...
Via No Left Turns and the Ashbrook Center comes a valuable new web resource, Classics of Strategy and Diplomacy. The site is the work of Pat Garrity, a scholar who has forgotten more about American military and diplomatic history than most of us could ever hope to know.
According to Garrity, the point of the site is "to encourage the study of those books, memoirs, essays, and speeches that best illuminate the nature of international politics and military affairs. We also explore forgotten, neglected and misunderstood classics; and identify contemporary writings that we expect to have lasting intellectual and political value." Bookmark it.
Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski is in a spot of bother over an obscenity case currently on his docket. Seems the judge, a Reagan appointee and reasonably well-known libertarian, had some sexually explicit images on his own website, which has since been taken down.
The Times reports: "In an interview Tuesday..., Kozinski acknowledged posting sexual content on his website. Among the images on the site were a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. He defended some of the adult content as 'funny' but conceded that other postings were inappropriate."
Read the Times story, but avoid the comments. I got about four pages in before turned into a drooling imbecile. (I got better.)
Judge Kozinski is an acquaintance of at least one of the Monkeys. Not me, although I lurked on the outskirts of his circle for a brief period in the mid-90s. He's a clever and witty jurist, perhaps more than a bit twisted. We've linked to his opinions several times over the years. The judge maintains a fairly active e-mail list, where he forwards sundry jokes and tidbits. I believe him when he says of the pictures on his site, "Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you... I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life." That's his libertarianism speaking. I can sympathize. But Judge Kozinski doesn't seem so interested in prudence. And that's what got him into trouble.
Update, 6/12: Judge Kozinski and the cowgirls revisited
Read Joel's Blogging in Ink and Paper, which is his long-hand reflection on Nicholas Carr's essay in the July Atlantic on Google and our brains.
One quick point: Had RedBlueAmerica.com continued with Joel and me moderating, I would have urged him to turn down the firehose of RSS feeds. I haven't yet read the Carr piece -- I've been too distracted -- but I'll never forget the wisdom of a much earlier essay by another news junkie. I can't find it on the Web (try Googling "confessions of a news junkie" or variations thereof and you'll see what I mean). I can't even remember the author. I do remember the point: It doesn't matter. You can't know everything, and you will drive yourself crazy trying. You need to make choices and sacrifices. And, for God's sake, turn off the TV news. Joel has me beat on that last point -- he doesn't even have cable. I'd probably be reading more if we didn't have a satellite dish.
California's Democratic-controlled legislature threw down the gauntlet today and demanded nearly $11.5 billion in new taxes, reports the Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert. Curiously, the Democrats haven't specified what taxes they would raise.
Here's a guess: It won't just be corporate taxes.
The Democrats' timing couldn't be better: An election year amid a weak economy. Those are ideal circumstances to raise taxes across the board -- if you want to guarantee a full-blown recession, business-flight, accelerating mortgage defaults, and an exodus of productive citizens to more hospitable climes.
According to the Bee, "Schwarzenegger wants to 'securitize' the state lottery by borrowing against future profits and use $5.1 billion of the loan proceeds for the 2008-09 budget, plus nearly $600 million in loans from various special funds, and fill the rest of the estimated $15.2 billion hole in the budget with spending cuts. He said he opposes broad new taxes, a position echoed by Republican legislators." The Democrats' gauntlet, then, is the opening gambit in this year's game of high-stakes budget chess.
Californians haven't really confronted the ongoing, structural deficit that's plagued their state since at least 2002. Californians need to make a choice: extreme fiscal restraint or higher spending fueled by higher taxes. It's not an easy decision. There are trade-offs either way. But we won't be able to put off that choice for much longer.
I hate to sound like Gen. Admiral Stockdale in a presidential debate by asking such weird questions, but these are weird days. I feel like I'm in a time warp — or that I fell asleep in California last night and woke up in the Soviet Union circa 1960.
Didn't the Cold War settle forever the question of whether economic freedom trumps central government planning of the means of production? Not if you ask Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin.
"The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat.
Oh really, Dick? A body of men and women — most of whom know nothing of economics, the oil industry, or even the daily stresses of running a candy store — are going to bend economic law to their will and dictate economic outcomes? Such socialist nonsense would be rightly and immediately vetoed by President Bush. President Obama? You can bet he'd sign it.
Here's more mind-blowing economic ignorance and power-hungry posturing on display from liberal Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. He, too, wants to decide what profits are fair and what profits are "obscene." Give CNBC credit for a unique moment in media: Pressing a liberal on how far they will push their philosophy:
[CNBC "Squawk Box"] co-host Joe Kernan called the Connecticut senator on the idea, asking if he was going to apply the same strategy to other types of businesses. "Are you going to go across industries across the board and decide what Congress thinks is a fair amount of profit and drawing a lines on what’s fair and what’s not for corporations?” Kernan then emphasized the point.“That’s not the way it’s done in this country, senator. It could never be done that way, could it?”
“Yes, it could be,” Dodd said.
“In fact it’s been done that way in the past and particularly when you’re trying to get some relief for people out here when the economy is in a tailspin. We’re about to go into a recession here. This is really causing a tremendous dislocation, not only here, but around the world.”
Is Dodd ignorant of the fact that Big Oil already pays more in taxes than the top corporate rate. Not to mention that Big Oil's tax payments to the government in real dollars has nearly doubled in just two years to $90 billion in 2006?
Apparently so. Or Dodd knows and doesn't care. The liberal Dems also don't care that the profit margin of "Big Oil" is actually less than many American industries — such as food and beverages, telecommunications and banking.
It is not the business of Congress, or any arm of government, to be setting "acceptable" profit returns for any business or industry. With the exception of breaking up exploitative monopolies, it's "hands off" if economic freedom is to have any meaning. The idea that Congress would even imagine it can legitimately exercise such sweeping power should be offensive, and frightening, to every American who values freedom. Congress didn't much care about playing Oil Kommisar in the early 1990s when a barrel of crude went for less than $20 and oil company profits were piddly. Nope. No money — or demagogic juice to squeeze — back then.
The economic ignorance on display in Congress is simply staggering. U.S. oil companies produce less than 10 percent of the oil in the global market. ExxonMobil could no more snap its fingers and make the price of crude come down as I could. And taxing them to death would do exactly zero to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. Zero.
Wouldn't it be great if John McCain could exploit this issue? Sure would. Too bad he's an idiot on this issue, too.
Um, I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere — and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax. That’s not what bothers me. But we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.
To begin firming up a skeptical conservative base when he clinched the Republican nomination, McCain called himself "a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution." Really? The Gipper famously said in his first inaugural address that America is "a nation that has a government — not the other way around." He deregulated industries, he slashed corporate tax rates to the howls of Democrats and shepherded in an unprecedented economic boom. Reagan would deign to declare which profits are "obscene" and which are acceptable to the government?
I don't think so.
Not just Reagan, but the Founding Fathers — who made economic liberty the main argument for the Revolution — are spinning in their graves.
(HT: Michelle Malkin)
We didn't make this video. I don't know the person or persons who did. They seem like fun folks, even though I'm not a great fan of Hendrick's gin (too gimmicky, not worth the price), and even if the video takes a needlessly vulgar shot at the Summer of Rum.
Other posts in the Summer of Gin series (so far):
Or is it his 17th? "Kucinich Forces Vote On Bush's Impeachment," reads the headline in Wednesday's Washington Post. It's a parliamentary maneuver, nothing more. Even Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer thinks the whole thing is a waste of time. I wonder what Kucinich's constituents think? Probably not much -- they keep reelecting the guy, after all.
Andrea Mitchell let slip what the elite media think of people who don't have the good sense to live where there's a Starbucks and organic food shop every 200 yards. The people who live in Bristol, Va., are a strange breed of NASCAR-loving, gun-totin', God-clingin' humans that urban anthropologists call "rednecks."
Oops. Mitchell, of course, had to crawl out and apologize. You can see the video here, but this is the nub:
“I owe and apology to the good people of Bristol, Virginia, for something stupid that I said last week. I was trying to explain based on reporting from Democratic strategists why Barack Obama was campaigning in southwest Virginia. But without attribution or explanation, I used a term strategists often use to demean an entire community,” Mitchell said.
Pretty lame. She passes off the offense as a term others use. Sorry, hon. Unless you're willing to identify the Dem staffers who use that term (I'm guessing it's all of them), you own it. You used it, and you demeaned people. Unlike you, I will take any brickbats coming my way for calling an accomplished female professional "hon."
Mitchell doesn't think there are seasoned, professional journalists in "redneck" country, but there are (I used to be one of them). J. Todd Foster of the local paper in Bristol fired off a response titled Thank You, Andrea Mitchell, For The Ready-Made Column:
“To correct Mitchell, Bristol doesn’t border ‘Appalachia … country.’ It is part of the Appalachian Mountain region. While the region faces challenges, it doesn’t deserve to be the butt of jokes.”
Exactly. And here's a tip for Mitchell if her campaign coverage finds her gaze landing in the part of Virginia south of Springfield: Most parts of civilization south of Richmond and east of the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains is called "Southside Virginia." Not "South Virginia" or "Southern Virginia."
You're welcome.
(HT: Moonbattery for making the video so easy to embed.)
Perusing the Los Angeles Times today, I was amused to read the following headline: "Cargo has L.A. traffic at a crawl." Gee, you don't say. I recall reading something about that in The Press-Enterprise three years ago. Come to think of it, I recall writing something about that in The Press-Enterprise three years ago, and off and on with some regularity until I left the paper in October. And here I thought the Times was a newspaper.
I kid. But only a little. Today's story, in fact, was the third in a multi-part series on Southern California's traffic woes. It's a worthy story to tell -- one that every commuter sees but few understand. Simply stated, the state's roads and highways haven't kept pace with population growth. As state senator and congressional candidate Tom McClintock has pointed out repeatedly, highway travel in California has increased 116 percent while highway lane capacity has increased only 8 percent over the past 30 years.
Economic growth has exacerbated the problem. In the past decade, motorists have found themselves sharing lane space with more and more big rigs, thanks to an explosion of imports entering the United States through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Those two ports handle 44 percent of all goods entering the United States -- the equivalent of more than 7.85 million cargo containers last year. And port officials estimate that volume will triple by 2025.
More cars plus more trucks equals more pollution and guarantees gridlock. But in a state where it takes 40 years (or longer) to finish a major freeway project, solutions are slow in coming and expensive when they finally arrive.
How expensive? Between $18 billion and $30 billion, depending on which study you read. That's just for "goods movement" projects, by the way -- port upgrades, rail crossings and grade separations, dedicated truck lanes, and the like. The price of bringing all of California's transportation infrastructure up to snuff is $105 billion and counting, according to the governor's office of transportation.
Who should pay for all of that? California taxpayers pay enough as it is. And considering that most of the goods (about 80 percent) entering Southern California ports don't actually remain here, there is a pretty good case to be made for more federal transportation dollars. And if the railroads want to move all of those containers out of state quickly, they should pony up, too. "It is not California's job to deliver cheap televisions to Omaha. That is the job of the federal government and the transportation industry," said Lee Harrington, former president and chief executive of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.
None of which would be a problem if we had a commericially viable flying car in this country.
Tuesday's edition of USA Today includes a mostly sensible editorial on the need for policymakers to embrace domestic oil exploration. The editorial is worth highlighting mostly for the novelty of a liberal newspaper departing from environmentalist orthodoxy on the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve and off-shore drilling. (Though, to be fair, USA Today has long favored opening ANWR to drilling.)
But the piece makes a point that can't be repeated enough: Even the relatively small contribution that ANWR oil would add to the overall U.S. supply would reap huge dividends for national security. "Estimates are that the area could eventually produce about a million barrels of oil a day for 30 years. That's nearly 5% of the 21 million barrels a day Americans consume, and almost as much as the United States imports from Venezuela — where the money Americans spend for oil enriches a leader who bitterly opposes U.S. interests and helps fund an armed insurrection against U.S. ally Colombia."
I would take issue with one point, however. The editors, in an effort to appear fair, assert the following:
Both parties share the blame. Democrats, fearful of offending the environmental lobby, have led the effort against ANWR and offshore drilling. Republicans ganged up late last year to kill a smart but modest proposal that would have required the nation's utilities to produce as much as 15% of their electricity with renewable energy such as solar, wind and biomass by 2020.
Truth is, the Republicans share no blame. Drilling in ANWR is actually possible. Mandating that private companies produce energy in ways that certain interests would prefer -- regardless of feasibility or profit potential -- is not a serious plan.
Power Line had an interesting post yesterday noting how the Obama campaign allowed "anti-Semitic propaganda" on its official website. Little Green Footballs first pointed it out Sunday, which prompted the Obama campaign to quickly take it down. Power Line has kept some copies of the images and posts so you can judge for yourself how hateful it was. Titles like "How The Jewish Lobby Works," and photo montages that declare "These Jews Are Corrupting U.S. Politics!" and "Real Jew News" are over the line, in my view -- and now, apparently, in Obama's view.
But the Jew-baiting stuff isn't the only thing the Obama campaign has taken down from its "community blogs" site. Another page thrown down the memory hole is titled "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama." Power Line had a live link to it yesterday -- but now it's gone. A Google-cached version of the page was available yesterday, but now it's gone, too.
But I saved it for posterity, and here is what was written as the group's profile (with bad spelling and/or typos included):
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!
("Communist Patty"? I shudder to think what that tastes like.) I love how Radical Reds try to distance themselves from the world's Marxist/Commie regimes by accusing them of not being true to the cause. That political philosophy keeps getting tried the wrong way by the wrong people. How inconvenient.
Anyway, Joel cries foul on his own site about "people who attempt to paint Obama as a secret Soviet." I don't think Obama is a "Soviet" -- though he has shown a Soviet-style aptitude to erase inconvenient history and pretend it never happened, starting with his own website.
But voters looking for some substance beyond Obama's rhetoric have a few places to look to judge his political soul. One is to look at Obama's voting record, which is the most liberal in Congress. Another way is to look at the people upon which Obama built his political career. It is full of what we might call neo-coms, or simply aging Marxists: Rev. Wright, Fr. Pfleger, Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, etc. And now we have "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama," which was on his official campaign website for at least three months before Obama's campaign tried to hide it from the public.
A largely unknown man does not get to choose the colors the public may use to paint his political portrait. And it looks like there's quite a bit of red on the palate.
Perhaps you've read Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt's column in Monday's paper. Or maybe you haven't. If you believe, as many people do, that George W. Bush and his weak-kneed subordinates in the administration lied America into the war in Iraq, Haitt might be uncomfortable reading. You might feel more comfortable with this guy, this gal, this guy, or this especially erudite blogger. That's fine. I totally understand. What's the point of arguing when you can just say, "F&^* Fred Hiatt"?
Be that as it may, you don't get to say "Bush lied, people died" anymore. Sorry, you just don't. First of all, it's a stupid slogan -- always has been. Bush had lousy intelligence that buttressed his inclination to finish the job his old man started. That's hubris, not malice. Even so, as Hiatt points out, "In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?"
Secondly, the charge -- such as it is -- isn't true. Look, I've read and heard pretty legitimate cases against the war. I've even read some good arguments against the war on this very website. You too can make those arguments! But if you parrot the Senate Intelligence Committee's CYA line, you're going to look like an idiot. A moron. You're going to look like Howard Dean or Dick Durban or, God help you, Vincent Bugliosi. And I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
Cocktails needn't be fussy. Objectively, there are few drinks as simple to mix as the classic martini. Combine gin, vermouth and ice, shake, strain, garnish with an olive or lemon peel, and enjoy. Easy, right?
If only. The martini, as most ardent drinkers know, has a cult following. Making the drink is a ritual in itself. Whole shelves of books have been dedicated to martini lore. (If I had to choose just one, I would recommend Martini, Straight Up, by Lowell Edmunds.) Friendships have been destroyed over the meaning of "bruised gin." And grown men have come to blows over the right proportion of gin to vermouth -- or whether there should even be vermouth in the drink at all. (Of course there should.)
I don't intend to revisit any of those controversies. The Summer of Gin is supposed to be fun, after all. But I do want to make the case for decent gin as the foundation of a great martini.
Decent gin? Isn't that obvious? Well, I guess it matters what "decent" means. Decent gin is neither cheap gin nor high-priced boutique gin. I don't believe it is possible to make, let alone enjoy, a Gilbey's or Gordon's martini. Those gins are too harsh and unforgiving. You can actually hear brain cells die. At the same time, although a super-premium gin such as Junipero or Sarticious makes for an excellent martini, expense or status are not essential for a first-rate martini. Far from it. And as much as I love a Junipero and Vya martini -- the quintessential martini, 100 percent Californian -- I simply cannot afford that luxury right now. (Donations will be gladly accepted, however.)
So at the moment, I'm drinking Tanqueray and Martini & Rossi fashioned the Bernard DeVoto way, except with a twist of lemon. It's a great drink. Regular old Tanqueray is a very good, reasonably priced gin. So is Beefeater, which was my dad's gin of preference. I used to make a fetish of Bombay Sapphire, but, truth is, Tanqueray or Beefeater is just as good.
Half the trick to making a great martini is the choice of ingredients. But the other half is simplicity itself: A martini needs to be cold. Yet even so obvious a piece of advice is controversial. Vermouth should be refrigerated, but what about gin? I would say no: Cold gin cuts down on dilution, and you want some dilution in the martini, as Gary and Mardee Regan urge. Dilution argues for ice -- lots and lots of ice.
So here is my recipe for a simple, classic martini:
Shake (or stir!), strain into a cocktail glass, garnish (or not!) with an olive, or lemon peel, or twist a lemon peel over the glass and discard. Whatever suits you. There can be no disputing matters of taste.
Other posts in the Summer of Gin series (so far):
John M. Broder and Robin Toner (sounds like a musical duo) penned a piece for the NY Times' "Political Memo" with the headline: "Campaign May Leave Blot on Clinton Legacy".
Ummm ... "blot" might be the perfect word to use when discussing the Clinton Legacy. But hasn't Hillary suffered enough humiliation?
John McCain is no old fogey. He has great love of pop music, confessing his love of ABBA.
"[McCain] said that a lot of people won't admit that they love ABBA, but he would," radio jock Rich Berra says. "Then he asked us if it was old-fashioned to like ABBA, and we said that it wasn't old-fashioned at all."Well, what could they say? Granted, ABBA broke up back in the '80s and was seen as wildly unfashionable for a time. However, the fab foursome has gained a whole new respect in recent years thanks to the success of the stage musical Mamma Mia!, which uses an all-ABBA score. A movie version opens July 18; we're sure McCain will catch it opening weekend.
That McCain. Always the maverick. McCain played the ABBA classic, "Take a Chance on Me," at rallies in Florida and South Carolina — apparently a personal selection. And admitting one's love for the nattily dressed Swedish legends can't hurt while trying to court the flamboyantly gay vote, or the retro-cool vote, or the Mamma Mia fan vote.
Come to think of it, several ABBA songs can be helpful to a presidential campaign. McCain can play "Knowing Me, Knowing You" to help introduce himself the public and start a national conversation. If McCain starts to fall behind Obama, he can blare "S.O.S." from the loudspeakers. Need to court the Hispanic vote? Play "Fernando." Prove to the public that you are willing to mend fences with the French by playing "Voulez Vous." Any ABBA song will probably please the gay vote, but none more than "Dancing Queen." And "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" can help illustrate the domestic policy of Barack Obama. Heck, he can even neutralize Obama's inspirational vibe by going to "I Have a Dream."
Of course, if McCain loses in November, it's time to play "The Winner Takes it All" (which is what Hillary must be bitterly listening to right now, and changing some lyrics, especially that "rules must be obeyed" part. Though Hillary might like: "I don't want to talk" and the part about not shaking hands.). But, when it's all over, there's only one song for the McCain campaign that will do: "Waterloo." Hit it! ..... "My, my! At Wateroo Napoleon did surrender. .... Oh yeah! ... "
(HT: Mrs. Zaius for some ABBA assists, K-Lo at The Corner, Michael Goldfarb — who has left The Weekly Standard's excellent blog to blog for Team McCain. The McCain Report is where Goldfarb seems to do most of his work, with the kind of wit he displayed at The Weekly Standard.)
I watched the Hillary concession speech — twice. The first time live on MSNBC, just to get the good Dem spin on it; the second time with Mrs. Zaius during Fox News' rebroadcast at 2 p.m. PDT.
What struck me was the body language Hillary displayed. When talking about herself, Hillary's voice had energy and she smiled at the end of her sentences, soaking in the applause.
When Hillary got to the parts where she had to endorse Barack Obama, the smile was gone. A frowny face replaced the grin when the audience started clapping — and she quickly pressed ahead with the speech, cutting off the applause. Her voice was flat, even dropping an octave.
Needless to say, the in-the-tank Dems at MSNBC did not notice this obvious contrast. Jennifer Rubin at Contentions, though, did. In fact, Rubin used the exact term I mentioned to my wife while watching the speech:
There is a hostage-tape like quality about this.
Heh. Obama kidnapped Hillary's dreams.
The Democrats' plan for helping to send gas prices back down is to attack American oil companies. That's not going to do much good, considering that America's "Big Oil" devils control only around 7 percent of the world's oil market — thanks, in large part, to Congress putting America's vast oil reserves off limits.
John Hinderaker at Powerline points to statistics that indicate who is most responsible in the United States for high oil prices. (Hint: It's not "Big Oil" or the Republican buddies of Bush):
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
The law of supply and demand is simple. Increase the amount of a commodity and decrease the price. And since the global trading of oil is very sensitive to potential of increased oil production, just declaring the U.S. open again for drilling would have a dramatic effect on crude prices. And the price of crude has the greatest influence on America's gas prices.
Powerline's Paul Mirengoff adds a good point to John's post:
It's useful to keep this sort of thing in mind when we hear (on something like a daily basis these days) that the Republicans have run out of ideas or that Republican ideas didn't work. The truth is that most major Republican ideas weren't tried because the Democrats blocked them.
And among those Republican ideas is drilling for more American oil. Unfortunately, the current Republican nominee for president falls in line with Democrats on making sure the United States continues to be a buyer, and not a seller, in the vast global oil market. The longer we keep our oil reserves out of bounds, the higher gas prices will go.
It's time to brace ourselves for the new reality: $4-a-gallon gas is the floor — the good times. My children will laugh at how I bought gas for $.99 a gallon in the mid-1990s as they walk to school because the city can't afford to bus them.
If only Bob Dole showed such vigor when he was pushed out by the Republican Party to strangle the Clinton dynasty in toddlerhood. Dole was so angered by Scott McClellan's book-deal betrayal of President Bush and his country, that he fired off a nasty letter via email to the former White House spokesman:
"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."
I said much the same thing — though a bit gentler — in a previous post. And why does Dole go all Braveheart on Scott's ass? He explains here:
Bottom line is that I have little respect for turncoats like McClellan who have it both ways. Some in public (and private) life have no shame when big bucks are involved. If their motive is 'good government,' O.K. but that's rarely the case."
Scott emerged from his back-slapping liberal media tour to respond:
"I am speaking up. I have had time to reflect and go back, and what I’m saying is sincere. ... I have a lot of respect for Sen. Dole."
Even when Scott flacks for himself, he delivers cold liver. Typical.
Score this one for the old codger.
The Senate Democrats released their long-awaited, predictable report today declaring that BUSH LIED! about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, the Democrats did not allow into their report the truth about their own certainty of Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons. A sampling of the willfully excluded statements that would undermine the narrative about the villainous Bush:
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." — Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 (NOTE: Rockefeller was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.)
"[Saddam] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
And I recall that part of Teddy Kennedy's argument against going to war in Iraq was because he feared our troops would be victims of chemical and biological weapons.
The New York Times and the rest of the MSM may not put that on the record. But it is on the record — and is not irrelevant, especially to this story. There is a big difference between being mistaken about something, and lying about it. And I just don't buy it that Bush not only fooled the public, but every Democrat in Congress — including those who were as informed about the U.S. intelligence reports as the president ... ahem ... Mr. Rockefeller.
UPDATE June 8: The Powerline Guys have begun to weigh in on this story, promising several posts over the next few days. That will be, as always, required reading. Meanwhile, a good observation by John Hinderaker:
JOHN adds: National Intelligence Estimates are intended to represent the consensus of our intelligence agencies. The NIE that was produced in the fall of 2002 said with a "high level of confidence"--which is a defined term, expressing the greatest degree of confidence that the intelligence agencies ever express--that Iraq possessed chemical weapons; possessed biological weapons; and was pursuing nuclear weapons. It said, with a "moderate degree of confidence," that Iraq did not yet possess nuclear weapons. In other words, the CIA and other intelligence agencies told President Bush and Congressional leaders that the possibility that Iraq already had nuclear weapons was greater than the possibility that it did not have either biological or chemical weapons.The idea that it was somehow incumbent on President Bush (but not, of course, Democrats in Congress) to cherry-pick the intelligence on Iraq by publicizing minority views, rather than acting on the consensus presented to the administration by the agencies, is ludicrous.
A France-based organization called the International Energy Agency — which is, of course, accountable to no one, so a favorite bully of global do-gooders — today provided a price tag for saving the world from the phony climate crisis. Brace yourself (you, too, polar bears ... Oh, I see that you're already well braced; seated and with the proper beverages):
TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
At least that outfit throws a bone to the idea of "maintaining steady economic growth," fantastical though it might be. I'm at a loss as to how diverting what amounts to three times the size of the current U.S. economy away from profitable and practical endeavors to a central-planning scheme maintains robust economic growth. Perhaps I'm a little rusty in my Marxist economics.
One of my favorite passages in this story is this:
"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
"Unprecedented" means nothing less a massive transfer of the world's economies into the hands of select bureaucrats and less freedom. And that "immediate policy action" doesn't include the United States at least not today. It is clear, however, that we will never get to our bright future of hemp-powered cars and electrical grids run by Leprechan dust without the developing nations getting on board. Well, count India out.
“India is struggling to bring millions of people out of poverty. We cannot accept binding commitments to cut down greenhouse gas emission,” Meena said at a function to mark the World Environment Day.
What a bunch of selfish jerks. Don't they know that Calcutta's poor will be among the first to drown? Don't they know that it is more noble to sacrifice their people and participate in tithing to the Cult of Environmentalism?
Van Helsing at Moonbattery has a take on this, too:
Since that kind of money simply is not available to flush down the toilet in the name of a debunked hoax, maybe we should just drop the whole thing and move on to the next phony crisis.
Van Helsing also notes the sad fact that both Obama and (sigh) McCain, if they were not too busy campaigning, would have voted for the Senate bill that brings us down the road to this madness.
(HT: Newsbusters for the funny photo)
Although Barack Obama is 99.99 percent certain to be the Democratic nominee for president, he faces some major challenges in the general election. Kurt Anderson elaborates on 10 biggies in New York Magazine this week. If I'm reading him right, Anderson, who is an Obama supporter, seems to be girding for a loss. As one commenter put it, "With supporters like you, who needs detractors?"
Well, with candidates like Obama, who needs Republican opposition researchers? Obama, who worked so diligently to frame himself as the "post-racial" candidate, is beset with race hustlers, black separatists and radicals.
Juan Williams argues in Friday's Wall Street Journal that Obama needs to tackle the race issue. Except Obama needs to be honest about it this time:
The heart of Mr. Obama's problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today's racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.
Mr. Obama also has to raise the bar for how political criticism is handled in his camp. Step one is to acknowledge that not every critic is a racist. His very liberal record and his limited experience, like his association with Rev. Wright, is a fact, not the work of white racists. Just as he calls for the GOP not to engage in the politics of fear over terrorism, Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.
Only by admitting to his own sins can Mr. Obama credibly claim that he has seen the promise of our country, in which Americans of all colors work together. Only then can he convince dubious white voters that he is ready to move beyond racial antagonism and be their president.
My prediction: Not gonna happen. Obama's experience and his choice of friends and "spiritual advisers" practically forecloses any such option. Also: Would most voters understand what Obama was trying to do? Or would Americans dismiss another race speech from Obama as an act of political opportunism? The question practically answers itself.
The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks — who is apparently not at pudgy as this picture on the right, and has been cleaned up a bit by his criminal captors at Gitmo — is asking for the ultimate punishment for trying to slaughter 50,000 people, but only getting 3,000 of us.
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, told a military judge at his arraignment Thursday that he welcomes the death penalty as a way to martyrdom and ridiculed the proceedings as an "inquisition."
I'm usually not a big fan of giving our terrorists enemies what they want. But if KSM wants to be dispatched to his 72 virgins horned hags in Paradise Hell, I'm willing to make an exception. I wouldn't necessarily object to doin' it old-school Muslim — with a rusty scimitar.
I took my son to see "Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull" last night. Now I know what a geriatric action picture looks like.
It was just OK -- not terrible but not anything close to good. It was so relaxed. I don't think I've ever seen so many slow high-speed chases.
Anyway, Joel was right. So was Dirty Harry. Blame Lucas, Spielberg and Ford for phoning it in for a huge payday. Blame Lucas mostly. Can't blame that guy enough.
I spent an afternoon on my wife's Mac -- while she was actually working -- recording vocals and laying down the loop tracks in GarageBand, then making captions for the music in iMovie, finally uploading the whole thing to YouTube.
No, I'm obviously not proud:
I'm certain this will persuade somebody to give me a job in the high-stakes intellectual world of national punditry. (Sigh.)
Jon at Exurban League has seen the future of Obama's first term in office. And it's not pretty — but brilliantly funny. He looks into his crystal ball and gives us some excerpts of our next president's future public pronouncements.
A sampling:
January 20, 2009 "I thank you and the world thanks you, for choosing love over hate, hope over fear, and diplomacy over warfare. Today we finally begin the work of caring for our sick, giving jobs to the jobless, cooling our fevered planet, lowering the ocean levels, making the blind see, the lame walk..."June 1, 2010
"Like Press Secretary Olbermann said, it's all about my superior judgment..."June 24, 2010
"As a nation we offer our sincere condolences to the people of Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. I warned Congress that banning Iran from purchasing superior targeting technology could result in unnecessary collateral damage. But we assure everyone in the region that America will help you rebuild your communities as soon as we receive approval from the United Nations. And once the radiation levels are safe again..."
Really, read the whole thing. And check out more of the Exurban League's humor section. Just don't have a mouthful of coffee when you start, or you'll be making a trip to the computer geek store.
As the token liberal around here, I'd like to ask my friends -- Ben and Z, particularly -- what they make of this:
A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
Because, well, it troubles me. I suspect that you guys and I can broadly agree that untrammeled executive power is undesirable in a constitutional republic such as ours, but I also suspect that we might diverge on whether the original "warrantless wiretapping" program is an example of the phenomenon.
Here's what it looks like to me: There was a law. The president broke the law -- or use "circumvented" or any other more polite term, if you like -- and now we have the Republican presidential candidate on record as approving of the law-breaking.
And let me further add this: What I really don't get is when folks cry out "tyranny" when a state court decides to let a dude marry another dude, but remain silent or supportive in the face of a president's decision to break the law in order to spy on people. If I had to make a dictionary definition of tyranny, I guess I'd be more likely to use the second example.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Here's the feel-good story of the year: Guy gets cancer. Doctors say, odds are, guy is dead in a year. Probably less. Guy says, "Hell, I'll take those odds!" Guy places bets with bookies around town. Guy cashes in.
Lest Californians forget who their real rulers are, the state's highest court on Wednesday denied a motion to stay last month's 4-3 decision legalizing same-sex marriage. In doing so, the justices gave activist lawyers across the country the go-ahead to sue in every state. But just as vital, the state supreme court has made a huge in-kind contribution to the nascent campaign against a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the court's "unusually quick" decision this week means counties must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, even though voters will decide in November whether to protect and retain the venerable definition of marriage in the Golden State.
Understand what that means: Four justices not only tossed a 2000 vote in which Californians defined marriage explicitly as a union between a man and a woman, but they have now acted to undermine a measure that would amend the state's constitution to the same effect. Thousands of gay couples will be married in California between now and November. As the Times reports, "A soon-to-be-released study by the Williams Institute at UCLA's School of Law predicts that thousands of gay couples will rush to the altar before the November election" -- perhaps as many as 20,000.
It isn't difficult to imagine how the opponents of the marriage amendment would exploit that figure in TV and radio ads. Andrew Sullivan gets right to the point: "If voters are asked to decide on the abstract question of marriage equality, they respond differently than if they are asked to decide about civil marriages already in existence." What a handful of judges has joined together, let no "mean-spirited" ballot initiative tear asunder.
Joel and I tackle the same-sex marriage issue in our Scripps-Howard column this week. Joel argues that "Opponents of gay unions know they're losing momentum -- that tolerance for discrimination is diminishing. So they concentrate their objections on the process -- which is, eternally, never good enough unless it produces the right result." I disagree, of course. Joel is referring to the hopeless rear-guard tactic by the New York State legislature aimed at blocking same-sex marriage in the Empire State. I argue (about as well as I can in 200 words) that there is a far more principled reason for opposing same-sex marriage, and one that does not require appeals to scripture or tradition. And equality has nothing to do with it.
(By the way, the Boychuk and Mathis column is available for free on the Scripps-Howard wire. If your local paper doesn't carry it, contact the opinion editor and tell 'em they should.)
(And another thing! The picture is from the San Francisco Chronicle in 2004 and shows Davina Kotulski and Molly McKay. I knew Molly at UC San Diego. She was my orientation leader at Revelle College and I was on friendly terms with her for a couple of years. I wish her much happiness with her partner. But while Molly's relationship with Davina is obviously deep and loving, it isn't and shouldn't be a marriage.)
Zaius is rightly skeptical that Hillary Clinton will concede the Democratic presidential nomination quickly or easily. It isn't tough to discern why: Obama lost his sheen of invincibility about eight weeks ago. Whereas Obama might or might not be able to beat John McCain, Hillary almost certainly could. Hillary won key battleground states; Obama won lots of smaller, redder states. As Clinton herself put in in her New York Daily News op-ed on May 25:
Delegate math might be complicated -- but electoral math is not. Our campaign is winning the popular vote -- and we've been winning the swing states we need to get 270 electoral votes and take back the White House: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and West Virginia.
That logic holds up as well today as it did last week, not withstanding Barack Obama's delegates.
But suppose Hillary Clinton means what she says, says what she means, and finally bows out this weekend. Will she leave Obama a fabulous parting gift? Possibly.
You've read about the latest Michelle Obama rumor, I'm sure. These rumors don't just start themselves. And they gain momentum because, let's face it, they're believable, even if such rumors are deplorable and perhaps easily disproved.
James Taranto on Wednesday linked to yet another unfavorable report about Obama's alleged association with the Nation of Islam, and speculated on the story's origins. "The WND piece about Obama and the Nation of Islam certainly looks like the product of Clinton opposition research," Taranto writes. "It could be Republican in origin, we suppose, but the timing -- five months before the general election -- does not seem ideal for John McCain. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has made clear that she is not throwing in the towel."
Why hasn't Clinton dropped the oppo-bomb already? She's still angling for vice president, for one thing. She has made too many noises about party unity. And the fickle press would eat her alive if she were too obvious about such a craven ploy.
And one more thing. As the American Thinker's Thomas Lifson notes, politics really does make for strange bedfellows:
Hillary Clinton continues to enjoy a string of unanticipated gifts from unlikely allies. Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos brought out significant numbers of voters in key primaries. Republican opposition research efforts turn up damaging material so far in advance of the election that keeping it secret throughout the primary season has been difficult. Not a few Republicans, not to mention her angry Democrat supporters, want to see her stay in the race for their own reasons, but when political survival is at stake, any help is received, gratefully or not.
I think Lifson's analysis is exactly right, and it dovetails nicely with Zaius's earlier observation. In my weaker moments, I can easily see Bill and Hillary and their surrogates working delegates on the convention floor coming out of a battering summer of one setback after another for Obama. Unity, my foot. This is power politics, folks. Never count the Clintons out. Never, ever.
(UPDATE: Hillary now says she'll get out on Saturday. Sure. Then it will be Sunday, then Tuesday. Then, "Hey, I need time to get my thoughts together. Let's do this a week from Thursday." Next thing you know, she's postponed her announcement all the way to the convention.)
Or so says ABC News this afternoon. Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it — which means waiting until the monotone words actually float out of her gaping maw. And I'm not the only one who is so skeptical.
Undoubtedly the rush of superdelegates to Obama before the polls in Montana and South Dakota closed Tuesday had a lot to do with it. She's stayed in this long because she figured, with good reason, that she could win a knife fight on the convention floor.
But, it appears, there are not enough arms to twist within reach; not enough time to make threats that she could keep. When even Charlie Rangel has had enough, it's time to pack it in.
Besides, no less an authority than George Lucas says The Force is with Obama.
"We have a hero in the making back in the United States today because we have a new candidate for president of the United States, Barack Obama," Lucas said when asked who his childhood heroes were.Obama, "for all of us that have dreams and hope, is a hero," Lucas said.
Lucas is a grown-up, right?
The leading ambassador to the world, who is a rock star in his spare time, has come up with a great idea. All the nations of Africa should unite as the United States of Africa.
TOKYO (AFP) — Pop star and activist Bono has called for the creation of a United States of Africa, saying that a pan-continental identity would serve as a catalyst for resolving its conflicts.The U2 frontman, who was in Japan to take part in a major development conference last week, said that a United States of Africa "would be the dream" in the long term.
"I think a kind of broader African identity is going to be very important to deal with tribal tensions," Bono told Tuesday's Asahi Shimbun, where he served as a guest-editor for a special Africa edition on Saturday.
The Irish rock star said that developing a broader identity may seem largely "poetic," but has been proven successful.
Bono says that the Irish used to "giggle when they would see Americans saluting their flags in schools, and then the whole standing there, singing the flag thing."
Hey, mate. "Singing the flag thing" is called joining in the singing of the national anthem. We also say that Pledge of Allegiance thingy that internationalist liberals like you still giggle at — if not cringe at its "scary" nationalistic devotion. You know, the Nazis used to salute their flag and mouth pledges. Slippery slope to tyranny and all that.
Well, Bono has changed his — er — tune:
"But as you get to know a little bit more about things, you start to think, ah, there's so many different tribal groups in the United States, that to create a national identity of that size, they had to really work at this kind of patriotism," he said.
Yikes! The use of the word "patriotism" in a non-sneering, non-ironic way. Nice going, Bono. Yes, the American story can be described as a victory of national unity over tribalism. And it does take work, decades and centuries worth of it — of which a key part is dismissing the aims of international busy-bodies and exerting a sense of national unity and confidence in a unique, shared American culture.
Frankly, I'm a little skeptical of the idea of a citizen of the world like Bono endorsing the American Way. And the tribalism of Africa is a little different than the "tribalism" of the United States. For instance, we Americans don't have a history of slaughtering each other by the hundreds of thousands with machetes. That's pretty standard stuff on the Dark Continent.
Bono has his heart in the right place. But, like most internationalists, he's hopelessly naive.
(HT: K-Lo at The Corner)
This is a sad story out of New Orleans. A mentally ill man, Eric Minshew, was shot and killed by police after a 10-hour stand-off which included Minshew shooting and killing a police dog.
Oh, and before that, Minshew chased away inspectors from FEMA -- there to check out the run-down government trailer still on his property -- by threatening them with a handgun.
As I read this tragic tale, one of the first things I wondered was why Katrina victims are still living on the government dole in rundown trailers. It's been three years, now.
Second, I was waiting for the left side of the blogosphere to call this yet another instance of FEMA incompetence, and to excoriate Bush (again) to boot. I didn't wait very long.
Not under Canada's Orwellian human rights laws, anyway. Among the other defenses not allowed: innocent intent, fair comment, the public interest, good faith or responsible journalism. Oh, and there are no rules of evidence, either. But just because the Human Rights Commission has a 100 percent conviction rate, that doesn't mean the law is biased or undermines freedom of speech in any way. Star Chamber, anyone?
Andrew Coyne is liveblogging the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal's show trial of the preposterous complaint against MacLean's magazine and Mark Steyn. (Steyn himself is making a mockery of the sham.) The center-right magazine stands accused of inciting hatred against Canadian Muslims for reprinting portions of Steyn's book, America Alone. Read the posts, read the comments, read everything you can about this fiasco, then get on your knees and thank Allah for the First Amendment.
Richard Adams at No Left Turns raises a couple of great questions and makes a cutting point: "If publishing things critical of Islam can be construed as a hate crime, would the very presence of churches and synagogues be hateful to Muslims? Wouldn’t their very existence imply that Mohammad was a false prophet and that the Koran was written by human hands? Surely, Canada’s 'Human Rights' bureaucrats ought to construe that is an insult to all good Muslims."
Best possible outcome: MacLean's and Steyn lose and face censure. A public outcry ensues. They appeal to Canada's Supreme Court and have the entire tyrannical apparatus thrown out. Freedom of speech is not merely an "American concept," as one blinkered human rights "mediator" put it. It's a cornerstone of any democracy worthy of the name.
Is Canada still a free country? We'll know soon enough.
Here is the great historian David McCullough, speaking to the graduating class of Boston College on May 19:
"Facts alone are never enough. Facts rarely if ever have any soul. In writing or trying to understand history one may have all manner of 'data,' and miss the point. One can have all the facts and miss the truth. It can be like the old piano teacher's lament to her student, 'I hear all the notes, but I hear no music.'If information were learning, you could memorize the World Almanac and call yourself educated. If you memorized the World Almanac, you wouldn't be educated. You'd be weird!"
Yes! How true! Facts are indispensable. But without wisdom and experience, what have you got?
McCollough went on to exhort the graduates to "Read. Read, read! Read the classics of American literature that you've never opened. Read your country's history. How can we profess to love our country and take no interest in its history? Read into the history of Greece and Rome. Read about the great turning points in the history of science and medicine and ideas."
Very well. I'm off to read, then.
Remember that New York Times op-ed saying that Barack Obama was a Muslim apostate who would create more anger against America in the Middle East? Apparently it's B.S.:
I interviewed five Islamic scholars, at five American universities, recommended by a variety of sources as experts in the field. All of them said that Luttwak’s interpretation of Islamic law was wrong.David Shipley, the editor of the Op-Ed page, said Luttwak’s article was vetted by editors who consulted the Koran, associated text, newspaper articles and authoritative histories of Islam. No scholars of Islam were consulted because “we do not customarily call experts to invite them to weigh in on the work of our contributors,” he said.
That’s a pity in this case, because it might have sparked a discussion about whether Luttwak’s categorical language was misleading, at best.
Interestingly, in defense of his own article, Luttwak sent me an analysis of it by a scholar of Muslim law whom he did not identify. That scholar also did not agree with Luttwak that Obama was an apostate or that Muslim law would prohibit punishment for any Muslim who killed an apostate. He wrote, “You seem to be describing some anarcho-utopian version of Islamic legalism, which has never existed, and after the birth of the modern nation state will never exist.”
