The Necessity of Tony Blair

Bull Moose has a great piece on the moral leadership of Tony Blair. Moose points out how Blair has been steadfast in the fight against jihadism, even moreso than some of our own leaders. In many ways, the War on Terror is an example of muscular liberalism. Tony Blair is a true progressive, so he gets it, infinitely more than Bush does. Blair has risked his political future on this, and holds the line despite being highly unpopular, even in his own Party. Two things have always amazed me about Blair: The fact that he was willing to strike against the Taliban in Afghanistan even if we didn't, and the fact that in past speeches, he has a made a better case for American leadership in the world than many Americans. Here's an excerpt from the piece:

And courageous leaders like Blair are viciously slandered by Lilliputians who would rather see America and the West defeated than genuine progressives vindicated. Some of the the lefties who trumpet their own moral superiority increasingly find themselves objectively serving the interests of the Zarqawis who seek to drive us out of Iraq by weakening our will. They virtually celebrate every American setback while remaining mute in the face of the homicidal terror of the enemy. These are the same folks who lament the failure of America to intervene in Darfur, but would be just fine with leaving Iraq to become a ethnic cleansing mass killing field.

Read the whole thing.

Why I'm Not A Republican, Example One

Because lack-witted poltroonery like this is given safe harbor.

Hat tip: Booker Rising

A Few Thoughts..

On the controversy over Mary Cheney's new book, and the related controversy over the "antics" in the 2004 campaign, I found an old gem by Andrew Sullivan that hits the nail right on the head.

Oh, and during that search, I found a great piece from a while back by Johann Hari on a completely unrelated topic, the late Jacques Derrida. He says what I've been thinking for a while.

Just some random thoughts. It's late.

In Mubarak's Egypt, They Put Bloggers in Jail

There's a rising internet and blogging campaign to support the cause of Alaa Abd El-Fatah, a prominent Egyptian blogger who was arrested for his pro-democracy views at a peaceful protest in Cairo. The fight is for his freedom, of course. The Free Alaa blog has details on activism (Google bombs, etc).

Sandmonkey has even more details.

Hat tip: Marc Cooper

Vox Populi? I Think Not

For your edification, consider this definition of hysteria:

hys·ter·i·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-str-, -stîr-)n.
Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

And now, for your further education/horror, consider this example.

To those who support the so-called Minutemen, call me all the names you want. I'm not pro-amnesty. I'm for sense and rational debate.

To the counter-protesters, just remember to keep in peaceful as always.

Pandering

Well this was a greaaat idea. Governor, for God's sake, do you really think it wise to openly pander to people who will never vote Democratic?

Look, I get the idea the idea that the image of the Democratic Party as "godless" is utterly false. I get that that image must be countered and debunked. The thing is, pandering is not the answer.

Caitlin Flanagan's Cri de Coeur to the Democratic Party

Note to the Party elite: You really ought to read this. A lot of us Democrats really think you should.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Immigration Overreach?

Just as they said they would, millions of immigrants, illegal and legal, took to the streets, and implemented nationwide boycotts. They're calling it "A Day Without Immigrants." They're walking off their jobs, walking out of school, and refusing to buy American goods. Their intent was to show the economic impact that illegals and undocumented workers have on our economy. The marches are filled with a lot of American flags ( a lot more U.S. flags, and a lot less Mexican flags are being flown). They're trying to show their support for American ideals, and as far as thry're concerned, their desire to be a part of America.

The economic impact has been clear. The thing is, will this backfire? Was this an overreach? It's one thing to remind people how much economic influence illegals have. It's another thing to actually show them. The fact is, people are taking a hit, and it may cause a backlash. This may have been the thing the hardline opponents of illegal immigration were waiting for. Could this have played into their hands?

One has to wonder if these protests, despite the creeping radicalism (many protesters are calling for amnesty, and some evidence of real live anti-Americanism), haven't forced people to come to terms with their argument. How can you one hand begrudge them for walking off their jobs, while decrying them for even being here on the other? While I think this approach runs the risk of alienating the people who'd be otherwise supportive, many legal immigrants are a part of these rallies, and you have to admit-they've gotten our attention.

I must say though, while every movement has its extremists, it's extremely important that the radicals don't become too involved in this. The last thing you want to do is to go too far, and empower the critics.

Hollywood and 9/11

The new film United 93 was released on Friday. As I'm sure we all know, this is the movie that attempts to recapture the events of 9/11, from the destructions of the towers, and the hijacking of the plane itself. I've not seen it yet-I plan to see it this week, but I've heard that its beyond intense, and that viewers will relive those events as if they were there.

There's been talk that the early turnout's been somewhat lacking. In other words, a lot of people aren't going to see the film. Numerous theories are going around as to why. Many have suggested that blue staters aren't going to see it because of Bush, etc, and that many conservatives aren't going because they don't trust Hollywood to get it right, so to speak.

Frankly, I don't think politics really play a role on this. Call me naive, but I think most mainstream Americans understand what 9/11 meant. I think the problem is, some people have almost forgotten. I say some, because I suspect a whole lot of people, chiefly the 9/11 families and those living in New York and D.C. haven't forgotten. They live it everyday. It's reasonable then to assume that many people aren't ready to see it again onscreen. I'm not going to judge them. People have to make up their own minds.

As for me personally, I choose to see it to remember. I think a lot of us do need to remember. As for Hollywood's motives, I think conservatives are prejudging. Hollywood's liberalism notwithstanding, one ought to see the movie first. For all of Hollywood's uneasiness about war, I'd like to think they at least get the genereal idea that 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, and heroes gave their lives. Besides, the real driving force behind Hollywood isn't really liberalism, but lucre. Remember when everybody predicted that Fahrenheit 9/11 would sweep the Oscars, and Hollywood would try to sway the '04 election? What happened? Michael Moore overreached, and his vulgar propaganda piece received nothing. The Passion wasn't even hyped, and it got four Oscar nods (not that Hollywood was behind the Passion either. My point is that Hollywood knows the game.

People should make up their minds as always. I really don't think we should let politics and political motives overtake this movie. God knows, there's enough politicization of 9/11 as it is.

On Immigration, Part II

It seems that my previous post on illegal immigration has drawn a lot of criticism. I predicted as much. You know what though, maybe this was a misunderstanding. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could've been. If I came off as self-righteous, that wasn't my intent. I do feel that many accusations were laid against my argument that have no basis in fact. I'm just going to tackle these all at once.

The intent of my first post was to make the point that the debate on illegal immigration, as with many other issues in America today, has been full of hysteria, demagoguery, and erroneous claims on both sides. No real reforms can happen if we're not honest about what's going on.

I think the approach the the House Republicans have chosen, and many support, of making illegals into felons, is the wrong approach. It is, and has always been a misdemeanor. I think it is unrealistic and unfeasible to try and deport 12 million illegals, especially without having a comprehensive plan to deal with the larger problem.

I'm against placing all the blame on the people coming here for a better life (albeit illegally), without placing due blame on the corporations who exploit these people for cheap labor. You won't stop illegal immigration unless you stop it at the source.

I'm for securing the borders. There are a lot of options here. A fence. More border agents. Maybe we do need some national guard troops.

I'm for paths to legalization for iillegals already here (Most of these people are hartdworking-and no contribute to the economy). I'm not for amnesty. Make them pay fines, and back taxes, and work out a compromise. I think the Senate bill had those here for five years become part of guest worker plan, and those here for less than that go back. The specifics can be worked out. My point is, a compromise is going to have to happen, because we're stuck between a lot of hard choices.

This is not, and I have never called it a civil rights issue, at least not in THAT sense.

Concerns about absorbing millions of new immigrants, and assimilation are valid, but those concerns are for later in the game. Besides, these are concerns we must tackle even with legal immigrants, so that shouldn't really play a part in the current debate.

To be honest with you, I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be. I'm just putting out my thoughts. For those who want to debate, I only ask that you stick to what I actually said, and not what others have said.

On Immigration, and Other Thoughts

OK. I get it. The immigration issue is a big deal for a lot of people. Frankly, I've been putting off posting on it because I'm trying to incorporate everything that's been happening over the last few months. I stand amazed at the lunacy that has taken over a lot of this debate. I'd love to tell you that both sides are equally extreme here, but honestly, the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd has earned a lot of the scorn here. As far as some people are concerned, if you're treating illegal immigrants like human beings, and not like felons, or if you recognize the unfeasibility of deporting 12 million illegals, you're for amnesty. If you think illegals ought to have a legal way of obtaining citizenship, you're a traitor to the laws. If you recognize that most of these people are hardworking, decent people who want a better life, you're for cheap labor. This debate has lost its balance. I know of no mainstream politician who has called for amnesty. I know of no mainstream politician saying that illegals shouldn't go to the back of the line. Yet all we hear about is how people who advocate a common sense approach want to reward criminals.

Let's be clear: The hardliners want to make these people into felons. They want troops on the border. They support uncouth vigilantes like the so-called Minutemen. They want to criminalize those who show compassion. Heck, there's even been a call for outright murder. THAT is what those protests were about. The Mexican flags bothered a lot of people. I get that, but I really think that was a cultural sign of solidarity, as if to say, "they're proud of the heritage."

Are there radicals amongst the protesters? Sure there are. Some do want amnesty. A radical few even want open borders. Many of the upcoming protests appear to be taking a more radical turn. I think that's the wrong approach. Let me say again, that is the wrong approach.

All I'm saying is that we need a common-sense approach to this problem. I don't think anyone's suggesting we do nothing. Most Americans regardless of Party recognize that there's a problem. We need secure borders. We need paths to legalization (not amnesty), and we need to punish those corporations who exploit undocumented workers and illegals. What we don't need is lunacy. What we don't need is self-righteous moralism. What we don't need is the unreconstructed paranoia of the likes of the John Birch Society.

Oh I can hear it now. I'll be called a left-wing smear artist, an open-borders advocate, a race-baiter, and an extremist by some. But I choose to take the position of that raving, America-hating moonbat named George W. Bush.

Oh, and in another related story, there's an uproar over a new Spanish version of the Star Spangled Banner. It's been done, according to the man behind this, to highlight America's immigrant heritage, and show support for the ideals of the anthem. The thing is, a lot of people aren't happy, and see this as a unpatriotic usurpation:

Some Internet bloggers and others are infuriated by the thought of "The Star-Spangled Banner" sung in a language other than English.

"Would the French accept people singing the La Marseillaise in English as a sign of French patriotism? Of course not," said Mark Krikorian, head of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter immigration controls.

An interesting point, but the French handle their language a lot differently then we do, and we have a different policy concerning Spanish and English. I suspect THAT's the heart of the criticism here. I fail to see how a translation undermines a work, as long as the main themes and design are preserved. If the Declaration was translated into Spanish, is that a usurpation? I suspect that politics of immigration are the real issue here, and if this were any other language (except probably Arabic-which would unleash an even bigger firestorm), this story would have fallen off the radar.


UPDATE: You know, I was thinking the whole Spanish anthem thing over, and while I don't impugn the motives of those involved (despite the obvious politics behind it), tradition does matter. I tried to understand part of their argument by considering the anthem in the context of other literary works (books, etc), but it really doesn't fit. The Star Spangled Banner is the anthem, and it was written in English. Many of the words are changed, including the title itself. I'm having trouble with it being changed. To be honest, I'm kind of against it being changed. Again, I don't think they're trying to incur the wrath of the people here, but I fear it's coming.

Oh, and in an unrelated story, Rosie O'Donnell is replacing Meredith Vieira on The View. Uh-huh, that's EXACTLY what that show needs.

What? I really mean that! I'm sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

Ok, it was.

Well, So Much For Loyalty

Look, I've had my issues with Joe Lieberman, but on foreign policy matters, he's on the right track. The way I see it, even if you disagree with him on Iraq, it's shameful to just abandon him just because you disagree with his position on the war. It seems that the activist Lefty Dems in Connecticut disagree, and are running liberal challenger Ned Lamont against Lieberman. Lieberman's tried to cool things down, and he's still got a lot of support. He's even considered running as an independent.

You know what? I'll say it again: The Connecticut Dems ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is just more proof that the deal-breaker for a number of partisan Dems is the war in Iraq, while for Republicans, it's immigration. This is utter foolishness. Lieberman has my support, and I think it's a bad plan to abandon candidates just because they happen to support the war.

Yeah, I Think He's Right

My long-advertised post on illegal immigration will be done by Wednesday, but I just wanted to preview it by pointing out that President Bush has the right idea.

More to follow..

A Few Words On The Leak, and Other Things

As all of you ought to know by now, a top-ranking CIA officer has been fired for leaking information about CIA secret prisons. Her name is Mary O. McCarthy, and she is a seasoned officer, on the verge of retirement. It's also been reported that she was a donor to the Kerry campaign, and to the Democratic Party in general. She's close with Joe Wilson, Sandy Berger, and Richard Clarke.

Politically, you know how this looks. The right-wing blogosphere has gone into full assault mode as usual, entertaining all manner of conspiracies about collusion with the Democrats. To them, she's a politically-motivated traitor, who because of her hatred of Bush, has aided al-qaeda. To them, she's just another in a long line of politically motivated leaks designed to undermine the Administration, and the nation. Put her jail, they cry.

First off, I'm going to do my duty and reject the idea that this MUST be a partisan stunt. There isn't sufficient evidence to make such judgments. I'll seriously entertain the possibility that she honestly felt that these secret prisons were illegal or immoral, and took a moral stand.

Regardless, she still broke the rules, and was right to be fired. There are legal avenues for dealing with things like this legally. She could've gone to Congress. Maybe she did. Maybe she felt she had no other recourse, considering the political environment. Perhaps this will help her out if prosecuted, but she still broke the law. One does have to pay the penalties in these situations, no? They make you sign secrecy agreements. She surely must have known the rules.

The illegality of her actions notwithstanding, as I said before I'm not ready to dismiss her as a fifth-column partisan hack. Her motivations don't really get her off the hook, but it's entirely possible she was doing what she felt was her patriotic duty. Of course, pro-Bush types will scoff at this, pointing out her political contributions as supposedly slam-dunk proof of her malice. Honestly, I'm going to wait and see how this plays out.

I do want to return to a larger point that I touched on a few months ago. Before I go any further, I feel am I forced to preface the proceeding statements with the fact that I am a committed supporter of the Global War on Terror, and I feel that the President must have broad tools in dealing with the terror threat. That being said, these powers must be checked by Congress and the Constitution. I do not believe the President has virtually unlimited power during wartime. I have serious concerns about the legality of the NSA wiretapping/warrantless surveillance program. It seems to me, and a whole slew of legal experts, that the way this program was implemented might be illegal. It goes against FISA. The arguments for the legality of this program are at least debatable. As I've said, it's not really the spying that bothers me, rather the underlying argument of inter arma, enim silent leges.

I watched those hearings intently. No one has yet to explain why submitting the program to FISA is bad. I understand that speed and flexibility are essential post 9/11. I get that. The thing that makes this whole thing tougher is that this program appears to have actually thwarted attacks. I don't want this program to die. I want the legal issues settled. For the record, despite my concerns, I thought the Feingold censure was ill-advised. It presumes a deliberate attempt to subvert the law, and bad faith. The question was asked, whether Bush and his team honestly believed this program was legal. I've no doubt that they do. They really believe in the whole idea of inherent authority in wartime. In their view, not only is the program legal, but FISA is actually unconstitutional. In their minds, it's not the President that's abusing power, but Congress. Oh yes, they believe in their argument, but they reject even the slightest possibility that their view is wrong. To them, the idea of debating this is undermining the war. All those Democrats and concerned Republicans are just playing politics. Who gives a damn about the law?

Of course there are those who see any attempt to fight the GWOT as another attempt by Bush to rule over us. To them, Iraq is an illegal immoral war, and Bush is to blame for everything. You've heard those rants before too.

The thing is, the underlying premise of "anything goes in war" is really driving a lot of furor on the pro-Bush right. That's why the fury is unleashed on the leakers, and the critics in the press, and Congressional Democrats, but not the administration. Shoot the messenger, in other words.

So, this new leak story will develop further, and the Right will bombard us with conspiracies about Democrats and the CIA trying to turn us all into dhimmis. Many on the right have committed themselves to the idea that Democrats are colluding with the enemy already, so this is just more red meat for them.

Once again, everyday Americans are subjected to the same lame exercise. Thankfully, the brave patriots actually fighting the war manage to rise above this nonsense. They've got more important work to do.

The Euston Manifesto

There is a new liberal/progressive/Left-wing movement in the works, that involves a global commitment of discerning liberals committed to fight against terror. Most of them, like myself, are pro-war muscular liberals, but not all. There is diversity of opinion; not everyone was for Iraq, and there are obvious differences over other policy issues, but the overall mission is good. That is why I support it. I know it's a few days late, but here is their announcement:

Today, 13Apr06, we — bloggers, academics, campaigners, writers, scientists, journalists, citizens — launch the Euston Manifesto. With this document we hope to publicly assert our progressive, democratic, egalitarian, internationalist principles in the face of recent attacks upon them from the Right and, to our dismay, the Left.Many of us are of the Left, but we come from across the range of political positions. We are not founding a political party. There were differences amongst us over Western military intervention in Iraq. Our declaration is not definitive, final, or perfect; it is, we hope, the beginning of a renewed debate, grounded in a common set of progressive values. You can read and sign the document at our Website where donations towards our costs are also welcome.Comments are closed on this announcement alone because that is all this post is: an announcement. We simply want to launch this movement in a co-ordinated way and make sure there is time for people to understand exactly what we stand for before criticising it. We welcome discussion of the Euston Manifesto across blogs, in the media, and in the public world and intend that the Euston Manifesto Group, the organisation founded upon the manifesto's principles, will promote such debate by organising meetings, sponsoring seminars, and publishing ideas.

Think it over, and then stand up and be counted.

England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty

And when you don't, you might find yourself in jail. As with all deserters, I've no sympathy for this scoundrel.

It's Been An Interesting Couple Of Days

OK, so Tom DeLay has given up his bid for re-election and given up his seat. At last, the long nightmare is over. DeLay was the living embodiment of all that was ugly and foul in the GOP, and the country is bettered by his departure, although I suspect that while DeLay is gone, DeLayism still endures.

The country is abuzz with more pro-immigration/anti-anti-immigrant protests. I still plan to do an extensive post on my thoughts on this issue.

To the woman who foolishly let that young boy's mother die: You've done wrong. You ALWAYS assume that the emergency is real, even when it's not. Lives hang in the balance.

Oh yeah, and a mutant, killer death-rabbit is loose in London. No, I'm not kidding.

Where There Is No Vision, Democrats Keep Losing Elections

The Democrtaic leadership has released their plan for national security. That's right, another one. The ideas aren't bad, they're just boring and unoriginal. You don't combat flawed leadership with uninspired leadership.

There's a great post on this over at Democracy Arsenal.

If You'll Scroll To The Bottom...

I've added something new. It's the great web comic, Rockwood. I hope you'll enjoy as much as I do.

BTW, I like the Boondocks a great deal. I've got no beef with the Boondocks, in case anyone was wondering.

Also, I'm planning on posting my thoughts on the immigration bruhaha in a day or two, in case any of the millions I delude myself into thinking read this blog daily are interested. Moving up, one stone at a time.

The "Undisputed" Facts (Or, What I Think Reasonable People Should Agree On)

Let it be known first off that I am, for all intents and purposes a supporter of the war in Iraq. I supported the war in the beginning (with some reservations about timing), and my support really has not wavered. That being said, I recognize that a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq, and a lot of things went down in a way they shouldn't have. Regardless, it is clear to me that we were justified in removing Saddam, and while he was not directly involved in 9/11, he was a long-term threat that needed to be dealt with. The debate over this war, and the justifications will rage on for years to come. There is plenty of room for debate on the war, pro or con, but I submit that in order to have an honest and serious debate of this war (and the larger War on Terror), reasonable people must recognize these seven facts to be undisputed:

1. America was hit with an unprovoked attack on 9/11, by radical Islamists who want to destroy us. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. America did NOTHING to deserve this attack.

2. America has an obligation to confront all clear terrorist threats. This does not always mean open war, but if military force is required, we must be ready.

3. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, murderous dictator, who committed genocidal acts against his own people. He invaded his neighbors, and at one point had WMDs. He used them against his own people, and had clear designs to use them against us at one point.

4. Saddam's removal is a good thing for the free world, and for the Iraqi people.

This is a value judgment, but one I think all of us should agree on.

5. The war was not illegal, as it was backed by U.N resolution, and the Iraq War Resolution in Congress.

6. Our troops, all of them, are heroes, who are fighting for a noble cause.

Again, another value judgment, but also one I think reasonable people can agree upon.

7. Criticism of the war is not treason, and support for the war is not apology for war crimes. Iraq is not a war crime.

These are things the all of us ought to agree upon, regardless of ideology, if we are really serious about fighting terror. Just so you know, I'm not the biggest fan of this Administration, and one could say that I support the war in spite of Bush. Many on the Left in this country really can't seem to move beyond Bush, and many on the right can't seem to suffer any criticism of him. This war on terror isn't about Bush. This war doesn't end when his term is up. We're in this for the long haul.

Considering Iraq, it's my view that a premature withdrawal is bad for everybody. I respect those who sincerely believe the contrary, but I fail to see how pulling out now helps. Perhaps gradual drawdowns can happen in the future, but many people are calling for immediate pullouts or artificial timetables. This is a flawed approach. Especially when this is real progress being made.

Before you accuse me of carrying the water for the GOP, I recognize that there are real problems. Civil war may very well come. However, real work has been done by Allied and Iraqi troops. It seems that many in the press can't resist the "if it bleeds, it leads" impulse, and only seem to focus on the negative. Some take this further, imposing their own antiwar biases on their reporting. This really does happen. Of course, the Bush-friendly press seems to only focus on the favorable coverage, and is less inclined to report the negative. Often these stories are less focused on Iraq, than trying to make Democrats look like the enemy. Their coverage is tainted with pro-war (and pro-Bush) bias, and is just as bad.

The fact is, a lot of great journalists of all stripes are doing good reporting in Iraq, that's balanced. This needs to increase.

The point of all this that all of us need to deal in sense when dealing with these issues. I've had enough of both the "Liberals are traitors" mantras, and the "Bush lied, millions died" mantras. Enough of this talk of impeachment. Enough of this talk about prosecuting journalists. This has been said to death but it bears repeating: This war is the central front on the war on terror. It doesn't matter how we got there, we're here now, and we must focus on the here and now.

Bush and the Republicans will take a hit of the prosecution of the war, and the numerous other GOP screw-ups. Most of this the GOP brought on themselves, but no political outcome should lead to a pullout of troops too early. Bush has said that he's leaving the troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. I support him on that. Not for his sake, but for the sake of the mission, and our brave troops fighting it.

Triumph and Tragedy

You know, it's stories like this that force us to realize how small and miniscule many of the problems many of us complain about are.

Some of us have it a lot worse, yet they endure.

Clooney's a Liberal, But He's No Blogger

He says so himself. I'm not even sure what to make of this.

This Woman Is A Hero Indeed

Dr. Wafa Sultan lays out the specifics of the struggle the West faces clearly and plainly, better than few others can. It's not a really clash of civilizations. It's a clash between human rights and barbarism. Free people of all religions, versus the madmen.


Thanks to Exit Zero

OK, That Was Funny

I'm sorry, but this was straight up hilarious.

Less War Talk Is Good?

Despite our current problems in Iraq, and the various mistakes by Bush, I'm stil a cautiously optimistic supporter, and still believe it was right to take out Saddam, for numerous reasons. We can debate the supposed links between Saddam and al-qaeda (certainly debatable) and WMDs, etc. on and on. The fact is, we're there, and we need to aim for the best possible victory.

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting idea. He has a quote by Neal Boortz, pointing out that he and other conservatives are still behind Bush on the war, but have aught with Bush on other issues. However, in their view, the Dems are worse. Reynolds argues that Dems should consider this, and spend less going after Bush on the war, and focus on other issues, if they want to capitalize on Republican dissatisfaction with Bush.

An interesting idea, but I think the Dems would do better if we just came up with a clear, consistent, and coherent alternative to Bush's war approach, as opposed to just criricism. A lot of the criticism is legitimate, but if the Democrats don't have a clear alternative that they can clearly put forth, we still end up looking wishy-washy.

Many conservatives are dissatisfied with the war, and only 34 percent of the country really backs Bush right now. Dems will never win the rank and file, but moderates and swing votes are up for grabs as always. The approach has to be clear though. In fact, the problem is less that the message we put out is anti-Bush, than the fact that it's not coherent.

On a sort-of side note, while I don't think the Dems should take the advice of the Michael Moore types and move to the Left, or the advice of the Zell Millers and move to the right, the problem with this whole movement thing isn't about the direction moved, but the frequency of movement.

Oh, NOW He's Had Enough?

Isaac Hayes has had enough. He's decided to quit South Park, on the grounds that the show has gone too far in their attacks on religion.

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.

Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

You know, I like Isaac Hayes, but I have to wonder what exactly they've done now to cross the line, considering all the stuff they've done in previous years.

Are you telling me that you were perfectly fine with Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo, the infamous anti-Catholic episode, The Passion of the Jew, Jesus vs. Satan (where Satan wins!!), and a lot of others, but now they've croosed the line? What was so horrible that finally exhausted your patience? Creator of the show Matt Stone gives us the answer:

"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."

It certainly seems that way.

Look, South Park has been going after religion since episode one, and many times they've gone too far in my view. But at least they've been consistent. Apparently Isaac Hayes is only concerned when they go after his religion. Christianity and Judaism are fair game, but quasi-cultic religion Scientology is off limits. Nope, that doesn't wash.


Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

The story via AP is here.

An Absurd Proposal

I watch Bill Maher every Friday night that he's on, and on a whole host of issues, he has insightful commentary. Yes, he's views on religion in general are quite bothersome, but I can look past that. It's no secret that he has no love for the Bush Administration, and I've certainly got no beef with that. One thing that has bothered me about him in recent weeks though, is his quasi-humorous/not-so-humorous flirtation with the idea of putting Saddam back in charge of Iraq.

He pointed out that he was joking the first few times he's said this, but now he's kind of serious. Whether he was serious or not, it appeared to me that Robert Baer (the former CIA-agent on which Syriana was based) basically agreed.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Maher is really thoughtfully considering this. I think it is a quasi-comedic, short-sighted call for stability in Iraq. Stability at any cost. There is a lot of chaos in Iraq, and many feel the only way this war can end is if we pull out our troops, or put in place a strong man like Saddam. This is really a rebirth of the containment approach to dealing with Saddam. Like I said, I don't think Maher wants to throw the Iraqis back under the boot, but of course we all know that would happen. The very idea of putting that monster back on the throne is an affront. We shouldn't punish the Iraqis because of our mistakes. Besides, I've always felt, that even among the most ardent war critics, the one thing we all could agree on was the Saddam being gone was a good thing.

This approach is so absurd I needn't dwell on it further. The idea that all our brave troops will have died in vain, the Iraqi soldiers fighting beside us will have died in vain, that after all that blood and treasure, that we'd just give up, throw up our hands and tell Saddam "never mind, you can have it back," it's too absurd to even consider.

Especially considering the progress we've made, and we have made real progress.

In truth, I suspect that Maher, if he's not joking, hasn't even begun to really think any of this through. Maybe he's just being controversial for its own sake. Either way, for every inch this idea moves closer to legitimacy is an inch towards defeat and the triumph of really f-ed up ideas.

But you know what, I'm worrying for nothing. No one in their right mind can really be considering this.

Worst Best Picture Choice Ever?

As you know, Crash won the Best Picture Oscar last night, upsetting Brokeback Mountain. Personally, I think the better movie won, but apparently some aren't convinced. Marc Cooper is one of those who thinks Crash was the worst choice Hollywood could have made. He's spot-on in his criticism of the over-the-top race-baiting rant by Tom Hayden, but his review of Crash is a slander against a great film.

To each his own, I guess.

"Crash" Wins Best Picture!

To that, I give a big huzzah. I am delightfully surprised. The best movie won tonight, hands down. Period. I am quite happy.

Not quite as happy as the Three-6 Mafia, but you get my drift.

Most of the other awards went as expected. Clooney. Reese. Hoffman. Weisz.

Bravo to March of the Penguins, BTW.

The UAE Port Deal, Politics, and Moderate Islam

I've been really thinking over this port deal with the UAE, and at the end of the day, I can find no compelling reason to oppose this. At worst, it's not a big deal, and at best, it's a win-win for the War on Terror, and our image around the world. I still think a thorough investigation needs to happen, to calm any honest fear, but I fear, as with a lot of issues, this story has been given over to hysteria and politics.

It has always been my belief that in order to achieve a long-term victory in the War on Terror, we must embrace moderate Islam, and moderate forces for change in th region. Democracy in Iraq will be impossible without this.

There are those among us who reject this idea, and assert that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. They don't want Arabs guarding our ports. They want profiling, and other programs in place. Some are so extreme as to engage in outright xenophobia, as seen with the latest antics of Ann Coulter, and blogs such as LGF. For some people, the very suggestion of a moderate Islam is nothing more than a closet appeal for dhimmitude. "There goes the moonbat Left again," they say. Keep in mind that most Americans don't think this way-at least not to that degree.

Back to the UAE port deal, and the politics involved-for those on the far-right who oppose this, it seems to be an appeal to their aforementioned sensibilities. For the Democrats, it looks like politics. In trying to look tough on terror, they've played right into Republican hands. Of course Dems have been bringing up the legit concerns about our ports being unguarded, but it still looks political. It looks like another way to slam Bush. Bush hasn't guarded ports. Arab country with possible ties gets port deal. Bush blows it. Instant scandal.
Nver mind the fact that Dubai and the UAE is an ally in the GWoT, and that these ports are still under American control. There's a lot to get Bush and the Republicans on, but this isn't it.
At least I'm pretty darn sure it isn't.

On a side note, Bush is committed to sticking up for the UAE. I only wish they'd be as committed to sticking up for Denmark.

The Last Word on the Cartoon Chaos

OK, maybe not the last word, but Christopher Hitchens lays it all out here.

A Rally for Civilization

On Friday, bloggers, activists, and ordinary people took to the streets of D.C. to take a stand for free speech, civil society, and moral clarity. Word on the street is that was a great event. People of all political stripes stood with Denmark in solidarity, and gave a resounding "not this time," to those who would put forth the idea that it's okay to silence free speech with violence and terror, lest we offend, and those too foolish or cowardly to call that idea what it is. Chris Hitchens was there, and gave a speech.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Oh, and there was a rally in New York just yesterday.

Modern Conservatism and the Bush Loyalty Cult

Glenn Greenwald has one of the most well-reasoned and elegant essays on what can only be described as the cultish nature of absolute Bush loyalty. He deals with Coulter's latest infamy, as the inability of many on the right to fully and completely condemn it. This has started quite the firestorm in the blogosphere.

No need for excerpts. You have to check it out.

More on this later.

This UAE Port Deal Is A Non-Issue

At least Dan Drezner thinks so.

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree.

What Do Al Gore, Gary Busey, and Billy Zane Have in Common?

If you guessed that they've engaged in inflaming anti-Americanism, you'd be right. I've always respected Al Gore, but his comments in Saudi Arabia were, for the lack of a wittier expression, over the line. For the purposes of context and accuracy, here's what he said, courtesy of the Calgary Sun-Times:


JIDDA, Saudi Arabia -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. He said the administration of President George W. Bush was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jidda Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Here's the thing. Even if one submits the idea that some Arabs were mistreated post-9/11, it is utterly false to accuse the U.S of indiscriminate roundups. Were mistakes made? Sure. Was there a lot of anti-Arab sentiment in certain quarters? Sure. But Gore made it seem like we just rounded up all the brown people we could find. The fact is, it didn't happen. I'm sure many on the far-right probably hoped it would happen, but at the end of the day, our response was pretty restrained.


Let's not forget that Muslims and Arabs in America are the freest on the Earth. I'm left wondering how many people realize that Muslims have more religious freedom to be Muslims here, than in Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia a sweeping theocracy, one cannot question the government. In fact, if the Islam you happen to practice is the wrong one, three guesses as to what happens. If Gore wanted to open a dialogue on U.S-Saudi relations, then he should rebuke the Saudis for their theocratic ways, and openly show how the U.S is not only better, but the best, in terms of human rights and religious liberty.

Never mind the fact that he said this in Saudi frickin Arabia!


Of course Gore's behavior seems like small stuff compared to what certain American actors have gotten themselves into, with a Turkish film that is nakedly anti-American, and anti-Semitic.

In a new Turkish movie, called Valley of the Wolves Iraq, is the most expensive Turkish movie ever. In the film, American soldiers are brutal murderers, and B-list actor Gary Busry plays a Jewish doctor, who steals the organs of Iraqis, and sells them to wealthy buyers in New York and Tel Aviv. This of course gives credence to the damnable blood libel against Jews, that Jews steal the organs of Arabs. Billy Zane stars in the film as well.
Aside from trying to make some cash to salvage their washed up careers, what would possess these two idiots to do such a thing? Even if it was for the money, how desperate do you have to be to engage in such filth? Busey's supposed to be a Christian, for God's sake! AS far the larger impact on Hollywood goes, the one saving grace is that these are two B-List actors, and no major Hollywood actors or producers have touched this steaming pile of anti-Semitic dung. I thought Busey was cool.

I'd say a boycott's on the way, but I suspect that the majority of Americans' commitment to good cinema will take care of that.
Story is here.

One Year Anniversary!

This blog was birthed into existence a year ago today. Huzzah. It's been an interesting year in the blogosphere, interesting and fun.

Oh, and there's that whole Valentine's Day thing.

Passion, Poise, Politics, and Phony Outrage

The funeral for the late, great Coretta Scott King was today. Let me first start by saying that she was truly an American hero, and a woman of strength, dignity and character. Not only did she help strengthen her husband's legacy, she forged her own, and that of the whole King family. The funeral was great and majestic event, even including the supposedly awkward political moments. I'll not dwell on this for too long, because the phony outrage has already worn me out.

Conservatives and Republicans are up in arms over many of the political remarks that were made, many of them interpreted as direct personal attacks on Bush. The Rev. Joseph Lowery made mention of Coretta King's opposition to war in general, and the Iraq war in particular, and made a remark about the lack of WMDs over there, and "weapons of misdirection over here," referring to poverty and other issues. Jimmy Carter also spoke, and made references to Katrina, and the fact that the King's were illegally wiretapped (a reference to the current NSA spy program). He also didn't shake Bush's hand. Ted Kennedy made a great, pretty nonpolitical speech (one of the best ones), and Bill Clinton was at his usual best.

Speaking of Clinton's speech, many felt that he was trying to prop up his wife politically. It must be pointed out that the audience fueled that whole moment. The fact is, the Republicans here are full of phony outrage. With Carter being the possible exception, no one was trying to make this a Bush-bashing event. Coretta King was committed to very real issues, many of them controversial, and in honoring her, many speakers simply spoke to that. It was political, but it was kinda supposed to be. I do have to admit though, that it must have been a bit awkward for Bush, hearing criticisms of his policies (or at least indirect ones), with him sitting right there. In my view, he was a good sport, and I really think it was all about the spirit of the occasion.

Keep in mind also, that nobody ever mentioned Bush by name, except in praise and in a welcoming fashion. There were no calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq (thank God), and let's not forget, nothing that was said was really false-there were no WMDs, and the Kings were wiretapped. I think all in all, it was a moving and respectful day, and the Republicans are trying being overly sensitive here. After all, in the minds of some, if you criticize the President's tie, you're a traitor.

Conservatives seem to want to make a political issue out of this. Some suggest this marred the whole event, comparing it to the legitimately over-political Wellstone memorial. Tucker Carlson says the focus was too much on the politics of the moment. It might seem that way, if you only focus on those couple of speakers. Some accuse the Democrats of trying to use this for political points, as if the King family conspired with the DNC in some shadowy back room, and worked out some sinister plan. This is of course, absurd.

Many suggest that some remarks were out of line, and maybe some were, but the idea that Republican Bush-coddlers are going to try to stain this funeral, because Bush got zinged about wiretaps is disgusting. I have to wonder, are they really THAT passionate about the NSA spying program? Maybe that explains why Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who doesn't back the plan.

Talk about your weapons of misdirection.

Thoughts on the Decay of Civilization

You know, I recognize that the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, that started in Denmark, and have outraged Muslims worldwide are crude, indecent, and offensive. One has to wonder though, when does it stop? There is no excuse for extremist violence. It is wholly unacceptable to attempt to silence free expression through death threats and real violence. Keep in mind that I'm not defending these cartoons, but if their intent was to make a statement against the intolerance of radical Islam, then it seems that the radicals have only proved them right. What really bothers me about this is that a lot of leaders, particularly European ones, seem more concerned with apologizing for the cartoons, than comdemning the violence. Muslims leaders plead for their fellow Muslims to be reasonable, but it seems that their calls for peace are not as full of energy as their outrage over these cartoons.


Last I checked, free speech still counts for something, and that includes offensive speech. The West should not apologize for free expression. Again, I'm not defending these images, but violence cannot be the acceptable response here. While I'm sure the caricature of Muhammad is offensive to all Muslims, you'd think Muslims would be equally offended by the extremists that have corrupted their faith. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have never seen a reaction approaching anything like this, over the numerous anti-Semitic stuff spread worldwide.

I hate to rant, but it bothers me when people begin to sanction the subjugation of free speech and thought under fear and violence. If sense is to have any dominion at all in our society, we must forcibly condemn, and compel all civilized people of all religions to condemn this violent mania.

OK, I'll dismount from my high horse, now.


The story is here, BTW.

Alito Confirmed: Final Vote 58-42.

It's official. Samuel Alito has become our 11oth Associate Justice. 4 Dems (Byrd, Conrad, Johnson, Ben Nelson) crossed party lines to vote yes, and Lincoln Chafee voted no, as well as Jim Jeffords.

And that's that.

SOTU speech tonight, BTW.

Cloture Passes 72-25, Filibuster Is Defeated

Not that I'm surprised. Frankly, I thought the filibuster was bad form, IMO, and seemed to only delay the inevitable. Alito's confirmation is a foregone conclusion at this point. Honestly, I'm worn out with the whole mess. All the grandstanding, vitriol, phony outrage, and nonsense from the right and the left wore me out. I'm talking about the whole judicial circus, including previous judges (Roberts, etc).

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just glad it's over.

Some Dictionary Words for Your Edification

Consider the definition of the word hyperbole:

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

And now this one, for the word demagoguery:

n : impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace [syn: demagogy]

Now, consider this story:

Speaking at an event in Harlem honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the senator said the GOP-controlled House of Representatives "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Source: Newsday

OK. First off, as I hope the above definitions will help to illustrate, Clinton's remarks above were at best hyperbole, and at worst, crude and brutal demagoguery. I'll not defend the use of the word plantation. She clearly used the wrong word. Keep in mind that the plantation's infamy had less to do with inhibiting debate and free speech, than with subjugating a people under the brutality of slavery. Essentially, one could argue that she compared House Republicans to slaveowners. There is a legitimate point of debate about the stifling of debate by the GOP in the House, but using the word plantation smacks of hyperbole. Or race-baiting.

We must not forget however, that Republicans (contrary to their assertions) have engaged in equal amounts of the same demagoguery. I didn't hear that much outrage when high-profile Republicans accuse Dems of "keeping blacks on the plantation," or "in bondage." Not much outrage when Republicans accused Dems and black leaders of racism for opposing conservative black nominees (Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown, Clarence Thomas), as if we're supposed to support them just because they're black. No outrage over the eminations of The Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen, who once declared that blacks had no moral character, and could not think for themselves. Of course, the very idea that blacks are somehow brainwashed or misled for voting for any party is absurd. Black America is not stupid. Most know that the modern GOP has had a lousy track record on civil rights, and the Democratic Party also has some problems with regards to black issues. The fact is, the reason why Dems get 98 percent of the black vote is no real mystery. The Dems may take us for granted, but the GOP takes us for fools, at least it seems that way.

The fact is, this whole mess about Clinton's remarks is yet another predictable exercise.

And then there's Ray Nagin's remarks....

A Fishing Expedition?

I've been thinking about this lawsuit that the ACLU and other groups are filing, in order to bring a halt to the NSA wiretap program. The fact that they're trying to end this program is clear-- they've basically come out and said it. This lawsuit does have plaintiffs, but it seems that the entire thrust of the case is based on potential abuses. Rather, they're suing because they might have been spied on, or could be spied on. This doesn't seem to wash that well with me, and this case seems doomed for failure.

There are legit arguments for the halting of this program, and I'm not just talking about Gore's speech. However, can a person sue the government based on potential abuses? I suspect these broad matters are better left to Congress.

Inter Arma, Enim Silent Leges

Inter arma, enim silent leges.

-Cicero

For those who don't know their Latin, Cicero's phrase translates as "in times of war, the law falls silent." In Shakespeare, Cicero uses the phrase to describe a Rome that believed that Caesar could do no wrong. In other words, in wartime, we ought to support our government, no matter what.

Before certain people get their panties in a wad, this is not going to be some post calling for Bush's impeachment. I am dealing with the spying controversy (in the larger context of approaches to the War on Terror), but I'm merely asking some questions. First off, let it be known that I believe the President, as commander-in-chief, should have broad powers in matters of foreign intelligence, during wartime. Of course, this must always be clearly checked by Congressional, judicial, and democratic oversight, and be done within the rules. One of the problems with this current controversy is that as far the warrantless searches and wiretaps go, it appears that Bush may not have done everything on the up and up. I'm not sure if what he did was legal or not. The debate is raging as I write this--you have people like Charles Krauthammer suggesting Bush has the power, and groups like the ACLU saying that he doesn't. As I've said before, we don't even know all the details on this yet, so I think it's unfair to start even hinting about impeachment. The Republicans made a mockery of the Constitution during the 90's impeachment circus--certain anti-Bush Democrats ought not do the same.
The fact is, only a couple of high-profile Democrats have actually used the I-word, but as I said, we ought not even go there. We ought to have independent hearings on this, to decide whether Bush has the legal powers in this matter, and if not-see that he gets them-with clear limits of course. The limits are important, I must emphasize this. To be honest with you, it's not so much the spying that bothers me. Rather, it's the attitude that has risen up around this controversy. What bothers me is the idea that many have that the President has limitless power in times of war.

This didn't start with the NSA spying controversy. This goes much deeper. Secret prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Certain provisions in the Patriot Act. Criticism of the war (or any of his policies, for that matter). Most sensible people recognize that in wartime, we must find a way to balance civil liberties and security. This requires open and honest debate, and even dissent in many cases. The debate it seems, has been taken over by extremists. People on the right dismiss any talk of protecting civil liberties as aiding the terrorists. To them, dissent is disloyalty. O'Reilly calls the ACLU "the most dangerous group in the country." The press is seen as a fifth-column, deliberately undermining the war effort. Not that the incessant negativity from a lot of the press these days, especially regarding Iraq, hasn't become a nuisance, and in certain cases a hinderance. Many suggest that we should back the President no matter what, and those that don't are nothing short of traitors. Reports of possible torture are dismissed as either fantasy, or neccessary. "Who gives a damn about terrorists?" they say. Of course, we must remember that its not about being as bad as the terrorists. We'd have to go a long way to come even close to the brutality that our enemies represent. The problem is, we don't have to go nearly as far to abandon our own compass. These things are all well-established, so there's no need to dwell on them. There's no need to be high-handed.

On one extreme, we have the far-right, which thinks that basically anything goes, and liberals are at best a pathetic nuisance, and at worst, a fifth column. You need only listen to the screeds to hear this. On the other extreme is the far-Left, which thinks the greatest threat is not al-qaeda but Bush, and that the war on terror is really an excuse to take away our liberties. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about mainstream liberals here. I'm talking about the Michael Moores, the Ward Churchills, the Noam Chomskys, and the ANSWER-types. The hardcore antiwar types. The moonbats, as it were. These are the types who think the Iraq war is a war crime, an illegal and unjust war. They dismiss the millions of Iraqis who voted in the elections. While the right seems committed to ignoring the bad news, the far-Left only seems to focus on the bad news. These types will see any attempt to fight an effective terror war as unjust, so they can't be reasoned with either.

Also, it doesn't help that you have a press that only seems to feed this division, that divides us with labels and sloppy political constructs, like the Red State-Blue State nonsense.
As with many other issues, the debate on civil liberties in wartime has ceased to be a debate. The political pendulum has shifted rightward, so the right controls a lot more of the debate (contrary to their assertions).

We need to debate these issues openly and honestly, always from the standpoint of winning the terror war. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it's more than "a damn piece of paper." We need to remember who the real enemy is. Enough of this "Bush is a terrorist," or "Liberals want us to lose the war" nonsense.

And getting back to the original point, the President's warmaking powers are not unlimited. Bush can, and has made mistakes. As for the press, while I too wondered why the New York Times felt the need to print umpteen Abu Ghraib stories, and while I'm troubled that the press was complicit in an illegal leak of classified info, I have to ask: What is the role of the press with regards to this matters? Can we really shoot the messenger?

Again, all these are questions I'm trying to answer. The pundits and politicians are playing their familar roles, with all the high talk and phony outrage, on both sides. All the famous quotes by Ben Franklin and others are bandied about ad nauseum. We've all spent time on our high horses, except of course for our brave troops, who fight for us every day in the trenches, asking only that we not piss on their sacrifice, or exploit them for political gain.

And that we not pull them out until the mission's done.

The Last Post of the Year

Well, the tumultous year that was 2005 has come to a close. This post won't be long, but I just wanted to share some quick thoughts.

This was a rough year for President Bush. Whether it was the Katrina mess, the Terri Schiavo mess, Plamegate, the Harriet Miers mess, the domestic spying mess, torture, and troubles in Iraq--he's taken some hits. His supporters will blame the "liberal media," but he really has to take the heat for this. Undoubtedly, there have been those in the press drunk on anti-Bush zeal, but Bush has control of three branches of government, and an electorate that in many cases seemed to overlook even the most blatant lapses in judgment. Heck, the Dems are out of power. This was his accountability moment.

It's been lousy for Republicans this year. I almost feel sorry for them. I had predicted that the Republican victory in 2004 would be followed by an overreach that would cost them. I had no idea it was happen so quickly, and so brazenly. The naked hubris displayed was astounding. There was the aforementioned Schiavo disgrace, the Nuclear option mess, the increases in spending, Tom DeLay...it goes on and on.

That being said, the Dems have a lot of opportunities to lead, but there is still the problem of the fact that the Democratic Party is basically fractured. We seem unable to offer up a sustained alternative to Bush's policies, without going off the deep end (a la Howard Dean). Jack Murtha thinks we ought to withdraw our troops. He's no coward, but he's wrong on the issue. Dean doesn't think we can win in Iraq. The only high-ranking Dem consistently for staying the course is Joe Lieberman, and I guess, Hillary.

It was a rough year for New Orleans, who suffered the wrath of nature, politics, and incompetence.

It was a good year of TV. We had some damn good TV this year. Rome. Deadwood. Battlestar Galactica. 24. The Office. Lost. Everybody Hates Chris. It was good year.

It was a good year for comics. A good year for video games.

And despite the daily casualties, and all the mess here at home, it was a good year for the Iraqis, who managed to vote in three successful elections, and give a purple thumbs up to democracy.

And, at the end of the day, it was good overall, all things considered.

The Iraqis Vote. A Relative Success

Read the story here.

There's still more work to be done, but this is another great day.

Quotes of Wisdom

"The ballot is stronger than the bullet."

-Abraham Lincoln

In the context of our current struggle, we can also say that the ballot is stronger than the bullet, the car bomb, the beheader, the missile, the madrassah...

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

-Orwell

"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, political parties, nations, and eras it's the rule."

-Nietzsche


I think that one sums up the problem with ideologues perfectly.

Blog Recommendation: Booker Rising

I'm always on the lookout for great blogs, covering the whole of the political spectrum. Do check out Booker Rising. It's a great site run by black moderates and conservatives, discussing issues important to the black community at large (as well as America in general), all while paying homage to the great Booker T. Washington.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, a lot of my articles at Centerfield are carried on their blog. I'm moving up in the world, baby!

A Needless Update

I'll post something substantial either later in the day or tomorrow. Just wanted to inform the millions of readers that I like to pretend I have, that all is well.

Oh, and I do plan on starting on my theology blog real soon.

Counterattacks, Dirty Tricks, and Hard Questions

The GOP has put out a new ad, attacking the Democrats for attacking Bush's handling of prewar intelligence. It uses quotes from high-profile Dems (Dean, the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, etc) favoring the removal of Saddam. On a purely visceral level, it's damn effective. It's dirty, but effective. The ad does a good job of making the Dems look stupid. That, combined with Bush's open assault on Democrats at his Veteran's Day speech, amounts to a major counterattack by the President and the GOP.

Bush can't really vindicate himself on the current status of the war in Iraq, or his handling of it, but the plan seems to be to diffuse the "Bush lied" argument (an argument I never supported- Bush didn't deliberately make up intel), and say that "hey, the Dems were wrong, too, and now they're trying to play politics, and it's hurting the troops."

The Democratic argument is that Bush had special intel that the Congress didn't have, and thus made the decision to invade based on that intel, and he went to war on flimsy grounds. The fact is, unless this is true (meaning Bush had more intel than Congress), the Democrats have a problem. They have to take a lot of the blame for giving the President the authority to go to war (if they're going to criticize the handling of prewar intel, or the case for war). It;s not fair to blame Bush for esentially coming to the same conclusions that a lot of other Democrats did. However, it's entirely legitimate to criticize the conduct of the war, and considering the mistakes made and still not owned up to, even pro-war hawks like myself ought to expect that. Of course, this should lead to actual results-meaning that it should help us win in Iraq, and not just bash Bush.

That being said, this won't really help Bush gain support for Iraq. The CIA-leak case is a bog problem whether you supported the war or not. But, this will hurt Democrats, unless they can come up with a consistent alternative to Bush's approach, that hopefully doesn't involve artifical timetables for withdrawal. And hopefully Bush will seriously consider coming to terms with the reality in Iraq, that hopefully goes beyond the "stay the course" mantra we've all become accustomed to hearing.

Also, in another dirty ad from the far-right side of the aisle comes a particularly nasty ad in support of Judge Alito. This ad is standard form in the crusade against "activist judges," so I'm not surprised. To be fair, the pro-choice group NARAL did put out that vicious ad attacking Chief Justice Roberts, but all that shows it that both sides can play dirty.

Although the right seems to do it a helluva lot more often.

hat tip: Ann Althouse

Eddie Guerrero: 1967-2005

The wrestling world, and wrestling fans everywhere are devastated by the loss of Eddie Guerrero, at the age of 38. He passed away Sunday. They had a great tribute show on Raw last night. You'll be missed, brother.

RIP, Eddie. You were truly one of the best ever.

Alito and Race Baiting

Apparently the next chapter in the war over judges has begun, and it's the "race baiting chapter." A memo was released earlier this week reflecting on Judge Alito's legal history, and it showed how he failed to prosecute mobsters in one of the longest federal trials in history. Apparently, the memo referenced his nickname "Scalito," given to him to show him being a Scalita lite, in terms of their shared judicial philosophy and ideology (Scalia+Alito=Scalito). The DNC started putting out the memos. This case was one of 15 cases mentioned in the report.

How do Matt Drudge, Orrin Hatch and Chris Matthews see this?

According to them, the Democrats are anti-Italian. Would to God I was making this up.

The crew over at DailyKos covered this. They were not happy, to say the least.

I really don't need to add anything else. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how the Right pulled ant-Italian bigotry out of the report, unless it was in their minds to begin with.

The Blogosphere Under Siege

The House today, with bipartisan support, passed a bill that would exempt bloggers from FEC campaign finance regulations. It passed 225-182, 47 votes shy of a clear two-thirds majority that would have allowed it to pass under the rules in play. For all intents and purposes, "the vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet."

Newsflash to the Congress: This is tyranny. The campaign finance laws wear never meant to go this far. Bloggers for all sides of the political spectrum are up in arms over this, and rightly so. The story continues (hat tip: Yahoo):

Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.

"This is a major unraveling of the law," Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, "it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process."

Actually, what it does is in effect allow the government to regulate what bloggers can say and link to.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process.

"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," he said. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."

Without his legislation, Hensarling said, "I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list."

Exactly right. The broad powers the government would have in this regard are so open to abuse that on its face it's a bad deal. However, Meehan and Shays disagree:

But Meehan said no one wants to regulate bloggers. He said he and Shays have an alternative that would protect the free speech rights of bloggers while closing the cyberspace loophole where a lawmaker could vote for a prescription drug bill and then ask pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to run on the Internet.

I'd sure love to see how they're going to reconcile that with the Constitution. They'd better come up with something quick. BTW, it shouldn't be lost on people how much bipartisan support this bill had:

Bloggers from liberal and conservative perspectives made similar predictions at a hearing on the subject in September. "Rather than deal with the red tape of regulation and the risk of legal problems, they will fall silent on all issues of politics," said Michael J. Krempasky, director of the Web site RedState.org.

and this:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has introduced a companion bill to the Hensarling measure, but the Senate has yet to take it up.

This is one of those issues you have to draw the line on. Congress needs to make this right. House members and Senators, of either party, who support the curtailing of free speech of the blogosphere, be ye warned: Elections are coming up real soon.

More on Pajamas Media

Look, my previous post on Wolcott still stands. My views on him are established. I still stick up for David Corn, but it seems that they may have real problems over at Pajamas Media, and it goes beyond the fact that right-wingers like Charles Johnson of LGF are running things.

Take this as you will, but I found this interesting.

Wolcott Strikes Again

This time he's gone after David Corn, because he's on the editorial board for Pajamas Media, an up-and-coming network of blogs, covering the political spectrum, that happens to be founded by right-of-center bloggers. The fact is, there are a lot of suspect and scurrilous types associated with that group, and clearly the politics of many of those bloggers (certainly LGF) are not mine, and certainly not David Corn's, but there are some good blogs and bloggers at PM. Liberal and conservative blogs. In fact, half of them are already on my blogroll.

The fact is, James Wolcott sees anyone who even hangs out with pro-types as traitors to his cause. Liberal hawks, Liberals who hangs out with conservatives, were all suspect in his eyes.

BTW, Corn's on the Editorial Board for God's sake.

UPDATE: Apparently it's been revealed that Judy Miller is keynoting at Pajamas Media's opening gala. Maybe there's more cause for concern than I thought...

Honestly, I'm still not sure how this will turn out. I'm just saying the Left shouldn't hate on David Corn because he's blogging over there.

Just Thinking Out Loud...

I've always believed that the whole crusade over "activist judges" is essentially a fight about judges either side doesn't like. Conservatives want conservative activists on the Court to counteract the perceived (and in a number of cases very real) liberal activism of previous years. Liberals want to stop them, and a lot of liberals want their own activists on the Court to stop the conservatives, and/or force their own liberal agendas. Of course I'm talking about the ideologues here. It's safe to say that the ideologues are looking for their own personal agendas, driven by the political whims of their ideological votaries. So I wonder, could a Constitutional amendment doing away with life tenure for judges solve this problem? I haven't really thought this out completely, but it seems that if activists are able to make laws, and basically affect law for subsequent generations, wouldn't limiting the term help to minimize any damage done?

OTOH, bad judges can wreck the Constitution in a short span of time, and leaving judgeships at the mercy of the political machinery would only make things worse. Perhaps we'll all just have to commit ourselves, and compel our leaders to commit themselves to putting forth good judges, free of ANY bias at all.

Judge Alito and Harry Reid's Line in the Sand

Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito for the SCOTUS, in order to replace the manifestly bad choice that was Harriet Miers. The far-right is happy again, and apparently are back to believing that judges should have an up-or-down vote. Honestly, as with Chief Justice Roberts, Alito is certainly qualified, and while he is a clear-cut conservative, it doesn't appear yet that he's a rank ideologue. The Dems are already talking filibuster though, and the Repubs are talking about the nuclear option. As I said, I think we ought to wait to see Alito's record before we judge. Barring extreme cases, I'm not a big fan of the filibuster (although the nuclear option is plainly against the rules), and at very least, we should wait until we hear his record before we throw down. BTW, it's not good policy to block him just because he's pro-life. Blocking him because he's pro-life is bad form.

In more Senate news, Harry Reid has thrown down the gauntlet. He forced a closed session to debate the issues of Iraq war intelligence that the Repubs have been stalling on for months. Needless to say, the Repubs were pissed. Really pissed. They called it a stunt, and Frist looked like he was going to explode. Note to Frist: Get over it.

Here's what Reid said:

“The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions,” Reid said before making the motion which sent the Senate into a closed-door session.

Regardless of one's view of Iraq, this is hard to argue with.

To see how the hearing went, the AP story is here.

Note to Republicans: The Senate isn't a purely majoritarian body. You can't get everything you want.

Libby Indicted. More to Come?

It's late and I'll post more tomorrow, but as you all know "Scooter" Libby was indicted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. So it seems that Libby went around telling reports (Novak, Miller, etc) about Valerie Plame being a CIA covert agent, and he learned it from an unnamed source (Karl Rove? Cheney?) Libby's been indicted on two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice. This is a big deal.

Fitzgerald says the investigation will remain open in order to gather more info (perhaps with a new grand jury), but as it stands now, Libby's the only one on the block (he's resigned). Fitzgerald has made it clear that he's not trying to go after the case for the war, and he's only dealing with the matters in this serious case. Consider this: hat tip: Daniel Drezner:


the whole notion that the Fitzgerald investigation was going to reveal how the Bush administration led us into Iraq now seems to have been completely wrong. Democrats wanted their own Ken Starr--a prosecutor who let his investigation metastasize and whose operation leaked like a sieve. Instead, they got Elliot Ness. As Fitzgerald himself put it at his press conference:

This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not.
The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Of course many on the Left won't be happy until Bush and the whole administration are dragged out in chains, but as it stands now, they won't get their wish from this indictment. For those who support the war, and/or Bush, be advised that this indictment is no small small matter. Those responsible for this leak, if it really was a deliberate act to smear Joe Wilson, which it looks like it was, committed serious crimes. That ought not be lost in the fog of politics, by either side.

Read the text of the indictment here.

Harriet Miers Is History

Miers resigned today as Bush's SCOTUS choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Most on the Right opposed her, as well as on the Left. For some reason, Harry Reid backed her. Anyway, this is good. The naked cronyism involved, as well as the fact that Miers just wasn't qualified made her a bad choice. Some would think that liberals ought to support Miers because the right-wingers were so up in arms over the nomination. That's absurd. She's a bad choice, period. I did feel that the right had no one to blame but themselves for the Miers pick, because that choice was only the logical result of the "loyalty at any cost/Bush should get whatever judges he wants" mindset that they tried to shove down our throats, whenever Dems criticized the President. One does have to respect their standing for principle-at last. Of course, the James Dobsons of the world actually supported Miers. After all, it was all about the vote for him, the integrity of the Court be damned (he's since changed his story).

Undoubtedly, my earlier prediction will come to pass, and the real court fight will commence.

Exploiting the Dead?

I don't want this to turn into a debate about the war, or even about Plamegate/Fitzmas, but I have a question. How is honoring the soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan exploitation? How is showing their names on TV exploitation? If you're against the war, and you feel that those soldiers died for the wrong war (that's not my view, but I'm just saying) then that's your opinion. I don't agree that they died in vain, but to say so isn't exploiting their deaths.
I know that more soldiers died in WWII and Vietnam. Since when do we judge tragedies that way? Did we say on 9/11, "Well, we lost 51,000 in WWII, why are we weeping over these 3,000?" Of course we didn't. Was it exploitation to weep for those lost in the tsunami, or Katrina?

I understand that those who view this war differently will see the sacrifices of our troops differently. There are those on the fringes who not only mock the dead, but call for more. There are those who exploit the dead for political gain (Karl Rove, I'm talking to ya).
I've always believed, and maybe I'm naive in this, that regardless of one's stance on OIF, that all of us ought to honor the sacrifices of our troops. I don't think bringing them home prematurely does them or the Iraqis a service, but acknowledging the 2,000 dead in this war is hardly exploitation, at least not in of itself.

Despite what the right-wingers would have us believe...

Rosa Parks: 1913-2005

America, and the world has lost a giant this week, as Rosa Parks has passed away at age 92. You all know the story, of how she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on the segregated buses of Alabama, and thus took a principled stand against Jim Crow, and for the civil rights, and basic dignity of all Americans. Parks' stand half a century ago gives us in this generation an example of the triumph of the individual-- it reminds us that one person, armed with truth, really can make a difference. Her stand set the stage for the leaders to come, including of course, Dr. King.

The legacy of Rosa Parks, in her stand against the ruling powers and popular opinion of her day, in her overcoming of fear and doubt, gives us a lesson, that for the continued survival of this republic, must march unimpeded throughout the long trail of history: That principled people of all kinds, must often make trouble, and challenge those in power, in order to see that justice is done when and where it ought to be done. Even at the cost of one's life and livelihood.

Especially in times like these...

The Butcher of Baghdad Goes to Trial

The trial of Saddam Hussein began today. At last, that mass murdering war criminal will face the justice that he denied his own people. Reports are that Saddam was defiant as usual, questioning the legitimacy of the Court, as well as the Iraqi government. Nice try, pal, it's not going to work. The fact is, Saddam's thirty-years of brutality and tyranny cost him the right to govern. The man committed numerous war crimes, invaded his neighbors, and violated numerous international laws and U.N resolutions. Saddam and his lackeys will try to stall and pontificate, but in the end, he'll be found guilty, and face the death penalty.

And justice will have been served.

It All Happened on Saturday

Marking the 10th Anniversary of the Million Man March, scores of black Americans return to the Mall to kick off the "Millions More Movement." All things considered, I say it's a good thing. Much like the last march, there was bound to be some controversial things said (obviously I have a problem with the anti-war themes), Farrakhan's not known for his timidity--but at the end of the day, it was a positive event for black America.

The Iraqis took to the streets and voted on a Constitution today. Even the Sunnis decided to join in. Purple fingers forever.

I've finally got into the groove of consistent blogging. Huzzah!

Blogging at Centerfield, and My Other New Blog

I just put up my first post over at the cool centrist blog Centerfield. I won't kill the buzz all of you undoubtedly have by sppoiling it, but I'll just say check it out, and check out the site in general. It's a great blog, and another notch in the centrist blogosphere.

Also, my amateur theology blog is up. It's still in development, but if you have even a passing interest in theology or philosophy, you ought to check it out.

Infinite Crisis Is Here!!

At last, after all the months of speculation, waiting, and salivating, the biggest comics event since Crisis on Infinite Earths and Watchmen has come to pass. As much as I sound like a DC propaganda man right now, I really have been impressed by the stories leading up to, and the first issue of the series. I loooved Identitiy Crisis, and although Marvel's certainly no slouch either with House of M, Astonishing X-Men, and the kick-ass Black Panther book, among others, Crisis will also continue to burn a cosmic hole through my wallet.


photo: from Infinite Crisis #1 (c) 2005 DC Comics

Is Bush a Real Conservative?

With the recent discord amongst the right over Harriet Miers, and his profligate spending habits, a question has popped into my mind. Is Bush really a conservative? He's no liberal, that's for sure, but is he a real conservative? Is he a right-winger who loves Big Government? Who knows.

I'm no conservative, so it's less of a concern to me than those who call themselves conservatives, and those who voted for him.

A Vile Left-Wing Conspiracy?

ABC's hit new show Commander-in-Chief is a critical success, garnering acclaim from critics and TV-watchers alike. It stars Geena Davis as Mackenzie "Mac" Allen, the former Veep who has become the first female President after the previous President dies. She's a mother, and a registered Independent. Sounds like the stuff of good TV, right? Not according to some. It seems that some conservatives see the show as a vast Hollywood left-wing conspiracy to promote a Hillary Presidency in '08. Ridiculous, you say? Of course it is. But consider this statement:

"Keeping with the modern liberal tradition of subliminal socialist indoctrination (through U.S. television), `Commander in Chief' seeks to accomplish more than prime-time entertainment," warned a writer named J.B. Williams on the National Ledger Web site, while the blogger Colossus pronounced the show "a nefarious plot to advance the notion of a Hillary Clinton presidency."

Really? Do you think so? Look, I'm no Hillary fan, and I pray to God the Democratic Party has enough sense not to tap her for the nomination, but you know what...I'd vote for her just to spite these lunatics. I mean, come on. There comes a point when this mad obsession must come to a halt. Yes, I get that she's a woman President. I get that one of Hillary's former staffers writes for the show. I get that Hillary is supposedly this evil, socialist monster who will ban Bibles, sanction public orgies, raise taxes to 400%, and mandate forced abortions and all that...do people really believe this stuff?

Consider this:

Mac's road to the White House began as a vice presidential candidate chosen to boost the women's vote for her Republican running mate, who then, after just two years in office, obligingly expired. Hillary can't count on that measure of support.

Mac is 6 feet tall and isn't married to former President Clinton. Hillary isn't, and is.

Mac, lest we forget, is make-believe, and idealized - maybe to a fault, from Hillary's perspective. Noting that President Allen is "smart, beautiful, dressed to the nines, completely competent," Boston Herald columnist Virginia Buckingham wrote: "If I were Hillary Clinton, I'd be running scared. Perfect is not the bar she ought to want set for her."

Still not convinced? Consider this:

"This is not a You-Go-Hillary show, this is a You-Go-Girl show," Lurie said last week. "I just want to see women in the process, whether they be Democrats or Republicans or Independents. If there's any social agenda to the show, it's to be enthusiastic about the idea of a woman president - and an Independent president. She's an Independent, which is sort of a big deal."

But conservatives retort:

Some conservatives are in a lather over Mackenzie Allen's nemesis, the Republican speaker of the House (Donald Sutherland). The RedState Web site complained that this underhanded power broker was designed to bash all Republicans as "manipulative, back-stabbing, power-hungry politicians."

Interesting, but what about this?

But Lurie pointed out that President Allen's own chief of staff - a man of solid character - is a Republican.

He added that "Commander in Chief" has its roots not in Hillary's campaign strategy but in "The Contender," a film he wrote and directed in 2000 about a vice presidential aspirant. (It starred Joan Allen ... for whom he named Mackenzie Allen.)

and this:

I promise that if there was no Hillary Clinton, there would still be a `Commander in Chief' - I want to have a hit show that people enjoy, and really, that's it," explained Lurie, whose surprising exit from his top 10-ranked series was announced a couple of days later.

Hmm, another clue? No, not really:

Now, what will conspiracy theorists read into that turn of events? The official explanation: Under a two-year deal with Touchstone Television, Lurie has given up his job running "Commander in Chief" to concentrate on developing new series, while TV veteran Steven Bochco ("NYPD Blue" and "L.A. Law") takes the production reins of a show that had fallen dangerously behind schedule.

Just another shakeup in the TV biz? Or is there (hmmmm) more to the story? Try and stop suspicious minds from hashing over what it might be.

Right, because that would be impossible. They've already made up their minds about this. Hillary is evil, and the network minions at ABC (and the rest of the SCLM) are her lackeys. No amount of sense or logic can dissuade them.

Read the whole story here


Source: AP

Harriet Miers: Enemy of the..Right?

There's a lot of support for Miers' nomination to the SCOTUS, and its coming from an unlikely source. Apparently, high-profile Dems like Harry Reid love her, while conservatives are up in arms. It was no secret that a lot of conservatives weren't completely behind Roberts (he was too moderate for them), and it looks like Miers is no different. She's pro-life (and that will piss off the pro-choicers), but perhaps not as hardcore as some fear, or hope. She's not a judge, and her legal experience is vague. Many are bothered (as am I) by the cronyism involved here. The more he talked about her today at his news conference confirmed this.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of her yet. It's interesting to note that her opposition will most likely come from the far-right on this one. Blogging around today, I came across an interesting concept. Tammy Bruce has come to a conclusion about Bush that's worth noting:

While I love that he chose a woman, I've noted before GWB is not an authentic conservative, but a liberal who happens to be a man of faith. There were many other srong conservatives for him to pick. Keep in mind, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) urged him to pick Miers. IMHO, both Roberts and Miers could easily tip to the left of the court.

I can think of a lot of words to describe George Bush, but "liberal" is not one of them. She's right that he's no conservative. He's a right-winger, but not conservative. I've always respected Tammy Bruce, but one has to wonder whether she has forgotten the meaning of the word "liberal," or has moved so far to the right, that Bush is liberal by comparison. I fear the latter may be the case. Nevertheless....

Tom DeLay's Been Indicted Again!!

Still, it speaks for itself.