I'm Inclined To Agree With This...

Via Althouse:

Well, of course, it was bad of the little girl to lie, but little kids lie. Making a spectacle out of disgracing a 6-year-old is disgraceful. After failing to check the very checkable fact that made the company think of her essay as the best, it should have quietly resolved the matter with the girl's family — probably by sending her on the trip anyway — and given the prize — the honor of winning plus the trip — to someone else.

I'm not sure about letting her go on the trip anyway, but I do agree that it's a bit out of bounds to pile on this girl. She's six. Not sixteen, not twenty-six, but six. As suggested in the comments, I think her mom had a hand in this, and at the very least should take the blame for not vetting her daughter's work (Don't you need parent's permission for these things, anyway?), not to mention the judges, for not vetting properly.

This ought to have been discreetly, and this girl shouldn't be subjected to this, as this goes well beyond the realm of a moral lesson.

I have to wonder though, are young girls that hung up on Hannah Montana, as to even allow such a situation like this to arise?

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

This story has been developing all day, but it's clear that Bhutto was attacked during a speech. She was shot in the neck and the chest, and the assassin apparently blew himself up. She survived the bombing, but died of the gunshot wounds. Tragic all around. A sad day for Pakistan, and a sad day for us all.

HT: SF for the link

But This One Here Was Actually Good

This isn't really an ad per se, rather, it's a message to the troops. I thought this was good. HT and thanks to the WWE.

Speaking of Christmas Ads,

This one from Hillary probably wasn't the best choice:




HT: Althouse

I mean, whatever your opinions on those issues, the ad was just awful. I'm with Ann, in that it's almost a self-parody.

Yeah, That's A Good Point!

In response to this news of the couldn't-have-happened-sooner-enough departure from the 2008 Presidential race of Tom "Let's Wall Up The Whole Frickin' Country" Tancredo (HT: Fern over at Stubborn Facts), I admittedly used some harsh words. Let it be said, that cavemen deserve better:

Hitchens and Huckabee

Although it is triple-marinated in insufferable anti-religious contempt, Christopher Hitchens' Slate piece on the right of people to consider religious views when judging candidates is nonetheless correct on the constitutional question:

As so often, the framers and founding fathers meant what they said, said what they meant, and risked no waste of words. A candidate for election, or an applicant for a post in the bureaucracy, could not be disqualified on the grounds of his personal faith in any god (or his disbelief in any god, for that matter).

He reminds us, though, that:

However, what Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment. And the right of Huckabee to win the election and fill the White House with morons like himself is unaffected by my expression of an opinion.

Like I said, chock-full of anti-religious poison, but on the facts of Article VI, he's right. I have the right to consider someone's faith (Or lack of faith) when judging a candidate, and be quite vocal about doing so. Just because the government cannot impose a religious test, that doesn't mean the people can't. Contra Dennis Prager, Keith Ellison had every right to swear on the Koran, but voters do have the right to consider his adherence to that book when voting for him. Many will consider Romney's Mormonism, or Rudy's Catholicism. Hitchens will doubtless ask himself "does this candidate hate God as much as I do, and is he as self-absorbed and arrogant about it as I am?"

The wisdom of such considerations depends on your perspective, but let me add my view: I'm a Christian. Huckabee's faith isn't a problem for me (although he is a socon Republican, so I have issues with many of his policies). My problems with Romney have nothing to do with his Mormon faith, although there are questions he will have to face.

Back to Huckabee for a moment, while I totally understand the concern of improperly mixing religious and politics, I don't see what the big fuss is about on Huckabee's new Christmas ad, with the "floating bookshelf cross" in the background. It's a Christmas ad, and Huckabee has never hid his Christian faith. I'm not naive enough to think that he didn't know it was there, or at the very least the camera guy didn't know or plan it), I just don't see the big deal.

Before anyone asks, I'm not stumping for Huckabee. Being that he's a pretty conservative guy, chances are I'm not going to vote for him, but he seems like a decent man, and the pile on is getting silly.

There is a thought that I'm planning to expand on, about a possible anti-Huckabee conspiracy coming from the right, masking as a critique of hypersecularism, but that comes later.

HT: Althouse and Stubborn Facts

Congress vs. The First Amendment (And The Plain Meaning of Words)

Over at Stubborn Facts, Tully has been providing extensive coverage of the continuing progress of an utterly-wrongheaded bill that will essentially limit press freedom to the established and well-paid journalistic elite, and strip away those freedoms from the average citizen.

This bill started off innocently enough, but in the legislative factory, a nefarious change was made. Here's how the bill started out:


(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

...(5) JOURNALISM- The term `journalism' means the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

All good in the hood so far, right? Even righty Mike Pence supported this bill at first. But here's the problem. Look at what happened:

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

See what happened? Now the bill only protects you if you're a paid journalist, and journalism is a substantial part of your livelihood. In other words, the average blogger is left out.

This bill, HR 2102, passed the House in October. Tully brought it to the forefront again, after coming across this, which uses some of the most absurd reasoning I've seen in a while, and tries to make the case that citizen journalism is dangerous:

Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

It seems that Congress has already started on that.

Hazinski continues, with this nugget:

This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer."

Umm, no, it's not, you idiot. First off, there is no constitiutional right to be a lawyer or a surgeon, and the field of journalism is so different from law and medicine, that your analogy is rendered beyond ridiculous.

The underlying argument here, and the underlying argument in the change in the bill, is a belief that the press has special freedoms granted them by the Constitution. The Founders didn't give freedom to the press, they gave the freedom of the press, to the people.

I wrote on this awhile back, when the NYT tried to justify their leak of the SWIFT terrorist banking story.

This bill needs to die in the Senate, and quickly.

HT again to Tully over at SF.

Hugo Chavez vs. Time

Hugo has apparently decided that time itself is thwarting his plans, so he's decided to create a whole new time zone.

"I don't care if they call me crazy, the new time will go ahead," he said.

OK, then. You're craaaazy.

HT: Althouse, who has a cool new profile pic.

Not To Overreact Here,

but I'm inclined to agree with Eric Scheie, and wonder if perhaps it really isn't the best way to show your commitment to working-class and poor people, by broadcasting a debate on a channel that only people with a lot of money can watch?

This is another one of those things that the GOP will seize on, and while ultimately irrelevant, doesn't reflect well. I mean, what is the thinking behind this anyway? Did HDNet pay the DNC big bucks for this or something?

It all seems silly. I just can't figure out what they were trying to accomplish.

HT: Althouse

The People Say No to Hugo

Hugo Chavez's plan to solididy himself as a dictator (even more than he already was) has failed, as the people of Venezuela rejected his referendum that would have made him President for life, carved up what was left of the Constitution, and seized even more executive power, and made him the next Fidel. The Chavistas will doubtless continue to misread this, and blame the U.S., but I think Marc Cooper nails it in one strike:

The real answer is that Hugo Chavez lost because a majority of Venezuelans decided he had taken them far enough off, thank you very much, and simply did not want to cross the threshold into an uncertain and prolonged chapter of personal dictatorship and political darkness. Good for them. Let's hope they can make it through the next six years of Chavez' current term.

Indeed. The people wanted democracy. Chavez, after grabbing more and more power, after shutting down the opposition press (with apparent approval from some over here), and his continued authoritarian expansion, couldn't force the people to choose dictatorship. He may call them traitors, but it won't work. Let's just hope and pray Venezuela survives the rest of his term.

BTW, Tully over at my second home Stubborn Facts has consistently provided extensive coverage of this issue, and Chavez's antics in general.

Cautious Optimism, Versus Cynical Opportunism

Christopher Hitchens, on the good news coming from Iraq. Good all the way through, and a somewhat hyperbolic, but nonetheless valid argument at the end:

As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.

True dat.

There's Bad Journalism, and Then There's Really Bad Journalism

You know what, I generally don't go out of my way to watch these debates, yet despite my belief that these debates end up becoming silly exercises in well, silliness, I find myself drawn to watching them. I missed Wednesday's GOP/YouTube debate on CNN when it was live, but I did catch the replay and a lot of the post-debate coverage. Most people should know about this by now, but there's been some question-planting going on again (HT: Pajamas Media), as the retired gay general asking the question about gays in the military was a Clinton staffer.

And, it doesn't stop there.

The thing is, this has to be a world-class embarassment for CNN. I don't really buy into the Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy meme, but this is one of those examples that righties will shove in the faces of liberals like me in order to make their case. I read this as systemic, world-class incompetence on the part of CNN. I don't think Anderson Cooper knew, but are you telling me, that after this same problem happened last time, on the same network, that no one in the mothership thought to do a little vetting of the questions, so they wouldn't be embarrased on the air by Bill Bennett, and a handful of righty bloggers? It makes you wonder how you can trust them as a journalistic outfit after this foolishness.

Joe Scarborough calls bullshit as far as CNN not knowing about this beforehand is concerned, but I have problems believing CNN even has the attention span, let alone the smarts to execute such a scheme. Who knows. A half-assed web search could've solved this straightaway. CNN, your internet kung-fu is weak.

This cannot be good for Hillary. One wonders if CNN really is smarter than we think, and they're simply in the tank for Obama?

Is This How the Pentagon Supports the Troops?

PFC Jordan Fox served his country proudly in Iraq. He joined the Army, served as a sniper, and survived heated machine gun battles and an IED. As is the nature of war, he was wounded. You'd think Fox would've gotten a medal, or a purple heart, but instead, the DoD sent him a bill, for the repayment of his signing bonus.

No, I'm not making this up:

The injury forced the military to send him home. A few weeks later, Fox received a bill from the Department of Defense, saying he owes the military nearly $3,000 from his original enlistment bonus because he couldn't fulfill three months of his commitment.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country and unfortunately I was hurt in the process and now they're telling me that they want their money back," Fox told CBS station KDKA-TV.

This is apparently not an isolated bureaucratic foul-up. The military is allegedly demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

PFC Fox's case has been settled for the most part, but the fact that is still happening, or that it happened at all is an outrage. President Bush, and Secretary Gates need to kill this thing at the root, and see that those who guard us while we sleep are not screwed over when they're wounded on the battlefield, and return home.

Robots Are Horrible Racists!!!

Or at least, profoundly incompetent, according to Google. I missed this story, but apparently, there was a glitch in Google's image-based news search, that linked Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, and Merrill-Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal, to a photo of rhesus monkeys. Frankly, their explanation still smells like bullshit, and their almost dismissive indifference on the matter rubs me wrong.

I'm staying on this story.

“Why do you think you didn’t give a speech like this in, say, May or June of 2004?”

Asks E.J Dionne, in response to these recent comments by John Kerry on abortion, and the Democratic Party's position on life issues:


I think we have been guilty in the party and individually at times of being overly pro-choice and this is the way it is and we’re not going to do x, y or z, without honoring the deeply held beliefs that are legitimate that go to the question of the killing of a human being, depending on what you believe. And I understand it depends on what you believe. But if you believe it, I think you do have an obligation to say so in terms of wanting fewer abortions, of trying to say abortion is not good, it’s not a good alternative, and what we need to do is make sure people have other alternatives and other options. That’s where you can find a lot of common ground because there are 1.3 million abortions in this country, and I don’t think anybody would disagree that that is too many.

As Bill Clinton framed it, I thought so effectively, in 1992, it ought to be rare, legal and safe. Rare has been missing from the debate. I think we need to figure out how we’re going to do that, and do it in a more effective way.

I still remember vividly that third debate between Kerry and Bush, when he answered that question on abortion. It was like watching an animal being tortured. I felt literal pain watching that. This is still somewhat nuanced and clunky, but a quantum leap from the fall of 2004. It's much too late at this point (which was Dionne's point), but he does get a lot closer to full coherence this time.

UPDATE: I should mention that for all intents and purposes I am a pro-life Democrat, so I still have some issues with this position, but I still think it is a big step compared to his last statement on the issue.

No, It's Not LIke That At All

In an nonetheless interesting article, the oft-wrong-on-the-war-but-usually-thoughtful Glenn Greenwald gets it really wrong:

We took a country that was relatively stable and a sworn enemy of, and an important check on, Iran. We turned it into a cesspool of violence, instability, displacement, sectarian strife, Iranian influence, and rule by militia.

The best we can hope for is to reverse some of the damage that we did so that a Shiite regime far more loyal to Iran than to the U.S. can rule with some semblance of order. And to "achieve" that, we squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (at least), and almost every ounce of credibility and influence we built up over the last six decades. That's the best case scenario. But still -- we are hearing now -- the people responsible for that grotesque debacle and who cheered it on are going to be in a "powerful" position, and the people who thought doing that was all a bad idea will be in big, big trouble.

The problems with his analysis are highlighted.

First off, I respect honest disagreements on the war policy, but I feel the need to bust two myths wide open. First off, Iraq wasn't really that stable under Saddam. The state was bound for collapse, not to mention a state sponsor of terror, and a rogue-state human rights nightmare, to say the least. Saddam was a murderer and a butcher. His regime was collapsing around him, and bound to be replaced by a worse regime. The idea was to replace Saddam's regime with a democratic alternative. Things obviously didn't work out quite like we planned, but the real progress we've made isn't some fantasy. Secondly, it's hardly fair to lay the blame squarely on ourselves for the violence there, as if al-Qaeda, the militias, and death squads somehow don't exist. I'm just sayin.'

Oh, yeah, and I'm with Althouse (thanks for the H/T, BTW). What is up with that metaphor?

The Art of Seeing Things As They Are

I put off blogging on this for a while, as other issues took precedence, but I was brought back to this after reading a two-week old Newsweek article on Hillary and Iran. I've noted elsewhere that there seems to be an almost obsessive fear with regards to Iran--not so much from the threat Iran poses, but from the possibility that we may have to engage that threat. The anti-war Left, a lot of the Democratic leadership, and many in the press seem to abide under a constant fear of a war with Iran. Let me say that I don't want to go to war with Iran if we don't have to, and I think that view is shared by all but the most hardened hawks on the right. The thing is, whether some of us refuse to admit or not, Iran is a real threat, and we may have to engage that threat down the line.

The anti-war Left has gone after Democrats whom they feel have not done enough to oppose what they feel is a march to war with Iran. They have piled on Lieberman for basically pointing out that we may have to engage Iran, and they have recently piled on Hillary (and other Dems) for backing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. At the last debate, the other Democratic candidates hammered Hillary over this. Edwards said it "was written by the neocons." Obama, Biden, and others attacked her. Hillary defended herself by asserting her commitment to dealing with the threat of Iran honestly. Here's the thing, whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton's political motivations for voting for the resolution that effectively declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, one thing ought to be clear: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. If Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda are terrorist organizations (no one is disputing that, are they?) then by what I've read, the Quds force is as well.

The problem many have with this resolution is that in their view, it gives Bush legal ammunition to further a casus belli for Iran. I am, for all intents and purposes, a supporter of the Iraq war, but I understand the concern of rushing too quickly into another war, without sufficient planning, or without sufficient public support. To call Iraq a controversial war is the acme of understatement. I reject the idea that this war was doomed from the start, and still cling to hope even now, but many assumptions were proven wrong about this war, and I understand the rational fear about these things.

I just don't see this resolution as necessarily leading to war. I'd been hearing a lot about this resolution, so I read it myself. The whole thing. Frankly, I see nothing to really be alarmed about, unless one totally rejects the idea of identifying threats. Consider this:

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

The way I see it, all this does is acknowledge the threat, and says that we should do all we can to stop it. Diplomacy, economic pressure, and IF NECESSARY, military force. The fact is, we know that Syria has terrorist ties. We've had several resolutions stating this fact. Have we moved any closer to war with Syria as a result? Of course not. I'll say again, that only the most hard-line hawks are calling for strikes against Iran right now, but only fools delude themselves into thinking that all of Ahmadinejad's talk is bluster, and that the threat of nuclear Iran is not real.

OK, whew. That was longer than I'd thought it would be.

Why Do So Many Hollywood Lefties Love Hugo So Much?

Anne Applebaum has a good theory:

"In fact, for the malcontents of Hollywood, academia, and the catwalks, Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention, and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome the frustration John Reed once felt—the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. For all his brilliance, Reed could not bring socialism to America. For all his wealth, fame, media access, and Hollywood power, Sean Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions."

For a regrettably large number of Hollywood big shots, the reality of life in a repressive dictatorship is lost on them. They are easily deceived. This is why a guy like Hugo Chavez can cast himself as a man of the people and a friend of democracy, (much like Che continues to cloak his true bloody legacy even long after his death), while Penn, Redford, Danny Glover and others manage to miss the persistent details of reality.

She continues on:

Most of all, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president—so do most other heads of state—but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman," and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? Ninety years after the tragedy of the Russian revolution, Venezuela has become the "kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer" for a whole new generation of fellow-travelers. As long as the oil lasts."

Certainly seems that way.

Anti-Gay, America-Hating Kooks Get Their Comeuppance

That's the only title I could come up with to describe this victory:

A federal jury in Baltimore awarded nearly $11 million in damages yesterday to the family of a Marine from Maryland whose funeral was disrupted by members of a Kansas-based fundamentalist church.

One of the defendants said the civil award was the first against the church, whose members have stirred anger across the nation by picketing at funerals for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, often carrying placards bearing virulent anti-gay slogans. The church maintains that God is punishing the United States, killing and maiming troops, because the country tolerates homosexuality.

Unrepentant Fred Phelps is somehow undeterred, and continues to somehow see in the First Amendment the right to disturb private military funerals with hate speech:

"It was a bunch of silly heads passing judgment on God," he said. "I don't believe anyone in the courtroom knows what the First Amendment is. Religious views are expressly protected by the First Amendment. You can't prosecute a preacher in civil law or in criminal law for what he preaches."

Fred Phelps and his ungodly coterie miss the mark big time, but the family of Lance Cpl. Snyder sets them straight:

"The fact of the matter is, a funeral's private," said one of their attorneys, Sean Summers. "There was no public concern when [church members] showed up with a 'God Hates You' sign."

Exactly. This is open and shut for me. Not only are these rogues utterly hateful in their rhetoric, they do not have the right to invade private funerals with their rhetoric. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the ACLU has taken sides with the Phelps, although if you ask some people, they'll tell you it makes perfect sense.

RedState to Ron Paul Supporters: You're Not Wanted Here

There's an interesting bit of blogosphere fuss about RedState's policy of preventing new commenters from voicing their support for Ron Paul. RedState says that they're basically crazy people, and that they add nothing to the debate. Let me say this: I am the farthest thing from a Ron Paul supporter than you can possibly be. As a pro-war, center-Left liberal Democrat, I'm as far from Paul's constituency as Tokyo is from Texarkana, but I reject the idea of excluding certain groups of commenters without sufficient cause. I'm feeling a bit lazy now, so I'll let my comment over at Michael van der Galien's place speak instead:

Well, I’m coming at this from the perspective of a pro-war liberal Democrat, but let me add a couple of things. In my view, Ron Paul is something of a crazy person, embodying the worst of 1930’s isolationism, and Lew Rockwell-style hardcore libertarianism. His supporters are almost cult-like in their zeal. The way I see it, no self-respecting liberal would support him.

That being said, Paul’s candidacy is a legit phenomenon, and ought not be ignored. It’s bad form to exclude certain groups from the discussion out of hand. RedState can do what they want, but it’s bad form if you ask me. Meaningless cheerleader posts should be met with equal mental energy, which is to say, not much. Thoughtful and substantive posts should be encouraged. As I’ve said, throwing the whole bunch out is bad form, and I’ll leave it at that.

I'm not sure how likely this is, but if Ron Paul supporters happen to show up here, the door is open. I welcome open and honest debate, even from those with whom I vehemently disagree. Including those who support a bats**t crazy person who wants to basically hollow out the government, and thinks the Civil War was an unnecessary war. If you do show up though, prepare to have your arguments challenged openly, and as I see it, torn to pieces.

Also, I think Simon over at SF has a point about Andrew Sullivan extending a welcome hand to Paul supporters. Sully really does have to open up his blog to comments, if he's going to make statements like that.

HT: Stubborn Facts