Well, I Guess That's It For Immigration Reform

Another key vote was today, and it fell 14 votes short. The way things were going in the Senate yesterday, I wasn't sure this would pass anyway. Oh well, I guess we don't get secure borders, or a rational immigration policy then.

UPDATE: If you say so, I guess. (Sigh...)

Chipmunk High Seriousness

It's all too much for him to bear.



HT: Garance

Young Liberal Hawks Unite!!

Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me, and quite frankly (with a few qualifications), I like it a lot.

Kee p in mind, that I'm not suggesting that we should be somehow uncritical of the justifications of war, or fail to criticize war policy when appropriate, or even that this study is at all ironclad. Nor am I suggesting that the current tough times in Iraq are not a reality (I still cling to hope, however). I just think that younger, more liberal people tend to be more cautiously idealistic about the prospects of defending freedom abroad. Remember that a lot of the opposition to this war came (and still comes) from old-school conservatives.

Now Maybe I'm Grabbing At Straws,

but this statement:

“I’ve heard all the rhetoric — you’ve heard it, too — about how this is amnesty. Amnesty means that you’ve got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that.”

hardly counts as an admission of the recently revived comprehensive reform bill as being amnesty. I know how opponents of this bill would like to cast it that way, but it's not. It's just another regrettable Bush gaffe. He does have a habot of those, you know.

Ok, I'm done with this.

UPDATE: James M. in the comments, who supports the bill, argues that this bill is amnesty, and supporters should just admit that. With all due respect, I cannot that do that. This is not amnesty. It's a sort of leniency, sure, but not amnesty. Now, if one believes that the penalties are too light, than we can debate that, but let's be clear on the meaning of words first.

On The Benoit Tragedy

Wow. I'm still at a loss for words. The wrestling world has lost one of the greatest of all time, in Chris Benoit. Chris, his wife Nancy ("Woman" from WCW and ECW), and his son Daniel were found dead this afternoon at their home in Atlanta. Still can't believe it. I was certainly shocked not to see him at the PPV last night, and I guess...wow, we lost another great one, folks. Chris Benoit will be missed (along with Woman), and my heart goes out to his family.

Tonight's Raw was scrapped, and a very moving three hour tribute to Benoit was done. It was really good. The McMahon "death" angle has been scrapped (Vince and crew handled tonight's show with as much class as anyone could). I wanted that angle over with, but not like this.

Again, Chris Benoit, RIP.

UPDATE: Apparently, their deaths are being ruled a double murder-suicide. Good Heavens, this is horrible.

UPDATE #2: It's been confirmed. Apparently, Benoit killed his wife and son over the weekend, and himself late on Sunday. Good God, this just gets worse and worse. WWE has removed all tributes from TV and the website, and Vince has apologized for the tribute. Honestly, the WWE handled this the best they could. None of us knew the whole story at the time. Still don't know what to think.

UPDATE #3: I removed the picture, and adjusted the title, as you can see. I just doesn't feel right leaving it there, for obvious reasons.

I'm Sure She Bought It Because She Thought It Was Hip,

but perhaps Cameron Diaz really should have thought things through just a bit more, because sometimes a fashion statement isn't just a fashion statement, you know?

Let me be clear and say that I don't think Diaz is a Maoist. Rather, I suspect she had no clue of the meaning of the imagery:

A prominent Peruvian human rights activist said the star of "There's Something About Mary" should have been a little more aware of local sensitivities when picking her accessories.

True dat.

UPDATE: I fixed the link.

About That New Hillary Ad, Part II

You know, I didn't quite see it first, but I thjink Ann Althouse really is on to something with this ad. I'm a writer (I'd like to think of myself as one), so I usually pick up on these things. I'm not sure if I was just being lazy, or what, but the carrot vs onion rings sexual imagery fits.

Oh, and I guess the carrot really is a phallic symbol. Nothing like those masturbation stories, huh? Thanks, Google!

About That New Hillary Ad...

I've seen the ad, and frankly I thought it was cool. I suspect that there are various reasons why Hillary chose to do the ad, and various interpretations of its meaning. In case you haven't seen it, it's a spoof of the final scene of The Sopranos, with Bill and Hillary sitting in the diner, eating, picking songs in the jukebox. Ann Althouse has an interesting analysis, but I think she reads a bit too much into it.

I think the problem of non-Sopranos watchers is interesting, but it's fair to say that Hillary made a safe judgment in assuming that the average person who would watch the ad probably watched, or at least heard of the show, and with the coverage of the finale, the reference was already out there. Of course, assumptions are by their nature fallible. I suspect the only ones who would think using a Sopranos reference is elitist, are those who probably won't vote for her anyway.

Ann's second point is entirely valid. Let us not forget that in the midst of this great story about these complex characters, that we're dealing with hardcore criminals. Tony Soprano is the protagonist, but he is the boss of an organized crime family, and Carmela turns a blind eye. We love these characters, but they aren't exactly role models. Such associations could backfire. You know full well how this could be spun.

The rest of it I'm not touching, because it reeks of reading too much. As one commenter put it, sometimes an onion ring is just an onion ring (BTW, the carrot really is a phallic symbol? I didn't know that!).

At the end of the day, just as the show was a show about family, that happened to involve mobsters, this ad was a clever way for Hillary to try to be hip, current, and edgy, I suppose.

And Johnny Sack was in it. That was cool.

Oh, and the comments are getting ugly on her blog, BTW.

The Foibles of Modern Journalism Notwithstanding,

This isn't just an overstatement, this is outright bomb-throwing hysteria. Don't get me wrong, the media truly needs to do a better job in practically every area, but the way Dick McDonald tells it, you'd think..well I'll just let you read it.

What The Heck Was That?

The Sopranos finale just ended. SPOILER ALERT. Everyone except Meadow is sitting at the table in the restaurant, and Meadow is taking forever trying to park. She finally gets through the door, and...blackout. Blackout. THen credits. No music. I thought my cable was out, but that was the end. Confused as hell. Did David Chase execute the biggest swerve of all? Were they all killed, and we just don't get to see it? Did he just override all speculation and just decide to leave us in the dark, forever?

You don't end a series with a cliffhanger! WTF?!

Is it really the end? Was the biggest swerve that this wasn't the real finale? I don't know what to think.

UPDATE: You know what, after reading the comments over at Althouse, I'm wondering if the feeling in my gut is correct that this a stroke of genius by Chase. In one sense he wants us to suffer, never really knowing, and in other sense he expects we'll be figuring out the ending in our heads for years. Heck, we could just look at it for what we saw: Tony and his family lived. Period.

UPDATE#2: You know what, I think this guy nails it.

UPDATE#3: Well, if you were looking for the big bang finale, it seems the WWE has done it. I was thinking in the back of my head how crazy it would be if something like the limo blowing up happened, and how it would never happen. That's silly. And then it happened. Wow. REally didn't see that coming, that it actually happened, I mean.

It's Starting To Sink In

This Sunday really is the final episode of The Sopranos. No kidding. It is really is starting to sink in.

The Grand Bargain Fails

The comprehensive immigration reform bill may have been dealt the death blow yesterday in the Senate. I really do plan on blogging about this later in-depth, but frankly, I'm kind of worn out. There has been so much hysteria and distortion in this debate, that one wonders whether anything will get done. Marc Cooper basically calls it on why the bill failed:

Meanwhile, the "grand bargain" immigration reform bill has collapsed in the Senate. For this I blame opponents in both parties. The bill was essentially amended-to-death by a fruit salad of Republicans and Democrats who were cynically trying to smother it.

Shame on them.

Here's the bald truth about comprehensive immigration reform: there were only two real-world choices. Either pass an imperfect bill that would at least begin to improve the current outrage of policy. Or do nothing and conform to the current outrage of policy. Period. Compromise or Death, to paraphrase Fidel Castro. Any body who believes differently is living on a different planet.

Now what do we have? From the perspective of the restrictionist Right, instead of bringing some order and some identification to the sea of undocumented in America, we will continue to have 12 million "illegals" around (whom I suppose will continue to serve as convenient scapegoats). And, take my word for it, they will continue to pour across the border -- fortified or otherwise.

From the perspective of the restrictionist Left, those like Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan who helped kill this bill by objecting to the guest worker program, an equally pyrrhic victory has been achieved. In the name of protecting American workers from job-grubbing braceros, as well as protecting would-be guest workers from becoming super-exploited braceros, they have now guaranteed the continued existence of a 12 million strong pool of low-wage undocumented workers -- most of them bereft of any labor or legal protection and not very different from braceros.

Many are wondering if the system is totally broken, and have called this "a scathing indictment of the political culture in Washington." Mickey Kaus, (whom I disagree with on this--I'm pretty sure he's against the bill) nonetheless has some interesting points on the coverage and politics of the bill, basically pointing out that for various reasons (see above as well as his analysis), that it just wasn't going to pass. The anti-immigrant and anti-guest worker program forces just couldn't agree. The far-right wants to basically deport them all (regardless of how much they tell you otherwise), and regard anything less as amnesty, and many on the Left have issues with the guest worker aspect.

At the end of the day, as one who supports comprehensive reform, one wonders about the future of this thing. I'm continually reminded of the line in Pulp Fiction, in which Marsellus says to Butch:

"You came close, but you never made it, and if you were gonna make it, you would've made it before now."

Sounds a lot like John Edwards' political future, but I'll leave that segue for later in the day.

UPDATE: I want to reiterate how much this debate is totally off-balance. The anti-immigrant right, while refusing to budge on this, fails to own up to its own arguments. Michelle Malkin wishes her critics would stop accusing her and the opponents of comprehensive reform of wanting to deport all 12 million undocumented workers. I'm more than happy to do that, Michelle, but I'm afraid you'll actually have to stop advocating that position first. O'Reilly said on his show that the Left doomed the bill with unpopular amendments. The fact is, the GOP base opposed this bill from the start, and would've found any reason to kill it. As it's been said, they don't want real reform. The opponents of the bill, are the ones who are for amnesty. It's that simple.

Paris Hilton Back To Jail

Ok, then. Story here.

Paris Hilton in Jail

I just wanted to share my thoughts on Paris Hilton's jail time and the supposed implications...wait, hold on..what? She's out? Really? Damn, that was quick. Oh, never mind, then.

HT: Althouse

Christopher Hitchens on the Stakes, and how the Far-Left Fails To Acknowlege Them

This is good. A little religion-bashing thrown in, but it is good. The look on lack-witted Chris Hedges' face at the end is priceless.



Hat tip: David Thompson

UPDATE: From Zombietime, comes a full-report on the debate, and the context, as well as more videos.

Hugo vs. Free Speech

Apparently, FAIR thinks it's fair. Read this, and try not to vomit:

When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):

"What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles."

You've got to f-ing kidding me. How much did he pay you, FAIR? How much?

Hat tip: Marc Cooper

With Great Breast Power, Comes Great Breast Responsibility

Via Ann Althouse, a discussion on the power of women's breasts. Hmm.

Poignant Verse for Memorial Day

I was looking around for some timely verse to commemorate Memorial Day, and I think I found a good one. It's by Henry van Dyke, written during the latter days of World War I, calling America to her mantle:

"Liberty Enlightening The World"

Thou warden of the western gate, above Manhatten Bay,
The fogs of doubt that hid thy face are driven clean away:
Thine eyes at last look far and clear, thou liftest high thy hand
To spread the light of liberty world-wide for every land.

No more thou dreamest of a peace reserved alone for thee,
While friends are fighting for thy cause beyond the guardian sea:
The battle that they wage is thine; thou fallest if they fall;
The swollen flood of Prussian pride will sweep unchecked o'er all.

O cruel is the conquer-lust in Hohenzollern brains;
The paths they plot to gain their goal are dark with shameful stains:
No faith they keep, no law revere, no god but naked Might; --
They are the foemen of mankind. Up, Liberty, and smite!

Britain, and France, and Italy, and Russia newly born,
Have waited for thee in the night. Oh, come as comes the morn.

Serene and strong and full of faith, America, arise,
With steady hope and mighty help to join th brave Allies.

O dearest country of my heart, home of the high desire,
Make clean thy soul for sacrifice on Freedom's altar-fire:
For thou must suffer, thou must fight, until the warlords cease,
And all the peoples lift their heads in liberty and peace.

Henry van Dyke April 10, 1917

Ridiculous Declaration of the Day, 5/15

Joe Biden could very well be elected President.

Discuss.

Oh, and Happy Mother's Day!

It's a bit late, but I had to give a blog shout-out to moms, especially my own.

Mohammed Fadhil on the Stakes

Iraq the Model's Mohammed Fadhil, on the stakes in Iraq, and the cost of we leave the mission unfinished:

It is up to us to show tyrants and murderers like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, Syria's Bashar Assad, and their would-be imitators who seek to control Iraq's people and wealth that we, the people, are not their possessions. They can't take out our humanity and they can't force us to back down.

The world should ask them to leave our land before asking the soldiers of freedom to do so.

The cost of liberating Europe in the last century was enormous in blood and treasure. In fact, it took half a century of American military presence thereafter to protect those nations from subsequent threats. If that made sense during a Cold War, and it did, then I don't understand why anyone would demand a pullout from Iraq (and maybe later, the entire Middle East) when the enemies are using every evil technique, from booby trapped dead animals to hijacked civilian aircrafts, to kill innocents.

And so, my friends, I will call for fighting this war just as powerfully as the bad guys do - because I must show them that I'm stronger than they are. The people of America need to understand this: the enemies of a stable Iraq are America's enemies, and they simply do not understand the language of civilization and reason.

I have nothing else I can add. Read the whole thing, as they say.


HT: Michael J. Totten

UPDATE: Some commenters have complained on MJT's blog about Fadhil's connections and biases. It's reasonable to assert that he's biased in favor of the war, but I don't think he ever hid that fact. Many have complained that his piece was linked to by righty outfits like Hannity, Michelle Malkin, et al. I fail to see how this is Fadhil's fault, or relevant. At the end of the day, it was an interesting and compelling piece, and that's why I (and I'm assuming MJT, the NY Daily News) linked to it.

This Does Give One Pause

You know, I don't exactly buy into the "left-wing cabal versus America" meme that the righty partisans advance, at least not in the way they do. Don't get me wrong, the far-left is in full assault mode, and indeed has far too much influence in the Democratic Party, and the country. The catalog of attacks on Joe Lieberman and others who would dare to support him are proof of this. This notwithstanding, I do think George Soros' influence is somewhat overstated in the grand scheme, and he serves as a convenient boogeyman for the right. That being said, as it pertains to the effect of his propaganda machinery and influence on the Party, this poll really does concern me.

Let me be clear that is pure insanity to suggerst that Bush knew about the attacks in advance, and allowed them to happen, or any other politician for that matter. There is no evidence to support such poisonous absurdity. Such baseless conspiracy theories have far too much credence in our discourse on 9/11, and while it's easy to dismiss this as more O'Reilly-fueled hysteria, again, this numbers give me pause. Whatever one thinks of the poll, this is a substantial number.

This does sort of reflect somewhat the divisions within the Democratic Party. While the majority doesn't hold this view, you've got a third of Dems who are totally sold out to far-Left insanity, and this group has too much influence as it is. It's hurting the Party, and more importantly, the country.

Let's Play The Quote Identification Game!

OK, I know this is cheap and predictable, but three guesses as to who said this:

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

If you want to know, check here.

Martin Kramer Schools Juan Cole

This was good. Against such an asinine and ridiculous utterance as Cole's, such satire works perfectly.

HT: Michael J. Totten.

Jon Voight Supports the Fight Against Terror

A good interview. you should check it out. An excerpt:

The war on terror is real. People would have you believe it's not real. This is not Vietnam. This particular situation is not the same wherein we can walk away and just leave destruction behind us. No, we can't. Anyone who has paid attention to what [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad is saying, what all the mullahs are saying in this country and in England, and in all of the Arab world, this is serious—they're calling for the destruction of America and all democracy and that's what's going on. We could lose this war.

Yes, indeed. Let us hope we don't lose this war.

From the "Death Wish Fulfilled" File:

Let it be known, if you rob from the Mafia, they just might kill you. Let's just hope these thugs are put behind bars for their murderous deeds.

"Saddam Himself Was a Weapon of Mass Destruction"

You should watch this interview with Colonel Salahdin Ahmad Ameen, of the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, done by Michael Totten, and Patrick Lasswell. He reflects on the horrors of Saddam's reign, Abu Ghraib, and why the U.S. shouldn't leave the mission unfinished in Iraq. He appears confident that we'll stay, but he points out that if we leave, it will have been the ninth time (including Kissinger's sellout in 1974, as well as Bush I's in 1991) the Kurds will have been hung out to dry.

Away For A Bit, New Posts Coming Straightaway

I've been getting behind with consistent blogging, but I'm planning a lot of new stuff starting today.

Imus as Lefty Scalp?

There's an interesting twist to the Imus controversy brewing. Tammy Bruce argues that Imus was merely a target of the far-left, because Imus represents the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, and the hard-left has placed anyone to the right of them (liberal hawks, Lieberman, DLC, et al) on their hit list. Frankly, I find the assertion that Imus was sacked by the anti-war, activist Left kind of dubious. Don't get me wrong, I count myself as a loyal member of the centrist, Lieberman-Harold Ford-DLC wing of the Party, and I am well aware of the machinery of attack dogs on the Left (as well as the Right, BTW) that have committed themselves to marginalizing and destroying anyone who dares hope for victory in Iraq, doesn't think Bush is pure evil, or dissent from the MoveOn-Kos party line. The civil war is indeed on, and I've felt the wrath.

The thing is, I just don't see Don Imus fitting in to this.

First off, we can debate whether his punishment was too harsh, but it's not as if Imus is the victim here. I fail to see how calling the Rutgers team "nappy headed hos," makes him a standardbearer of the sensible wing of the Democratic Party. FRankly, I find that insulting. Truly, Harold Ford and Imus are friends, and Harold Ford certainly represents the center, but Imus? I just don't see it. Besides, Imus wasn't so much a foe of the liberal elite--in many ways he provided them a forum. All the major Democratic candidates have been featured guests. Even John Kerry just said Imus shouldn't have been fired, and would've have gone back on the show if asked. Kerry isn't exactly a member of the Lieberman camp, is he?

Oh, and Tom DeLay and Ann Coulter as victims? No, I'm not buying that either.

The larger Imus controversy is a story for another post (coming soon, I swear), along with a post on the neccessity of Lieberman Dems. This point was interesting, though:

Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.

Yeah, that's true.

P.S.: The SCOTUS just upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion. You wanna see lefty outrage and hysteria? Follow this story.

See? I told you so.

UPDATE: Imus may not be a lefty scalp, but Jason Whitlock makes a serious case why he's just a sacrifical lamb upon the altar of politics, in order for some black leaders to feel good about themselves, while ignoring the real problem. Let me say this: If Imus' firing was a part of a sincere campaign to redeem the culture, than I'm cool with that, but if were going to stop with him, and this was all a stunt, then Imus needs to get his job back, and this really has been one big sham. I sure hope not.

Further Reflections

Continuing to reflect on the wholesale tragedy of the massacre at Virginia Tech, in case you didn't know, the sooter has been identified as 23-year old South Korean Cho Seung-Hui, a senior and an English major, whose writings reveal a man thoroughly disturbed. He was a loner, and kept to himself. He had submitted screnplays so disturbing that his professors referred him for counseling. He apparently felt isolated, and decided to resolve his issues with mass murder. God help us.

The convocation and candlelight vigil were yesterday.

Predictably, there have been knee-jerk reactions, with many blaming the guns, and violent video games. As far as the supposedly culpability of the gun culture is concerned, I think MIke Silverman covers it well:

To summarize, although people on both sides of the gun issue will certainly try to make hay out of this event, the fact is that both sides really have nothing useful to add. The shooting today was an outlier, and a tragedy, and you don't make public policy choices based on outliers.

As far as blaming video games, that train seems to never want to derail, as self-important "crusader" Jack Thompson couldn't even wait for the victims to be ID'd before he piled on.

God help us, and go Hokies.

Tragedy at Virginia Tech

In case you haven't heard, there's been a mass shooting at Virignia Tech, with over thirty dead, including the shooter. They're calling it the worst shooting in U.S. history. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims. God be with them, and us all.

Well, It's A Start, I Guess

Although this has the appearance of being a drop in the bucket. A really big bucket

It's Over

CBS has cancelled Imus' show. My thoughts on this are coming later.

Kurt Vonnegut, 1922-2007

We've lost a true literary icon. The story is here.

A General Theory of Blogrolling

Well, not really. There's an interesting discussion going on around the blogosphere, about the function of blogrolls, the idea of blogger communities, and the differences between righty and lefty blogs in that regard. There's a real concern about smaller, lesser-known blogs not getting the traffic that bigger, more A-list bloggers get. One part of this involves a bit of well-intentioned, but ill-executed nonsense called Blogger Amnesty Day, started by Atrios, who runs A-list lefty blog Eschaton. I could explain what happened, but I'll let Jon Swift do it better than I can:

But the more I learned about this Amnesty Day, the more I realized that it was a very strange amnesty indeed. The amnesty he granted turned out to be amnesty for himself. He wanted to assuage himself of the guilt he might feel at kicking blogs off his blogroll instead of granting amnesty to others to swarm across the border into his domain. "Everyone feels a wee bit guilty about removing blogs from their blogroll, so they're hesitant to add new ones to an ever-expanding list," he explained. So Atrios deleted his entire blogroll and disappointingly repopulated it for the most part with the usual suspects. Then others in the liberal blogosphere followed his example, including Jesus' General and PZ Myers at Pharyngula, who already takes a very Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest approach to blogrolling (see updates below). Then Markos at Daily Kos joined this ruthless bloodletting. "It sucks and it feels bad," he said, daubing the tears from his eyes as he typed. So the end result of Atrios' Amnesty Day was to make some blogrolls smaller and even more exclusive than they already were.

Not exactly how it was supposedly to work, huh? Now it's clear that I run a small and little-known blog, and I am but a Lowly Insect on the TTLB Ecosystem. I think, as Swift does, that it helps to link to lesser-known blogs, and that bigger blogs really ought to expand their blogrolls beyond just the inner circle. My blogroll serves as a list of blogs I like a lot, and many others that are interesting. My links cover the whole spectrum, although I try to stay away from the excessively hostile. I don't hang out at the swamp of LGF at all or Kos for that matter, and I've wondered if I should delete Kos from the roll for balance, but I'll peek there once or twice, and to be honest, Kos bothers me less (only slightly) than Charles Johnson's domain.

Oh, and Jon, I've added you to my blogroll. You do good work.

On a side note, I plan on posting on Imus, the Duke rape (well, non-rape) case, and the British sailors soon.

At Last, The Decision Is In

In the minds of many, it has been the most critical question of the last few months. Based on the news coverage, the lives of billions are affected. Well, the verdict is in. Larry Birkhead is the father of Anna Nicole's baby.


No, I don't really care either.

Principled Anti-War Criticism That Leaves You Speechless

I'm of course talking about this breathtaking piece by Tish Durkin, over at the Huffington Post. I'm a war supporter, so I probably wasn't in her target audience (even though I'm a liberal), but Durkin offers up some of the most principled criticism of the Iraq war that I've read. You must read the whole thing, but I'll excerpt a few bits:

Don't get me wrong. If I felt that this post were going to be read by a bunch of war apologists, I would take them angrily to task for the manifest, manifold failures in Iraq, and the criminally self-indulgent fictions on which those failures were based. But since this post is presumably being read mostly by war critics, I will devote it to challenging anti-war activists on their apparent belief that everything they say about Iraq is, always has been, and ever shall be true.

It is not, for instance, true that it was the American-led invasion that opened season on the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians. Whatever else the Bush administration made up about Iraq, the rank murderousness of Saddam Hussein was not one of them. Amid the gunfire and giddiness of Baghdad right after its fall in April 2003, it was common to find people converging onto bits of infrastructure, manically fueled by the rumor mill: someone had said that there was a torture chamber underneath this stretch of highway; a secret prison built into this wall. People had no time to be interviewed; if they talked at all, they'd keep going as they panted: "My husband/brother/son disappeared twenty odd years ago; he could still be alive; I have to get him out." I remember going to a mass grave; a "minor" one, not far from Hilla. People were digging there, too: for bones, which were piled everywhere, a sickening canine bonanza. Close by there still lived a man who had seen what had happened there in the days after the war with Kuwait, but kept his mouth shut for years: busloads of innocent Shi'ites, screaming 'God is Great' at the top of their lungs, had been unloaded, rung around pre-dug graves, and shot.

And this one, which ought to be put on a t-shirt, and passed out at every anti-war rally in the country:

Finally, what depresses me, and makes me despise so much war criticism even when I agree with it, is that so many of those positing it seem so happy about what's gone wrong. They seem to relish the probability that Iraq will get worse and worse so that they can be righter and righter.

Like liberals - and thinking conservatives, and sentient beings -- everywhere, I gravely doubt that the troop surge - so little so late -- will do anything to save Iraq. But for the sake of the Iraqi people, I sure hope it does - even if that helps the Republicans.

This may sound crazy, but if the only path to victory in Iraq and the larger GWOT meant a hundred years of GOP victories, I'd pay that price, and I'm sure Durkin would too. Of course, most of us know that such a trade isn't even remotely neccessary, or helpful for that matter. Such fairy-tale either/or dilemmas exist only in the minds of party-line partisans. We don't need to elect Republicans to succeed in Iraq and the GWOT. We just need those in both parties to get their heads on straight.

Hat tip: Instapundit

More on the Wealthy Elite

In this case, regarding Edwards' elitist reputation. Apparently, Elizabeth Edwards has a real problem with her gun-toting, hardcore Republican neighbor, whose house, which is considerably less lavish as the Edwards' palatial abode, she considers an eyesore.

To be fair, she herself never said specifically it was a money issue, and rather sees Johnson as something of a mean, unapproachable bully. You know how this looks, though. This is one of those "perfect fodder for one's enemies" moments. Al Gore has had a similar problem as of late as well.

Hat tip: Instapundit

It's Mostly A Non-Issue, But...

A lot of hubbub and borderline hysteria has risen around the not-that-big-of-a-deal story of Nancy Pelosi's diplomatic trip to Syria. At the end of the day, there's no scandal here, because it's not as if Pelosi will be promoting anything else but the American foreign policy consensus concerning Syria.

I don't think the trip itself sends mixed signals, but I have to agree that this sure as hell does.

HT: Instapundit

Bush: Crusader for the Common Man?

I felt the need to reflect on something I just heard on C-SPAN a few minutes ago. I was watching the tail end of a Q&A interview with Michael Gerson, Bush's former speechwriter. He and Brian Lamb were discussing Bush and his reading habits, and and the conversation led to a point in which Gerson commented the Bush was not anti-intellectual, but anti-elite, and opposed to the contempt elites have for the common man. Bush was lauded as a regular guy, with a common man's disposition. Now, some may accuse me of predictable Bush-bashing, but I find that declaration dubious. Bush is a man born into the patrician elite, and has reaped many of the privileges of his wealthy upbringing. He just hides it better than say John Kerry, who is actually less wealthy, but still gets painted as a Brahmin (which he is). What is it about Bush, who is just as much a product of wealth as Kerry and Gore, that allows him to pass as a regular guy? Is it because he's legitimately more likeable, as those who've met him attest? Kerry comes off as an emotional black hole, and Gore has his issues, but how is Bush any less of an elitist? Keep in mind, that I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with wealth.

Take a guy like John Edwards, who started off from poverty, and worked his way up to wealth, and now wants to give back through policies he believes will help the poor. Truly, many may disagree with his policies, but what is it about Edwards that garners so much contempt from some? What I'm asking is, why is wealthy Bush the everyman, while wealthy Edwards is a self-righteous elite?

Am I missing something? What I'm asking is, how is Bush different?

At Last, The True Upgrade

Well. I'm going to finally buckle down and fully upgrade the blog to the new format. It'll take some time to port everything over, but I think it will be better in the long run.

Yeah, I think Mike Silverman has the right idea.

The April Fool's Eve-Wrestlemania Eve Blog Post

Not much to discuss. Tomorrow is April Fool's, as well as Palm Sunday (hmmm..), not to mention the day before Wrestlemania. Just posting random thoughts:

Apparently, there is a well-oiled revolution underway to thoroughly undermine American Idol, by the likes of Howard Stern, and Andrew Sullivan. It all revolves around the controversial frontrunner Sanjaya Malakar. I have a hard time continuing to pretend that I care about this show, but Ann Althouse is kinda pissed, and makes a serious appeal for Sanjaya's survival.

Oh, and in related stuff involving Ms. Althouse, there is still a bit of a firestorm over something of a spat she had with Garance Franke-Ruta, in a Bloggingheads diavlog. It had something to do with comments she made about a woman named Jessica Valenti, and breasts. I still haven't figured all this out yet, but many have their opinions, like Ezra Klein, who doesn't much care for Ann Althouse at all. Of course, one really should hear Ann's side as well to get a balanced picture. I must say though, that I watched the diavlog, and based on the context I've been able to gather, I think Ann was being entirely unfair to Garance. A lot of other interesting topics were discussed though, such as the general ugliness of some on the blogosphere. It's darn exciting, no matter what your persepective.

In other news, I feel the need to reiterate how awesome the movie 300 is. A consumate masterpiece. I plan on writing a lengthy piece on why this movie is so good, but I'll just reflect a bit on the unjustified heat this movie is getting from the Iranian government, and some short-sighted lefties. As for Iran, their silly and baseless beef seems to be that the movie is trying to provoke a war with Iran. This movie doesn't promote war with Persia per se, but it does include a lesson in the importance of free people having the courage to stand against those who would subjugate and destroy them. Not to mention it's just a damn-good epic about heroism and valor.

Besides, if the leadership in Iran is really worried about provoking a war, perhaps they shouldn't continually defy UN sanctions, or capture British sailors? Just sayin'.

Damn, this post was longer than I thought. Oh, well. Again, Palm Sunday tomorrow, and Wrestlemania.

Oh, and Georgetown just lost. The crunching sound you just heard was a million tourney brackets exploding into flames.

Is This What It's Come To, Then? Vote Bribes?

You know something, I'm really left speechless by this. I just cannot fathom this. How far has my Party fallen already, when the Democratic leadership would stoop so low as to grease the wheels of the ill-advised, uber-controversial, and wrongheaded Iraq bill, with pet projects in order to cheaply gain votes? This is the same crap the country kicked out the Republicans for, not to mention just plain wrong. Is this going to be the new standard?

If this bill that sets an August 2008 deadline for troop withdrawal is so solid, why not let it pass cleanly? Why do votes have to be extorted? Could it be that many of the leadership know that this bill will not, and should not pass otherwise?

This is not what I had in mind, when they talked about a new direction. This crap needs to stop now.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Cincinnati Says No To The Duke Boys

You know, I'm not sure what to make of this. My opposition to the ideas that the Confederacy stood for are clear, as well as my general distaste for the Confederate flag. I would rather the flag not be on state houses, as it makes a clear political statement ( I agreed with the campaign to have it taken down in South Carolina). However, I have learned to tolerate when used as a general symbol for Southern pride. I have no problem acknowledging the average person with the Confederate flag on their shirt probably isn't a racist. I'm not a fan, but I can tolerate it. Keeping that mind, I find this to be a bit of an overreaction.

I mean, it's the Dukes of Hazzard, for God's sake.

Speaking of Evil Books...

In this TNR piece, Andrew Sullivan thoroughly reviews Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, which argues that the cultural Left caused 9/11, and that the only hope for America is to take up common cause with the theocratic order of radical Islamism. Sullivan basically argues that this is the logical end route of conservatism's current course, only with the veil torn down:

It is crucial to remember that, for all the conservative criticism of The Enemy at Home, this argument is just as central to the base of the current Republican Party as it is to this book. In this respect, The Enemy at Home is an utterly unremarkable exploration of what theoconservatism really requires. It demands that individual autonomy be sacrificed for obedience to the external moral order. Theoconservatism refuses to accept the notion that government can ever aspire to be neutral with respect to competing visions of morality

You really do need to read the whole thing. D'Souza's thesis almost reads like a cartoonish parody of the far-right, but his argument is hardly unserious, profoundly dangerous, and poses a fundamental threat to the fabric of Western thought.

Not to mention it's just out and out crazy.

Hat tip: Red Letter Day

Someone Didn't Do Their Homework?

Over at Stubborn Facts, Pat and Tully extensively comb through the the latest study that professes to prove that the Bush Administration is politically persecuting Democrats with investigations. The study has some major flaws. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but based on initial findings, this looks like hackery. The thing is, this whole thing started around allegations that a number of U.S. Attorneys were fired because of their failure to investigate Democrats. That story has legs, but this study looks to take things farther than they actually go.

Well, That Was Interesting

Via Adult Swim, and James Urbaniak's (the voice of Dr. Venture for the Venture Bros.) LiveJournal, comes an interesting link to an interesting look at the CPAC 2007, from Nation columnist Max Blumenthal. OK, I know he's a unabashed lefty, but I'm telling you, you've got to see this. Some highlights include the Anti-Romney Dolphin, a brief discourse on "Leftist Cultural Imperialism" by Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, and others. I'm amazed that the guy who made the most sense on the whole clip was Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist!!

Oh, and I do feel the need to point out that Max probably did handle his confrontation with Michelle Malkin poorly. Did he really think she was going to sign that picture? Oh well.

UPDATE: Here's the direct link to the clip.

When Fiction Writers Lie, People Die

You really need to read this latest piece by Orson Scott Card, on Steve Berry's The Alexandria Link. He makes a solid case that Berry's book is in the service of evil, because it promotes anti-Israel propaganda, and advances, albeit very subtly, the vile cause of the destruction of the Jews:

Here's how it works.

At the beginning of the book, we are shown a Palestinian during the 1948 war over the creation of the state of Israel. The scene is about how this Palestinian has been torturing a man he captured in order to find out what he is doing; then he kills him. But the torture is not treated in the fiction as anything other than a regrettable necessity; later, the character does in fact regret his actions that day.

That's not what makes this book evil. No, it's the fact that Berry sets this scene against a background in which Israelis are systematically driving all the Palestinians out of Israel; the Israelis are heavily armed by the British while the Palestinians have no weapons to counter them; and the Israelis have rounded up whole villages of Palestinians and slaughtered them, men and women alike.

These things are not what the scene is about. They are slipped in as background; they are treated as if they were the sort of thing that was really going on in Palestine in 1948.

This is the kind of thing that readers -- especially ones who don't know anything about history -- are likely to assume the writer has researched, so that it can be trusted. The book is fiction, so we know this particular character did not torture and kill the other guy -- that part is obviously made up. But the background is assumed to be real. And readers often come out of books like this thinking they now know something about the real world.

In fact, what Berry is providing is pure propaganda -- the propaganda created by terrorists and murderers to "prove" that Jews "deserve" to be blown up by suicidebombers. It is exactly as reliable as the widely-believed propaganda lie that either President Bush or the state of Israel -- or both -- actually carried out the 9/11 attacks in order to provide a pretext for invading innocent Muslim countries.

It really is crucial to the survival of free societies to learn that ideas have consequences. This book advances hideous blood libels, and subtly wraps them in the form of bad fiction. The book is evil in the way Valley of the Wolves Iraq is evil. The way the DaVinci Code is evil. It is the most sinister form of lie. Card gives us a solid history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a sound defense of Israel, and a thorough rebuke of the so-called intellectuals who through their moral cowardice, justify all manner of evil.

My problem with this piece is this one interesting statement he makes:

Naturally, the book also loathes the Bush administration -- that's a
requirement in fiction today. (When I wrote a thriller in which American soldiers actually approved of the war against Terrorist nations and groups, and actually respected President Bush, I was attacked by Leftists as if I had created a piece of intolerable propaganda -- never mind that the real American military is full of people with those views, and the point of the novel, if it had one, was to deplore extremism on either side. Actual tolerance toward conservative views is regarded as a crime by America's "tolerant" and "freedom loving" intellectuals today.")

Now I haven't read Empire, but if the word on the street is correct, and unless I've missed something, his book is about a lot more than soldiers favoring war against terrorists. I could be wrong, but the description reads like a clunky bit of partisan tripe, in which the Left is this evil force that sells out to the terrorists, and all those humble right-wingers are America's only hope. It smacks of something Rush would pen. Hardly a work trying to counter partisanship on both sides.

The fact is, Card just travels waay too much into Bush Worship Land. His arguments everywhere else are solid, but I swear, I think he has BDS in reverse.

Trying To Have It Both Ways

Brendan Loy, in this great piece, reflects on the hypocrisy of wanting to end genocide without the possibility of war:

Look, I’m not saying that wars are always justified, nor even that every war that ends a genocide or takes out a genocidal madman is necessarily justified; if non-military means can accomplish the same end in the same time frame, of course they should be used (unless there’s some other compelling reason why force is necessary). Nor am I suggesting that leaders who seek to justify wars on the basis of stopping or preventing genocide are necessarily interested purely in the humanitarian rationale. That would be naive to the point of idiocy; of course other reasons generally take priority (regardless of what might be said in public), and when those other reasons don’t exist, we don’t usually get involved. And it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize our leaders for that.

What isn’t reasonable, in my view — and I’d love to hear a coherent argument for why I’m wrong — is to state that you are “anti-war in principle” while at the time demanding that all genocides can and must be stopped. The reality is that some genocides — not necessarily all, but certainly at least some, and probably most — cannot be stopped without military action. And moreover, even among those that can be stopped without military action, the plausible threat of military action is generally a prerequisite to successfully putting any sort of diplomatic pressure on genocidal regimes. It may be an oversimplification to say that “the only language they understand is force,” but certainly when we’re talking about the sort of people who would commit genocide, it’s a concept that can’t be blithely ignored. Simply put, genocidal regimes are not generally run by nice people, and they’re unlikely to stop just because you ask nicely. All the rock concerts, earnest petitions, U.N. resolutions, State Department missives and even economic sanctions in the world won’t make an iota of difference if there’s nothing to back them up. If you’re unwilling to put your money where your mouth is, no one will care what you think.

Agreed. The fact is, there really isn't a coherent reason I can think of why Brendan is wrong on this. It's not that those who want to end genocide, yet remain "anti-war on principle" don't want to end genocide, it's that to hold such a position forces one to smack up against the reality that the latter (war), is sometimes required to end the former. It was war that stopped the Holocaust. It was war that stopped Saddam's reign, as well as Slobo's reign. Diplomacy's good, but to paraphrase Orwell, sometimes moral force isn't enough. Sometimes you need physical force.

Hat tip: Centerfield

I'll Take My Money Elsewhere, Thank You

Says one now ex-donor to the College of William and Mary, after their foolish decision to remove the historic cross from the Wren Chapel:

Advocates of keeping the cross in Wren Chapel pointed to the school's founding 300 years ago as an institution of the Anglican Church. The cross, they argued, should be displayed not only as a symbol of faith but as an acknowledgment of history and tradition.

Agreed. This has nothing to do with church-state separation. This is about the traditions of the school. I'm perfectly fine with allowing other faiths to worship there, as this is proper and just. Why can't they just put up their symbols alongside the cross? Why must they take the cross down to accomodate other faiths? The traditions of the school shouldn't be undermined in an attempt to appease the overly-PC.

Hat tip: Centerfield

To The Dictionary!

First, let's start with this one:

trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

OK, now let's look at this one:

stu·pid·i·ty /stuˈpɪdɪti, styu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stoo-pid-i-tee, styoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 2.
1.
the state, quality, or fact of being stupid.
2.
a stupid act, notion, speech, etc.

And now, consider the meaning of Hanlon's Razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If you're wondering where I'm going with this, ask John Murtha. He may try to explain how his plan to end the war will help the troops. If it doesn't make sense, don't feel bad. It doesn't to me either, or the troops for that matter. Or the American people.

Paying the Dane Geld

Not much to post today, but I'll leave you with this prescient poem by Rudyland Kipling, with some emphasis added. Happy President's Day.

Dane-Geld

by Rudyard Kipling

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Happy Two-Year Anniversary!!

Today is Valentine's Day, but that isn't as nearly as important as the fact that this blog is now officially two years old! Huzzah!!

OK, my self-serving celebration is over, so enjoy your day, lovebirds.

Setting the Debate Straight

On this blog in particular, and on all other blogs that I publish on, I'm planning a series of blog essays intended to promote an honest debate on the war, by both sides. In my view, both sides have gotten thing wrong with regards to this debate, and if we are to have a truly honest debate on the current state of the war, certain questions need to be answered, and certain realities need to be confronted. Not to mention the fact that the bitter attacks from both sides need to really end. This should be no secret to anyone who knows me or reads this blog, but I am a firm supporter of the mission in Iraq, and believe we must do all we can to achieve the best possible victory. It's clear that things are not going well right now, and we need to turn things around. Many major mistakes have been made, and this is not a small matter, however the one mistake we cannot make is to short-circuit the mission before it is complete.

Dissent is good and crucial, and I have never doubted the sincerity of those oppose the war, or the current surge plan on principle. I do think we really need to come to terms with consequences of our choices. Those who advocate a redeployment of troops from Iraq need to really come to terms with the ramifications. As I've said, I'll begin delving deeper soon, but as a preview, I just have three questions that I really think the critics of the surge plan need to answer:

1. If the surge plan is doomed to failure, and the current commander Gen. Petraeus supports the plan, then why was Petraeus unanimously confirmed? You say the commanders on the ground don't support the plan, but Petraeus does. Why is that not enough?

2. If the war is unwinnable, as many have argued, why should we wait six, or twelve months to redeploy? Why not do it now? Could it be that all of us recognize that the situation on the ground makes such a plan irresponsible? What will change by March 2008, Senator Edwards?

3. If Iraq is a distraction from the larger WOT, do you really think it would've been easier to deal with those threats if Iraq descends into civil war and becomes an Iranian proxy state?

And, changing gears, an entirely different question, to those who suggest that moderate Islam doesn't exist, and the only solution is an outright war with Islam:

Do you realize that that scenario makes a long-term victory in the GWOT impossible?

More to come...

The Vista Vice Grip

Bruce Scheiner gives us yet another reason not to upgrade to Windows Vista:

Windows Vista includes an array of "features" that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry.

And you don't get to refuse them.

The details are pretty geeky, but basically Microsoft has reworked a lot of the core operating system to add copy protection technology for new media formats like HD-DVD and Blu-ray disks. Certain high-quality output paths--audio and video--are reserved for protected peripheral devices. Sometimes output quality is artificially degraded; sometimes output is prevented entirely. And Vista continuously spends CPU time monitoring itself, trying to figure out if you're doing something that it thinks you shouldn't. If it does, it limits functionality and in extreme cases restarts just the video subsystem. We still don't know the exact details of all this, and how far-reaching it is, but it doesn't look good.

Microsoft put all those functionality-crippling features into Vista because it wants to own the entertainment industry. This isn't how Microsoft spins it, of course. It maintains that it has no choice, that it's Hollywood that is demanding DRM in Windows in order to allow "premium content"--meaning, new movies that are still earning revenue--onto your computer. If Microsoft didn't play along, it'd be relegated to second-class status as Hollywood pulled its support for the platform.

This is bad news for my mom, who just bought a new Dell laptop with Vista. She's still something of a neophyte when it comes to computers, so I'll have to help her along. I think a forced downgrade back to XP may be in order.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Which Way Is It Going To Be, Mrs. Clinton?

There is a great piece by Christopher Hitchens in Slate, on the persistent knot Hillary has tied herself into, in trying to reconcile her past support of the Iraq policy, with her current desire to be President, and thus appease the anti-war Democratic base. An excerpt:

At stake, then, is not just the credibility of an ambitious New York senator who wants to be the next President Clinton. At stake, rather, is the integrity of the last President Clinton and of those in his administration who concluded that coexistence with Saddam Hussein was neither desirable nor possible. If the subject was less important, it might be amusing to watch Hillary Clinton trying to "triangulate" her way out of this and find a way of impugning the Bush policy that did not also impugn her husband's own consistent strategy. But the thing cannot be done and can't really even be attempted without raising the suspicion that a major candidate for the office of the presidency is, on the main issue of the day, not just highly unprincipled but also completely unserious.

Indeed. FWIW, I think she was right back then, and in many ways made a better and more articulate case than Bush. She really is going to have to make up her mind on this, and quickly. I'll just leave it at that.

The Last True Muscular Liberal Left in Congress?

The immortal words of Sen. Joe Lieberman. A man of honor, decency, and on the issues that matter, uncommon clarity. I'll not excerpt, as this must be read in full. Read it and spread the word.

And to my fellow Dems (and certain Republicans): It's not your sincerity I doubt, but you're wrong on this. Dangerously wrong.

"Whatever You Voted For, You Didn't Vote for Failure"

With the clear exception of the moving tribute to Wesley Autrey, that line was the best part of the speech. Or at least the most important, as I see it.

The SOTU Speech That Americans Deserve To Hear?

Jules Crittenden, over at Pajamas Media, thinks this is how the speech should go (but won't):

I will engage evil directly where I find it, in Iraq and in Iran. With an aggressive and ruthless new strategy and a plan to build our army as we should have a long time ago, I will show the American people that we can fight and we can win. I expect that the American people, though misled by their press and many of their elected representatives, will see results and will get it. Because the American people are a people who in the end don’t give up, don’t stop fighting, refuse to lose, and will choose to win. I have faith in them.
Oh, there’s another one of those words you don’t like.

A nation that is not willing to fight for what it believes in, for its place in the world, is not worthy of its own ideals. But that is not America. I now intend to help America restore its faith in itself. By fighting this necessary fight that we cannot afford to lose.
So … are you with me, or against us?

Not exactly how I'd advance it, but you get the idea. Is anyone tuning in to the speech for the domestic proposals? I sincerely doubt that.

H/T: Centerfield

UPDATE: Actually, I liked the one the President actually gave. As one who doesn't agree with Bush on much, I thought he did a good job. I'll just leave it at that.

Boxer vs. Condi, and the Chickenhawk Meme

This story is a few days old now, but if you didn't know, there was something of a firestorm over a rather ill-advised jab that Barbara Boxer made towards Condolezza Rice, in the Iraq hearings the other day. Conservatives were full of outrage, and while Boxer's statement is worthy of scorn and rebuke, it seems that the right has made this into something bigger than it is (as usual), and in effect, missed the real scandal. First off, here's what Sen. Boxer actually said:

"Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family."

Now the knee-jerk reaction is one of shock and outrage. Did she really say that? Is she suggesting that the single and childless cannot feel the pain of loss? To be fair, I fell for it too. The thing is though, such a response is totally out of character for Boxer. The idea that she would turn misogynist all of a sudden isn't really plausible. Don't get me wrong, anger-fueled, low-class, low blows are hardly new, and are a bipartisan exercise. The implausibility of such an act isn't so much based on Boxer somehow being above such ugliness-- rather it's just plain inexplicable politically. Chris Weinkopf, in a spot-on op-ed in the LA Daily News, explains:

Now come on. Are we really to believe that Boxer - a champion of unlimited abortion and gay activism - thinks that only those with children are worthy of expressing an opinion? The senator has taken some extreme positions in her time, but an excessive deference to traditional gender and family roles is hardly one of them.

Of course she wouldn't, as it would be a slap against her chief constituency. Politically, it's completely out of character. You'd expect this sort of line from the likes of Bay Buchanan, not Barbara Boxer. Conservatives, still the uncontested masters of the hysterical pile-on, missed this entirely, and missed the real scandal of Boxer's remarks:

But lost amid the overblown charges of sexism is real analysis of the plain meaning of Boxer's words - namely, her risible suggestion that only those with a personal stake in an issue are qualified to weigh in on it.

You see, there's the scandal. At the end of the day, it really is just another variation of the intellectually bankrupt chickenhawk meme that has so much dominion over the anti-war Left nowadays. You know the script: Unless you've fought in war, have friends or relatives fighting in war, or have lost loved ones in war, you are somehow unfit to speak on matters of foreign policy. I'm sure you've heard this before. I plan on discussing this phenomenon at length later, but essentially the chickenhawk meme is really rooted in the idea that only those who have a personal stake in an issue are fit to speak on it.

According to the "logic," if you're a man, you cannot speak on abortion issues. Never mind the fact that fathers have stake in the lives of their unborn children, not to mention the males have an interest in the survival of their human cohorts in the womb. If you're a man, women's issues are nondebatable. If you're white, you can't speak on civil rights issues, etc. It undermines the debate, and allows the person to avoid accountability for their arguments. Both sides do this all the time, but Boxer has used it in this case, and unfortunately, many on the Left have made a habit out of it, at least with regards to the war.

Conservatives blew a great opportunity to drive another nail in the fallacious (and insulting) chickenhawk myth. Piling on is easy, but proper outrage is hard. Oh well.

At the end of the day, we should follow the logical course of Boxer's argument. Since she herself admits that she has no personal stake in this debate, by her own logic, one is forced to wonder why anyone is listening to her at all.

P.S. Of course, the idea that we who are childless and single have no stake in Iraq is ridiculous in and of itself. The outcome of this war affects all of us. In the last election, the majority of Americans voted for change in Iraq, as the duly elected Democratic leaders rightly remind us every chance they get. Surely, every one of those opinions mattered, and not just those married, with children?

To The Mantle, Mr. Ford

Word on the street is that Harold Ford, Jr. has been tapped to become the new DLC Chairman. This is awesome news, although I still wish he was the junior Senator for Tennesee, as opposed to Bob Corker. I've been a Harold Ford fan for a long time, and should he accept. It will be great for the Democratic Party, and the nation.

Oh, and Kos is opposed to it! I like it even more!

Hat tip: Instapundit

Jefferson on Islam

I've gone on record as supporting the decision by Keith Ellison to take the oath on the Koran as oppose to the Bible. He's a Muslim, and has the right to swear on the book of his faith, or any book, for the matter. Article VI is clear, not to mention how much this really ought to be a non-issue. It was quite the clever smackdown to the far-right to use the Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson. I remain soundly impressed by that move. As far as Jefferson's views on Islam, Christopher Hitchens has a great piece on his views, as well as his direct confrontation with radical Islamism, in the form of the Barbary pirates. Read it. No need for excerpts.

On another note, many have brought up the issue of Ellison's former membership in the Nation of Islam, which as you know is headed by Louis Farrakhan. We know Farrakhan's history, but Ellison is no longer a member ( he was a member in his youth), and as far as I know never embraced any of his views, that are, now how can I put this, not very philo-Semitic, or favorable towards white people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he has openly repudiated those views. I judge the man as he is, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, but he's for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Nevertheless...

UPDATE: Ellison's not down with cuddling up to Islamist radicals, like many on the far-right imply, but as Timothy Noah reports, Dinesh D'Souza sure as hell is.

Quick Thoughts on the President's Speech

I watched every moment of the speech, as I wanted to make sure I got everything in. Let me just say this outright: I'm really digging Bush's plan. Contrary to some views, it really is a departure from previous approaches. The idea it seems is to help the Iraqis secure Baghdad and Anbar, and with our increased support, turn them loose on the Mahdi Army, the death squads, and those making trouble in Iraq. It really does sound like a plan that could work. I pray to God it does.

There has been a lot of talk about Bush's admitting of mistakes in Iraq. It's good that he did that, for the obvious reasons. One of my main criticisms of Bush in general was his inability to admit error, and change course. The course should be towards victory, however, and not defeat.

As we all know, there has been a lot of criticism of this plan, even before it was announced. A lot of it has been legitimate. Many of the generals and experts don't think it will work. There are real questions about the specifcs that are legitimate. The Democrats, for all intents and purposes, opposes the surge (well, they do now). The Dems basically argue that sending twenty thousand more troops isn't enough, and that political solutions are needed, as opposed to an escalation. In other words, start planning for a phased withdrawal. I've never doubted the sincerity of those who hold this view, but their view is wrong.

The word on the street is that Dems will either put up a non-binding resolution opposing the surge, or even try to block funds for the surge. I really don't need to explain why the second option is bad, do I? The Dems really are in a bind: They can't cut the funds, but they cannot block the surge. As much as they might want to, the decision is entirely up the commander-in-chief, as it should be. I hope to God they won't try to cut funding, but this half-assed dance doesn't help either.

At the end of the day, IMO, they won't cut funds. Any attempt to block the surge will fail, and either the Dems will support because they're forced to, or oppose it, yet remain powerless politically. Who knows. Despite all, I have faith in the good judgment of the clear-headed leadership. Joe Lieberman can't be the only one who gets it.

Huh? (Never Mind, I Get It)

Let me see if I'm reading this right:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's trial for the killing of 180,000 Kurds in the 1980s resumed Monday with the late dictator's seat empty, nine days after he went to the gallows. The court's first order of business was to drop all charges against Saddam.

Chief Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa said the court decided to stop all legal action against the former president, since "the death of defendant Saddam was confirmed."

Huh?! Can someone explain this to me, please?

UPDATE: Never mind. I've since come to the realization that this is a non-story. Things seem bigger than they are at 9am. BTW, a big post is forthcoming that will be my last word on Saddam's trial and execution, and the accompanying hysteria.

Damn, It's Only Been One Day!

Look, I get that a lot of people are really anxious to see real change happen with the new Congress, but the Dems have only been in power for a day. These things don't happen overnight.

Oh, and the reason the Dems aren't pulling the troops out, or cutting the funding: Responsibility.

At The Risk Of Being Considered Out of Touch

In the midst of this historic day of deserved celebration as the Dems ascend to power, there has been a lot of outrage in other areas. The far-Left is pissed that the Dems haven't impeached Bush yet, and the some in the GOP are whining over supposed impositions on their minority rights in the House.

One story that refuses to die, is the absurd phony outrage over Rep. Keith Ellison's swearing in on a Koran. Thomas Jefferson's Koran, no less. It should be noted that the official swearing in is done en masse, without any book at all. Besides, he has the right to swear on whatever book he wants.

Not convinced? Consider Article 6, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Can someone please clue in Dennis Prager and Virgil Goode?

Happy New Year!

A few days late, but here we are! Looking forward to new opportunities in 2007, with the grace of God at our side.

The Butcher of Baghdad is Dead

At around 10 pm last night, the murderous life of Saddam Hussein ended, as he faced ultimate justice for his crimes. This is a great thing, as the Iraqi people now have a measure of justice, for the thirty years of rape, murder, and genocide he put his people through. My view on the death penalty is that it should always be an option for the worst criminals, and the most remorseless monsters of the Earth-- in other words, men like Saddam. His death may not change things on the ground, but at least he has faced justice, according to the rule of law, the same rule of law that he denied his own people.

Many have wondered if the trial was really fair, or worth it. The fact is, things were messy, with all the delays, grandstanding, and violence, but he had his counsel. He had his appeals. The evidence was weighed carefully, and a just verdict was laid down by the Iraqi people. The only reason why the outcome seemed inevitable, is because it was-- the evidence against was unassailable.

Some may wonder why even have a trial at all, when we could have just taken him behind an alley and put a bullet in his brain. He still would've been treated better than he treated his own people, but it wouldn't have been the right way. A back alley execution is the sort of thing one would expect under Saddam. Civil governments don't do that sort of thing. It was crucial that he be forced to submit to the rule of law, under Iraqi justice. He was, and now his bloody reign is truly over. Most Iraqis are celebrating. They have every reason to, now that one of the most brutal villains in history has been fast-tracked to Hell.

Post-Christmas Thoughts, Mourning Legends, and Iraq

Before I get into this post, I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, and hope they have a Happy New Year. We lost a true icon of soul in James Brown, who passed away on Christmas morning. He was the Godfather of soul, and he will be sorely missed. In yet another tragic note, former President Gerald Ford has died at the age of 93. I was born in 1979, so I obviously don't remember his Presidency, but from what I've read and seen, he was a humble man who assumed the mantle he never sought, and did his best to heal the wounds of Watergate. Ford received a lot of heat for his pardon of Nixon, but I suspect he was doing what he thought was right, in trying to heal the country by sparing it an ugly trial. May the verdict of history be just.

Speaking of the verdict of history, Marc Cooper has a piece on soldiers who dissent from the Iraq war, with a particular story of one Lt. Ehren Watada, who has resisted deployment to Iraq. I've written before about soldiers in an all-volunteer military refusing to obey orders. Myabe I'm being harsh here, but I don't find much heroism, or nobility in Watada's actions. He has based his actions on his belief that the Iraq war is illegal, and in his view, a war crime. Simply put, he has no legal or moral footing here. He's just plain wrong. We have 17 U.N resolutions, the Iraq War Resolution, and international law as a legal and moral support. It's one thing to consider the war unwise, or mismanaged. I respect the first position, and basically agree with the second. Things aren't going well. But to say this war is illegal, and thus tar all our soldiers as war criminals is wrong.

To be fair, Watada is not hiding from the charges, and he has agreed to serve in Afghanistan, which he believes in just. The thing is, you don't get to pick where they send you, and he ought to face the judgment for his actions. Some have called this an act of civil disobedience, comparing him to Thoreau and others. Ignoring the legal issues for a second, the moral situation in this case is totally different. Thoreau was resisting slavery. Watada refused to obey a lawful order, and thus violated the oath he swore and volunteered to uphold. Many have criticized the policy in Iraq, yet still did their duty. Heck, I support the policy, so I'm biased, and maybe I just can't see his moral position as legitimate. I just think he's totally wrong on this.

I'll leave it at that, as I now steel myself for the onslaught of false accusations of being an intellectual bag man for the Bush Administration, or in the words of one commenter at Cooper's blog, a peddler of "Malkinesque, war-blogger sarcasm."

Oh, and John Edwards has officially announced he's running again.

The Truth About the Iraq Study Group

In an all-too-serious, yet funny spoof version. Zucker's other spoofs were partisan and silly, but this one is on point, not to mention bone-chilling.

H/T: My crew at Stubborn Facts

Jimmy Carter's Latest Dilemma

Former President Jimmy Carter's getting some serious heat for his new book covering the Israli-Palestinian conflict. He prayed with rabbis to try and smooth things over, but it doesn't seem to be working:

The Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix said they wouldn't call for a boycott of Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," but they also won't suggest that anyone read it.

"I don't know if he gets the evil that we are facing," said Rabbi Bonnie Koppell of Scottsdale.

Carter, 82, was met by a crowd of protesters as he appeared at a book store in suburban Tempe to autograph copies of the book.

He said he chose the title to shine light on the festering conflict and give Americans a different point of view than what they're used to.

"I wanted to provoke debate," Carter said. "I wanted to provoke discussion."

Discussion is always good, but the ideas in his book will suffer rebuke for very legitimate reasons. It appears to suggest that the Israeli approach to the peace process is comparable to apartheid.

The story continues, with this:

Carter's book follows the peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians during his presidency in 1977-1980. He's critical of all players in not reaching a better accord, but he's especially critical of the Israelis. He previously told The Associated Press that Americans are rarely exposed to anything other than pro-Israeli views in the news media.

Really? Are you sure? Was he paying attention during the Lebanon war? To be fair, coverage is infinitely better than in Europe and the Arab world, but is Carter really suggesting the media coverage is overly pro-Israel? I mean, I'd say it's pretty balanced, all things considered. The Palestinians have their say.

Reflections on Pinochet's Death, (and Reflections on the Reflections)

In case you didn't know, General Augusto Pinochet has died, at the age of 91. The old dictator passed away a couple of days ago, and for most, this ought to be good news. It seems that there's an uncomfortable heap of controversy over his legacy. I must confess to not being anything approaching an expert, but it seems to me, after reading the history, that Pinochet's legacy as a brutal dictator, who seized power from the democratically-elected (albeit Marxist) Sal Allende, and then murdered over 3,000 over his people, tortured and brutalized thousands more, committed acts of state terrorism, including acts on U.S soil, and subjected his people to a nearly two-decade reign of terror is valid and undisputed. Even many of his apologists (and they're out and about), admit he was a dictator.

There are numerous sources to check out on Pinochet's legacy. Christopher Hitchens has written a good piece on Pinochet's bloody legacy. Marc Cooper, who was actually Allende's translator back in the day, has a perspective on this you'll not get anywhere else.

As I said before, not everybody's happy that the Captain General is gone. Many of his supporters have taken to the streets, and pledged their support for him at his funeral. Apparently, much like their beloved master, they really do have a soft spot for fascism.

The rightist apologists for Pinochet, at home and abroad, are all over the place. The general pro-Pinochet argument basically goes like this: His free-market economic policies brought prosperity to Chile, and he left Chile better off. His dictatorial regime is excused as a necessary reaction to communism. "Sure he was a dictator, but those damned commies had to be stopped." His despotism, murder, and terrorism are somehow mitigated by his Milton Friedman style economic policies. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't think that markets were usually implemented through bloody dictatorships. Shows what I know. This view is far more prevalent than many realize. Maggie Thatcher saw him as "restoring democracy to Chile." In fact, he was having tea with the Iron Lady right before his 1998 arrest.

Examples of right-wing apology are here, here, here, and a mind boggling one here. These sorts of things get ugly real quick, it seems.

Heck, even the Washington Post gets in on the action.

Look, recognizing the very real and ugly tyrannical legacy of Fidel and other communist regimes is one thing, but to excuse one of the most brutal and criminal dictatorships in Latin America, all under the banner of economic renewal, and a policy of anything goes against communism is wholly misguided.

Glenn Greenwald and others point to the linkage between this and the controversial policy of the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, who passed away just a few days ago also. Her policy, expressed in her landmark 1979 piece "Dictatorships and Double Standards, " essentially argues that right-wing regimes were less repressive than left-wing ones, and that it was good U.S. policy to back any regimes that were anticommunist. This approach was flawed for obvious reasons. I won't go too much into Kirkpatrick's role on this, although Greenwald does capture the prevailed right-wing sentiment on Pinochet clearly: It was all justified to save the country from communism. Many point out how he laid down his power after the plebiscite, which to me is like saying "he raped us for twenty years, and then he stopped. What a guy!" Well, it was the least he could do, after all.

Now, as I said, I'm not an expert, but this whole Pinochet apology and revisionism borders on revolting. I'll just leave it at that.

Hitchens Reviews Coulter's "Godless" Book

Or should I say, eviscerates. I must admit to extracting an almost unhealthy amount of joy out this review. An excerpt:

But then, I have the distinct feeling that people do not buy Ann Coulter’s creed-screeds and speed-reads in order to enhance their knowledge of history or their command of syllogism. She has emerged as a persona because she has mastered the politics of resentment, and because she can combine the ideology of Human Events (the obscure ‘Joe McCarthy was right’ magazine) with the demand of the chat-show bookers for a tall blonde with a very rapid delivery on a wide range of subjects. The cover of this book – which follows the success of its forerunners Treason and Slander: titles that require little elucidation – shows her in a low-cut black dress with a prominent crucifix dangling over a modest cleavage. The needs of showbiz notwithstanding, I cannot fathom the reason for this slight come-hitherishness. Miss Coulter is not married and ought therefore, by her own loudly-proclaimed standards, to be a virgin and to remain so until further notice.

It's Here

After nine-months, the much discussed Baker-Hamilton report has been released. I'm not making judgments until I get all the facts. Some people already hear the sound of the sharpening of knives, and others see hope. I'm willing to put aside doubts and look to hope. As I've said, anything that doesn't involve precipitous withdrawal, partitions, selling out to Iran or Syria, or the status quo ought to be on the table.

Talking's good, but...you know what I mean.

UPDATE: I posted the link to the actual report (HT: Centerfield).

UPDATE #2: At the end of the day, it really looks like the knives are being sharpened, folks. The vaunted ISG report appears to be one big staming pile of realpolitik, rhetorical photo-opping, and surrender.

No Laughing Matter?

You know, a lot of us laugh at Scientology. We think of it as a cultish phony religion created by a hack 60's sci-fi writer. We laugh. The thing is, if this is all true, then we've no business laughing. Apparently, Scientology may be more dangerous than we thought.

Get out while you still can, Katie! While you still can!!

Vigilance

You must check out this great cartoon, narrated by the late, great Orson Welles. It's timely, topical, and for those who will dismiss it as partisan, heavy-handed liberal tripe, or conservative tripe, they especially need to watch. It sounds the call for all of us. And it's cool!

H/T: Andrew Sullivan

Back From Cancun. Back to Blogging

I've had a great vacation, and I've gotten a chance to relax a bit. A lot's happened in the past few weeks though, and I've got a lot to cover, from the much ballyhooed Baker-Hamilton Commision's exposure as possibly being a miserable embarrasment ( a lot of people think so), the tragic death of Sean Bell in New York, the much ballyhooed argument that conservatives are more compassionate than liberals, thoughts on the elections, and the idea some have that Article VI of the Constitution doesn't mean much anymore.

More to come later, most likely tomorrow.