Friday, November 25, 2005
Re: Sweet Science
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 9:14PM
Wlady: The NY Times’ William Rhoden had a similarly fawning piece on the Ali shrine earlier this week. At this point, I’m numb. I wonder what is next – an Ali monument on the What’s most threatening to my turkey leftovers is that phrase from As for understanding: ask Joe Frazier about understanding. As for respect: look around at our sporting culture for whatever dim embers of respect have not been extinguished by Ali and his progeny.
Re: Sweet Science
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 7:24PM
Paul: Your command of the fight game makes me doubly depressed to have to report on a column in today's Washington Post praising to the skies one Muhammad Ali, on the occasion of a shrine named after him in his home town. It's not to late to lose your Thanksgiving leftovers after you read what former president Bill Clinton said about Mr. Ali:
"The world is a better place because of you. You thrilled us as a fighter and you inspired us even more as a force for peace and reconciliation, understanding and respect. No one was ever more beautiful or brash or bright or powerful or fast in the ring. It was breathtaking."
Columnist Michael Wilbon agrees that Ali "changed the world." Such pacifistic voices as Kris Kristofferson, James Taylor, Kathleen Battle and Angelina Jolie must have agreed. They all turned came to the Louisville dedication. Which is only fitting. If not for the fawning of the beautiful people, Ali would not have continued fighting well past the point where his brashness could not compensate for loss of power and speed and left him vulnerable to permanent brain damage. Instead of worshiping him as they did themselves, they should have paid attention to who was really exploiting him. It might not have made for peace and reconciliation, but at least he would not have ended up the ultimate chump.
Re: Quiet Man
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 5:29PM
Dave: But that is one of the few objectionable parts of an otherwise great movie. It is paralleled in several others O'Hara starred in with Wayne. "The Quiet Man" wasn't at all about reviving Wayne's manhood. The point was that it takes more of a man to restrain himself in the face of trivial provocations than it does to fight and perhaps kill over things that don't matter. And when the Duke throws her around (or, in other movies, e.g. McClintock, in which he not only spanks her but instructs his prospective son in law on how to spank his daughter with a small metal shovel) he's indulging in an act that defines unmanliness: violence toward women. He'd have been much better to have booted her out the door and gone looking for a less bothersome match. I still maintain ol' Maureen was more trouble than she was worth.
But we started this whole mess around Babs Streisand. Talk about a woman who's more trouble than she's worth...
The Quiet Man
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 4:44PM
Fellas, I may be out of my league, and please forgive my hit-and-run (I won't be checking back regularly this weekend), but Maureen O'Hara was stellar in The Quiet Man. In fact, everything about the movie was top-notch. Okay, so Miss O'Hara seemed a bit shrill. She had to play the prideful, traditional woman who could tame John Wayne's Yankee sensibilities but also rejuvenate his manhood. Confused about the distinction between all violence and just violence, Wayne's character thought he could retreat into pacifism and the warm atmosphere of tradition without its burdens. This was unstable mix for that man in that environment, and Miss O'Hara played a wonderful earthly redeemer: demanding the respect of her strong man, part of which was his defense of her.
Jed, surely you take solace in the scene in which Wayne's character drags O'Hara's over the fields to confront her brother?
Sweet Science
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 4:29PM
Though I am stirred by the ongoing Wlady/Jed exchange (keep it going, please), I respectfully submit that you both are missing the boat in terms of viewing material this weekend. ESPN Classic is running and re-running Ringside: Top Ten Heavyweights, an evaluation of the greatest heavyweight champions in history, featuring the inimitable Bert Randolph Sugar. Don't ask me what happened to my afternoon plans. And I've seen almost all of this stuff many times.
Incidentally, Sugar's top three are: Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Jack Dempsey. Much as it pains me, I'd have to invert those first two. I think Ali would have beaten them all in his prime. But for my own pleasure (and perhaps the good of the country), it would have been nice to see Dempsey tangle with him in a phone booth.
Re: The Unquiet Woman
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 4:17PM
Wlady: You know I will do almost anything you ask, but you ask too much. If we required detainees at Gitmo to sit through "The Parent Trap" we'd clearly be violating the McCain Amendment. If penance I must do, please make it reasonable. Maybe a screening of "Funeral in Berlin" - a real snoozer - or even "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" but not, I beg you, "The Parent Trap." As to Maureen - even in those days, the McClintock era - she was a lot more trouble than she was worth. Candice -- even in Murphy Brown -- was pretty and pretty amusing, despite what Dan Quayle said. And what, pray, is wrong with Valerie Bertinelli? Both she and Candice are vastly better actresses than Jamie Curtis, who inherited all her father's talent. I will always maintain that "The Black Shield of Falworth" ("yonda is my fadda's castle") is the worst movie ever.
The Unquiet Woman
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 3:41PM
Jed: First time I saw Miss O'Hara was in The Parent Trap, in which she played a Boston sophisticate who suddenly discovers the pleasures of hacienda life in Monterey, California. Brian Keith wins her back, or rather she devises a way to get him back, along with both of their twin girls (Hayley Mills) and a perfect American marriage family, and life. See the movie today and tell me she wasn't worth it.
Incidentally, don't think I didn't have my priorities straight yesterday -- didn't watch the Streisand movie until well after the Cowboys-Broncos game was over. After a bruising showdown like that, who needed more football? One can watch the highlights on ESPN only so many times.
Murphy Brown? Candice has to be the worst actress this side of Valerie Bertinelli.
Re: More Funny Girl Stuff
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 2:39PM
Wlady: HBO? Ok, my apologies for accusing you of spending extra bucks on Barbra. Watching her on HBO is permissible, like drinking French wine someone else has purchased (my scruples go only so far.) But my other objections stand: why, when ESPN is now broadcasting in high-def, can you take time for Babs? Please tell me you won't do that again tonight. If you can't make that promise, let me know and I'll make an emergency delivery of "The Enforcer" or "Sudden Impact." As necessary, Harry Callahan and I stand ready to make your day. Or evening.
As to Mizz O'Hara, I lost all patience with her after "The Quiet Man." I remember "The Wind and the Lion", when Sean Connery (who ever cast a Scot as an Arab brigand?) repeatedly told Mrs. Pedicaris (the historically-inaccurate character played by Candice Bergen) that she was a "lot of trouble." Candice was worth it and Maureen wasn't.
More Funny Girl Stuff
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 2:27PM
Jed: When I predicted a rise in blood pressures, I didn't expect yours to be among them. But it may be calming to learn that I didn't shell out big bucks to see Streisand on the screen. The movie I mentioned was on HBO. Further, it didn't do to well at the box office -- precisely because Streisand's performance, along with Dustin Hoffman's as her husband, was savaged by the usually adoring liberal critics. Evidently they like their Streisand humorless and cold. My reaction, on the other hand, was thoroughly conservative: tolerant, appreciative of humanity, undogmatic.
By the way, I didn't know John Wayne was in those flicks with Maureen O'Hara. She sure was prettier than he was.
Streisand????
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 2:13PM
Wlady: I know you're very much a concerned and sensitive guy. But to pay one Yankee dollar (and I assume, based on empirical evidence of my own trips to see movies, that you paid quite a few) to see Barbra? C'mon pal. That's an anti-conservative act on several levels.
First, to pay for a ticket to a Streisand (or Fonda, or Baldwin, or so many others') movie is the ideological equivalent of donating, Turner-like, to the UN. Even one dollar in her pocket is too much. You gotta draw the line somewhere, pal.
Second, you're a busy guy. Among the deluge of offerings from the entertainment world, how can you possibly put Barbra in line -- even for ten minutes -- before NFL and college football? I'd agree that De Niro's presence is almost always worth the price of admission, but remember: Maureen O'Hara was enough to ruin several otherwise great flicks with the Duke.
Third, though I trust your judgment that "Fockers" has some merit, all I need to know about it is in the title: it's hard to believe that the producers of a movie who have to stoop to a malapropism for an obscenity for the title will do better with respect to the plot, direction and action. It's just gotta be one of those movies in which obscenity is used in place of good jokes and decent dialogue because the writers are incapable of either.
Last - and not necessarily least - cheesy and over-the-top are not disqualifiers. This from a guy who counts "Hot Shots: Part Deaux" among the greats. Please, next time you get the urge to see Babs or Jane or any of their ilk, shake a tree and rake for a coupla hours.
Funny Girl
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 1:46PM
Thanks to a cold snap and high winds, a whole new crop of leaves has descended onto my habitat. Rather than fighting the traffic at the malls, I'll be harvesting via trusty rake. No blowers allowed. This is supposed to be a quiet time of year.
Glad to see some traffic on this blog. Want to see its blood pressure rise? Here goes: I saw Barbra Streisand last night. She was wonderful. The movie was awful (Meet the Fockers), but cheesy and over the top enough to merit viewing. What stood out was that the Streisand persona was nothing like the uptight, humorless Democratic Stalinoid she's become.
Who'd have thunk it -- Streisandism with a human face!
In the Dark
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 1:29PM
Speaking of semantic insanity: the day they crucified Christ we call "Good Friday."
The day the retailers enrich themselves we call "Black Friday."
Yes, Syria
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 12:04PM
Though not classified, according to sources, this has been going on for a while. We're calling it "hot pursuit," and it apparently doesn't include independent, planned ops against known terrorist sites. Which, if you think about it, would include Bashar Assad's home and office. Just a suggestion, guys.
Syria?
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 8:40AM
Debkafile was reporting yesterday that American forces had penetrated the Syrian border and were engaged directly with Syrian troops west of the city of al-Qaim. Al-Qaim is a border town on the Baghdad to Damascus highway, where very heavy fighting took place during the 2003 Iraq invasion between US forces and fleeing Saddam forces going to Syria.
As of 0820 today, Defense Department sources could not confirm and would not deny the truth of the Debkafile report. If it true, it is of enormous significance. We have tolerated terrorist sanctuaries in Syria for almost two years. We know where many are. The fact that we have not hit them yet (at least before yesterday) is a major failure in our prosecution of the war. Stay tuned.
Liberals Against Judicial Liberalism?
Posted by on 11.25.05 @ 3:29AM
Jonathan Chait wonders what poll respondants who describe themselves as "liberal" can mean by saying that Bush's Supreme Court picks are "too liberal." I can think of two reasons a liberal might think that.
One: A self-identified liberal might equate judicial liberalism with "judicial activism," and understand that term the way Cass Sunstein, Jeff Rosen and others have worked to tendentiously redefine it: to mean striking down laws and/or precedents (including when the Constitution requires doing just that). This is, of course, an example of one of liberals' many attempts to claim the mantle of "real conservative." (This phenomenom pops up a lot in fiscal policy debates. Just this week, Shawn Macomber noted Mark Warner casting his tax-hiking self as "the true definition of a conservative.")
Two: One can be a policy liberal and also be conservative on judicial issues, to the extent that the difference between the judicial left and the judicial right amounts to a willingness to separate the concepts of "good" and "constitutional." Judicial liberals tend to have trouble with this; what is the point of a "living constitution," after all, except to convert questions about the meaning of the constitution into questions of right and wrong? But presumably one can be liberal on any policy you could name without believing that one's policy preferences are necessarily constitutional requirements. I, for example, am a libertarian on most social issues, but that doesn't mean I think there's a right to abortion or gay marriage in the constitution. Now, I don't think that Roberts and Alito are too liberal, but that's because my desire for a purer originalism is tempered by my analysis of confirmation politics; I might feel differently if I were less pragmatic.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving
Posted by on 11.24.05 @ 9:15AM
As the ravening family horde descends (3 of 4 sons, 2 with ladies in tow) and before those of us who have galley duty all day chain ourselves to the stoves, ovens and barbecue grills, it's time to say Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. While we enjoy our feasts, let's take a moment to remember all of those guys and gals eating MRE's today, not sitting in front of the tube watching football, and missing their families with every ounce of energy we are enjoying ours. To each of them, let us say thanks. But for them and those who have gone before, we'd have a lot less to be thankful for.
Thank You, TAS
Posted by on 11.24.05 @ 8:43AM
No better place than our brand-new blog for me to thank TAS, Wlady, and Bob for the chance to be exactly what I've always wanted to be, a general interest columnist. It amazes me every week to be able to write for the site.
This Thanksgiving, we are joining what apparently is a growing trend in the U.S., of families who have forgone cooking and simply ordered their dinner out in a whole package from a grocery store or specialty food provider of some kind. We have an excuse. The cook -- that's me -- was in the hospital Tuesday for two pieces of minor surgery.
I suspect that what most people remember most about Thanksgiving cooking is the presence on table of some dish treasured by some one family member, but hated by all the rest. For years, my wife insisted on making creamed onions. Only last year did I find out that no one but me likes cranberries -- in any form, of any kind.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
See, It Really Is Like Vietnam
Posted by on 11.23.05 @ 4:09PM
Who needs Cindy Sheehan when you have Daniel Ellsberg? The media's best-loved leaker of national defense secrets joined a gaggle of unwashed lefties with no Thanksgiving plans outside the Bush ranch for another round of demands that American foreign policy match the pictures they see inside their heads. Where was Cindy? Tending to "a family emergency," we're told, though what would qualify for such at this point is unclear. Sheehan has long since made her break from Burke's little platoons. She belongs to the People now.
One demonstrator held a sign that read, "Give me liberty or give me a ditch."
I better not comment further.
AmSpec's December/January Issue!
Posted by on 11.23.05 @ 1:44PM
Just in time for some good holiday reading by the fire, the December 2005/January 2006 issue of The American Spectator is now available to print and digital subscribers! Our special double issue features Michael J. Horowitz, Grover Norquist, Dan Peterson, I.C. Smith, and RET and the AmSpec regulars.
Not an AmSpec Print or Digital Subscriber? Subscribe today through one of three great offers.
Not sure what to give your favorite conservative for Christmas? How about a gift subscription to The American Spectator.... Just $29/year and your recipient will be both merry and well-informed!
Recognizing Mongolia
Posted by on 11.23.05 @ 11:11AM
The WSJ editorial page returns fire at those criticizing President Bush for visiting Mongolia:
The press corps had a high old time mocking President Bush for visiting Ulan Bator this week, but Americans are lucky Mongolians aren't as cynical as journalists. Despite its small population, the country is keeping 150 of its troops in Iraq. As recent converts to democracy, Mongolians have a better appreciation for freedom's struggles than do certain Europeans we know.
Re: New Vatican Document on the Priesthood
Posted by on 11.23.05 @ 10:45AM
Dave: As Diogenes points out at Catholic World News, the new Vatican instruction is not a liberalization of the 1961 ban on homosexuals in the priesthood. It in effect upholds that wise ban, the abandonment of which in practice has led the Church into endless headaches, doctrinal relativism, and a lampooned priesthood. Some people will spin the document as draconian; others will spin it as the Church's minor evolutionary step away from tradition. The truth is that it just reiterates the rationales of the 1961 ban.
Iran's Harriet Miers?
Posted by on 11.23.05 @ 8:59AM
It's not likely to generate a sympathy call from Dubya, but Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has struck out for the third time trying to get a nominee for oil minister confirmed by Iran's parliament. Mohsen Tasalotti -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's third pick for Iran's oil minister post -- is no Harriet Miers. His nomination was rejected by the Majlis according to the Beeb's report not because of his qualifications but as a result of rumors about his personal life and fortune. And how could such rumors be spread in a totalitarian state? On the internet, of course.
Taking a short break from planning the nuclear obliteration of western civilization, Ahmadinejad said, "The government respects the choice of parliament, but unjustly accusing a brother on an unknown internet site... is not fair." There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that Ahmadinejad has hired Dan Rather and Mary Mapes to produce shows for Iranian TV entitled, "Only Infidels Blog," and "Why the UN should control the internet."
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
WaPo Sensationalizes Document
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 11:45PM
The Washington Post's story for tomorrow on the Vatican document does what I expected: plays up the New York Times' old story line on the matter without addressing the real news -- that the Vatican policy is not the total ban once predicted, but allows for some discretion with the three-year window. You won't find that fact in the Post story until the seventh paragraph.
New Vatican Document on the Priesthood
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 9:15PM
It's due to be released sometime next week, but blogs have apparently obtained it. Via Mirror of Justice, Catholic Culture has it posted in its entirety. Its contents don't match the New York Times report that the Catholic Church would bar all homosexuals from the priesthood -- even celibate men. If this leaked document is authentic, the Church will require that candidates be celibate for three years before entering the seminary. Read it before the media reports on it and get the full story.
Re: It's That Bad
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 7:14PM
Bob, Bob and Peter: The president's venture into Mongolia isn't significant, either for an attempt to stay out of Washington or for the gesture to Mongolia itself. But it is significant in the context of what we're doing in the region, as Peter implies.
We have, in just the last year, changed our approach to the whole China question. We are now looking to blunt China's effort to establish hegemony among what Beijing calls the "peripheral nations." We are doing a lot, in many places, to make it much harder for Beijing to turn its neighbors into satellites. Consider this: we're about to do some military-to-military exchanges with Vietnam. For more, gents, you gotta wait for my next book coming from Regnery next year.
Re: It's That Bad
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 4:52PM
Bob, given the need to solidify our diplomacy in the region, I'm not actually surprised President Bush went there. It's clear that he is in Asia in part because of his political woes, but at least he's not simply committing himself to tokenism; I think he's getting real work done. While fighting terrorism around the world, Bush's hawks are doing their best to make sure China's regional goals are tempered. It's why pulling out of South Korea hasn't been our top priority, though it's not the worst idea.
Oranges Over Turkeys
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 3:28PM
Yes, the presidential pardon of the Thanksgiving turkey dates back to President Lincoln and in its current form to President Truman. But something inside me is sympathetic to the argument forwarded by President Bartlet in a West Wing episode: that the practice is a bit absurd and constitutionally questionable.
That may explain why I favor another of today's presidential actions over the turkey pardoning. This one is more in the spirit of Thanksgiving: giving thanks for hard-won freedoms.
I send greetings to those celebrating the first anniversary of the Orange Revolution.
One year ago today, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens stood up to defend democracy in their homeland. Through great courage and determination, they showed the world that the love of liberty is stronger than the will of tyranny. Last year's revolution was a powerful example of freedom and democracy in action and an inspiration to those aspiring for freedom in their own land.
Ukraine's leadership now faces an historic opportunity and has an historic responsibility to fulfill the promise of the Orange Revolution and continue to transform Ukraine into a fully democratic state. The United States will continue to support the efforts of President Viktor Yushchenko in advancing a democratic, prosperous, and secure Ukraine, and America is proud to call Ukraine a friend.
Laura and I send our best wishes on this special occasion.
GEORGE W. BUSH
RE: It's That Bad
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 2:24PM
Now that's what I call getting a load off your chest.
Koppel Signs Off
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 1:51PM
Ted Koppel hangs up his cleats at ABC tonight. But in an interview with Charlie Rose last night he hinted that he will be returning shortly to the airwaves, perhaps at HBO. Koppel prides himself on mature truth-telling, so he had no problem telling Rose that ABC gingerly showed him the door because his salary was going up and his ratings were going down. ABC wanted to throw a hail mary and expand the show to a live hour -- Koppel disclosed the trade secret that the beginning of the end for a show is the moment when executives start talking about expanding it -- but Koppel didn't want the bother and didn't want to have hang around ABC until midnight.
If Only They'd Go Home
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 12:29PM
Congress is home for the Thanksgiving holiday and WSJ's George Melloan says good riddance (sub. req'd): "Few sessions could surpass this year's deliberations of the 109th Congress in terms of the hours wasted on bombast and blather with so little serious accomplishment." Read the rest for a truly depressing account of how Washington's finer features and campaign finance reform have seated a wasteful permanent government.
Dole-drums
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 11:45AM
North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole edged out Minnesota Republican colleague, Sen. Norm Coleman for head of the Republican Senatorial campaign committee, and Republican leaders in Washington and around the country have been underwhelmed by her performance thus far in recruiting candidates and raising money. Latest numbers show the GOP in the Senate trailing Dems and Chuck Schumer's committee by about a million bucks, something the GOP hasn't seen in almost six years.
Senate insiders chalk up the fundraising disparity to the need of Democrats to raise more money to run more campaigns, as they have to defend more seats than Republicans this cycle. But no one in Republicans circles disputes that Dole is playing way over her head, and that she has performed badly as a recruiter for Senate candidates. She has failed to upgrade candidates in Florida and Nebraska, and had little to do with the recruitment of the GOP's one star candidate, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.
Republicans will most likely hold on to the Senate, but it won't be because of anything Elizabeth Dole did.
Joe Wilson Scandal Update
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 11:39AM
Interesting that last night, Bob Woodward seemed to be sending out a warning to both prosecutor Fitzgerald and Libby defense counsel that neither would be happy with what he ultimately would be able to testify to in open court. This may be an attempt on his part to get everyone off his back, but we have heard this is less bravado and more fact. Woodward can help Libby's case in some areas, and hurt it in others. Fitzgerald's case is not as airtight as before, but his total case has not yet been revealed, and Woodward may have helped him in ways some folks aren't aware of.
It's That Bad
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 11:12AM
It's really cool that President and Mrs. Bush were able to play tourist in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, at our expense. No sitting U.S. President before Bush ever visited Mongolia. There's a reason for that. It's called prioritization. Usually U.S. presidents in trouble at home board Air Force One and head to Beijing. That Bush felt it necessary to also visit the land that time -- and everyone else -- forgot, illustrates how bad things are for Bush at home.
3 words for John Kerry: Pot, Kettle, Black
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 9:39AM
John Kerry attacking Vice President Cheney for allegedly lying about pre-war intelligence is about as credible as Ted Kennedy lecturing anyone on drunk driving or the proper way to treat young waitresses.
The Junior Senator from Massachussets launched his political career by slandering the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting in Vietnam. When pushed about his testimony before Congress, he has admitted that he didn't really witness any atrocities (as he testified under oath), but heard about such misconduct from other service members who heard about them from others, and so on and so on and so on. We know that the overwhelming majority of troops fighting in Vietnam were the best of their generation -- something that cannot be said of Kerry, even taking into account his military service.
To charge the President and Vice President with lying about intelligence in order to manipulate the Congress and public support to remove Saddam Hussein by force is as immoral as falsely charging one's brothers in arms with war crimes.
If the Democrats are charging that the President and Vice President lied, then they should, in good conscience, bring Articles of Impeachment in the House.
But they know that they are the ones who are misleading the public. They are so desperate to regain political power that they would seek America's defeat in Iraq in order to defeat this administration and the Republican majority in Congress.
Again, is it any wonder that the overwhelming majority of the members our armed forces do not vote Democrat?
We Dare Not Ignore
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 9:08AM
There are some people whose advice we ignore at our peril. A letter to the editor to the WaPo published today, from someone in that category. Here it is in full:
"One of the most critical issues that members of Congress must address is the wisdom of setting a schedule for our continued presence in Iraq. In this regard, I would hope that they would look back to September 1983, when both houses of Congress held War Powers Act hearings on our presence in Beirut as part of a multinational force. I asked Congress then not to set a schedule for our withdrawal from war-torn Lebanon. I said, 'If the time is too short, our enemies will wait us out; if it is too long, they will drive us out.'
"On Oct. 23, 1983, they gave us their answer -- an 18-ton truck carrying the equivalent of 18,000 pounds of TNT smashed into the headquarters of Battalion Landing Team 2/8, and 241 of our most precious sons, who had done nothing more than try to restore peace to a troubled country, were murdered.
General P.X. Kelly, USMC, is a former commandant of the Corps.
Woodward on Wilson/Plame
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 8:49AM
WaPo's Bob Woodward -- he of the recently-partially-revealed memories on the Plame leak mess -- has a very important data point quoted in today's paper. Woodward said:
"Remember the investigation and the allegations that people have printed about this story is that there's some vast conspiracy to slime Joe Wilson and his wife, really attack him in an ugly way that is outside the boundaries of hardball. The evidence I had, firsthand, a small piece of the puzzle I acknowledge, is that was not the case." (emphasis added).
There are several things we should gather from this. (1) The mainstream media hype over Wilson and Plame is simply that. They are creatures who wouldn't exist were the cameras not pointed at them or the editorial pages crying out in their name; (2) that the supposedly Machiavellian Bush White House was not trying to protect itself from fatal damage by destroying Joe Wilson and avenging itself on his wife; and (3) that someone outside the White House inner circle -- Richard Armitage? some high-ranker at CIA? -- was the source for Woodward and probably Novak as well as part of the CIA and State Department political campaign in opposition to the Iraq war.
Patrick Fitzgerald seems to have settled in for a long Washington stay. Some other body needs to investigate the CIA and the State Department connection here. The Senate Intelligence Committee is the best body to investigate this.
A Soldier of the Great War
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 8:36AM
The passing of Alfred Anderson at the age of 109 leaves, according to the AP, less than ten surviving World War I veterans in
Whining Reporters
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 7:58AM
Freed from any semblance of objectivity in his "Washington Sketch" of Cheney's speech yesterday, Dana Milbank voices what David Stout only hinted at (see my article): Cheney's a meany for saying he's open to debate, and then engaging in it.
Re: Time Person of the Year
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 6:18AM
After all is said and done, I'd have to go with President Bush. Those purple fingertips would be impossible without him. Whatever his other deficiencies - like his seeming disinterest, until recently, in responding to the slanders brought against him - his steadfast refusal to give in to the withdrawal chorus is a profile in courage. Now if he'd just get out that veto pen …
Time "POTY"
Posted by on 11.22.05 @ 3:08AM
Jed and Lady G., let's refine that concept for the sake of a dynamite cover photo. "The Iraqi Voter," purple fingertip rampant.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Re: Time Person of the Year
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 8:43PM
Dear Lady Godiva: The Iraqi people -- at least those who have risked so much to help create democracy in their nation -- are more than deserving of the nomination, and the honor. But let's limit it to those Iraqis who are on the right side of the equation. Their struggle is a long way from over.
Down Syndrome Eugenics
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 7:32PM
For those of you following our society's head-first dive into eugenics (which George Neumayr chronicled in the June issue), don't miss the New York Times' latest on the disabled community's justified fears of what expanded prenatal testing means for them.
One gets the sense that the Times tried to get abortion supporters on record for the story, but failed:
Supporters of abortion are especially wary of wading into a discussion over the ethics of prenatal testing, lest they be seen as playing into the opposing side in the fraught national debate over abortion rights.
In other words, they have no problem with aborting the child because it has Down syndrome -- they just can't say so because it looks bad.
RE: Time Person of the Year
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 5:12PM
Jed: A suggestion of one of our longtime subscribers for Time Person of the Year: the Iraqi people.
Here's the nomination link again.
Still the Man Still the Man
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 4:06PM
Larry Thornberry e-mails a friend about some news that matters:
When I'm abusing time of a morning with "The Tampa Tribune" I often look at the "Today's Birthdays" feature. I guess it's a sign of advancing age, but often I don't recognize a single name on the list. I have to assume these celebrated strangers are rock stars, movie "actors," or some other species of "celebrity" that the world feels obliged to take note of.But this morning I was pleased to see a familiar name. Stan Musial is 85 today. Thought you'd like to know. I hope the old boy is healthy, prosperous, and having a great day. (Stan always took care of himself, even after he retired. My guess is he could still loosen up and hit a few ropes.) Hope you are too.
The Big Story
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 3:41PM
I'll be on FNC with John Gibson today at about 5:30 pm. Talking about how the Iraqi military is standing up, and what a withdrawal would mean for us, and for them.
Re: On Second Thought
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 3:30PM
One oddity in Howard Kurtz's story is his continuing agnosticism about the forged documents. He complacently accepts the absurd notion that the documents' authenticity is beyond verification: "Mapes is right that the purported 30-year-old memos by Bush's long-dead squadron commander have not been proved to be forgeries..." Why does he grant her this concession? Just to make his criticism of her seem a little more even-handed?Â
Not So Good
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 2:53PM
As "Engine Charlie" Wilson used to say: "What's good for General Motors is good for the country, and what's good for the country is good for General Motors." (Though the media usually omitted the corollary half of the saying.)
By these lights, the country should be prepared to shut down next spring.
Cheney's Remarks
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 1:32PM
I attended Vice President Cheney's speech at AEI this morning. Truly, besides the excellent content of the veep's remarks, little about the event was remarkable. Afterward outside the building, though, the LaRouchians were singing tunes to the effect of Cheney being a Nazi. If James Bowman is right in today's column, that's the quality discourse we should expect in coming years from the Democratic Party.
Debating the War
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 1:09PM
If you missed the Vice President's speech this morning, here are the money quotes:
"Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about
"One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the War on Terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way...
"Nor is there any problem with debating whether the
"What is not legitimate, and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible, is the suggestion by some
The principle benefit of the debate over the last week is that the Clinton "don't worry, be happy" cloak has been cast aside, and the Dems are once again gathering around the flag of George McGovern. They are the party of retreat and defeat. Which is why the VP's remarks today are so important. Let's have the debate. But let's not allow the Dems to claim falsely that they are a party that can be trusted with the defense of our nation.
To the vice president, we should say, "more, please, sir."
On Second Thought
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 12:50PM
As Bob Woodward is starting to learn, you don't want to get on Howard Kurtz's bad side. In today's Washington Post Kurtz politely lets Mary Mapes have it for refusing to acknowledge the problems with her "60 Minutes II" report on George W. Bush's Air National Guard past. She has thereby "open[ed] herself up to the charge that her obsession has clouded her judgment." Before he's done, Kurtz is comparing her to another investigative journalist who in disgrace ended up committing suicide.
All very fine. So why was Kurtz much more tolerant of Mapes in his November 9 report on her? Her obsession hadn't yet clouded her judgment?
Radio Today
Posted by on 11.21.05 @ 8:45AM
I'll be preaching to the heathen on Philadelphia NPR (WHYY, 91 FM and Sirius satellite radio ch. 107) 10-11 a.m. today. They want to talk about Iraq and have booked a guest for the other side of the debate whose name you should recall. Larry Johnson, pal of Val and Joe Wilson, apologist for the CIA and hyperlib activist. This should be fun.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Time Person of the Year
Posted by on 11.20.05 @ 8:11PM
It's that Time again. Tomorrow's mag will invite your nominations for their "Person of the Year." The process has already begun, and among the nominees are J.K. Rowling, Cindy Sheehan and Bono. Please do make your own nominations (here) and then vote when the noms are closed. Otherwise we'll probably get the 2005 Dynamic Duo -- Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame -- on the cover of Time.
There are so many possibilities: Rafael Palmeiro, Dick Durbin and Dominique de Villepin, just to name a few. I won't even mention Mark Brunell.
To the extent we should take this seriously at all (which isn't much), why not someone such as: Aussie Treasurer Peter Costello, who told those who want to establish Islamic law in his country to bugger off or Gen. Russ (don't get stuck on stupid) Honore or his boss, The Big Dog? Think about it.
A Bush/Powell Conundrum No More
Posted by on 11.20.05 @ 6:39PM
Long ago, in my column, "The Bush/Powell Conundrum," I analyzed the relationship between George W. Bush and Colin Powell, and came down generally on the positive side in my evaluation of Powell as then-new Secretary of State. I hereby and definitively change my mind, and acknowledge that I should have listened to my friend Jeff Jacoby, always a Powell skeptic. Powell is now and was always a snake in the bosom of the Bush presidency.
The latest: Former Powell chief of staff Retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson tells CNN that Vice President Dick Cheney provided the "'philosophical guidance' and 'flexibility' that led to the torture of detainees in U.S. facilities...and told CNN that the practice of torture may be continuing in U.S.-run facilities."
Put this together with what seems to me like quite reasonable speculation that Powell familiar Richard Armitage was the ur-source for the Valerie Plame disclosures, that, if true, Armitage could have dispelled the whole Wilson-Plame CIA leak press storm simply by coming forward, and you have to say: Enough. History will not judge Colin Powell kindly. Compare him for example to George C. Marshall and Dean Acheson, who were arguably more gifted and accomplished men than Harry Truman, and who nonetheless served Truman honorably.
Re: Theories and Experiments
Posted by on 11.20.05 @ 3:12PM
Dave: No, that's not correct. Evolutionary theory consists of a constellation of hypotheses that are falsifiable by experimentation. It's pretty easy to come up with simple ones. For example: Get a mix of puppies of various breeds and raise them in a lab with their food on a platform. Raise the platform six inches every 2 months, until it is 3 feet high when the dogs are one year old. When they breed, raise their offspring under similar conditions. Hypothesis: Each generation of dogs will be taller, on average, than the last. If the hypothesis is correct, it would seem to demonstrate that height is heritable and can be determined by natural selection. If dogs too small to reach their food, and thus too unhealthy to breed, continue to be born generation after generation, then size must not be heritable, and we have to figure out some other explanation. (For the experiment to be meaningful, it must be possible for many scientists to duplicate the results -- that's what it means for an experiment to be repeatable.) A more sophisticated (and cutting edge) experiment: Predict the number of harmful mutations in the genome of one species based on the number of harmful mutations in the genome of another species, then run the sequencers and find out if your predictions are right. There is no such experiment to test for the presence of a Designer.
And no, I'm not arguing that the question of how things came to be is the exclusive domain of science. I'm arguing that religious and scientific answers to that question reveal different kinds of truth, and shouldn't be commingled.
Re: More on ID
Posted by on 11.20.05 @ 11:06AM
John, I understand your point, but the problem Darwinism has is natural selection. So long as scientists cling to the idea that natural selection is necessarily random, or that there is a missing link, Darwinism will be an incomplete theory, and in its own way, a genuflection to science's own God.
As the debate plays out, this happens:
Darwin Defender: Indeed, we have the
upper hand! We shall explain the origins of life without actually
explaining where that life came from!
ID Man: Hold it right there! Is that really
possible? You could say that you can't explain it, but instead,
you're going to say that it is explained, and that no intelligent
designer is involved?
Darwin Defender: What are you, some kind of
Bible-thumping zealot? Get out of my school system!
ID Man: But what about the absence of
"missing links"? What was the original being from which all others
evolved? Why must mutations be random rather than part of a greater
"plan"?
Darwin Defender: Your nonsense has no claim
on science!
ID Man: Fine, just answer my questions.
Darwin Defender: We haven't discovered the
missing links yet, but we will. It was too early in pre-history for
us to have a record of what the original being was. And the
mutations and random nature of the world are simply algorithms too
lengthy for humans to understand. Didn't you see the movie
Pi?
ID Man: If that's what passes for science,
then why shouldn't I be allowed to add my own explanation in a
class?
And so on. Intelligent Design may not have all the answers, but it's also clear Darwinism doesn't. And George might have to correct me, but I think the real debate lies in the prohibition on including ID, not as an equal to Darwinism, but a possible explanation to phenomena Darwinism can't explain. My curiosity peaks at the thought of people saying, "You are repulsive. And your beliefs are nonsense." I'd rather have someone (cough John Tabin cough) explain it more clearly.
This
is a pretty good discussion of various conservatives on their
positions, some are completely unwilling to go out on a limb,
others are glad to get their name out. But the ones who believe ID
should be taught as a sidenote, are they committing a terrible
error?  Â
Graham Destroys Dems
Posted by on 11.20.05 @ 9:01AM
Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 9-11 and in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion of 2003. He has managed to single-handedly destroyed the "Bush lied" about Iraq pre-war intelligence in his op-ed in today's WaPo.
Here's the money quote:
"At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.
Graham -- and the other SSCI Dems -- knew everything the president knew. They not only knew, but they had the authority to compel disclosures about points on Iraq they doubted, and did so. But when presented with the information, they either didn't try to convince their Senate colleagues that the war wasn't justified by the intelligence or failed to. Either way, Graham's admissions about the details of what he and other Dems knew utterly destroys the "Bush lied" argument. The SSCI knew what he knew, and the fact that the CIA relied on uncorroborated sources is as much a problem for the Dems as for the President. A whole bunch more on this in tomorrow's Loose Canons. (By the time LC gets out of its cage, the Dems will be trying desperately to deny the truth -- and the implications -- of Graham's admissions.)
Europe's Place in the World
Posted by on 11.20.05 @ 12:15AM
Jed is right. There is a reason that little "c" conservatives are gaining ground in European elections, whether it's the death of the EU constitution, their gains in Britain and Germany, etc.
But the gains they have made aren't enough, the Conservatives in Britain have succeeded through essentially an anti-American position, while the Germans have gained by making promises their economy can't sustain without true economic change. If Europe is to transform itself, both nations must come closer to the U.S. conservative position both domestically (economically and socially) and international (pro-national defense). That can only happen with a strong America to take them by the hand and show them the way.
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Progressive Derangements
- The Continuing Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
