Saturday, December 10, 2005
Going Home
Posted by on 12.10.05 @ 10:48PM
KUWAIT CITY:We spent about half the day yesterday at the Iraqi military academy about fifty miles from Baghdad. It's a tough place, and not just for the curriculum. More on this later. The bus to the plane is leaving in about two minutes, so I'll have to be brief. We saw a lot at the IMA that was encouraging. Motivated students, a great faculty and if they can keep things going they will help transform all of Iraq.
The C-130 carrying us back to Kuwait City last night had two very special passengers. Two American soldiers -- one man and one woman -- who had been killed in action lay in flag-draped coffins along the aircraft centerline. On landing in Kuwait, we waited until they were about to be taken off, and stood in line with the soldiers saluting them as they were taken off the aircraft. Let's remember them and their families. These two, and more than 2,000 others, have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Now is no time to quit. The Iraqis don't want us to leave until the job is done. It isn't yet.
Sen. Eugene McCarthy, RIP
Posted by on 12.10.05 @ 7:41PM
The 1968 Democratic, anti-war presidential candidate and Minnesota senator died today. Other obits: Washington Post and Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
So did Richard Pryor.
Re: Re: BBSes
Posted by on 12.10.05 @ 7:06PM
You know, John, now that you mention it, he does overdramatize, but I think that's a necessary consequence of geek memory. What I take most issue with is his reference to BBSes as havens for the oppressed -- suppressed is more likely; people with a computer and a modem had a leap on others, and the understanding of how it worked even more so. I don't recall too much of a scintillating underground, such as the , but I was raised in Stamford. No doubt, Julian and his hax0r (hacker) friends were clearly into more interesting boards.
I never had that Damascus experience Julian's talking about -- I doubt others did. When we first started dialing into these things, we were poking around thinking we were really smart for getting those kinds of sounds out of our computer. Sure, John, you may have created your own, but did you suddenly feel as though God had struck you dumb, your metanoia allowed you a new identity?
R.W. Bradford, RIP
Posted by on 12.10.05 @ 6:53PM
The founder of Liberty, where I was an editorial intern in 2002, has died. Read the tributes by Jesse Walker and Brian Doherty, who knew Bill longer than I did.
Working at Liberty was often terrible -- Doherty's line about it being "more like being manservant to a wealthy eccentric than a journalism intern" is dead on. And I did the job very poorly, ultimately quitting midway through my internship with an email. But the long conversations with Bill were well worth the experience. He was a walking encyclopedia of the internal wranglings within the libertarian movement; he knew everybody, and had their number. (Murray Rothbard did not invent libertarianism in his living room!) I'm very, very glad to have known him, and sad to hear that he's gone. My condolences especially to his wonderful wife Kathy.
Is the 9th Circuit Managing National Forests?
Posted by on 12.10.05 @ 9:49AM
Judicial activism knows no bounds. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against logging in the Lolo National Forest (Montana) yesterday, basing their decision on policy minutiae rather than the law.
Blackhawks, Apaches and Such
Posted by on 12.10.05 @ 12:05AM
BAGHDAD AND CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Sorry this is a bit late folks, but this old man was pretty beat last night. We had dinner with Gen. George Casey, the overall commander, late last night. It's now about 0730 in Baghdad and we're leaving shortly to visit the Iraqis' army-in-training.
Their army in training is only a small part of what Iraq is doing to defend itself. Their active army is, as I saw yesterday, something in being. Note to Dr. Dean: you're not needed at home, but the docs in the hospital I visited yesterday can always use a couple of extra hands. Those Iraqis you think aren't fighting for themselves are showing up for treatment, and not for runny noses. The guy in the ICU I saw yesterday had been shot in the stomach. Our people (those docs are fabulous) are giving him the same care our people get (except that he won't be evacuated to the States within hours of being hit). Our troops are surviving really grievous wounds because these docs are working endlessly, skillfully, and with the Air Force's support getting patients back to the States often within a day of being wounded.
Oh. Sorry. More for Dr. Dean. The Iraqis -- who you think aren't doing anything on their own -- are now fighting on their own in great numbers. Eleven of the twenty-one Iraqi batallions in the Baghdad region have their own "battlespace." They are responsible for everything that goes on (or doesn't) in those areas. And our commanders say the Iraqis are doing pretty damned good.
The helicopter is an oddity of nature. In my book, it's like a bumblebee. If they complied with the laws of physics, neither should be able to fly. But fly they do, and we have been riding around in some Blackhawks, a big, fast armed bird. Things here are serious, as evidenced by the two Apache gunships that fly with us, one on each side, wherever we go. The Apache is a superb gun platform, and the front-back seating of the crew provides great visibility to see and shoot. They haven't had to shoot while flying cover for us. Their presence is enough to keep all bad guys but those with a really strong death wish under cover.
Yesterday afternoon, we spent a couple of hours with the Marines near Fallujah. The situation in MNF-West is still very serious. The Sunni rejectionists are in considerable strength, and -- in Ramadi -- may not vote in next week's election. The conflict there is likely to continue for a long time.
One thing we cleared up yesterday: according to a senior military leader, we are not -- as much as the publicity has said -- fighting Syrian troops along the Iraq border and into Syria. Those reports last week are, simply, wrong.
Later today we're flying out to one of the bases where the Iraqi troops are being trained. This should be one of the highlights of the trip. We're out of here tonight, back to Kuwait City. I'll check back with you later, as time permits.
Friday, December 9, 2005
Re: BBSes
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 10:46PM
I actually ran a BBS briefly; it was called A Perfec World, and no one besides me seemed to think that misspelling "perfect" was particularly funny. (I was trying to gently spoof the Zeitgeist -- other local boards were called Elysium and El Dorado -- but I don't think anyone really got the joke.) I also had a soft-spot for the BBS cousin, the DDial; I frequented the legendary Point Zer0 Chat (mentioned in Wikipedia's entry on DDials), though always as a "non" (that is, I never paid the fee to join).
Looking back, I have to say I think Julian over-romanticizes the period just a bit. Some of the really successful boards amounted to the internet writ tiny and reduced to its most adolescent and frivolous core: a raging Mac vs. PC flamewar. There's a reason the Web killed 'em off.
Re: BBS Revisited
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 5:07PM
J.P., like any self-respecting nerdy kid I too frequented bulletin board services in the early '90s. Now that I think of it, I've been using the Internet for political debate since 1994, when I frequented local BBS's in Missoula to favor Sen. Conrad Burns in his reelection bid. Otherwise, most services had fun games, etc.
But priests telling folks to gather 'round the computer? Bite your tongue! These are pastors -- men of the cloth but not the collar.
Bulletin Board Services Revisited
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 4:11PM
Julian Sanchez has a great story up (I was late in getting to it, though I try reading him often) about our Internet's humble and cultish origins. Here's an excerpt:
For many in the '80s and early '90s -- isolated gays, abashed alcoholics, or just disaffected teenagers -- finding that first board was a dial-in to Damascus experience. It also afforded a first taste of the online world's empowering anonymity. A shy kid could craft a new identity, even become a respected system operator.I bring this up as sort of a side note to what Dave was talking about in his post. The handy-dandy Internet which some evangelicals are looking at as a useful tool for proselytizing (and playing hooky on) Christianity had its own blend of philosophy, particularly an anarchist bent which still affects hackers properly understood. The dissemination of information was really the prime motivation to create BBS's on a private scale, which is why it's really interesting now to see the progression. You wouldn't see much by way of religion, let alone mainstream media on these boards -- instead, you would find the early versions of ye olde Anarchist's Cookbook, a misappelled document with formulas for destructive behavior, role-playing and fantasy games, or technical information about this or that computer-related topic. Because they were mainly local, you wouldn't have world-wide access, but rather local interactions; it was far more possible to get to know people in your own neighborhood. But it was still an instance of democratized media.
Many working professionals didn't know what a bulletin board was, and only a handful of users in the late '80s and early '90s were beginning to use services such as Prodigy and America Online for general entertainment and information-lite needs. My father had an account at Prodigy for use of its encyclopedia. Through the '90s, everything changed. Now, even priests can say, as Dave noted, that traffic will spike on the website as families gather round the computer.
Mitt Romney's Balancing Act
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 3:51PM
Pro-life or not? Gov. Romney is having a hard time making up his mind. He advertised himself as pro-abortion friendly to get elected in Massachusetts, then earlier this year sent signals to the right that he's an undercover pro-lifer. Now he's vacillating in the same week. Earlier this week, he supported an exemption in the new requirement that hospitals distribute the Plan B morning after pill for hospitals that objected on moral or religious grounds (i.e., Catholic ones). After his lieutenant governor slammed the position, Romney's legal counsel interpreted the statute yesterday so as not to exempt such private hospitals.
Lions and Witches and Wardrobes, Oh My!
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 2:29PM
True to Lewis. True to the story. Most of all, true to the best spirit of movie-making.
Last night's lucky audience at the Springfield AMC Theater -- the first people in the DC area to see The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe -- were not disappointed. Cheers, laughs, chills and lumps in throats abounded. One of those rare movies that will be a "must buy" when it is released on DVD.
The performances were A-one (the four kids were perfect and the Cockney-accented Beaver was spot on), as were the effects, the landscapes, the score and the dialogue which hewed closely to that of the book. On film. it remained one of those true children's stories that can engage and enthrall the adult imagination as well.
There was no attempt to play "hide the allegory." Credit Peter Jackson (I know he had nothing to do with this film) for showing in the LOTR that one can remain basically faithful to the text and thoroughly faithful to the spirit of a great work that has at its foundation the Christian message and still have commercial success. Also, credit Jackson's standard that computer generated characters be not just believable, but incredible. Narnia and all its creatures were very, very real.
I won't get into a detailed critique. That would spoil the fun and have you thinking about my take versus your own when you see it.
Suffice it to say that young Robert put it best, saying as we exited the theater: "I'd give it 20 thumbs up if I had 20 thumbs." Add his father's two.
For Posterity
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 2:05PM
I was tracking down a web location for the Kerry spokesman's now-infamous comment about Ken Mehlman and Rush Limbaugh. It was read aloud on Wolf Blitzer's show Tuesday. The transcript is here.
Garden State Produce
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 1:50PM
New Jersey's governor-elect Jon Corzine came through the other day by tapping Rep. Bob Menendez to fill his vacated Senate seat. Some partisans opponents of the nomination couldn't be more outraged. But the New York Times? Listen to its editorializing:
... since entering politics as a corruption-fighting mayor of Union City, N.J., Mr. Menendez has become a proponent of business as usual....Most recently, Mr. Menendez has failed to answer questions about his relationship with Kay LiCausi, a young former aide of his. He has helped her get hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying contracts and political consulting work....The last elected governor, James McGreevey, had to resign over such a situation. And Mr. Corzine got involved with the head of a union representing state workers, then forgave her a loan of more than $400,000 when the relationship ended....
Not since Rome has a one-party state had so many main squeezes on the imperial payroll.
Simmering Scandal
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 1:17PM
The Abramoff octupus has many tentacles. The Sacramento Bee today covers one of them involving a former congressional aide turned lobbyist who already has invoked the Fifth Amendment in front of John McCain. Although not charged with wrongdoing, he has apparently yet to explain why he billed his membership in Washington's University Club as an expenditure to be covered by the Mississippi Choctaws. Meanwhile, for an under six-figure fee from each he has brought millions in federal money to two Sacramento-area towns, which couldn't be happier with his good work. Nothing illegal there. So why the story?
Our Next Jimmy Carter?
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 12:48PM
In light of Bill Clinton's Dubai comments undermining American foreign policy, this news is particularly disturbing: the former president is headed to Montreal today to speak at a United Nations climate change conference.
Re: Computer Christmas
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 11:18AM
Dave, that reminds me of the time everyone thought using the com-pu-ter would enable them to work from home every day, exhibiting the endless possibilities of that old dream, virtual reality. The idea of a DVD supplanting church is ridiculous; the idea that "megachurches" would forsake their obligation of worship on Christ's birthday is quite another. This reminds me of a conversation I had once with an evangelical family member of a friend. When I asked her what denomination she was, she said "Just Christian. I don't like to get all caught up in the dogma." Far be it for me to criticize someone who found her faith, but isn't dogma important too, particularly, say, when it comes to attending church on Christmas?
Mayor Daley on the Couch
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 10:59AM
Chicago scandals have left the good mayor in need of a hug:
"I wish I could be, but I'm not ... on top of everything. I'm not Superman. ... I don't have eyes in the back of my head. ... You delegate responsibility and, when it happens, you correct it. You can't dwell on it. ... It happens in the public sector. It happens in the private sector. When it happens, you try to do the best you can," Daley said.
"People give me a public trust. ... When [corruption] takes place, I get mad at myself. You get depressed. You get upset. But you lift yourself up. ... It's been a difficult, tough year. But you don't collapse. You don't fall down and stay down. ... Just because there's a challenge there and an obstacle, you don't collapse and give up. ... You keep your vision strong. ... These challenges I have today, I'm gonna overcome those challenges."
Computer Christmas
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 10:39AM
This growing controversy over empty megachurches on Sunday is fascinating. First, the mainstream media's interest in it indicates a growing awareness of religious life in the country and also perhaps a desire to portray evangelicals as less than faithful. Second, to be fair to our brethren many are remaining true to the traditions and principles of their denominations by not celebrating Christmas. The theological justification for this is hinted at in the New York Times story:
"This attachment to a particular day on the calendar is just not something that megachurches have been known for," Nancy Ammerman, a sociologist of religion at Boston University, said. "They're known for being flexible and creative, and not for taking these traditions, seasons, dates and symbols really seriously."
Those who descend from the Puritan tradition wouldn't think of celebrating Christmas or any other holy day for that matter, because, as one friend put it last night, "Every day's Christmas and everyday's Easter, though a little more Easter than Christmas." Celebrating holy days isn't in the Bible, so some abstain.
What some churches offer in lieu of Christmas is less than heartwarming. One Illinois megachurch is producing a DVD featuring a "contemporary Christmas tale." A Georgia church is offering streaming video of a Christmas service on its website, the Times reports. The church's pastor said he expects a spike in traffic as families rather 'round the computer.
Who Is David Cameron?
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 10:20AM
So what does Margaret Thatcher think about new Tory leader David Cameron? Not much, as one can infer from John O'Sullivan's column today. O'Sullivan, a long-time adviser to Thatcher and as solid a Reaganite-Thatcherite as there is on both sides of the Atlantic, is unsually blunt in assessment of Cameron, who for all we know is little more than a media-savvy empty suit, another kinder and gentler successor to the real thing.
Gay Marriage Rollback
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 10:18AM
In New York yesterday a state appellate court overturned a ruling that would have allowed gay marriage in New York City.
Note to those confused about judicial activism: this isn't conservative judicial activism. This is a higher court setting straight a lower court's activism. The appellate court doesn't mince words:
We find that the motion court erred in granting plaintiffs summary judgment and finding the provisions of the DRL unconstitutional to the extent that they do not permit same-sex marriage. However, we find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right, an act that exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and usurped that of the Legislature.
Read the whole thing. It's a fine legal argument for the state's legitimate interest in fostering marriage.
Not So Fast
Posted by on 12.9.05 @ 9:57AM
The Administration's victory lap upon the announcement that House and Senate conferees had reached agreement on legislation to reauthorize provisions in the Patriot Act that are set to sunset December 31st, may be premature. A number of Republican Senators are joining with many Democrats to stop cloture. These constitutionalists will then continue efforts to incorporate in the final legislation the modest but important amendments that were in the earlier Senate version of the reauthorization. Civil libertarians on the right and the left support their efforts.
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Off we go
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 10:37PM
The local muezzin woke me at about 0515. It's about 0620 now. We spent the night in one of Saddam's palaces (redecorated US Army style, with the finest of bunk beds). No potable water in the sinks, but breakfast awaits, and then the helo ride to one or more undisclosed locations to see the troops. We're accompanied at all times by a detail of force protection troops led by a very sharp lieutenant colonel. I feel mighty safe. Well, at least when not riding helos. Like bumblebees, they seem to break the laws of physics every time they fly. I kinda like stuff with wings. Later.
In Iraq
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 2:17PM
BAGHDAD, IRAQ -- We flew from Kuwait City to Baghdad International this morning on a C-130, and then helo'd to the Baghdad Embassy Annex (one of Saddam's old palaces) to meet with Amb. Khalilzad, and several of the top military commanders. There's a lot to report, and I can only do some tonight as we are up very early tomorrow to helo out to visit the troops in one or two hotspots. Can't say where we're going until we've been there. Security is very tight.
The Iraqi election is a week from today, and from all reports there will likely be a very high turnout in all but one or two places. The Sunni seem to have taken a more pragmatic view than in the leadup to the constitutional referendum in September. This election chooses a permanent government, and the Sunni will probably vote in substantial numbers to avoid being deprived of proportional representation in the new parliament.
Terrorist attacks are not as many or as horrific as in the past, though commanders here believe the pace will increase as the week of the election comes upon us. We have been mistaking the means of the terrorist insurgents to sustain themselves. There appears to be much less funding coming in from other nations. One reason is that the terrorists don't need a lot of money to mount suicide bombing attacks. The biggest worry is still Improvised Explosive Devices which are adapted to our constantly-evolving defenses against them as fast -- or faster -- than the defenses can change. Everyone here expects more violence before the election. What form it will take, or how severe it will be, obviously, is unknown.
We heard a lot about the good-news developments on the Iraqi infrastructure. More details later, but the Coalition has accomplished some amazing things, including the construction or repair of thousands of schools and hospitals. Anyone who believes that life in Iraq was better under Saddam should come to see for themselves.
Amb. Khalilzad said a lot during our lunch with him. One of the most interesting things was that his efforts -- which now include dealing with Iran -- may bear fruit. His optimism may be that which his job requires. But he hinted that there have been other efforts with Iran -- when Khalilzad was our ambassador to Afghanistan -- that have already borne fruit. Perhaps a carrot and stick approach can work with Iran? I'm entirely skeptical. Especially when you factor in their nuclear weapons program. More tomorrow.
What It Takes
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 1:37PM
In the category of nice guys finish first -- as Tom Brady has done in three of the last four Super Bowls -- it's only fitting that Brady has been named Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year. He's the prince of quarterbacks, or better maybe to call him a virtuoso. If you read SI's write-up, one things jumps out as the secret to Brady's success, notwithstanding his toughness and fine character: practice. As in practice, practice, practice, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Writes Charles P. Pierce in the Dec. 12 issue:
Even the best quarterback...gets to actually play only once a week. The rest of the time is repetition, a Baltimore Catechism with sweat and collisions. The rest is off-season workouts, and voluntary minicamps that aren't voluntary at all, and hours and hours of meetings....Thus is the life of any great quarterback. What makes Brady different is how vividly you can see not only the results of that work every Sunday, but also his innate ability to carry the logic of practice to the conclusion of the game. "I love seeing us get better," Brady says, "and I don't think you get better in games. The improvements come in practice."
David Brooks' Conservatism
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 12:09PM
In response to one of the polling posts below, a reader asks how these new NYT numbers jive with the ones David Brooks uses in his piece today. I found the Brooks piece on Lexis Nexis. It's something else.
First, the numbers.
On the economy, Democrats are trusted more, 56 to 34. On education, it's Democrats 55 to 32. On taxes, Democrats 48 to 38. On health care, Democrats 54 to 29.
The Times/CBS poll reports Democrats are trusted more on the economy 45 to 37 percent, moral values 43 to 41 percent, terrorism 42 to 31 percent, Medicare 54 to 24 percent, and immigration 38 to 32 percent. Democrats are trusted less on ethics, 31 to 34 percent. The Times/CBS poll didn't ask about taxes, education, or general health care.
The rest of the Brooks article is rife with oversimplication.
First, most of the issues that propelled conservatives to power have been addressed. Modern American conservatism was formed by people who wanted to defeat the Soviet Union, reduce crime, reform welfare, cut taxes, deregulate the economy and reintroduce traditional social values. All those problems are less salient today.
Ok, so the Soviet Union is vanquished. And some of these individual issues aren't so pressing: welfare reform, crime, deregulation. But Brooks can't see the forest for the trees. Conservatism is generally about limited government, a strong national defense, and family values. Those principles guided those earlier issues, and now it's moved on to cutting government growth, fighting terrorism, and protecting the family.
Brooks then repeats that common claim that once-uppity conservatives have sold out. "Now that [conservatism is] a movement with power, it attracts sleazeballs." Many if not most of that younger insurgent set have sold out. But perhaps Brooks missed the Harriet Miers nomination, over which conservatives revolted against party leadership -- and won. Perhaps he missed widespread disappointment with leaders in the Senate over the family values agenda. Perhaps he's never heard of Mike Pence and the House Republican Study Committee. The distinction between conservatives and Republicans is decidedly not "obliterated."
Brooks also seems to be smarting about TimeSelect:
Conservatives used to live in a media world created by people who thought differently than they did. Reading certain publications and watching the evening news was like intellectual calisthenics. Now conservatives can be just as insular as liberals, retreating to their own media sources to be told how right they are.
Irony aside, halfway through Brooks' article, his misunderstanding is clear. Rather than the conservatives he targets, he's most guilty of "intellectual flabbiness." Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, Brooks has completely lumped conservatism and the Republican Party into one faceless hegemon. Thus, all conservatives only watch Fox News, all conservatives have lost their governing philosophy, and all conservatives have lost touch with their base. This is only true if President Bush, Leader Frist, Sen. Specter, Rep. DeLay, Gov. Bill Owens, and Speaker Hastert are conservatism.
Yes, Mr. Brooks, some folks who once called themselves conservatives and acted as conservatives are now in power and unmoored from their principles. If an "R" follows their name, that only makes them a Republican, not a conservative. If you want conservatism, check out the House Republican Study Committee. Read a few blogs. Listen to Rush. Return to the exurbs or chat with folks in "flyover country." You'll find a deep well of frustration not with conservatism, but Republican leadership.
David Brooks is usually the master of nuance. Here he's just sloppy.
With Friends Like This
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 11:04AM
Gray Davis, the confederately named former governor of California who was ousted from office in the recall that gave us Arnold Schwarzenegger as his replacement, returned to Sacramento yesterday for the unveiling of his portrait in the state capitol. Whatever it was that brought about his humiliating demise was long forgotten. Davis took credit for investing in young people and raising school standards. Standing next to him, Schwarzenegger heaped praise on Davis for the "incredible" job he did over 30 years of public life -- "he always fought for the underdog, he always fought for the poor..." -- and, more incredible still, talked about how he and Maria have become good friends with the Davises since the 2003 election.
"Every time I have a problem, or any time that I need advice, I still can call him, and he always gives me great, great advice," Arnold said. "So I want to say, 'Thank you very much. It's great to be your friend.'"
Now you know why politicians are such credible creatures.
Narnia and the Spirit of Christmas
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 10:40AM
We dragged the kids on a shopping trip before Thanksgiving -- Mommy needed something to wear to a Christmas party. For once, my 3 little ones behaved themselves (no small feat) while Mommy tried on various outfits. The boy (age 7) struck up a conversation with the young salesgirl, informing her that he had just finished reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Her response? She immediately offered 4 tickets to the premier of the movie -- tonight. Turns out her church had bought 700+ tickets. She was heading back to college and couldn't make the show, so she offered them to our family free of charge.
Who knew Santa's helpers worked retail? Score one for the spirit of Christmas and good will toward men.
Our new friend will soon receive a treat-filled care package to help her get through her end-of-semester exams.
I'll give my review of the movie tomorrow.
Poll Parsing
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 10:37AM
More on the raw data from that New York Times/CBS poll:
-Support for the President's handling of the war in Iraq is up 4 points.
-48 percent approve of his handling of the war on terror in general, versus 45 who disapprove. The approval is only up by 1 point.
-Congress's approval rating is much lower than the President's, though virtually unchanged at 33 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove.
-However, numbers for respondents' individual members of Congress are up to 60 percent approval from 57 percent.
-An understanding of the economy's red hot performance seems to have broken through: 55 percent say the economy is in fairly good or very good condition, up from 47 percent. 35 percent still believe the economy is getting worse, 19 percent think it's improving.
-59 percent abortion should be not permitted or at least restricted.
-Sam Alito's numbers are barely registering, with 14 percent favorable and 10 percent unfavorable. The smears against him haven't taken hold.
-The public is evenly divided over whether the war in Iraq was a good idea, 48 percent saying it was the right thing, 48 percent saying we should have stayed out. The "right thing" figure is up from 44 percent in September.
Front Page Good News
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 8:20AM
You'll find President Bush's poll numbers on the front page of the New York Times today. Perhaps conservative cajoling is beginning to work. The latest New York Times/CBS poll finds Bush's approval rating at 40 percent.
Euthanasia Ok'd in Israel
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 8:16AM
Legislators decided that it is against Jewish law for a person to take another person's life. But if a machine does the deed, it's a-ok.
Parry With a Smile
Posted by on 12.8.05 @ 8:02AM
It appears that newly elected Conservative Party leader David Cameron comported himself well at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday.
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
On the Move
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 10:56PM
KUWAIT CITY -- We're on the move into Iraq in about an hour. (It's now 0640 in Kuwait City). The flight was very long, but tolerable. We were whisked through customs last night and managed to get a decent calzone at a place near the hotel. We'll be met by our military escorts who will issue body armor and helmets in a few minutes. Then on to a C-130 for the flight to Baghdad. More later as computer access becomes available.
Corzine Picks Corzine's Replacement
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 7:16PM
It's Rep. Bob Menendez, Fox reports.
TerriPAC
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 5:35PM
Is the name of Michael Schiavo's new political action committee that will contribute to Florida candidates. Will it target pro-life politicians?
Smoking Nags on the March
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 3:46PM
They won again today, this time in Chicago.
We received some interesting comments on my earlier post on the D.C. smoking ban. This issue seems to test conservatives who may personally enjoy smoke-free restaurants, but believe in limited government. Good conservative friends argue, "But my clothes don't smell like smoke at the end of the night." Surely, there's a better justification -- somewhere -- for the imposition of smoking bans. Yet that's what the pro-ban arguments boil down to: a pleasant eating experience. If conservatives believe that is government's business, limited government is dead. D.C. Councilman Carol Schwartz offered a compromise resolution which would ban smoking except in businesses that install high powered fans to clean the air, etc. In other words, businesses could eliminate the health risk. The D.C. Council roundly rejected her proposal.
In short, the bans are blows to freedom. Patrons can no longer choose restaurants which allow smoking or those that don't. The city has decided for them. For more, see my article/interview with Christopher Hitchens on this topic.
"An Enormous Defeat"
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 3:00PM
So says Andrew Cochran over at the Counterterrorism Blog regarding Sami Al-Arian's acquittal yesterday on 8 of the 17 charges brought against him. Cochran calls it "the most important terrorism-related trial in the U.S. since the 9/11 attacks." Worse, he concludes that "the verdicts are an enormous defeat for the Justice Department and, I predict, will have a chilling effect on all planned terrorism prosecutions, especially in Florida … Yes, the government can retry Al-Arian on the deadlocked counts, but realistically, that will be very tough."
I Gave Clinton My Money...
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 2:42PM
...and all I got was a lousy T-shirt. This quid pro quo is truly a bummer. You used to be able to give the Clintons money and receive in exchange a night in the Lincoln Bedroom or loosened export controls on key military technology.
Bush's Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 2:27PM
Catch his full remarks here. Some highlights:
On September the 11th, 2001, our nation awoke to another sudden attack. In the space of just 102 minutes, more Americans were killed than we lost at Pearl Harbor.
Like generations before us, we accepted new responsibilities and we confronted new dangers with firm resolve.
Like generations before us, we're taking the fight to those who attacked us and those who share their murderous vision for future attacks.
Like generations before us, we face setbacks on the path to victory, yet we will face this war without wavering. And like the generations before us, we will prevail.
...
Senator Lieberman is right. There's an important debate going on in our nation's capital about Iraq. And the fact that we can debate these issues openly in the midst of a dangerous war brings credit to our democracy.In this debate, some are calling for us to withdraw from Iraq on a fixed timetable, without regard to conditions on the ground. Recently, one Democratic leader came out in support of an artificial deadline for withdrawal and said an immediate withdrawal of our troops would, quote, "make the American people safer, our military stronger, and bring some stability to the region," end quote.
That's the wrong policy for our government. Withdrawing on an artificial deadline would endanger the American people, would harm our military and make the Middle East less stable.
It would give the terrorists exactly what they want.
Churches Closing on Christmas
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 1:48PM
Via Mirror of Justice, CNN reports that some seeker-friendly (read: watered-down) evangelical churches will close on Christmas -- particularly shocking news, since Christmas falls on a Sunday this year. These churches normally mark the feast day on Christmas Eve, and so will relieve members from the Sunday obligation because Christmas is a "family day." I don't even know where to start with this one...
Congress Taking on the BCS
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 1:33PM
The House Commerce Committee is looking at the Bowl Championship Series today. That's right. College football. Led by Congressman Joe Barton (R-Texas), the committee will attempt to nag bowl officials into a playoff format.
Their justification? That college football's a big business and sometimes the BCS choices end in "sniping and controversy." Typically, we call that winning and losing.
C-Span plans to air the spectacle sometime tonight after 8 p.m.
Battle Over Narnia
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 1:08PM
RedState is keeping an eye on the vitriol against The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, to be released Friday. They're dubbing this project the "Narnia Hate Watch." While I'm not sure it will reach such heights, Paul Cella writes, "Not since Passion of the Christ have we seen such hatred for a film yet to be released." Oh well. I've eagerly awaited the film for over a year and plan to see it this weekend.
Campbell Wins, To Join RSC
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 12:59PM
John Campbell joins the ranks of the House Republicans in Washington today after winning SEC Chairman Chris Cox's old seat in California last night. Reports from the House indicate that Rep. Campbell will join the Republican Study Committee (the good guys).
Day of Infamy
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 12:53PM
As most every American knows instinctively, today is Pearl Harbor day. All over the country local newspapers and even some major papers are carrying stories and reflections, on this, the 64th anniversary of Japan's attack on America. My own local papers, alas, the Washington Post and the New York Times, ran nothing on the event. Though you can link to an AP story posted yesterday on their websites that was posted yesterday.
Of course, the Washington Times comes through in a major way. And of the networks, NBC headlined the anniversary in its morning lineup, right before the interview with Howard Stern.
McCain on Imus on Torture
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 9:57AM
So let's get this straight -- McCain said that no good information comes from torture because they (the torturees) will "say what they thnk you want to hear to stop the pain." Imus asked about the exception for an impending nuke. McCain, seeking to be reasonable, agreed that in that "one in a million" situation, "go ahead and do it. It's justifiable." Why would torture work in that situation and not others?
First of all, I'd like someone to cite any examples of torture committed by U.S. military personnel that have gone unpunished. Second, absent any proof to the contrary, I'd like Senator McCain and others like him to stop saying, as he did on Imus this morning, that "this torture has to stop." By saying "it" has to stop, he is saying that "it" is going on and accusing our troops of breaking the law. Third, will Senator McCain take his "exception" to the rule to its logical conclusion?
It's okay to torture when it may help save the lives of a million innocent people. How about half a million? Or 250,000? Or 10,000? Or 100? Or 10? (Am I sounding like Father Abraham?)
How about saving a platoon of U.S. Army Infantrymen from an ambush?
Is holding a gun to a terrorist's head and threatening to pull the trigger, torture? If not, why did the Army fire a LTC for doing just that in order to save his men from an ambush?
What would Senator McCain tell the mother of a single soldier who was killed by terrorists in an ambush if that mother found out that we had in custody another terrorist who knew the time and location of the attack but we didn't hang him by his fingernails over a vat of boiling pig fat to save her son?
I'm not defending torture. I actually agree with Senator McCain that it rarely yields reliable intelligence. However, I'd like a better definition of torture. And if it is not too much to ask, perhaps the politicians could give our armed service members the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing them of torturing captive terrorists as SOP.
Moreover, let's give the U.S. military extra credit for actually going out of their way -- too often at the cost of their own lives and limbs -- to minimize civilian casualties or even roil local sensibilities. Our guys wear the white hats, no matter what John Kerry says.
There's Always Virginia
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 8:31AM
The D.C. Council passed a smoking ban ordinance yesterday, to the apparent consternation of Mayor Anthony Williams, who's worried about the detrimental effects to business. Worse than that, it's a blow to civil society: a bloc of citizens can declare a minor vice (if that) unpleasant and banish the offenders to the sidewalk. Liberals aren't so tolerant after all.
What Does It Take to Get Fired at the U.N.?
Posted by on 12.7.05 @ 8:22AM
Oil for food? Nope. Sexual harassment.
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
The Plot Thickens
Posted by on 12.6.05 @ 10:47PM
Last week I defended the late Pat Morita against the PC condescending tribute paid him by Lawrence Downes in the New York Times. Now it turns out Downes fell into the very trap he set for himself. Yesterday the Times ran this dainty correction apropos his piece:
An Editorial Observer column last Tuesday about the death of the actor Pat Morita referred imprecisely to Rob Schneider's background. His mother is Filipino.
I'd say Downes had been precise to a fault in making his erroneous point:
Watch Rob Schneider play Ula, a leering Hawaiian in the Adam Sandler movie "50 First Dates," with a pidgin accent by way of Cheech and Chong, and you get the sense that Hollywood still believes that there is no ethnic caricature a white actor can't improve upon.
But alls well that ends well, at least if Rob Schneider is involved. Today the Times ran his letter to the editor in which he not only notes he's half-Filipino (dated December 1, his letter presumably alterted the Times to Downes's crude error) but defends with just the right closing touch the notion of genuine equal opportunity: "I also believe that Hollywood should give roles to the most talented person irrespective of ethnicity, race or in my case 'looks.'"
Two Clarks
Posted by on 12.6.05 @ 1:24PM
John Burns may be the New York Times's finest, and certainly toughest, reporter. He's been in Iraq since well before the war. Today he profiles the forever fellow-traveling Ramsey Clark, currently a member of Saddam Hussein's defense team. In his subtle, measured way, Burns undresses Clark -- "a tall, gaunt figure, still with a Texas drawl after decades of living in New York..." Before Burns is done with him, Clark is displaying a propensity for moral equivalence apologetics that during the 1930s would have had him rushing to defend Stalin. Burns reports:
At his trial, Mr. Hussein is charged with crimes against humanity in the killing of 148 men and teenage boys from the Shiite town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, after an assassination attempt against Mr. Hussein there in 1982. But Mr. Clark suggested that Mr. Hussein's secret police had reason to act harshly against Shiite assassins who, he said, almost certainly had political links to Shiite-ruled Iran, then in the early stages of an eight-year war with Iraq. He compared the actions of Mr. Hussein's secret police with the muscular behavior of an American president's security detail."Just look at how our Secret Service works," he said. "I've been knocked down several times when they see some kind of threat." In any case, he said, he could not see how Mr. Hussein could be blamed for the killings. "He was the president of the country, he was in a war, he was a pretty busy guy," he said. "I can see this as a case of some of his juniors overreacting."
Speaking of Iran, former general Wesley Clark for once raises a serious point, also in today Times, based on his talks with "America's friends in the Persian Gulf region":
While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.
High Stakes December in the House
Posted by on 12.6.05 @ 11:05AM
The House of Representatives returns from its Thanksgiving recess today with an agenda full of crucial items. Moderate Republicans have grown bolder in recent weeks, with their eyes on defeating the modest, $50 billion cuts in the budget increases as well as drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR will be resolved in conference.
No SecDef Lieberman
Posted by on 12.6.05 @ 8:40AM
Dave: All that speculation is coming from those, such as Chris Matthews, who can't imagine any Dem saying what Lieberman did without first having been bribed with a job offer. Couple that with their hatred of Rumsfeld, and voila, you have the imaginary SecDef Lieberman. Methinks it's very, very unlikely.
SecDef Lieberman?
Posted by on 12.6.05 @ 8:28AM
Instapundit notices an increasingly popular Democratic talking point: Lieberman as Secretary of Defense. Of course, there's a slight problem with that rumor. The job's taken, for now. Reynolds links to Kos on this, who acknowledges that such a move would mean Lieberman was switching sides and Gov. Jodi Rell could turn his Senate seat into a Republican incumbency. Still, Kos would be only too happy to "finally get rid of Lieberman."
In Hunter We Trust
Posted by on 12.6.05 @ 8:14AM
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) leads the House negotiators on McCain's torture amendment. With Hunter on the job, we should see a compromise product that doesn't neuter our troops and intelligence agents.
Monday, December 5, 2005
Re: Changing the Regime
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 6:40PM
John: Perplex away. As I said in my earlier posting, there is substantial popular support for the Iranian nuclear weapons program. No matter who knocks it off, there will be a substantial backlash that -- by covert action -- we can help redirect against the mullahs.
And there is nothing about the existence of any regime that threatens the USA. It is not existence or even policy but only intent and capabilities that turn a loud noise into a threat. Iran's intent is to restore, by violence, their idealized Muslim caliphate. Its capabilities -- by the oil it sells to fund terrorism -- is one kind of threat. It is another entirely if it achieves its nuclear weapons ambitions.
There would be no lessening of anti-American feeling in Iran or anywhere else in the Muslim world if Israel were to make an attack. In fact, it might actually be worse if the Israelis did it than if we did. They are regarded as our proxy in the Middle East. At least when they are not merely labeled the Zionist enemy by the arabs and others.
There should be no tension, from our standpoint, between preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and toppling the regime. It's a case of priorities, and what can be done when. We can, and must, stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons. There is no higher priority in the war against terrorism. None.
By el-Baradei's statements today, we have only months to do that. Once that is accomplished, we can take whatever time it may take -- years, as it will inevitably -- to destabilize the regime and eventually enable the Iranians to topple it. First things first. Nuclear weapons in Iran's hands change the entire geopolitical equation. Not just in the Middle East, but in the West, the South, and the Far East. And once it is changed, the world will be safe for nothing except Islamic terrorism.
Re: Changing The Regime
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 6:16PM
First off, Jed, I think you misunderstood my question. I know that a strike on nuclear facilities won't result in regime change; I'm worried that it would retard regime change, and I'm wondering if Israel doing the deed would limit anti-American backlash.
And second, I'm a little perplexed by this sentence: "It matters not who rules Iran if they are no threat to us." The current Iranian regime is by its nature a threat to us -- a terror master, to use Michael Ledeen's phrase. I take it you get this, since you call for covert action to destabilize the regime. What I'm concerned about is the tension between, on the one hand, keeping nukes out of the Mullahs' hands, and on the other hand toppling the Mullahs entirely.
Delayed Justice
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 5:32PM
Despite what the mainstream media and Democrats are saying now on TV, there is no glass-half-empty message in the decision by a Texas judge to toss the conspiracy charges against Republican leader Tom DeLay, and keep the moneylaundering charge in place. Sure, it would have great if the second charge had been tossed, but in the end, it's one less charge to worry about. This is a win for DeLay without a doubt. He's half-way home. According to one Democratic Hill source, their House leadership acknowledged that this was good news for DeLay on a conference call, "Then they mapped out how they would spin the media on how this was really a huge defeat for him," says the source. "When someone pointed out that this might be tough given that it was one of two charges, the response was, 'The media already hates him, we aren't going to have to sell bad news very hard at all.'"
Efficiency
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 5:20PM
First Christmas card of the season arrived in today's mail. Who gets this year's prize for the fastest-after-Thanksgiving card? George and Laura Bush. Just a tad faster, if memory serves, than his Dad and Mom's cards from the same address. I have no Christmas card efficiency data on 43's immediate predecessor. I was on their other list.
Proud Moments
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 5:06PM
As a Connecticut native, I was darn proud of Senator Lieberman last week. Bucking his party on Iraq was the most courageous act by a Connecticut Senator since the 1950s, when a Republican criticized Joe McCarthy, a member of his own party. That senator was Prescott Bush -- grandfather of the President. I haven't seen the current Edward R. Morrow movie, but I'm guessing that Senator Bush's heroism is not referenced there.
Re: Iranian Nukes
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 3:54PM
John: several points. Yes, Iran is waging a proxy war against us. But it needs nukes to do three things. First, to deter us from taking effective action against them and stopping the proxy war. Second, to threaten Israel and Europe with nuclear-armed missiles. And third, to eventually use them -- through their proxies -- against us to finish their war.
The issue isn't whether we or Israel strike the Iranian nuke facilities. Regime change is not likely to result from either, as there is a substantial portion of the Iranian population that supports the nuke program. The issue is entirely defensive for us or the Israelis. It matters not who rules Iran if they are no threat to us. They are now a threat through their proxies. And that threat will be magnified a hundredfold if they possess deployable nuclear weapons.
What we need to do is -- as I've written several times -- both overtly (as in air strikes to prevent them from achieving nuclear weapons) and covertly (to prevent delivery of Russian SAMs and to destabilize the regime). A thorough plan for action against Iran has to include both. And it had better be put in motion pronto.
Vietnamizing Iraq (Chapter 2,197)
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 3:30PM
Now we have it officially from Howlin' Howie Dean: the U.S. will not win in Iraq. Here are the money quotes from a radio hit he did earlier today with a Texas station:
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years...Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarkawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops."
For those who don't get it, "strategic redeployment" translates, in the best Monty Python terms to "run away." See Monty Python and the Holy Grail again, and you'll understand the Democratic Party's strategy for the global war on terror.
Iranian Nukes
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 3:04PM
Iran is waging a proxy war against us in Iraq, and they don't need nukes to do it. Regime change is the thing. I wrote in August that if the NIE is correct, we have time to seriously pursue regime change before a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities (a strike that could seriously complicate the relationship between the US and Iran's dissident population). But El Baradei's statement that he agrees with the dire assessment of Israeli intel is the latest in a long line of data points that suggest ample reason to fear that the NIE is way off.
So, Jed: What are the relative prospects for regime change after an American strike vs. after an Israeli strike? Do the military obstacles to an Israeli strike outweigh its relative geopolitical utility?
Re: In the Real World...
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 2:13PM
Bill Richardson has been dining out on his draft story for decades. When the Albuquerque Journal contacted people who had described Richardson as a drafted baseball star in written material and asked them why they had done that (the lie found its way into at least one book via Richardson's yarn-spinning to a sports writer), their response was to say that Richardson had told them that and they believed him. So when Richardson says that he got the impression that he was drafted from "a program" produced by the Cape Cod summer league team he played for he is blowing more smoke: Who supplied the bogus information that found its way into the program? Richardson did, or Tufts university baseball officials he had misled. Not wanting the facts to get in the way of a good story, Richardson couldn't bring himself to tell people a more scaled-down version of being almost drafted.
Richardson's Clinton-era formulation, "In my mind that meant I had been drafted," is reminiscent of another weasel from the Clinton years, Robert Reich. In his memoirs, Reich just made stuff up, concocting heated dialogue he says took place in meetings that C-Span tapes exposed as bogus. Caught out, Reich said that his invented dialogue "captured" something true about the meetings, a "mood" and so forth. "These are my perceptions," he said. Subjectivism covers a multitude of sins.
Leatherman?
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 1:08PM
Dave: the problem with relying on the Israelis for this is that their airpower is severely limited by lack of tanker aircraft. I'm sure they'd like to do the required job on Iran, but the Iranian nuke facilities are dispersed, hardened, and not susceptible of short-range aircraft attack. And once the Russian double-digit SAMs are in place Israel will be out of options. They can't spell B-2 over there. Stealth is the answer. Now, what was the question?
On the other hand, remember the Brit SBS motto: if not by strength, then guile.
Re: In the Real World...
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 12:25PM
Dave: It's even better than lying. What could Richardson possibly be saying when he claims, "I had been told by various scouts that I would be drafted if I signed." What in heck is that supposed to mean? If you sign with a team, that precludes your being drafted. The normal (sane) procedure is that you're drafted and then sign. The other way around is an impossibility. A Clinton lawyer might claim that what Richardson meant is that the scounts were telling him he'd be drafted if he signed with them. But scouts aren't agents. Maybe Richardson learned to talk that way during his trips to North Korea.
For Those Who Still Watch Network Evening News
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 12:20PM
ABC has chosen the Elizabeth Vargas/Bob Woodruff co-anchor option for World News Tonight.
Pirro or Not?
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 12:15PM
The New York Post reports her husband contributed to the moves, behind her back, last week by New York Republicans to convince her to pursue the N.Y. AG race instead of the U.S. Senate. Mrs. Pirro and Hillary have even more in common than we'd thought.
Re: Iran's Nuke
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 12:11PM
Jed, when formal diplomacy fails, our friends in Israel will still take seriously the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. Israel is the world's Leatherman in the world's utility belt in these situations, TAS contributor James G. Poulos reminds us.
In the Real World, We Call it Lying
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 12:00PM
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson makes light of his false claim to have been drafted by the Kansas City A's years ago to Time Magainze:
LAST MONTH YOU ANNOUNCED THAT, AFTER RESEARCHING THE MATTER, YOU DETERMINED THAT THE KANSAS CITY ATHLETICS HAD NEVER DRAFTED YOU. HOW COULD YOU MISREMEMBER THAT DETAIL FOR FOUR DECADES? I had been told by various scouts that I would be drafted if I signed. When it appeared in the official program of my team that I had been drafted, I assumed it was correct. However, the mistake was mine. I should have checked. Obviously, it's become a little bit of an instance where I dropped the ball. Get it, Karen?
I GET IT. I GET IT. Get that? Dropped the ball?
Casual with the truth for years. Hilarious.
Swift John
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 11:42AM
Back during the time of his Paris travels, John Kerry liked to dismiss the South Vietnamese army during the Nixon administration's efforts at "Vietnamization" as "Quislings" (which evidently, since these South Vietnamese were collaborating with the U.S., made us the Nazis). Now apparently he's all for "Iraqization." Yesterday on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, he insisted: "You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis." But then he did Dick Durbin one better:
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not, Iraqis should be doing that."
John Kerry really is a sicko.
Galen's Latest
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 10:52AM
We're sure that to a certain generation of female, Republican and conservative stalwart, Rich Galen, is an attractive, even a sexy man. So be it. But for the rest of us, he's also a smart man, as evidenced by his latest "Mullings."
Meanwhile, up on Capitol Hill there is a growing sense among Republicans that something has to be done about the appropriations process. Over the next year it should be interesting to see which GOP House member with a jones for leadership figures out how critical this issue is and uses it to pry the Majority Leader's mantel away. If someone doesn't, it may be the Minority Leader's mantel they are competing for.
More Saddam Trial Antics
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 9:42AM
It seems Saddam Hussein's trial is facing larger challenges than security: the defendant is proving less than cooperative, staging a walk out today. Perhaps they could seat him in a room, provide a video connection, and get on with the trial.
Iran's Nukes
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 9:07AM
Seems like only last August that our intel guys were doubling their estimate of the time Iran would consume before achieving its nuclear weapons ambitions. The experts on whom I rely say Iran is about one to two years away. Actually, it WAS last August that the intel guys said never mind five years, it'll be at least ten years before the Iranians can make the world safe for Islamic terrorism.
That was then. This is now. As the Jerusalem Post reports this morning, Mohamed el-Baradei, Nobel laureate and Chief Magoo of the International Atomic Energy Agency, now says that our pals in Tehran are only months away from having a bomb or two or three or four.
Set aside the years wasted by the EUnuchs in trying to talk the Iranians out of their nuke program. They were fools on a fool's errand. Now, reality is setting in fast. The question is what are we -- which means what is Mr. Bush -- prepared to do? We can wait longer, and rely on diplomacy. The certain result of that will be Iran as a nuclear-armed terrorist state. Or we can act. Now. And before Pooty-Poot's SAMs get there to protect the Iranian nuclear weapons sites.
My pals Gens. Tom McInerny and Paul Vallely wrote a book a coupla years ago called Endgame. It was a roadmap on how to win the war on terror. Problem is, the Iranians wrote their own, and it has precisely the same goal for the enemy side. Ahmadinejad is playing his endgame right now. And the time for us to be able to do anything to stop it is growing terribly short.
I still believe the experts on whom I rely. Our window of opportunity is between one and two years. But if we are to succeed against Iran, we have to begin now. Right bloody now.
Condi at Bat
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 8:45AM
Secretary Rice continues to astound, and take unprecedented actions, such as use the considerable bully pulpit of the State Department to actually support American goals and objectives. The consternation at Foggy Bottom must be enough to, say, blow some of the fog out of there.
Dr. Rice leaves for Europe, where the EUnuchs have organized a reception that includes demands for disclosure of the CIA overseas detention facilities where terrorists are held. UK foreign minister Jack Straw sent her a letter last week demanding details. Rice, as has CIA Director Goss and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld -- and the president -- said we do not torture detainees. Here, again, the damage already being done by the McCain amendment. Torture is already illegal, and will continue to be regardless of the fate of McCain's misbegotten and thoroughly misunderstood amendment.
Rice said "information gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies from a 'very small number of extremely dangerous detainees,' ... has helped prevent terrorist attacks and saved lives 'in Europe as well as in the United States and other countries.'" She refused to say anything further, and will take a tough line with Angela Merkel in Germany and with the other Euros who are too delicate to fight the war. If that further delays reconciliation in transatlantic relations -- the great penalty we shall pay for doing what we do -- so be it. Actually, so much the better. From friends such as the EUnuchs, we get harsh criticism rather than help. And, still, they expect us to defend them. Why bother?
It's a Big Tent After All
Posted by on 12.5.05 @ 8:16AM
The Boston Globe profiles Rhode Island's version of a Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee. Of course, the Sierra Club loves him, he drives a Prius (what a hip maverick!), and he's wringing his hands over the Alito vote. Most folks have heard of his "protest" vote for Bush 41 over Bush 43 in the 2004 election, but there's more. The Globe reporter asked him if he preferred John Kerry over Bush, and Chafee weaseled out, saying Kerry "ran a horrible campaign." So you prefer Bush to Kerry? "I didn't say that."
Sunday, December 4, 2005
Scientism
Posted by on 12.4.05 @ 3:40PM
Gertrude Himmelfarb has an excellent review-essay in The New Republic (subscription required) dealing with the philosophical shortcomings of Darwin-anthologists Edward O. Wilson and James D. Watson. Here is her conclusion:
The editors of these new editions of Darwin may have taught us more than they know. A non-scientist may well stand in awe of the enormous achievements that they as individuals, and science in general, have to their credit. They have learned a great deal, and we have learned a great deal from them. But what they have evidently not learned is humility--an appreciation of the limits of science, of what science does not know and cannot know. This is what they now inadvertently remind us: that there are, after all, other modes of knowledge, other scholarly disciplines--philosophy, history, literature, theology--that have taught us a good deal, over the ages, about human nature, social behavior, ethical principles and practices. There are even non-scholarly, non-professional sources of knowledge that do not come within the purview of science--wisdom, experience, common sense.In Darwin's day, some eminent scientists--T. H. Huxley, most notably--were distressed by the mechanistic and reductivist interpretation of evolution itself. Today we have even more cause to be concerned about the mechanistic and reductivist interpretation of all of human life, including its emotional and intellectual dimensions, in the name of Darwinism. This is more than science. It is scientism--and scientism with a vengeance, for it is not only science that is now presumed to be the only access to comprehensive truth, but also that sub-category of science known as Darwinism.
Not least for this reason, it is finally to Darwin and the Darwinians of his own time that we must turn--to the conquistador who was personally modest even as he was bold in imagination and conception, and to his bulldog who tried to restrain the irrational exuberance of some of Darwin's disciples. We may recall Huxley's advice to Paley's successors, that they follow his example by refraining from "rushing into an antagonism which has no reasonable foundation." All the parties in the current controversies could profit from that wise counsel.
Dream Dad-in-Law
Posted by on 12.4.05 @ 2:12PM
Our man in the old continent sends us a link to this profile of the political relative of the year -- Tony Blair's father-in-law. His name is Tony Booth, and it appears he's modeled his life on My Fair Lady's Alfred P. Doolittle, not that he's ever gotten to the church on time. He may not even sing. But in between his drinking, smoking and wenching, he's also been an actor. His roles have ranged from Hamlet to Sid Noggett, "in the robustly erotic series of films that included 'Confessions of a Window Cleaner.'" He currently resides in Ireland's County Cavan.
So Fundamentally Wrong
Posted by on 12.4.05 @ 1:53PM
I wasn't going to blog today, being occupied with my weekly column and two important NFL games. But Zbigniew Brzezinski's op-ed in today's WaPo is so wrong-headed, I have been too provoked to remain silent. It is useful to remember, when reading his opinion, that he was the mastermind behind the Carter foreign policy and it was on his watch that Iran turned from a valued ally into the most dangerous terrorist nation on earth.
In Brzezinski's view, the president is making an enormous mistake in characterizing the war as an ideological one. He says that by labeling terrorism from the Middle East "Islamist," the president is enhancing the terrorists' power:
It certainly is not in the United States's interest, especially in the Middle East, to prompt a fusion of Muslim political resentments against America with a wider and stronger sense of Islamic religious identity. When the president talks of Iraq as "the central front" in the war against Islamic terrorism, he links Iraqi and Arab anti-American nationalism with outraged Muslim religious feelings, thereby reinforcing the case for bin Laden's claim that the struggle is, indeed, against "the crusaders...That fusion could endow terrorism with fanatical intensity, compensating for the weakness that it suffers in comparison to the organizational and military threat posed earlier by communism.
Is terrorism not endowed with "fanatical intensity" from Iran to Chechnya, from the UK to the U.S.? But it gets worse.
Brzezinski's prescription -- a military withdrawal from the Middle East -- is hidden behind his description of the work of Robert Pape of the University of Chicago whom he quotes in support of his theory that our military presence in the Middle East is propelling the "fusion" he cites. Pape, says Brzezinski,
has analyzed the motivations of contemporary suicide-attackers. He demonstrates that in the majority of cases, the attackers' basic impulse has been hostility toward foreign invaders, and he concluded a recent TV interview by observing that "the longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11.
Wow.
One of Osama bin Laden's stated goals is to drive the infidels -- America, Britain, all the West -- out of the Arabian Peninsula. What Brzezinski wants to say, but lacks the courage to do so, is that were we to give OBL what he wants, terrorism would no longer threaten us.
I've seen the "cut and run" theory of resisting terrorism in many forms. This is perhaps the most elegant. But Brzezinski is as wrong as Pelosi, as well-reasoned as Moore. He is much more dangerous than they because his reasoning seems more learned. If only he were.
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Evolve or Die
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
