The American Spectator

Re: Tonight: on Heartland with John Kasich

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.17.05 @ 6:31PM

Jed, good work last night and good luck tonight. But one thing I'm still trying to figure out is why would the President not simply use the law on the books to approach secret courts for approval on these taps?

The only way my imagination can rationalize it is by seeing the surveillance as a far broader activity than could possibly be performed if warrants had to be sought regularly from the "secret court," which I imagine looks something like Judge Judy's court, only with worse lighting and smoke for effect.

The press seems incredulous at the moment that Bush actually offered frank honesty as a result of this. The New York Times offered:

Mr. Bush's public confirmation on Saturday of the existence of one of the country's most secret intelligence programs, which had been known to only a select number of his aides, was a rare moment in his presidency. Few presidents have publicly confirmed the existence of heavily classified intelligence programs like this one.

The Washington Post, a little more desperately trying to point out how unusual this speech was:

The speech ran about seven minutes, slightly longer than his usual radio addresses.

The L.A. Times has absolutely nothing on it, aside from the transcript of Bush's comments. It did, however, have this quote from Chuck Schumer:

"I went to bed undecided. But today's revelation is shocking," Schumer said. "If this government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years without a whit of discussion or notice, then for sure we better be certain that we have safeguards on that government."

In short, what he was really saying was, "What? An opportunity to vote against an important national security measure? To the No-Mobile!"

Add a Comment

topics: Books, Law

Tonight: on Heartland with John Kasich

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.17.05 @ 3:57PM

I'll be on Fox again, this time on "Heartland with John Kasich" tonight about 8 pm EST, talking about the NSA intel flap. The more I research this, the more likely it seems that the president acted legally. But there's still a lot of law to read. More Monday in Loose Canons.

Add a Comment

topics: Law

Patriot Games

Posted by John Tabin on 12.17.05 @ 10:09AM

Orin Kerr has the distinction of being one of the rare participants in the Patriot Act debate who actually knows what he's talking about (he was a Justice Department lawyer from 1998-2001 and has testified before Congress more than once on Patriot Act arcana). He writes:

The dirty little secret about the Patriot Act is that only about 3% of the Act is controversial, and only about a third of that 3% is going to expire on December 31st. Further, much of the reauthorization actually puts new limits on a number of the controversial non-sunsetting provisions, and some of the sunsetting provisions increased privacy protections. As a result, it's not immediately obvious to me whether we'll have greater civil liberties on January 1, 2006 if the Patriot Act is reauthorized or if it is allowed to expire. (To be fair, though, I'd have to run through the effect of every expiring section and all of the reauthorization language to check this - maybe I would feel differently if I did.)

...What will happen in the end? My hope is that the Bush Administration will agree to renegotiate some of the more controversial provisions, addressing some of the opponents' concerns and reaching a compromise that reflects the current political landscape. My sense is that there is still lots of ready room for compromise; for example, the restrictions on sneak-and-peek warrants in the reauthorization are really pretty weak. They can (and should) be strengthened, and it seems unlikely that strengthening them would impact any terrorism cases.

Add a Comment

topics: Law

In case you missed...

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.16.05 @ 7:57PM

tonight's segment with John Gibson, you can see it here.

Add a Comment

Big Story

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.16.05 @ 3:15PM

I'll be on tonight with John Gibson about 5 pm on FNC talking about the New York Times story on the president's domestic intelligence operations through NSA. Stay tuned.

Add a Comment

The People's Business?

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.16.05 @ 1:52PM

So now we have a filibuster of the PATRIOT Act extension following hard upon Mr. McCain's success in getting his al Qaeda bill of rights agreed on. How many ways can Congress spell "surrender"?

I just love what ol' Leaky Leahy said about the PATRIOT Act. He wants to mend it, not end it. Where have we heard that before?

Add a Comment

Even more on Wikipedia

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.16.05 @ 12:21PM

Earlier this week, Robert McHenry offered fairly devastating criticism of Wikipedia in this article. Having been Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica, McHenry argues effectively:

Add a Comment

Re: D.C.'s Weak Constitution

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.16.05 @ 11:51AM

I went to school in upstate New York, and found that classes never stopped for inclement weather. Even though I lived on campus, I can tell you getting to school was perilous; not because there was snow on the ground, but because the bridges and/or hills necessary to get to the main campus were terribly plowed, and more slippery than one might expect. There remains a stretch of road that leads downhill, running along the side of one of the numerous gorges, that has yet to be properly fenced beyond ramshackle wooden posts.

Many contend the more macabre statistics indicating student fatalities were more to do with bad winter maintenance than mental health.

Add a Comment

Defining Judicial Activism

Posted by David Holman on 12.16.05 @ 11:25AM

The Federalist Society held another fine event yesterday at the National Press Club, which a few of us from the office had the pleasure of attending. Titled "Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint: Is the Alito Nomination Sharpening the Debate?" the debate featured Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network; Prof. Stephen B. Presser, TAS contributor and of Northwestern School of Law; Seth Rosenthal of Alliance for Justice; and Prof. Jonathan Turley of the GW Law School. Stuart Taylor, National Journal columnist did his best to keep the comity high and verbosity low.

The entire hour-and-a-half session was entertaining and enlightening, so it's difficult to choose from the highlights. In the course of this last year of judicial controversy, the left has managed to muddle the definition of "judicial activism" and water it down merely to mean not deferring to democratic choice.

Judicial restraint and judicial activism are easily recognizable, as Prof. Presser pointed out in a series of comparisons. The former is characterized by the rule of law, while the latter by "calculated mendacity." The Alito nomination is reminding us that the role of judges is to apply the law, not carry out substantive agendas. If we agree that judicial objectivity is dead, in the tradition of Oliver Wendell Holmes' legal realism, then professors are wasting their time in law schools. If we pretend it does exist, then we should just look at a nominee's training and integrity, as the Senate did in considering Ruth Bader Ginsburg. By those standards, Presser said, Sam Alito should face an easy confirmation.

Rosenthal agreed with Stuart Taylor's "neutral" definition of judicial restraint: deferring to democratic choice. He added another component: respecting decisions of prior courts. Rosenthal had difficulty in Q&A saying which trumps the other when they conflict. This definition is particularly poor when prior decisions and public opinion supports laws that are clearly unconstitutional, as Wendy Long argued. Judicial restraint is practiced when courts follow their proper constitutional role. Deferring to democratic choice is only part of the picture, Long said, but that definition ignores the Constitution. "In some cases, when one exercises judicial restraint, one is deferring to democratic branches of government. In other cases, one is exercising judicial restraint by overruling the actions of democratic branches of government. ... Judicial restraint means when a court follows its defined role under the Constitution, deciding controversies that come before it using the laws that are made by the people."

Turley offered another measure of judicial activism: no coherent legal philosophy. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor embodies this unhinged judicial style, as she uses no apparent rationale from case to case. Somehow, this "take each case as it comes" approach is exalted in the media. However, after 15 years on the bench, Turley said, after examining constitutional questions, you should be able to say, "'Yes, I have a judicial philosphy.' ... There was a time when we expected judges to have a philosophy. I think it's a good thing. Scalia may be the only member of the court who belongs there. ... If you don't have a judicial philosophy, what you're saying is, 'I'm going to take each case as it comes,' as if that's some noble thing. ... No! Don't do that! Don't sit there and say, 'Well! These facts are pretty compelling.' ... I think that's a serious problem." Turley is troubled by Alito's jurisprudence because he looks like another O'Connor -- "every possible flavor of a judge."

Except for Rosenthal's adherence to anti-Alito sound bites, this debate showed that the current discourse over judicial activism, as well as some senators' understanding of it, barely scratch the surface. This post cannot do justice to the issue or the arguments presented, but the debate will be aired on CSpan sometime in the near future.

Add a Comment

topics: Constitution, Law, NATO

Re: Christmas

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.16.05 @ 10:26AM

But then, what to say of the culture war? This is hardly a Manichaean struggle, but speaking to a very spirited maternal parental unit who is Christian, but is also fairly secular, I understood there was a little more to the simplicity of earlier times.

The Macy's Thanksgiving Parade, for example, concludes with Santa Claus. Yet if you go into Macy's, they will wish you a Happy Holiday. Yet I'm sure if a survey was taken, Macy's would find a majority of its sales were specifically for Christmas shopping.

One thing you said in your article was that businesses don't have to observe those holidays for which they are being patronized, but is that really a wise strategy? Interestingly, things appear inverse. Veteran's Day or Memorial Day, for example, have regular sales where the holiday is only barely observed, but plastered all over. There's no shame in advertising that a grill is at its lowest price ever for Memorial Day, but there's hesitation in advertising the same for Christmas because of the looming threat of some PC Brigade.

Is it because of all the holidays that enter the season, making it difficult to single one out? On the other hand, wasn't Christmas the holiday that inspired such an excess of gift-giving? And wouldn't the active decision to change your Christmas greeting to a holiday greeting be a repudiation of Christmas greetings?

Plea to all those readers out there who want something to procrastinate with: When was the last time a Jewish or Muslim group boycotted a store because they were wished a Merry Christmas? Heck, even Wiccans?

Add a Comment

topics: Business

Re: Christmas

Posted by David Holman on 12.16.05 @ 10:04AM

J.P.: I do wonder who the real scrooges are in this kerfuffle. I omitted from my article a press release we received last week here at the Spectator: a short instruction in "how you can save Christmas." That's right -- the entire holiday is at stake. One strategy, which you mention, is to correct sales clerks when they wish you a "Happy Holiday." What gall that must take. My barber and his lovely wife wished me "Happy Holidays" with utmost sincerity this week. Chiding them would have been nothing short of rude.

Add a Comment

Re: President McCain

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.16.05 @ 9:40AM

The McCain Bush photo should have gone into this filler article for AOL People.

(Linked to Yahoo)

McCain exhibits an openness, and sincerity in listening to Bush. Bush, leaning forward, is being proactive, half smiling and half empathizing. They've had a rocky relationship, but we don't think they'll break up any time soon.

Add a Comment

Christmas

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.16.05 @ 8:31AM

I've wanted to flash my credentials as a contrarian on the Christmas issue, but I'm having difficulty. I want to oppose the liberals who want to have Chrismahanukkwanzikah and yet I don't want to exhibit belligerence to Target store greeters who wish me a happy holiday. There's that whole "reasonable" argument about how the Pro-Christmas folks aren't really pushing Christmas -- Dave already discussed that here, and the Wall Street Journal picked that view up here (I think registration required). Here's a snippet that bugged me:

"The idea that we should slice 'Christ' from 'mas' is un-American."

Wait, huh? Etymology?

Overall, something does bug me about the "Quit yer whining, guys!" position, which is that it behaves as though the cultural concerns are completely blown out of the water by religious overtones. I think they can go hand in hand.

Add a Comment

D.C.'s Weak Constitution

Posted by David Holman on 12.16.05 @ 8:25AM

Not the one in the National Archives. I mean the area's weakness when a drop of snow hits the ground. Yesterday, hours before precipitation began, area schools preemptively closed left and right -- all that trouble for midday snowflakes turning to icy rain. And today, with blue skies, a forecast of 44 degrees, and the current temp hovering around freezing, Prince William County, Virginia, just added itself to five other counties taking the day off.

Growing up in Montana, without about an inch of black ice covering every road in town, school would not close. Your first-period teacher gave you a little leeway on the first snow day, to learn how to drive in the stuff again. After that, you were expected on time. In four years of high school, I can't remember school closing for weather. If we had the D.C. area's standards, we'd rarely attend between December and March.

Add a Comment

Re: President McCain

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.16.05 @ 8:21AM

Possible caption for photo: "You can squeeze tighter, but you'll never get me to talk!"

Add a Comment

Illinois Tort Rollback

Posted by David Holman on 12.16.05 @ 7:57AM

In case you haven't heard about Madison County, Illinois, you should. In recent years it has become infamous as a destination for trial lawyers. Judges and juries were remarkably friendly to nearly any class action lawsuit, leading the American Tort Reform Association to dub it the number one "legal hellhole" in 2003 and 2004 (in 2005 it dropped to merely number four). How bad is it? Between 2003 and 2004, judges certified more than 200 class action lawsuits, more than any jurisdiction in the country.

The trend may be over. The most touted of Madison County's egregious lawsuits, a $10 billion verdict against Philip Morris for claiming "light" cigarettes are less harmful, was thrown out yesterday by the Illinois Supreme Court. Now let's see some federal tort reform.

Add a Comment

topics: Law, Supreme Court

Re: President McCain

Posted by David Holman on 12.16.05 @ 7:43AM

You've a sharp eye, Wlad. If body language determines victory or defeat, the President seems the victor. However, if this is a win, I'm quickly getting tired of them.

Add a Comment

Re: President McCain

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 12.16.05 @ 12:49AM

I disagree, Dave. The president is clearly seated higher than the senator. He's looking down on the latter as they shake hands. Plus McCain looks tired, bushed if you will.

Add a Comment

topics: NATO

67 Percent

Posted by David Holman on 12.15.05 @ 7:16PM

Is the turnout in the Iraqi elections. Much higher than the 58 percent in January.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq

Hunter Saving the Day?

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.15.05 @ 6:31PM

HASC chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Ca) said he won't agree to the conference report including the McCain amendment unless he's assured it won't degrade our ability to gather intelligence from terrorist detainees. Hunter is the last hope to stop this horrifically vague and dangerous legislation. Let's hope he sticks to his guns. No bill is worth this. And just why is the president caving in to McCain? Again?

Add a Comment

President McCain

Posted by David Holman on 12.15.05 @ 5:45PM

From this photo, it's tough to know who's running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Add a Comment

McCain Amendment Deal Reported

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.15.05 @ 1:58PM

According to this Bloomberg report, House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced a deal between the White House and the Senate on the McCain Amendment. This is a non-trivial disaster.

Add a Comment

Iraqi Voting

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.15.05 @ 1:04PM

From the earliest reports, voting in Iraq is going very well, and turnout is heavy. This clip is from a release by the MNF in Baghdad:

"With tight rings of security circling the city, Iraqi citizens took to the streets the morning of Dec. 15 to vote for the first full-term government since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Police are providing close-in protection at polling stations; Iraqi public Order Battalions and Iraqi Army Soldiers are providing the next level of protection; and more Iraqi Soldiers and Coalition Forces are in a third ring of troops. They will also provide a quick-reaction force if needed.

"Shortly after polling sites opened in Baghdad, a rocket landed in the International Zone, damaging a vehicle and injuring one Marine and two civilian contractors. The wounded were treated at the site for minor injuries and released.

Polling stations throughout south Baghdad reported a constant flow of voters.

"Early reports indicated voter turnout is higher than the numbers seen on for the Constitutional Referendum vote on Oct. 15."

Add a Comment

topics: Constitution, Iraq

Re: Brooks, Catholics, and Capitalism

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.15.05 @ 11:51AM

I'm at a loss -- if the Catholic Church was behind the Industrial Revolution, did England lead the way because of what were essentially copyright violations? I'm willing to accept that Catholicism played a large part in preparing people intellectually for great achievements -- repudiating the charge that it was a burden is important -- but the spread of literacy and the cultural implications of memorizing psalms as Weber describes is valid enough to consider. Brooks starts to head down the road of the argument that "the Catholics really did it, not the Protestants."

Add a Comment

topics: Catholicism

Brooks, Catholics, and Capitalism

Posted by David Holman on 12.15.05 @ 11:33AM

Since I excoriated David Brooks last week, I'm obligated to praise him when he gets it right this week. And he gets it right today. Here's a taste: 

Ideas and culture drive civilizations. The Catholic Church nurtured one of the most impressive economic takeoffs in human history. Today, as Catholicism spreads in Africa and China, it's important to understand the beliefs that encourage people to work hard and grow rich.

Environmentalism: Collectivism in Drag

Posted by Lawrence Henry on 12.15.05 @ 10:15AM

George Will has written a column with unusual passion and clarity (for him) today, a can't miss, "Our Fake Drilling Debate." I grant that Rush Limbaugh has been saying for years that environmentalist wackos were just old commies with a new cause, but for Will to say it in the Washington Post marks a real breakthrough.

Add a Comment

topics: Environment

McCain Amendment Advances

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.15.05 @ 9:40AM

The likelihood that the misbegotten McCain Amendment will become law rose considerably yesterday when the House voted to instruct its conference negotiators to accept it verbatim, according to a WaPo report today.

The problem with the so-called "anti-torture" amendment is that it is no such thing. As I've written before, US law already makes torture a felony and all the McCain amendment does is to make the law incomprehensible.

Once again, as in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, we see John McCain adamantly supporting legislation that is constitutionally questionable. Yes, the Supremes upheld the McCain-Feingold law, but their decision didn't settle the First Amendment questions for me, not by a long shot. In this case, the impact will be far worse, endangering all our interrogators on the front lines.

McCain wants to outlaw "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees. But no one knows what those terms mean. How much intelligence will we fail to gain because the people on the line fear being second-guessed by a prosecutor years down the line?

While this is going on, the Army is trying to revise its manual on interrogation techniques to include a classified annex that contains methods of interrogation that can be used in extraordinary circumstances. McCain is bridling at this, and negotiations may break down over this point. Let's hope they do, because the president isn't likely to veto the bill. If ever a bill deserved a veto, any one containing the McCain amendment does.

Add a Comment

topics: John McCain, Constitution, Law

"Thumbing His Nose"

Posted by David Holman on 12.15.05 @ 9:36AM

The Boston Globe calls on Gov. Mitt Romney to resign after he announced yesterday that he would not seek reelection.

Add a Comment

Nancy Goes to Church

Posted by David Holman on 12.14.05 @ 4:28PM

Nancy Pelosi's office just sent out a press release commending the Jim Wallis-led protest against the "immoral Republican budget." First, I'd like to thank whoever added me to this list. I'm giddy. On to the release:

Today, hundreds of faithful Americans descended on Capitol Hill in peaceful protest to stand up for working Americans, our children, the poor, those still hurting from Hurricane Katrina, and our elderly. In the freezing cold, in prayer and song, they called the Republican budget what it is -- a moral failure, empty of spiritual hope and nourishing resources.

This mean-spirited Republican budget takes food from the mouths of hungry children, cuts housing for Katrina evacuees, reduces support for our veterans, and fails to adequately provide health care for our elderly; all to provide tax cuts for millionaires. I stand with those faithful who stood in the cold today proclaiming how this budget fails to work for all Americans. I commend Reverend Jim Wallis and the pastors and church workers from across our country who marched on our Capitol. I join them in prayer for those less fortunate. I stand with them in the struggle for a budget that lives up to our American values of fairness and opportunity. Together, America can do better than this failed budget being hoisted on the backs of the vulnerable. Democrats will continue to fight for a moral budget that is worthy of our great nation.

Sigh. "Mean-spirited"? Republicans are meanies? Seriously, though, the Dems really cannot get too far out on this religious stuff. It's not in their best interest. Most folks who care about religious topics know their Bible, their Ten Commandments, and their theology. They know that faith doesn't forbid federal budget cuts in ineffectual welfare programs. They know that "thou shall not kill" is a commandment. If the Dems find faith, they better be prepared to be consistent.

Add a Comment

topics: Nancy Pelosi, Federal Budget

Zogby's Year-End Polling

Posted by David Holman on 12.14.05 @ 3:54PM

Has some very interesting numbers. The new poll samples just over 1000 Americans, with a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

The numbers are worrisome for Republicans. The generic 2006 Congressional election question has Democrats favored over Republicans by 48 to 40 percent. When you break that down into Bush's 2004 red and blue states, the reds break for the GOP by 46 to 43 percent, a tiny edge compared to 54 to 34 percent for the Democrats in blue states.

Zogby also finds low numbers for Bush: a 38 percent job approval rating. But that's not all. If Bush endorses a candidate, 40 percent of voters are less likely to vote for that candidate, compared to about 30 percent more likely. Zogby has those numbers for a variety of endorsers: Vice President Cheney: 26 percent more likely, 45 percent less likely; Hillary: 36 percent more likely, 39 percent less likely; Bill Clinton: 42 percent more likely, 36 percent less likely. The big one is John McCain: an endorsement from him would make 54 percent more likely to vote for his guy, and only 18 percent less likely.

There is some good news. Contrary to widespread claims, the public still supports the war in Iraq, by 54 percent to 46 percent. On the question whether the war in Iraq "has been worth it," 49 percent agree, 49 percent disagree. Only 13.3 percent support the Murtha option, an immediate pullout. Fifty-four percent say we'll win in Iraq, as well as win the war on terror.

Some other notable job approval ratings: Condi Rice, 53 percent; Don Rumsfeld, 34 percent; Harry Reid, 13 percent; Nancy Pelosi, 20 percent; Bill Frist, 21 percent; and Speaker Hastert, 20 percent.

2008 presidential matchups: Hillary vs. McCain, 37-52; Hillary vs. Condi, 46-47; Kerry vs. McCain, 34-55; Kerry vs. Condi, 45-48; Mark Warner vs. McCain, 26-58; and Warner vs. Condi, 32-50.

This poll cannot be easily written off as unbalanced, at least by party: it is evenly split at 37 percent each between Republicans and Democrats.

Add a Comment

topics: John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Iraq

Re: Why Now?

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.14.05 @ 2:30PM

Wlady/Lawrence: I don't doubt that Ahmadinejad means everything he says. We do need to take our enemies at their word when they say they want to kill us. But that's not why I raised the issue.

The issue is, why is he making this much of a row now? It has to be connected to something, probably external, that Iran is trying to do. The question is, what?

Add a Comment

topics: Law, Iran

On Deck

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 12.14.05 @ 2:18PM

Now that Tookie Williams has been executed, there is great concern among anti-death penalty advocates over who is next in line. Turns out to be a 75-year-old blind diabetic -- who was convicted of ordering the shotgun killing of three unfriendly witnesses 25 years ago. The story in today's Sacramento Bee about him and others on deck bears a creepy resemblance to stories that handicap the chances of likely candidates to fill a vacancy on the high court and analyze the political calculations that are likely to influence the chief executive in reaching a final decision. We're all postmodern now, which isn't a bad way to avoid serious thinking about murder and retribution.

Add a Comment

Understanding Ahmadinejad

Posted by Lawrence Henry on 12.14.05 @ 2:11PM

Jed: Today on NRO, R. James Woolsey wrote:

Words and beliefs have consequences, and totalitarians are often remarkably clear about what they will do once they have enough power. Many brushed aside Mein Kampf when it was first written but it turned out to be an excellent guide to the Nazis' behavior once they had the power to implement it.

The Iranians do make feints to ploy the West (remember arms for hostages?), but I don't think this is one of them.

Add a Comment

topics: Iran

Re: Why Now?

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 12.14.05 @ 1:53PM

Jed, John: Why not? The key to understanding Iran's president probably lies in his apocalyptic religious fanaticism, as Patrick Devenny will explain on our main site tomorrow. There is indeed every reason to think he means every word he says.

Add a Comment

topics: Iran

Little Moments of Bias

Posted by David Holman on 12.14.05 @ 1:02PM

Media bias comes in packages large and small. ABC News' The Note (certainly no partisan outfit) notes a very telling moment last night:

Last night, in the very New York Hilton ballroom in which the annual Inner Circle dinner is held, Bill and Hillary Clinton showed up to raise a little money for her Senate campaign. He spoke first and introduced her.

But before that, Democratic Party major fundraiser Alan Patricoff's para-stirring introduction of the spouse/FPOTUS included the applause-generating line "he's still our president," which required no explanation or qualification for the assembled Blue group.

Now, for those of you who see no liberal/Democratic bias in the media: imagine Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States in 2008, and in 2009 at a massive Houston fundraiser for a GOP candidate, the Republican equivalent of Patricoff introduces George W. Bush and says about him "he's still our president." What kind of press coverage do you think that that would get?

Add a Comment

topics: Hillary Clinton

Re: Why Now?

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.14.05 @ 12:57PM

John: It's just my nasty suspicious mind that makes me wonder what they're trying to take our eyes off while we ponder the latest rant against Israel. They gain nothing from international opprobrium that comes with these statements, so there must be another reason for the timing. My guess is that they're trying to conceal something else with the minor kerfuffle that this is.

Is this the critical time for their nuke plans when they achieve some milestone they believe is irreversible? Is this the moment when they choose to do something bigger and worse in Iraq? Or is ol' Mahmoud trying to cover his political tush because he's in trouble for something at home? Or is there another event, which is entirely possible, that we aren't aware of and haven't forseen? I'm not going to lay awake tonight worrying. But I'm one of those people who do not believe in coincidences, and I wonder.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq, Israel

Shocker

Posted by Reid Collins on 12.14.05 @ 12:43PM

Watching Mel Karmazin promote Howard Stern on satellite radio is like finding your defrocked priest selling condoms on a street corner.

Add a Comment

Re: Why Now?

Posted by John Tabin on 12.14.05 @ 12:14PM

Jed: Do you have any reason to think Ahmadinejad doesn't mean every word he says? The nutty statements seemed to start almost as soon as he became president. I suspect he's simply speaking his mind. Why did the Mullahs pick a wild-eyed true-believer as president now? They must have needed someone whose fealty to the Islamic Republic wasn't in question, and felt that this was more important than presenting a friendly face to the world. If I'm right, they're feeling weak. Good.

Add a Comment

topics: Islam

Today in History

Posted by CJ Anonymous on 12.14.05 @ 11:52AM

Permit me to take a moment to point out what a significant day the 14th of December is. For on this day:

-George Washington died at Mount Vernon (1799)

-Stock car racing was organized (1947)

-National Velvet opened (1944)

-Amundsen reached the South Pole (1911)

-USSR expelled from the League of Nations (1939)

AND...

-Our own dear leader RET was born. (Not going there)

Happy birthday, dear sir. And many, many more….

(Please feel free to leave your birthday greeting for RET in the comment section...)

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Get Off Me, Says Hillary

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.14.05 @ 11:45AM

At least, that's what the caption on the picture in this New York Post item should say. In the process of raising $600,000 for his wife's reelection bid, Bill Clinton amazingly admitted being somewhat of a bad husband:

Add a Comment

topics: Bill Clinton

Why Now?

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.14.05 @ 11:17AM

That the Iranian kakistocracy wants to destroy Israel is not news. That they also are hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and the achieving the ability to manufacture their own is also not any revelation. So why is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, making so loud a noise about Israel and the Holocost these days?

The timing is curious. Mohamed el-Baradei, head nuclear watchdog for the UN, says Iran may achieve its nuclear ambitions in six months or less. Most experts believe that underestimates, by at least a year, Iran's ability to arm itself with nukes. So why would Ahmadinejad be spouting off so loudly now?

Is he under political pressure at home? His relations with Iran's parliament are spotty, but they do what the mullahs tell them to, and so does he. Is this for foreign consumption? But why -- when Iran is interfering in Iraq -- would it want to draw more attention to itself?

Something is missing here.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq, Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons

Profile in Courage Department

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 12.14.05 @ 10:49AM

North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan has returned $67,000 in political loot that came to him via sleazy Jack Abramoff. Posturing aside, will the gesture do Dorgan any good -- or merely draw attention to how easily he could be swayed? Reports the Washington Post: "Aides conceded that the senator did advocate for programs pushed by Abramoff's clients around the time he was accepting tens of thousands of dollars from associates and clients of the lobbyist."

Add a Comment

topics: NATO

Pentagon At Large

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.14.05 @ 10:36AM

Lisa Myers and NBC have uncovered Pentagon investigations of anti-war protestors and potential threats to national security -- including a Quaker meeting. As if the left didn't already have enough to remind them of their glory days of the '60s, now they get to feel special since they're on the Defense Department's list. This comes on the heels of revelations about the government's contract with the Lincoln Group, paying for news stories to appear in Iraqi papers, and ethics investigations in Congress.

But Quakers? Maybe they were just wondering what on earth they discuss. Or maybe they're trying to find out just how they make that wholesome breakfast food.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq

Slogging Toward Recess

Posted by The Prowler on 12.14.05 @ 10:25AM

The Senate is barely back, and people are wondering what is going to get done before the long Christmas break.

It now appears that Sen. Chuck Grassley has complicated the tax bill to the point where a major piece of legislation is stalled out until February -- the Senate returns to full action on January 31.

Leadership staff is said to be frustrated by the lack of pacing, but perhaps this is all a good thing given what the alternatives might be.

Add a Comment

Hang on!

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.14.05 @ 9:46AM

Amanda Carpenter at Human Events notices a strange trend in pro-abortion regalia...

Add a Comment

topics: Abortion

A Truckload of Forged Ballots From Iran?

Posted by John Tabin on 12.14.05 @ 8:24AM

The New York Times's scoop, based on the word of a single anonymous source, is false, say Iraqi officials. (Hat-tip: Bob Owens at NewsBusters, via Instapundit.)

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq

Quick! Look Prayerful!

Posted by David Holman on 12.14.05 @ 8:17AM

Jim Wallis and crew are hoping to get arrested as they pray in front of the Cannon House Office Building for no budget cuts. Specifically, they're protesting the cut of $50 billion over five years that would slow the rate of increase in Medicare and other mandatory spending. Such cuts, they say, are "unbiblical."

With this newfound love for the Biblical, especially the grey areas of cuts from government spending (missed that part), surely they'll be steadfast in opposing the clear Biblical violations. I guess that means we'll see them at the March for Life next month? Heck, they won't even have to get arrested.

Add a Comment

topics: Medicare

Terminatoring

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 12.13.05 @ 10:07PM

Can Arnold ever go home again? The California governor's native Austria is leading the way in European outrage at Schwarzenegger's signing off on the execution of Tookie Williams earlier today. Its Green Party wants to strip him of his citizenship. "In Graz, Schwarzenegger's hometown," reports the Sacremento Bee, "local Greens said they would file a petition to remove the California governor's name from the city's Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium. A Christian political group suggested it be renamed for Williams."

Add a Comment

Re: Re: Happy-Pills

Posted by John Tabin on 12.13.05 @ 9:31PM

Sorry, James, but your attempt at comedy betrays a failure to take pain seriously. I'm currently on an SSRI (not Paxil) and an anti-convulsant. I've tried life off meds and on meds. When I read things like your column, I can't help but see a reader somewhere, in the kind of pain I've known, being encouraged to think that pain is normal and drugs are dangerous, and that the proper thing to do is suck it up and suffer. That's appalling, and not at all funny.

Add a Comment

Governor Helo

Posted by David Holman on 12.13.05 @ 9:28PM

The aspiring Kansas City Athletics draftee, Gov. Bill Richardson, has a penchant for New Mexico's state police helicoptor. More than any other governor of a Western state, the Associated Press finds, Richardson uses the new search and rescue chopper for trips around the state large and small.

Add a Comment

Re: Defending Happy-Pills

Posted by James Poulos on 12.13.05 @ 7:28PM

Tabin: Now appears to be the time to stand athwart outrage and yell Stop. First in doing so I must present my credentials as someone who takes pain seriously. I have touched despair and brushed tragedy, though thankfully not endured terrorism. Though neither earth-shattering trauma nor the subsequent resort to Paxil (or anything else) is silly, what does have a whiff of silliness about it is a serious attack on a comic attack, the sort of which the reasonable reader might sense from a piece that goes out on a note of zombie prom nights.

But, as is true of all good caricatures, the point of departure is truth: in this case, the observation that Paxil is one (but not the only one) overprescribed or over-the-counter drug meant to counteract the overreaching "symptoms" of overdiagnosed disorders. The symptom of paralyzing fear is as indicative of a need for medication as the symptom of uneasiness in strange or intimidating situations is not.

Behaving otherwise is as absurd as the determination that an attack on Paxil and its uses is an attack on pain and its sufferers. John Steinbeck remembered, too, that you can smother with kisses. Someone who sweats their way through a speech does not need a coterie of physicians and psychologists to push their way through the crowd shouting about his life being in danger: "Give him some air!" Indeed -- what the truly non-traumatized need most is not a place at the till but a breath of fresh air, free from our cultural pathology of coping without cure.

Add a Comment

Re: Don't Like The Drugs?

Posted by James Poulos on 12.13.05 @ 7:23PM

Of course it's effective, for the same reason that ecstasy is effective, and in similar fashion. And less important than getting people off Paxil is keeping people from touching the stuff in the first place. Of course I run the "risk," as you say, of frightening successfully coping (not, mind, cured) Paxil users off of the drug, and back into clammy-fisted delirium. But it stands to reason that the people "on" Paxil (I prefer the phrasing "under" it) are those best-informed about the risks they run, and most willing to endure them. Anyone who didn't know, or learn, this going in will certainly at least be surprised, which is halfway to fright already.

Add a Comment

Re: Don't Like The Drugs?

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.13.05 @ 7:19PM

How exactly you expect to purge the user-lists of Paxil effectively by listing how bad it is for them is still a mystery to me, particularly since the reason people should be getting off Paxil isn’t simply because of side-effects but because it’s not actually helping their recovery. That’s another area you didn’t cover â€" how effective it is.

In fact, because the side-effects have so little to do with why these folks shouldn’t be taking it (I understand that “Look at what you’re doing to yourself†point, but it’s a tertiary jab), you run the risk of shaking people off that might need to stay on. Again, I think you’re overestimating the argument you offered in the article. I don’t think you’re entirely wrong in your general principle that society is over-medicated, I just don’t think you grasp it anywhere in your article.

Add a Comment

topics: Trade

Re: Don't Like The Drugs?

Posted by James Poulos on 12.13.05 @ 7:17PM

Add a Comment

topics: Television

Re: Don't Like The Drugs?

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.13.05 @ 7:05PM

That Paxil is loosely prescribed is true; that this is dangerous is also true; but you do not draw the lines necessary to reach those conclusions. Instead you say that many people are on Paxil, quite a surprising amount. You then note that one of the symptoms for which Paxil is described seems flimsy, which is also fair game. But then you launch into a discussion on how dangerous Paxil is. You leave out, entirely, the method by which the Paxil makes it into the hands of the patients. So while you tell me here that those physicians are hucksters, your article really sounds like “our insane” as you put it are at fault.

The omission means you’re attacking the patients, some of whom we can imagine really need it, others who might not themselves know whether it’s necessary, and others who are getting screwed because what they need is a combination of pharmaceuticals and therapy. You’ve also attacked the medicine, which is chic, considering that Tom Cruise has been sporting that argument absurdly for quite some time. You really don't criticize the doctors. By this token, you need to mention any involvement an HMO would have in this. And Paxil, with all of its side effects (how are these relevant to what you say next?) does not itself lower the bar for disorderliness, and given this email, I doubt very much you have an idea what has lowered the bar.

I can tell you that it’s a combination of physicians and the unnatural way in which HMOs have been allowed to control the market.

Add a Comment

Re: Don't Like The Drugs?

Posted by James Poulos on 12.13.05 @ 6:59PM

I like my article the uninflated size it is, at which neither truth nor comedy are distorted. Inflatio ad absurdum is just as dangerous, my brother, as reductio. But its gross tumescence is even less attractive, which is the whole problem with Paxil. Fattening up, hypersymptomizing, discomfort is bad enough; calling a "chemical imbalance" in the brain that "makes" one feel uncomfortable in public settings a disorder instead of a symptom itself is not just a cheap trick of semantics but a trick turned, as well, by the medical profession -- for a pretty penny indeed, with several tens of millions lined up at the hopper. 

I don't know about you but the sight of so many would-be therapeutics waiting pantingly for their psychonarcotic devirginization is enough to make me ill all by it- and myself. The point is not that Paxil can be, or is, "quite helpful" in at least some circumstances. I am not the one arguing against the sedation of our insane. The problem with Paxil -- I think this came out somewhere between Exploding Balls and Itchy Uvula -- is that it lowers the bar for Disorder-liness so low that drug therapy becomes a reflex, an assumption, a very glib and dense and chintzy and dangerous sensation of "It helps, so it can't be bad." First, do no harm -- second, do no capricious help. (Remember marijuana works wonders for anxiety, too, in cop-free environments.) Paxil is bad on the scale that distributing morphine for paper cuts and hangnails would be. Only this, you see, treats not stubbed toes but stubbed egos.
 
If you're willing to alleviate a statistical cohort of their mental neurosis in tradesies for a full quarter of the US population inspiring the issues-laden rest to a lifetime of pharmacomediated seratonin management, I can only refer you to one of this country's most venerable mottos, for which men have killed and died:
 
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Sweaty Palms."

1 Comment | Add a Comment

topics: Trade, Environment

Don't Like The Drugs?

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.13.05 @ 6:58PM

James, I can’t see myself abiding by your article, which really gives the impression that you’re against medication with side-effects. I could inflate your article to the point where you would say the pay-offs for drugs treating schizophrenia aren’t worthwhile seeing as how they often make someone very uncomfortable, but I’d rather stick to your article on point â€" which really begs the question, why were you trying to scare people off of a drug that’s actually quite helpful?

Add a Comment

Bishops and Tookie

Posted by David Holman on 12.13.05 @ 5:36PM

Catholic Church leaders had plenty to say about the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams' execution. Unfortunately, a short news article only scratches the surface of these differences within the Church. And the brevity of the quotes leaves them open for a variety of interpretations. For example, Bishop John Wester of San Francisco

asked Californians "to ponder carefully whether the use of the death penalty makes our society safer."

He said "a moratorium is needed to evaluate whether the death penalty serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life. We are convinced that it does not."

Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn wrote Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, concerned that "this execution can only compound the violence that already exists in our society." He went on, "We do not believe that you can teach that killing is wrong by killing. We do not believe that you can defend life by taking life."

Where to begin? Thankfully, none of the bishops claim that the death penalty is inherently wrong. It's not, and the Church has never taught so. A couple poor reasons to oppose the death penalty crop up, such as safety. Prevention alone is a deficient sense of justice, since the offender and society are robbed of what they deserve.

Still, their quotes suggest a better, prudential argument against the death penalty in modern society. Joseph Bottum argued for this third way well in the August/September 2005 First Things. Bottum acknowledges the legitimate right of a state to execute criminals. However, Bottum fears for a justice system without Christianity's mercy to restraint properly the death penalty.

To leave the argument against the death penalty in the hands of those who no longer much believe this Christian story is dangerous. The people who think there is no such thing as a blood-debt are always surprised to see crowds outside penitentiaries where executions are about to take place, chanting for the execution. But those crowds appear at executions in the United States for a reason-because blood really does cry out from the ground. "He didn't suffer as much" as his victims, one bereaved parent objected at Michael Ross' death. Without the Christian revelation to restrain it, the sense of a blood-debt that must be paid will only grow.

He concludes,

The divine right of kings was a short-lived political theory, swept under by rival theories in early modern times. A new understanding of the limited sovereignty of government emerged, and one of the primary causes was the gradually developing awareness that Christianity had thoroughly demythologized the state. But that is not, by itself, a stable condition. Without constant pressure from the New Testament's revelation of Christ's death and resurrection, the state always threatens to rise back up as an idol. And one sign of a government's overreaching is its claim of power to balance the books of the universe -- to repay blood with blood.

The state is unleashed from a grounding in the Almighty that justifies it taking another life. I must say, it's the best Christian argument against the death penalty in the U.S. that still acknowledges its potential justice. The related argument here is that a society that fails to respect life (as with abortion) cannot be trusted to mete out a punishment taking life.

Add a Comment

topics: Abortion, Books

The Election Begins

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.13.05 @ 4:24PM

Iraqis began voting yesterday to choose their first permanent government since Saddam's fall. A couple of hours ago, I was on a conference call with a senior Defense Department official speaking from Baghdad. He said that yesterday, about 140,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces voted, as did 90% of the detainees. (No word on if Saddam voted, though he will be allowed to.) The other Iraqi Security Forces will vote today and tomorrow, enabling them to be on duty on Thursday.

Long lines at polling places are anticipated. In the constitutional referendum in September, it was a simple up or down vote. The ballot this time is four pages long, with a huge variety of combinations of candidates and coalitions. I've seen it: to me it looks like an IRS form (that statement is not impeached by the fact the ballot is printed in Arabic). It will take a long time for people to vote. Security at the polls is a very big concern, as is voter fraud.

American forces anticipate some big move by Zarqawi and al-Qaeda. They can't let this pass without some action or they will be seen as irrelevant. Stay tuned.

Perhaps the worst news is that Sen. Biden is coming to observe the election. I'm sure he'll be a tremendous help.

Add a Comment

topics: Constitution, Iraq

Re: Iraq Pullout Planned

Posted by David Holman on 12.13.05 @ 4:17PM

Jed, Thanks for the clarification. It appears the confusion afflicts more folks than just the Times. The U.K. Spectator's link to the story reads, "UK & USA Plan To Leave Iraq From March, Iraq Foreign Minister Warns Of Chaos." Indeed, the actual information in the article is a drawdown. The foreign minister's quote applies to a withdrawal.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq

Re: Iraq Pullout Planned

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.13.05 @ 4:06PM

Guys: The Times report confuses -- like most of the rest of the media -- a drawdown with a pullout. The military has always said that it would reduce the size of our force there after the election this week. The senior commanders I spoke with in Iraq said that we may indeed draw down to a force of about 90,000 by the end of next year. If the events allow it, that's what we'll do. Our strategy is event-driven, not media-driven. There is no plan -- none, zero, zip -- to withdraw. The terms are important, and the rhetoric misleading.

Add a Comment

topics: Military, Iraq

Defending Happy-Pills

Posted by John Tabin on 12.13.05 @ 3:47PM

Regarding James G. Poulos's silly anti-Paxil rant: Paxil is not a "serotonin-bomb." It contains no serotonin; rather, like all Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, it affects the way the body processes the serotonin that it creates. And no one on Paxil would be "staggering around hiccuping" with "discolored skin, enlarged breasts, and [a] demented gait," because as anyone with an iota of experience with psychotropic medication knows, adverse side-effects lead patients and their doctors to discontinue a drug. There are several SSRIs that work in somewhat different ways, and it often takes a few tries to find the one that works best for a given person.

These drugs change lives dramatically for the better (it is not "normal" to live in paralyzing fear of social gatherings, and it's much more pleasant not to). In many cases they save lives that would otherwise be lost to suicide. Discouraging people who suffer from debilitating emotional problems from taking medication makes as much sense as telling diabetics to be leery of insulin.

Add a Comment

One Man, One Illegal Vote

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 12.13.05 @ 2:33PM

We know how dependent liberal opinion has been on the courts to come through for its causes and politics whenever voters will not. A sign of its current desperation are reactions to news that the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the DeLay-led remapping of Texas's congressional districts in 2003. The justice to watch, according to the New York Times, is Anthony Kennedy, who in an earlier case left open the possibility he'd be open to more precise arguments about constitutional violations in such highly charged partisan disputes.

One likely argument is that redistricting weakened minority voting power. One set of plaintiffs is pointing to the 2003 redrawing being based on the 2000 census, which they see as a violation of one-man, one-vote. Here's where the Washington Post report has a Freudian slip moment:

"The plaintiffs said [redistricting officials] made no effort to update that data to reflect more than 1 million new people -- predominantly Latinos -- who had entered the state between 2000 and 2003."

Entered the state? As in illegal immigration? And the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to rule in the Democratic Party's favor on the basis of unlawful residents who now (evidently) represent a core constituency of that party?

Another insulting absurdity has to do with Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla's district, where plaintiffs opposed to Bonilla argue Latino votes were weakened by a rejiggering that brought in more white voters. But wasn't the purpose of creating minority-safe districts (a thoroughly unconstitutional practice, lest we forget) the election of minority candidates? If a minority candidate has to be a Democrat to qualify, we might as well toss what's left of the Constitution into the Rio Grande.

Add a Comment

topics: Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Immigration

Looks Like a Liberal, Talks Like a Liberal

Posted by David Holman on 12.13.05 @ 1:28PM

Mea culpa: I missed Pat Toomey's op-ed on Linc Chafee in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. It's a must-read for those fed up with Republican "moderates."

Add a Comment

Re: Iraq Pullout Planned

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.13.05 @ 12:52PM

You know, Dave, I'm a little disappointed. Nowhere in your post do you mention whether "ides" ought to make one wary. What a throw-away.

Add a Comment

Iraq Pullout Planned

Posted by David Holman on 12.13.05 @ 12:22PM

The Times of London reports today that U.S. and British forces plan to begin a phased withdrawal after the permanent Iraqi government is installed, as early as March.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq

More on the Wiki Debate

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.13.05 @ 10:59AM

Though we didn't know it at the time, there was more consternation over Wikipedia's veracity yesterday. John Seigenthaler, a former administrative assistant to Bobby Kennedy, was implicated in his Wikipedia bio as a part of JFK's assassination. The libeler recanted the post and admitted he made up all the claims, but only after Seigenthaler found out. The Register takes Wikipedia to task, fairly dramatically, but well enough, and here are a few of their stronger points:

1. "The public has a firm idea of what an "encyclopedia" is, and it's a place where information can generally be trusted, or at least slightly more trusted than what a labyrinthine, mysterious bureaucracy can agree upon, and surely more trustworthy than a piece of spontaneous graffiti - and Wikipedia is a king-sized cocktail of the two."

2. "Copyright law exists in a permanent state of tension, and there's a latency between a new technology being invented and compensation mechanisms being agreed upon that spread that valuable, copyrighted material far and wide ... It's the chasm between Wikipedia's rude claim to be an "encyclopedia", and the banal reality of trashy, badly written trivia that causes so many people to be upset about it."

3. "... The public is now being exhorted to assume the posture of a citizen in an air raid, where every moving object might be a dangerous missile. … Only a paranoiac, or a mad person, can sustain this level of defensiveness for any length of time however, and to hear a putative "encyclopedia" making such a statement is odd, to say the least."

4. "We can rest assured that Wikipedia will never be printed - or at least not in countries where defamation laws exist. Perhaps some brave soul will attempt a Wikipedia tome in Borneo. Or Mars. But as soon as it hits print, the blurriness behind publication disappears, and Wikipedia The Book is seen for what it is, an evasiveness based on accident. And the lawsuits will begin in earnest."

As an answer to the title of the Register's article "There's No Wikipedia Entry for Moral Responsibility", Wikipedia posted one.

Seigenthaler, a retired journalist himself, notes that "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that 'no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.'" Coupled with the issue of Google's book search and copyright law, this is a debate that will determine the direction of the new media; as well as implicate the old.

It's worth mentioning that part of what has hailed this new era (and it certainly is a new era) was the questionable trustworthiness of American mainstream media -- exemplified by the coverage of Iraq, Kerry's war record, Plame-gate, and Dan Rather's Bush records. The Internet raises new problems, but they're really just new spins on old troubles.

Add a Comment

topics: Mainstream Media, Law, Iraq

Berger vs Keyser: A Double Standard?

Posted by Mark Corallo on 12.13.05 @ 9:21AM

The Washington Times' Jerry Seper reports this morning on the guilty plea entered by former top State Department official Donald Keyser for "unlawfully removing classified U.S. government documents, including some 'top secret' material, and to making false official statements." Keyser, former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, faces eight years in prison, disqualification from holding any public office and $250,000 in fines. According to reports, Keyser was a highly regarded career employee whose counsel was valued by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. $250K. 8 years in the slammer.

Last year, former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemenor for what several news agencies reported as the following: stealing from the National Archives -- by stuffing in his pants and socks -- several copies of some of the most highly guarded national security documents held by the US government; shredding with scissors the aforementioned "code-word" classified documents (for those unfamiliar with different levels of classification, it doesn't get any higher than "code-word" or "code-black" as it's known in the trade); and lying about the incident to federal agents for about a year.

DOJ prosecutors allowed Berger to plead to a misdemeanor despite having eyewitnesses to the FELONY. The DOJ requested punishment was $10K, probation and a loss of his security clearance for a few years. At sentencing, the outraged judge upped the fine to $50,000. The judge could not impose a jail sentence as the misdemeanor did not carry a potential jail sentence.

Had Berger been a Republican appointee, what are the chances that he would have gotten off with such a light tap on the wrist?

2 Comments | Add a Comment

topics: Trade, Law

The Times Weeps for Tookie

Posted by David Holman on 12.13.05 @ 8:22AM

This odd piece is linked on the L.A. Times' main page, just below the main news story about Stanley "Tookie" Williams' execution. Apparently penned by a news staff writer, Steve Lopez, it's marked neither as news nor op-ed. So does it speak for the Times? Perhaps:

His anti-violence books and speeches were too little, too late, and the methodologizing of him was as unconvincing as the Nobel nominations.

But his execution was a macabre spectacle in a nation that preaches godly virtue to the world while resisting a global march away from the Medieval practice of capital punishment.

I would have had no problem leaving Williams locked up with his regrets and haunted by his deeds for the rest of his natural life.

I watched a man die today, killed by the state of California with institutional resolve, and wondered what we gained.

Add a Comment

topics: Books

Speaking of Children's Books

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.12.05 @ 5:20PM

What ever happened to Roald Dahl? A copy of Kenneth C. Davis's book, Don't Know Much About Martin Luther King Jr. found its way to my desk, and it's amusing in the worst of ways. If you don't know, the "Don't Know Much About" series is an introduction to a topic for kids 8-12, in question and answer format. Here's an excerpt:

With all that said, I guess Tookie's children's book author credential isn't much help after all. Which reminds me, be sure to check out our Christmas Books suggestions! And if you want some good introductory materials for your high school/college students, by all means have a look at ISI's Student's Guides to the Major Disciplines.

ADDENDUM: This is a book published by HarperTrophy, an imprint of HarperCollins. In other words, this book is not a small-scale print, but has made it through a sizeable house.

Add a Comment

topics: Books, Communism

Tookie Talks Some Sense

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 4:49PM

TAS contributor James G. Poulos notes that even Tookie thinks "all the ranting and raving" is silly.

Add a Comment

Re: Tookie Seeing the Light

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 4:42PM

But he wrote children's books, like Madonna! They can't execute an author of children's books!

Add a Comment

topics: Books

Re: The End for Tookie?

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.12.05 @ 4:38PM

From the article you linked:

Williams has maintained that he is innocent. His plea for clemency was based on his transformation while in prison for almost a quarter-century. He and his supporters argue that he has changed his life since his gang days, writing children's books and warning youths about the perils of the gangster life.

If he's maintaining his innocence, what is it he claims to have transformed? Was the transformation just something he felt he needed to go through since he was in prison anyway?

The presence of Jamie Foxx and company hardly lend legitimacy to his claims, but it's upsetting to know that in the next few months, during which a screenplay doubtless will be written, Tookie will undergo yet another false transformation into a messianic figure. Yet what makes heroic deaths poignant is the higher principle being preserved. What on earth is Tookie's higher principle?

Add a Comment

topics: Books

The End for Tookie?

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 4:01PM

His chances for appeal appeared to run out today, as the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected his appeal and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not stay the execution. He's due to be executed at 12:01 a.m. PST. The 9th Circuit en banc or the U.S. Supreme Court could still stop the execution.

Add a Comment

topics: Supreme Court

Ugly in New York

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 3:18PM

New York Republican county leaders are strongly urging Jeanine Pirro to drop out of the Senate race. Time's a-wastin' for a serious challenge to Hillary there, since it appears that Pirro's not that candidate.

Add a Comment

China Mix

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.12.05 @ 3:06PM

Here's one more reason to read John Tabin's article, which sheds light on how we can remain competitive with China. Remember that it wasn't long ago that the U.S. was particularly reluctant to share its super-computer technology with certain states, such as China, who is now rising rapidly in tech exports. The market has room for China's participation, certainly, but meditate on a combination of their growing technological prowess with military applications, and recent Pentagon reports critical of how they have obscured their defense spending -- this is certainly mixed news, at best.

Add a Comment

topics: Business, Military

Re: Wicked-Pedia

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.12.05 @ 2:40PM

Wikipedia is definitely worth using -- as I said, it has plenty of arguments on its side. But it is alarming that there is no governing authority on content. Factual information can disputed, or just tagged as disputable. I'm more than happy to abide by it, but when a friend was compiling an article for Wikipedia, he found too many people offering arbitrary criticism without concern for the information presented. That's not just anecdotal. Type in controversial issues, and see for yourself. (Try "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004.")

Just because there are already so many skewed information resources, doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't take on a few methods of reform -- the CNET article presented a widely respected alternative, that of Linus Torvalds. And we can all appreciate what happens when wiki goes bad, such as Daily Kos's dKosopedia, which at least has the courtesy of noting its bias on the front page.

Add a Comment

topics: Israel

Re: Wicked-Pedia

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 2:12PM

I'm of the anarchy-with-results crowd on this. So there was a bad bio. Big deal. It's been corrected. Most information sources get big stories wrong on a much more frequent basis. Ask anyone who deals with reporters: the majority of stories have at least one detail wrong. The Wikipedia model, if not abused for propaganda, allows folks with more knowledge to contribute to the project, usually producing a more complete entry that would require hours of searching by the lone web surfer. And when there is incorrect information, it's usually quickly fixed. Millions of readers means millions of editors. Granted, the risks are high. But the users should take Wikipedia for what it is: a highly accurate committee product. All readers should use it with a sense of caveat emptor -- and double-check sources and claims. To that end, nearly every Wikipedia claim is backed by a footnote.

Add a Comment

New RSC Website

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 2:03PM

Our (or at least my) favorite folks in Congress, the House Republican Study Committee, launched a revamped website today. It's pretty slick and nimble with a new online resume bank, updated members list (with the newest member, Rep. John Campbell), and comprehensive links to white papers. I hope that their next move is to link directly to sponsored legislation, rather than pdfs listing it, as well as a more interactive "Money Monitor."

Add a Comment

Cold Comfort -- On Second Thought...

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.12.05 @ 1:33PM

Forget the bacteria-addled pen; we shouldn't be limiting cold medicines because of the pro-community business development that can happen as in one Kentucky woman's case. But then again, the late Maggie Bailey never let the law stop her from distributing her own home-cooked recipes. RIP.

Add a Comment

topics: Business, Law

Wicked-Pedia

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.12.05 @ 1:32PM

As much as Wikipedia has shown itself to be a valuable instant reference, there's an air of suspicion there. CNET's Daniel Terdiman explicates that suspicion, explaining that even the site's founder feels like his monster has gone beyond his control. Too bad, since Wikipedia has some very strong arguments on its side. But you can't rely on an ever-changing encyclopedia that permits anonymous users to modify articles without any kind of governing authority; anarchy tends to destroy information, not convey it.

Add a Comment

Cold Comfort

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.12.05 @ 1:31PM

Coming from Connecticut, I have absolutely no understanding of the popularity of crystal meth, but when I overhear that Congress is planning on placing limits on cold medicines, I wonder why we even bother with state legislatures anymore. I have a feeling that the Reason crowd will be entirely against this terrible violation of privacy rights, what with having to sign your name to a cold medicine log. All I have to say about that aspect is that I'll use my own pen, thankyouverymuch.

I'm reminded of my high school physics teacher, a Georgian immigrant, who found NyQuil potent enough that he felt it should be sold in six-packs.

Add a Comment

Pinch, the Times and the Dog

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.12.05 @ 12:22PM

Burdened by scandal and its hard-left ideology, the Dems' think tank, aka the New York Times, may be dying before our eyes. As it parades its bias, its profits drop and publisher Pinch Sulzberger may be in trouble.

How bad is it? Apparently the bomb dog that was brought in prior to an editorial board visit by Condi Rice reacted to the problems that pervade the Times by throwing up on the carpet. There are no reports that Rove or Mehlman had insisted that the dog's training include reacting to liberalism.

Add a Comment

Back from Iraq

Posted by Jed Babbin on 12.12.05 @ 11:25AM

We covered a lot of ground, talked to a lot of people, and came back with a few facts. Among which is that the war is being won, not lost, and that the only way it can be lost is if we give up.

More tomorrow in Loose Canons and -- for those in San Diego -- more later today when I'm guest hosting for Mark Larson on KOGO, 600 AM. See ya on the radio.

Add a Comment

Club for Growth Endorses Stephen Laffey

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 11:08AM

Pat Toomey announced the nod (sub. req'd) for the Cranston mayor over incumbent RINO Sen. Lincoln Chafee. This is shaping up as a redeux of the Toomey-Specter race... that is, if there are nearly enough conservatives in Rhode Island. I'm doubtful. The more likely scenario is a brutal defeat for Laffey at the hands of R.I. establishment and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Add a Comment

topics: NATO

Bush and Murtha

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 10:45AM

President Bush takes it to Rep. Jack Murtha's home state today with a Philadelphia speech, his third address on progress in Iraq in recent weeks.

This notion that Murtha isn't calling for retreat but "redeployment" (pushed by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation) just doesn't wash in light of comments like, "I've finally come to the conclusion that we're the enemy." Hopefully Bush hits him hard on this.

UPDATE (10:51 a.m.): Bush speaks at 11:15 a.m. Murtha responds with his own Philly press conference at 1:30 p.m. The Democrats must think Murtha is such a hit that he's their A-team response. Makes you wonder what the B-team looks like.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq

International Baseball Flap

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 10:11AM

Tickets go on sale today for the World Baseball Classic, Major League Baseball's long-promised international tournament. It will field teams from 16 countries into four pools with the semifinal and championship games in San Diego in late March.

As I scanned the country list, I noticed Chinese Taipei as well as China. The real controversy, it turns out, is over the Cuban team, Meghan Clyne reports in the New York Sun. Cuban-Americans are upset that Castro will be staffing the team. My first inclination is to let him send his best players to Puerto Rico (Cuba's first two pool locations) and then to San Diego. That allows ample opportunity for defections.

However, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Ballart is convincing: with 22 Cubans in the "bigs" and 62 in the minor leagues, MLB could easily compile an exile Cuban team. Further, as Diaz-Ballart wrote to Bud Selig, MLB wouldn't have dared to invite a team from South Africa during apartheid. And Castro makes it difficult for these players to defect, surrounding them with security and requiring their families to remain in Cuba until their return.

Add a Comment

topics: Africa

Voices of the Faithful

Posted by The Prowler on 12.12.05 @ 8:55AM

The big talk among Voices of the Faithful is that they want a more "Democratic" Catholic Church (without the "Roman" attached to it).

If Democracy and so-called "freedom of choice" is now their rallying cry, they must be aware that there is already a church here in the United States desperately looking for new members: the Episcopalian Church. Given the politics and what they are fighting for, they couldn't find a better fit, and they deserve each other.

Add a Comment

Going Constitutional

Posted by The Prowler on 12.12.05 @ 8:51AM

On the Alito nomination we aren't there yet. But there will be a lot of buzz around this morning's Washington Post article quoting Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist that the Constitutional Option, or as the Democrats and the MSM call it, the "Nuclear Option," is still a very real part of the landscape if Democrats decide to filibuster the nomination.

Democrats are saying this kind of tough talk is unnecessary, but if folks have been paying attention, they'd know that the Democrats and their minions have been talking about a filibuster for weeks now. It's good that Frist is drawing lines in the sand now, rather than a month from now with nomination on top of us.

Add a Comment

topics: Constitution

Voice of the Faithful

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 8:21AM

Protested the Vatican's new document (not new policy) on homosexual priests yesterday. Joining them was Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.). Voice of the Faithful was a particularly outspoken group, active in Massachusetts, during the sexual abuse scandal a few years ago. While the mainstream media typically portrayed them as good-natured, concerned laity, their long-term agenda was largely hostile to church teaching as this protest displays.

The Globe article fails to note that some local bishops have declared VOTF persona non grata in their parishes. Deal Hudson has the full story on this group.

Add a Comment

topics: Mainstream Media

Tookie Foiled

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 8:13AM

The California Supreme Court unananimously rejected Stanley Tookie Williams' appeal yesterday, letting stand his execution planned for tomorrow. Now Arnold's on the spot.

Add a Comment

topics: Supreme Court

HarperCollins to Keep Digital Files

Posted by David Holman on 12.12.05 @ 8:08AM

This seems like a good compromise in the Google book battle: Harper will hold on to the digital files of its books, but make copies available to search services. This could pressure the other major publishers into similar arrangements.

Add a Comment

topics: Books

Illegitimately Illiterate?

Posted by J.P. Freire on 12.11.05 @ 6:08PM

Prof. Sean Wilentz of Princeton has a great piece in the New York Times today, discussing the broadening chasm between literature and politics. Here's a snippet:

The memory of a time when American party politics was worthy of a writer's respect, let alone professional involvement, has almost disappeared. American literature has distanced itself from an essential part of national life, and American politics has debased what was once an uplifting language of democracy.

There's a great tradition from Dante to Orwell of literature promoting political philosophy, and there can be no substitute for it. I think Wilentz is a little too zealous here. For one thing, he omits the literary talent involved in politics in the latter half of this century (though he does mention Gore Vidal), such as William F. Buckley, Tom Wolfe, Christopher Buckley, or Ayn Rand (forgive me for lumping them together), among others (I'm also thinking about Michael Crichton and Tom Clancy, though I doubt someone of Wilentz's preferences would agree). I'll forgive him for not mentioning Mark Twain stumping for Rutherford B. Hayes. But it's interesting to see he doesn't address how film has supplanted the novel in this regard. And what of the New Yorker? I can't imagine their writers are terribly pleased to be left out of the clubhouse.

This reminds me of National Review's 50th anniversary and Bill Buckley's 80th birthday, which served all the highbrow rhetoric surrounding National Review as the staging ground for the old cry of how politics is nowhere near as civil and thoughtful as it used to be, while failing to note that those who started NR were exceptional for their time -- these were mental giants by any standard, not symptomatic of an enlightened era, and their protests were exemplary of just how unique they were. There was a steady stream of anti-intellectualism then in politics, and there is very much one now, and for all Wilentz's efforts, I'm willing to bet that Andrew Jackson, unfairly maligned as he may have been, capitalized on that anti-intellectualism in his time too.

Yet allow me to pull the rug from beneath myself; I actually agree with the substance of the article, but I think it has more to do with the liberal drive to establish education "that mattered" as the norm, casting aside the novels of dead white men in favor of books that ventured into multiculturalism, etc. If Professor Wilentz is serious about reestablishing a literary political tradition, I wonder if he's pushing for a Great Books requirement at Princeton.

Quick, someone, publish the Democrat Review and get Barbara Boxer as Editor in Chief!

1 Comment | Add a Comment

topics: Education, Books