- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–28
- Mar 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Apr 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- May 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Jun 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Jul 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Aug 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Sep 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Oct 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Nov 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Dec 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
Friday, March 24, 2006
Re: The Crying Game
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 9:50PM
Yah, mere mortals! Back! Back! Redick's natural bodily potential has been copped to by none less than Lee Melchionni, Wlady, but that didn't stop J.J. from draining so many un-stymied buckets -- right in the face of players far better than LSU's freshmen -- that the glittering constellations of shattered records that orbit his career bring new meaning to the term distraction. And, Dave, if you really want to make Chris Duhon's kid brother cry, have at it, but remember there are a few guys who didn't quite peak as K-lings: Mike Dunleavy, Luol Deng, Elton Brand, Corey Maggette (praise be not upon him)...
I shall now retire to my gold-glittering cave, to brood in scaly majesty for 203 days, 1 hour, 25 minutes, and 30 seconds...
Re: The Crying Game
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 9:05PM
Not to pile up on Reddick, Poulos, or Duke, but what chance do most Duke players have in the NBA? For the most part, they underperform... or just peak during college years under a great system.
Re: The Crying Game
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 8:42PM
My sympathies, James. Any time Duke loses, since it happens so rarely, its fans I'm sure have no resort but to howl at the moon and find consolation in Duke's natural superiority over the lesser forms of life the school deigns to compete with.
Nonetheless I must insist that J.J. Redick enjoyed plenty of coddling -- for at least two season he's been the darling of a media that has protected him at every turn against the occasional lowlifes that show up at Duke at Maryland games to deride his play. But I've noticed that he can dish it out pretty well himself. Perhaps yesterday if he hadn't spent so much time complaining to the referees that he was being fouled by LSU defenders -- on plays that time and again saw him pushing off in a desperate effort to get open -- his shooting concentration wouldn't have flagged.
It could also be that he was a bit too conscious of his clippings. He's a great shooter and great competitor. But in the stratosphere in which he competes, he's really not a great enough athlete to thrive among those more physically gifted. If an LSU freshman could stymie him, what chances will he have in the NBA?
Married faithful
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 7:36PM
Courtesy of Townhall comes this story which bolsters one of the serious points underlying the predominantly humorous (or so I intended) piece I wrote for this morning's web site. Also, if you have the patience to wait for our May issue of the print magazine, I touch on the same topic again in an article there. Anyway, the point is that Hollywood has it all wrong: Americans do not habitually spend time and energy looking for extramarital pleasures. Adultery is not a way of life. And fidelity remains a virtue honored not just in the breach, but in the faithful observation thereof.
Re: Best Line of the Week
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 7:02PM
Just heard it again. After describing the Dems' vacuity on the war, the Veep said, "If they're competent to fight this war, then I ought to be singing on American Idol." Don't look for Cheney to be crooning any time soon.
Best Line of the Week
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 6:52PM
FNC showed a clip of VP Cheney talking today about the "incompetence" argument the Dems are trying to make against the Bush administration. Wish I'd been fast enough to get it verbatim, but Cheney ripped off the line of the week. Talking about the Dems' competency, he said something to the effect that, "If they're competent to fight this war, I ought to be singing on American Idol."
RedAmerica/State Ruckus
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 4:35PM
For what it's worth Ben Domenech should recall that Sen. Joe Biden's career wasn't hurt much by his acts of plagiarism, nor was the Rev. Martin Luther King's legacy when his acts of academic theft were revealed. The left defended those two men vociferously, and forgave them, while conservatives did not pile on with profanity, insults and worse.
Conservatives have again revealed themselves to be far more principled and fair than their political opponents, and Domenech and his comrades at RedState have behaved honorably when in the face of shameful attacks.
So now we should move on and stop rubbernecking. Let's let the kid catch his breath, and gain some modicum of peace and quiet. Domenech has a future that has the potential to be as bright as Biden's. This, after all is America.
Buy Ben's Diary
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 3:17PM
So you love Ben Stein's stuff online. Who doesn't? Now you can have the beloved Ben Stein's Diary, his monthly column from the print magazine, delivered to your e-mail inbox for the very affordable $1.95 per month. You probably spent more on a cup of coffee this morning, but Ben will put an even greater hop in your step. Subscribe now.
Domenech Resigns
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 2:35PM
At the WaPo. That's the best move for everyone involved.
RedState's experiencing a bit of a server overload right now.
UPDATE (3:39 p.m.): Domenech has an explanation and apology up at RedState. It is important to note this was the left blogosphere's gold mine after two days of invective. And they did strike gold. Domenech owns up for the most part, saying that while the plagiarized inserts were the work of his editor at the Flat Hat, he was ultimately responsible but as a "sloppy" "teenager." At 18- or 19-years-old, you're a man. Like Ben, I've traded on my work as a college student. I'll answer for its quality and integrity if it's ever questioned, as should Ben.
Re: The Crying Game
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 2:28PM
Sorry, Wlady: J.J. Redick has been about as coddled this year as the President. But for many years to come it will be the bitter, mirthless sport of the anti-Dukies, playing the only game they can win, to heap every cheap insult and vindictive ignominity on the Blue Devils, until, at last, Duke loses a tournament game -- whereupon their crude and hollow laughter dares mock the emotion of players like Redick, whose victories are already legend.
Blogger Plagiarism?
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 12:57PM
I'm watching closely how this one unfolds. Washingtonpost.com's newest blogger, Ben Domenech, a young veteran of various conservative publications and blogs as well as Capitol Hill and the Bush administration, is faced with very serious charges of plagiarism. He ought to answer them, and quickly. If true, he ought to resign. Or the Post should fire him. That very discussion between Domenech and the Post probably explains the silence on his blog over this.
What a fine reminder that politics/journalism (nearly one and the same) in this town is a full-contact sport.
The Crying Game
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 12:52PM
An endearing new nickname in the ranks of serious basketball is Big Baby. One such is LSU's 6'9", 310-pound sophomore Glen Davis, a mighty tough hombre who last night helped power his team to an NCAA tournament victory over top-seed Duke, which probably now thinks of him as Big Brute. Another Big Baby is Los Angeles Lakers' rookie center Andrew Bynum, a still growing 18 year old who received that moniker from his proud mentor, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. A recent story describes how Baby Bynum went mano-a-mano with Shaquille O'Neal, and lived to talk about it.
One other thing can be said about these two toddlers: Big Babies don't cry.
Which can't be said about this year's coddled NCAA cover-boy players of the years, Duke's J.J. Redick and Gonzaga's Adam Morrison. When last seen after their teams went down to defeat last night, each was in tears. In fact, Morrison seemed beside himself. Perhaps he was embarrassed by his unproductive performance down the stretch. Or maybe, as with Redick, the sudden cruel end to a long, hard season (and college career) was a bitter pill to swallow. Still, don't coaches these days warn their men never to come across as big babies?
It's A Joke, Right?
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 12:22PM
I am as pro-life as they come.
Color me cuckoo, but things like this just don't strike me as being all that helpful to the cause.
Saad Out
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 11:13AM
Just caught this on the WSJ Law Blog: Henry W. Saad, President Bush's nominee to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, withdrew his name from consideration yesterday. Michigan's Senators Levin and Stabenow had been blocking his nomination.
Yes, he was the same one Harry Reid smeared by saying there was "a problem" in his FBI report.
It would have been nice to see some Republican Senators fight for him. Instead... silence.
Hang The TV DJ
Posted by on 3.24.06 @ 9:53AM
As it happens, several of the Weekly Standard guys have it out for lousy commercials too. Their beef? Rotten song selection -- Oasis for AT&T/SBC, the Go-Gos for Papa John's. They say "most annoying;" I say the ad industry is the welfare state of the entertainment society. Light reading while we digest the incalculable perfidy of a Russian Iraq war plan leak.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Semper Fi, To the Max
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 7:12PM
Yesterday, thanks to Col. Joe Long, (USMC, Ret.) a few of us had a pre-opening tour of the new National Museum of the Marine Corps at Quantico Marine Base. Scheduled to open to the public on 10 November (the Marines' Birthday, natch) it's everything you could hope it to be. Exciting, awesome, and focused around the most effective weapon this country has ever had: the Marine infantryman. You'll be able to climb through the fuselage of a helicopter and onto a hill in Vietnam, "ride" a Higgins boat onto the beach at Iwo Jima and see and hear the recollecions of many who fought in those and other battles.
There's a huge central atrium, from the ceiling of which hang Marine aircraft. All around are galleries -- some of which have interactive and special effects -- on the conflicts the Marines have fought, from the halls of Montezuma to the streets of Fallujah. Thousands of artifacts will hang from the walls, along with artwork, weapons and explanations of the history of the United States as seen by those who have fought for it. Above the galleries will be two restaurants (including one named Tunn's Tavern, after the place this rough bunch was first recruited in 1775 Philadelphia). Too bad we have to wait 'til November for the full effect. It's gonna be a great experience for the whole family.
Fromaged Off
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 6:53PM
According to this report from the FT, Monsewer Chirac - in the company of a coupla similarly fromaged off minor minions -- stormed out of an EU summit meeting, "...at the decision of Ernest-Antoine Seillière, head of the Unice employers organisation, to make a plea for economic reform in 'the language of business.'"
That would be English, by the way.
Another Conservative Passing
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 4:16PM
A couple of friends of ours who formerly worked at the Reader's Digest, passed along the sad news that one of RD's great staff writers in its legendary Washington Bureau, Trevor Armbrister, died yesterday after a long illness.
Armbrister, to those who don't track these kinds of things, was one of the great reporters in Washington, who traveled all over the country doing investigative pieces on everything from child predators to organized crime, government waste, fraud and abuse, to the scandal of organized labor.
He was also the co-author of autobiographies of former President Gerald R. Ford and Speaker of the House Denny Hastert.
Armbrister's death reminds us of just how far the Washington Bureau has fallen off the map in the past three or so years. Reader's Digest was the magazine that brought Hayek's free market ideas to the masses, was one of the few mainstream, wide-circulation publications to reveal the inhumanity of the Soviet Union, Vietnam and Red China, introduced Ronald Reagan's conservative philosophy to many Americans for the first time, took Hillary Healthcare apart so that it couldn't be put back together, and in the mid-1990s, one of the first magazines to examine the nuclear threat of Iran and the terrorist threat of Bin Laden. We're told Armbrister played a critical role in many of those stories over his three-decade career at the magazine. Armbrister's death is doubly painful then. Not only have we lost a great writer, but we're reminded of how a once-great publication has been destroyed by an infusion of mediocre, left-wing staff and little vision or original thought.
Reader's Digest could use a few Armbristers today, but clearly, the magazine wouldn't know what to do with them.
So Dean Has a Dem Vision
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 2:44PM
And it's condensible into door-hanger size. When Republicans say the Democrats need a plan, this isn't it:
1) Honest Leadership & Open Government; 2) Real Security; 3) Energy Independence; 4) Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence; 5) A Healthcase System that Works for Everyone, and 6) Retirement Security. The one sentence descriptions don't provide much more detail.
Bland platitudes barely distinguishable from this President's agenda and most of the Republican Congress won't do it, Howie.
Natural Marriage
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 1:34PM
Polygamy overload!
Bill Tucker, as you already know, tackles it in our "pages" today, arguing that monogamy is essential to civilization. (But if you want the full story, you'll need to subscribe and read his full treatment in our March issue, including an afterword by Tom Wolfe.)
Over at Slate, Will Saletan gives distinguishing polygamy from gay marriage the old college try. His lynchpin? Jealousy. Monogamy is based on human nature because one mate gets mad when the other is sleeping around.
If this comes off as rather conjectural and contrived, that's because it is. To stem the march of progress of marital norms from accepting polygamy, an arbitrary line is necessary because the natural one has already been crossed: the natural law principle that marriage is properly ordered toward union and procreation. So without a hint of irony, Saletan is left justifying gay marriage against polygamy through some vague "human nature." The irony here is that while monogamy may be a natural evolution toward civilization, a la Tucker, natural law philosophers like Aquinas decline to declare the practice as opposed to natural law. Rather, it's generally understood as an area that divine law clarified.
Thank You, Morton
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 12:41PM
As is the case with just about everything Morton Blackwell writes or says, his piece today on the homepage about Abramoff is not to be missed.
The most important thing about it, in my view, is that Morton points out something that no one else really has -- that Jack was highly regarded around here as a "good guy" for a very long time. The fact that there were shady dealings going on underneath the surface was clearly known to only a very few. Indeed, most of us viewed Jack as an activist success story -- a religious and charitable man who remained so even after attaining stunning success in business. I do not know him well. But I can say that in the few times I was around him, I was mightily impressed by him -- for the reasons I just outlined.
Clearly there was another side to Jack, and that is indeed a tragedy and a disappointment. On the heels of his downfall, many (mainly in the media) are having a grand time trying to indict anyone who was ever seen or photographed with the guy -- including the president! Ridiculous -- but typical, I suppose...
Second Only to Jefferson
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 10:53AM
President Bush passes James Monroe today in time in office without vetoing a bill. TJ holds the record at eight years.
Rescued in Iraq
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 10:53AM
Were three peace activists. Facts won't matter to the lefties, but according to this BBC report, quoting MGen. Rick Lynch"
1. the op - conducted, apparently, by Brit special forces - was the result of information obtained from a detainee (no word on whether someone spoke rudely to him to get him to talk);
2. it was mounted with considerable speed, and conducted successfully against a gang that wasn't insurgents but a criminal kidnapping gang; and
3. the Beeb expresses its principal relief: that fewer media correspondents are the subject of kidnappings lately.
The main fact -- that these kidnappings weren't by terrorists but by ordinary criminals -- is terribly important. Be assured that the MSM will miss it entirely.
GOP Convention Arrests Disputed
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 10:50AM
Shawn Macomber will find this of interest, as he spent some time in the brig during the New York convention.
Burnishing Catholic Creds
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 10:46AM
Mitt Romney's traveling to the Vatican today to attend Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley's elevation to cardinal.
Also, he's declining to issue the annual gubernatorial proclamation celebrating the 1972 Supreme Court case Eisenstadt v. Baird, which legalized birth control for unmarried couples, as a precursor to Roe v. Wade. He issued the proclamation last year, though omitted the traditional references to Roe v. Wade.
This gradual turning away from Roe is a far cry from his answer to Planned Parenthood's 2002 candidate questionnaire. To the question "Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?" Romney answered, "yes."
Re: To Hell With the to Hell With Them Hawks
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 10:15AM
John: Regardless of where the term was first used by Lowry, he was re-positioning NR after its founder, Bill Buckley wrote here that the American objective in Iraq had failed and was the cause for continuing troubles there. Never mind who Lowry might have been referring to, or whether there is anyone other than Buckley (but there are, viz. George Will and others) who subscribe to that view.
Actually, you are demonstrably wrong. You do need state support -- such as the Taliban gave bin Laden -- to mount significant terrorist attacks. They need safe sanctuary and -- as Zawahiri's "please send 100 large" letter to Zarqawi showed last summer -- money. That is what they get from places such as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The "kill the head and the hands die" metaphor is right on point. My issue is that while you may never eradicate terrorism altogether, you can deprive it of essential assets by ending state support. Even the State Department agrees with this, which is one reason they list nations who are state sponsors of terrorism. Even if you were right -- which you aren't -- the answer to a threatening "ecosystem" is agent orange, not voting by people who -- such as the Palestinians -- chose to be governed by terrorists.
To your last point, I never said this can be dealt with quickly. As I've said again and again and again, this is a long war. We have to prosecute it more vigorously to win at all, or we will inevitably lose. On Iran, it's no longer possible to sit on the fence. Declare yourself: are you willing to wait for Iran to have nuclear weapons before we act? That's what the result of giving the issue to the UN will be. None of this is easy, none of it is a "cakewalk" and all of it is essential to preserving our society against the threat of state-sponsored terrorism. Or do you think there isn't such a thing?
So This is the March of Freedom?
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 10:07AM
The trial of the Christian convert is disconcerting on a number of levels.
First, I know it's a bit rhetorical, but this shouldn't be the sort of freedom we're fighting for there. In fact, this isn't freedom at all. Islamic countries may choose to implement strict behavior, but to mandate what a man believes, under the penalty of death, is tyranny under state management.
Second, if this is the sort of mainstream, reformed Islam to which we're looking forward under the Bush administration's new Wilsonianism, I'm not enthused. CAIR's (the American Islam PR effort) claims that "Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience" are quite unconvincing.
Third, isn't it disheartening that our warm weather allies in the war on terror are more vociferous on condemning the trial than our own State Department, whose spokesman called for the trial to be conducting with fairness and transparency. What does that mean? Kill him, as long as there's open, due process? It just shows how much work Ms. Rice still has to do over there -- or isn't doing.
Fourth, President Bush yesterday stepped up the rhetoric and said he is "deeply troubled" by the case and that "'That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about' while in Kabul." Great. So what are you going to do about besides light nudging? Calling for his release would be a decent first step.
Fifth, how much can the administration really do? We've agreed to look away from human rights abuses in these moderate countries as we pursue the really, really bad guys. Can we risk alienating Afghanistan? Probably not.
Pacifists Rescued by Troops
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 9:58AM
Not only is it a happy event, but it makes for enjoyably ironic headlines.
Taliban at Yale
Posted by on 3.23.06 @ 7:21AM
John Fund, also our Politics columnist in the print mag, is still hot on the trail.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Save the Date
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 4:08PM
For those of you in the D.C. area, Capital Research Center is holding a Capitol Hill briefing Monday on the Endangered Species Act entitled, "Why Protecting Property Rights Is Good for Landowners and Species." CRC will bring their best guns on the topic, including president Terry Scanlon, TAS contributor and Greenwatch Executive Director David Hogberg, and others. It's Monday, March 27 at noon in 385 Russell Senate Office Building.
Re: To Hell and Back With Them Hawks
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 3:13PM
Jed: To the first point, that Corner post was definitely the first time Rich used the term "'to hell with them' hawks." Buckley probably had something to do with it, but since I can't read Rich's mind and he didn't mention Buckley in the piece, I can't say for sure. Buckley might fit the "'to hell with them' hawk" description, though I'm not sure he's even written on every topic that I noted by letter, let alone that he believes what "'to hell with them' hawks" are said to believe. The same goes for other NR-niks, like Andrew McCarthy and Jeffrey Hart, who seem to tend in the to-hell-with-them direction. That was my point: The NR cover story is written too much like there's a group of people who have signed on to a particular manifesto of positions.
To the second point: What do you consider a significant attack? Does 9/11 qualify? You don't really need state support to kill a few thousand infidels these days. Terrorism is just too easy. The relationship between Middle Eastern regimes and the radicalism they breed is much more complicated than a head/body metaphor implies. We're not threatened by a single organism -- more like an ecosystem.
To the third point: I don't think that this is a threat that can be truly dealt with quickly. If you're asking about cases where short-term progress against regimes seems to conflict with long-term progress toward political reform, we've just got to weigh costs and benefits on a case by case basis. On Iran, though I do have some sympathy for Robert Kagan's position, I honestly haven't made up my mind.
I look forward to your more full response.
Romney Movement
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 2:00PM
Another sign that Mitt Romney's gearing up for his presidential run: shifting staff from his official offices to his Commonwealth PAC.
Readers, Respond Please!!!!
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 1:52PM
Okay, readers, here's a VERY important poll, because some important people may be looking at it. Of the appeals court nominees now pending (look for ones listed beside "CCA" on the list) which of them do you think are the three most important to be confirmed, and why? Please be thoughtful and constructive, and please be as specific as possible. By the way, my own answer begins with Brett Kavanaugh.
One more vote for the endgame
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 12:27PM
Jed:
Since I'm an old printer, here's one I know. Corrupt nation states like those you've mentioned supply terrorists with documents -- passports, cartes d'itentite, etc. -- through suborned and infiltrated government printing offices. It's an essential element in the terror arsenal, without which the jihadist movement would be seriously crippled. If for no other reason, shut down the corrupt states to shut off the supply of travel documents to terrorists.
Many jihadists, I have read, are still traveling on Kuwaiti documents printed up during the Iraqi occuption of that country.
400 Percent Wrong
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 12:20PM
I missed GM's restatement of its 2005 loss. Instead of $2 billion, it's more than $10 billion. Fire the accountants.
Challenger to Burns
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 11:16AM
Sen. Conrad Burns has a primary challenger for his Senate race: state Senate President Bob Keenan. Looks like Conrad's an inviting target for mid-sized fish among his own party. This makes his decision whether to file or not by tomorrow quite interesting.
Cox Rocks
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 9:21AM
The smartest, most principled conservative in office in Washington is at it again, pushing reforms without stringest regulations, promoting the free flow of information to support free markets, and showing that conservatism doesn't rule out creativity. Page C-1 of today's Wall Street Journal tells the tale: former U.S. Rep. Chris Cox, now chairman of the SEC, is pushing several technology initiatives to give companies incentives to disclose financial information, using technology, that would be more understandable and useful for investors. I won't rehash the whole article here, but I do urge everybody to read it, not as much for the content of the specific proposals, all of which seem to be good ideas, but more to see how a creative conservative can promote reforms without red tape and without abandoning conservative principles. Chris Cox is great at the SEC, but he really should be in the Oval Office instead.
Re: To Hell and Back with Them Hawks
Posted by on 3.22.06 @ 6:48AM
John: Your piece deserves a more full response, and I will do that in the course of the next couple of days. But three points need to be made today.
First, Rich's piece came not as a result of Derbyshire's Corner post, but because of a column written by Bill Buckley in which he proclaimed the war in Iraq lost and our goals there unachieved. Rich had to put NR back on the right side, and this is his way of doing attempting that.
Second, you say that radical Islam is the problem and that nation-states only exacerbate it. I believe you are dead bang wrong. Radical Islam is the ideology that cannot last without -- and stands in the way of democracy only as long as it gets support from nations. Without support from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria, radical Islam would not be able to mount significant attacks outside the Middle East. State funding, training and above all sanctuary for the radical imams and their followers is absolutely essential to large terrorist operations. If you shoot the head, the body dies.
Third, even if democracy were achievable in these nations, how can it be a solution in time to deal with the threat? Wilsonian export of democracy will take decades if not centuries and (despite the progress you cite in places such as Saudi, which is not significant in any respect) will require a huge commitment like the British had in India. You really want to wait that long before doing something about the Iran nuclear weapons program? I hope not.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Re: The Next (Bad) Dubai Deal
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 7:21PM
Dave: That's what I'm checking on. When you're developing a new weapon system, the technological advantages -- which become top secret -- can be found in the oddest places. Like turbine blades, airfoils and such. Don't know the level of danger in the JSF aspects Doncaster's involved in. May be nothing to worry about, may be crucial. Will report on it soon.
The New Protectionists
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 6:36PM
With all due respect to those here with security concerns about foreign-owned companies, particularly those owned by entities based in less stable or friendly parts of the world, there are those in this debate for whom "foreign-owned" is simply a dirty word.
We should have a name for those Republicans who have have forgotten that their party's ascension was the result, in part, of successful messages of free markets and free trade. And that name?
Dick Gephardt Republicans.
Let's see how long they are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with him once the label begins to stick. Mugs and t-shirts are on the way....
The Reviews Are In
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 6:36PM
First Rush at the top of his show, now the Republican National Committee is playing up acting CBS anchor Bob Schieffer's reaction to President Bush's performance this morning. In its "What They're Saying About the President's News Conference" release from late this afternoon, the RNC leads with two quotes from Schieffer, including Rush's favorite line, "I must say, this is about as close to the George Bush that one sees off camera as I have ever seen."
I guess it's a great line coming from Schieffer. But what does it really mean? Did Bush really seem any different? After all, he steadfastly refuses to give his administration a facelift!
Spiteful Spitzer
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 5:58PM
Eliot Spitzer, the poster child for anti-business and anti-individual liberty tactics using and abusing the power of his office of Attorney General for the state of New York, has done it again. Angry because H&R Block refused to cede several tens of millions of dollars in settlement with him, Spitzer has sued the tax preparer for $250 million. Why?
Because Block offers IRA savings programs for small and first-time savers. Apparently New York's "Attorney General for the Little Guy" doesn't like the "Little Guy" to have the freedom to invest in small IRAs. (For more, see "Spitzer's Rotten Call" in today's New York Post.)
Re: The Next (Bad) Dubai Deal
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 5:50PM
Jed, for what it's worth from the peanut gallery, I'm not sure that the Doncasters buy is a problem. How will they have a view inside the Joint Strike Fighter program?
The Post's report on it earlier this month explained what Doncasters specializes in:
Doncasters' expertise is in forging, fabrication, machining and alloy production. The company owns a plant that makes aerospace turbine blades and components in Farmington, Conn.; a turbine and generator plant in Rincon, Ga.; a steel foundry in Springfield, Mass.; and a metal-rolling plant in Groton, Conn. The company's Web site says the Georgia and Connecticut plants manufacture "engine ready airfoils," for aircraft, helicopter and tank engines.
I'd really like to learn more about this, because my impression from this article is that Doncasters manufactures and fabricates the steel parts for aircraft engines.
If they're not privy to classified information about the JSF in the manufacturing process -- just sending parts to larger military contractors just as they would send parts to Boeing, then I think I'd be alright with it. If owning Doncasters would give Dubai interests a look into classified information, then we have a problem.
The Next (Bad) Dubai Deal
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 4:50PM
I wasn't happy about the Dubai ports deal, given my lack of confidence in the Department of Homeland Security. But now I'm really upset that the Brit aerospace company - Doncasters - is about to be sold to Dubai.
Doncasters is - according to this FT report -- a supplier to very sensitive programs including the Joint Strike Fighter. I'll check with DoD and other sources. But I'm almost positive that we can't risk security by enabling Dubai interests to get a view inside programs such as that one. We cut the Israelis out of JSF as a penalty for their sales to China. I don't favor letting any nation into JSF or other weapon system programs if we can't be entirely certain of maintaining security. With Dubai, that's just not a good bet.
The Wonder of It All
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 4:33PM
CJ -- Back in high school, we had various nicknames for people lacking various traits, whether physical or character-related: "The XXXX-less Wonder." Some were typically adolescent, but one example that's still repeatable is that we'd call somebody the "spineless wonder." Well, this President Bush is quite clearly the Vetoless Wonder. And that's one reason he has lost so much clout on Capitol Hill: because the solons there have no fear that he'll actually stop them from doing just about anything they darn well please. And from the sorry looks of things, they're right.
Re: Reason Not to Veto
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 4:14PM
Could someone please help me understand what sort of "benchmark" the McCain-Feingold legislation met for this president when he signed it in 2002?
Is "Constitutionality" not among these "benchmarks"?
DeLay the Socialist
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 3:20PM
Okay, that headline is a bit of an exaggeration, but the truth is that there is NOTHING in the past several years to show that the House leadership, including the supposedly conservative Tom DeLay, had a fiscally conservative bone in any of their respective (and sometimes corpulent) bodies. Hastert and DeLay gave the spenders (in this case, not the Appropriators but the Transpo guys) cover because the leaders themselves had their snouts buried in the slop tray. Frankly, it's been this way since the Fall of 1998, when Gingrich himself ordered the conservatives to tank on spending in order to hold the RINOs in line on the rules concerning the impeachment inquiry. I repeat that more than half of the congressional GOP members are utterly worthless -- or worse. Frankly, the entire Beltway GOP establishment, at both "ends" of Pennsylvania Avenue, has gone native. A pox on all their houses and their Houses.
Goin' Down the Highway
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 3:11PM
The situation is even worse than Quin and Dave have discussed. In private meetings with both House and Senate leaders before the notorious "Highway Bill" reached markup status, senior White House officials, and perhaps even the President, made clear that they expected a bill to come in at around $256 billion.
"We made it clear that if the bill did not come in at that level, then the President would veto it," says a former legislative lobbyist for the White House. "It was an outright threat."
So what do the House and Senate leaders do? They ignore the White House. Why? "Because we had made the threat before and never once followed through. They knew they could roll us. And they did," says the lobbyist.
One of the problems with raising the limit was that Congressional leaders Frist, Hastert and DeLay went back to the White House with the numbers. Perhaps had chairmen of the appropriate committees been required to go tell the President his spending limits were being busted, things would have turned out differently. But when someone is giving you cover, it's easy to do what you want to do.
Re: Ford Boycott
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 2:47PM
Dave: When they stop making SVT Mustang Cobras, then I'll join the boycott. And not a millisecond before.
Ford Boycott
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 1:21PM
Ford Motor Co. is funding pro-gay marriage groups again, so social conservatives have launched a boycott, reports Human Events.
Stable and expensive
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 11:47AM
Dave -- Good reporting on the press conference. One note: In the year before the one in which the highway bill was passed, Bush had set the target even lower: $256 billion. So he moved the target not twice, but thrice. Now, as for Bush bragging that he has a "stable" administration: That's precisely part of the problem, on two levels. First, in the meaning of "stable" that he intended, the problem is that the administration is so stable that it has calcified. There's no new blood, no fresh ideas, nobody to break the insularity, because they all seem to live in a hermetically sealed environment. If Maxwell Smart's "cone of silence" actually worked, the administration would be inside of it right now, hearing only its own words in an echo chamber. Which is why so much has gone wrong, even from a president whose basic instincts on most things (spending obviously aside, because his instincts on that front just stink) are conservative. That's what brings up the other meaning of stable, which is a place where horses are kept. Well, sometimes a stable needs to be aired out.
Reason Not to Veto
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 11:07AM
Bush says he hasn't vetoed a bill because "they met the benchmarks we set."
That's false by any common sense understanding of truth.
The back story of the highway bill is that the White House moved the goalposts. It set a benchmark for the highway bill at $270 billion. When it was clear Congress would overspend that, the White House moved the benchmark to $284 billion. Bush said he would veto any bill exceeding that cost. The highway bill exceeded even that higher spending ceiling, and President Bush signed it anyway.
Political Capital?
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 10:50AM
"I'm spending it on the war." Has it cost Bush elsewhere? He says he just listed 12 points on his agenda. "Social Security -- it didn't get done. You'll notice it wasn't on the list." He seems mostly to blame Congress.
Bush Lists Accomplishments
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 10:40AM
The war on terror, Patriot Act, tort reform, Supreme Court justices, slight cuts in discretionary spending, and the energy bill.
Cleaning House?
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 10:38AM
Would Bush benefit from staff changes? "I'm satisfied with the people I've surrounded myself with. We're a remarkably stable administration."
Burns Out in MT?
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 10:32AM
The Helena IR reports that the word on the Montana street, er, highway is that Conrad Burns may drop out of his Senate race by Thursday's filing deadline. Rep. Denny Rehberg could be his replacement.
Helen Thomas Gets a Question!
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 10:30AM
This is an ingenious strategy: let the kooks spout.
Re: The Poor Woman's MoDo
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 10:24AM
Well said, Jed. Counteracting op-eds like these is starting to feel like a chore. But it does bear mention that the fashionable characterization of the "feminine" attitude in politics deploys a stereotype that used to be its own worst nightmare. Those female talents of compromise, caring, and nurturing sound terribly like the inscriptions we once etched at a woman's feet, back when we put her on a pedestal.
The fatal irony is that the female sexual ethos pushed by the anti-partriarchy is as uncompromising and unmotherly as you can get. Those hip values of feminine politics turn out to be garbage where social justice is concerned. Suddenly, femininity is defined by a radical independence and radical sexuality that destroys the ability of any girl to become the sort of nurturer Ruth Marcus desires. Instead, she gets woman-children with broken sex and broken families -- for whom restraint and introspection become incomprehensible, and only self-doubt remains.
Bush Press Conference
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 9:49AM
We'll have it for you here at 10 a.m. EST this morning.
Don't Weep for the GOP, EJ Dionne
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 9:11AM
E.J.'s tears are useless. He spends the bulk of today's column weeping for retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, that elusive liberal Republican, and pining for the Rockefeller, middle of the party. How bland: yearning for something neither here nor there, the vague middle. The good Catholic boy from Gonzaga should know milquetoast has few takers.
As TAS readers know, when a liberal columnist lauds a Republican, it's because he's done something liberal, is a liberal, or can be used for liberalism. Boehlert's long been a favorite of Dionne's, first appearing in his column in 1998:
"I get the message loud and clear that people want a smaller, less costly government, but I don't get the message that they want us to dismantle the federal government," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) asserts. "To think of continuing to slash away at the federal government, to pare it down to the bone, is excessive."
Ah yes, the cuddly compassionate conservative, pre-Bush 43. But in today's column, Dionne apparently forgets his past columns and recent struggles within the Republican Party when he defines the mystical middle that Boehlert represented:
But it turns out that a Republican Party dominated by conservatives is no more coherent than the party that left room for progressives. The huge budget deficit is conservatism's Waterloo, testimony to its political failure. The conservatives love to cut taxes but can't square their lust for tax reduction with plausible spending cuts. Oh, yes, a group of House conservatives has a paper plan involving deep program cuts, but other conservatives know that these cuts will not pass, and shouldn't.
Dionne knows that conservatives do lust for spending cuts. The only problem is that there aren't many conservatives left in Congress, as we witnessed in both houses last week. And when Dionne modifies "spending cuts" with "plausible," the implication is obvious: he doesn't want to make the tough choices that the House Republican Study Committee introduced in their slim balanced budget, "the Contract for America -- Renewed." Even though the federal government is incredibly bloated and inherently wasteful, Dionne's solution is more taxes.
Conservatives with memories of the Clinton years will recall that liberal fondness for balanced budgets is a new phenomenon -- just another way to attack tax cuts and Republican control of the White House and Congress. One needn't search too far back to find Dionne spouting the same thing:
Dionne knew then what he won't say now: balancing a budget is a matter of priorities. Dionne and his liberal allies, like Rep. Boehlert, would rather grow the government. Conservatives would rather send money back to the folks who earned it and shrink the government.
The Poor Woman's MoDo
Posted by on 3.21.06 @ 8:41AM
WaPo’s Ruth Marcus – the poor woman’s Maureen Dowd – takes a shot at Prof. Harvey Mansfield’s book, “Manliness,” this morning and like MoDo assumes the posture of the hilarious by working so hard to prove men unnecessary by condemning the White House. Her point, natch, is that manliness is ok so long as it’s under the firm control of what Marcus says this country could use: “a little less manliness -- and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt.”
Here’s the cri de coer – er, money quote:
The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined. (Okay, there were some unfortunate, testosterone-filled moments, too.) Bill Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, was mocked for enlisting Naomi Wolf to help him emerge as an alpha male; after that, French-speaking John Kerry had to give up windsurfing and don hunting gear to prove he was a real man. And Bush's father, of course, had to battle the Wimp Factor.
The Democrats aren’t the “Mommy Party” any longer. They’re the “Crazy aunt-in-the-attic party.” And “estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined”? You said it, lady. We didn't.
Monday, March 20, 2006
The Endgame Conservatives
Posted by on 3.20.06 @ 11:14PM
For those who missed it, here's the transcript of the part of today's Rush Limbaugh show in which Rush talked about the argument I'm having with Rich Lowry of NR about the "endgame conservatives" vs. "to hell with them hawks" issue. As always, Rush hits it hard and right out of the park. I don't think this one is over, not by a long shot.
Iraq Registers Well
Posted by on 3.20.06 @ 4:24PM
On Iraq, I really do think the good guys (note to hopeless liberals: that means us, the United States) are winning, despite many errors along the way. My old paper, the Mobile Register, laid out the case on Saturday.
No Bear Market -- Darn It!
Posted by on 3.20.06 @ 2:45PM
Just got definitive word that Jack Nicklaus will NOT consider a U.S. Senate race in Florida. More's the pity. He would have been good. In fact, I STILL think he ought to run!
Boot Cheney, Condi, and Rummy
Posted by on 3.20.06 @ 11:46AM
That's Fred Barnes' advice for President Bush. Consider me underwhelmed by his case.
There may be legitimate reasons for each, but Barnes doesn't make those arguments. Rather, Barnes engages in the age-old Washington tradition of speculating about these changes for their own sake: "Things are going poorly -- time for a massive shakeup, for the appearance of a massive shakeup!" Barnes views this through a media lens. While the communications shop is in desperate need of an overhaul, talent shouldn't be tossed to the street for the purpose of spin.
Of the three, Cheney should be retained at all costs. His office is the source of all things economically conservative in the administration. Some may charge Cheney with not holding the Bush team to this so well, but just imagine the state of things if he weren't whispering thoughts of Hayek in W's ear. Of course, since Barnes has already conceded the battle for small government, this point may not be of interest to him.
The one solid suggestion Barnes makes is to send Karl Rove to run the RNC, and bring in Ken Mehlman to rehab White House communications. Amen. Clean out that house. But if you want to shuffle the cabinet or show the Veep the door, please make a case based on more than appearances.
Yesterday's Best Headline
Posted by on 3.20.06 @ 9:00AM
Was from the UK TimesOnline: NASA to put man on far side of moon. Yes, this will be terribly expensive. But think of how much you'd pay to put someone there? Like Dick Durbin or Hillary?
Golfing for the Stars & Stripes
Posted by on 3.20.06 @ 3:39AM
Yesterday's broadcast of the Bay Hill PGA tournament (at Arnold Palmer's home course) featured a short story by commentator Jimmy Roberts on golfer Billy Hurley III, who finished near even par.
Hurley is an Ensign in the U.S. Navy, and plays with a yellow "N" on his golf shirt. An Annapolis grad, Hurley served his three years on a missile cruiser, then returned to the Naval Academy, where he taught economics. He is currently playing out an experiment, subject to approval by The Big Dog himself: to play pro golf for the Navy.
Hurley gets his $28,000 salary from the Navy, and that's all. He donates winnings to a variety of military charities and funds. Yesterday's prize money went to a Coast Guard fund, in honor of the tourney's host, who was a Coastie for three years before beginning his own pro career.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Spice Channel
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 8:34PM
Anyone else put off -- or disgusted -- by that new Old Spice commercial? Talk about not-your-father's-trusted-men's-grooming-products-brand. It's another tip of another iceberg of the public perversity now ordering our comedies their situations. Tour guide through the belly of the beast stops here, then here.
Re: Murtha's Madness
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 7:46PM
John: Actually, no. Murtha may be mad, but he's still influential. He speaks for the Dems. At least all save Lieberman and Zell.
Iran Status Quo Ante Not Available
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 7:18PM
Note that the NYT uses Sanger to make a vaguely academic, determinedly confused, purposefully non-judgmental case for the status quo ante in Sunday NYT, "Suppose We Just Let Iran Have the Bomb."
Facts are inconvenient but required alongside the Sanger wandering-around in the groves of think tanks masquerading as anti-Bush Administration policy wonkhood.
1. The UN Charter is a large roadblock to the US doing anything with regard Iran. The UN Charter Chapter 7, article 42, provides for air, land, sea intervention in the event the UNSC votes to sanction a member state as a war-maker. Violation of the NPT by a signatory (Iran) decribes amply what is the UN's idea of war-making. It will take months and perhaps years to get the UNSC to such a series of votes and resolutions, but the process is well-advanced, and history says that once the talk starts, the permanent members get real antsy to get it over with either way.
2. Iran is an aggressor state committed to battering the US and its allies into confrontation. The nuke fuel cycle is a ploy by Iran, not by the US or the UN. Iran aims to use the impotence of the UNSC as a demonstration that it is a regional hegemon that has ambitions to be a global hegemon.
3. The US is a Middle East regional hegemon because of Iraq. To stand by and permit Iran to bully the UNSC into surrender would be to toss the Iraq expedition into the ashheap. And Israel into the ashheap. And Jordan, Kuwait, the Persian Gulf states. There may be an American president who is willing to take the risk of turning over the Arabian oilfields to a Tehran gangland, but not this president, not ever.
4. Iran knows that time is on the US side. The longer Iran takes to force a confrontation, the more likely something will happen that weakens its hold on Russia, China, Syria and so forth kindred of bullying. Now is the time for Iran to find maximum support. Any US move will be regarded as an attack by the Crusader State and its Zionist stepson, and this will rally the Ummah and swing Russia and China to Iran's side.
5. Am specially struck by a fatalistic sourness from Sanger's source, Biddle of the geniuses at CFR. "Iran has a return address, and any state with a return address can be retaliated against."
Wrong on the facts. Iran uses surrogates routinely, and no retaliation is on record.
Wrong on the facts. Iran aims to ride out the US counterstrike with the Tehran regime in invulnerable bunkers and the TV showing the depredations on the helpless populace of Tehran and so forth.
6. This is an election year, and Iran regime has concluded that the US cannot respond to a crisis in an election year. Wait one year from now, with the Bush team through the midterms, and the calculation of what the US national security apparatus may do will be much more challenging to figure; e.g., how long would the bombing continue until a demand for ceasefire from the Europeans?
Eleven Iran Reports: Gathering Storm
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 2:41PM
1. Report that Bolton indicates the UNSC will send a "strong and determined signal" to Tehran with regard the nuke fuel program. No timetable. Recall that Bolton told me ten days ago that he is now the prince of multi-lateralism. Bolton goes where France and Britain and German lead, and he goes arm in arm with the reluctant Russians. The Chinese are inscrutably silent, fretting about their oil and gas supply line and all that cash they are slapping into Tehran's hands.
2. Report that Russian UN ambassador joked that unless the UNSC slowed down with its pell-mell pace to demand an IAEA progress report, the UNSC could get to Chapter 7 by June. (Chapter 7, Article 42, of the UN Charter is the guns and guns and guns option.)
3. Inside Iran, report that an Iranian general said that "bandits" or "Rebels" attacked vehicles in the southeast of the country and killed 22. This sounds like Baluchistan action, cross border units fighting Pakistan for independence, willing to gun down Iran also.
Reuters reported these same attackers identified themselves as a Sunni rebel group. Report that the attack was on a provincial governor's convoy. Report that 22 KIA, seven taken hostage, in order to bargain for release of members in Iran custody. Still sounds like Baluchis. (Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed of AlQ are Baluchis.)
4. Report that NSA Hadley opines the US-Iran talks are "a device" to divert from the contest at the UNSC. This is saying the obvious. Perhaps Hadley is ready to play the double game that is required to maneuver in Persian waters.
5. Report that StateSec Rice says that the Khalilzad-Iran talks over Iraq would not be "negotiations." More double game talk. Say the obvious, then do the obvious, then declare you are not doing what you are doing. The mirrors within mirrors of diplomacy in the Ummah.
6. Report that the US accuses Iran of meddling in Iraq, and that Tehran was the author of "unhelpful activities" in Iraq. This is Foggy Bottom speak for hostilities are underway, as in the Japanese Empire is conducting "unhelpful activities" in Manchuria in 1941.
7. Report that Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki (this is a major player, get used to his name: he speaks with and for Ahmadinejad, and he is just as pious and fanatical and convinced as the Fuhrer) is demanding a timeline for US withdrawal from Iraq. If this reminds you of elements in the US poilitical apparatus, you are hearing correctly. Iran will play divide and confuse games with the peace now gang, with the momentum in the US to cut and run. Iran does not actually want the US out -- and knows that the Bush team will not quit Iraq -- because the US tied down with an Iran generated civil war in Iraq is exactly in line with the Iran war plan.
8. Report that Iran Ayatollah Jannali (understudy to Qom lesdership) declares that Iran will never climb down from its nuke program. He mentions the "dignity of Islam." Read this as Iran speak for full speed ahead. Reads this as the same as Japan declaring that the USS Enterprise, sortied from Pearl, 1941, was conducting "unhelpful activities" by looking for the Japanese fleet.
9. Tehran's Supreme National Security Council boss, the slick, luminous, pious, multilingual and suicidal Larijani, accuses the US of launching a "creeping regime change" in Iran. This is Tehran Foggy Bottom speak for hostilities are underway. State's forward listening post for legals is at Dubai. State's forward listening post for illegals is at Baku. The number of Farsi speakers now on contract with State and DOD is now officially a Most Secret.
10. Report that the US White House uses a presidential message to commemorate the Iranian holiday of Nowruz: this is the Persian new year. This is Foggy Bottom speak for we know what's going on even inside totalitarian tyrannies: it's springtime.
11. Report that some oil cartels are suspending their big ticket items in Iran, pending UNSC contest. This needs confirmation. And what of China's investment, what of Russia's?
Re: Murtha's Madness
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 2:15PM
Hey, Jed: Remember when you were cautioning me and others not to be too dismissive of Murtha? I take it your view has shifted. Welcome aboard!
Welcome to the U.S.S. George Washington
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 1:22PM
At dinner last night I met a young man who had served a stint as a nuclear engineer on the U.S.S. George Washington in the 1990s. He reported that the ship stopped in Dubai five times, and met no trouble from the natives. In fact, he even guided some on tours of the aircraft carrier. Imagine that: Arabs taking tours of the crown jewel of our naval battle groups. Someone call Duncan Hunter and Chuck Schumer and begin an investigation.
Re: Madness and Criminality
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 12:33PM
Wlady: Growl, grump, harrumph. Oh, ok. T.O. isn't a danger to national security, so I guess we can let him slide for a while. Let's hope he does more damage to the Cowboys than Brunnell does to the Redskins next year. Murtha isn't really insane, just liberal. Or can we tell the diff any more?
Madness and Criminality
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 12:03PM
Jed: Now what Murtha said is criminal. But what crimes has Terrell Owens committed? Being obnoxious and insufferable and a lousy teammate can qualify as character flaws, but do they warrant lifetime suspension? There's no evidence he's on steroids, an abuser of women, a cocaine user, heroin dealer, or bank robber. So what's he really done, other than have a weird falling out with the Eagles and their nice quarterback? Sure made things easier for the Redskins last season!
BTW, I bet Bill Parcells will be tickled to know he could be the next Annie Sullivan.
Murtha's Madness
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 11:39AM
At about 1120, Jack Murtha sent a message to Tehran. On Meet the Press, he said the president doesn't have a military option on Iran. Thanks, Jack, for making war more likely by telling the central terrorist nation that it has license to ignore diplomacy. Don't you understand that diplomacy unsupported by the threat of military force cannot possibly succeed? This man has lost his mind. Hello, Pennsylvania? Is anyone listening?
Re: 9-7 Gets TO
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 8:40AM
Wlady: If Parcells can do that with T.O., then the coach's biopic should be entitled, "The Miracle Worker." The problem I have is even giving Owens another chance. Yes, he sells tickets. But so would an ax murderer or a drug-dealing rapper. Where does commercial sports draw the line? And how many more T.O.'s will we see if he's rewarded with yet another shot? This man is getting more "last chances" than Saddam did.
On Myths
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 2:29AM
I just got around to reading Patrick Hynes's Friday column. It's a bit problematic. Hynes writes:
David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, declared the moral values voter a "myth." Over at the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer said moral values voters were a "myth." In his book God's Politics, liberal evangelical activist Jim Wallis called moral values voters, you guessed it, a "myth."I haven't read Wallis's book, but that's a gross mischaracterization of what Brooks and Krauthammer wrote.
Recall the day after the election, exit polls found that "moral values" received 22%, a bare plurality, among answers to the question "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?" This lead to much chatter about how the only thing that mattered in the election was gay marriage and the like. Brooks pointed out that this was nonsense, cooked up to coddle liberal egos (his column is no longer online for free, but it's still in the Lexis-Nexis database):
Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.Nowhere does Brooks say that the values vote is a myth. What he says is that it's a myth that values played a larger roll than ever in 2004. The same goes for Krauthammer, whose column is still online. Here's how Krauthammer explained the flaw in the exit poll questions:In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.
This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.
Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.
Look at the choices:Again, it's not the existence of values voters that Krauthammer calls a myth, it's the exaggeration of their political importance in the 2004 election. This argument (of which you can find more in my post-election column from 2004) remains unassailable.• Education, 4 percent.
• Taxes, 5 percent.
• Health Care, 8 percent.
• Iraq, 15 percent.
• Terrorism, 19 percent.
• Economy and Jobs, 20 percent.
• Moral Values, 22 percent.
"Moral values" encompass abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture and, for some, the morality of preemptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: "war issues" or "foreign policy issues" (Iraq plus terrorism) and "economic issues" (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).
If you pit group against group, the moral values class comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.
Re: 9-7 Gets T-O
Posted by on 3.19.06 @ 1:35AM
Jed: I like Terrell Owens. Whatever he does off the field keeps the likes of ESPN in business. On the field he's as good as anyone around. Remember when he claimed midfield in Cowboy Stadium for himself some years ago while still a 49er? It was rotten sportsmanship, perhaps, but also brave and audacious. Anyway, it now appears he was only looking ahead. You think Bill Parcells will for one moment tolerate any nonsense from him? As it is, Parcells got rid of one headcase, Keyshawn Johnson, to make room for Owens, who's at least ten times better. Almost singlehandedly, on a warped ankle, Owens kept the Eagles in the Super Bowl last year. Parcells has a way of channeling thuggishness to his team's advantage. The Redskins should be mighty worried. Not to mention the Eagles. Good for Owens for choosing to remain in the same division. Should make the NFL East next fall the only one really worth watching.
- Useless Wonks
- Progressive Derangements
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
