- 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
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Muslim Conservatives
Posted by on 7.1.06 @ 3:35PM
Michael Totten interviews moderate Islamists in Kurdistan, who sound less like theocrats and more like the Muslim equivalent of Christian Conservatives. If these are Islamists, then perhaps Andrew Sullivan's use of the term "Christianist" isn't so offensive after all, though Totten's reporting does highlight the fundamental problem with a political taxonomy that blurs the distinction between people whose religion influences their public policy views and those who actually want a religious state.
July 4th Long Weekend Break
Posted by on 7.1.06 @ 12:49PM
While we'll continue blogging all weekend, Monday, and Independence Day, our main page postings will resume first thing July 5. See you then. Let the fireworks begin.
And you might keep the New York Times in your thoughts. This time its honchos really have gone too far, sabotaging national security on behalf of their own delusional, puerile egos. As the Wall Street Journal reminded the world in its memorable, historic editorial yesterday, back on September 24, 2001, the Times itself instructed the Bush administration to create a SWIFT like program. "Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities." Is the Times beyond redemption?
Friday, June 30, 2006
Re: Will Conservatives Seize the Opportunity?
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 8:22PM
David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey have a Wall Street Journal op-ed today (not available for free online) making the point that the silver lining of Hamdan is that he Court affirmed that military tribunals would be okay if authorized by Congress (some opponents of military tribunals were hoping the Court would completely proscribe them). And yes, the political dynamics of a debate over a law establishing military tribunals for al Qaeda member do very much favor the GOP.
This doesn't touch on the Court's view that the Geneva Conventions apply to al Qaeda; I'm still not sure what the practical effect of that might be.
Big Ben's Not Quite a Misconception
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 8:09PM
John: You are correct about the law, as Brandenberg v. US proved. Hate speech is indeed still legal. But Ben was right about the tenor of our times. And the self-imposed censorship we suffer is much more dangerous than anything the government has ever thought of doing.
Case in point: how many media outlets, other than Brit Hume's show (and, I recall vaguely, John Gibson's) showed the Danish Mohamed cartoons? Which newspapers, or even websites, reprinted them? I can't recall a single newspaper and only a few websites. Why? Because of the fear that the radical Islamists had engendered.
Intimidation is the enemy. What Ben pines for is what we all wish to recur: a resurgence of American pride and conscience. Yes, banning flag burning isn't the highest priority that should occupy our 535 members of congress. Yes, we must always be wary of limits on free speech. But no, we cannot allow the evolution of political correctness into intimidation that is now befalling us.
At this rate, it may be the most American thing to insult someone on the 4th of July. I have a long list of likely targets. I'd better get busy.
Superman's Values
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 7:47PM
The Hollywood Reporter article splashed on the Drudge Report right now contains a factual error: It's not true that "[e]ver since artist Joe Shuster and writer Jerry Siegel created the granddaddy of all comic book icons in 1932, Superman has fought valiantly to preserve 'truth, justice and the American way.'"
In fact, as Erik Lundegaard explains in a NYT op-ed today, Superman originally stood simply for "truth and justice." In the radio show that ran from 1940 to 1951, it became "truth, justice, and the American way" in 1942, then went back to simply "truth and justice" by 1944. In a 1948 screen serial, it was "truth, tolerance, and justice." On the 50s TV show, it was "truth, justice, and the American way" again. On the 1966 Saturday morning cartoon, it was "truth, justice, and freedom."
After reading Lundegaard's op-ed, I thought maybe the Superman Returns line-- "Does he still stand for truth, justice-- all that stuff?" was an in-joke about this history. Nope: The HR report makes clear that all the screenwriters had in mind was the international audience. Just be glad they didn't take a cue from the comic book writers who've infused the Man of Steel with lefty politics in recent years and go with something like "truth, justice, and the United Nations."
Ben's Big Misconception
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 6:13PM
Ben Stein writes in his column today:
You can't call members of various ethnic groups by slurring words that were common when I was a child. That's called hate speech, and it's barred by law in most if not all parts of the nation.This is not true, and it's a little astonishing that Ben believes this. Hate speech is very much protected by the First Amendment, as affirmed most famously in National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie (Described here). Speech codes at public universities have also been found unconstitutional, most notably in the widely-cited 1989 federal district court case Doe v. University of Michigan.
I wrote about flag-burning last year.
Lipstick on a Pig
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 5:02PM
I'll close this little tussle with Rep. Jack Kingston's office by congratulating them with utilizing the 'net to communicate with constituents (which they're quite good at doing themselves).
You can dress up a legislator all you want: in nice suits, with funny give-and-takes with Stephen Colbert, a genial presentation, video features, and more. Which is great, and even entertaining at times. But at the end of the day, it's a lot of work to obscure a mediocre conservative record -- like putting lipstick on a pig.
Reveal National Secrets, Get Invited to WH Dinner
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 3:59PM
Evidently, it is politics as usual at the White House. President Bush hosted not only Prime Minister Koizumi but also journalists for newspapers which revealed the SWIFT program: the New York Times' David Sanger, and the Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus. McManus has defended the publication the story for the L.A. Times.
Message from the White House: we're mad, but we leave it "on the field."
Backpedaling, Sort Of
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 2:20PM
USA Today is backing down from its NSA phone records story. But almost like Mary Mapes, they hold that the story is still true even though the evidence doesn't hold water.
"Disgraceful"
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 2:05PM
Hot Air takes the New York Times through a video journey of terrorism in its own city and the impact of disclosing the SWIFT program.
Will Conservatives Seize The Opportunity?
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 1:39PM
I wonder if, instead of griping and complaining, our side should be sending the Supreme Court a thank you note for its Hamdan decision. Bear with me.
In today's giddy editorial lauding the decision, the Washington Post makes this observation:
The central part of the ruling declares that the special military commissions set up on President Bush's order to try alleged members of al-Qaeda are unlawful. It gives the administration a simple choice. It can proceed with cases under current law, using standard military courts-martial, which provide fuller procedural protections for the accused than do the commissions. Or it can go to Congress for specific authorization to deviate from those rules. [Emphasis added].
(The New York Times makes a similar argument today.)
Yes, let conservatives go to Congress and demand that it make a "deviation". In fact, let Republicans do it in August or September, just shortly before the election, so that it can become a campaign issue. We'll then see if Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats are really willing to give terrorists captured on foreign soil the same rights as Americans.
Will the political right (and, more importantly, Republicans) seize this opportunity? Based on past experience, I can't say I'm optimistic. But they should. Although the left will complain, they'll have little reason to, since they now urging that President Bush go to Congresss.
Re: Jack's Three Hats
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 1:04PM
Dave, the simple fact is that Kingston has been infected by Potomac Fever. He not only enjoys spending Other People's Money, he also thinks that he knows what's best for the rest of us--witness his recent "Fuel Choices for American Security Act."
I, along with James Dellinger, have written about it here. In brief, Kington's bill decides the "right amount" of ethanol that the U.S. should use and the "right amount" of money that needs to be invested in electric/gas hybrid technology. Kingston likes to say that this bill gives the market a boost. At one of the press events promoting the bill (photo here) I asked why, if the ideas in the bill were so good, why wasn't the market already doing these things? I might as well have cracked a loud fart at a funeral.
Kingston responded to the effect that this time the market was not responding to higher gas prices the way it did in the wake of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. While that was a bit vague, I suspect that what he meant is that the auto companies were not making lots of new vehicle models that get higher gas mileage the way they did in the mid-1970s. There is a reason for this: there are already plenty of high-mileage vehicles on the market and the sales of them have surged in wake of higher gas prices.
So, the market is responding. But for someone who has Potomac Fever like Kingston, it's not responding the way he thinks it should.
Great Man, Good Man
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 11:05AM
In the course of my normal web travels, I learned that Ed Capano, longtime publisher of National Review, is retired effective today. When I was just starting out in New York, I got to know Ed and will never forget how kind and helpful he was to me.
NRO has some great tributes up this morning.
God bless you, Ed. The movement is in your debt.
Jack's Three Hats
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 10:03AM
Jack Kingston fires back at conservative bloggers who questioned his commitment to eliminating wasteful pork and shrinking the size of goverment.
His press secretary implies that I thought he should "hide under a rock" and not expose sunlight. I meant that hiding under a rock would be in his best interests. Clearly, the taxpayers and conservative press benefit from Kingston being so blunt in his unwillingness to practice true fiscal discipline.
Interestingly, instead of defending his own record, he goes for broke and defends the entire wasteful Appropriations Committee. Ah, yes, the noble, fiscally discplined House Appropriations Committee. This must be the same committee that shoveled millions to a technology the military didn't want, but Jim Moran did. The same committee that Jim Moran can expect to "earmark the s***" out of. The same committee whose chairman blocked a budget because it restricted the committee's discretion over emergency supplementals and the number of pork projects it could load on to appropriations bills.
And as I recall, Jack Kingston is such a fiscal conservative that he awarded those who voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the biggest entitlement expansion since LBJ's Great Society, with cynically named "Ronald Reagan Awards."
Rob Bluey says that Kingston wears three hats: House GOP leadership, appropriator, and Republican Study Committee member. Given his record, I don't trust hat number three. He argues in his defense that he supports the line item veto. At this point in the game, after bloating the size of the federal government for years, the line item veto is nothing more than thin political cover, as our own Wlady wrote Tuesday.
If he would like to show conservatives that he is serious about fiscal discipline, he should do more than support tokens like the line item veto. He can repudiate the prescription drug benefit. He can start fighting for fiscal discipline on the appropriations committee. Kingston calls stripping out pork is the "Amendments Game." If cutting government waste is a game to Mr. Kingston, he shouldn't expect to be taken seriously as a conservative.
Just Which Year Is This?
Posted by on 6.30.06 @ 9:47AM
For all the EUnuch ignorance of history, and all their appeasement of terrorism, I'd thought that though it is 2006 here, it was 1937 again in Europe. I still think that's right, but it may soon be 1982 again in Britain.
Thanks to the Argentines, that is. According to this Daily Telegraph report, Argentina is reasserting its claims to the Malvinas Islands. Which, of course, the rest of the world calls the Falklands. In 1982 Argentina invaded the Falklands and claimed it as Argentina's territory. Britain's Maggie Thatcher would have none of it and sent the British fleet, albeit at diplomatic speed, to solve the problem. The war that followed included the spectacular sinking of the pride of the Argentine navy, the General Belgrano, by a British submarine.
This round may be different. There's no Maggie Thatcher in England. Soon there won't even be a Tony Blair. I'm betting the Falklands become the Malvinas in a year or two.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Stiff Webb
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 6:02PM
Responding to the post below, a reader notes how awfully stiff the candidate is. Our American Spectator intern, Maggie McGlynn, and I had a chance to catch Jim Webb and Mark Warner this afternoon in Alexandria for a very brief press availability.
It appears someone has given Jim Webb a good talking to about presentation. His hands, feet, and face are fixed, as he gives short, controlled answers. Having Webb next to Warner reminded me of bumbling Linc Chafee next to John McCain in 2000 as Chafee ran for his late father's seat. Not a pretty contrast. Ms. McGlynn and I noted that when Webb was asked about supporting a possible presidential run by Mr. Warner, Warner literally grabbed Webb by the shoulders (in a friendly but awkward way), apparently to control any outbursts. Webb is a man on a tight leash.
His campaign, on the other hand, is not. I missed this flap earlier this week, but after George Allen's campaign questioned Webb's opposition to the flag amendment in a calm, policy-oriented way, Webb's campaign very defensively flew off the handle, with spokesman Steve Jarding claiming Allen was questioning his patriotism. Webb's guy went so far as to call Allen's team "cowards." It's as if you bumped a guy on the street and he turned around and slugged you. Webb is either nuts or making a calculated decision to take this thing nuclear right away so that Allen can't play nice.
Asked about his campaign's response, Webb called Jarding "a professional." But did Allen really implicitly question Webb's patriotism? "[Allen campaign manager] Wadhams is a guy who studied under Karl Rove. I think it's very clear what he was doing. I don't think I have to say anything more about it." Case closed. I guess we can stop asking questions.
We caught up with Webb's press secretary, Kristian Denny Todd, and asked if her campaign's response was disproportionate. "Not at all." Reporters asked her earlier if she thought Jarding's reaction was a little strong: "It's about time, if you ask me."
It should be interesting to see what happens when the press and Allen's campaign really start pressing buttons.
More on Voting Wrongs
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 5:21PM
My successors at the Mobile Register agree with my earlier post and a post by Dave Holman about a provision of the Voting Rights Act that, in contrast to the excellent rest of the act, really ought to be jettisoned. The Register adds a few facts I didn't know and haven't earlier reported. And one point I also did not make is that the sheer expense, in man-hours and paper and rigmarole, of the provision, at both the state and federal levels, is highly burdensome. Here's hoping Congress gets the Register's message.
Guilty in Alabama
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 4:46PM
The Mobile Register reports that former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman has been found guilty on multiple counts, including bribery, in a long-running trial. Finally. And deservedly. The man has shown dishonesty again and again and again. The very first time I ever saw him in person, he looked directly into my eyes and told me a whopper of a lie. Good riddance to him.
But a further observation is in order. In bearing, partly in personality, and in some ways in looks, Siegelman has always reminded me of convicted former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. Clearly too much political animals for their own good, they both lost sight of propriety while in pursuit of political advantage. But there is an important distinction between them, too: Tucker, I think really cared about trying to change things for the better. (Not that his policy prescriptions were always right, but he really was a policy pathfinder at heart.) I remember, when I worked in Arkansas, Tucker (then under house arrest) called me out of the blue to praise a column of mine on education issues, and invited me to his house for a sandwich and a policy chat. His political career was over; there was no ambition in it; he just wanted to push some ideas, some idealistic reforms, and trade some stories (including some veiled allusions to his skanky predecessor and longtime nemesis, Boy Clinton). He seemed quite sincere. If it was all mere performance, which I doubt, it certainly was a winning performance. One couldn't help but think that, absent the challenge of trying to keep up with the dizzying corruptions and preternatural political skills of the Clintons, Tucker might have been a fair-to-middling public official whose weak ethical compass led him only to non-criminal edge-skirting rather than prosecutable transgressions, but who also accomplished some decent things for his constituents.
One can't say the same for Don Siegelman. His conviction is one more reason to have faith in our system. Justice is sometimes hobbled, but more often than not it still reigns in these United States.
Hamdan
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 1:17PM
I haven't read the decision yet, and have no immediate plans to do so (it's 185 pages, and I'm busy with a long feature for a different magazine). But as with the McCain Amendment, I wonder if the effect of extending Geneva protections to al Qaeda won't be to encourage rendition of al Qaeda detainees to less scrupulous countries. That would be an unhappy result (from both a humanitarian and a strategic perspective), though without digging into the opinion I can't say if there might be a legislative or other policy remedy to the problems the case raises.
Re: Hamdan: First Reactions
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 12:55PM
Jed, You're right that the Court does not explicitly rule that, but that is the effect of the decision. Your third point seems to support this.
Hamdan; First reactions
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 12:33PM
Dave: I don't read the Hamdan decison quite that way. First impressions (wading through the damned 185 pages) are that the Supremes:
1. specifically do not rule on the issue of Hamdan being a POW with rights under the Geneva Convention;
2. say that the urgency requirement justifying military tribunals in the field aren't present here, so the president lacks legislative authority to convene these tribunals; and
3. and most bizarrely, they say that the "non-signatory" provisions of the Geneva Conventions apply to al-Qaeda. That they do this, Stevens's opinion brushing by the point that al-Qaeda fails to comply with the terms of Geneva in any respect, is simply bizarre.
Allen 56, Webb 37
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 11:57AM
The first in-state poll of likely voters has George Allen up over Jim Webb by almost 20 percentage points. High margin of error, but a great position for Allen nonetheless. Allen grabs 26 percent of the black vote. Maybe the New Republic should try again.
Al Qaeda as a Foreign State
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 11:44AM
That is what the Supreme Court has apparently ruled today in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (pdf). The U.S. will be bound by the Geneva Convention in its war on al Qaeda -- even though al Qaeda is not party to the treaty.
Hopefully, President Bush has better lawyers than Harriet Miers who understand how to overcome this challenge.
No Blow Too Low
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 11:12AM
The poisonous, threatening tone of the left is not confined to the Huffington Post. If you had any doubt after my report on the threatening phone calls to Swift Boat veterans, check out the comments on this post at a popular blog.
Minorities Aren't All Alike?
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 10:08AM
That is the advanced legal reasoning required to take down the Voting Rights Act, Abigail Thernstrom writes in her WSJ recap of LULAC v. Perry.
Re: Buzzard's House Buzzed
Posted by on 6.29.06 @ 7:29AM
I remember February of 2005, mid-month, when Dennis Ross told a room full of USC Law students that he "wouldn't take out an insurance policy" on Bashar Assad's regime. And yet here it is, some time later, and Brammertz has sunken into the mists, and Assad lives on. In October of last year, when first I had occasion to quote Ross to good effect, it was a lot more timely to fantasize about "kicking over" the whole Syrian regime, and even carving up the state amongst its neighbors. Now holding Damascus to account has all the cachet and momentum of lobbying reform. Seizing the "historical moment" in Syria sounds now like occasion for either a laugh (rather than a cheer) or an outright jeer. But the fundamental problem of Syria -- its artificiality, not just as a regime but as a geopolity -- will live on quite as long as Assad does...and maybe even longer.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Sausage Making Is Ugly
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 4:32PM
Rep. Jack Kingston introduces "MailTube": upload a video question to Google Video or YouTube, then Kingston will answer you via a YouTube video.
It's a neat idea, but Kingston should have invited a couple more questions, because his first answer is a bumbling journey through the sausage making of the Appropriations Committee. It goes something like, well, I would like to oppose earmarks, but you see, Democrats like earmarks, and so do Republicans, and we need those guys to vote on budgets, so we've got to sweeten the deal a little.
Sometimes our representatives are wise to shun sunlight's disinfecting rays.
Assad's House Buzzed
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 3:03PM
By Israeli planes. Unfortunately, this probably won't do much to change Syrian policy.
The Israelis buzzed Assad's house in August 2003 and bombed an Islamic Jihad training camp in Syria in October 2003. Meanwhile, Americans in Iraq have made hot pursuit incursions into Syria. There has been no response to any this (except through terrorist proxies). Given the Syrians' apparent impotence in the face of such aggression, you'd think we'd have tremendous diplomatic leverage with Damascus. So why isn't Assad bending over backwards to please the US and Israel? Probably because he's incapable of it: Syria isn't run by an iron-fisted dictator like Assad's dad anymore, but rather by a patchwork of competing factions within the Baath party, the military, and the various secuirty services. As long as Assad is in place as a figurehead, we won't know who really runs Syria. And until we know that, it won't be clear which house(s) really needs rattling.
Always 1965 vs. "That South Is Gone"
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 3:01PM
I had a chance to attend a Federalist Society event this afternoon on the renewal of certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The main questions surround Section 5, which mandates that certain Southern states (and parts of California and New York) pre-clear any voting law changes with the Justice Department (explained well here and in further detail by Quin Hillyer on the blog last week). For the status quo were Daniel Tokaji and Julie Fernandes, both of the ACLU at one time or another, and for not renewing Section 5 were Abigail Thernstrom, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Linda Chavez.
The history of the statute was helpful. Sections 4 and 5 were understood to be emergency provisions, which would expire in 1970.
Thernstrom (Chavez mostly dealt with the renewal of Section 203, which requires bilingual ballots in certain areas) placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs -- those who claim that racial discrimination is still pervasive and requires federal intervention in local elections and districting. The plaintiffs, Tokaji and Fernandes, failed to prove this. For Tokaji's part, he was quite intellectually honest: the question for him was whether "integrated bodies" of representation are an important priority. In other words, racial quotas. He argues that Section 5 is necessary to ensure minority representation.
Fernandes, though, still thinks we live in 1965... or that racism is as prevalent today as it was then. To answer Thernstrom's argument that "we're not talking about disenfranchisement," she offered a lone case from Mississippi. Anecdotes are insufficient proof to justify such presumptions of pervasive Southern racism or heavy-handed federal intervention. Fernandes kept offering the history of racial discrimination as justification without demonstrating its existence today.
Now, as her arguments demonstrated, the liberals' definition of racism has changed to adjust to its decrease. If blacks are not electing blacks or Democrats, something must be wrong. Thernstrom is right. Balkanization is taking place. Section 5 proponents would fight racial polarization with racial polarization, and fix this balkanization into law. That's not progress. That is the preservation of 1965.
A Drowning Truth?
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 3:00PM
First hurricanes, then droughts, now
GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING FLOOD AND FLOOD IS CAUSING WATERLOG AT THE WHITE HOUSE!
See the new Tom Toles cartoon.
This "linking-global-warming-to-every-bit-of-bad-weather" tactic scares me. Perhaps it will extend beyond weather. I mean, if they can link global warming to why my socks keep getting lost in the wash, I'll have little choice but to support Kyoto.
Today on the Michael Medved Show
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 2:50PM
Ok, pilgrims, listen up. I'm subbing for Michael again today (3-6 EDT on Salem Radio Net). We'll have a very lively show, with John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics, Cong. J.D. Hayworth and - alas, though he's not an on-air guest - lots more from Howlin' Howie Dean. See ya on the radio.
Super Music
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 1:56PM
Since Superman Returns has hit theaters, let me take this opportunity to recommend Michael Daugherty's fun and engaging Metropolis Symphony. Unlike most contemporary compositions, it's as accessible as Beethoven or Brahms; I once heard Daugherty explain that, having been educated in composition in the 1970s, when melodic music was frowned upon, he had to draw on his experience in a rock band to learn how to write melodies. (The one negative review on the Amazon page should be read as a positive review in disguise -- the reviewer speaks highly of the coterie of "legitimate" atonal composers who spent the second half of the 20th century systematically alienating classical music from its audience.)
Re: Religion Has Its Uses
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 1:01PM
I don't really get your point, Wlady. Though Superman was created by two Jews, Superman-as-Christ-metaphor is hardly a new idea. Brando's God-the-Father lines from the 1978 Superman aren't terribly subtle: "They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son." According to the reviewer (I haven't seen Superman Returns yet, though you can bet I'll be heading to the theater this afternoon), the new movie plays up the Christ angle, right down to editing in Brando's performance, and the reviewer is riffing off this. If religious metaphors are blasphemous, than the history of Western literature is one long story of blasphemy.
House to Condemn NYT?
Posted by on 6.28.06 @ 9:08AM
The Hill reports that House Republican leaders will introduce a resolution today condemning the New York Times for revealing classified information and compromising government efforts against terrorists. (Hat tip to Tim Chapman.)
I expect this discussion to build momentum for Congressional Republicans on the issue of the war on terror. Like others have written, this could be the Democrats' issue if only they would quit botching it. If this resolution comes to a vote, it will be an entertaining one.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Religion Has Its Uses
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 10:25PM
Is this the most blasphemous thing you've ever read? Here's how New York Times movie critic Manohla Dargis opens her review at the top of page 1 of today Arts section:
"Jesus of Nazareth spent 40 days in the desert. By comparison, Superman of Hollywood languished almost 20 years in development hell."
Lest you think I'm kidding, Dargis two sentences later notes that "the Man of Steel has been resurrected..." And there's more where that came from.
A Burning Truth?
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 5:37PM
First its hurricanes, now
GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING DROUGHT AND DROUGHT IS CAUSING WILDFIRES!
If you want more biased reporting, see the recent spate of articles about this. Particuarly good is the video clip from CNN. They interview noted global warming alarmist, Michael Hanemann, director of the California Climate Change Center. Naturally, they don't interview anyone who is a skeptic of the link between global warming and wildfires. According to Hanemann, "The last decade is clearly warmer than the previous 400 years and these fires and the drought are associated with that unusual increase in warming."
Well, if the theory holds true, we should see a general trend upward in the amount of fires in the last 10 years. For those of you familiar with this drill, you already know what the data are going to show. Take a look at this page from the National Interagency Fire Center. No trend in either the number of fires or acreage.
Of course, you can't expect the media and global warming alarmists (but I repeat myself) to base their doomsday scenarios on actual evidence.
A Manhattan DC Happening
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 3:16PM
A presidential appearance these days has all the markings of a nice church wedding. Guests are expected to be in place well beforehand -- indeed if they don't arrive by a cutoff time they don't get in -- after which they sit quietly and chat, creating a quiet din that suddenly goes silent in premature anticipation that he's about to show. After a few such rounds, an officiant does finally appear at the podium, and without further adieu he introduces the President of the United States as the audience stands in welcome. It's the next best thing to watching a bride walk down the aisle. Easier on the neck, too.
Late this morning the Manhattan Institute hosted our president at the J.W. Marriott in downtown Washington. Mr. Bush was in fine form, particularly since key Congressional figures in the current campaign to pass a new line item veto bill, including Sen. John McCain, were also in attendance. The president talked the talk in defense of the bill (his comments are already up on the Manhattan Institute's website); his delivery was fluid, direct, spirited and friendly, a defense of his economic policy in general as much as an endorsement of the new line item veto bill in particular. So long as he was making the case for the benefits of tax cuts he was convincing. It was only when he played up his commitment to fiscal restraint and responsibility that some eyes had to roll.
Is the line item business anything more than an effort to find political cover from the heedless spending excesses of the last five plus years?
But given the friendly, special atmosphere at this morning's ritual, capped by the president's spending flesh and camera time with many of the several hundred who attended, no one was in the mood to entertain such unpleasant thoughts.
Sick Freak
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 3:06PM
Ingrid Newkirk has posted her "will" on the PeTA website. Words fail me. Just read it.
The fact that anyone actually listens to this obviously insane person never ceases to amaze me...
RE: Never, Ever
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 3:04PM
I lived in NYC for much of Rudy's mayoral tenure. He had a dramatic impact on the city and deserves enormous credit for that.
He would, however, be a disaster as leader of the free world. I cannot even believe that this is a subject of serious conversation. (Paul, Philip ... with all due respect ...)
Re: Never Ever
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 2:59PM
I remind all of my column last year, "Giuliani Time," here. Key grafs:
In 30-plus years, the religious right as a political movement has grown very sophisticated and practical about what it wants and what it can get at any given time. In the legislative arena, for example, pro-life politicos have picked careful battles, on partial birth abortion and parental notification. Meanwhile, elect more and more Republicans. The judiciary has the muscle on all the social issues, and has had ever since Roe.
Here, the great karmic wheel of politics has turned almost enough to excuse Giuliani social liberalism. After all, what can a President do to affect abortion politics? Most important, appoint judges. By the end of George W. Bush's term, he will have appointed two, perhaps three, justices to the Supreme Court. Would Giuliani appoint a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, either to SCOTUS or a lower court? Given the ex-mayor's bent toward free-market reform and stout crime enforcement, no. A judge conservative on economic and criminal justice matters is likely to take a conservative view of social issues, too.
Some of my religious confreres will not be able to stomach Giuliani having marched in drag in gay pride parades or his stated pro-choice opinions. But many of us will take a practical look at him and at the office of President and ask, "How much could he hurt our cause?" The answer would be, "Not much."
I would add, as of today, that if Giuliani were to run as an enforcement hawk on immigration, he'd be unbeatable.
Why Kerry Is A Loser
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 2:38PM
Apparently John Kerry wants some of the headlines that Al Gore has been getting as of late.
Perhaps Kerry should have first taken a look at the box office numbers to see how well Gore's alarmism is playing with the American public.
Re: Never Ever
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 1:10PM
I'm also skeptical about Giuliani. How will he fare in the withering glare of a presidential campaign? Three quick thoughts:
1. His judgment in personnel matters is way off at times.
2. He has a tendency to shoot from the hip. How will he react when he gets attacked by social conservatives for the first time? My guess he will be even less gracious than McCain was.
3. In some ways, he isn't a social liberal. He's a social radical. Is it too much to ask that he support a ban on partial birth abortion?
Re: Never Ever
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 11:44AM
Dave: Maybe it’s the New Yorker in me that puts me closer to Philip Klein’s take on Giuliani. While the obstacles are significant, I also believe that the historical moment offers him a serious opportunity to break through. It’s too early to say how large a role the social issues you mention will play; especially if the dreaded other shoe drops, and we experience another attack in the U.S., all bets are off. Meanwhile, Giuliani needs to make some headway reaching out to social conservatives justifiably skeptical about his stand on the social issues. He should talk about how many lives were saved in New York City by his crime policies, not to mention how many were turned around by his sweeping (and ahead of the curve) welfare reform. Reminding people of his dust-ups with the He also had wonderful enemies throughout his mayoralty that could be useful to trot out. His social liberalism notwithstanding, they saw him as a Neanderthal. That he was able to implement so many conservative reforms in a city with left-wing DNA is an extraordinary achievement, and one more difficult than governing as a conservative governor in a conservative state. You can’t have everything, especially in wartime. I’ve long been intrigued by the prospect of a blue state national security hawk as the Republican nominee in 2008. Would the conservative base stay home? Given the stakes of the battle we’re in, shame on them if they did so. The country is certainly hungering for leadership, and no one ever said Giuliani wasn’t a leader. I don’t see anyone out there of comparable depth, ability, or accomplishment.
Keller's Arrogance, Part Two
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 10:25AM
The New York Times reporting on the uproar over its bank records story:
The executive editor of The Times, Bill Keller, said in an e-mail statement on Monday evening that the decision to publish had been "a hard call." But Mr. Keller noted that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has "embarked on a number of broad, secret programs aimed at combating terrorism, often without seeking new legal authority or submitting to the usual oversight."
He added, "I think it would be arrogant for us to pre-empt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof, based entirely on the word of the government."
Or... it might be arrogant to pre-empt their work by undermining those actually responsible for overseeing such programs and protect secrets in the interest of national security. The American people chose leaders they trust to do these jobs, Mr. Keller. You are not one of them.
More Newspaper Lies
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 10:17AM
In addition to the Prowler's post last night on Bill Keller's apparent lies about the bank records story, Hugh Hewitt has caught the Los Angeles Times editors with different stories.
Never Ever
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 10:03AM
In spite of Philip Klein's excellent portrayal of Rudy Giuliani as presidential, it won't happen. Giuliani made a fine leader in a time of crisis, but Americans will not vote solely on terrorism. Abortion and gay marriage will still figure largely into ballot decisions. And those social issues will appear to social conservatives as part of the same cloth as Giuliani's sordid personal life (remember a judge barring Judith Nathan from the Gracie Mansion?). Giuliani has a lot going for him, but he is still a non-starter.
And another thing (10:30 a.m.): Readers are pointing out another problem for Giuliani: his Second Amendment record.
John Kerry's Proof
Posted by on 6.27.06 @ 9:19AM
Though his account of the incident that earned him a Silver Star is in dispute, at least John Kerry has a video game to back him up.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Canadian Medicine
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 9:36PM
Got this on one of my email lists. A definitive description of Canadian health care:
Two patients limp into two different medical clinics with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement. The first patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week.The second sees his family doctor after waiting a week for an appointment, then waits eight weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another month and finally has his surgery scheduled six months from then.
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The first is a Golden Retriever.
The second is a human.
This Man Has Balls
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 9:21PM
Check out these commercials of Vernon Robinson, who is running for Congress against Brad Miller in North Carolina's 13th District. (He has others here.)
Keller Caught Lying
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 7:40PM
Hugh Hewitt has the letter Treasury Secretary John Snow has sent to NY Times editor Bill Keller. What is clear is that Keller was simply lying about the amount of contact the NY Times had with Treasury, White House, Congressional and intelligence sources.
Built on top the devastating letter is that one of the reporters on the story is also caught out in a lie.
That reporter is Eric Lichtblau, an individual, according to knowledgable Department of Justice sources, who in 2004 had his credentials from the Department pulled briefly due to his refusal to fairly report stories involving the Department. Only after senior Times officials stepped in did Lichtblau receive a reprieve.
In an interview with Editor and Publisher, Lichtblau says of the Bush Administration's efforts to have the Times hold the finance-tracking story were similar to objections to the terrorist call monitoring program that Lichtblau helped leak earlier this year:
"They were similar in terms of the objections raised
not to publish," Lichtblau told E&P today. "That the bad guys
knew we were listening to them, but they don't know exactly how."
But he said the objections "did not rise to as high a level as last
time."
But Lichtblau stressed that the paper gave as much consideration to
the White House concerns on the banking story as on the wiretapping
report, actually spending several weeks in discussions about the
Bush Administration objections.
"I don't think we could reasonably be accused of moving too
quickly," he said. "We waited so long that the competition caught
up to us." This comment referred to the Los Angeles Times'
posting a story about the bank records program on its Web site last
night. That paper said it had also been asked by the administration
to hold off.
Lichtblau said that in the case of the previous Pulitzer-winning
story, which detailed a National Security Agency (NSA) program of
wiretapping, President Bush himself had gotten involved. The
president was not been directly part of the effort to halt
publication of today's story. "It was done at the cabinet level
this time around," Lichtblau said.
So let's get this straight: a newspaper will base its reporting decisions on just who complains. If the President complains? Maybe they will hold the story. But if the Treasury Secretary, deputy secretary, several Senators and Congressmen, 9/11 commissioners, and intelligence officers all ask for a publication to hold the story, it's a nonstarter? Absurd.
We're hearing that Administration officials offered the NY Times opportunities for other stories if they were willing to "take one for the team" (meaning America), and they declined. What newspaper worth its salt bypasses the chance at more exclusives in order to put the public in danger and undercut America's counter-terrorism efforts? A newspaper that cares little for the values America stands for, and would prefer to see the other side win.
RE: Michael Steele... Racist?
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 5:40PM
To me it smells like an indication of Democrats' desperation. Steele is winning over African-Americans in Maryland, and if he wins over enough the Dems don't have a chance of beating him, national trend or no national trend.
It also seems rather stupid. Democrats should remember that the Horton ads worked (Bush I was elected) although not for the reasons they think-i.e., they were racist. They worked because Horton was a murderer and rapist, and he committed those crimes while out on a weekend furlough. Michael Dukakis, Bush I's opponent, defended the furlough program and even vetoed a bill intended to change it.
Finally, I like Steele's response:
"When I look across the aisle, I see a Democratic leader who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan," he said, referring to Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who has said his membership in the Klan as a young man was "a major mistake."He might also add that Al Gore was the first one to bring up the Horton issue in 1988, but that hasn't prevented dozens of liberals from going to see his movie."That doesn't stop Democrats from taking his money," Steele said.
Michael Steele... Racist?
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 5:06PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say these complaints about Steele taking money from a Willie Horton ad producer won't get any traction.
Re: Free Speech Victory
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 4:20PM
John, we just made sure to cover all the angles.
But if this is the ceiling for campaign finance regulation in the new Roberts Court, I would sure like to find the floor. Among those voting to overturn the Vermont law, there is an acceptance of the general principle that campaign expenditures are a form of free speech. You don't hear any of the nonsense about battling the corrupting influence of money.
I will also remain optimistic because of Alito's opinion -- the respondents were playing on the wrong field to overturn anything: McCain-Feingold or Buckley. I'll wait until a case takes on the campaign finance "legal universe" and see what happens.
Re: Free Speech Victory
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 3:52PM
Didn't see your post before putting mine up, Dave, and I hope readers will forgive the redundancy. But I wouldn't get your hopes up too high, based on this decision, that McCain-Feingold is in trouble. Election Law blogger Rick Hansen argues that this is "about the best decision that (realistic) supporters of campaign finance regulation could have hoped for from the new Roberts Court." I'd quibble with Hansen's analysis a bit (Roberts and particularly Alito's deference to the Buckley precedent doesn't necessarily indicate that they'll never find contribution limits unconstitutional), but he's surely right that "Battles will rage across the country over the constitutionality of particular contribution limit laws."
A First Amendment Victory
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 3:29PM
The Supreme Court has overturned Vermont's draconian caps on campaign contributions and expenditures in Randall v. Sorrell (.pdf). As usual with campaign finance cases, the Court's divisions are complicated -- and, given the addition of Roberts and Alito since 2000's McConnell v. FEC, interesting.
Breyer wrote the plurality opinion, ruling that Vermont's law is inconsistent with 1976's Buckley v. Valeo, which overturned limits on campaign expenditures but allowed limits on campaign contributions; he was joined by Roberts. The holding on expenditure limits is straightforward (they aren't constitutional), while the holding on contribution limits is less so: Vermont's contribution limits are held to be so low that it crosses some threshold that the limits at issue in Buckley did not.
Alito joined the plurality with the exception of a passage explaining and rejecting Vermont's argument for overturning or limiting the scope of Buckley. Alito argues in concurrence that this argument was an afterthought, not the thrust of Vermont's position, and that the court needn't even consider tampering with Buckley. (There's a hint in this that Alito might be open to revisiting Buckley in a different case.)
Thomas, joined by Scalia, concurs in the judgement and argues that Buckley should be overturned and all limits on campaign contributions and expenditures should be held unconstitutional. This seems right to me, and it's a little disappointing that neither of the new justices adopted this view (though Alito's concurrence suggests he might be open to it in the future).
Kennedy concurs in the judgement but registers skepticism of the whole system of campaign finance law as it currently exists.
Souter, joined by Ginsberg, dissents and argues that Vermont's contribution limits are consistent with Buckley and that its expenditure limits might be (he defers to the lower courts on that issue). Stevens dissents, joining Souter regarding the contribution limits and arguing that Buckley's ruling on expenditures should be overturned and caps on both contributions and expenditures should be held constitutional.
Free Speech Victory
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 2:49PM
The Supreme Court today struck down Vermont's excessively restrictive campaign finance law, by a 6-3 vote (Randall v. Sorrell). Breyer joins the usual group of five: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.
Despite that unlikely grouping, the opinions are scattershot. The plurality (Breyer and Roberts) argues that the Vermont law fails to meet the principles set forth in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and upholds that precedent. Alito concurs in part with the plurality, but differs where it speaks highly of stare decisis and the Buckley precedent. But since respondents did not fully make the case that the Court should revisit Buckley, he would not consider it.
Alito's opinion, combined with the Kennedy and Thomas/Scalia opinions, show a growing consensus on the Court at least to overturn McCain-Feingold (McConnell v. FEC). Kennedy has no time for the Court-created campaign finance "legal universe": "On a broader, systemic level political parties have been denied basic First Amendment rights." And Thomas/Scalia: "...stare decisis should pose no bar to overruling Buckley and replacing it with a standard faithful to the First Amendment."
Ethically Challenged Congress
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 2:27PM
The headline on page three of the Wash Post says it all: "Call for Lobbying Changes Is A Fading Cry, Lawmakers Say." Subhead: "Calming of Political Storm Cited as Reason for Attitude Shift."
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE: Again, the Hastert House acts according not to what is right or wrong, but only to what is politically expedient. The reason lobbying reform (and other reforms) were needed was NOT because there was a political storm, but because the reforms were necessary in and of themselves to clean up a major stench on the Hill. And the stench wasn't one of mere political perceptions, but of the reality of ethical laxness. A statesman is supposed to do what's right because it's right, not because there is political advantage in doing so. (I hasten to add that in the long run and often in the short run as well the political advantage itself almost always lies in doing what is right; the two are not usually contradictory. That the Hastert hordes seem to see them as contradictory is even more evidence of a rot at the core of the House leadership and perhaps of its followership as well.) But alas, it appears as if this country still is burdened with, to steal a title from P.J. O'Rourke, a "parliament of whores."
ADDENDUM: Just to be clear, the point of the reforms is not to cast aspersions on lobbyists -- lobbying itself is a necessary part of republican (small "R") government, and most lobbyists are honorable people. The point of the reforms is to keep legislators and staff honest. Perhaps the majority of the latter two groups are honest, anyway, but the public has a RIGHT to expect that all the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure integrity in the process. Free, third-party paid junkets, nice meals for oft-underpaid staffers, and the like are absolutely fraught with the potential for breaches of integrity, if only because of the access they buy that might not be available to other citizens.
Until further notice, then, P.J. O'Rourke's epithet stands.
Re: Prosecute the Times?
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 2:01PM
Gonzales is right that it is premature to talk about going after the Times directly, for a number of reason. But I don't see why the reporters involved in breaking these stories shouldn't be subpoenaed to reveal their sources. Some have argued that these leaks haven't been particularly damaging, and I hope they're right. But surely no one will argue with a straight face that they've been less damaging than the outing of Valerie Plame.
Prosecute the Times?
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 12:50PM
AG Gonzales was on Rush's show a few minutes ago. When asked about prosecuting the NYT for publishing classified information, he said, it's, "...way premature to be talking about prosecution of the New York Times." In other words, the administration is going to let the NYT continue to publish anything it wants, leakers to leak anything about this war, and no secrets can be kept except by America's enemies. This makes me sick.
Bill Keller's Arrogance Knows No Bounds
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 10:50AM
Hugh Hewitt has a must-read dismantling of Bill Keller's arrogant defense of the Times' most recent revealation of classified information.
Your Tax Money at Work
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 10:26AM
According to the father of a cadet who called me yesterday, the New York Times -- Enemy of the State, publisher of our nation's most closely-held secrets -- is distributed to each cadet at West Point every weekday. Doesn't it make you proud to know your tax money is hard at work?
Not Amnesty, But Decitizenship
Posted by on 6.26.06 @ 7:41AM
Back in April I suggested that "still illegal, but documented -- the legal legitimation of
noncitizens is the goal, as prelude to making national citizenship
meaningless for illegal immigrants as well as you and me."
On the 19th of this
month, Jerome Corsi put some meat on the bone:
Robert Pastor of American University, the vice
chairman of the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] task force
report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the
formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for
the creation of a North American Union "Permanent Tribunal on Trade
and Investment." Pastor understands that a "permanent court would
permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for
North American business law." Notice, Pastor says nothing about
U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the
globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American
Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of
economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated
and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves
sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.
When it comes to the question of illegal
immigrants, Pastor's solution is to erase our borders with Mexico
and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all
citizens. In his testimony to the
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committeeon June 9, 2005, Pastor
made this exact argument: "Instead of stopping North Americans on
the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric
Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z
pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths."
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Sad Day For Tennis
Posted by on 6.25.06 @ 2:43PM
Sorry to see Andre Agassi retire.
Even sadder is the personal downfall of 70s star Roscoe Tanner.
Re: Christianist Kicks
Posted by on 6.25.06 @ 2:39PM
James: Your point is well taken, however I wasn't attacking Sullivan's arguments about Christianists. Rather, I was attacking his judgment and intellectuall honesty on matters like endorsing Kerry.
Perhaps I should have made that clear. My bad.
Demoted in Disgrace
Posted by on 6.25.06 @ 11:44AM
All other recent problems/tragedies considered, it's still a jolly good thing we don't have these sorts of issues in the American military.
Re: Christianist Kicks
Posted by on 6.25.06 @ 9:01AM
Careful, Mr. Hogberg. Though you may smell a rat, and not a coincidence, where Mr. Sullivan grabs the standard against Bush on the war, his argument about Christians and Christianism is not wrong because of that coincidence -- nor wrong because of his "desperate" support for candidate Kerry nor for any of the other reasons external to the argument itself.
When elements of the conservative base are assaulted as bigots and indeed as anti-conservatives, I think the thing to do is dare to take the salvo at face value and see whether the charges stick. (I have tried to do so here and here.) An adherence to that sort of bravery strikes me as fairly acquitting not just itself but the wrongly accused, too. This is all to the better for the reason that attacking complete straw men is somewhat beneath Sullivan intellectually. It should be beneath us as well.
- Current Wisdom
- Strange Newt Respect
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
