Bush in a Tree

A freshman perspective

2006-03-07T15:17:00.000-05:00

Nice op-ed in today's student newspaper at Appalachian State. I'm not sure what depresses me more, though. That so many of her classmates hate this country, or that the point of her column is so obvious it shouldn't need to be written. You can read it here.

Some excerpts:

Recently in one of my classes, my professor asked, “How many students think America sucks?” I was appalled by the response: over half of the class raised their hand. ...

In Africa, more than 25 million people are living with AIDS, which is 24 million more than North America. People in most Sub-Saharan African countries do not receive any kind of health care assistance. In the United States, a hospital cannot refuse emergency care to anyone, whether they can pay or not. ...

Despite the occasional litterbug, this is one of the most sanitary countries on the planet. In India, cows roam the streets freely creating animal waste that often goes ignored. Most people do not even have running water.

We have trash collection services, proper biochemical waste disposal and water treatment plants that maintain a clean water source for all who live here.

The unemployment rate in America is under 5 percent and is actually dropping, not rising. In Germany, the rate is almost three times higher than ours.

These days, any willing person can go to college. Financial aid is available to those who cannot afford to pay tuition, meaning that if you want to, you can get a degree.

Odd that I would read this the same day Matt Laurer softballs a teacher caught preaching America hate in class, such as:

Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Note to Chris Matthews

2006-03-06T15:11:00.000-05:00

Even though Bush's trip to Pakistan was little different than President Clinton's, Chris Matthews sees the former's trip as being "extraordinary." Here's how he "played" Hardball last week:

Matthews: "But he's coming in like a drug dealer. I mean, having to sneak in like that, with the lights off, with the windows slammed shut on the plane. Is this a security question, really, or is it a problem of that government? Is it a problem that within the security service in Pakistan there are people out to hurt the President?"

Then this:

Matthews then turned to Gergen to opine on "what message this sends to the people of Pakistan. They know how the President's coming in over there. Guess what, the leader of the greatest nation in the world, our ally in the war against terrorism, had to sneak into the country last night by cover of night."

The view from India

2006-03-03T16:59:00.000-05:00

My post below inspired a lengthy comment from D.Rajesh, Bangalore, India. He makes several interesting points.

An excerpt:

The point about the Indian protest was that it has got nothing to do with common Indian people.

The core protester group:

1. Communist - No comments about followers of Stalin and Lenin. Guess who their best friends are ?? Kim-Il-Sung, Castro, Iranian Mullahs, etc...
An old Tamil (my mother tongue) saying is that one is known by his friends...

2. Radical and moderate Muslims groups - Although most of the Indian Muslim population are docile a small section still live in 7th century and look towards Arabian Muslim culture for everything. The problem is that a small section of 150 million is still a big number. Do not feel ashamed or sorry if these guys burn American Flags of effigies of G.B. You cannot expect anything better from them than this.

3. Politicians - There is one huge crooked gang of politicians in India whose single agenda apart from looting the country is to try to get the Muslim votes by any method. If needed they will go to Mecca, renounce their religion (most of them are Hindus), pander to Islamic terrorists in the name of negotiations, just to get those minority votes. Mr. Bush has offered these morons a great opportunity to show to the Muslims as to how they care about them. We in India call this as Pseudo secularism.

4. General crowd – Just announce a meeting anywhere in India with a few known faces, you certainly will get a big crowd. The general crowd comes to see what’s all this about. Have some entertainment watching this entire ruckus and back home without knowing what this is all about.

5. Intellectuals – We have this unique breed in India, 99.5% of whom are communist sympathizers and who love to hate USA on just about any matter. Over the years they somehow have squeezed themselves into the media, and all other opinion making forums and sound their drum against anything that is done to help the poor by the way of liberalizing trades, cutting the red tape etc. They get angry when things start improving in a way that has not been advocated by Marx or Lenin etc. For these intellectual giants this is just not possible. They prefer to look away and blatantly spread misinformation about things that do not fall in the line of their intellectual dogma.

As one can see none of the above groups represent India. These are simply backward looking people who just give importance only to their own ego and faith. One end of the spectrum of such groups are the communists and in the other end the Islamists. Both are dogmatic and unwilling to accept anything even if the facts are spread before them.

Interesting points. I find it interesting in just how easy it is to manipulate national and international media to accept as a "national message" the beliefs of a small minority of people. I've known that was the case in the US. It's interesting to read how savy the political groups are in India.

About those Bush protests in India

2006-03-03T10:25:00.000-05:00

I got into another verbal debate with my closest friend over - as usual - President Bush. My friend is of the opinion that Bush is one of our worst presidents because the world hates us now more than ever. He quoted the day's news as evidence.

He pointed to the reported protests which greeted Bush as he visited India this week. He compared that reception to the photo of former President Clinton during his visit there in 2000, during which at one point he was showered with rose petals.

A quick Google search led me to this article by a communist publication:

At every turn in President Bill Clinton's tour of India and Bangladesh, there were protesters there to challenge him. Only in Pakistan, where the military government banned all protests, were there no demonstrations.

Days of student actions led up to Clinton's March 20 visit to Bangladesh. On March 14, protesters burned an effigy of Clinton in front of the U.S. embassy. On the day Clinton arrived, police attacked the demonstrators, injuring at least 15.

A CNN report backs up the details:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE INDIAN: We are here to burn the effigy of Bill Clinton, number one, because he represents the unholy trinity of IMF, World Bank, and WTO, he represents the domination of the multinational corporations in the world, he represents a cultural onslaught on our people and on our culture. And, therefore, we feel threatened by his arrival here in this country.

BINDRA: Most of these demonstrators are workers and farmers. They say Clinton represents the agenda of large U.S. multinationals and does not understand the poor. Others in this country of one billion people disagree. They say Clinton will bring jobs and investment to a region where more than 350 million people still live on less than one U.S. dollar a day.

Back to the present. Yes, there have been large protests against Bush in India. Guess who is behind them. Average citizens of India? Nope.

Communists (emphasis mine):

Left leaders say they are not embarrassing the Indian government, which has invited Bush. "It is the people of India who will be embarrassed because of the presence of Bush," D. Raja, deputy leader of the Communist Party of India (CPI), told IANS. ...

With the Left, which holds 62 seats in the 545-member Lok Sabha, and the Samajwadi Party pledging to protest any speech by Bush, the government does not want the US president to address parliament. Unlike during Bill Clinton's visit, when the Left parties merely boycotted a joint session of parliament he addressed, the Reds are determined to make a noise if Bush speaks in the house.

So communists, a political minoirty in India, hate Bush. They also hated Clinton. They just weren't as loud then.

There's also this nugget buried in an AP report:

Dozens of protests have been planned by Islamic leaders and communist politicians.

While Bush remains more popular in India than he is in many other countries, some here object to U.S. policies, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. India, an overwhelmingly Hindu nation of more than 1 billion people, has the world's second-largest population of Muslims.

Enough about how India feels about Bush. What about Pakistan? How did Bush's visit there this week differ from Clinton's trip back in 2000? Well, for one, Bush was actually able to let people know he was there:

Bush's trip comes six years after President Clinton visited amid elaborate security: After switching planes in India, Clinton flew to Islamabad aboard an unmarked executive jet, behind another plane dressed up as Air Force One.

CNN reported this morning (I can't find a link online) that Air Force One would land in Pakistan with Bush and his wife on board.

I am not criticizing Clinton for taking prudent measures. I'm just comparing the difference in their visits. Clinton had to sneak in. Bush let everyone know he was there (must be the cowboy in him).

Another difference is that apparently there is now no ban on protests. There has also been a murder of an American:

A nationwide strike called by Islamist parties paralysed Pakistan on Friday ahead of the arrival of U.S. President George W. Bush a day after a suicide car bomber killed an American diplomat and two other people. ...

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters in India that Bush's visit to Pakistan, a nation shown by polls to be among the most anti-American in the world, was not risk-free.

They didn't just hate Clinton or now hate Bush. They hate Americans. Doesn't matter who.

I admit there are some parts of the world less than happy with Bush for making tough and unpopular decisions. But I have yet to see much evidence that those who hate us now didn't hate us eight years ago when another guy was in office.

Shame on CNN

2006-01-26T16:08:00.000-05:00

This is just sad on so many levels. CNN.com has posted an article regarding the death of a grandfather. He died from a heartattack brought on by the news that seven of his grandchildren died in a huge vehicle wreck.

This portion of the article made me shake my head at the so-called reputable news network (emphasis mine):

William Scott, who was 62, The Associated Press reported, died at his home. (Watch as news of the deaths proved to be unbearable -- 1:18)

WTF? Would video of the 9/11 attacks be hyped as "Watch as people become emotionally devestated as thousands die -- 2:45" or video of the West Virginia miners "Watch as wife, children cry when told husband, father is dead -- :45."

Hey CNN .. how about a copyeditor with heart?

Why are they surprised?

2006-01-18T08:20:00.000-05:00

Interesting article in the New York Times regarding a student "anti-war" group and the attention the may have received from the federal government. You can read it here.

Long story short, some students at the University of California weren't happy with military recruiters appearing on campus. Doing their best impersonation of a terrorist cell, they planned an attack. It included strategy sessions, spys, a communication network, threats, vandelism and possible injury. Months later, the group discovered it is on a government watch list. Now the members are mad and crying:

"One reaction was, 'Gosh, I wonder if we're doing something right?' " Professor Crosby said. "Another reaction was it's a waste of taxpayer money. What are we a threat to?"

So let me get this straight. Students audition for the role of villian in "24" season 6, then get pissed when the real CTU starts tracking them. What did they really expect?

That's a big "IF"

2006-01-11T08:22:00.000-05:00

The Drudge Report has a red-headlined (ie. EVERY ONE OF MY MILLIONS OF READERS CLICK ON THIS NOW) report saying "NSA Whistleblower Alleges Illegal Spying; Former Employee Admits to Being a NEW YORK TIMES Source..."

The link goes to an ABCNews.com report on "Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency, is now a whistleblower the agency would like to keep quiet."

As expected, the report is a bit hyperactive with regard to the threat the Bush administartion has imposed on democracy via wiretaps. This portion of the report caught my eye (emphasis mine):

President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants.

But Tice disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.

Notice it does not say the program has been used, is being used, or is planned to be used. Complaining of the potential misuse of a program's full range seems to me to be akin to harassing General Motors for making cars with speedometers that go past 100 mph when the highest legal speed anywhere in the U.S. is 65 mph.

Tice appears to love the word "IF", as evidenced by this interview he had with the left-leaning NPR program "Democracy Now" (emphasis mine):

AMY GOODMAN: What about the telecoms, the telecommunications corporations working with the Bush administration to open up a back door to eavesdropping, to wiretapping?
RUSSELL TICE: If that was done and, you know, I use a big “if” here, and, remember, I can't tell you what I know of how N.S.A. does its business, but I can use the wiggle words like “if” and scenarios that don't incorporate specifics, but nonetheless, if U.S. gateways and junction points in the United States were used to siphon off information, I would think that the corporate executives of these companies need to be held accountable, as well, because they would certainly also know that what they're doing is wrong and illegal. And if they have some sort of court order or some sort of paper or something signed from some government official, Congress needs to look at those papers and look at the bottom line and see whose signature is there. And these corporations know that this is illegal, as well. So everyone needs to be held accountable in this mess.

So either due to ignornace or some adherence to national secuirty concerns, Tice cuts loose on a "what if" scenerio that ends in what Congress "needs" to do.

Then, later in that same interview, Tice says "they" are out to get him. Notice the use of the words "I thought":

AMY GOODMAN: Do you expect you are being monitored, surveilled, wiretapped right now?

RUSSELL TICE: Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, in – you know, sometimes you just don't know. And being, you know -- what they’ve basically accused me of, I can't just walk around thinking that everybody is looking at my heels and are following me around. But in one scenario I turned the tables on someone I thought was following me, and he ducked into a convenience store, and I just walked down there -- and I saw him out of my peripheral vision -- and I basically walked down to where he ducked into and in the store, I walked up behind him. He was buying a cup of coffee, and he had a Glock on his hip and his F.B.I. badge. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on there.

Mulder - I mean, Tice - has more rambling, and I do mean ramblings. He doesn't cite any specific cases of what he lays out (emphasis mine):

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the term “police state”?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, anytime where you have a situation where U.S. citizens are being arrested and thrown in jail with the key being thrown away, you know, potentially being sent overseas to be tortured, U.S. citizens being spied on, you know, and it doesn't even go to the court that deals with these secret things, you know, I mean, think about it, you could have potentially somebody getting the wrong phone call from a terrorist and having him spirited away to some back-alley country to get the rubber hose treatment and who knows what else. I think that would kind of qualify as a police state, in my judgment.

I certainly hope that Congress or somebody sort of does something about this, because, you know, for Americans just to say, ‘Oh, well, we have to do this because, you know, because of terrorism,’ you know, it’s the same argument that we used with communism years ago: take away your civil liberties, but use some threat that's, you know, been out there for a long time.

Again, he says Congress should do something "about this," though he gives no concrete example of exactly what "this" is.

Back to the ABC report, toward the end there's this - "The NSA revoked Tice's security clearance in May of last year based on what it called psychological concerns and later dismissed him." He sure sounds as if he has issues with reality.

I hope he does testify before Congress. I'd be interested in his reponses in a less sympathetic setting.

Fisking another Puff Host Idiot

2005-12-30T15:17:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the harshness of the headline, but there really is no better way to describe this waste of time and eye strain written by Bob Burnett. It's beyond tasteful and quite indefensible, which is why it fits in so well at the Puff Host.

It's headline - A New Years' Resolution - Resist Facism

Let the literary bowel movement commence!

The Declaration of Independence reads, “The history of [King George 3] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” 230 years later we’re in a similar plight with would-be King George 43. It’s our turn to throw off the yoke of tyranny, to resist the rise of fascism.

The Bush Administration is inexorably becoming a totalitarian regime, where dissent is suppressed and the populace cowed by repressive controls. In Fascism Anyone? Laurence Britt lists 14 characteristics of fascist governments.

First off, a severe nitpick. Burnett's bio says he has a "second career as a journalist." Any real journalist knows that, according to the AP Stylebook, "Spell out numbers at the beginning of a sentence." Geez.

It's also rather sad that Burnett goes from a founding document to a book written by an admitted Bush hater. I have no problem with Bush haters per se, but it's odd that someone who did business with the Soviet Union (until the Russian Mafia "knocked off" his customers) would suddenly hint that the U.S. is nearing fascism.

Nevertheless, Burnett begins to list the 14 characteristics and attempts to show evidence that Bush is evil.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
President Bush gives his carefully orchestrated speeches to military audiences in arenas covered with patriotic symbols. His text is loaded with jingoistic phrases, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” “To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor.” His Administration argues that dissenters are unpatriotic, advocates of “surrender.”

I'm not sure what the phrase "carefully orchestrated speeches" is supposed to convey, other than to let the reader know that Burnett prefers ad-libbed, public access style speeches. I'm also unsure what is wrong with the "jingoistic phrases." The former is a bit heavy handed, but the latter simply underscores the value of completing the mission of helping Iraq create a peaceful government.

As for evidence that "dissenters are unpatriotic," it'd be nice is there was some ... um ... evidence presented of such. Burnett can link to a book by a Bush hater, but not an Adminstration quote saying anyone is unpatriotic.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The Bush Administration has the worst human rights record of any Presidency in the past 100 years. Bush authorized torture and illegal eavesdropping on civilians. He abandoned the Geneva conventions and suspended basic rights for those designated as “enemy combatants.”

Bush helped free two countries from cruel dictorial powers. His policies have arguably forced Syria from Lebannon and a revolution in Ukraine. Israel - for better or for worse - has made true sacrifices for peace.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Muslims and Jews to live as they please without violence, the media celebrates movies on homosexual love, women are increasing filling college campuses, and, if I wanted, I could buy an airline tickets to almost any location in the world and go there now. (Quick - name five countries whose residents can express similar sentiments).

Burnett ignores all that and whines instead about the definition of "enemy combatants" without - again - offering no links or evidence to support his contention. Of course, for the Bush haters, no such evidence is needed because that complaint has been repeated ad naseum for years so of course everyone knows what he's talking about. (More on this phenomenon later).

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
After 9/11, President Bush used the struggle against Al Qaeda as an excuse to expand executive authority and pass the Patriot Act. The White House manufactured a climate of fear to convince Americans that the invasion of Iraq was in the national interest. For many, our “enemy” gradually changed from Al Qaeda to fundamentalist Muslims and then to “Arabs,” in general.

I'm not sure where Burnett is going with this. He neglects to mention that Congress, not Bush, passed the Patriot Act (which Democrats love to bash but fear not extending).

And did the White House really create a climate of fear? I'm pretty sure the video of tall buildings collapsing, the Pentagon smoking and a crater smoldering has power a generic 30-second political spot during "King of the Hill" does not.

As for the last senetence - again unsupported by any evidence - I remind you that "Two days after the 9/11 attacks a Washington Post poll found 78 percent of Americans thought it likely that Saddam 'was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks.'"

Since polls rule the world, how can Bush be blamed for what people automatically believed?

4. Supremacy of the military/ avid militarism
While terrorism experts felt that the fight against Al Qaeda would require joint diplomatic, financial, intelligence, military, and police operations, the Bush Administration focused solely on the military. The White House painted anti-war voices as unpatriotic, appeasers.

"Solely on the military"? WTF was this - "President Freezes Terrorists' Assets"

or this - "Polish troops to stay until Iraqi polls"

or this - "Australia sending more Iraq troops"

or this - "Bush Meets With Muslim Leaders"

Does Burnett even bother researching an accusation before asserting it?

5. Rampant sexism
The Bush Administration glorifies the culture of “machismo.” Their policies treat women as second-class citizens – they intend to repeal Title IX. They are against contraception, as well as abortion. They are militantly homophobic.

WTF No. 2? Condi Rice. Karen Hughes. Harriet Meirs. His mom. Jessica Lynch.

How many more women in Afghanistan go to school now compared to 1999? How many Iraqi women have been raped openly by government officials since 2001? When was abortion prohibited by law?

Burnett ignores all that. Instead he frets over a more-than-two-year-old story regarding the forced creation of sports teams for female college students.

6. A controlled mass media
Under the direction of Karl Rove, the Bush propaganda machine has been relentless. They subscribe to the maxim, “A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.” Aided by Fox News and the ubiquitous conservative talk net the Administration has ceaselessly fed the electorate the Orwellian Party line - “war is peace”, “ignorance is strength.”

Bush lied. Bush doesn't care about black people. Bush is Hitler. War for Oil. Fahrenheit 9/11. Manchurian Candidate. Syriana. Sweet Neo-Con. Barbara Streisand. Dan Rather. MSNBC. The New York Times.

Need I say more?

7. Obsession with national security
This Administration has been the most secretive in recent memory. It hides vital information from Congress. Through executive privilege, restriction of the Freedom of Information Act, and unwarranted security classification, the White House restricts public access to vital information.

Again no evidence to what he is exactly accusing or trying to say. What exactly does he mean by "most secretive in recent memory." How would the Clinton presidency compare, with its endless court battles on executive privileges? How about Nixon? Hell, JKF was a walking drug cocktail plugging anything non-male. Did we know anything about that in real time?

Actually, Burnett begins with a assertion on national security but whines about executive privileges. I guess he's never read up on Separation of Powers.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
The Bush Administration allied with Christian Fundamentalists. Jimmy Carter characterized their creed, “Since I am aligned with God, I am superior and my beliefs should prevail, and anyone who disagrees with me is inherently wrong.”

Reagan was arguably closer to religious folk than W. Were the '80s a time of rampant facsism? And didn't I just mention that Bush met with Muslin leaders, and all escaped un-converted? And what did Clinton enjoy carrying when photographers were nearby?

9. Power of corporations protected
The Bush Administration changed tax laws to raise corporate profits and reduced oversight to increase their power. As a result, most of the proceeds from an improving economy have gone to corporations, executives, and shareholders.

And what do "corporations, executives, and shareholders" do with that money? Stuff it in mattresses? Light cigars? Or do they buy things, which creates demand for products and services, which creates jobs, which creates more taxpayers, which creates more tax revenue.

Consider what the TaxProf has to say. (Note to Burnett - this is called a link. It directs the reader to evidence or perspective on a point just made).

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
The last five years have been the most difficult for organized labor since the beginning of the U.S. labor movement. In the private sector, less than 8 percent of workers are unionized.

Yes. Bask in the glory of unions and their great deeds these past five years. All hail unions. And when you get a chance, tell me what percentage of union members are in the private sector. That'd be nice to know.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
The Bush Administration is anti-intellectual and anti-science: supporting “intelligent design”, restricting stem-cell research, and rebuking findings on Global climate change. Recently, it tried to subvert the Public Broadcast System.

So, inversely, anti-intellectuals (morons?) support "intelligent design" and are skepticial of stem-cell promises and human-created climate change. In other words, if you don't agree with Burnett you're dumb. (Hint - that's why people Burnett supports lose elections).

12. Obsession with crime and punishment
George Bush espouses a dualistic, fundamentalist view of the world – The US is good while others are evil. As a result, he has ordered harsh treatment of suspects and prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Compared to most countries and their policies, the U.S. sure as hell is good. Is Burnett hinting that it's not? He'd better re-read fascism characteristic No. 1!

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
In 2005, numerous instances of Bush Administration corruption were revealed: Presidential adviser Scooter Libby and House czar Tom Delay indicted. The appointment of Mike “Brownie” Brown as director of FEMA was an example of cronyism, at its worst.

Indictments are not verdicts. Delay's very well might be thrown out of court. Libby's indictment was a random byproduct of a pointless investigation. Brown oversaw many hurricane relief efforts with little complaint until Katrina, when Bush haters ravaged the coast for evidence that Bush didn't care for the poor or blacks.

And how exactly does any of these three "numerous instances" reflect on the Bush Administration? Libby may be a rotten apple, but Delay is in Congress and Brown was not accused of corruption, just incompetence.

14. Fraudulent elections
Suspicions persist that the 2000 presidential election (in particular) was stolen through a Machiavellian series of maneuvers in Florida, and other states.

Suspicions also persist that the 1960 presidential election (in particular) was stolen through a Machiavellian series of maneuvers in various counties and states. And you have to wonder about that recent gubernatorial election in Washington, where a state dominated by Democrat election workers conducted re-count after re-count until a Democrat won. (As oppossed to the Florida situation, where the Republican won every re-count.)

Of all the left-talking points and whines, I *really* wish the 2000 election would become settled history. Bush won plenty more states than Florida. He didn't steal Gore's Tennessee or Clinton's Arkansas. Apparently one can defend a Supreme Court decision which allows the killing of unborn children, but cry about another decision which ends a disputed election. Which one sounds more fascist?

In 1942, Woody Guthrie penned “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.” When Guthrie wrote the song, Americans were fighting fascists who controlled most of Europe. Times have changed and now we’re fighting them in the heartland.

Be careful. Your neighbor could be one! Or your cashier at Wal-Mart! Or even your child's teacher!! Anyone one of them could be a fascist!!! (By the way, what's that about using fear to further one's goals?)

This New Year’s eve, after you’ve toasted your friends and sung a round of Auld Lang Syne , consider singing Guthrie’s song of resistance as your segue into 2006.
I'm gonna tell all you fascists, you may be surprised,
People all over this world are getting organized,
You're bound to lose,
You fascists are bound to lose.
[One more time]

I have a better song - by the Eagles:

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin’ ’don’t blame me’
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin’ sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma’s too thin; your daddy’s too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin’ and cryin’ and pitchin’ a fit
Get over it, get over it

Defining Katrina deaths

2005-12-30T08:27:00.000-05:00

Interesting - and unsurprising - news being reported today: the media assumptions regarding the victims of Katrina were wrong:

... a comparison of locations where 874 bodies were recovered with U.S. Census tract data indicates that the victims weren't disproportionately poor. Another database, compiled by Knight Ridder of 486 Katrina victims from Orleans and St. Bernard parishes, suggests they also weren't disproportionately African-American.

Sorry Wolf, but it appears most of the victims were not "so poor ... and ... so black."

Note that the Knight-Ridder study examined "locations where 874 bodies" were found. As of Dec. 21 (the latest report I could find), the number of deaths linked to Katrina was 1,322. So the K-R study looked at only 66 percent of the known dead.

Also note that any report of Katrina deaths is suspect given the wide definition of who constitutes being classified as such. As the AP reported last week (emphasis mine):

Officially, as of Sunday, the states counted 1,075 deaths in Louisiana, 230 in Mississippi, 14 in Florida and two each in Georgia and Alabama. But the states have different definitions for storm-related deaths. For example, Louisiana counts evacuee deaths from heart attacks or strokes before Oct. 1 as storm deaths, but Georgia doesn't.

The AP report uses the example of "a 56-year-old New Orleans woman who had a stroke two days after she was bused from the infamous storm refugee shelter in the Superdome to Texas." She's counted as a Katrina victim.

As Best of the Web noted when that report came out:

Couldn't the AP have interviewed a New Orleans evacuee who wasn't murdered in what, prestorm, was one of the most violent cities in America?

Everything he thought he knew was wrong

2005-12-15T10:36:00.000-05:00

There's the Reality in Iraq, then the Media-Created Fantasy of Iraq. The contrast is finally gaining some attention, as evidenced by none other than CNN's Anderson Cooper:

Every soldier I talked to today said the media hasn't done a good job of telling the full story from Iraq. It's a complaint I've heard before, and certainly understand. I do think television tends to focus on the bombs and the bullets, the most dramatic headlines. So much of what happens here never makes the nightly news.

Here's a take from a journalist blogging about his first trip to Iraq:

More than anything in the last few days I’ve heard from soldiers and commanders that people back home don’t quite get it. They don’t see the real picture. They don’t get the real story. Some of them, like Lt. Col. Gregg Parrish, look seriously pained in the face when he says only a part of the picture is being told; the part of car bombs and explosives and suicide bombers and death. It’s a necessary part of the picture, but not a complete one, he says.

I’ve listened to the soldiers and Parrish about the missing pieces of the puzzles that don’t reach home. My selfish, journalistic drive immediately thinks “Perfect. A story that hasn’t been told. Let me at it.”

But I have a slight hesitation; I need to keep balanced. I can’t be a cheerleader, even if I have a soft spot for the hometown troops, especially after the welcome they’ve shown me. I still need to be truthful and walk the centerline and report the good or bad.
But then I realize it’s not a conflict of interest. If I am truly unbiased, then I need to get used to this one simple fact; that the untold story, might in fact, be a positive one.

As Iraqis vote today, it will be interesting to see how the national media handle the reports of turnouts versus the backdrop they've painted the past several weeks.

UPDATE: Austin Bay has some details on the view in Iraq from the New York Times:

The NY Times offers something at least quasi-optimistic, but note the headline’s spin “Heavy Sunni Turnout Is Reported; No Large-Scale Attacks by Rebels”. The terrorists and fascists are still “rebels,” not anti-liberty, power-mad reactionaries. That is what Zarqawi’s and Saddam’s minions are.
The article still has plenty of flash and bang — the juice of violence on a day when democratic hope is the big story. ...

Millions vote. That’s the big story, the huge, grand story. The democratic surge continues– that’s the tide of history. This report, however, suggests thoroughly ingrained and institutionalized pessimism. Note the language of gloom, doom and failure lurking in the text.(”fissures”, “deadlock”, “alarm”, “profound differences”, “vastly polarized”, “growing pressure” on American commanders, etc.).

Getting an "A" in Bush hatred

2005-12-02T10:00:00.000-05:00

I came across a blog today described as "A class discussion blog for Derek Stanovsky's Fall 2005 Freud courses at Appalachian State University." You can see it here.

Looking over it, it appears to do more with Bush hatred. Most of the posts are orgamsmic links to sites opposing actions in Iraq.

By the way, the name of the blog is "Freud Blog." One post is by the course instuctor and it points his students to his page at RateMyProfessor.com. The top comment - the first is more than a year - is:

Both classes I've taken from him has altered my entire world view. He is a genius. Workload is hard, but not ridiculous. He has a knack for explaining dense material.

I googled Derek Stanovsky and found he is "an Assistant Professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies and has been teaching at Appalachian State University since 1995. He is the Director of Internet Studies, teaches courses on Internet Studies, Marx's Capital and in Watauga College, and is a member of the Women's Studies faculty."

That page includes a running "Cost of the War in Iraq" and another plea to "Rate Me."

This isn't a slam against anyone. It's just an interesting example of how some in higher education use the internet. You can only guess what answers earn you an "A."

The history of Superman

2005-11-29T16:17:00.000-05:00

An interesting - for me - read was sent my way by a friend yesterday. It is long - very long - absurdly long - criminally insane long - and purports to outline the history of the new Superman movie.

You can read it here. You'll need a good 30 to 40 minutes to read it. Most of it rings true from reports I've read as far back as 1998 about the movie, which is finally set to debut next summer. ( You can see the new trailer here. I'm thrilled at the use of the John Williams music).

The theme of the Superman tome revolves around Warner Brothers desire for a "new, gritter" Superman saga, one in which he couldn't fly, he wore black, Jimmy Olsen is gay, Luther works for the CIA, Superman dies and visits heavene and Tim Burton was Lord of Metropolis.

Here's a taste of the read:

Nicolas Cage, having been fighting tooth and nail against Burton and Peters’ vision of Superman (even though he’d been putting on a happy public face about working with them), angrily demanded that he be allowed to wear the classic Superman costume and fly. So WB relented much to Burton’s dismay, ordering up a rubber Superman suit and flying FX tests. (According to Superman CINEMA, a chintzy, Sam Jones-as-Flash Gordon-type Superman suit was dished up as well, but it went over like a lead balloon.) However, when Cage tried on the rubber suit, it looked stupid. And when they stuck a long-haired wig on him, it looked even worse. And after Burton and Gilroy were finished with their rewritten script, WB looked it over and loathed it. Even worse, all of Burton and Peters’ screwing around and causing trouble resulted in the film being budgeted somewhere between $140-190 million. So, in April 1998, just weeks before the film was to start shooting, WB put the film on indefinite hold. By this time, about $30-40 million (including the pay-or-play contracts for Burton and Cage—$20 million for Cage, $5 million for Burton) had already been spent on the project, with nothing to show for it. [It’s well over $50 million now, given all the stupidity that occurred beyond this.]

I hate to admit I eat stuff like this up. If you enjoy comics and movies, this is a must read. I am now wondering whether the new movie is worth investing hype and longing (yes, I long for certain movies - I'm a nerd).

One other comment - Harry Knowles from Ain't It Cool News comes off as, litarally, a "studio whore." I can't say I disagree with that assessment. Harry's site was fun - if not completly a wreck with a shitty search function - a few years ago. It's now a cyber slut which will pimp any movie or concept as long as Harry gets some slurp.

Another dagger in the phrase "student-athlete"

2005-11-28T16:10:00.000-05:00

More so than elsewhere, the education system in New York is a joke, as the New York Times reports:

Morley, now a freshman defensive back for the University of Tennessee, was one of at least 28 athletes who polished their grades at University High in the last two years.

The New York Times identified 14 who had signed with 11 Division I football programs: Auburn, Central Florida, Colorado State, Florida, Florida State, Florida International, Rutgers, South Carolina State, South Florida, Tennessee and Temple.

University High, which has no classes and no educational accreditation, appears to have offered the players little more than a speedy academic makeover.

The school's program illustrates that even as the N.C.A.A. presses for academic reforms, its loopholes are quickly recognized and exploited.

Athletes who graduated from University High acknowledged that they learned little there, but were grateful that it enabled them to qualify for college scholarships.

Lorenzo Ferguson, a second-year defensive back at Auburn, said he left Miami Southridge High School for University High, where after one month he had raised his average to 2.6 from 2.0.

A heart-warming holiday story

2005-11-25T08:58:00.000-05:00

Much love this Thanksgiving to the sports poet Might MJD for his short story, Thanksgiving with Terrell and Drew:

Terrell stood up from the table, his eyes shut tightly, his body overcome with the spirit of perhaps not God, but some less noble, more childish force. "LORD, I ASK YOU, WHAT SHOULD I DO WITH THIS MAN? PLEASE GUIDE ME, LORD. PLEASE ADVISE ME ON MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS EVIL MAN, LORD. SHOULD I FIRE HIM, LORD?"

#81's Personal Chef cupped his hands over his mouth, and in a low, booming, whisper, said, "Don't fire him. Kill him."

Rosenhaus's head snapped in the direction of #81's Personal Chef, and this time, his loss of bladder control was not temporary. Drew Rosenhaus had peed all over himself.

"I will do thy bidding, Lord," Terrell Owens said, in a trance reminiscent of the one that took control of Reggie Jackson is The Naked Gun. "I will kill Drew Rosenhaus, Lord." Terrell finally opened his eyes and took a few steps towards the small, cowering, man.

Rosenhaus jumped up from his seat, pointed at #81's Personal Chef and shouted, "HE SAID THAT!"

Terrell looked at #81's Personal Chef, who yelled, "I AIN'T SAID SHIT," while jumping up and down in pure glee. "IT WAS GOD, NEGRO!" #81's Personal Chef handed Terrell a large carving knife.

Something subliminal at CNN

2005-11-22T13:29:00.000-05:00

The Drudge Report is all over "X-gate," which involves a mysterious graphic covering the face of VP Dick Cheney during a live CNN telecast of a speech yesterday.

According to Drudge, "CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg emails: 'We concluded this was a technological malfunction not an issue of operator error.'"

Let's take them at their word. It was a mistake. At least the word "RATS" didn't sneak on the screen:

WOODRUFF: Well, some people in the advertising industry say they believe the inclusion of the word "RATS" was intentional, even if it was not designed to send a subliminal or subconscious message.

CNN's Beth Fouhy has more on the spot, and the possible strategy behind it.

I wonder about the possible strategy behind the Cheney X. Was someone in the CNN control room busy watching the Game Show network?

The logic buttressed by idiot insults

2005-11-21T16:31:00.000-05:00

Via Instapundit, I found a sound argument to throw at those who chant endlessly, with fingers plugging their ears and their eyes clenched shut, that BUSH LIED!!!

From Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom:

Clearly, the important administration arguments are beginning to coalesce: 1) Criticism of the war is not by itself unpatriotic 2) Similarly, answering anti-war critics is not challenging their patriotism 3) But opportunistic and cynical anti-war critics who are trying to walk back their own votes and level spurious charges at the Administration (they lied to take is into war) are themselves lying 4) These lies are hurting the country and the troops. 5) The burden of proof, in a post 911 world, was on Saddam Hussein to prove he’d disarmed; we could not wait for the threat to become imminent before acting 6) The cause the troops are fighting for is just and right 7) Iraq is moving toward freedom; and things on the ground are improving daily, regardless of what the MSM and prominent Dems would have us believe.

What I enjoy about this argument is how it exposes Dems and the MSM as skinny weak-spined ninnies. For some odd reason, it's apparently okay to endlessly suggest that Bush and his administration LIED to trick everyone into war, it's lucrative to produce and market a movie which proports that Bush and his family are cozy with terrorists, and it's acceptable to argue that soliders' lives are being wasted in a friutless expansion of the American oil empire, but call one Democrat out for possibly suggesting a cowardice retreat from Iraq, and the K-Mart temper tantrums start.

Jonah Goldberg summed up how I feel the latest argument is being framed:

Murtha is not a coward. Agreed. He is advancing a cowardly policy. The Marine is right. Period.

Yet the Dems know they will lose such an argument, so just cry about it instead.

Hillary buys the Rican vote

2005-11-21T15:14:00.000-05:00

Why not just change her name to Vote Whore if she's going to propose bills like this:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has sponsored a tax refund for Puerto Rico residents that could pay out more than $50 million over the next 10 years.

She's the sole sponsor of a bill letting some Puerto Rico residents — who pay no federal income tax — get child-credit refunds on their Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Clinton's camp declined yesterday to say why the former first lady wrote the legislation, but politicos say the move is obvious: Puerto Rican support is crucial to her re-election — and a potential White House run in 2008. Puerto Ricans are born American citizens, ready-made voters when they move to the United States.

Dumbest comment of the year award

2005-11-18T16:43:00.000-05:00

Even though we still have just over a month left in 2005, the competition is over. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has reportedly made the most asinine comment to ever come from someone of her experience and rank. As expected, it comes from her efforts to publicly slurp her former boss.

From the Austin-American Stateman is this report from an Albright appearence at St. Edward's University:

Albright criticized the Bush administration for "a deliberate way of not learning the lessons" of Clinton's efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. She said Clinton had so impressed the Arabs that he "could be elected president of any country" in the Middle East.

Why is this comment so offensive in its ignorance? Take it away, Best of the Web:

How many countries in the Middle East even had free elections when Bill Clinton was president? If you limit it to Arab countries, you can count them on the fingers of one foot.

Easy pickings

2005-11-18T09:24:00.000-05:00

I know college students and their silly thoughts should be off limits. It's better to let sleeping bowls of mush lie than pick apart their oh so, like, deep thoughts and stuff. But Appalachian student Millie Tolleson is just asking for some ridicule with her mindless waste of bytes entitled "Women: take politics back" (did they ever have it to begin with?).

A sample:

I am a Democrat. I am a pacifist. I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. I believe in heavy gun control. I am pro-choice. I stand strongly for gay rights. I am environmentally conscious. I believe in a staunch separation of church and state. ...

I will freely admit that I don’t have the answers to the problems we are facing domestically or in our foreign policy. But I will always vote for the person who shows the most compassion and optimism for the situation.

I will always vote for those who are willing to make improvements using change, not consistency.

Do you get that? She values "compassion" and "optimism," which are feel-good emotional adjectives. She doesn't care about any specifics, as long as the person makes her feel good.

But that last sentence is the kicker - she votes for change, not consistency. Yet Iraq should have been left alone, and abortion rights, so-called gay rights and the illusion of a seperation of church and state should all remain untouched.

She ends her musing with a call to women:

It is your responsibility as a citizen of this country to have an opinion on issues that will affect you, whether you think they will or not.

I know what she's attempting to say yet, for some reason, she doesn't know how to say it. Everyone has an opinion on issues, but it seems very few have an informed one. There is a difference.

Obsessed over how one looks

2005-11-18T09:17:00.001-05:00

A sad story our of Rocky Mount, where too many are too involved in spoiling the message of the man they seek to honor:

It was a laudable idea: build a park and raise a sculpture in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the place where he first told an audience, "I have a dream."

It has become a two-year nightmare from which Rocky Mount has yet to wake.

The problem? City leaders and two sculptors have been unable so far to satisfy Rocky Mount's collective memory of just what the civil-rights leader looked like.

King may be one of the most famous men of the 20th century, but memories of his face vary among his many admirers.

So much for that whole content of character schtick. I wonder if the sculpture will have abs?

Obsessed over how one looks

2005-11-18T09:17:00.000-05:00

A sad story our of Rocky Mount, where too many are too involved in spoiling the message of the man they seek to honor:

It was a laudable idea: build a park and raise a sculpture in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the place where he first told an audience, "I have a dream."

It has become a two-year nightmare from which Rocky Mount has yet to wake.

The problem? City leaders and two sculptors have been unable so far to satisfy Rocky Mount's collective memory of just what the civil-rights leader looked like.

King may be one of the most famous men of the 20th century, but memories of his face vary among his many admirers.

So much for that whole content of character schtick. I wonder is the sculpture will have abs?

Everything old is new again

2005-11-18T08:06:00.000-05:00

The subject - Rep. John Murtha, of Johnstown, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense panel.

Here's what he said yesterday:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

This made news. The Big Mo' continues.

Yet here is Murtha from May 2004, about a year and a half ago:

"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained.
"We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.

I'm unsure what is exactly news here, other than the MSM see an opportunity to continue slamming Bush. And one of his statements doesn't appear to be true:

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence.

What does he mean by "have become"? Was there a time since we invaded Iraq that our troops were not the primary target? Didn't a Muslim wedding just get ripped apart in Jordan? Isn't the most dangerous place to be in Iraq is anywhere near a police or military recruiting site?

It appears to me the primary targets in Iraq are now Iraqis attempting to build a new country.

The Community Voice has more:

The fact of the matter is the Murtha story is a non-story. It's designed to help the Democrats opposed to the war or Democrats trying to score points with the radical and French wings of their party. It's designed to throw out statements opposed to speeches given by Bush and Cheney.

I miss you Berkeley

2005-11-17T16:49:00.000-05:00

Thank goodness they're black

2005-11-17T14:10:00.000-05:00

A couple of years ago, members of the Miami college football team came out with a really neat little ditty. The Mighty MJD found it and posted a few of the lyrics:

We the boys from that Penthouse suite, slangin' that dick
If you ain't 'bout the train, then fuck you, bitch
Cuz my boys gotta hit, too
Bend over and get tattooed by the boys from the 7th floor crew
You came a good girl, but you leavin' a ho
You wonder why they call me Thundercat, but now you know

MJD notes in an update that ESPN.com found the story. Other than a cliched press release, the Miami AD isn't going do much. And why should he? They're only bragging about gangbanging woman. It could have been worse - they could have rapped about how fast they can run.

Fisking Mr. Cohen

2005-11-17T09:02:00.000-05:00

Standing in for Jenny Finch today is the Washington Post's Richard Cohen. I'll be playing the role of Albert Pujols. The game is headlined "Ignoring the Facts."

Here's the pitch:

In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president, George W. Bush blamed "some Democrats and antiwar critics" last week for changing their minds about the war in Iraq and now saying they were deceived.

Nice dig there, describing as "minor" a man who helped liberate two countries and dozens of millions of Muslims, continued his party's electoral dominance in D.C. and beyond, and reshaped the country's highest court in a conservative image. "Minor," indeed.

"It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said. Yes, sir, but it is even more deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how history was rewritten in the first place.

At least he's admitting that history was "rewritten in the first place." Don't want to remember any of this, do we?

It is the failure to acknowledge this -- not merely that mistakes were made -- that is so troubling about Bush and others in his administration. Yes, the president is right: Foreign intelligence services also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Yes, he is right that members of Congress drew the same conclusion -- although none of them saw the raw intelligence that the White House did. And he is right, too, that Saddam Hussein had simply ignored more than a dozen U.N. resolutions demanding that he reopen his country to arms inspectors. When it came to U.N. resolutions, Hussein was notoriously hard of hearing.

Okay. I count one, two, three rights, though one came with a silly caveat. While it may be true that Congress was not able to see "the raw intelligence that the White House did," it is journalistic malpractice to not add that according to the Robb-Silverman Commission "evidence for war was more dramatically presented to the president than it was to Congress." Yet even with that diluted message Democrats - or at least the the no more than six senators and a handful of House members who read the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate beyond the five-page executive summary - echoed the president.

We can endlessly debate the facts of the Iraq war -- and we will. More important, though, is the mind-set of those in the administration, from the president on down, who had those facts -- or, as we shall see, none at all -- and mangled them in the cause of going to war with Iraq. For example, the insistence that Hussein was somehow linked to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- a leitmotif of Bush administration geopolitical fantasy -- tells you much more than whether this or that fact was right. It tells you that to Bush and his people, the facts did not matter.

Journalistic malpractice sin No. 2 - where is the evidence that Bush pimped the "geopolitical fantasy"? Two days after the 9/11 attacks a Washington Post poll found 78 percent of Americans thought it likely that Saddam "was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks."

So is Cohen arguing that - in less than two days time - this "minor" man was able to brainwash most of the country into believing a "geopolitical fantasy"?

Now, let's review his "as we shall see" - all two so-called examples of it:

It did not matter that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 terrorists, never met with Iraqis in Prague, as high-level Bush officials claimed.

Actually, the Czech government "claimed" the two met. And, actually, according to a Slate.com investigation, they did meet, though it's unlikely they discussed 9/11 plans - just another terrorist attack. (I apologize for the shocking revelation that there may have been a al Qaeda-Iraq relationship).

It did not matter that Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was finding no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

FYI - this is the same Mohamed ElBaradei who is now headed to Iran to try and convince them to stop their nuclear weapons program. FYI II - This is the same nuclear program of which there is no proof, according to Cohan's own paper. FYI III - Isn't that ironic, don'tcha think?

None of that mattered to Vice President Cheney, who warned of a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program, promoted the nonexistent Prague meeting and went after legitimate critics with a zealousness that Tony Soprano would have admired: "We will not hesitate to discredit you," Cheney told ElBaradei and Hans Blix, the other important U.N. inspector. ElBaradei recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. Cheney's gonna have to wait for his.

Wow. Cohen plays the Nobel card, that high-minded pristine prize eternally lofted above partisan geopolitical politics and given to such saints of peace as the thankfully late Yassar Arafat.

What is even more annoying is that Cohen - who characterized Bush as "minor" - uses as an insult that Cheney threatened to "discredit" those who disagreed with him. Kettle, meet pot.

Why is it when a Republican disagrees with anyone - even so-called "legitimate critics" - a mafia metaphor springs to keyboard? And shouldn't Cheney be considered a "legitimate critic" of ElBaradei and Blix? If not, who would be? Are Republicans ever allowed to be "legitimate critics" of anyone?

Nobody has been repudiated by Bush for incompetence and dishonesty regarding Iraq. Instead, some -- former CIA director George "Slam-Dunk" Tenet comes to mind -- have received presidential medals.

I'll give Cohen a strike here, though it's off a foul tip. Where is the proof of "incompetence and dishonesty"? If the collection of what was later deemed faulty intelligence is deemed "incompetence and dishonesty," then most of the world's intelligence bodies need to be repudiated. Please note that a lot of what was later deemed faulty intelligence was collected prior to Bush/Cheney.

What's more, there's evidence aplenty that the sloppy thinking, false analogies and bad history that led to the Iraq war remain the cultural style of the White House. The president's recent speech, for instance, conflates all sorts of terrorist incidents -- from Israel to Chechnya -- neglecting that they are specific to their regions and have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Every bombing somehow becomes an attack on Western values "because we stand for democracy and peace." Oh, stop it!

Yeah! Stop it! Stop the complaints that Bush's "illegal war" has increased the number of terrorist and terrorist attacks in the world, then complain when said increases are put into the context of an attack on Western values.

Also, please stop ignoring the fact that terrorism has a history in a region long-tainted with hatred for the Great Satan. Stop ignoring all the terrorist attacks against said Satan prior to 9/11 which needed - but never were - sufficiently addressed.

The 9/11 attacks raised the stakes and demanded a reponse (uh-oh, here he goes blaming Iraq for 9/11!) No, I am not. I am arguing - and Cohen ignoring - the plain fact that America has been at war with militant Islamists years prior to 9/11 and that war needed to be taken to the aggressors. Iraq, which had a relationship with terrorists, was in defiance of the Persian Gulf War ceasefire and several UN resolutions. It was also actively engaged in hostile fire with the US and international military.

One of the primary pre-war arguments was whether the U.S. would allow Iraq to grow into a formidable source for continued anti-Western terrorist attacks. Our - and the world's - best guess estimate at the time was that Iraq was poised to become just that. Bush decided to act.

What am I missing that Cohen so well sees?

It would be nice, fitting and pretty close to sexually exciting if Bush somehow acknowledged his mistakes and said he had learned from them.

This is Cohen's real complaint. That damn Bush just won't admit a mistake, an admission Cohen and his ilk could endlessly repeat as they giggle amongst themselves about a "minor president" who admitted he screwed up something big. They'll leave out the part where Bush refuses to give up and retreat like they wish he would, thus making meaningless the sacrifice of more than 2,000 Americans lost in battle there (they'd ridicule him for such even more so than they do now).

For Cohen, it's all about domestic politics and not the pursuit of freedom and peace.

But more important -- far more important -- is what this would mean for the conduct of foreign policy from here on out. Repeatedly in his speech, Bush mentioned Syria, Iran and North Korea -- Syria above all. If push comes to shove there, it would be nice to have absolute confidence in American intelligence and the case for possibly widening the war. If we are to go to the mat with North Korea or the increasingly alarming Iran, then, once again, it would be wonderful to have the confidence we once had in the intelligence community -- as imparted to us by our president. Is there or is there not a threatening nuclear weapons program on the horizon?

It's amazing that Cohen seeks the "confidence we once had in the intelligence community." When has such confidence ever been earned?

Even Bush-critic Carol Brightman admits:

During the Cold War, the CIA fed policymakers incorrect information about target states and groups all the time. Not that analysts knew the facts were wrong -- they both did and didn't. ... What matters in such instances isn't necessarily the truth. "Intelligence," Gen. Richard Myers reminds us, "doesn't mean something is true." What matters is whether the intelligence advances a nation's security strategy and the policies that flow from it.

Cohen refers to the "increasingly alarming Iran" yet his own paper reported two months ago that "a recent U.S. intelligence estimate found that Iran is further away from making bomb-grade uranium than previously thought." Keep in mind that Iran's president recently made a public call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognized the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people."

Is Cohen making an argument that Iran could become an imminent threat though there is little evidence or international agreement that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? Surely he wouldn't. That would make him a "minor" columnist.

At the moment, no one can have confidence in the Bush administration. It has shown itself inept in the run-up to the war and the conduct of it since.

If he'd replace the phrase "Bush administration" with "national mainstream media," he may have a stronger point.

Almost three years into the war, the world is not safer, the Middle East is less stable, and Americans and others die for a mission that is not what it once was and cannot be what it now is called: a fight for democracy.

I wish Cohen could define what he means by a "safer" world. Would it be "safer" to proclaim that an individual is hell bent on threatening "the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons" and then do nothing of substance to combat that threat other than - my goodness the horror - SIGN A BILL!!?

I also wish he'd define how the Middle East is "less stable." I guess life was better there before those dirty sand people achieved freedom, participated in elections and moved into land long-sought.

It would be nice, as well as important, to know how we got into this mess -- nice for us, important for the president. It wasn't that he had the wrong facts. It was that the right ones didn't matter.

Again, Cohen neglects to identify the "right" facts to which he refers (it's like Bush is hiding in his desk an intelligence report from 2001 saying in bold, 105-size font "There Are No Weapons In Iraq"). No real surprise, I guess. Bush is on the ropes. His polls suck. Somehow, out of nowhere, his party failed to win elections in always-competitive New Jersey and, as the New York Times calls it, the "reliably Republican state" of Virginia.

It's never been so easy for a liberal columnist to nip at a Republican's cuff, especially a minor one.

Woodward is a pussy

2005-11-16T15:34:00.000-05:00

The Big Cheese of the elite investigative media - the man who helped take down a president and usher in the golden age of "gotcha journalism" - admits today he knew all about Plame prior to Novak's column. At least, that is what he testified yesterday.

Why did he stay silent for so long? Because he's a pussy:

"I apologized because I should have told him about this much sooner," Woodward said in an interview. "I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's Job No. 1 in a case like this. . . .

"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

No Bob .. it was because you're a big pussy. You make millions off a man you shitted on (Mark Felt aka. Deep Throat), and now you're a journalistic munchkin next to Judith Miller.

I admit. I liked your book "The Choice" on the 1996 election. It taught me a lot. Today you taught me how to be a pussy.

As for Washington Post "reporter" Walter Pincus, you're a f*ckin' dirtbag:

Walter Pincus, the longtime Washington Post reporter and one of several journalists who testified in the Valerie Plame case, said he believed as far back as 2003 that Bob Woodward had some involvement in the case but he did not pursue the information because Woodward asked him not to.

"He asked me to keep him out of the reporting and I agreed to do that," Pincus said today.

Revelations such as this are like suckerpunches from The Rock on a roid rage wearing stone gloves. The high priests of the mainstream press pretend to live on a plane of reality 16 levels above the common man. They demand special protections and privileges.

Now here is one of their gods - and make no mistake, Woodward is a god - admitting he's a pussy while one of his bishops goes public with the "favor" he paid said god.

And I ain't just pissing on the Post here. The NY Times is as full cheap favors and fabrications than a Michael Moore film festival.

No wonder they love to promote Bush's shitty poll numbers while ignoring their own.

Pussies.

(Quits typing now before he gets "kicking homeless puppy" mad."

Porkbusters

2005-11-10T14:44:00.000-05:00

The Porkbusters movement grew from the waters of New Orleans, as bloggers put a microscope to federal spending and asked, should that money be better used elsewhere or not used at all?

I never found an outlet for myself to get involved. No one carries a brighter flashlight than The Professor.

Well, today I read news that my great alma mater has secured $1 million in federal grant monies that will go toward the Appalachian Enology & Viticulture Services Center at Appalachian State University. The center is meant to get the college in the ever booming wine industry here in North Carolina.

I will not argue with the merits of the project. What amazes me is the thickness of the spending bill in which it is buried. I burned an easy 30 minutes trying to find the full text of the FY06 Science, Departments of State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Conference report. I finally found it here.

You eyes will cross reading it. A sample:

For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530C; expenses for conducting drug education and training programs, including travel and related expenses for participants in such programs and the distribution of items of token value that promote the goals of such programs; and purchase of not to exceed 1,043 passenger motor vehicles, of which 937 will be for replacement only, for police-type use, $1,686,457,000; of which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall remain available until expended; and of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be available for official reception and representation expenses.

I have no idea what that means, other than $1.6 billion is being spent. And this is just *one* paragraph in a looooonnnnnnggggg bill.

Scan down to SEC. 613 to find the Appalachian State check, which is buried - and I mean buried - under stacks and stacks of federal expenses. A small excerpt:

... $600,000 shall be available for the Maryland Technology Development Corporation for the Minority R&D Initiative; $1,000,000 shall be available for the University of West Florida's Statewide Small Business Development Center Network; $200,000 shall be available for the Nevada's Commission on Economic Development; $1,000,000 shall be available for the Clark County Department of Aviation, Las Vegas, Nevada to study and operate the international air trade show; $250,000 shall be available for the Corona-Elmhurst Center for Economic Development, New York ...

You can scan Google for a list of where a little of this is actually going.

I guess Delay was right. No fat to cut anywhere. That said, I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package.

Barone speaks

2005-11-09T14:56:00.000-05:00

Like Instapundit, I consider Michael Barone an expert voice on election-explaining:

And yet the trends in national politics are sometimes echoed in the results in elections for governor. Issues that work for one party in state elections sometimes work for them in federal elections as well. ...

There's this national implication here (in Virginia). Supporting tax increases does not produce political death. If voters feel—as voters in traffic-clogged Northern Virginia and perhaps the other suburbs do—that higher taxes will produce goods that you want—fewer traffic jams—they will support you.

This strikes me as true. For more than five years the Democrats have continually beat the horse named "Tax Cuts For The Rich" as the reason for every problem.

No armor for the troops? It's because of TCFTR.

Schools falling apart? It's because of TCFTR.

Katrina breaking the levees? It's because of TCFTR.

Student aid evaporating? It's because of TCFTR.

Social Secuirty in trouble? It's because of TCFTR.

Medicaid reductions? It's because of TCFTR.

Record deficits? It's because of TCFTR.

The poor screwed? It's because of TCFTR.

Bill Clinton, more than any other Democrat, got the memo.

Much like with their mantra of fiction that "Iraq is a failure," always tacking every issue as due to TCFTR is bound to have an impact on voters' perceptions. The Democrats have done a wonderful Michael-Moore-type job of lying with truth. Bush and the GOP has done little recently to battle that notion.

Anyone who stands up in 2006 or 2008 and pledges "tax cuts so help me God" is going to have a tougher time than normal.

As predicted, Bush is a loser

2005-11-09T13:19:00.000-05:00

Last Friday I posted that Dem wins in Tuesday's elections would be spun as a loss for Bush. Sure enough, the media is full of stories carrying this theme.

Best of the Web offers a strong rebuttal to the thoery:

It's normal for the New Jersey and Virginia governor's races to be subject to overinterpretation by political junkies, who go through withdrawal every odd-numbered year and are desperate for a fix. But in truth, they have not been reliable bellwethers, as evidenced by the preceding four

As a sample of the bias, consider the New York Times which reports "In Virginia, Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, defeated the Republican, Jerry W. Kilgore, sending a powerful message that President Bush's political standing had fallen in this reliably Republican state."

Memo to the Times - This "reliably" Republican state is exchanging one Democrat governor for another.

As The New York Post's John Podhoretz notes, "Bush won Virginia by eight points in 2000, too--and the following year Democrat Mark Warner became governor with a 5-point margin of victory. "

ABC News uses the election news to highlight a poll on the 2006 mid-term elections, which are now less than a year away. It notes that "if the election were today, registered voters would favor the Democrat in their congressional district by 52 percent to 37 percent."

Before your grab your throat in shock, note the next line (emphasis mine) - "That 15-point margin is numerically the biggest for the Democrats since an ABC/Post poll in September 1984 (they ultimately lost 14 seats), although about the same as a 14-point Democratic lead in one poll in 1996 (when they gained nine)."

Both elections cited - '84 and '96 - were "on year" elections and had a presidential incumbent on the ballot. That will not be the case in 2006. Also notice that, for the first time in a couple of generations, the 2008 election will likely feature candidates who have never been president or vice president.

The 2006 elections should - if the parties are smart - be used as a springboard to 2008. It will be a chance to build a campaign and a character. Issues will be debated. Policies will be advocated. It should be a national argument.

What will the Dems be arguing? Bush LIED!! Scooter leaked! Delay is mean! That's all they scream now and have been screaming for months.

It's nice you retained two "local" seats, but you're gonna need a message to actually win a new one.

Riots caused by French police killing Americans!

2005-11-08T17:09:00.000-05:00

That's what's CNN is reporting:

LIN: Hard to say because it's been 11 days since two African- American teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this.

Actually, they were so Muslim ... and so black.

(Hat tip: BOTW)

He's doomed

2005-11-08T16:32:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I equated CNN"s star of tomorrow with MSNBC's star of yesterday. TVNewser posted similar comments. Later, a CNNer e-mailed TVNewser to argue that it was an absurd comparison, in part because "he anchored WEEKS of War Coverage during the breaking news overnight period when ALL the news was unfolding from the field and he was virtually flawless."

I wouldn't know. I primarily watch Fox, but let's take the e-mailer's word for it. Cooper has gravitas. Yet he is on the road to being Banf-ed, not because he isn't qualified but because he works for clueless Jonathan Klein. He will be mishandled just as much as poor Banfield.

Consider some Cooper comments on Aaron Brown during his "new" show's debut last night, as quoted by TVNewser:

During Monday's 360, Anderson Cooper paid tribute to NewsNight with Aaron Brown. He said the program would have been four years old this weekend. "That's a toddler in human years, but in cable years, four is ancient."

That is an asinine comment and an insult to Brown. If "NewsNight" was ancient, how would you describe "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "The O'Reilly Factor," "Special Report," and other mature cable shows. Actually, that's a word that could describe them - mature shows. Shows which have become a part of viewers regular viewing habits.

At 8 p.m. you know Bill's ranting. At nine Larry's softballing. Hell, Jon Stewart is must-see-tv for some at 11.

Now look at CNN, home of immature programming. Take out the suspenders and name a timeslot that has had any consistency in the past two years. Gone are "Crossfire," "Inside Politics," that Connie Chung show, Wolf's "old" 7 p.m. show. Zahn was on in the (insert zipper noise) morning then switched to night. Now Cooper was on in early evening but is now on late at night.

How can CNN expect to have any success when it treats its primetime schedule like a hot potato? Cooper, for all his gravitas, continually got his butt handed to him daily at 7 p.m. by my man Shep (1.4 rating vs. .7).

So what did his Cluelessness do? He took a show with some history at 7 p.m., moved it to replace an "ancient" show at 10 p.m., while moving an hour of Wolf's room from its start to its end.

As expected, the ratings sucked for 360 II, Day One. According to Drudge, "Cooper lost 42% of Larry King's lead in (1,079,000 viewers) and the debut show was down 10% from what he & Aaron were averaging in October."

Cooper seems like a nice guy. CNN's future has been glued to his sholders. I just wonder how painful it was to get unattached from Brown's. I just hope it was at least a sweet round of golf.

The new star of CNN

2005-11-07T10:08:00.000-05:00

Who does this describe -

This reporter has become an obsession among media critics since their emergence last fall, during round-the-clock coverage of a grand news event. Given that their network has consistently come in a distant second among the three ratings-challenged cable news channels, it is at least theoretically possible that there are more people who’ve written about their physical trademark than there are viewers who have actually seen them.

Anderson Cooper, meet Ashleigh Banfield.

UPDATE: TVNewser has more. I enjoyed this observation from Tim Goodman:

If Klein thinks "America is embracing Cooper," then what is America doing to Fox News' Shepherd Smith, who drubs Cooper in the ratings? Bear-hugging the breath out of him?

Media loves the Big Mo'

2005-11-04T14:39:00.000-05:00

His poll numbers sucks. The "Seinfeld" scandel continues. His own party bruised him. His opposition has grown pubic hair.

Life, indeed, is dark for the president. And the media can't wait to make it darker.

Next week is election day in some parts of the country, including Virginia where they will elect a governor. As this USA Today article hints, Bush is on the ballot (emphasis mine):

Democrat (Mark) Warner, a 2008 presidential prospect, has a 70%-plus approval rating that is helping (Democrat Tim) Kaine, his lieutenant governor, in a state where conservatives dominate southern and rural counties. Bush, his administration and party beset by problems, is in the low 40s in a state more attuned than most to what goes on in Washington. ...

In a more lopsided contest in a state farther away, the events inside the Beltway might be irrelevant. But the indictments and investigations plaguing national GOP figures are hot news in Democratic, densely populated northern Virginia. ...

Added Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.: "There's always some national context to state elections here. It probably all does matter, and up here that's probably not a plus." ...

So if Kaine wins, expect to read how this is more evidence of "trouble" for the Republican party and another sign of the country's distaste for Bush. If Kaine loses, expect to hear .... nothing .... just like before.

I'm sure Stalin felt the same way

2005-11-03T16:15:00.000-05:00

High Country Conservative adds his two cents to the big Kite Flight protest yesterday at Appalachian. He adds detail to the (I'm sorry, how else can I describe them) nutjobs who called for the event, The World Can't Wait.

HCC points out how these Bush-haters just love them some Stalin. Just look at the group's FAQ.

Upon reading it, yet another movie scene comes to mind. I envision Reck emboding one of the lead roles in the classic movie, "Poltergeist":

"Cross over, children. All are welcome. All welcome, go into the light...There is peace and serenity in the light."

One question - does the communist leadership in China allow ordinary citizens the opportunity to "open up avenues to get to the society they want"? Does Cuba? Did Stalin's Russia?

Yet Bush is the enemy, as the FAQ HHC quotes continues with:

But to turn the question around, if you refuse to pitch in to November 2, when you know that this is what has to be done, just because there are communists in it, then you need to think about how well that worked back in Nazi Germany (when the many forces opposed to Hitler could not find the ways to unite).

Nutjobs. No other word describes them. Shame on the campus paper for not seeing an obvious contradiction in its editorial - applauding an event "the Revolutionary Communist Party helped initiate" while also bragging about "free speech zones" on campus.

Kites against Bush

2005-11-02T15:23:00.000-05:00

I guess that is the message of the "protest" held today at Appalachian State University, at least by this photo. I assume they are doves of peace, though I wouldn't be surprised if they were just a trippy touch to a groovy protest.

The campus paper offered a preview:

The planned walkout is part of a nationwide movement organized by World Can’t Wait, an organization that was founded to “take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course led by the Bush administration,” according to its Web site, www.worldcantwait.net.

Nov. 2 was chosen as the date for action because it is the one-year anniversary of President George W. Bush’s re-election to the presidency.

The leader of the group at ASU was Gregory Reck, an odd, cliched anti-GOP protestor. For example, he once argued, after 9-11, Bush should have responded by filing an arrest warrent with the UN to find OBL. War was not needed. Paperwork and the so-called "international community" working together would have brought OBL to an eventual trial during which justice may have been served.

That proposed scenerio always brought to my mind a scene from "Braveheart":

Longshanks: Scottish rebels have routed one of my garrisons and murdered the noble lord.

Prince: I heard. This Wallace is a brigand, nothing more.

Longshanks: And how would you deal with this brigand?

Prince: Like any common thief. Have the local magistrate arrest him and punish him accordingly.

Longshanks: Leave us. (Punches his son.) Wallace has already killed the magistrate and taken control of the town. Stand up. Stand up.

I'm sure Reck and his handy band of malcontents had fun. Who doesn't enjoy flying a kite?

How the Wilson/Scooter story breaks down

2005-11-01T09:13:00.000-05:00

Instapundit has arguably the best roundup of what really happened with what BOTW dubs the "Seinfeld" scandal - an investigation about nothing.

Here's the professor:

Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care.

Instaman also lays out why Dems and others are really, really, insanely mad about Friday's indictments - they undermine the drumbeat that BUSH LIED!!! about WMDs in Iraq and would smear anyone who said otherwise (though Wilson never did say otherwise. I know. It confuses me too).

Pop quiz for Stephen A. Smith and Deberry

2005-10-27T08:00:00.000-04:00

Nope, they're not from Air Force football coach Fisher Deberry. They're from ESPN's mighty Stephen A. Smith discussing DeBerry.

Last Saturday, DeBerry dared to say publically what any sane sports fan would admit - black men and women are, on average, faster and more athletic than white people. Specifically, he said "Afro-American kids can run very well. That doesn't mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can't run, but it's very obvious to me that they run extremely well."

This is gospel to many individuals in the sports community. I have had a coach at Appalachian State admit as much to me. The coach's program was not as strong as others such as Georgia Southern or Chattanooga because black people don't like cold weather, so they avoid ASU. This was reflected in the starters on the team - all white. And yes, they weren't very good compared to the lineups with more black athletes.

To me, DeBerry was speaking truth evident to anyone ... anyone but people like Stephen A. Smith and CNN's Paula Zahn. The two spoke briefly last night. Sample quote from Smith (emphasis mine):

A lot of times when you speak to a lot of athletes, or if you talk to a lot of black individuals involved in the world of sports, people who couldn't get into the positions of -- an executive position like a GM, like a president or what have you, some of the things that they allude to is everybody is always commenting on our physical prowess and not giving us enough credit for our cerebral prowess.

And that's a problem for them, because a lot of times you look at -- I know me personally, somebody questions my intellect, I'm going to have a problem with them. ...

Note that DeBerry made no comment with regard to the intellect of black athletes. He commented primarily on his team's lack of speed compared to another team with more black athletes. He discussed the need to recruit more black athletes. Case closed.

Still, I offer a quick quiz for Mr. Smith:

1. Name the top 10 players in the NBA. Now, name the top 10 white players in the NBA. Now, count how many of the latter are in the former. How many make the cut?

2. What is the on-field difference in abilities between quarterbacks like Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and other QBs such as Brett Farve, Ben Roethlisberger, Jake Delhomme and Peyton Manning?

3. The finish line of the Boston - and any other - Marathon is now officially owned by people from what country? What color are they?

4. Who is the best non-pitcher in baseball? The second best? The third? Fourth? Fifth? Sixth? Stop. Have we found a white person yet? Why not?

5. One of these people do not belong. Who is it and why? Lance Armstrong, Tom Brady, Steve Nash, Roger Clemons and LaDainian Tomlinson. (hint - it is not who gets less media coverage).

Thanks for playing!

Ready and willing to do his job

2005-10-26T13:44:00.000-04:00

Where are the future leaders of the Democrat Party? I, for one, hope one of them will be found on the campus of Bowdoin College. Alex Cornell du Houx is a 21-year-old senior at the school, where he is development director for the College Democrats of America and co-president of the Maine College Democrats.

As you would expect, he disagrees with President Bush on a great many issues, including Iraq. But Dec. 1, he is heading there as part of the Alpha 1st Company Battalion of the Marines:

"Regardless of my opinions regarding the war in Iraq, it is my duty as a U.S. Marine to serve and I am ready and willing to do my job to its fullest extent," he said.

He also offers an interesting perspective on perspectives:

"I have always felt comfortable expressing my political beliefs. In the Marines, we debate politics all the time in a lively manner. It's very interesting and eye-opening to be able to see both perspectives — where you are in the majority politically at Bowdoin College and in the minority politically in the Marines."

It's interesting that he admits what many refuse to acknowledge - there is a large disconnect between the military and many academic institutions.

Now contrast Alex to this idiot and the DNC chairman.

I don't know much about Alex, other than that he appears to be well connected. He also knows with who to pick fights (Vernon Robinson ran to represent my congressional district. He is a political lunatic. I'm happy Virginia won).

But it's refreshing to read how one young man can disagree politically with his president, but heed his call to duty.

Thank you, Alex, for your service. I wish you a safe tour of duty.

More on the Millions More

2005-10-24T10:41:00.000-04:00

Winston-Salem Journal columnist Nat Irvin had the same thoughts as I with regard to the Millions More Movement. He wanted a different message as well (emphasis mine):

Why didn't we hear Mike's story during the Millions More March? Instead we heard from Malik Zulu Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Party, who used his time to spread gossip about the plight of the black man and the racism of the white man. While not all speakers sounded as nutty as Shabazz, the folks who had the loudest voices at the gathering seemed to know little about how to create wealth. Many of the speakers sounded like socialists - not like capitalists. That's fine, but the socialist model for economic growth is not creating wealth anywhere on the planet.

He also offers another example, the story of Eleanor, who told him "how she dealt with white preferential treatment in the workplace":

She had applied for a position at a law firm. A Rhodes Scholar, a graduate of Yale Law School and with an MBA from Harvard, she was well-qualifed for the position. But during her interview, the law partner asked her questions about how she came to be who she was - a black woman born in Jamaica who went to Yale, etc. He never talked about the job itself. She was baffled by the questions, and she did not get the job. After that, she decided she would not put herself in that position again. She created her own private equity firm, where she does the hiring.

Eleanor's and Mike's stories show a gap within black America - a difference not so much in seeing what the problems are, but in seeing how to solve them. One group is looking outside. The other is looking inside.

Preach on, Nat. Too bad the choir has no interest. MMM II was not about actually improving the economic or moralistic lives of black people. For many it was all about politics:

"The need to mobilize and the need to organize is here, like it was 10 years ago," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, as he walked to the stage with the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson. ... "The success of this march will be that we take charge of our communities and make a difference in the 0-6 elections." ...

A constant of the day was criticism of the Bush administration -- from leaders and from crowd members who held signs that said, "Bush Lied, People Died" and charged that the government is insensitive to the needs of black people. ...

Earlier in the day, Malik Zulu Shabazz, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, accused President Bush of "drowning the people of New Orleans and sabotaging the levees" and said that "the real gangsters operate out of CIA headquarters." His comments drew rousing applause.

What a sad, sad waste.

The Million Man March Reloaded

2005-10-18T20:11:00.000-04:00

There was a large gathering of black men and women this past weekend in Washington, D.C. It was called the Millions More Movement. It celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March. The headline speaker was, of course, Louis Farrakhan.

I glanced around the net to find a transcript of his hour-long speech. I never found it. I did find several articles on the event, most in the so-called black media. What struck me as odd is the sentiment by more than one writer that the Million Man March was a failure. Just ask Morris O’Kelly:

Most of us remember the show of solidarity on the mall in Washington back in 1995. ... It was our house that wasn’t in order and it needed to be addressed first and foremost.

Ten years later, not much has changed, disappointingly I might add. If anything, we’ve moved further down that dubious path of self-destruction. Minister Louis Farrakhan has asked for not only African-American men, but women, children of all races and religious affiliations to also join in this movement.

It also seems that Farrakhan agrees. In an interview with AllHipHop.com he brags on several statistical improvements in the black community, and does a pretty good impersonation of Bill Bennet by saying, "the crime rate went down, the murder rate went down."

He then adds:

We’re still segregated; we’re still in substandard education, inferior schools, teachers that are fed up because the discipline problem in the schools is horrific. Now when I look at ten years after the Million Man March look at how many factories have been closed in the last ten years. Black men, Brown men are out of jobs. Look at the amount of drugs and guns that have come into our communities. ... Ten years later, young Black men and women now are filling the prisons. And some of the wardens and Black penologists are saying that young Black people are committing crimes that are so horrific that even their elders have never committed crimes like that. We have gone on a degenerative slide.

It thus appears we know have the answer to a question poised by CNN 10 years ago - "What happens back home will determine whether this massive event had a lasting effect, or was just an emotional celebration that lasted no more than one day."

I'm sure the same question is being asked now regarding MMM II - will it have a lasting effect? I, sadly, doubt it.

Here's why. The following are direct quotes from Farrakhan. Guess which ones are from MMM I in 1995, and which are from MMM II.

No. 1 -

I must hasten to tell you, Mr. President, that I'm not a malicious person, and I'm not filled with malice. But, I must tell you that I come in the tradition of the doctor who has to point out, with truth, what's wrong. And the pain is that power has made America arrogant. Power and wealth has made America spiritually blind and the power and the arrogance of America makes you refuse to hear a child of your slaves pointing out the wrong in your society.

No. 2 -

In the last ten years America has experienced more calamities than at any other time period in American history. Why America? God is angry. He's not angry because you're right. He's angry because you're wrong and you want to stone and kill the people who want to make you see you're wrong.

No. 3 -

You've got Arabs here. You've got Hispanics here. I know you call them illegal aliens, but hell, you took Texas from them by flooding Texas with people that got your mind. And now they're coming back across the border to what is Northern Mexico, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. They don't see themselves as illegal aliens. I think they might see you as an illegal alien. You have to be careful how you talk to people.

No. 4 -

Go back, join the NAACP if you want to, join the Urban league, join the All African People's Revolutionary Party, join us, join the Nation of Islam, join PUSH, join the Congress of Racial Equality, join SCLC - the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, but we must become a totally organized people and the only way we can do that is to become a part of some organization that is working for the uplift of our people.

No. 5 -

This is the beginning of a new movement where all of our brothers and sisters, black, brown, red and white, will work collectively to address the many issues that affect our people and the poor in this country.

No. 6 -

The government will never do for the poor of this nation until and unless we organize effectively to make government respond to the needs of the poor ... We must go back home and organize as never before.

No. 7 -

The Democrats have used us and abused us. They look at the black and the brown and the poor like this is a plantation, and our Democratic leaders are like the house Negro on the plantation of Democratic politics.

The first four quotes are from his two-hour speech in 1995. The last three are from an 80-minute speech in 2005. You could easily exchange those lines from one speech to the other and not change their meaning or intent. In essense, Farrakhan said nothing new. Why should we expect any different results?

I bet more than one person swears by this

2005-10-18T16:54:00.000-04:00

If you never find time to listen to a sample of callers to Ed Shultz's radio show, here's a nice summation of the content via a letter to the Olympian newspaper:

I read with trepidation the news article regarding Bush's plans to combat possible Asian bird flu by calling in the troops. His comments brought to mind 1930s Germany, with the Gestapo (Homeland Security) and storm troopers (Rumsfeld's Pentagon) in the wings.

I wonder, could a sitting president, twice elected, and supposedly the epitome of patriotic manhood, consider consolidating his ebbing power by bringing an epidemic to his own people? Would he use this ploy to institute martial law?

If he would give funds to Halliburton to organize the hurricane recovery in the South -- the same Halliburton that scammed millions of dollars in Iraq -- then I suppose, with the enthusiastic support of his moneyed power base, he would.

The fact that Congress voted funds, not for public health but for Homeland Security, strengthens this suspicion.

This is a sad day for our United States of America.
Peg Davidson, Olympia

This, dear reader, is an idiot. A complete, unequivocal, no question about it, purer-than-Mother-Sheehans-underwear idiot.

On the bright side, it's pleasing to read that her hopes have been crushed.

Idiot.

(hat tip: BOTW)

I thought it was about me loving my body

2005-10-18T15:51:00.000-04:00

Been too busy to blog lately, but this made me laugh. Appalachian State University's NOW chapter is holding its sixth annual "Love Your Body Day" tomorrow:

A representative from Watauga Health Center will speak about reproductive health and safe sex. Prophylactic devices will be issued.

Now that's taking safe sex to an extreme - prophylactic "devices" to use when loving your own body. I wonder what they have in mind?

Teachers vote, kids don’t

2005-10-13T11:59:00.000-04:00

Thank you Mike Adams for spanking our "great" governor. Mike Easley has been, to me, an embarrassment as governor. It's a testiment to how poorly state government is covered by local media that there isn't more outrage over this.

Meet Jack Torrence

2005-10-13T11:20:00.000-04:00

Simply The. Greatest. Movie. Trailer. Evar!

As a friend remarked when he saw it, "That is fucking genius." Well said.

For an explaination, go here.

Threats versus Acts: Where's the media?

2005-10-11T08:09:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I spoke to my buddy Greg, who swears he wants to post more here but never has the time. We were discussing what was going on in the world when I brought up the suicide bomber at the recent Oklahoma football game. Greg thought I was making it up. He had not heard anything about it.

Greg is somewhat of a newshound (ie. regular Newsweek reader, loves CNN, PBS), so I was surprised he was unaware of what happened less than two weeks ago:

Student Identified in Oklahoma Explosion: A University of Oklahoma student with "emotional difficulties" was identified Sunday as the person who apparently committed suicide near a packed football stadium using an explosive attached to his body.

CBSNews.com's Public Eye blog asks - Is Lack Of Big Media Coverage Of Oklahoma Explosion OK? It doesn't look too deep into finding an answer:

We asked CBS News national editor Bill Felling, who told us the network is looking into the story. Let’s hope so, it’s one worth airing, whatever the facts are.

While CBS is "looking into the story," the State Paper in Nebraska is asking some questions:

The explosion occurred about 7:30 p.m., during the second quarter of the KSU-OU game. During the fourth quarter OU President David Boren informed the media that a student had apparently committed suicide by blowing himself up near the stadium. He asked fans at the stadium to remain calm and said no one was in danger.

How could he have been so sure? The FBI was just then starting interviews with some of Hinrichs’ neighbors and acquaintances. And the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is said to be in charge, would not have had time to arrive in Norman.

It’s also a mystery why the mainstream media outside Oklahoma has pretty much ignored the incident.

Days later the news media was obsessed with the story of a possible terror threat in New York City; and cable news outlets spent far too much time on a bomb threat that briefly closed the Washington Monument. But there was almost nothing about an actual bombing – just 100 yards outside a college stadium full of people – that could have been a terrorism incident gone awry. Did newspaper editors and TV news producers – usually inquiring minds – buy into Boren’s quick dismissal of the event as just a troubled youth’s suicide and ensuing FBI statements that investigators had found no evidence to prove it was something other than a suicide?

Following up on this post, consider these two headlines -

Explosive found at Midvale: A calm and quiet Westwood was briefly disrupted Friday afternoon when the Los Angeles Police Department bomb squad inspected and detonated an explosive device found within the Midvale Plaza apartment complex on the 500 block of Midvale Avenue.

Explosives Found Near Tech Dorms: Three explosive devices found in a courtyard between two Georgia Tech dormitories on the East Campus Monday morning were part of a "terrorist act," an Atlanta police official said.

Three colleges each with bomb-related news. Could that be a trend?

Maybe there is nothing to these stories. They may just be random acts with no real cause or planned effect. But it seems odd to me that more attention is being paid to the over-reaction of possibly terrorist-related threats than actual possibly terrorist-related acts.

A new Monday ritual

2005-10-10T20:51:00.000-04:00

I now have a new Monday ritual - living vicariously through the mighty mjd. His "from-the-bar" perspective on yesterday's NFL slate is, simply put, awesome.

He calls it Smorgasbordin. The highlights (for me):

Things just could not be going worse for New Orleans right now. You know what this game looks like? It's like a Tecmo Bowl game, and Jim Haslett keeps picking the wrong play. Try Down and B, Jim. ...

There's a bowling alley right next door to the sports bar. I head over to the window at halftime of a couple of the games, just to stretch my legs. There appears to be some kind of a Special Olympics event going on down at the lanes. There's a couple dozen people with disabilities down there, getting their bowl on, having a good time. I think if you gave me a couple of hours with them, I think I could coach them up to the point where we could beat either the Ravens or Lions. At the very least, we could give them a good game. ...

The commentators are calling the Ravens/Lions game a "dogfight," and a "physical game." And it is, I guess, but don't get it twisted... this is not a good football game. This is exceedingly ugly. I mean, you can put Chris Berman and Verne Lundquist in loincloths, lock them in a steel cage and have them fight to the death, and sure, it might be physical... but that doesn't mean it will be good in any way, or any fun to watch. The Ravens penalty barrage is hilarious, but the game itself? Not a masterpiece.

(hat tip: The Sports Frog)

I can't believe I'm linking over there (Or, why Huff Post isn't a real blog)

2005-10-06T15:20:00.000-04:00

While stopping by to read the latest in Greg's double-secret hidden blog - "How men think, part one," too funny - I happened to hit the main page of the Puff Host. This headline caught my eye - "3rd Year Anniversary of Bush Lies in Cincinnati."

Forgive the redundancy of the headline, but don't forgive the content. Steve Cobble, a self-described anti-war activist and political strategist, does a half-ass fisking of a speech by Bush - a speech he doesn't actually link to, which shows both proof of intellectual dishonesty and lack of basic rules of blogging.

I found the speech here. It's interesting to note what Steve quotes and what he ignores. He begins quoting the president with this line: "Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace..." (and no, he doesn't mean Cheney)."

Yet Steve has no snide comment for what Bush said next. I wonder why he ignored this paragraph:

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

None of that paragraph has yet been proven wrong. Iraq had used chemical weapons against its own people. Saddam sought nuclear weapons. He sheltered terrorists.

Where is *the* lie?

Instead, Steve selectively quotes Bush - "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today--and we do..."

Note the ellipses. Now why would they be there? What else did Bush say:

If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

I guess Steve considers such questions beneath him, but it's one that his "side" needs to answer. Did it make sense for the world to wait to confront a man who most everyone (including Clinton, Gore, and Kennedy) agreed might have dangerous weapons? Was there any reason to doubt he had them?

Instead of pondering such queries, Steve instead Dowdifies another quote from the speech, pasting only "Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

Steve omits the start of that sentence - "We've also discovered through intelligence that ..."

Bush was quoting intelligence, intelligence with which, again, most of the rest of the world agreed. It isn't a lie when intelligence is proven wrong, or at least overstated.

The Huffer continues by replacing a glaring omission with a snark:

"Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse." (Like everyone with more brain cells than Homer Simpson? Maybe Harry could speak to that...)

He ignores again what Bush said afterward:

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

No answer for that, huh. Steve? I admit portions of Iraq are no safer that Detroit. But do you have personal intel that Jalal Talabani has cemented the right to rape and murder in the - say it slowly, it does sound odd - Iraqi constitution?

Random acts of violence in Iraq are deplorable, but they are not now state sponsored (and internationally ignored) as they were in the past. I would consider that an improved situation.

Steve's effort is the perfect cliche for the so-called "anti-war" movement - a well-crafted pack of omissions, leading a supine leftist press, a cowed Democrat Party, and an abused and ignored (and too often, truth-averting) Huff Post readership to believe BUSH LIED!!!!!

Geez I can't believe I linked to that place. Damn you Greg for being so funny!

Back to the Future!

2005-10-06T11:25:00.000-04:00

Back in the mid-1990s, plenty of people were making comments like this, only Clinton was the problem. Those people were known as Clinton-haters and were generally ignored in any real discussion of politics and the state of our union.

And no, Gore's comments are not unusual. If you need evidence of how radical and consumed with hate some people have become, click on over here between 3-6 p.m. weekdays and give Ed Shultz a listen. I actually enjoy his show, primarily thanks to the loons he puts on the air.

For example, earlier this week an adult male called in to state his issue with both the Miers nomination and Roberts confirmation. He said both needed to be grilled on their legal opinion of martial law, cause (I'm paraphrasing here) Bush was going to declare martial law prior to 2008 and void elections. He would do so by either allowing or orchestrating another terrorist attack.

This is real nut-job ranting, but I heard somewhat similar sentiments on Rush's show back in 1996 (ie. the country is getting worse and won't survive until 2000, when Clinton will do anything to stay in power).

Of course, those were just irrational Clinton-haters. Bush-haters - for some odd reason - are supposed to be taken seriously.

Insight from Kaus

2005-10-06T10:08:00.000-04:00

Kaus trends toward my thinking:

Conservatives, a D.C. Republican friend tells me, wanted a fight over the O'Connor seat for its own sake--and not just for tacky fundraising and self-promotional reasons. They think they represent the majority position on judging; they needed a confrontation to draw the line and prove it. Plus a confirmation battle would be "consciousness-raising," as we used to say on the left, serving (in theory) to actually increase their ranks.

Given how great the party has been at "consciousness-raising" with regard to federal spending and the federal response to national disasters (or terrorist attacks), I'll pass.

Meirs vs. Roberts (or, Appalachian versus UNC)

2005-10-06T09:34:00.000-04:00

Back in my college days at Appalachian State University, I did pretty well grade-wise. For a few semesters I was even on the dean's list. A friend at UNC Chapel Hill once tut-tutted my effort, arguing an "A" at Appalachian would be a "C" at Carolina.

That comment comes to mind as I read how the Meirs nomination is being framed. As The Common Man puts it, it's "Conservative common folk" versus the "Conservative elite."

Alamo Nation frames it pretty well:

In the last two days I have heard both Ann Coulter and Tony Snow (not an Ivy Leaguer) question Miers' intelligence. Coulter indicated that Miers' senate confirmation hearings would "make Joe Biden look like a constitutional scholar" while Snow suggested that if asked by a senate judicary committee member about Article III Sec. 2 of the Constitution that Miers would respond with a "Huh?"

I admit, as a graduate of a great university not included among "the elite," I have a soft spot for Meirs. I like that she's an "thinking-outside-the-box" nominee, but I do wish she was younger (ageism!!!).

Peggy Noonan, as is her way, makes several good points today. But even she admits what is really at the heart of the Meirs controversy - no one knows how she will rule:

Back to Ms. Meirs herself, and the merits of her nomination. What would she be like on the bench? I know the answer. So do you. It's: Nobody knows. It's all a mystery.

Meanwhile, as much as I hate to admit it, Coulter makes a good point:

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...

She then loses me in the very next paragrah:

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

That settles it. If Coulter is against, I'm for. Count me among the Coalition of the Chillin'.

Thank goodness for high gas prices

2005-10-05T18:33:00.000-04:00

If you're an environmentalist or devotee of global warming, that has to be your slogan this week. Plenty of people want to bash Bush over prices at the pump, but it appears this country has finally found an energy policy that works.

Consider this:

New data from the Energy Department show that fuel consumption over the past month declined by almost 3 percent compared with last year. Analysts attributed the trend to soaring pump prices and a slowdown in economic activity

And this:

In the first look at sales since Hurricane Katrina drove gasoline pump prices to $3 a gallon and beyond, sales of passenger cars grew last month while large, fuel-thirsty sport-utility vehicles languished. Overall, industry sales in September slid 7.6 percent from a year ago. ...

At Honda, sales of the Civic, one of the industry's most popular small cars, grew 37 percent from a year ago. Honda reported a 25 percent sales increase in the gasoline-electric hybrid version of the Civic. Sales of the hybrid Toyota Prius nearly doubled, to 8,193 for the month.

Sure, there is still some real pain at the pump, but silver linings are taking root. Forget federal fuel-economy standards. Real positive action will only be taken when consumers, not suppliers, are forced to alternatives.
As demand for gas declines, supply will grow. That will bring prices down further. At which point, of course, us greedy Americans will return to our SUVs until forced again to use alternatives.

One way to possibly prevent that - keep prices high. As Slate observes:

Practically speaking, the only hope of changing America's driving habits is a hefty price increase that lasts. For, oh, five years. The data show that after that long, even the response of American drivers to higher prices can be pretty sizable. Five years gives people the time to come up with substitutes.

Well, why not a new gas tax? Not "new" in the sense of an add on, but new in the sense that federal and state gas taxes should be based on percentage. Instead of state and federal governments taxing 25 cents on the dollar, why not simply levy a 25 percent of the wholesale value of gasoline per gallon?

Legislators should love it, since when prices jump, government profits as well as business.

Liberals/environmentalists should love it, cause it would continue to hit SUV sales.

Educators would love it, because it would increase demand for good math skills.

Conservatives/Republicans? I don't know. Odds are they would hate it since it would be taking more money from consumers and handing it to the government.

I myself am unsure of the argument. As positive an influence as high gas prices are in some aspects, it still continues to hit me in the wallet. I drive a Dodge Neon which, after six years and 155,000 miles, still gets about 32 miles a gallon. Soon will come the time when it will roll no more. The wife wants an SUV (Ever gone five hours with two kids in a Neon?)

I guess this is what liberals mean when they demand sacrifice?

More support for Michael Brown

2005-10-05T09:22:00.000-04:00

Last month, former FEMA chief Michael Brown testified before a Congressional committe that, with regard to reacting to Katrina, one of his mistakes was that he "shoud have set up regular media briefings instead of conducting numerous television interviews."

For that comment he was universally slammed.

The Washington Post today (emphasis mine):

The sensational accounts delayed rescue and evacuation efforts already hampered by poor planning and a lack of coordination among local, state and federal agencies. People rushing to the Gulf Coast to fly rescue helicopters or to distribute food, water and other aid steeled themselves for battle. In communities near and far, the seeds were planted that the victims of Katrina should be kept away, or at least handled with extreme caution.
"Rumor control was a beast for us," said Maj. Ed Bush of the Louisiana National Guard, who was stationed at the Superdome. "People would hear something on the radio and come and say that people were getting raped in the bathroom or someone had been murdered. I would say, 'Ma'am, where?' I would tell them if there were bodies, my guys would find it. Everybody heard, nobody saw. Logic was out the window because the situation was illogical."

When it comes to finding who is too blame for the slow response in New Orleans to Katrina, the self-congratulatory media deserves some.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit)

George smacks George

2005-10-05T09:08:00.000-04:00

Will goes after Bush as only he can:

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''

Hard to argue with that.

Random aside, how many liberal/progressive columnists occasionally go after Democrats like this?

More on Miers

2005-10-03T16:46:00.000-04:00

As if to further underscore my point in the previous post, here's Emily Bazelon in Slate describing Miers:

She may turn out to have a great legal mind. She may be a thoughtful, incisive Supreme Court justice. But there's no reason to think so now.

Uh ... it's that what the confirmation process is for? John Roberts has proven to have a great legal mind, and may be a thoughtful, incisive judge. Now, did we know that before or after his Senate hearings?

Since my last post, I had a chance to listen to Ed Shultz give his opinion. Unlike others on the left who are hugging themselves they love the Miers pick no much, Shultz is declaring war. He refuses to "misunderestimate" Bush. He will fight against Miers on the grounds that her long history with Bush will make her a yes woman for conservative causes.

Ed is also hoping for a knock-down, drag-out, Karl Rove-Scooter Libby-Abu Ghraib-Where Are The Weapons Of Mass Destruction Fight:

DOES SHE KNOW ANYHING ABOUT THE PLAME OUTING, having been in the White House behind closed doors? What about advising the President on an illegal war? Torture anyone? Does she know anything about that? What does she know about the illegal buying of news by the Bush administration?

There's Something About Miers

2005-10-03T14:08:00.000-04:00

I really do not understand the anger of the right by Bush's latest nominee to the Supreme Court. Even the people upset qualify their statement. For example:

Andrew Sullivan: "Still, I'm not saying I oppose this nomination. At this point, I just don't know enough about her judicial views."

Instapundit: "Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed."

NRO's David Frum: "I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things."

NRO's KLo uses Photoshop to express her unease.

I just don't understand the whining, other than to say that conservatives want a fight more than they want a good nominee. Everytime I glance over at Drudge I see reasons why Bush picked her. For instance:

Harriet Miers gave cash contribution to the Democratic National Committee in 1988 and Gore campaign -- while Bush dad was running for president!

On a conference call this morning, former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie admitted Miers was democrat througout the 1980s; asked specifically about the Gore contribution, Gillespie said that she was a 'conservative' democrat who later became a republican

It appears - to me - that Bush made a good pick. It appears she will be a smaller target for the sort of mindless spittle directed at John Roberts by the media and Democrats, especially given that there has been a near demand for a woman to be chosen to replace O' Conner.

Look what TalkLeft is admitting (emphsis mine):

Don't expect the Senate Democrats to put up a fight on Miers. On a blogger conference call last week with Sen. Harry Reid (I wrote about it here), he told us he asked the President to consider Harriet Miers.

My initial reaction to her nomination: Relief. I served with Ms. Miers on the Martindale Hubbell-Lexis Nexis Legal Advisory Board for a few years. She resigned in 2000. ...

I didn't get to know her well, but we sat next to each other for several hours at the last meeting she attended and I liked her. We only talked law, not politics, but she won me over - and I was pre-disposed not to like her, that being the year that Bush was running for President and knowing she was his personal lawyer.

For those worried about whether she is conservative enough, glance at this profile from TIME:

As for her opinions on hot button social issues, Hecht refuses to go into details. "She is conservative, and is very comfortable in the Bush Administration and has felt comfortable being his lawyer," says Hecht, who is known as an arch-conservative jurist in Texas. "She's far more reasonable than I am."

So is the fact she's "reasonable" her big sin?

Kaus' paranoia

2005-10-03T13:46:00.000-04:00

Reading posts like this gives me the spooks. I was thinking the same thing.

Erskine Bowles, meet Abraham Lincoln

2005-10-01T10:42:00.000-04:00

It is expected that Monday the University of North Carolina system will name Erskine Bowles its new president.

The announcement comes with the obligatory joke - he couldn't get elected to a post, so he found someone to appoint him to one.

Let's also get the cheap pot shot out of the way - his appointment may prove to be Clinton-like (ie. bring in the lawyers!!).

Now let's get serious. The biggest challenge Bowles will face as UNC system president is maintaining the union. The UNC system is comprised of 16 universities. Two of the largest - and most prominent - are the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (defending NCAA national basketball champions) and N.C. State (who needs grass when you have bricks).

Both Carolina and State want to, in a sense, break away from the UNC system's normal operating procedure and set their own tuition rates. As the Raleigh News & Observer puts it:

Some advocates for the schools have chafed for some time at the notion of having to operate within the confines of a large system, and of having to get permission from the Board of Governors when it comes to raising their tuition.

The N&O continues and describes life pre-BOG:

Before that board existed, the state's public universities competed against each other for public dollars, and the battles were sometimes won on the basis of legislative clout, not the setting of orderly priorities based on North Carolina's needs. The board has stopped that, with varying success to be sure.

Carolina and State not only own cults of sports personality, they also arguably own among their alumni bases some of the state's most powerful figures. Those powerful figures are in position to help force the split of UNC and NCSU from some of the rules 14 other campuses have to follow. One could argue they are seeing to secede from the union.

What's driving the fight? Money, of course. But it's not quite put in those terms. It's all about "research":

NCSU and UNC-CH leaders say it's about time. They point out that the two campuses educate nearly 30 percent of UNC system students and conduct world-class research, attracting three out of four of the system's research dollars. Increasingly, they say, the two Triangle campuses are major drivers in North Carolina's changing economy, contributing new technology and spinoff companies.
UNC-CH and NCSU also compete against other elite universities for faculty and students. To win, their leaders say, they need more money and more managerial leeway.

"The state really needs to recognize that its flagships require the tools to be competitive with both the public flagships in other states as well as the great privates," UNC-CH Chancellor James Moeser said.
Arguing for a tuition increase earlier this year, Moeser said he had in his hand recruitment offers from other universities for science professors in three departments. Thirty-two professors received job offers and 11 left, the chancellor reported.

UNC is pushing the fight (N&O notes that "NCSU partisans were quiet during the debate").

I attempt not to view every battle in political terms, but it does seem odd that the liberal flower-child that is UNC is pushing for economic freedom to better compete in a capitalist market. Then there's this, again from N&O:

Campus leaders at UNC-CH and NCSU have repeatedly pointed out that they go up against private universities with deep pockets.
"The private institutions that we compete with have exploded their endowments, have exploded their sources of funding, and their tuitions are high," Carter said.

If the two campuses own a plurality of UNC system alumni - including its most powerful and prominent - isn't it a problem of fundraising from those same alumni that is driving this issue? (As an aside, both have dues-paying alumni associations).

Instead of tapping alumni (and basketball fan) dollars they appear to instead want to target current students. Both UNC and NCSU offer affordable undergraduate tuition ($4,515 at UNC; $4,249 at NCSU). Instead of standing proudly by those numbers, both universities appear to be ashamed by them.

What's wrong with that picture?

Given their power, it's probably inevitable they will get some of what they want. It will be interesting to see, under Bowles, exactly where that line is drawn and what its ramification will be. For if two campuses can set their own rates for their own reasons, why shouldn't UNC Wilmington, UNC Asheville, or UNC Greensboro be allowed to do the same? (note the prefix in all those names).

And will will return to an era when the "state's public universities competed against each other for public dollars." Who will consistently win such a fight, the big boys are UNC Pembroke?

It could be that Bowles first job is to maintain the union. As a 2000 Bowles voter who likes him as a person, I wish him the best.

A fool Republican

2005-09-30T12:03:00.001-04:00

Idiot-emeriti.

UPDATE: Rush spent the first hour of his program "on the offensive" over Bennett's remarks. I agree with him that the "hack website" is, indeed, just that, but Bennett's use of the example of "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down" is just asinine on more than one level.

For example, you could abort all members of any race and the crime rate would go down. White people commit crime. Latinos commit crime. Abort them all and, all things remaining equal, there'd be fewer crimes committed.

And why single out "black" babies? For a high-profile conservative to do so, with no prompting whatsoever, only adds to the myth that conservatives are, by their nature, racist.

That said, one other point on which I agree with Rush - idiot statements by Republicans/conservatives always gain more media attention than similarly stupid comments by Democrats/liberals. One could make the argument that whites/conservatives are held to a higher standard than blacks/liberals. The media expect the latter to make ignorant comments, but are surprised when the former do.

Call it the media's soft bigotry of higher expectations.

Who should be in charge

2005-09-30T10:50:00.000-04:00

Interesting read in the Wall Street Journal on why the federal response was so slow into New Orleans. This point makes sense to me:

Senior government officials now say that one major reason for the delay was that they believed they had to plan for a far more complicated military operation, rather than a straight-ahead relief effort.

Accounts from local officials of widespread looting and unspeakable violence -- which now appear to have been significantly overstated -- raised the specter at the time that soldiers might be forced to confront or even kill American citizens. The prospect of such a scenario added political and tactical complications to the job of filling the city with troops and set back relief efforts by days.

The misinformation raises the question of why the federal government had so much trouble gathering its own intelligence that could have provided a more accurate picture.

In this light, the slow response can be understood, if still not forgiven. Yet the effort to fix this problem may prove troubling:

Washington's experience in Louisiana has prompted the White House to seek ways to shoulder locals out of the way if another similar disaster crops up in the future. President Bush has asked Congress to consider mechanisms that would allow him to quickly place the Pentagon in charge of such disasters, making it easier to use assets such as the 82nd Airborne Division, highly trained, regular Army soldiers who specialize in moving to an area quickly and securing it. As it was, cumbersome federal regulations generally prevent Mr. Bush from sending regular Army troops to enforce order in American cities unless they are expressly invited by a state's governor.

To paraphrase a point made by Charles Krauthammer earlier this week on Brit Hume's show, it's doubtful that people hysterical over the feds possibly peeking at library records will react to this news in a sane manner.

At first glance I think it's a bad idea. I agree with Austin Bay:

However, if federal "leadership" goes beyond providing communications and transport assets, it could stunt local and state emergency planning. Diminish local and state responsibility for immediate action, and overall response to the next mega-disaster may be far worse than the response to Katrina.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee asks a good question:

"Who determines if a state can't handle a disaster? What if a riot happens in a major city? Does a mayor get a call that the 82nd Airborne has just landed in your city? We've got to talk about this."

The military isn't happy with the idea either.

Is the problem the notion that the military would be in charge, or the fear of the federal government itself overstepping its bounds?

What do you think, Greg? You've argued that Bush should have taken charge when it became apparent, as Michael Brown aptly put it "Louisiana was dysfunctional." Who should be in charge?

Abortion politics in the language

2005-09-29T17:08:00.000-04:00

Best of the Web at times points out the vernacular gymnastics pro-choice advocates and the media endure to avoid describing abortion in negative or emtional terms.

Today BOTW finds another quote linked to abotion, which does seem odd when you think about it (last item):

In an item yesterday, we noted a curious quote from Jerry Edwards, an Arkansas aborter who was offering to evacuate the wombs of women who evacuated New Orleans free of charge. "If we didn't provide it now," Edwards said, "they would get it later--a late-term abortion that would give greater risk to the mother's health."

Needless to say, we were flummoxed. "How would the timing of a woman's choice affect her mother's health?" we asked. But several readers have written with a theory that, if true, is shocking: that by "the mother," Edwards meant the woman who is exercising her constitutional right to choose.

The implications are chilling. Of course it's possible that some of these women are mothers, as a result of previous pregnancies during which, tragically, they were too poor or uneducated to make a choice. But Edwards is sweepingly characterizing all women exercising their constitutional rights as "mothers." And think about what that means: If a woman availing herself of her right to choose is a "mother," then the fetus is a "child" rather than what science has definitively proved it to be, which is just a clump of cells.

Republicans have their problems

2005-09-29T15:53:00.000-04:00

InstaPreaching.

Some will go down fighting.

Odds are, it's a setup:

"I can't imagine indicting a majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives without having a smoking gun, and that means someone who flipped on DeLay," said Buck Wood, an Austin lawyer who filed a related civil lawsuit on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates. "He's got to have corroborating evidence, too, bills and things proving where DeLay was at key times." ...

But all the indictment says DeLay did was "enter into an agreement" with one or both men to knowingly violate the election code. Earle must prove to a jury that DeLay agreed to a felony when he denies it.

The Smoking Gun has the indictment here. It is normal for the first sentence of an indictment to be two pages in length?

UPDATE: Great point by Kevin Drum:

If Democrats still can't win in 2006, then we've got serious problems.

Folklore versus Fact

2005-09-28T10:20:00.000-04:00

As an update to a post yesterday, here's a link to Gateway Pundit's breakdown of rumor versus reality.

Compare and contrast: New Orleans

2005-09-28T08:03:00.000-04:00

I wonder if this guy will ever get this treatment. There is ample evidence that the former did a woeful job before, during and after Katrina.

UPDATE: Read this too.

(Hat tip: BOTW)

The state of the Democrat Party

2005-09-28T07:57:00.000-04:00

Nice column out today by Jonah Goldberg. In just a few paragraphs he describes how, as weak as Bush is politically right now, his opposition is even weaker:

George W. Bush is at his lowest approval level of his presidency, Iraq will not likely be a political winner for the foreseeable future, congressional Republicans are balking at his agenda and, in response, Bush is throwing money out the window as if he's afraid it might catch fire. Yet his thoroughly rich, white male nominee has passed with barely a scratch. ...

In speech after speech, Democrats voting "no" said he was qualified, decent, brilliant, capable, nice, but they just couldn't do it. You got the sense John Kerry wanted to take Roberts to a nice restaurant and give the nominee the "it's not you, it's me" speech: Look, you're a great guy, and any country would be lucky to have you. I'm just not in a good place right now.

And that's about as good a description of what's going on with the Democrats as any out there.

Both parties have their soft underbellys. It will be interesting to see which one if better defended as the 2008 election season gains momentum come spring.

It's never news when it's the news

2005-09-27T10:18:00.000-04:00

A recent USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll reports that 58 percent of respondents say they don’t approve of the way President Bush is handling his job.

Another recent Gallup Poll reports that 49 percent of respondents say they have very little or no trust in the media. That's acually a small increase from the 55 percent recorded last month.

Also noted:

When asked about the news media's political slant, Americans are much more likely to say they are too liberal (46%) than they are to say they are about right (37%) or too conservative (16%).

Expect to hear plenty about Bush's poll numbers, but it's never news when it's the news with the bad numbers.

Why should we trust the television

2005-09-27T08:19:00.000-04:00

Expect today to hear on talk radio and read in the blogosphere much about yesterday's Hardball. Chris Matthews took on Peter King, R-NY. Matthews was in full "anti-Bush" mode, but King would have none of it.

I liked this exchange (emphasis mine):

CM: No, no, no. Let me ask you. Weren't you dismayed as a Republican Congressman, that the President of the United States didn't watch television for all those 48 hours? That he had to be shown a picture of what we'd all been watching? ...

PK: Chris, you won't give me a chance to answer the questions. Just because the president doesn't watch you on television, it doesn't mean he's not doing his job. You know, Franklin Roosevelt wasn't hired to listen to radio accounts of D-Day. You're hired to do the job, and the president can do his job without having to listen to Chris Matthews or Andrea Mitchell or Tim Russert, or any of the others.

King makes a point that has been nagging me the past month. Does the national media really expect the president to get all his information solely from them? Should there be people on the federal payroll whose job it is to watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Headline News, etc. and report immediately to the White House what they see being reported? Should that information then supercede what officials on the ground are saying? Which information is "correct" or "official"?

A great illustration of my point occurred over at CNN, which received some praise for its hyped "Big Disconnect" story. It featured quotes from various officials making conflicting statements. Click on over and re-read it. Knowing what we know at this point, who was the most responsible party with regard to providing accurate information? (emphasis mine):

Conditions in the Convention Center
FEMA chief Brown: We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need.

CNN Producer Kim Segal: It was chaos. There was nobody there, nobody in charge. And there was nobody giving even water. The children, you should see them, they're all just in tears. There are sick people. We saw... people who are dying in front of you.

Uncollected corpses
Brown: That's not been reported to me, so I'm not going to comment. Until I actually get a report from my teams that say, "We have bodies located here or there," I'm just not going to speculate.

Segal: We saw one body. A person is in a wheelchair and someone had pushed (her) off to the side and draped just like a blanket over this person in the wheelchair. And then there is another body next to that. There were others they were willing to show us.

The facts now: "At the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, just four bodies have been recovered, despite reports of heaps of dead piled inside the building. Only one of the dead appeared to have been murdered, said health and law-enforcement officials."

Over at the Superdome, six bodies have been found.

Let's continue with CNN:

Violence and civil unrest
Brown: I've had no reports of unrest, if the connotation of the word unrest means that people are beginning to riot, or you know, they're banging on walls and screaming and hollering or burning tires or whatever. I've had no reports of that.

CNN's Chris Lawrence: From here and from talking to the police officers, they're losing control of the city. We're now standing on the roof of one of the police stations. The police officers came by and told us in very, very strong terms it wasn't safe to be out on the street.

What we know today: "Four weeks after the storm, few of the widely reported atrocities have been backed with evidence. The piles of murdered bodies never materialized, and soldiers, police officers and rescue personnel on the front lines assert that, while anarchy reigned at times and people suffered indignities, most of the worst crimes reported at the time never happened."

I don't mean to pick just on CNN. Here's an AP story from Sept. 1 posted on the website of a Knoxville TV station. It reports that "Outside the nearby convention center, dead bodies are mixed with crying children and adults chanting desperately for help."

Here's a Reuters report (which was posted on MSNBC) from Sept. 3 in which "refugees ... described how the convention center and the Superdome became lawless hellholes beset by rape and murder" and quotes someone as saying "There is rapes going on here. Women cannot go to the bathroom without men. They are raping them and slitting their throats."

And there's still been no apology or explanation for the well-circulated prediction by Nagin of 10,000 dead.

I accept the fact that the media can not be expected to be accurate or perfect all the time, especially during crisis situations. Yet when will there be televised or print confessions that the coverage of New Orleans post-Sept. 1 was overly emotional, exaggerated and in some cases false?

If anyone has any further examples of post-Katrina reporting now needing a correction, please send them my way via comments below.

UPDATE: Soon after posting this, I noticed via Drudge that the LA Times is setting up a woodshed. The paper offers several examples of mistaken reporting, including "Fox News, a day before the major evacuation of the Superdome began, issued an "alert" as talk show host Alan Colmes reiterated reports of "robberies, rapes, carjackings, riots and murder. Violent gangs are roaming the streets at night, hidden by the cover of darkness."

Washington Post smackdown

2005-09-27T07:59:00.000-04:00

The capitol's paper of record bodyslams Louisiana's Congressional delegation this morning. In an editorial headlined "Louisiana's Looters," the paper contends that "the Louisiana legislators are out to grab more federal cash than they could possibly spend usefully."

Here's the money shot:

The Louisiana delegation has apparently devoted little thought to the root causes of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. New Orleans was flooded not because the Army Corps of Engineers had insufficient money to build flood protections, but because its money was allocated by a system of political patronage. The smart response would be to insist that, in the future, no Corps money be wasted on unworthy projects, but the Louisiana bill instead creates a mechanism by which cost-benefit analysis can be avoided.

This is how Washington works, Greg. Legislators write the legislation. The president signs it (Bush is allergic to vetos). The president does not write the bill, nor dictate allocations from it. Louisiana got its money in the past. It can be forcefully argued it misspent it.

Now the state is asking to be trusted to do what's right with a blank check. Republicans will prove their idiots if they go along with them.

I guess this is Bush's fault as well

2005-09-26T16:25:00.000-04:00

Since everything that happens is attributable to the man in the White House, should he get credit for the sudden surge in state tax revenue, as recorded by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Here's the summary:

- State tax revenue in the April-June 2005 quarter grew 13.3 percent compared
to the same period in 2004. This was the fastest growth since at least 1991.

- After adjusting for inflation and legislated tax changes, growth was 8.1 percent.

- All three major tax sources showed strong growth, with the strongest gains
recorded in the corporate income tax.

- Final personal income tax payments with returns were up 29.3 percent.

- Revenue growth was strongest in the Mid-Atlantic region (16 percent) and
weakest in the Great Lakes and Southwest regions (9.1 percent).

- National employment growth was 1.6 percent in the quarter, with the strongest
growth in the western and southern regions.

The full report is here (.pdf file).

So from where did this extra money come? Not where you think (emphasis mine):
Tax increases and other processing changes made a relatively minor contribution to state tax collections in the April-June quarter, and were concentrated in a few states. Without net enacted tax increases and processing changes, state tax revenue growth would have been 13 percent. Inflation, however, remained relatively high this quarter at 4.5 percent. If the effects of enacted tax increases and inflation are considered, real adjusted state tax revenue increased a strong 8.1 percent, as shown also in Table 1. This is the strongest quarter of real adjusted state tax revenue growth in seven years.

I admit, this is only for one quarter. Revenues could be way down for the next, especially considering the impact of Katrina and Rita. It'd be interesting to find out what's happening at the state level, and if there may be a corresponding trend at the national.

Not as bad as thought or proclaimed

2005-09-26T09:43:00.000-04:00

Interesting read over at NOLA.com. It appears many of the statements made by both the news media and local New Orleans officials were overblown, exaggerated and outright false:

Four weeks after the storm, few of the widely reported atrocities have been backed with evidence. The piles of bodies never materialized, and soldiers, police officers and rescue personnel on the front lines say that although anarchy reigned at times and people suffered unimaginable indignities, most of the worst crimes reported at the time never happened.

Gotta love the take over at Scappleface: Mayor Nagin Blames Bush for Lower Body Count.

The recovery effort is ongoing, as is the investigation into what really happened when. It will be interesting to see if the media admits to any errors in reporting.

Never enough to spend

2005-09-25T16:46:00.000-04:00

Yeah, Greg, you have a point. The federal government's wallet needs to be closed tighter than Lando's slacks, yet it keeps getting opened because:

1 - Few - in either party - want to spend less

2 - Since Bush came to office we have hit the deficit trifecta - war, recession and national emergency, of which Katrina and Rita can be classified.

First let's clarify our economic shape. As a percentage of overall GDP, the deficit remains lower than it was in the 1980s. The deficit was 3.6% of gross national product in 2004. Yes, that is the highest rate since 1993, but lower than most of the 1980s.

To further explain - in 1984 the federal government brought in (in millions) $666,486. Last year, federal revenue stood at (in millions) $1,880,070. So, in 20 years federal revenue grew three times in size, yet the deficit, by percentage of GDP, is lower.

Thus, our country's economic shape is better than it was twenty years ago, at least as measured in federal receipts. This is not to forgive the Jabba-like gluttony of politicos both red and blue, but to demonstrate that "our children's" shoulders are less burdened now than they were in the 1980s.

Yet, as you request Greg, "we should balance the books as quickly as possible." That's easy to demand, but difficult (for politicians) to do.

We have an administration and Republican-led Congress that will not suggest tax increases, because to do so will weaken their re-election chances. We have a Democrat opposition that will not suggest spending cuts (outside of Iraq) because to do so will - say it with me - weaken their re-election chances.

Many conservatives are upset with the Republicans now for their carefree spend, spend, spend attitude (see bill, highway). Yet it has been common the past few years to hear Democrats complain that not enough money is spent (see Behind, No Child Left; and Care, Medi).

And when the parties do see eye-to-eye, we get a trillion-dollar liability.

I agree with the quote you selected from our great first president, who at the time never conceived of a federal income tax, federal gas tax, federal phone bill tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax or any of the other hundreds of hands Uncle Sam sticks into hundreds of pockets.

With regard to cultivating peace, we never asked for war. The powers within Afghanistan attacked us. We fought back.

More than 15 years ago, the power within Iraq attacked a neighboring country. The international community forced that power back within its borders and attached a list of demands for peace. Those demands were never met. It was time they were.

Which now takes us into arguing over Iraq, which I have no time to do now.

UPDATE: Here's a nice summary of some conservative anger toward Bush and Republicans in Washington for spending money faster than an Ewok-driven speeder bike.

Why I love President George……. Washington.

2005-09-25T09:05:00.000-04:00

In his famous Farwell Address President Washington delivered more pearls of wisdom than Yoda on crack. The topics include civic duty and public life, interstate commerce, checks and balances and the mad popular caveat “avoid entangling foreign alliances..Bitches”. The one tip that doesn’t get much attention is his “Public Credit” suggestion.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/washbye.html
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Many Americans would suggest that this George put down his signed copy of “My Pet Goat” and read the thoughts of his predecessors. Not all of them mind you solely the effective ones. Our current administration has taken fuzzy math to a new level. Think Chewbacca on Rogaine. He proposes to fight a war, make New Orleans “better”, enact a Medicare prescription plan and dole out more pork than brunch at Oprahs. All this while cutting taxes. This is possible only because we are borrowing huge amounts from foreign neighbors, to include red China. These loans, plus interest, will rest on the shoulders of our children. George Washington understood that nobody enjoys paying taxes, but in order for this great nation to endure funds must be collected. If we are to enjoy global respect and more importantly international credit, we should balance the books as quickly as possible. The same folks that label any executive dissent as un-American cry foul when taxes are proposed, taxes that would invariably support their agenda. Mr. Rove take note, you cannot get more patriotic than the tax endorsing President Washington.

If you're an agnostic, why are you uncomfortable

2005-09-23T21:41:00.000-04:00

Several groups at Dartmouth College are publicly spanking and seeking to embarress the student body president for discussing Jesus at the school's recent convocation. A roundup of the "controversy" can be found here (scroll down to "Controversy Surrounds Riner Convocation Speech").

What got my attention is this quote:

"Honestly, as an agnostic person, the religious part made me slightly uncomfortable," Kimia Shahi '09 said.

If you're truly an agnostic, then why would someone discussing Jesu make you "uncomfortable"? If you cared nothing for football, would Chris Berman give you chills? If you had no taste for red meat, would driving by Burger King upset you to no end?

College life is supposed to challenge you .. or so I thought. Apparently Shahi isn't as confident in her religious beliefs as she wishes she were.

You can read more about the Dartmouth rage here.

The comments and indignation remind me of a Martin Luther King Jr. event at Appalachian State University a few years ago. Organizers planned to show excerpts of King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Before the video rolled, the presenter apologized in advance to the crowd about some of the content to which they were about to be exposed. He explained that King carried the title of reverend, so unfortunately they would be exposed to Christian ideals expressed as only an educated Christian black man could express them.

In other words, please excuse King for being a man of God, cause nobody's perfect. Just put your fingers in your ears during the "naughty" parts. And try not to hold them against him.

(Hat tip: The Corner)

What if it works?

2005-09-23T15:03:00.000-04:00

Interesting read over at Slate.com on Bush's plans to re-build New Orleans (emphasis mine):

The reaction from liberals to Bush's proposed War on Bayou Poverty has been outrage that Republicans would take advantage of the tragedy to advance their ideological agenda. ...

This is precisely the wrong response. Liberals, who have failed to muster any kind of social consensus for a major federal assault on poverty since LBJ's day, should welcome conservatives as converts to the cause. ... If the conservative war on poverty succeeds, even in partial fashion, we will all be better for its success. And if it fails, we will have learned something important about how not to fight poverty.

I don't see that happening. There's gonna be a fight because the president's political opponents will not risk an economic victory for Republicans. Remember how welfare reform was supposed to go?

That law, which President Clinton signed over the objection of many Democrats, proclaimed an intention "to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families." ... As hard as it is to believe that a major government reform actually had its intended effect - especially a grandiose effect like restoring the family - that seems to be what has happened.

This wasn't what experts - on both the left and right - predicted before the law passed. ... Liberals routinely scoffed at the idea that young hormone-filled teen-agers and twentysomethings would change their sexual behavior just because they might not get welfare years down the road.

Many conservative experts scoffed too. ...
It's now possible to start saying that these people were wrong, and the welfare reformers were right.

Clinton did indeed sign that legislation, then ran for re-election in 1996 promising to "fix" it, which he never did. Care to guess where the idea originated? (see No. 3)

Kaus has more on Bush's plans, and admits he - Kaus - is "guilty of pursuing good policy."

Who said the following?

2005-09-23T12:51:00.000-04:00

Just guess -

Right now we need a president who will help. He's helping. I'm so grateful. Poverty and misery is humbling. I'm humbled to the core that this administration is helping the poorest of the poor. Why beat up on a president who's helping? When I'm calling around for willing hands, I'm not worrying about party affiliation.

She (a clue!) also said this:

Girl, I only tell you, I applaud this president for stepping up.

Still don't know? Here's some more clues:

I'm a woman, 45 years old, whose birth certificate says 'Negro,' and I was Al Gore's campaign manager. With all that layin' on top of me, I thought nothin' could ever scare me.

Click here for the answer.

Where was Kennedy in 1960?

2005-09-23T07:51:00.000-04:00

Someone please ask Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Al Gore and CNN to explain these stats (via WeatherMatrix.Net).

There were two Category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic in 1960, and another two in 1961. Between 1950 and 1960 there were 10 such Cat 5 storms. Fast forward to 1985 to present - and a time when CNN says "hurricanes have become significantly stronger." In the past 20 years we've had ... wait for it ... eight such storms, only two of which were in the 1990s.

The TimesOnline over in the UK today had a Q&A yesterday on Rita and global warming:

Although this has been an exceptional year in terms of the number of storms, there have so far not been as many as there were in 1995, when we had 19. There have been similarly active seasons dating back decades. In both 1960 and 1961 there were two Category 5 storms in the Atlantic region and in 1933 there were 21 storms.

If you discount Ophelia, which grazed the Carolinas, three hurricanes have so far made landfall over the US this year. In 1886, records show that there were seven.

I'll admit it can be argued that Bush and some Republicans come across as "anti-science." But this is just one example of the left and some Democrats being "anti-history."

The argument Edwards should make

2005-09-22T07:15:00.000-04:00

I mentioned earlier this week that John Edward's eight-year presidential campaign has new life. Thomas Oliphant and TPMCafe are all a'giggle over the possibility of a Southern son revival. Best of the Web, of course, has a slightly different take.

I also think this is Edward's chance to make a credible case for himself in 2008, though I think he'll blow it. As Oliphant points out, Edwards is pushing the point that Katrina "exposed America's dirty secret" of poverty. If that is all he argues, he's toast for two reasons:

One, that line about a secret is bull feces. Everyone knows there are poor people in the country. We just argue over how best to help them improve their economic standing.

No. 2, it's the wrong argument. The target for Democrats and liberals should be simple - Bush and the Republicans have not done what they promised after 9/11.

After four planes hit three buildings and U.S. soil, Bush and the Republicans went on the offensive. The Department of Homeland Security was created. Military strength became the party's theme. We waged a War on Terror. We got color codes and proclamations that, while an attack is likely, thanks to Bush's policies none had yet to occur.

Bush's legacy post-9/11 looked to be gaining shape - he kept America safe. Now it can be argued we've only been lucky. Hurricane Katrina's impact and the mass confusion at all levels of government give hefty weight to the argument that we are no better prepared today for a terrorist strike than we were on 9/10.

I keep going back to this Mark Steyn column:

Imagine if al-Qaida were less boneheaded and had troubled themselves to learn a bit more about the Great Satan's weak spots. Imagine if they'd decided to blow up a couple of levees and flood a great American city. Would local and state government have responded any more effectively than they did last week? After all, Katrina, unlike Osama, let 'em know she was heading their way.

As has been pointed out by numerous people, it has been so secret that New Orleans would one day be hit by a massive storm that would flood the city. You would think that somewhere in Washington there was a plan on how to best save Americans on that fateful day. You would think there would have been clear lines of communication and a agreed-upon plan between the DofHS, FEMA, Louisiana and New Orleans.

We have since learned that is not so. So now the question must be asked. Is our country's preparedness for a terrorist attack filled with "unknown unknowns"? Disaster plans we don't know we don't know.

I was born and raised in Fayetteville, N.C. The city is home to Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. Both are prime military targets. If al-Qaida wanted to launch a domestic attack with a dirty bomb or high-grade explosive, the Fayetteville area would be a prime target. Civilians in Fayetteville and the surrounding area would also be hit.

Is the federal government prepared for such an attack? Unlike Katrina - and now Rita - it's doubtful we'd have three days to prepare. Is there a well coordinated plan between the federal, state, local and military chains of commands?

And wouldn't you think that, post-9/11 and post-DofHS, such a plan should exist? After Katrina, do you think one does?

For some odd reason, few people - and no Dems - are making this argument. The leftist Dissident Voice has to look to Republicans to make the argument:

Among leading Republicans who called the response by FEMA and federal agencies a failure were Sens. David Vittin (R-La.) and Sen. Susan Bollins (R-Maine). Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.), a conservative, called FEMA’s response “an embarrassment”. Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), one of Bush’s closest allies, told the Associated Press he believed “was overwhelmed, undermanned and not capable of doing its job.” By the time Katrina hit, the federal government in the four years after 9/11 had spent billions of dollars and had funded or conducted thousands of training sessions to combat terrorism. “If we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?” demanded Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House.

I don't like John Edwards, but I admit he has struck a chord with some Americans. Not enough to actually win primaries or national elections, but the media love him so he has a mighty big bat in his hands.

IMHO, if Edwards or the Democratic party was smart, they'd forget the tired taxcutsfortherichHalliburtonBoltonismeanCheneyisevilRoveissatanBushisstupidcanttalk crap they've been futilely shoveling since 1999 and make a sound policy argument based on national security.

Edwards can stand in front of a respectful crowd, one arm around a token black from New Orleans, the other holding his wife's hand. There can be a huge blowup print of the Superdome from September 1 behind him. James Lee Witt can be off to the side, looking solemn. Edwards can look into the camera and say, "The Republicans promised they'd prepare this country for a terrorist attack. They obviously weren't prepared for something as predictable as nature.

"Mr. President, why should we trust your party again?"

That should be his mantra. Build the two Americas speech around that theme. He can say. "One America believes Republicans are keeping us safe and at the ready, the other America now knows they are not. Join me as we work to do the job Republicans either can't or won't. I will make America stronger not only economically, but domestically as well."

Yeah, tinker with the verbage some. And change the scenery a bit. But is there any doubt that Edwards would have a more credible foundation for a run in 2008.

Which begs the question - why is no one on the left in Washington making that argument now?

UPDATE: Mystery Pollster stumbles across the same open door as I (emphasis his):

...if Katrina did not alter Americans overall rating of Bush, they certainly did collapse perceptions of Bush on one key dimension: Being a "strong and decisive leader." The percentage of Americans who describe Bush as a strong leader fell steadly from 60% just before Katrina, to 51% on the current survey (a result also seen in recent CBS polls). To paraphrase pollster Peter Hart's conclusion in looking at his own poll NBC and the Wall Street Journal, Katrina effectively "burst" perceptions of Bush as a strong leader. That may not collapse his overall job rating, but it is a bad sign for the President.

(hat tip: Kaus)

Haw far she has fallen

2005-09-22T07:08:00.000-04:00

Several weeks ago she was the top story at the top of the hour on CBS News radio. She's been on every major media news show and has described as reviving the anti-war sentiment in this country and becoming its most powerful voice.

My, my, my how the trumped-up "mighty" have fallen.

I stand by my earlier comment - Idiot.

Obviously it was Bush's fault

2005-09-21T17:13:00.000-04:00

Geez. What can you really say about this? And people wonder why New Orleans was such a wreck.

You just have to shake your head

2005-09-20T13:03:00.000-04:00

I really don't know what can be said about this:

“If they are evacuees, don’t they have the right to return, or are they being disbursed in a new Diaspora so that the other cities and towns can absorb this Black people, so that when New Orleans is rebuilt as a mainly White city, so that never again can New Orleans have a Black mayor, and Black police chief?” (Minister Louis Farrakhan) asked.

He also revealed to the press a report that he received, from a “very reliable source” he said, that there was a 25-foot hole under one of the levees that broke, which suggested it may have been busted on purpose to destroy the part of the city where Black people lived.

I feel for the people quoted in the article. Their pain is real. Too bad their "leaders" are not.

UPDATE: I guess some people will always make excuses. Common Folks using Common Sense notices a media discrepency:

Search Google News for the words "Farrakhan" and "blown up" to see how many of the mainstream media outlets carried this lunacy.

Now, search Google News for "Pat Robertson" and "assassination" to see how many carried that lunacy. No bias, huh?

Give them time CFuCS. I'm sure it will be all over the evening news broadcasts and covered in-depth by Time and Newsweek next week. Don't you know? The media is back and it's pissed!

Preach on Howard

2005-09-19T08:49:00.000-04:00

A week ago I expressed surprise at the media's surprise that there are poor people in New Orleans. Today, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz joins the bandwagon with plenty of examples, including a database search of the Washington Post archives which found:

one story that prominently mentioned the poor of New Orleans: a 2002 piece on a campaign to boost the minimum wage that cited the city's "40 percent poverty level." Far more typical of the Mardi Gras media was a 1995 Post story on how "the city's black neighborhoods come alive" with Sunday parades in the fall.

Somewhat buried in Kurtz's piece is the coal for the John Edwards 2008 presidential engine - his popular "Two Americas" theme he ran into the ground in 2004.

Now That's Progress suggests that "It may be that more high-profile people like John Edwards need to be out there making this an issue, because only those with a strong voice in this country can call attention to the voiceless."

Okay, John. You caught the punt. Let's see how far you can run with it. This is a pretty good first step:

Edwards said Bush's plan to deposit cash assistance into victims' bank accounts shows that the president fails to understand the plight of the nation's poor.

"News bulletin, Mr. President. They don't have bank accounts," Edwards said.

UPDATE: Thanks Professor!

The Smoking Gun is there

2005-09-19T08:36:00.000-04:00

It looks to be a bad week for the Bush haters. The Smoking Gun now has online pages from the 9/11 commission report which states that back in 1998 the FAA was warned that al Qaeda operatives could "seek to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark":

When the report was originally released in January, the section about the FAA's early warning to U.S. aviation officials was redacted. However, a subsequent declassification review uncloaked various portions of the document, which was re-released yesterday by the National Archives.

This doesn't clear the Bush administration of being asleep at the wheel, but it supports the notion that al Qaeda's plans predated January 20, 2001 and no one then did anything about them.

The next big national scandal

2005-09-16T10:45:00.000-04:00

Or, at least, it should be (emphasis mine):

A Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.

The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. ...

On Wednesday, former members of the Sept. 11 commission dismissed the "Able Danger" assertions. One commissioner, ex-Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said, "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us."

Weldon responded angrily to Gorton's assertions.

"It's absolutely unbelievable that a commission would say this program just didn't exist," Weldon said Thursday.

And people wonder why this failed. (Love the photo!)

UPDATE: The photo that was posted alongside the above news article has been changed. It's no longer humerous at all.

Karl Rove has a gun to her daughter's head

2005-09-16T10:36:00.000-04:00

That is the only way to explain why a black woman in New Orleans would say this about Bush on national television. I mean, doesn't she read polls?

Is she a house slave?

Is she even really black?

Polls are law. They rule above all else. Unless, of course, you disagree with them.

Fake but accurate

2005-09-16T10:26:00.000-04:00

I know, I know. It's really a molehill. But it's amusing to read someone from a major news organization saying, "the picture was not manipulated in any other way."

Yes, it was manipulated, but not in any other way than the way we manipulated it, so it's okay.

Praise for Sky News

2005-09-15T21:22:00.000-04:00

From a post earlier this week Woffle commented:

You're right, and then you're wrong. Most of the poor in New Orleans didn't live in or dance on the streets of the French Quarter. They worked crap jobs further out in Elysian Fields and beyond. But still, the media's not squeaky clean on this one.

True, most of the poor were not visible. My point was that portions of New Orleans reflected - for those who cared to notice - the poverty that was there. Public urination, massive consumption of alcohol, rude beggers on street corners, kids tapping and outright demanding money - I don't think those are the traits of a city with a strong, empowering economic core.

After reading Woffle's post I paid a visit to his blog. Very well done. And yes, this is very funny.

Landreneau gets a press agent

2005-09-15T18:48:00.000-04:00

And he comes From the Swamp. Why doesn't anyone know who he is?

Brown has his say

2005-09-15T16:17:00.000-04:00

The New York Times gives a microphone to former FEMA cheif Mike Brown today. I espeically took note of this exchange:

What do you need? Help me help you," Mr. Brown said he asked (state officials). "The response was like, 'Let us find out,' and then I never received specific requests for specific things that needed doing." ...

Governor Blanco's communications director, Mr. (Bob) Mann, said that she was frustrated that Mr. Brown and others at FEMA wanted itemized requests before acting. "It was like walking into an emergency room bleeding profusely and being expected to instruct the doctors how to treat you," he said.

Mann's analogy seems weak to me. If someone walks into an emergency room bleeding, they don't yell "treat me" then lay back and expect immediate proper care. The doctor will want as much information as possible - where are you bleeding, how did you come to bleed, are you on any medication, what is your medical history, etc. Once the doctor and the staff have that information, they can get to work.

Now, let's say that someone is taken while unconscious to an emergeny room. Blood is everywhere and no one knows the patient. There will be treatment, but will it be as effective or organized as it would with the medical history? Is it more likely that mistakes could happen?

According to Mann, FEMA was supposed to just show up and .... what, exactly? As the Times details, there was no local communication network, though Mann insists that "Everything that Mr. Brown needed in terms of resources or information from the state, he had those available to him."

In reality, no one in a governmental capacity knew what was happening where Tuesday through Thursday. One example the Times notes is that "at some point on Monday or Tuesday the hotels started directing their remaining guests to the convention center - something neither FEMA nor local officials had planned." Brown said no one told him of this.

The Times article includes details that show the silliness of Mann's analogy (emphasis mine):

The crowd in the Superdome, the city's shelter of last resort, was already larger than expected. But Mr. Brown said he was relieved to see that the mayor had a detailed list of priorities, starting with help to evacuate the Superdome.

Mr. Brown passed the list on to the state emergency operations center in Baton Rouge, but when he returned that evening he was surprised to find that nothing had been done.

"I am just screaming at my F.C.O., 'Where are the helicopters?' " he recalled. " 'Where is the National Guard? Where is all the stuff that the mayor wanted?' "

FEMA, he said, had no helicopters and only a few communications trucks. The agency typically depends on state resources, a system he said worked well in the other Gulf Coast states and in Florida last year.

So actually it appears Brown was asking the wrong question. He should have asked, "what do you have to help me help you?" As the Times also notes, FEMA has only 2,600 employees nationwide. It relies on state and other federal resources. I would think a governor and her staff would know this.

(Brown) said his biggest mistake was in waiting until the end of the day on Aug. 30 to ask the White House explicitly to take over the response from FEMA and state officials.

He should have done so earlier, no doubt. Louisiana officials expected miracles to save them from a lack of planning, preperation and an understanding of how to best protect its citizens.

Battling photos

2005-09-15T12:50:00.000-04:00

This photo makes the wires. I doubt most people will ever see this one.

Recovering the dead from Katrina

2005-09-15T08:34:00.000-04:00

Yesterday the governor of Louisiana followed the president - again. After Bush took responsibility for the federal response to Katrina, Gov. Kathleen Blanco took responsibility "for failures and missteps in the immediate response to Hurricane Katrina."

Good for her, I guess. What sticks with me, though, is her complaint from Tuesday:

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco lashed out at FEMA on Tuesday, complaining the agency is moving too slowly in recovering the bodies of those killed by Hurricane Katrina.
The dead "deserve more respect than they have received," she said at state police headquarters in Baton Rouge.

Her words were ringing in my head when I heard a report on NPR this morning on efforts to recover the dead. It's not online, but this story touches on some details:

Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen, who heads the federal on-site relief and recovery effort, says each team will include four people in addition to a chaplain.

The chaplain will say a prayer before any body is removed, Allen said.

Allen told reporters Wednesday in New Orleans that after the forensic evidence has been gathered, "There will be a ceremonial symbolic washing of the body to honor the dead as observed in the Christian, Jewish and Muslin faiths."

Allen is quoted as saying he spoke with Blanco about her complaints. She has since "signed a contract with a private company to speed the process.":

The state of Louisiana will pay Kenyon International Emergency Services almost $119,000 a day for two months for the job of recovering, documenting and handling the bodies of the victims of Hurricane Katrina, according to documents released by the state.

Allen said the call cleared the air with the governor and that he told Blanco he accepted personal responsibility for any perceived problem with the recovery effort.

A rate of $119,000 a day for two months equals just over $7 million. This article from last week says Kenyon International has "been hired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help recover the bodies of those killed by Hurricane Katrina" in both Louisiana and Mississippi.

It seemed odd to me that the state and FEMA were contracting with the same company to recover the same bodies, until I found this story:

Kenyon initially said last week it had been hired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to recover bodies in New Orleans and elsewhere.
But on Tuesday Gov. Kathleen Blanco said the state had signed a contract directly with the company because the recovery work was going too slowly and Kenyon was threatening to pull out for lack of a written contract with FEMA.

FEMA said it offered a contract to Kenyon, which the company declined. It also said the state's contract with Kenyon was eligible for reimbursement under various federal relief programs.

A spokesman for Service Corp. International, which owns Kenyon, could not immediately comment on whether the contract would have a material impact for SCI.

I had never heard of Kenyon before, but the company has a long history of working with countries devastated by massive tragedies. But then I read this regarding its owner SCI:

Service Corporation International (SCI), the largest funeral services provider in North America, implicated in scandals in Texas and Florida, recently learned that one of its subsidiaries is negotiating a lucrative contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to remove dead bodies in areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina.

SCI paid $100 million to settle a class-action lawsuit several years ago alleging the company desecrated thousands of corpses, and dumped bodies into mass graves.

I don't mean to imply or suggest any wrongdoing or scandal. But gobs of money are in play and already there's confusion over who is paying whom for what. I wonder how much will go to fraud or waste.

Lesson learned

2005-09-15T08:10:00.000-04:00

I was asked late Tuesday to be in a golf tournament Wednesday. I said yes.

I woke up at 4:50 a.m. to be at the Winston-Salem course by 8. Played 18 holes. Had fun. Drank a couple of beers. Swung so awfully I'm a budding addict for the game. Got back to Boone by 5.

While at the office I called my wife. She gave me permission to hang out with friends and drink more beer. Did it. Had fun. Got home around 8:30. Soon went to bed.

Got up this morning thinking about what a great a day Wednesday was - golf, beer and friends. I was in the bathroom about to hit the shower when I heard my wife waking up my 13-week-old daughter. I heard her baby laughs and my wife's cooing. I then realized I didn't see my lil girl all day yesterday.

The gleam left my eye. Wednesday was actually a pretty rotten day.

Finally - Bush takes responsibility

2005-09-13T15:56:00.000-04:00

All during the 2004 election and the ongoing War on Terror, critics have been all on Bush's butt because, in the words of one member of the press corp, "you never admit a mistake."

Finally they have their mea culpa. It comes with regard to the fed's response to Hurricane Katrina:

"To the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush told a White House news conference at which he openly questioned U.S. preparedness for another storm or a "severe attack."Bush's rare admission of "serious problems in our response capability" came as the White House stepped up efforts to repair his public standing.

Actually, this makes a "twofer" for Democrats. After failing to have Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, or anyone else fall on their sword, they have a scalp. Now they have a semi-apology/claim of responsibility from Bush.

It will be interesting to see how Democrats and the media respond. They finally have what they have longed for so long. Let's see how they handle it. It will say plenty with regard to Bush's campaign strategy to deflect such comment.

Here's how the kook fringe is responding.

Meanwhile, Kill Righty shares my thoughts. The Liberal Phoenix fainted.

Pamela Furr wants to see a line forming:

Now isn't it time for Mayor Nagin of New Orleans and Gov. Blanco to step up to the plate and say, "we take full responsibility for dropping the ball"?

I doubt it.

The beauty of New Orleans

2005-09-13T09:38:00.000-04:00

Yeah, I've been hard on the city. It does have its poor and dirty side and it irritates me that it appears no one wants to admit it. It seems the MSM always thought of New Orleans as a shining city in a hole and were shocked - SHOCKED they say - that poor people were hidden in the cracks.

I do hope New Orleans is rebuilt. It was refreshing to hear on NPR this morning that the French Quarter survived mostly in tact. Plenty of hotels may be able to reopen soon. Commercial flights have returned. A pulse is felt.

There's a great attraction to NO. Nothing compares to the cuisine. I never had a bad meal while there. Even the Mike's Inland Seafood in the mall was a treat (I risked missing my flight for one last bowl of seafood gumbo there).

The architecture is astounding and historic, as Blue Ridge Blog notes.

At the height of the flooding, Jeff Jarvis tackled whether the city should be rebuilt. I agree with this comment from Kelsey:

Absolutely, it should be re-built. As Chris says above, it has a great big soul. The history, culture, music - alone! that has sprung from that bathtub demands a re-build, and not some sterile, squeaky clean Celebration, FL version two hundred miles upriver, but right there. I think we all need a reminder of our own inherent absurd but beautiful fragility. Yes.

The comics page is also caught up with Katrina, as evidenced by yesterday's Foxtrot. I share their sentiments.

Clarence Page has out today his thoughts on the city's future. Actually, the future of the "two" cities, as he correctly describes New Orleans as "the lived-in theme park centered in the French Quarter, with its terrific restaurants, dance halls, burlesque joints and cultural gumbo. And there's the other New Orleans, the one populated by most New Orleanians":

That city has one of the highest rates of poverty and violent crime of any major city. Almost half of the city's schools are rated "academically unacceptable." Another 26 percent are under "academic warning."

Rebuilt the right way, New Orleans can leave those problems behind.

As expected, he doesn't describe exactly what the "right way" is. George Will's solution appears to be mandatory marriage. Daily Pundit comments on making the city an island.

Now the laywers are moving in

2005-09-13T07:50:00.000-04:00

The Blame Game has officially started down in New Orleans, as criminal charges are possible in the deaths of 34 nursing home residents:

At the center of the probe is St. Rita's Nursing Home in St. Bernard Parish and why its owners didn't evacuate the facility ahead of Katrina.

Bob Johannessen, a spokesman for Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, called the actions by St. Rita's administrators "shocking" and the "worst example of negligence."

This story is slowly gaining more spotlight. Last week the Dallas Morning News had this report (emphasis mine):

When St. Bernard Parish officials realized last week that St. Rita's Nursing Home had not evacuated as Hurricane Katrina bore down on the parish, they called to ask why. Their offer to send buses to help was turned down, they said Wednesday. ...

St. Rita's had the required evacuation plan: Ambulances would be called to take bedridden patients away, and the others would be evacuated by school buses. At least 60 patients and six staffers may have been in the building when Katrina hit.
Parish coroner Dr. Bryan Bertucci said several of the parish's other nursing homes evacuated during the weekend, but St. Rita's staffers never put their plan into effect.

Sunday afternoon, Dr. Bertucci said, he checked with St. Rita's staff to see why. He said the owner, Mabel Mangano, told him she had five special-needs patients, and an ambulance hadn't come to pick them up. Officials said she also told them that she had spoken with the families of patients who said it was okay to stay behind.

The New York Times from Sept. 6 has this detail:

Steve Kuiper, vice president of operations for Acadian Ambulance, said he was told that St. Rita's had an evacuation plan that depended on another nursing home. Acadian, by far the largest ambulance provider in the state, used helicopters to evacuate many of the parish's neediest medical cases after the storm hit. But Mr. Kuiper said he never heard from St. Rita's.
"They didn't think this would ever happen," Mr. Melerine said. "They just didn't evacuate."

The failure at St. Rita's is particularly difficult to explain. The home is in a depression in the ground. The nearby road, which was covered with four or five feet of water, sits at least five feet above the home's floor. The home appears in retrospect to be particularly vulnerable to flood. Efforts to reach its management late Tuesday were unsuccessful.

The Vancouver Sun had a particularly gruesome take on the story last week, and the Herald Sun way down under has this:

An official at Jefferson, 80km south of New Orleans, broke down as he recounted the ordeal of the elderly mother of one city employee who was trapped in the St Bernard home awaiting rescue.
"Every day she called him and said, 'Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?' " Aaron Broussard said.
"And he said, 'Yeah, Mama, somebody's coming to get you. Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody's coming to get you on Friday.' And she drowned Friday night.
"It's not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here," Mr Broussard said. "Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area."

Kaus has been debating that bureaucracy for the past several days (Ann Coulter is his current foe). The Claremont Institute also had comments regarding St. Rita's:

The (New York Times) article throws in some by-now ritual references to why state or federal authorities didn't do more to help, but there are clear indications that the problem began with the nursing home staff, to which I would add the New Orleans city government which delayed evacuations and failed to provide bus transportation. But at a more basic level, there is paralysis, disbelief, uncooperativeness, ignorance, even stupidity at work here.

You don't see what you ignore

2005-09-12T16:38:00.000-04:00

I think I have found the answer to the media's sudden facination with its discovery of poor people in New Orleans. It was buried inside a Sunday column by the editorial page editor of the Winston-Salem Journal:

Over the years, I've been to New Orleans a number of times. It's a great place, a fun city. ... I've seen the outlandish characters, the street preachers, the people who spray-paint themselves into living statues so tourists will give them money, the artists at Jackson Square and women who, if they aren't hookers, sure give a good impression of them.

But never on those visits did I see the people who were driven into the public eye by Katrina. They were the other side of New Orleans, the ones who weren't part of the allure of the city. ...

And you have to wonder, where are the invisible poor in our own cities? What will it take to make us see them?

How about buying a freakin' clue?! I've been to New Orleans twice. I have been in and around the downtown area, from the public urinal known as Bourbon Street to the business district surrounding the Superdome. The poverty slapped me in the face.

How cold and oblivious is this woman to not have seen what I did?

Back in 1994, a friend of mine about had a heart attack as, while we approached our hotel, an old black woman screamed "Help me! Help me!"

My friend rushed to her side with concern, "What, what do you need? How can I help?"

She smiled at him. "You got a dollar?"

My friend, who had the heart of a hyena and the chest of a baboon, came pretty close to giving her five reasons never to shout at anyone again.

As I posted earlier, I was once offered a "rock" of crack while in New Orleans. If you want it - drugs, sex, or a "rock" and a "roll" - you could find it there. After 5 p.m. daily, just about everyone in the internationally recognized economic engine known as the French Quarter is drunk, high, unclothed - or a combination thereof - as they browse strip clubs, drag shows and gay/straight/crooked bars. How many middle- or upper-class cities have such a center?

In 2000, during Sugar Bowl time, I had dozens of black kids dance in front of me, then stick out their hands and say, "How about that tap?" I wondered how many of them were breadwinners. And given the adults in the shadows rubbing their hands while their charges danced, I wondered how many were really modern day slaves for whatever habits their minders had.

A couple of hours after reading the Journal's insight into selective vision, I tuned into the Panther-Saints game. Sure enough, a New Orleans video package was shown which included two young blacks dancing for their dinner. The announcer intoned how hopeful he was that scenes such as that would return to the Big Easy. Are people really blind to how sad that is, or am I the fool? (it wouldn't be the first time).

Newsweek has more on "The Other America," admitting the poor have always been here yet somehow they are hidden. As Newsweek "reports":

It takes a hurricane. it [sic] takes a catastrophe like Katrina to strip away the old evasions, hypocrisies and not-so-benign neglect. It takes the sight of the United States with a big black eye—visible around the world—to help the rest of us begin to see again.

Actually, all it takes a national political convention. Every four years the public is treated to stories like this and this, in which the homeless and poor are swept from sight so the two dominant political parties can party without any unsightly economic refugees in sight.

High-minded editorial page editors and national news magazines see only what they want to see when they want to see it. Reporting on poverty doesn't enhance the fun one has while sipping hurricanes and marveling at the rich, well-to-do people in New Orleans who for laughs "spray-paint themselves into living statues so tourists will give them money."

The poor have been with us always, but it takes an especially cruel event to make their plights newsworthy.

Forget FEMA - how late was the media

2005-09-12T15:07:00.000-04:00

One of the themes repeated ad naseum the past several days centers on how clueless the federal government was with regard to the scene in New Orleans. The other theme is how, like a George Lucas movie, the media finally "strikes back."

Since the media control how a story is framed and told no matter how true the "facts" - such as the situation at the convention center - expect to hear little about how slow the MSM was to the actual news that New Orleans was flooded.

Let's go to the Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):

The New Orleans office of the National Weather Service issued a flash flood warning at 8:14 a.m. Monday, saying "a levee breach occurred along the industrial canal at Tennessee Street. 3 to 8 feet of water is expected due to the breach." The media largely ignored it. ...

Introducing "World News Tonight" on Aug. 29, anchor Charles Gibson said: "In New Orleans, entire neighborhoods are underwater, but the levees held. The nightmare scenario of an entire city underwater did not happen." A spokeswoman for ABC, a unit of Walt Disney Co., had no comment. ...

"But the city managed to avoid the worst of the worst," read a front-page Washington Post article on Tuesday. "The Mississippi River did not breach New Orleans's famed levees to any serious degree, at least in part because Katrina veered 15 miles eastward of its predicted track just before landfall."
Leonard Downie Jr., the Washington Post's executive editor, says the paper's reporting was hampered by communications problems caused by the hurricane. ...

It wasn't until Monday evening that a private helicopter company, Helinet Helicopter Services of Los Angeles, began feeding the first aerial images of New Orleans to Fox News, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS. By early Tuesday morning, most major media had become aware of the awful extent of the destruction.

In other words, it took the mighty MSM - which had every Brian, Bob, Charles, Shep and Anderson "live" on the scene - roughly 24 hours to report on a major city being flooded.

On the web, CNN.com had a story up at 1:52 a.m. Tuesday which focused primarily on destruction in Mississippi. It is reported well down in the story some flooding in New Orleans.

Here's a report on MSNBC posted at 10:01 Monday night. The headline - "Hurricane Katrina plows into Louisiana, spares New Orleans its full fury."

The first sentence - "Hurricane Katrina was not the apocalyptic storm that New Orleans has been dreading all these years."

Interesting to note this paragraph in the article:

The federal government began rushing baby formula, communications equipment, generators, water and ice into hard-hit areas, along with doctors, nurses and first-aid supplies. The Pentagon sent experts to help with search-and-rescue operations.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt - whose radio show I used to be able to *just* get here in Boone - has more on problem's with the media's current Katrina template.

This is funny too

2005-09-12T10:52:00.000-04:00

David Rees does his best Greg Gutfeld impersonation. Another great read.

They are so poor .... and they are so black

2005-09-09T20:16:00.000-04:00

Ya gotta love Wolf Blitzer. He has to fill three hours of live programming five days a week on CNN. It's inevitable he will mispeak, but geez louise this was pretty bad.

On the positive side, Wolf's verbal lashing of Howard Dean was very well done. Dean was in The Situation Room today and the new CNN ball bustin' attitude was on full display. You can read the transcript here. Here's a sample exchange:

BLITZER: But there were 1,000 -- at least 1,000 school busses in New Orleans, and none of them were mobilized to get poor people, old people, people who didn't have cars, out of that city as that hurricane, Category 5, was building up steam along the -- in the Gulf of Mexico. Who should have ordered that those school busses, to get drivers and start driving people who don't have cars out of the city?

DEAN: That's an easy criticism to make, because beforehand you can blame everybody. You can blame the last four or five presidents --

BLITZER: Isn't that the responsibility of the mayor or the governor?

DEAN: Unless you tell people what the sequence is, I can't answer that question. I have to tell me that the sequence was that the hurricane was known to be, going to hit New Orleans directly, which it didn't. And that those busses weren't under water, and that the people who were supposed to be driving them didn't --

BLITZER: On Saturday and Sunday there was no water in New Orleans.

DEAN: Right.

BLITZER: And that was the -- the hurricane hit Monday morning.

DEAN: You're holding the mayor --

BLITZER: On Friday they knew this could potentially hit New Orleans, and that it could be a Category 4 or 5.

DEAN: You're holding the mayor to a different standard. This is a Republican spin machine stuff. You're holding the mayor to a different standard than you are holding FEMA.

As you can read in an earlier post, FEMA has no idea people were in the convention center because nobody told them.

Good job Wolf. I may have to tune into CNN more often.

How to piss off people and make new friends

2005-09-09T16:46:00.000-04:00

Just write like Greg Gutfeld! Kudos for one of the funniest smackdowns I have ever read. Well worth the time to read - at least for me.

How do you like your Rice?

2005-09-09T13:47:00.000-04:00

I'm a mark for Anne Rice. Her book, "Interview with a Vampire," is one of my favorites (as is the movie). I also enjoyed its sequels.

When I was last in New Orleans back in 2000, I stalked her. I asked a cabbie where she lived. He called his base and found out. I headed to the Garden District and found her home. It was just like I imagined - it had the cutest demon dog statues on the second-floor balcony, with cute Santa hats on their heads. I have a photo somewhere buried at home.

Politically, Rice is 180 from me. Her books bear this out, as they tend to be overwrought with homo-erotica imagery and metaphor (Lestat *really* loves him some Louie). I've also caught her on Bill Maher's old show "Politically Incorrect."

She had a column in the New York Times recently, during which she painted a deep, cultural portrait of New Orleans. She covered the poverty and violence with a nice shade of "tolerance had always been able to outweigh prejudice, where patience had always been able to outweigh rage."

And, I might add, a place where poor black children spend hours a day entertaining tourists for coins by tapping on sidewalks with ragged tennis shoes adorned with bottle caps. A place where anyone at two in the morning can be offered a rock of crack for $10, as I once was (and yes, I declined).

Nonetheless, like Richard Simmons and the Manning brothers, Rice speaks with a honest love of her hometown. She then turns a cutting eye to her country:

But to my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us. You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and turned your backs.

I have no idea why or where she got this impression. There has been an overwhelming outpour of love and aid to her colorful home. Someone needed to point this out to her. Thankfully, Jim Geraghty did more than that. He took a pen and, like a soap opera doctor treating an overacting patient, he slapped her across the face:

But it’s not like state and local officials could have seen this coming. They have never had a hurricane bearing down on them before and… oh, wait, there was Hurricane Ivan just last year. And after that dodged bullet, Blanco and Nagin both acknowledged they needed a better evacuation plan.

I would note that we’ve seen some pretty intense disasters in other parts of the country, like planes crashing into skyscrapers and subsequently collapsing, earthquakes, tornadoes, blizzards, and yet somehow, none of these disasters had the total breakdown of law and order, civil society, etc. Jonah Goldberg’s early joke about a Mad-Max style post-apocalyptic tribal anarchy may have been in poor taste, but it has turned out to be nightmarishly prescient.

We failed you? No, oh brilliant creator of Exit to Eden, you failed. You might not think of it this way, but: Your leaders failed to upgrade the levees. You elected a bunch of weepers and blame-shifters who lost their head in a crisis.

You have to read the whole thing to feel the full sting.

My sympathies to Rice and others who feel sorrow at the damage to their home. But your country is responding. Don't pretend it is not.

And yes, I will still read your next book.

What happened when in New Orleans

2005-09-09T12:44:00.000-04:00

It was down when I tried to read it earlier this week, but it appears Rightwing Huthouse is back with its in-depth "KATRINA: RESPONSE TIMELINE."

The report details what happened when and who said what from Friday, August 26, until Friday, September 2. It answers a lot of questions and clarifies several contentions from the past week, including (emphasis in original):

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30
Morning
Overnight, New Orleans city officials consider whether or not to use the Ernest E. Morial Convention Center as an additional refuge for survivors:

City officials said they might open the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center as a temporary refuge to shelter an estimated 50,000 people made homeless by the storm.

This is the first mention by city officials of using the Convention Center, a shelter not listed in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan nor listed in any other public statements as a place of refuge for residents. As of 9/7, there is no evidence city officials ever told FEMA or LA Homeland Security officials that they planned to use the Center to house evacuees. Revised 9/7

and

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on 9/7, Fox News Correspondent Major Garrett reports that the American Red Cross was ready to go to the Superdome “on Monday or Tuesday” to assist in the relief of the 25,000 people who had taken refuge there but were prevented by the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security from doing so. According to Garrett and this FAQ at the Red Cross website, the reason given was because their presence “would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.” Revised 9/8

An invaluable peice of work. Thanks RW Nuthouse.