Journal(terror)ists

Our favorite anti-American British newspaper, the Guardian, yesterday had an article about the press and the US military in Iraq: US forces 'out of control', says Reuters chief.

Reuters has told the US government that American forces' conduct towards journalists in Iraq is "spiraling out of control" and preventing full coverage of the war reaching the public.

I'm sorry about this, but "preventing full coverage of the war?" What a ridiculously foolish and unbelievable statement! If you followed the mainstream media, as well as Reuters' coverage of the war in Iraq you would assume that US and Iraqi military units are just drivin' around Baghdad trying to find IED's with their Hummer tires! The media has not covered anything in Iraq other than the death of US soldiers, and occasionally Iraqi police. Fact.

The Reuters news service chief referred to "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or illegally abused by US forces in Iraq".

This is an interesting thought. Now, why is it so hard to tell terrorists in Iraq from journalists? Maybe because in many ways they are the same thing? Just as in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, it seems that journalists get such good pictures of terrorist activities it's almost as if they knew the events were going to take place... I apologize for my inability to find the evidence on the web of journalists' photos of car bombs going off, and of Palestinians firing rockets at Israel - I simply don't have time to look today. But all-in-all, there have been numerous incidents of "journalists" being right alongside terrorists in their daily activities. I don't feel too bad when four terrorists run around a corner in Iraq; three holding AK-47's and the fourth one a camera. It's either the terrorists or the soldiers over there.

Oh, and does anyone remember Eason Jordan? No? He was the head of CNN's news division, but he stepped down after he made unsubstantiated claims that he hoped no one would find out about during a journalism conference in Switzerland early this year. He told the media there that the US had "targeted" journalists. Of course his claims were both untrue and ridiculous - so much so that those who tried to corroborate his statement were refused access to the audio recordings made of the conference! Of course once news spread through the blogosphere Jordan had to jet from his job. Poor guy - spouting off anti-American propaganda to the press while hoping that no one will find out during a time of war can be so tough on employment.

Anyway - this notion that journalists in Iraq are being killed and detained purposely by the US military is false. So false, in fact, that the only motivation that can be created for the military to do so is to "prevent full coverage of the war." When CNN and the Guardian start covering schools, roads, and elections instead of dead soldiers, prisoner abuse, and beheadings I might be inclined to start to believe them.

Roberts Confirmed 78-22

What a lousy 'loyal opposition'. President Bush: please nominate Luttig.

List on no's (ha! they're all dems? how bout that)
akaka d n
bayh d n
biden d n
boxer d n
cantwell d n
clinton d n
corzine d n
dayton d n
durbin d n
feinstein d n
harkin d n
inhouye d n
kennedy d n
kerry d n
lautenburg d n
mikulski d n
obama d n
reed d n
reid d n
sarbanes d n
schumer d n
stabenow d n

UPDATE from radar: I'm not sure how to break this to the Democrats, but it appears that the original (and quite logical) notion of them endorsing Roberts in order to have more standing in which to oppose another conservative candidate has gone out the window. Had these lefties endoresed Roberts, they would have much more credit when they oppose the next nominee.

Now they've just shown their true colors - they'll oppose even the most qualified nominees if they have 1) shown even the smallest tidbit of conservative views in the past or 2)their big donors and political action groups tell them to.

The Memorial Has Been Taken Back

I've been meaning to blog about the controversy about the International Freedom Center at Ground Zero in New York City. The IFC was going to be quite a shady bit of anti-Americanism located on the site where nearly 3,000 Americans died in the most evil act of terrorism in history. The idea behind the IFC was to create a tribute to freedom around the world, and provide a place for the debate of historical events. Pretty much, it was going to be the same thing as using the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor as a place to examine the history of Imperial Japan in the 1930's and debate American's use of the atomic bomb to end the war.

The reason I say "was" is because Governor George Pataki nixed the IFC at the World Trade Center site today. On the case the entire time was Take Back the Memorial, an organization devoted to the elimination of the IFC. Check out their site for more explanation of why the IFC had to go.

Schumer, Democrats Fail to Recognize Irony of Onion Article

Democrats in the Senate failed to grasp the irony of a satirical newspaper article displyed by staff. From the latest edition of The Onion, the article pokes fun at the idea of an easily-alterable framework for our government.

"That's actually a good idea; I can't imagine why my colleagues would not want poeple to be able to copy and paste things into our Constitution. What else could possibly create a right to kill babies?" The New York blowhard remarked.

Schumer then tried in vain to consult the online document to check if the President or People For the American Way had the authority to appoint a justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

The article:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40990

Congress Abandons WikiConstitution
September 28, 2005 | Issue 41•39

WASHINGTON, DC—Congress scrapped the open-source, open-edit, online version of the Constitution Monday, only two months after it went live. "The idea seemed to dovetail perfectly with our tradition of democratic participation," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said. "But when so-called 'contributors' began loading it down with profanity, pornography, ASCII art, and mandatory-assault-rifle-ownership amendments, we thought it might be best to cancel the project." Congress intends to restore the Constitution to its pre-Wiki format as soon as an unadulterated copy of the document can be found.

Today Should Have Been a National Holiday

That's right, kids in future generations will learn about it in schools. It should be celebrated with fireworks. A political pivot maybe as lareg as September 11, 2001, occurred on September 27, 1994.

The Contract With America sealed the deal for a Republican sweep in the November '94 elections. Fifty-four (54!) seats in the House changed parties. Twenty one of the 35 Senate seats went to Republicans, giving them decisive majorities in both Houses.

Experts give mixed review to the role the Contract played; it probably didn't cause the whole upset, but it certainly cemented many victories (and may have piled on in some other cases).

The Contract listed eight principles Republicans would govern by and ten bills that would be introduced and considered in the first 100 days of the session; in publicizing the contract, Republican leaders asked the public to vote them out if it didn't happen. Not all the bills passe,d but allwere considered, and many implemented. Especially changes to the governence of the legislative bodies, the rule chnages separate Republicans from filthy scum Democrats (remember when they criticized DeLay for not stepping down when a partisan DA issued an indictment? (1)the rule stems form 1994, and democrats must not be too hot on it because they don't have the rule themselves, (2)where has the indictment gone? it was just a low manuever(see update below)).

Anyway, I'll let you, the reader, do more investigations yourself. The concrete terms of the contract were a change from politics-as-usual, as the peopel of the United States won. It's just too bad the Republicans have gone the way of the democrats lately (see Katrina aid, fiscal discipline, ethics scandals, gang of 14 compromise). Today could have been a rallying call to return to their principles, but it's not too late!

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

UPDATE:

I can admit when I'm wrong. After writing this post (left unchanged above) yesterday, Tom DeLay was, in fact, indicted...today. Ironic.

We'll see where the case leads, this doesn't prove that he is guitly or that he has abused his power, but it does cats doubt on the previously-reasonable contention that the D.A. drew up charges simply to disrupt Republican leadership. More information about his leadership resignation here.

Speaking of Satire...

I'm not sure if I have linked to Iowahawk before, but he is one of the most clever satire website peeps in the business. He's a multiple-generation Iowan as is slightly confused in his allegiance to football teams, as you can see here and here.

Anyway, his recent posts are excellent, as is this one of his about the University of Iowa's pink locker rooms at Kinnick Stadium. I had never heard of these before, and I think it's great - even for the Hawkeyes...

Read Satire...

This is hilarious: Dover Evolution Lawyer Eats Counsel for Defense

Be sure to keep up on the ID vs. Evolution debate!

Golly! Enormous Government Spending Goes to Well-Connected Companies!

I wouldn't have believed it if it hadn't been in the New York Times, but there it was: an editorial about cronyism in Katrina relief spending! Who would've thought?

Their newspaper really isn't even fit for toilet paper (it somehow causes people to contort into this position). They were one of the first to call for a massive federal program and that's what they got. There is simply no way manage, with any hint of efficiency, the $200 billion promised to that region.

According to the 2000 census, there were 188,251 households in New Orleans. Two hundred billion dollars (or a contribution of over $3 from every single person on the entire planet) calculates to over $1 million per New Orleans family. What in the hell are we going to do in New Orleans that would require $1 million per family? It's unconscionable that our government could agree to such a large sum, for the dubious cause of rebuilding a city below sea level likely to be affected in the future.

So much will be wasted because the prices will simply inflate to match the money that comes in. It's said that Congress doesn't know the difference between a million and a billion, and that stems from dealing with such huge sums all the time. Do you think the agency chairs in charge of contracting out reconstruction work will dutifully protect against waste in the level of hundreds of thousands when billions are coming in? A $100,000 check (more than I'll ever hold on one slip of paper) is 0.00005% of the promised amount; do you think every one of the 2 million checks for $100,000 each will be given due consideration? Are you kidding me, NYT?

I guess I'm glad something is written about the contracts and accounts in the aftermath of Katrina, and surely more should follow. But if it was unexpected, the editorial board is certainly the dumbest group of adults in the history of the press, and especially because their sleaze created the situation.

No Shame for Liberals

Bill Frist is the Majority Leader of the Senate, a former heart surgeon and two-term senator from Tennessee with presidential aspirations. He is relatively spotless (there's some interesting stories about animals from his med-school days that will not endear him to pet lovers) but by all accounts a decent and dedicated public servant. He rose to one of the highest leadership positions in his second term and is retiring from the Senate at the end of that second term in 2006.

He was a pioneer in heart transplantation, creating the center at Vanderbilt University that is now world-renowned. His brother and father have also been successful, operating a health care business, HCA. Senator Frist has stock in the company that was placed into a blind trust when he was elected. The company has done well recently, posting 50% gains two years ago, I believe.

Earlier this spring, Sen. Frist consulted the Senate Ethics Committee about selling his shares of HCA, to avoid any appearances of impropriety in his presidential bid. The committee approved. On June 13, his fund managers were directed to sell all shares of HCA, which were at their highest share price, $58.60.

In July, *a month later*, the company announced earnings would be below expectations and the stock fell about 10%. No scandal inside the company, no major sellout that left poor, old people without pensions. As of right now, the stock is trading at $47.50.

Somehow, this has turned into a major scandal that supposedly threatens a 2008 run for the White House. So far, no major editorial pages have come out with demands for his resignation, probably because they're learning from having to backtrack so quickly about their instant condemnation of the federal government's Katrina handling that wasn't endorsed by the public.

The issue is further complicated because the new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, former Rep. Chris Cox, was a Congressional colleague of Sen. Frist and donated to his campaign in 2000. Mr. Cox has recused himself from the investiagtion, but I don't think facts or decency will mean much to his critics.

Anyway, here's my prediction: Frist will come out squeaky clean, and nobody will even mention this...for now. Dems to bring this up in the primaries in early 2008 as their candidates are infighting about who ran away from Iraqi freedom that fastest.

Textbook Proponency of Judicial Activism

It looks like many in positions of influence are still unconvinced that legislators are better at making public policy decisions than judges. Their answer to almost every problem is intervention by distant authorities into matters meant to be handled by more local, democratically elected officials.

Here's the 4,672nd example: an elected school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, has mandated that intelligent design be taught in science courses. A small group of parents has enlisted the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to overturn their decision, their decision being a vote of elected officials after a public debate. The case is before a US District Court judge, John E. Jones, appointed by President Bush in 2002.

Liberals will contend that this case should determine if 'intelligent design' should be taught in schools (see NYT coverage). More principled and thoughtful viewers will see that the *real* outcome of the case will be whether judges are able to set the curriculum in public schools.

I won't cry if citizens elect a different school board that votes out intelligent design. But I think we should all be pissed if some unelected, life-tenured official tells all the voters in Dover that he knows better than them in every minutia of daily life. Watch this case with interest.

Background

UPDATE:
I found a quote from a Clinton DOJ, Dawn Johnson, official explaining the goals of a Republican program to remove activists from the judiciary:
"If you take this one path [appointing judicial conservatives] it leads to heaven. And then there's this other path." That path, she says, led to a world in which courts barred police from questioning suspects but forced taxpayers to fund abortions, where incest, prostitution and "sexual relations among children" were constitutional rights and judges imposed taxes, wrote school curriculums and prescribed treatment for mental patients.

Apparently the Nobel Prize Committee is a Republican Shill

In my experience, there are few points or phrases in a debate that signal that it is done, one side has won or lost. For example, if you can get a person to concede that the Constitution is fatally flawed, that the Holocaust never happened, etc., there can be no real debate because all ground rules are nonexistant and there is no objective standard of truth.

I spent about two hours arguing with supporters of Lyndon LaRouche one night after work last week. I debated serially through six of them before they had to leave, but I did leave my email address and phone number in case they came up with any evidence for their outlandish claims--that machine tools (?) are somehow necessary for a vibrant economy, that Dick Cheney is planning a nuclear attack on North Korea, and, most absurdly, that free trade is wrong. Using an argument from this earlier post, one of the six activists actually said that he would send barges of free goods back into the ocean if they were washing up on our shores, instead of using lesser-priced inputs for American manufacturers and consumers.

Anyway, they pulled a dirty trick and gave my phone number to the LaRouche HQ, who gave me a call at work today inviting me to a speech next week. In a short-three minute debate, he asked for proof that free markets worked, and I let him know that across all continents, the best indicator of a better standard of living was freer markets. Not history, not culture, not religion, or any other factor makes a difference. I let him know that one percentage increase in trade with African nations would produce more income for Africans than a quadrupling of foreign aid.

He told me that the sources I was using are biased and uninformed. I thanked him for his time and let him know that I was leaving that decision up to the Nobel Prize Committee, when he actually told me, I quote: "they give the Nobel Prize to whoever can be the biggest idiot. You should check out our website..."

What am I supposed to think about a statement like this? Is there any reason I should not assume this is the feeling of the larger American liberal movement? LaRoushe isn't anythign important, he's probably unemployed. But there is no way that a statement like this coming from the staff of a senator, for example, (who even initiated the call) would not be attributed to that office. I think this is a perfectly good example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the "fair trade" movement and American liberal thought in general.

We should certainly be tolerant of all speech, especially political speech and academic research, as Radar is eloquently explaining. But does it disturb anyone else that this movement, which is supposedly premised on helping the poorest people out, is doing even more to oppress dissent (see support for Chavez, communist dictators) and retard/oppose any progress (see fair trade, school vouchers, welfare, any economic plan they have) than any other group in modern history? It's atrocious we let them get away with it.

Fear of Academic Freedom

This being the midway-point of my first semester in a higher education master's program, we have begun to study various aspects of learning and teaching. One of the greatest problems we have on college campuses today is fear. Students and faculty alike have many deep fears. Students fear that their ideas are poorly constructed and that they won't be taken seriously in the classroom. Faculty fear, among many things, that the students don't care about what they have to teach, and that their curriculum and therefore they themselves have become obsolete. Both of these kinds of fears are a detriment to education in America's universities, and only recognizing and understanding these fears can free colleges from the struggles of relating students to instructors.

An interesting thing has happened recently on the campus of Iowa State University. Professor of Astronomy Guillermo Gonzalez, who a year ago wrote a book about Intelligent Design entitled: The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery has come under increasing fire from the university faculty and other organizations, including recently the American Association of University Professors.

According to an article in the campus newspaper, the Iowa State Daily, in a letter to them the AAUP general secretary Roger Bowen, applauded Iowa State's faculty for a recent petition against the teaching and further inquiry into ID signed by some 150 faculty members.

By resisting external interference in a matter of scientific expertise, the letter said, "these faculty members have defended the academic freedom of all their colleagues in the professoriate."

Let's take a moment to examine the AAUP's definition of academic freedom:

Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. (emphasis mine)

Let's explore further the idea of a "free search for truth." What is truth, in the academic sense? Some educational philosophies describe truth as what is discovered through scientific means and through empirical evidence. However, more recent schools of philosophical thought (such as pragmatism and post-modernism) advocate for a more holistic view of knowledge and truth. These philosophies acknowledge that all people, students and teachers alike, come about an understanding of knowledge through their own understanding of the world. In other words there is no objective teaching and/or learning of knowledge. Knowledge is constructed through joint interpretation of meaning. Now, this idea is a bit hard to grasp in more concrete studies such as mathematics and chemistry, but in other areas of academics to assume that both student and teacher are completely objective is both foolhardy and destructive.

Now let's return to this idea of academic freedom. If the AAUP's definition of academic freedom includes the "free search for truth," then how can they advocate the stifling of a certain train of thought and exploration? Isn't open inquiry about science, in any respect, the search for understanding and knowledge (and truth)?

The truth here is that the AAUP, and the faculty at Iowa State that signed the petition against ID, are afraid. They are afraid that a new and different line of inquiry about the sciences will destroy the paradigm from which they teach. They claim to have an objective respect for truth and "academic freedom," but they are blinded by their subjective fear of new and different ideas.

Their attempted silencing of inquiry about ID in the name of academic freedom couldn't be more contradictory.

The fact that ID is the issue here is also irrelevant. How can university educators ever attempt to silence free and individual though and exploration? If students were to explore other areas of foolish science wouldn’t these faculty surely encourage the students to continue with the understanding that they would come to their same version of "truth?" Evidently not, as ideas that are contrary to their idea of "truth" are things to be demeaned and denied.

The issue here is fear - and the faculty at Iowa State, as well as the AAUP, would do well to look past such fear and stop trying to hold back free thought in the name of preserving "truth."

99% of What the Media Tells us is [Expletive]

The Seattle Times has an interesting article today about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. It turns out that what the media was telling us - about murders, rapes, and horrible crimes - is almost totally bogus.

Following days of internationally reported murders, rapes and gang violence inside the stadium, the doctor from FEMA, Beron doesn't remember his name, came prepared for a grisly scene: He brought a refrigerated 18-wheeler and three doctors to process bodies.

"I've got a report of 200 bodies in the Dome," Beron recalled the doctor saying.

The real total?

Six, Beron said.

Of those, four died of natural causes, one overdosed and another jumped to his death in an apparent suicide, said Beron, who personally oversaw the handoff of bodies from a Dome freezer.

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.

The vast majority of reported atrocities committed by evacuees - mass murders, rapes and beatings - have turned out to be false, or at least unsupported by any evidence, according to key military, law-enforcement, medical and civilian officials in positions to know.

"I think 99 percent of it is [expletive]," said Sgt. 1st Class Jason Lachney, who played a key role in security and humanitarian work inside the Dome. "Don't get me wrong - bad things happened. But I didn't see any killing and raping and cutting of throats or anything ... 99 percent of the people in the Dome were very well-behaved."

Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan said authorities have only confirmed four murders in the entire city in the aftermath of Katrina, making it a typical week in a city that anticipated more than 200 homicides this year.

"Everything was embellished, everything was exaggerated," said Deputy Police Superintendent Warren Riley. "If one guy said he saw six bodies, then another guy the same six, and another guy saw them - then that became 18."

I could go on and on, but read the article for yourself. It turns out that once again the media was so fired up to tell the story they "knew" was happening that they made no effort to substantiate anything they were told - they fired off every BS story like it was fact. Kudos to the Seattle Times for reporting the truth. How many other media outlets will do the same?

via PowerLine

PS - How quick were we all to believe that these poor helpless people in New Orleans would take to killing each other at a moment's notice? I know I was guilty about assuming what I was hearing was true. This is one case that again reminds us to take "news" from the mainstream media with a grain of salt...

Bias in the (Sports) Media?

If you haven't already noticed, my alma mater is Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. While I was at ISU the football team was good (rarely) and bad (mostly). During this same time I realized that no matter how good the Cyclones got (this was rare) that the national sports media would never give us any credit. It seems to be the unspoken rule at the beginning of each season that teams like Iowa State will be bad, and teams like Nebraska should always start out in the top 25. Never did this distinction show more clearly than when ISU absolutely destroyed Nebraska at home in 2002 (I think) and earned a spot in the top 10. SportsCenter went on and on about how Nebraska had screwed up and Iowa State had capitalized and on and on - they never "admitted" that Iowa State, was, uh... actually good!

Well, anyway, I was watching Ohio State blow Iowa out of the water this afternoon, and the same rule applies to Iowa - no matter how horribly they play. Drew Tate, the Iowa quarterback, in his first few plays of the game threw two complete passes and two near interceptions. He was the preseason "Big 10 player of the something" and it seems inconceivable that he is, in fact, not very good.

After this dismal series, the commentator on ABC rambled on and on about how he is a conservative player and he makes good but safe plays at the beginning of games and yadda yadda... Drew Tate ended up playing an awful game and Iowa lost badly to the Buckeyes. It got so bad that when Iowa was losing by at least 21 points with 9:00 left in the 4th quarter that the commentators spoke about how Iowa might "have a chance to get back in this thing" and that Iowa "just needed a few more good plays." Are you kidding me?

It just goes to show that reporters in the national media don't necessarily report the news - they report how they think things should play out based upon their own biases.

And yes, this applies even to the national sports media.

So it Begins - Science is the Attack Dog

Scientists will say anything...

Today the Independent cites scientists in the UK that claim - wait for it - that global warming is causing hurricanes to be worse!

Super-powerful hurricanes now hitting the United States are the "smoking gun" of global warming, one of Britain's leading scientists believes.

The growing violence of storms such as Katrina, which wrecked New Orleans, and Rita, now threatening Texas, is very probably caused by climate change, said Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Oh, so he's a hurricane expert? No? I wonder what his real motivations are...

In a series of outspoken comments - a thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration, Sir John hit out at neoconservatives in the US who still deny the reality of climate change.

Referring to the arrival of Hurricane Rita he said: "If this makes the climate loonies in the States realise we've got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation."

I see. So if a couple thousand Americans have to die so that their little theory can be proved everything will have been worth it.

A paper by US researchers, last week in the US journal Science, showed that storms of the intensity of Hurricane Katrina have become almost twice as common in the past 35 years.

Although the overall frequency of tropical storms worldwide has remained broadly level since 1970, the number of extreme category 4 and 5 events has sharply risen. In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year but, since 1990, they have nearly doubled to an average of about 18 a year.

As we now know this is a blatant lie. A twist on the facts to prove their point. Maybe they are talking about total hurricanes, but we know that the number of hurricanes that have made landfall each decade has remained exactly the same in number and intensity over the past 40 years.

UPDATE: In retrospect, what does the statement "the number of extreme category 4 and 5 events has sharply risen" mean? Today, Hurricane Rita dropped from a category 5 to a 3. Does that mean that this scientist would still consider it a "category 5" storm? No - and that's not how it's done. Hurricanes are recorded by their strength when they make landfall - it looks like global warming has churned out another average storm - regardless of how strong it was once. This means I retract my statement speculating on whether or not they were counting all hurricanes - not just the ones that made landfall. The ones that don't don't matter.

The Radical Left and the Radical Right

I was thinking just a bit ago about the problems with the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum. Here are a few of their traits:

Radical Right:
-demand that no unborn be killed
-advocate for the assassination of totalitarian dictators
-assume all Muslims are terrorists
-demand that preemptive military action is sometimes necessary
-believe all liberals are godless and atheists

Radical Left:
-anti-Semitic
-believe George W. Bush has the intelligence of a chimp and desires to us the US military to take over the world in a unquenchable desire for oil
-pacifistic
-believe conservatives are, by definition, Christians, racists, and homophobes
-demand the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq


Both sides are bad, but some ideals concern me more than others. Did I miss anything? What do you think?

The Frightening Muslim Oppression of Women

I have thought much about the reemerging Muslim practice of the hijab in Middle Eastern countries. To understand why this form of dress is oppressive and disturbing, let me explain. The practice of Muslim women wearing a scarf over their head, hair, and neck is an ancient tradition in the Koran, but was only recently revived by a number of totalitarian regimes in the Middle East (most notably, Iran.) Muslim scholars and women who wear the hijab will explain that the reason they cover themselves is an expression of who they are and of their rejection of the idea that physical attractiveness is the way in which women are valued.

In actuality, the reason Muslim women began to don the veil, and why they are beginning to be forced to do so again is an Islamic belief that stretches back far in the Koran. Strict Muslim believe, as Christians also once believed, that due to Eve's causing of Adam to sin the the Garden of Eden, that women were the source of sin in men's lives. Women were to be controlled and mistrusted - being passed from their fathers to their husbands - and were carefully watched in society because of their ability to use their "womanness" to control the poor lusting male. This idea - that women must cover themselves (their hair, neck, wrists, and in some cases their faces) - has reemerged in Muslim societies for this exact same reason. Strict Muslims believe that if a man is allowed to look at a woman, no matter the context, he will be drawn to lust about her in is heart - to sin. The only way to avoid this is, naturally, to force women to cover themselves in public (and not to leave the responsibility on men to control their own feelings.) This is the power and reason of the hijab and burqua - women are evil and cause men to sin - therefore, they must cover their bodies to prevent such deception.

What brings this always disturbing manipulation of Muslim women to light for me is this article in the Times about Islamic Barbies. As you can see, this Barbie comes with a hijab and a prayer mat - just the thing to indoctrinate your little girl into learning how to avoid causing your male neighbor to sin by looking at her uncovered skin.

The hijab, whether women who wear it admit it or not, is a method of control and oppression by fundamentalist Muslim governments. In countries where fewer and fewer women remember what it was like to practice Islam without covering themselves, all we need is a scarf-wearing child doll to teach women that they are evil, sin-causing creatures.

By the way, radical Islamic front organizations, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations is so fearful that their constituents will get wind that they don't support the oppression of women they will Photoshop fake hijabs on women in a publicity photo on their website - even on people that aren't women!

The liberation and empowerment of women in the Middle East is essential - and it is just what the authoritarian power structures there fear the most.

Send in Luttig, Rogers Brown or Ashcroft

Un-f***ing-believable.

Five members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against John Roberts. Minority leader Harry Reid has alreayd pledged to vote against him on the Senate floor next week. He will certainly be confirmed, but he should be! There is no doubt in anyone's mind that he is one the most well-qualified nominees in the court's history. Chuck Schumer said so!!!

Ideology has *never* played a role in the Senate's confiramtion of a justice before. As we've mentioned earlier, Ginsburg was confirmed by string majority of Republicans in 1993, and her personal/political views are far more repugnant to Republicans than Roberts' views could be to anyone. But the Senate dems can't bother themselves with ethics, pricniples, or public interest, they have a president to skewer and comity be damned.

If this is what the President gets for nominating an eminently qualified, intellectual powerhouse with at best "modest" conservative views, why in the hell should he look for those qualities in the next justice? Democrats could easily vote for Roberts and have *more* room to bicker about the next one.

If Roberts gets less than 80 votes next week, it's time to nominate someone in the mold of Ann Coulter to a lifetime appointment.

Harvard Allows Military Recruiters In

The Harvard Law School recently announced a reversal of it's policy of barring military recruiters in order to keep the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to the university for research grants.

The old policy had barred miliatrayr recruiters form campus because they beleive the offical "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on homosexuality is discriminatory.

However, their principles (let's call them preferences) only go so far. After the Department fo Defense notified Harvard they would lose all funding from the federal government if they kept their policy, the law school caved and reversed.

How perverse is their aggregate conscience if they ban their students from hearing about public service in the military on their campus?

The law school also announced it is filing a brief to the Supreme Court in favor of overturning the law that allows the DoD to withhold all federal funds. Especially since we'll have another justice of principle (although we lost a great one, I am referring to the appointment of John Ashcroft to replace O'Connor), I don't think the court would stretch the First Amendment to require the government to fund institutions which flip the bird to a department with a much more basic constitutional function. Add that to bullshit liberal double-standards.

From Aesop's Fables, Page 34

Maybe it's not a fable, but it might be an accurate summary:

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his GPS and replied, "You're are in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

"You must be a Republican," said the balloonist.

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost. Frankly, you¹ve not been much help so far."

The man responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don¹t know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it¹s my fault."

Hat tip to James Hicks, proud employee of the Arnold Schwarzenegger administration

Iraq? What War on Terrorism in Iraq?

In a shameless attempt to ignore the amazing resolve and abilities of our armed forces, the mainstream media today, strike that, always completely missed this piece of amazing good news from Iraq.

To sum it all up, there is a little town in Iraq called Tal Afar, and the locals and local religious authorities had had enough of foreign fighters and terrorists hangin' out and causing trouble in their city. The signed a request to the US military to come and get them out.

"The other piece of this that sometimes gets lost is the Iraqi government was very much involved in setting the conditions for success," he said.

[Commanding US General] Casey explained that local sheiks signed statements saying basically: "We've had enough. We ask for the military to come in and clean the terrorists and foreign fighters out of Tal Afar."

This led to support for the mission from the city's civilian population. "That had a huge impact on what we had to deal with with respect to the population of that city," Casey said.

So let's see: The Iraqi government and some people in Iraq decided that terrorists and foreign fighters were bad and that they needed to go. They asked the US military to come and get them, and the US military did. Why wouldn't I see this story reported.... uh... anywhere?

"Don't Get Stuck on Stupid!"

If you haven't already heard, listen to General Honore, the man in charge of New Orleans and the one now responsible for evacuating New Orleans again if needed.

In a conversation with reporters Honore is trying to explain the evacuation procedure for the city, so that reports can relay this info onto the general public. However, the reports don't care about the public welfare: they want to reminisce in the failures of the initial evacuation. They want to talk about that great bad stuff they have been bathing in for the past few weeks. And General Honore will have none of it:

Honore: We are not going to go, by order of the mayor and the governor, and open the convention center for people to come in. There are buses there. Is that clear to you? Buses parked. There are 4,000 troops there. People come, they get on a bus, they get on a truck, they move on. Is that clear? Is that clear to the public?

Female reporter: Where do they move on...

Honore: That's not your business.

Male reporter: But General, that didn't work the first time...
Honore: Wait a minute. It didn't work the first time. This ain't the first time....

...You're asking last storm questions for people who are concerned about the future storm. Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight....

Male reporter: General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time...

Honore: You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita. This is public information that people are depending on the government to put out. This is the way we've got to do it. So please. I apologize to you, but let's talk about the future. Rita is happening. And right now, we need to get good, clean information out to the people that they can use. And we can have a conversation on the side about the past, in a couple of months.

Hehe. If only the General could talk to a few more reporters...

Global Warming not so Global...

Today NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has a story from the Mars Global Surveyor. Among new impact craters and new gullies formed in Martian sand dunes, the Surveyor has also found that:

...for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

Let's stop and think about this for a second. The most logical and accepted explanation for global warming besides being caused by human activities is that it is caused by natural and periodic changes in the output of the sun's radiation (a logical assumption, considering that global climate change has been going on for billions of years, i.e. the numerous worldwide 'ice ages' and the resulting warming that ended them). This theory that the sun has periodic changes in its output that would cause climate change could be most easily tested by evaluating the climate of other planets in the solar system. If Mars is warming up slowly, too...

But let's also not forget that the global average temperature on Earth has only risen 1.1 degrees F over the past 140 years. Don't forget...

Oh, and I'm sure that once hurricane Rita strikes the US the mainstream media, the occasionally uninformed average person, and the occasional European government will scream and howl about how global warming is causing hurricanes to grow in number and intensity. I have already thoroughly debunked this obvious untruth here. And if you want to see for yourself, check out NOAA's site directly.

Selective Feminism

There are thousands of examples of Democrats wanting to hold everyone else to a different standard. Here's an obvious one: did you know that the senior Democrat in the Senate, elected twice to majority leader, was a KKK organizer and recruiter for the better part of a decade? They think Roberts is a racist/sexist because he wrote a brief that ridiculed the thouroughly discredited and comically moronic plan of equal worth!

Anyway, as I was in the gym this morning listening to Kayne West's "The New Workout Plan" I actually laughed out loud thinking about feminists lining up behind this man because he said "George W. Bush hates black people" on national television.

Here are a few choice lyrics from this great song:

.....

[Jill]
Hi may name is Jill, I just want to say thanks to
Kanye's workout plan. I was able to pull a NBA player
and like now I shop, like, every day on Rodeo drive
I just want to say, thank you Kanye! woooo! woooo! woooo!

[Lasandra]
My name is Lasandra, and I just want to say
that ever since listenin' to Kanye's workout tape
I was able to get my phone bill paid, I got sounds and 13's
put up in my Cavalier and I was able to get a free trip to Cancun
And what's most importantly is that I ain't gotta f--- Ray Ray's
broke ass no mo'

.....

That's right put in work (Woo!)
Move your ass, go berserk (Ow!
Eat your salad, no dessert (Ugh!)
Get that man you deserve

The explicit premise of the song is that women need to look a lot better if they want to 'pull a baller'. The implicit premise is that a women shoud be defined by how successful of a man they can catch.

Now I'm not saying we should censor Kayne or that I agree that video games and rap music turn kids evil or any of that junk; I like the song even though I don't subscribe to those values. But dems have typically proven incapable of drawing that distinction and are shown to be simply unprincipled opportunists by lining up behind what they would otherwise consider wrong as long as the attack is directed at George Bush.


UNRELATED UPDATE:
There are only so many wackos in the world, do you think that when animal right activists offend women's rights acitivists that they're kinda eroding their (small) base? Here's a story about a man being tried for the attempted murder of his wife. Although she was very seriously injured, the headline for the story is 'Dog, woman beaten'.

The Constitution - Who Needs It?

Today I read an excellent article on what I believe slowpitch was referring to a few days ago - legislative and judicial ideas from a pre-1973 era.

The article is from two contributors to the PowerLine blog. The article comments on the fairly new and frightening concepts of a living Constitution and the very new and very disturbing idea that the Supreme Court can base cases on international law, and not the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a "living" document: one that is "outdated" and that needs to be reinterpreted alongside a new "21st century understanding." Nor is the Supreme Court an entity that should be basing it's decisions on anything but the Constitution! These two changes in the judicial system in the past 40 years exemplifies a frightening change in our political structure - an idea that the Constitution is not what it is - the first, only, and most important political and governmental document of all time! It's creation and ratification ushered in the existence of a country whose abilities and exploits have never been matched in the history of the Earth.

Although its ratification was not a necessarily easy or quick process, just compare the US constitution to the EU's version - it's 265 pages long and it still doesn't come close to creating a governmental structure remotely close to that which allowed the United States to rise as a world leader.

If the nation's founders could see where their document had brought the US they would be amazed. And if those same founders could see how the Supreme Court has prostituted themselves with the ideas of a "living" document and the precedents of international law, they would be equally horrified.

Clinton Aims for the White House

The most amazing part of this article is that the press admits that no former President has lowered himself to this degree:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticized George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq...

I don't have time, nor is there need for me to debunk 'ol Willy's comments. Suffice it to say that he repeated every untrue democratic talking point that every democratic politician (and most newspapers) repeat to anyone who will listen. If you do want to read someone thrash Clinton for is ignorance on the state of the world, see here.

It's pretty obvious that Bill is swinging for the fence here to get his wife into the White House in 2008. The real question? If Hillary is elected will she finally pardon Bill?

Senate Judiciary Democrats Simply Retarded

With all due respect to my colleague from Ohio, Biden is an intellectual giant compared to Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. The fact that they coul dbe elected to any body, much less a position in the federal legislature, substantially lessens my respect for citizens in the states of Illionois, New York and California.

I will provide transcripts of Durbin's questioning when it is releasesd later today, but he is simply unable to comprehend that courts should not be used to decide political issues. He has time and again reveleaed that his only criteria for positions on the court is support for Roe v. Wade. What Schumer cares about is not how talented, how dedicated to the Constitution, how hard they will work to unite the court and provide sound guidance to Congress, the exective and lower courts; he simply cares about the upholding of a handful of decisions from the past 40 years.

As eloquently as Roberts can explain the difference, these grand retards cannot grasp the difference between jurispudence and policy. I have a hard time deciding who is the worst, it seems the most maddening is simply the one moving their lips. Durbin may take the cake if for no other reaosn than he tries to keep up his imbecillic line of questions long after he's been thoroughly outdone. He shouldn't get any credt for persistence, he's just totally unable to reason at the level of most grown rodents.

It's despicable and degrading that they could occupy seats on this panel less effectively than a cadaver. I didn't used to be rabid anti-Roe, but the more I hear from from these dolts, the more I'm ready to work for free at the NRLC. What an insult to public service these democrats are. I'll post the transcripts soon.

UPDATE by radar:
To help out slowpitch I want to pass on that I've been finding the transcripts at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Website. Here are the transcripts for day three.

UPDATE by slowpitch:
Day foru transcripts can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/politics/politicsspecial1/15text-roberts.html?pagewanted=all. It's not all up yet, but you can find most of their gibberish.

Biden Embarrasses Himself

I'm glad to see the poise and professionalism of nominee John Roberts during his confirmation hearing over the past two days. His ability to remain calm and collected while Democratic senators make fools of themselves is quite impressive. The worst of them today, from the transcripts I read, show that Joe Biden showed the American people today how not to act, while Roberts showed us all the exact opposite. First we can see Biden harassing Roberts to answer why he wouldn't answer a question that Biden felt Justice Ginsburg had during her confirmation hearing. You can also see when the committee chairmen Specter chose to jump in when he felt Roberts was not given the chance to answer (this happened often):

ROBERTS: Well, I do know, Senator, that in numerous other cases -- because I read the transcript...

BIDEN: So did I.

ROBERTS: ... she took the position that she should not comment.
Justice O'Connor took the same position. She was asked about a particular case.

BIDEN: Oh, Judge...
(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: She said, It's not correct for me to comment.
Now, there's a reason for that.

BIDEN: But you're going from the...

SPECTER: Wait a minute, Senator Biden. He's not finished his answer.

BIDEN: He's filibustering, Senator. But OK, go ahead.
(LAUGHTER)

SPECTER: No, he's not. No, he's not.
(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: That's a bad word, Senator.

BIDEN: That's if we do it to you. Go ahead. Go ahead and continue not to answer.
(LAUGHTER)

This could be taken as a threat, a childish remark, or in my opinion an idiotic verbal attack that resembles a 5-year-old arguing with someone who stole his sucker.

BIDEN: I understand. My time's running out. I'd love to hear the explanation of the three tiers. But let's stick to this one for just a second.
Then, explain to me what you meant, 10 years after the decision laying out this level of scrutiny, when you wrote an '81 memo to your boss. You wrote that gender, quote, is not a criterion calling for heightened judicial review.
What'd you mean by that?

ROBERTS: Referring to what you called strict scrutiny.

BIDEN: He didn't know the difference between heightened and strict?

ROBERTS: Well, I was about to lay it out. You said you didn't want to hear about it.
(LAUGHTER)

This is just Roberts destroying Biden in a one-on-one verbal rumble. It shows that Biden could care less about what Roberts says; he was more interested in making him look bad in front of the committee.

ROBERTS: Senator, I was a staff lawyer. I didn't have a position.
The administration had a position, and the administration's position was the two-fold position that you set forth. First, Title IX applies. Second, it applies to the office, the admissions office...
BIDEN: Only to the office, right? It applies narrowly?

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Let him finish his answer, Senator Biden.

BIDEN: His answers are misleading, with all due respect.

SPECTER: Well...
(CROSSTALK)

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute.
They may be misleading, but they are his answers.

BIDEN: OK, fine.

SPECTER: You may finish, Judge Roberts.

BIDEN: Fire away. Fire away.
At least I'm misunderstanding your answer.

What a frickin' child! It seems that Biden would yell out "Roberts hates kittens!" if he thought it would make Roberts look bad. How did he become a Senator?

UPDATE: If you're looking for a video clip of the "filibuster" remark you won't find it. I've been searching for it at every news source and Google-way I can. Evidently it's not newsworthy.

On Deaf Ears?

I love many of the speeches President Bush has given in the past. His address to the UN today is no exception. Here is my favorite quote:

The United Nations has taken the first steps toward reform. The process will continue in the General Assembly this fall, and the United States will join with others to lead the effort. And the process of reform begins with members taking our responsibilities seriously. When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the United Nations to be respected -- respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.

This is a good an necessary dig on the fact that Cuba and China are on the UN Commision for Human Rights. Not only is it encouraging that Bush will take a stance on the ridiculous and blatant corruption at the UN, it's great that he and his administration is willing to make a public statement to that effect.

Surprise! Republicans more principled

Whatever Republicans are, it would be hard to watch more than one senator on the Judiciary Committee question future Chief Justice John Roberts without being disgusted with the current democratic party.

Not only should they not be called liberal because their views have absolutely nothing to do with liberalism as its been advanced the past three hundred years, they aren't even worthy to be called democrats, as that word implies a proponent of demcracy. The force of their ideas is so miniscule that even senators from their own party are resigned to the fact that there is no way to implement their agenda other than untouchable court edicts, and that power is certainly being eroded.

I am no social conservative. I would support legislators allowing civil unions for gays out of principle that the government can't restrict advantages given to couples to a man and a woman. I would overturn Roe v. Wade not to recognize life at conception but to return to the period of state and legislative decisions before 1973. I am for a much more open immigration policies in order to give more people around the world a chance at the American dream. But those aren't cases for the courts to decide.

Democrats know their ideas, their view of the world, bears no resemblance to reality. They know their preferences run counter to the Constitution and to any legal or scientific principles (hello? free trade anyone?).

The only reason to yell and sob and whine over one of the most qualified judges to ever be nominated for the supreme court is that democrats realize the end is near for activism and social policy from the bench. The courts--with lifetime appointments and decisions based on laws made by elected officials-are not built to respond to the needs of the population like legislators.

Criticizing members of the judiciary appointed by Republicans--who would give more powers to legislators and are not afraid to constrain Congress for the benefit of the states--as 'activist' rings hollow. There is simply no substance to those empty insults. Putting power back into the hands of citizens through elected officials could hardly be considered 'activist' or 'extra-constitutional' by any serious individual.

Democrats: if your ideas aren't good enough to pass through a legislature, why in the hell would we ever want them to be held by members of the judiciary?

No News is Bad News...

... for the American Left

After a quick check of my popular blog sites, I see that the conservative sites have nothing, and the leftist sites have just a bit on the Roberts nomination hearing. All that is included on the leftist sites are a few out-of-context quotes that they are trying to link to Robert's ideas on abortion. Otherwise, even the attack dog web sites from the left can't find anything wrong with Roberts' testimony.

I did read that Roberts gave one of the most impressive opening statements of any Supreme Court nominee over the past few decades. He gave the seven minute speech from memory - with no notes. I remember hearing on the news that he was critiqued for his opening statement being "too short."

I suppose the American Left has learned it's lesson: if they can't say anything bad, they aren't saying anything at all...

An open note to dems

At the confirmation hearings for John Roberts, Senator Kyl has the best remarks yet. Using ideology as a benchmark for voting on judges opens up the judiciary to political considerations, somethign that should be avoided on principle. I don't think Kennedy or Schumer are able to comprehend this.

Remember: there were 44 Republicans in the 103rd Congress, as there are 44(+1) democrats in the Senate now. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is at least as repugnant to conservatives as Roberts could be to liberals, was confirmed by a 96-3. A few months later, Stephen Breyer was confirmed 87-9. The next year, Republicans picked up 6 seats in the Senate in the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Don't make the mistake of thinking blind opposition is the route to winning. You should be encouraging your senators to be principled and fair. It's okay to oppose Roberts, but opposing on ideological grounds will open up future confirmations to a whole lot fo things you don't want. What happne sif a democrat wins in '08 and Republicans make gains in the Senate? Anything is fair game if Roberts, who everyone (as of right now) agrees is eminantly qualified, is opposed by a majority of dems for partisan reasons.

Here's One for the Alma Mater...

Iowa State crushed intrastate rival #8 Iowa 23 to 3. Go Cyclones!

Nancy Pelosi: Insane, Foolish, and Wrong

In another very unCNN moment, Kyra Phillips made a dozen good points while arguing with Nancy Pelosi on air. A couple of things I'd like to point out.

I'm glad the President is going to have a national day of prayer. It's about time, as well, that we mourn our losses and we pray for our future. Uh, I think it's not a, a strange coincidence that on Sunday, the 23rd Sunday after Easter, the Gospel of Matthew was about the commandments. And, and Matthew said the most important of all, uh, is love. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

A couple of things wrong with this. According to the Lectionary (the pattern of reading through the Bible that most churches follow) the message for the 23rd Sunday after Easter (Sept. 4) is not about the commandments. Not until October 23rd does the passage arise in the lectionary of the commandments about love. Now, this may not be important to some people, but when Nancy is on CNN preaching about what she "heard" in church on Sunday turns out to be completely bogus, it says something about a person's character.

A more simple correction about what she said includes the fact that Matthew didn't say anything about the commandments about love - Jesus did. Simple, but obviously not brought up in Nancy's "church" service.

My favorite part is when Nancy repeatedly talks about "what went wrong" and how "FEMA went wrong" without ever describing what it was that went wrong! I love the idea that because the response to hurricane Katrina has been described as a mistake so much that our elected officials can go on national television and talk about how this and that should be changed because of what "went wrong" when I bet Nancy Pelosi couldn't describe a single factor of the "went wrongness."

I was going to go on, but I encourage you to check out the link above and listen to Nancy Pelosi spew liberal "it's all Bush's fault" talking points. It's ridiculous. Go and listen to Nancy and ask yourself, who voted for her?

Cyclone Tornado Fault of President Bush

A tornado briefly touched down on the campus of Iowa State University on September 8. Liberals "experts" wasted no time blaming the Bush Administration.

"Where was FEMA when you needed them?" remarked student Daryl Theis...(nothing more from Daryl).

ISU Greens president Jo Simpson responded, "this president has done nothing but let people down, from Kurds in Iraq anxious to be gassed to the millions of Africans excited to live without HIV/AIDS drugs, for which this president has tripled funding. He's a disgrace to America."

Apparently, Iowa State did not immediately implement all 40 sections of its Tornado Attack Plan, leading liberals to question if the seven injured people are eligible for junk lawsuit awards.

Facts vs. Theories; Lies and Distortions

Today I have witnessed the media reach a new low. Shockingly, the barrier between opinion and news has been blurred. When I read the article When government fails: The pathetic official response to Katrina has shocked the world. How will it change America? in the Economist today I thought that this must be opinion. Nope - it's the news. Here are some highlights from the Economist's disturbingly biased and overall crappy reporting. No wonder Europeans hate Americans...

Slowly, falteringly and much too late, America began to respond this week to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina.

Is this statement a fact? Things could have gone better in the beginning, but are we still "slow" and "faltering?" Of course not.

Here's a fun quote :

Though a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that only 13% supposed the president should take most responsibility for the relief effort, or lack of it, both appalled at Mr Bush's failure to grasp the scale of the catastrophe; shocked that his senior staff were absent, or on holiday, while thousands of Americans were stranded without food and water; and aghast at the bumbling response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is charged with coping when disasters strike.

In case you missed it, that quote means that even though the American people don't believe it's Bush's fault, it, uh, still is.

The White House spin-machine whirled into action, trying to shift blame to local and state officials.

It did? I must have missed those public statements by the administration that local officials are to blame. Because wow - if the White House would have done that, it would really seem as though they were shifting blame away from themselves... that is, if the administration would have made that statement - but it didn't.

America's racial rift has been re-opened. Almost all the desperate-looking victims on the television news are black. That partly reflects demography -New Orleans is two-thirds black. It also reflects poverty. Those who failed to leave town typically did so because they had no means of transport. Some 35% of black households lacked a car, compared with 15% of white ones.

Hold on - is this one Bush's fault? I really think it was probably the Mayor or maybe the Governor that would be responsible for getting people out of a city soon to be demolished by a major storm. Especially if they didn't have cars...

While describing that victims of the storm have failed to take advantages of offers of refuge in more northern states the Economist makes this insane statement:

That may be as well. Both sides are aware of the tensions that might accrue once short-term needs are met. The refugees will overwhelmingly be black, their hosts white; evacuees will come from a place that ranks last in most measures of civic health and social cohesion, and will end up in states that rank near the top in all of those measures. No wonder the survivors would rather stay closer to home.

Are racial tensions innate? Is that something that is inevitable between races? Would a better health system and greater "social cohesion" make black people feel out of place in Wisconsin or Minnesota? What the hell did that statement mean?

Finally:

The 2006 budget - agreed in principle but not in detail- is supposed to include $35 billion in budget cuts over next five years, including in Medicaid, the federal-state health-care programme for the poor.

Now this is either a lie or an honest mistake. It's evidence that if an ignorant person makes a statement about something enough times it becomes true. There is no plan to cut Medicaid. What people need to understand is that federal funding of Medicaid and Medicare increase automatically from year to year. This "cut" of $35 billion means that federal funding of Medicaid will increase $35 billion less than it was originally slated to over the next five years. A common misconception provided every time a mandatory government hand-out program fails to increase its spending by a satisfactory amount, Democrats call it a "cut."

Anyway, I really can't believe what I just read. The Economist's idea of reporting is nothing but flagrant fictional crap. I can't believe they printed it, but the sad thing is that I know people will believe it...

Kerry-Heinz Flip-Flops Again

John Kerry-Heinz looks to be in the middle of another redefinition, arbitrary, line-in-the-sand distinction that he became so famous for in his failed attempt for the White House.

"You see, it's good when the government runs things like pharmaceutical research, levee construction, and wage-setting for private industry. And I only support it when it's European or Americans governments. But making ketchup is an entirely different situation because my wife depends on proceeds from the H.J. Heinz companies to funnel good money into trashy causes. Therefore I oppose the Venezuelan takeover of the Heinz Ketchup plant in the Monagas state," Kerry waffled.

This is, for the record, the first time the junior senator from Massachusetts has been opposed to government involvement. Maybe it's simply because he has no position in the Venezuelan government. Kerry indeed surprised supporters and detractors when he denounced the actions of his intellectual kin, Comrade Hugo Chavez.

It's easy to see why one would be opposed, though, and why liberals just don't have a clue about human behavior. Those poor Venezuelans can certainly use the revenue from the sales more than Kerry's wealthy wife. But it's only a matter of time before it become cheaper to just buy ketchup from the US rather than buy tomatoes and other inputs and make it at the factory now controlled by communists.

Sure enough, Venezuela will be more equal in fifteen years. Everyone could be on the same playing field and the won't be the 'two Venezuelas' decried by Juan Eduardo. But even the best-off in Venezuela won't compare to the worst-off in the US as their government clamps down on freedom and enterprise. The bogey-man 'inequality gap' between Venezuela and the modern world will just mushroom.

I would be glad to provide a one-way ticket to Caracas to any liberals that still thinks 'equality' means forced equal conditions, as long as they don't ever come back.

Are the Democrats Joseph Pulitzer in the Newsies?

I have a question for congressional Democrats and liberals across the board - what the hell do you think you're saying?

Here are a few excerpts from what democrats are saying now:

Howard Dean: "We must ... come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived [in New Orleans] and who did not..."

Nancy Pelosi: "When I said to the president that he should fire Michael Brown [the director of FEMA] , he said 'Why should I do that?' recalled Rep. Pelosi. 'I said because of all that didn't go right last week. And he said, 'What didn't go right?' He is oblivious, in denial, dangerous."

Al Sharpton: "We've probably faced the greatest natural disaster that we have seen in the history of this country," Sharpton told about 60 people at a breakfast at the Hyatt hotel in downtown Rochester. "And in the middle of it, we have seen the discriminatory tenets of those that ignored what was going on in the New Orleans area until it was three or four days old."

Kanye West: "George Bush doesn't care about black people." The Grammy-winning rapper said, "I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they're looting. See a white family, it says they're looking for food." West did acknowledge the efforts put forth by the American Red Cross but declared that government authorities are purposefully dragging their feet on aiding the ravaged Gulf Coast. "They've given them permission to go down and shoot us," West said without specifics.

And on and on and on. I was thinking about these recent totally insane rants by liberals, and I was reminded of a movie called Newsies. In this particular scene the hero of the movie (Jack) explains to Joseph Pulitzer (wonderfully played by Robert Duvall) that Pulitzer can no longer ignore the masses outside his window. (Imagine Pulitzer with his hands over his ears yelling)

JACK:
Look out here. Right out here is where the power is.
(Jack opens the window. All the kids are still yelling Pulitzer covers his ears)

PULITZER:
Close the window! Close the window! Go home! Go home! Go home!

JACK:
I can't hear you , Joe!

PULITZER:
Go home! Go home to your mothers and fathers! Go home!

JACK:
I don't hear ya!

PULITZER:
Now you listen to me!

JACK:
Maybe you should listen!

PULITZER:
No, no! You listen to me!

JACK:
No! You listen!

PULIZTER:
Close the window and shut up!

JACK:
There's a lot of people out there and they ain't just gonna go away. They got voices now and they're goin' be listened to!

Now replace Pulitzer with any liberal or Democrat of your choosing. Replace Jack with any conservative or Republican that you choose. Now replace the screaming masses outside the window with the American people.

It's time for liberals to stop loitering in their delusions and discover the real world for themselves.

It's time for them to shut up and listen.

Bush Administration Discrimiates Against Youth

President Bush is expected to name a nominee to fill departing Justice O'Connor's seat in the next few weeks. Opponents are already criticizing the nomiee as too extreme even though the field remains wide open.

In a novel complaint, activists are complaining that this administration has "shown a pattern of routinely oppressing minorities and catering to big business. It has not appointed a single person under 25 years old to a senior position within the executive or judicial branch. If President Bush does not nominate a young American, it will show once and for all that he takes pleasure in neglcting the needs of the young."

Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts immediately latched on to this new angle of attack and called for and investigation. He said he remembers his youth fondly and fondling many youth, namely Mary Jo Kopechne, who would have made a great Supreme Court Justice if she hadn't been drowned by an intoxicated, young democrat senator.

But I agree. It is time for a member of the younger generation to be place don the Supreme Court. How in the world could such a body operate and carry out the text of the Constitution without the opinion of a young person?

Bush Nominated Gonzales Yesterday?

Now that Mr. Roberts is soon to be the Chief Justice, the Administration has another hole to fill on the Supreme Court. In the wake of a press-conference where Mr. Bush joked with Attorney General Gonzales, spectators immediately blew the talk out of proportion. The New York Times ran with the headline "Gonzales Is Mentioned in Supreme Court Remarks" and Republican groups are starting to oppose him already, suggesting other qualified nominees.

Other Republicans are showing their sense or humor. Jon Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court Justice, has been mentioned for the empty spot himself. He had a better idea when joked, "I don't know whether John Roberts has a twin, perhaps a sister or, uh, someone with a Hispanic last name."

In fact, democrats are about to attack Republicans for flip-flopping after Senator Jeff Sessions admitted that he'd be pleased if John Roberts could be cloned.

"Aha! They are for cloning and embryo research if it furthers their agenda. They're bigots, racists and theives!" exclaimed Al Sharpton.

But we know Mr. Gonzales won't be nominated. As White House counsel and now Attorney General, he would have to recuse himself from most cases that would come before the Supreme Court dealing with this administration. Look for Edith Clement, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza or Samuel Alito, though not necessarily in that order.

Sean Penn is an Idiot - Again!

Sean Penn reached a new low this week. First, he attempted to save children in New Orleans, but was forced to turn back when his boat sprung a leak. Actually, it was a drainage hole that he forgot to plug before they set off on their rescue mission.

Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug a hole in the bottom of the vessel, which began taking water within seconds of its launch.

The actor, known for his political activism, was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out of the sinking vessel with a red plastic cup.

And there's more:

With the boat loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer, one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"

Never mind what the bystander said - we have a filthy rich actor in a boat (in which he forgot to plug the drainage hole) paddling along with his personal photographer wearing a flak jacket and bailing his boat with a plastic cup?

Oh, but he was pulling drowning people out of the water - and it's all Bush's fault:

We were pulling drowning people out of the water, it's the ultimate distress and human suffering ... dead bodies...

There are people that are dying right now and I mean babies and old people and everybody in between - they're dying. There are people dying and (the US government are) not putting the boats in the water, I think that's criminal negligence. I don't think anybody ever anticipated the criminal negligence of the Bush administration in this situation.

Do I really need to say he's an idiot?

Check out the photos...

Bill Whittle: Eject!

If you haven't read any of Bill Whittle's essays - you should! One of my favorites was Deterrence, but he also has a new one posted today. I must warn you, they are long, and his most recent is not exactly rated G, but I believe it is excellent - a must read. Check it out.

Plea to Help America

Loyal readers, I am urging you today to donate whatever you can afford to make this country a better place for years to come. Many groups on the wrong side of the political spectrum are willing to sacrifice the few Congressional seats the democratic party now controls, and we should do our part to speed their demise.

They are clearly willing to hang themselves over this nomination, which Americans overwhelmingly support.

Here's an actual post at dKos, and I think it's indicative of how most dem organizations feel. I couldn't make this crap up.

"Suppose a Democrat wins in 2008 and has the opportunity to appoint a new justice. Suppose John Edwards is nominated. No one with any degree of sanity could argue that Edwards isn't a "stand-up guy," but that wouldn't stop the Repug attack dogs from making up whatever slimy lies they want about him. And the way things are today, they might succeed in blocking his nomination."

Do his accusations hold water? We can check if they are demonstratably false.

As it turns out, Republicans helped confirm the second-to-last last Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a 96-3 vote in 1993! Justice Stephen Breyer, the last justice ocnfirmed, was approved 87-9 in May 1993 (even over objections that he did not recuse himself in cases where he had admittedly small financial gains at staek). (See more nomination history here) And in 1994, Republicans swept Congress like it had never been swept before.

Democrats are about to turn an opportunity to show they are above blind opposition and care about the future of the country more than partisan bickering into their own trip to the gallows. Bush has nominated a supremely qualified and intelligent candidate and libs are tripping over themselves to stand in front of the speeding bus of public opinion.

I urge you to quickly find a bad cause and donate whatever you can for the ocuntry's long-term benefit. Here are a few of my ideas:

People for the American Way

NARAL Pro-Choice America

Subscribe to the New York Times

In memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist

It is truly sad that our nation lost one of the most influential chief justices in the Supreme Court's history.

From his early days as a frequent lone dissenter in decisions promoting judicial overreach, he gradually became the leader of a court that cooled its affection for substituting doctrine for the constitution. On many occasions, Chief Justice Rehnquist fought the good fight but lost to the less principled.

Although noone could call his court conservative, Rehnquist was in a position to support the growing conservative movement of the past quarter century. The president should honor him by appointing another constructionist who recognizes the importance of federalism.

Liberals ready to oppress the people they claim to help

Not wanting to waste any opportunity for political gain, liberals have blamed the sluggish relief efforts in Lousiana on racism. Apparently, leaders only care about white suburbanites and enjoy seeing suffering of inner-city minorities.

Ironically, the best proof of this view is not the response to the hurricane effects, but the stagnant economic policies of liberals that Republicans have not fought with enough vigor. Government support of labor unions; prior federal failure to address declining education; tolerance of restrictive trade policies and ag subsidies that retarded trade through the port of New Orleans; government programs that give incentives for being the lass and less efficient: these are the probelsm that kept down the poor in New Orleans. They are also the fundamental planks of the democratic party.

In a well-known example. Louisiana ranks 50th in quality of medical care, but first in Medicare spending. As one of the five worst state courts for business and a generally unfriendly atmoshpere for commerce, no wonder the unemployment rate in the state has averaged a quarter-point higher than the nation's since 2003. And I'm guessing New Orleans was far worse than the state average.

These are the policies that keep the poor oppressed. These hurt the disadvantaged the most and decrease th echances for the poor to start the ladder out of poverty. It's not an economic problem distanced from everyday life; it's a deeply moral problem furthered (actually, not furthered but created) but what liberalism has become. And in a slap in the face to the peopel they claim to help, liberals will use Hurricane Katrina's aftermath to advocate for more of the same (or worse).



More to come.

CNN Plays the 'Black Card'

I'm not sure why I watch CNN. Today, however, I found the desire to check out another point of view on the Katrina disaster. What I saw was pathetic.

Evidently the truth of the story is that the relief mission was not undertaken soon enough. This was not reported as an opinion, but as a fact. The reporter on Lou Dobbs Tonight went on to describe and report on the unrest of those people left behind in New Orleans. Numerous black leaders and African American associations (the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP) are calling on the government and it's leaders to start treating the refugees of New Orleans like American citizens, insinuating (rather, it was the point of the whole story) that the reason black Americans in New Orleans are still there and that the relief mission 'did not happen soon enough' was because the people are black.

Lou Dobbs, in a very unCNN way, asked the reporter in the field why these African American organizations have not thought about the fact that the mayor, governmental structure, and police department of New Orleans are predominantly black, and should face the first wave of responsibility. The reporter replied that these organizations have not begun to 'point fingers.' Lou pointedly disagreed, indicated that in fact it is exactly what they are doing.

Ok, here's how it works. These people were ordered to leave the city before Katrina hit. Even if these people were unable to leave the city, they should have gone to the Superdome. Those who went there are now in Houston. The fact of the matter is that these people refused to leave their homes, refused to go to the Superdome, and now expect the government to get them out. If Katrina had hit New Orleans like was predicted, most of these people would have died in their homes, not been flooded out of them the next day.

The people of New Orleans have shown us the worst sides of human nature. Those who refused to evacuate are now complaining that the government hasn't rescued them. Others claim the reason they are still there is because they are black! Others still remained behind with the obvious intention of conquering the streets while the city was empty - shooting at police, relief workers, national guardsmen, and coast guard helicopters.

The truth about this situation is that the government and national guard possibly could have reacted faster. However, the fact that many New Orleans citizens have decided to hang out and wait to be saved, and others are running amuk shooting people, gives rise to the idea that a portion of this after-storm disaster is the fault of the citizens of New Orleans.

I've had it: The Truth About Hurricanes and "Global Warming"

I've heard a number of individuals, whether it be the New York Times or a professor of geology at a major university (the one where I am), it seems common knowledge that George Bush is responsible for the hurricane Katrina disaster because he "ignored" the disaster warning of New Orleans by not reinforcing the levees around the city (was this Bush's responsibility? Why not Clinton's? Or maybe the first Bush's?) and because the Bush administration does not base its environmental policy on the theory of global warming.

You can read the Times article, but what really set me off was listening in to a lecture of a freshman geology class. Let me roughly quote:

"Some people may equate global warming to being left-wing junk science. However, the facts show that global warming has caused hurricanes to increase in number and intensity."

I should have interrupted him. I've had it. Here are the facts - straight from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Hurricane Center website. I complied this information; you can, too:

This graph is divided up by decades. As you can see, not only have hurricane total numbers peaked during the 1940's and leveled of over the past few decades, the numbers of hurricanes by landfall category have remained steady. In fact, there have only been three category 5 hurricanes to make landfall in the US since 1850; one in the 1930's, one in the 1960's, and one in the 1990's.

If anyone around you makes any comment claiming that hurricanes have increased in number and intensity during the period of "global warming," you now know what to tell them.